Tea Party outreach

Submitted by outofmanyone on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 3:18pm

Forums:

Occupy Los Angeles General Discussion

Hi all,

We all know that as representatives of the 99%, we adhere to no political ideology, and welcome people of all political backgrounds who want to fight against corporate opression. We also know though that we are being unfairly represented as a more liberal or leftist movement. This is making it difficult to draw people that are on the more right-side of the political spectrum into our movement. Therefore I propose either we have a subcommittee specifically focused on reaching out to people of that political persuasion, or one of the subcommittees (such as PR) have as part of their priorities this outreach.

Below is a couple articles that really highlight the importance of this

This one shows that there is is strong support from conservatives to overturn Citizen's United and reject corporate personhood.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/occupy-wall-street-protests_b_...

This one is from one of the earliest participants in the Tea Party movement, who realized that we both are fighting a common enemy

http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open_letter_a...

If we could build a right-left coalition against Corporate Personhood through the Occupy movement, not only would we transform the image people have of our movement, but we would transform the entire political landscape and make huge strides to healing the divisions that have plagued this country and have impeded us from uniting and fighting for common causes.

Also, this is why it is IMPERATIVE that any demands we make do not turn off potential allies who agree with our larger, overarching goal.

If people want to help in this outreach, or believe this proposal should be announced at the GA, let me know.

SCREW THE RIGHT WING; IT'S THE LEFT'S TURN TO TALK

Submitted by Weekend Warrior on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 3:13pm

The right has been talking for 30 years. OWS is the left's turn to talk. We have to completely change the right-wing narrative that government is always bad and has no business trying to help mankind. We must drive a stake through Reagan's heart now or forever be haunted by his blood sucking econ-libertarian philosophy of indifference.

A movement can't be both Right and Left anymore than there can be a shared movement of Nazis and Communist. It would turn OWS into an ambiguous joke. You don't see the right-wing Republicans being bipartisan. Devotion to bipartisanism is what fucked up the Obama presidency. Obama should tell the right to get fucked, and so should we. In fact if we do so successfully, maybe Obama can do so as well. Fuck the ignorant Tea Party bastards. Let them rot in oblivion with the Reaganomics that is responsible for this mess we are in.

Tom Burns, raroof3@gmail.com

Well....

Submitted by Mahayana on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 3:43am

If you're going to tell the right to fuck off you're going to have to change the slogan you know. You're not really the 99% when you're excluding almost 50% of those people.

Question for you. Since you have so much faith in the Left, why are you here? Shouldn't you be off working on Obama's 2012 campaign or something?

"A movement can't be both Right and Left anymore than there can be a shared movement of Nazis and Communist."

I know you're in denial over this, but yes,
this is a Left, Right, Center, Socialist Party, Tea Party, Communist Party,
Whatever fucking floats your boat party movement

FUCKING DEAL WITH IT OR GTFO.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe

The fact that you seriously

Submitted by PC on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 3:43am

The fact that you seriously think that a person of the left would work on Obama's campaign really speaks volumes here.

I have read many of Mr. Burns

Submitted by Mahayana on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 3:48am

I have read many of Mr. Burns posts. It is known that he is very pro Obama.

Anyhow, how does that "speak volumes"? I'm not quite understanding.

The level of disappointment

Submitted by nobody on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 10:13pm

The level of disappointment in the Obama administration among liberals and leftists is quite high. The leftists aren't so disappointed, because their hopes were pretty low or nonexistent to start with. The liberals are bummed out. Labor is upset. Enviros aren't happy.

This is partly why the Occupy movement has flourished. The Obama supporters have given up on Obama - even if they figure on voting for him - and have taken to the streets again, like we all did to oppose the wars.

Who's Too Blame

Submitted by Alexandra2 on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 11:22am

I thnk people have given up on Obama because they realize that he hasn't followe through on many of his campaign promises, i.e., pulling out troops within 6 months of being elected.

Perhaps that is the main problem with politics is that were usually sold a bill-of-goods. Do we really know what Washington has planned for the masses?

<a href="http://www.primarilypaintandpapering.com">Interior House Painting</a>

<a href="http://www.squidoo.com/laugh-out-loud-funny-wedding-cake-toppers">Funny Wedding Cake Toppers</a>

This.

Submitted by Fex on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 3:26pm

"this is a Left, Right, Center, Socialist Party, Tea Party, Communist Party,
Whatever fucking floats your boat party movement"

Nice.

Focusing on just left or right isn't going to get much changed, it divides us. The right and left have been played off against one another to very good effect (good for those wanting to remain in power, bad for the bulk of us) for many years. Seeing things as left/right and automatically taking a stand for your side and your side only does two things: 1) it emulates our politicians, left and right hardly talk to each other, do not compromise, and basically f*ck the rest of us by their playground antics, and 2) ignores real discussion about issues by automatically taking a stance of "I'm right, your wrong, no debate" - doing things that way is akin to taking one's devotion of a political affiliation to a nearly religious level and on top of it excluding anyone and everyone who is not affiliated - it's pretty bigotted in my view whether coming from the left or the right or from where ever.

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

YOU'RE WRONG; WE ARE LEFT. Check the GA's collective statement.

Submitted by Weekend Warrior on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 4:10pm

If one has any doubt about the left-wing nature of this movement, check out Kieth Obermann reading off the historice First Collective Statement of OWS General Assembly.

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/special-comment-keith-reads-first-collective-statement-of-occupy-wall-street

You're argument is that we can't represent the interests 99% versus the greedy 1% unless this movement contains 100% of the opinions of the 99%? Really? Then we should not only allow Tea Baggers, but we should invite Rush Limbaugh to camp out. We can have a lovely Nazi tent as well. The Klan might allow us to borrow their sheets. Let Glen Beck address our assembled crowds. Give Fox News, who has endoctrinated much of the 99% with their fear mongering bullshit, their own sound booth next to the collective library.

"99%" is a general complaint about the reprehensible inequality of wealth and power distribution in this supposed democracy: a solid left-wing view. "Education & Health Care = A HUMAN RIGHT" is a thoroughly left wing view that galls every right- winger when they hear it. Collective bargaining as a right--what right wing nutbag is going to endorse that principle? I'm sure just the word "collective" drives rightys crazy.

The OWS is fed up and done with the narrative of Reaganomics, Supply-siders, the Chicago School, Libertarians, Austrians, or whatever new bullshit name the rightist give to their trickle-down, piss-on-you economics. This is just propaganda to make the 99% settle or the crumbs that fall of 1%'s table.

Sorry, right-wingers. We are changing the narrative. Greed is bad again. Humanitarian government is good again.

This is what we must mean or we mean nothing at all. We're not just a conglomerate of meaningless angst as the right-wing would like us to be. We are swinging the pendulum back, baby. Back towards collective progress. Left, not right. Join the new narrative expressed in the above link or vote Republican. You can't seriously do both.

