Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What's up with the various lists of demands?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 1, 2012, 11:39 a.m. EST by PoIemarchus (56)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've heard about the 99% Declaration and a few other lists of demands that were being worked on.

How are those progressing? Is there one that's more organized than the others and which has achieved some form of consensus? Are there people preparing to present these demands officially with a protest? Are they listed on the Internet (I know the 99% Declaration is, what about the others?).

84 Comments

84 Comments


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

Socrate No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

Socrate said 3 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:27 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Socrate said 10 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:20 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Socrate said 20 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:10 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Socrate said 27 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:03 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Socrate said 52 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:38 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 53 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:37 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 57 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:33 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:23 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:20 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:14 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:02 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:19 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:11 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:08 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:05 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:47 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:44 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Socrate said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:22 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Socrate said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:07 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Socrate said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:03 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Socrate said 4 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:15 p.m. EST (delete) SuperTest

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

Please don't feed into thrasy's objective to disrupt this forum further. Clearly the moderators and jart are aware of him. Let them do what they can about him and let them decide how to do it.

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


a list of demands



[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (4452) 17 minutes ago GA-APPROVED 1/17 SEMI-FINAL DRAFT OWS VISION STATEMENT (UPDATED) (145 posts)

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

"Demands" are for children and terrorists. Occupy will either participate effectively in the democratic system or it will fade into obscurity and become a footnote in history.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/vote-or-else-this-will-all-be-a-pointless-exercise/

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

Adeimantus No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

Adeimantus said 3 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:27 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Adeimantus said 9 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:20 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Adeimantus said 19 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:10 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Adeimantus said 26 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:03 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Adeimantus said 56 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:33 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:24 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:20 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:15 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:03 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:19 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:12 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:08 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:05 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:01 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:54 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:48 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:44 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Adeimantus said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:22 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Adeimantus said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:14 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Adeimantus said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:08 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Adeimantus said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:03 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Adeimantus said 4 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:15 p.m. EST (delete) SuperTest

Information

Joined Nov. 21, 2011

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13363) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

where's jart?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34909) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I sent Her a note about "the" multiple personality abuser last week. She said that I should report it to site abuse. She may be getting a little unhappy with site complaints. I would suggest that we give her a break and do just that.

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

Setting aside the very small minority that just wants to blow the whole thing up and throw bottles and fight police, there really seem to be two main camps in OWS:

A. There are people who say we need to get bigger before we make demands. They say that, once we, the 99%, recognize that we have more in common than we have separating us, we will be in a position to make DECISIONS from a position of unified strength instead of DEMANDS from a position of divided weakness. B. Other people say that in order for the movement to succeed and grow its numbers, We must get clear on what the goals are. The line of thinking here is that people reach a certain point where their level of sacrifice and commitment plateaus if the goals are unclear. Folks in this camp will tell you they're being realistic in thinking "Hey, who's going to join and commit funds, time and vocal support if they don't know what the real goals of the movement are and can't articulate them themselves."

I don't think it's either/or. I think it's both. And I think we need to take action on both now before the tiny minority of people who advocate and practice violence win out.

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing demands since the discussion itself helps people get relatively clear view of the issues and goals. I believe that this can help the movement grow exponentially because it will begin to become clear that there are real actionable steps we can take to effect the change we desire. That tends to motivate people to focus and increase their support.

At the same time, I think it is unrealistic from a tactical perspective to think we can launch serious massive direct non-violent action without having sufficient numbers. (NOTE: The serious massive direct action I'm referring to would be something like the one described here http://occupywallst.org/forum/fresh-thread-forum-post-below-received-over-2000-c/ -- if link doesn't work, pls just google occupywallst.org fresh thread).

To get support, we should vocally and publicly debate our list of goals (whether it's 1 or 3 or 8). To get support, we should most certainly publicly denounce violence and publicly commit to non-violent direct action. To get support, (speaking from a purely tactical perspective here) we should do everything we can to look like middle America at any events, marches, blockades, sit ins or other protests so that when we're arrested, middle America sees its sons and daughters being arrested.

Most of all, to gain support needed to engage in major direct action like the one at link below, we need to engage in more and more smaller direct nonviolent actions all over the country to raise awareness. Once we get this ball seriously rolling, we can then do something massive like the action described at the link below:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/fresh-thread-forum-post-below-received-over-2000-c/ If the link doesn't work, please just google occupywallst.org fresh thread .

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

NOTE from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" -- This fellow was a radical my friends and he understood how to get things done. If you want OWS to morph from a movement to a revolution, here's how you do it. Martin Luther King, Jr., inspired by Gandhi, engaged in direct non-violent action and effected massive change in the U.S. He left us his play book. Here Martin Luther King, Jr. is in his own words writing from JAIL after being arrested for protesting. King is an occupier from back in the day:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."

"The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation."

Remember who he was writing to in the letter from the BIRMINGHAM JAIL: The silent good people. King spoke of the "appalling silence of the good people" doing as much to harm the country as the the loud voices of the misguided. King was writing to white ministers basically saying (not direct quote) -- Where the hell are you? We are standing up for the freedom of all Americans, basic human freedom, democracy and goodness. Which of these great things would Jesus have been against? Why aren't you out here in the streets with us?

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

kaboom No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

kaboom said 7 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:24 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

kaboom said 13 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:18 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

kaboom said 24 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:07 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

kaboom said 31 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:01 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

kaboom said 55 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:36 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:30 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:21 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:18 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:11 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:59 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:17 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:09 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:06 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:02 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:57 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:50 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:46 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:42 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kaboom said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:18 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

kaboom said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:09 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

kaboom said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:05 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

kaboom said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

kaboom said 4 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:12 p.m. EST (delete) SuperTest

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

florian No Profile Information

Private Messages


PoIemarchus No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

PoIemarchus said 3 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:19 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

PoIemarchus said 13 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:10 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

PoIemarchus said 20 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:02 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

PoIemarchus said 45 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:37 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 51 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:32 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:23 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:19 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:02 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:18 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:11 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:08 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:04 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:47 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:43 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

PoIemarchus said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:21 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

PoIemarchus said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:13 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

PoIemarchus said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:07 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

PoIemarchus said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:03 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

PoIemarchus said 4 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:14 p.m. EST (delete) SuperTest


Thrasymaque We are all born sophists, and our only cure is Socrates. But, Socrates never faced Socrates, his sophistry was therefore never expunged. Sophists, like my former self and your current self, only appear as sophists because Socrates shines his light on us, but, as this light is being shun so is our sophistry diminished, until, finally, the day we are fully cleansed. I am no longer the Thrasymaque you once knew. I have died, been washed, and am now reborn. I am the Socrates who has faced Socrates. My mission is the betterment of manmind.

