" VOTE LIBERTARIAN!" bullshit they spewed.

join with the RightWingers in disparaging OWS.

Ron Paul types did appear last fall but they were a distinct minority. It smelled like opportunism to me.

It was easy enough to ignore them usually. The closer it got to the election, though, the less tolerable I found it.

My experience has been pretty nonpartisan, direct action oriented.

So yes, they have forgotten OWS it seems. Grist for the quadrennial electoral mill... no change possible except through the voting booth.

Given the voting registration drives.

Yes, some occupiers voted for Gary Johnson, and a good majority here are democrats, some even members of the Central Committee. How does that square with that supposed reality of yours?

is non political so maybe you need to change your sources.

It is well known that a majority of people involved in OWS are Democrats.

The tell the truth though so maybe that is hard to take for some people. No mincing of words when it comes to issues that are important to the American people.

That is what GOOD Democrats do. They are FOR helping people. Libertarians are for the opposite.

Your comment makes no sense at all.

It's embarrassing to be affiliated with it. I've been here long enough to suss out the best but a newbie doesn't have the same background knowledge that I have.

DU used to require some kind of credible backup to statements like this. But then it used to be mainly populated by progressive Dems.

Sometimes it's hard to tell you are on a Progressive forum here as I find myself arguing with people in the same way and about the same issues, that I used to only feel the need to argue with Republicans over.

Hopefully now they don't have the excuse of 'there's an election coming up' to try to silence the Left here, we can start moving forward on issues that badly need to be addressed with our own party.

They accept a lot of the corporate media premises which DU has traditionally been a check against. Many of us progressives are still around, but we lurk, because it gets tiresome arguing over shit that any real progressive wouldn't argue about.

"both sides are exactly the same!" and "vote third party!" and whatnot. I strongly doubt they were anything close to representative of OWS, or the election wouldn't have gone the way it did. Just a few squeaky wheels that got a little press time and attention.

I have one on my FB list, he's now sulking because his "Obama = Romney, vote third party!!" crap didn't work and is blaming Obama for everything that has ever gone wrong with the world. Boehner who? Bush what? Who were those guys again? It would be funny if it weren't so deluded; even funnier because he swears he's not influenced at all by the MSM, yet is pushing their talking points just as hard as he can.

do not support any political party or politician. However all politicians who agree with what they are doing, are welcome to be members, and so far as I know, the only politicians who have joined OWS, are Democrats. It is a natural fit for Democrats.

Otoh, we should not chase any US Citizen away from a Social Justice Movement. But OWS is probably the exact opposite in philosophy of the Libertarian philosophy so it's hard to image anyone conflating the two. OWS is all about helping people, Liberatarians are about people taking care of themselves.

I do think though that people can learn and be influenced when they see something that works. So while OWS is in no way a Libertarian movement and that any Libertarian identifying as a member definitely does not speak for them, I do think that getting away from demonizing people simply because we do not like their views, is refreshing. People can be respectful and even can come to agreement on issues if they are willing to talk and listen to each other.

One of the most destructive things affecting our country today is the divisive rhetoric that is part of our political discourse.

We are all Americans and I see more intelligent discussion about ISSUES rather than political ideology among people at OWS than in any other format. This gives me hope.

The main point is though that the statement that OWS is 'Libertarian' above is completely false.

that said OWS members were all junkies and rapists. Just media smear in action.

What possibly could be their motivation?

as they understand it.

Even the AP, in an article dated YESTERDAY, can't help itself.

Occupy Sandy: Onetime protesters find new cause

(snip)

Ultimately, though, the movement collapsed under its leaderless format, and Occupy became largely forgotten. But core members, and a spirit, have persisted and found a new cause in Occupy Sandy.

(snip)

In Rockaway Park, Occupier Diego Ibanez, 24, has been sleeping on the freezing floor of a community center down the street from a row of charred buildings destroyed by a fire. "You see a need and you fulfill it," he explained. "There's not a boss to tell you that you can't do this or you can't do that. Zuccotti was one of the best trainings in how to mobilize so quickly."

