Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Question for All The Right-Wingers on This Site

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 6, 2011, 8:07 p.m. EST by sophiaomni (289)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've been amazed by the number of conservatives who seem to spend a great deal of time on this site. It almost seems like there are more Tea Party sympathizers here than Occupy Wall Street supporters.

I'd really love to know what keeps you coming back to this site? Are you really interested in the issues that OWS raises? Are you open to being persuaded by supporters of this movement? Or are you here just to disrupt, cause trouble, or prevent progressives from communicating effectively with one another? Or could it be that maybe conservatives lack the technological expertise to create a site like this for themselves and this is better than nothing for you?

I really am sincere in asking this question. I have no problem debating with conservatives (I do it all the time). I just want to know what is motivating you so I can decide whether it is worth my time or not to respond to the issues you raise.

341 Comments

341 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 5 years ago

Republicans are highly brainwashed by the right wing propaganda machine. Their puppet masters tell them to be scared of the OWS movement so they are scared of the OWS movement. Their puppet masters tell them to fight back against the OWS movement so they fight back against the OWS movement. Basically all Republicans support the OWS movement, they just don't know it. They are lost in a sea of crap that is being drilled into their brains 24/7 and are not allowed to think for them self.

I think of Republicans as even lower then the turd my neighbors dog just left on my lawn... Some how ever are not fully brainwashed and are starting to wake up. Sadly most are lost for ever.

[-] 1 points by Farleymowat (415) 5 years ago

I really shouldn't even respond to such an ignorant individual. But i'll just say many conservatives feel the same way about leftist nut jobs like yourself. I have lots of energetic debates with my left wing friends. But I try to avoid engaging the wackos who believe no room exists for persons outside their ideology.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

Debates are just talks; OWS is about actions. You can debate all you want if that makes you feel good about yourself. But don't be scared when real people take it to a new level.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 5 years ago

Hanging out in parks and pretending to shut down ports is hardly action.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

you may be right. But have you been watching the news? the dialog has changed. that is progress in my book. I'm a wisher, watcher and a writer. that's all i do.

[-] 1 points by pjts (7) 5 years ago

All you do is wish, watch and write? No wonder you're not part of the 1%

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

it's called respect for my peeps. I respect the class that I was born in, not the one I wish I were. You start respecting the lower rung and you get a mind like mine to grow your enterprise. Until then, you get the social deviants you deserve. AntiGult out. peace!

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 5 years ago

I dont watch the freaks on MSLSD. Get a job too you lazy ass.

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 5 years ago

So we aren't "real" people?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

For lack of a better word, people who feel the brunt of inequality are the real people in my book. those that debate and don't regulate but denigrated those relegated to the poor house have not demonstrated solutions but exasperated confusions.

[-] -3 points by Perspective (-243) 5 years ago

You know Hitler dehumanized the Jews before killing them. You sound kind of like that. People you don't agree with you don't consider "real" people. You're kind of scary.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

Why is it when people want to address modern day problems, others pull back outliers from history to silence their complaints? Hitler used violence to address problems. I am using words to illustrate inconsistencies. Do you know that all of my friends I grew up with are scared shitless that their gov't has flipped their wig and is in the process of doing exactly what you claim I am capable of. America and her love affair with affluence really don't concern me. I have made my peace with her short comings and am only articulating the perception from the bottom rung. that is reality to me. lexus driving, political debating, middle class people are just fairy tails to me. They are the ones who are too good to even look my way. And for you to call someone names like that out of just a few words is kinda shallow of you in my humble opinion. But hay, I've found that that be the American way. cheers! and I forgive you for your simple remarks.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 5 years ago

You're the one who said I'm not a "real" person. Perhaps some soul searching is in order for you. As for the bottom rung,I've been there,worked hard all my life to not be there,and have managed to make myself better skilled in my field so much so that when my last employer found out my current contract was cancelled he called me to hire me back. It's sad that you feel people who disagree with you aren't "real" people. As for my remarks they were right on target and the only thing I called you was scary.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

I am a writer, and I use my words to evoke action of a political nature. If I offended you, I am sorry. Yes, your words did get me thinking. Cheers!

[+] -6 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Here is your answer. I tend to lean to the right and these people just burn me up. When I hear a liberal talk this way, here is what I tend to think:

All the people who died so we can be here. We broke free of European ideals only to have little European lovers like this try like hell to make us more like Europe.

Regardless of what Canada thinks, the United States is a right leaning country. It always has been, and it always will be. If certain people hate it so much, they should relocate to places like Canada or Europe where they can feel more at home.

If people honestly think the United States is oppressive, try living in a third world nation in Africa or Latin America. Conservatives come here to debate, listen to ideas from those who think differently, but mainly to show American pride. One of the biggest fallacies that OWSers tend to believe is that conservatives are the "one percent." That just isn't the case. I know countless conservatives who don't have a pot to piss in.

They come here because everything political and social regarding the US affects them just as much as it affects non conservatives.

[-] 20 points by looseIyhuman (38) 5 years ago

The United States is a right leaning country. It always has been, and it always will be.

Nope.

When right was defined by the divine right of kings, we were leftist, humanist radicals. When right was defined by Nazi authority, elitism and hatred, we were a beacon of freedom, equality, and hope. When right was defined by our own Robber Barons and laissez-faire injustice, we became a nation of leftwing trust-busters and agrarian populists seeking social justice. When right was defined by "nine mocking years of the golden calf and three long years of the scourge", we came together as a nation and elected FDR to three terms as president - and, by the way, he's ranked as our 2nd best president, after Lincoln... Which brings me to: When right was defined by the status quo of slavery, we fought a war with ourselves to preserve and further a progressive union.

Not bad for a "right-leaning" country.

And, the 40s-70s, by the way, was known as the liberal consensus - the economic system as embedded liberalism. We've been moving to the right since Reagan; the ahistorical among us just believe it's always been that way.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

the us population is in no way right leaning - look at the polls - over many years - pretty much social democratic along a european model. when you look at elite opinion most say that the vietnam war was a tragic mistake or blunder - the bottom 80% says it was immoral and unjust - this generalizes across many issues - make sure you do not confuse elite opinion with popular opinion - 60 to 70% want single payer

[-] -1 points by nkp (33) 5 years ago

laissez faire injustice? no. laissez faire would have prevented this economic crysis

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

laissez faire is the banner of the Corporatist.

[+] -4 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Yep.

conservatives outnumber libs 2 to 1. We are proponents of capitalism. You are delusional if you think we are left leaning.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/cnredd/red_blue_states.png

You let us know when you find a map with more blue states than red.

[-] 2 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 5 years ago

oh golly...you do know that just because our country is painted red, doesn't mean that the masses are all in favor of the GOP? If you knew anything about demographics, and how the house of representatives works, then probably you would know that many of the blue areas also have significantly higher populations and more educated people than the red areas do.

but then again...I'm just a dumb country boy and I don't know shit...

[-] 0 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

fail. Latest Gallup polls indicate conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1.

I guess you were unaware of all the GOP redistricting that has been occurring for the last year. That will increase in 2012.

[-] 4 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 5 years ago

Perhaps you can explain how it is that the US elected Obama, if conservatives are the majority. Did they consider him to be the more conservative candidate? How about the Senate?

[-] 0 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Obama won due to several factors. GW was viewed negatively by many. He won some of the independent support, but the main reason was his skin color and being the first potential Black president.

Now, had he been a conservative, he would have been skewered in the media, the GOP blamed for being racist and ruining his chances, when the whole time it would have really been the liberals unable to deal with a Black conservative.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

http://www.congressarizona.org/2011/gallup-poll-conservatives-42-liberals-21-and-moderates-37/

Apparently Fox News only gave you half the story.

43% identify as Democrats whereas 40% identify as Republicans.. That's actually down from 2008 when 50% identified as Democrats and 37% identified as Republican.

I really don't care to start boasting and appear like a party cheerleader (as you have) because I'm pretty damn sure the majority of people on both sides that were surveyed were too unfamiliar with all of the terms to self-identify.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

and here is more from Gallup in 2010

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124226/republicans-edge-ahead-democrats-2010-vote.aspx

You are also not taking into account entities like Blue Dogs.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

You're correct that more Republicans showed up to the voting booth in 2010. In 2008 and 2006, the reverse was true. In 2012, I'm not going to pretend I know for sure.