Tom Burns, raroof3@gmail.com

What are you referring to specifically?

Submitted by Mahayana on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 4:33pm

I just listened to the whole thing. Can you point out exactly what you are referring to that makes you think it is a left-wing ONLY movement? It sounded pretty non-partisan to me.

Here is an updated list of OWS demands.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Occupy-Wall-Street-Current-by-Ralph-Lopez-111023-734.html
To be honest it sounds like a Libertarian could have written this. I think Ron Paul would agree with over half of these demands.

You gotta stop bringing up the Fox News crap. That Rupert Murdoch owned peice of shit "News" channel is not representative of the Right. (Sure, a lot of ignorant Republicans subscribe to that bullshit way of thinking - they do not represent the Right as a whole.) Come on Tom, take a step and look at the bigger picture.

Stop buying into the Left VS Right bullshit fights that have prevented us from addressing the REAL issues.

I disagree

Submitted by Fex on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 5:13pm

I disagree Tom.

I would LOVE for Glenn Beck to come to a GA as we tear him a new one so to speak in debate. Televise that, please. Are you kidding me? Glenn Beck's arguments being deconstructed systematically, personally, and publically would be awesome. I would pay to be there and I'm dead broke, I'd find a way.

That's the thing, the loons don't stand a chance in debate. Let em come, they'll leave as there's no reason for them to want to stay when it's apparent the movement is not for them, especially if their arguments are constantly and publically torn down.

Many on the "right-wing" and independents however can and do agree with several (as I see them) core Occupy ideas, such as:

Getting money out of politics so our politicians represent us the people and not special interests affecting many industries including but not limited to banks, pharmaceutical, agricultural, oil, and defence industries using: revolving door policies between big money and government positions both elected and appointed, lobbying, unlimited campaign donations, money's influence on legislation

Bank reform/smarter regulation that is enforced

Campaign finance reform

Agreement that the bailouts did not have tax payers' approval

Lack of integrity of the media

Debt restructuring

I'm sure I'm leaving a couple out. Also, automatically closing off along partisan lines lowers our numbers unnecessarily. There are a HUGE amount of moderates out there, both on the left and the right.

An argument I like to use in favor of "trickle up" economics when I talk to folks on the right, in particular when it comes to the bail outs, is thus:

"The way I see it "trickle down" economics is basically feudalism. Those with the money and power are not willing to part with enough of either to get what needs to be done, done. Sure they are one of several types of "job creator" in that they can decide a limited amount of what jobs to create and where, just like dukes and duchesses. Rupert Murdoch even claims he is "doing God's work." Getting rather "divine right of kings"-ish. The facts as they are now is many corporations and banks that got bailed out downsized their work force while giving their top execs raises and last year reported record profits. We've lost jobs.

Trickle up is capitalist. Or rather, I should say "trickle through." What people who support "trickle up" and "trickle down" WANT to have happen is for money to travel THROUGH the economy. In capitalism it's supposed to be the consumers and market who through buying and selling determine where and how money is spent and in which sectors of the economy, not a socialist corporate plutacracy. If the bail out money had gone to regular people, people wouldn't just hoard it. Especially poor people, they have to spend it because they constantly need to have to basic needs met. Those same basic needs everyone will be spending money on: food, clothing, rent, health, mortgage, fuel, energy, etc as well as non-essentials. The money will be spread throughout the economy simply by people doing commerce and it will spread according to the wills of how where and why people choose to put their money, and while they're doing commerce they would have been most likely to have put their money in a bank (back while we still trusted banks) and then the banks would have had their slice as well. Everybody would have been helped, and the businesses that people needed and liked would have seen growth and thus been able to expand, creating more jobs. This hasn't happened with "trickle down," the rich have just kept it. Regular folks use money for the health of the economy and each other the most, so "trickle up" actually leads to "trickling through."

I used that as an example of talking and debating folks more on their own turf. Generally real issues and ideas leads to a discussion rather than starting with a fight.

Another fun topic both inside and outside party lines is discussing Switzerland- which has fantastic social services (universal healthcare, drugs have been de-criminalized and treated as a public health problem, etc) while being extremely capitalist (indeed it's a favored country for business), as well as populist (they have a 4th branch of government which is direct democracy). I'm not saying we should copy the Swiss, I am saying their system is good food for thought.

Simply repeating party jargon, slogans, and sweeping statements back and forth at one another solves fuck all nothing. That's not talking about the issues and coming to resolutions regarding them.

Once people drop the partisan labels from forming their every argument, talk about healthcare for instance doesn't become "social services are a left winger commie idea" it becomes more "Are social services a good idea or not? What are the pros and cons? Should we have some and not others?" And having people talk, listen, and vice-verse is at least finally getting half-way to a resolution, work from there.

A lot of us face common problems no matter our political spectrum, and many if not most of us can work together to have a functioning system of governance that reflects the will of its peoples. People no matter affiliation are pissed at what's been going on for many years. 'Course, it can take a ton of courage some times to listen to "your enemy's " view- but remember, the "enemy" is in Wall Street and in our Gov, who's views we have heard and reject, not our fellows.

(edited for spelling/grammar - fingers are friggin' cold)

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

Just FYI

Submitted by Fex on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 5:17pm

I'm not here to preach a leftist or a rightist agenda. No "ists" at all. I'm here to discuss the problems in our broken system with others, educate, be educated in return, and hopefully come up with viable ideas for resolutions that the vast majority of us can accept.

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

Do more outreach to everyone, not "tea party," "Republicans"

Submitted by Lee on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 10:21am

People who label themselves "conservative Republicans" or "tea party" ARE fiercely representing an ideology and a partisanship--and frankly the ideology and partisanship that is most wrecking the people of this country presently.Recruiting them would just create a movement MORE torn by ideology and more of a battleground for the 1% of the major parties to fight to capture. To represent the 99% it makes more sense to just try to recruit people hurting from the economy and angry about the lack fo democracy, and not worry about whether they are registered to one party or another. There is a lot to the idea that the labels "left" and "right" are not as meaningful as they used to be and do not get at what most people want and believe. It also continues to be a big issue in Occupy LA that it remains white dominated, and doesn't come anywhere close to representing the actual population of LA. Watching the GA on livestream last night, I only saw two or three people of color speak out of about 20 speakers.

Leone

You have a good way of putting it

Submitted by Fex on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 10:44am

I think that's a much better way to put it Lee. Outreach to everyone. State our purpose and facts- people decide on their own form there if Occupy is for them or not and political affiliation doesn't have to come into it.

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

People who label themselves

Submitted by Mahayana on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 12:02pm

People who label themselves "conservative Republicans" or "tea party" ARE fiercely representing an ideology and a partisanship--that is most wrecking the people of this country presently.

