Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: They Keep Hammering Away At This Issue, So Let's Address It, Once And For All!

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 22, 2012, 9:51 p.m. EST by GypsyKing (8719)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Our opponents keep trying to drive a wedge in this movement, between those who want change through the existing political process, and those who believe that process is too corrupt. They keep hammering away at it, as the latest way to "divide and conquer." Don't let them win!

For whose energy should we stifle? Those who want the one, or those who want the other? I say neither! The basic principle and guiding force of this movement is to end corruption, and to restore government to the people. We must keep our focus on the ends, for the ends are just. Only through unity will we prevail. "United we stand; divided we fall!"

367 Comments

367 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

GF, If i may.. i agree with you both.. you have two different points. First.. Gypsy is saying to keep the Light shining on the Facts, and you are saying the SHYT that the System keeps up against us, goes on and on...

What is a Fact too in Politics, ( i was there ).. is that they Take a Lie, and repeat it so much that the People begin to think it is not only true, but HISTORICALLY part of the facts! ( Kind of Twisted, but that's psychological war fare on their part. They control the media.. so it's easy to do.)

Second, For example.. the Right to an Abortion is in an Amendment!

.. When any candidate comes to the plat form saying they are against Abortion Rights.. they are against the Constitutional Rights! .. And does anyone SAY anything to any of them? That what they are is NOT American!?

When the Police violate our rights to a Peaceful Demonstration, The Constitution said Nothing about How LONG we can keep it up! Nothing about duration.. But ,.. because this (Occupy) is SO Successful, and Needs Years to develop in Concept and Resolution, .. They get Pretty scared.. and with all the Money and Corrupt Elected officials.. they pull ANYTHING to stop us.

... So , we have to Stand and Deliver our Message, to the VERY CORE of what the Problem is... Money has corrupted the System SO Dangerously, That the Need to get us to a Healthy Economy... is Being Rejected by the Very ones Elected to Protect us.

.. In Our Faces.. With No Laws Backing them. It has become TWISTED.. THEY are the Violators of the Constitution, ..WE are the Warriors Fighting to keep it intact!

..Think about it,

If all this Were Not True, ..We wouldnt need Laws to make them do the Right thing... and have to Fight for what is Just.

Agree?

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Amen to that, Marlow!

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Glad you approve of my post Thunder.. TY, and see ya tomorrow!

Marlow

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

IMHO, the problem with any leaderless, consensus movement like Occupy is that there is no way to focus the message and concentrate it's delivery to the masses in an effective way. Everything is just too spread out and too thin. Concentrated firepower of the message(s) is what is needed most. These very forums are proof of great ideas that get lost in an ocean of talk and rhetoric. Until Occupy gets (1) much more organized and (2) much more effective at delivering it's message to the masses, it will remain a large, untapped resource of potential. As in physics, potential energy is fine, but it is kinetic energy that actually accomplishes something.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Dog.. that is what a Forum is For.. and Why we have a Congress, and a House.. It's made up of The 'Many'..

One Person Heading and Being the Voice for such a Vast World Wide Movement would lose Credibility the Minute they opened their mouths.. BeFore even!.. You Know they would be attacked from every Direction...

It's too risky.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Then at what point does all this seemingly endless talk crystallize into effective action, and by what process does that occur without leadership?

I worked in the Corporatocracy for almost 30 years. Even as big and bureaucratic as it was, at least it had leadership to push the massive monster forward. Without leadership, it would have been like a massive aircraft carrier with no rudder and no engine, sitting helpless in the ocean to be carried wherever the currents dictated.

That is how I look at Occupy at the moment. But I hope it can get a rudder and get its engine started.

[-] 2 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Dont kid yourself.. it was , and always HAS been a Group that has lead this Rape of our Economy.. and the Death of the Middle Class.. From the Carlyle Group to their new 'Bilderberg' bunch of Carpet Bagging Graft... and the Lobbyists they send out to buy our Politicians, and the Investment Banks that get the House to Keep it UNREGULATED...

.... to the Sleeping Masses, waking up to Poverty.

It was all done by a Group.

OURS is Just as Strong!

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

You won't get much of an argument from me there. Were you expecting one? I believe that Occupy has the potential for strength and great accomplishments. Since it is a protest movement, it also has media publicity on its side. But publicity and effectiveness are two separate things. I think Occupy could learn a trick or two from well-established Liberal organizations who have been fighting for the same things Occupy is fighting for for many years. They have just been going about it in a very quiet, unpublicised way. Check out some examples here:

http://pugetsoundliberals.org/resource/50LiberalOrganizations.htm

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Dog.. in no way was i disputing you.. totally agreeing. And, i just posted a Topic on your point here..

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The movement is based on a concept that requires cooperation and a certain level of maturity/humility. Unfortunately the TV seems to have stripped these traits from much of my generation and younger. They say leaderless while waiting to be told what to do. They talk about numbers but refuse to support anything that doesn't come from the NYCGA website, still leaderless. It isn't the movement, it's laziness and selfishness by many of the "supporters". It's control freaks being placed in charge of resources. It's so many things but it isn't the concept thats mucking it up.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Then how do we "unmuck" it, to use your term?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

lol, if their parents couldn't do it, I'm not even going to try. I just keep bump'n along doing my thing and hope others that see the light are doing the same. Check out my profile if your interested in my pet projects.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I agree.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I think what you said here is true all the way - so nice to run into someone who knows the score! Even our language is now peppered with words and phrases that have been created to be misleading. Thinking about this forum the phrase, "The marketplace of free idea's" comes to mind. Isn't it clear the way this slogan is designed to mislead? A marketplace is where things are bought and sold.

[-] 3 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/8/stop-the-corruption-on-wall-street/

( just thot i would get that Site on board first thing.. ;^)

And Gypsy.. You said: "The Market Place"... 'Where things are bought and sold'... 'phrases that have been created to be misleading.."


You know.. i think you have a valid point.. We DO need to communicate better, and be able to articulate our issues and points.

Education is what Brings 'Those who seek the Truth'.. to more Lofty Grounds.

TY! .. Marlow

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well now, let's talk about this... repression and persecution, serve what purpose? Well, essentially, they serve to deny us access.

There can be no real challenges to Roe vs Wade because as written it makes a whole lot of sense.

There can be no real challenge to Civil Unions because under the 14th Gays are entitled to equal due process; they are equally entitled to state access to the protections of marriage, both financially and otherwise.

Rich people already pay more in taxes; it's called the Alternative Minimum Tax...

All of these things... that we conjure up and then jump up and down about are essentially non-issues.

But let's look around... Congress, at some point, permitted the banks to finance education and then they passed laws making it impossible to default; oh really?

Credit cards; oh really?

So let's say a person decides to go the American Way, gets a job, and decides to buy the roof over his family's head instead of paying the Man in rent. Well, he/ she either pays the banker twenty five to thirty thousand a year in interest on a thirty year mortgage, gaining a "deduction," or he/ she pays a sizable, significant portion of his or her income to the Fed and State in taxes. This is in addition to local "property" taxes; one either agrees to pay the Bank or they will pay the Fed/ State. And for the first fifteen years of that thirty year mortgage, they pay NOTHING but interest; they will gain NOTHING contractually in their favor; oh really? And should they pay for twenty nine years and eleven months and fail at the last payment, the bank owns the house; where IS Congress?

My GF's recent trip the hospital (twelve days) for pneumonia and sepsis, literally within hours of her death, was over 100K dollars and not so much as one single surgical procedure was even performed; is it any wonder we can't afford health insurance? And sure, Congress is now mandating that everyone have insurance but not one single word has been raised to address the ridiculous fees the medical establishment is charging people, or their insurance companies; it's insane.

Gas-oh-lean at these prices makes a fifty or sixty mile commute financially infeasible; it drives up the cost of consumer items and the price of food in particular... people can't afford to heat their homes... And what is the Congressional response? Well, we should raise prices; are you kidding me?

We can go on and on here, for hours. Real people are suffering under force of law; they are being financially persecuted, raped, enslaved, on a generational basis, by the Federal "government" and its wanton spending, the Banker, and the Corporations.

People can't afford to drive to work; can't afford a roof or heat or food to eat: COOL, let's fly to Aspen and blow another 1OO mil; I mean, it's just Chinese money anyway right? And the peasants said they'd pay it back; I'm sure they will, someday, someway, somehow; are you kidding me?

The Fed owns the world's money supply and everybody works for us, very, very cheaply. And that's cool. But this government fails to recognize that it's purpose is not to "govern" but to promote and defend the people's prosperity.

It's not functional; it's not rational; it's entirely and completely INSANE.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

"..The Fed owns the world's money supply and everybody works for us, very, very cheaply. And that's cool. But this government fails to recognize that it's purpose is not to "govern" but to promote and defend the people's prosperity.

It's not functional; it's not rational; it's entirely and completely INSANE.."__ DOLLAR..


First, i wish to tell you how Sorry i am for your loss. I can almost feel it in your message here.. your pain.

.... Now, i agree with your post.. and the energy by it was sent is most needed in this Cause. We Must keep our Eyes Open.. Our Hearts Strong.. and Feet to the Ground in Unity.. which is what Everyone is saying here.

It's going to take a bit longer until the Light comes shining Thru at the End of THIS Tunnel we've Been Forced in. But We can Manage.. Just FINE!

.. My very Best to you. Marlow

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Very much the heart of the situation. We are fighting a battle against the powers that be. One of their main tools is the propaganda/misinformation machine of corporate owned and run TV. The spotlight of awareness must be continuously shown on the corruption repetitive as it is it will not go away without constant attention and intelligent rebuff. This is how we foster and support memory of truth and our right to fight this war. For war it is. Intellectual war.

[-] 3 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

In the past Month i have seen main stream news from two different stations in FL that both went out of the way to make occupy seem negative, even down to the tone of voice and facial expression from the newscasters.

The one show the only thing the newscaster frowns about is violent crime against individuals. That is a subtle but effective manipulation of viewers, and i have no doubt it was intentional...

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

I live on the East Coast of Fl.. and EVERY DAY those in the Southern Media editorialize on the News!.. It's freakin unprofessional. Coming from a background in the News Industry, ( west coast).. i am appalled by this.

Who Gives a Shyt What the news castors Think? STFU and Give me the News!

( thanks, ... i needed that!) :o{

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep.

Once you become aware of tactics a lot becomes obvious.

People are starting to become aware.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

More than anything, I don't think we can allow certain subjects to become untkinkable. The first minute that happens our cause will be lost, really. Openness, honesty and trasparency are essential to a movement that's objective is reform, and the essence of those things lies in open communication. Our belief in open communication is what allows those who disagree with us to be here on this forum. That does not mean we should allow our thinking to become confused, or that we should become intimidated from speaking the truth as we see it.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Where doesn't it say in the Constitution you can murder your baby? Those powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. But actually Marlow - go ahead - you should probably murder your child. I dont want to stop you.

[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Here is the sad truth. Only way to get money out of politics is to raise everyone's taxes so that we are all paying for the government. That means giving working class slobs more money so they can live and pay for elections. I remember when this movie, 12:10, first hit this site and thinking that the most thought provoking clip was when the banker said that Americans don't like second place, and weaseled his way into the political lime light. Well, the massage I got from it was, that we will keep allowing the rich to buy the political process because we will always refuse to pay enough to truly make the gov't ours. It is harsh what i'm saying but until we sacrifice what little money we have and pay for the political system we believe we deserve, we will keep getting the political system that the rich feel is the best for us. Instead of everyone paying for transparent and clean elections, we'll bitch among ourselves and allow those with all the money to make all the rules. I believe getting corporate money out of politics is a good idea, but I also realize that that corporate money has to be replaced with other funds, and that is where I'm not too sure we are willing to sacrifice. But who knows, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Getting corporate money out of elections is a good beginning to a solution but until we start talking about how we are going to replace corporate money, we are just blowing hot air.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

This was a great comment. For some reason I missed it. I agree all the way. We need to pay for fair and honest government. What, after all, is more important to our future hopes than the quality of our government. Those who want to destroy it (the Tea Party, etc.,) are in my oppinion simply mad. It the dangerous and complex world in which we live, good government is literally a matter of survival.

United we Stand. Divided we Fall!

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Just Bumping Jesse here...

Good points

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

We are not going to be able to legislate away freedoms ... if a group wants to support a candidate they will do it whether legal or not ....

one possible fix ...

why not allow corporate money to continue to be used... just even the playing field ... for every dollar contributed to a campaign... half goes towards the opposition (the field of candidates) or something .... ?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

so how do we raise the money without raising taxes? Also, I have no problem with corporate money going through legal channels. I think the biggest problem we have is that super PAcs are allowed to spend as much as they want an the electorate has no way of knowing who financed the super PAC.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I agree ... the super Pacs should be illegal ... and at the least transparent....

---> how do we raise the money without raising taxes?

If we solve the employment problems ... ie, strengthen the economy to what we are capable of ... we might not even need taxes

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

We have total Unity in one thing... the Undeniable Quest For Truth ... which Is Solidarity

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Exactly right. The truth will set you free.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

;) and Only Truth will set you Free ... ;)

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Well folks, you heard it straight from Washington, DC. At least BradB is still looking reality straight in the eye.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That is pretty funny.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I agree with this OP. Occupy must remain united if it is to succeed. Might I suggest that someone (perhaps you GK since you posted this), put together a Pro/Con list of each approach?

Like this:

Change existing system Pro Con

Overthrow existing system Pro Con

This is how I personally operate whenever I am faced with complex decisions. I get it all down on paper, and then weigh it all out. If Occupy can come to a definitive consensus on which path to follow, this might help with the unity concerns you raised.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thank you for this comment. I think the idea is good, but I don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable regarding these issues to address them myself. I think we would need someone in the movement, whom everyone respects, and who has studied these issues specifically, and in depth.

I don't know if we have such a person, but I do know I am out of my depth there.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I don't think it's one or the other. I think it's both. We hit from the inside and the outside.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Agreed! absolutely. What should it be one or the other? Thesre's simply no reason for it to be, and in fact I don't think either alone can work.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes!

From every direction at once.

No reason to be static.

Static is predictable.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Right on!!

