Skip to main content

i just read the "99PercentDeclaration" as posted by one of the people actively involved in the ows movement and am very disturbed by what i read.

here is the document that was linked/posted/referred to and here is the relevant paragraph...

V. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that IF the PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES approved by the 876 Delegates of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY in consultation with the NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE, is not acted upon within a reasonable time and to the satisfaction of the Delegates of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY, said Delegates shall reconvene to utilize the grassroots network established in the election of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY to organize a new INDEPENDENT POLITICAL PARTY to run candidates for every available Congressional seat in the mid-term election of 2014 and again in 2016 until all vestiges of the existing corrupt corporatocracy have been eradicated through the power of the ballot box.


is this site being used to do just that? advocate for creating a third party?

Update: seems like i'm not the only one with questions here - check out EdMass' diary asking more questions!

slithering under the squiggle, there is more to disturb...

i've been reading the ows diaries for some time now, occasionally stopping in to post a reply.

more and more, any comment questioning its purpose or methods is greeted with great hostility and the price for disagreeing with some of the discussion comes replete with insults and hostility.  specifically, tonite i've been called an ass, putz, told to "go to hell" and "stfu" for disagreeing with some pretty wild statements.

i've read here the statement by some that the anarchists started and control the movement (something i seriously doubt is true for the entire movement, but in a small vocal area, yes, they DO control the dialogue and face of this movement through breaking windows, burning dumpsters and direct confrontation with the police).

the more i read, the more disturbed i am becoming with what is happening on this site.

IS this a site to elect more and better democrats or has it morphed into a site that is being used as a jumping off (the cliff) point for undercutting the election of democrats in 2012 through distorted statements and through advocating the creation of a third political party to run in the 2012 election.

do those who are proposing such an action have no historical memory?  do they not remember 2000 and 2004?  do they not recognize how this nation has fallen into such disarray?

are the anarchists and marxists and communists (self-identified) and now, socialists on this site the true representative of all 300,000 of us?  i don't think so.

so, my question is this:

prior to the runup of the 2012 election cycle, what are we going to DO about this takeover of the site by a very vocal small majority - or, more precisely, kos, what are YOU going to do about it?  (after all, it IS your site!)

the answer to that question is critical for many of us - as that answer will determine where and how we direct our activities and efforts for the 2012 election.

thanks, in advance, for the discussion and for taking note of this problem.

btw, this diary is NOT a "free-for-all" and if anyone starts hurling insults, may they be hr'd into oblivion!

do NOT fight in this diary - if you want a civil discourse, feel free to come in - but leave the petty name-calling and hyperventilating accusations and insults OUT!


do you know what the specific goals of ows are?

6%4 votes
4%3 votes
6%4 votes
42%26 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
1%1 votes
1%1 votes
8%5 votes
8%5 votes
9%6 votes
9%6 votes

| 61 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The entire OWS movement is being hijacked (7+ / 0-)

    by Libertarians, Paulbots, anarchists and people trying to sell books. . .

    "TEABAGGER=Totally Enraged About Blacks And Gays Getting Equal Rights."

    by second gen on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 08:52:21 PM PST

    •  the cost of not supporting the democratic (14+ / 0-)

      party in 2012 is the election of republicans and further erosion of the middle class and the poor.

      stop and think.  the republicans do NOT have the best interests of the 99% at heart - and with the power to write laws, they will not be writing and passing laws to alleviate the true suffering happening right now to so many in this nation.

      under the dems, we have gotten a start on health care reform, forgiveness of student loans after a certain period, job plans to get vets hired, an auto industry that survived, and much much more - too much for me to list tonite as i'm exhausted.

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:05:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Democrats are certainly (17+ / 0-)

        not perfect, but the Republicans are far worse -- and with anywhere from one to three SCOTUS seats potentially open between now and January 2016, we risk a corporatist Supreme Court for the next quarter century.

        I support the general aims of Occupy, in that they're calling attention to the financial inequities...but it may be time to change tactics -- we need to Occupy the halls of power, whether it be through Occupying The Media, Occupying the voting booths, or even Occupy Congress by identifying and supporting candidates in the primary and eventually the general. This does not mean I support a third party -- the stakes are just way too high to divide us now.

        Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

        by Cali Scribe on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 11:04:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just like the Democrats are trying to (16+ / 0-)

        cut social security and medicare?  IS this the kind of of alleviating suffering you are talking about?

        If you want to have this conversation, you need to be more  nuanced and not so black and white.    We might have to vote for Democrats in 2012, but it doesn't stop anyone from organizing an alternative to them in 2016,  does it?   Without an alternative, nothing will change - EVER.  The point of occupywallstreet is that the 1% own both parties - BOTH.    Last and not least, the Republicans are not at the beck and call of the tea partiers because they thought they were "cute".  

        Yes we can, but he won't. Banks Got Bailed Out. We Got Sold Out!

        by dkmich on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 02:37:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the republicans respond to the tea partiers (7+ / 0-)

          because they have formed a solid voting block - and ran their own candidates in races they could win.

          the dems don't have our solid support and very rarely have had.  big tent.  etc.

          IF we had the unified block the tea party mustered, then the dems would have to listen to us - but as long as the ows movement is fragmented - publically fragmented - and as long as it states it isn't behind any political "party" - then it is irrelevant.

          that is a damned shame, too.  imagine what ows could do IF it said to the party nearest their objectives, CHANGE or you will have to account to US!  but - to do that, there have to be enough dems in place to HOLD accountable.  right now, the republicans hold the cards and they aren't listening.

          how does ows affect real change?  get rid of the republicans in 2012 and then go after the conservative dems in 2016 if they block progress.

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 02:46:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  that was never going to happen - (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, glorificus, Deep Texan

          the super committee had to prove that the republicans were acting in bad faith.  by "putting on the table" all areas, they were able to show that the republicans never intended to address the tax issue for the top 1%.  it's called "calling someone's bluff", btw.

          and it worked - if we now make it widely known to the general public!

          this was the only way to expose the fraud that is the republican party.

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 02:48:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  as a practical matter, the existence of a... (5+ / 0-)

        .... left-opposition in the form of a viable left-populist third party candidate for Congress in certain races, can be used to push for more progressive Democratic candidates, or push existing ones to the left.  

        Realistically, the threat to run a third party candidate morphs into the threat to primary an existing or likely candidate.  And presumably Occupy learns the lesson of the Tea "Party" (successful capture of the Republican Party) and does similarly with the Democratic Party in certain districts where this would make sense and have potential for success.

        There's a difference between the above, and a full-on third party movement such as we observed with Nader in 2000.  No sane person would forget that lesson and repeat that history.

        "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 04:45:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't disagree. (5+ / 0-)

        And I do plan to vote straight ticket Democrat next year. But the party has failed us in many, many ways and organizing outside the party structure is not something we should discourage. Enforce the rules of the site, but don't reflexively squash a movement here that really wants better Democrats to protect an establishment that is only interested in more Democrats.

    •  at this point in time, i'm not so sure we can (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, leftykook

      separate those two things.  too much is at stake.

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:54:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We can seperate them easily. (5+ / 0-)

        Today is 2011.   Occupy Wall Street is about the future.   If your plan for the future is more of the same, well, I guess you don't support Occupy Wall Street because it is about anything but maintaining the status quo.

        Yes we can, but he won't. Banks Got Bailed Out. We Got Sold Out!

        by dkmich on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 02:46:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "we" cannot make the laws that are needed to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          haremoor, Deep Texan

          change the system. only politicians can do that.

          it is which politicians that are in power that will make the future.

          that is how we change it.

          we have rule of law (even when those laws aren't enforced or are altered by a right wing ussc).  we need to elect those people who will ENACT the laws if they aren't already on the books.

          we need to know which politicians want to repeal laws that protect us.  we need to know which PARTY will undercut the middle class.

          anything else is non-productive.  we live in a political society - and the ows movement, IF it organizes politically to pressure politicians to enact - will make the future better.

          if the ows movement tries to stay OUT of political elections, then it becomes irrelevant, no matter how much we wish otherwise.

          ows now has political capital.  how it spends that capital will be how it shapes the future.

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 03:18:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Forget I even commented. (4+ / 0-)

            Enjoy your diary and pretend I wasn't even here.   I'm really crabby this am, and your diary didn't help my mood by reminding me of how hopeless the Democratic Party really is.  You see.  I should be retired, but I can't leave my job because I don't trust Obama and my tea baggin' governor to not to destroy what's left of my retirement savings and plan.    

            I hope you had a great thanksgiving, and please accept my apology for grumbling into your rec. diary.  

            Yes we can, but he won't. Banks Got Bailed Out. We Got Sold Out!

            by dkmich on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 03:42:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Not at all costs (6+ / 0-)

      but if it means stopping the Republicans from gaining control, then so be it. That should be the number one goal. Sitting out an election to prove a point has disastrous and irreversible consequences.

  •  11:45 sunday night T'Day weekend (12+ / 0-)

    I'm awake b/c my wife is on the road. Little pootie noses are rubbing against my leg, begging for sleep. I wish everyone and theirs safe travel and arrival tonight.

    It's not a time for flames and fights.

    All the best to you, Edrie.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 08:55:44 PM PST

    •  that's why i asked that NO nastiness be in (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hardart, G2geek

      this diary.

      my question is honestly asked.  what IS the purpose and is that original purpose being hijacked?

      i was very disturbed to read that paragraph of the "declaration" and after reading edmass' diary linked above, i am even more disturbed by the direction a very few people are taking this movement.

      the political gain from massive protests can so easily be lost by misdirecting the anger and the frustrations of so many.

      the advocacy of starting a third party will alienate the bulk of those who originally showed up or supported the original movement - and that is the real pity here!

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 09:14:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  hi, fish - and happy thanksgiving weekend (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to you.

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:05:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As if this diary as any point besides flames and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      fights....   Happy thankgiving to you.

      Yes we can, but he won't. Banks Got Bailed Out. We Got Sold Out!

      by dkmich on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 02:47:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sympathizing with OWS (25+ / 0-)

    whether by participating in it locally or online (here or elsewhere) does not necessarily mean one agrees with every aspect of the movement, including the 99PercentDeclaration

    If OWS sympathizers here advocate for third party candidates, a line would be clearly crossed. Short of that, I don't see the problem, nor do I personally believe that DK has been taken over by the far left.

    One can support OWS and support the Democratic party, as far as I'm concerned. Whether one chooses to is another matter, perhaps, but addressable via site rules.

    "Space Available" is the largest retail chain in the nation.

    by Free Jazz at High Noon on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 08:57:54 PM PST

    •  I think E. J. Dionne is correct (per Armando) (37+ / 0-)
         Everyone on the left side of American politics, from the near end to the far end, has advice for Occupy Wall Street. I’m no exception. But it’s useful to acknowledge first that this movement has accomplished things that the more established left didn’t.

      And I have heard many Democrats express the same feelings as Bill Moyers:

      'We Have Two Parties Serving Corporate America and No Party That Serves the Middle Class or Working People'

      I believe in traditional Democratic values, but the only congressional leaders I see fighting to preserve them are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (not a Democrat).

      So, if our leaders won't represent us, then what do we do?  Vote for more of the same?  

      That's not an option I want to consider.

      Once again, from Bill Moyers:

      “Do not look to your leaders to bring about change. Change comes only when people organize and fight from outside the system..."

      The problem now, is how do we define "outside the system."

      •  i ask this is all earnest, because i really (3+ / 0-)

        DO want to know!

        you quoted

          Everyone on the left side of American politics, from the near end to the far end, has advice for Occupy Wall Street. I’m no exception. But it’s useful to acknowledge first that this movement has accomplished things that the more established left didn’t.

        other than letting people know that the middle class and the poor are really upset, what has ows accomplished?  

        this is a real question - i really would like to hear positive results... i've not seen them.

        maybe i've just missed it - that's why i'm asking for speciics.  what change? what accomplishments?  i see a ton of people in the streets - but i don't see the direction they've taken (other than changing banks - which is a very powerful and good thing).  exposing overreaction and brutality is good but what is the long term outcome if the movement loses the attention, hearts and minds of the major bulk of society.

        i really am looking for answers here - specifics, not generalities.

        Is GlowNZ back yet?

        by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:09:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read this current article by Bloomberg: (20+ / 0-)

          You will see how corrupt the policies of Bush and Obama - regarding bank bailouts, and bank loans - have been.  Prior to the OWS movement, everyone was talking about austerity measures, which included many cuts to our social safety net programs.  That political conversation changed when the OWS movement began.  Just think: while the banks were receiving 13 billion dollars in secret Fed loans, Congress (and Obama) were pushing to make cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  

          But now, the conversation is focused on income inequality.  That shift in the national conversation is the single most important event in the move to hold our congressional leaders accountable for their corruption than anything else that has happened in the last 30 years.

          Very few people are naive (or stupid) enough to deny that nearly ALL members of Congress have been purchased by corporate money and these representatives no longer act in the best interests of their constituents.  Every new member of Congress is immediately overwhelmed by incredible amounts of money that will be thrown his/her way to secure his/her vote (and the threats of withholding support), so that the idea of electing new and better Democrats to solve our problems has become moot.  

          We are now faced with the reality that any change that will end the corruption in D.C. has to come from outside the system...OWS was the first grassroots movement to actually move the needle in such a way to make it possible to force the type of change we need.  Unless you are wealthy, OWS is doing you an immense favor.

          •  you make such sweeping statements that are (7+ / 0-)

            not true.

            ALL of congress is not corrupt.  ALL members are not bought off - and to say so is disingenuous.

            furthermore,  without the bank bailout, the economy would have catastrophically collapsed.  if you follow the euro crisis right now and the implications of one or more nations going bankrupt, this is a similar situation.

            the world is based on the two major currencies (the dollar and the euro, with the yuan rising fast).  should either of these currencies collapse, there will be real hell to pay for the middle and poorer classes in these nations.

            the solution is re-regulating those who determine monetary policies and financial manipulation.

            no one asks who profits when standard & poors downgrades a nation's bond rating.  no one asks who is pulling the strings on the multinationals. these should be the targets, not the misguided assumption that all congressmen and women are corrupt.

            when we look in the wrong direction, slight of hand is easy.  that is what is happening now - someone is pushing the wrong direction, the wrong scapegoats.

            our government (IF in the hands of dems) has the power to re-regulate the banks and break up the multinationals... IF there are sufficient dems in congress to actually put forward an agenda to follow the sherman act (seems like it recently worked when the at&t and t-mobile merger failed).  it is with regulation that our society stops the abuses.  

            did the dems remove these regulations set in place over decades and decades of abuse?  nope.  it started with reagan and continued under dubya.  

            how do we fix this?  re-regulate - get the numbers in congress to beat the filibuster (above the numbers of the blue dogs - assume the conservative dems will vote to please their conservative districts and vote more liberal dems in from other areas).

            we have a helluva lot of work to do to undo the damage of reagan/bush2 - and to ignore that damage is to risk this nation's future.

            it really ISN'T the "banks" - it is the lack of REGULATION of the banks!  if the laws aren't on the books, put them there.  if they are, enforce them.

            write new laws that take away tax credits for outsourcing.  tax the hell out of off shore shelters.  prohibit government contracts from going to companies that move their headquarters to dubai (hello, haliburton?)

            all of this is what is needed to fix this system - but to do it, we need dems in congress - both houses - that overwhelm the number of conservative dems and republicans.  AND we need the white house, of course.

            2014 - go after the conservative dems by all means - that gives us 3 years to build strong candidates in their home states.  but right now, this really is a numbers game, whether anyone likes it or not.

            Is GlowNZ back yet?

            by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 11:44:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm with you, edrie. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ahianne, edrie

              I really think the power to change the Democratic Party is within our hands - and the ironic thing is, that they wrote the document themselves.  It's called the Democratic Party Platform.
                  The 99%, or OWS (which I do see as two distinct, overlapping movements) has the power to hold Dems feet to the fire, and insist that they be Democrats.  If you read the platform, it could be a declaration from OWS.  
                   Many marriages (well, at least mine) have been saved by one party insisting that the other party keep the promises that were made prior to the marriage.  Rather than looking for something new, why not insist that Democrats keep the promises that they made to us in 2008?

              Auntie Em: Hate you. Hate Kansas. Taking the dog. Dorothy

              by haremoor on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:17:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You either see it or you don't. (8+ / 0-)

              You said:

              i really am looking for answers here - specifics, not generalities.

              Why?  So when someone does answer as above, you can reply like this:

              You make such sweeping statements that are not true...

              That is the beauty of OWS.  Either people see it or they don't and they want to be part of it or they don't.

              And people who want it explained to them, at least the ones I've seen so far, they're just waiting to hear something to debate and/or knock down, i.e., OWS is about X, and this is what OWS has done, and then inevitably the responses are, Well, So and So already did this, or look what So and So did, you're wrong, the Democrats are great, Republicans are bad, just to name a few responses.

              I'm not saying you're doing it at this time, but it's a great setup:  Demand explanations so "you" have something to fight against.  Because if "you" don't have an answer spelled out, then "you" can't fight against it.

              Of course, I'm speaking for myself, as no one person has the authority to speak for OWS.

              We delivered. They failed us. We have moved on. (h/t to my good friend)

              by gooderservice on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:13:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  gooderservice, i am just asking the question (0+ / 0-)

                that i hear many around me also asking.

                if there are so many who don't understand the message of OWS, then there is something of a communication breakdown going on.

                i want to see this mass of people who are standing out on the front line make a difference - to do that, the difference they want to make must be crystal clear to all who are observing them.

                focus - that is the issue here - right now, there IS no focus - only generalities.

                many observers are ambiguous - why not try to find a clear, clean way to draw them in.  

                for the movement to have power, it must consolidate it's goals into easily understandable and achievable goals.

                just my humble 2 cents here...

                Is GlowNZ back yet?

                by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 09:18:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  If you have not seen what OWS has done to the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          little lion, orestes1963

          political conversation around the world then there is no point in discussing anything here.

          ❧To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:17:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  +1, [or 9] (21+ / 0-)

        I too believe in traditional Democratic values.

        I wish that all of our Democratic politicians did....

        Where do we go now?  What do we do?
        What happens next, when we see that our own party
        seems to have abandoned the values?

        Occupy.  They have interrupted the status quo,
        and challenged traditional thinking along party lines.

        The Democratic Party doesn't own them--
        No One owns them.
        No one has any rights to own them.

