Do OWSers understand what they are calling for is tyranny?

[The Gadfly]

We are a Constitutional Republic. No matter how much you hate that, we are.

The terms "constitutional republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are (at least as you define them); why else would you continually call for "a NEW constitution"? You know damn well why, of course, and that is that the current constitution (the REAL ONE) does not permit the sort of tyranny of the mob you seek. If you want to change the rules, try my solution for losers who are not motivated enough, or intelligent enough, to be productive citizens; they can do the rest of us a favor and starve to death, thereby removing their sorry, worthless selves from the gene pool. Otherwise they can fight, and get removed from it that way (stupidity is fatal in combat). Either would provide America what it needs at the moment-a good enema! Isn't Darwinism wonderful-gets rid of fools, cowards, parasites and most traitors, all at once!

 

[Intense]

We are a Constitutional Republic. No matter how much you hate that, we are.

The terms "constitutional republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are (at least as you define them); why else would you continually call for "a NEW constitution"? You know damn well why, of course, and that is that the current constitution (the REAL ONE) does not permit the sort of tyranny of the mob you seek. If you want to change the rules, try my solution for losers who are not motivated enough, or intelligent enough, to be productive citizens; they can do the rest of us a favor and starve to death, thereby removing their sorry, worthless selves from the gene pool. Otherwise they can fight, and get removed from it that way (stupidity is fatal in combat). Either would provide America what it needs at the moment-a good enema! Isn't Darwinism wonderful-gets rid of fools, cowards, parasites and most traitors, all at once!

Come on Gad.... If you don't calm down.... No More Rambo Movies for a week!

Funny how the Protestors want more Government Control, yet they fail to see the connection between that and Police Behavior.

They are sadly getting what they are asking for. Do you think somebody should tip them off?

 

[Intense]

And more rhetoric is your response.

In the real world, we don't have a fallback planet. We have to live on this one. You present nothing to show that data is flawed, nothing to show that what the oil companies want to do is safe, and nothing to show that an agency established in a democracy is somehow totalitarian.

Fight with you? To what end? It's up to you to watch where you are walking. The spectrum is just to vast, and you , too much in denial.

 

[Dragon]

The terms "constitutional republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are (at least as you define them); why else would you continually call for "a NEW constitution"?

That doesn't follow. I, personally (in the booklet linked in my signature), suggest that the ultimate cure might be direct democracy through online voting. Now, THAT would not be a republic, true. But a democratic republic is still a democracy, and that is I think what most Americans want.

A republic is ALWAYS constitutional (for that matter, direct democracy would be, too), so insisting on a "constitutional republic" is double-talk. The real opposition is between a democratic republic and an aristocratic republic, because those are the only two kinds of republic that exist.

The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic; that's why we have direct election of both Representatives and Senators, and although we don't directly elect the president the Electoral College is supposed to reflect the will of the people, so that on the rare occasions when it doesn't (e.g. 2000) something is widely perceived to be rotten and amiss.

The fact that we have corporations bribing politicians and twisting the government to reflect their own private interests instead of the public good and the will of the voters means we have in effect an aristocratic republic, even though the Constitution's straight and obvious intent is to give us a democratic one.

Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A republic is either a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic; there is no third kind. If you don't want a democratic republic, then you are in favor of aristocratic rule. Any claim to the contrary is sheer pretense.

 

[Liberty]

direct democracy would render this country 3rd world.

 

[The Gadfly]

The terms "constitutional republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are (at least as you define them); why else would you continually call for "a NEW constitution"?

That doesn't follow. I, personally (in the booklet linked in my signature), suggest that the ultimate cure might be direct democracy through online voting. Now, THAT would not be a republic, true. But a democratic republic is still a democracy, and that is I think what most Americans want.

A republic is ALWAYS constitutional (for that matter, direct democracy would be, too), so insisting on a "constitutional republic" is double-talk. The real opposition is between a democratic republic and an aristocratic republic, because those are the only two kinds of republic that exist.

The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic; that's why we have direct election of both Representatives and Senators, and although we don't directly elect the president the Electoral College is supposed to reflect the will of the people, so that on the rare occasions when it doesn't (e.g. 2000) something is widely perceived to be rotten and amiss.

