Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[L.Y.S.]

Limits that have nothing to do with the Citizens United case which the OWS crowd wants overturned. So even if you find the limits unreasonable, repealing Citizens United will accomplish nothing to change that.

How does overturning a decision which makes corporations individuals not benefit the people? As it were now, corporations can fund unlimited sums to political candidates. Surely this may have some undue influence on the American political system. So how exactly is overturning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission not going to benefit the average American voter from undue influence?

 

[Brainster]

Two more major encampments shut down: Philly

The occupiers responded by roaming around Center City, scattering and regrouping with police following their every move in a chaotic night of cat-and-mouse that ended before daylight.

"The Dilworth occupation is over," Mayor Nutter said at a news conference just before 7 a.m.

Crews were using bulldozers and other heavy equipment to clear up debris and fire hoses to wash down the plaza as he spoke.

and LA.

In Los Angeles, busloads of police closed in on the 8-week-old Occupy LA camp after midnight and declared the hundreds of protesters congregated on the lawn, sidewalks and streets around City Hall to be an unlawful assembly, ordering them to disperse or face arrest, in line with an eviction order from the mayor.

The Los Angeles encampment, which officials had tolerated for weeks even as other cities moved in to clear out similar compounds, was among the largest on the West Coast aligned with a 2-month-old Occupy Wall Street movement against economic inequality and alleged excesses of the U.S. financial system.

 

[Neally]

Unfortunately for the occutards, they weren't able to create any martyrs.

 

[WildCat]

How does overturning a decision which makes corporations individuals not benefit the people?

2 points:

1. Citizens United has nothing at all to do with legal personhood, which is concept developed in common law at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and further defined by US Supreme Court decisions in the 1800s.

2. Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign donations.

Have you ever read the Citizens United decison?

 

[WildCat]

Unfortunately for the occutards, they weren't able to create any martyrs.

Oh, they're trying...



Man, that really makes me sympathetic to whatever it is he's protesting!

 

[JihadJane]

She can't. That would be making money, and money is only made through destroying things.

Or so I've read.

That's silly kiddy talk.

I never claimed my opinion was anything other than an opinion, unlike others who will tout theirs as an objective fact.

This forum, among other things, is a place to discuss skepticism and critical thinking. How does spouting unsubstantiated opinions and refusing to substantiate them fit into that?

Since when have you been interested in "fair", Jane?

All my life, from about age four or five, 63.

I have repeatedly explained why I oppose the movement, like I said in my previous post.

Saying you oppose it is not the same as claiming it hasn't done "a lick of good".

Don't bite. She'll dismiss it with Appeal to Authority, statistically irrelevant, or something else.

Have you got something against truth that is arrived at logically?

EDIT: Speaking of which, here's a bunch of people who think Megyn Kelly should be pepper sprayed that you said you were not aware of. Are you aware of it now?

You said there were hundreds, not "a bunch":

It's also hundreds of people saying "someone" should pepper spray her because they don't like what she said. Apparently, lots of people think it's only wrong to "pepper spray people for expressing their right to free speech" when those people are on their side. Or if not pepper spray, the Pear of Anguish.

In your first example exiva doesn't say Kelly should be pepper-sprayed. She/he emailed Kelly directly to ask Kelly if she would be willing to be pepper sprayed. “It is just a food product after all.”

In your next example, fateweaver doesn't say Kelly should be pepper-sprayed either. She/he says , in the same spirit as exiva “I wish we could pepper spray her and see if her opinion is the same."

Many people expressed similar sentiments about people who minimized waterboarding.

Similarly, generic-name comments: “Megyn Kelly needs to get pepper sprayed to see what food product feels like on her.”

RedPanther1, eoin2000 and wafflesburger's discussion follows a similar trajectory.

In your fourth linked example, the comment is clearly in response to another comment which isn’t shown. Without the context it is not possible to judge wafflesburger’s reasoning

PendingSente wants Kelly sprayed because she/he thinks Kelly lied about the nature of pepper spray. masklinn agrees but then changes her/his mind and suggests real food be used instead.

