Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Troll Tactic For Today: Divide OWS From The Democratic Left-Wing

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 26, 2012, 4:53 a.m. EST by GypsyKing (9727)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Anybody reading all the concentrated attacks here on Obama can clearly see the underlying strategy. First, Big Money makes sure that Romney gets the nomination (one way or the other) because he is strongest against Obama. Then, a huge propoganda campaign (already getting underway) to divide the left upon itself, and voila! Fascism!

Can you say Karl Rove?

My advice, press on regardless, but don't be a sucker.

302 Comments

302 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

I'm hoping for a strong 3rd party candidate. I wouldn't be happy with any of the Republican candidates or Obama in office.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I wouldn't be happy with either of them myself, but it looks like it's going to be one or the other. Creating a third party at this juncture just plays into the 1%'s hands. So does not voting. Either course and we get us a Republican. Not voting for Obama will just give us another Republican Administration. I will not stand for another Republican Administration. I will not stand for it.

[+] -6 points by shadz66 (17898) 2 years ago

This is where the "Demoblican-Republocrat" ; "Two Factions ; One Corporate, WAR Party" ; demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy, analysis kicks in - especially from an exasperated Brit like myself, who doesn't really see the difference between a 'One Party State' and The U$A !!!

Fantasy Political Theory #101 :

a) Ron Paul (or such like) runs as an 'Independent', supported by a Mass Movement of Independent Activists with a fully transparent campaign, funded by declared 'Non Corporate' individual donations for an internet / TV / Radio campaign, with fully audited, transparent finances ;

b) Dennis Kucinich (or such like) runs as an 'Independent', supported by a Mass Movement of Independent Activists with a fully transparent campaign, funded by declared 'Non Corporate' individual donations for an internet / TV / Radio campaign, with fully audited, transparent finances ;

c) The winner of this 4 but really 3 (coz Dem=Rep) contest picks the other 'Independent' as Executive Vice-President and a New Broom comes to 'Turdsville Washington' to sweep away all the old BS ;

d) You Yanks Get To Fixing Your Country & Its Relations With The Rest Of The World & ...

e) The rest of us Earthlings breathe a Gigantic Sigh Of Relief !!!

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I really believe such scenarios as you recommend here will be possible after the next election. In the next election all we can do is try to save the world from another Bush Administration, and maybe, hopefully, get a far better Congress. There just isn't time for anything else. And frankly, with the new election rules that allow corporations to own the election process, we will be very lucky to achieve this. Things are dire mate.

[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 1 year ago

Obama is Bush 2.0, Romney is Bush 3.0, pretty much every other candidate I could never come up with an analogy for, other than maybe just calling them far right ideologues.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Granted . . . What we need is a plan that we can use to go ahead with and succeed. After all the bashing I've taken here for my stand for unity in the next election, and proceeding to build the movement from there, I have not had one person take up the challenge of putting forward an alternative plan that will WORK . . . Not one.

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I hope we don't let you down. The fear of a protest vote causing the greater evil to win is difficult to overcome. We know that both parties are just one, but we despair when we feel like we are just wasting our vote. Although both parties are guilty of not doing what they say, they've achieved the belief that they're against each other with their words.

At what point do we know that it doesn't matter whether the republican or the democrat wins, we get more of the same. We don't want to go the way of the tea party, absorbed into the republican party, so we must unify our vote for equality, with complete transparency, before we focus on our candidates, emphasis on Congressmen instead of president.

[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 1 year ago

The UK is not much better off, but they are just not as far down the modern military industrial prison complex path as we are and their politics are actually pretty center with some play on both sides, in the US you can choose the Democrats, a nice solid 5-6, or the Republicans, a nice solid 6.5-7.5. Nobody is left representing 4-1 on the Left, and the right is starting to embrace further the 8-10 range.

I know its not as bad in the UK, but both the US and the UK are majoritarian democracies, because of their SMDP voting system (actually this is what the Liberal Democrats were trying to change and campaigned to great success in the UK recentlyish).

In any case, when you have an SMDP system, you end up with mass parties that attempt broad appeal and have little practical difference.

The ideological scale isn't quite so slanted towards the Right in the UK and that does help a lot to bring some sanity to your government.

I'm not as positive about UK ideological spread specifically however (where their parties sit exactly on that scale).

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

I'm American; my reference to Britan was in response to the comment by Shadz66, who is from Britan, and who is one of our best supporters. I'm afraid we've had something of a falling out over my conclusion that a Republican victory in the next election is simply an intolerable outcome and that we therefore need to hold our noses and vote democrat until we have time to either force the Dems. to accept our demands or form a third party.

I remember '68.

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

would a loss in 2112

bring the dems around in 2 years ?

[-] 2 points by shooz (26733) 1 year ago

That's a little far into the future for an accurate prediction.

We have enough trouble with this November.........:)

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

hmm

there should be long term plans

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

I hope that means what I think it means, you enigmatic devil. LOL!!!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

That is exactly what Nadar said when he inadvertantly (I hope) helped elect Bush the Second. We've already played that hand, and we lost - BIG TIME.

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

that and fixed elections some

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

my browser is under heavy voyerance currently and is making it impossible to get to this link

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Yeah, the only reason I have been advocating voting Dem. as a backup plan in the next election is that the Repubs scare the s--t out of me. I mean they FIXED two out of the last three elections! What more need be said?

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

where the hell did obama come from ?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

He was essentially a creation of well funded corporate interests.

[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 1 year ago

To be completely fair both of them are absolutely intolerable outcomes, but the question really is intolerable to whom? Most of us now will probably weather either candidate just fine, and the next one, but our problems now go so far beyond just politics that the entire global system is in danger of utterly ruinous collapse. I set my sights on humanity rising from the ashes at this point though.

Unless we get a Green Party platform candidate into office, and even then I fear we might not soon enough to stop the train from crashing, its momentum is that of billions of souls, and the collective action problem on a global scale is just massive.

That said, Obama probably has my vote, depends on how much turnout is predicted, high turnout and Obama will win, to everyone's very mild betterment (or just not quite getting as worse immediately), if turnout is low he will need every vote he can get.

We of course are also dealing with some well documented voter psychology here as well, Duvergers Law (the psychological form) posits that people will not vote for third parties because they do not think they can win.

I am however an Anarchist as heart, and I look forward to collapse for a few reasons, hopefully we can preserve our high technology and revolutionize it so that a small population can take all of our achievements (and our failure) into the future to build a new way of life, I do not really hold out any long term hopes for "civilization" as we know it.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

I agree with you completely here! What I want to see is a global uprising, and the sooner the better! It is clear that the global system is horribly failing the people of this planet. What I wish is that people in the US would get off their asses and take to the streets in the numbers Russians did to end the Soviet Regime.

The thing is, so far at least, that isn't happening and we simply cannot afford to fail - we cannot!

So if you can't get the masses off their asses you need plan B. Working within the current political system has always been plan B as far as I'm concerned. At any rate, as I said in my response to shadz, we will know a lot more about where we stand after May 1st.

[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 1 year ago

We need global action, domestic will likely no longer cut it. The uprising must be so complete that we can bring the WORLD economy to its knees for several months. That is, at this point the only way to shake our chains, there is too much momentum for any single country, even the United States to fight it (though we could possibly put up a good one).

Aside from the misery aspect, I am thinking that humanity needs these periods of decline and renewal, we may at this point be better off burning ourselves out with as minimal harm to the environment as possible, to make the ecological recovery (and subsequent economic recovery) of humanity easier.

Also, I think that the collective action problem might actually be harder to overcome in modern democratic institutions, they are far more stable than other forms of governance.

Now I sound like a depopulist.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

You know, where I come down on this is simply that we need to make change happen, and that the best way forward is whatever way will bring the least suffering to everyone on this planet.

I think, given that, we need to be adaptable, and be willing to shift tactics as things unfold. That is the quality that a leader brings to a movement, and as a leaderless movement we need to somehow create that quality within ourselves.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

This is a sucker's debate about voting for the lesser of two evils. We all know we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Anyone got a plan C?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

If they do I'm all ears!!

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Ten years ago, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team.

Maybe Hannibal can come up with plan C?

On a more serious note. There was a plan I vaguely recall from some time back - something about a wedge and forcing Obama to sign a pledge, or promise, in return for votes, as suggested by Puff. I still think it was a sound idea.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Thanks for the reminder. I'll try to find that post. I wish Puff had stayed with us, he was a really smart guy.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

I wish more people had listened to him and then he would have had a reason to stick around. The problem has never been a shortage of plans, but the inability to rally around one unifying objective. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians, I guess. I mean, heck, you and shadz can't even come to the same conclusion on what should be a cut and dry issue. The reality of politics makes it a foregone conclusion that the next POTUS will either be Obama or Romney. Obama is the better reality - hands down.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

I am hoping Mayday will get their attention in a way they can't ignore. I really feel the time is right for this movement. If not now, when? Anyway, we'll soon know.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

[i] I mean think about it, how long can twelve hundred people keep the entire world in chains?[i]

um...gets me....kan you plaese make kuestions with multiplication chioce ansers. My educationz fundings in mi homestate was bungeted to the rich dudes by Repuplikans.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

LOL!!! You said it! Why do you think there has been a war on public schools? . . . and it has been a war, or a felonious assault at the very least.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Yeah, that is why I popped back on here now. I have not been around for a while, but I keep a constant eye on the news. I do feel something building - little victories here and there that give me hope.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

I agree. They feel like little tremmors before an earthquake. I really mean that, I'm not just saying it.

I mean think about it, how long can twelve hundred people keep the entire world in chains?

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

the us spends 4.6 % of its money on military

UK spends 2.6% of it'd money on the military

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

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

I'm not sure anyone in Britan can fully comprehend the situation, because you need to be able to understand both the great numbers of truely under-educated people that can be swayed to vote against their own interests, and the level of already consolidated power in America..

The proof of what I am saying lies in this, that in spite of everything we now know, the polls (if they are to be believed) have the race between Romney and Obama in a dead heat.

Think about the implications of that. I'm not sure anyone in modern Europe could quite bring themselves to understand both the implications and the seriousness of the situation.

This country is dying of ignorance my friend and wishing you had a more educated public, or more numbers on your side than you have, isn't going to help. We will know a lot more after May 1st about how things stand.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

A third party candidate will not be allowed to win. Here is why and how:

http://ironboltbruce.com/2012/01/04/american-elections-false-choices-hiding-other-false-choices-3/

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Please everybody, read Shaz66's, post -" For those of the 99% serious about nonviolent revolution."

It's essential information!

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Good advice. Keep on with the work for change, do not let-up on the pressure. We have a lot of work to do and a long road ahead. We have only just begun.

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

we could stop dropping bombs today

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, we are out of Iraq - Now let's get the hell out of Afganistan!! How, by putting pressure on the Democratic Party. Or, we could just say a couple of prayers and hope they carry that far. Any other idea's?

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

I might have another idea, but it depends on abandoning the two party system that is used to blind Americans while getting us into messes like this. But if we are going to put pressure on the existing politicians, lets make sure they know we don't want war with Iran. Way to much saber rattling. Not that we don't need out of Afghanistan, but I'm more concerned with nipping this bigger one in the bud.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

The Problem is we CAN'T abandon the two party system without being defeated!!! If that was possible we wouldn't even be having this disgussion!!! Not between now and next November!!! It simply isn't possible - it would be a debacle that would play right into the hands of the 1%!!! That is the whole point!!!

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

Not between now and next November. I think your right. But I think we can plant a fertilize the seeds for 2016, 2020...

And I am convinced the 1% is more than happy to get Obama.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Now we understand each other! What I am saying, is that all we can accomplish in the electoral arena between now and November is to push the Democrats to the left and prevent the unmitigated disaster of another Republican Administration. But to do that, in itself, may prove more difficult than many believe and it is absolutely essential. If we are divided there then we are done for.

After that political opportunities will open up, but only afterwards.

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

Is there a good site to go to or do we need to make a new site or facebook page to organized letter drives and boycotts, to help drive politics in a direction that represents the will of the people?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

That is a good question that I don't really have a quick answer for, you might want to check the GA site, but there are several things I know of that you can do as well.

  1. Learn you Congressperson's voting record and be an informed voter.
  2. Get involved in local politics. City councils and state governments need to hear from Occupy.
  3. Join internet petition drives. Thes are showing some real success in this election year.
  4. Join the next Occupy demonstration, or event, near you.
  5. Support the movement with a small donation.
  6. Form alliances and shun divisions with all who's goals are in line with those of the movement.
[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thank you DKAtoday! You don't know how refreshing it is to talk to the un-brainwashed!

Remember: Divide and conquer - Divide and Conquer - Divide and Conquer . . .

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

AS Long, as we are talking about dividing and conquering the corrupt. I am with you. For "us" I will always believe and support unite all regardless of Race Religion or politics to fight for good for all in common cause.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

My thing is simply to try to find the truth, because self-delusion is self-destruction, and then to use ANY and EVERY method, short of violence, to restore our democracy and to obtain justice. We must unite around that objective. The truth cannot be co-opted, not as long as there are people willing to defend it.

That is what we must do, unflinchingly defend the truth. The rest will take care of itself.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Find understand and defend the truth. Educate all as best as possible to unite in common cause to support health and prosperity in all things for all involved. Is part of my operational parameter.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

This IS the formula! Truth, and a relentless effort to turn truth into reality. Lies are the enemy. When we defeat the lies, the power of the enemy will simply whither and die.

People will tell you this is naive. They are liars.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Truth is powerful when acted upon appropriately.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

It is. And that becomes even more clear when put this way - We must not allow ourselves to be deceived.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes, look at the bottom line. Don't be afraid to ask questions. The only truly dumb question is one that is not asked. Unless of coarse some one is trying to mess with you. Then you hope they don't mind getting punched.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

LOL! That is so true!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well seriously I don't care at that point if they mind. They need a reality check and you know what they say................. Spare the rod and spoil the child. I really do not like to see anything spoil.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

LOL!!!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks your laughter helps me to feel better also. So lets continue handing out reality checks. I really hate spoilage.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Damn, you're a really funny guy! Cut it out or I'm gonna fall down laughing! I'm serious!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Laughter is good for the soul. I much prefer it to crying which can also be a good release, just not as enjoyable.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I'd say the top tactic of the powerful is to divide true conservatives and true liberals into warring factions.

When we work together conservatives and liberals tend to change the world. From the american revolution to civil rights to bringing down communism, we can overcome the powerful few.

For you see, we are all intellectual children of Baruch Spinoza

Baruch who? Yes Spinoza. He was perhaps one of the greatest philosophers of history, yet sadly most conservatives and liberals don't know who he was, nor his place in history.

So if anyone has time this winter, I suggest you read up on him, for it was his philosophies that overturned the powerful few of the 17th 18th 19th and 20th centuries.

And from his philosophies classical conservatism and liberalism was born.

And those they opposed are reincarnate in the neoconservative/neoliberalism of today

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

HOW?????????!

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

How what?

How do we work together for the common good?

How do we overcome the neoconservative/ neoliberal elite?

or are you asking how are we the intellectual children of Baruch Spinoza?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I'm asking how we go about actually implementing the change we want to see. I am talking about method, rather than philosophy. I am talking about concrete means.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

but also read philosophy, it's good to feed the mind, and learn why we are as we are. Whom we are as a people, and whom we wish to become.

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Absolutely! What we need, people, is nothing less than a new renaissance!

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

amen

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

well, for starters, by getting everyone you personally know to register to vote.

If need be, educate them of the issues, whatever local issues that are important.

And also to vote in the primaries, vote out the incumbents there and then, find out whom is also running in the primaries, find out what they stand for.

Also by signing petitions to get local issues that matter to you on the ballot.

If you want politicians to be more responsive, they need to be thrown out more often.

And if you get anti-corruption issues on state ballots, that may really scare the bejezus out of them.

Here's a for instance

In ohio our corrupt governor overstepped his bounds, we circulated petitions to overturn his legislation, and it worked, now him and his friends have crapped down their legs because they overstepped, and liberals and conservative united. Our Repub governor is HATED by rank and file repubs.

So, here is a hypothetical, because I don't know your local issues, but this would cause a stir.

But what if in your state, you started to circulate a petition that made it a crime for politicians in your state to accept campaign contributions larger than $1000? punishable with jail time to boot, list it as graft. Do you think it would get many signatures? Do you think that politicians would freak out?

Folks it's really time to use the democratic process, and work with both conservatives and liberals at the local level, the people you know, your neighbors, friends, classmates, etc.

And it's time to make our local senators and reps afraid of being corrupt, if they don't have a conscience, then pass the laws by state referendum that makes the corruption illegal again (like it once was)

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Hear, Hear! The problem more than anything in the past has been apathy. Our survival is now on the line. We must throw apathy to the winds. It is time to become engaged, and to never stop being engaged in the process. The stakes are to high to turn on the television. We can no longer just put a blind faith in those who lead us. We must lead them.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

exactly, and be sure to push the most radically populist petitions in your state.

Like say a petition to make it a crime for your state's politicians from accepting bribes or personally profiting from legislation they pass, punishable with say 50 years in prison.

Or in NY or Calif one that imposes a 50% state tariff on goods imported from countries that use slave and/or child labor.

they don't even need to pass, to get politicians to knock it off, just getting them on the ballot would serve them notice that the real left and right are fed up.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Man, now you're talking! I love it! If they force us off the streets, let's make them pay in the halls of power!

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

exactly, which is what we've done, and are doing in Ohio

and as Ohio goes....

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Man if we can do it in Ohio - Christ, we've already won!

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

and also protest, protest, protest.

And write letters to the editor, go to local school board meetings, city council meetings etc.

Just be sure to get the conversation rolling everywhere about how our system is corrupt, and our politicians are corrupt. and banks and multinational corps are corrupt.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

But whatever you do, don't think that you can't work with someone either conservative or liberal that you personally know.

Don't think you can't talk to them if you think they're too churchy, or too hippy, to conservative, too liberal, too old, too young, too whatever.

Because 99% of the time they will agree that yes, this government is corrupt, and needs changed, we all think that better days were 12-30 years ago, and that it is because we've been sold out, and our childrens futures were traded by those in washington, and wall street

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

That's the thing; one of the people I've just started talking to about these issues is a Ron Paul fangirl, while I don't trust the man any farther than I can spit (or more accurately, I trust him to do what he says he'll do, but I believe that what he says he'll do will turn out to be an unmitigated disaster for this country). Despite that major difference, it turns out that we have a fair amount in common when it comes to wanting to fix things and drive out corruption, and if in the end people like us choose to fight for that change then we have a shot at success and we can work out the details later.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes sir, check the forum right now people; the coordinated, on message, troll tactic for today is villify Obama, forget about GWB, get everyone with a conscience too disgusted to vote, and elect Mitt.

Then the 1% can have a field day in your wallet, and if you say a peep about it you will be a terrorist.

Think it can't get worse? Think again!

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Good advice.

And there are a lot of newbies here who need it.

Politics is dirty biz kiddies, not everything and one is as they seem and the exceptions and nuances are endless.

Get your big boy/girl pants on! Pouting and petulance get's you Tea Baggers and Scott Walkers!!

How's that treat'n ya?

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 never EVER again!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

United we stand. Divided we fall.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Being united around the wrong tactics and strategies does not help.

Slogans are nice and dandy, but they are a simplification of reality.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

That's right, we have to open our eyes and pick what we believe and buy carefully, without relying on hype and pier pressure.

Apples are evil.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I'm not sure what Apple has to do with this thread. I would say off-topic spamming posts are evil. My experience is that Apple products rock hard core.

Note: Iv'e never been pressured by a pier.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Someone else must have been using your handle, or the A is effecting user memory.

So... just hype then.

AAE!

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

and obama's is doing his best to divide the country with class ( economic ) warfare. Most of you have fallen for it.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

No we have just finally joined in the class war that has been conducted against us relentlessly. It is we, not Obama that are driving this movement, and we will not be stopped by this stupid divissive shit again! Take that and suck on it!

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

you don't even know that you're one of the "useful idiots". when obama ( and soros) have achieved what they want ( civil if not violent unrest) you'll be discarded.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I didn't know you were not only a troll, but a comedian as well. Multi-talented guy.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

it's hard for you to see and admit you're being used by people who care nothing about you. you're fodder for them

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

LOL . . . Who, the Democrats? Hell the only people who care less about me than the Democrats are the Republicans!

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

by extension you're being used by the dems who back ows. the funder of ows is soros. when they're done with , you'll be discarded.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

This is simply 100% pure bullshit.

As you can see, the 1% are already using their vast wealth and media control to twist the narrative of this movement, so that by election time OWS will actually be a pro-Wall St. anti-Democratic movement. I'm serious. That's what you can do with billions of dollars. Just saturate the internet with this crap until people are brainwashed. That's their plan.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

no dear, it's true. you're being used.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

If you so firmly believe this crap, why are you here?

OIC, you're a useful tool of the right.

Got it.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

fluff,...............if you support ows , you are a "useful idiot".

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Why are you here?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Well, then I guess that would make you just an idiot.

At least she's useful.

Smart too, unlike yourself.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

she's another ows useful idiot. soon to be discarded by soros.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Again, why are you here? Your mission is to be a douche bag.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

is this a private forum? are you the site grand inquisitor? do you believe in free speech fot everyone or just those that agree with you?

[-] 0 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

You're a useless idiot.

That's the point you buffoon.

Plus you're a FLAKESnews flake.

That would make you a useless, idiotic, flaky, buffoon.

There!............You lose, you loser.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

another "useful idiot" babbles.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

Walker balanced the budget in wisconsin and has cut taxes . what unions don't like is that there is no longer an automatic paycheck deduction for union dues.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

This assumes OWS was aligned with the democratic left wing in the first place (which is not an assumption I would make). There's certainly considerable synergy, but Washington politicians (regardless of stripe) just don't get it (they just don't). For them, "the people" remains a "secondary" constituency (and their primary constituency is the moneyed special interests who fund their campaigns, either directly or indirectly).

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I agree with this. We must keep ourselves and our identity separeate from the Democrats - but neither should we let ourselves be suckered into allowing another Republican Administration through apathy at the voting booth. If the Republicans win, this movement will be steamrolled. That is why they are pushing this anti-Obama message here.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

My understanding is Pres. Obama supports ACTA (SOPA's evil twin, but this time in the form of a treaty). Considering this, I'm not sure how voting for Obama will help us retain our freedoms? We might be better off with a President who doesn't get a free pass, a presumption that he's on our side, when I see no reason to believe he is.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I would love that, but don't see how to actually DO it.