The fact that we have corporations bribing politicians and twisting the government to reflect their own private interests instead of the public good and the will of the voters means we have in effect an aristocratic republic, even though the Constitution's straight and obvious intent is to give us a democratic one.

Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A republic is either a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic; there is no third kind. If you don't want a democratic republic, then you are in favor of aristocratic rule. Any claim to the contrary is sheer pretense.

Have you called for a "constitutional convention", or a new constitution? Why, as a matter of fact, yes you have, right on this very board, and more than once, I might add. You have done so, because you KNOW those proposals of yours are unconstitutional! You position is nothing more nor less than this:We want what we want, and if the constitution forbids that, well, the constitution will have to go. Do you seriously think this country is going to allow you radicals to do that? You are delusional!

 

[IndependntLogic]

direct democracy would render this country 3rd world.

I don't blame you for Cut & Running from my previous posts on campaign finance reform. Direct questions and such....

 

[georgephillip]

"Third, what do the Occupy Wall Street protesters really want? According to Mike Konczal’s careful assessment of their published grievances, jobs are the number one issue.

"So again we should ask: Who caused the financial crisis that destroyed so many jobs?"

Too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks is the answer.

Wall Street v. Elizabeth Warren « The Baseline Scenario

 

[eots]

OWS protesters get pepper sprayed for breaking the law and are hailed as heroes. In syria, protesters call for revolution to overthrow a government that is the kind OWS is calling for, many get shot and killed by the government, and die anonymously. You people have no idea the type of horrific tyrannical government that your "revolution" will bring us. What gives YOU the right to choose how others live? Please disband and consider legal means of change, and while you are at it educate yourselves on what liberty really is...it is a government that secures liberty not a government that provides everything to a society of lazy degenerates. These OWSers, like the successful statist uprisings across the world have managed to do nothing to secure liberty, yet have secured tyranny in every country where the people demand free stuff.


A Global Revolution to Overthrow Statism - YouTube

you have no clue

 

[Liberty]

direct democracy would render this country 3rd world.

I don't blame you for Cut & Running from my previous posts on campaign finance reform. Direct questions and such....

sorry missed it, you will get a response standby.

 

[Liberty]

The thrust of the movement now is ending the Corporatacracy that America has become. Guess what?
OWS? We WANT American companies to succeed. We just don't Multi-National Companies (and now, even forgeign ones) to buy and then control our government.
We don't want companies to succeed by taking our taxpayer money in the form of specialized breaks, subsidies and loophole that take over $100,000,000,000 out of our economy every year.
We don't want companies to succeed by being rewarded for being Job Stealers, while actual American companies get no help at all.

Anyone who doesn't think that money buys our elections is blind to the obvious.

I think you have it backwards. Other than on FOX, it's become apparent that the our movement has begun a transition from economic to political.

Let's talk about what I highlighted. You say corporations "buy" our government. That implies our government was willing to "sell." Therefore...shouldn't the brunt of the blame be put on the seller? Like drug dealing...the drug dealer gets a larger punishment than the drug buyer no?

Sure. I agree. No doubt. See, that's what someone who is not avoiding the issue does. I just answer your comment directly and then expound.

So that being said, what is the cure? Hoping that sellers (politicians) won't sell anymore? Good luck with that. That buyers (Corps, PAC & Unions) won't buy? Yeah same thing, good luck with that.
It's a system that's been in place so long, that it's become a chicken & egg question. If the buyers don't or the sellers won't buy...
So we want to eliminate the dynamic altogether and take our country from the Corporatacracy it has become, back to a Democratic Republic.
Eliminate the influence of Unions, SIGs & Corps. Flush Obama's nearly Billion dollar war-chest down the tubes.

Does that really sound so bad to you?

The cure is to elect libertarians who understand the constitution and who operate on principle and responsibility. People need to stop electing people who best answer the question "What free stuff will this person give me if I vote for them?" This mindset is killing the country. Private sector unions and such are fine, public sector not so much because it deals with tax payers money. We need to be fiscally responsible, and suck up whatever standard of living decreases we have to until we get back on our feet. It will be hard but the future and our children's children will thank us.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Let's talk about what I highlighted. You say corporations "buy" our government. That implies our government was willing to "sell." Therefore...shouldn't the brunt of the blame be put on the seller? Like drug dealing...the drug dealer gets a larger punishment than the drug buyer no?