Lee, could you be more specific as to which ideologies of these groups are antithetical to the Occupy Wall Street movement? I think they want corruption out of politics as much as anybody else. If anything, their ideologies regarding economics are more aligned with the constitution and unless the OWS movement is against what the constitution is about, the conservative right, Libertarians and Tea Party folks need to be equally welcomed. I'm not talking about the nimrods on Fox News and their zombie followers, I'm talking about educated Right Wingers who have the old fashioned view that less government is good. They (I'm talking about the average folks) don't want less gov't so they can use that to their advantage to exploit other people. Keep in mind that the average income of Republicans are about the same as Democrats. I think both are somewhere between 30-40k/yr if I'm not mistaken. These conservatives are working class blue collar workers too.

The Right wing idea of less government IS conducive to 1%er crime - I'll give you that, but there are laws and regulations that the government can enforce that would prevent this. (The right believes in LESS government, not NO government) Abraham Lincoln said, "In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

Of course, if you are referring to Conservatives coming in holding Cain or Ron Paul signs and preaching right wing ideas, then yes, that doesn't belong here at OWS. What Tom Burns is doing is no different though with his daily posts glorifying Obama & bashing the right. We need to throw ALL political labels to the side.

I personally don't know which system works best. I don't think EITHER have ever had a fair chance because for so long, Wall Street has had their hands in our pockets. I really don't care if I'm paying the majority of my income to taxes so long as that money is being spent wisely. (and it obviously has not been) I especially don't want to see it go towards funding wars and into the pockets of the military industrial contractors. Obama is as pro-war as Bush ever was, so both sides have proven that they are equally fucked up to me. Corruption is non-partisan. "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke

Lables? Cut to the chase... Job One...

Submitted by Rancho Larry on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 12:14pm

Obama is as pro-war as Bush ever was, so both sides have proven that they are equally fucked up to me. Corruption is non-partisan.<----YES.......

I submit that Obama, and MOST of the Congress, like Bush, is BOUGHT. THAT is why removing the dirty money from the choices the government MUST make IS Job One.

...this is simplistic...

Submitted by ultrarad on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 4:50am

Sorry, I really try to keep it away from partisan comparison, but this is such an uncritical reading of history that it really deserves comment.

Even if "they're all bought," some are more bought than others, not to mention that some never had to be bought, they were plutocrats from the start. But you really don't seem to understand how this works.

Imagine you, Rancho Larry, were President, right now. What, exactly, could you make Congress do? Not much. I'd guess that you could look around for things to do through regulatory authority, and go on the campaign trail against Congressional recalcitrance. Like Obama's doing. Got a better strategy? Please share it. (Though Keystone -XL and net neutrality are upcoming issues he does have leverage over, these are not the main plot-line wrt the economic crisis, or plutocracy. Also note that he immediately stated opposition to the Citizens United decision, though we have every right to ask, "so what are you doing about it?")

Sure, there are things Obama deserves criticism for. And, yes, more often than not the Dems are simply the lesser of two evils, but you can't remove that from the context that within the system it's either work with the rest of a very right wing Congress and accomplish what you can, or accomplish nothing at all. Even when Clinton tried to get Health-Care reform through a nominally Democrat-controlled Congress it failed because, moderate as it was, conservative Democrats opposed it (i.e it was in practice a conservative controlled Congress, then and mostly ever since.) Americans like to imagine that Presidents can deliver them anything, which is far from the fact of the matter. On the other hand, when Congress doesn't assert itself to the contrary, as demonstrated especially by Reagan and GWBush, they can use regulatory authority to do plenty of repressive, regressive things--and this is another reason why it matters to not have someone like GWBush in that office--though this shouldn't be confused with being able to do anything that requires spending, or anything that contradicts enacted law, and that limits what a President can do about an economy like this.

And as to wars, while a President like GWBush can be ready and rarin'-to-go, and, oh yeah, tell the U.S. Army to throw out its well researched 50-page post-conflict occupation plan for Iraq and have Cheney hire three grad students in their late 20s to decide how to set up the new Iraqi economy...(seriously...) and then dissolve the Iraqi military in a move that anyone who understands the basics of military occupation or even colonial history recognizes as the fatal mistake of an amateur... subsequently costing thousands of soldiers their lives and the country well over a trillion dollars and counting...when, um, the main premise (pretext) for going to war against Iraq was both false and contrived...the worst Obama has done is to fall for choosing among the limited options his military advisers gave him concerning troop surges and withdrawal schedules, which has more than anything else to do with the fact that it's harder to get out of a war than it is to start one (yeah, we could have just left Iraq...left it to collapse into a civil war that could kill as many as Sadam did or more...as wrong as getting into that war was, that would have been more wrong, though it's far from certain that that won't happen anyway.) Afghanistan has also seriously been mishandled, particularly by supporting the rigged election results...but this owes as much to failing to understand what we were doing at the start by letting warlords become institutionally entrenched in exchange for their support in order to fight that war "on the cheap" while we distracted ourselves with Iraq (a GWBush imperative, which, really, he was quite honest about during the 2000 campaign, "That man tried to kill my daddy.") The fact of the matter is that once a war is in progress, the military has more effective control than the President--he relies on them and has little choice in the matter. Think back to the Abu Gareb pictures. Obama initially wanted to release them, in order to show the world that we're not hiding anything and we're changing how we operate. Put simply, the military vetoed this. There's no comparison, really. And let's take the two examples of how Obama committed our military, to provide air support to the Libyan rebellion and to provide non-combat support to the AU against the Lord's Resistance Army. I think there's minimal comparison here either.

Beyond which, do you really think that during two ongoing wars, Obama, a freshman Senator from Illinois, has a better chance of reigning in the military-industrial complex than did Fmr. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who first called it by that name and warned of it's growing strength? There was no broad-based movement pressuring Obama to do anything about it that kept making it an issue and kept it in the spotlight. Just Hope among people who think politics operates by wish-fulfillment.

The way I'd put it is that between the parties, there's a senior partner in screwing the country and a junior, sometimes acquiescent, sometimes reluctant partner/accomplice/dazed bystander; one more eager to do the bidding of plutocrats and the other less enthusiastic, though really the issue is not their dispositions but how the money-driven system of politics maintains constant, consistent pressure in favor of the interests of 1%. (But we shouldn't confuse that with the additional fact that there are some in both parties that don't fit this description, and we shouldn't simply dismiss them.) Take the effect of money away and we've won more than half the battle. But if there's anything to be learned from the Tea Party, it's that there is an appetite to replace these people, and that that fact offers leverage over the rest.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radical also means staying critical and not drinking anyone's kool-aid.

Outreach Question to ask anyone..

Submitted by Rancho Larry on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 12:03pm

Do YOU feel down deep inside that we, the American People have been duped, wronged and stolen from? If you do, then you agree with the core issue of Occupy Wall Street. If you agree, come down to the Occupy site, see what is going on, then talk to and listen to what is being discussed, not just shouted out in foolish anger.

