"Direct Democracy" and the OWS

[The T]

Take screenshots of it now!

Before they change the page like they did when everyone made fun of the 13 demands

Please don't lie, or repeat lies. Seriously, you're better than that. Those "demands" were never found anywhere on the web site except in the forum, as suggestions posted by one person. And as far as I know they're still there, and were never taken down. They never were an official position of OWS or the Central Committee, so there was nothing to change.

George Soros or Van Jones paying you to lie?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I wonder if this current manifesto will also get an "admin note" as it is supports something other than our Constitution.

We will see.

Take screenshots of it now!

Before they change the page like they did when everyone made fun of the 13 demands

How long did it take them to 'correct' that little 'gaff', if you know?

More and more their slip is showing.

it took a full 48 hours

They even had a "spokesperson" on the air here in boston discussing it...i wonder if there is a podcast of that......

 

[Si modo]

"To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy"


sorry to inform you of this but the tea party protests were actions that formed a group in the spirit of direct democray.


They are not saying they want to change this country into a direct democracy they are talking about protests.


Why do you people on the right WORK so tirelessly to mistunderstand what others say?


Quit the damned twisting of everything others say.

You are wrong about the tea party protests. The tea partys formed in a direct response to what the people invovled felt was a constitutional overreach by the federal govt and fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government.

The Tea Partys want to work within the confines of our consitutional republic to affect change while the OWS people want to scapegoat rich people and instill a tyranny of the majority over the minority (also called a direct democracy).

The tea party events were funded by the Koch brothers and promoted for free by Fox news.


This is real grass roots.


Why did you think the tea party protests were great and think these ones are BAD!
'

Because you are a partisan hack with no moral code

Irrespective of the fact that, as usual, you think that your fantasies are facts, the manifesto of the OWS promotes an ideal that is fundamentally unconstitutional.

The Tea Party promotes following the Constitution.

 

[Si modo]

Take screenshots of it now!

Before they change the page like they did when everyone made fun of the 13 demands

How long did it take them to 'correct' that little 'gaff', if you know?

More and more their slip is showing.

it took a full 48 hours

They even had a "spokesperson" on the air here in boston discussing it...i wonder if there is a podcast of that......

48 hours????? Wow!

That would be nice if you could find that.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

96.9 Boston Talks Audio On-Demand

^^^4th podcast down titled "Master Occupier: Lloyd Hart, master occupier talks about Occupy Boston"

yeah, audio rules

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy"


sorry to inform you of this but the tea party protests were actions that formed a group in the spirit of direct democray.


They are not saying they want to change this country into a direct democracy they are talking about protests.


Why do you people on the right WORK so tirelessly to mistunderstand what others say?


Quit the damned twisting of everything others say.

You are wrong about the tea party protests. The tea partys formed in a direct response to what the people invovled felt was a constitutional overreach by the federal govt and fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government.

The Tea Partys want to work within the confines of our consitutional republic to affect change while the OWS people want to scapegoat rich people and instill a tyranny of the majority over the minority (also called a direct democracy).

The tea party events were funded by the Koch brothers and promoted for free by Fox news.


This is real grass roots.


Why did you think the tea party protests were great and think these ones are BAD!
'

Because you are a partisan hack with no moral code

"The tea party events were funded by the Koch brothers and promoted for free by Fox news."

 

[Si modo]

96.9 Boston Talks Audio On-Demand

^^^4th podcast down titled "Master Occupier: Lloyd Hart, master occupier talks about Occupy Boston"

yeah, audio rules

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PLYMCO_PILGRIM again.


Thank you sooooo much! I'm going to listen to it now.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

96.9 Boston Talks Audio On-Demand

^^^4th podcast down titled "Master Occupier: Lloyd Hart, master occupier talks about Occupy Boston"

yeah, audio rules

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PLYMCO_PILGRIM again.


