Occupy New Hampshire now a corporation

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gaborn

Member
Occupy New Hampshire, the self-dubbed voice of the "99 percent," became a bit more exclusive this week.

On Monday, a small number of Occupy New Hampshire members incorporated the movement as a nonprofit in order to boot their former bedfellows: the Free Staters. Also prohibited from future Occupy events are gun owners who openly carry.

It's been a controversial move for a group so opposed to authoritative rule, and several Occupy members have joined with the Free Staters to fight back. They will gather this morning at 11 on the State House lawn to decide what comes next.

The issue?

Mark Provost of Manchester, one of the five directors of the newly created nonprofit, said Occupy's mission and that of the Free State Project cannot co-exist. And seeing guns at Occupy events have made some Occupiers nervous.

"The core of Occupy is social justice and economic inequality," Provost said. "On the issue of civil liberties and anti-war, there is agreement (with the Free Staters.) But the core message is the economic justice, and that is where we see the big difference."

Provost pointed to legislative efforts this session by Free Staters to weaken unions and to their support for deep cuts to the state budget.
Click to expand...

Bill Gould wrote, "As they become the very thing they fight against. . . . Well, good luck to them lobbying against firearms in NH. I'm sure that will be a big hit."

Membership in Occupy New Hampshire will now require signing statements of solidarity and respect, according to the corporation papers filed with the Secretary of State's office. And the Occupy members supporting Provost have concluded there is "no place" in Occupy New Hampshire for the Free State Project or guns, according to minutes of a recent meeting.
Click to expand...

Rep. Seth Cohn, a Canterbury Republican who calls himself both a Free Stater and an Occupier, called it hypocrisy for a group claiming to represent the masses to exclude anyone.

"The irony of using a corporation to shut down people they don't like . . . you can't make stuff like this up," Cohn said. "Here's a group that says we represent the 99 percent - except for those people."

Ann Clancy, an Occupier from Portsmouth whose liberal views don't jibe with those of Free Staters she knows, agrees. "(Provost) is fighting corporations and trying to turn Occupy into one," she said. "What he's basically doing is to try to steal other people's voices. Is he going to say he's still speaking for the 99 percent?"
Click to expand...

FULL story (it's 3 pages long) here

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously, and I AM being serious here, I respect the ideals of the Occupy movement. I just think the irony is too much. I mean... fucking WOW.
 
Is being a non-profit the same as hating profit?
 
Try again Gaborn, it's a non-profit.

Edit: Furthermore, it's about time they finally narrowed down to a singular message, this is one vehicle to do that with.
 
We are the 99%, except for those of us who think differently. Fuck them.

I can't believe that people ever thought that occupying shit was a good idea.
 
Gaborn said:
And your point is... I'm pretty sure this goes against the ideals of the OWS movement as I've understood them to be.
Click to expand...

What were the ideals as you understood them? to make sure we are on the same page.
 
Gaborn said:
Ideological purity? standing for the 99% only when they all agree? What about that is a good reason?
Click to expand...
Like not liking gun-nuts openly toting around weapons at protests or having people around who are simply anti-power??
Okay is about fair economics, if you have groups who simply latch onto you because you are popular, screw them.

It's like having the "black block" showing up at human rights demos. Get lost or get a grip.

So yeah, good for them.
 
Gaborn said:
Ideological purity? standing for the 99% only when they all agree? What about that is a good reason?
Click to expand...


Why do you have to be so closed minded? OWS is about freedom, democracy and being open minded! And they will shutdown and kick out anyone who disagrees with them to prove it!
 
I'm glad they're trying to coalesce and unify their vision, a problem long plaguing the Occupy movement, but forcing people to stay away in this manner in particular seems suspect.
 
Suikoguy said:
What were the ideals as you understood them? to make sure we are on the same page.
Click to expand...

I thought their ideals were openness, standing for the 99% regardless of party or other issue. I thought also a Cause célèbre associated with the movement was the relationship between corporate politics and money. This seems like both a way to purge people you disagree with (I guess they're representing the 45% or so now) and to provide a vehicle for larger donors.
 
Gaborn said:
Ideological purity? standing for the 99% only when they all agree? What about that is a good reason?
Click to expand...

I also find the funny, but I can't fault some of them for wanting to try to cut off the fat of the movement, if it leads to a better way to get the message across. Will wait to see if it does...
 
Volimar said:
I also find the funny, but I can't fault some of them for wanting to try to cut off the fat of the movement, if it leads to a better way to get the message across. Will wait to see if it does...
Click to expand...

Aren't they supposed to represent the 99%? What % is the "fat" of the movement? What % do they represent now? I want to make sure i know what to chant when I'm protesting evil corporations (while gaining the benefits of a corporation)
 
Gaborn said:
Ideological purity? standing for the 99% only when they all agree? What about that is a good reason?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're one of those guys that bitch about the OWS movement being all hippies and unorganized idiots.