Baydestrian writes: "I want to take a truncheon across the face of both of them, and then pepper spray them. I can't describe how angry this ******** makes me. And people sit in their homes, believe it, and come away thinking these kids are doing something wrong! When the **** did this stop being America?
The monopoly on force needs to stop. That's as far as I'll go in saying right now."

He is clearly very angry and outraged and it's nothing to do with someone exercising their right to Free Speech. It is about media disinformation and state violence.

You commented

“Please note the number of upvotes. These are not isolated opinions of individuals. This is a common sentiment.

A very large number of people wish harm on this woman because she said something they find distasteful. I find that worrying. What I find terrifying is that almost nobody is going "wait, if it's so bad to hurt people for free speech, why do we want to do it for her?"

To be honest, I think it more likely that you are drama-queening than feeling genuinely terrified.

None of the examples you have offered are saying Kelly should be pepper sprayed for, as you claim, exercising Free Speech:

And it is absolutely hypocritical to say people have a right not to be hit with pepper spray for exercising their First Amendment rights, but say Megyn Kelly should be pepper-sprayed for exercising her First Amendment rights.

They want her to to put her money where her mouth is, essentially.

Even if she were pepper sprayed it probably wouldn't harm her (as you claim) though it might, of course, kill her, and she can rebound energized and invigorated (04.32) and declare again "It's a food product, essentially".

The same thing happened with regard to people who claimed that waterboarding wasn’t torture. Eventually, some critics took up the offer to have themselves waterboarded, just as people are inviting Kelly to get herself pepper-sprayed.

Afterwards, the waterboarded minimizers changed their mind and agreed that it was torture after all. The premise of the comments above, that worry you so much, is that Kelly would take pepper spray more seriously if she had experienced its effects first hand and, accordingly, they wish she would accept their offers!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You have facts?

I was talking about the “facts" you presented in your post.

Please show me a political platform that has passed the "occupy" movement.

Please explain what you mean by “political platform” and its relevance to my question.

I"ll wait for it. When can I see it? On what webpage? Maybe you can point out a particular leader of this "movement" that I can ask questions to and receive answers from... Who would that be?

The movement is deliberately leaderless. I guess you might find this bewildering.

If this "movement" has any directed list of grievances that I can forward to my local congressman, i can then find out where they stand on all of them. It might help me in my choices for the upcoming elections. Where can I find that list again?

What do expect your congressman to do about a corrupt system whose corruption directly benefits him?

Here’s a list that Noami Wolf elicted by posing the question What is it you want?" to OWS online: " In the first 15 minutes, she received 100 answers and identified the three commonest, below:

“The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process.

No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

[The British government has shown sign of intentions to reinstate something like the Glass-Steagall Act - JJ]

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors."

However, making demands of established authorities, hasn't, so far, and for good reasons, been the focus of the movement, which is more interested in, among other things, dialog, experimenting with non-hierarchical power structures and communities, education and non-violent, direct action.

Your creative rant avoids answering my enquiry:

How do the “facts” you presented that "after 3 months of protesting, we still don't have a unified list of grievances or demands listed on their webpage", at the same time we have seen "spikes in crime, drug usage, rape" and “memorable field trips that the occupy camps have taken” lead you to conclude that they are "unfocused and just protesting to protest"?

 

[TruthersLie]

How does overturning a decision which makes corporations individuals not benefit the people?

The decision doesn't do that.

As it were now, corporations can fund unlimited sums to political candidates.

Ummm, no they can't. They can give unlimited sums to political PARTIES, and they can fund their own advertising. That is different than what you are claiming.

Surely this may have some undue influence on the American political system.

It might. It might not. did farenheit 911 keep bush from being re elected? it was timed to be out right before the elections and was a great smear piece by michael moore.

And can you tell me any corporation that has UNLIMITED funds available for purchasing advertising that is either pro/con a candidate? that bogey man doesn't exist.

So how exactly is overturning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission not going to benefit the average American voter from undue influence?

