Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Let's Occupy Common Ground

Recs

25

October 12, 2011 – Comments (20)

So, I've noticed that "left" vs. "right" and "us" vs. "them" mentality is already skewing the Occupy Wall Street movement and causing anger. There are good reasons for Americans - ALL Americans -- to be angry about what transpired on Wall Street. Come on, there was that mugging we took in 2008, the subsequent case of PTSD, and the fact that our whole system is pretty darn corrupt, unjust, and distorted.

Today I wrote Let's Occupy Common Ground for Fool.com -- I'm pretty sure as long as people continue to think "politically" and fight with one another in a polarized manner, the relatively small number of people in power (politicians, big, influential corporations, and big, influential unions) are the ones who always win. This also addresses how they get that influence -- all that political spending.

20 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 12, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Melaschasm (53.74) wrote:

Occupy Wallstreet is the political left's answer to the tea party movement.  Considering that it was designed as a partisan movement from day one, political bickering should be expected.

Report this comment
#2) On October 13, 2011 at 10:24 AM, djemonk (< 20) wrote:

Occupy Wallstreet is the political left's answer to the tea party movement.  Considering that it was designed as a partisan movement from day one, political bickering should be expected.

 

I don't believe that this is the case.  OWS started for basically the same reasons as the tea party (a realization that things are not right).  The tea party just had 1st mover advantage, but hadn't realized when they got hijacked.  The OWS is very aware of that and is not partisan.  I went down there last weekend and there were libertarians, democrats, republicans (like me), Ron Paul guys, "Audit the Fed" guys, "gold is money" guys, hippies, career protestors, and of course police.  The movement is being very careful not to be subsumed by partisans, and the sentiment that they are a left-wing organization seems to be very prevalent among FOX viewers.

Report this comment
#3) On October 13, 2011 at 10:34 AM, djemonk (< 20) wrote:

Disclaimer:  I definitely don't speak for OWS.  I'm just seeing them work very hard to avoid being co-opted by Democrats.  They may or may not be successful in that effort.

Report this comment
#4) On October 13, 2011 at 11:47 AM, TMFLomax (46.97) wrote:

djemonk

Thanks for sharing that! Yeah I have to wonder if a certain "unbiased" news network (haha) is getting its viewers worked up on the "us vs. them" angle regarding ows. I saw an End the Fed sign at the Occupy Washington protest that a friend of mine photographed, so yeah... there IS common ground on this issue and that yeah, the "realization that things are not right" is a commonality in the tea party and ows protests. When I wrote this, I was kind of trying to address that, once I started to hear sort of partisan ire about it. I think it's a distraction and all the bickering does no service to Americans overall. I think it distracts from the idea that I dunno, there might be something closer to an oligarchy going on these days, ha. As long as everybody's fighting over left vs. right, it's easy for that to get lost in the noise.

Report this comment
#5) On October 13, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Bert31 (32.58) wrote:

If OWS is trying so hard to not be co-opted by the left why are they marching on Murdoch's house in NYC?  The only reaon he is being targeted is because he is a high profile conservative.  He has nothing to do with the financial industry and they only want to silence the one of the only conservative voices in mainstream media.

Report this comment
#6) On October 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM, ETFsRule (99.92) wrote:

It's hard not to view this as a partisan issue.

Republicans have criticized the OWS movement by calling it "class warfare", among other things. So, if it is the "99%" versus the "1%", we know which side Herman Cain is on. On the other hand, democrats like Nancy Pelosi have strongly supported the OWS movement.

Republicans are the ones who oppose all tax increases, even if they are only aimed at the super-rich.

Republicans are also the ones who have strongly opposed campaign finance reform at every turn. For example, look at the way that the GOP blocked the DISCLOSE Act:

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/07/gop-filibuster-succeeds-in-blocking.html

It's hard to find common ground when one side of the political spectrum only cares about helping the top 1%.

The bickering will continue until the last republican has been defeated.

Report this comment
#7) On October 13, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Bert31 (32.58) wrote:

"Republicans are also the ones who have strongly opposed campaign finance reform at every turn. " 

 Except Obama (D) has been the most secretive president in terms of campaign funds disclosure vs. McCain (R), leading author of campaign finance reform legislation. 

Report this comment
#8) On October 13, 2011 at 1:02 PM, ETFsRule (99.92) wrote:

"Except Obama (D) has been the most secretive president in terms of campaign funds disclosure..."

How did you go about making this comparision?

"McCain (R), leading author of campaign finance reform legislation."

I'll give McCain credit for that. Of course, the McCain-Feingold act was a bipartisan effort.

Also, McCain-Feingold was overwhelmingly supported by democrats and opposed by republicans:

House vote

Senate vote

Report this comment
#9) On October 13, 2011 at 1:50 PM, djemonk (< 20) wrote:

If OWS is trying so hard to not be co-opted by the left why are they marching on Murdoch's house in NYC?  The only reaon he is being targeted is because he is a high profile conservative.

 

Again, I don't believe this is the case.  He was targeted because he personally directs and owns a series of media outlets that claim to be news but are demonstrably spreading lies and misinformation.  It's not his politics that make him the subject of this march, it's the damage he's doing to our country.

Report this comment
#10) On October 13, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Bert31 (32.58) wrote:

Except Obama (D) has been the most secretive president in terms of campaign funds disclosure..."

How did you go about making this comparision?

He first agreed to accept federal matching campaign funds, which would have proivded transparency, and then did an about face, and is the first major candidate to decline the funds.  This makes it difficult to audit contributions to make sure no illegal donations were made.

 Of course, it is no secret that some of the BIGGEST donations to Obama came from the big banks like GS, Citi, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanely.  Yet OWS marches on Rupert Murdoch.  Doesn't make sense to me. 

Report this comment
#11) On October 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bert31 (32.58) wrote:

Murdoch does not spread lies, he provides an alternate opinion, a conservative one, to the more left leaning majority of media outlets.  OWS dislikes opposing viewpoints and wants to silence them. 

Report this comment
#12) On October 13, 2011 at 2:18 PM, djemonk (< 20) wrote:

There aren't alternate facts, despite what you are hearing on FOX.

Report this comment
#13) On October 13, 2011 at 2:33 PM, leohaas (31.21) wrote:

You guys on the lunatic right and on the lunatic left agree on some things, but you are both so partisan that you fail to even recognize it! If you'd get over your biases against each other, maybe you could actually achieve something together here!

Report this comment
#14) On October 13, 2011 at 2:36 PM, eldemonio (97.93) wrote:

Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter - they both suck because they will both sell their soul to stay in power.  It doesn't matter if you're selling your soul to big corporations, or labor unions - you're still selling your soul.  

People who demonize the opposition while conveniently ignoring how members of their own political party have done the same are Aholes and Dbags.  

Report this comment
#15) On October 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Bert31 (32.58) wrote:

@leohaas

You are absolutely right.  Its not the problems we disagree on , its the solutions.  I don't see how anything I have posted here paints me as a right wing lunatic though.  Could you maybe elaborate?  (I am assuming you are referring to me in that regard.)

Report this comment
#16) On October 13, 2011 at 3:43 PM, TheDumbMoney (58.51) wrote:

"You are absolutely right.  Its not the problems we disagree on , its the solutions."

+10

Report this comment
#17) On October 14, 2011 at 3:31 PM, ETFsRule (99.92) wrote:

SoundTrading (54.94) wrote: "Murdoch does not spread lies..."

Hmm... what about the phone hacking scandal which led to the closing of News of the World? You can find extensive coverage of that scandal here.

Recently there has been another scandal which has led to the resignation of a senior executive at NewsCorp.

Also, there is a strong, shareholder-led campaign to get rid of Murdoch and other board members of NewsCorp, citing years of illegal behavior and ethics violations.

Report this comment
#18) On October 14, 2011 at 5:53 PM, TMFLomax (46.97) wrote:

Thanks for the great conversation here everybody!

 And yeah I've been covering Murdoch/News Corp. for Fool.com here lately in a few pieces -- the corporate governance aspects are atrocious and News Corp. made GMI's list of 10 riskiest companies in terms of governance policies this past week. Regardless of Murdoch's politics or whether one particularly likes or respects Fox News' kind of media coverage or not, he has most certainly not shown himself as a bastion of ethics (nor has his company seemed like one lately). Yuck.

FWIW: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/13/do-you-own-these-risky-companies.aspx

Report this comment
#19) On October 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Bert31 (32.58) wrote:

Murdoch has nothing to do with the bailouts, the financial meltdown, he owns 40% of the company and there is no chance he is losing the his chair.  The kind of political showmanship OWS is playing will only detract from their message.  I am the 53%.  Besides, again, what LIES is he spreading?? 

Report this comment
#20) On October 15, 2011 at 11:29 AM, ETFsRule (99.92) wrote:

Well, the protesting shareholders own 25% of the company, and they have the support of numerous shareholder advocacy groups and corporate governance watchdogs that will help them spread their message to the rest of the shareholders.

If the lawsuits continue to pile up against Murdoch and his executives, I think it's very likely that he will either resign, or get voted off the board at some point.

"Besides, again, what LIES is he spreading?? "

If you followed any of of those links, you would find your answer. Each scandal has involved countless lies from NewsCorp.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement