@Skoalbite- yes, exactly, that was one of the two points I wanted to make, thank you.

As to the MSM, they arent biased against us (of course they are but thats not the point) they are biased against ordinary americans and their concerns, while being obsessed with the concerns of the rich and celebrities. The ows is a first step toward a solution.

Thanks for the feedback guys, gotta go for now be back to discuss more soon and re-evaluate @skoalbites assessment.

I advocated against a fact-bomb earlier, but @gavemehope convinced me that's exactly what's necessary. A different kind than the invitation to discuss what this country could and should be in this forum, a separate one, but absolutely if nothing else we need a depository of evidence that directly or indirectly points to the hijacking and manipulation of the media, of ideologies, and of politics. I tend to post new things I come across during the day in whatever thread we're talking in, and it's tended to be this one more often than not. I propose three things:

1. Working group for the youtube invitation to the discussion.

2. Working group for the fact bomb/evidence depository
(speaking of which):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/income-inequality_n_1032632.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/koch-brother-funded-study_b_1032439.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/executive-pay-compensation_n_995223.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/rick-perry-tax-plan_n_1030991.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/eric-cantors-income-inequality-speech_n_1024435.html
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

3. Call for a consensus on keeping both subjects in this thread, moving them to "Working Groups," or maintaining the information in both places.

" I think it should be framed in terms of "open discussion" by which education of language, framing, back-handed interests in politics, all of these things come about." I think if you make number 1 about this, it will work.

If you host the discussion on this forum, then you will need some rules to structure the discussion by, otherwise you risk a shouting match, or endless repeating of the same talking points. I have posted some recommended guidelines for participating in a persuasive discussion in the "New Trolling Feature" thread- I humbly suggest that they might help.

As for the "fact bomb" idea, does OT or OWS have a media center? That would be the ideal place to put one.

@Skoalbite. I don't know I like that very much. People who want to pick apart the movement will find any reason, even if it's ambiguous they tried that, not working for them, but still, we have to keep where everyone is invited. If they tweaked that on little part you are talking about then how much would you like it?

o

Seems to me the factbomb should be moved to either the Media or Outreach threads, then situated in the Resources section when it is done.

The open invitation to discussion could stay here, although there appears to be some important cross-thread work going on, esp. in the Proposals section.

@gavemehope I'm not sure I understand what you're concern is, can you please explain? Forgive me if I didn't read a post closely enough.
@demarquis the idea, I think, is to have this entire forum BE the discussion. When I first started posting it already had all the discussion topic sections it would need, and now has agree/disagree and flagging features. I haven't read your anti-trolling discussion yet but I'm fairly sure I will agree with them. This forum, unlike the occupywallst.org forum is properly indexed (and that forum looks exactly like a shouting match because of that) and most others are regional. It further benefits over GAs because here information is stored and remains available.

I think at this stage we need working groups to develop the procedures before we get into work product-producing content. Meanwhile this thread can serve as a one-source for updates in brief.

Well, if you need someone to help staff a working group, let me know.

@skoalbite I was speaking to the link I posted http://notetoanon.com/2011/10/26/who-is-the-99/.
It should make sense now.
Also @demarquis and you should work well together. I have been reading post sent by D and D appears not only well versed but to share you views. I would like to see what the two of you can come up with, then I can throw my two cents at it.
Also @Demarquis I agree in getting an order of things and I think it is important in an open setting like this. Thank you for your input.

I would replace the "who is the 99%" and "who is the 1%" sections with something like (perhaps editing it to say "our/us/we" instead of "them/they":

[UPDATED/REVISED]

Voices around the web tell us that the idea to Occupy Wall Street came from a Canadian magazine—Adbusters—that two people set up the website occupywallst.org, but members say the people took it and made it what it’s become. A few hundred people gathered in Zuccoti park on September 17, 2011. Now, meetup.com/occupytogether shows 17,897 registered occupiers (and states the numbers are not representative of the actual number), in 2,162 cities across the globe. On October 16, estimates of the occupiers who marched to Times Square New York ranged from 10,000 to as many as 60,000.

You may be thinking to yourself—that’s a lot of angry people—and . . . that’s exactly what that is. Who are they? What are they angry about? Who leads them? Are the political parties co-opting them?

There are no easy answers to those questions:

Who are they?