Also, when you want post an additional reply to the same person, I'd suggest you click the 'reply' button on their comment again rather than on your own comment.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 5 years ago

conservatives...liberals...they are different sides of the same coin. Instead of wasting time worrying about which party is going to win, why don't we focus on voting someone in who will actually make a difference in this country and get shit done. Not another puppet...Not another mannequin... how about someone who "got no strings to hold me down..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAykOz1gWi4

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Liberals and conservatives are not parties. We are talking about the culture of the United States. It's no different than saying Iraq is a predominantly Muslim country. Or Canada tends to be more liberal than the United States.

[-] -2 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

LOL Progressive debt reduction does not mean the majority describes themselves as "progressive." "Progressive" is a cute little name liberals gave themselves. It doesn't mean the same thing. It doesn't really mean anything at all when most don't agree on what progress is.

When conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1, and most states are red(GOP), it is mathematically impossible for the country to be predominantly liberal. Period. Those are the facts. There is no way to deny it.

[-] 4 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 5 years ago

Are you really this dumb? Self-identified is meaningless. People like the sound of "conservative" more than "liberal" (since liberal was demonized by Goldwater, Reagan, et al). I could care less. You can call yourself a monarchist but if you're for progressive policies you're part of the liberal/progressive consensus.

[-] -3 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

No sir. I think you are unclear on the ideals of mainstream America. Conservatives are for progressive debt reduction. They are also for progressive small business growth. They are not for social welfare programs and massive restrictions on the free market. Sounds to me that you are the one who is dumb. You clearly do not understand the context of the word progressive.

[-] 4 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 5 years ago

Here are another couple for you:

67%-75% for EPA clean air regulations: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2011/2011-10-12-091.html

65% for stronger financial regulations: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/26/4425127-poll-65-back-financial-regulations

Majorities (multiple polls) for Medicare-for-all: http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/

I could go on...

[-] 0 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

I don't know what more I can say. I am not trying to attack you, but I don't think you are clear on the two ideologies. Medicare was never an enemy of conservatives. It was spinned that way in the media when the Ryan plan was unveiled.

You are talking about two ideologies. Not individual ideas or parties. I don't think you have much of an argument by saying most are liberal but just don't know it.

The differences are in areas you have not touched upon yet. I respect your argument, but know I am right on this one.

[-] 6 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 5 years ago

I don't think you are clear on the two ideologies.

Me? If you define conservative as pro single-payer, pro-Social Security, pro-EPA, pro-financial regulation, and pro-taxing the rich, then I'm a fucking conservative.

but know I am right on this one.

I can tell. Carry on.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

"Medicare was never an enemy of conservatives. It was spinned that way in the media when the Ryan plan was unveiled."

http://bit.ly/mEFYDe

[-] 0 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

What is wrong with you? I know what medicare is. I also know that the GOP was trying to save the program by revamping the way it operates.

Almost 6 billion in medicare payments were wasted or stolen by our own Govt. It wasn't the GOP. It was more left wing legislation.

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

Scroll down to "Claims of Socialism" and you'll understand that Republicans ALWAYS opposed it.

http://bit.ly/mEFYDe

You're definitely misguided if you think fixing it is what Republicans want to do.

[-] 2 points by lookingfortruth88 (75) from Chicago, IL 5 years ago

The reason that there are more red states is only because conservatives pretend to like religion. The Evangelicals of this country are terrified of liberal views of gay marriage and "progressive" reform. The Christian population sees this as a no choice and side with the side that they think "supports" their ideals. However, if any true Christians ever really thought about what the conservatives advocate they would soon realize how evil these people are and how stupid their intentions are. Come on seriously how can any Christian support such greed and hatred that these so called "job creators" claim they are going to create buy getting tax breaks. The gambling of peoples pensions and oppressing the common man to barely survive so that the ultra wealthy can keep exploiting and accumulating wealth. Jesus would support these conservative, greedy, selfish individuals? Quite a sad scenario.

[-] -1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

OK man. This is not an answer. I like ya, but you know you are letting your feeling interfere with facts. Evangelicals are a small segment of the Christian faith. It's a hot key word for the media, because they know the left will zero in on it. Being conservative is much bigger than religion. Many conservatives are not avid Church goers. It's an ideology, and I am pretty sure you are born this way.

[-] 5 points by lookingfortruth88 (75) from Chicago, IL 5 years ago

Its the absolute truth and you know it. Why else would the conservatives constantly bring up religion in politics if it wasn't to use it tie their votes to religious zealots of this country. The only people that support the conservatives are the brainwashed Americans and the Christians that feel left out/"ignored" by the liberal Democrats. Hence, whey there are more red states which are mostly concentrated in the South.

[-] 0 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

They don't. They media does. Liberals really need to understand that there is way more than religion fueling their beliefs. Red States are concentrated in the south and west.

Here are the regions http://www.stats.indiana.edu/maptools/maps/boundary/census_regions_main.gif

Here is the red blue map http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png

[-] 2 points by lookingfortruth88 (75) from Chicago, IL 5 years ago

haha you are funny Brandon. I will let you live in your ignorance but seriously stop insulting other peoples intelligence here. OWS clearly knows what is going on and you don't nor do you want to.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

What are you talking about. You just got proven wrong again and now I don't know what I am talking about? lol OK

I think I am a victim of one of these trolls people keep talking about. Nothing you have said is factual? And what does OWS knowing anything have to do with the political landscape of the United States? I didn't make the map. I didn't decide that the majority of our population votes to the right?

[-] 2 points by arcticaardvark (54) 5 years ago

Well i just read that whole little debate.. And i applaud Brandon for having a real discussion. I truely believe Brandon believes what he is saying and means well. That being said, there is something very sinister about what the republicans represent. You can't say they don't use religion to scare people into voting for them because they clearly do. It all boils down to one thing. POWER, that's why they run. Libs or Cons doesn't matter. They dont care whatsoever about what people want or need. They just try to make themselves and their friends rich. This whole arguement about Repubs vs Dems turns so many people off. We feel like we only have 2 options. The evil fucker, or the other evil fucker.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

It actually has a definition within history. Please feel free to read about it.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

progressive to me means redistributing the one percent out of existence. or as the politicians call it, sequestration. because it seems like redistribution has become one of those knee jerk reactionary words.

[-] 3 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I like to think of it as a fairer and more balanced distribution of wealth, so that it's not concentrated in the hand of just a few people. That creates an ownership society, which is exactly what I thought conservatives wanted.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

progressive to me means a commercial with a strangely dorky but simultaneously hot chick. yeah, i said that :)

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

i'll give you a point for making me laugh.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

"Strangely dorky but simultaneously hot"....What more could anyone ask for?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

lol, i know right.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

I don't know how hot she is. She's pretty or cute, but hot is a stretch. I wonder how "progressive" she is in real life.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

fair enough :)

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

Was your map intended to represent a particular election or something??

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

The map shows what counties hold Democrat or Republican governments. Red = GOP - Blue = Democrat.

It's as easy as 1, 2, C

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

It isn't a county by county map. It's a state map. Unless your implying every county homogeneously votes in line with the rest of their respective states.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Instead of it being representative of each state as whole, it breaks it down into counties. I think you can figure out the rest.

Thanks for the meaningless banter.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

Yeah, but it doesn't. The map you posted obviously identifies color by state and what it should represent remains unexplained. Maybe you intended to post a different one?

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

again. Look at it. Each little box is a county. State lines are not represented in the map.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Ah, there is the confusion. I posted that one first. It shows the states that are considered red. This is based on the fact that the majority of their county seats are red. The second map I posted breaks it down by county.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

That's impossible..

I know for a fact that the vast majority of counties in Pennsylvania vote Republican. This applies for most states since the least populated counties are the ones that are most heavily Republican and highly populated areas are Democrats.

I'm also confused why you think land mass (not population) defines a countries political leanings.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

That is not universal for each region. Are you arguing that more people vote left in the United States? That is not correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

So you're saying more "states" are Republican. I agree. To a certain extent. However, that doesn't reflect population since the states with the lowest population are Republican.