Private Messages

send message

Thrasymaque said 3 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:20 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Thrasymaque said 13 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:10 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Thrasymaque said 20 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:03 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

Thrasymaque said 46 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:37 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 51 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:32 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:23 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:19 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:14 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:02 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:19 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:11 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:08 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:04 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:53 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:47 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:43 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

Thrasymaque said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:22 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Thrasymaque said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:13 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Thrasymaque said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:07 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Thrasymaque said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:03 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

Thrasymaque said 4 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:14 p.m. EST (delete) SuperTest

send message

florian said 5 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:17 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

florian said 16 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:06 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

florian said 24 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:58 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

florian said 47 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:35 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 53 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:29 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:19 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:17 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:10 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:58 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:15 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:08 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:05 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:01 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:55 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:48 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:45 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:40 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

florian said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:16 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

florian said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:04 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

florian said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:59 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

florian said 4 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:11 p.m. EST (delete) SuperTest

Information

Joined Jan. 30, 2012

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

Below is a paste from another Forum Post that has no data now. I did not create this, but thought I would provide it as it seemed like a well thought out example of what a change demand document should look like. Something along these lines should be posted on the White House site as a petition(s) for Americans to sign. It would also provide a focal point for the movement to ensure demands are being addressed/met. ~Underdog~

==============

Admin Note: This is not an official list of demands, it's a user-submitted post on our forum. The user who submitted this post only speaks for her/himself and their supporters, NOT the movement as a whole.

_  

(Please click on this link if you haven't yet read the introduction called "OUR TURN":https://occupywallst.org/forum/our-turn/ . Feel free to share this link with anyone you like).

TACTICS FOR "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

We should make the demands below very publicly at a press conference a few days after arriving in DC. When doing so, we should give a clear deadline of 3 days for a firm written commitment with signatures from at least 60% of members of House and 60% of the members of the Senate to pass these bills by the end of the year. If this commitment on the full slate of demands is not met by midnight on the 3rd day (which it won't be) we should be prepared to non-violently block access to all or part of the Capitol complex the next morning by traditional proven non-violent tactics. The purpose is to bring the leaders of the House and Senate to the negotiating table.

NOTE: There are always entrances because there is always a point where people who work there have to leave the public street and enter secure space. We should focus our non-violent direct action and civil disobedience on those entrances no matter where they move them because these are, by definition, always accessible.

LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

  1. CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT"http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act -Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007-2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#Repeal -Steagall_Act#Repeal .

  2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

  3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.

  4. CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.

  5. CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

  6. CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

  7. CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.

  8. ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.

NOTE 1: This is from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from the Birmingham Jail":

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."

"The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation."

Here's the entire "Letter from the Birmingham Jail": http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html . It's a treasure and is as timely as ever.

NOTE 2: Here's a short video from BBC to inspire you. It gets pretty extraordinary about halfway through:http://youtu.be/lqN3amj6AcE

NOTE 3: If you haven't seen these 3 award winning documentaries -- INSIDE JOB, THE CORPORATION, and WHY WE FIGHT -- I highly recommend them.

NOTE 4: There needs to be a very well researched and concise addendum that contains a list of the top 50 corporate crimes / harmful actions during the past 15 years. This ought to really blow people away and will help increase support both on the ground in DC and in living rooms across America as the story unfolds. We can't assume everyone knows why these demands are necessary. We must demonstrate.

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

From what I can tell the 99% Decl is moving forward. OWS is not.

The OWS NYC Demands Group continues to go in circles around themselves. No one to draw a line in the sand and move forward to get results. They are more concerned about the concensus process than actually getting anything substantive done.

As opposed to the 99% Decl, who a handful of people developed the list of grievances and it was done. People that believe in it sign on and support it, which allows the process to move forward. From what I can tell, they are busy making plans for their convention and voting on the grievances.

So this is interesting. I was reading the minutes from the last Demand Group meeting. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The Vision Statement (not sure what that is, haven't checked it out yet) is not radical enough and did not pass the GA. Shocker.

Then they discussed impeaching President Obama. Mind you, this is the Demands Working Group. Anyway, then they moved on to talk about how they do not yet have a Mission Statement. OMFG! Wait, take that back, they forgot. There are actually 2 kinda sorta mission statements but neither has gone through "The Process". I can only imagine what kind of crazy nonsense that is. Wait again!! It gets better! The Demands Group reminds itself that it has been instructed not to make demands. Really?!! Really? I am so confused! I can only imagine the confusion this causes for the 417 people in this Working Group.

Ok, back to impeach Obama, and who should be voted for in the election. Someone named Alvin speaks up and says " You’re all playing the role of willful cowards. You’re copping out. You have butts in the air and your heads in the ground." As far as I can tell he's the only person in the meeting making any sense.

Further, according to another member of the Demand Group, "hardcore anarchists" are blocking progress on Visions and Goals.

No words.

Except yeah, there should be just one goal. I don't know why its so complicated. The anarchists are really mucking this up.

http://www.nycga.net/groups/demands/docs/meeting-minutes-12912

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

Setting aside the very small minority that just wants to blow the whole thing up and throw bottles and fight police, there really seem to be two main camps in OWS:

A. There are people who say we need to get bigger before we make demands. They say that, once we, the 99%, recognize that we have more in common than we have separating us, we will be in a position to make DECISIONS from a position of unified strength instead of DEMANDS from a position of divided weakness.

