Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Wake Up

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 10 p.m. EST by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Do you people realize that about half of the 99%'s out there watch Fox News and believe that shit? I was down there at the Portland Occupation today and saw a bunch of desperate people, but what Fox News and their viewers will see is a bunch of pot smoking hippies who want communism! There is only one issue that will unite all 99%'s... Get The Money Out Of Politics. It doesn't matter if you are politically right or left, your vote does not matter when elections are bought (as they are now). If we get the money out of politics, all the problems will start to go away because all of them were caused by the lobbyists. If you try and address individual issues, you will fail! Wake up!

If you want to get the hoards of middle class Americans to join you, give them an issue they can sink their teeth into. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be spent on the 2012 election... most of it by the 400 wealthiest families in the Country. They know that propaganda and brainwashing works. They will film the worst parts of the Occupy Movement and plaster the airwaves with it. They habitually lie about everything. They will outlast you if you try to address particular problems. The only way to beat them is with millions of Americans and there is only one issue that can unite that many people.... billionaires stealing their votes. We must seek a constitutional amendment that prohibits campaign contributions, advertising and lobbying. Otherwise the corrupt Supreme Court will strike down everything the 99% want.

70 Comments

70 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 13 years ago

Sing it.

There are more people every day rallying to this banner. Get money out of government. I'll sign for that.

[-] 3 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 13 years ago

Yep. I read an article saying Rupert Murdoch is declaring war on OWS. His papers are saying that people join the protest because of the free food - they just eat pizza, drink and smoke all day. Seriously, that's what they printed.

At the same time, Murdoch is up for all these cases of fraud, wiretapping. Something is WRONG. Maybe his empire of shit will fall from this. We need to occupy their forums, and be friendly and honest in our approach.

I bet we can convince 60% of the public for extreme campaign finance reform, aka get money out of politics, as you say. THEN we can get our representatives representing us!

[-] 3 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

More than 60%. About 90% of the people I talk to, including Tea Baggers and Libertarians support this idea.

[-] 2 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 13 years ago

That's great. I just think we need to inform the bible belt too, before fox news makes harder. I just hope they have Facebook.

[-] 1 points by marsdefIAnCe (365) 13 years ago

Dude the people in the Bible belt are several steps ahead of you guys. #OccupyTheFed is going strong in the south/midwest. Welcome to reality.

[-] 1 points by anonrez (237) 13 years ago

They should, our agenda would benefit them and their political candidates too!

[-] 1 points by roberttho (5) 13 years ago

the best strategy the news has to discredit the ows people is to attack their appearances, that way their listeners will laugh and be content with knowing they look different or funny, versus actually discussing what the ows peoples' opinions and beliefs are

[-] 2 points by manias329 (12) 13 years ago

A documentary to spread far and wide to those who are still asleep.

Lifting the Veil (Documentary): http://vimeo.com/20355767 Barack Obama and the failure of capitalist 'democracy'

[-] 1 points by Alleric (9) 13 years ago

Cheer Up!!!!

The DISGRACED Murdoch Family is DESTROYED! The only reason their LIE NETWORK is still on the air is because the BANKSTERS haven't quite figured out how to DIVIDE THEIR ASSETS!

83 investigations on three continents. DOOMNED! Yes...Finally the snake oil salesmen are skewered! Bill Hemmer...you loser...you'll be flippn hamburgers in Cincinnati next week!

Die FOX NETWORK! I love your Sports...but even your pornstar bitches cannot save you now you trailer park trash whores!

Alleric

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

I hope you are correct here

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 13 years ago
[-] 1 points by roberttho (5) 13 years ago

how do you reform our current corporate funded political systems with protest? what will the next steps be? the ows people want change, but how is that change initiated? our system is broken but currently it is being covered and hidden from everyone. Fortunately the ows people have cracked that wall and within the next few years, if it is not changed, it will crumble.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

You have to go for a constitutional amendment specifying that money is not free speech... reverse the Citizens United decision. Publicly financed and strictly controlled elections, removal of lobbyists would be part of it. Check out the "Get The Money Out" movement going on. Sign on to that too.

[-] 1 points by MadMavenNYC (26) 13 years ago

Excerpt from http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Constitutional Amendment for public debate:

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

[-] 1 points by Coreupt (294) 13 years ago

Hallelujah !!

