OCCUPY WALL STREET

[SoNotHer]

Missoula Voters Say Corporations Are Not People, Demand Constitutional Amendment


November 8, 2011

By: Keila Szpaller

The Missoulian

Corporations aren't people, an overwhelming 75 percent of Missoula voters said Tuesday, and they don't want corporations treated like people either.

"I'm over the moon about it," said Councilwoman Cynthia Wolken, who brought the referendum to the Missoula City Council to place on the ballot.
The measure - similar to others across the country - calls on the U.S. Congress and state leaders to amend the U.S. Constitution to say that "corporations are not human beings." It earned 10,729 votes in favor and 3,605 against.

The resolution isn't binding, but it does send a message that's gaining momentum nationwide. Wolken said she planned on being satisfied to capture more than 50 percent of the vote, "really happy" with more than 60 percent, and "over the moon" with anything more.

"Basically, it affirmed what we were all seeing on the streets, which is the average Missoulian wanted to have their voice heard ... and they want their elected officials to fix the problem of corporate personhood," Wolken said. "So I hope this message is heard and we get started on fixing the problem."

As she sees it, corporations have been given too much power, and as stated in the Missoula resolution, their "profits and survival are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings." The movement to amend the U.S. Constitution launched in earnest in January 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, overruling two precedents. It stated the government can't ban campaign spending on elections by corporations because that would be unduly regulating speech.

According to the local resolution, the ruling on Citizens United corrupts one foundation of democracy by "rolling back legal limits on corporate spending in the electoral process."

"(The decision) ... allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection, policy decisions and sway votes," reads the Missoula resolution. Councilwoman Wolken said the Missoula city clerk likely will prepare a letter to send to state and national leaders urging the amendment once the office has finished work on a more pressing priority, replacing the Municipal Court judge. She also said she expects action from state legislators as well.

"I have no doubt that when the legislative session starts back up, that this will be on the top of the list," Wolken said.

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/mis...#ixzz1dBmlCZqE

or at-
http://movetoamend.org/news/missoula...onal-amendment

[Cin]

Rep. Joe Walsh yells at constituents: Don’t blame the banks

Republican Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois became noticeably upset during a meeting with his constituents in Gurnee over the weekend after it was suggested that financial regulatory reform would be beneficial.

One person in the UNO Bar & Grill pointed out that people in the banking industry often occupied positions at federal agencies charged with regulating the financial sector.

“I agree with you about that,” he yelled. “That’s not the problem!”

“The problem is you’ve got to be consistent,” Walsh said. “And I don’t want government meddling in the marketplace. Yeah, they move from Goldman Sachs to the White House, I understand all of that. But you gotta’ be consistent. And it’s not the private marketplace that created this mess. What created mess this mess is your government, which has demanded for years that everybody be in a home. And we’ve made it easy as possible for people to be in homes. All the marketplace does is respond to what the government does. The government sets the rules.”

“Don’t blame banks, and don’t blame the marketplace for the mess we’re in right now,” he continued. “I am tired of hearing that crap!”



The problem is you've got to be consistent he says. Well he certainly is that as is the republican party in general. They are still spouting the same old bull shit about people buying homes they can't afford being the cause of the financial crisis being heard around the world. I'm sure pressed he would explain about it being the fault of minorities buying those houses they couldn't afford.

I wonder what he means buy saying "your government". Is it no longer his government? He's washing his hands of it I guess.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Rep. Joe Walsh yells at constituents: Don’t blame the banks

Republican Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois became noticeably upset during a meeting with his constituents in Gurnee over the weekend after it was suggested that financial regulatory reform would be beneficial.

One person in the UNO Bar & Grill pointed out that people in the banking industry often occupied positions at federal agencies charged with regulating the financial sector.

“I agree with you about that,” he yelled. “That’s not the problem!”

“The problem is you’ve got to be consistent,” Walsh said. “And I don’t want government meddling in the marketplace. Yeah, they move from Goldman Sachs to the White House, I understand all of that. But you gotta’ be consistent. And it’s not the private marketplace that created this mess. What created mess this mess is your government, which has demanded for years that everybody be in a home. And we’ve made it easy as possible for people to be in homes. All the marketplace does is respond to what the government does. The government sets the rules.”

“Don’t blame banks, and don’t blame the marketplace for the mess we’re in right now,” he continued. “I am tired of hearing that crap!”