It is just taking away parts of the first amendment.
quick question for you... if citizens united is so bad why does the ACLU support the decision (iirc)?

 

[TruthersLie]

I was talking about the “facts" you presented in your post.

the fact that this "movement" has no leaders and no concrete set of demands or grievances... A fact that you agree with below

Please explain you mean by “political platform” and it’s relevance to my question.

Sure thing. If this "movement" wants to be taken seriously, they should have some serious thought into what they believe in. A position that they take and want politicans to agree with. it makes it so much easier to try to understand exactly what they want.

do they have one of those yet or not? not a random list from 100 people that other OWSers may or may not agree with. A simple list of their demands that most OWSers agree with. (over half, but 75% would be better imho). Simple question... do you have that yet?

The movement is deliberately leaderless. I guess you might find this bewildering.

Not so much so. I understand that when kiddies play they often have to play nice with each other. So no single leader that can speak for them. That is a major negative because when someone goes to negotiate for the group, then they have no power. Gee... it must be nice having grown up actions w/out grown up behaviours. So if there is something done that you disagree with you can just say "who gave them the power to do that?" Gee... so the anarchist roots come out. No problems there.

What do expect your congressman to do about a corrupt system whose corruption directly benefits him?

well lets see... people in power want to stay in power. If there were only a simple list of say the top 5 issues that OWS agrees they want, then I could easily find out where each candidate stands on those issues. I could then choose to elect officials which will actually work to do things like campaign finance reform, closing and tightening regulation on certain industries... You know, things like making good decisions. If only OWS had a list of things that they believed in that a majority of the members agreed with. Do you have some of those yet? OWS promised some 3 months ago...

Here’s a list that Noami Wolf elicted by posing the question What is it you want?" to OWS online: " In the first 15 minutes, she received 100 answers and identified the three commonest, below:

“The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process.

No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

[The British government has shown sign of intentions to reinstate something like the Glass-Steagall Act - JJ]

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors."

wowsers... Naomi Wolf who takes blanket bs and then weaves it into random crap... Amazing.

So her survey of 100 random OWSers comes up with those three? Fantastic... and what about the other people who interview random OWSers and come up with free college education, debt forgiveness, a $20 an hour minimum wage... .I guess they aren't as valid... or maybe using OWS logic, they are JUST as valid. if only OWS had a core guiding principle/s and a political platform... do you have one yet?

However, making demands hasn't, so far, and for good reasons, been the focus of the movement which is more interested in dialog, experimenting with non-hierarchical power structures, education and non-violent, direct action.

And how has that worked out?
Lets see... promised a list of demands 3 months ago... coming soon. when will we get to those?
dialog? with who? this group has no leaders, so how can you have a dialogue with anyone?
education? Great... can you point me out to the eduation that has been provided? So far it seems to be educating young women to not report rapes.
non violent- whatever you say.

Your creative rant avoids answering my enquiry:

How do the “facts” you presented that "after 3 months of protesting, we still don't have a unified list of grievances or demands listed on their webpage",

so there is a list of agreed upon demands/grievances that is available to anyone who is interested in finding out what OWS believes in... where can i find that?

at the same time we have seen "spikes in crime, drug usage, rape"
already reported on numerous times by other posters with things like links to the statistics and news reports. Maybe you missed them.

and “memorable field trips that the occupy camps have taken”

did you miss the field trip in NYC that went to the brooklyn bridge?
How about the Oakland one that shut down a port?
or the one that was trying to get into the banks in NYC?
or the march from NYC to DC?

Field trips for bored kiddies.

lead you to conclude that they are "unfocused and just protesting to protest"?

Since the start of the protests, we have seen them decide to take field trips, play the drums to all hours of the night, ignore each other, take on global warming and the rampant consumerism of black friday... if you can't see it, then maybe you should take a look at how poorly organized this "movement" is. Oh wait... I forgot, you can't judge the "movement" by any one member of it. That is why it is so nice to have no leaders... got it.