They move towards organization and you bitch about that too? K.
 
Gaborn said:
I thought their ideals were openness, standing for the 99% regardless of party or other issue. I thought also a Cause célèbre associated with the movement was the relationship between corporate politics and money. This seems like both a way to purge people you disagree with (I guess they're representing the 45% or so now) and to provide a vehicle for larger donors.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you got that as the core message. I thought it was about income inequality. Hence, 99% vs 1%. Also the focus on wall-street where much of that 1% income is made. Where are you pulling 45% from?

Lastly, they admit that they still agree with some of the vision of Freestaters, however are frustrated since some of their ideas run contradictory to the core of the OWS movement as it said in the parts you did not bold.
 
I *do* think this is a better alternative than letting Occupy whither and die from having any sort of coherent message buried under so many different groups all screaming for what they want.
 
Gaborn said:
I thought their ideals were openness, standing for the 99% regardless of party or other issue. I thought also a Cause célèbre associated with the movement was the relationship between corporate politics and money. This seems like both a way to purge people you disagree with (I guess they're representing the 45% or so now) and to provide a vehicle for larger donors.
Click to expand...
That doesn't collide with their intention to represent all of the 99% in the slightest.
"I will defend your right to free speech even though you are completely opposed to it."
You can do good for people you seriously dislike but that doesn't mean taking them into you council.
 
Represent anyone who wants to join: Why u no have unified message!???

Kick out fringe groups to have a more unified message: Why u no represent everyone???


Not that I necessarily agree with any of this, but they are indeed in a no win situation.
 
So either they have to include everyone and get called a bunch of gun toting anarchist hippies because someone finds a pic of a guy in the crowd with a bong and a Che shirt or they try to focus their message and get shat on for not welcoming every voice in the crowd.

Divvy said:
Represent anyone who wants to join: Why u no have unified message!???

Kick out fringe groups to have a more unified message: Why u no represent everyone???


Not that I necessarily agree with any of this, but they are indeed in a no win situation.
Click to expand...

.
 
Suikoguy said:
I'm not sure where you got that as the core message. I thought it was about income inequality. Hence, 99% vs 1%. Also the focus on wall-street where much of that 1% income is made. Where are you pulling 45% from?

Lastly, they admit that they still agree with some of the vision of Freestaters, however are frustrated since some of their ideas run contradictory to the core of the OWS movement as it said in the parts you did not bold.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing from their gun control stance based roughly on what I believe support for gun control is.

Also, since when did organizations have to agree on EVERYTHING as long as we agree on other issues? it seems illogical for a movement claiming to represent all but those who make more than $343,927 to be so restricted.
 
Gaborn said:
I'm guessing from their gun control stance based roughly on what I believe support for gun control is.

Also, since when did organizations have to agree on EVERYTHING as long as we agree on other issues? it seems illogical for a movement claiming to represent all but those who make more than $343,927 to be so restricted.
Click to expand...

You take that 99% thing literally. The income gaps, even within the 1% is staggering.
 
Don't see the issue. You'd probably be making a similar thread if they had chosen to stay with the pro-gun, anti-tax lolbertarian nutjobs. Now they have the same protections corporations exploit every day.
 
Jackpot said:
Don't see the issue. You'd probably be making a similar thread if they had chosen to stay with the pro-gun, anti-tax lolbertarian nutjobs. Now they have the same protections corporations exploit every day.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know who I am :-P
 
Gaborn said:
I don't think you know who I am :-P
Click to expand...

I know you're libertarian. But you'd still crow about those naive long-hairs shacking up with a group that conflicts with their goals in such a big way. Just a repeat of "there's no focus! why can't they reduce the issue of economic and social problems into a slogan?"
 
I must have missed the point at which there was a solid message from the Occupy mob that all incorporated bodies are inherently bad.
 
This is beneath you gaborn, you're usually much more logical about this kind of thing than the likes of Kosmo or Manos who cherry pick negatives without seeing the big picture.

It's pretty much impossible anyway for a movement to be for 'everyone'. Occupy was/is about that only in order to gain power and recognition under a similar unified idea that everyone shares (which is tackling the problem of inequality, corruption, etc.). Once a movement becomes large enough the differences start becoming more accentuated though and factions start forming.

If there were some congress where Occupy people all went and made decisions on how they should proceed (which there hasn't yet and is something I think is drastically needed), they will all be under the same umbrella for similar ideas but there will be differences just as in any other legitimate democratic congress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

New Hampshire man is 2nd person known to be living with a pig kidney
28
1K
Alebrije replied
A new year, a new Netflix price hike
2
60
4K
EverydayBeast replied
New Brew
19
777
Days like these... replied
I need a new laptop. Care to help?
21
1K
GoldenEye Samurai replied
Google has removed Ublock from Chome now
Drama 
42
3K
Soodanim replied
Top Bottom