Sure. I agree. No doubt. See, that's what someone who is not avoiding the issue does. I just answer your comment directly and then expound.

So that being said, what is the cure? Hoping that sellers (politicians) won't sell anymore? Good luck with that. That buyers (Corps, PAC & Unions) won't buy? Yeah same thing, good luck with that.
It's a system that's been in place so long, that it's become a chicken & egg question. If the buyers don't or the sellers won't buy...
So we want to eliminate the dynamic altogether and take our country from the Corporatacracy it has become, back to a Democratic Republic.
Eliminate the influence of Unions, SIGs & Corps. Flush Obama's nearly Billion dollar war-chest down the tubes.

Does that really sound so bad to you?

The cure is to elect libertarians who understand the constitution and who operate on principle and responsibility. People need to stop electing people who best answer the question "What free stuff will this person give me if I vote for them?" This mindset is killing the country. Private sector unions and such are fine, public sector not so much because it deals with tax payers money. We need to be fiscally responsible, and suck up whatever standard of living decreases we have to until we get back on our feet. It will be hard but the future and our children's children will thank us.

Hmm. You never answered my question.

And honestly, to see a post that says "vote for my party! We're all perfect in every way and WE are the ones who understand what the USC is REALLY about!" never really impresses me as a way to handle issues or problems - whether it comes from a Dem, Repub, Libertarian or Tea Partier.
To me. it seems foolish to believe one party / ideology is always right.

 

[SAT2]

We are a Constitutional Republic. No matter how much you hate that, we are.

The terms "constitutional republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are (at least as you define them); why else would you continually call for "a NEW constitution"? You know damn well why, of course, and that is that the current constitution (the REAL ONE) does not permit the sort of tyranny of the mob you seek. If you want to change the rules, try my solution for losers who are not motivated enough, or intelligent enough, to be productive citizens; they can do the rest of us a favor and starve to death, thereby removing their sorry, worthless selves from the gene pool. Otherwise they can fight, and get removed from it that way (stupidity is fatal in combat). Either would provide America what it needs at the moment-a good enema! Isn't Darwinism wonderful-gets rid of fools, cowards, parasites and most traitors, all at once!

You mean Social Darwinism. Not Darwinism. Which is morally on a level with mob rule [and not democracy]. Good job!

Come on Gad.... If you don't calm down.... No More Rambo Movies for a week!

Funny how the Protestors want more Government Control, yet they fail to see the connection between that and Police Behavior.

They are sadly getting what they are asking for. Do you think somebody should tip them off?

The protestors don't want "more government control". They want the rule of law and less corruption. No, they are not getting what they are asking for. You fundamentally misunderstand.

And more rhetoric is your response.

In the real world, we don't have a fallback planet. We have to live on this one. You present nothing to show that data is flawed, nothing to show that what the oil companies want to do is safe, and nothing to show that an agency established in a democracy is somehow totalitarian.

Fight with you? To what end? It's up to you to watch where you are walking. The spectrum is just to vast, and you , too much in denial.

In other words, you've got nothing but paranoia and self-interest on your side. Nothing. You want us to gamble with the only environment we have, for short term profit. The American public is often not smart, but they're wiser than this.

The terms "constitutional republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they are (at least as you define them); why else would you continually call for "a NEW constitution"?

That doesn't follow. I, personally (in the booklet linked in my signature), suggest that the ultimate cure might be direct democracy through online voting. Now, THAT would not be a republic, true. But a democratic republic is still a democracy, and that is I think what most Americans want.

A republic is ALWAYS constitutional (for that matter, direct democracy would be, too), so insisting on a "constitutional republic" is double-talk. The real opposition is between a democratic republic and an aristocratic republic, because those are the only two kinds of republic that exist.

The United States is supposed to be a democratic republic; that's why we have direct election of both Representatives and Senators, and although we don't directly elect the president the Electoral College is supposed to reflect the will of the people, so that on the rare occasions when it doesn't (e.g. 2000) something is widely perceived to be rotten and amiss.