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I can appreciate your response. This is one of the key challenges Occupy is faced with. If not you, or me, or someone else, then who? That is why I firmly believe that a leader or leaders must emerge if Occupy really wants to get anywhere. Until s/he or they do emerge, Occupy is like a gigantic 18-wheeler that is spinning it's wheels on ice -- a lot of potential power going nowhere.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

You are right, but I think that's just the way it goes with real populist movements. They start out slow, and gather momentum as they go, until finally they are an avalanch.

I'm going to give this awhile and see if anyone steps up to the plate more qualified that I am. If not, I suppose I'll give it a try. All of this is pretty time consuming though. Neither is it making me a lot of friends on either side, I'm afraid.

You know the old expression . . ."Tell the truth and run!" Ha, ha, ha . . .

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

You have a friend here GK. We may not always agree, but then again, why should we?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Well, thanks for that. And you're right - why should we always agree? That's what democracy is all about, debate, and I am really thrilled to see that debate begin to take place once more in America! It's been absent way too long.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Agreed!!!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I don't think it's one or the other. I think it's both. We hit from the inside and the outside.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

The problem is that the consensus process is self destructive and does not work. Direct democracy as a framework does not scale and is not effective for decision making and achieving results.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-tyranny-of-structurelessness/#comment-646172

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I think it's all about "the end game." We all agree on the idea of the wealth divide and that it's all too real. We all know why that's a bad thing for society as a whole. We know it has to change and we want to create that change. We have commonality of purpose. That's what binds us together and makes us cohesive.

How will we create the change necessary? Many here (I believe most) agree that we should be a non-violent movement. There has been more than enough written in this forum alone concerning black bloc v. non-violent tactics, etc. If the political process is too corrupt to be altered "from within" then what non-violent strategies could be utilized to eliminate the current political system?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I think we can work both inside and outside they system. Online petitions are one way, for example, to work inside the system and they are having an effect. I think we need to do both.

[-] 3 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

This is a Great Thread!.. The Discussion is opening eyes, and closing Fists!

I dont know the Answers about what to do.. ,.. i DO know the Answers will come like this ..with people communicating here on an intellectual Level, with Great Passion!

Marlow

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I agree. What we are doing here is very important.

[-] 3 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I keep posting this: More than 30,000 people marched across the Brooklyn Bridge last Fall - 30,000!!! GK, that's POWER! Non-violent, activist power. I get goose bumps thinking about what is yet to come for the movement. I've signed many on-line petitions. What's your gut tell you about the 99% declaration going forward?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

30,000. 30,000. Took over the Brooklyn bridge. And remained peaceful despite terrible treatment! Fantastic. You're right. We need to remember ........... We need to go back and feel the power of that so that we can move forward with strength and confidence.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

The 99D issue:

Sorry to say I haven't been here at the forum with any serious amount of available time in several days. I've read through this thread just now. It seems to me that people are forgetting something that's key to the core issues going forward:

We will act and there will be reaction to what we do and say. We have political clout, within OWS, all of Occupy AND within the population of this country. Our presence will have a great effect on the political landscape at large even before we get to our end game. This - what we do - is a process. It's not an on-off switch.

Most seem to agree on the idea of non-violence as both a principle and a tactic, right?

~Most agree we need to get the ball rolling for reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, right?

~Most agree we need to act to overturn Citizens-United, right?

~Most agree that we need to put a halt to forclosures, right?

~Student debt and the cost of higher education, right?

~Jobs, jobs, jobs, right?

Can we have a concensus on those things? If we can, let's move forward from here.

Do most here want, as I do, to work for achieving the aims of the 99D?

Can we give the 99D the chance for success? This country is a large and intricate place. The task of managing it is a large and intricate one. If we were to "rid ourselves" of all who work now in government, how would we "get up to speed?" I think the short answer is, we wouldn't. We would need large numbers of people tasked with managing everything our government now does and then reduce it's size. To do otherwise would create a political vacuum. I think we need to act responsibly and wisely. I think the responsible and wise choice is to put our efforts into "change" as a process and do the procedural things logically and methodically. When it comes to the welfare and safety of my fellow citizens, I think a chaotic situation would be the worst thing and for many reasons. I'm supporting the 99D.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I really, honestly believe (and it gives me goosebumps to think this) that this movement is just begining. We really don't have any alternative than to stand up now. They have rendered our government dysfunctional in the hopes that we will just abdicate our role as citizens and step aside to let them take over completely.

I don't think Americans are going to do that. Democracy is our culture, it is our history. Without it we are nothing. They know that, but so do we.

I think we've seen nothing yet compared to what will happen this spring and summer.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

30,000. 30,000. Took over the Brooklyn bridge. And remained peaceful despite terrible treatment! Fantastic. You're right. We need to remember ........... We need to go back and feel the power of that so that we can move forward with strength and confidence.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

This movement is strong and that strength is reflected in public opinion. This is February, and so a lull in demonstrations is to be expected. Spring is coming, and then Summer.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

It is going to be so damn cool to see this bloom and feel that freedom and vitality and strength returning to this great nation, to feel its confidence level rising.......to watch citizens remember that they are more than consumers...... Citizens. Citizens. We are citizens! What a beautiful awakening. We will begin to feel the buzz that comes from having some wins under our belt and that will fuel bigger and bigger action.

I hope it culminates in this on August 4th: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Damn straight. So true! Great work on this thread by the way. Fabulous. You really got people talking and thinking. Very healthy. Any headway being made at healing this rift in your view? Obviously will take lots of time and effort but do you see seeds of possibility?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I don't think this process is divissive, I really don't. I think what is important is to talk about exactly the things that are most uncomfortable to talk about, because in airing those subjects comes healing and unification. I can almost hear a collective sigh of relief when things come out in the open. We might not always agree, but in the process we banish distrust. That is really a good thing, and it ultimately makes us stronger.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Agreed, agreed and emphatically agreed!!!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Months ago, I propposed the idea of debt repudiation, to be one way of working outside the system that would actually have enough clout to change things. I made that argument on several forums.

Well, apparently that was too radical, because I got no support, and not only that, I was figuratively shouted down on one on this movement's forums by people who are widely considerd it's supporters.

If , however, I propose political action, I am then shouted down as being either divissive, or not radical enough. I would like to ask then, exactly where does that leave us, if we can't work inside the system, or outside of it?

I do not say this to be "divissive." Exactly the opposite, and I think those who actually want this movement to succeed will acknowledge that. What I want is unity, and a simple recognition that we can't unite with our opponents. I don't think that such a modest realization, that we not become confused and blow it, is too much to ask for all those who have worked for this movement.

You see, as long as what you are proposing hasn't a chance of working, than you will be greated with silence. If what you say is important, you will be greeted by a storm of words.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I agree that we need to take political action, and I agree with your call for unity. We can bicker and dicker at the forum until our fingers bleed, but we need a unified front when taking any action, occupying, marching, signing petitions as a collective movement, etc. Our "face" must be seenby the world as a united one. We each MUST commit to that - swear an oath, if you will. We must pledge ourselves and have trust in one another, that no one of us will disrespect OWS or sabatoge the movement. Having said that, I will swear my loyalty here and now to the advancement of our cause. That is my pledge.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I am with you in that pledge. The sabatoge of this movement is what I am trying here, to the best of my ability, to prevent. We must move forward with our thinking clear regarding the reality of the times, and the best course to take in light of that reality.

I think this movement must remain transparent in both its process and its aims, and that that commitment to honesty and transparency will carry us to victory. It would seem we are not as far away at this moment as some might think.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I think I finally got to the bottom of this whole issue. Our opponents are toying with the issue of inclusiveness and exclusiveness, to confuse our thinking.

There are two separate issues here. One is whether the supporters of this movement can unite, regardless of disagreements on tactics. That is a non-issue I think, even though it has been made an issue through repetition.

The other is whether we can broaden our tent enough to include our opponents (the Republican Party, the established party of the 1%.) I submit that this is rediculous, prima facia. Yet they have been hammering away at this also.

I think seeing these distinctions clearly will help to resolve this issue once and for all.

[-] 3 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Very articulated statement Gyps.. Another way of saying .. Keep your Friends close, and your Enemies Closer!

Problem with most Republicans is that they dont go out of the Box. I dont know if the majority are less educated, which keeps one buried in the Past. ( doomed to repeat mistakes), or that they use their 'Conservatism' to hide Bigotry and Hate.

.. Good Luck to us All!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I believe all those who are truely drawn to this cause will find a way to make some contribution, and I believe that together we will find a way to overcome the shadow that has fallen over our democracy.

I also believe in inclusion in every way possible; yet that shouldn't mean we hide from that facts as they stand.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I think currently it is that the Republican party has been more visibly co-opted by corruption. The true supporters of the Republican ideals are just like everyone else. We are trying to regain our Government which has been co-opted by corruption, true republicans probably recognize the fact that they need to regain their party in the same way.

I am not aligned with any political party myself. I look to support good actions presented by anyone and I look to fight evil actions presented by anyone just the same.

Understanding is the beginning of consensus that will allow us to recognize common ground, common cause and finally allow us to unite for the good of "ALL".

So I try to stay away from pointing fingers at anything other than the corrupt practice that needs to be stopped.

[-] 2 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

DK, i think the majority of us here in the Forum and on Twitter in the ows Camps.. are aligned with you in your sentiments.

There is a problem with Graft and Collusion between Wall Street and Capitol Hill... That being so reflective is taken as a Weakness by the 1% who are NOT going to give up what they TOOK so easily, and we get the Shaft while singing 'Feelings'!

.. Dont get me wrong.. i couldnt agree more with you and most of the Very insightful posters here.. I just have seen how we have been taken advantage of all these years, and have ended up in the most Historical US Movement of all time! It has gotten to the point that only Energy is going to bust this Abuse wide open.

(ty for your thoughts DK, )

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Always willing to share openly with one who feels the same. We are all trying to get to the same place. Health and prosperity for all.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Didn't we already do this?

See, it is not ever enough. It's repetitive. Intentionally repetitive.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, that's the way they work, they seize on something like a pitbull, and just won't let go! That's why I want to lay this issue to rest once and for all, so that we can go forward united!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The odd thing is that most of us were and remain united. In fact, I would go so far to say even more so.

Fuck 'em. They get paid to do this shit.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, but I think it's important to address it, because there will always be those who will see this issue and lose heart. That is their intention, and I'll be damned if I don't do my upmost to thwart it!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Ok, let's do it.

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 2 years ago

Check out Divided we fall, on OccupyHarrisburg, and reread that phrase over and over, because it is true, and it is not going to happen.

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 2 years ago

We need to put our problems in perspective, internal problems. We need to focus on the beginning of this movement. Get back to what is at stake. We cannot give up on the OccupyMovement because it is our only chance to make a better world. We cannot give up because what the movement represents is a better world, and what is more important than that. We have come so far, and will see this all the way through, simply because we know it is the right thing to do. Take a rest, regroup, and as you do, others will take up the slack in other occupies, because there are too many people like me who believe it you and in ourselves. Many changes have been made, some not so big, but changes nontheless. We have organizations that fought for us for years, and now see what we have done and join us and support us. Don't let the excitement die, let us breathe new life into it, and be proud because we have not given up. Check out Riverdale, Jersey Shore, Saveriverdale.com, and see how much we have given up. Not happening. Because of NY we have survived, and we will continue and we will win.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

My perspective is simple
Voting is FOR America
Not voting is against America


And YOU might want to consider
which party is trying to STOP people from voting,
and to convince YOU not to vote

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I can't wait until this next election is over, and both genuine liberals and conservatives can attack this two-party, one party system of vested interest together. I just can't believe that the incredibly dark and sinister view put forth by so many here really reflects the views of the majority of American conservatives, I just can't.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

mostly i avoid this

because I can't remember what it is about

and the title gives me no clue

accept to remind me that the title gives me no clue

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

It is about the question of the differing process between OWS and the 99%, and whether this movement should be "political," or not. Since I agree with you that it is essentially about nothing, I wish I didn't have to go through all this. But unfortunately, propogandists can make a lot out of nothing when their aim is to confuse and divide people, and therfore it must be addressed in the interests of unity.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Back in the 1960s Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) had a formulation that it needed "liberals for their relevance and radicals for their vision." I agreed with that formulation then and I continued to agree with it. The problem comes in how it is actually implemented. Of the two broad tendencies mentioned, which is to dominate and why? How is a balance to me maintained between these two broad tendencies? What is the basis for the unity between these two broad tendencies? It seems to me that these are the problematic issues and not easily resolved.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

For a guy who says you're all for action, you seem WAY to wrapped up in process! My advice; stop the kibutzing and trying to divide people, and start finding those ways to cooperate!

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

By no means am I trying to divide anyone. I am first and foremost trying to understand the movement and frankly it helps me to understand the movement to write about it, even if I would ultimately take exception to some of the things I initially write and find them ill conceived.

I'm all for cooperation, but the question remains, cooperation about what and on what basis?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

My answer to that would be . . . cooperation on overthrowing the oligarchy, by any means at our disposal.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I'd completely agree about overthrowing the oligarchy, but the question is, what does that abstraction actually mean and what would such an overthow actually entail. To me it would mean a good deal more than changing the individuals in public office, or a few pieces of legislation or even Constitutional amendments. The Constitution was a reactionary anti-democratic document when it was written and despite significant changes it is still a reactionary antidemocratic document and any genuine overthrow of the oligarchy that is supported after all by the Constitution that keeps it in place would have to begin by discussing exactly what kind of institutions are needed to establish and foster truely peaceful, democratic, loving and egalitarian social relations internationally.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

That is not an abstraction, but a hard, in our face reality.

I see the existing political process as a very valuable tool in overthrowing those who have userped that process. In persuing direct action alone, we will eventually be confronted by the fact that our only avenue is revolution; actual violent revolution, but if we engage in the political process as well, we can chanel the energy of direct action into results without bloodshed. Democracy is not the problem, the overthrow of our democracy by vested interest is the problem.

I repeat, this is not an abstraction, but an in our face reality, and squabbling over process won't solve it. OWS needs to see this and stop squabbling, or it will quickly become irrelevent, as the energy of the movement will simply bypass it.

I think I've come to understand you now, in as far as that is possible, and I see no point in going forward with this conversation. I have real sympathy for "your editors." That must be a truely time consuming and exasperating ordeal.