The problem is you've got to be consistent he says. Well he certainly is that as is the republican party in general. They are still spouting the same old bull shit about people buying homes they can't afford being the cause of the financial crisis being heard around the world. I'm sure pressed he would explain about it being the fault of minorities buying those houses they couldn't afford.

I wonder what he means buy saying "your government". Is it no longer his government? He's washing his hands of it I guess.

OMG what a %@*#&@!! <--- ain't gonna say the word that actually came to mind.

I hope this video goes viral and he is hated and picketed for this. He needs to be voted or kicked out of office for verbally abusing his constituents.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

OMG what a %@*#&@!! <--- ain't gonna say the word that actually came to mind.

I hope this video goes viral and he is hated and picketed for this. He needs to be voted or kicked out of office for verbally abusing his constituents.

Walsh makes me sick and I think he is unstable, I really do. Plus, he ran out on his kids and wife and owes over 100K in back child support. Real family values kind of guy! So tired of GOP/TP hypocrites!! He is more than an arrogant jerk- he's on the edge.

[SoNotHer]

The OWS stuff is starting to get to them - and he's a hot mess.

In another part of the state, how cool that seniors got arrested in Chicago!

Thanks for the videos Miss Tick and Ebon.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Rep. Joe Walsh yells at constituents: Don’t blame the banks

Republican Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois became noticeably upset during a meeting with his constituents in Gurnee over the weekend after it was suggested that financial regulatory reform would be beneficial.

One person in the UNO Bar & Grill pointed out that people in the banking industry often occupied positions at federal agencies charged with regulating the financial sector.

“I agree with you about that,” he yelled. “That’s not the problem!”

“The problem is you’ve got to be consistent,” Walsh said. “And I don’t want government meddling in the marketplace. Yeah, they move from Goldman Sachs to the White House, I understand all of that. But you gotta’ be consistent. And it’s not the private marketplace that created this mess. What created mess this mess is your government, which has demanded for years that everybody be in a home. And we’ve made it easy as possible for people to be in homes. All the marketplace does is respond to what the government does. The government sets the rules.”

“Don’t blame banks, and don’t blame the marketplace for the mess we’re in right now,” he continued. “I am tired of hearing that crap!”



The problem is you've got to be consistent he says. Well he certainly is that as is the republican party in general. They are still spouting the same old bull shit about people buying homes they can't afford being the cause of the financial crisis being heard around the world. I'm sure pressed he would explain about it being the fault of minorities buying those houses they couldn't afford.

I wonder what he means buy saying "your government". Is it no longer his government? He's washing his hands of it I guess.

[Cin]

Occupy Wall Street Is Not a Spectator Sport: 5 Ways the 99 Percent Can Contribute to the Movement Right Now
by Les Leopold
How can the rest of the 99 percent demonstrate our outrage? Here are five things we can do, without parking a tent in the street.

Let’s take a look at where we are right now. There is battle royale underway between inhabitants of two entirely different universes over what’s wrong with our nation and what should be fixed.

On the one hand, the entire political establishment, blessed by Wall Street, wants the conversation to be all about debt and “entitlements." We are told 24/7 that we’re living over our heads, that our social safety net is too expensive, and that we need to cut, cut, cut trillions of dollars from public budgets so we don’t become the next Greece.

In that framework the only question is how much to cut and how much we should sacrifice. The so-called liberal position is that the rich should pay a bit more while the rest of us suffer cuts in education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. (Please note that taxes on Wall Street are not on the table.) The “grand bargain” is all about how much we will have to pay for the economic collapse caused by Wall Street. It's also a loser because the more we cut, the longer unemployment will last, and the more fiscal distress we’ll face as tax revenues stall.

On the other side is the framework that Occupy Wall Street successfully put into play. It argues that Wall Street should pay for the mess it created. It suggests that the issue is employment for the many, not debt repayments for the few. It also gets us to face up to myriad of ways that income inequality is hollowing out our society, destroying the middle-class and increasing poverty. It points the finger at those who crashed our economy and it demands reparations. And it does all this without making any specific demands. It doesn’t have to. It just needs to be the living embodiment of the many versus the few.

That’s the fight. So how can we enlist? Sure, some of us can go down to our local encampment and join the party. But if you’re old like me, or if you have a job and a family, you’re not likely to head out to your local town square and sleep on the concrete. So that raises the critical question: How can the rest of the 99 percent demonstrate our outrage?