"As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents."

This was on the link you posted.

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 5 years ago

The inequality in the USA is the worst in the entire world!! WTF are you talking about?

[-] 0 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

lol nice try.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 5 years ago

I'm not a Liberal but you are delusional...

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Sure you aren't.

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 5 years ago

Lots of lies and dillusions in that post:

1 - America is not a right leaning country

2 - Conservatism does not equal American Pride

3 - Who says we hate America - we love it that's why we are fighting to save it

4 - Why should people whi disagree with your views have to leave America - that refrain is bogus conservative garbage

5 - Saying other countries got it worse don't make our problems here suddenly less meaningful for those who live here

6 - you do not have to be a leberal to support Occupy and their demands

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Ridiculous. America isn't a liberal country as shown by the voting demographics. America is a right leaning country and it always has been. Period.

[-] 4 points by justsurfn (4) 5 years ago

I got here from a google search. I was curious to see if anyone was talking about occupying congress or the IRS. Both sides arn't very smart. Conquer and divide. Race aganist race. Religion against religion. Rich against poor. Keep everyone busy fighting against each other. Someday maybe we will all wise up.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 5 years ago

Congress and the IRS both work for the rich and the corporations.

[-] -2 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

Bad govt starts with Corporatocracy.

[-] -3 points by OLLAG (84) 5 years ago

prove it. you elect the people if they work for the rich elect new people.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

The way to overcome divisions, I believe is to engage in honest debate with one another. We can't just pretend that we are all in perfect agreement if that isn't the case.

But, if it makes you feel better, I'll say it: "Occupy Congress" and "Occupy the IRS."

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

your post is a good one - i wonder the same too often. too many people here do not want to engage is real debate - they wan to win a debate instead of looking for the "truth" - also too many are trouble makers - i can't help but think some are being paid to do so since what they do does not make sense otherwise

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

There are some folks here who just want to find out what the movement is all about. They call themselves "conservatives" but they have many of the same issues with the current state of affairs in the country that OWS does. Although I am a liberal, I'm more than willing to enter into debate with these people. Others are just here to disrupt the conversation, and I try not to waste too much time with them.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

for sure that is he best tactic for the trouble makers. i think there is much cross pollination with the tea party types - lots of people rightly pissed at the bailouts - the problem is who to blame - gov't or the corporations that own the gov't - have you read chomsky on this issue - i will send you some interesting stuff if you want it. be careful about the liberal label (they are all nonsense mostly these days) lbj was a liberal and he wanted to send me to vietnam - nixon was our last liberal pres?

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Why would any democrats pretend that party supports anyone other than themselves? Pelosi's antics are not limited to just her side of the aisle.

[-] 2 points by Proftrek (5) 5 years ago

Personally, think the "original" Tea Party movement (anti-Republican - its started under Bush; anti-war, anti-Fed, anti-corporate welfare, anti-mass surveillance, localization) has a lot in common with OWS. The corporate media transformed the Tea Party, turning it into a neanderthal wing of the Republican party. Then real neanderthals climbed aboard. If OWS is to be ultimately successful, it has to connect with Tea Party 1.0 (not Tea Party 2.0).

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I agree with you completely. It's unfortunately that so many supporters of OWS can't get beyond their dislike for the Tea Party and everything it stands for to see that there are some commonalities between the two movements.

[-] 2 points by badconduct (550) 5 years ago

I'm right wing. I don't want to live in Government-hand out land, but I do expect a certain standard of living from everyone around me.

But I think with my left-hemisphere as well.

http://neuropolitics.org/Right-and-Left-Brain-Hemispheric-Asymmetries-Part-1.htm

"left and right" don't really exist. You can't have just one, or just the other. They both will fail, you need both to co-exist.

[-] 2 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 5 years ago

Left and right are two sides of the same coin. Two dimensions of our 3D perception of a multi-dimensional world.

The beauty of living on this great sphere is that each of us stands directly above "the still point of the turning world." Each of us has access to what is true, eternal, real. But that access is shared with all that inhabit the Earth.

I welcome your truth and your insights in a spirit of sharing. I hope you will do likewise.

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 5 years ago

Sharing, unity, peace and balance on earth is a nice idea, in theory. In my mind, the Earth is a living organism. As it grows old; it's culture will age, calm down and struggle more. Water will dry, the atmosphere will decay. The moon will move away, and the Sun will consume itself in time.

The only chance of survival for our planet is the same as the organisms that were born on it. Too reproduce. Not for Mankind, but for the earth itself. Maybe life is unique, and if it is, it's our responsibility to create organisms that can survive on other planets and spread sustainable organic environments across the cosmos. Maybe life is not unique, maybe it was purposely put on Earth knowing it was a class of "Earth-like Planets" that life could sustain on.

Mankind is selfish. We are so very concerned with our current well being and our current happiness. We walk around, acting like we are the sole-representatives of God. We care only for ourselves, and other's of our species.

But when we die, will anything other than our pets miss us? Other than some mechanical junk slowly decaying, will the universe even notice us?

[-] 1 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 5 years ago

Yes, humankind is selish -- but that's not our only trait. We are also cooperative and altruistic. We are, after all, a social species. No human exists in isolation from human society (even people who isolate themselves by living 'off the grid' still require goods created by other humans).

I'd like my legacy on this planet to be a society that encourages cooperation and compassion as well as competition and individual responsibility. Like left and right, these things are not opposites but part of the very fiber that makes us human.

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 5 years ago

I would just like to see that logic applied to the Universe as a whole, and expand into the cosmos. That, I think, would be a better suited use of our time and energy.

[-] 1 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 5 years ago

Before we soar among the stars and seek to export human life to other environmentally hospitable planets, we should be sure we're not exporting a defective product.

Humanity is in the process of evolving here on Earth, of learning how to become a global, not territorial-tribal, species. We will need to do this if we are to be successful in our extra-terrestrial ventures.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Interesting study. I wonder, though, if it really is possible to have a decent balance of both left and right. Would you really be able to promote any coherent policies? But it certainly is interesting!

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 5 years ago

I think it's impossible not to. Actually, I think a lot of left/right politics are crossed. I think any nation needs to maintain a certain standard of living among it's people. If too many people fall into poverty, it creates problems for the rest. I'll always support a welfare state. I'd rather leave people on welfare, than put them in a situation where they must take by force.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I don't know....you sound like a liberal to me. But I agree with you. It doesn't help an economy that is 70% consumer driven when you have so many people who can't afford to buy anything.

I'm also coming to agree with those in the middle who argue that we need to stimulate the economy now, but reduce our debt once we are in recovery. That seems like a balanced approach to me.

[-] 2 points by badconduct (550) 5 years ago

It's not that I sound liberal... it's that "conservatives" and "republicans" are not very conservative.

Using tax money to stimulate jobs just creates more of the same problem. I have to say I am a Paul supporter. I don't agree with his idea's, but I support his plan. Just cut everything, and pay the debt off as much as possible for his term, than next election you can vote for things you want to see returned. Most of the bureaucracy we probably won't even notice if it left.

The more the Government spends itself into debt, the less valuable the dollar becomes, which makes it even harder to make enough money to make the payments. I feel like the US Government has been running around with it's own agenda for the last 50 years, and not really concerning itself too much with the every day responsibilities.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 5 years ago

There's lots of positioning with blends of arrogance, scent marking, and smattering of curiosity. Right wingers enjoy a multifaceted approach to their spread of anarchy here which empirically seems to be the purpose. Some usual tactics include confuse, divide, inflame, and push off topic. It really is a way to challenge the prevailing thinking of the common members. If the positions are clear, smack of the truth, it can be done with strength. It keeps the ideals we believe on the boiler plate and in defense of them we clarify our own thoughts and put up even tougher defenses.

I welcome them but the trolls I do not. Trolls deserve no respect since they don't show it and hurl insults indiscriminately. The Jewish insults are shuddering to the bone. I though we lived in America for a second. Where's our humanity?

Good Luck!

[-] 2 points by lowlyarchitect (5) from Hartford, VT 5 years ago

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked, and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged, and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all). After the first test, the grades were averaged, and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail, because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections. These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

  1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
  2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
  3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
  4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
  5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Where did you get that Obama is going to do this?