Nothing personal here, really, just an observation.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

People who carp about squabbling over process generally do so because they want everybody to adopt THEIR process, which would certainly make life easier for them. I don't think it is very useful to speculate about what OWS "needs" to do when an individual or even a group of individuals is in no position to implement those felt "needs."

The "energy" of the movement will only be in a position to bypass OWS if it has the organizational structures in place necessary to effect such a bypass. Without that all that "energy" is is a broad collection of individuals who say that they are supportive of OWS but who are in no position and who lack any institutional basis to implement their diffuse feelings.

As a movement activist I'm as interested as anyone in the future of the movement, but I'm also very cognizant that as an individual who is less active in the movement than I'd like to be, I can really have very little impact on the future of the movement. It does seem to me that to a considerable degree the future of the movement will be dependent on the organizational forms it takes and in how effective those organizational forms are in propelling the movement forward. While there have been local splits in the movement it still seems to me that the dominant organizational form of the movement so far at least and for better or for worse remains with the local GAs.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Look, I've had a lot of patience with you. But it is becoming increasingly clear that you circuitous reasoning, your endless hammering of the same drum, your unwillingness to address or even acknowledge the points we are making, and your clearly conscious degree of obtuseness, finally call into question your motives.

I submit that you are simply here to hammer away at this division in a slightly more sophisticated manner than most. In other words I have to finally conclude based upon the above that you are merely a slightly more sophisticated toll.

I will not bother to play this idiotic and pointless game of ring around the rosy with you any longer. I will say it again, you are a troll hammering away at this issue incessantly, simply to try to damage the aim of unity.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I agree that the movement needs unity. I agree but I am concerned at what the basis of what unity should be. I'm also not especially cognizant of any lack of unity or from where that lack of unity arises, so I'd like to be enlightened on that score. So far, on this thread at least, I haven't been.

I'm aware that the evictions have caused some dissention in the movement, especially with regard to the housing of homeless activists. There is also some discussion as to whether black bloc advocates can be legitimately considered a part of the movement, but I haven't seen any of that discussion on this thread and I'm unaware of the basis for any other discord in the movement.

It has certainly not been my intention to sew any discord and if that is the impression I have given I deeply and sincerely apologize. Other than the issues which I've mentioned about, I'm unaware of any significant discord in the movement and I'd be most interested to learn about any since I too am for movement unity and would do what I can to circumvent any movement discord.

I do cop to being a computer moron. I am really in the dark regarding various neologisms that have evolved regarding computer usage. I really don't know what terms like hacker and troll mean, though apparently my own e-mail account was recently "hacked."

I also think that people who engage in face to face discussions tend to be nicer to each other than is the case with people who have only met on the internet. I'm not sure why that is the case, but at least in my personal experience it tends to be so.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

You say, "I'm not [cogizant} of where that lack of unity arises," . . .

Well, I would say at the moment, it is arising mostly from you.

Your endless circular reasoning, and your attempt to bore everyone unto death with your endless focus on a process (that you at the same time suggest is futile) is divissive, and I think consciously so.

It does no good for OWS. It does no good for the GA's. It does no good for the 99%, and, in short, does no good for the movement at all.

I assert again that therefore you must be simply a troll, here to stir-up division, and therefore that you are are exactly the problem this post was aimed at. In the literally thousands of words you have written here, you have still not directly addressed any of the points we have been making related to untiy, except stirr up division, and to project a view that this movement is hopelessly confused in its aims.

It is not the least bit confused. It is only you that are confused - irredeemably so, if you ask me. So therefore I say one last time that you are a troll, and from now on I will give your posts all the attention they deserve, none whatsoever.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

By my estimation OWS is a tiny, tiny movement though clearly some people disagree with me about that. But even at my very cautious and conservative estimate OWS involves people in the tens of thousands. That being the case, I don't see how any single voice could very effectively sow dissention within the movement. In my particular case, I'm not sure exactly what it is I am doing that anyone thinks is sowing unwarranted dissention within the movement, but if it is specifically pointed out to me exactly what that is, I would be more than willing to redirect my energies in a more positive and productive direction.

I am truly not sure what a troll is, but speaking for my own experience I am 69 years old and I have been involved in virtually every major radical social movement that has arisen in the past 50 years. I was at Wall Street on September 17 and I consider myself a movement participant. I'd been considerably more active than is actually the case were it not for work and major health issues that I am facing.

I don't think that the movement is at all confused about its aims but it also seems to me to be the case, based on face to face discussions with dozens of movement activists and the reading of the few documents that the movement has produced that the movement has no specific aims other than building more GAs and more occupations. That to me seems to be quite simple and straight forward an not at all confused.

I am rather confused about this thread and my participation in it. It's claimed that I am sowing dissention here. I'm not sure how I'm doing that and when I ask for clarification I don't get any that I can understand, but I am quite willing to cease and desist as soon as I understand exactly what it is that I am supposed to cease and desist doing.

At the beginning of this thread it seems to be about a concern for a lack of unity in the movement, but it is not clear to me from the initial message on the thread what exactly the basis of that concern is. Clearly it is not me since the concern precedes my participation on the thread.

It does seem to me that accusing people of being "trolls" (whatever that means) actually contributes to dissention. I've encountered people on this forum who are clearly hostile to OWS. I suppose that they can legitimately be characterized as trolls. But that is not the case for me. I have not only been an OWS activist from the beginning but I come to OWS with nearly 50 years of radical activism in my past.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Slap the spin meister. Slap it hard. We don't need no stinkin propaganda pushers.

Be careful GK any moment he is going to try to act confused mystified hurt and or outraged. I find it particularly pitiful when it suggests that it is about to cry.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

LOL!!!

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks GK.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

BOOM

There it is!!!

You tell em GK.

Kick im a couple of times for me while your at it.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thank you for your clear vision here:)!

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you for the compliment. You have excellent vision.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I agree with this, excluding the final point. The 99Declaration working group has already passed OWS in the effective use of funding, resources and management. You have seen their TV ad?

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I think that the decision making processes of the GAs is in many ways profoundly undemocratic and leaves much to be desired, but if anything the structure and goals of the 99D is even more undemocratic.

I am an OWS activist despite the undemocratic decision making processes of the GAs. Given how fundamentally anti-democratic the 99D is at its very core I could frankly never be supportive of it in any way.

That said, I do think that a compromise between OWS and the advocates of the 99D was possible and remains possible if the advocates of the 99D were willing to compromise on much of its basic structure and call and begin a discussion around the desire for a national GA. I think broad common agreement could be reached on that, but it would end up looking very different from what the advocates of the 99D are proposing.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I don't understand how the 99D is structured un-democratically? They are attempting to use voluntary elections to appoint those that will assemble a letter of grievances, says the website and ad. That sounds pretty democratic to me?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

In the very preamble to the 99D it very specifically rejects the possiblity (might I say "right") of noncitizens, minors and transexuals from participants as delegates at the proposed national GA. As I personally saw many noncitizens, minors and sexual minorities functioning as key activists in the very initiation of OWS, excluding them from being able to function as delegates to a national GA strikes me as profoundly undemocratic. When the 99D was raised for support at several GAs it was on precisely these issues that the advocates of the 99D were unwilling to compromise.

It is a more controversial and less easily understood issue, but I also think that having delegates from regions where OWS has had no presence is also very undemocratic. In order for a democracy to work, mediating structures of various types (factions, organizations, political parties, labor unions, religious organizations, interest groups, etc) are essential. In there absence with nothing between the individual and the state, individuals are very easily manipulated. I personally think that the best way to organize a national GA would have been through existing local GAS and if anything, organizing a national GA in that way would tend to foster the development of local GAs. But in the absence of being sent by such mediating structures individual delegates from around the nation are likely to be all over the map politically and very easily manipulated.

These, of course, are my own opinions and of course subject to discussion, but it is also the case that it is exactly for those reasons among others that local GAs specifically rejected requests from 99D advocates for support.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

16 Delegates who are transgendered or do not identify as either male or female may choose to run for either the male or female delegate seat but not both.

http://www.the99declaration.org/delegate_requirements

It also restates this on the sign up page. I don't see why minors should be voting either. Non-citizens are free to take up this same struggle and approach in their native country. I wouldn't go to France and expect to have my say in their politics unless I went through the channels to have that right. We are not endowed with the right to go just where we decide and start bitching if we chose to go there and have not done the work you point out is expected of Occupiers even to be considered not just a part timer. Not saying we should engage in exportation of any kind. Just that there are limits.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I know a lot of transgender people who do not identify with either dominant sex and who would very much resent being forced to do so as a precondition of being able to serve on any political body.

The law has been extremely elastic regarding exactly what constitutes a minor. I'm 69 years old and I was not allowed to vote until I was 21. My children on the other hand were able to exercise the right to vote at the age of 18. The point is that many key OWS activists are indeed minors as currently defined by law, but nevertheless their participation in OWS has been significant and even crucial at several junctures and to exclude them from being able to participate in a national body flies in the face of OWS as a movement dedicated to broadening democracy. That said, regardless of my personal views on the issue, the fact is that these views are widely shared by participants in most GAs and that being the case were 99D advocates serious about a willingness to compromise, then this would have been an issue open to discussion, which was clearly not the case.

The same is true of non-citizens. Activists from the Spanish indignados movement and from other occupations internationally which emerged previous to September 17 were extremely instrumental as activists at Zuccotti Park from the first day of the occupation. Indeed it is reasonable to conclude that the occupation would not have gotten off the ground or last as long as it did or been as effective as it was without their active input and participation. Revolutions have always been international affairs. Tom Paine was among the greatest of American revolutionaries, yet he remained a British subject and went on to be active in the French revolution. Pulaski, Steuben and other "foreigners" were active in the American revolution. Frank Zappa was the first minister of culture in post Communist Czechoslavakia until the State Department intervened. But again, what is important is not my views about this or those of anyone else but rather a willingness to at least discuss and perhaps compromise on these issues.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

RedJizm

Huh.

You should see a Dr. about that.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Not sure I understand your comment. I think that a compromise between GAs and advocates of the 99D is perhaps theoretically possible but so far at least it seems to me that such a compromise has been effectively blocked largely by the intransigence of the 99D proposal, not an unwillingness on the part of GAs to compromise on the issue. I'm not sure what my personally seeing a physician (I already have at least 6) would do about that.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nevermind.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You would think that eventually all will tire of the left-right repug-dem back and forth that just keeps the same 1% in control of it all. This is the problem, those that think they can possibly change anything by voting or 'working within the system' are just not paying attention.

The dems took power from the republicons four years ago, what changed? Simply the window dressing. Wars rage on, git-mo still illegally holding people, drone attacks on people expanded, bankers still stealing your retirement savings, no one held to account for massive financial crimes, cops still shooting folks in the streets, rights of people still being eroded, I could go on and on and on,. where is the CHANGE? There is no change, the change is a lie. Nothing has changed, in fact many of these issues have gotten tragically worse. I will acknowledge that the dems seem to spin a more humanistic 'story', than the faith-head warmongering rethugs but the reality is very different than that story. Obama had an opportunity to make some radical moves, to at least make the attempt at change, however he never even tried. An actual 9/11 investigation should have been done, even a basic attempt at even slowing the bankster pillage and rape campaign of wealth confiscation from the many for the benefit of the few. Nothing, Nada, Jack, Zip, Zilch. Change you can believe in, if you have faith and are blind.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I don't have "faith" in the Democrats, I just have less in the Republicans. We cannot create a third party before the next election, and so we will be forced to either chose, or have someone chosen for us. After that, we can create a third party.

That is how I see it anyway.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

There is no "division of the mind," we are divided. Unless we wrap around one issue, it will stay that way.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I think there are sublties here, having to do with the ways our thinking can be manipulated, that are more complex than that otherwise accurate summation would emply.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I have seen those. :D

And I am not mad at you. Now, either they can figure out how to address issues or they cannot. I am not their babysitter. I am not going to listen to their whining and distortion of facts. I sure as hell am not listening to the political angle of a paid for pathetic propaganda artist.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Sorry didn't mean to do the repeat; I've been having a little trouble, since the last update. Hey did you see this?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/message-to-occupy-from-httpwwwthe99declarationorg/

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

There is one defining issue the 99% agree on: to get all money out of politics, That's it. Let us not debate things like the environment, reproductive rights, capitalism vs communism, Obama vs Paul, or monetary based economy vs resource based economy. It's just letting the 1% win.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Why does it bother you that we actually discuss environmental issues?

You have the option of not participating in the discussions. But, that isn't quite it, is it? You don't want anyone else to discuss those issues. You want to limit the discussions.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

It's a divisive issue that I feel we could solve later. 40% of American adults believe global warming is mad up. 40%! however, many see the need to become energy independent of both foreign oil and big oil corporations and see it as secure energy as well. So we should push for clean energy but not under the guise of global warming. It doesn't bother me, but I feel it's counterproductive.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Spade, the Koch Brothers paid scientists to throw studies. Further, the oil companies have paid people to deny that it is real. Everything about that should scream get the money out of politics and stop spreading disinformation. So, how is it that you can defend them? Huh?

Guess what? The oil is being shipped overseas. So, this is not about no longer being dependent.

Basically, what you are telling me is that we should not discuss the actions of the one percent. More like, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Koch does provide funding for the Institute for Energy Research--to the tune of $60,000 per year. And also the Property and Environment Research Center--they get $23,000 per year from Koch.

The Greenpeace story doesn't mention how long Koch (and Exxon, for that matter) have been funding organisations like this. That's because their funding predates any controversy about global warming. That's right, they were giving money to these conservative think tanks back when news stories were worried about global cooling--and even before anyone was worred about the climate at all.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Global Warming: Who's funding the fight? - National environmental policy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/environmental-policy-in-national/global-warming-who-s-funding-the-fight#ixzz1nK4k6J2J

Just as Sorros funds groups that push the Climate Change theory. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-soros-connected-to-new-global-warming-website-targeting-meteorologists/

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

In the 1940's there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation. At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation. It was also discovered that water vapor absorbed totally different types of radiation than carbon dioxide. Gilbert Plass summarized these results in 1955. He concluded that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would intercept infrared radiation that is otherwise lost to space, warming the earth.