[-] 1 points by MadMavenNYC (26) 13 years ago

Corporations, and moneyed interests in general, possess an unacceptable level of power over the United States government and the main stream news media. Let's just say that the Federal Reserve a non-governmental agency that is controlled by the Major Banks, controls our government, as well as the big Pharmaceutical companies, and Major Corporations. This is something that we can all probably agree with and rally around.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

This would not be this way if politicians did not have to raise money to represent us... they would only have our votes, and a poor man's vote would count the same as a billionaire's vote.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 13 years ago

Agree, and it doesn't help that you have a bunch of lefties supporting OWS

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/187297-gore-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-protests

(I think I just threw up a little in the back of my throat)

[-] 1 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 13 years ago

No joke. All I hear about on Lars Larson's show (Portland's local republican extremest radio host) is how there are a bunch of dirty, pot smoking hippies that are breaking all kinds of laws and have no clear focus. Lets show them there is a focus. Lets show them that what we really want most is like you say, money out of government. We need to find a way to show those middle americans that they really want the same thing, they need the same thing.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 13 years ago

I need a joint.

[-] 1 points by smate1 (72) 13 years ago

How about a sign saying Get ALL $ out of Elections held jointly by a hippie and a Jew? Make your own substitutions. Unite and focus while we have the chance. Just a thought.

[-] 1 points by yasky2012 (11) 13 years ago

Reverse United Citizens - the decision that allows for corporate campaign contributions.

We must also personally ban products from companies who are guilty of human rights violations in third world - like Coca Cola. I hope protesters will consider avoiding brand display.

It doesn't matter what the local press says or how protesters are portrayed. The int'l news is covering and they can't hide the truth forever.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

You won't be able to reverse Citizens United because the Courts have been bought also. Many of the 99% don't follow international news... they watch Fox!

[-] 1 points by yasky2012 (11) 13 years ago

Reverse United Citizens - the decision that allows for corporate campaign contributions.

We must also personally ban products from companies who are guilty of human rights violations in third world - like Coca Cola. I hope protesters will consider avoiding brand display.

It doesn't matter what the local press says or how protesters are portrayed. The int'l news is covering and they can't hide the truth forever.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 13 years ago

Exactly, but we also need is a comprehensive strategy, and related candidate, that implements all our demands at the same time, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – such as myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

Without instant runoff elections, a third party candidate hasn't got a chance.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 13 years ago

That doesn't mean we can't create our own banks at $500 apiece first, and thus reduce our workloads by 75%. For example, the 99%, as Home Town Banks of 65,000 Members, can divide themselves into 16,384 Vehicle Investment Groups of 4 Members, with each group of 4 Members purchasing a hybrid-diesel-hummer-limo Cab which they then put into their Town Cab Fleet of 16,384 Cabs. Why? Because this would reduce their Individual Transportation Costs by 75% (Cost of 1 Cab / 4 Members = 75% less cost per member), and yet they would have a Luxury Limo Cab available to them, out of 16,000 cabs in their Town, five minutes after calling for one, but not necessarily the specific luxury cab they own 25% of. This 75% reduction in Individual Transportation Costs -- for everyone -- reduces transportation prices by 75%, and thus money, by 75% (and let's not forget the lessening of Mother Nature's burden from having 75% fewer cars with no traffic jams). Furthermore, the list of simple productivity improvements like this one -- which the 99% want but the 1% don't want -- are endless. But first, the 99% must control the banks before they can control their Town (and National) design in this manner which is less costly (in terms of the worker hours to maintain it by 75% too) and yet have 75% greater luxury (such as a limo cab) at the same time. Consequently, to decentralize banking into a Direct Democracy is to lower cost 75% is to lower price 75% is to lower the existence of money by 75%, and eventually, to lower prices to near zero through automation, nanotechnology, etc, but ONLY as bank owner-voters.

[-] 1 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 13 years ago

While this is a very awesome idea, you leave out one detail: As demand goes up, so does price. If everyone is buying limos, the price of limos will go up.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 13 years ago

Not if you are the Limited Creditor Customer's of your own Home Town Bank of 65,000, and therefore have the ability, as bank owner-voters, to divide production among 4,600 Home Town Banks of 65,000 nationally, and thus, through extremely heavy and divided competition leading to tenfold greater innovation, cut prices,

[-] 1 points by Philosopher101 (2) 13 years ago

In Ontario, Canada we just had an election and the voter turnout was less than 50%. What we need is at a minimum is an "awakening" of the 50 % or more who do not vote to become more politically engaged and active.

[-] 1 points by jmcdarcy (158) 13 years ago

Here here.

[-] 1 points by steve005 (256) from Cincinnati, OH 13 years ago

I disagree, this wont work without fair and unbiased media

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

You will never have fair and unbiased media as long as it is a for-profit privatized industry. Why do you think the "right" has been pushing to privatize everything for 3 decades??? If you get the money our of politics including making political advertising illegal, the for profit media can't brain wash very effectively.

[-] 1 points by Philosopher101 (2) 13 years ago

I agree with dadgader's post. There is something wrong with the politicians that are being elected, and I think that money and propaganda may be at the root of the problem, but that is only an opinion.

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 13 years ago
  1. Institute term limits. 8 years maximum for any and all nationally elected servants. If two 4 year terms are enough for any one man to hold the highest elected public servant office of President, that should also hold true for other public servants in lesser offices.

  2. Eliminate ALL company and non-profit contributions to political candidates. Only private U.S. citizens should be allowed to donate to any U.S. political candidate, and donations should have an individual donor cap.

  3. Eliminate ALL PAID corporate and non-profit lobbyists. Our elected officials are there to serve us, We The People, not anything or anybody else.

  4. Eliminate the need for candidates to have to buy advertising to campaign. During election times, media should have the choice to participate. If they wish to participate, then they should provide free equal air time to all political candidates. Local media providing for local elections, and national media providing for national elections.

http://sanityscribe.wordpress.com/

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

If elected officials didn't have to raise money for campaigns, they would listen to voters and there would be no need for term limits. Term limits only give more power to unelected government workers... not a good idea... you can't fire them at election time.

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 13 years ago

You can still fire them at election time. Our President can only serve 2 terms, that is a term limit. If the populace does not like the first term they can vote him out at the next election. My concept is to remove politics as a career choice.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

I don't have a problem with term limits, hell, I would support a system where our representatives are selected like a jury... you get a notice and have to go serve in Congress for two years. I just think that is a minor problem compared to the money thing. Good talking with you.

[-] 1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Are you a pot smoking hippie? Do you like communism?

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

No, and not really. I prefer a socialist democracy. Unregulated capitalism is a disaster.

[-] 1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Not really? Socialist democracy?

Sounds suspiciously like a yes to me.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

No was for pot smoking as I have watched several people die of lung disease. Not really was for communism as I don't care what system people choose to live under if they get to choose. Social democracy is nothing like communism. So what are we doing down here in the weeds (no pun intended)

[-] 1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Hey, you like pot or communism its cool by me. I only commented to see if the media shoe fit.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

You think I am media??? What are you smokin'

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 13 years ago

I agree with dadgager's post.We need to drop our ideologies and concentrate on

END CORRUPTION!

The moment we endorse one side's agenda instead of sticking to goals EVERYONE can agree on, we push people away.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/liberals-shape-up-or-youll-ruin-the-movement/#comment-76698

[-] 2 points by 4435columbo (7) 13 years ago

Good point, focus. Congress isn't working because they are having a peeing contest, it won't help if the movement falls into that trap. It's all about creating a sense of community, rather than alienating one another. There is power in the mob, divide and they conquer one by one. There are probably many "plants" in the group already whose sole purpose is to give it a bad name.

[-] 0 points by Misguided (373) 13 years ago

I agree with your identification of the problem. I think the problem with the unification of the movement is a misunderstanding of how to fix it. The only way to fix it is to end government involvement in the market. If government regulates the market there is reason for corruption. If government cannot regulate markets but instead they are regulated by the consumer as they are supposed to be then there is no way government can be corrupted by the market.

[-] 2 points by 4435columbo (7) 13 years ago

"We" are the government, the public (consumers). We vote for someone to represent us in government and to do what is best for the majority. It's not working. Too much corruption, Too many incredibly average men in politics, they sell out because of their luke-warm ethics. They answer to the call of "Big Money/Businss". Businesses try to maximize profit, power, market share and control over the state. They do not like a functioning democracy or anything that might mean external constraints on their capacity to make decisions and act freely. For instance, It is inconvenient to have to follow regulations when you want to dispose of toxic chemicals or sell meds that create heart failure in people (Pfizer).

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 13 years ago

Right so that answer is not to write more regulation it's to prosecute Pfizer for it's crime.

[-] 1 points by 4435columbo (7) 13 years ago

Pfizer was found guilty of criminal fraud and assigned criminal fees, a record amount in American judicial history, $2.3 BILLION! Kopchinski, a Pfizer sales rep. said, "I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even if it meant endangering lives. It put patients at risk of heart attacks, strokes and blood clots." They actually sat in a room, decided to repackage meds. and re-label them to get them off the shelf, rather than toss the lot. A few good regulations could easily have prevented this. But Big Pharma does not want contraints on their decision making. It's a God complex, in my ever so humble opinion. Seems to me there are meds for that, they should consult their medicine cabinet.
We are prosecuting all the time, trouble is the courts have more suits pending than a Hong Kong tailor (borrowed from MASH) they are backed up and draining taxpayer $ (public coffers) to pay for it all. In other words, profits are privitized and go to Big Oil/Pharma etc. any problems or costs are socialized aka pd for by the taxpayer. BP was forced to take responsibility for the Gulf spill, but I'll bet the farm, the taxpayer has picked up the tab for a huge chunk of that cleanup. Profits are privitized, costs are socialized.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 13 years ago

Nope regulations are there to stop that which is why they paid up 2.3 billion. Just like you can't stop someone from running another person down with a car if that's what they want to do you can't stop stuff like this from happening. But if you want to blame the FDA for taking bribes to push bad meds to market be my guest cause that happens all the time. Why does it cost 1 mil to get a drug approved that has already been in use and saving lives in Europe? That's not big pharma's fault they would love to sell them. That's government looking out for you...lol

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

Wrong here, without regulation we'll end up with polluted everything and slave wages.