The fact that we have corporations bribing politicians and twisting the government to reflect their own private interests instead of the public good and the will of the voters means we have in effect an aristocratic republic, even though the Constitution's straight and obvious intent is to give us a democratic one.

Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A republic is either a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic; there is no third kind. If you don't want a democratic republic, then you are in favor of aristocratic rule. Any claim to the contrary is sheer pretense.

"Third, what do the Occupy Wall Street protesters really want? According to Mike Konczal’s careful assessment of their published grievances, jobs are the number one issue.

"So again we should ask: Who caused the financial crisis that destroyed so many jobs?"

Too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks is the answer.

Wall Street v. Elizabeth Warren « The Baseline Scenario

 

[Dragon]

Have you called for a "constitutional convention", or a new constitution?

Did you bother reading my last post? Evidently not, because if you had, you would know that I'm not just talking about MY proposal. MY proposal is for direct democracy. But "democracy" can also mean a democratic republic -- representative democracy -- and a democratic republic is still a republic. In fact, it's still a constitutional republic. In fact, it's the very constitutional republic that we're supposed to have in the United States, but, thanks to the corrupting influence of corporate money, don't.

There are only two types of republic, a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic. If you want a republic, but don't want a democratic republic, then you want an aristocratic republic. There is no third possibility.

 

[chanel]

Comedienne Roseanne Barr, (worth $80 million), was quoted quite literally calling for the heads of wealthy, declaring:''I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty. I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the re-education camps and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded.''

Barr inadvertently called for the heads of 13 celebrities supporting the Occupy Wall Street who make more than $100 million from singer Miley Cyrus to writer Stephen King.

Here is a list of the 25 richest celebrities supporting the Occupy Movement (Source: Celebrity Net Worth)

1. Yoko Ono - $500 million

2. Jay-Z - $450 million

3. David Letterman - $400 million

(tie) Stephen King - $400 million

5. Russell Simmons - $325 million

6. Sean Lennon - $200 million

7. Mike Myers - $175 million

8. George Clooney - $160 million

9. Brad Pitt - $150 million

(tie) Don King - $150 million

11. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) - $145 million

12. Jane Fonda - $120 million

(tie) Miley Cyrus - 120 million

14. Al Gore - $100 million

15. Roseanne Barr - $80 million

(tie) Deepak Chopra - $80 million

17. Kanye West - $70 million

(tie) Dan Rather - $70 million

19. Alec Baldwin - $65 million

(tie) Matt Damon - $65 million

21. Tom Morello - $60 million

(tie) Mia Farrow - $60 million

23. Katy Perry - $55 million

24. Michael Moore - $50 million

(tie) Susan Sarandon - $50 million

Total: $4.1 billion
Read more: 99 Percent? Top 25 Occupy Wall Street Backers Worth Over $4 Billion | NewsBusters.org

 

[IndependntLogic]

Comedienne Roseanne Barr, (worth $80 million), was quoted quite literally calling for the heads of wealthy, declaring:''I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty. I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the re-education camps and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded.''

Barr inadvertently called for the heads of 13 celebrities supporting the Occupy Wall Street who make more than $100 million from singer Miley Cyrus to writer Stephen King.

Here is a list of the 25 richest celebrities supporting the Occupy Movement (Source: Celebrity Net Worth)

1. Yoko Ono - $500 million

2. Jay-Z - $450 million

3. David Letterman - $400 million

(tie) Stephen King - $400 million

5. Russell Simmons - $325 million

6. Sean Lennon - $200 million

7. Mike Myers - $175 million

8. George Clooney - $160 million

9. Brad Pitt - $150 million

(tie) Don King - $150 million

11. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) - $145 million

12. Jane Fonda - $120 million

(tie) Miley Cyrus - 120 million

14. Al Gore - $100 million

15. Roseanne Barr - $80 million

(tie) Deepak Chopra - $80 million

17. Kanye West - $70 million

(tie) Dan Rather - $70 million

19. Alec Baldwin - $65 million

(tie) Matt Damon - $65 million

21. Tom Morello - $60 million

(tie) Mia Farrow - $60 million

23. Katy Perry - $55 million

24. Michael Moore - $50 million

(tie) Susan Sarandon - $50 million

Total: $4.1 billion
Read more: 99 Percent? Top 25 Occupy Wall Street Backers Worth Over $4 Billion | NewsBusters.org

While I disagree with a maximum wage, I would invite you to look up the difference betwen "Wage" and "Net worth".
In other words, the entire premise that any of the celebs would qualify is BS designed to appeal to the less sophisticated on The Right.
Also, there is that the difference that none of those celebs were paid with taxpayer money - which was an obvious point of hers.

