Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why OWS needs us conservatives, And how you can attract us

Posted 9 years ago on Oct. 20, 2011, 12:10 p.m. EST by debndan (1145)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

First and foremost, if OWS wants to represent 99% of the population, then that MUST include the 36-42% of us self Identified conservatives.

Secondly, we tend to be goal oriented, and look for cut-and-dry solutions,.... no offence liberals, but if you want to succeed in this, you have to have specifics and take actionable steps to achieve those goals.

And thirdly, if you want to be Intellectually honest as you claim, then if all points of view are valid, then that makes conservativism valid as well.

We are the people that go to church each week, pay our taxes, and do the best we can. We have a strong sense of justice. We have a faith in a better tomorrow. We live by a moral code. And we despise what big bussiness, big banks, and big government has done to our country.

We can back you when you wish to end trade with china.

We can back you when you want corrupt pols out of office.

We can back you when bankers need to be jailed for fraud.

We can back you when you unionize.

We can back you when the 1% demonize you and lie about you.

And we can back you when corporations need held accountable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to don a pair of hemp pants and poop on a police car. To attract us, appeal to our sense of morality and justice, fair play ect. And then welcome us in, in areas we have common cause. You've got a good start, we are praying for ya.

171 Comments

171 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by TruePatriots (274) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

I think there's a lot of common ground that can be found but I think its safe to say after being on this forum for about 2 weeks that most of OWS does not feel comfortable with Ron Paul or the GOP in the whitehouse. In fact, Obama is perfect because he's compromising and flexible to both sides. The OWS wants corruption gone and I think Obama is the best way for it to happen,

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Personnally speaking, I too am not comfortable with Ron Paul. Not that he's a bad guy, just his version of libertarianism wouldn't end the systemic abuses in corps or banks or some unions, only make it easier for bad people to do bad things. It would only end abuses from gov't. same for GOPers. And though Obama would, if he could, end abuses from corps and some banks, the abuses of gov't, many banks, some unions, and his favorite corps, would continue on. Me, personnaly would like to see the WHOLE apple cart overturned. My votes this election cycle will consist of anti- incombant , first in primaries, then the general election. Unless of course it comes down to Obama and say Perry or Romney...... boy damned if I do, damned if I don't....

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

"his version of libertarianism wouldn't end the systemic abuses in corps or banks or some unions, only make it easier for bad people to do bad things."

Agreed. Liberal here. Morality's important to me too. That's the basis of my problem with the system, and with libertarians... Unfettered, shameless self-interest is what's got us here.

Glad you're here - although this forum no longer reflects the movement. You're the 99% though (always were), and I think, together, over the longer term, we have a good chance of restoring justice and compassion to a bankrupt system.

[-] 3 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 9 years ago

I agree. The movement needs conservatives. I've often said that one of the things that needs to happen is the return of a reasonable right. Differences between left and right are good an healthy. The circus of Democrats and Republicans is bad for everyone. It's been a trick played on both of us. The crazies on both sides are overexposed and identified as part of the group. Both sides are then conned into having to defend the crazies out of engineered party loyalty, and in doing so justify an increasingly distorted perception of each other.

The movement as a whole can't make a commitment to every point you bring up. There is dissension and debate within the movement. It's fair to say that, currently, the movement is more left-leaning, simply because taking the street has traditionally been a lefty behavior. The way to change that is for right-leaning folk to join up before the movement does have a set agenda. Participate in the process of finding solutions.

Fundamentally, the movement isn't about people coming with their preset agendas. It's about people finally coming together and agreeing that some things are really fucked up in the way the economic and political system are currently set up. Problems with banks, problems with inadequate regulation. Problems with corrupt officials. Finding solutions, agreeing on solutions is a process. It takes time. And it will all be the better the more people participate. You can't demand the movement to explicitly come out in support of your views as a condition for you joining it. Get involved. It's open. It's obvious you see the things that are wrong, and you have a stake in fixing them. You know the financial sector isn't working right. You know politicians are bought. You know the government isn't doing it's job of preventing unhealthy monopolies and standing up for it's citizens on the world stage. That's enough for you to have your place in the movement (the hemp is optional, the poop is a smear campaign centered on an isolated event).

We need both conservatives and progressives. We need democratic dialog. I don't think anyone in the movement would deny that. It's true right-leaning folk have traditionally been more pragmatic and goal-oriented. That's great. We need that. Take joint ownership of the movement, we'll welcome your strengths and respect your voice.

Thanks for the support. Don't be fooled by either party. They will try to make the movement into an ally or an enemy and subordinate #OWS to their usual games. They are both wrong. This isn't about them.

[-] 1 points by dissent (7) 9 years ago

Agree with this.

I think the both Occupy Wall Street and the Ron Paul Revolution are both fundamentally about liberty. There is a ton of common ground here. And from what I've experienced Paul and his followers are quite capable of critical thought and open-minded dialogue.

There are idealists and ideologues in both camps. But ideology need not hamper common action if we can agree that some issues take priority. IMO, these issues should be American Empire, corporate corruption, and civil liberties. And perhaps also the drug war, although that issue is more divisive.

The alliance between Nader and Paul has been underpublicized. I'm not suggesting that progressives put all their hopes into Ron Paul and Gary Johnson's campaign, but I do think that is one area of activism that could be fruitful can could generate debate and consensus with what you call the "reasonable right". Whatever we do, we need to jettison left/right thinking and stop thinking of 'conservative' or 'liberal' as ontological categories--both of these terms can represent a wide wide variety of viewpoints.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

My thoughts exactly, keep up the struggle

[-] 1 points by Jelm430 (87) 9 years ago

This is much better then the Facebook board good god there are so many trolls.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

There were a couple trolls on this thread, but once I used reason and logic they disappeared

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

If you will focus on that end trade with China part, I might see some hope for our economy.

[-] 0 points by RobertNDavis (133) 9 years ago

If you cut trade with China, it would crash the world economy. Structural changes need to be implemented so that we can rebuild a sustainable manufacturing infrastructure that would allow us to phase China out with a level playing field and gradual tariff increases.

[-] 4 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Well, actually if we cut trade overnight with china, we would probably go into a tailspin till industry caught up. But if we put punitive tarriffs on products from countries with punitive policies on liberty, then they would either change, or production would move to places that freedom abounds. By trading freely with the chinese, we are creating a bastardization of capitalism and communism which is the facist state they now have.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

So behind you on this. Neoliberalism has screwed us. +1 punitive tariffs and no more race to the bottom. We're the only advanced trading nation without a coherent set of "protectionist" policies. Don't necessarily agree with your definition of fascist but do agree fascism is what we have - or at least a fascistic oligarchy. Inverted totalitarianism as Chris Hedges calls it...

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Agrees, in fact 99% of the problem ,I see as neo-cons & neo-libs. I think the neo stands for after taking morality out of politics. What our politicians have been doing for past 12 years is IMMORAL. Taking bribes from banks and corps. Dealing with immoral gov'ts around the world, allowing fraudsters to continue in banking (after admitting breaking laws). I think the neo stands for bought politicians.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Ha, so true - on all counts. Thanks again for being here.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

cool, ty

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 9 years ago

They have a totalitarian state, but not a fascist one. Communism and Fascism are both totalitarian, but they are opposite ends of the political spectrum. With our democracy hijacked by plutocrats, we actually have a fascist state, but it's not a totalitarian one. Hopefully, it doesn't get that far.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

I agree, a gradual approach would be the way to go. What we definitely didn't need were the 3 additional free trade agreements that were just passed by both parties.

[-] 2 points by Jelm430 (87) 9 years ago

Sir If I would every met you I would like to buy you a drink for your courage and openness.

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

debndan, I totally agree, this movement needs to be completely inclusive which is why I think all arguments/issues that can be categorized as Rep, Dem, Con, Lib, Mod etc... shouldn't really be a part of this. There is a single issue that all of us can get behind, and that's that the 1% has purchased direct influence over all legislative and policy issues that effect the rest of us. We need to curb the money and influence this 1% have over our government, so that those in Washington can act in what's best for all of us and in out national best interest.

I will disagree with your characterization of conservatives, as having all the same characteristics. Not all Cons are like that, and some Libs are. In any large group there will always be wide variety.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Agrees. But with my characterization of conservative, most I know are exactly like me. It's just the neo-cons have the microphone. And if it's true for us, then I realize that the same is true for liberals.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Maybe, but the number of people you know is only a tiny slice of all the people that are out there. What are there, almost 400 million people in the US and some 40+ percent characterize themselves as conservatives. Do the math.

All large populations, whether it's nationality, race, ideology, fit a bell curve. It's just the way it is.

And if we didn't have politicians, media, radio personalities, and others telling us what we should think, we'd all fit into the same bell curve.

By the way, Moderates also fit into that category.

I work hard, pay all my bills, pay all my taxes, I believe in smaller government, less taxes, a strong military, environmental protection, freedom, that one side does not have the right to impose their will on the other half, and that our government works for corporate America only.

I

[-] 2 points by sickofthepolitics31 (4) 9 years ago

Well said. I think there is a lot of common ground with everyday people who identify themselves as conservatives (but not conservative leaders in government). The politicians in the federal government don't work for every day people anymore because they care only about staying in power; and the way they stay in power is by doing whatever their wealthy campaign contributors and corporate lobbyists want them to do. "We the people" need to come together, regardless of race, religion, or political leanings, and TAKE OUR GOVERNMENT BACK from the top 1%. A government of the wealthy, by the connected, and for the corporations cannot be allowed to continue. Because if it does, we will become of oligarchy like Russia, Brazil, or China.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

"A government of the wealthy, by the connected, and for the corporations cannot be allowed to continue."

Agreed.

"Because if it does, we will become of oligarchy like Russia, Brazil, or China."

Too late. It's a matter of reversing course now.

[-] 2 points by dissent (7) 9 years ago

IMO we only need to unite around 5-6 common issues. Keep it simple.

Here's an example -End corporate welfare/corporate bailouts -Reform banking instututions, democratize regulatory processes -Dramatically cut the American military budget -End or phase-out current wars overseas -Restore civil liberties and habaeus corpus

IMO if conservatives really want change then these reforms are the place to start. If we can all agree we want a free society then that ought to be our starting point--the debates about economics and social policy can come once we reform militarism.

I am a liberal and was a strong Obama supporter and I intend to vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. IMO if we adequately consider the gravity of foreign policy and civil liberties issues, then there is no other sane choice.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

YES, yes , and yes, but no to the ron paul thing. If you want Ron Paul, then vote for him in the primaries. Not that I dislike Ron, I just think the 'candidates du jour' need to be defeated in the primaries romney, perry, obama. Barring that we need a viable 3rd choice, not that Ron Paul isn't viable, just that his message is too easily hijacked by the 'let 'em eat cake' wing of the libertarians.