To say this movement arose solely by and for the indigent (or at least the people outside the top 10%) would be to make a Herman Cain-esque grandiosely overgeneralized statement. You may want to know something about the demographics of the protesters:

A CBS News/New York Times poll found forty-three percent of Americans agree with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, twenty-seven percent disagree, and thirty percent “don’t know.” “Half of Americans ages 18-29 say they agree with the movement; just one in three Americans age 65 or older say the same. And two thirds of liberals say they agree with "Occupy Wall Street" compared with just one in four conservatives.” Further evidencing the liberal academic elite: “Americans with at least some college education are more likely to agree with the movement.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20125515-503544/poll-43-percent-agree-with-views-of-occupy-wall-street

A second part of the poll asks, “Is Money and Wealth Distributed Fairly in America?” Of all, sixty-six percent said no, 26 percent said yes. Fifty-five percent of those who considered themselves Republicans thought; “yes, distribution is fair” compared to seven percent of Democrats. Of Independents, sixty-seven percent said no, twenty-three percent said yes.

What are they angry about?

They themselves claim grievances ranging from the very astute to the bizarre. The best way to tell you what they’re angry about is to direct you to the Declaration of the Occupation: you can find it at nycga.net (acronym for New York City General Assembly)—the occupiers of New York City unanimously voted to approve that message.

Who leads them?

Nobody claims a leadership role, but all say, “We are a movement of leaders.” Of course some occupiers lead more than others, but unanimously all groups refuse to appoint or elect any one person. Many of them no longer trust any one person or
group to represent their interests.

Are the political parties co-opting them?

Members of both political parties have expressed they understand the occupiers—both President Barack Obama and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Meanwhile, Herman Cain suggests the occupiers blame themselves. Either party could use their votes, but the majority of occupiers online refuse to allow the movement itself to support one candidate or another—instead saying people should vote for who they want to and not assume to speak for the movement. Even the admittedly liberal or democratic leaning members admit their own party caters to campaign finance donors (though claiming the right is a wholly owned subsidiary of the wealthy), and many have lost faith in their party.


Everything below the heading, "democracy is our tool" so far looks good.

@demarquis Glad to have a volunteer, lets get some more volunteers and then figure out how to staff the working groups.

Keep in mind this is exactly the idea we need to change:


"Thing is they are not doing anything but whining because some people are successful and they think they should be handed something for nothing. If someone is that horrible thing called "RICH", well good for them. They did whatever the hell they did and are reaping the benefits. Like 99% of the people here, I am in the military and will never be rich. Maybe I could have chose a different career path and made more money, then again maybe not. Either way, it was my choice. We all have choices and decisions we make. Some get lucky and hit it big, some don't. But everyone has the same opportunities. That is the good thing about the USA. It has been prove time and time again. You/we have the choice to be whatever we want to be. We may fall short but the opportunity is there. Why is that wrong?"
http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1591051-Police-Brutality-at-the-Wall-Street-Protests

Not necessarily the military bit, but the rest seems to sum the 53% opinion.

@Skoalbite I like the reference to declaration and I agree, I just saw a really good advertising, so to speak, chance with that and a pretty good unifying message. Also I'm not thinking as much about the mainstream influence. The most I heard again about the 50 whatever percent is from you. We have to stay at a position of unity and let them come to us.
As far as the second statement that is a very well thought out way to frame an argument that says we are against our country if we have a problem with any rich people. They will always try to find ways to tie their opinion, but more so the agenda to the love of this country. It is the oldest, and most effective trick in the book. This one is not so direct, and carefully places framed questions that plant the idea that if you disagree with what is being presented there you are against opportunity, therefore against freedom.
Without even mentioning the fact the 1% has the game rigged. Where they can not fail, which goes against every fiber of the being of the fee market he is speaking of. Part of the free part, and one of the most is taking risk to invest into an idea, or whatever you choose in the market place. Risk means you could fail. What we are against has nothing to do with what this person is so cleverly suggesting. In fact I would ask him why he supports corporate socialism, and why that is right to him? Why is that accepted ?
The power of suggestion. We don't need to change that view, but we do need to point out how it is twisted around, and used against people who love their country.

@skoalbite could you tell me more about these fact bombs, please sir?

The idea would be to collect facts such as:

Unemployment rate does not count 16.3 million Americans listed either as self-employed, or anyone who did not make at least one active attempt to find employment in the last 4 weeks (disgruntled worker). (bureau of labor statistics)

50% of wage earners earn less than 26k per year (Social security administration)

In the last 30 years income of the top 1% increased 300% (congressional budget office).

Under Keynes theory of economic policy (pre-Reagan) all demographics saw their incomes increase.

Load them all into a video, and fire.

Ya ok I saw last night. Since 1979 the earnings of the 1% went up 275% , while the rest of us went up 40%. Trickled down economics believers would come back with well at least it rose 40% that is better than nothing. Would you include that kind of stuff to or just stick with straight info ?