FLAKESnews?

Then a copy and paste from some libertarian website?

Gimmie break from this BS, please?

[-] 2 points by lowlyarchitect (5) from Hartford, VT 5 years ago

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked, and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged, and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged, and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail, because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on.)

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

  1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

  2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

  3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

  4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

  5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[-] 1 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 5 years ago

What you have described as "Obama's Plan" is precisely what this administration (Bernanke, Geithner, Summer, Rubin) has done for Wall Street -- not the rest of us.

When Wall Street bankers blew up the economy with their fraudulent securities, what did the Bush AND Obama administrations do? They bailed them out. Indulged the insolvent banks with "regulatory forbearance" -- aka, extend and pretend, mark to make believe, and other accounting gimmicks to hide the fact that financial institutions are sitting on piles of "goat poo" (industry parlance) securities representing trillions of dollars of debt (4 times global GDP in nominal value) That Will Never Be Repaid.

The financial sector got a big fat Zero yet the Demublican/Republicrat Money Party threw taxpayer money at them (with which they paid themselves fat bonuses) and continues to do so to this day.

[-] 2 points by raychel (37) 5 years ago

I love your pointed question. I have friends on facebook who are tea party. They spend the majority of their time making fun of and jabbing at OWS. They do not spread their own word about the tea party. They do not debate amongst themselves about how to make the world better. They only post slurs and laugh. I see a huge difference between their movement and this one. This one talks about change. That one makes fun of our ideas for change.

[-] 3 points by Freedom2100 (25) 5 years ago

I think what drives many conservatives to take an antagonistic, edgy, and in some cases, belligerent approach to conveying their viewpoints on this and other sites is frankly rooted in fear--they've held the upper hand since the late 70's/early 80's Neocon/Reagan right ascendancy and now the winds of change, represented by OWS in this case, have put them on the defensive.

[-] 2 points by gsw (3009) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

and it's kind of hard to let go of your past an admit you've been duped and bought a load of crap and built your life on that hill, they're unconsciously-reacting to change, which is natural. win them with love, according to ghandi, budda, jesus, and your mom. teach them, accept them embrace them, enlighten them

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I do fine it funny that they can't stay away from this site. I really do believe that part of it is that they don't have people on their side with the ability to create a forum as interesting as this one. Why else would you spend so much time among people you detest?

[-] 2 points by ContinuationofEarth (220) 5 years ago

Do you feel like there is a right wing assassin in every corner trying to silence us, trying to attack us, trying to divert us from sharing our ideas and organize together in everywhere, in schools, in discussion boards, in our tents? Do you feel like there is a class war waged by the ruling elite on us in everywhere and all the time? This is fascism. They didn't even let Obama to do the change as necessary. They put people in defense all the time. We should destroy their corrupt theories, bullying attitude, artificially constructed social structures. We should let us to be free from such an intimidating fascist power of the corrupt ruling elite. We should get our meritocracy back, our rights and liberties back, we should establish equality of opportunity again.

[-] 2 points by randart (498) 5 years ago

I think that the majority of "right wing" types personalities exhibit distinct lack of creativity. They read and they are intelligent, for the most part, but they are not creative. They seem to be mimics. They read a book like George Orwell's 1984 and think things like, hey, we could do this. They read books by various other authors and think that they may be able to implement that idea someone else thought up.

The left wing people are the same except they gravitate toward a more fair scenario. The left reads Ayn Rand and sees an evil, the right reads it and sees a plan they can carry out.

So, in answer to your question for the right wingers, which I am not, is they are coming here to find ideas they don't think of themselves. Maybe we should talk more about ethics and moral obligation to society.

[-] 0 points by badconduct (550) 5 years ago

There's a correlation between hemispheres and political views I am sure. http://web-us.com/brain/braindominance.htm "You responded as a right brained person to 0 questions, and you responded as a left brained person to 18questions. According to the Hemispheric Dominance test, you use your left brain the most. The summary briefly describes your dominance type. Remember, this only represents half of the picture."

I consider myself right wing though, but I have no problem with OWS. I will adapt. The future is uncertain.

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

This is a poor test and skewed. There are better tests to make more useful determinations.

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 5 years ago

Absolutely. I just used it as an example. When I did the test, I was 100% left hemisphere lol

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Gotcha.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 5 years ago

I'm "right wing" but there are some things about OWS that I agree with...but on to the question:

I come here to discuss the issues. It is very hard to find a good discussion on political matters because people shy away from it so much face-to-face. Which is a shame. I have a few friends on FB that will engage me on matters such as this, but most of my FB friends think the same why I do - and that's no fun. Who ever said that people should never discuss religion or politics did society a great disservice...that's about all I like to talk about.

For every minute I spend on this site I spend five or 10 minutes researching on the net what people are talking about. While I doubt I'll ever be a total convert, it has opened my mind to some things.

[-] 2 points by Steve15 (385) 5 years ago

I am a former right winger, very right. If you would like to know why I now lean left you are welcome to contact me. It's what I didn't know that kept me on the right.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I'm damned impressed by your open-minded attitude towards political discussion. Feel free to rip the opinions I express apart any time. I'm always delighted to debate someone who enjoys entering the fray. I can't find anyone to disagree with me on my own site, which is definitely no fun.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by utahdebater (-72) 5 years ago

This will sound like I'm copying him, but I'm doing the same thing.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 5 years ago

So on which forum topic(s) on this forum would you say, did you have the best discussions?

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 5 years ago

The crackpot discussions are by far the most entertaining...but they are rarely productive. Unfortunately, they are also the ones that get lots of responses.

I enjoy discussing the economic models presented in the forum. I would like to see more directed conversation about next steps for the political process (though some would argue that the movement should stay out of politics).

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

i will try to help - here is a bit of max neef to chew on -AMY GOODMAN: And if you’re teaching young economists, the principles you would teach them, what they’d be?

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: The principles, you know, of an economics which should be are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.

One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy.

Two, development is about people and not about objects.

Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.

Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.

Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.

And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 5 years ago

I'm good with #1 and #2 - any good business person will tell you that their greatest resource is their people.

3 - I think I understand... your organization can develop without growth or it can grow without truly developing. Kind of a size vs. depth argument.

4 - I read up on ecosystem services and while the word just sounds like a green-dream, I see that it actually has a greater scope. Food, water, waste management, energy - society can not function without these services, but I'm not sure about an economy. On the face of it, I agree.

5 - The term 'biosphere' threw me off. I agree that an economy is part of a finite system, therefore it can not grow infinitely. It will ebb and flow as part of a growth and reduction cycle.

I notice that Max-neef spends a lot of time in developing and third world countries. I wonder how that impacted his postulates and principle, and if they are different for more developed countries?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

first of all he is talking about the economic system as a whole - not so much from the point of view of a business - also it would not be different for developed countries. the system must serve people and we should be developing as a population, the planet has finite resources so the world economic system cannot grow beyond those resources - we are seeing that now - look at oil - world in a recession and oil is $100! check out peak oil for more info. i will send along a few more of his thoughts - you can google the whole interview - pretty interesting - seems to me that the most important part of todays crisis is economic so we need to try to understand the system and how it should be changed - lots of interesting stuff written about it but very little in mainstream sources since they are part of the whole system!..............AMY GOODMAN: Go back to three: growth and development. Explain that further.

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Growth is a quantitative accumulation. Development is the liberation of creative possibilities. Every living system in nature grows up to a certain point and stops growing. You are not growing anymore, nor he nor me. But we continue developing ourselves. Otherwise we wouldn’t be dialoguing here now. So development has no limits. Growth has limits. And that is a very big thing, you know, that economists and politicians don’t understand. They are obsessed with the fetish of economic growth.

And I am working, several decades. Many studies have been done. I’m the author of a famous hypothesis, the threshold hypothesis, which says that in every society there is a period in which economic growth, conventionally understood or no, brings about an improvement of the quality of life. But only up to a point, the threshold point, beyond which, if there is more growth, quality of life begins to decline. And that is the situation in which we are now.

