Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[Intense]

If they were intelligent they never would have been attracted to Communism in the first place.

Nonsense. Have you ever read any Marx? His critique of the capitalist system is spot-on. Anyone who cares about social justice or economic fairness, who opposes the oppression of working people by the owner class, is going to be attracted to Marxist thinking at some point or other.

The truth is OWS has NO agenda because in order to have one of those they'd actually have had to THINK about things and come up with solutions.

This isn't truth, and your posting it is evidence that YOU aren't thinking. The solution is to bring these issues to light, and make it impossible for the politicians to ignore them. Actual legislative solutions have already been proposed, but are getting no attention because the corporate donors don't want them to.

Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nonsense. Have you ever read any Marx? His critique of the capitalist system is spot-on.

No it isn't, and that is an incredibly ignorant claim.

Marx didn't even identify correctly that which he opposed. Marx deemed the 19th century stew of Berlin to be "capitalist,' when in fact it was no such thing. The mixture of feudalism and corporatism that Marx critiqued bears no resemblance to a market economy. Industry right granted by the state cannot be influenced by the nuance of the invisible hand. Marx analyzed a society where caste played a greater role than did innovation or production.

Marx rightly criticized the state supported robber barons of the fledgling German Confederation, but these were not "capitalists" in that they were placed in protected industry by the stated with the protection of the Prussian state, which doled out land and privilege as it had since the dark ages.

Anyone who cares about social justice or economic fairness, who opposes the oppression of working people by the owner class, is going to be attracted to Marxist thinking at some point or other.

Marxism attracts the weak of mind. Those who lack the logical skills needed to grasp the concepts of market and the nobility of trade as a means of men dealing with each other free of force and violence.

This isn't truth, and your posting it is evidence that YOU aren't thinking.

Then show us all the agenda and goals of the OWS?

The solution is to bring these issues to light, and make it impossible for the politicians to ignore them. Actual legislative solutions have already been proposed, but are getting no attention because the corporate donors don't want them to.

They are not getting attention because the American people are not interested in an authoritarian socialist state.

 

[mudwhistle]

Constitutional republics do no facilitate oppression of minorities as do pure democracies. To say the contrary is a willful suspension of rational thought.

No, it's a proper reading of history.

Can you name any actual historical pure democracies? I named one: ancient Athens. A couple of other Greek cities from the same period may also qualify. What oppression of minorities was carried on by those cities that compares with what the U.S. did to the Native Americans, let alone what Nazi Germany did to the Jews?
....

Let's see. I can go with the analysis of the Founding Fathers that pure democracies are more oppressive of minorities than are constitutional republics, or I can go with your analysis.

*ponders for a sec*

Yep, pure democracies are more oppressive of minorities than are constitutional republics.

It sure as hell does. The money loaned to them was not theirs, nor was it ever theirs. Government forcing others to surrender their property to those who have no legal right to it.

Spin it all you want, it still comes out as a seizure of assets.

So, cutting through your verbosity, the US Constitution (the tenets I described) no longer applies in the 21st century.

That is neither what I said nor a legitimate interpretation of what I said.

You said that the tenets I described are outdated. Those are tenets of the US Constitution. I'm sure you can connect the dots, but I will wait with baited breath for your next spin.

Ewwwwwww

How do you bait breath? Sounds gross.

 

[Si modo]

If they were intelligent they never would have been attracted to Communism in the first place.

Nonsense. Have you ever read any Marx? His critique of the capitalist system is spot-on. Anyone who cares about social justice or economic fairness, who opposes the oppression of working people by the owner class, is going to be attracted to Marxist thinking at some point or other.

The truth is OWS has NO agenda because in order to have one of those they'd actually have had to THINK about things and come up with solutions.

This isn't truth, and your posting it is evidence that YOU aren't thinking. The solution is to bring these issues to light, and make it impossible for the politicians to ignore them. Actual legislative solutions have already been proposed, but are getting no attention because the corporate donors don't want them to.

Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.

Wait - that post doesn't contain enough spin.