        And for that, I'm grateful.

        I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but fer the love of Gawd,
        I surely feel like We The People aren't being served.

        •  we aren't being served! the problem lies within (5+ / 0-)

          the house of representatives where no laws are being passed to relieve the economy in this recession/depression.  no laws are being introduced to re-start the economy.  the sole stated purpose by the tea party is to get rid of obama at all costs - and it is to the nation that they cost is being applied.

          the senate, mitch mcconnell, stated clearly that the entire goal of the republican party is to defeat obama - right after the 2010 election.  so, nothing is done.  few nominees are approved - everything is stalemated.

          that is why we need to focus on the republicans!  they are killing us one day at a time!

          the dems are bending over backwards to show exactly this - no matter WHAT is offered, the republicans are saying no.

          if obama said he'd switch parties and run as a republican and give them everything they want, they would STILL say no!

          the dems haven't abandoned their values - they are being stymied by a dysfunctional congress held hostage by a small group of tea party electeds (thanks to people tuning out on the critical importance of the 2010 elections).

          if we could mobilize the ows like the tea party mobilized to place real candidates into office who were actually elected - then this situation would dramatically be reversed.  we need to start focusing on the need for unity in the democratic party because, in reality, there IS no other alternative except republican.

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:33:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry, edrie, but I think you're way behind (19+ / 0-)

            current events.  I'm not worried about the republicans: they will crumble from the weight of their own corruption.  It is the corruption within our own party that is hurting us the most.  

            I understand that many Democrats have an emotional investment in the success of Obama, but their feelings are preventing them from seeing how deeply invested he is in the financial crimes of Wall Street.  

            Once again, I urge you to read this article in Bloomberg:


            You will see how the Fed (under Obama's leadership) has kept the six largest banks in the US from being held accountable for their crimes and how they have been strengthened in such a way that we are now more vulnerable than we were before the crisis.

            The lack of transparency is not just frustrating; it really blocked accountability,” Barofsky says. “When people don’t know the details, they fill in the blanks. They believe in conspiracies.”

            In the end, Geithner had his way. The Brown-Kaufman proposal to limit the size of banks was defeated, 60 to 31. Bank supervisors meeting in Switzerland did mandate minimum reserves that institutions will have to hold, with higher levels for the world’s largest banks, including the six biggest in the U.S. Those rules can be changed by individual countries.

            They take full effect in 2019.

            Meanwhile, Kaufman says, “we’re absolutely, totally, 100 percent not prepared for another financial crisis.”

            •  if social security is ever privatized, (11+ / 0-)

              it will get done under a democratic president.

            •  you are making an erroneous assumption (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              haremoor, Deep Texan

              about my knowledge of current events.  

              sorry. my disagreement with you and several others here is not based on being "uninformed" - it is based on a strong difference of opinion based on how we both interpret facts.

              Is GlowNZ back yet?

              by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 11:46:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  edrie, I don't want to make it appear that (8+ / 0-)

                I'm making personal attacks on you, because I'm is just that your arguments are stale, and they have been repeatedly debunked, but somehow they keep cropping up on this site.  If you can't see the corruption that has taken over the Democratic Party, then I don't think there is anything anyone can say that will change your mind.  

                No one is denying that the republicans are absolutely horrible...they are bottom feeders, but as I've said before, history shows that corrupt movements like the tea party, eventual cause the party to crumble from the weight of their own misdeeds.

                I don't want that to happen to us: I want to change the Democratic party: I want it to be free of corporate corruption because maintaining our credibility will allow us to tackle (with conviction) the horrendous problems we are facing.  Right now, very few people have faith in either party.  That is why congressional approval numbers are so low.  And to overlook the corruption that is tainting our own members is the same as allowing them to corrode our party from the inside out.

                •  Hey edrie-the political system is corrupt and (4+ / 0-)

                  broken whether you like it or believe it or not. That's what most of OWS has woken up to and want to change.

                  Get off the gravy train..

                  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones."

                  "Life without emotions is like an engine without fuel."

                  by roseeriter on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 02:41:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  i'm not asking anyone to overlook corruption. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Supavash, Ahianne, Deep Texan, leftykook

                  but making sweeping statements (as many have) that ALL politicians are corrupt isn't accurate, either.

                  there is a certain "taint" that goes with being a politician... it is a tit for tat situation.  to get one bill passed, there is a tradeoff for votes.  that is how the system has always been as not everyone marches in unison over what is good for the nation or their constituents.

                  trying to make politicians be angelic won't work.  asking them to do what is right for the nation IS what we need to do - hold them accountable for results.

                  i want to change the dem party, too.  i want MY democratic party back - just as i am sure there are many republicans that want THEIR republican party back.  the republicans weren't always the villains.  there was a time prior to gingrich, reagan, bush2, rove, where politicians were also americans... they voted for their districts - they rolled up their sleeves after the election and worked together to the will of the people... all the people in this nation.  if one party lost, that party then worked to shape laws that could pass while still protecting their points of view.  the two parties didn't try to strangle government between elections.  this is something new to  politics and unless people realize that this is NOT the norm, then cynicism wins and the special interests will move forward unfettered.

                  our job is to re-direct the average american to where the problem lies - and that is with the republicans who are obstructing every single bill proposed in government - an ultra right wing court that is setting precedent by making corporations "persons".

                  we need to educate the public as to what is happening and how to fix it - and it will take decades to do that.  because our system has only two viable parties - people have to choose one or the other.  by refusing to make that choice, the voter is, de facto, voting against his/her own best interest.

                  politics are complicated - no matter how simple we would they be.

                  we cannot fix everything overnight or all at once.  it is a one step at a time process - and we need to determine which are the most urgent steps and not take that step over a cliff out of blind idealism.  very little in life can be "fixed" all at once.

                  undoing the damage done to this nation over decades will take decades to untangle.  republicans won't do that - they will just make matters more complicated and much much worse.

                  if you think my arguments are stale, it's because i've been around for decades - politically active since the eisenhour administration... watched a lot of politic'ing going on.  things are very different now.  for those 35 and younger, you've never seen what real democrats do in government because we've not HAD real democrats with the voting capacity to get things done.  too many republicans meant that compromises had to be made.  it started with ronnie reagan and his "star" rise to presidency and his being controlled behind the scenes during his alsheimer years.

                  this is deeper and more complicated than just gathering in public parts to protest.  i see this movement easily distracted without knowing how to cut the head off this chimera.

                  the cancer runs deep - and, yes, some dems are bad - but it still is the numbers game - who has the numbers controls the dialogue - and the courts - and the legislation.

                  this isn't simple.  my objections to ows is that many keep trying to MAKE it simple.

                  one day soon, i plan to diary about the real elephant in the room (no, not republicans, multinationals...) - but that's another day.

                  another question that nobody asks (and most people don't KNOW what questions should be asked) is who profits by the actions of standard & poors when they cut credit ratings of this and other nations?  where did their power arise and are they abusing it for financial gain in the money sector.

                  there are many many issues that are getting sidetracked by visions of pepper spray - which makes me think that the majority of us are being sprayed with the outrage du jour while the real workings continue behind the screen.

                  it's late.

                  i'm retiring to bed now... but let's keep talking TO each other instead of AT each other and maybe one day we'll make real progress!

                  Is GlowNZ back yet?

                  by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 03:07:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually, edrie, I've been around since the (14+ / 0-)

                    Truman administration and I know what a real Democratic administration looks like and the Obama administration hasn't looked like one since the day he took office.

                    He chose Geithner, Bernanke, Summers, and Immelt and there are no more corrupt people than those four.  The republicans did not force him to make those choices.  And when he made the decision to allow those four men to take a leadership role in his administration, he turned a lot of Democrats against him.  And they are part of the reason the protesters on Wall Street say that the president is part of the problem.  He has shielded the financial criminals who caused the collapse of our economy and if you say otherwise, then you are either being disingenuous or you are ill-informed.

                    Many of us decried his choices because we knew he couldn't build a good administration by filling it with corrupt people.  

                    You can't educate people out of this mess...Citizen's United effectively ended any chance the average American had of being able to influence his/her representative...and as far as the republicans serving as obstructionists, the blue dog democrats have been equally destructive in undermining progressive proposals.  

                    The greatest progressive thinkers of this generation seem to be saying the same thing: the two party system is dead.  It no longer functions as it should and it never will again unless we can find a way to get money out of politics...and because of Citizens United, that is pretty much an impossible task.  That is why they are saying we have to work outside of the system to force change...

                    I'm not discouraging you from following your convictions: you should fight passionately for what you believe in and that is the way it should be, but I'm afraid you are way behind the current political trend at this are advocating actions that most people have decided no longer work.  