I mean, your country is the most dramatic example that you can find. I have gone as far as saying — and this is a chapter of a book of mine that is published next month in England, the title of which is Economics Unmasked. There is a chapter called "The United States, an Underdeveloping Nation," which is a new category. We have developed, underdeveloped and developing. Now you have underdeveloping. And your country is an example, in which the one percent of the Americans, you know, are doing better and better and better, and the 99 percent is going down, in all sorts of manifestations. People living in their cars now and sleeping in their cars, you know, parked in front of the house that used to be their house — thousands of people. Millions of people, you know, have lost everything. But the speculators that brought about the whole mess, oh, they are fantastically well off. No problem. No problem.

AMY GOODMAN: So how would you turn that around?

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Well, I don’t know how to turn it around. I mean, it will turn around itself, you know, in catastrophic manners. I mean, I don’t understand how there isn’t — millions of people can all of a sudden go out in the streets in the United States and begin destroying things, I don’t know. That may perfectly happen. You know, the situation is absolutely dramatic. Absolutely dramatic. And it is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world, you know, and so on. And even in those conditions, they continue with those stupid wars, you know, and spend more, more, more millions and trillions. Thirteen trillion dollars for the speculators; not one cent for the people who lost their homes! I mean, what kind of logic is that?

[-] 2 points by OccupyCapitolHill (197) 5 years ago

Or could they be here for debate? You should be ready to defend your philosophy and political ideologies when questioned. Otherwise, their perceived worth will inevitably be very miniscule, if not totally invalidated.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

That's why I think that conservatives who are really interested in debate--as opposed to those who just want to disrupt discussion--should definitely not be banned from this site. It is very good practice for people to defend their political beliefs in the face of serious opposition. So thank you for helping with that process!

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 5 years ago

But how can you justify banning anyone if you claim to represent the 99%. That goes directly against what OWS claims it stands for. This is the problem with OWS. If you agree, your fine but if you don't stand by for the name calling and Fox News references. Not all conservatives watch or even like Fox, MSNBC, NBC, NPR or take your pick but you wouldn't know that on this site. If you disagree or try to put forth a question to an "OWS" member that is against there ideology you are a Glen Beck loving troll and should be ignored. That is truly the downfall of the movement.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I definitely wouldn't support banning anyone from this site. So I agree with you completely about that.

As for the Fox News issue, I guess that stems from the fact that many conservatives on this site seem to mouth the talking points that are common on Fox, so there is the perception that this is where they get their ideas. It's the same perception that conservatives have about all liberals getting their ideas from the New York Times.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 5 years ago

Interesting about the New York Times, they seem to be moving more to the center over the last year or so. I think that is a good thing because as much as people like to put a tag on themselves as being one party or another, realistically, most are pretty much center.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

Jealousy! This site informs, their sites just repeat the same crap of why it is ok to discriminate against women and minorities. And they BELIEVE it is ok! They think government is Satan, and true lords are property owners. Here is where they get their crazy ideologies: http://www.albionmonitor.com/freemen/ci-roots.html

And don't forget women have limited property rights according to the BIBLE: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Gender_and_Feminism/Traditional_Views/Biblical.shtml

They're just great, aren't those Libertarians and Republicans? NOT. They are brainwashed by Koch Brothers, false patriotism, and ego-feeding religion.

[-] -1 points by Bambi (359) 5 years ago

BlueRose.....you are a total liberal nutcase

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

Why can't you answer more intelligently? You don't even TRY to explain yourself. You are a follower, not a leader. Go sit down.

[-] 0 points by Bambi (359) 5 years ago

Me a follower???? LMAO Sorry hon...I am not a Democrat

[+] -4 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

What are you?13? Go back to Facebook little girl and let the grown ups talk.

[-] 2 points by truth2p0wer (135) 5 years ago

Why is that all rightwingers ever seem to do is attack? Listen to them on the radio or watch them on TV... in fact check them out on C-Span. Attack attack attack... day and night. Never a discussion just an attack. It's like arguing with an army of 5th graders. Mind you they are the first ones to cry when attacked.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 5 years ago

I suggest you go back and read the over 300 legit questions I have posed on this web site and look at the liberal responses to them before you make that statment about rightwingers attacking. I am a life long Independant and I have gotten no answers and attacked on almost every post I have put on here over the last two months.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

Umm... Debate what?

[-] 2 points by truth2p0wer (135) 5 years ago
  1. the effect of corp money on our elections.
  2. the so called nanny state which right wingers hate so much.
  3. our lack of a fair economy
  4. the lack of decent employment in America

I can keep going

[-] -2 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

And this has to do with my previous posts? And this has to do with right augers? How? So let's debate..

[-] 1 points by sanityrules (1) 5 years ago

Well coming on here is kind of like watching a tragic comedy. People wanting their free stuff, socialism, communism, gimme gimme gimme, and all along not realizing that they are beating a dead horse. OWS is OVER! Finished! Dead on Arrival! Even the liberal media has ceased covering the so called movement. So you can sing, and chant, and poop on the street, and put your children in danger, and be all commune like but fact is you are done. In fact you never started. You were just a useful media distraction for a while and now your 15 minutes are over.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Just wait until the Spring come....I have a feeling you're going to be hearing plenty about OWS.

[-] 1 points by pjts (7) 5 years ago

"Are you here just to disrupt, cause trouble......." You mean like ows does?

[-] 1 points by mover92 (3) 5 years ago

sophiaomni- I love individual liberty. I don't really know what that defines me as. A conservative? Labels are a problem most of the time. I am one who supports what OWS stands for, though I believe more substance and common sense is important. The excitement of it will peter out. With good substance it will endure.
Individual liberty and justice requires that the big Corporations be limited from their undue influence over lawmakers to give them special pork from the public! I am from Wisconsin, and objective common sense reveals that Gov. Walker is one of the few politicians who actually do what they say they will do. And we have to face it, those getting a check from the taxpayers, those in public employment of one type or another, have less people with production jobs supporting them. A state is a big family. When our family gets short on money, we have no choice but to cut our spending.
The state is the same. Spending cuts must be made to keep our society viable. And, the public service sector is an expense to the state. The production workers have taken a huge hit. And there is no reason the public sector should not share the pain.

 Walker is not perfect, but no one is.   Doyle nearly spent us to bankruptcy, and Walker beat the bankers back a bit.
Lets give the guy his term in office.   
Yes it hurts to not have the union getting special favors for PS workers, but the UNIONS were taking unfair advantage, charging way too much for insurance, and had gotten, what I consider, an illegal monopoly, by requiring the insurance be purchased from them.
 Getting rid of that was a good thing.   If we are against the big corporations getting special favors, that is the same thing.   The unions can be just like big corporations.  They shouldn't get special monopolies or be able to force people to give them money to keep their jobs.    
 That is too much power over people and is against the principle of individual liberty!
I think we ought to give Ron Lawl a whack at the presidency.

Does that make me a conservative, a liberal, or a statesman?

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

There are very few around here who come at the agreed problems from an "individual liberty and justice" standpoint, unfortunately. IMO, the blanket dismissal of this perspective is more telling than anything else. The only solace offered is to be assimilated by the borg: to worship and submit to authoritarian collectivism, albeit somehow more virtuous this time.

So I end up conflicted and disgusted, knowing most of the grievances to have total validity, yet the prevailing views on remedies end up being more of the same crap that got us here, coupled with a intense animosity towards those who do not automatically submit to one-size-fits-all governance. The only flavor of that that can work without coercion is self-governance.

Left versus Right is a mind virus, and likely any duality will harbor the same shortcomings of over or false generalizations. Do you fit into the left side of the borg or the right side? Neither? Oh, well, then you must be some sort of extreeeemist.

Sorry, folks. I'm me. You're you, and we are ourselves long before we are parsed into borg modules, sitting ducks for the various apologetics cheat-sheets posted regularly in this forum like hit lists.

There is an interesting and oft overlooked problem with grouping in that just as it may bring people together, by definition it also divides. This is may be the most dreary, yet immovable, philosophical reason that the only camp which can ultimately unite 99% of us is one where the individual is supreme, with inalienable rights, and those who break THAT social contract can be marginalized as the 1%.