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 9 years ago

i agree. but i think we should have more than just three parties. if i only had three types of barbecue sauce to choose from id prob quit eating barbecue

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Good point. Heck, maybe 5 or 10 for that matter. The current 2-3 are rotten to the core. We either need to throw-out-the-bums in the primaries, or fracture the parties so that so much power doesn't concentrate in so few hands. Corps need busted too, and banks broke into many many little pieces.

[-] 1 points by Jelm430 (87) 9 years ago

I would want to be able to vote for 2 or 3 of them so to get a consensus of opinion.maybe a weighted vote and or run off election.

[-] 2 points by dissent (7) 9 years ago

IMO we only need to unite around 5-6 common issues. Keep it simple.

Here's an example -End corporate welfare/corporate bailouts -Reform banking instututions, democratize regulatory processes -Dramatically cut the American military budget -End or phase-out current wars overseas -Restore civil liberties and habaeus corpus

IMO if conservatives really want change then these reforms are the place to start. If we can all agree we want a free society then that ought to be our starting point--the debates about economics and social policy can come once we reform militarism.

I am a liberal and was a strong Obama supporter and I intend to vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. IMO if we adequately consider the gravity of foreign policy and civil liberties issues, then there is no other sane choice.

[-] 4 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

See, Now THIS is common ground. These are changes I do believe in.

[-] 2 points by RobertNDavis (133) 9 years ago

Likewise. Most "conservatives" want the same things as most "liberals": bring back democracy and toss out the plutocrats. We can fix the rest with honest dialogue, exploring possible solutions, facts, and math.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Amen, brother, amen

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

other than voting for ron paul that is, but that's me

[-] 2 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 9 years ago

"hat MUST include the 36-42% of us self Identified conservatives." - I agree and we have many cons already but do need more.

"you have to have specifics and take actionable steps to achieve those goals." _ the movement which is NOT all liberals is still setting up. We have basically a govt within a govt here. Since it is a direct democracy that process is slow. They are working on a way so that both people in person and supporters around the country, whether at home or a protest, can vote on demands so we can get a consensus as a group of what demands to bring up.

"if you want to be Intellectually honest as you claim" - As a lib traditionally i can tell you when everyone leaves the hogwash politics at home and thinks for themselves, you find that we can agree or compromise on a lot of views. Everyone tends to lean more neutral and once people realize that they are not going to get everything they want out of this if we get anything then they become a lot more reasonable.

I dont even back unions and im more lib. Unions to me are like our govt. They started out with good intentions but are no different than corporations, but thats my opinion. I think we lean more pro union by quite a bit. I think the potty on the police car was staged. Even if it wasnt people that do such things are usually removed from the movement.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Well, that's cool. Let's start where most DO agree and work downward to the point we agree to diagree.

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 9 years ago

Well i agreed with pretty much everything you said.

[-] 1 points by Krankie (140) 9 years ago

Amen! Here's a wild thought - instead of highlighting our differences (and letting the divide and conquer strategy win), how about trying to find our common interests? I love my children and want a better, fairer world for them. I believe that people should be paid a fair wage for a job well done. I marvel at the beauty of the world the good Lord has given us - well, the bits that we haven't turned into tenaments and destroyed with our pollution anyway. I believe that the world's resources are not ours to plunder - they belong to our children and their children and we are only their minders. I believe that one of the worst things you can do to a person and a people is to deprive them of education and a wish to learn, and immerse them in ignorance instead. I believe in justice and believe that someone that steals should be punished - AND that that should apply to the rich just the same as the poor. I believe that I should treat other people as I would like them to treat me. And I like AC/DC - well, OK, maybe we can't agree on EVERYTHING.. :-)

[-] 1 points by autonomousculturalproductions (6) 9 years ago

debndan - thank you for your post. I appreciate that you hold strong convictions that are your own but are still are willing to engage in serious dialogue with those who might be a bit different from you. It's amazing the progress that can be made when that happens. I can think of a few folks in a certain city on the Potomac that could learn from this!

When I look at your list of "we can back you's" I see a lot of common ground.

These are exciting times!

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

They truely are, too bad it took so much pain to get us to this point

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 9 years ago

Perhaps you would consider our group's proposal of an alternative online direct democracy of government and business at http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategically_weighted_policies_organizational_operating_structures_tactical_investment_procedures-448eo and then direct questions or comments to our group's 19 members committed to that plan at: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 9 years ago

For the status quo, ie. people in politics, media and the upper echelons of business, it is wonderful how liberals/progressives and conservatives/libertarians roll over one another fighting.

For us, people among the 99% this has become unworkable. It seems it gets harder each day to find a reasonable debate about reasonable differences of opinion.

Personally, I would describe myself as progressive and much more than a debate with fellow progressives about what we already agree upon, I would want to have a good debate with conservatives and libertarians.

For now that debate is effectively impossible at a level where power resides. There is no reasonable debate over reasonable differences of opinion.

The whole notion of a loyal opposition no longer exists. Part of the problem lies with the influence money has on politics, another reason is that sensationalism sells in the media.

It is much more attractive to have headlines like "President X caves to party Y's demands" and "Senator A slams Senator B on issue C", than to have a headline stating: "Fruitful dialog between Rep. D and Rep. E makes passage of legislation F more likely".

Maintaining a team-sport mentality when it comes to politics keeps us where we are. This is why I think we first need to unite around those things we can all agree about.

Keeping money out of politics is one such thing a vast majority could agree with.

Maintaining rock solid accounting procedures both for government and for business also seems to me uncontroversial.