The argument that the oceans would absorb most carbon dioxide was still intact. However, in the 1950's evidence was found that carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 10 years. Moreover, it was not yet known what would happen to a carbon dioxide molecule after it would eventually dissolve in the ocean. Perhaps the carbon dioxide holding capacity of oceans was limited, or carbon dioxide could be transferred back to the atmosphere after some time. Research showed that the ocean could never be the complete sink for all atmospheric CO2. It is thought that only nearly a third of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by oceans.

In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming. The curves showed a downward trend of global annual temperature from the 1940's to the 1970's. At the same time ocean sediment research showed that there had been no less than 32 cold-warm cycles in the last 2,5 million years, rather than only 4. Therefore, fear began to develop that a new ice age might be near. The media and many scientists ignored scientific data of the 1950's and 1960's in favor of global cooling.

In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age. In the late 1980's the curve began to increase so steeply that the global warming theory began to win terrain fast. Environmental NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations) started to advocate global environmental protection to prevent further global warming. The press also gained an interest in global warming. It soon became a hot news topic that was repeated on a global scale. Pictures of smoke stags were put next to pictures of melting ice caps and flood events. A complete media circus evolved that convinced many people we are on the edge of a significant climate change that has many negative impacts on our world today. Stephen Schneider had first predicted global warming in 1976. This made him one of the world's leading global warming experts.

In 1988 it was finally acknowledged that climate was warmer than any period since 1880. The greenhouse effect theory was named and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded by the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. This organization tries to predict the impact of the greenhouse effect according to existing climate models and literature information. The Panel consists of more than 2500 scientific and technical experts from more than 60 countries all over the world. The scientists are from widely divergent research fields including climatology, ecology, economics, medicine, and oceanography. The IPCC is referred to as the largest peer-reviewed scientific cooperation project in history. The IPCC released climate change reports in 1992 and 1996, and the latest revised version in 2001.

In the 1990's scientists started to question the greenhouse effect theory, because of major uncertainties in the data sets and model outcomes. They protested the basis of the theory, which was data of global annual mean temperatures. They believed that the measurements were not carried out correctly and that data from oceans was missing. Cooling trends were not explained by the global warming data and satellites showed completely different temperature records from the initial ones. The idea began to grow that global warming models had overestimated the warming trend of the past 100 years. This caused the IPCC to review their initial data on global warming, but this did not make them reconsider whether the trend actually exists. We now know that 1998 was globally the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, 2003, 2001 and 1997. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990.

The climate records of the IPCC are still contested by many other scientists, causing new research and frequent responses to skeptics by the IPCC. This global warming discussion is still continuing today and data is constantly checked and renewed. Models are also updated and adjusted to new discoveries and new theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Energy_Research

Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm#ixzz1nKEd8Va3

he Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.

Founded in 1989 from a predecessor organization, IER is a public foundation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and is funded entirely by tax deductible contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. No financial support is sought for or accepted from government sources.

Our Principles

IER has earned a solid reputation for its scholarly approach to energy analysis and free-market energy and environmental policy. IER’s perspective is based on the following tenets:

Free markets: History shows that private property rights, market exchange, and the rule of law have resulted in affordable energy, improved living standards and a cleaner environment. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/about-us/

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

What is PERC?

PERC—the Property and Environment Research Center—is the nation’s oldest and largest institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets. Founded 30 years ago in Bozeman, Montana, it began as a think tank where scholars documented how government regulation and bureaucracy have led to environmental degradation. At the same time, they sought to explain how markets could be harnessed to improve environmental quality. From this work originated the idea of free market environmentalism.

To back up their ideas, PERC researchers found real world examples of how FME was already working. To further the spread of FME from theory to action, PERC established a program to empower individuals - environmental entrepreneurs - by showing them how to use property, contracts and the market process to enhance environmental quality. PERC's Enviropreneur Institute attracts people from around the globe who are seeking to put FME to work.

PERC continues to grow and change as it sees needs. The newest development is PERC University. As PERC seeks solutions to some of our toughest environmental problems, the university is a place where scholars, journalists, policy makers, and environmental practitioners can come together to share knowledge, refine their work, and engage in robust discussion. The university is flourishing as representatives of many disciplines inspire each other as they explore the possibilities for applying FME.

http://www.perc.org/whatis.php

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. The study also finds that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps much less heat that global warming enthusiasts have claimed. Taylor writes:

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-study-of-nasa-data-may-debunk-global-warming-predictions/

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Exxon’s Climate Admission by Christopher Jones This just in: Exxon Mobil has made a multi-billion dollar acknowledgement that climate change is real and is happening now. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit this, though. Exxon would like you to believe that climate change is neither real nor urgent. That is why they have spent millions of dollars over the last several years funding climate skeptics and fighting legislation that would regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases. When you hear climate skeptics speak, there’s a good chance that Exxon money is in their pocket. Actions, however, speak louder than words. And Exxon’s most recent action was a thunderclap. According to reports, Exxon has just signed an extensive deal with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, to develop promising offshore oil and gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean. The companies will begin by investing $3.2 billion to explore in the Kara Sea, with the potential of increasing the investment to $500 billion in the future. Exxon is so convinced of the potential of these sites that it is giving Rosneft ownership rights in several of its global properties to complete the deal. Large deposits of gas and oil have been known to exist in the Arctic Ocean for decades. So why did they make this deal now? One key thing has changed: the arctic ice is melting rapidly. The Kara Sea has typically been covered by ice floes nine months of the year or more, making commercial development of its resources unprofitable. But for the last several years, the extent and duration of the arctic ice has been diminishing, a phenomenon the vast majority of scientists believe to be caused by climate change. Suddenly, oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean is looking far more attractive. Exxon has realized that a warming planet offers some new opportunities for profit and is adjusting its strategic decisions accordingly. Exxon is not the only big oil company whose actions show it believes climate change to be real. British Petroleum made a major play for developing the same resources several months ago, but the proposed deal was rejected by a coalition of BP’s other Russian business partners. Not only does big oil know climate change is happening, it is planning its future around it. That does not mean Exxon is likely to publicize this knowledge. Despite issuing a tepid statement acknowledging anthropogenic climate change in 2007 and promising to cease funding anti-climate change groups in 2008, Exxon remains up to its old tricks. Freedom of Information Act requests have revealed a continued pattern of funding for climate skeptics as well as collaborations with the conservative Koch Industries to support legislation that removes any restrictions on carbon emissions. We should no longer be distracted by these words. Exxon is a smart and savvy company, and even if its actions are reprehensible, they make sense in a political system that allows corporations to pay millions of dollars to avoid costly regulations. Blaming Exxon for these activities is like blaming a raccoon for going through your trash. They’re simply responding to available opportunities. This is exactly why we should focus on actions, not words. This deal is a multi-billion dollar investment predicated on Exxon’s belief that the planet is warming. It is one of the most powerful admissions of the reality of climate change imaginable. Michele Bachmann and the other Republican presidential candidates cannot blame this on disconnected academic scientists or members of a liberal conspiracy. This is the embodiment of free market American capitalism saying climate change is real. All this begs the question: If Exxon Mobil believes climate change is worth acting on now, isn’t it time for the rest of us to follow suit? – Christopher Jones is currently writing a book on the history of energy transitions.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/10/316176/exxon-climate-change-deniers/

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Exxon also contributes to the Alliance to Save Energy which backs a bipartisan energy efficiency bill introduced on February 15 2012:

The bipartisan energy efficiency bill introduced today by House Energy and Commerce Committee members Reps. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah) would help create private sector jobs, improve economic competitiveness and reduce our nation’s energy use, according to the Alliance to Save Energy.

The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition consisting largely of industrial, technological, and energy corporations. The Alliance states that its mission is to "support energy efficiency as a cost-effective energy resource under existing market conditions and advocate energy-efficiency policies that minimize costs to society and individual consumers, and that lessen greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the global climate." [1] The alliance's chief activities include public relations, research, and lobbying[2] to change U.S. energy policy.

The creation of the Alliance was announced on the 10 February 1977 with the support of the then U.S. President Jimmy Carter.[3] It was the initiative of senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey.

Exon also contributes to The Aspen Institute - an international nonprofit organization founded in 1950 as the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies. The organization is dedicated to "fostering enlightened leadership, the appreciation of timeless ideas and values, and open-minded dialogue on contemporary issues". The institute and its international partners promote the pursuit of common ground and deeper understanding in a nonpartisan and non ideological setting through regular seminars, policy programs, conferences, and leadership development initiatives.

The Aspen Institute is largely funded by foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation, by seminar fees, and by individual donations. Its board of trustees includes leaders from politics, government, business and academia who also contribute to its support. Board members include Madeleine Albright, Sylvia Earle, Henry Louis Gates, David Gergen, David H. Koch, Queen Noor of Jordan, and Condoleezza Rice.[1] Walter Isaacson is President and CEO.

Exon also contributes to The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, often shortened to Baker Institute, is a think tank on the campus of Rice University in Houston, Texas. Founded in 1993, it has become a notable center of public policy research. It is named for James Baker, former United States Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury. The institute's founding director, Edward P. Djerejian, is the former United States Ambassador to Israel and Syria and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. The institute's board of advisors include William Barnett (Chair), Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and Rice President David Leebron. The institute employs scholars and researchers from a variety of backgrounds.

All of which have "arms" that do climate research for energy purposes.

[-] -2 points by newman (-58) 2 years ago

blah blah blah!!!!! Oh no the Earth is cooling!!!!!! NOT hahahahhahaha Go find some more new propaganda material libtards, this stuff really smells

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Very nice Girl Friday.

Yes action speaks louder than words.

Another example for look at what I do, don't listen to what I say.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I never said that I defend them, please stop twisting my words, but it's not what we should focus on, not now at least. Maybe after the money is out of our government system, only then. Like I said, it's divisive.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I call bullshit.Koch=ALEC. :/

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I'm not defending them, I know all about the evilness of the Heartland Institute, but it is divisive as there are people (stupid people) that trust them and their climate denying shit for science, but those same people are of the 99% too and might welcome money out of politics. I just don't understand why you continue to attack me, I mean you no harm and support the OWS agenda and to be honest, I'm a little hurt.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

We share information here. Anytime that anyone of them can share information there are many people more than willing to hear them out. Believe it. It is precisely that action that will keep it from becoming partisan.

What people are unwilling to do is to accept information from known extreme right wing organizations like say, the Heritage Foundation.

I think that people are trying to seek the truth in situations and issues and information needs to be presented. The moment that this is actively pursued by those on the right then it becomes solid. I refuse to dumb shit down or refrain from a pov because the other side doesn't have the capacity or is unwilling to present facts.

The ball is in their court. They need to rise to the occasion.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Wow, you said it there Girl!

[-] 3 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

If I may sort of butt in for a moment here, I would say that all threads about the environment, the politics of healthcare, etc. are important to all of us. The thing we hold in the highest regard is that set of core issues and our proposed solutions. As noted elsewhere in this thread, those things we all agree on. If we get those things accomplished, we'll have done a very great deal, indeed. We all know this.

Division over important yet "non-core" issues is something that I don't see as something that should seperate us. We, I think, should be respectful of the opinions of others, because those differing opinions cause all of us to think, perhaps a little more deeply on a particular topic, or perhaps cause us to consider the weight of our own written words here. We've seen what happens when we act in unity and see the power in that unity to motivate others who, for many reasons, don't admit to any identifying with Occupy.

What we do through our work in this movement is this: we are opening minds to the idea that people don't have to live this way any longer; that they should be upset and motivated to speak out and demand change. Obviously, this enrages some that we dare do these things.

I remain optimistic that many will join us, because they are weary and weather-worn by the inequities of life foisted upon them at the behest of some on Wall Street as well as in other places.

They do know that things aren't right in this country, however. They do know that this country has been badly wounded by some among us. Our job is to try to make them stop "rooting" against their own interests. Our job is to create possibilities. A unified OWS can do this. Let's concentrate on the end game. Let's do our job. That is what I would say.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I am very optimistic that many will join us. And really, all that I am saying is that the Republican Party is the party of the 1%. That, based upon every objective indicator, is simply stating a matter of fact, and I don't see why it should even be controversial. It's pretty weird, when you think about it, that there is any conroversy here on that score at all..

[-] 3 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

The controversy is, I think, more philosophical in nature than anything else. There are those who enjoy creating crontroversy, too. It's nothing we can't put behind us so that we're better able to concentrate on what's important. In context, what the Republican Party, as it exists today, lies in opposition to our goals and they have said as much. The Republican Paty, as it exists today would find Ronald Reagan unpalatable as a presidential candidate, and that's saying something! He lowered taxes in his first year and then raised them nearly every year thereafter that he was president.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, I by no means want anyone to think I would exclude conservatives from this movement. A number of people whom I've respected most in life were conservative, and as soon as this next election is over, I think we will share a party with those people, so I certainly don't want to unnecessarily antagonize them.

I only touch this issue again because I see "them" hammering away at these "talking points" and I know they can really damage us with that stuff.

One of the things we have to do here is counter this propoganda, and I certainly don't like having to do it.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Please allow me to paraphrase what you just said:

"Hopefully lots of people will join our cause -- but Republicans are the enemy."

Multiple people have tried to point the same thing out to you, but you can't seem to look past your hatred of Republicans. You want people on the right to move to the left to meet you. You're not willing to meet in the middle. ThunderclapNewman spent some time writing a thoughtful message to you about unity, and finding common ground. You didn't listen to what he was saying any more than you listened to me when I tried to tell you the same things. You just respond every time with, "okay -- but Republicans are the enemy."

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the middle of what?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You know full well what the phrase "meet in the middle" means.

There are people here who want Occupy to be a leftist group, rather than a unifying phenomenon that represents all of the 99%, not just the left side of the 99%.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I understand that, and I think we can work with people of all political views, but not all political parties. That seems self-evident to me. If I am wrong, well then, people have a right to believe that and to tell me so. All I am doing is laying out things as I see them.

I cannot think of a single historical example of a political movement that tried to accomodated it's opposition, and if I could think of one, I'd say . . ."Wow, there goes a bunch of loonies."