[-] 1 points by rosewood (543) 5 years ago

Alex Jones attempted to launch the EndTheFed movement; but many of his followers are so dependent on the authoritarian hierarchical model; that they were unble to launch the movement without his continued prescense; and expanding his business is his priority...not ending the fed. Additionally, many right wingers are prone to intolerance, narrow mindedness, and aggression; which in itself limits the capacity for building a inclusive movement. So Alex actually told his supporters to enter OWS...heard it myself.

It would have been tactically better if right wingers has built a parallel movement which would have helped keep the 1% minions busy; and drawn more Americans in; but their unresolved intrapsychic issues prevented them from achieving that, so here they are.

The right wingers also have an extraordinary difficulty in being battered and abused by authoritarian figures like police; since they identify closely with police and military. So it's easy for them to stay on the back burners, the forum, where they won't be bludgeoned and pepper sprayed, but can still feel as if they're doing something worthy and significant; as the left wing takes the actual blows and abuse.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 5 years ago

just trying to educate the land of misfit toys.

[-] 1 points by Tinhorn (285) 5 years ago

I have been amazed at OWS claiming not to be right wing or left wing yet spending most of there time attempting to bash conservatives. I thought that it was the government in general that you all were trying to change? Is that the case or is someone here who claims to be an OWSer going to finally admit that you are all pro Democrat/Libral?

[-] 1 points by gsw (3009) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

Isn't it one's economic status, not your political leanings, which determines of one is "part of a 99 percent"--whether one realizes, or wishes to be represented through them. Can on of the "one-percent" believe in the economic and social-justice issues proclaimed by ows? sure they could, i believe. make room for them too, it may be a 99.5 percent vs vs. a .5 percent. may we all see truth and not black/white divisions. many posters are power-wielding opinion bashers... truth exists with or without their endorsements. truth exists, whether one chooses to live in truth is different. all parties as all people have experienced moments of corruption, I imagine. Even if I have tended to lean left in the past, moving forward I shall strive to not have an us versus them mentality, but maybe more of one of a teacher and coach, a gentle grandparent sharing a viewpoint in kindness. both parties have made huge mistakes in the past, though I lean left, I can't say I can agree with all leftists. Same way conservatives can't all be bunched together, maybe there is enlightened versus uniformed.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I'll admit that I'm a liberal, if you admit that you came to this site just to cause trouble.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 5 years ago

Nope actually, I'm a life long independant trying to figure out what you all are all about. It is just funny to me that you make these claims yet you can't go to a post on here with out one party member trying to bash another. I agree with OWS' original complaints of corruption in government and getting rid of the corprate high jacking of our officials but it has morphed into something way off of that.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Ok, I'm glad to hear that you are open to some of the ideas being presented here and that you are not just trying to disrupt the conversation. I think OWS will continue to evolve over time. The basic issues you raised are what drive the movement, so I think you are probably more sympathetic than you claim to be.

[-] 1 points by Tinhorn (285) 5 years ago

I am actually very sympathetic but still feel that this movement has been high jacked by other groups that unfortunatly now over shadow what could have been a very sound message that a majority of the country could have gotten behind.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 5 years ago

I don't support either of the two parties. OWS has several good points and some things do need to change. However, as to why i come back. Its because I enjoy debating topics that come up in these situations.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Then you are really not a conservative. I mean, if you are open to some of the ideas here, you really are an independent, aren't you?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 5 years ago

I would say so yes. Why do you ask? Both sides have legitimate ideas.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

That's all I really wanted to check. I have no problem with people who have your perspective, because you are open to the possibility that other ideas might be correct. But there are some people who spend hours on this site, who really do believe that there is nothing about OWS that is even remotely positive. I just wonder why they would come to this site in the first place.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 5 years ago

People like to hurt other people. Make themselves feel bigger I guess. How does that sound?

[-] 1 points by Farleymowat (415) 5 years ago

What keeps a "right winger" coming back is we are part of the 99%. I'm sure many are interested in some OWS points, and could be "persuaded" by some ideas. Some ideas are so bizarre and off the scale to the left, however, that it is difficult for some to not ridicule and belittle. You are clearly trying to provoke with a comment like, "conservatives lack the technological expertise....." political orientation has nothing to do with tech savvy. OWS makes the outrageous and untrue claim that they are the 99%. It has even claimed to have entered the vernacular. You really have no idea what percentage OWS represents. No study has been done. Many in this country have no idea what OWS is. You claim to be sincere in your questions, and I'm sure you are. What motivates conservatives is as varied as the number of conservatives who post. If you are interested in knowing people's motives for posting, I suggest you ask the person who posts. done.

[-] 1 points by Steve15 (385) 5 years ago

Which OWS ideas do you believe are bizarre?

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Direct 1:1 democracy, communism, socialism, refusal to learn our nation's documented history so as to understand how this inevitable intersection came to be, etc

[-] 0 points by Steve15 (385) 5 years ago

Ok, I see you clearly have been indoctrinated with propaganda. Let me ask you, exactly what part of "documented" history are they missing? What is Socialism?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Well, it is clear that you have no intent to pursue civilized exchanges of ideas with me, nor should you, since you're certain I've been propagandized. I'll save you the effort of restraining yourself.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 5 years ago

Demanding forgiveness on student loans. The call by some, I dont know if it is official OWS or not, but to not pay mortgages. Shutting down ports. The Jew hating posts that are allowed to be posted and not taken down.

[-] 1 points by Steve15 (385) 5 years ago

I question some tactics myself but it's important to understand that these are push backs. Collage tuition has increased (I don't have stats available) in such a disproportionate way they chose to push back and make a point.

The mortgage fraud by banks was huge. Now they want the people out. Predatory lending was deliberate. Now OWS stands in solidarity with the victims. Are people at fault for allowing the money masters to manipulate them? Yes, but these are ordinary people who allowed masters of money manipulation to mislead them. I personally wouldn't take a loan I couldn't afford but not everyone is as fortunate as me to still hold a job either. They not only are victims of liars loans, they are also victims of the collapse caused by the banks that manipulated the market into collapse. No jobs, no mortgage payment.

I don't believe they support Jew hating as I have seen very negative responses to these posts, as far as taking them down, I suppose that would be censorship. I don't know enough about this because I decided to not read those posts a while ago.

As far as shutting down ports. These are tactics that go so far back in history I can't put a date on it. I do know this, when the people are financially oppressed, the only thong that ever changed anything was fighting back. If they don't, they continue their decent to the bottom of the food chain.

Understanding that this ieconomic situation is not an "ooops look what happened", is very important. It's a class war that has been going on for centuries.

To really understand what's happening here is suggest reading A Peoples History of The United States by Howard Zinn. Also The Big Short by Michael Lewis The Creature from Jekyll Island is also full of good insights but is misleading a bit.

I don't particularly agree with all these tactics but I do understand why they use them. I apologize for any typos, I'm in a hurry to get to work.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I think that you are probably right. After chatting with a number of conservatives here, I can see that the reasons that draw them to this site are indeed varied. Some really want to find out more information about the issues driving this movement, others enjoy a good debate with liberals. But there are definitely some who have purely disruptive motives.

As for the extreme views of liberals on this site, believe me I've encountered more than a few wacky conservative positions here too. I just ignore them and spend my time trying to reach reasonable people who are interested in a good, honest discussion of the issues. I assume that this description applies to you, right?

[-] 1 points by Farleymowat (415) 5 years ago

In many ways, yes, i am open to OWS views. In some ways, no I am not.I hate corruption! I hate insider trading. I hate illegal activity and am glad to see madoff sit in prison. He represents all things reprehensible about investing. I despise our government. They screw us and provoke class warfare and seek to divide us. I am a Conervative. I am supposed to HATE libs. If you are a lib, you are supposed to HATE conservatives. What a damn disgrace.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

With all due respect, based upon the way you describe yourself, I don't really think that you are a conservative. I'd say you are more of a libertarian, which is probably why you you may sympathize with some of the disgust that those of us on the left have for what corporations and wall street have done to this country. I certainly sympathize with the disgust that conservatives have for our government!

[-] 1 points by Farleymowat (415) 5 years ago

You have correctly labeled me. I think government should keep the he'll away from us. Leave us alone. Libertarian best describes my ideology. I believe our founders were mostly libertarians. I am equally disgusted, like you, but perhaps from a different viewpoint.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

with all due respect -
do you really think the lemmings will give you an honest answer???