Enforce agreed upon regulations. The political process should decide which regulations should apply for society. Once agree upon they should be enforced. Attempts to weaken regulations outside the democratic process should be outlawed.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

completely agrees. Also lively and civil debate is good for good governance. Caustic debate coarsens our national soul.

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 9 years ago

Welcome aboard. Your post is a refreshing change from the vitriolic attacks from the right. According to a recent poll, 70% of the #OWS are independent voters. Even if that number is inflated somewhat, it is still a big number. Why attack independents? It is a foolish, counterproductive move since conservatives are going to need support from independents if they are to prevail in next year's general elections. The Tea Party was successful in last year's election and part of the reason is that the left, particularly in the main stream media, viciously attacked them. Stop the right-wing attacks and find common ground and common purpose because there is a lot it to share.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Very true, we can work together easily. But pundits and politicians on both sides do as they do to keep the 99% divided. They know that if the 99% unite, their power is gone. Not to mention, so many of them are criminals and should be prosecuted under existing laws.

[-] 1 points by angelofmercy (225) 9 years ago

Hum... not gonna attract them with topless women holding signs , and people stealing stuff from each other , and having sex in public , and peeing and pooing everywhere.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 9 years ago

Equality and justice....I have said it from the beginnig. But you sound like a good solid paleo conservative which is sadly lacking nowadays.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Oh, I think we are making a comeback, many didn't know they were. They knew something was wrong with neocons, but stayed too long for many small reasons, but didn't notice the big stuff slowly change. Also wanted to show those on the left that not all of us conservatives have horns and a tail, and that most are moral. Those that lost their moral compass on the right were either idiots, crazy, or criminal.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 9 years ago

Well, this is why Reagan captured democratic votes. Now I generally lean toward New Deal policies, so dont get me wrong, but Reagan was not the type of republican politician I see these days. Here was a president, for instance, who completely opposed abortion but generally let the issue lie because there were more important things. He also did spend more than he took in, which was Keynesian but at the same time, he didnt just do it to do it. I sort of felt Bush just cut taxes and spent more because he thought it was the thing to do. But Reagan did it because it was one of the ways to get the country out of a ditch at the time he did it. The problem I have with neocon ideology is that it seems to want to be Reagan without understanding Reagan the man or Reagan the policy. They just do things because it was something they heard he did once. And Reagan pretty much saved social security....he never threatened to take it away.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

This is true. Also Reagan broke up AT&T because it was a corporate monopoly, and he also raised taxes later, and closed many corporate and personal loopholes. He also opposed communist Russia (notice he never allowed corps to build factories there OR china). He was conservative, and consistant. And he rarely if ever demonized his opponents, in fact he looked for ways to work with Dems to do the nations business. He was loved, and he is missed. And for the life of me, I cannot think of a single GOP pol or candidate that would do any of the things you or I have mentioned. If republicans wonder why they can't find their 'next' Reagan, maybe they should take a long hard look in the mirror as to why. They are corrupt and immoral.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

It's not Keynesian to spend more than you take in. That sort of deficit spending across cycles (for military, tax cuts; running deficits even in booms) was a distinct break with Keynesianism and is part of what's known as Reaganomics. Not saying he was all bad, but between shutting down the air traffic controllers and implementing supply-side policies he effectively tore up the New Deal social contract. Insofar as Obama (and every president since 1988) continues Reagan's legacy he's just as bad...

[-] 1 points by stevonbi (85) 9 years ago

You are welcome here, and....you are exactly right; these are issues that we can all join on, and effect tremendous change with. I really don't care who is President. Almost all the politicians on the national stage are invested in the system. Well, actually..it's the other way around. We either get money out of politics or be debt slaves to the Corpocracy.........

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Amen. And I'll do my best right where I live. Hope that OWS can spread to cornfeild USA, if not, maybe we can plant it here. The soils good, It's been fertilized, hope it grows.

[-] 1 points by natasha54 (3) 9 years ago

One issue One issue One issue This is how women got the vote. This is how Prohibition happened. 5 or 6 issues are two many. You'll never get consensus. Campaign finance reform will solve many of the other "issues". CFR is the issue. Crawl before you walk; walk before you run.

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

How about just getting behind one idea: TAKING THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS AND REFORMING OUR DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY ELECT CANDIDATES THAT REPRESENTS US. Who would disagree with improving democracy for the people? Moreover, if we can create a framework that actually makes participation meaningful, then we'll really be able to see what issues take root and debate/discuss them with ration not rhetoric. Let's get to the root of this problem...our democracy is a joke!

[-] 1 points by 99Percent (41) 9 years ago

That's all well and good, except you're the ones that got duped with the abortion and gay rights issue and gave it all away... IDIOT!

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 9 years ago

Our problem is that you are not even true conservatives. What's funny is that most of us are more truly conservative than you all. Conservatism comes from classical liberalism and the enlightenment. Robert Taft was the last true conservative.

He would have been shocked at the love affair the right has with Wall Street. Conservatives used to side with working people, now they only side with big wigs and the rich.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

This is partly true, the people you are talking about are the NEO-conservatives. They are not conservative at all.Good old fashioned Conservatism starts with intellectual honesty, Neo-cons lie to themselves, when it suites them, then are for liberty only when it achieves their goals. This is very inconsistent, which is the opposite of conservatism. To be conservative is to be honest and consistant.