(snip)

"This is young people making history," said Mark Naison, a professor at Fordham University who has been studying Occupy Wall Street. "Young people who are refusing to let people suffer without putting themselves on the line to do something about it."


In this Thursday, Nov. 8, 2012 photo, at the Yana (You are Never Alone) medical clinic, Nastaran Mohit, with Occupy Sandy, right, speaks during an Occupy Sandy coordination meeting in the Rockaway Park neighborhood of Queens in New York. Along with other groups, Occupy Sandy has sprung up in an effort to bring goods and services to people left in need in the wake of Superstorm Sandy.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/11/10/3656490/occupy-sandy-onetime-protesters.html#storylink=cpy

It's disturbing how so many on this site can't wrap their brains around "leaderless format." And contrary to popular belief, it's not all white hipsters... a group some DUers bash with impunity. And even if it were, so fucking what? At least they're doing something...

Some may have preferences and voted them but the declaration of the NYC General Assembly says "no politics". Any individual promoting politics is not speaking for the entire movement.

the tone of the national dialogue from 'austerity' to 'fairness' when it most mattered.

Just to mention one OWS accomplishment.

The Ron Paul Libtards were at Occupy Los Angeles for its first two weeks and then vanished, once the principles and practices of Consensus made clear that they couldn't simply stamp their feet and get their way. Come to think of it, I never saw any Libtards at an OLA General Assembly. They would come with their signs during the day, but then fade away when the real meat and potatoes (the GAs) took place.

vote and yes they hate Obama. It was like Romney did not exist

Hate Obama? I am sure that is like news to them.

Many people have left them for dead, but they are still a force to reckon with. They are now going to be buying up discounted mortgages in New York(?) and turn around and forgive the loan. What a great idea.

to those who fear a real people's movement, which is as everyone knows, the Right who absolutely hated them from the beginning.

Occupy moved to dealing with fraudulent foreclosures and have had more success in helping the people than Congress in shaming Big Banks into stopping many of their cruel, illegal foreclosures. And in doing so they have grown in membership.

They are now all over the areas destroyed by Sandy and according to some news media outlets, have out-performed the Red Cross.

They are a growing movement still in its infancy but the way they were able to mobilize tens of thousands of volunteers for Sandy victims, and collect incredible amounts of donations, proves the Right Wing wrong, as if they are ever right about anything. Far from being dead, they are more active than ever.

+1

you told me this. I was a supporter way in the beggining. My wife and I went to McPherson Square in the dead of last winter when OWS (DC) was there. We gave money in support of their efforts. We weren't sure the movement would be able to contnue, but I optimistically told my wife that they will be a force going forward. Now they are and I'm glad for that. Helping people is a wonderful strategy and will payoff down the road.

Because nobody ever talked about those things before September 2011 - ever.

Plus all the hollering they did about 'no political affiliation'.

King, as leader of the SCLC had this to day about endorsements. (And, for an activist working on social and economic justice issues, I think it is an excellent position to take.)

for the movements that came before them, such as the Civil Rights Movements and took many of their ideas from them.

I can't imagine anyone thinking that a Social Justice Movement should join the poisonous partisan atmosphere of electoral politics and expect to have any success. I'm sure King had to deal with this kind of nonsense also though.

When even major media outlets credit them with that...I know, I know, you are really committed.

But for god sakes even the NYT went there.

I stopped seeing the 'major media outlets' as credible a very long time ago.

The notion that no one ever discussed income inequality and tax fairness before the launch of Occupy is utterly ridiculous.

To hear the OWSies tell the tale, an entire nation 'learned' about this disparity for the first time last September, having been completely in the dark before then.

The growing disparity between the very wealthy and the hard-working middle-class has been known, and has been a topic of heated conversation, since long before Occupy. OWS picked up on that conversation and ran with it - but to credit them with having started the discussion is silly at best.

The phrase "the top 1%", and all it implies, has been around for a very long time. Occupy turned the phrase around to focus on "the 99%" - a smart move and a catchy slogan. But OWS did not start the fire - it's been burnin' for years and years.