                    •  it's very "early" here and i can't answer your (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      haremoor, Deep Texan, Supavash, leftykook

                      post coherently right now - but i cede to your greater experience.

                      it isn't that we are so far apart, i agree with you that the two party system is badly broken.  where we may differ is on how to fix it.

                      the long term fix is one being presented by ows and other progressives but it is the short term that concerns me.  we are seriously out of time - and the dike is leaking badly.  my belief is that you plug the most dangerous leaks while simultaneously working to rebuild a better one.

                      unfortunately, the nation isn't listening to the greatest progressive thinkers - the majority of people, thanks to reagan and dubya have been taught to resent and fear intellectuals - taught by those who drive the economy into the financial profitability of the multinationals.

                      what i feel and believe is that we are being distracted from the real problem: the control of the global economy by large nationless corporations headed by a few - THESE are the 1% and these people are not going to easily cede power to anyone.  they will destroy the world economy to maintain power then buy up the scraps to sell it back to an ever improvished population.

                      yes, the ows has real potential, not just in america, but worldwide - but this isn't going to happen over night.

                      so, how do we cope inbetween real change in the future and immediate threats now?  we do what we can to keep that dike from further dissolving and disintegrating.  we keep the republicans out of the halls of congress.  this isn't a one or the other situation - it is a BOTH solutions time of action.

                      when obama ran, i was very concerned about his lack of political experience.  what changed my mind and led me to vote for him was seeing how the younger generation embraced him.  his idealism and his appeal to the 20s set told me that he could be a spark for the future.  that he has succumbed to placing "old school" politicians who play the system is in part due to that naivete (but, damn, that guy can win elections!) and in part due to the makeup of congress.

                      he is operating old-school where the parties actually worked together to find what was best for america.  what he missed was that "old-school" no longer exists because the multinationals don't CARE what is best for america - they are only concerned about what is best for their bottom line.

                      why do i push for dems to be re-elected? because we need to reverse the massive bleeding of regulations by the bush administration and by the reagan administration.

                      republicans aren't going to do that... ever.

                      we need to have sufficient majorities to overcome the filibuster and change how the system works.  republicans will only change it to benefit those in the top echelon.

                      again - it isn't that we hold different views - i've been a progressive my entire life - we hold different time tables.

                      when we get our tables together, then we become a fearsome political force that demands action - we will become an effective voting bloc.

                      tomorrow - let's continue this tomorrow when i am not nearly falling face into keyboard.

                      i'm pleased to see that real discussions have been going on here tonite (and this morning) - for this lets us find common ground to build that coalition to effect change - both tomorrow and the future.

                      thanks for your ideas - let's pick up again tomorrow - er, later today?


                      Is GlowNZ back yet?

                      by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:20:57 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  okay - dyke - dike is a geological intrusion - (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        dyke is human built.  as i said, incoherent.  duh!

                        Is GlowNZ back yet?

                        by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:23:30 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I think a miracle just happened. We agree. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          I have absolutely no problems with the points you made.  And I have no problem with you taking a different approach to ending this disaster that has been caused by the republicans.  We desperately need action on all fronts and if you and I choose different paths, then that gives us a larger front of attack.

                          It breaks my heart to see Democrats fighting each other.  We have always argued, but in the end we always united for the greater good.  I'm not certain that will happen this time around.  And that is very hard to accept.

                          Obama was such a beautiful light.  He got it.  And he was such an inspiration...if he had only stayed true to his ideals, then he would have gone down as one of the greatest presidents in American history.  That is why so many people are angry with him.  He not only failed to live up to his rhetoric, but he embraced the ideas of our enemies.  That has made an entire generation of voters lose confidence in politicians.  

                          But since it is obvious that he is not the real thing, then it is time to move on and try to solve this problem ourselves.  

                          I like you edrie.  You stand up for the principles you believe in and I admire that.  

                          Maybe there's hope in the long run because we need each other.  Let's hope so.

                          •  thank you so much for this - we CAN do this - (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:


                            maybe that is why we are all so upset that there has been so little progress - no one could have predicted the total stalemate in congress - except the most cynical.

                            maybe this has been the life-lesson obama has needed - that there has to be another way when the obstacles are immoveable - around, over, under or through.

                            i'm glad you and i had a chance to talk and exchange ideas - i don't think we are far apart at all - just taking different roads to get there.  

                            at least we don't have the issue of having to run the republican gauntlet in every phase of government that obama has had to do.  i don't think he is perfect, i don't think he is the answer to all problems - but he's the only choice we've got right now - and if we can find a way to cut through the disaster that is congress WITH him, maybe some of that dream can still be realized.

                            we all have our work cut out for us - one weed, one bramble at a time - if we hope to get out of this mire.  obama can't do it single handedly - he needs support in government and he needs up - and, up to now, we all have been missing (myself, included).  with ows, there is a huge groundswell that could help him ride over the obstacles IF we are there to push - not just him, but push those obstructing out of the way.

                            it is more critical than ever to wipe out the republican majority in the house and overwhelm the senate with solid, left dems.  let's give the president a second chance to live up to that dream - for ALL our sakes!

                            thank you again - i've really enjoyed our interaction - it gives me hope!  again...

                            Is GlowNZ back yet?

                            by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 04:20:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've enjoyed talking to you, also, and you're (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            right, we probably have more in common than the issues that separate our positions.

                            I feel the winds of change are blowing.  What will change is yet to be decided, but it can't go on this way...too many people are suffering and in the long-run that is what matters most to end the suffering.

                            Friendships aren't always forged on common ground, but they're nearly always built on mutual respect.  Here's hoping our friendship will grow.

                          •  on this we totally agree! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            looking forward to sharing ideas with you again.

                            and, here's to friendship!  i look forward to sharing that, too!

                            Is GlowNZ back yet?

                            by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:55:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  i agree with your sentiment: (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            edrie, marina, G2geek, haremoor, Ahianne

            we certainly would not be better off with republicans in office.  and i will personally work to get dems re-/elected.

            but at this point, it seems to go deeper than that---

            we have to rethink Everything---with a partisan SCOTUS having ruled as they did, in re:  Citizens United.

            [corporations are people now.  No---actually corporations
            have More rights than regular people.]

            And politicians---repub and Dem---will be rethinking things, too....along the lines of:   what do i need to do to get re-elected.

            "Unity" in the democratic party...easier said than done.
            The Big Tent, and all.  We don't have the kind of unifying
            presence that selfishness and racism that motivates the

            I don't agree with all you've written, but i think your diary
            is a good one, in that it stimulates discussion about things
            that we Really need to talk about.

            •  thanks for the support. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan

              i'm not looking for everyone to agree - i just want to see more discussions such as have gone on here - civil and deeper than just name-calling.  

              there are some very good points being brought out by all - and this is the way we build a coalition - air out concerns and look for common ground!

              thanks for participating!  looking forward to more of this dialogue with you and others!

              Is GlowNZ back yet?

              by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 11:49:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, this discussion is fine, but as you see (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                even people on here dismiss the benefit of extending unemployment $ by agreeing to 2 more years of the Bush bleeding tax cuts. Maybe it's time to discuss less, and do more, in the sense of organized letter writing and phone calls.

                Politicians may respond to money, but they respond to votes more. I still cherish the fantasy of California Governor Meg Whitman.

                Since politics is local, voters in Nevada will have little effect on Missouri pols. I would think of the 300,000++ Kossacks there would be some critical mass, though.

                I also don't know how much organized political activity can be done from a website. Obviously, Markos makes the rules.

                OWS is great to showcase the need for change, but progress will be made by laws, which will require organization, leadership, and specific goals. At some point, and I'm thinking sooner rather than later, people will have to come inside, sit down and decide what's important.

                Regulation of the police is obviously important from a humanitarian standpoint just as installing a new version of Glass-Seagal that addresses new banking products like DERIVATIVES.

                There will need to be some compromises; just because people have different preferences and there are a limited number of white ponies compared to white horses.

                Also, issues like homelessness and child hunger needed prompt attention, even as banking reform can help longer term.

                We are just about the richest country ON EARTH and we can't feed all our kids, much less voting-age citizens? That's shameful.

                He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction. Kris Kristofferson

                by glorificus on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:11:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  No, problem lies in the Oval Office, Senate& House (5+ / 0-)

            ...not just in the House.  We had all three branches and didn't get much better of out of the so called Democrats.  They extended the Bush tax cuts and threw out single payer/public option while they had control.  (Left me wondering why I voted in 2008.)  These two actions effectively wrecked the fiscal house for the next 20+ years...and have and will cost the Democrats dearly in electoral terms for at least as long.  You can't blame that stupidity on the GOP, that was all Democratic conservatism...the sort of thing Obama actively advocates for while dismissing progressives.

            The problem is that extreme conservative economics rules this party and the only constituents they hear are corporations and bankers.  Yes, I do mean "extreme" when you compare it to 20 years ago or globally to other developed nations today.   Hell, it's got more in common with Putin's oligarchy than with what we had even under Reagan.

            "Money is like manure. You have to spread it around or it smells." J. Paul Getty

            by Celtic Pugilist on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 11:09:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  had the bush tax cuts not been temporarily (6+ / 0-)

              extended, many many unemployed would have been thrown to the bottom of this mess - me included!  these tax cuts will expire soon - but in the meantime, those of us who were/are long term unemployed got a safety net - even if it isn't accompanied by jobs (thanks to the republicans in the house and senate).

              the dems never had sufficient numbers for single payer.  there wasn't enough national support to pressure the conservative dems in their home areas to pass it.  now, with the foundation of health care being written into law, it can be adjusted and improved - with horror stories now on the minds of voters, they will be more receptive to a single payer plan.  the original law had to be on the books, however, otherwise, there is nothing to modify.

              furthermore, after 2010, that law would never have passed.  by breaking ground, obama accomplished what NO other president has ever been able to do - he set the ground rules and laid the bricks for building a real health care system.

              and while i know you won't like this explanation of your comment

              You can't blame that stupidity on the GOP, that was all Democratic conservatism...the sort of thing Obama actively advocates for while dismissing progressives.
              the reason obama had to work with conservative dems was that THEY are the ones who let the dems have the senate majority.  with that majority comes the committee heads, which bills reach the floor, what gets voted on.

              look at the house.  the type of garbage being put on the floor is disgraceful.  it is a total abrogation of responsibility to those who voted them into office.  not one single important piece of legislation has been put forward.  committees are wasting time and OUR money "invesigating" things like a solar company that went bankrupt... instead of the banks that did the credit swaps.

              this is a republican made crisis and the only way out is to remove the republicans from office.  then, if the dems don't fall in line, in 2014, i'll join you in fielding candidates against every conservative dem in d.c.

              look to the long term - and the reality of what is in d.c. right now - that is all we have to work with if we want to try to keep the middle class from totally disappearing and the poor among us from simply dying off.

              Is GlowNZ back yet?

              by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 11:57:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not sure there is much more disunity on (6+ / 0-)

            the Left than normal. Some of those we may think of as allies are as opposed to the Republicans as we are, but pretty much always look for an alternative to the Democrats as well. These are not voters we Democrats should think of as having "lost."

            If the OWS movement could count on the support of half that number, or even 40%, they would be a force which must be reckoned with. Nominating and campaigning for liberals who were as far from "the center" as some of the tea bagger candidates who cost the R's control of the Senate in 2010 might have broader appeal. It wouldn't, obviously be a good idea to mimic the extremism of the far right.

            Still, while some may perpetually seek an ideal candidate who espouses the most pure message possible, most of us understand that Congress and the Presidency are likely to continue being held by members of the two major parties. Those on either end of the political spectrum may try to rewrite that reality--may even have a success or two--but they will just as often pay with their own credibility, should their clumsy efforts end up aiding their "most opposite opponents."

            Most (or maybe I should say Many?) of us on this site would like to keep constant leftward pressure on our Democratic leaders, but we won't recklessly empower the Republicans to make a point. If some few will, they are defining themselves.

            It matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. Henry David Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience

            by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 03:29:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  There are some others ... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edrie, praenomen, Supavash, G2geek, haremoor

        Grayson, Grijalva, to name but 2 (though we need to get Grayson back in office again - and Liz elected). ;-)

        American Heritage Dictionary definition of fascism (1983): "...a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

        by KalHermit on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:22:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  getting them back in office would help (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus, haremoor, Deep Texan

          and be a great start - but it is only a start.  we need many more dems elected while keeping the ones already in place if no better candidate who can beat the republican is available.

          it really IS a numbers game in government.

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:34:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Numbers count, (6+ / 0-)

            but I think at this point, quality counts more. We need fighters, who are populists and will represent us, not corporatists and DLC 'third way' types who are pure status quo. The blue dogs have to go too ... the list is long. ;-)

            Which, I think, is another function OWS provides ... it's bringing a lot of talent to the surface we'd never have found otherwise, and if we can get some of them elected to office (local, state, or federal) we're creating a new generation of real leaders for the 99% (as it were).

            American Heritage Dictionary definition of fascism (1983): "...a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

            by KalHermit on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:46:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the blue dogs will never be ousted except by (8+ / 0-)

              republicans until we get boots on the ground to talk to those living in rural areas that elect them.

              the problem with rural america is a lack of information.  south dakota, for example, has one clearchannel radio station that is picked up across the rural area - the local news papers do just that, report local news.  the msm - well, we all know how THAT fares - and the internet is a thing of luxury for many - air cards that are limited in data.  

              until we get the rest of the country wired, towered, affordable net, there will continue to be problems.  if we travel to these areas and talk one on one to people, it isn't as hard as you would imagine to get them to think about issues on a more liberal term... but that takes real people with the ability to travel and stay and talk one on one.

              all awareness in america is not at the same level.  many get their views from their churches - the center of social activities.  where there are fundy churches, we are fighting a major battle to get folk to listen to outsiders and outside info.

              unlike the major metropolitan areas, some places don't even have cell coverage - no iphones with net capability.

              we are two nations - that is one of the problems we face in getting more liberal reps and senators elected.

              Is GlowNZ back yet?

              by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:53:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yep. I live in one of those rural areas (6+ / 0-)

                that's totally off grid, and I see this every day. I have solar, and satellite internet, but the low information problem is huge around me.

                The other factor is a disdain for knowledge itself. People don't want to know, their minds are made up and any new information is unwelcome. I get this from not only older people, but younger ones as well.

                Around here (in our nearest 'town'), there's a fundy church everywhere you go, and from what I've observed, the fear is palpable, anger and frustration is high, and people are deeply entrenched in holding firm right where they are in every sense of the word. It's a 'me against the world' sort of entrenchment that is really combative. It's really sad.

                American Heritage Dictionary definition of fascism (1983): "...a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

                by KalHermit on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:14:00 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  It is absolutely useless to elect more Democrats (6+ / 0-)

            until we can force Congress to overturn Citizen's United.  Every new member of congress will become corrupt as soon as they take office as long as huge amounts of money are being thrown at them by the corporations.

            Remember, it is not that the corporations are able to persuade representatives to write laws that are favorable to their agendas, it is that the corporations are now writing the laws...that is how corrupt our Congress has become.

            •  and how will citizen's united be overturned (5+ / 0-)

              WITHOUT electing more democrats?  the republicans certainly aren't going to do it.  

              you bring up a valid point that the lobbyists and corporations are writing the laws - but which laws?  not ones put out by the dems.

              doesn't that give you a real clue as to where the problem lies?

              think: republicans!

              Is GlowNZ back yet?

              by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 12:01:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Citizens United needs to be overturned with a (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edrie, Nada Lemming

              constitutional amendment.  It's a fight that OWS/99% is perfectly mated to.  We should be starting now - and everyone (including the Democratic party) should be helping.  A lot of Republicans and Teabaggers should support the amendment, too.

              Auntie Em: Hate you. Hate Kansas. Taking the dog. Dorothy

              by haremoor on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:30:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Repubs aren't going to support it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You think the Karl Rove Republicans are going to vote in favor of such an amendment? The Republicans on the court are the ones who ruled in favor of it! If you want such a thing to pass, you need Dems.

                •  Which is why it is important to have the support (0+ / 0-)

                  of Republicans (real ones, not congressional republicans) and even the tea party.  Whether it goes through Congress (2/3 majority in both houses) or through a Constitutional Convention (2/3 of State Legislatures passing it).  The CC would be very dangerous, because it would open up the possibility of more amendments, which we could foresee being a train wreck.
                       The Amendment process is very unwieldy, but very few actual people believe that free speech=money.  I think enough pressure could be brought on this Congress (or a much superior Congress elected in the next session) to at least give it a chance.  And yes, of course it would take Democrats, as well - that's a given.  That's why I said "including the Democratic party".

                  Auntie Em: Hate you. Hate Kansas. Taking the dog. Dorothy

                  by haremoor on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 08:17:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Congress CANNOT overturn Citizens United! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edrie, Deep Texan

              The ONLY way to overrule the court is with a constitutional amendment, what do we need for that?  Two-thirds majority in both houses of the Congress and two-thirds of the states as well?

              How does that happen without control of the Congress?

              All this discussion of OWS being outside of politics is foolish.  If the OWS movement isn't translated into something that actually changes LAWS, it will do little more than be colorful street theater.

              All this talk of how bad the Democratic Party is doesn't help one bit, either.  

              Randi Rhodes has been righteously ranting about this for weeks, and I'm convinced she's right-none of this means anything if it doesn't get voters to the polls.  She also has limited tolerance for people who call her in a snit about the awful Democratic Party, telling them that there's TWO political parties in this country, you get to pick one of the two that exist, and daydreaming about the Democratic Party that we wish we had doesn't help at all.  Fish, cut bait, or stay home, those are the choices.

              "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

              by leftykook on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 08:15:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  it is a long term goal - but first, we need to (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus, haremoor, Ahianne, Deep Texan

        extinguish the bushfire that is burning all around us.

        we NEED to get control over the house and we NEED better numbers in the senate and, most importantly, we NEED a veto pen in the white house that will pick justices that are the antithesis of scalia, thomas, alito and roberts!  

        without the changes in the senate numbers, even getting justices confirmed will continue to be a problem.

        i really hope that people soon start placing the proper blame on the republicans for this congress accomplishing nothing.

        if we don't do that, people will sit out the next election - and that would be bad... VERY bad!

        Is GlowNZ back yet?

        by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:25:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What is the 99 Percent Declaration? (10+ / 0-)

    Who wrote it?

    Earnest question.

  •  Those anarchists and communists! (15+ / 0-)

    Tell me again what's wrong with them...

    "But it ain't about who ya love, see it's all about do ya love," -Michael Franti

    by Cassiodorus on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 09:09:38 PM PST

  •  They're just some tiny group! (8+ / 0-)

    I looked them up. This group only has 277 FB followers. They don't speak for OWS. They only speak for themselves and their group. Honestly, I've never so much as heard of them or seen their website in all my time following the Occupations closely online here.

    •  But it sure makes for good dicussion (8+ / 0-)

      for those alienated but current events.

      Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

      by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 09:17:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think we need to keep talking (12+ / 0-)

        to people who are lacking information. Yes, it can wear you down sure. I'm a teacher; it's all I do... tell people about stuff they don't know already and also, try to listen in earnest even when something seems odd.

        I do think people have real fears about OWS that are totally worth talking about because everyone really is the 99% and they need to know how and why and what that means.

        Too many see it these days as something you join, like a cult, when it's actually a statement of a preexisting state of being, socioculturally.

        So I am going to say let's keep talking about it. Even if the conversation is with people less abreast of current events. Sometimes I'm like that myself about some things.

        Although 'tis close to bed for me now. Nighty night!

        •  It is the repetition and (7+ / 0-)

          having to direct to materials that have already been covered.

          I already know I lack the temperament to teach.

          Although in another life I did teach archery.

          That is a wonderful analysis BTW:

          Too many see it these days as something you join, like a cult, when it's actually a statement of a preexisting state of being, socioculturally.

          I just lose patience after the third repetition of a single point.

          Plus I'm usually busy trying to multitask and find info to post.

          Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

          by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 09:37:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  thanks for the post - and one point... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          haremoor, Deep Texan

          it isn't so much as folks are "less abreast" - rather, they are hearing many conflicting descriptions from many sources.

          there needs to be a clear outline (as a teacher, i am sure you understand that if the underlying information isn't organized, your students will miss a great deal of information).

          i have taught every age from 6 to 90s - day care to corporate - and the need to have a clear focus on what it is you are teaching is critical.

          this is the problem i see with ows and the sad realization that the movement is losing opportunities to effect real change.

          there IS no clarity of purpose - a lot of independent groups are making up their own as they go along - that is not effective.

          imagine if every school decided to teach a subject using their own criteria and rules.  there would be no universal science, no math, none.  clarification of what is universal and valid is critical for growth - the movement needs to find that clarification and unification soon or the window will shut.

          that is why i wrote this diary.  time is limited to keep people's attention focused (unless it is the bad focus from provoking police response and making spectacular splash stories on the evening news).

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 09:50:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps the diarist should avoid hyperventilating (11+ / 0-)

    if s/he doesn't want to promote the same in readers.  Using language such as "disturbing" is inflammatory and over the top.  More importantly, making a claim that "anarchists" are controlling the movement demonstrates a limited or willfully blind understanding of OWS.

    But the real question is- what would the diarist like kos to do?  The rules are clear at this point- no advocacy for a third party.  It appears the diarist would like this policy to prohibit support of the OWS movement.  

    OWS is crashing the gate.  I seriously doubt our dear leader would hamper discussion and support for OWS on this site.  It would require a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

    •  you have not understood my diary at all. (5+ / 0-)

      by asking legitimate questions that need be answered, that is not "hyperventilating" - to assume so projects a state of being onto my state of mind.

      i DO find it disturbing to see much of what is hitting the tubes - video wise, statement wise, comment wise.

      furthermore, i have not made the claim that this is an anarchist movement, many who post here have made that claim.  i see the majority of people in those marches on wall street and other locales as anything BUT anarchists and would recoil if they were labelled as such.

      i have NEVER advocated banning these discussions - only the clarification of what happens IF the ows movement turns to starting it's own political party.  if OR when that happens, how will this site respond.

      many of the ows diaries are now discussing just that - and already stirring the pot about not voting for either party.

      where is the line on these? that is what i am asking here.

      even your own statement in your post is murky.  are you saying that the ows in its entirety is advocating a third party?  that is how the statement below could be interpreted, btw.

      But the real question is- what would the diarist like kos to do?  The rules are clear at this point- no advocacy for a third party. It appears the diarist would like this policy to prohibit support of the OWS movement.  

      the problem with ows, as i see it, is a lack of clear expression of what it is, what it stands for, what it wants and how it wants to achieve those goals.  who defines those goals?  how are they communicated if the movement is "leaderless" - as i said in another post earlier, without leadership, there is only chaos.

      that is what i'd like to see discussed.  IF those goals are to start a third party, then, yes, outta here.  IF, on the other hand, it involves organizing to elect representatives that will better serve those goals, then define the goals and which candidates are supporting them.

      if the fundies can get candidates to sign pledges to support the most egregious behavior (no taxes ever, for one), then why shouldn't we be approaching ALL members of congress with a clearly defined statement of goals and ask which of those goals the congress person is ready to support.

      that is political power that can change the system.

      anything else is useless.

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 09:45:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The key to my comment (6+ / 0-)

        is the "if" you raise in your response.  Why the concern now, when the feared transformation has not occurred?  It is well-established that OWS does not intend to align with either party.  I honestly don't know how you infer a statement that OWS as a whole is advocating a third party from my text you quote.  Frankly, it's a bit mind-boggling.  

        You raise the same tired "concerns" about OWS not having a statement of purpose.  I think it is pretty clear what OWS stands for.  And that information is readily available to you, too, if you are interested.  You seem to be so up on the anarchist face of the movement.  Perhaps you should look deeper than that.

        You make the claim that "anarchists control the dialogue and face of this movement."  I merely paraphrased that statement.  It is disingenuous to restate my claim in a false manner merely to disagree.  They are your words.  

        There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with both parties, here and in the general populace.  And it is not going away.  That is the reality that it appears you have difficulty accepting.  People on this site are angry with the Dem establishment- with good reason, I would argue.  That doesn't make them not members of the party.  They are angry at the betrayal of Dem party principles.  And it is not going to magically disappear because an election will take place next year.  

        Furthermore, you don't get to decide how the OWS movement should pursue its goals.  Your desire for representatives and a list of complaints/issues is noted.  OWS has made it clear that it does not intend to give you what you want.  The issue is resolved; there's no need to keep harping on it under the guise of concern that the movement will fail.

        Finally, there is a difference between saying a pox on both their houses and actively advocating for a third party.  You may think that is a distinction without a difference, but that is ultimately a decision for Kos.  In the past, this distinction has been honored around here to no deliterious effect.  I would recommend that there is no need to change this approach.  

        •  you didn't read the link, did you. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345, Deep Texan

          the one where the declaration clearly advocates starting a third party.

          here it is again for you...

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:37:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As has been pointed out to you (4+ / 0-)

            that statement is from a small group that may be an offshoot of OWS.  Furthermore, it advocates a possible third party for 2014.  But it's a cute dodge to ignore responding to what I actually stated.  

            It's apparent from your comments in the thread that your sole interest is in getting money and votes for the Dem party without any concern for whether they promote Dem principles or not (any Dem in a district where we can't get a good one is your stated purpose).  That was tried- and failed.  You, of course, may continue to beat that drum, but try not to cloak it under the guise that you are concerned for the OWS movement.  Clearly, you see it as a threat to the Dem establishment, which, the gods willing, it will continue to be (just as it is a threat to the republican establishment).  Why not just admit that this is what ails you.  And accept that there are those of us who simply disagree with your position.  There really is no bridging of that gap.  Instead of trying to demonize those who disagree with you (anarchists!  communists!- great right wing memes there), why not just state your position clearly and agree to disagree?

  •  remember how we got here? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Celtic Pugilist, esquimaux

    Sure I do.  Nader had part to do with it, getting Bush elected by splitting the vote, but more importantly "more and better democrats" failed. They let us down,  and before 2000. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed under Clinton, and the dems in congress through the Bush years failed absolutely. They are part of the reason we are here.  The beef OWS has is with both parties, and the corruption in both.  The GOP isn't worth discussing here, but the dems are just as bad in some ways.  We need real change,  and that must come from outside the system at this point because this system has absolutely let us down. It will hurt Obama if a third party runs, and it will hurt if we run third parties in congressional seats.  But what choice do we have? Both parties are bought and sold by big money and only approved candidates make it onto the ballot.  That is, only candidates who will not produce the change we need are our Democrat options. More and better of more of the same? No thanks.

  •  876 delegates? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edrie, Deep Texan

    It's obvious that they don't consider the citizens of DC, or any of the other American colonies, to be full Americans.

    The 876 delegates include two from each of the 435 Congressional districts—and only one each from the six colonies.

    If those in charge of the process were concerned about being fair or representative, Puerto Rico would get well more than 2 delegates because of its population, and DC and the other four colonies would get 2 delegates each.

    But why would a movement that supports representation for all Americans bother to, y'know, ensure that all Americans are fully represented in their assembly?

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 09:47:12 PM PST

    •  funny how you just hit one of the major (4+ / 0-)

      issues with ows.  it lacks a real political understanding of how this nation works.

      even the protests against certain targets (like walmart?!?!) show a real naivete in how the process of government takes place.

      i remember only too well in the sixties when many finally realized that to change things in government, you had to be on the inside - because those on the outside couldn't do a thing (those that didn't vote, those not holding political office, or working in government).

      being unaware of the lack of representation by the territories of dc, puerto rico, north marianas, virgin islands and guam and american samoa (yeah, i had to cheat to look up the last one, mind went blank) shows how ill equipped we are to discuss representation of all americans.  

      i really think that much of the blind idealism comes with the dumbing down of our education system by teaching to the test instead of teaching to the brain.

      people seem to have more difficulty grasping complex interrelationships between specific events and actions these days.

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:02:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've refrained from commenting on most of the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edrie, N in Seattle

    OWS diaries mostly because it has become rather apparent that there isn't much room for anything approximating civil discussion when it comes time to address some of the philosophies being expressed.  I suppose that this is the price that is demanded for allowing for a free exchange of progressive ideas, which has been - along with "electing more and better Democrats" - a foundation stone of this site going all the way back to the early days when we lowly "insignificant microbe" bloggers (according to the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem rating) marveled at the 20 or 30 comments that Markos would get on any particular blog post...

    Anybody with a keyboard and an internet connection can diary or comment here (like me...Hi Mom!!), so all sorts of discourse can show up here.  Some of the hostility you have encountered in OWS diaries isn't actually all that much different than the bad ol' "Hillary vs. Barack" days.  While that doesn't provide any comfort for your concerns - and while there is a legitimate concern that any particular thing that anybody writes here can end up being portrayed as authoritative (mostly because so much of the "real world" doesn't spend much time in blogtopia) - sometimes it is what is is...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:04:56 PM PST

  •  His first name is not 'Hey'. (0+ / 0-)

    Let us know when you get an answer from the horse.

    H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

    by Knarfc on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:07:17 PM PST

    •  um, hey is a salutation, hay if for horses. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Knarfc, erush1345

      although i DO confess to using HEY! with My pony quite frequently - like when he decides to become a carnivore behind me because i'm not fixing his yummy mash fast enough!


      Definition of HEY

      —used especially to call attention or to express interrogation, surprise, or exultation
       See hey defined for English-language learners »
      See hey defined for kids »
      Examples of HEY

      Origin of HEY

      Middle English
      First Known Use: 13th century

      1hay 1
      : herbage and especially grass mowed and cured for fodder
      : reward

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:18:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  edrie, thanks for bringing this to our (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, edrie, Supavash, glorificus


    I've now read through the suggested list of grievances, and I think all of them have varying degrees of merit. Furthermore, I think many, if not most, of them would resonate with a lot of people who currently vote Republican out of ignorance of the real issues.

    Rather than solely split the Democrats, to the benefit of the Republicans, I think there is a potential for a competitive third party arising from this effort that would threaten the viability of both the current major parties, starting with the 2014 midterms.

    Right now, as pointed out upthread, this group is a miniscule blip on the OWS radar. It remains to be seen if it gains any real traction. If it does gain wide support, the last thing I'm going to worry about is whether or not advocating its goals and strategy violates the Daily Kos mission statement.

    •  my concern is that this is a big bully pulpit (0+ / 0-)

      that can raise inordinate amounts of money for candidates.

      the thought of seeing that dwindle or be diverted worries me, especially after citizens united.  too much is at stake to risk the 2012s - we lose those and we lose the chance of reversing the damage done by the republicans since reagan - AND we get more damage piled on top of what already exists (like permanent bush tax cuts and privatizing social security and medicare).

      playing with a third party right now is playing with nuclear fire.

      i would not be at all surprised to learn that republicans are heavily funding  and pushing this idea to ows.  it may be the only way they can win the senate and defeat obama (although that is highly unlikely, imho).

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:22:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why do you keep referring to 2012? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The articulated threat is that, if movement on the grievances is not seen within a reasonable period of time, the "national general assembly" will convene to form a third party to run candidates in 2014.

        •  by stressing third party and discussing it at this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisePiper, Supavash

          point, the mindset for voting third is being planted.

          that, imho, is very very dangerous in this current political situation.

          and, just an fyi, for many years in ny, i was registered with a third party - i was a proud liberal party member.  the difference then and now is that the best candidates ran on both dem AND liberal ballots.

          it is when an electoral candidate can lose because people who support the same side of an issue (only one supports it slightly differently), then the candidate diametrically opposed to both of the other positions wins and destroys everything in his/her wake that the two disputing voters believe in so passionately.  that is why i am so very concerned about how the ows movement is being used.

          the stakes are very high - and what we lose may never be recovered if there is a split for 2012.

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:42:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look, there NEVER seems to be a right (6+ / 0-)

            time for daring to break the stranglehold our two party system has on the body politic.

            Well, at some point the risk HAS to be taken.

            "The99PercentDeclaration" is actually kind of brilliant:

            It sets forth 22 demands that, to varying degrees, already enjoy wide support across the political spectrum.

            It calls upon politicians of both parties to embrace and work to enact them.

            It offers a "reasonable period of time" for elected officials to demonstrate their support of those demands. If neither party (read Democrats) supports the redress of grievances, it threatens to form a third party and field candidates in an off-year election.

            I think the move is tactically right on. If it doesn't gain wide spread support within the next six months, it's a case of no harm, no foul. If it DOES gain traction and it becomes clear that the demand for these common sense reforms is strongly supported across the nation, it will accrue to the benefit of the Democrats in 2012, because, comparatively, the demands are more in line with the Democratic party platform than with that of the Republicans.

            Thereafter, again presuming demonstrably wide support for these demanded reforms from across the electorate, if the Congress does not move to enact the reforms, and consequently a third party is formed, logically and logistically said third party will have to employ its initially limited resources in Congressional districts wherein it has a shot of winning. And, any of the winners from that party would certainly caucus with the Democrats.

            I say, curb your angst. If it takes off, embrace the possibility for real change. If it doesn't, no damage done.

            •  edrie, thanks for rec'ing my comments. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edrie, Free Jazz at High Noon

              I know you still have concerns, but I appreciate you acknowledging my good faith arguments.

              •  and i appreciate your making those arguments (4+ / 0-)

                even if we disagree on some things.  to discuss, engage, have dialogue is how consensus is finally reached.

                so many on site nowadays simply engage in name calling, petty insults and neener neener comments.

                i appreciate all those on this thing that took the time to actually discuss the issues involved here.

                we can all have disagreements - but where those disagreements fall is the topic to be discussed - then comes resolution.

                thanks, again, for being here - let's do more of this in other threads!  to set the tone for dialogue is the greatest aspect for this site...

                nite. for now.

                Is GlowNZ back yet?

                by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 02:41:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  remember when we used to get posts (8+ / 0-)

    expressing concern about bill ayers, jeremiah wright and the black panthers?

    that's what this diary reminds me of.

  •  Sort of disingenuous to talk about a "threat" (3+ / 0-)

    to the 2012 election when the quoted passage specifically referred to 2014 and 2016 don't you think? And even then, there's a big "if" in front of that threat, and few of us would not like to see the Democratic Party act in ways that would negate that "if".

  •  I'm watching the live stream of Occupy LA (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edrie, glorificus, sviscusi, doroma, Deep Texan

    right now.  It's super entertaining.  Get this: anytime someone speaks, everyone else has to repeat them.  No matter what bullshit they're saying.

    There was a guy just now saying that the U.S. Government was "literally Satanic"!  And everyone repeated it!

    I mean, I understand that kos has rules against third party advocacy and all that; but aside from the site rules, can you imagine a third party call and response political convention?!  It'd be funnier than South Park!

  •  Fiction writing (7+ / 0-)

    I went and read some of the exchanges the diariest refers to tonight.

    specifically, tonite i've been called an ass, putz, told to "go to hell" and "stfu" for disagreeing with some pretty wild statements.

    Anyone who thinks that this is what the diarist was doing in OWS diaries ...

    i've been reading the ows diaries for some time now, occasionally stopping in to post a reply.

    should go read the actual exchanges.

    The diarist went in looking for a fight - and she got it. Now she's writing this diary to say what meanies everyone was to her.

    •  oh, please. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus, Deep Texan

      if you can't add to the discussion, please note the above request that this isn't a place for rudeness, nastiness, etc.

      everyone else here has been civil, even when there is disagreement.

      perhaps this isn't the place for you to post unless you can join in on the discussion on the topic.

      you have posted an irrelevant insult - why?

      everyone else has been discussing the issues.

      what is your point?

      oh. yeah. i forgot.  history.  


      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 12:11:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your poll started the nastiness (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        little lion

        and then you have the gall to complain about insults.

        •  um, i found this and think you might have lost it. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus, Deep Texan

          {one sense of humor attached}

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 04:17:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  See more insults (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            little lion

            You can give them but not take them.

            •  that was not meant as an insult - it was meant (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glorificus, Deep Texan

              to lighten your tone so that dialogue might begin.


              Is GlowNZ back yet?

              by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 04:55:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  quince this poster is well-known (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              for calling out nastiness and insults while displaying the same behavior herself - but never recognizing it.

              •  what is your purpose in posting in this diary? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan

                you are trying to start a flame war - please stop.

                as kos has noted, when a diarist - ANY diarist - asks that this type of behavior be kept out of the diary, the person who is trying to foment trouble may be hr'd.

                i am not going to hr you but i would hope that if you continue, others will.

                please either join in the topic being discussed and stop trying to make this personal or leave the diary altogether.

                Is GlowNZ back yet?

                by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 10:29:36 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You introduced the nastiness, as several (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  have pointed out.

                  But go ahead and tell on me to kos if you want to.

                  This diary is dead now though - and I'm leaving it.

                  •  i believe you have missed the amazing (0+ / 0-)

                    diary that has had people agreeing on many things - people who have not before.

                    i am sorry you have such a negative attitude - i'd rather discuss issues with you and any one else here than see this type of petty bickering started.

                    it is too critical for this nation right now to engage in silliness - we need to work together - every single one of us - to change this nation.

                    i hope you'll find that focus to work with others and join in the discussion next time.