ETA: on what the protesters are demanding a MUCH better look than Naomi Wolf was done by the Huffington post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-hayat/occupy-wall-street_b_1089079.html

it is rather telling that they come up with 9 main complaints from 100 responders... 9 categories with numerous subcategories. My personal favourite that is given by 1/5th of the respondents is "I don't know"

IX. Don't Know:
Close to one fifth of all the respondents interviewed responded "Don't Know."

So what does the OWS Movement want? Our preliminary results suggest that the Occupy Wall Street movement has an array of political demands that are not very different from mainstream Americans. One things is for certain, there is a need for more data-driven analysis and less speculation with regard to the demands of this movement, especially as it continues to evolve.

If you look at the list they came up with it is amazing that you get exactly the opposite answers in the same category. Enact glass stegal, repeal glass stegal. Universal healthcare, cheaper healthcare, individual health care. Tax the rich, cut taxes, tax everyone. Absolutely amazing. So no platform, no unifying beliefs or attitudes beyond, 'i'm pissed off and I want the government to do something.' Got it.

 

[Ziggurat]

How does overturning a decision which makes corporations individuals not benefit the people?

I will echo what others have already said, because it's important enough and the misunderstanding of it is common enough that it evidently needs repeating.

Citizens United has absolutely nothing to do with corporate personhood.

As it were now, corporations can fund unlimited sums to political candidates.

That is false. Campaign contributions from both corporations and individuals are limited. This has not changed. Citizens United couldn't change that either, since the case wasn't even about campaign contributions.

You have misunderstood the case from top to bottom. Again, it had nothing to do with corporate personhood, and it had nothing to do with campaign contributions. Those issues were not part of the suit, and they were not part of the ruling.

 

[AlBell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from censoring political broadcasts in candidate elections when those broadcasts are funded by corporations or unions. The 5–4 decision originated in a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act in reference to its primary Senate sponsors.[2]

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision had upheld provisions of the 2002 act, which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3]

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.”[2] An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]

 

[JihadJane]

'The man who invented pepper spray speaks out'

He says pepper spray was designed to subdue violent people as an alternative to possibly lethal force. It wasn't designed to be used to coerce non-violent protestors. Without proper decontamination there is a risk of long-term damage.

 

[TruthersLie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

and? Or should I say, so what? How does a copy/paste from wikipedia negate any of the points I or any one else who is stating what Citizenx United ruling actually meant? It doesn't. Unless you were posting it here to be able to show it to folks who don't know or are misunderstanding what the ruling was and what it meant?

 

[Alt+F4]

Citizens United has absolutely nothing to do with corporate personhood.

Why can't the OWS folks understand this? Maybe they should complain about student loan debt. Their expensive educations didn't even teach them how to read or understand a Supreme Court decision.

 

[TJM]

Two more major encampments shut down: Philly



and LA.

San Francisco seems likely to follow:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/30/MNIR1M5TUU.DTL

In a breathtakingly stupid move, Occupy SF has probably screwed themselves properly this time. I don't suppose it's occurred to them that they could have a home base with electricity and running water, all on the city's dime AND assemble in Just Herman Plaza as is their right.

I've been avoiding the use of the word, but this is occutardism at its finest.

 

[Alt+F4]

and? Or should I say, so what? How does a copy/paste from wikipedia negate any of the points I or any one else who is stating what Citizenx United ruling actually meant? It doesn't. Unless you were posting it here to be able to show it to folks who don't know or are misunderstanding what the ruling was and what it meant?

Actually I thought that copy/paste was useful if folks would actually read what the decision said:

the First Amendment prohibits government from censoring political broadcasts in candidate elections when those broadcasts are funded by corporations or unions.

So where is the word "personhood" in the decision?

 

[stokes234]

Who said anything about campaign donations? We have limits on those here as well.

Sure, but you only have limits on direct financial contributions as I understand it, whereas we have limits on any contribution to an election campaign. In the UK, if you try to sway an election by printing £100k worth of leaflets, then if any connection is found between you and anyone at any level of importance in the party - business stakes, blood relations, friendships etc - you could be looking at jailtime. I don't think my freedom of speech is being repressed because i'm not allowed to try to financially manipulate the democratic process - do you believe yours would be?

