Post edited 5:50 pm – October 3, 2011 by Lev

1. I strongly agree that it is far too early for the GA to adopt specific demands. This movement has barely been born. We need to look at the BIG picture, take the long view, step back and get perspective.

For now, I'm in the movement because I want to nonviolently end corporate corruption of politics, and I think it's fine for the GA to adopt that goal. But we need to realize that it might take generations, decades or longer, to achieve that goal. In five years, the movement may be just 10 times as big, and the people who buy Washington may be just starting to get nervous at that time.

While I might have some ideas, and I might put them on a sign, tell people about them, etc., I don't want the GA to adopt my ideas yet. At this stage, how do I know what will work? Maybe you do, but I don't.

So, if I tell people my own ideas, I want to be able to also say, "but those are just my ideas, and really just off the top of my head. Certainly nothing specific has been officially adopted (or rejected) by the GA yet. But don't worry, this is a long-term thing. We're not going away. There'll be plenty of time (probably years) to come up with specifics."

Basically, for now, IF the GA must adopt a mission, it should only be adopting the single most important thing, the true core of the movement. 

Just my thoughts. Interested in others'.

I do not think the GA has officialy adopted nonviolence.

CraigB said:

I agree with most of what Lev has to say.

Personally, I think we need to worry more about the GA process and making sure we can scale up to the influx we're going to get on Thursday. We can worry about goals, demands, and mission statements once we're stable. 

I want a clearly stated message inorder to insure this movement receives a large influx on thursday.

joe said:

Who owns the general assembly?  

Is it Soros and his Gang!

They will take over this movement like they did to the tea party.

bye!! bye!!

I'm just going to copy paste most of what I said on the announcement of this and local demands

Any item on that list that is partisan should be removed. Any item that isn’t well defined needs to be defined or removed. Any item that isn’t directly about getting better representation of the people should also be removed. Issues about taxes or corporate greed will become partisan issues quickly. Practical solutions to other problems will follow while getting support from every citizen.

“Reduce private & corporate influence of campaigns” is the only item from the first part that should really be there and even then its too vague. What I think is meant here is campaign finance reform. Out of the local demands the only ones that belong are “term limits” and “election/voting reform.” I think the election/voting reform is one of THE issues btw.

Do not get bogged down in anti-war, pro-drug, and pro-regulation ideas as these only server to divide. They are mostly leftist as well and cut out most of the population down here. Do not bother with petty grievances like bike trails, DO NOT BOTHER WITH PETTY GRIEVANCES. These kind of issues are not bipartisan. I’m am actually in favor of many of the things on that list but if anything could be called hippie crap its probably best left to another movement.

Another thing to think about to beware friends from other movements and the major political parties. If politics are corrupt politicians stand to lose. If an issue is pressed from another group it may alienate others who would otherwise support this movement.

I am so critically here because I want this to succeed and cause real lasting change.

I think this is fine:

Our mission statement is clear and correct as it stands.

            “End corporate corruption of democracy”

We have set two objectives to achieve our mission.

1.      Institute campaign finance reform that removes excessive private and all corporate contributions to candidates and their political parties at all levels of government: city, state and federal.

2.      Elimination of corporate person hood through the reversal of the Citizens United decision.

But I would like to see this objective added:

3. Institute term limits for members of Congress

And  I would delete the rest. Not that I don't believe in many of those things, I just think that we are watering down the message and politicizing the movement. Just my thoughts.