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Your presumption that half of the country is your "opposition" is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Do you represent the 48%? No, you claim to represent the 99%. So adjust your thinking to encompass the entire 99% and not just people on the left. Occupy is not an arm of the Democratic Party, right? Isn't Occupy supposed to be something that transcends partisan politics? It's failing to do that in a spectacular way.

[-] 2 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Just 'Hit' ya w/ another 'Like'... this is a Great Discussion thread offering insights to aid in opening minds...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thanks, Marlow. :D

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

If you say so, but I still feel that way.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

and that is ok.

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

There are better alternatives than attacking the motherfuckers.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I almost spit out my water.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

What?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I didn't expect you to say motherfuckers.

[-] 0 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I'm 17, it's kind of ingrained in my brain.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

LOL.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Well I'm just gonna stay confused.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

Don't we ALL want money out of politics? That is the first thing we should do. We can do that. Let's go folks. No bickering on that one.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Yes, agreed!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the government uses money to pay for things just like the rest of us

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

So we can have publicly financed campaigns.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we could

determining who gets public funds seems arbitrary

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

How so, if everyone who runs gets the same amount of money?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a large number of candidates would run

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

True, but there would have to be some way to determine which candidates get money as you make a good point, can't give public funds to every single person who wants to run. So, maybe signature requirements or something along those lines.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I was considering that also

perhaps, 10,000 off the cuff

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

Not a bad place to start, then you know the person running is somewhat viable as a candidate.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

more signatures might be beyond the means of a poor human

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

I was just thinking that 10,000 may be too many, LOL!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a thousand perhaps

hold primaries to to limit the number

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

Something like that might work.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think there are elected officals that share this goal, I guess that's where I'm coming from.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

I think 99.9% of Americans including the dolts in office want this (they just are forced to operate within the confines of money in politics in order to survive). You really have to wonder about the Supreme Court. We can impeach and recall politicians, how about them? They get lifetime appointments to ruin our country this way? No one gets to question them?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

We could add a couple to the court and change the outcome on some votes, if we had enough people in Senate that wanted too, I think they are more likely to be found in the Democratic Party.

Generally working against any candidate supported by the Camber of Commerce, is the best way to get started, the Chamber is the most consistent opponent of getting money out of government.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

Interesting about the Chamber of Commerce. I suppose that makes sense, but I never thought about it before.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Here in AZ they were the only ones that could sue to get our Public Financing Law overturned. If any out of the closet Republican (I mean by that secret lover of corporate money) had tried it they would have been lynched, but the C of C don't care what people think, after all everybody loves them right?

Here’s a link, as bad as Citizen’s United:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-238.pdf

This was basically a subgroup of the C of C they were the ones that got the ball rolling on the suit.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

Very interesting. Also, funny how they use the words "freedom" and "liberty" in naming these Pacs when they bring nothing of the sort.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Establishing the American Revolution as a fight for freedom is something they started a long time ago, here is some of my pushback:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-america-revolution-was-the-largest-act-of-weal/

They then make the argument that the freedom of the wealthy to do what they like, was the true intent of the Founding Fathers, completely side stepping the whole representation deal. The post above is to remind people that a long time ago other people thought that democracy was just a way to steal.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

You are always interesting, factsrfun.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The right has spent a billion dollars educating me......(you've not seen nothin' yet)

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

LOL!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Really good point! That was why FDR had to create new court positions and fill them himslf; for the very same reason. He never would have got his New Deal legislation past the Supreme Court then either, if he hadn't done that.

By the way, the Republicans are now blocking all of the federal judge appointments for the same reason. They want to stack all the courts in their favor.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

It's unreal.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, it is. What did Hunter s. Thompson (not a favorite of mine, by the way) say? "When the going get's weird, the weird trun pro. . .?"

Don't ask me why I quoted that, it has just been going through my head lately. Well, the going has certainly gotten weird, anyway.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

Weird is a good word for it.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Gypsy...watch those broad statements...Here are the facts about the federal judges...

Obama has still managed to alter the balance of power on four of the nation's 13 circuit courts of appeals. Fourteen of the 25 appeals court judges nominated by Obama replaced Republican appointees.

As of February 17, 2012, 128 Obama nominees to Article III judgeships have been confirmed by the United States Senate, namely two Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 26 judges to the United States courts of appeals, and 100 judges to the United States district courts. 42 further nominations are currently awaiting Senate action..

You can see just who has been confirmed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

And since the current Senate has 51 Dems, 2 Ind. and 47 Republicans a vote of 86 to 0, or 96 to 2 means that Republicans voted FOR confirmation.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Aw, spin by the Huffpo.

Article III judgeships are lifetime appointments...and since taking office in January 2009, Obama has had 128 nominations confirmed and 42 await confirmation.

There are 13 Federal Court of Appeals - with 16 vacancies at the moment and 9 currently nominated. 26 of the appointed judges were appointed by Obama in just 3 years. 24 were appointed by George W. Bush during his eight years. Now you could spin this in many different ways, but one thing that can't be spun is that Obama has appointed and had confirmed more in three years than Bush did in eight and all appointments must be confirmed by the Senate - which has had a Democrat Majority since 2006.

Here are links that shows you the confirmations done in previous Congresses (scroll to the bottom to see each Congress)

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/judicial.cfm

So, GypsyKings statement that the Republicans are blocking ALL nominations of Federal judges is simply WRONG.

You can check out the facts straight from official sites - or, you can of course keep reading the Huffpo spin and calling it truth.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Spin by the Huffo? Go back to your O'Rilley psycho fantasy land. I'm not going to bother with any further effort to provie existing facts to conscious prevaricators.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

I repeat...you can check out the facts straight from the official sites - or yu can of course keep reading the Huffpo spin and calling it truth.

The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet ....of course they spin facts to represent their view point just as all partisan "news" media does.

You haven't tried to prove anything. Show me one link to anything that you have provided to back up your statements other than a left leaning website?

You stated that the Republicans were "blocking ALL" federal appointments of judgeships. Using just one segment of the Article III appointments, I proved you wrong with actual data that showed that Obama has successfully appointed 26 judges in 3 years as opposed to 24 in eight years for George Bush.

I even provided links to show you how the Senate votes went down again proving that Republicans have voted to confirm these judges and are not "blocking all" of Obama nominees to judgeships.

Those links even provide you with the information on how long it took for these judges to get confirmation........

Ignore the truth. It is easier than admitting that you made a broad inflammatory statement based upon the spin of a left leaning, liberal news outlet instead of seeking out the reality for yourself.

[-] -1 points by newman (-58) 2 years ago

huff post, media matters, msnbc and others like them are just liberal propaganda garbage

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Oh, now it's not just Huffington, but MSNBC that's crazy liberal propoganda, and when everybody reports the story it will be everyone that's crazy liberal propogandists, except of course Fox, who won't report it at all. You guys live in a fantasy world of your own creation, and it's a evil one at that. I feel sorry for you.

[-] -1 points by newman (-58) 2 years ago

Please watch your grammar!!! "You guys life in a fantasy world" should be quoted as "You guys live in a fantasy World"

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Wow, what an interesting rejoinder.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I think things are quite clear now and we can move forward UNITED.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22101) 2 years ago

Yes!

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 2 years ago

That can't win. Sooner or latter people will see we are all in the same boat. Disasters have that effect.

Don't be Afraid!

"THE REVOLUTION HAS STARTED" -

Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( Http://www.revolution2.osixs.org )

How else can I say this? "We Are Free!" http://WeAreFree.osixs.org

"Spread the News"

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yeeeeeehaaawwwwww!!!!

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 2 years ago

How about adopting this and unify everyone and have the power to change corruption? ...www.nationalday911.org

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bankamerica (1) 2 years ago

Fuck you Roma, you lost.

[-] 0 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

The problem is, the people who are "Representing" the movement in the public forums are not using that as the message. They are predominatly claiming that the movement is one of socialist values and no one else is speaking out or disputing that.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Well, that's what I'm trying to do right now, clarify things. In a movement such as this, it is up to us to define ourselves, and not let others define us. That is why I think this forum is important. Every day I see more real believers in our cause here. The whole thing has to do with imperturbability.

[-] 1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Very few Americans are on this site. Millions of Americans watch TV and see these "Representatives" speak.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I think you WAY underestimate how words and ideas spread in the age of the net - way underestimating it.

[-] 1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Not at all, but unless I come here, I don't hear anything else about OWS on the internet. None of the mainstream media outlets (left or right) cover it. Occasionally there is a short blurb on the Huffington Post but nothing indepth.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Well then, you'll soon be in for a big surprise.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

There is no addressing this "once and for all." We will continue to diasagree about this forever...but that does not mean the demise of this movement. In fact, I can see the diversity of tactics as being a strength.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, disagreement is fine, as long as it doesn't become so strong as to divide us. My point is that I think that's what some are trying to do, both divide us, and confuse the boundary between OWS and the Republican Party, which I think is simply a fact. As long as we understand the situation and hold together, there is really no problem:)

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are speaking for yourself. If you clam most Americans don't accept the 99% v 1% premise (that wealth is too heavily concentrated and is distorting democracy) show the polling numbers. If you make a claim about a majority, back it up with more than a simple personal declaration.

The latest PEW study:

"Many of the themes of the Occupy Wall Street protests resonate with the public. About half (51%) say that Wall Street hurts the American economy more than it helps it; 36% are of the view that Wall Street helps more than it hurts. A 61% majority say the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy, while 36% say it is generally fair to most Americans. And fully 77% say that a few rich people and corporations have too much power in this country."

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I think he is actually trying to influence public opinion by misrepresenting it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Show me your evidence, not your declarations. The Pew study was definitive. I provided a only one single quote from it . You have provided nothing other than your personal opinion. Unless you support that opinion, with actual numbers, your declarations regarding OTHER people's opinions is utterly without foundation and UTTERLY meaningless. Your opinion is you opinion. Only complete narcissism and arrogance confuses that with the consensus of a population.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Enough is enough as far as most voters are concerned when it comes to the Occupy Wall Street protesters. In fact, 51% of Likely U.S. Voters now view the protesters as a public nuisance. Only 39% see them as a valid protest movement representing the frustrations of most Americans. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2012/51_see_occupy_wall_street_protesters_as_public_nuisance

New York — A great deal of ambiguity continues to surround the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement, finds a new poll by global research company Ipsos for Reuters News, as only four in ten (37%) of global citizens in 23 countries report they are familiar with the protests that were going on in New York and other major cities around the world. As a result, it may not be surprising that half (54%) of respondents say they are undecided when asked how favourable or unfavourable they are towards the protests as far as they understand them. Of those who take a position, those in favour outweight those in opposition two to one: 33% report they are favourable and 13% are unfavourable towards the protests.

Support appears to increase when a brief description of the movement is provided. In fact, the proportions of support and indecision flip; a slim majority (53%) ‘sympathize’ with the movement and one third (35%) are undecided. One in ten (12%) continue to say they ‘do not have sympathy.’ http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5487

While these polls do not specifically address the question of wealth inequality, they do show that the "99%" claim has a way to go.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2118/occupy-wall-street-protests

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2167/rich-poor-social-conflict-class

http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/15/frustration-with-congress-could-hurt-republican-incumbents/

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/12-15-11%20Congress%20and%20Economy%20release.pdf

According to the research above, the plurality of support goes to Occupy. That said, the 99% claim is not about public opinion, but economic reality. 1% of the nation owns 43% of the wealth, and 99% of the country must divide up the remainder. That's no opinion but fact. OWS has never claimed it represents the opinions of the 99%, but the economic reality of it. It's very reason for existence is to change public opinion and create an overwhelming consensus. There would be no reason for protest otherwise. Having created a plurality in so short a time is remarkable progress.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You stand by nothing since you have presented nothing. Your deliberate misreading of my post is an opinion based on your willful distortion.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, your opinion remains fact-challenged.

Of course, you can't show any evidence to back you up, since there isn't any. You know it as well as I do. You are aware, somewhere in that teensy brain, that you are just blowing smoke, and don't want to admit that you've been caught doing it. It is simple intellectual dishonesty. Nothing more.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You have yet to provide evidence of your assertion. Keep stalling. I'm sure nobody notices.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

THey are LISTED in the rest of the paragraph.

Where are YOUR sources to contradict that?

You have none. You dissembling is transparent.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Sounds like some kind of mantra you're chanting, hoping it will become true. Yeah, all Americans want to do is just get back to playing with that stacked deck. They just want to get back to pretending everything is still the way it was before it got the way it is!

And you spend so much time and energy here trying to convince us this is true, although even the polls say Americans agree with us, why exactly? Yep, just keep on dreaming.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, I know, they've tried their best not to take any polls. Pew recently did however, and found Americans support Occupy Wall St. by 48% to 36%. That's what I thought the lack of polling indicated, and sure enough, it did. It was pretty hard to dig it up though. I made a post on the sunject about two weeks ago. You can find the link to the poll there if you like.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I'm not sure you really understand what has happened BinB... Occupy has Already make it's Impact... has Already made Success... yet more will inevitably come ...

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

well... to start with ... Congress is starting to break ranks... the media is starting to focus on issues... the big banks are walking very cautiously .. and retreating.... the youth are registering to vote... the whole system, including the right wingers are starting to second guess the status quo.... that's a pretty good start ....

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

well... if the T party produced "real" ... maybe "real" is something we should shy away from .. ;)

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

BinB... I gave u a solid answer in the start... if it's not solid enough... sorry... but think about it.... this whole thing is an awareness & consensus building movement.... <--- it moves people

[-] -1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

don't feed the trolls

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Aw, come on guys, giving up already? I was just about to explain how the Republican Party IS the political arm of the 1%, or more accurately the ...1%, again. But you all sudenly went away. You see, you can't have it both ways, saying you're part of the 99%, when you are actually just agents of the 1%. You can't sell that turkey, and you know it, so unless one of you discovers the guts to defend such patent lunacy, I'll say goodnight.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Gypsy, I am part of the 99% and I am not an agent of the 1%. I am not trying to drive a wedge into your movement, I just want to see if you really know what you are talking about economically. All of your social issues I don't care about.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Jflynn, you are very selective in those economic discussions. You don't like certain facts.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

How is the group doing? Hang in there.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

How 'bout that book?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

What did I forget, what book?