Thanks Rancho Larry

Bi-partisanship is Killing us.

Submitted by Weekend Warrior on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:10pm

We should certainly seek to educated people who were mislead into the tea bag slough of stupidity. Right-wing ideologue prostelytizers, however, don't belong.

If you think Bi-partisianship is the way, just ask Barak what it's done for him. We need ferocious Rooseveltian class warriors, not Danial Webster compromiser-in-chiefs.

Yes, I will vote for Obama because I insist on voting and he's the only horse in the race. I will vote for him just to avoid one less right-wing asshole on the U.S. Supreme Court (which is the source of most of the problems with this country). What else is there to do? Boycott the elections? Seriously? Obama is a bi-partisian wimp, agreed, but he's our only hope. Imagine the right-wing capture of both houses of congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. The Fascist take-over would be complete. We'd have total government by boardroom. Get ready to munch on some rubber bullets, OWS.

I admit I am not down with a violent civil war (though, it does seem that American Democracy needs a good kick in the ass every once in a while). Give me a vote and I'll use it.

I hate the least-of-two evils voting more than anyone. I'm an advocate of run-off elections for every political office in order to promote third parties. I think the Senate should be stripped of some of its legislative power in favor of the more democratic House. I am not so foolish, however, not to recognize that choice now is between two evils. I do not expect that will go away by 2012.

Tom Burns, raroof3@gmail.com

Right-wing ideolog prostelytizers, however, don't belong. WTF!!

Submitted by alhs06 on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 4:57pm

How about committing to Solidarity, that you are not promoting.

Your Idea's are no better than of those people who oppose them, yet still find themselves standing next to you in a Common Revolt.

I am sorry you have not yet grasped the initial call to arm's, what a shame.

AGREED

Submitted by Justice4all on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 11:55am

OUTREACH IS NECCESSARY TO EVERYONE!!! not just select groups or centers of intrest. like for instance in burbank glendale region not alot of people even know how to donate for la but want to. So im trying to get a local ralphs to donate a spot in there parking lot where i can set up a day of donations for OcCUPY LA so people dont have to drive to the camp i can load up a few trucks and deliver myself.

"IF you think in terms of a year, plant a seed, if in terms of ten years, plant trees, if in terms of 100 years, teach the people" -Confucius

WE MUST TEACH THE PEOPLE!

NICE and really SMART

Submitted by Rancho Larry on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 12:08pm

Go for it

i can load up a few trucks and deliver myself. NICE IDEA LOL

Submitted by alhs06 on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 5:53pm

Follow me on this,

2-3 weeks ago, in Fontana, a "Good Hearted" woman collected thousands of dollars for the family of a recently deceased baby. Just one problem, there was no deceased baby.

I'm not saying you would or even could put a con into play similar to this, but just make sure your sponsored by the GA & put it in the MM's with date & time & ask for a few volunteer's to protect yourself. That is if "Ralph's" will even allow you to. In case anything is brought into question, but it won't because that sorta thing only happens to other people ...uh huh, anyway Protect yourself, Protect the OLA integrity.

BTW, Which local grocery store was accused 2 or 3 times in the past year or so for changing expiration dates on their meat, selling lower quality fish & meat for higher quality product's & having problem's with their scales reading a bit heavier than they should? An honest question.

It is not just a Right or Left deal...

Submitted by Rancho Larry on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 12:50pm

It IS US vs THEM.. US = the 99% who are growing quickly into poverty. Them=the crooks who Hi-jacked the government with Dirty $$$ in order to reduce the the taxes on the rich and corporations and to eliminate regulatory abilities of the government over immoral corporate governance.

Yea US vs THEM

This Ain’t No Party This Ain’t No Disco This Ain’t no Fooling Around.. Rancho Larry

Cheap remedy for those who corrupt

Submitted by Fex on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 1:03pm

Sharing a little humour. Forget left/right, just gimme 5 mins with the corrupt elements of corp and gov with Mickey Rourke's cost effective toolkit any day: http://img152.exs.cx/img152/3817/booyah0bi.gif Problem solved ;)

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

To not be just one sliver of the political spectrum...

Submitted by ultrarad on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 6:24am

is by far the better choice.

We need to add Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and OG Tea-Partiers fed up with corruption and plutocracy to our ranks. They exist. Some are even willing to stray from their party lines and voted for Obama, because they were fed up. Outreach makes sense. Just to avoid confusion, we can refer to them as such, till they decide what they'd like to be called. Do we have to agree with everything they believe? We don't even all agree with everything each of us believes. This is why we have to get down to specifics that people not yet involved can see spelled out and decide that, despite other differences, they can support.

So, to the specific question, a resounding YES!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radical also means staying critical and not drinking anyone's kool-aid.

ultrarad, just the other day I was saying

Submitted by alhs06 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 8:17am

ultrarad, just the other day I was saying we the 99% really have something going here. We need to add Democrats, Liberals, Socialist's and OG Green Partiers fed up with corruption and plutocracy to our ranks. They exist. Some are even willing to stray from their party lines and voted for a Tea-Partier, because they were fed up. Outreach makes sense. Just to avoid confusion, we can refer to them as such, till they decide what they'd like to be called. Do we have to agree with everything they believe?

No offense, but do you see how ridiculous that sounds when the party affiliation's you originally stated are replaced with what I'm assuming to be your flavor's. In attempting to sound PASSIONATE (?) you sound as if your inviting the Leper's to your Church. They, You, Me are all Brother's & Sister's in this fight, & until we can start acting as such we will remain just one sliver of the political spectrum...

I joined the revolution for the following reason (link) http://occupywallst.org/ see if it rings a bell.

Well...

Submitted by ultrarad on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 9:45am

when you paste in socialists and greens as having been part of corrupted institutional power in the U.S. it sounds especially ridiculous, but I take your point. And yes I suppose I'm tarring Libertarians especially undeservedly and everyone else as if they directly chose corruption (I've had too many conversations involving me bringing up campaign contributions and how they've derailed politics only to be dismissed for not "understanding" that it's all for the best if we get lower taxes...no mystery where it might come from I suppose.) Not that it's relavent to any larger issue, but I'll defend myself by saying that I was in part responding to the tone of the thread.

Nonetheless, it's not unimportant that we be broadbased both in fact and appearance, and it still seems like that's something that needs more work. It's a small sample, of course, but note that no one joined this little thread saying, "well, I'm a conservative/libertarian/republican and I think this...." (since that WOULD be germane and frankly we NEED that type of feedback, even if it's "...treats us as if we're leppers.") Which returns us to the basic point.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radical also means staying critical and not drinking anyone's kool-aid.

"well, I'm a conservative/libertarian/republican and I think thi

Submitted by alhs06 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 10:56am

Well ...you are correct, not this thread, but one a week or so ago. A lot of these threads & post's & perspectives (or revelation's to some) are overly redundant, (lol, can I use that as a phrase)? It almost dismisses & ignores any relevancy to previous discussion & history in the Entire Forum. Why save past blog's, threads & responding post's if no one is willing to study them?