Here are five things we can do, without parking a tent somewhere:

1. Get Your Non-Profits into Gear

If you work for a non-profit of any kind (like a labor union, an environmental group, a church organization, etc.) then insist that your organization devote at least 10 percent of its resources to protesting against Wall Street. There are probably 500,000 full-time staff working for unions, community organizations and environmental groups all across the country. Imagine if each week, each of those staffers put in two hours protesting at an Occupy Wall Street site. Combine that with a little organizing to bring out the rank-and-file, and we’re talking about a quantum leap in the size of the anti-Wall Street presence.

Of course, you might get stiff opposition from progressive non-profit leaders. After all, their organizations are set up to press important issues that might not seem to have any direct connection to the Wall Street mess. But it shouldn’t take much to show that the Wall Street crash is a game-changer. It should be clear by now that we can’t make progress on our individual issues unless we join together to reclaim our country from the Wall Street elites.

2. Organize Teach-ins about Wall Street’s Casino Economy

If you are affiliated with any academic institution or high school, this is the perfect time to organize teach-ins that target financial elites. We need large forums where information can be shared about our dismal distribution of income, how Wall Street took down the economy, how money is influencing politics, and how jobs can be created. And be sure to invite the community. Americans are just waking up to how much they’ve been ripped off. The educational task is just beginning and teach-ins can push it along in a hurry.

3. Terminate Your Bank Accounts in Public

If you’re going to withdraw your accounts from the major banks, then do it with gusto. At the very least we should try to use our new social media to pick a common time and location to close out our accounts together. We could even have a card-burning event in plain view. (Unlike burning your draft card in the old days, it’s perfectly legal to burn your credit card…outdoors, that is.)

4. Start a “99 Percent Club”

Americans lead the world in setting up new civic organizations. How about launching “99 Percent clubs” in your neighborhood and town? For starters, your club could brainstorm public actions to demonstrate anger at Wall Street. A silent vigil every Friday afternoon at one of the local banks would be a good start. (“Honk if you feel ripped off by Wall Street!")

Each group could develop imaginative actions that could grow in size, and that could gain the attention of the local media. Our social media could easily spread the best actions to other groups. And once you do get the ball rolling, build up your events by talking with your neighbors. I don’t think many doors will slam in your face. Instead, you’ll probably find a lot of angry people looking for ways to contribute.

5. Convince Yourself That You Can Make a Difference

Perhaps the most important act of defiance starts in our heads. We need to believe that real change is possible and that each of us can contribute. We’ve got to get over the idea that someone else – a political knight in shining armor -- is going to do it for us. We have to face up to the fact that very few politicians have the guts to challenge Wall Street. So it’s on us. This doesn’t mean that each of us has to be a superhero and lock ourselves to the gates of Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase. But each of us needs to do something concrete. At the very least we need to show up from time to time at our local Occupy Wall Street site.

Why would that matter? Because the currency of a populist movement is feet on the street. We need to publicly display our support in any way we can. As long as there is something called free will, each of us has the opportunity to go somewhere and publicly show that we are part of the irate 99 percent. We need to publicly display our anger at rule by a faction of the 1 percent.

Add to this list: Those of us trying to build up a new populist movement don’t have the answers. Our most useful role is to provide information, make the frameworks clear and push the discussion. The really good ideas seem like they magically appear. In fact, they are produced by the clash and exchange of ideas involving tens of thousands of people. We all need to dream them up, share them and bat them around until something clicks.

All we know for sure is that something is clicking right now. We have America’s attention….for now. And if we want this moment to last and develop, then each of us needs to add to this list. What can we do to show our support for the 99 percent? What can we do to protest against rule by financial elites? How do we build up this fledgling movement?

It’s your turn. Let ‘er rip!

[Gráinne]

I have a few questions about OWS's mission, and I mean no snark, but it's been bothering me:

1. Let's say I become wealthy purely on hard work and a good idea or three (I'm not, but hypothetically). Does this make me one of the "few"? And if OWS is for income redistribution, exactly how much would I have to distribute, and why? If I manage to get rich, no one should be allowed to tell me differently or what I can do with my earnings. (I'm not talking about charity-which many billionaires create and/or support).

2. Along that idea, would there be a maximum salary any one person could earn? And if so, who would enforce this, since OWS seems not to have any one leader?

3. Most of us wouldn't be here if some of the "few" in England hadn't decided to start a colony, the purpose of which was to make a profit. I think that's a fairly common human motivation-making a profit. How does this jibe with OWS's theories of equality?