B. Other people say that in order for the movement to succeed and grow its numbers, We must get clear on what the goals are. The line of thinking here is that people reach a certain point where their level of sacrifice and commitment plateaus if the goals are unclear. Folks in this camp will tell you they're being realistic in thinking "Hey, who's going to join and commit funds, time and vocal support if they don't know what the real goals of the movement are and can't articulate them themselves."

I don't think it's either/or. I think it's both. And I think we need to take action on both now before the tiny minority of people who advocate and practice violence win out.

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing demands (or one single demand) since the discussion itself helps people get relatively clear view of the issues and goals. I believe that this can help the movement grow exponentially because it will begin to become clear that there are real actionable steps we can take to effect the change we desire. That tends to motivate people to focus and increase their support.

At the same time, I think it is unrealistic from a tactical perspective to think we can launch serious massive direct non-violent action without having sufficient numbers. (NOTE: The serious massive direct action I'm referring to would be something like the one described here http://occupywallst.org/forum/fresh-thread-forum-post-below-received-over-2000-c/ -- if link doesn't work, pls just google occupywallst.org fresh thread).

To get support, we should vocally and publicly debate our list of goals (whether it's 1 or 3 or 8 goals). To get support, we should most certainly publicly denounce violence and publicly commit to non-violent direct action. To get support, (speaking from a purely tactical perspective here) we should do everything we can to look like middle America at any events, marches, blockades, sit ins or other protests so that when we're arrested, middle America sees its sons and daughters being arrested.

Most of all, to gain support needed to engage in major direct action like the one at link below, we need to engage in more and more smaller direct nonviolent actions all over the country to raise awareness. Once we get this ball seriously rolling, we can then do something massive like the action described at the link below:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/fresh-thread-forum-post-below-received-over-2000-c/ If the link doesn't work, please just google occupywallst.org fresh thread .

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

I disagree. There are at least 3 camps. The regular protesters who want positive change, the idiots who are in favor of violence, and the anarchists who are running this movement.

I've been hearing that same argument about demands/no demands for 4 months. So, we have no demands. Where has that gotten this movement. This movement keeps losing support and is running out of money. Occupy Oakland is out of control. The only reason NY hasn't yet gone the same direction is weather.

The propaganda on the News page is getting more and more violent. So I can only guess that NY will go the same way as Oakland come spring. If this movement doesn't make some serious changes and get its act together it will only continue to lose support. It made a splash 4 months ago. Now its sinking. People are bailing out. It's not going anywhere.

Some of the methods that may have made sense in the beginning, being leaderless, not having demands, worked to some degree to get this started. Now its holding the movement back.

You think without changes the general mainstream public is going to change its mind about this movement now? And join up? Decide, hey, you know what, that crazy leaderless movement that has no direction is a pretty good idea afterall! I think I'll support it! Of course not. People have already made up their minds. And most people know that leadership, organization and a focused message with direction is important. They're not signing up. There is nobody beating down the doors to get into this movement. OWS is just dragging along on life support now.

Nothing is going to change in this movement so long as it is being run by anarchists. Whose only goal is to keep their ridiculous notions of direct democracy in existance. They couldn't care less about making positive change in this country. They're too busy having anarchy delusions of grandeur.

And all of the consensus building crap is just helping this movement to go in a downward spiral. There is no real leadership, to draw a line in the sand and move the puck forward. So everyone continues to go in endless circles. Then comes back to, hey, maybe we should have some demends! What should our demands be??!! OMG. Its ridiculous.

Go read some of the minutes from the Demands Working Group. They are having the same frustrations. The anarchists are running this movement like a totalitarian regime. They dictate what happens at the GA's. They use Direct Democracy and group think to manipulate the movement. Even the Demands Group knows this. This is the problem. I'm begging you - go read the minutes from the Demands Group.

[-] 0 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

Wait again!! It gets better! The Demands Group reminds itself that it has been instructed not to make demands.

Damn! I just spit coffee all over my keyboard. Lucky I have a keyboard protector. That's hilarious!!!

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

Did you read the minutes? At the end it says "The GA is self appointed. They’re boneheads. We can take them over and become the new GA."

So there are at least some people in this Working Group that realize that the anarchists are holding back progress. And they also think the GA is stupid. This is just more evidence of what we've known all along. The anarchists are running everything and I think the whole Direct Democracy nonsense is just manipulative group think. Where the anarchists are manipulating this movement to their end.

[-] 0 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

Yes, exactly. I wrote a post with Glaucon a few months ago; the post about the anarchic dilemma. This is even worse than representative democracy because the representatives are hidden from view and don't have term limits. It's cult-like, and nothing short of a totalitarian regime. They are taking advantage of the fact that Occupy is the only large protest against government corruption so people who want to fight against this are unwilling to criticize Occupy for fear of weakening it. When someone criticizes Occupy, they often use a logical fallacy to thwart off the criticism: they say that if you criticize Occupy it means you don't have a problem with government corruption, they say you're automatically a republican, etc... Utter nonsense.

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

The 70% vote from Oakland, I'm almost sure that I saw it in the minutes from the Demands Group thing that I wrote about. So I went to the 1/29 minutes to check, I noticed that the minutes have changed. Some of the things that I read and put in that post is gone now, including what I think was the part of about that Occupy Oakland vote. It looks like the minutes were condensed and stuff was taken out.

I don't see any meta file or edit history to backtrack the changes.

Here's some quotes from the 1/22 minutes, clearly the people in the Demands Group are as frustrated by the anarchists running things as we are.

Greg: When I went to the DA meeting, I was in a meeting with the anarchists. They don’t care about the GA or the people sleeping in the park. I say we just proceed and work with whomever.

Andy: I have spent more time with anarchists than anyone in the park. But I don’t think its impossible to work with the group. We haven’t branded ourselves so badly. I think what we’ve been doing with Solutions cluster has been positive.

