posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:57 PM
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)
Yes, this protest is not about Wall Street. The list of demands has very little to do directly with Wall Street. For instance this one
have perpetuated gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace.
This is a feminist demand and has nothing to do with the bailouts or the real workings of Wall Street Finance. It is dredging up the old ERA which was
never ratified by Congress because it would force pregnant women and mothers onto the front of battle against their will. I remember when this was
going on during the 70's and 80's.
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
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."
So, why is this bit about gender discrimination being bandied about as a major demand of these protesters? The answer is that this is really a list of
demands which contains an enormous amount of radicalism, and it was never just about Wall Street, at least not to those who organized it. It's
possible some old ERA proponent from the 70's came up and said, oh while we are protesting Wall Street let's go back to the ERA while we are at it.
No. 4 suggests that somehow Wall Street is directly responsible for poisoning our food supply. I am guessing this is for allowing the evil Monsanto to
trade publicly....I'm not really sure....but it also is a ridiculous demand for Wall Street. If they want to protest poisons in the food, why don't
they picket the WH and protest the FDA, because they are the ones who caved to lobbyists promoting aspartame. But again, this protest is really about
attacking Capitalism. In that demand, they also target monopolization, which again, is not Wall Street trading. Perhaps they meant insider trading.
When did these people protest POTUS taking 85 million for his part in the BP Oil spill? Again, this was insider trading, and the Oil Spill was
periphery except that the side issue of that was to allow BP to experiment with Corexit. The demand does not expressly deal with insider trading as an
issue though and seems to be more of an attack on Capitalism. That is the same old song and dance of socialism and that is why we are seeing socialist
demands in this long laundry list.