[-] 1 points by 4435columbo (7) 13 years ago

I agree. We didn't get hit with the dot com meltdown nearly as badly here in Canada because our banks are highly regulated by the government. For example, you can't get a mortgage if the debt is more than 32% of your income.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 13 years ago

Right because everyone would run to work for slave wages and not start their own businesses (even if they were cooperatives) and no one would prosecute a business for destroying their property. The reason corporations get away with pollution is because of regulation allowing a certain amount of pollutants of this kind or that to be dumped here or there. Come on wake up and get out of your box.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

So you are suggesting that we would all be aware of some pollution problem before it killed some of us, or that we all would have the resources to go hire a law firm to take on a big corporation... you want me to get out of my box??? Yes, everyone is running to slave wages because that is the plan...make us all so desperate, we'll work for whatever we can get. Corporations calculate the legal costs of killing people as collateral damage. If they can make a bigger profit doing it, they will, and have (check out some corporate history).

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 13 years ago

Yes unfortunately none of us can predict if a murderer is going to kill us either. Sorry life does not come with guarantees. Should not need a law firm to take on a corporation that is breaking the law if government was doing it's proper job the DA would take that on. If the markets were free we would not have so many road blocks and regulatory hoops to jump through that opening a business and working for yourself would be as it should be, easy. That would mean that there would be competition in the market which would cause wages to rise not fall. Wages are only low when competition is low, competition is low only when it is difficult to compete, it is difficult to complete because government has made it that way. A corporation can only get away with killing people and writing it off if the government allows it. The problem is GOVERNMENT not industry. Industry is only doing what they have been allowed to and assisted in doing. The government must hold industry to the same standard as it does everyone else they like us cannot destroy property or murder or anything else that would violate someone's rights. Government has let them get away with all of that and stopped us from competing with them through regulation written by industrialists. It's government that is to blame. Free people and free markets.

[-] 2 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

By the way, I have no problem with free markets. That would mean the markets would have no influence on government... no contributions, no lobbyists, no subsidies, no grants, no free oil leases, no no-bid contracts, etc. It has never been free in my lifetime (60 years)

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 13 years ago

Exactly the point I'm trying to make thank you.

[-] 2 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

I see the problem... I guess I do have a problem with "free markets" if that means I can't have an EPA or an FAA or other agencies for consumer protection. Right now we have those agencies, but they are not effective because of the money in politics (lobby to get your man or woman in charge of the agency that is supposed to regulate you). Happens all the time.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

"We" are the government.. problem is it has been purchased and taken away by the same crooks you want to let loose. Regulation is tough on small business because big business likes it that way so they can convince you (assuming you are not a corporate plant here like it sounds) that government is bad. True, I can't do much about a whacko murderer, but I can do something about the greed and bad behavior that large amounts of money attract.... regulate it. If I can get the money out of elections, I'll have some say in what government does. I will never have enough money, and most of us won't, to have any say in what a corporation does. By the way, money can buy DA's too, and it does.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 13 years ago

I understand what you are saying but I think you are looking at this issue as one that can be fixed by the same people that intentionally created it. Those people were bought because it benefits them and unless we change that and those people and not allow it to happen again all we are asking for is a band-aid to shut us up. I want to let the private crooks loose only because they would not be able to be crooks if it wasn't for the crooks in DC who are supposed to be the ones watching out for us. Why not more anger at them? Regulation, like you said is harder on small business than it is on big business and that is intentional because they are written by the big businesses. Again the only way to stop it all is to get rid of the regulations all together and let the people control the markets with their dollars as it was meant to be. It's the only way to get the power back to the people.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 13 years ago

The idea is that if government can not regulate corporation cannot take government over. Here is the reasoning. The money is in politics right now because regulations are written by the corporations who then "donate" to pols to get the regulation passed. The system of market regulation has been sold to the highest bidder. Without regulation on the market there is no longer any reason for corporations to lobby or write regulation because government cannot regulate. Therefore no corporate ownership of government and the power goes back to the consumer in the marketplace and the voter in government. Vote with your dollar and at the ballot box.

[-] 1 points by dadgader (47) from Vancouver, WA 13 years ago

If you get rid of regulations, what is to prevent a complete takeover of government by corporations? I think politicians would not be so bad if not corrupted by the money... most of them initially go to Washington to do some good, then find out they have to raise money every day.