"I stopped seeing the 'major media outlets' as credible a very long time ago."
No one is arguing that point. Nadin was saying that even the right-leaning media has conceded that OWS has raised awareness of the growing income disparity. And I would add, on a international level which hasnt been seen before.

"The notion that no one ever discussed income inequality and tax fairness before the launch of Occupy is utterly ridiculous."
Absolutely, but again no one is arguing that OWS was the first ever.

"To hear the OWSies tell the tale, an entire nation 'learned' about this disparity for the first time last September, having been completely in the dark before then."
No one said "completely in the dark" besides you. I would say that OWS brought a great deal of attention that the media couldnt ignore from around the world.

I dont understand your animosity towards OWS. Care to explain?

You always seem to equate any disagreement with posts about Occupy as "animosity".

My animosity, if you can call it that, is towards those who give credit to OWS for things they have never accomplished. As I said in another post in this thread, Occupy took up the discussion about the disparity between the 1% and the 99% and ran with it - to their credit.

But they did not start that conversation, nor did they enlighten the populace on the topic as though no one knew about it before they came along.

The OP here states: "So much of the campaign dealt with income inequality and issues of tax fairness. I don't believe that this would have been possible without OWS."

That statement implies that the recent campaign would never have raised the topic of income disparity, etc., were it not for Occupy. And that's just downright ridiculous.

What they did was push it into the mainstream. I can tell you that I noticed a palatable change in the way people discussed wealth and inequality before and after OWS started. OWS made everybody aware of what was going on whereas before people that pointed out wealth inequality were viewed as somewhat fringe. After OWS, it was common knowledge and everybody was talking about it. And the Democrats in power did start to notice. I think it emboldened them to say things they otherwise would not have said. I also think things like California passing prop 30 and rejecting 32 came about because OWS helped change the way people think about wealth and power.

So you can go ahead and pretend that OWS did nothing to change this county or help get Obama reelected, but I assure you are very wrong on that.

I can tell you that I don't know of a single person who was unaware of the disparity between the 1% and the 99% before Occupy was ever even thought of.

I also know of no one who ever said, "I was totally unaware that the guy who owns the company I work for makes way more money than I do," or, "Until Occupy came along, I always assumed that the CEO of the corporation that employs me was living paycheck to paycheck, just like me."

If you go back through the DU archives - or those of any other political website - you will find post after post by people discussing this very issue long before OWS was ever launched. You will also find article after article about how CEOs and stockholders were reaping millions while the middle-class workers (whose labor made the profits by which the 1% enriched themselves) were well known long before September 2011.

You seem to want to believe that no one was aware of the facts until OWS came along and enlightened them. The citizenry is not as dumb as you seem to think they are - or were before OWS. And that's not because they were politically aware - it's because they were living with the consequences of that disparity on a daily basis. No one needed OWS to tell them the facts - they already knew them. Probably better than most.

Bush's former donors have 'switched to Obama'. And many people applauding that news. I remember feeling pretty uneasy about it at the time, but put it aside.

Anyone who was aware of the buying of our electoral system by Big Corps should not be happy that they are buying OUR party also. Our party should be working to change the laws that permit this.

Political junkies did know of the poisonous influence of money on elections, and many of them were becoming aware of the huge income disparity. But the message was not consolidated until OWS condensed it into easily remembered and understood sound bites.

To deny that is to deny reality. Wall Street certainly understood it which is why they spent money to try to drown out their message, but failed.

This movement didn't start here in the US. We were late to the game, but once it did, it spread rapidly which shows that there was a need for a coordination of what people individually knew, but had not been successful in putting into action.

NY State US Attorney Schneiderman credited OWS for giving him the public backing he needed from the people to resist the pressure on him to make a deal with the Banks that would left wrongfully foreclosed on homeowners with no option to get justice for the wrongs done to him.

I think he knows the power they had to bring attention to something Wall Street preferred to settle behind closed doors. I will take his word for the impact they have had.

Home owners Bill of Rights

Other pols have given obvious nods to OWS.

All you have to do is search "Summer Hathaway OWS" or "Summer Hathaway Occupy" on DU.

And you are attributing things that OWS never said....just breathtaking.

I hate to make this comparison, but you know what you remind me off on this? The crazy uncle we all have during thanksgiving that lives in their own reality. As it has been said many a times here, you have a right to your opinion, but not your own facts.

Breath taking indeed. You go on and take on CBC, BBC, The Observer (hardly left wing), the Guardan, and other international publications apart of our own. Their narratives as well, that also speak, at times with amazing flourish, of those facts you have a hell of a time comprehending.

Now I know, you are our local version of that crazy uncle. I suspected as much, but thank you for confirming such.

no one can top you.

if that was how things played out. But they didn't.

You talk about OWS representing a political movement. But they themselves denied wanting to be political - and I think the term adopted was "a social justice movement" that existed outside of "politics" as we've come to know it.

My problem with OWS is that their stated goals vary from day to day, from group to group. One city's OWS contingent says one thing, while another contingent in another city says something different.

You can't be a political movement representing the goals of the many when you are, depending on where you are, representing opposing points of view.

A social justice movement that is still evolving. That is not my imagination. That is a fact ...you have a right to your opinion, but not your own facts.

Yes, some of their actions were, and shockingly are still localized...heard of Tip O'Neil? Or are you too young? He used to say one thing that fully applies here..."all politics is local."

Yup, crazy uncle indeed.

So how do you explain even politicians themselves, kamela Harris comes to mind, acknowledging their role? Another one, Van Jones? I forgot, Leader Pelosi did as well, in passing. That was during the California Democratic Party Convention, where a good half of the San Diego delegations were Occupiers...and where Occupy buttons were sold and were popular at the dealers room.

Perhaps it is your blinders here at play. Serious.

for making the phrase "We are the 99%!" mainstream.

Unfortunately, making a phrase mainstream doesn't change anything - other than how the MSM idiots refer to those concerned with such things.

Democrats doing the same. They are willing to put their lives in jeopardy to call attention to the gross corruption of Wall Street.

why pointing out that Occupy did not start the discussion about the disparity between the 1% and the rest of us is 'disparaging' them. It is simply pointing out a fact.

Occupy initially focused its attention on that disparity. But to infer that they brought that disparity to everyone's attention, as though no one knew about it before, is truly naive.

Yes many of us knew about it BEFORE OWS... but not ENOUGH of the public did... UNTIL OWS made it clear to EVERYONE.

They changed the dialog of this election cycle.

that the average, middle class worker never knew that the CEO of the company he works for earns a seven-digit salary with bonuses while he and his fellow employees make a fraction of that?

Do you really think that people working for major corporations or retail chains never realized that they were working for a pittance as compared to the profits being generated by their labor - profits that wound up in the pockets of greedy upper management and stock-holders?

These disparities have been well known and oft discussed for decades.

"OWS made it clear to EVERYONE"? Really? Do you have any understanding of how irrelevant OWS is to millions of people, who have never paid any attention to anything they have to say?

EVERYONE - seriously? It's just this kind of rhetoric that makes OWS look ridiculous.

This was probably the FIRST TIME that the disparity you speak of, was main-streamed, graphed, and made obvious to the rest of the country.

If ENOUGH of us had been that well versed on the disparity in the past... as YOU suggest... than we would not have had a Republican President for the last 30 or so years.

Unless...WE ARE ALL IDIOTS LIVING UNDER ROCKS.

that the disparity between the 1% and the 99% was "made obvious to the rest of the country" - as though no one was ever aware of it before.

Are you seriously suggesting that Republicans have been elected in the past because NO ONE knew about that disparity, that the populace was totally unaware that some people made waaaay more money than others?

But we'll have to agree to disagree.

The "masses" were well aware of how they were getting ripped off. This was not late breaking news to anyone with a pulse.

Putting that aside for the moment, the "masses" were spurred to exactly what action by OWS? Camping out in public parks? Showing up at NatGat in Philly on the Fourth of July - all 300 to 400 of them?

Is that what Occupy provided as a means of "getting active"? And what exactly was accomplished as a result?

of the disparity between the 1% and the 99% was discussed - whether "socially acceptable" or not - long before Occupy ever happened. The recognition of what exists was not relegated to secret meeting places, or only spoken about in whispers before September 2011.

Yes, the phrase "the 99%" went mainstream. It was a clever turnaround of the phrase "the top 1%" which preceded it. And I give OWS all due credit for turning that phrase around to their advantage.

But that doesn't mean that no one knew, or discussed, the disparity between the two groups before Occupy existed.

that most of us, even those who were aware, missed until OWS came along?

I can link you to thousands of articles about this subject SINCE OWS, can you do the same BEFORE OWS?

And what was done about this disparity if everyone was so aware of it? Seems to me it was a rolling train, getting worse by the minute with nothing standing in its way.

No one was pointing at the train and demanding that it be stopped. Until OWS.

Knowing something is one thing, as an individual. Getting it into the mainstream and forcing a discussion about it, is something entirely different, and that is what OWS has done.

No one ever noticed the disparity between the 1% and the 99% before Occupy came along, nor did anyone discuss it. Ever.

the only here making that claim. What did not happen obviously was that anything got done about it, or that it became a mainstream issue. Considering how that gap just kept growing obviously just talking about it in private or on an occasional talk show, did nothing to bring it into the Mainstream consciousness which is what is needed to get an effective action taken. Politicians were still talking about American Workers 'sharing the sacrifice' 'eating their peas' etc and warning about cuts to Social Programs, UNTIL OWS dragged it all into the National Spotlight and forced Politicians to refrain from their Austerity language which had now been publicly called out.

So I asked you to provide something to show that Income Disparity, Money in Politics and its poisonous effects on the system, was a mainstream topic of conversation before OWS so much so that something was done about it. And your response tells me what I know already, there are no such links. The gap was widening with little action or even talk to try to stop it.

to identify the income disparity. So please, please stop using that argument.

OWS took action at the risk of their health and lives to bring GREATER attention to the fact that Wall Street was running the country. Thousands protested AROUND THE WORLD. And they succeeded.

Now why are you so vehemently against OWS? Why do you take the side of the Reich Wing in this matter? I find it very disturbing.

you choose to characterize my indifference to Occupy as "being vehemently against" it, or taking the side of the Reich Wing.

I am neither for nor against - I am indifferent, and see them as largely irrelevant.

Please proceed to spin indifference into something else entirely, as you insist on doing - which I find to be very disturbing indeed.

If you were indifferent you'd move on, about oh eight months go. That's what indifferent people do.

I am, however, not indifferent to those who claim to have accomplished things they never did.

I mean the AG for the State of California disagrees with you, how do you square that round peg? That is what we call, in the real world where I live, a fact.

I know they are pesky these facts, but hey, at least they are real...not whatever fox nooz nose you like to spread.

You are really entertaining.

And for somebody who is really not interested you are FIXATED.

as always, you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And I find it extremely tiresome to try and make sense of whatever it is you're attempting to say.

That Kamela Harris has credited occupy? Not surprising that this would make no sense to you. It truly violates your word view.

And for somebody not interested with the subject at hand, you are fixated.

Just look at this thread alone. You clearly have an agenda.

to get sucked into these threads - much against my own better judgment - when I see people attributing credit to OWS for things they haven't accomplished.

The Occupy response to Sandy victims has been nothing less than laudable. And their current idea of purchasing and then 'forgiving' debt shows great initiative, as well as a creative solution to a pressing problem.

However, when I see people positing that OWS should not be forgotten for their contribution to Obama's re-election, it does get my back up. Especially when there were outspoken OWSies who were claiming that "both parties are the same", or that people should vote for Romney in order to hasten the 'revolution' that would inevitably ensue.

My only 'agenda' is to point out the facts - which are often at odds with Occupy's version of events.

socialists, and crazies. They dont speak for the movement.

Our ship of state is sinking. Pres Obama has done some patching but not enough to save some that have lost jobs, homes and retirements. It's not the President's fault but the ship is still sinking. I work first hand with people affected by this mess and the frustration is growing. I applaud OWS for their fortitude to protest in the face of a police state that will beat them and shoot them with gas canisters. I dont like it when the Reich-Wing and the complicit media spews hatred toward them.