I think you're reading that wrong. The top 10% went up 40%. The bottom 90% went down, (I think 4%--though I'm not sure if that's controlled for inflation).

According to the Census Bureau, a record 46.2 million people were living in poverty in 2010. Today, the richest 400 individuals in America possess more wealth than the bottom 50%. Median CEO compensation pay rose by 27% in 2010.


According to a memo released on the JP Morgan Stanley website, JP Morgan donate 4.6 million in equipment and funds to the NYPD. The memo states “since 2010,” but did not begin circulating the web until October 5, 2011.

Oh sorry I was just throwing in an number I heard. I'm afraid that can be confusing. I think the more people who see that stuff, the better. You plan on using visuals like pie graphs and such ?
I'm sorry if that message came out wrong up there. I don't hate rich people, and I think if someone invents something that is great and makes money doing so. That is great. I don't like it suggested I do, but I do think there are many like I who love our system, but are missing the point due to comments like that. Ceo's pay them selves 400 times more than their employees, mix that with nafta and here we are. Did you see what I meant with that?
I certainly wasn't meaning to offend you, I never try to offend anyone, but if my thoughts come across wrong just let me know. Sometimes anger I have for these things can come across the wrong way. I try to be so careful, but it happens. Didn't really take the full context of your previous post into all of that got distracted, by that statement.

I wasn't offended at all, just pointing out a thing. But yes, graphs, pie charts, all that stuff would be necessary. But this is exactly the sort of thing that we should know off hand and where to go to get it. Thus proving why we need such a fact bomb :)

So what I gather from Givemehope's link plus Skoalbite's proposed wording is that we are ordinary Americans who are angry at the state the economy is in, that we assign blame for this to the small number of people who disproportionally control our country's financial resources, and that our proposed solution is to restore democracy to American society at all levels and in all sectors through new methods of facilitated open discussion that includes all stakeholders who are affected by the decisions that are made.

Obviously that's just a "sound-bite" version but does that seem about right to you?

@skoalbite That's good, for some reason people can get real sensitive around me, just making sure. Yes fact bombs are needed. I went and checked out the O marines face book to see how Scott Olsen was doing. They have some slide shows that you should check out there. Check it out tell me what you think. The military sure has talent in more areas than combat.

@demarquis I see you have a way with words. Outstanding, we could use some of that or at least speaking for me at least. Could you throw in something about controlling the media and manipulative messaging? I'm running out of ways of getting that through people's heads. Yet very well said none the less.

@skoalbite here you go
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Rich_Americans_Lengthened_Lead_over_Others__and_That_was_before_Recession_111027

@gavemehope

I am still around. Read the article and then read my simple paragraph.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025

Poverty, is not bound to a group based on the color of their skin, iniquity knows no color. The 99% never begrudge another the benefit of their hard work and simply wish to benefit from their own work. The 99% wish those that demand personal responsibility experience their own personal responsibility.

The 99% seek change to fix our broken country, to make this change we demand the framework to do so and nothing more.

--
Nobody Important

@nobody important. That is excellent. Were have you been? See I been telling people about the message war that gets in people's head, just another angle easily dismantled. Intelligent words like that will help. Gonna read through that again and maybe throw down a comment about it if that's ok.

@gavemehope

I am involved in a lot of different things and efforts. I have been following some threads but only posts when I have something to contribute, :-)

--
Nobody Important

Something tells me you could contribute more. I see much wisdom in you.

@gavemehope

I work a lot on a lot of different projects. spam [programming to catch the botnets], books, illustrations [art shows] and a lot of other things and participate in local citizen groups and large actions groups like this one and the local counterpart.

The 99% seek only to benefit from their hard work; not to begrudge any another the benefit of their hard work. Additionally, those that demand personal responsibility from others should practice personal responsibility.

Poverty, is not bound to a group based on the color of their skin, iniquity knows no color and the 99% demand no more than the framework to make the changes needed to these iniquities.

Is this better put? I think I can combine this into a couple of sentences that are concise and speak to the heart of the movement.

--
Nobody Important

I cannot express how important it is that we win hearts and minds.

You should delete this if you want to keep this private. As stated all along my goal is to fix this country for everybody. I do so not because it is easy but because it must be done. I need no more incentive.

I think there is a way to send private messages and you should use that method before this one for personal and private things you wish nobody else to know.

--
Nobody Important

I have been aware of this all. Trying to warn about the importance. Am monitoring. I will lay down some frame work but need help condensing without loosing heart may just need to be worded simple like my style.