Elena: I have a question: I feel like these last two comments- why are we pandering to these anarchists. I don’t care.

Andy: as long we don’t disrupt too much, they are fine with us.

Craig: I think this anarchist core who thinks the movement should be what they want. In spit of the fact they don’t believe in hierarchy they are going to dictate to OWS. They are the only significant opposition to what we’re trying to do here. Apart from them, they don’t care about us. I don’t see why we need to worry about this small group. People who don’t do anything for anyone but themselves. They are a fringe. If they’ve got a problem with it, I’m not in favor in changing what I do or what we do on their account.

These are out of context somewhat. But you get the idea. People should be reading this stuff. I don't know if this is going to get modified like the last one or not.

What really sent chills through me was - the anarchists don't care about the GA or the people in the park! And how the anarchist core of this movement doesn't believe in heirarchy yet are dictating the movement!! That is exactlly what you have been saying about how the anarchists are running this movement like a totalitarian state. They don't even care about the GA. The GA is just a feel good group think manipulation tool. They only care about it as a tool to manipulate.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I've said it before... "OWS makes me sad... :("

None of this those quotes were in the version I read.

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

These quotes were from the 1/22 minutes. I didn't copy all of the text/quote, just highlighted some of the points within the text.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

The only minutes I read were in the link you provided.

Besides bitching about these antics here, is there some complaint department we could address these concerns to?

*I laughed out loud a little as I wrote that...

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

I think we have to use Direct Action tactics against them. In the form of losing more and more support for this movement. Until there is nothing left but a few anarchists in the park.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I've got my life vest strapped on, and I am ready to disembark the ship...

Which side of the boat has fewer sharks?

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

It's hard to say. This leaky boat is taking on water fast. Looks like we're left with jumping in on the side with the Dem sharks or the Repub sharks. I think the Repub sharks have sharper teeth.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Death by teeth, or a thousand bruises...?

What a crappy decision...

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

Yeah - damn anarchists.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Have you yourself been to a GA, or taken part in any work group activities?

I caution you, don't do so, unless you are ready to quit OWS. Knowing the results, and reading the minutes is only half as disheartening as actually witnessing such an event.

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

No, I'm too far away. And even if, I have no intention of going anywhere near a GA. This is as close as I'll ever get, thankfully. Which is quite enough. Crazy anarchists.

[-] 0 points by relthinkr (64) 2 years ago

April,

u are RIGHT ON POINT

We agree 100%

We must join forces and lead the GA . We must get a real document together and push it through. Spokes council is where the rot is coming from among other sources.

Please msg me and come to our next meeting :)

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

lol. Yes, I know! I pretty much had the same reaction. It's absolutely absurd. I suppose maybe they are just being optimistic (hopelessly perhaps?) that some of the less "hardcore anarchists" will change their minds about demands? And decide that it might be a good idea to have some goals and direction? That a little wind in their sails could bring a course adjustment. I do not know. But in the mean time, this poor Working Group is just spinning in the wind.

A big part of the problem is that there is no real leadership to help things move forward. Everything is bogged down by the process of endless debating trying to gain consensus. I don't know why people put up with this.

I actually read a post recently by a person from the Direct Action Group that said that it has only been a small minority of people that want leadership. So I can only take this to mean that the GA's are full of like minded people, that think being leaderless is somehow a good idea. Not really a very good cross section of people, which is self evident based on the movements size and decreasing support.

People won't support something that has no leadership and direction. The movement won't get any leadership or direction because it lacks support for that change from a broader base of people.

[-] 0 points by relthinkr (64) 2 years ago

April,

We need leadership, not just one but a council of wise ones. We need a document with adamant goals. We need to make alliances with Ron Paul and the libertarians. We need to mobilize the youth.

You are a real person, please join our party, we need u!

we can and will take this back.

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

Complication is the root of all evil. I agree with a comment you made earlier. One demand: money out of politics. If this could be changed, the government would become responsive to everyone, not only the rich.

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

pow No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

pow said 0 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:24 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

pow said 6 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:18 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

pow said 17 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:07 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

pow said 24 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

pow said 48 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:36 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 54 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:30 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:20 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:18 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:11 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:59 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:17 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:09 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:06 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:02 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:57 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:49 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:45 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:41 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

pow said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:09 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

pow said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:05 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

pow said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

pow said 4 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:12 p.m. EST (delete) SuperTest TlOUAISE No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

TlOUAISE said 0 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:25 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

TlOUAISE said 6 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:18 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

TlOUAISE said 17 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:07 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

GirlFriday said 23 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:01 p.m. EST (delete) You are a troll. Nothing more and nothing less.

TlOUAISE said 24 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:01 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

TlOUAISE said 48 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:36 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 54 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:30 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:21 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:18 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:11 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:17 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:09 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:06 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:03 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:50 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:46 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:42 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

TlOUAISE said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:19 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

TlOUAISE said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:10 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

TlOUAISE said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:05 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

TlOUAISE said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:01 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

TlOUAISE said 4 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:13 p.m. EST (delete) SuperTest

Information

Joined Jan. 30, 2012

[-] 0 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

Why don't you come up with another name for WHAT you want. Demands are when you have a hostage. No one can meet any demand that Occupy Wall Street has because there is no reason to.

How about writing up something called "An American Declaration for Government Reform and Change" and listing briefly and with clarity the things that you seek to change. You can collect as many signatures as possible on the document and send a copy to the President and the Senate and all of the members of Congress.