[-] 1 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago

Your paranoia fuels your wildly exaggerated sense of importance. Do you really think there's an organized 'troll' movement here? Why would anyone organize against this disorganized, nostalgia-fueled, make-believe trip to 1968?

It was at most a curiosity and now it's just ignored. Even HuffPo generates at most lip service regarding the 'movement' now in a daily two, three sentence blurb at the bottom of it's page. No one else even mentions it.

And I know, wait until spring.

For what? The 'movement' didn't dissolve because of bad weather. It dissolved because the cops said "Youre done." And the supporters walked off with a stunned look of incredulity on their faces trying to understand why camping and drum circles didn't change the world.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You find it strange that the media ignores this movement?

[-] 1 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago

I find it appropriate.

[-] 0 points by oakwasenuf (66) 2 years ago

No more strange than their treatment of the good Dr.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, but his accomplishments were substancial. There are things worse than death, indentured survitude for example. A great part of the reason I advocate non-violence is tactical. It is practical!

[-] 1 points by Julian (57) from St Lucia, QLD 2 years ago

The christians aren't going to vote for a Mormon, the Republicans have already divided themselves.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Polls, unfortunately, don't seem to back that assertion.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i dont support a rich person to represent me, why does the country only chose the rich? or those who are lifelong politicians? definately feel as though I am the only one whose intelligence is still evolving.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

We only get the rich and carrer politicians because of campaign finance laws being what they are. How do we actually change this?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

one idea i have is to break up the states from the federal union because of the massiveness of our union that is overrun by career politicians. It works in Europe, and their currency is actually worth more than ours, the Euro. Temporarily or permanently until true representation is restored to the people. One way that true representation can be restored to the people is to have the people vote on every single thing, we have internet today, which we didnt have when representatives were first made.

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

The democratization of our culture does not proceed a single inch by regularly voting for the lesser evil. The only consequence of voting for the lesser evil year after year is that it becomes more and more evil year after year.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

The Democratic party has been taken over by pro-corpoate neo-liberals. Yet we still have a two party system, so my question is - how do we actually effect change given these circumstances?

I am asking this question seriously. We need to get beyond deciding what we want to change. We are largely in agreement on that. Now we must address the question of how we make it happen.

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

OWS is already outside the two party binary. Personally, I see that as a healthy development to be nurtured. On the other hand it is also a tiny movement that in and of itself can have little direct and immediate impact on the electoral arena. In fact, any effort to do so would only tend to expose exactly how weak, small and inconsequential the movement is at this point in time. So to me we are still at the very early stages of the movement building stage.

To me the primary effort of OWS at this point needs to be organizing. Creating more occupations and more GAs. Once several tens of millions or at least millions of people are involved in occupations or at least more or less regular local GAs will be time enough to think about a next step.

What particular local GAs and occupations do in the mean time, how their organizing efforts manifestg themselves, will be up to them at that level, though at this point the movement against foreclosures seems to be a major focus.

[-] 1 points by TedIV (40) 2 years ago

falling for propaganda? he is only strong in the republican nomination of a runner up for Obama this is not even close to a righteous poll of a Presidential winner....

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

surely they are unreasonable this is why we are angry

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by awpov (1) 2 years ago

Can we do something that would show the strenght of our mass of people like boycott buy all type of fuel on a selected day. This would show the oil companies that the people have strenght when they come together plus get the attebtion of others corporations as they may be targeted next. What do you think?

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I proposed debt repudiation months ago. That would make them sit up and take notice! Nobody wanted it. Everybody plead that they were too weded to the system.

If we aren't willing or able to take such radical steps; or able to coordinate them, and we also eschue the Democratic Party, then we will accomplish nothing.

That's how it is folks.

[-] 0 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

Debt repudiation makes no sense. If one can just walk away from a contract, then what's left? How are you going to create a new better world if nobody can be trusted, even when they sign a contract?

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

What left? There hasn't been a coherent, organized left in the United States since the old Socialist Party was smashed because of its opposition to American participation in World War I. And the key word is opposition. OWS is dramatically different from any social movement in living memory precisely because of its oppositionism, which is the central reason why so many of its opponents, the media, and even erstwhile supporters have great difficulty in understanding what it is all about. But OWS is really only an incipient movement, not a mass movement at all.

The very worst thing that could befall OWS would be for it to become co-opted by the Democratic Party which has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the Populists. Right now the main job of OWS should be to build OWS until it becomes a genuine mass movement. That will be time enough to think about a next step.

Fuck the Democrats. Solidarity forever!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Coopted? How does a grass roots movement with no leadership structure get coopted? I am simply saying that if it comes down to an election and we can prevent another Republican Administration and we do not do so . . . well, if you can't see what a disaster that would be, I'm not going to bother explaining it.

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

I will grant you that the horizontal nature of OWS makes it more difficult to co-opt than a more vetically structured movement. Difficult, but not impossible. That is especially the case since many, if not most OWS activists are either liberal or politically unformed in their views and many if not most probably voted for Obama in '08. Also, while OWS is new and exciting, it is new and exciting. Precisely because of that it is necessarily volitile and could go in many directions. And there is in fact a concerted effort by some organizations, notably the SEIU and MoveOn to co-opt OWS. So far they have not been successful, but that doesn't mean that they won't stop trying and also be joined by other groups in that effort.

As individuals I think some OWSers will vote for Obama, some will vote for a third party and some won't vote, but so far at least I don't think OWS as a movement will take a position on the elections and insofar as OWS is a new movement, built on oppositionism and direct action, that is a good thing.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, I do not see moveon.org as the enemy. I see fascism as the enemy.

"Some will vote for Obama, some will vote for a third party, and some won't vote." That's exactly what the Neo-Fascists want. Way to go promoting unity and effective oppositian there, RedJazz!!!

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

Of course, the main problem is the rise of reactionary elements, but the tragedy is that some of those reactionary elements are not even necessarily aware of how reactionary they are and in fact may have a self consciousness of being good guys. Leaving aside the American experience and the reactionary role the the Democratic Party has historically played in eviserating and co-opting every incipient movement of opposition that developed in the last century, everywhere where actual fascism actually developed it was the same story of well meaning bourgeois liberal elements co-opting militant movements that stood for the development of real democracy.

Fortunately right now it looks like OWS will not go along with your petty bourgeois timidity, though that could change.

OWS is unified. It is unified on exactly the same basis upon which it began and what enegized people to begin with--militant direct action and opposition to the status quo. And what is the Democratic Party but just another conservative expression of the status quo. Has the Democratic Party done a damn thing to end American empire? No! In fact, it was the Democratic Party that initiated American imperialism under FDR and extended it under Truman, ironically against the isolationist opposition of the Taft wing of the Republican Party. Likewise with labor rights. Obama got labor support in 08 by promising passage of the EFCA, a pathetic enough piece of legislation, but even with a Democratic Congress, once in office that was not even considered. And where did Obama get most of his money? He got more money from Wall Street than anyone. With friends like that we don't need enemies.

It is long past due that we scrapped all that. Next step in the occupy movement and it is a big one: Reinstitute the sit down strike. Occupy the work place. That is the way to challenge the property rights of the 1%.

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

"petty bourgeois timidity"

How is unsupported name calling on your part any different than the right-wing trolling we see so much of on these fora?

You present a false choice. Either you vote for Obama OR you are a true OWSer. Nope. We have a corrupted system now that we should not allow to get even worse under a more right wing agenda, and with a more right wing supreme court. (Who will replace soon to retire judges is not a petty bourgeois issue, and being concerned about it goes not represent timidity, but an acknowledgement of reality. Do YOU want to risk Roe v Wade being overturned? Is that a petty Bourgeois issue?) Voting for the lesser of two evils helps stem the tide. OWS and sit-down strikes can also happen. There is no conflict.

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

I think a lot of OWSers, as individuals, will vote for Obama. Still others will vote for some third party candidate. Still others will not vote. What is at issues here is not what individual OWS activists will do, but what OWS as a movement will do. Right now, OWS as a movement takes no position on the elections. Given its size and political development, I think that is a good thing. Given the fact that the Democratic Party has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the days of the Populists, I personally think that the incorporation of OWS as functionally the left wing of the Democratic Party is the worst thing that could befall OWS.

For OWS activists the issue is not whether or not to vote for the Democratic Party. That is not what activism is all about and not what the Democratic Party or its various electoral campaigns is interested in OWS about. I have heard, for example, OWS activists say that they will vote for Obama but not work for him. Well, are you for his re-election or not? If you are, to vote for him but to refuse to work for him is functionally to withdraw your support, support that the Democratic Party is looking for.

For activists, the least important thing they do is vote. Just look at the apparatus of a political campaign. Undoubtedly they all vote, but voting for them is really their least important political act. Much more important is what they do on a day to day basis for their Party and its campaigns. The same is true for any activist and that is certainly the attitude of Party cadre toward its activist base. What they are interested in is getting people to staff phone banks, lick envelopes and ring door bells. That is the question. Are we going to do that or are we going to continue to build our movement. To choose the former is to abandon the movement for the Democratic Party. To choose the latter is to abandon the Democratic Party and its candidates for the movement, no matter who we choose to vote for as individuals.

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

No co-option is being called for. But just as OWS has marched alongside and in solidarity with various unions, it can encourage voting against the right wing. No one that I'm aware of is pushing for OWS to engage in envelope stuffing, canvassing, etc. Encouraging voting for what little remains of the left is not a co-option. Nor is publicly endorsing, from an independent position, Obama's candidacy.

Even a noble revolutionary like yourself must admit that disparaging Obama on these boards, as you have done, is not neutral. And even you must realize that an effort as you just made to discourage voting for him lends your support instead to the most reactionary forces I personally have seen in my lifetime. That it lends support and rationalization to those who would choose not to vote because they are not thinking through the implications, squander that vote on a non-viable third party, or vote directly for the Republican contender. All three actions work towards ensuring that Row v Wade gets overturned, that the death penalty is upheld once again, that rulings favoring corporations and disfavoring individual working people are more likely.

Your response to my post is good, if arguable. But your first post does exactly what I described. And there is too much at stake for you to be doing so. It is irresponsible.

One more thing. Please refrain from using phrases like "petty bourgeoisie". It only serves to identify yourself as a revolutionary, but in fact has no meaning. It is an early 19th century meme, and it is time, in the early 21st century for it to be discarded. Instead of using undergraduate poli-sci rhetoric, it would be better to talk to individuals simply and directly. Placing labels, especially on as strong a supporter as someone like Gypsyking is nothing if not divisive, and only serves to make you feel especially superior to him in your status as an activist.

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

While no one knows what anyone does in the privacy of a voting booth, for an organization or movement to take a public position in support of the Democratic Party or any of its candidates is, by definition, to abandon its independence. At this point the only decision making bodies of OWS are the various local GAs, which fortunately at this point, at least in most major cities, remain staunchly independent.

It is correct that to stand in opposition to the two parties of the 1% and its various candidates is not a neutral position. It is a position in opposition to the 1% and its two political parties.

A more accurate description of the two parties of the 1% is that they are parties of the bourgeoisie, not in the sense that everyone who votes for them is bourgeois, but in the sense that they fairly frankly represent the interests of a bourgeois political order, which, in fact does have a specific political meaning, which its supporters tend to refer to euphemistically as the "free market."

Revolutions are all about being divisive. In this case they are about dividing the vast majority from a very tiny ruling class minority. That starts with the political independence of oppositionist political movements like OWS.

