Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Dems to ban OWS from 2012 convention

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 9, 2011, 5:35 p.m. EST by newjustice22 (49)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/charlotte-prepping-for-ows-at-dnc.html

4 Comments

4 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by nitrusb (8) 12 years ago

The sustainability of OWS cannot be rooted in permanent micro-communities. Optically, it is a highly disadvantageous position to take as it invites mainstream characterization as entitled, ideological slum-dwellers. In order to succeed, OWS needs broad support and it needs to present itself well. The movement's greatest liability is its lack of leadership and political focus. OWS has become a household name, and now it's time for Phase 2. I approve of the anti-foreclosure efforts currently being undertaken, and I think a broad, anti-corruption banner would galvanize public support.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 2 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

And another misleading topic heading. The city is doing it, not the dems.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Because the visual precense is absent overt support and defense for the constitution, and the socialist rhetoric seems dominant, the dems can assume that OWS is un American and therefore in the realm of image, dismiss the movement.

Sad, because simple signs stating Article 5 convention NOW! dismisses that and makes the protect in defense of the constitution which protects protesters doubly.

Understand article 5.

Lessig power point on article V http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk

Lots of facts here about Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html

Article V conference, Lawrence Lessig at harvard 9/25/11-other attendee video comments http://vimeo.com/31464745

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 12 years ago

They dont want to be visually associated with you .

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply