It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by awake1234
One People + Planet
∞LOVE∞edit on 30-9-2011 by awake1234 because: eartheart∞
Originally posted by StarPeace
post removed by staff]edit on 30-9-2011 by StarPeace because: (no reason given)
I'm not suggesting tossing the list and rendering them un-discusable. lol I'm suggesting prioritizing the over-riding "main" objectives. Fifteen of the 22 listed are d/t financial/monetary corruption. How about coming up with a short list of goals to achieve, with the accompanying list of grievances that illustrate the need for action.
Originally posted by RogerT
Originally posted by NoAngel2u
I really think that list is too long. Those are the details,,, the symptoms. They are covered in one overriding corruptive influence within our political system. Money money money.
They should have remained focused on that one KEY building block of corporatacracy. Gotta pick your battles and prioritize. I don't mean toss the list, but to determine a primary objective and hammer it. You will likely get more people on board with a more narrowed focus that most everyone will likely agree with, than with a list of demands that everyone will argue about.
However, with a narrow focus like "money money money" you risk alienating a lot more people IMO.
A manifesto of 20 odd points allows people to pick and choose what they like from the menu, and discuss their preferences with their peers and in public forums. This raises awareness and attention on those points - it's brilliant.
I'd support any movement calling for the END of the monetary system (and I'm financially wealthy by the way, so it's not a case of sour grapes), but the vast majority of people, especially those with power and influence are so hopelessly addicted to, dependent on, and highly defensive of the monetary system, it is not the time yet for that kind of conversation with the general population, IMO. (Just look how much flak Joseph and Fresco have taken for pointing out the facts and the alternatives!)
Heres a snippet of the first 5 Grievances.
1. They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
2. They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give CEO’s exorbitant bonuses.
3. They have perpetuated gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace.
4. They have poisoned the food supply, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
5. They have continuously sought to end the rights of workers to negotiate their pay and make complaints about the safety of their workplace.
Originally posted by Flint2011
reply to post by morder1
It's actually quite organized for the fact that they are not centralizing a person or specific body of people to represent the goals of the movement. It throws people on the outside off. It's a smart strategy for confusing the would be enemy. I still think the movement is shady as far as who is behind the motivation and my fellow American's are getting duped in my opinion as well and I only hope that none of them get hurt in the process.
Originally posted by jenk1013
reply to post by NoAngel2u
Totally agree NoAngel2u. There are way too many demands/issues being presented here.
Not to mention the fact that most Americans have the attention span of a fly and won't even be willing to take the time to read and truly understand the message. Why not just sum it up as you said? END CORPORATOCRACY RESTORE DEMOCRACY. Easy, simple, non-divisive message. I don't think there is anyone other than the 1% elite who would be against that.
edit on 29-9-2011 by jenk1013 because: (no reason given)
3.They have perpetuated gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace.
During most of those years, ERA had attached to it the Hayden Clause which read: "Nothing in this Amendment will be construed to deprive persons of the female sex of any of the rights, benefits, and exemptions now conferred by law on persons of the female sex." Then, as now, the advocates were unwilling to compromise for anything less than a doctrinaire equality, and so ERA went nowhere
The Equal Rights Amendment was presented to the American public as something that would benefit women, "put women in the U.S. Constitution," and lift women out of their so-called "second-class citizenship." However, in thousands of debates, the ERA advocates were unable to show any way that ERA would benefit women or end any discrimination against them. The fact is that women already enjoy every constitutional right that men enjoy and have enjoyed equal employment opportunity since 1964.
The House passed ERA on October 12, 1971, after rejecting the Wiggins Amendment which would have exempted women from "compulsory military service" and which also would have preserved other laws "which reasonably promote the health and safety of the people." Only 23 Congressmen voted no, of whom one was the senior female member, Representative Leonor Sullivan (D-MO), who made a strong speech opposing ERA because it would harm the family.
The Ervin amendments would have exempted women from compulsory military service and from combat duty; they would have protected the traditional rights of wives, mothers and widows, and preserved the responsibility of fathers to support their children; they would have preserved laws that secure privacy to males and females; they would have continued the laws that make sexual offenses punishable as crimes. All these modifying clauses were defeated. When ERA was passed in strict, absolute language, only nine Senators voted "no."