Fuck the Democratic Party and all its candidates. Fuck the Republican Party and all its candidates. Fuck all bourgeois political parties and fuck anybody who doesn't recognize that we are engaged in a class war.

Solidarity forever.

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

Yay, everyone is bourgeois but you.

The unions who take a public position regarding political parties have not abandoned their independence. OWS's public show of support of those very unions did not compromise either one's independence. To believe that an endorsement is an abdication is a stance of weakness. One can endorse from a stance of independent strength.

You might be surprised, but MOST people who support OWS are "bourgeois". You would do well to stop insulting them, or their intelligence. Of COURSE we are engaged in class warfare. And you, via default of electoral action, are lending support to the extreme right wing; you are letting those who wage class war against the population gain even more strength.

Whether you like it or not, acknowledge it or not, the decisions of the Supreme Court effect every one of us, every single day. It may merely be a bourgeoise concern, but it is as real as a heart attack. Handing the power of appointing people to that court to right wing reactionaries is a complete abdication of responsibility.

And yes, Solidarity forever.

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

Actually the bourgeoise is a very tiny social class. Most of the 99% are not bourgeois. Most of the 99% are working class.

The unions certainly did abandon their political independence once they subordinated themselves to the Democratic Party. At this point it is so long ago that it is lost in the mists of time, but any examination of the labor movement before it attached itself to the New Deal reveals a much more militant and independent movement than it was later to become.

Of course their are enlightened members of the bourgoisie, but they are a very tiny proportion of what is itself an extremely tiny social class.

Of course the decisions of a bourgeois state and its institutions, including its political parties and its courts, affect the vast majority. That's what class rule is all about. But the class interests of the vast majority are not well served by subordinating those interests to those of the more moderate wing of the ruling class.

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

Two or three things: First, about your rhetoric, so we can get that out of the way. You used the term "bourgeoise" in a way that implied everyone engaged in the current political system - the electorate - is bourgeoise. Indeed, attaching the word "petty" to it pretty much sealed the deal. I am glad you are now amending that stance.

Now to the FAR more important issue. Class interests are indeed served by voting for moderates, at least in the short term, because not doing so empowers the extremists. Although the long term interests must - I agree - be solved much more substantively, the long term cannot happen without effective holding off the extremists in the short term.

Finally, if OWS does not wish to endorse anyone right now, at this nascent stage, so be it. But it should not engage in false equivalencies either. Although there are too many places of overlap between the Democratic party and the republican one, differences still exist, and they are still critical ones. To ignore them is as dangerous as failing to understand their similarities. Doing so plays into the hands of the extremists on the right, who count on a divided left in order to consolidate power.

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

Of course not every one who votes is bourgeois. In fact most voters aren't. But the major political choices before voters in the United States is extremely narrow and on the fundamental question of the existing social order (which I would characterize as capitalist or more broadly bourgeois, or in the parlance of those political parties "free enterprize) both major parties are in agreement, which ultimately gives the voting public very little choice in the electoral arena.

From the point of view of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois social order there are indeed vast differences between its two political parties. Were that not the case there would not be two major political parties. From the point of view of the vast majority that distinction is indeed far less significant, though the distinctions are considerably inflated in the public consciousness both by a manufactured consensus and the lack of a visible and viable alternative in the electoral arena.

If there is a disappearing or virtually extinct social class it is indeed the petty bourgeoisie, but the does not mean that the political ideology or ethos of that class has disappeared. Ultimately that is what is meant by characterizing what is actually and essentially the working class as middle class. What is in fact working class in terms of its relationship to the means of production is middle class (or petty bourgeois) in terms of its political consciousness, which has been the major factor in holding back a genuine democratization of our political culture.

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

I am very familiar with everything you're saying. To me, it's nothing new. I started leading strikes nearly 35 years ago while still in college, and organized unions at a number of places I worked since then. I don't disagree with your observations about class structures. (We probably don't see absolutely eye to eye about all of the solutions, but that's another discussion.)

But I have one strong suggestion. Refrain, as much as humanly possible, from using words like "bourgeoise". You aren't talking to a first year political science class, but a general population. Use words like "working class" and "middle class" and "poor". When you refer to the ruling class, be specific, give examples. "Bourgeois" has historical connotations that create a backlash, and there is no need to to create one where it is not necessary. Besides, it comes off as really pretentious. The message is far more important than the language.

And attacking Gypsyking with that language serves to divide, not unite. If gaining numbers and solidarity are important, a little less of the university revolutionary and more of the advocate and friend should be showing. Avoid the temptation to show off your revolutionary credentials and simply talk to people.

Please take this criticism, not as a condemnation, but as a suggestion about being more effective. As a supporter, I want OWS to succeed. Hell, as a human being I want it to succeed. (And it has already done so beyond my wildest expectations.)

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

I don't think this web sight is by any means characteristic of or representative of "the general population." I've been involved in the labor movement since the mid 1960s. When I first got active in unions, the most radical thing they were doing was running bowling leagues. The generation that had thrown the Communist Party out of the CIO was still in the work force and it was impossible for radicals to be entirely candid about their politics without being entirely isolated. In my personal experience that is much less the case today than it was 50 years ago.

I think it is important to be able to speak with as much precision as possible and that very much depends on audience. I'm not especially happy with formulations like the 99% and the 1% as they are not nearly specific enough in class terms. On the other hand, viewed from a perspective of an absolute absence of any class analysis at all, they are a giant step forward.

Depending on my audience I might refer to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as the two parties of the 1% or I might refer to them as two wings of what is essentially one capitalist party. Or, in terms of their ideology, I might refer to them as bourgeois parties. It depends on the context and the audience. I am 68 years old. I have been active in both the labor movement and a variety of socialist sects for nearly 50 years and I don't need to be lectured to about my vocabulary or when and where it is appropriate to use particular formulations.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Were you not advocating that we chose Jessie Jackson as our leader, and was not Jessie Jackson a Democrat - and are you not actually Jessie Jackson?

Just curious.

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

I personally never argued that OWS choose any specific personality as its leader. Indeed, I argued quite the opposite. It is not at all clear to me either how a "leader" for OWS would be chosen or upon being chosen what that leader would actually do. Moral leaders of movements are not chosen through any kind of meaningful electoral process. They either tend to evolve more or less organically out of common consent or more typically they are chosen by the media. Other than that they are typically chosen by the organizations of the movement to fulfill some bureaucratic function, but given the present structure of OWS it is not at all clear what that leader would do. That said, prior to chosing a leader it seems to me that it is incumbent upon those who want a specifically personality to lead OWS that they put forward an organizational structure in which such a leader would have a function.

Most of the names that people craving a leader have put forward have been Democrats, some fairly high up in the apparatus of the Democratic Party. That, in and of itself, is yet another reason why I would tend to oppose the selection of a particular personality to lead OWS. That said, I would no more oppose Jesse Jackson as a leader on racial grounds than I would Barak Obama.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

All right, now I see what you are saying, and I agree with it. What we need to figure out now is a plan of action - how do we transfer all of the rage at the existing system into a concrete method of changing it. This is what I am not hearing, and what we must now achieve.

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

I think OWS is doing exactly the right thing in terms of its current functioning. I do think that the loss of actual occupation sites was a major set back for the movement in many ways and for a variety of reasons either an effort to re-occupy or some moral equivalent to a permanent occupation is most important to establish.

There are a number of reasons for this. First of all occupations are the defining characteristic of this movement. It is what it is named for. A permanent occupation has the very important symbolic value of taking back the commons, that is, a concrete example of resistance to the privatization and comodification of practically everything. There is also the utopian aspect of occupation, the modelling of the kind of society we seek in the shell of the old.

For me personally one of the most important aspects of the occupations is the fact that you can show up literally at any time of the day or night and instantly be participating in the movement. There is no concern about being late for a demo or not being able to make a demo because of other occpations. It is there you to participate in at whatever point is convenient to you. I've had some of the best political conversations of my life at 3 and 4 in the morning at Zuccotti Park.

I was brought up in an extremely religious moderately liberal Protestant religion and I've always been impressed at the pervasive influence of religion in American life. It is impossible to walk more than a few blocks in a small town or city or drive more than a few miles on a country road in the US before encountering a church, or perhaps a synagogue, mosque or temple of some kind.

And religious communities are really an alternative culture in our society. It is possible, after all, to live one's entire life within such a community. Sunday morning services are only a very small part of what religious communities do. Most church buildings are active nearly every day of the week with choir practice, Bible studies, youth groups, AA meetings and all manor of activity. I often imagine how different American society would be if every church building was instead a union hall. Nowadays it is difficult to find a church whose doors are open 24/7, but that was commonplace when I was a kid in the 1950s. In that sense church's in those days were a lot like occupation movement today. Whenever you needed to you could just show up.

So I've begun to think, maybe the thing to occupy are abandoned and otherwise unused churches. There is, after all, some historical memory of churches being 24/7 operations. As physical plants they could provide warmth in the winter and would be ideal meeting places. Besides the re-institution of the work place occupation or sit down strike, that, it seems to me is a possible way to go.

In terms of the natural and organic development of the movement a major focus of the occupation movement right now seems to be the struggle against foreclosures, which is also a tactic borrowed from the early 30s.

OWS is a kind of in between movement right now. It is far too small to be considered a mass movement. On the other hand it is far to large for any individual to have significant impact on the movement as a whole. Everybody has some input, but what actually gets put in place end up being collective ideas mulled over and discussed by hundreds and even thousands of individuals. I basically accept that with a lot of humility and for the most part I see us all being along for the ride.

[-] 0 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

He or she would have to be an anarchist. That's the most important criteria.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/improving-occupy-anarchism-with-the-old-switcharoo/#comment-609744

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

He or she would have to be an anarchist. That's the most important criteria.

That would clearly be the most important thing if you happened to believe that shit. You know what superstition is, right? The other guy's religion.

[-] 0 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

Only an anarchist would have the chance to be elected as the Occupy leader at the NYCGA. Read the permalink I posted above. Some OWS jobs require very specific criteria. For example, jart is limiting her search to tranarchists (transgendered anarchists) computer programmers to help with this website.

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

It is true that a very substantial number of the initiators of OWS are strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition and that that tradition continues to exert considerable and perhaps dominant influence in the GAs of OWS. That said, there are other influences in OWS. Probably a majority of OWS activists would characterize themselves as either liberal or are politically unformed, though they are less well organized and less politically coherent than the more radical elements.

If anything it is the anarchists who are specifically opposed to a particular personality being an OWS leader. Virtually all of the names put forward as possible leaders of OWS have been rather moderate in their political views and nearly all have been identified with the Democratic Party.

[-] 0 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

Those that have power in Occupy are the anarchists. Protesters with other political inclinations vastly outnumber the anarchists, but they don't have much to say with what Occupy does and doesn't do. They watch from the sidelines and wouldn't have much to do with choosing an Occupy leader if that choice were to be made.

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

I wouldn't put it so strongly. Certainly there are anarchists in the occupy movement, but I think it is more accurate to say that some of the most active of OWSers are influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition. It is also true that while they are a minority, they tend to be more politically coherent than the more moderate elements in OWS.

Since it is this minority that opposes the whole notion of a leadership cult at all, it is unlikely in the extreme that any leader would have those more radical political tendencies. It is much more likely that should a leader of OWS be chosen that would happen precisely because the moderate majority itself became more politically coherent.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

Hmmm... no.

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

The anarchists won't choose a leader and so far at least the liberals can't choose a leader, which suggests that no leader will be chosen. Which is more likely, that the anarchists evolve towards the notion of needing a leader or that the liberals develop the political coherence to choose a leader? Personally I think a stalemate it the most likely outcome and the assendency of the liberals the next most likely outcome. The least likely outcome, I think, is that the anarchists will evolve toward a position to think they need a particular personality to lead them.

[-] -1 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

I expect Occupy will split shortly after the elections. That's when making demands to the government will make most sense. At that point, those that want to work within the governmental structure will get organized, pick a leader, and break away from Occupy. These are the liberals you are talking about. Some might be close to the center, others like myself are farther left.

Anarchists don't work well with others. They are always afraid that their "leaderless" structure will get co-opted somehow. To protect themselves, they pull the curtain by hiding their names and they solidify their stronghold by making sure that they only get replaced by their peers. For example, jart is only willing to let other anarchists work on this website. Ironically, they destroy their ideals in this way. When one is well rested and takes a lucid look at what's happening in NYC with Occupy, one sees something that looks more like a totalitarian regime than anarchy. Anarchists working behind a curtain of anonymity.

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

I think it is absolutely incorrect to say that anarchists, or at least the anarchists who were instrumental in initiating OWS do not work well with others, especially since it was precisely those got OWS off the ground to begin with. It was those anarchists who attracted the mass base of liberals of whom you speak. It was those anarchists who forged the first alliance between the labor movement and the radical intelligentcia since the 1940s. It was those anarchists who attracted the debtor class. It was those anarchists who attracted the homeless. It is those anarchists who are building a movement against foreclosure. It is those anarchists who build an alliance with elements of the religious community. It is those anarchists who reached out in solidarity to the stop stop and frisk movement. That does not strike me as an inability to work well with others. Quite the contrary in fact.

The opposite would seem to be the case. That is, it would seem to me that it is the liberals in the movement that are doing little else but carping about the direction of the movement and doing damn little organizing on their own accord.

OWS is by no means perfect in its organizational structure. I find the consensus model of decision making it uses extremely problematic and not at all consistent with my understanding of what democracy is all about. That said, in my personal experience, OWS is the most open and transparent movement I have experienced in nearly 50 years of social activism.

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

I agree with you RJ, the moment OWS becomes political as far as endorsing any party, we are done for. Once we get the numbers, then we can decide. I think everyone should just go out and vote their conscience if they vote at all. For years both parties have moved to the right. Now just because of our existence that trend is starting to reverse.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

This tactic has been used since the day this forum went live.

Invaded by all the forms of (R)epelican'ts.

Libe(R)tarians, teabagge(R)s, conse(R)vatives, (R)on bots, and plain old (R)epelican'ts.

All of them attempting to twist reality to the (R)epelican't point of view, while denying that (R)epelican'ts EVER did anything wrong.

Confusing every issue they can.

Yes, I can say Karl Rove.

These ARE his tactics.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

My God! Somebody actually GETS it! Give that man, or woman, a Nbel Prize! Right on Shooz! Does it seem a littlw weird to anyone besides me and Shooz that the OWS website is now a forum for bashing the DEMOCRATS? How the hell did that happen? People have to figure it out when they are being taken for a ride!

[-] 2 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

I fully understand that the Dems aren't perfect, yet at the slightest admission, I will get hit with a flood from the (r)epelican'ts.

It really does make it harder than it should be to make headway.

Sooner than you can imagine, Occupy will have to make good on it's promise to form an actual political party.

I suppose it's naive of me to think this forum will have anything to do with it, but still I'd like to, as I'm sure all of the people here in support would.

Most of us spend too much time troll juggling, between moments of clarity.

Roves tactics are designed to be self dispersing, by tapping in to negative emotions.

It spreads like a disease.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Damn right the Democrats aren't perfect; far, far from it! But when you look at the GWB administration you have to realize that these people equal flat-out totaliarianism! These is a saying that what a government will do others it will eventually do to it's own people.

Who started the wars? Bush. Who killed the economy? Bush Who created the "patriot act?" Bush Who tried to dismantel democracy? Bush! The list of crimes and ethical violations of that administration will never be calculated!

Obama's been in office for three years. I can still make these posts. Nobody's kicking down the door and dragging us off somewhere.

People who thinks this can't happen here; that the people who backed Bush and who now back Romney aren't capable of this are simply unwilling to see what is in front of their face. Under Bush and Cheney we were a hairs breadth from outright fascism. This is not a game we are playing, in which we can refuse to work with moveon.org, for example, because we see them as too "coopted by the Democrats." This is serious!!! This is not a game!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! It's your lives and your futures on the line!!! You think moveon.org is corrupt? Damn people - get a clue!!!

[-] 2 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

I get called all kinds of names, and even ignored if I mention what Bush did, and much of it has been passed over, even by the libs.

Aside from 2 occupations and a mild dislike of the Patriot Act, they still think he was perfect.

They forgot all about his reworking bankruptcy, just in time for the crash.

They never mention " no child left behind" when they bitch about teachers.

The (r)epelican't memory hole is mammoth!

If Occupy does make good on it's promise, it will have to caucus with one side or the other and everyone involved must surely know by now, that will not be with the (R)epelican'ts.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

How is it possible that people already can't remember the unmitigated disaster of the GWB administration? I will tell you this, American Democracy will not survive another such administration. We simply will not.

That doesn't mean we have to accept the Democrats as they are. They are too far to the right, but this generation of Republicans are so far to the right that they endanger our liberty. They MUST NOT be allowed another term in power!

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

I spoke with member of my States democratic party a few months ago, and he said they were hurting for funds and the (R)epelican'ts were swimming in cash.

Between the RGA and various pet foundations of the Kochs, citizens united, is very much alive in the States, as well.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

This is the death blow to democracy if we allow it to stand, and if the Republicans win the next election, stand it will.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

I'll do what I can.

The hub bub will start in earnest after the (r)epelicans take their pick.

But keep your eyes on the States too.

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

Well, some folks have taken it upon themselves to bash the Republicans (deservedly so), but the Democrats deserve at least equal time. I say at least because unlike the Republican Party the Democratic Party has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the Populists. In that sense the Democratic Party is actually worse than the Republican Party. Few people with progressive inclinations are fooled by the Republican Party after all, whereas nearly all progressives are fooled again and again, year after year, by the Democrats, to the point where they have virtually forgotten how to organize themselves and any real movement of radical opposition is totally outside of living memory.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You're right. The Democrats need a populist kick in the pants this time around, and if they don't tow the line we need to kick their ass out! But if we think we can do all this before the next election, we are dreaming.

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

I've been voting since 1964. Every year for nearly 50 years I've been hearing progressives say that if the Democratic Party doesn't tow the line this election year, they'll hear about it from us in the next election cycle, but somehow the next election cycle never seems to come and the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right with each election cycle. The lesser evil, which always is evil, becomes more and more evil with each passing year and it feels free to do this because so far as Democratic Party operatives are concerned, they are the only party we've got. It is way too premature for us to be able to prove otherwise by launching our own electoral alternative, but we don't have to cave in to the Democratic Party yet one more time either.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

The last thing I want is this movement to inregrate with, or be subsumed by the Democratic Party. My concerns are twofold. One that we don't allow yet another Republican Administration, and two that we find a way of fixing the system in a way that prevents big money from ever corrupting it again. Given the two party system this is a really tall order. So, HOW DO WE DO THIS?

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

Since you are more worried about the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, I can't help you there as in all sincerity, my concerns are exactly the opposite. That is, quite frankly, I see the Democratic Party as a much greater danger to an incipient movement of social opposition than is the Republican Party for reasons previously outlined. Very few people would ever be hoodwinked into believing that the Republican Party is in any sense a party of the people, yet that is exactly the role that the Democratic Party has played quite literally for decades.

OWS is a tiny, tiny movement. If we want to have real consequence on the politics of this nation I believe that our primary obligation is to build that movement. Right now our electoral choices (the choices for the movement that is) are quite limited. Any third party vote will undoubtedly be quite inconsequential, but it is also the case that our movement is so tiny that its impact on the Democratic Party would be equally inconsequential. Therefore, what we do in the privacy of the voting booth is essentially, at this point, an individual existential moral choice.

Once we are substantially larger we will be in a position to have considerably more impact on the electoral arena, though even at that point, for real impact, and as evidence that we are a movement of size and substance a real impact on the electoral arena will be much more significant at the Congressional and legislative level than at the level of Presidential politics.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

All right. I can see the logic in that. I just started a new post, where I hope we can work together to create a plan of action for this movement. Maybe you could contribute.

[Removed]

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

And how about them DemeRcrats?

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I hope I don't fit in that list somewhere : )

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Let me ask you this.

Did Reagan reduce the size of government?

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

over all? no he enlarged it, specifically the military.

But if your asking me if, by extension, whether Reagan was a good or bad president, my answer will never line up with yours. We see things too differently in that aspect.

But my point would be that if we are to end the corruption of the system, then those that are liberal and those that are conservative will need to work together.

our leaders are neither liberal or conservatives, they are neoconservatives and neoliberals and act against the best interest of the restovus.

If OWS wants to effect real change, and represent the 99%, then conservatives have to be part of the mix.

the trouble is the rebranding and brainwashing of the goldwaterites and that people don't have a sense of history anymore.

And yes, I'll be the first to say that republicans have done a great deal many things wrong, from bush to boner, most goper's in politics are plain corrupt.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

There is a very valid point in what you say here, I think. Liberal's and conservatives who want to fix the system need to work together, but so far we just haven't managed to find a way. There is something simply evil about this system, the way it works now. It seems to shed every effort at reform like a snake sheds it's skin!~

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

The federal budget went from $678 billion to $2.3 trillion.

Average annual expansion was 6.8 %, under Clinton it was 3.6%

He also added $1.9 trillion to the national debt.

Reagan had NOTHING to do with small government.

It just sounded nice in speeches, his only real claim to fame.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I'd say that Reagan's claim to fame was the containment of communism and spreading democracy into east europe and latin america, and most the expansion of gov't went to the military build-up that served as a backstop to the Russians.

And I would say that Clinton was also a very good president, though many here would disagree wholeheartedly on both.

But the one thing I hope we can agree upon is that bush/ obama have been terribly terribly bad presidents.

They have been bought and paid for by the financial and corporate interests, and maintain 'their' system by suppression of freedom, propaganda, and outright violence against it's own people.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

I think this is an astute observation, GypsyKing.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

It is their time tested, and sadly enough, often very effective method.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

Actually, the repubs are pushing for Newt to win. Both repubs and dems want Obama in the Whitehouse for 4 more years. They want Newt to be the nominee so that America can vote between a fat old white man and a dashing trim black guy, ensuring Obama for 4 more.

You think I'm an idiot for saying this. You are the fool. You actually believe these politicians you see on the news, pretending to fight back and forth. Open your eyes. Both sides are equally corrupt, and equally looting the US treasury. We have a ONE PARTY SYSTEM. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

What would be great is to have a 3rd party in there who is not part of the repubs and dems. I don't care for Ron Paul, but why do you think both sides, from pundits to politicians discount RP at every turn? They don't want RP in there fucking their system up.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You know, I will grant you that the media discounts RP off hand. In fairness I will grant that. But people like me, educated people who have been around awhile, and know a demagogue when they see one, will never vote for Ron Paul, not ever.

If Ron Paul was not a demogogue, he wouldn't be trying to get on this forum and convince people that he is something that he is not. There is only one motive there, to use us and then dump us the minute he is elected. That is why we will never help to elect him.

You see, we on the left aren't easily fooled. Obama fooled me. That was the first time in my life. You see, RP isn't even in the third rung of expert conmen that make up most of our politicians.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

While you watch the news for the next few days, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc... think about how all these politicians make their living saying what they say. They are not there because they felt compelled to help their country. It's their job. And they are very well paid, and live lifestyles as lavish as the 1%.

If you do this, you will come to no other conclusion than we currently have a one party system, that must be stopped soon. THIS ELECTION.

GET INVOLVED THIS NOVEMBER EVERYBODY. VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS (CURRENT POLITICIANS) VOTE ALL NEW ONES IN. IT WILL SEND A MESSAGE THAT WE HAVE A VOICE.

This country won't be changed with human feces in the street. It will be changed at the ballot box, if we hold together and all vote.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

What, for Ron Paul? Out of the frying pan and into the fire? No way!!

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

"Divide OWS From The Left Wing"- That part of the title of your post suggests that we should be attached or are already attached to the democratic left wing. This is a movement, that isn't tied to party politics, isn't it?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

A political movement that is an apolitical movement? What planet are you on? I mean seriously, what is this? Mindfuck?

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

OK, calm down GK, I have not insulted you, nor would I for a mistake on your part. What I meant is we are not tied to PARTY politics. Is this the new (nasty) world that you are hoping to bring about, GK??? I think you might be getting over-tired.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, I am getting over tired. I'm sorry. I just read your recent post, and it was very to the point. This topic was very important to me, and I have been at it for a long time now. The trolls here have a way of fraying your nerves after awhile. I need to get some sleep:)

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Have a nice night GK.

See ya tomorrow............:)

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

Thank You GK for that apology. I signed off and went to two dictionaries to check out the words 'political' and 'apolitical. Anyway, I do think you could say that OWS is an 'apolitical' organization. Check it out. I definitely do have to be careful using the wrong words though. Once again thanks.

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"Divide OWS From The Democratic Left-Wing"??

Gee,I was told that you folks were non-partisan and weren't beholding to any political party.

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

We aren't beholding to any political party, but neither will we become dupes of the 1% and fall blindly into their stategy to disempower us. Sorry.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

You're starting to sound a bit paranoid, GypsumBored!

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"We aren't beholding to any political party"

No offense but that is completely inaccurate. You are pro-Obama,hence pro Dem.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You are just a troll - get lost.

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

That's not a very intelligent response. Care to clarify how you can be pro-Obama and not "beholding to any political party"?

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You're just a troll - get lost.

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Now you're just spamming. Who is the real troll?

[-] 3 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

You do realize, we're all just dogs hangin' out on the front porch in here?

You wanna get in the house???

Try knocking on the front door, and see if you can get in.

Be nice. Be polite, but most of all be smart............

I'm told they don't suffer fools well, despite what you may have heard.

Out here? Us dogs?

We come in here to bark at one another, and hopefully find some kindred spirits.

Kindered of course in the spirit of the Occupy movement.

(R)epelican'ts don't seem to know what that means, so they come in and bark at us, then we bark back.

Then they get mad at us for barking back.

Silly dogs, we are.

Sitting on the porch.

Barking.

WE all know the dems aren't perfect either.

So why don't you stop barking, and try to get along?

If that happens?

They just might open the door and let us all in.

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

Fortunately there is no relationship between OWS and the Democratic Party, left wing or otherwise. Fortunately there is nothing yet to divide. If there is that will be the death of OWS as the Democratic Party has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the days of the Populists. The Democratic Party will do nothing but eviserate our movement.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You are creating a false dicotomy. People can vote without becoming incorporated into a party.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Then explain why 99% of OWS that actually votes, will vote Democrat?

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I never said that, why should I explain it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

That's been a Troll tactic for a long time. They probably all get checks from the RNC.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

It's called "shifting the narrative."

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You mean from unequal wealth distribution to they are all to blame? Cynicism only helps the economic predators.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I mean shifting the focus from the 1% to the Democrats as the villian this movement is focusing on. Nice slight of hand trick, ay?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

I bash Obama. I think it is completely unjustified to call that a troll tactic. He's taken more money from Wall Street than anyone. Goldman Sachs holds fundraising events for him. And he's rewarding his donors. If you can turn a blind eye to this, then what the hell is OWS about?

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I am not turning a blind eye to it. I am trying to find a way to change it. What I am saying is that the 1% are too powerful to be brought back under control through civil disobedience alone. If we rule out violence, which is only sanity, then the question remains, how do we actually effect change.

I have advocated strong measures in the past, such as debt repudiation, etc. These strong measure have not come to pass. How then, exactly, are we going to make the changes we want to see, without working within the two-party system, as well as continuing protest and civil disobedience?

That is the question I have asked. I have not received an answer.

It is possible to put pressure on the Democratic party to deal with some of these issues, in fact it is already begining to happen. Petition drives are also having a real effect in an election year. This is called "begining to actually get what we want."

Finally, the charge that the Democrats are NO different than the Republicans is just false, and dangerous. Why do you think Republicans are spending hundreds of millions to defeat them if there really is no difference? I think a lot of people just have a hard time wrapping their head around how far right the Republicans have gone, or . . . wait, here it comes . . . can you actually remember the Bush Administration? Or have you already forgotton?

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

I have not forgot Bush (shudders). Different businesses are competing to get their horse into office, to have better access to governmental control than the next guy. When you ask "why some many are spending to beat Obama" I echo "why are so many spending to get Obama" 750 million, is what Obama raised last time. More than any candidate in history...that did not come from the 99%.

And regarding the petition drives, I thought the effect was awesome. But it was not just petitions. It was letters and phone call drives as well. Fightforthefuture had been hammering the SOPA issue and had already had the bill delayed and amended several times before the black-out. We all need to contact our congressmen directly much more frequently.

I also think we should organize boycotts more frequently. If the corporation is controlling policy, then pressure them. Not with noise, they don't care about your woes. With dollars. Pick 'em off like lions picks off a buffalo. One at a time.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I agree with all this completely. My point is that we must not allow ourselves to be convinced that we should shun ANY effective tactic except violence. Just the opposite, we must use every tactic short of violence. To do otherwise is to underestimate the stregnth of our opponent. If the election is even close we will get Mitt. Remember Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. They can engineer a close election.

[-] 2 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

Well my state is exceedingly Republican. Bush won his second term here by over 30 points:( So I feel the The Dems will loose nothing when I vote for a new party. If your your in a swing state I may be more sympathetic of you choosing the lesser of two evils.

Outside of that, how do we go about, picking who to boycott? And getting that ball rolling? I'm fairly new to being actively involved in change. And what legislation do we want to target in the next round of letters, phone calls and petitions? And would the GA help get out the word on the bill and corporation we are to target?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Of course, if you think you will just throw your vote away on Obama, make it a protest vote!

Regarding your other concerns, I would recommend you visit the GA site, and bare in mind that this movement is still in it's formative stage.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Actually a fair amount of Obama's money did come from the 99%. Young people, women, Black people were groups very enthusiastic for Obama and his message of hope and change. Now the enthusiasm is gone, the Republicans are Gerrymandering as many Congressional Districts as they can and are erecting barriers to discourage Obama's already disheartened base from voting. In New Jersey they are planning to put Gay Marriage on the ballot to bring out every religious fanatic they possibly can.

Watch for some very painful changes no matter who wins. I have no problem with people who want to support Obama in this context, but the main thing is that OWS keep doing what it does.

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

If you want to find ways to challenge imperial Presidential power demand that the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue, which has been closed to vehicular traffic since the Nixon era, be re-opened to traffic and that the fence around the White House be torn down. What's so special about the President? Any President? Don't his shit smell?

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Go on a hunger strike!

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

No, I'll leave that to the 1%.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

If I had a better option I wouldn't vote for Obama either, but is far as I'm concerned I don't. I can vote for Romney, who's not that far from Obama but still moving in the wrong direction. I can vote for Gingrich, author of such lovely pieces of legislation as the Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996 (which would mandate lethal injection for bringing two ounces of weed over the border) and ideas such as confiscating and institutionalizing the children of couples on welfare. That rounds out the major party choices.

Now on to third party and independent candidates. I could vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson because those are the people whose views correspond most closely to my own, but there's no way in hell they have anywhere near enough votes to their name to pose a credible challenge to anyone, so a vote for them amounts to half a vote for Romney or Gingrich.I could vote for Ron Paul, but he gets far more wrong than he does right and I don't trust him within half a mile of the White House. Thus, by process of elimination, I don't really have a choice to vote for anyone but Obama.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

He doesn't take the money, the campaign and democratic party do.

The repubs take as much, or even more.

Get the money out....................Is very much on the list of things to do.

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

Yes the republicans are awful. Obama is the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still an evil. And OK "his campaign" took the money. Do you think Wall street gives him money to do what you and I want? Obama has rewarded them and will some more. This bailout and other policies supported by Obama let millions loose their homes while the net worth of the top 6 banks increased by 39%. Obama should be prosecuting Goldman Sachs for insurance fraud and the very least, not rewarding them with billions...but he knows where his money comes from.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

The dems are actually behind the repubs, in donations so far in this election cycle.

Why no admission of that?

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

And here is a HUGE part of the problem. I can't criticize a Dem without hearing "well the GOP is worse". And? Go ahead and spend your life supporting the lesser of two evils.

Are you talking for any office or just President? Have all the GOP guys combined finally caught up with Obama? And please give me link if your got an article saying so, I have a republican hardliner, I would love to show it to.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

The GOP IS worse.

Have been for years.

Why do you ignore that?

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

I'm sorry if I was not clear. When I call Obama the lesser of two evils, I was suggesting that the GOP is in fact a bigger evil. I did not intend to ignore that. To me neither is acceptable.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

That's why I say, the first order of business has to be..............get the money out.................all of it!!

But for now, it is what it is, and the (r)epelicans are ahead.

The wonderful " Citizens United" ruling by a very conservative, pro corporate supreme court, will soon completely drown our last vestiges of democracy.

We are officially, up for sale.

Thank you (R)epelican'ts. Thank you SCOTUS.

Welcome to the Plutocracy.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

It's the only thing you bash, other than OWS.

Why don't you help build something, instead of disseminating negativity?

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

? I'm not understanding the communication barrier here. I've never bashed OWS. I am very happy people are standing up and speaking out, and addressing these things that need addressed. I have in this very thread bashed the GOP, referring to them as the greater of the 2 evils. I have expressed support of a candidate of a new party in another thread,
and will soon be circulating a petition in my state to get the Justice Party on the ballot.
I have in this thread discussed with GypsyKing constructive ways to bring about change, such as boycotts and letter drives directed at congressmen. So I'm having a really hard time seeing where your response in coming from.

[-] -1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

100% right-e-o. Check out Opensecrets.org and click on Obama's donor list. Goldman Sachs at the tippity top!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TimMcGraw (50) 2 years ago

According to history, it'll be a Republican this time. Romney is gonna win. But guess what? You'll have to get a job and get off unemployment, everyone wins.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Can anyone besides me and Shooz and GirlFriday see a . . . uh, concerted effort going on here?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

How to end OWS: Turn it into an Obama love fest and outcast all who oppose Obama by calling them trolls.