 

[WildCat]

Sure, but you only have limits on direct financial contributions as I understand it, whereas we have limits on any contribution to an election campaign. In the UK, if you try to sway an election by printing £100k worth of leaflets, then if any connection is found between you and anyone at any level of importance in the party - business stakes, blood relations, friendships etc - you could be looking at jailtime. I don't think my freedom of speech is being repressed because i'm not allowed to try to financially manipulate the democratic process - do you believe yours would be?

Citizens United deals with independent expenditures, which the government tried to ban. If your law is actually as you claim it is it certainly has a chilling effect on free speech.

I'm quite happy with the 1st Amendment as it is.

 

[Neally]

Sure, but you only have limits on direct financial contributions as I understand it, whereas we have limits on any contribution to an election campaign. In the UK, if you try to sway an election by printing £100k worth of leaflets, then if any connection is found between you and anyone at any level of importance in the party - business stakes, blood relations, friendships etc - you could be looking at jailtime. I don't think my freedom of speech is being repressed because i'm not allowed to try to financially manipulate the democratic process - do you believe yours would be?

Again, "free" doesn't mean the same as "freedom" and promoting a political position whether it be yelling on a street corner or running a TV ad is not "financially manipulate the democratic process".

 

[JihadJane]

the fact that this "movement" has no leaders and no concrete set of demands or grievances... A fact that you agree with below.

How do these things lead you to conclude that the movement is "unfocused and just protesting to protest"?

Sure thing. If this "movement" wants to be taken seriously, they should have some serious thought into what they believe in.

It appears to do a great deal of thinking about and discussing what they believe in. It is building consensus.

A position that they take and want politicians to agree with. it makes it so much easier to try to understand exactly what they want.

Do you care what they want? If so, why?

As an outside observer but with a few friends active in the movement, I get the impression that they see cultivating politicians as a low priority. They are interested in creating a new kind of politics altogether.

do they have one of those yet or not? not a random list from 100 people that other OWSers may or may not agree with. A simple list of their demands that most OWSers agree with. (over half, but 75% would be better imho). Simple question... do you have that yet?

"You"?

No, it's not a hierarchical organization.

Not so much so. I understand that when kiddies play they often have to play nice with each other. So no single leader that can speak for them. That is a major negative because when someone goes to negotiate for the group, then they have no power. Gee... it must be nice having grown up actions w/out grown up behaviours. So if there is something done that you disagree with you can just say "who gave them the power to do that?" Gee... so the anarchist roots come out. No problems there.

Silly and rather pathetic patronizing guff. Looks a bit desperate.

They have been able to negotiate where necessary so far.

well lets see... people in power want to stay in power. If there were only a simple list of say the top 5 issues that OWS agrees they want, then I could easily find out where each candidate stands on those issues. I could then choose to elect officials which will actually work to do things like campaign finance reform, closing and tightening regulation on certain industries... You know, things like making good decisions. If only OWS had a list of things that they believed in that a majority of the members agreed with. Do you have some of those yet? OWS promised some 3 months ago...

Your amateur dramatics tend to obscure any serious intent you may have.

Don't you think the movement is, thus far, a bit small to be involved in such schemes? It's aim appears to be to change the national conversation, not look for mainstream political representation.

wowsers... Naomi Wolf who takes blanket bs and then weaves it into random crap... Amazing.

Ditto re amateur dramatics.

So her survey of 100 random OWSers comes up with those three? Fantastic... and what about the other people who interview random OWSers and come up with free college education, debt forgiveness, a $20 an hour minimum wage... .I guess they aren't as valid... or maybe using OWS logic, they are JUST as valid. if only OWS had a core guiding principle/s and a political platform... do you have one yet?

"You"?

You were complaining that they didn't have any demands. Now you're complaining about something else. Why the change of tack?

And how has that worked out?

The movement appears to be thriving and growing.

Lets see... promised a list of demands 3 months ago... coming soon. when will we get to those?