4. I saw some of the most appalling poverty in communist China-supposedly a society set up with far more equality than our own. Yet there, and in Russia, there were always a "few" and a whole lot of "many". Is the kind of society OWS envisions even possible, if income equality and redistribution taken to its extreme doesn't work?

5. Why isn't OWS really protesting in Washington, at the government that passed the regulations that ultimately created this situation?

I am not starting a fight, but I thought of these questions-and more-this weekend. And before I support any movement, I want to know what it is I'm supporting behind the slogans.

[persiphone]

1. define wealth. also, no one gets rich here "on their own". this concept always annoys me. goods are moved on roads tax payers pay for and labor isn't an invisible force that gets no credit for aiding in making someone else wealthy. it is unethical to make piles of cash using a system we all pay for and then use that money to buy lawmakers to make the not rich people's lives more difficult in effort to make more money. there are many very very wealthy folks who agree with this, btw, and support paying more taxes because they know they can more than afford it.

2. a maximum salary for whom? let's assume you're talking about the not rich. there seems to be earning caps dictated by big business and the loss of manufacturing due to American businesses going overseas. is there a magic number across all professions? no, cuz that would be silly. enforcement of salaries (for those that actually get a salary) can be enforced with unions but they are falling by the wayside as well in the name of fiscal conservatism. and i'm uncertain how OWS not having a leader (they employ a more solvent democracy to make decisions) has anything to do with enforcement of maximum salaries? whatever that even means. i don't get the connection there, but ok.

3. profiting is not the issue. thieving is.

4. i think trying to attach the broken systems that exist in China to assumed theories about OWS is a real stretch and for that to be possible one would have to assume that the American people are really stupid and evil. and of course, they aren't. also, we have appalling poverty right here in this country and i don't think it's shameful that our citizens try to curb that just because there is poverty elsewhere. it should be noted that poverty stricken countries are also rebelling. think Arab Spring.

5. because Washington is owned by the financial sector of this country. i dunno how many times this needs repeating and/or supporting articles/statistics/law referrences.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by guihong

I have a few questions about OWS's mission, and I mean no snark, but it's been bothering me:

1. Let's say I become wealthy purely on hard work and a good idea or three (I'm not, but hypothetically). Does this make me one of the "few"? And if OWS is for income redistribution, exactly how much would I have to distribute, and why? If I manage to get rich, no one should be allowed to tell me differently or what I can do with my earnings. (I'm not talking about charity-which many billionaires create and/or support).

I think I will use a quote from Elizabeth Warren to address this one:

Warren rebuts the GOP-touted notion that raising taxes on the wealthy amounts to "class warfare," contending that "there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

Warren rejects the concept that it is possible for Americans to become wealthy in isolation.

"You built a factory out there? Good for you," she says. "But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

2. Along that idea, would there be a maximum salary any one person could earn? And if so, who would enforce this, since OWS seems not to have any one leader?

More important than anything legislative is consciousness. Politics can only change after consciousness changes. The single most important thing that the Occupy Movement can do is shine a light on how Washington is controlled by Wall Street.

3. Most of us wouldn't be here if some of the "few" in England hadn't decided to start a colony, the purpose of which was to make a profit. I think that's a fairly common human motivation-making a profit. How does this jibe with OWS's theories of equality?

Well there's making a profit and there's what we have going on right now. Warren Buffett's secretary pays more taxes than he does. Many corporations pay no taxes at all. They are getting tax breaks to move jobs out of the U.S. where they can pollute at will and higher cheaper labor.

4. I saw some of the most appalling poverty in communist China-supposedly a society set up with far more equality than our own. Yet there, and in Russia, there were always a "few" and a whole lot of "many". Is the kind of society OWS envisions even possible, if income equality and redistribution taken to its extreme doesn't work?

I don't think anyone wants to address our financial disaster by creating more poverty.

5. Why isn't OWS really protesting in Washington, at the government that passed the regulations that ultimately created this situation?

First place Wall Street or should I say Those who have the money or should I say the 1% control Washington. Washington is a puppet government run by and for the rich. What possible use would it be to protest to them. The gesture of protesting where the power is actually located is symbolic. It is to get people to understand who is pulling the strings and controlling our government. Second place regulation did not create this situation deregulation did. There is plenty of information on this thread, some I posted myself, that explains this.