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

A few have and you can have a reasonable discussion with them. Several others simply feel compelled to insult anyone who questions why they are here.

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 5 years ago

This is what I think OWS should do What would you label me as? www.nationalday911.org

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I don't know. How would you label yourself? Independent?

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 5 years ago

registered republican but don't seem to agree with much of either of them

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Here is an interesting link someone sent me. It basically shows the tv viewing habits of Democrats vs Republicans. Not intended to offend - just for fun.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/12/06/republican-vs-democrat-tv/

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 5 years ago

My viewing is very much bipartisan. Amusing link.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

Mine too. I have no problem watching tv with lefties. :)

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

I have a question for the OP. Is this thread a way to get all conservatives or Republicans on one thread so they can be identified and banned?

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Definitely not. I created the thread, and my interest was sincere. If you look, you'll see that I've made a sincere effort to engage with all the conservatives who have commented. And, personally, I would be opposed to booting people just because they happen to disagree.

I hope that helps!

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

I will trust you. Just know you might have also stirred up a hornets nest. Libs and Conservatives are highly divided at this point in our existence. :)

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I don't know. I've been having some decent arguments with several conservatives on this site. I won't rest until I've converted every single one of them! But I also would resist any attempt to have people banned just because they honestly disagree with the intentions or methods of OWS.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

lol well I wish you well in your attempts. Most cons are pretty decent people. When I was a kid, libs and conservatives were not so divided. They argued with a smile on their face. Both sides have been negatively portrayed in the media.

[-] 1 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 5 years ago

Or are you here just to disrupt, cause trouble, or prevent progressives from communicating effectively with one another?

Pretty much that. You know it to be true

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Yes, but isn't there a better way to spend your time? Perhaps you really have come here looking to be converted. I'm just going to assume that is actually the case, ok?

[-] 0 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 5 years ago

You aren't thinking that I am the conservative here right? My position is pro-occupy all day erry day! I'm just answering the question.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Oops! I misunderstood your comment! Keep up the good work!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Your question proves you are still at a partisan level, as far as understanding the corruption of our gov, so Im assuming you will only get the other partisan hack to back you on this.

Time to grow up, Peter Pan.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I didn't realize that I needed to grow up. Are you as concerned about the corruption of multinational corporations as you are about the corruption of government?

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

To those that have been down this path for years, they are one in the same....

Hence the many people on here who dont understand why only half hte beast is being held accountable...

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Then we are in total agreement. I think that government is just as responsible for the mess we are in as corporations.

Isn't it nice when we can reach consensus?

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Then why the desire to not reign them in? Half the stuff the stuff the right says is good, the other half is garbage.

Same for hte left.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 5 years ago

We're letting a "chicken or the egg" argument divide us. How dumb is that? Obviously both need to be addressed. Whether one causes the other is irrelevant.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Dont tell me, tell the divisive, media inspired sheep that posted the original topic.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 5 years ago

As far as I know, OWS isn't left-wing. It's an a-political people's movement, initiated out of protest for wall-street's misadventures which is a nonpartisan issue.

Your presumption is the one that's not welcome. Tell me otherwise, and your "consensus" is nothing but a sham.

[-] 6 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 5 years ago

It's always been the right that supported Wall Street. Maybe that's the disconnect. As far as I can tell, even the libertarian right's angle is that Wall Street is just fine on its own - but government regulation created a monster. That is not the OWS position.

Or are you one of those who's going to claim Teddy as being of the right?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 5 years ago

I don't view politics as a hero-sport m'friend. Issues only!

[-] 3 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Wow! Nice attempt to trap me in a dilemma. I wouldn't call it a left-wing movement. I'd call it a progressive movement, and that means that we can arrive at consensus. Most Americans really do want a just society in which government works in their interests, not solely in the interests of some small elite. I would think that even conservatives would want that, wouldn't they?

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 5 years ago

I didn't "attempt to trap you". My point is that OWS, by the nature of its methods and goals, must be inclusive and avoid mocking or silencing viewpoints.

"Even conservatives" ? -- "Conservative" means "few changes", to government, for example.

These people you all seem to hate aren't "Conservatives." They're wolves in sheeps' clothing.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Oh, if that was your point, then I misunderstood you. You're absolutely right. We shouldn't be mocking conservatives, because there may in fact be room for "consensus" on some issues between OWS folks and some conservatives.

[-] 1 points by gforz (-43) 5 years ago

Yes, we do. The problem is in the means that the left will try to take and the lengths they will go to the extreme in furthering this "fairness" and "justness". We have no accountability in Washington in how the people's money is spent, and until we do, not one extra dime. Throwing money at problems has been shown time and time again to have no effect on the problem (education, war on poverty, drugs, etc.), and the left doesn't seem real concerned about budgetary discipline, in fact, no one I hear on the left espouses attempts to reign in spending at all. The reason that is is because they expect someone else to pay for it. If you had a poll today and asked everyone if they were for a variety of the programs liberals espoused, because in general theory they sound good, you would get the results of the polls promulgated by liberals that say the American people are for x, y, or z program. If, however, you combined the question, and also asked, "are you willing to have YOUR taxes raised by x, y, or z percent to pay for it", the support would fall away. Funny how those polls never ask those questions.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 5 years ago

Go look aty OccupyPhilly's declaration, which I think came out today. Read it on Daily Kos. And tell me if what you are reading is left-wing. Everything from pulling all military from around the world, taxing the rich, free education and healthcare, and literally every one of the liberal establishment's wishlist, all on one page. No, not left-wing at all. You're convincing nobody.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 5 years ago

Then it sounds like consensus hasn't yet been reached ;)

[-] 1 points by brendanpens (3) from North East, MD 5 years ago

I think that partisan comments like these are a part of the problem. In fact, they're contra the movement. In what way can one demonstrate "solidarity" while bashing those who could be potential allies or supporters?

Keep the movement open to the people, not exclusive to "the Democrats" or "the Republicans." At either extreme, far-left or far-right, the ideas are essentially the same.

For the moment, we continue to be the American People, guided only by our founding principles. None of us can afford to stand around and argue semantics.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I guess that I'm missing your point. Whose partisan comments are you referring to? I was simply asking the conservatives who seem compelled to disrupt the discussion on this forum what their motivations are.

In fact, based upon what you've just written, you really shouldn't be part of a movement that singles out -- i.e., bashes -- the top 1%. You should be working to make them allies of the movement. But this, of course, is absurd. OWS clearly is a partisan movement, so I think it is fairly disingenuous for us to pretend that it's not.

[-] 1 points by brendanpens (3) from North East, MD 5 years ago

My point is that the movement aims to stop corruption within the government and corporations, not corruption and "the conservatives." I know plenty of Right-Wingers who are completely supportive of OWS.

Pointing fingers at one another isn't exactly fighting corporate greed. Educating family, friends, or anyone who will listen about the movement, from a nonpartisan, human perspective is much more productive. If it ever succeeds, the movement should be considered a victory for the People and the Country, not "the Democrats."

And of course that's absurd. It's also a glaring logical fallacy.

All we're doing here is arguing semantics. And, like I said, none of us can afford that right now.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 5 years ago

I'm kind of a Ron Lawl sympathizer.

You can't deny that the government and the federal reserve are not rotten.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

'You can't deny that the government and the federal reserve are not rotten."

They are.

My car is also having ongoing problems.. But it's just not feasible to trash it in favor of walking everywhere. I guess my attitude is that getting it fixed is a worthwhile endeavor.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I don't deny it. I am just as suspicious of big government and the federal reserve as I am of big business. Does that mean we are in agreement?

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

I would hope so. Supposedly most people are more suspicious of big government than big business, but it's a false division since they are obviously symbiotic.

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 5 years ago

If you were sincere, you probably wouldn't have ended your questioning with this nugget:

Or could it be that maybe conservatives lack the technological expertise to create a site like this for themselves and this is better than nothing for you?

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

No, that really was a sincere question. I haven't been on any conservative sites so I really have no way of knowing if forums like this even exist on the right. I personally find this site to be an excellent vehicle for fostering debate, discussion, and collaboration. Does anything like this exist on the other side of the political spectrum?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

The "we are the 99%" is deceiving to a lot of people. They think that because Republicans and Tea Party members are part of the 99%, that they would fit in with the other Occupy members. Then when they realize that Occupy really only represents a small far left minority, they become angry for being duped.