Who promised?

dialog? with who? this group has no leaders, so how can you have a dialogue with anyone?

Anyone can have a dialogue with anyone.

education? Great... can you point me out to the eduation that has been provided?

They do a lot of teach-ins, have many diverse speakers and have created a powerful focus on the finance industry

So far it seems to be educating young women to not report rapes.
non violent- whatever you say.

Childish banter. (Composition fallacy).

so there is a list of agreed upon demands/grievances that is available to anyone who is interested in finding out what OWS believes in...

No

where can i find that?

How does not having a list of grievances and demands equate with being unfocused and just protesting to protest?

at the same time we have seen "spikes in crime, drug usage, rape"
already reported on numerous times by other posters with things like links to the statistics and news reports. Maybe you missed them.

How do these spikes make you conclude that the movement is unfocused and just protesting to protest?

did you miss the field trip in NYC that went to the brooklyn bridge?
How about the Oakland one that shut down a port?
or the one that was trying to get into the banks in NYC?
or the march from NYC to DC?

Field trips for bored kiddies.

What is your evidence that any of the people who took part in any of those actions did in a way that is comparable to "field trips for bored kiddies"?

Since the start of the protests, we have seen them decide to take field trips, play the drums to all hours of the night, ignore each other, take on global warming and the rampant consumerism of black friday... if you can't see it, then maybe you should take a look at how poorly organized this "movement" is. Oh wait... I forgot, you can't judge the "movement" by any one member of it. That is why it is so nice to have no leaders... got it.

No, that isn't why they have no leaders. You haven't got it.

Rather than indulging in further camp diatribe, please explain how the above shows the movement to be "unfocused and just protesting to protest"?

ETA: on what the protesters are demanding a MUCH better look than Naomi Wolf was done by the Huffington post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-hayat/occupy-wall-street_b_1089079.html

it is rather telling that they come up with 9 main complaints from 100 responders... 9 categories with numerous subcategories. My personal favourite that is given by 1/5th of the respondents is "I don't know"

What's wrong with honestly admitting that one doesn't know ONE policy they'd enact to address America's problems today? I don't know one either. Do you?

Do you even think it's got problems?!

If you look at the list they came up with it is amazing that you get exactly the opposite answers in the same category. Enact glass stegal, repeal glass stegal. Universal healthcare, cheaper healthcare, individual health care. Tax the rich, cut taxes, tax everyone. Absolutely amazing. So no platform, no unifying beliefs or attitudes beyond, 'i'm pissed off and I want the government to do something.' Got it.

Where on the list is "i'm pissed off and I want the government to do something"?

I thought your complaint was that they haven't asked the government to do anything...

...and how unusual that a young, broad-based social movement should contain contradictory elements! Perhaps that's why their focus is on discussion rather than concrete demands.

The survey concludes [my hilites -JJ]:

"So what does the OWS Movement want? Our preliminary results suggest that the Occupy Wall Street movement has an array of political demands that are not very different from mainstream Americans. One things is for certain, there is a need for more data-driven analysis and less speculation with regard to the demands of this movement, especially as it continues to evolve."

Unsurprisingly, your cartoon version of the survey is an inaccurate, simplistic distortion (as cartoons tend to be). Where in the list, for example, does it say "Repeal the Glass-Stegall Act" or "Tax Everyone"?

 

[Brainster]

Sure, but you only have limits on direct financial contributions as I understand it, whereas we have limits on any contribution to an election campaign. In the UK, if you try to sway an election by printing £100k worth of leaflets, then if any connection is found between you and anyone at any level of importance in the party - business stakes, blood relations, friendships etc - you could be looking at jailtime. I don't think my freedom of speech is being repressed because i'm not allowed to try to financially manipulate the democratic process - do you believe yours would be?

So you think it's a good thing that you can't try to influence the democratic process? You mention one hundred pounds as (apparently) a trigger; how much is an endorsement on a significantly trafficked blog worth? Would you argue that bloggers should be thrown in jail? Or only bloggers who have some sort of relationship to party bigwigs? This is a very slippery slope.