ATS and OWS: What the heck, ATS?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by nenothtu

 

yes yes, "There's no focus, there's no focus, there's no focus, there's no focus, there's no focus" - repeat the lie often enough, like a mantra, and... and... Nope, it still won't be true.

True enough, just as repeating the mantra "is too! is too!" will not magically make that true. What is needed to confirm a focus is a practical declaration of what that focus IS, rather than a mere half-hearted affirmation that there's one there somewhere, if one only digs deep enough. Most humans are fickle creatures with short attention spans, and will not bother to do the digging - you have to present the case to them, or they will simply move on to the next "cause".

The focus is on a core of interrelated problems that stem from the common root cause - the corruption of our political system by the efforts of moneyed interests. Any one of these individual problems could be addressed on its own, sure. But that would leave the others swinging, wouldn't it?

Ok, we're getting somewhere now. The "core of interrelated problems" is no more an issue than the Gordian Knot turned out to be. They are side-tracks, unworthy of contempt. One does not address them in their multiplicity, one addresses their stem, and, once cut, watches the side issues wither on the vine.

The stem you identify is "the common root cause - the corruption of our political system by the efforts of moneyed interests". THAT is where the focus belongs, and where the work can be done, and - not coincidentally - where you can gain support by placing the focus. The ridiculous lists of demands and issues in all their multiplicity should be done away with post haste. They only serve to steal the focus, and keep it jumping from point to point. By bringing in the side issues, all that OWS does is to alienate support.

Now, depending on who you include or exclude as "moneyed interests", I may or may not be able to get aboard.

it's not "lack of focus," it's "a broad focus."

You may not be familiar with the concept of "focus". "Broad focus" means "unfocused". It comes from the practice of broadening the spot of a spot light by... taking away the focus.

Doesn't really matter though, does it? We're beyond that now. We have a focus.

I've taken out the quotes of the amendments, for the sake of brevity. The first one you list, I could almost get behind. it would need some tweaking as to specificity, but it's heart is in the right place. The second wouldn't even give me indigestion if I wanted to buy a politician and had the money to do so.

Personally, I think both of them provide far too many loopholes and workarounds to be effective, but the second one much more so. I believe that ALL political donations should be banned. Corporate, union, foreign, or citizen. ALL political donations, in any form, from any source. SEVERE limits on any personal expenditures on a campaign from any candidate. I don't say "severe" lightly, either. I mean SEVERE. South of 100k per election cycle severe... maybe WAY south of that.

You see, if you disallow ALL political donations, well that slams nearly all of the loopholes shut, leaving no workarounds, and all else is criminal, subject to punishment. It also eliminates the issue or non-issue, wherever one stands on it, of "corporate personhood". Doesn't matter if they are or aren't "persons", since either way they can no longer buy influence.

Now that's only one head of the hydra, but by identifying that core issue to address, it considerably reduces the number of points to address, paring them down to a manageable size even for us short attention span folks. Another biggie in need of a solution, and in the same vein, stemming from the same core, is the institution of lobbying. I suppose you can guess where I stand on that from my treatment of campaign donations. It's pretty much the same stance for lobbying, to include ALL lobbyists, from corporations to unions to even the NRA and AARP. Outlaw the practice altogether, and there aren't any more loopholes or workarounds.

NO ONE should be able to buy their very own politician for Christmas by any means, unless they own their own island and are planning to set up their own country, and want to buy their kids a couple of politicians to be kept on the island.

This is what I would call a "broad focus". Really more of an overview, and the details of the mechanics could be worked out once I had people on board with the basic premise.

There! Wasn't that fun?

Originally posted by elvaanseifer
reply to post by elvaanseifer

 

I guess I would ask then what rallies you have been to lately where people mostly disagree with you? I think your original question is why don't more ATS members support OWS. And I think its pretty clear it is because they don't agree with their ideas.

First off, I don't really cut myself into "socialist" or "capitalist." I have some strong criticisms for "straight" capitalism, but my lack of mirroring complaints about "straight" socialism is likely due to having never once experienced it. My view is, these two are simply systems. I see others treat them as ideologies, or even religion, and it strikesme as dumber than hell. The best system is one that works, and as anyone who has ever run Windows Vista knows, oftentimes the best way to get a system to work is to doctor it up. So I'm not a "socialist," though I favor some socialist ideas and hteories. Nor am I a "capitalist," though I can see merits in that system as well.

Take the parts of either that actually work for the current circumstances, and use them. When the circumstances change, change the system. Slavish adherence to one economic religion or another is ridiculous.