Try this: Blue is really green because the economics of the world have changed the value of the frequency of the color reflected by substances that reflect light. So, although capitalism may lead to green being blue, in reality, it is the rich who have devalued so much in the world that now blue is green. And, anyone who bought a green or blue house or car, now will get to keep both with their payments forgiven because of the devaluation of everything, thus frequencies, by the capitalist machine.

It's only fair and completely constitutional.

 

[Intense]

Nonsense. Have you ever read any Marx? His critique of the capitalist system is spot-on. Anyone who cares about social justice or economic fairness, who opposes the oppression of working people by the owner class, is going to be attracted to Marxist thinking at some point or other.



This isn't truth, and your posting it is evidence that YOU aren't thinking. The solution is to bring these issues to light, and make it impossible for the politicians to ignore them. Actual legislative solutions have already been proposed, but are getting no attention because the corporate donors don't want them to.

Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.

Wait - that post doesn't contain enough spin.

Try this: Blue is really green because the economics of the world have changed the value of the frequency of the color reflected by substances that reflect light. So, although capitalism may lead to green being blue, in reality, it is the rich who have devalued so much in the world that now blue is green. And, anyone who bought a green or blue house or car, now will get to keep both with their payments forgiven because of the devaluation of everything, thus frequencies, by the capitalist machine.

It's only fair and completely constitutional.

Yes... I see... I would also like to buy a House and Keep it, and have the Bank pay me, instead of me paying it. Everyone that agrees with me..... Silently wave your hands and fingers in the air.... Yes We have consensus, the Banks will pay us to live in our new homes, the balance of the Universe is restored.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nonsense. Have you ever read any Marx? His critique of the capitalist system is spot-on. Anyone who cares about social justice or economic fairness, who opposes the oppression of working people by the owner class, is going to be attracted to Marxist thinking at some point or other.



This isn't truth, and your posting it is evidence that YOU aren't thinking. The solution is to bring these issues to light, and make it impossible for the politicians to ignore them. Actual legislative solutions have already been proposed, but are getting no attention because the corporate donors don't want them to.

Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.

Wait - that post doesn't contain enough spin.

Try this: Blue is really green because the economics of the world have changed the value of the frequency of the color reflected by substances that reflect light. So, although capitalism may lead to green being blue, in reality, it is the rich who have devalued so much in the world that now blue is green. And, anyone who bought a green or blue house or car, now will get to keep both with their payments forgiven because of the devaluation of everything, thus frequencies, by the capitalist machine.

It's only fair and completely constitutional.

Sounds like a load a Brown stuff.

 

[Dragon]

Aren't we talking modern day here, Dragon?

As there are no modern-day pure democracies to the best of my knowledge, no, we are not.

As to the TP conversation, the tenets I referred to, which you called 'code' by the right wing and which you said were outdated (or, more accurately, not applicable to modern day) are some of the tenets of the US Constitution.

Ah, now I remember. No, they are not in the Constitution. Here is what you actually said:

If the OWS supports smaller and more efficient government, individual liberties and freedoms, less government intrusion, less authoritarian desires, more personal accountability, then I would be with them. It's clear they don't.

And that is what I referred to as code-speak. But none of these things -- "smaller and more efficient government," "individual liberties and freedoms," "less government intrusion," "less authoritarian desires," "more personal accountability," can be found anywhere in the Constitution. They may perhaps be your personal interpretation of what the Constitution is FOR, but they are certainly not quotes of anything that is IN IT.

Here's what I mean by "code-speak":

"Smaller and more efficient government" = "government that provides less help to the poor and middle class"

"Individual liberties and freedoms" = "less restraints on the rapacious interests of the wealthy and corporations." (Except when it means repealing parts of the Patriot Act and legalizing drugs.) That's also what "Less government intrusion" means, and also "less authoritarian desires."

"More personal accountability" = less support for unions and less help for anyone who falls through the cracks of the economy

Again, you will not find any of this in the Constitution.

The OWS doesn't like the Constitution.

You have yet to provide any evidence of this, and it's not remotely true.

 

[Skull Pilot]

OWS

Obnoxious Whining Sheep

 

[Big Fitz]

OWS

Obnoxious Whining Sheep

No no. "The Occupados".