“We the People of the United States of America” have become dissatisfied with some of our leaders, some of those who govern us, and some of the policies and laws of our great nation and through this instrument we wish to express to those who lead us our dissatisfaction. Through this instrument we call upon our leaders to rectify the wrongs improving life for all the people of this country. After years of dialogue and experience with the often-unrealized reforms set in motion by the Government of the United States of America, a coalition of the people, call for our duly elected representatives in the United States to consider the state of our country. We do this because the Signs of the Times reveal a serious deterioration in the life of all of the people of the United states and further We see:

  1. A nation where people cannot obtain the health care that they need because of the cost of health care.
  2. A nation of people who would like enroll in higher education Universities but cannot do so because of cost.
  3. A nation where laws and regulations of our government have caused great financial peril to the citizens of this country. We ask that the following be repealed: A. The Community Reinvestment Act B. INSERT HERE OTHER BANKING REGULATIONS THAT HAVE SCREWED US UP.
  4. A nation in which workers are paid equally regardless of where they live. We would like the following repealed or repaired. A. “Davis Bacon Act” repealed as the wages dictated by our government are unconstitutional and vary from area to area and cost our government more money to build the things our country needs. B. State defined minimum wage standards which are unfair and unequal should be replaced with a national minimum wage standard that equally rewards workers regardless of where they work.
  5. A nation which has too many elected political leaders thus limiting its ability. A. The House of Representatives: The number of representatives should be reduced to 3 from each state. As the house stands now meaningful dialogue is impossible and consensus is often impossible to obtain. The same could be accomplished with less members. B. Supreme Court Judges: Term limits to 10 years.
  6. Require the Representatives of the people to spend more time with the people rather than holed up in Washington. Access by the common people to our representatives has been limited by their not being in the home states for a good part of the year. We feel our representatives are out of touch with those who elected them

ADD MORE THINGS HERE BUT BE BRIEF AND MAKE VALID POINTS!! NO corruption, elite, rich etc. claims!

We acknowledge co-responsibility for these conditions–for no community, state or nation can be governed without its implicit or explicit consent. We “consent” with financial and personal support, with participation, or, often, with passivity.

We do not challenge the principals our nation was built upon; we challenge the direction we have allowed our nation to go in. We are wise enough to know that we shall never have a perfect Nation. We do not, however, want to be far from a Nation that is free and honest, even if it is one in which we are called at times to uncomfortable accountability and responsibility.

We seek a Nation that is inclusive, compassionate, trustworthy, and representative of its people. We seek a Nation that actively listens to the voice of the people and acts upon the desires of the majority. We seek a Nation that has laws and regulations that treats with the same fairness the people as well as the corporations which do business here. We seek a Nation which has not more representatives of the people but less, allowing change to happen in a timely manner. AND WE SEEK TO DO THIS NOW.

[-] 0 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

Too complex. We need a protest with one demand: money out of politics. Once this has passed, the government will once again represent all the people instead of the rich and other valid demands can be made at that point.

Demands is fine. The government works for the people. We pay their paychecks. It's OK to make demands. I also make demands to my babysitter. I tell her how I want my kids and home taken care of. Same thing. Using a strong word reminds them they work for us. I think they forgot that somewhere along the way to the top.

[-] 1 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

It would be great if money was taken out of politics. The 2008 campaign was the costliest in history, with a record-shattering $5.3 billion in spending by candidates, political parties and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races. So I think we should just do this. There should be an election tax. Everyone- no exceptions has to pay $25 a year for elections. The money is then equally divide amount the candidates so they can get their ideas out to the public. Once they are out of the free money they are not allowed to spend a dime more. Or if you don't like this idea we can just have the government take control of the media and then the government can allocate how the candidtates use the media....It is impossible to get elected as President in this day and age without money. Money will always be in politics but here is the kicker....taking money in exchange for favors is illegal and many politicans walk a thin line in this area. Campaign contributions have too much potential to influence a politician. Don't even think that people who have a choice as to whom they give campaign money to would give a dime if the choice of to whom they donated were to be taken away.

[-] 0 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

with a record-shattering $5.3 billion in spending by candidates

That's outrageous!!!

The way it works in Canada is that each party is allocated money depending on the number of seats they grabbed in the last elections. I believe this is the fairest method as bigger parties need more money than the smaller parties because they have more candidates in more districts. As parties grow or shrink they get more or less money. When someone starts out, he must present a list with the names of voters who have pledged him or her their allegiance. This list is checked for accuracy and the candidate gets a certain amount of money depending on the number of people he got.

I don't like the idea of the government taking control of the media at all. They should get money from taxes like I described above and they can then use it how they wish.

There's absolutely no need for 5.3 billion dollars. If parties have less, then it means less billboards for everybody and that also means less waste. When there's no money limit, then the big parties just keep outdoing each other and the small parties are left out in the cold.

There's no need for everyone to contribute 25$ for the next elections. The government can just cut from its war spending and us that extra money to run the elections. America already spends way too much money on war.

[-] 1 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

Having homes on both sides of the border Canada and the United States I do enjoy the differences. I was wondering when I posted this if anyone from Canada would chime in with that is how we do it! (I was only kidding about taking over the media...way too communist).

We do spend alot on war if you would like you can chip in a little bit and take some of the burden off of us. I really wish there were no wars but that is not realistic in the present situation.

SO what did you people do with the snow this winter? No snow in the Eastern Townships!

[-] 0 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

I'm Canadian, but I'm living in Bali, Indonesia. I haven't seen snow for ages. I actually miss it.

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

[-] 1 points by DJStarDust (0) 23 minutes ago Thanks for the information. I wasn't sure my kadaboom bot team was working properly. I'll update the script with 50 more users later on tonight. FYI - You don't have a chance. Your attacks are useless because I can just change users at anytime. You can never keep up. And, it doesn't take any effort on my part to run my bots. I use another computer for that. The whole attack is automated. While one computer counter-attacks your stalking behavior, I use the other computer to write in the forum with a name you haven't figured out yet. When you figure it out, I'll just change it up again. Good luck. Beware, if you annoy the mods too much with your stalking behavior, they will ban you like they banned TIOUAISE. My suggestion is that you stop stalking me. Just leave me along and I'll leave you alone. I don't want to use bots. I just want to use the forum normally. Peace. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

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

kapow No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

kapow said 3 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:33 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

kapow said 12 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:24 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

kapow said 19 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8:18 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

kapow said 37 minutes ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 8 p.m. EST (delete) Stalkers suck.

kapow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:35 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:30 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:20 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:17 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 7:11 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 1 hour ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:59 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:16 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:09 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:06 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 6:02 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:49 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:45 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 2 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:41 p.m. EST (delete) Blue is lighter than purple.

kapow said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:18 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

kapow said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:18 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

kapow said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:09 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

kapow said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5:05 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

kapow said 3 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 5 p.m. EST (delete) Pink is lighter than red.

kapow said 4 hours ago at Feb. 2, 2012, 4:12 p.m. EST (delete) SuperTest

Information

Joined Jan. 30, 2012

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Sister, Solidarity 'n' all that but don't you think that irrespective of your 'BOT-Squad', that SH!T is just getting a teency bit outta hand here ?!