[-] 1 points by sickofthepolitics31 (4) 9 years ago

Well said. I think there is a lot of common ground with everyday people who identify themselves as conservatives (but not conservative leaders in government). The politicians in the federal government don't work for every day people anymore because they care only about staying in power; and the way they stay in power is by doing whatever their wealthy campaign contributors and corporate lobbyists want them to do. "We the people" need to come together, regardless of race, religion, or political leanings, and TAKE OUR GOVERNMENT BACK from the top 1%. A government of the wealthy, by the connected, and for the corporations cannot be allowed to continue. Because if it does, we will become of oligarchy like Russia, Brazil, or China.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Well said

[-] 1 points by sickofthepolitics31 (4) 9 years ago

Well said. I think there is a lot of common ground with everyday people who identify themselves as conservatives (but not conservative leaders in government). The politicians in the federal government don't work for every day people anymore because they care only about staying in power; and the way they stay in power is by doing whatever their wealthy campaign contributors and corporate lobbyists want them to do. "We the people" need to come together, regardless of race, religion, or political leanings, and TAKE OUR GOVERNMENT BACK from the top 1%. A government of the wealthy, by the connected, and for the corporations cannot be allowed to continue. Because if it does, we will become of oligarchy like Russia, Brazil, or China.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 9 years ago

We can work together on these grounds.

[-] 1 points by listtowardlight (6) from San Francisco, CA 9 years ago

As a US citizen who would be considered on the left in Europe, I agree point for point with everything said in the original post of this thread. That kind of conservative I'll welcome.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Actually, that form of conservativism, is just part of being a human being, weather your left or right, all I ask is that a person be intellectually honest. People on the left and right are decent, moral people, just trying to get by without screwing his neighbor. We have common ground! WE ARE THE 99% !!!

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Also, this form of conservative used to be the norm. These guys today that want to be Reagan would be greeted by his ghost with the words of Jesus " verily, I say, I knew you NOT" and have the feeling that FDR's ghost would have the same feelings to the corrupt dems. THESE GUYS ARE CRIMINALS We are THE 99%

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Amen.

[-] 1 points by reason531 (2) 9 years ago

I love this post. Well said.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 9 years ago

Yes, conservatives do need to come together with OWS. If we don't come together, I fear the country is lost.

However conservatives need to get one thing straight. The war on terror will never end. Our government is not telling us the whole truth, and they are just as corrupt as the bankers.

We must stop these wars and bring the troops home. We are fighting wars in 7 countries now. They want to attack Iran.

Our foreign policy is the biggest threat to world peace today. We have become a bullying empire, and we need to come home and fix our own house. Our own economy. And stop borrowing money from China in trade for our own livelihoods.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

You are right. My conservative brothers need to get there heads out of their A** and stop the 'hurray for our side ' mentality and realize that what's being served up from pundits is NOT conservative nor MORAL. We live in strange times.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 9 years ago

I know! I say this not because I don't believe in conservative values, because I was very conservative for many years, but the neocons have hijacked the party ever since 9/11.

You are correct. What we are doing overseas has NOTHING to do with conservatism at all. It is immoral, it is unconscionable, we are ruining the environment, we are killing innocent civilians.

No longer can we sit on the couch listening to our 'leaders' and believe what they are saying. They are lying. We are not nation building. We are not fomenting democracy.

This one is incredible: over there, when people rise up, we call it protest. Over here, we call it unamerican

Please watch this short clip; it is incredibly moving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGRXCgMdz9A&feature=player_embedded

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

WOW, amazing video, that needs posted everywhere.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Agrees completely

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 9 years ago

Nice post! I for one am glad to see the 'conservative' interest. Damn straight to focus on common ground!

And about pooping on police cars... i'll have to think on that :)

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

hehehe

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

I kept many friends for twenty years through weekly meetings

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 9 years ago

And just so you know, NOT ALL conservatives are mystics either.

[-] 1 points by Space (79) 9 years ago

If the energy behind the tea party and OWS could find a way to come together, we could truly have a revolution. Vote out the incumbents!!

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 9 years ago

Fighting to end Corporate Corruption and Wall Street criminality should attract Conservative support, in and of itself. I hate hippies, racists and sexists, but I am not going to abandon a movement that is making Wall Street execs, poo their pants and hire armed security. I am an MBA and I don't want glorified secretaries in HR telling me that I need five to fifteen years experience to get a job and a job to get five to fifteen years experience. There are inexperienced College grads getting in the door, because they know somebody and I know a heck of a lot more about business than some spoilt Park Avenue College grad. Well, now we know each other and we know that we all want in the door, that is now held open only for the rich and politically connected. Until we get what we want,we will take all lawful action to end their elitist control or at least to get the high paying careers we deserve. Let those wimps cower behind their mercenaries and police escorts, until then.

[-] 1 points by OWSProtestor (25) 9 years ago

And for the record, the movement already consists of people within that percentage calling themselves conservatives. The problem is that political conservatives don't understand those are just labels that are misused in politics.

http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/the-liberal-mainstream-media

[-] 1 points by rabidmoderate (13) from Lawrence, KS 9 years ago

I am one of those in the Radical Center that had hoped that this movement was more than just a hate the rich party. I am not yet convinced that it is not. debndan are right that OWS must be goal oriented and the window of opportunity for this to happen is closing fast.

Unfortunately, most of the supporters I talk to (both on line and in the streets) are communists or socialists who see this movement as the fullfillment of Marxist predictions of the end of capitalism. These people, as demonstrated by other comments on this page, are hopelessly hateful and will never accept conservatives into the movement.

If this movement can come up with some demands that most people can agree on and give up the desire for Radical Revolution, then it will accomplish something. In fact, it is currently poised to accomplish more than any movement since the Civil Rights movement.

Will you present a plan of action OWS, or be content yelling at bankers?

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 9 years ago

You know I think you should also add, that historical evidence suggests, that with the rise fascism, the communists are generally amongst the first to die.

[-] 1 points by rabidmoderate (13) from Lawrence, KS 9 years ago

If you are equating conservatives with fascists then you make my point exactly.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 9 years ago

I find the progressive-mindedness of OWS to be quite "conservative" in scope in that it recommends and promotes a path of prudence.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Amen.

[-] 1 points by andrewpatrick46 (91) from Atlanta, GA 9 years ago

"We live by a moral code"

As this movement grows it is inevitable that the majority of it will be young people who don't have kids to tend to and have the energy to protest (no offense to old people). You have to realize that the younger generation in this country does not have the same morals as older people. And it's not just the age difference, even when we get to be in our late 30's we will still have a more lenient set of morals than you will have had in your late 30's. It is my belief that, barring an untimely death, I will see Marijuana Legalized in this country. Maybe not every state. Georgia, Texas and Oklahoma, for example, might never legalize it, but Cali and Colorado are at the tipping point. It is my firm belief that one of those two states will have it legalized by 2021 (i.e. after the 2020 Pres Elections), at the latest. Since the 1950's, the percentage of age groups from 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, etc. that think marijuana should be legalized has grown with each passing generation. In 1969, 12% of the population thought that marijuana should be made legal outright. In 2010, 41% of the population thought that marijuana should be made legal outright. 73% of the country today favors making medical marijuana legal. The source of this growth is in each passing generation, more and more people believe in legalizing Marijuana outright. I am 19 and I believe that when my generation gets to be 30-49 (i.e. Mature and "all-grown up" with kids, etc), more than 50% of us will favor the legalization of marijuana, after having seen first hand that there is nothing dangerous about weed and having given it some thought and coming to the conclusion that it is none of our business what someone else does to themselves. That is how most of the people I know feel about weed; not their body, not their problem, just like alcohol.

The point of that little rant, was that young people don't view things like homosexuality, sexuality, and marijuana in near as negative a light as older people do. In order to embrace this movement you're going to have to be less zealous and overbearing with your morals, because the majority of society disagrees with you on gays, and in the next 10 years the majority of society will come to disagree with you on marijuana.

The other thing is, being a "pot smoking" hippie, isn't what it used to be. Hippies aren't the only potheads in the world anymore. I'm a "pothead" (someone that smokes daily; I only do so at night tho) that is in the process of getting a Mechanical Engineering Degree from Georgia Tech. I also know A LOT of people that go here who smoke pot as well. Furthermore, I hardly know anybody who hasn't smoked weed. I would literally be surprised if any more than 20% of the people I know, not my friends, but just people I know, haven't smoked weed at least once. Nowadays, hippies are identified by their tendency to hug trees, not their tendency to smoke weed. There are a lot of normal people that smoke weed. The point is, lay off on the "pot smoking hippie" gig. There are a lot of people in this country under 30 (including conservatives) who look at conservatives and think, "what's wrong with pot??? one of my good friends smokes pot all the time" (because most people under 30 have a good friend who lights up all the time, no joke).

[-] 1 points by rinkelc (1) 9 years ago

right on andrew

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

I have no fear that pot will be legalized soon, highly doubt it, unless they put cheetos at the polling places. Please excuse my inner dickishness, it cuts both ways ( I piss everyone off)

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 9 years ago

Factually (biologically, chemically, and medically speaking), marijuana is healthier than either alcohol or tobacco. It is also safer to be around because it isn't inherently addictive and actually counteracts aggressiveness on a hormonal, chemical level. If alcohol were illegal and marijuana were legal, we'd all be much better off. Alcohol has been conclusively shown to lead to increased violent crime. Marijuana has been conclusively shown to have the exact opposite effect. And, for the record, I don't smoke marijuana; just presenting facts.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

you would have to say that at 4:20........ I'll stick with the beer

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 9 years ago

I'm a beer guy, too.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

hehehe, just funning ya. your post was exactly at 4:20.... couldn't let it slip.

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 9 years ago

My computer wasn't showing the right time. Wish I could have noticed that when it happened and laughed then.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 9 years ago

I agree with everything you said debndan. Please don't wait for your local OWS to take steps to reach out to you though. They just aren't that organized yet.

Just show up at a meeting. You are needed and I welcome you. (Your involvement would also be an excellent way to prevent MoveOn, etc from co-opting this movement.) Once conservatives begin to show up, I think a lot more people from the 'radical center' will join in.

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 9 years ago

Conservative backing for unions? rubs eyes In what reality?

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

In the reality that people have the RIGHT to assemble, freedom of speech, and a right to DUE process. It's the rights of the Individual over the privilage of the corporation ( or any non-human entity that people hide behind). Somehow these ideas get pitched when it's applied to corporation, but dusted off when applied to government. To be conservative is to be consistant!!

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 9 years ago

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that ideologically consistent conservatives should support the right of workers to unionize?