Like a public toilet. They smell bad, have lots of idiotic statements and profanity, plus they're full of shit.

 

[mudwhistle]

OWS

Obnoxious Whining Sheep

No no. "The Occupados".

Like a public toilet. They smell bad, have lots of idiotic statements and profanity, plus they're full of shit.

The "Obama Occupados" smell bad, are full of crap' and won't let you get a word in edgewise.

Instead we're subjected to a unending string of socialist slogans and bumper-sticker facts.

Btw, Obama paid $1.8 million in income taxes.

Isn't he a 1 percenter now?

Why is it his pay went up by a factor of 4 when he became POTUS?

Talk about evil Capitalists.

 

[chanel]

ACORN is involved now. Surprise, surprise.

The Philadelphia office of Action United, an activist group that's a successor to the former ACORN, says it's going to recruit protesters from the Occupy Philadelphia tent village that has grown up in Dilworth Plaza west of City Hall, for a march two blocks south to Wells Fargo's local office at 123 South Broad St. tomorrow afternoon to demand Wells Fargo return "its share" of more than $63 million the Philadelphia School District had to pay banks to settle interest-rate swap contracts last year.

Robins says his group will mobilize at least 40 members for the protest, which would be more than predecessor ACORN typically brought to its past Philadelphia events. Plus "we'll see how many of the Occupy folks join."

Read more: Activists recruit Occupy for Phila bank protest | PhillyDeals | 10/11/2011
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

 

[EriktheRed]

ACORN is involved now. Surprise, surprise.

The Philadelphia office of Action United, an activist group that's a successor to the former ACORN, says it's going to recruit protesters from the Occupy Philadelphia tent village that has grown up in Dilworth Plaza west of City Hall, for a march two blocks south to Wells Fargo's local office at 123 South Broad St. tomorrow afternoon to demand Wells Fargo return "its share" of more than $63 million the Philadelphia School District had to pay banks to settle interest-rate swap contracts last year.

Robins says his group will mobilize at least 40 members for the protest, which would be more than predecessor ACORN typically brought to its past Philadelphia events. Plus "we'll see how many of the Occupy folks join."

Read more: Activists recruit Occupy for Phila bank protest | PhillyDeals | 10/11/2011
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

Aaaw, ain't that a pisser? They're still around and still able to have an impact while golden-boy O' Keefe has to ask permission to go.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Aaaw, ain't that a pisser? They're still around and still able to have an impact while golden-boy O' Keefe has to ask permission to go.

So Obama's gang ACORN is there setting up a prostitution ring of under age central Americans?

OWS, salivating over Salvadorians...

 

[Dragon]

The Constitution stipulates that all states must have a republican form of government. Does openly violating the constitution threaten it? Most assuredly.

Good point.

However, the existence of direct democracy operating somewhere in the country does not threaten the Constitution. Unless OWS is actually calling for eliminating the House and Senate and replacing them with direct voting, it's not doing what Si modo was accusing it of.

There was no stipulation of white, black land holders could and did vote. Nor was there a stipulation of male, female head of household could and did vote.

Incorrect on both counts. The requirement of white property owners was enacted at the state level, but it prevailed in all states in the beginning. Women could not vote in any state or in any election at the time the Constitution was ratified. They could not vote in federal elections, although they could in some state elections, until the 19th Amendment was ratified.

That we have become more democratic over time is obvious. Not only have these voting barriers been removed, but we have gone to direct election of Senators, dropped the voting age to 18, and given DC a vote in presidential elections, all through Constitutional amendment. Also, although we still have the electoral college, we have moved to a system where it is determined in each state by the popular vote; only rarely do the electors exercise their own initiative as was originally intended.

Democracy is an American political value. As a system, we do not have a direct democracy at the federal level, that's true. But to draw, on this basis, a distinction between a republic and a democracy, assert that we cannot have both, and argue that there is something un-American about democracy, is sheer sophistry and had no connection with the truth.

What you want cannot be under the constitution.

It not only can be but has been in the past.