And when nobody speaks for it, everybody speaks for it.

Some of the most interesting data that the new focus on inequality has provided has been in the wide distribution of those utterly stunning graphs of people's assumptions about the degree of wealth the one percent hoard in this country, versus how much they actually hoard.

People have, of course, realized that they are struggling. Most had no fucking idea of the utter obscenity and scale of the theft, or to what degree it is attributable to deliberate policy, before Occupy started bringing these issues to the mainstream.



Estimates of wealth distribution are widely wrong
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/estimates-of-wealth-distribution-are-widely-wrong/

Americans are horribly misinformed about who has money in this country
http://www.good.is/posts/americans-are-horribly-misinformed-about-who-has-money/

Ive reviewed your posts and you have NEVER supported economic equality


You seem to support vulture capitalism

Do you have any answer?

Please provide the appropriate links that demonstrate my apologizing for the 1%, my support of vulture capitalism, or my non-support of economic equality.

with thinly veiled remarks and misdirection who supports OWS


but fear not, there are plenty of other "pragmatic" posters such as yourself,


Unfortunately for you, its transparent and obvious what type of system you support


Mitt and Capitalism lost

You have absolutely no evidence to support your allegations against me.

Sounds rather RW to me, actually - insisting that someone holds a certain political view, but can't point to anything that supports the contention.

Yes, Mitt lost - I suspect that makes you incredibly sad.

when it comes to supporting OWS. Have you heard of the term PROJECTION?


Freepers and racists and homophobes have a violent hatred of OWS.

You seem to support their views.

Have you considered that you support the same exact views that freepers and racists and homophobes have?

Hatred and ignorance is NOT a Democratic value Summer Hathaway

to post links to "my views" that support your contentions, or demonstrate my support of the views of "freepers, racists, and homophobes".

Please also include links to where I have expressed 'hatred' of OWS, rather than indifference.

You're right in that 'hatred and ignorance' are not Democratic values. So why are you spewing hatred and ignorance towards someone who disagrees NOT with the Party or the Party's president, but with YOU?

What do you buy your groceries with? Shiny rocks?

The hyperbole used in this thread has the opposite effect from what you seem to want -it turns people off from OWS.

I think we have a lot of areas where we are in agreement and can mutually support OWS if the hyperbole would only go away.

go support Papa John who made his fortune ripping off his employees and customers to enrich himself to live in a castle

No one is buying the capitalists propaganda anymore

Its why tens of millions have to rely on food stamps to get buy so that the Papa Johns of America can live in gated castles with a moat

Unbridled Capitalism is always a problem and Republicans have done their damnedest to create a 'frictionless economy', one without any checks and balances.

It's up to us to see that that doesn't happen. And if OWS can help in that direction, all the better. But I don't see anyone saying they hate OWS.

What some find distasteful is the hyperbole. OWS is not perfect. It has screwed up in the past and it has done some great things in the past. I fail to see why anyone wants to disagree with that.

OWS and the people of America have spoken.

They are tired of being ripped off by Capitalism. They dont want their labor and hard work to be exploited anymore by Capitalist vultures who only care for money and greed.

Republicans LOVE Capitalism. They LOVE Profit over people's lives

The American people are tired of being exploited for profit.

Its that simple, and Everyone can see right through the Profit Propaganda that defines the Republican Party

I saw a lot of posts at Townhall saying the same thing.

How was the dialogue changed?

There have been tens of thousands of words, spoken and written, about the disparity between the 1% and the 99% for a very long time. If you accept that that dialogue has been ongoing since long before OWS, how did they 'change' that dialogue?

I would quickly agree that OWS took that topic and focused on it as part of their initial raison d'etre. But they neither started that conversation (as many OWSies claim), nor did they change it.

There is the other side of this in that OWS has repeatedly held itself out as non-political - and now they want credit for their contribution to Obama's re-election (or at least some of their supporters do).

The last quote I saw in this election cycle from an OWSie (which was posted here on DU) was that people should vote Romney, so as to speed up the process of citizens being so disgusted with the government they would be moved to do something about it. That doesn't sound like "helping" to change the dialogue in any positive way.