                    Is GlowNZ back yet?

                    by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 04:23:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  edrie - you're displaying poor form. (0+ / 0-)

                      It's very poor form to ask someone to leave a diary, then after they say ok, you continue the dialog.Please stop using the pretense of decorum in this way.  I can only hope that you also will stop the silliness and take an honest look at your actions in OWS diaries which precipitated this diary.

                      •  you just can't quit, can you? (0+ / 0-)

                        i've asked you to discuss issues, you are determined to make this about me.

                        well, it ISN'T about me, neither is it about YOU.

                        either participate in the topic of the diary or leave.

                        those are your options.  i have no further need to engage you in conversation as you seem to be fixated on me instead of the issue at hand.

                        that's really too bad, but it's not my problem, it's yours to solve.

                        Is GlowNZ back yet?

                        by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:54:59 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  edrie - you're displaying poor form. (0+ / 0-)

                          edrie - you're displaying poor form.

                          It's very poor form to ask someone to leave a diary, then after they say ok, you continue the dialog.Please stop using the pretense of decorum in this way.  I can only hope that you also will stop the silliness and take an honest look at your actions in OWS diaries which precipitated this diary.

                          •  are we playing "last word"? if so, you can have it (0+ / 0-)

                            i'm not interested in your opinion of my actions.  period.


                            Is GlowNZ back yet?

                            by edrie on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:58:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No - we're playing you being disingenuos. (0+ / 0-)

                            You pretended that you wanted me to leave your diary and stop commenting. I figured it was enough and so I said I would and I did.

                            But then you kept it going. What your real aim was to give me a reaming out - which you did after I was gone.  You just wanted another chance to scold - with no reply.

                            I called you on that BS and you didn't like it.

                          •  i am now formally asking you to stay away from (0+ / 0-)

                            me.  stop posting replies and insults.  if you don't agree with a topic, discuss that.  if you don't like me - that is your problem, not mine - this is not personal and i have no intention of making it so.

                            stop posting personal insults.  

                            discuss the topic at hand or not - but stop posting personal insults.

                            i don't care whether you post or not. if you have something of value to add to a discussion, do so. but STOP posting personal attacks.  

                            Is GlowNZ back yet?

                            by edrie on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:38:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have not posted one. (0+ / 0-)
                            stop posting ... insults
                          •  Let me add a little more info (0+ / 0-)

                            and then really - I think this needs to stop for me.

                            My initial comment was not a personal insult, but a critique of your diary. A sharp critique, but a critique of your diary and your actions that preceded it.

                            That's not "personal insult."  Personal insult, by my understanding is name-calling, commenting on someones mental state, making fun of their name or other similar things.  I don't feel I've done any of that here.  I'm sharply disagreeing with you and I'm calling you out on what I feel is bad behaviour on your part - but not waging personal insults.

                            I rarely do comment to you these days.  When I saw your diary I felt I had to make my iniitial comment - this one.  If I had a do-over I would still have made that comment, but I wish I had made no further follow-up comments. Because I don't think the rest of the comments served either of us - and I know they left you irritated.

                            I also think that some of your irritation is that I'm calling you out on your behavior in the threads and in the diary. Simply commenting on "issues" could not be separated from that, in this case.

                            I will likely continue to rarely engage you. Perhaps on those occaisions when we do engage in the future, we should try to keep it shorter and avoid the race to the right margin.


                          •  your comments were personal - directed toward (0+ / 0-)

                            me personally and not to the discussion at hand.

                            you continue to try to "call me out", even though i have politely asked you to either discuss the topic of the diary or discontinue the personal comments.

                            you cannot seem to do that.

                            i am referring this to the moderators.

                            now. i will disengage from you.

                            Is GlowNZ back yet?

                            by edrie on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 07:53:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  You don't get protections when YOU START IT (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
    •  . fyi (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan
      btw, this diary is NOT a "free-for-all" and if anyone starts hurling insults, may they be hr'd into oblivion!

      do NOT fight in this diary - if you want a civil discourse, feel free to come in - but leave the petty name-calling and hyperventilating accusations and insults OUT!

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 12:15:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  she is well-known, BL n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      don't always believe what you think

      by claude on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:27:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  edrie (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus, MKinTN, lotlizard

    My guess is the ultimate goal is equal justice for all but how that is obtained is still a mystery.   I think people are so frustrated they know not what to do.  The mic check is part of their mantra of identification I would think because I have seen so many videos of where the
    local authorties won't agree to amplification.  As far as fringe ends..yes they are there.

    How does one take to the street and not have chaos?  People cannot organize in every way in every city because they are hurting and very angry.  I am just glad that no real fight back has occurred.  An all out revolt.
    People are leaving their homeless bench and screaming in the streets.  This is what is actually happening.  Yeah there are som troublemakers.  There are always troublemakers either in war or rebellion.   This is a rebellion of peaceful nature.  People just clearly do not know how to react to heir plight for survival.  
    I stand with the 99 percenters not the anarchists.  Go
    back and read about the domestic terror plotters living in rural America.  If nothing else these people are flushin out the crazies where they can be arrested.  There is concern for sure ....but more concerned what the right'is plotting and doing that the left.

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:12:51 AM PST

    •  i agree with you totally that this is about (0+ / 0-)

      complete frustration with a system that is dysfunctional.

      we need to look at why it is - namely, a republican house and senate determined to unseat a sitting president two full years before the presidential election at the expense of the economy and every middle class and poor person in america.

      that there are so many people taking to the streets to show that frustration is awesome - but there comes a time when that frustration needs to turn productive.

      it is such a shame to let all this energy go unharnessed - i want to see more concrete expansion of it and see it taken to the polls - not just to vote no on every and anything - but to vote for candidates who can and will do something about the problems we are facing here right now.

      screaming isn't going to change the laws - even when it feels good to scream.  why aren't there people handing out voter registration forms?  why aren't there people explaining why it is critical to vote - for without voting, all the screaming is really moot and mute.

      we are really in troubled times - and to see so many people stand up and shout that we need something to change is important.  now it is time to define what that "something" is and how to change it!

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 10:44:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I haven't noticed the site being taken over. (3+ / 0-)

    Largely because I haven't bothered to read the OWS diaries other than the ones on police brutality, which, as many have noted, has existed before OWS.

    Read what you want to read, don't read things you don't.  The site is what you make of it.  Do that and you can avoid making 'pretty wild statements' about the site being taken over.

  •  I Don't See It (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus, Catte Nappe, Deep Texan

    The Entire OWS movement consists largely of great, devoted people who really believe in what they're doing.

    Of course, you're also going to get some single issue nutjobs who pretend that OWS is also primarily concerned with their single issue, and consequently act like they are the spokespeople for the movement.

    I will say that this thing where they talk about "in consultation with the NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE" is kind of disturbing, because if there's one thing absolutely NOBODY is doing (or is interested in doing) it's actually finding things we all agree on (which you would sort of have to do in order to claim to speak for 99% of us).

    Still, that's a pretty minor quibble.

    When people actually start campaigning FOR OWS and AGAINST the Democratic nominee (whether they are simply urging defeat of the sitting Democratic President or for a third party) they'll be HR'd into oblivion and banned from the site, no matter who they are.

    Remember the NPA?

    Neither does anybody else.

    •  Yep, and it will just further reinforce (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the notion that Daily Kos is actually an unofficial arm of the DNC instead of an independent (from the DNC) blog that happens to be partisan.

      There's a difference between the Democratic Party and democrats. Barack Obama is a member of the Democratic Party. He's not a democrat. Voting for him, or advocating voting for Obama, is voting or advocating for a vote for a person who is going to fight for the 1%, just like his Republican Party 'counterparts' will. My opinion is that not voting for President Obama, or for advocating to not vote for him, or for advocating voting for a third-party candidate instead, is not advocating against democrats' interests (although clearly the latter would most definitely be a violation of the rules, and the person doing so would likely be banned).

  •  snore ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    little lion

    This is useless.  A small group writes something like this and we are suppose to be doing exactly what?

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:12:26 AM PST

  •  why is it written in "lawyerese"? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edrie, Deep Texan

    That is my main concern about the "99% Declaration." Who is that declaration meant for? Sending to Congress or corps?

    Do they have a plain English version, too, for what is likely the majority of the 99%, those whose eyes glaze over at language like that? A plain Spanish version? Etc?

    Between this and UnaSpenser's diary, I am having a hard time figuring out how replicating existing elitist, exclusive, dominant social, racial, gender and other structures, no matter how good the intentions, is so much better.

    Only by learning to live in harmony with your contradictions can you keep it all afloat. --Audre Lorde

    by Nanette K on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 08:22:09 AM PST

  •  I think OWS is about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon, Supavash

    the corruption of BOTH major parties and the excessive political influence of the very rich to the detriment of the rest of us. It's about the failure of the political system.

    Yes, there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance involved in supporting OWS and being Democrats, but that's the way it has to be. We can deal with this dissonance by closing our eyes to the corruption of Democrats as well as Republicans, but we're kidding ourselves if we do.  

    We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

    by denise b on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 02:00:25 PM PST

  •  Poll lacks a simple "Yes". nt (0+ / 0-)

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 04:01:38 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site