Dragon, you have no doubt heard the term "Soviet Union," but do you know what a Soviet is? Do you know the structure and purpose of the Soviets?

LOL so now you're arguing that democracy is Commie? That has to be the most far-fetched argument I've seen yet.

The OWS is primarily a Union movement intended to shovel more tax payer money into the greedy maw of SEIU and other unions.

Every time you say something like this you prove you know nothing about the movement and are merely jerking your knees.

Nope, the [Occupy Wall Street] protests are the antithesis of the Tea Parties.

[Text in brackets above mine, inserted for accuracy.] In some respects yes, in others no. Because there are points in common, some Tea Party members are supporting OWS and involved in the protests, even though they don't agree with everything the movement is about.

The leftists are a fraction of the size of the Tea Party.

I wouldn't expect you to know what you're talking about w/r/t the size of the Leftist Insurgency, but normally when one doesn't know beans one does not embarrass oneself by speaking as if one did.

 

[Preius]

It is my prediction that the Tea Party, and OWS (Occupy Wall Street) could come together before the 2012 election. In Wisconsin we saw moderate Republicans who were union members wiping the dust off their collective bargaining rights. These moderates were teachers, firemen, police, and other State employees. I believe there is an easy overlap between the Tea Party and OWS, and they are moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats.

If the OWS is truly the "99%," and we are hearing about groups like "Patriotic Millionaires" who want the Bush tax cuts to expire, [Go to "patriotic-millionaires-petition-obama-bush-era-tax-cuts" I am too new to post links yet] Only the truly greedy value their money more than their country. So, we have part of the 1% backing the 99%. Amazing, only in America! With the favorability rating of the U. S. Congress less than 12% I think a grass roots movement could grow. If in 2012 we cleaned house in Congress TOTALLY in both parties, all the new guys would know that CITIZENS have a gun to their head. No political ideology, just instruction to Washington to make things work now.

Let's face it other than the 1% who is going to stand up for the 1%?

you can predict all you want. I don't SEE the Tea Party will have ANYTHING to do with this rag tag bunch of idiots. The Tea Party sees and does things a little more rationally AND WITHIN THE LAW., this bunch are just whiny agitators being paid and USED by the Unions, Marxist, Commies, Progressives and THE DEMOCRATS.

I wish you could have been more open about your feelings on this subject.

Seriously, I saw a report on the Ed Schultz Show leaning toward your point of view. The point being that the left has been looking for a way to get the agenda back in the middle. The president feels the Tea Party is pulling things way too far to the right. An interesting consideration because I, and others see the president as too center-right.

Republicans and Teabaggers want the 99% or OWS (Occupy Wall Street) to go away. The 99% is bogging down the Republican agenda. Most of the demonstrators of the 99% are young who cannot get a job even with their college education, and seniors. Two groups with lots of time available. Now unions are quietly checking in, breaking their backs to not be seen as leaders. The Unions are already stuck with Barry Obama for reelection, they have troubles of their own.

These demonstrators are teachers, firemen, police, and public servants. Apparently, you think you can mud-sling the 99% as radicals. Many used to be moderate Republicans until conservatives stupidly chased them out of their party, and they voted for Obama in 2008. A lot are liberals, but most important are the ULTRA - LEFT, because they are going to do the dirty work on the Tea Party. Not my idea, openly discussed on the political talk show circuit including Fox.

Now you can add to the 99% the "Millionaire Patriots" “Patriotic Millionaires” | Dissident Voice who believe;

"Recently members of the group calling themselves “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength” sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that “you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000”—the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."

You see, as in the American Revolution, the war against England was only declared because the wealthy colonists wanted it. Now you have the 1% a greedy group of Teabaggers, and the Patriotic Millionaires who understand arm twisting politics at the level of the Sons of Liberty. This is a power struggle between two wealthy factions.

