Oh, it's gonna happen. The Democratic Party has wanted a Tea Party of its own for a while now, and the largest single reason people give for being at Zucotti Park is to influence the Democratic Party by being a left wing answer to the Tea Party. Co-option is basically inevitable.

In fact, notice in the same poll that only 56% of respondents voted at all in 2008, and 74% of them voted for Obama. So 41% voted for Obama before, but now 48% of them plan to vote for him in 2012. With Obama sending them shoutouts, and George Soros sending them money, co-option is already happening.

i really don't understand what you are trying say?

are you pro occupy wallstreet or not?

I prefer this one:

I kinda dug this one myself:

1 - Not quite what I meant. Call it premonition, 6th sense, or just me being stupid and being crazy. I do understand your point, but it sounds like you believe that people will remain complacent. Threaten a man's survival, they're not going to be complacent. Which is why the gov't has had failsafes like unemployment and welfare in place. The key difference between the poor being placated with welfare and the once-middle class, is that people who have a resumé with 10 to 20 years experience, a college degree, etc are not going to openly accept the fact that they require welfare to survive.  What are the options? Continue to extend unemployment benefits beyond the current 99 weeks? (there's a lot of this number showing up lately, no? ;) )

4 - Not particularly, but given the amount of fallout from such actions, don't you think a 40 month term (which will likely be reduced for good behavior) is a bit on the light side?

5. In a case of a barebones gov't there wouldn't be "opponent bills". As for the proposed bills, it'd have to be written in layman terms. I've always found legalese arcane and outdated myself, the laws would have to talk in a manner everyone would get, with a complete description of their ramifications. As for flat tax, it would make filing a lot easier. there's no question about write-offs, etc. Tax wouldn't be such a mystery. No one could complain about "so and so paid less taxes than me" etc. In other words, it could probably quell most of the complaints people have in this country.

I don't argue with logical fallacies.  You can't argue with a logical falacy, because the falacy has a mind of its own.  In regards to the points said above, what is seen is as follows:

* The 1 in 6 in poverty are in poverty because it is their own fault.

* Why should anyone bother to help these people, because it is their fault? 

* These losers have answers, it is to go to a communist country, because communist are their own kin.  This is a dream of theirs, that they will live until they, scum, die off.

* Doing this will prevent turning another place into a ghetto.

Exactly what "substance" am I supposed to discuss here?  The video link I posted at least attempts to make a more coherant argument against equality, and argues, at least somewhat reasonably, why equality is a farce and people who are loser should be left to die and why.  Did you ever bother to click on that video?  If you did, you woult see it goes into a philosophical justification for sayingw hat is said.

It hasn't happened yet though.  There is a case for it happening, but it hasn't happened yet.  It is more likely to happen if other voices are not involved.  The entire general assembly approach is prone to take over, if not enough voices are there.  I see now, where I am, someone from MoveOn.org shows up and wanted the group to support them showing up and running an event.  The concensus was they could show up and join the protest, but not have signs and say it was a MoveOn.org event.   

What I do know here is to stereotype things and end up saying it is X, Y or Z isn't going to have things.  And yes, you see around the same percentage as people who are Democrats longing for Occupy to be the Democratic version of the Tea Party, BUT, that leaves still 2/3s who didn't say that, who wanted other things.  And it is these 2/3 that can end up NOT making cooping be available.

Well, two-thirds of them primarily wanted something else. It doesn't mean that two-thirds don't want that as well or are against co-option. The 9% who want to "mobilize progressives" are essentially saying the same thing as the 35% who explicitly wanted to influence the Democrats. You can probably put others in that camp, too, such as those who want single-payer health care. Only the 11% who want to disrupt the two party system, and maybe the 4% whose chief goal is to get rid of capitalism and democracy altogether, would seem to be dead set against co-option.

Nice video. Thank You So Much.

PLR Articles

Regardless of whether you agree with the OWS, it did bring the talking point among politicians back to the important but mostly disregarded issue... jobs.