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Absolutely, and also their right NOT TO be part of one too

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 9 years ago

Government unions are corrupt - is the tax paying public at the bargaining table? NO. Do they participate in negotiations? NO. Private unions I have no problem with.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

This is very true. Also the unions can become the same non-human entities that bad people can use to hide behind, or advance an agenda. I don't support or oppose corps, gov't, banks, or unions. They are non-human, innate in and of themselves. They can ALL provide for the common good when good people run them. The only problem is that when corrupt, immoral, and yes EVIL people use them for cover. The CEO's excuse is, it wasn't me, it was the corp. The politician, "it wasn't me, it was the gov't" It's high time we hold PEOPLE accountable. And arrest the criminals in our corps, banks unions, and gov't. Crime can have no excuse if good people are to thrive.

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 9 years ago

Amen, friend.

[-] 0 points by Freebird (158) 9 years ago

I don't think that there is anything wrong with collectively bargaining with your employer. The corruption starts when unions use dues to bribe politicians ....

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Absolutely, your example would be of one bad person using a faceless entity to bribe anouter bad person using a faceless entity. That used to be called graft and prosecuted, today it's called 'business as usual'. I'm against ANYONE using a faceless entity to commit crimes, trample freedom, or the usual crap. We are better than this.

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 9 years ago

I think we're on the same page!

[-] 0 points by NachoCheese (268) 9 years ago

So OWS is "backing unions"?

It is one thing to have union members participating in their individual capacity, but another thing entirely to "back unions" the organizations.

Which is it?

[-] 1 points by synonymous (161) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Fiscally Conservative , Socially Liberal! Government out of my pants and out of my wallet!

[-] 1 points by maryannfarley (1) 9 years ago

Deb, I just posted something so similar over at the Tea Party Patriots Page on Facebook! The talking points of Tea Party Conservatives and OWS are vitually indistinguishable. What MUST stop happening is the demonization of both sides by the extreme people in each of our movements. For example, that photo of the police-car pooper was from an old Bush demonstration. Typical propaganda. Believe me, many of us are having discussions with Tea Party people. Everything you mention above is exactly what I personally am fighting for. (It just occurred to me that you didn't mention the Tea Party...are you affiliated with them? Sorry if I made a wrong assumption.)

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Kinda figueres that that pic was propaganda. I was pretty sure alot of info was misinformation, started digging into OWS and liked alot of what I saw. Sad to say that this is what those in power do to stay in power through out history.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

No, That's was a very good assumption. But Teaparty was almost immediatly hijacked by big business, walked away when inmates got ahold of the assylum. Tea party doesn't represent conservatives, just twists the conservative viewpoint to justify Immoral and Illegal corporate, financial, and governmental action/ innaction

[-] 0 points by AnneRidley (73) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I'm conservative and I don't go to church ever. And I'm on the fence about unions. I think they have a very real purpose and have, at certain points in history, done real good, but there is a moment when a movement or a group becomes bigger than the people who make it up. It happens with unions, corporations, the government, etc. The only system that I think seems to work, practically speaking, is taking care of your family and your neighbors as best you can.

I don't know about other people who consider themselves conservative, but my views are as follows:

1) I believe in fiscal responsibility, i.e. no expensive foreign wars, as little dependence as possible on foreign resources and labor, no so-called stimulus packages, no bail-outs, and..no universal healthcare, unemployment benefits, etc. (My unemployed cousin makes $405/wk before taxes; I make $420 after. What is her incentive to find a job, and what is my incentive to keep mine?) I think the government pretty much exists to defend our borders and keep the roads paved, because that's all it's good at. (If politicians were less prone to corruption and inefficiency, I would rethink my views on the last point.)

2) I believe that people should have ownership of their bodies and be free to marry any consulting adult they want.

3) I believe in environmental conservation and do what I can as an individual to recycle and reuse. I have not yet worked out a perfect solution for how to accomplish this on a large scale without depending on a government, but I believe it can somehow, someday be done.

4) I believe our only foreign trade should be with countries whose labor laws are considered humane by American standards.

5) I believe there should be an end to campaign contributions above a certain (very low) amount.

6) I believe in a flat tax that everyone must pay once they're above the poverty line.

I don't know where I fall on your spectrum (any of you), but I've often thought that if you set up a Venn diagram with the Tea Party principles in one circle and the OWS ideas in the other and adopted whatever ended up in the middle as your cause (and there would be something), you'd end up really making a difference.

[-] 0 points by RichardGates (1529) 9 years ago

There are a lot of forums out there. aside from showing support in numbers, it is important to use this time to network and talk with like and not so like minded people. please check out some of the forums born of the OWS.

http://occupytogether.org/

http://occupyr.com/

http://TheMultitude.org/

http://teaoccupyunited.com/

I urge you to participate in a poll

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dFlNNHJTRlZwMWs5ZjlhTWN0NlZReHc6MQ#gid=0

a snapshot of results just from occupywallst.org https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?snapid=S295137aVeY

me: http://blog.richardkentgates.com

[-] 0 points by uslynx81 (203) 9 years ago

"Barry Goldwater pretty much explained the core philosophy of American conservatism in one paragraph of his famous 1960 book The Conscience of a Conservative:" News Article

The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: ‘I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.’

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Actually, Berry Goldwater was the father of the neo-conservative movement. Their aim was to subvert conservatism and bend it to the corporate and financial intrests. He was at best a libertarian, but somehow his Ideas have been taken as conservative holy writ. Dwight Eisenhower was a staunch conservative in his day, he fought facism( in europe) then communism during the cold war. He started ending segragation by sending in federal troops. And he built the interstate highway system. ALL these things were accomplished by a CONSERVATIVE. They were for the common good, or about respecting the rights of the individual. But the current crop of GOPers would NEVER do ANY of these things. They are a far right farce, they care for the 1% REAL conservatives are of and for the 99% because WE ARE THE 99%

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Please, please take back the GOP. We need you. We like Ike.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Wish we could, been trying. But if we ever did, the cost to fumigate the GOP house would be astrinomical. I believe GOP is a broken institution, not sure if it's fixable.

[-] 0 points by OWSProtestor (25) 9 years ago

The reason you aren't included is because your ideas of what's wrong and what can fix this are wrong. The Tea Party is more aligned with your POV. Here is the difference between the two movements.

http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/tea-party/occupy-wall-street-ows-vs-the-tea-party-a-brief-comparison

[-] 0 points by PetraeusPresident (9) 9 years ago

David Howell Petraeus officially announced as Occupy Wall street Presidential Candidate.

[-] -1 points by littleg (452) 9 years ago

If you have any ideas on how to prevent human greed and save this planet, I would listen to you. If you don't care about these two issues, I'm not interested.

[-] -2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 9 years ago

ultimately, while we do need people who self identify as conservative, we will win them over the long way with reason and logic and science, not by bending to them or appeasing them or etc.

As far as these promises to back us.. some seem a bit absurd. conservatives have been anti union, conservative pundits are the ones running a demonization and smear campaign against us, and i don't see the point in ending trade with china just ending slave and caste warfare trade and moving to a genuine free market system.

we are not here to make all povs equally valid. there is one objective truth and conservativISM is an ideology detached from reason or science. All of the OTHER isms die also including the great boogey men of socialism and communism and etc.

There is plenty to take home there but as far as taking conservative ness hostage to tell us what to do i don't think thats going to play well.

"conservatives" are duped puppet tools of the corporate oligarchy. WE don't expect their help we expect to help them cure their mental disease.

Conservatives do not live by a moral code. they may think so but its a double think con scam in which they actually promote fascism, lie to the public, and run propaganda and culture wars. Conservativism is thus one of the problems, and will soon be a dead idelogy one way or the other.

You may cling to conservativism if you like, but whats going to happen is people are going to stop letting the corporate oligarchy dupe them into divide and conquer camps. Deal. we won't cater to "conservatives." we will on the other hand do our best to involve all PEOPLE in an open source democratic direct democracy process.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

Maybe you should pay more attention to what individuals are actually saying rather than condemning them based on the label they attach to them selves. Conservative, liberal,progressive and socialist are just words that are frequently used to beat people over the head with. Let's first find out what that means to the individual, then decide on what issues we agree or disagree on.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 9 years ago

When key phrases work as conversation stoppers, we all loose.

Conservative Liberal Progressive Socialist Class warfare Job creators

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

Indeed

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 9 years ago

agreed. we do need to get to diplomatic process and hear everyone.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

See, that's what I mean, wherever we have common ground we can work together. My list is my own, not OWS, it's meant to be thought provoking, to shock people, to think in a differnt way ... I think it worked.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Guess after all this, my main point would be that if you wish to persuade people with logic and science, practice using logic and science. I used logic and reason, and don't get me started with science (I'll win that one too)

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Well, gawdoftruth, you have a lot of points that need answered, and I will do my best using logic and reason. My purpose is not to persuade you to the conservative point of view, just to show that we DO have common ground. I need no bending nor appeasment.

As far as it being absurd that a conservative could be prounion per se, I won't believe the propaganda about you guys, if you could also do the same. For a conservative to be pro-union is only to be Intellectually Honest. How can I espouse individual liberty and justice, then turn around and advocate trampling unionists rights to assembly, free speech, and due process. If you know conservatives so well, you tell me, logically, how this can be done, without being hypocritical (most conservatives I know are NOT hypocrites) And the same goes with trade with china, If I love freedom, how can I turn a blind eye and do business with a country that denies more freedoms from more people, than ANYWHERE else in the world, if you are liberal, please help me understand, because I don't.

Your next point is on POVS and their validity. First, I didn't ask you to validate my point of view, so this is a straw man arguement (a part of illogical arguementation). I could use an ad hominim attack toward your pov, but then that too would be illogical, such as the duped puppet bit ( unless you have photos of exxon with it's hand in my ass- thought I destroyed all those... but I digress)

Actually most conservatives are very, very moral. And to be honest, so are most liberals. To claim the contrary is to perpetuate leftist propaganda. So therefore conservativism is thus one of the solutions, just as liberalism is.

As far as 'clinging' to conservativism, I have no need to do so, it's who I am. And as far as being divided, that's what I'm railing Against. While at the same time your whole post is divisive, then you claim to be against division, this then too is illogical.

And your last points are that you won't cater to conservatives, then involve all people may seem illogical, but may be akin to hairsplitting. My counter point would be that I never ask you to cater to conservatives. My list was a list of clearly defined principals I hold, If you hold them too, great we can work together, if not, aww shucks. But if this movement wants to really represent the 99% and end devisiveness, then the logical step would be to find where the 99% has common ground. And, oh yes, I'm conservative, I AM THE 99%

[-] 1 points by NachoCheese (268) 9 years ago

"we will win them over the long way with reason and logic and science"

This from a person who resorts to profanity laced tirades against anyone who questions their "logic"?

HAHAHA

priceless

[-] -3 points by flamingliberal (138) 9 years ago

Conservatives are bad for the nation. We dont want your corporate fsacist bullshit.

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 9 years ago

If, after the THOUSANDS of posts on this site by consersvatives and libertarians, you still don't know the difference between corporatism and capitalism, you are either completely, hopelessly retarted or belligerently ignorant. Fuck off, you're no help to anyone.