Originally posted by Vizzle
Rhetorical Question: did you read it? I know the answer btw,
Well, you know, I scanned through it...though I confess that after reading the first few pages in their entirety I could not find the motivation to read all 400 some odd sections of the rest of it. It was a tad too pompous for me.
And from what I did read, I was unable to decipher exactly who the "we" are that they constantly refer to themselves as...though they behave (in their writing) as though they do...or should...speak for the movement.
The first two words, actually, are what caused to me wonder who was behind this and by what process it was being issued, "In Unity". A bit presumptuous, don't you think, of (some splinter off of?) a leaderless movement to start out this way.
Followed soon after by...
...from and for the collective conscience of the "99%" to and for the oligarchic "1%" of the United States of America.
The collective conscience (really?) of the 99%...again, I had not realized that this formless mass of discontent had so quickly coalesced into a 99% who could so clearly articulate the key points of what they stand for...and are standing against.
...this document was originally gifted to our minds through the process of carefully collecting public opinion, it really does come from you, the "collective conscience"...
Good grief. So, again I have to ask, by what process within the movement were these words brought forward as if to represent the ideals and the goals of the group as a whole "In Unity"? Who carefully collected public opinion, from who, from where, and when? Is there any record of this? Who decided that the results of this survey are accurately represented by this document?
And more on how democratically this has been crafted, and how open to debate these unnamed spokespersons are...
...While this document is being given freely to the public domain without any duplication or distribution restrictions so long as they remain non-profit, the copyright is being reserved and all modifications are discouraged as another means of a protection from those who may wish to modify it with the intention to dilute and/or discredit it. So please make no changes to this...
Yeah, I think I read enough.
Now, care to answer my questions?