Sorry, don't mean to be a dick.

The MESSAGE IS I'm an AMERICAN AND I WANT IT FIXED!

Submitted by Rancho Larry on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:22pm

The corrupt political process...

We ALL Love America… We want the broken government fixed….. Rancho Larry

OK, as long as they don't scapegoat the poor, people of color

Submitted by Lee on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 9:16am

Listen, I totally realize that there are plenty of racists among democrats, independents, etc. and I'm positive not all conservative tea partiers etc are racist. But some definitely are. So even though they are part of the "99%", you have to choose sometimes--do you want to welcome many more people of color into the movement, or people who scapegoat people of color and immigrants? Because realistically, you're not going to have both, it has to be one or the other. And the majority of Angelenos are people of color (but not OLA). For example, one of my best friends, a nurse, who is a person of color (i dont' want to go into detail because I don't have her permission), attended one of the public forums on health care, and she was threatened by tea partiers, and when she tried to just engage in calm dialogue with them, she really wanted to find out their ideas,they started yelling insults, includng that she was "ugly." Now, she happens to be, and I'm not just partial here, an extremely beautiful woman. So what was that about, if not racism?

The other concern I have (sorry to take so long to answer you Mahayana),is that polls (if you can trust them) show that the VAST majority of Americans support higher taxes on the very richest and on big corporations, and they want more government money spent on jobs, education, etc. And I think it is part of Occupy Wall Street to carry forward those demands of the American people. But correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the tea party wants to lower taxes on everybody including the wealthiest, and is against having a social safety net. So I guess we could unite with them about some issues, but we're not going to able to reach consensus on some crucial issues with them, such as the actual obscene division of wealth in this country which makes democracy and basic human rights impossible. I"m fine with the demand a lot of you have brought up about money out of politics. But I believe that no matter what laws there are on lobbying and campaign finances, as long as the top 1%, and to some extent the top .1% control so much of the economy etc, they will find a way to buy politicians and it is them taht politicians will listen to.

Leone

Example, one of my best friends, a nurse, is a person of color

Submitted by alhs06 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 9:54am

Lee, I love you bro, but you got to stop counting the number of Black, Asian, Mexican/Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Indian & Gay friends you have. White people need to stop labeling their different ethnic friend's, and stop wearing them like a "Medal of Tolerance". Know what I mean mate? And ffs, the same goes for political affiliation, don't Profile your "Brother's & Sister's In Arm's", that's the FBI's job. lmfao (just kidding I respect my FBI, love you guy's too ...lol)

Get Back to promoting Solidarity among the only label we should be using now The 99%. Promote & Protect our cause, Promote & Protect our Solidarity.

No disrespect meant Lee, or to The Men & Women of The FBI!

I was giving an example of racism among organized tea partiers

Submitted by Lee on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 10:08am

sorry if I was guilty of your charge. I was trying to back up my claim with a concrete example that is not hearsay, that there is some racism associated with the tea party movement, without broadly attacking all of them.

But color blindness is NOT the answer! I'm not counting anybody! Just walk down Broadway and then onto Occupy 2 blocks away. Counting not necessary...

Leone

That's part of why we need more folks

Submitted by Fex on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:20pm

More folks as in specifically a large slice of the general public.

If we have a large slice of the general populace and concentrate on the roots in our country's system(s) that allow for corruption, then we'll be cool as far as not being associated with any partisan group or special interest. Just stick to what got us all here together in the first place, learn more about how the system is broken, and possible solutions.

I do think we need more general outreach in order to attain that "large slice of the general populace," which makes it easier to stick to our original message. In turn though, sticking to our original will attract more and more folks from across the board.

"Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%." - This got us here, this attracts more here.

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

FEX Word following word- I wrought words

Submitted by alhs06 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 3:56pm

THANKS' BRO!

You helping bring me back to my senses. I'm a bit of a Bitch today ...sorry :<( , (sad face)

There is a left and right... both created.

Submitted by nobody on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:07pm

I'm going to regurgitate a UCLA poli sci prof whom I heard on some free podcast. The system is set up to work with two parties most of the time. There's a left party and a right party. Each party is a coalition of constituencies, and they generally manage to get along, but not always. Each side has "thought leaders" that integrate the different ideologies and smooth over the differences.

The best thought leader is Rush Limbaugh. He's kind of smart, and more importantly, he's funny; he's also a total hypocrite - a junkie and a liar, but humor kind of smooths over that glaring flaw, too.

On the left, Bob Reich is a thought leader. He can somehow integrate a pro-labor position with his awful past as a proponent of NAFTA.

In short, the left and right are created.

Occupy Wall Street is basically a left/populist movement. That's because the right party is the big and small business party, while the left party is the party of the employees, particularly the lower-paid employees who are more likely to suffer unemployment.

People who self-identify as being on the right are free to join in with OWS, but they will have to drop their pro-big-business economic agenda, or face tremendous cogntivite dissonance.

Now, all this said, none of these things really matter with regard to outreach. That's because the Tea Party and other right wingers are not important, not powerful, and not really present in the areas near downtown LA. Most of the Republicans and conservatives in the area are pro-business conservatives: that is, they are explicitly the supporters of the 1% riche people.

The group or movement of significance is the immigration reform movement. This is a movement that includes a lot of "left" people and social conservatives who go to church, etc. They have managed to make that coalition, and have turned out hundreds of thousands of people into the streets. The organizations ring the downtown, and have a constituency that includes probably over 30% of the people living around downtown.

The immigration movement has built itself across the political divide via religion, uniting socially conservative people with a political pole that's basically liberal. That's what an economic justice pole will require: an inter-faith message of economic fairness that appeals to all people. Fortunately, this is pretty easy because the two major faiths in the area both valorize poverty (I mean the Abrahamic religions and the Buddhist religions).

Atheists will need to articulate an atheist argument. (I'm an atheist.)

There is one other position, which is emergent, and that is important to Occupy, and that's the belief that transparency will fix everything wrong in politics. It's not a new idea, but in this internet age, it's gained a lot more adherents. This is not a left or right thing, but it's more left than right. Still, it has wide appeal.

The transparency thought leader is Larry Lessig. He's generally considered a liberal, but if you look at his resume, his background is actually conservative and pro-business. But he's changed his politics (it's impossible to be pro-transparency and pro-business at the same time), and that's some testament to the power of the internet.

Also, one other thing - the

Submitted by nobody on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:17pm

Also, one other thing - the idea that "we're divided by left and right, and it's an issue," is really only an issue for white people, and white men in the suburbs in particular, who are over 60% Republican.

Nonwhite people generally tilt Democrat, and in LA, the numbers are like 60% to 80% Democrat. Probably higher if you count only women of color.

The raw fact is that CA is mostly Dem. LA County is mostly Dem, and the City of LA is REALLY Democrat. Non-Democrats are hardly ever elected to city office. Even arch-right-winger Bernie Parks is a registered Democrat (who will never get the Dem party endorsement). Jan Perry is a Demo too, but she's totally supportive of the 1%.

I think we are buying into

Submitted by invictus99 on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 11:08pm

I think we are buying into the status quo premise here about left vs. right. Yes there are differences. But, even the base in the republican party doesn't want corruption in politics. They are just being fed crap and commi conspiracy theory about the left wing and OWS by the conservative media *coughs Fox* so that the premise of left vs. right can continue. We should take control of the dialogue and change it.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. -Howard Zinn

The last figures I saw...

Submitted by tovangar2 on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 11:28pm

...were 56% of Americans supported OWS protest & agreed as to the problems. 87% of Americans, whether or not they ever heard of OWS have the exact same concerns. Everyone knows that there's something horribly wrong. No one wants riots, no matter how justified.

So, I really don't think we have much work to to. Peeps are already there. Just make them feel welcome and try to counter the Fox News message that OWS is an additional problem on top of all the shared ones we have.

There's plenty of selfish reasons to want things fixed. Conservatives want calm & order and they also know that corp/gov actions have made that all but impossible. They want law & order under the Constitution, not a criminal class rampaging round the globe, which is the same thing we want.

Just avoid the guns/gays/god trap. Those are dividers. Stay on track with the law, order, calm & fairness bit. And regulated capitalism's fine, for now anyway. Save that fight for later if you have a dog in it.

And don't forget, the 1%'s attack on Social Security may be our most effective weapon. Counter the lies about SS being in crisis and almost broke. It's not. Educate yourselves on this one issue and outreach to conservatives will be way easier.

Watch/ listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3bhHYQ7i7w and share it.

LOL @ guns/gays/god and add

Submitted by invictus99 on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 11:31pm

LOL @ guns/gays/god and add in uteruses too.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. -Howard Zinn

LOL..

Submitted by tovangar2 on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 11:36pm

...yes, but don't get into an abortion debate with them either. Stay on the big stuff, the return to a golden time of fairness blah, blah which probably never existed but we'll make it reality now :-)

I like a Reggae concert as well as the next...but.

Submitted by Weekend Warrior on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 12:58am

Come now. I will hug all my brothers at a Ziggy Marley concert, even ordinarily loathsome macho-liberatarians, after a puff or two. But this is politics, ladies and gentlemen. It's about making shit happen. No time to sing Kumbaya. This means we have to have some idea of what shit we want to happen. If we have that--oops--we might have an incipient ideology brewing--a little bit a of thesis going. If there is a thesis, look out! there's an antithesis. Thesis + Antithesis =0. They cancel each other out. You can't found a movement on the big zero. The only party you can found on that is a house party.

I perceive that most critics of my view that this is truly a left-wing movement are 1) good natured people with no ideological leaning who merely have a vague sense that bad people are doing bad things; 2) right-wing ideologues who naturally don't like my suggestion that they are merely counter-demonstrators trying to change our minds to believe that greed is good, capitalism is really perfect, and that the rich need even more mollycoddling.

I'm sorry right-wingers. You get everything you want by killing OWS. Without OWS, the narrative falls back to Reaganomics: cutting taxes on "job creators," deregulating everything, buget cuts, humanitarian government is evil, etc. Isn't that exactly what you want? How can you wish a movement to succeed whose very core speaks of spreading and redistributing the wealth equitably. You know that doesn't mean that we deregulate capitalism and wait for the invisible hand to make all the wealth trickle down under an ideal laissez-faire system (as it never, never has done since time immemorial). We want democracy applicable to all economics and all power, not just to elect people to protect the damn private property of rich people. I know this notion of democracy nauseates and offends to the core all you conservatives, neo-cons, libertarians (Republicans who smoke pot), and all of you whom all political writers universally put under the rubric, "right-wingers."

Does anyone honestly think econ-libertarians have anything in common with socialist? That Milton Friedman can love Karl Marx? They cancel each other out. They are polar opposites. A movement of both together is no more than a social gathering, where propriety dictates that no one discusses politics. If you don't believe me, ask a Ron Paul lover what his man thinks about money being the same as speech. Ron Paul believes that a man has right to spend his billions on anything he wants. Koch brothers love Ron Paul. Ask Ron Paul lovers what they will do about taxes on the rich--they'll lower them to nothing--they don't even believe in inheritance taxes. Ask Ron Paulers what they'll do about social security and medicare---they'll trash them! Ask them to about their idea to get rid of civil rights laws because they offend property rights. Ron Paul and all libertarians are with Rush Limbaugh on every single economic issue. And what is OWS but a movement on mainly economic issues. Ron Paul loves Ayn Rand, a bitch famous for saying "the public be damned." Some liberarians believe that if a starving man signs himself over to slavery for a piece of bread, this is "voluntary." They hate labor unions and workplace democracy. Don't dare mention "class-war" to them; they hate that. How can such people have anything in common with a movement that claims brotherhood with labor?

Believe me, I know these guys. I confess I was once one of them. I know how they think, and they hate to the core everything this movement intends on doing.

I can see centrist (I don't care about party affiliation), liberals, progressives, socialist, communist, wobblies, anarchist, and even crazy 911 conspiracy buffs having a lot in common and a vested interest in changing the narrative that has oppressed this country for 30 years. That narrative is a right-wing, ultra-pro-capitalist narrative. (Sorry, I know some of you hate labels, but that is just what this bullshit is called and has been always called, and everyone knows what I mean when I use these well-fitting labels, just look it up, so I'm going to keep using them--right-wingers even define themselves this way; they should not pretend offense simply because I have outed them.). Since the right-wingers have no interest in changing the narrative, they just don't belong. They are counter-demonstrators. If OWS disappears tomorrow and things go back to they way they were a few months ago, these tea-bagging libertarians win. Can't anyone see they are trying to derail this movement? To hajack it like they did the tea-party? In fact, ask these guys where they get their money.

If the right-wingers want to hang around and continue to seek converts among us, I certainly don't advocate physically kicking them out. Perhaps we can convert them. Just BEWARE OF THE DOG. Don't be surprise if you don't see Fox News trying to say OWS is as much right-wing as left-wing (because they know what those labels traditionally mean).

Fortunately, as of now, the media believes we are leftist. Rush Limbaugh thinks we're commies. Glen Beck thinks we are the French revolution coming to chop off his head. O'Reilly thinks we're an Obama plot. Herman Cain thinks we're lazy hippy socialists. Without doubt, the left-wing label is on, whether anyone likes it or not, and we really do deserve it, for we have earned it. Take it as a badge of honor.

As for you romantic non-ideologic vague revolutionaries who hate labels, I appreciate your raw instincts that there is evil afoot, but don't let the right-wingers talk you into anything. Do not go to the dark side, Skywalkers. You'll end up like the old hippies who turned tea-baggers in their old age thinking that Ron Paul was the reincarnation of Karl Marx. Attend the OLA classes whenever you can. Listen to brillant speakers like Robert Reich. Watch a videos like Naomi Kline's The Schock Doctrine. Even listen to the commies and socialist to get a sense of the value of labor and the history of class struggle. Figure out for what and for whom you're fighting.

You like bipartisanship? Obama is the king of bipartisianship. It's time we drag is ass back to the left. His attempts at biprtisanship is what got us into this mess.

Tom Burns, raroof3@gmail.com

1 and 2 and 3 and repeat

Submitted by Fex on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 9:41am

I'll simply post a previous reply of mine you seemed to have missed in response to a comment of yours up above in this thread. This pretty much addresses what you said here as well:

http://www.occupylosangeles.org/?q=comment/4187#comment-4187

I'll add that there's no reason to label the movement left/right or even think left/right. Just stick with our messages and concentrate on the issues and people who agree will agree and those who do not will not. I believe most will agree with us.

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

Fortunately, as of now, the

Submitted by Mahayana on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 1:53am

You're not going to like this Tom, but Ron Paul supports what you and the rest of the Occupiers are doing:

http://youtu.be/aGCrDdFE868

Stop lumping him in with the rest of Right Wingers. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He's not looking to take away people's rights, he is looking to take away the power of the corporations/big banks so that the people won't NEED an extensive list of protections against the greedy corporations.

Take affirmative action for example. You wouldn't need affirmative action had our ancestors not enslaved African Americans for over 100 years. Now the pendulum is being swung in their favor in an attempt to rectify the horrible things that were done and help them get to an even playing field. Had their ancestors neven been enslaved would it be necesarry to implement affirmative action? No, that would be discriminatory to non-minorities.

These worker's rights you say Ron Paul wants to eliminate are likely things that wouldn't be necessary if our economy and businesses operated the way he wants them to. Affirmative action would be unnecessary if there was no slavery. I don't know if my example makes sense. My brain is too tired. I just think you have the wrong idea of Ron Paul. If anything, he is guilty of being too idealistic.

I also wanted to point out one other thing. The Koch brothers are backing Romney for president - not Ron Paul. From what I have read, the Kochs aren't very fond of Ron Paul. Probably because his policies are not very good for Koch-style business.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/11/03/360433/romney-koch-tea-party/

They were supporting Bachman for a while:

Koch Brothers Ignore Ron Paul Give Cash to Bachmann

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/hot-koch-brothers-ignore-ron-paul-give.html

GOOD OLD RON PAUL: HE LOVES PRETENDING TO BE A LEFTIST.

Submitted by Weekend Warrior on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 2:55pm

This is another example of econ-libertarians masquerading as leftist.

I saw that Ron Paul clip referenced above, and it sounds good on the surface. (Anything remotely reasonable stands out in the Republican debates.) However, you and I both know Paul is equally against bailing out mortgage holders as he is bailing out the banks. If he's anything, he's consistent, I'll give him that. He would have let the economy completely crash without any government action whatsoever. Just let the market adjust, no matter how many millions get screwed while the holy market gets its legs. The best solution was to seize that banks, not bail them out. This solution most certainly would have made Ron Paul's head explode. Why do Ron Paul supporters constantly obscure such fun facts like this?

Personally, I agree with him on much of his more radical foreign foreign policy (except I would never trash the U.N.). But Ron Paul is like Karl Marx, he sometimes makes some brilliant observations. It is his solutions that are the problem. Namely, in every instance, he leaves it all up to uncompromising faith in magical invisible hand of the mythical free market. The only other people I've seen who are so doggedly religious about economic doctrine are the Marxists themselves.

Paul and his "libertarian" brothers laconically like to say they only want to leave the individual alone. However, being left alone to be eaten by sharks is not freedom. Most people worry more about their employers, corporations, and creditors curbing their freedom than the government. No. What Ron Paul wants is the opposite what OWS is all about.

Like I keep saying, Ron Paul types win by keeping the same tired narrative we have had since Ronald Reagan first framed it by announcing "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help." If OWS never existed, this noxious narrative would have continued to this day. It was the mantra of the Tea Party. Why is it in the interest of Ron Paul types to change that? Is that not part of their religious doctrine?

OWS has remarkably changed this narrative in an historically short time, much to the chagrin and alarm of the Ron Paul supporters. Now all these well financed Liberarian Groups have fanned out since day one of OLA to convince us that this is all not capitalism's fault (for it never is); all the fault of the Fed (i.e. the government).

Dear Mahayani. Neo-iiberal types like Paul are always excusing the fact that capitalism has consistantly crashed and burned since the dawn of time by pointing to each instance of disaster and claiming it was not really capitalism. It is funny that when I mention failures of communist regimes to communist they alway claim that what failed was not really communism. In truth, in every instance, capitalism always becomes what it always becomes: a corrupt system of horrible wealth and power inequality. It is clearly the capitalists who fuck-up the government, not the other way around. This always happens no matter how many Austrians say it is not so, specious store-bought theories like "diminishing marginal utility," notwithstanding. So join the democratic thinkers (relax, that's democrat with a small "d") who believe that the best way to save capitalism is mix it with a little socialism, and vice versa. Realize that invisible hand worship is a cult of superstition that must be laughed out of OWS.

Tom Burns, raroof3@gmail.com

Weekend Warrior are you a Hater?

Submitted by alhs06 on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 12:43pm

Tom Burns,

It seems that you would rather scuttle any hope of Solidarity as visioned & posted on our founders home page, found here http://occupywallst.org/ than put aside your obvious contempt for the Republican, Tea Party or anyone you consider to the Right of your personal views. This is my observation based on your several post's. Are you purposely trying to antagonize our Brothers & Sisters to the Right of you into a planned confrontation just for your own amusement or personal hateful agenda?

While on occasion I have agreed with some of your post's, I think you are more of a detriment than a benefit to our cause. As your comment's are just as toxic to a unified movement as the slander pitched by Fox News.

Solidarity from The Far Right to The Far Left or none @ all for The 99%!

PROTECT, PROMOTE, PROTEST We are #Occupy We are The 99%

We are not haters

NOT HATING; JUST EXPOSING.

Submitted by Weekend Warrior on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 11:23pm

ALHSO6.

I quote the OWS link above referenced: "The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."

If you think Ron Paul types are truly down with that, please read John Galt's speech in Paul's favorite book, Atlas Shrugged. They not only tolerate the greed of the 1%, they praise it and admire it. (Of course, the "objectivists" like to differentiate "greed" as it is used in common parlance with "rational self-interest," but it is all the same Gordon Grecko greed) This greed worship is the religion of the Greedy One Percent and Wall Street. It gives them moral cover. Paul and his libertariians think it is slavery to make someone give a shit about everybody else. It is the whole moral justification for the divine right of the Capital class. It is a destructive philosophy that has been eating at America since 1980. Do you wnat to perpetuate that in the name of Solidarity? Or do you want this movement to really gain moss by characterizing itself as a champion of working stiffs and oppressed everywhere?

As I have said, I used to be one of these guys before Ron Paul's libertarian party even existed. I have inside knowledge. Once you divine their basic religious devotion to laissez-faire capitalism, you can predict their every position. I feel I must warn people. It is a very corporately financed philosophy. Their financers, like the Cato Institute, believe firmly that their tons of money equals speech. Check out their campaign finance views: they hate public financing. Unless you are a Ron Paul supporter yourself, you do not want solidarity with these guys. Mark my words, they want to muck-up and confuse an otherwise clear message.

I do hate this philosophy with a passion, that I admit. I hate Nazi philiosophy Fascist philosophy, and Racisim as well. Does that make me a hater? Then I welcome that appellation. I do not hate these misguided people themselves (I was once so misguided myself), but they do rile me when they misrepresent themselves. Like the End the Fed people, they never tell you they want Laissez-faire banking. The Constitution Pledgers don't tell you they want Libertarian, Clarence Thomas's interpretation of the constitution. I am only trying to out them for who they really are: people who are trying to keep safe the Reagan narrative that is the source of all our problems--the very narrative that has been reversed by the above statement in the link you posted. The Paul-Reagan narrative is what keeps our big money masters in power by convincing the 99% that the 1% deserve their power. OWS needs to put a stake in the heart of this narrative to have any chance at delivering meaningful change.

You don't want solidarity with these guys any more than you want it with Lyndon LaRouche authoritarian types. Solitarity implies a common thinking and a unified message. Must we claim solidarity with every snake in the grass simply because they show up? Ron Paul and his capitalist-liberators just are not on the same page as OWS, any more than Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, or Rick Santorium. (Note: Even Mitt Romney claims he's with the 99%). I'm sure you could find support for ending the Fed among these right-wing tools who would love to liberate the bankers. Have you seen Libertarian Peter Schiff claiming he was part of the 1% and arguing with OWS demonstrators? (He got his ass kicked, by the way) At least Schiff admitted he was a counter-demonstrator. Ron Paul supporters won't admit this. I only hope I have shown them for what they are.

By the way, thanks for being a fan.

Tom Burns, raroof3@gmail.com

Have you seen Libertarian

Submitted by Mahayana on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 5:00pm

Have you seen Libertarian Peter Schiff claiming he was part of the 1% and arguing with OWS demonstrators? (He got his ass kicked, by the way) At least Schiff admitted he was a counter-demonstrator.

I watched the full 10 minute video and it was not him getting his ass kicked. He said he was there not as a counter-demonstrator, but to find out what the demonstrators were all about. He said the media was portraying the occupiers as anti-capitalist & pro-communism (which is what a LOT of people believe) and he was there to counter those who held those beliefs. In the majority of the video, he is having some really great conversations and the occupiers actually agree on some of what Schiff says. The problem with Schiff is that he SUCKS at public speaking and comes off as an arrogant asshole. That's why some people were angry with him right off the bat. If you only watched the 3 minute clip that was spliced to make him look even more like an ass, you should check out the full 10 minute version.

Schiff is NOT 1%

Submitted by StevenVincent on Fri, 11/11/2011 - 9:44pm

Peter Schiff only WISHES he were the 1 %. And I agree that he did not even represent his own point of view very well. He tried to argue every point with everyone instead of seeking common ground and then advocating his point of view. He is a good example the "right" focusing obsessively on the governement and missing that it is the NEXUS between government and corporations that is the problem. Of course there is the left version of the same disorder, which obsesses over corporations and looks to the very corporate controlled government to somehow limit corporate power. We have to focus on breaking the marriage between corporate power and state power. Once we do that then corporations will just be large scale businesses and government will be a public institution. Still capable of doing damage but not nearly the problem that we have today...a Corporatist Dictatorship.

Wow Tom, we actually agree on something

Submitted by Mahayana on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 5:15pm

So join the democratic thinkers (relax, that's democrat with a small "d") who believe that the best way to save capitalism is mix it with a little socialism, and vice versa.

Wow Tom, we actually agree on something. I have nothing against a little capitalism/socialism cocktail. I think that's ideal. I think a lot of folks have trouble differentiating between successful hard working people that earn their money honestly and huge corporations and wall street banksters that will f*uck anyone over to make a buck. Yesterday in a thread, some woman's response to another woman's post was: "Aren't you part of the 1%? Don't you live in Beverly Hills?" WTF kind of mentality is that? A 1%er is a person or family with a combined income of 500k+. That is easy to accomplish if you are very hardworking or exceptionally creative/talented. My problem with some of the extreme leftist ideas is that they punish people for being successful. I'm not talking about the huge corporations or people that can just buy off politicians. I want all of those bastards to die a fiery painful death.You know what? I wouldn't have a problem paying half of my income towards taxes. I just don't think our government, Republican OR Democrat, is suitable to decide where that money goes.

We need to avoid left and right labels but demands need teeth

Submitted by Lee on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 11:51am

I am coming from a place that is traditionally regarded as left-wing. However, I agree that it is better for the occupy movement to unite people across traditional labels and parties. This is less true in downtown LA, but I'm thinking statewide and nationally. The reason I think this is that it will scare the elites much more for two reasons. One, this rebellion against the 1 % will continue to grow that way among the 99% instead of being contained. And best of all, that gives us a chance to talk to and work with potentially millions of people that otherwise are getting their information from Fox news and have formerly demonized us and our views. 2nd, it will scare the Democratic Party elite if they don't feel they can count on us to support them as the lesser evil even if they treat us like s--t, and force them to make concessions, instead of ignoring that we want fair trade, not free trade, we want tighter not looser protection of the environment, etc. I really have felt insulted that after my whole family campaigned for Obama, not just locally but even traveling to swing states, Obama and his circle of advisors have tended to berate and trash his grassroots supporters that want the wars to end and less compromise with Republican leaders.

My main concern though, is that many of us want higher taxes on big corporations and the wealthiest, we want government to help provide health care and education and jobs,and we DO want some actual wealth redistribution to the 99%. It's obscene what the top 1% have reaped for several decades at the expense of everyone else. So if conservatives only support campaign finance reform, ending the fed, and no more government corporate and bank bail-outs, but don't support progressive income tax, a social safety net and better regulation,I don;'t think those demands are good enough to create fairness, opportunity, and just plain survival for the 99%, so on that, the movement will be divided.

Leone

You are here

Forums:

Pages

Petition

Latest Communique:

Flyers

User login

Tweeting rEvolution

Search form

Who's online

Who's new