I would guess this came from one of those Far Right Whackjob Sites that appeal to the unthinking...

 

[chanel]

Taxpayer money? Where does she say that? Was she talking about Congress? I think not.

I am not in the business of fact checking income taxes, and I am well aware of the difference between "earnings" and "net worth". The problem is that the OWS crowd does not.

There are lots and lots of millionaires in this country, with many of them living here in the Garden State. But very few EARN a million a year - even those evil, greedy, banker types. Perhaps Rosie and the other boneheads in that article were talking about the .00000000000001% that steal over a $100 mil in taxpayer money? Decimals can be tricky.

Just pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the celebutards.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Taxpayer money? Where does she say that? Was she talking about Congress? I think not.

Seems to me, she specifically mentioned bankers who got bailout money. Am I wrong?

I am not in the business of fact checking income taxes, and I am well aware of the difference between "earnings" and "net worth". The problem is that the OWS crowd does not.

The ENTIRE OWS crowd doesn't know the difference? You're wrong about that. Let me guess - you're one of those folks who talks about how Obama tries to divide people or creates a class warfare...
There are lots and lots of millionaires in this country, with many of them living here in the Garden State. But very few EARN a million a year - even those evil, greedy, banker types. Perhaps Rosie and the other boneheads in that article were talking about the .00000000000001% that steal over a $100 mil in taxpayer money? Decimals can be tricky.

Just pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the celebutards.

Rosie is obviously not well-spoken but her meaning is obvious. Your post and those who state similar things, remind me of atheists. I'm a Christian. So atheists like to tell me that I "must" believe that the Earth is 5,000, condone slavery and polygamy etc...
It's not that they don't know there is a vast spectrum of Christians, it's that they are willfully ignorant toward anything that does not support what they want to believe about us.
This is the case with you and your compatriots toward OWS. It is will-known that there is a wide spectrum of people who support at least some primary goals of OWS (e.g. getting corporate control of our government). You are exactly like Liberals who claim ALL Tea Partiers want control over a wide range of social issues. They are just as wrong as you are. I am VERY supportive of many things the Tea Party wants and guess what? They overlap with OWS.
I am a business-owner, capitalist, target of new taxes on my bracket - and I support OWS in all but the more fringe ideals.
But then, I've taken the time to find out what they're really about, instead of clinging to only those beliefs that would villify them. Real hypocrisy would be labeling the entire group the way atheists label me, while intentionally ignoring those who have legitimate points.

 

[chanel]

I've also taken the time to learn about Occupy. And they haven't gone away. Meeting was yesterday.

Strategizing beyond the Occupation, Part 4: Spring Offensive

What would a radical spring offensive look like--in terms of both resistance and prefiguration--and why? Building on the previous conversations, come prepared to reflect on how we might creatively and boldly le...verage or reappropriate resources, illuminate key forms of hierarchy and exploitation, build a self-organized counterpower(s), and/or draw out the revolutionary potential(s) of this movement come warm weather. If possible, bring pen and paper so we can all take a few minutes at the beginning to each jot down some thoughts before sharing them.

This ongoing series of facilitated conversations is aimed at reflecting on specific topics within occupy everything here in Philly. The hope is that by grappling together with the dilemmas we face on the journey toward nonhierarchical social transformation--explicitly as anarchists, autonomists, council communists, and other antiauthoritarians--we'll be better able to experiment with forms of resistance and reconstruction that more closely prefigure a free, egalitarian "world from below."

Part 1 explored direct democracy, part 2 concentrated on anticapitalism within occupy, and part 3 looked at building a movement of movements.

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyPhiladelphia#!/events/221726484576343/

Egalitarianism = Marxism