And my question was more along the lines of why there is so much scorn and disgust out there. "I disagree" is one thing but I've seen people openly advocating murder of protestors, I've seen people wishing for them to get maimed, all sorts of crazy stuff. And that's just what stands out amid a general miasma of constantly-repeated BS. it's one thing to disagree with something if you understand what it is you're disagreeing with. But it seems to me a lot of people have no understanding, don't want to understand, and want to prevent others from understanding as well.

reply to post by trust_no_one


Oh, they have solutions alright, mostly the current platform of the Democrat Party...sad to say.

Originally posted by nenothtu
True enough, just as repeating the mantra "is too! is too!" will not magically make that true. What is needed to confirm a focus is a practical declaration of what that focus IS, rather than a mere half-hearted affirmation that there's one there somewhere, if one only digs deep enough. Most humans are fickle creatures with short attention spans, and will not bother to do the digging - you have to present the case to them, or they will simply move on to the next "cause".

Then frankly, it's their loss. People who want to know will find out. People who are looking for 10-second soundbytes were probably just going to stay home to watch Dancing with the Stars anyway. I, for one, am dead against catering to the anti-intellectualization of my own nation.

The stem you identify is "the common root cause - the corruption of our political system by the efforts of moneyed interests". THAT is where the focus belongs, and where the work can be done, and - not coincidentally - where you can gain support by placing the focus. The ridiculous lists of demands and issues in all their multiplicity should be done away with post haste. They only serve to steal the focus, and keep it jumping from point to point. By bringing in the side issues, all that OWS does is to alienate support.

I disagree. Again, I look back to the civil rights movement. Yes, the "core issue" was systemic racism, but the things you would have been calling "side issues" were what "brought it home." The white majority of the nation probably couldn't have related too well with just a "core message of "end systemic racism," but when you got them thinking about whether they would want to be denied service at a lunch counter for reasons beyond their control? When you made them imagine how it felt to be blasted with a fire hose for the crime of using your 1st amendment rights? Then you got them thinking about those things together... which brought them into the "big picture."

Granted, "get money out of politics" is probably a more majority-charismatic issue than that example. But the so-called "side issues" need to remain as demonstrations of what the core issue causes, to make it relatable

Big block of everything else

Yeah, edited your stuff out of there Those two amendments are stull in "draft" stage, after all. I hope you're not expecting perfection, a month in?

I'd be fine with ending all lobbying, sure. However, this would call for a public election fund - we can't pretend campaigning is cost-free, even in a "clean" system. And we also can't just "pretend" to change the funding mechanisms, which would result in only personally wealthy candidates being eligible for office. Municipal, State, and federal election funds.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Yeah I don't condone any kind of trash talk or violence. I think that comes from both sides and is a distraction from progress. I did actually stop by my OWS location in phoenix. But I didn't stay long because it was downtown, and I didn't want to keep feeding the parking meter. I was pretty quiet cause I was there like at 7 am. So maybe the biggest reason I don't support OWS is cause I am too cheap to pay to park and to lazy to ride the bus :-)

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Typical. Your response shows your lack of vision. It is obvious from your post that people who do not see things as you do are programmed or somehow lacking in abilities to comprehend what you believe. God forbid people that believe differently from you. There are many people, perhaps not on this site, who do not subscribe to your way of thinking. I can tell you why these folks do not support people of this type:

These people see no other point of view other than their own. Anyone who is not a true believer is suspect. Anyone who is indifferent is regarded as hostile. Your assumption that opposing views are scorning you, mocking you, ETC do not take into account the fact that not everyone believes as you do.

All of a sudden...everyone that opposes your way of thinking is somehow a shill, brainwashed, a paid instigator, a liar, and so on. It is attitudes like yours and everyone who agrees with you that creates discord on this planet. Holy crap!!! These people do not believe the same as me!!! They are the enemy!! Childish nonsense.

I am glad we have an opposition. If we did not we would experience another French Revolution style uprising complete with the Reign of Terror.

Practices surely need to change in this world but this leaderless movement without any concrete goals IS NOT the way.

reply to post by My_Reality


Movement leaders have a bad habit of either selling out or getting their heads blown off. Thanks for the advice, but we seem to be doing fine without having any preeminent targets at the helm, you know?

And as I said just a post upthread; disagree all you like. Just make sure you understand what it is you're disagreeing with and why.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Then frankly, it's their loss. People who want to know will find out. People who are looking for 10-second soundbytes were probably just going to stay home to watch Dancing with the Stars anyway. I, for one, am dead against catering to the anti-intellectualization of my own nation.

Don't cry about opposition if you're not willing to garner support, then!