Thank you sooooo much! I'm going to listen to it now.

i think i'll make a thread for everyone to find it easier

 

[Si modo]

96.9 Boston Talks Audio On-Demand

^^^4th podcast down titled "Master Occupier: Lloyd Hart, master occupier talks about Occupy Boston"

yeah, audio rules

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PLYMCO_PILGRIM again.


Thank you sooooo much! I'm going to listen to it now.

i think i'll make a thread for everyone to find it easier

Great idea.

 

[The T]

96.9 Boston Talks Audio On-Demand

^^^4th podcast down titled "Master Occupier: Lloyd Hart, master occupier talks about Occupy Boston"

yeah, audio rules

"drunks and bums infiltrating..." (Fifth down)

 

[oreo]

From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:

....

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.​

[Emphasis added]

Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.

Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.

They border on insurrection. Protesting in the wrong venue.

But what the hell send my check to. Po box 100 Milking You, USA

I am still waiting for all my debt to be wiped out--clear slate. And if I don't pay my home mortgage--hell I am staying--let someone else pay for it. BTW--I want my grandkids to get a multi-million dollar education paid for by someone else too.

This is what the OWS group stands for---

 

[Dragon]

Oreo, OWS has no official spokespersons and if it did, you would certainly not be one of them. It is not up to you to say what the movement stands for.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The far left is having their progressive temper tantrum.. they want capitalism to fall, a redistribution of wealth, and to occupy wall street, this all seems to be supported by the demonRats.. it's gonna bite their asses. The Tax Payers of America are at work. Earning their living, not demanding handouts. They use bathroom facilities and wash their hands, they don't shit on police cars. then they get home from work, sit down, turn the tv on and see the far left street shitters in action. Damn I can't wait til we get to the polls.

They are not very organized, from what I can tell, of what they are ACTUALLY protesting about. Everyone seems to have their own "opinion" of what they THINK they may be after, even the anti-capitalist like Michael Moore. I know the union is also there to help. From what I've personally seen, just mention the word "beer" and they seem to show up in buses. However these aren't really protestors, as much as they are to be viewed as nothing more than (what was that word Nancy Pelosi reassured us) . . . . "Astro-turf"?

Perhaps David Letterman can get their grumblings of complaints down to a popular "Top Ten List" and make it easier for the rest of us to discern.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:

....

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.​

[Emphasis added]

Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.

Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.

You have a guy in Obama's neighborhood called Ayers. Ayers is a huge assistant to a man called Hugo Chavez. Oh and Ayers adopted son of another terrorist called Chesa is also an adviser to El Blockhead.

Oh and the Bolivar Revolution called for direct democracy.

Funny how things link up in the end n'est pas?

Yeah. Like George HW Bush releasing a terrorist, Orlando Bosch, who blew up a plane killing over 70 people and supported a terrorist Osama Bin Laden, in Afghanistan, who used planes to kill over 3000 people while his son, George W. Bush, who owned a business started by Osama Bin Laden's brother Salim, read a book.

Love this guilt by association thing.

It's a blade that cuts both ways.

Let me take a wild guess and say New York Times, or was that the Huffington Post?

 

[Si modo]

Oreo, OWS has no official spokespersons and if it did, you would certainly not be one of them. It is not up to you to say what the movement stands for.

But we keep hearing from those who say they are part of OWS that they want student loan debt and mortgages forgiven.

Is that not the case?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Well back to the original point..then.

I find it interesting that people that say in one point that most Americans support their views, work tirelessly to make sure that the majority rule in this country is essentially squashed.

The Constitution was drafted at a time when people could own slaves and the "landed gentry" were worried about their voices being overwhelmed by more "common folk". Lots of things have changed. The women in this country can vote. We no longer have slavery.

Perhaps it's time to allow Majority rule in terms of voting for a President.

Of course you probably disagree with that one.

What I've highlighted above has little to do with our Constitution because our Constitution is self-correcting, thanks to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Are you of the opinion that the Constitution is no longer useful?

Nope. One of the finest documents ever written by Humanity. A fine testament to Liberalism.

I don't recall the Federal Government, under the United States Constitution, to be allowed to have control and dictate over it's people (such as the mandate of Obamacare) but rather always be submissive to the will of the people that place them into such positions. When we begin to view the Federal Government as more of a position of supreme power and rule over its people, we begin to lose the intent of where that true power should "more respectfully" reside according to our Founding Fathers: A Constitution of limited Government power that answers to, and foremost preserves, the freedoms and rights of the "individual" liberties it's established (under the Declaration of Independence) to always protect.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That's the most important thing about being a Liberal. Allowing people the right to say what they want..even if it offends you.

It's tough...but there it is.

Yes, they have that right as I have the right to call them what they actually are, and call them on their idiocies. And tell them they are shooting themselves in their own feet. Talk about a masacre of thought

Is it their right to be protesting?

Yes or no?

Are the police correct in arresting them?

Yes or no?

They have a right to protest, so long as they are NOT violating any laws in doing so. You can decide you want to hold a protest within a state building, like the protestors of Wisconsin, but as soon as those actions violate the law (state building fire codes and public safety) the police have a right to take action and have you removed.

It may be tough for you to swallow . . . . but there it is.

 

[rightwinger]

What I've highlighted above has little to do with our Constitution because our Constitution is self-correcting, thanks to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Are you of the opinion that the Constitution is no longer useful?

Nope. One of the finest documents ever written by Humanity. A fine testament to Liberalism.

I don't recall the Federal Government, under the United States Constitution, to be allowed to have control and dictate over it's people (such as the mandate of Obamacare) but rather always be submissive to the will of the people that place them into such positions. When we begin to view the Federal Government as more of a position of supreme power and rule over its people, we begin to lose the intent of where that true power should "more respectfully" reside according to our Founding Fathers: A Constitution of limited Government power that answers to, and foremost preserves, the freedoms and rights of the "individual" liberties it's established (under the Declaration of Independence) to always protect.

The Constitution never called for limited Government. It establishes the confines and structure of Government and leaves it up to the elected officials to decide on the scope of Government

If you don't like the size of the Government, elect new officials. You will have no luck proving a large Government is Un-Constitutional

 

[tinydancer]

Nope. One of the finest documents ever written by Humanity. A fine testament to Liberalism.

I don't recall the Federal Government, under the United States Constitution, to be allowed to have control and dictate over it's people (such as the mandate of Obamacare) but rather always be submissive to the will of the people that place them into such positions. When we begin to view the Federal Government as more of a position of supreme power and rule over its people, we begin to lose the intent of where that true power should "more respectfully" reside according to our Founding Fathers: A Constitution of limited Government power that answers to, and foremost preserves, the freedoms and rights of the "individual" liberties it's established (under the Declaration of Independence) to always protect.

The Constitution never called for limited Government. It establishes the confines and structure of Government and leaves it up to the elected officials to decide on the scope of Government

If you don't like the size of the Government, elect new officials. You will have no luck proving a large Government is Un-Constitutional

Honest question.

How are the EPA officials, unelected souls, able to rule and make laws when they are unelected bureaucrats ...?

How is this constitutional?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nope. One of the finest documents ever written by Humanity. A fine testament to Liberalism.

I don't recall the Federal Government, under the United States Constitution, to be allowed to have control and dictate over it's people (such as the mandate of Obamacare) but rather always be submissive to the will of the people that place them into such positions. When we begin to view the Federal Government as more of a position of supreme power and rule over its people, we begin to lose the intent of where that true power should "more respectfully" reside according to our Founding Fathers: A Constitution of limited Government power that answers to, and foremost preserves, the freedoms and rights of the "individual" liberties it's established (under the Declaration of Independence) to always protect.

The Constitution never called for limited Government. It establishes the confines and structure of Government and leaves it up to the elected officials to decide on the scope of Government

If you don't like the size of the Government, elect new officials. You will have no luck proving a large Government is Un-Constitutional

You simply couldn't be more wrong.