For your reflection : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM3hsDjsVBw&feature=related & I really hope that this isn't a 'TrashyPhalus double-blag' in which case, my brain's aching too much to deal with that !!

I any case "Enough Is Enough" !!!

fiat pax ...

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

what is this crap? are you smoking?

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

I demand more Patchouli oil, for those of us who stink like shit from not bathing.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Very nice. Once the DEMANDS are listed hand it to ONE of the 80 or so people in the streets and see how far that takes you. Make sure you hand it to one of them that is not throwing a rock at the police. We need that rock thrower, he has a good arm. If we lose him we will only have 79 protestors to fight the world.

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

We should have one simple demand - get money out of politics. I can't see any reason why this would not have overwhelming support. This wouldn't be an end, it would be just the beginning. There is so much that could be accomplished after.

The reason this movement is being taken over by people throwing rocks at the police is because its disintegrating into nothing but the kooks and nuts. More and more mainstream average people are just turned off by this movement because of its methods. Lack of leadership, direct action methods and no clear focus or message.

If we can start pushing the right message, the right way, (rioting in the street is clearly not the right way!) maybe this movement would start gaining support instead of losing it.

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

because the government control money by it's nature

if one argues that campaign finance and bribery control the representative

and therefor government spending, I could see that as a good direction to make sure the representatives represent

although, I would push for more votes of popular support from the people to keep the representatives honest

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

What do you mean "more votes of popular support from the people"? I think getting money out of politics would accomplish that.

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

if people were allowed to vote directly on the politics that effect them

than the public themselves would have to be bribed as opposed to a few politicians

for private funds to influence the vote

,

but that is not exactly what I meant

.

the people could be given a chance to vote approval of their representatives

frequently

this would help keep politics in the hands of the public

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

The public bribe will come in the form of re-election. By the people, not the monied influence.

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

accept the system is gummed uo at the party level

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

But it won't be so gummed up anymore once the money is out. People will be voting for candidates based on their merits, not by the amount of money that is being used to push them forward.

[Removed]

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

One problem is that the 99% list has been largely taken over by lIbertards. End the Fed, "sound" money, "merit" pay and end of tenure for teachers, etc.

If the demands were confined, as you suggest, to those items that serve to take the money out of politics, it would have more legs.

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

I agree. But that will all be flushed out at the Nationall General Assembly by the delegates when the List of Grievances is voted on. I'm not worried about it. They are also reaching out to and hooking up with other groups like Move On (no matter whether you like them or not, its good exposure).

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I'm not so sure that hooking up with MoveOn would be helpful. My fear is that would brand this as a "Democratic" issue rather than an issue which transcends party lines. When I try to see it from the perspective of a conservative, it gives a bad appearance at least. I must admit that II would be less likely to become involved if I saw, for example, the Heritage Foundation was part of it.

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

I agree somewhat. But I look at it this way - for 99%Decl to be getting exposure from MoveOn it's better than no exposure at all, and its better than the exposure that OWS seems intent on getting. OWS is its own worst enemy when it comes to the media and the attention it gets from the general public. Which all just serves to drive people away from this movement instead of wanting to support it.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Well, what does it mean to say someone is being a 'kook or nut'?

Someone being unreasonable? Well, unfortunately society is mostly unreasonable in most areas, it just doesn't 'appear' that way to the mainstream, for a variety of reasons - some being spin, or distortiion of things to serve various interests, even our internal outlook in many cases...

So unless we ourselves choose to reason itself, as the base goal, across the board, then we technically do not have a solid basis upon which to expect others to be reasonable...

It is only when we choose reason itself as the priority and focus, that activism can be constructive, ultimately...

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

"kook or nut" -

People that throw rocks at the police, try to invade private property, and destroy and vandalize private property (Occupy Oakland).

People that think demonizing the police and authority is a good idea. People that don't understand that leadership and organization are important. People that think positive change can happen without working through government. People that think that maintaining the consensus process above all else is more important than actually getting results (OWS ptb).

People that are sucked into the Group Think of OWS. People that think Direct Democracy is a good and effective way to make decisions. People that believe the message of this movement is more important than its methods.

People that blame the MSM for its negative portrayal of the movement instead of taking a closer look at the movement itself and its methods and tactics. People that think that complaining and protesting about everything and anything is a good idea. Saying everything is the equivalent of saying nothing. Its white noise. Each of the hundreds of messages are diluted by the rest.

People that think that the movement will be successful because of all of these things.

All of these things will only turn more people off to the movement. Not help the movement gain support.

This movement needs to move beyond all of this. Get its act together. The change we need is not going to happen unless we can protest a clear message of getting money out of politics.

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Ok, I agree with many of the points here, however, we're also dealing with 'white noise' of society too...

There is so much questionable spin going on at almost every level, that people actually become overwhelmed and then their ability to discrimate between good and bad ideas actually becomes damaged...

So we tend not to examine things down to their fundamentals to check the accuracy of our positions and assumptions... so ideologically, there is very little quality control, this is not something we've been taught to do very much at all...

Instead we've been taught the opposite: "blindly believe, if you don't you're one of the 'bad' people, if you do blindly believe you're one of the 'good' people"... this essentially breaks critical reasoning function, and often tends to make people intellectually 'contract' and become alienated and lose confidence in their own ability to figure things out... they often stop trying to understand 'why' and instead just try to survive because they realize so much of what is around them, is spin and manipulation...

So it is important for us to bring reason to the center focus again...

For the reasons mentioned above, the reality is that a lot of people don't sometimes have the confidence to question ideas, this is sort of an intellectual trama they have developed from being exposed to a 'non-reason priority' based society, so it may not actually be intentional...

So it is important that we can teach each other how to reason things out at a fundamental level, and in an empathetic helpful way, and start building confidence in ourselves again to figure our way out of the issues we are facing...

This is why there can be some questionable actions, even in progressive forward thinking movements... they are trying... we can try to help, trying to focus on how our reasoning effects our progress can help the process...

We can discuss specifically at how money effects politics and how this focus could change things.... how do u see this focus could functionally change things, in terms of steps to make this successful?

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

The white noise of society - all the more reason for this movement to get focused on a single demand, getting money out of politics.

It would change things because then the movement could gain more support instead of losing it.

Instead of the theme of the movement being all over the place and demonizing authority as it does in its News articles (like the current one "Regime Change in Oakland" and the prior one " Wear Black to Fight Back" as if OWS wants to be the Blackbloc) there should be News articles about the damaging affects of Citizens United. Articles could be written about the proposed campaign finance legislation to educate and inform people and give updates on any amendments to these bills.

If this were the central theme of the movement, it could help make this a huge campaign issue. This would be the best thing ever. Force candidates to take a stand on it. Whether they're for or against changes to campaign financing.

Since the Demands Working Group doesn't really have anything to do (see my post above), maybe they could work on doing this research and writing News articles about it. I think that if this movement would start making more noise about this, the idea could gain some traction and soon it would gain more and more momentum and take on a life of its own.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

I like the idea of focusing on one idea, but not sure how the specifics would work for the money focus....

So let's say 'lobbyists' were banned, would non-profit groups also not be allowed to lobby demands? Some non-profits get donations, like heritage foundation, chamber of commerce, etc... they cannot get corporate donations? what about rich individuals can they donate to campaigns?

If corporations cannot donate to campaigns, the government funds the candidates equally? Campaigns were to some degree already screwed up before the donation caps were suspended...

What other ways do we get money out of politics...

I personally don't mind focusing on one theme, and money out of politics is a good theme... there could still be other things to bring awareness to, I assume would be ok...

The other concern is the movement and people's other ideas could still be all over the place, which bill to choose, what are the points, the movement structure, etc... how do u decide which ideas are good to accept and which ones to hold off on, by a committee, a leader, voting...?

That is why I also recommend some focus on reason itself, reason can determine directly if something is fundamentally questionable or what is fundamentally sound, and everyone can independently arrive on this same page using base fundamental principles... any thoughts on this...?

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

The only money that should be able to be used for election campaigns should be the money of the people, from taxes. No businesses, non-profit organizations, individuals, or any other type of group should be allowed to contribute as this just leads to corruption.

The container needs to be air tight. As soon as you let some kind of groups like non-profit organizations contribute the big businesses will start their own non-profit organizations and they'll find ways to fuel their money towards the candidates of their preference. The tiniest crack will let water seep in and will become larger and larger.

The other concern is the movement and people's other ideas could still be all over the place, which bill to choose, what are the points, the movement structure, etc... how do u decide which ideas are good to accept and which ones to hold off on, by a committee, a leader, voting...?

You drop all discussion except for getting money out of politics. If you manage to do this then the government will respond to all people and not only the rich.

Attacking corporations is a flank attack, it's not dead on. Striking against businesses is worthless. You strike against Apple and people will buy Windows. People will always buy stuff. Let businesses have their big bucks. What's important is to wrestle away their power over our government, and that means not letting them corrupt the government with their money.

Once we control the government once again, then we can pass laws to limit or stop bad business practices. First and foremost, the government must be ours once more.

One demand. Money out of politics. This must be the only focus of OWS.

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

I'm not sure about all the specifics of what good meaningful campaign reform should look like. That's why we should be working on this. You have alot of good questions. This is something that if we were to focus on - we could figure this all out.

We would need alot of research and information to get all of these questions answered. We may need to get expert opinions from professional societies, because campaign finance is pretty complicated. Then we could use the information and debate with eachother to help us learn from eachother and hopefully come to some conclusions as to what important criteria would be necessary for meaningful campaign reform.

There could be committees and working groups doing research on this and diseminating information for others to review and debate.

"focus on reason itself", not sure what you mean. You mean like thought process? If a person uses a logical thought process? I think everyone thinks they think logically. Otherwise, why would they think? Everyone thinks their ideas are good too, otherwise, they would throw it out and not use it and think of a better one. Everyone thinks their kid is the cutest, but the truth is some kids are cuter than others. But my kid is totally adorable! He really is. I'm not just saying that because he's mine and he's cute like me. Perfect strangers tell me how cute he is all the time. So this really is true. That's my logic anyway. : )

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

I'm sure if we put some more thought into it, we could come up with alot of ideas as far as addressing money influencing politics... so it is a good focus...

The reasoning part I'm trying to advocate for are reasoning principles so we just don't all use belief as our foundation...

Belief (def): to accept as true...

We cannot divorce belief from truth, because a belief is to accept as true...

If we cannot ensure that something is true, then we should be objective and allow for other possibilities... that would mean not hook-line-and-sinker acceptance, but some suspension of full belief to allow for other ideas...

The idea that opinions of 'good or bad' can be correct based solely on relative belief alone is probably not logically possible...

"My opinion is true to me" is probably not really meaningful either (it's not saying anything about the actual substance or content of the discussion that one is referring to).

Opinions and beliefs probably have no intrinsic value (in and of themselves)... Why? Because they have no standard for reasonablility...

The requirements for opinions are isotropically arbitrary (there aren't any) so ultimately they probably all cancel out....

Possibly we have been duped:

A common purpose of 'opinions' is to be a mechanism of flattery (a social lubrication) - a practice of telling others (or even oneself) that they are correct without requiring a standard for them to actually make sense.