[Cin]

I think coming into a thread that is 45 pages long and asking questions that have been addressed at length might be a clue to one of the problems we are all facing as a nation and as a planet. Regardless of all the information that is available, regardless of what is actually happening right in front of us, many of us are not able to see it.

[AtLast]

I keep thinking back to things like the SI Hayakawa and Ronald Reagan days in CA along with one of my favorite profs, Angela Davis (I hope she talked to OWS folks about what went wrong as well as what was positive "back in the day"). My biggest fear is that what is going on in some of the OWS camps will lead to the use of the National Guard to break up camps. This was a horrible time in the history of social activism in US history. I remember Kent State, too.

Things got twisted and violent even though that period brought about important change. I don't want this to happen again. I am having problems with continued support of OWS after things like rape, the drug overdose and death of a 20 year old as well as people just slashing cops in SF with exacto knives while they were simply standing by (doing their job) as OWS folks marched the other day. One was slashed on the face. Artisans that sell their wares at street fairs in SF were ripped-off and harassed by the negative groups in the SF camps over the weekend. These people make a living at these events and also pay to participate in these events. This is the time of the year in which they do a lot of business.

I want the core of this movement that is working on coalitions and ways to effect change for all of us to make a clear separation of themselves. The kinds of efforts to help the cop stay in a home is one way to do this. So is working with legislators on putting together real banking reforms is also great and these ideas are being presented by the 99%. Having some spokespeople out there making it clear that the core is non-violent and disagrees with the anarchist activities is a good idea. And I have had it with the punching-out of the media- they are doing their jobs, too (even those for Faux affiliates).

I hope the latest efforts of those that really are the OWS movement take over media reports so that what is really important about this movement is what the general public hears because this is what they can support that can effect positive change.

Social democratic values are based upon respect for all and working together to promote good for all- even if we disagree. I feel an obligation to support things like school or other municipal bonds that help stop lay-offs even if higher property taxes are crunching me during these financial times. And I will always vote for social programs because I think we all need to take responsibility for disadvantaged groups.

It has been interesting to be teaching community college students here this term. The bulk of my students are of color and young parents. Some are older and are trying to re-train due to being laid off. There are veterans too that have not been able to find employment. Obviously, fee hikes in education are on their minds and some are getting assistance from social programs- thankfully- they wouldn’t be able to attend classes if they couldn’t do this. Some have gone out to marches, but most need to take care of their children and also have some “under the table” type part-time jobs. Just about every one of them state that the camps should be broken up. Seven of my students that are parents of young kids and live in Richmond don’t want the only place they can take their kids too and play outside to be taken over by campers. They live in small apartments without safe play areas for their kids and use city park playgrounds several times per week. They have grandparents of little means that play checkers there, too. Our whether has been pretty good lately, so people can still be outside and enjoy themselves.

I know, I’m a broken record, but the fact is, I don’t think the general public gets how important public use areas are to low income people and senior citizens. I really don’t. Plus, I deal with this student group that is nothing like young, white, middle and upper middle-class university students. But I was an activist during the Vietnam War years. I get the importance of social discourse and protest, yet, we also made mistakes back then in taking over public space for prolonged periods and didn’t think about how this effects others. And I get really tired of other people thinking they have a right to take over public space for their agendas without going by the rules that are set up do that all of us so that we all can use these spaces. I really am a social democrat and don’t believe any of us have a right to interfere with public land use by all to the degree these camps are. And I really don’t want to see force being used against people. But, city officials have asked and asked for people to stop camping and offered alternatives for those that are homeless. Day protests without camping is effective, especially if it continues on and is peaceful and respectful. In fact, this would go much further in effecting change.


Right now, this AM- Oakland- so far (6:33 AM) no violence.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_19331753

[Gráinne]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I think coming into a thread that is 45 pages long and asking questions that have been addressed at length might be a clue to one of the problems we are all facing as a nation and as a planet. Regardless of all the information that is available, regardless of what is actually happening right in front of us, many of us are not able to see it.

I think it reflects a problem with the OWS movement, that there are a whole bunch of disparate groups with competing issues, and no one is able to make a concise list of say, the top 5 demands, that satisfies everyone and even more importantly, a firm plan besides occupying parks and "raising consciousness", for accomplishing these goals.

As you said, this thread is 45 pages long with lots of quotes, articles and vague ideas, but I haven't seen any list and how disrupting others' use of public property helps the cause.