Granted, "get money out of politics" is probably a more majority-charismatic issue than that example. But the so-called "side issues" need to remain as demonstrations of what the core issue causes, to make it relatable

Gotta get their attention before you start schooling them on the intricacies of the branching, The Civil Rights illustration is an imperfect choice - there weren't nearly as many unrelated branchings in it as OWS is demonstrating. People aren't getting to see your core issue because one or another, and sometimes multiples, of those unrelated branch issues are poking them in the eyes first.

Those two amendments are stull in "draft" stage, after all. I hope you're not expecting perfection, a month in?

Sure I am! Aren't you the one who schooled me on how the Russian revolution was completed from conception to mop up in 13 days? Just drafting a single amendment ought to be child's play compared to that.

Further, it has become glaringly apparent that this thing has been in the planning stages for far longer than the 50 or so days they've had mobs in the streets. It seems to me they perhaps ought to have had a more solid plan to lead in with, but that's probably just me.

I'd be fine with ending all lobbying, sure. However, this would call for a public election fund - we can't pretend campaigning is cost-free, even in a "clean" system. And we also can't just "pretend" to change the funding mechanisms, which would result in only personally wealthy candidates being eligible for office. Municipal, State, and federal election funds.

Yup, public election fund, to be apportioned among the candidates. each fund to be at the level of the election the candidate is running in - Federal, State, or Local, although in the current conception, it's more focused on the Federal level. States and localities may have their own ideas, and since the politicians elected at those levels are limited to action at those levels, I see no reason to ignore the 10th Amendment. Let the People have the politicians they want, so long as they don't have the power to reach and harm the rest of us.

Mandated air time for campaign commercials by the FCC, with concurrent outlawing of "third party" commercials for or against any candidate as illegal campaign contributions.

The personally wealthy candidates are the reason I said to SEVERELY curtail their personal expenditures into the campaign. Just as no one should be able to buy a politician of their very own, no one should be able to buy a political office of their very own.

See? Some of the detail are already being ironed out!

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Wonderfully stated, Fox.

I have a feeling that there have been lurkers waiting in the wings to counter OWS support. I find it strange that there have been flocks of newbees shortly before all of this began. We already know that the CIA has been monitoring social networking sites and those who are monitoring these sites are well versed in linguistic programming and memes. They used this to know when to act.

Another thing is that many people need to be told what something is about. They cannot and will not think for themselves. They want the MSM to announce on the 6 o'clock news what the protesters want. This isn't going to happen. The MSM and several other information outlets breed confusion. Confusion is another way to control the masses. Just look at the "leaders" in the major Occupy towns who keep flipflopping on whether or not they'll allow the protesters to stay or go. One day, they tell the cops to clear them out, then 24 hours later, they say it's OK for them to remain. This causes nothing but confusion and frustration. Order out of chaos.

Something else I'd like to mention is that OWS needs to be viewed in the same light as school, the mall, and ATS. Nobody who attends school is there for the same reasons others are. Some are there to learn, some are there for the popularity contest, some are there to sell drugs, some are there because it gets them away from their home life for a few hours a day, etc. Just like ATS, it would be pretty boring if everyone was here to converse about aliens and UFOs.

To those who are saying that the protests haven't done anything positive. Could this be because our "leaders" haven't budged on anything? I wrote a thread about the protests and how to tell when they're working, but I haven't seen our politicians address one of those points I listed!
You can read it here if you so choose: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Many people are here to push the blue pill on us, but for those who have already taken the red pill cannot turn back now. Things are going to be so bright soon that even those who have swallowed the blue pill won't be able to block the light out with their ultra dark sunglasses. These are the ones who are going to suffer in the end while the rest of us laugh and point.

The final thing I'd like to add is that you need to keep your wits about you and take notice to certain members' posting patterns. This will tell you a lot and enable you to see things more clearly.

Best wishes!

I know its a little late after your post but I do like to read all threads and im sure this wont go anywhere anyway.

I really think people give too much credit to the CIA / FBI. If someone was monitoring the internet for homegrown 'troublemakers'it would be the FBI - the very same FBI that is trying to fight terrorists of perhaps Islamic orientation. CIA more overseas. trying to fight the more Islamic fundamentalists.

Given their funding (I earn double what an Australian íntelligance peraon does at the top of their banding and I am not even middle management) I know US is different but lets just say, its not the best brains in the country working for the CIA/FBI, they work for google, microsoft etc etc and moonlight.

I really do not beleive TPTB have a big grasp on Anonymous, OWS or any other social media, the ones getting caught are the small fry.

When Clinton, Reagon and Bush et al cut the CIA n FBI budgets, they left a void that will take decades to fill, your MIBs are chasing their tales, they are on the back foot and starting from the pits, unless the US invests heavily in intelligence forget anything more elaborate than Trolling ATS - but thats what you said...right?