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

I think I see what you mean. There's a big difference between opinion and facts. But if you have a belief, it should be or can be supported by facts, proven or disproven.

But there are some cases where the truth is unknown. Like what is the best direction for this movement. Demands or no demands is a good example. It is a question of the future which is unknown. So people have differing opinions. There is very little fact to base the decision on. Or there are conflicting facts.

I could point to the fact that Civil Rights had a single demand, and had strong leadership and was successful. Other people in this movement point to the fact that this movement has been successful without leadership or demands.

I think OWS needs leadership, organization and direction. It is losing money and support. Whatever methods worked in the beginning, is now holding the movement back. I think the main problem is a little more complicated. I think the problem is the anarchists running this movement and the direct democracy concensus process is the biggest problem. Many people are frustrated by this, even the Demands Working Group sees this as a problem to their moving forward.

So I guess the quesion is - how to reconcile these opinions. Either the movement somehow works without making any changes, or dies a slow death like it looks like now?

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

These are good questions and are important to address...

So what reasoning principles can do, is allow us to identify in our thinking, cultural practices, or discussions, ideas which can either be shown to have insufficient foundation or shown to have fundamental merit, in order to avoid going in the wrong directions...

So it is actually possible to either prove that something is true or not, or to prove that something is reasonable or not... these are two different forms of proof...

So let's try to look at an example... like direct democracy...

In order to get perspective on this, let's consider what the purpose and spirit of democracy is to begin with... the government envisioned by Jefferson, etc... tried to use sophisticated political mechanisms (separation of powers, checks and balances, limited terms, etc) as an attempt to prevent 'unreasonableness' within the system.

However, such a system can be quickly exploited or modified by questionable interests or agendas, if the public does not have core fundamental reasoning as its core value.

Voting by itself, does not make something true or ethical. So it is important to identify what then is it, that makes something constructive or accurate... which is actually reasoning itself - but specifically with quality control by fundamental principles - in order to avoid questionable assumption or errors in our conclusions...

Now there is many aspects to this, so we can continue on into more specifics about reform in general, or particular aspects of campaigns and influence, or any other ideas, etc...

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

By any chance,,,,,, have ANY of you people seen how much more people are giving to political campaigns even compared to the last one? Have ANY of you read about the HUGE war chest that obama is raising? If you have read those stories,,,, one would have to assume,,,, people are not wanting to get money out of politics. You have a pretty high wall to climb over if that is THE demand.

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

Of course, it's simply a reaction to Citizens United. They spend more so we have to spend more. Then they spend more again, etc.

It's a downward spiral to more and more negative campaigning and personal attacks. Because when everyone has so much money on the line, its all the more important to win at any cost. Its a race to the bottom.

I actually think that by gettting money out of politics, politics can be much more civilized and not so negative and degrading of people. There is far too much personal attacks that have nothing to do with substantive policy.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

And the 80 protestors throwing rocks at police will solve that?

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

No of course not. That's the point of this whole post. This movement needs to get its act together. Get focused on a single message and get some real leadership and organization. Because as it is now, this movment is being run by anarchists and will continue in a downward spiral.

The Demands Working Group even says that the "hardcore anarchists" in the movement are holding back their progress. And they end with they need to take over the GA from the anarchists.

See my post above. http://occupywallst.org/forum/whats-up-with-the-various-list-of-demands/#comment-619768

[-] 0 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

It's good that you found this information. It will make it hard for protesters like GirlFriday to disagree that OWS needs to be more transparent if protesters who are part of working groups agree that the GA is being controlled by hard core anarchists like jart. Hopefully, they aren't all fixated on misandry as well.

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

I didn't read anything about that, but ya never know. Maybe it just didn't make it into the minutes.

[-] -1 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

Demands..what right do you have to DEMAND anything? Does someone owe you something?

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

People have a fundamental right to expect others to be fair and ethical...

Do you yourself have a fundamental right to 'demand' that no one can express themselves and speak out for what's right and expect people to be ethical?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by PoIemarchus (56) 2 years ago

The government works for the people. They are put in office by us and are funded by our taxes. Making demands to the government is just like telling your gardener what you want done to your plants. If we can't even tell our government what we, the people, want from them, then, my friend, democracy no longer exists.

The question is, do you think you have a right to tell your babysitter how you would like her to take care of your house and children?

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Of course we have the right, but do we yet have the power to back up demands? A demand implies "and if you do not then we will . . . ."

You can fire your gardener. We can also fire our representatives, but I don't yet see the will to do so. I see people continuing to vote for the candidate of one of the two major parties regardless of how poor their performance in office.

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

I think people are fundamentally demoralized by the poltical process that they don't see that their voice counts or their voice is being heard. Because it is drowned out by all of the monied influence. People know there is corruption and its getting worse and worse.

The poor performance of the two parties is a result of the money.

It's only been recently that Citizens United and the issue of money in politics has been starting to get people attention. This is all the more reason to work even harder to make this a main theme of the movement.

Instead of the horrible propaganda of demonizing authority that is the main theme of the News articles on this site, for instance. Intead of News articles about demonizing police and pictures of explosions and fighting in the streets, OWS could instead be publishing articles to educate people about Citizens United, Campaign Finance Laws, updates about the proposed legislations for new campaign finance reforms.

Things like that would be much more educational, informative and a great way to help new potential supporters understand the movement, and hopefully want to get involved with the movement. It would be a constructive way to make change and gain support for the movement.

[-] -1 points by PoIemarchus (56) 2 years ago

You have to start somewhere. I agree with April that there should only be one demand which is to get money out of politics. From this change, so much positivism would ensue. Once the demand is clearly stated, then we start protesting. Protesting puts pressure on the government, especially if a lot of people are participating.

Read about what happened in Indonesia in 1998. Students protested again Soeharto and got him to step down. That's the power of protesting.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I agree about the money out of politics issue. I think that has the most widespread and diverse public support. The Move to Amend rally attracted a much larger crowd locally than Occupy events have in many months. Notably, it was not an Occupy event although Occupy was one of many supporting organizations.