[dykeumentary]

Originally Posted by guihong

I have a few questions about OWS's mission, and I mean no snark, but it's been bothering me:

1. Let's say I become wealthy purely on hard work and a good idea or three (I'm not, but hypothetically). Does this make me one of the "few"? And if OWS is for income redistribution, exactly how much would I have to distribute, and why? If I manage to get rich, no one should be allowed to tell me differently or what I can do with my earnings. (I'm not talking about charity-which many billionaires create and/or support).

2. Along that idea, would there be a maximum salary any one person could earn? And if so, who would enforce this, since OWS seems not to have any one leader?

3. Most of us wouldn't be here if some of the "few" in England hadn't decided to start a colony, the purpose of which was to make a profit. I think that's a fairly common human motivation-making a profit. How does this jibe with OWS's theories of equality?

4. I saw some of the most appalling poverty in communist China-supposedly a society set up with far more equality than our own. Yet there, and in Russia, there were always a "few" and a whole lot of "many". Is the kind of society OWS envisions even possible, if income equality and redistribution taken to its extreme doesn't work?

5. Why isn't OWS really protesting in Washington, at the government that passed the regulations that ultimately created this situation?

I am not starting a fight, but I thought of these questions-and more-this weekend. And before I support any movement, I want to know what it is I'm supporting behind the slogans.

No, you are not starting a fight. We were born into it. Each person has to decide for themselves how much injustice they can ignore.
Let's put your arguments into in a 19th century historical context and see if they hold up.

1. If I become a wealthy plantation owner, does this mean I have to share my wealth with women? Aren't I doing enough by using their exploited labor to fund a tax write-off "charity" for the ones who aren't producing profit for me? This way at least they are of some use to me.

2. Will someone impose an upward limit on my greed? Who would do that? Women don't even have a clear leader!

3. Europeans colonized North America to exploit resources, including women. Why should we stop now? It's the American way.

4.Women in other places are treated worse. Therefore women in 19th century USA have it good enough and should be quiet. If women are given rights. everything will go wrong. I'm just fine with the status quo.

5. Why aren't the protesters far away from me, so I can continue oppressing women. I don't want women in my region getting any "big ideas!" Shouldn't women be home cooking and making me babies?


Don't let the arc of history hit you in the butt as it bends towards justice. Or something like that.

[Gráinne]

Okay, that's enough of this. Now I have "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of the thread". I'm done; and OWS has lost a supporter.

[Dominique]

Originally Posted by guihong

Okay, that's enough of this. Now I have "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of the thread". I'm done; and OWS has lost a supporter.

Because of one person???? It's frustrating, on any subject, when people want you to do all of the home work, the research. OWS doesn't have ONE particular look or one specific agenda. Nor is it limited to one country.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by guihong

Okay, that's enough of this. Now I have "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of the thread". I'm done; and OWS has lost a supporter.

I don't get this. If you don't want to support the Occupy movement because you don't agree with the issues then don't support it. Find something else to support that works for you. Or if you are perfectly happy with the way things are then don't support anything. But you aren't going to punish OWS by not supporting it if your support is about how other people in a thread on a B-F forum treat you. How is that even relevant? If your support is based on that then it's not much support at all. Either you agree with the issues or you don't. Butch Femme Planet and the people who post here have nothing to do with that. Nor is it anyone else's responsibility to change your mind. There is nothing wrong with not supporting OWS. If it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work for you. Hopefully in the end there will be more people who see the problems and want to work toward solutions than who don't.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by dykeumentary

No, you are not starting a fight. We were born into it. Each person has to decide for themselves how much injustice they can ignore.
Let's put your arguments into in a 19th century historical context and see if they hold up.

1. If I become a wealthy plantation owner, does this mean I have to share my wealth with women? Aren't I doing enough by using their exploited labor to fund a tax write-off "charity" for the ones who aren't producing profit for me? This way at least they are of some use to me.

2. Will someone impose an upward limit on my greed? Who would do that? Women don't even have a clear leader!

3. Europeans colonized North America to exploit resources, including women. Why should we stop now? It's the American way.

4.Women in other places are treated worse. Therefore women in 19th century USA have it good enough and should be quiet. If women are given rights. everything will go wrong. I'm just fine with the status quo.

5. Why aren't the protesters far away from me, so I can continue oppressing women. I don't want women in my region getting any "big ideas!" Shouldn't women be home cooking and making me babies?


Don't let the arc of history hit you in the butt as it bends towards justice. Or something like that.

i really really really love this post.