The Sons of Liberty in the American Revolution headed by John Hancock and Sam Adams did not hesitate to burn the homes of tax collectors. Perhaps some tax collectors may have even been murdered, (documentation is hazy, but there are strong implications - remember this is American history, we wrote our version for the record). Such is war. Now we have the 99% looking for answers, and the Patriotic Millionaires with answers to offer. Best of all for everyone, the Democratic Party is on the sidelines. You can figure it out from there. It is going to be a very interesting election cycle.

 

[Si modo]

....
Here's what I mean by "code-speak":

"Smaller and more efficient government" = "government that provides less help to the poor and middle class"

"Individual liberties and freedoms" = "less restraints on the rapacious interests of the wealthy and corporations." (Except when it means repealing parts of the Patriot Act and legalizing drugs.) That's also what "Less government intrusion" means, and also "less authoritarian desires."

"More personal accountability" = less support for unions and less help for anyone who falls through the cracks of the economy

Again, you will not find any of this in the Constitution.

The OWS doesn't like the Constitution.

You have yet to provide any evidence of this, and it's not remotely true.

That's ******* funny! Really, it is. I guarantee you that I - that would be me - know what I mean when I type words.

But, guess what; when I say 'smaller and more efficient government', I MEAN "smaller and more efficient government".

When I say 'more personal accountability', I actually MEAN "more personal responsibility".

And when I say 'individual liberties and freedoms', I really do MEAN "individual liberties and freedoms".

And, somehow you think none of that is covered in the Constitution. Amazing. I am glad that you have no chance to be a justice of the SCOTUS, or of any other court, for that matter. America is glad, too.

So, although your unsolicited edit of my words is interesting, even fascinating in what it reveals, I can handle my own speech without your assistance.

Trust me, TS, in your authoritarian utopia, I would be a big problem for you. I know what I want, what I mean to say, and I value my freedom to do both. I have never and will never accept any authority that believes that they know what I want, what I need, and what I want to say better than I.

But, if I ever DO need an edit, I will keep you in mind.

 

[Dragon]

But, guess what; when I say 'smaller and more efficient government', I MEAN 'smaller and more efficient government'.

When I say 'more personal accountability', I actually MEAN 'more personal responsibility'.

And when I say 'individual liberties and freedoms', I really do MEAN "individual liberties and freedoms'.

That's not only untrue but impossible, as there is more than one meaning to all of those rather vague phrases, and someone else could use the same phrase while meaning something completely different from what you mean. In fact, other people do, because every one of those could just as well be a left-wing talking point as a right-wing one, and at times actually are.

All of the phrases I used to explain the meaning of these things in right-wing code speak are possible legitimate interpretations of them, and I submit that all of them are what you mean. To object that no, you mean the original words you used, is in effect to say, "No, I don't mean cherries, I mean fruit."

And, somehow you think none of that is covered in the Constitution. Amazing.

Tell you what. Here's a link to the Constitution on line. (See how helpful I can be?)

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Show us where any of these phrases is found in that document anywhere:

"smaller and more efficient government"
"more personal accountability"
"individual liberties and freedoms"

I'll check back with you later and see how that goes.

 

[chanel]

Magical thinking. The movement may have begun with disenfranchised young people who shared many of the same ideals as the "99 percent" or even the Tea Party. But it is being hijacked by the far left (Marxists, Anarchists, ACORN, Anonymous, etc) and can end only one of three ways. And two of them will be very ugly (Socialism, violence, or recovery)

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Dragon]

Magical thinking. The movement may have begun with disenfranchised young people who shared many of the same ideals as the "99 percent" or even the Tea Party. But it is being hijacked by the far left (Marxists, Anarchists, ACORN, Anonymous, etc) and can end only one of three ways. And two of them will be very ugly (Socialism, violence, or recovery)

It is most certainly not being hijacked by the "far left," which completely lacks the resources to do so, but there is definitely an attempt on by the Democratic Party and establishment liberal groups to hijack it. So far the movement is resisting that effort. We'll see if it succeeds down the road.

There is a possibility of violence emerging from this at some point, beyond the violence already exhibited by overzealous NYC police. Expect it to get much, much bigger over the coming years.

I doubt that full-fledged socialism is a likely outcome, but a move to the left on economic issues in national policy is definitely to be expected.