Whatever happened to Banks Got Bailed Out We Got Sold Out?

Last time I checked Obama still works for Wall Street.

4 more years of Bush's war legacy - Obama / Romney 2012

OWS does not support any candidate. Especially those who are corrupt.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

He supported the bailouts of a fraudulent financial system that is extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air for their own private interest, and Obama has yet to do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w

Obama's new campaign guy his a Wall Street lobbyist

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama-defies-base-hires-wall-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/#ixzz1cQ6oOt4U

"Is this the United States congress, or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?"-Dennis Kucinich

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It's a private for profit bank ran by frauds. Its a Ponzi scheme where they issue debt created from thin air and then they STEAL your tax money and put it in their wallets and their cronies' pockets. You know those trillions of dollars in government debt? Who do you think pays the interest on it?!?! WE DO! The Federal Reserve has no accountability and create trillions of dollars out of thin air for their own private interests all the while devaluing our US dollar. You don't see Obama trying to correct this fraudulent system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimTs6Q_xD0

Obama also extended the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

Don't even get me started on the wars still favoring the war profiteers like Halliburton and all the other bullshit actions that spit in the face of diplomacy.

If democrats were all as smart as they like to claim to be, they would have voted for Dennis Kucinich in 2008 instead of the lobbyist and media loved Obama.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Oh, sure we're now going to outcast all those who were never welcomr here in the first place! Are we heartless enough to outcast Ron Paul Supporters and RW trolls from this movement . . . uh, YES!

Goodbye.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

It's a fact. Obama works harder for the MIlitary Industrial Complex and Wall Street than he ever has for Main Street.

Please don't be one of the people that tries their hardest to turn this into an Obama rally. If you want to do that just go join an Obama rally with all the Obama supporters.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

What I am talking about is tactics, How are we going to actually effect change. That is what I want to know. The narrative of this movement is being manipulated by the right wing into an anti-Obama, and an anti-Democratic narrative. I think that is a divide and conquer strategy.

So how do we actually achieve our goals?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Not at all. I think it points out that Obama in a lot of ways has abandoned the democratic party and democratic values of diplomacy and justice... as well as that high level politicians generally no longer work for the middle class, instead they're working for the 1%. And this is not just republicans, but this contains democrats in this problem as well.

Look at Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren compared to Barack Obama on issues of war and wall street fraud. That's the difference in the democratic narrative that I'm talking about. And those 2 issues specifically is where I think Obama is failing the democratic base.

We need a REAL democrat or independent in the White House.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I agree, but how do we do that.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I could be way off base but:

1st we need someone that fits the bill, We will need more than several someones who fit the bill. Then like Wisconsin we need to run ( multi ) successful recall ( firing ) campaigns Then we need to successfully elect our chosen representatives/candidates. This needs to be done on a basis of failure to represent the people of the United States ( nationally ) and failure to represent the people of the state for the rest of the 50 state governments. Establishing failure to represent and firing the non-functioning should get things moving. We may need to do a lot of that sort of thing to begin with, perhaps refilling a seat or two more than once to get across the idea that we will not accept lip service and then their own agenda.

This is of coarse if we can not get it together to have people ready to run during regular elections. We don't need a new party we could scout independent possibles or good people of other party's willing to change their party or otherwise declare for the people.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Any of these methods that won't hand the election to the Republicans has my unconditional support!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You see that is just the thing.

It is not "only" the republicans. Though it sure seems like it right now as they have made their stance more then apparent ( those in office and not all but the majority of them currently in Congress ) as well as listening to the lies of their candidates as they blame Obama for Congressional inaction/sabotage as well as for being responsible for the meltdown and incredibly slow recovery with out owning up to the previous administrations starting two wars and deregulating WallStreet, and that does not even touch on their own in-house fighting.

No what we need is to be able to hire and fire these sellouts ( Democrat, Republican, Independent ) and then also bind them to a contract of office that denies allowing corporate/special interest influence/money/favors/gifts. So if they fail to uphold the peoples will they could even catch jail time when they are fired/removed from office. This of coarse they would not willingly agree to passing into law, it would have to be done by a majority will of the people type of action/demand.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

If we can do that between now and November, I am all for it. The problem to me seems that to acomplish this will be a matter of years, and I remember the Bush Years to well to buy the idea that the Republicans are no worse than what we have now.

We are still paying for the loss of the Democtats to Richard Nixon. Things can get a LOT WORSE.

I am simply saying that while we are groping for ways to make permanent and effective reform, the Republicans are scheming about how to make that an impossibility. They can do that in November.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes we have real work ahead of us, and I would estimate years and years worth. We have only just started the process.

The only immediate thing that I know of that can be done daily. And I have heard a lot of people say that it is useless ( I do not agree with that assessment ). Would be to start a fire storm of petitioning, addressing everything that is currently broken and or corrupt. I've been advocating and circulating petitions and I believe that if we could get every pissed off and disgusted person to participate, then we could see some real action. I believe that it is some of the petitions that I have been pushing as well as petitions that others have been pushing, in conjunction with the protests, that have influenced recent events in DC.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I agree with you. I think a continued presence on the streets eill also continue to have effect. Furthermore, their are online petitions that have been doing well. The potential to get signatures online is exponential. Also I think we need to find some effective way to make our numbers felt in the next election. The key here is self education. Most people really don't know how their ellected officials in Congress, or State Legislatures, have voted. People need to get these voting records and vote accordingly.

Yet foremost, in the short run I think we need to prevent the Republicans from wining the Presidency, and drive the Tea Baggers and New Democrats out to the best of our ability. The Repubs already have the corporations, the Supreme Court, the House of Representitives, and a rule preventing The Senate from functioning, due to the necessity of a 60 vote majority. In other words they have the capacity to create gridlock, which they have done, and then blame that gridlock on Obama.

I am not saying that Obama isn't in the Corporate Pocket. The way elections are financed EVERY politician is to one degree or another, but we must start somewhere.

If the Replublicans have the presidency as well it will be VERY difficult for any of us to see justice.

I hate the two party system, but we must keep our eyes firmly planted in the reality of what can actually be accomplished, and how fast, if we are to fix this mess.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Good call, Gypsy. You rock!

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

High praise from you, my lady.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Occupy Wall Street is NOT part of the Left, NOT part of the Democratic Party, and sure as hell NOT part of the Bushbama campaign. Time to put away the divisive labels:

http://amerikanreich.com/labels/

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Case in point, my friends.

[-] 0 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

What's your point? You can't possibly be an Obama supporter, can you?

I thought the whole point of OWS is that it rejected the Single Party System (the Dempublican) that we have in this country.

Romney will not get the nomination. Neither will any Repub. Their job is to push the Overton Window ever rightward into looney land, and get themselves bigger speaking fees after the season is over.

Obama is the Grand Champion Puppet. He's being set up for another four years of serving the Corporate 1%ers.

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

The Left must Unite around a plan of effective action. You tell me what that will be. I pose that question to all those who won't dirty their hands with the existing political process, as one means of turning this truely dangerous mess around.

I despize the two-party system as much as anyone here, but despizing it won't make it go away; so how do we actually come to power? How do we actually make the change?

I'm afraid what I'll hear are a hundred differing opinions that nobody can agree upon. That is what has to end - we must unite around a plan of action or be defeated.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

What we sure as hell DON'T do is line up behind the Pied Piper Obama.

Or the Democrapper party.

That's what they want us to do, and that would be a fatal mistake.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I asked you what your plan was to EFFECT change. I got no response, so all I can conclude is that you are either a troll, or a FUCKING IDIOT.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Gee, and here we were getting along so well.

WTF is wrong with you?

You seemed cool, then suddenly you seem to turn into an Obamabot.

I thought you were smarter than that.

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

It is because your rhetoric does not address effecting change, Nordic. Being against Obama does not make anything positive happen. And since there is no current viable third party, it only serves to strengthen the extreme right wing further. THEY are NOT divided, as the left invariably is.

That Obama is not a progressive is painfully obvious. But that doesn't make his counterparts, who are FAR to his right, any less overtly fascist. By focussing on disparaging one, you give support to the other. And if Obama is somewhat bad, Gingrich and Romney are all-out evil.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

That whole desperate "we've gotta vote for the lesser of two evils" is what got us into this mess.

People need to realize that this 24/7 coverage of the Republican "race" is nothing but a propaganda ploy to get us to support the "lesser of two evils".

It sucks ALL our energy in the wrong direction.

I've been watching this go on for YEARS. It has to stop, or we're totally fucked.

And we are totally fucked. That's what people don't realize. The OWS movement is truly the only hope for our society.

It is NOT the Democratic Party and it is NOT Obama. That's what they want you to think.

They're all part of the same team and it does not matter one bit who is president out of the group of professional, billionaire-backed politicians with the D's and R's after their names.

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

Ignoring the differences between the two is as short sighted and dangerous as not seeing the similarities.

Supreme Court appointments do NOT follow the same ideological/political/practical approaches. If you want to see Roe v Wade repealed, if you want to see Citizens United upheld and strengthened, do nothing, sit this one out, split the vote.

Yes, BIG change is required, It willnot happen quickly. It will take a long time and a great deal of effort. In the SHORT term, we must slow velocity towards right-wing extremism. Voting for Obama will not miraculously create a progressive government. But allowing either Romney or Ginrich to appoint the new members of the Supreme Court will usher in despotism the likes of we have have never seen. and will effect us for a generation, not merely four years.

[-] 0 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Well that's a pretty desperate and pathetic point of view.

If I may say so.

And it's what they want you to think.

Get it straight -- Obama IS a Republican. He IS a right-winger. He IS a corporatist tool.

You're being played. They WANT you to support Obama!!!

I'll repeat that:

They WANT you to support Obama.

And you will. Because you have been trained to. Conditioned.

Maybe you have to be as old as I am to figure this out. I'll freely admit it took me many years to see this.

But trying to teach young people is, well, frustrating. People have to figure things out for themselves too many times.

Maybe that's just how it is. But they will continue to consolidate their Shadow Fascism all around you if you keep taking their bait.

New Parties. A New System. That's the only way things willl improve. They OWN the system now. They own it lock stock and barrel. They own the elections, they own the process, they own the voting machines, they own the media. The own it ALL.

So create a new EVERYTHING. Everything. Let the old one wither and die. Ignore it and it will die.

Build. Don't try to change what you can't change. BUILD.

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

First, I'm 55. That means I'm old enough to remember how the youth movement handed Nixon victory in '68, extending the war by years, simply because it was in a huff about Chicago. They were the ones who who were played, too stupid and too impressed with their own radical superiority to realize that Humphrey was anti war.

If you think that the makeup of the Supreme Court means nothing, you are delusional. If you think that by wanting a new system you will have one in the short term, you are delusional. Maybe, possibly, perhaps, with enough hard work sacrifice and there will be some real change. That will likely take decades. In the meantime there are people making laws. Ignore them at your own peril.

You can't, with a straight face, tell me that Ginsburg or Breyer are the same as Thomas and Scalia. You can't claim with a HINT of credibility that Obama would replace what will likely be two retiring judges with anyone ideologically resembling a Scalia or Thomas. And you can't tell me with any sanity that it doesn't make a difference.