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

But you aren't addressing the division.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

The division exists only in the mind. If we believe it exists, or can let somebody convince us that it does, then it exists. If not, then it doesn't.

[+] -4 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Platitudes. Hippy cliches. This is why you people ultimately failed in the 60s.

[-] 5 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

The sixties didn't fail. If they did, blacks would still be at the back of the bus, and women still trapped in domestic bliss with a tyranical husband they were afraid to divorce. Also, women would still be getting abortions in back alleys, and Nixon wouldn't have gotten the ax. And We'd probably still be fighting in Vietnam! Sorry to burst your bubble head.

[-] 5 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

And.. the Voting Age would Still Be 21! Gays would Still be Beaten openly in the Streets

I would Never have been given the opportunity to work for a 'Commission on the Status of Women' and open the FIRST Battered Women's Shelter in this Country!

.. I was in DC in the 60's.. and it was GREAT!

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Hey, you must be near me in age then! What a frightening yet vibrant time. Very much like now!

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

What Gave me Away?... The point that i lived in DC in the 60's? Well... i guess i am so Proud of us then.. i opened my Yap too much! .. ;^)

History will show that the 60's was a foundational Turning Point in this Country. As important as the Civil War, but More of an Eye and Heart Opening in our Society. It took 100 years to make the Emancipation Proclamation come to fruition. Bringing to Light the Very Essence of Human Rights.

But now.. This 'Occupy', this #ows Movement is Casting a Massive Shadow of 'UNITY' and Independence from those who would enslave the Citizens of this Country Thru GREED!

THIS is HISTORY Kids.. and i have NEVER been more Proud of us..

than ..Right Now!

Marlow

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Well said, Marlow and so true. This is something that those Occupiers who are young, relative to us and a few others here, will look back on with pride. But I'm putting the cart before the horse. There's much work to do. There'll be time enough to reflect after we achieve what goals may be accomplished. Let's roll up our sleeves!

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Thunder.. Strikes Again!.. Well Done!

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

It was defiantly the last time people actually behaved in a manner consistent with our continued survival on this planet, there were a lot of positive changes, and the world would be a much different place if it hadn't have happened.

I think they ultimately fail though, Timothy Leary and the movement in general really underestimated just how brutal the establishment can be when you look it in the face and say "you're goin' down!"

I sincerely hope Occupy doesn't make the same mistake.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

This is a VERY good point, and I don't in any way want to diminish the importance of what you're saying. In my opinion the sixties was a lot more successful than it should have been, given the state of general conformity and public opinion at that time.

I'll tell you this, the counterculture of the sixties never enjoyed the kind of popularity this movement has right now, and I find that VERY encouraging!

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Oh don't get me wrong, the fact that "free love" or similar ideas even entered the social radar at time when black people were still being lynched, and couldn't set foot at the front of the bus is amazing in and of itself.

I really hope you're right and I'm also optimistic that people will come together, because we desperately need change; but I still think we can really learn a lesson from those who came before us.

It is not going to be an easy ride tho, when we actually become a real threat, the media and police are going to be absolutely ruthless. Leary boasted 4 Million "followers" in about 3 years, and was called the most dangerous man in America and actively persecuted. Similarly, the articles in the MSM like "The Hippe Cult - Who they are, What they want, and why they act that way" in LIFE Magazine, and fictitious stories about "drug kindergartens" started to appear to frighten people. I hope we are more ready for it this time around.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

This is also a VERY GOOD POINT. You might want to actively formulate some ideas to counter that possibility, and post them here, as well as introduce the subject at a GA.

[-] -2 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Hmmmm... The disintegration of the black family. A 53% birth rate (all races) to single mothers. Millions of (mostly black) abortions ( strangely enough white liberals applaude this) And Nixon is small change compared to what presidents get away with now.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Well, it's true, we did subsequently elect a lot of Republicans. Let's hope that is a mistake people will not make in the future.

[-] -2 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

We? Who is we? And I don't think republicans cheer for all that aborting and single mother raising of children. Or are you saying that millions of fetuses, blacks in prison, and Fast and Furious, bowing to mysoginist, tyrants is all the fault of conservatives.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

"We" are those who elected the Republicans, but after Florida in 2,000 and Ohio in 2004 we can't even be sure about that, can we?

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Oh. And since fighting in Vietnam we as a nation have fought in Iran( total failure), Lebanon (same), Grenada, Panama, Kuwait/Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. And....

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Who started those wars? The 1%, for oil. Which is the indisputed party of the 1%? The Republicans.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Are you seriously saying no rich people are demos? Really?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

You'll need someone else to micro-manage your thought processes. I don't have nearly enough time.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Wow. Just wow.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

If I thought for one minute your intentions here were anything but to stir up division, I would not have responded that way, but a horse, by any other name, is still a horse.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

DO you ever consider facts?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

If Occupiers are interested in unity then they really need to stifle the "Repelican" slurs, because those epithets alienate half of the 99%, and they make it very clear that Occupy is not a place for Republicans, or conservatives.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Well, what can we do? The Republican party is the party of the 1%. It's time conservatives woke up and recognized that. Look at the way they're shoving Mitt Romney down the throats of conservatives by spending millions on his campaign. And it will probably work too. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter, because Santorum was also created by the 1%, but Mitt stands a better chance in the general election, so the're pushing him on you. You guys just can't face the fact that you're being used.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

There is hardly any difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. And if you insist on viewing the world through a polarized lens then you really need to stop pretending that you represent the 99%, because you're openly hostile to a big chunk of the 99%, and unfortunately for you they do notice that kind of thing when they come here. The "Repelicans" nonsense has to stop, or else Occupy will continue to dwindle to more marginal numbers as increasing numbers of the 99% realize that they have been excluded from your 'movement'.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yeah, back to that old argument. We already went round on that stuff. Just dig up a few former posts, but please don't waste our time again. I'm glad at least you aren't still pretending to be a disgruntled former believer in this movement. That was getting tiresome wasn't it?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I am a disgruntled former potential supporter. When I wrote posts like this, I was hoping that Occupy could continue to grow, and that it could become a unifying force for the 99%. But the opposite happened. Occupy has become a polarized group that excludes half of the 99%. Each "Repelican" slur on this site serves to further alienate about half of the people who come here. This site, and Occupy in general, are becoming increasingly polarized and hostile toward a lot of the people who they claim to represent. There is no more direct path toward failure than devolving into the rejection of half of the people who you claim to represent. When you berate half of the 99%, you work against your own supposed goal of unifying the 99%.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Naw. "That," as Pete put it, in Oh Brother Where Art Thou . . . "Don't Make No Sense!"

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

If you think that it doesn't make sense to unify the 99% then you're dooming yourself to failure. Either that or you're intentionally trying to polarize Occupy and exclude half of the 99%, which would turn Occupy into a social club for liberal extremists. That would be the same thing as failure. If you want to strive for failure then that's your choice. IMHO, it's already too late for Occupy to unify the 99%. Clashing with law enforcement was not a good start. All of the "Repelican" slurs just sealed Occupy's fate as a left-wing stronghold, which means failure. A left-wing stronghold is not the same thing as the unification of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Look, if you think the oligarchs don't have any political influence than your analogy makes sense. The problem is thay have a lot of political inflence, and are willing to buy a lot more if we let them. You know this - therefore this is just a semantics game you are playing.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Plenty of Republicans agree with you, but you're driving them away and losing their support with your divisive attitude that treats them like your enemy. Occupy started out representing the 99%, but you're allowing it to devolve into partisan bickering against half of the 99%, instead of focusing on getting the money out of politics. You're taking a lot f people who could have united with your cause and actively turning them away because you can't look past your own small-minded prejudices. Plenty of Republicans also would like to get the money out of politics, but Occupy is actively hostile toward them. The rhetoric about representing the 99% is all false.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No, you have allowed it to devolve into partisan bickering.

I think you know this.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm trying to point out that Occupy needs to focus on consensus issues instead of wedge issues, in order to unite the 99%. That isn't partisan.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

There have been a multitude of them.

I can go back 4 months to find threads on Koch brothers and ALEC.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I would not babble incessantly about George Soros in an effort to seek common ground with you, so why are you talking about the Koch brothers? Talking about the Koch brothers is not how you're going to unify the 99% toward a common goal of getting the money out of politics.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Ah..........you want the truth? You can't handle the truth.

I have waited a long time to say that line. Here, I am going to copy and paste my last response.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (2781) 0 minutes ago We share information here. Anytime that anyone of them can share information there are many people more than willing to hear them out. Believe it. It is precisely that action that will keep it from becoming partisan. What people are unwilling to do is to accept information from known extreme right wing organizations like say, the Heritage Foundation. I think that people are trying to seek the truth in situations and issues and information needs to be presented. The moment that this is actively pursued by those on the right then it becomes solid. I refuse to dumb shit down or refrain from a pov because the other side doesn't have the capacity or is unwilling to present facts. The ball is in their court. They need to rise to the occasion.


You have had ample time to investigate and present information on the privatization of education and etc. Crap that moves beyond: It's teh unions fault, choice, etc. You have had ample time to address the issues presented in environmental concerns. You have had ample time to address any issues that were presented in our great farm bill.

You have chosen none of those paths. Get off your ass and meet me in the middle.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

If you find yourself using the phrase "the other side" when you're trying to unify people, then you're failing.

You spend a lot of effort talking about "them" and what "they" do. You're driving "them" away and pissing all over Occupy to mark it as your own. You're sabotaging your own movement. You're dooming Occupy to failure by refusing to look beyond your own point of view.

[-] -1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Perhaps when you include the groups that George Sorros is involved with that are causing divisive issues around the world in the same post and tone that you are constantly "telling the truth" about the Koch brothers, then we'd believe that you don't seek to divide and that you wish to meet "in the middle".

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Bullshit, Tech.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

It goes both ways buddy. No one likes being called a libtard either.

The trolls on this forum aren't real Republicans. Real Republicans would eventually agree that we can "agree to disagree" and get back to making real change happen. The fact that the "Republicans" on this board only want to complain and offer nothing constructive or beneficial to the movement is their fault, not mine. The trolls just want to label us and turn us against each other. "Divide and conquer."

There's nothing, absolutely nothing at all, stopping you from going to a GA or participating in Occupy in a million different ways, where you can get your Republican view out there. In other words, its your fault if you don't have a say in this movement...

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

If I were to participate in a unifying Occupy then it wouldn't be to 'get my Republican views out there'. It would be to seek common ground that we could rally around to unite the 99%. But the ideological center of gravity of Occupy is far more interested in polarization than in unification. And so it has become just another left-wing group, instead of a non-partisan movement that represents the 99%.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

The current view of the Republican Party is to represent the 1% in every way they can think of. That doesn't leave much room for finding commom ground.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yet... Republicans are a lot more than 1% of the American population. So your impression is apparently flawed, yes? Writing off half of the American population as the enemy is not a good way to seek consensus. That's a good way to divide the 99% into factions. If what you're trying to do is unite the 99%, then you shouldn't be looking for ways to label the 'other' side as representing 'the enemy'. You should be looking for things that you and the 'other' side both agree with. And if possible, you should even be looking for points of agreement with 'the enemy'. Because like it or not, your interests are intertwined with the interests of the 1%. You need them and they need you.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I don't write them off as people, but I know that their party is the flagship of the new world order, and there is no way to bring them aboard unless they abandon that party. I don't think many people in the world as a whole would would be fooled by such an obvious fact.

You can't run with the hounds and also with the foxes.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Have to answer TechJunkie below, here, as there is no reply link.

There is such a thing as reality? I hate to break it to you, but there is. The reality (not the perception of the Republican Party) is that it IS the Party if the 1%. That makes them the opposition. That is as easy as adding 1 plus 1. No amount of slithering, or shilly shallying can evade it. It is a simple fact.

Republicans, who are not known for admiting mistakes, or in other words for humility (I have never head a Republican admit they were wrong about anything in my entire life, no matter how many times history has PROVEN them wrong) - Republicans, if they want to support this movement must simply leave the party of the opposition. As Humpy Dumpy said "that is logic."

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

There are plenty of people who think that the Democratic Party is the flagship of socialism and death panels, and that there is no way to relate to a Democrat without convincing them to abandon their party.

That kind of thinking is weak. From both sides. Occupy will either transcend that idiotic partisanship or it will become just another partisan group that will fail to win broad support. The choice is yours, but it doesn't seem like much of a choice to me at all. At this point, we should be seeking consensus by searching for points of agreement. Not vilifying the 'other' side. If you see 'other' when you look at a big chunk of the 99% then you're not doing it right.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what are Republican plans for the government ?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

To make it smaller, in the interest of fiscal responsibility. Which doesn't have to conflict with Occupy's goals, if Occupy's goals are focused on consensus ideas like combating the influence of money on politics. Super PACs, lobbyists, etc. If Occupy chooses to focus on raising taxes, larger government, labor unions, and new social programs, then they will lose the support of a very large percentage of the American population. And so they won't be able to claim to represent the 99% any more. If Occupy really wants to represent the 99%, then they'll have to accept the idea that about half of the 99% is not in favor of tax increases and big government and labor unions and new social programs. If Occupy wants to stand for those things, then they'll actually just be representing the left. And there are enough partisan groups already, so what would be the point of that?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what do Republicans do?

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

They breathe, eat, sleep, fuck and poop. Just like you do. Like it or not.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The people on TV are not republicans, they're politicians. The republicans are the people that hope you fail because you shun them. Good work. I only hope you grow as a person to not require labels. They are for the intellectually lazy.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

And what are you doing about it? Complaining on a forum that a handful of people post on isn't doing anything. Get your butt down to a GA and make your peace there.

We have common ground. We both want lobbyist reform. We both want to overturn Citizen's United. We both want politics to return to "may the best person win" instead of "may the largest wallet win."

And yet people keep bringing up BS topics like the Abortion issues, or religious topics, or other partisan bullshit that is only used once every 2-4 years to rile up voter bases.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I already know that I wouldn't be welcome at an Occupy GA so I don't see the point in wasting my time.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Not if you stick with what we have in common.

If you're not going to try, and you're not doing anything here...why bother? There are plently of forums that have to be more entertaining than this one?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yeah I'm getting pretty bored again. I quit paying any attention to this forum for a couple of months but I came back to see how things were going. What I found was a much less active forum that is much more blatantly partisan.

[-] -1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Gypsy are you deliberately being dense?

The occupy movement claims to represent the 99%.

Polls of likely voters - when averaged - show that 33% claim they are Republican to 39% claiming they are Democrats. The remainder claim to be of another party (i.e Ind. or Libertarian).

Broad surveys that were not limited to likely voters show lower numbers but are somewhat questionable - while they show 22.5 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, while 33.7 percent identify themselves as Democrats when averages - they do not include those "leaners" ...

Anyway, every time you state that the Republicans are the "enemy" or the party of the "1%", you include 22.5 - 33% of the very 99% you claim to represent.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Perhaps, when you begin to actually reign in your extremists we can get somewhere. I notice that this doesn't ever happen. Why is that, Concerned?

[-] -1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Attacking again Girl Friday?

Isn't it you who claims to post "truth" while others are the ones who refuse to admit it.

Here I gave you polling information on why Gypsy's (and others) constant insulting of "Republicans" includes 22.5 - 33 % of the very 99% this movement claims to represent....

Disprove what I said.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Didn't like what I wrote, Concerned? Since you don't like it and cannot defend the Kochs or ALEC then it's not fair because I didn't put up a lot of posts on nailing Soros or the Dems? And it would only be ok, if I starting posting on Soros? Everything would be better? Are you a victim, Concerned?

And what is the problem with the polling information? See........we understand the only thing that you want to talk about is getting the money out. Nothing else but that and Don't you dare deviate from that. I call bullshit.

[-] -1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Where did you ask me to defend the Kochs or ALEC? You simply used the word "extremists" and asked me to "reign them in".

You ignored what I actually posted which included verifiable information on polls done as to the number of those who claim to be either Republican or Democrat and how certain members of this forum are consistently alienating those who might be able to find common ground by their constant use of "extreme" terms reserved for Republicans.

And since any Republican who may come in here to learn about this "99%" movement is insulted - and since 22.5 - 33% of American's polled claim that they are Republicans - it stands to reason that those who partake in this "extremist" view of all Republicans do not represent the 99%....

Again, you appear to be unable to address that issue and so - instead try to make it seem as if I won't discuss something that was not even a part of this portion of the thread....

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Are you really whining beacuse WE are unaccepting? How many groups, including us, do Republicans hate?

EVERBODY that doesn't agree with them in every aspect of their childish and rediculously uninformed world view! They hate East Coast elitists, West coast liberals, minorities, gays, liberated women, "artistic types," hippies, the disabled, eggheads, and on and on - and then they whine that we aren't accepting because we can't accept their fucking intollerance!

I'll tell you what, we'll accept you when you reach puberty, but only if you've learned how to read.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Gosh and that's just the mild stuff I've been called by them.

Don't forget Beck calling Progressives the anti-Christ.

Now they want to play like they're hurt, if you inform them of the evils of that repellent party, and we're just being divisive for expecting them to listen to what they've done.

They have chased a lot of good people out of this forum since it started, with their BS and hate talk.

Now they want us to play nice with them.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

LOL, wow. What ran people out was two people that posed as the opposite party of anyone they engaged with and did so by menacing, flooding, threatening, posting football and sitcom ads, posing as mentally deficient supporters, racism, and just general craziness. They don't spend a lot of time here now because their job is pretty much done and there is enough bad attitudes and divisiveness left over to ensure the forum stays dead. Way to keep that going.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

This forum is far from dead. In their absence it is becomming more and more active.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

And are you seriously suggesting these people weren't agents of the Party of the 1%? No, I suppose someone other than our opponents were, and are, behind it; say, mutant anemonies from the planet zargathian?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I was here in the beginning. I lost a month in one of the troll invasions.

Besides the regular trolls you find on any open forum, this place was invaded by anti-liberals and Paulie boys.

Those are still here in reduced numbers.

I used to have some reasonable conversations back then, if trolls ignored it. I believe I softened a few anti-union positions back then.

Now?

With the hard cores that are left, there's little in the way of common ground to stand on, even though some claim that's why they are here.

I don't believe them..

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

It's fucking nausiating. I'm sorry, I try like hell to be inclusive, and to be tollerant, but there is a level of calculated, slimy, hypocracy that simply offends all common human decency.

How dare they spew their hatred all over this forum for months, like that girl in "The Exorcist," and then come whining to us for acceptance. I really think I'm going to throw-up, it's so morally repulsive.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm patient man, but it's been months since I've seen one of them give an inch of ground. Not one inch.

They have become like that repellent party. The people of NO.

Like little children stomping their feet and saying the other guys crashed the world Momma, don't blame me.

If they want to get along. Let's hear a softening of the anti-union stance.

If they want to get along. Let's hear some admission of the malfeasance of the Kochs.

If they want to get along. Let's hear them admit that the (R)epelican'ts are only small government, when a Dem is in the White House.

Let's hear them give an inch on any on much of anything.

They came to disrupt, in any way they can.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

And this is how most discussions on this forum end if they go long enough - into name calling and further lumping together of millions of folks who happen to register Republican for voting purposes.

How is what you just did any different than those who make statements that all the occupiers are lazy, weed smoking, filthy.....?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Oh, no, ya'lled never do anything like that, why butter wouldn't melt, in y'alls mounth you're so pure and sanctamonious.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Well, in this instance it was not me who resorted to lumping together millions of folks who happen to register Republican .....Just a reminder....

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (4310) 9 hours ago

Are you really whining beacuse WE are unaccepting? How many groups, including us, do Republicans hate?

EVERBODY that doesn't agree with them in every aspect of their childish and rediculously uninformed world view! They hate East Coast elitists, West coast liberals, minorities, gays, liberated women, "artistic types," hippies, the disabled, eggheads, and on and on - and then they whine that we aren't accepting because we can't accept their fucking intollerance!

I'll tell you what, we'll accept you when you reach puberty, but only if you've learned how to read.

[-] 1 points by godsbestjoke (122) 2 years ago

Don't forget clowns...and midgets...or MIDGET-CLOWNS! They especially hate them.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

LOL!!!

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Spoken like a true intellectual. Are you really saying it's ok to run people off because of party differences? How has defending party lines helped anyone so far? Occupy has no party. The issues being addressed by the gov right now are a direct result of Occupy, including republicans, down on street level with the cops and barricades and pepper spray, not the democratic party.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Man, I just don't see how hard this is to understand. The only way to agree with members of the Republican Party is to accept their party line, because they do not compromise. Thay have proven that as unequivically as could be concieved in the last decade. In other words, the only way to accept Republicans is to fall in line with their every belief. If you think this movement can do that and still remain this movement, then I respectfully would say that you need to have your head examined. Politics is about duality. I didn't make it that way, but it simply is.

If Republicans can put their desire for reform over their absolutely uncompromising Party, them we can take them into this movement. Otherwise to say that we can is patently absured.

This is the last time I will make this logically inescapable point.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I didn't ignore it. You know as well as I do what has happened. and NOW you are concerned about Republicans being alienated?

Quit crying.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Aw, attacking again GirlFriday.

Let's revisit this thread for a minute....this particular string of postings was in regard to the constant barrage of vitriol against Republicans in general on this forum and how, if the movement really wanted to be inclusive of the "99%" as it claims it does, the vitriol was turning people away.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (2360) from Miami Beach, FL 2 days ago

"Plenty of Republicans agree with you, but you're driving them away and losing their support with your divisive attitude that treats them like your enemy. Occupy started out representing the 99%, but you're allowing it to devolve into partisan bickering against half of the 99%, instead of focusing on getting the money out of politics. You're taking a lot f people who could have united with your cause and actively turning them away because you can't look past your own small-minded prejudices. Plenty of Republicans also would like to get the money out of politics, but Occupy is actively hostile toward them. The rhetoric about representing the 99% is all false."

YOU and the others refuse to acknowledge that Techjunkie and I are speaking about the everyday registered Republican and not the establishment or the pundits. YOU brought up the Koch Brothers and Allec which are "establishment" and not the general membership of the party.

And as usual, when you can't get us to shut up and go away, you resort to things like "quit crying". But, we are still here and not going anywhere....

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I didn't have to ask. You have had ample time to reign in the extremists. You have chosen not to.

Now, we have a marked interest in presentation. And since we already have republicans on this site or self professed conservatives and you didn't mind that presentation earlier-this is ludicrous at best. Ludicrous. So, wouldn't it be better if the Republicans were interested they would look at the GA forums-all things considered.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

You make assumptions - i.e. that they are not reading the GA sites for the various local occupy movements. I can not speak for the others but I do spend a great deal of time looking up the various ones in my state. Unfortunately, what I find is that there is no real cohesiveness to be found in them. Which again, brings us back to the original point of this part of the thread - that constant vitriol about the general "Republicans" and "Conservatives" and "Moderates" who do not automatically line up with all that you think they should - is divisive and turns away potential allies in areas like campaign and tax reform.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Please help us out by explaining, in what ways the republicans are no longer extremists?

I can't think of any.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Are you talking of the GOP "establishment" or are you speaking to those who are registered Republicans? Because, despite attempts on this forum to lump them all in together, they are not one and the same.

Need proof? Look at the primaries.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It has become impossibly to divine, define and separate. the many flavors of the party who shall not be named (I get yelled at).

I find it hard to believe anyone who's seen any of the debates, could stay on as a registered member.

My Father-in-law was a life long member, until he actually got sick and discovered the many ways the party who shall not be named, screwed him over and allowed the health care(sic) industry's(sic) death panels to ultimately kill him.

Before he died, he actually apologized to his daughter and me, for his support of that party.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

mainstreet republicans want subsidies out because they favor corporations over ma and a shops. They also want less restrictions on personal freedoms. Your beef is with conservatives and TV republicans. It's like comparing a reality show, with reality. It just isn't so.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I was gonna let this drop, but as I've said before, I'm still trying to respect you Richard.

Of course they all passed it, it created stable jobs in almost every district, at the time things first started falling apart.

Consumer confidence was in the toilet and layoffs were becoming a concern.

I'll gladly rail against the Patriot Act anytime you want, but I do understand why they passed it, as it was the only thing on the table that would do those things.

It gave them incredible power. Power they have just begun to understand and expand upon.

It's origins go back all the way to Oklahoma City, 9/11 just gave them the excuse to expand it.

I've been asking in here since the beginning, for Occupy to form the Open Source Party. Perhaps that will still happen.

From my experience with them, it's safe to say that I will never again vote for any candidate with an (R) after his name.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm not real interested in impressing you or anyone. As I said, it's your call. If you can't respect me because I don't follow labels and use more than an abstract idea like political parties to asses the value of another human, I guess I'll have to live with that. If you like, you can lash out at me and make extreme statements and all that if you choose. Again, your choice. I have far more invested in this than most of the people on this forum so take it or leave it homie.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

So now there's mainstreet republicans too?

Just how many flavors do they come in?

Just enough to claim deniability for what the party actually does?

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Yes, shooz...there a "flavors" in the parties - all of them.

If you'd like to learn about how the actual parties lay out among Americans....

http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

So then you're ok with wearing the fuck up of fellow democrats the way you're making the republicans wear it now?

The final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act).[11] It was vehemently opposed by only one Senator, Russ Feingold, who was the only Senator to vote against the bill.

...one senator, only one. So I can blame you for siding with the party that passed it? I'm not going to defend one single politician nor act out against my neighbor because the corrupt pieces of shit running the place on both sides. If you want to, thats your call.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

we did do it here. :/

What the hell?

In fact, we have done all three groups of people, repeatedly.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm not saying everyone on this forum is worth talking to or having on here. What I'm saying, is that as a supporter, you represent the face of Occupy when honest people come here looking for a solution other groups or political parties have not been able to provide. You are the face of Occupy. It's that simple. Would you rather hash out your differences with people that are here to piss you off, or help someone decide to support this movement. I know I keep hammering away at this idea but it's based in fact and you could do more good by not allowing yourself to be baited. I come on here to find news that the media isn't reporting, you provide a bit of that from time to time. Something only a few on here actually take the time to do. Why not add a little salesmanship to what you already do if it helps the movement?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

meet my neighbors

here are a few more of my neighbors

Another neighbor

No. It is not anywhere near a tv show.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

So instead of spreading that article far and wide, maybe even get the support of other republicans that don't agree with it, you seek to change it by slamming republicans on here? So they win twice, once with the books and once with you feeling the divide? I'm sorry girly but the only way forward is to make room for those with different life experiences and learning to work with them. Anything less is just self destructive to this movement and I personally have no intention of weakening a movement I waited most of my life for. There will always be shitty people, I'm not going to wait for them to disappear before I start looking at the bigger picture.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Things change, and indeed, are changing as we "speak."

Check out the only recent poll, other than from Iran, from Pew Research . . . if you can find it.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

http://newmexico.watchdog.org/10612/republicans-lose-a-little-dems-lose-a-lot-in-voter-registration-numbers-independents-could-swing-2012-election/

Don't be so sure that the change is going in the direction you may think it is. The above shows that the Democratic party is losing registered voters ....at a faster rate than the GOP. The greatest gain is in Independents - which is how I would be categorized.

This report was done in December of 2011....

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I'm not sure things are going in our direction. That is why I am encouraging no one here to ignore the upcomming election, or to waste a vote on a protest vote unless they are CERTAIN of the outcome, and that their vote isn't necessary.

I think the Senate races are REALLY important. The "GOP" stands a very good chance of retaking the Senate in the next election (a disaster as far as I'm concerned.)

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Independents are typically moderate and turned off by "vitriol" - which is what this thread was original about wasn't it? TechJunkie tried to get you to understand that the constant vitriol on this forum towards ALL Republicans - whether they simply are registered to that party or are the "establishment" Republicans (those in elected position or publicly active as "pundits") was turning potential allies away.

Not only registered Republicans are being turned off by what they see on this forum - even though there are truly areas in which we could stand united for change - Independents are as well..simply because they don't like the constant battering of the "other" side based upon the spin of the establishment of both sides.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

No, independents are mostly on our side. They're just as aware as everyone else regarding the mess we are in. What you are engaged in here is called "spin." Polls bear me out on this, by the way.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Independents are on your "side"? Completely? Or is the reality that they agree that a) we are in a mess b) they were against the Wall Street Bailout in Tarp c) certain other ideas put forth by the movement?

There have been no recent polls done that reflect the support (of whatever degree) of the Independents towards Occupy; the most recent polls were general in nature and done in October of 2011 and there has been criticism of the questions asked for those that took place then. More specifically, Occupy Wall Street itself was not named in the questions, just ideas that could be termed part of its agenda...

Q4. As you may know, protestors around the country have been demonstrating against Wall Street financial institutions and asking for more government regulation of these institutions. How much have you seen or heard about these demonstrations – a lot, some, not too much, or nothing at all?

Q5. From what you know about these demonstrations against Wall Street, would you say you completely agree with the goals of the protestors, mostly agree, mostly DISagree, or completely disagree with their goals?

On the other hand, the "Tea Party" was named in questions.

The most recent poll on how Americans are affiliated with the Democrat, Republican or Independent parties, shows that the larger portion of Independents are Republican leaning.

Pew Research Center - http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

“In recent years, the public has become increasingly averse to partisan labels; There has been a sharp rise in the percentage of independents — from 30% in 2005 to 37% currently.”

Independents can be "divided" into three groups:

Post Moderns = Conservative 19% Moderate 56% Liberal 21% (young, Democratically-oriented independents)

Disaffected = Conservatives 42% Moderates 38% Liberal 12% (financially stressed, leaning to the Republicans)

Libertarians = Conservatives 53% Moderates 37% Liberal 7% (Republican leaning group)

And then there is this:

November 16, 2011 Occupy Wall Street Favor Fading

Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-favor-fading.html

Which again brings us back to the original point - that the vitriol here towards ALL Republicans - not just the establishment elected one or the pundits - serves to alienate potential allies.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

GK. He is right on this point. You need to be inclusive if you keep referring to the 99%. I have been reading the forum for a few months now and now starting to comment. Also, the division is real. OWS needs to cast off the too corrupt to fix mantra because the republic is here to stay. Concentrate on money influencing politics. Then you will have a true 99%, including me and likely tech junkie too.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I essentially agree with your point. The problem is that we must also acknowledge simple facts. To do otherwise is to confuse how things actually stand. Do we want to be inclusive, YES! Can we include those who actually represent our opponents?

I wish I knew how to do this, I really do . . . but if we could do that we wouldn't need to be here at all!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I welcome all republicans willing to raise taxes on the wealthy, after all this is about income inequality a core principle, the problem is there are no republicans willing to raise taxes on the 1%, it is they who have left decent folk, we haven't left them.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

That's right! And I really don't see how voting Republican will accomplish that goal, so in so far as they are voting Republicans there are inevitably part of the problem. Just saying.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think the normal process is one party gets way out of touch, becomes so weak it poses no threat, then we can move through primaries or third party, taking the best with us.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, that has always been my thinking, that after the next election we create a third party that all those who agree with us can join. But I think we should realize that a Republican win is still a possibility, and then power would be effectively out of our reach.

None of this thinking seems particularly controversial to me.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Even the next election may be too soon did you check this out?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/message-to-occupy-from-httpwwwthe99declarationorg/

I guess this has been dicussed before. Overall as long as there is a chance that the GOP will just use any move by us to take more control, I think that hurts us.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Clearly, it seems, our stratagy must be two-fold; one set of objectives up until the next election and another afterwards.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

true if we get the kind of change in Washington we should in 2012, we should be able to demand some changes, them that are resistant have to know they will be gone.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thanks. I see it as just making prudent judgements based upon reality. When we create a third party, all believers will be welcome, but in the mean time we can't take the opposition party into our tent. That seems like poly. sci. 101 to me.

I know a lot of people, within and without this movement will not like to hear that, but all I can do is say what I feel to be true, and let the chips fall where they may.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What I see is a number of people who try to shift the focus to, getting the money out, when that does nothing if we don't address the wealth of the 1%. Of course getting a fair tax system will be easier with campaign finance reform. But how do we let people take office whose only pledge is to protect the rich from tax increases.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

But, what if their opposition is to ANY increase in taxation without full reform of the tax code itself?

It might be a good idea for you to actually look at what the politicians say about the whole idea of taxation rather than have tunnel vision that focuses only on the "not raising taxes" portion of what is a very broad topic.

You seem to think that there is only one way to "fix" wealth inequality - raising taxes on the wealthy. Can you explain what percentage of their income they should be allowed to keep - in other words, how much higher should they be taxed to fix wealth inequality?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

We did very well in 1950's so looking at those tax rates would be good. The proble the "tax reform" is that has always been a way to raise taxes on working class and lower taxes on the wealthy, all of the people talking about reform first have a history of raising taxes on working class people.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Is the goal to get the money out of politics? Or to raise taxes on the wealthy?

The trick to uniting with people who are different from you is to seek common ground. Not to focus on divisive wedge issues. Occupy is a group of left-leaning people who are not capable of finding points of consensus that can be used to unite the 99%.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The reason to get money out of politics is to bring more equality to America.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

If you try hard enough, you'll always be able to find a wedge issue to focus on. OR you could try instead to find common ground for transcending right/left ideology. Insisting on including "raise taxes" as a fundamental plank in the Occupy platform will alienate at least half of the country. Not just the rich ones. There are plenty of Republicans who might agree with you about bringing more equality to America because they're in the middle class, but who will not support any sort of "raise taxes" proposition because they don't want to see the federal government grow larger. Raising taxes doesn't automatically help poor people, or the middle class. It helps the government.

Occupy needs to find the discipline that will enable it to empathize with other people who don't have left-leaning ideologies, in order to find points of agreement that can be used to transcend the right/left dichotomy. So that the 99% can unify and fight for its interests. Focusing on telling the other half of the 99% that they're wrong is exactly what the 1% want you to do. Divide and conquer.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

We can either "raise taxes" or cut programs that help the 99%, no tooth fairy.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

No, we can begin by getting private money out of public elections by uniting for Public Campaign Financing.

Then we can unite to throw out the current failed progressive tax code and replace it with one that taxes spending and not savings and income. Taxing those who buy those boats and second and third homes and wear Armani suits on what those items cost will RAISE taxes on the rich and lower them on every one else....simply because we have LESS disposable income to spend.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is about income inequality as much as finance reform, reform is the means to address the economic inequality; those who are willing to actually raise taxes on the wealthy and are brave enough to say so are the only ones we can support.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

It might be beneficial for you to study up on ALL the various factors in economic/income/wealth inequality. Here is a place to start....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality

Taxation is only part of the whole.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

All data shows that as we have reduced capital gains/dividend taxes the wealth inequallity has increased.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Did you take the time to read the link or are you so sure that you already have all the facts and that the ONLY reason for wealth/income/economic inequality is capital gains/dividend taxes?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'm not saying "ONLY" I do believe that correction through the tax system will be part of any successful solution. I think collective capital should employ collective labor so fair wages can be set. Here are three ideas I support.

Public financing for public elections

Flat rate Social Security Tax, first dollar to last all forms of income

Index minimum wage to the average increase in CEO pay for the S&P 500

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

First two are issues that can be used to unify the movement. Third one presents issues that will be difficult to produce any agreement on - mainly because even economists differ on the actual impact of minimum wage increases....

According to a 1978 article in the American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.[78]

A 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that of a sample of 308 American Economic Association economists, 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% agreed with provisos, and 26.5% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62.4% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% agreed with provisos and 17.5% disagreed. They state that the reduction on consensus on this question is "likely" due to the Card and Krueger research and subsequent debate.[79]

A similar survey in 2006 by Robert Whaples polled PhD members of the American Economic Association. Whaples found that 37.7% of respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage, 14.3% wanted it kept at the current level, 1.3% wanted it decreased, and 46.8% wanted it completely eliminated.[80]

Surveys of labor economists have found a sharp split on the minimum wage. Fuchs et al. (1998) polled labor economists at the top 40 research universities in the United States on a variety of questions in the summer of 1996. Their 65 respondents split exactly 50-50 when asked if the minimum wage should be increased. They argued that the different policy views were not related to views on whether raising the minimum wage would reduce teen employment (the median economist said there would be a reduction of 1%), but on value differences such as income redistribution.[81] Daniel B. Klein and Stewart Dompe conclude, on the basis of previous surveys, "the average level of support for the minimum wage is somewhat higher among labor economists than among AEA members."[82] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Surveys_of_economists

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6482) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I’m glad you like the first two, of course the first one has been around a long time and the second is just something whose time has come I think, given that people earn their money in so many different ways not just wages, so to fund the retirement system on the backs of wage earners only, undervalues the contribution everyone makes to everyone’s wealth whether it comes form wages or investment, I don’t care that some will be lucky enough to put in far more than they will ever take out, I think those people are rewarded by benefiting from the society at large and so should be willing to give extra for everyone’s retirement.

That brings me to the third one, during the time I ran a small business I learned the power of the clock, that was nobody is on it unless you need them to be. I believe that low skill labor is utilized on an “as needed” basis mostly and as such is very resistant to cost increase. This is also a bone to those who feel that government should not be deciding everything, I say let those that know how the economy is truly doing those that set CEO pay decide how much minimum wage should go up, or down.

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Everybody wants to unify the movement around the issue or issues that they personally see as being central to the movement. I'm no different from anyone else in this regard but neither are you GypsyKing. I say this not to fuel internal movement dissent, but merely to point out the obvious.

Indeed, part of what helps to keep the movement united is its lack of specificity.

As a matter of factual contribution, the fact is that occupations errupted around the world in response to the original demo at Wall Street on September 17. On that basis, it does not seem to me reasonable to assume that the essence of the movement is about ending corruption in the United State alone. Again, I don't say this to be divisive, only what seems to me what appears to be an obvious fact that is frequently ignored by many participants on this forum.

For that reason I remain conflicted about whether or not OWS should raise specific demands. On the one hand it might help to propel the movement forward, on the other it might be so divisive that the very raising of such demands could destroy the movement.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

You say, "Indeed, part of what keeps the movement united is a lack of specificity." I agree that that keeps a certain kind of unity, in the short run, but it will also prevent this movement from accomplishing anything, and therefore be detremental to it in the longrun. Not to mention the fact that nonspecificity makes a movement nothing more than a radical coffee clatch, which I think is what some people want. I think also, that it actually excludes more people that it includes.

I'm glad, on another comment which I could not respond to, because there was no reply link, that you I think finally laid out your positian in clear terms. If you don't like the 99%, and where they are coming from, that is fine. It is, of course, your parogative. But you seem to push the idea of non-specificy way too far, in my opinion. We must unite against the common enemy, because most of us are specific about that; not against each other, and being non-specific ultimately breeds failure and then infighting.

I think we must become very spescific about our goals, or we will never achieve them. The 99% are going to hammer out a list of goals and that is what I feel we need.

Is that process imperfect . . . ? Yes, but I don't think the masses are going to stand for anything less that what they demand, and what OWS doesn't seem to be effectively addressing at the moment, and that is the fact that there now is A LOT of disaffection with government as it is.

As for me, I don't speak for anyone but myself. I am not trying to push any agenda, except to do what I can to help this movement accomplish the goals that you don't believe exist, and that I do.

To accomplish that I think OWS and the 99% must work together dispite their differences. It is the apparent lack of that willingness that I find most disturbing in your outlook.

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I think that OWS has already accomplished a lot, especially given its relatively tiny size and short life span. In particular it has awakened some sections of our culture from their long political slumber and most specifically and impressively it has created the first alliance between organized labor and the radical intelligentcia since the 1940s. It has done a lot more, all of which I find extremely impressive given the fact that as a social movement it is not even really out of its infancy and to extend the biological metaphor, probably still in a state of gestation.

It is considerably more than a radical coffee clatch and personally I find the Declaration of the Occupation one of the most impressive political documents ever to have been produced by American radicalism.

All that said, I still feel it is a tiny tiny movement and I do believe that those who think otherwise are mistaken. Though I don't think I am rigid in this view and I'm prepared to re-evaluate my position in that regard.

OWS is an international movement and as such both our adversaries and real possible solutions can only be practically achieved at the international level, beyond the level of any current nation state. OWS is also a locally based movement. The only decision making bodies of OWS are, after all locally based GAs and part of the problem for OWS activists is reconciling this vast gap in the nature of local OWS governance on the one hand as compared with what are essentially international problems of climate change, capital flow and other issues on the other.

My personal experience with the 99%D is that Pollock in particular seems unwilling to compromise with OWS and presented his perspective on a take it or leave it basis. It is my personal perception that there is fairly broad support for the notion of a national general assembly among OWS activists, but not based on the narrow parameters that Pollock proposed. "Working together" implies a willingness for people to compromise. OWS is very clearly willing to compromise on a great deal or else it would not have developed the very cordial relationship with some labor unions that it has, give the very different vision and organizational structure of organized labor from OWS. I quite frankly haven't seen any effort at all on the part of 99%D advocates to be willing to compromise with the concerns raised in several GAs about the 99%D.

I'm just one person. I think I'm willing, as an individual, to compromise about a lot of things. If there is anything specifically that anyone thinks I am unwilling to compromise about I would appreciate it if that were brought up specifically so it can be discussed. It may be true that there are things about which I am personally unconscious that I am unwilling to compromise about, but without being more specific I can't be sure what they are.

Getting whole GAs to compromise is another matter and structurally extremely difficult, but I do not think at all impossible. I have raised above several issues about which local GAs have very clearly compromised about, so it is not true that GAs are unprepared to compromise about anything. One just has to be very specific about what compromise they are proposing on the one hand and be themselves willing to compromise on the other.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I jus feel that at some point we need to get beyond issues of process and on to the creation of established goals, and the implementation of those goals. I think most of the desperately disaffected people in this country would agree with that, and they are the 99%.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The implementation of any goal requires some agreed upon process and I am unaware of any existing process outside of local GAs.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

That process exists, whether you are aware of it or not.

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Merely saying that some process exists without being at all specific as to where and how it exists isn't particularly enlightening to me. In fact, since it seems to me that mentioning the concrete existence of alternate decision making processes within OWS and where and how they can be found wouldn't be all that difficult and the failure to do so makes me all the more skeptical about the real existence of such alternative decision making processes within the movement. But am genuinely interested in learning about them if they really do exist.