Sent time:   Friday, September 30, 2011 2:21:19 PM
Subject:   Re: Re: [september17discuss] Re: Demands Discussion

I am very interested in this also.  There are many groups working on messages now including a group that got their message through the GA last night (Its on the website and they can be reached at  There is also the  open source working group who is working on a set of demands, whcih I think has been posted on this listserve.  I think there is anothoer group discussing messageing on
On 09/30/11, Cesar<> wrote:
I would like to join too, and I think that all groups that have been working in statements of all shorts should get together to   
consolidate process.

Sent from phone


On Sep 30, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Doug Singsen <> wrote:

I'd like to join this group as well. The anti-police brutality demo is today at 5:30, we should meet at a time that won't overlap with it.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Amin Husain <> wrote:
I am!  Want to meet at 5 pm today?

On Sep 30, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Matthew Bralow <> wrote:

> silly question, but is there a dedicated working group for the
> guiding/principles / points of unity / declaration of occupation of
> nyc?  when do you meet?  who is point person i can contact?  thanks in
> advance!  matt
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Cesar <> wrote:
>> Back to the drawing board.
>> I think we should try to focus in format (bulleted points, one sentence,
>> vision statement...?) and process (subgroups, online,paper boards...)
>> inorder to keep moving slowly but steadily forward. The content discussion
>> should continue in parallel.
>> I do not see any shorcut, but to decide each step of the process at the GA.
>> We may end up with a system that will allow the elaboration of complex
>> pronouncements by a process of collective thought. Let's brainstorm that.
>> Cesar
>> Sent from phone
>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Jon Good <> wrote:
>> What causes unify us?  What are actual things we all can agree are
>> important? Things that we can do now.  These demands will be our first
>> steps.  Does the sentiment (NOT THE WORDING)  of these things cause problems
>> for anyone?  What else can we agree on that are like these?
>> Get the influence of money out of politics
>> End military aggression abroad
>> Bring financial predators to justice
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Chris _ <> wrote:
>>> I've said this multiple times, but I think our demand should be for a
>>> True Peace Dividend. End the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other
>>> foreign theaters. Use the money that has already been appropriated for
>>> these wars and direct it, instead, toward debt relief: mortgages,
>>> student loans, cars, etc. This is, one, a specific demand, two,
>>> theoretically do-able (if politically challenging), three, directly
>>> helps the people for whom we are fighting and, four, will probably
>>> have a great deal of popular support.
>>> On Sep 26, 6:47 pm, wrote:
>>>>  +1
>>>> On 09/26/11,Amin Husain<>wrote:All,
>>>> I am sure I know many of you (e.g. Cesar, Isham, etc.) from Liberty
>>>> Square.  I am on the facilitation working group and others.  I agree with
>>>> all of you on the urgency of demands and/or vision/goals.  I think that
>>>> process can run parallel with Principles of Solidarity.  I also think the
>>>> Communique statement looks great as it has been revised (reserving judgment
>>>> on the specific items mentioned, for the moment).  I note that there is a
>>>> consensus that the issue of demands/vision/goals in the context (or not) of
>>>> the communique is on the agenda and should be so this evening at 7pm.  If
>>>> so, from the email exchanges, I think that is going to be a very difficult
>>>> GA because of the competing approaches and understandings.  I am concerned
>>>> we will not get far enough.  If I may respectfully suggest, in the interest
>>>> of moving the discussion and its resolution along, that those who have
>>>> proposed specific formulations here or at the GA to familiarize themselves
>>>> with the competing proposal and try to be ready to make friendly amendment
>>>> and get on board one or the other competing proposals, and have suggestions
>>>> as point of compromise.  This may help a great deal.  Recognize that the GA,
>>>> from experience, gets paralyzed if there are competing proposals to the
>>>> body.  We are likely to end up going in circles, and that may cause great
>>>> damage to the cause, because people that are sitting in new on the GA will
>>>> not like what they see.  This is just a suggestion.  We are doing great, and
>>>> we can figure this out.  I will say this.  Let us not panic or get
>>>> frustrated about not having demands; let's work hard on formulating them as
>>>> soon as possible.
>>>> Amin