Are Kagan and Sotamayor Republicans? Those are who Obama appointed so far. Do you think they are likely to overturn Roe? Did they support the Citizens United case? Did they concur on the Walmart class action ruling, making it impossible for women to sue for sexual discrimination? What did those appointed by Republicans rule? What kinds of judges do you think Ginrich would appoint. Or Romney?

There IS a difference between the two. They may not be enough to your liking, but they are real enough to have a real impact. And if you ignore that for the sake of your radical purity, you will be helping fuck us over with another Nixon again, only this time not in the short term, not in the Executive, but for a generation with judges who serve for life. If you don't think that "consolidation of Shadow Fascism" will happen infinitely more quickly and completely under an even more right-wing court we will absolutely surely have from anyone other than Obama, you are blind.

Change the long term as radically as you want. Ignoring the reality of the present is, well, ignoring reality. And pretending the makeup of the court is meaningless means that YOU are being played. They WANT you to not vote. And they are doing it all around the country with voter ID laws, disenfranchising millions. Why do you think they are trying to keep fewer people in certain areas from voting? They apparently don't even have to make that effort with you.

Ignoring the Supreme court will not make it wither and die. It will not simple cease to have power because you cover your eyes. Believing so is psychotic and dangerous.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

I'm just saying it's pathetic to be putting up with the current state of affairs for the occasional SCOTUS picks. That's like someone kidnapping your entire family but letting you keep your car. "gosh, sure wouldn't want them to take my car!"

It's clearly the rationalization of a desperate and browbeaten mindset.

We can do better, we DESERVE better, and we're gonna have to take some chances and risks to get anything better.

They're not gonna hand us our rights back because we ask for them nicely. Instead, they're gonna do what they just did in Oakland last night -- beat us, arrest us, jail us, abuse us.

You want anything good you have to fight for it.

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

You are expressing a classic false choice fallacy.

Vote for making sure SCOTUS does not go completely fascist AND fight for change.

If you fight for change with a SCOTUS that allows your efforts to be met with tanks, you won't get anywhere but the grave. (And yes, I am being hyperbolic, but then again so are you.)

Yes, we deserve better. But with a consolidated right wing court created LONG before your revolution is complete (at least a generation or two before), we lose Roe v Wade. This isn't a game. Women's basic rights, their VERY LIVES are at stake. I, for one, am not willing to risk that. I love women too much to see them dead.

So, after the hypothetical kidnapping, make sure you have the car, so you can run down those kidnappers and save your family.

Either/or means none at all.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

This country is too far gone to not risk losing something for ALL OF US to get our rights back.

If you think you're clutching onto something now, just wait a few years. They do whatever they want now, and if they want to take away a woman's right to choose, they will, and there won't be a damn thing you can do about it at that point.

You've already lost. They're doing it in slow-motion on purpose. So we'll accept all the small losses as they come along.

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

Again, false choice fallacy.

NO ONE telling you to stop pursuing real change. NO ONE is telling you that real change is not absolutely necessary.

But not insuring the Supreme court maintains Roe in the INTERIM is utterly irresponsible. You will NOT dismantle the system before the next administration. And if a far right wing consolidates power in the Supreme court we WILL see a repeal of Roe. And that means back alley abortions and women dying. And your revolution won't come in time to save them.

So work on that revolution AND vote to protect women.

False choices are simply false.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I asked you, and I mean this sincerely, to tell me how we are actually going to make the change we want to make a reality. This is all that I am bringing to the fore here. We now need to know exactly how we go forward to make change, or this movement will lose it's momentum. HOW DO WE DO THIS?

[-] 0 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

As I've said before...get involved in LOCAL politics. How many here have ever attended a city or county council meeting? It's easier to elect a 3rd party candidate to your state legislature. He gets a name and then has a better shot at Congress/Senate. The President isn't a king...if we had better STATE reps in DC it would be a huge step forward. It's gonna require something of a 10 yr plan. It took us over 200 yrs to get this screwed up, not gonna fix it in 6 mos. NEVER gonna fix anything camping in public and shouting nifty slogans, either.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Damn right, just don't support Ron Paul! But if you aren't mezmerized and really know what's going on and who to vote for, It's good advice!

[-] 0 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

Not just voting....you gotta find some good candidates and help them in their campaign. Spread the word, knock on doors, hand out flyers. Unfortunately most folks walk into the booth and think they are sophisticated voters cuz they don't just vote straight party ticket, but as they go thru the ballot, it's often the name they heard or were somewhat familiar with. That's why incumbents become career pols.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Very good point!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Honestly, I don't understand the point of these posts. They are based on a logical fallacy: appeal to motive. In addition, they fill the forum with more distracting posts.

The best approach is to comment what you find worthwhile and ignore what you consider trolling. Really. The most annoying thing on this forum is when some users call others users trolls. I can read and decide by myself what posts I consider trollish and which ones I consider legitimate. I don't need anyone's help.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

GypsyThing, prove you're not being paid by the DMC!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Prove you're not being paid by the RNC. A much more likely scenario. I've never known anybody paid by the DMC, or the DNC for that matter.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Run told me himself that he paid you! LOL

[-] -1 points by owsinlove (83) 2 years ago

I think Romney will improve the plight of the poor more than Obama.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

And I think little hurley burley gave you anus curly wurly and he ask you if you needed a ride.

[-] -1 points by owsinlove (83) 2 years ago

Wow personal attack, that was quick, certainly not making America a better place to live. I hope you will learn, that being uncivil in society destroys the society and causes violence. If you go to a violent families household you can here this kind of talk, I encourage you to get councilling so your children will do well.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Now right-wing trolls are going to lecture us about ethics - LOL!

[-] 0 points by owsinlove (83) 2 years ago

not a lecture in a political sense just a personal sense there are plenty of people who can discuss things politely, I was just wanting a better life for you and those you interact with.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I'm sure you were.

[-] 0 points by owsinlove (83) 2 years ago

3 hours ago you were civil to tedscrat why the change, is everything okay.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Probably been barraged by to many comments. I'm trying to wrap this up, but I just can't get through all these comments. If I've been uncivil to anyone here, with honest intentions, I would like to appologize.

[-] -1 points by tedscrat (-96) 2 years ago

I Absolutely do not support Obama. I do not support Mitt Romney either. At this stage, i am open to either Santorum or Gingrich. We survived Carter and we may survive Obama, but I honestly do not think we can support 4 more years of Obama.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, if you support Santorum or Gingrich, I respectfully suggest you commune with like minds, somewhere else.

I admire you for coming out and saying what you believe frankly, and not just resorting to subtrafuge,;and really, you have a full right to say that here. I don't think anyone's opinion, expressed honestly, should be censored here or anywhere else. But this is the OWS forum, and it's function is to be a place where OWS people can communicate with each other. I don't consider you a troll because you express your opinion out in the open, but you are unlikely to get much support for you convictions here:)

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 2 years ago

That is OK. I am going to remain civil and, hopefully, open-minded. I have a lot of trouble coming to terms with a majority of your views. But there are a few that I can agree with. I would love to debate on the rest; I do learn some new things on this forum and I will try to incorporate them in my continued quest for knowledge.
I wish you some luck, not much. You have a lot of detractors out there.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I wish you all the luck in the world. We may not agree, but we share this life expierence; what Maya Angelou called, "This valley of strange humors." It is not easy making sense of life; we all struggle, and we often come to different conclusions. It seems to me that the life expierence of people is very different. We all see the world through the filter of our own expierence, and it leads us to very different conclusions. My hope would be that we could all live as brothers and sisters. But the nature of existance does not seem to allow for that. How sad. But we can, I think, find a way to coexist without the terrible level of antagonism that has come to permiate our country. That is my greatest hope:)

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 2 years ago

Battle it out in the political arena but share a drink at happy hour!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I'd be glad to!

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 2 years ago

Poor fool. You don't get that Obama is a wall street Republican if there ever was one. You fall for his lies when he says something and does the opposite. He has done virtually nothing good in his presidency, the few worthwhile things he has done such as DADT have analogues in the dark years of the Bush presidency.

He is NO DIFFERENT than Bush and anyone who says otherwise deserves the financial death we are facing at the hands of Wall Street!

Demand REAL CHANGE instead of voting for this Republican buffoon again!

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You are either unwilling, or unable to address the existing fact of the two party system. Wishing it away won't cut it, pal. We need to unite around a plan of ACTION that will be effective. I have advocated a continuation of civil disobediance, participation in petition drives and an effort to push the Democratic Party to the left. In an election year these combined tactics may, just may, prove successful.

I simply don't believe how many people STILL underestimate the stregnth of our opponents. I have asked whether anyone here has a better idea. I am all ears. Until I hear a better one, all I can conclude is that those ragging on Obama are Republican Shills.

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

Are you saying that OWS should come out publicly and endorse President Obama and other democrats?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

No, I am not saying that.

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

OK, I respect your opinion though they differ from mine a bit. I just hope that OWS never does back either of the two party canidates. Thats all.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Alright, I respect that concern. I just don't think we need to worry about it. I think the whole issue is a red herring. We are a gressroots movement of independent minded people. The problem is more in achieving effective action then in being coopted.

Seriously, how can you coopt a movement that has so many differing opinions? The question is much more - can we achieve any kind of concerted action? Nobody could coopt this movement. Even we ourselves can't coopt this goddmaned movement!

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

I agree with the opinions on most of your posts, but I am concerned about OWS being coopted. I just feel that if we start to allign ourselves, even in small ways with one of the two major parties, they will finish the job for us. I am getting mail from The Bold Progressives and they are using OWS lingo in it, ie. 99%. That bothers me. Sure at some point, we have to get more involved in politics. I just don't think we are anywhere near that point. We have already done a great job in pulling both parties to the left and changing the political discourse in this country in the process and we should continue to do that until we can really make a really make a major difference. That will require numbers, big numbers

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

This is a valid point of view. This movement is still in it's infancy, and I think we're all groping towards effective means. My real point here is, that while we're worrying about getting coopted by the Democrats, I'm afraid that we are getting coopted by the Republicans.

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

How could we get coopted by the republicans? I can't see that. I do think that if OWS supported Gingrich secretly in the Florida primaries that he might get the nomination, but more importantly you would get what you want come November, and I could maintain my principled stance and just get the lesser of two evils!! heeee grin

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

All we have to do to be coopted by the Republicans is to let them convince us to not vote for Obama in the next election. They will take care of the rest.

It is a winner take all system, and believe me, these guys are good at taking it all.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 2 years ago

I think we are more agreed than either of us thinks. You are not a fool, I take that back for now. But how can you sit there and properly dump on the two party system without realizing that Obama is part of the problem? I still maintain that he is no different than Bush.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I maintain that he isn't really in power! Can you say "Shadow Government?"

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 2 years ago

Alright, how about this: We agree that the two-party system is a big part of the problem, Obama being part of this, and

We agree that the solution is NOT to elect a random Republican. How's that sound?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

That sounds good to me! The problem IS, partly, this fucking two party system! But we can't fix THAT between now and November!

So we are in agreement.

[-] 0 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

I gave many better ideas in various postings and comments you can find all around the forum.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

So, once you divide the 30 people that are the only ones posting on here 24/7 in favor of OWS, what will the 15 people left do when separated?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Beat the two people on here using bots to support the 1%.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Well, we do get to vote in primary's. Maybe your 5th grade education didn't get that far into U.S. Government Classes. And isn't fascism what occupiers want? Since the country is a right of center country, your communist goals could never happen w/o violence and a dictatorship. :?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

They are the majority's views, and it would help if the majority would vote.