[-] 4 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Actually, I think that a recent CBS poll shows that far more people agree with the goals of OWS than with the Tea Party. So I don't think that OWS represents a small minority by any means.

I personally think that there is quite a lot of common ground that can be reached between members of OWS and the Tea Party if we could just get beyond our simplistic left vs. right paradigms.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

I would love to see that link. I don't think there has been a recent national poll that shows that far more people agree with OWS than the Tea Party.

There are a lot of commonalities, but also a ton of differences that may be tough to overcome.

[-] 3 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

My apologies. It was a Time Magazine poll.

http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/

I think that the commonalities between what drives the two movements are greater than you think. We all feel that government is no longer responsive to the needs of average Americans. OWS and the Tea Party just differ as to the solutions they offer on how to correct this.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

What were those goals again?

[-] 3 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

You know what they are. To create the imbalance created by having a very small percentage of the population control an obscenely large amount of the nation's wealth and use it to corrupt our political process. And most Americans definitely agree with this.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Roooiiiiiiight....And as soon as you get specific, like the Tea Party did, the haters will come out of the woodworks...

Bland goals lead to bland responses.

Radical goals lead to radical responses..

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 5 years ago

Addressing money in politics and skyrocketing inequality.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

How? Those are just demands. They dont say what you plan to do. And when a small few can finally put somthing together, you are going to find out what politics is all about.

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 5 years ago

They are goals, which is precisely what you asked for.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

No, they are simply bland end blanket statements. Addressing skyrocketing inequality could be done by addressing- trade imbalance, destroying the tax code, increasing taxes, reducing spending, reigning in military. Whats your plan wolf? And with money, how much is allowed, are private donations still allowed, should tax payers pay for them, pac destroyed, etc?

Whats the goal? Anyone can say the usual stuff. "I want to be rich" is very similar. "Wonderful, whats the plan on getting there?" Whats your goals?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Those the types of things Im talking about! Are they officially adopted yet?

I just put them on the OT site, with the suggestion of voting on adoption this weekend. Good job.

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 5 years ago

This stuff has to go viral to get enough people behind it and get these passed. Tweet them, facebook them and recommend them.

In the end, if you like the idea, the word has to be spread. The amendments can be considered public documents and the public can access and edit them. They can be place holder until better drafted amendments are presented and/or drafted.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

NO, many are 99%, they just don't understand. We need to educate them, explain they are voting against themselves in favor of the 1%, duped by all this "regulation is bad" and "govt tyranny" propaganda.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

Do you mean by voting Republican? You can't really think the Democrats are any better.

[-] 3 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I personally think the Democrats are even worse. Not only do they take money from the same corporate sources as the Republicans, but then they have the audacity to pretend that they are working for the interests of the average American. At least Republicans make no bones about the fact that they are advocates for the rich. I actually appreciate that kind of sincerity!

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

They're not much better. They only verbally support the 99%. By voting for them, we're at least letting them know we agree with that message. We're not going to vote Republican, thus sending a message that we want more inequality and less of a voice in democracy.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

Republicans also verbally support the 99%. The verbally support job growth, a decrease in the national debt, etc. Those sound like good things. So why not vote for them if you are only going to vote for the party that puts out a the best sounding message?

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

"The verbally support job growth, a decrease in the national debt, etc. Those sound like good things. So why not vote for them if you are only going to vote for the party that puts out a the best sounding message?"

Probably because the Democrats have occasionally delivered on their message, however rarely. Republicans promised before that tax cuts for the rich will slash the national debt under Reagan. Record deficits as borrowed money went to millionaires, who in turn, contributed some of that money to the GOP, for more tax cuts and loopholes, and the spiral went on further. Job growth may have occurred, but only because stagflation has never occurred for more than a year in all of recorded history(find me an example) and thus job growth was going to occur anyway. Their promises are based on this same policies that did nothing but drive us into debt, and do not tell me Bush's tax cuts produced job growth because it did not..

The Democrats today, at least want to keep the payroll tax cut that the Republicans are attacking(against their pledge) and so they have my nominal support.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

Bush's tax cuts have saved me money on my taxes every year since they were passed. So they are alright by me.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

That's great. It saved you money and all it cost us is our country's future by running up record deficits while the economy didn't even have any problems. Thanx Bush for driving us into crippling debt before driving us into recession.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

It saved a lot of people money, not just me.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

Awesome. Thanx again, Bush. Perhaps that tax rebate will take my mind off the fact that inflation-adjusted wages were(and still are) falling or that the relative purchasing power of taxpayers went down for all but the top tax bracket. It doesn't matter. Bush said it was "patriotic" and so we have to believe it or else we're not american. Bush must have been right about everything. Lets start another war.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

The Democrats are less-tainted with women-hating religious ideology, overall, Democrats are far better than Republicans. Don't take the lazy way out and say everyone is bad, and then sit and do nothing. Reminds me of certain fathers, who scream at all the kids instead of the one making the problem, then sit back down in front of tv.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I have been holding my nose and voting Democrat for years. Yes, the party is somewhat better on a few issues than the Republicans, but they are basically two wings of the same corporatist party. Until we get a viable 3rd party that is truly progressive, there really won't be any significant change in this country.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

We need to do what Koch Brothers and Libertarianism have done to the Republican party, but in a good way. We need to take Democrats far left, just to get this country back to the middle.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 5 years ago

I do think both parties are pretty bad. I tend to usually vote Republican though.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 5 years ago

WITH LABELS "THEY" DIVIDE US

"Democrat", "Republican", the parties of the system;

Puppets both, for sale their votes, no character or wisdom.

"Liberal", "Conservative", for change or status quo?

Pick either one, the change is none, all charlatans and whores.

Far "Left" we place the Anarchists, Libertarians claim far "Right";

Yet both decry the government: False continuum brought to light.

For oil, "We" bomb their mud huts, strip them bare, then offer "Aid";

And fake their retribution as pretext - a false flag raised.

Unarmed hundred thousands killed by weapons of "Defense";

While rights are lost for "Freedom" sake - on profit, all depends.

With stroke of pen, the "Patriot" Act, and patriots' gifts are taken;

Then "Citizens United" leaves our citizens forsaken.

We protest loss of liberties, put "World Wide Web" to use;

Cloudmark Authority censors us for "messaging abuse".

They label us to finger-point. With labels, "They" deride us.

Their labels keep us all at bay. For with labels, "They" divide us.

http://ironboltbruce.com

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 5 years ago

Take a look at Morton Blackwell's "Leadership Institute" in Virginia.

This has been the right wingers' main Dirty Tricks generator for decades. They recruit authoritarian sociopaths by the hundreds every year. The likes of Karl Rove, James O'Keefe, Breitbart. Then the creeps get used for political skullduggery.

Online invasions of left/center web sites are done as low-pay jobs. Very low pay. Systems support allows them to pick fake source-IP data, for example, so they can conceal identity.

Occupy sites ? Likely in their Top 10 target list.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

The reality is that this site doesn't not belong to OWS; it belongs to cyberspace... it is a freely accessible public forum for the purpose of conveying thought... as a cyber non-entity it cannot be possessed of a left, a right, or even an in-between...

And the only way OWS can reassert its ownership is to dispose of its property.

[-] 0 points by TheMaster (63) 5 years ago

I'm a conservative and out on this forum for the comedic value the site provides. The ignorance out here is deliciously hilarious.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I suppose that there is no shortage of comedy or ignorance among conservatives either. Is there?

[-] 2 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

I laugh less and less these days. The willingness to descend to divisive team vs team tactics depresses me.

[-] 1 points by TheMaster (63) 5 years ago

Tell us a joke then.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 5 years ago

yeah- I think it's a silly question.

Conservatives who show up at a liberal movement website are intent on disruption of some kind, sometimes even intimidation.

Sometimes they can be highly entertaining - if you enjoy watching them sit'n spin

[-] 0 points by julianzs (147) 5 years ago

Tea-baggers in alliance with those of whose wealth they know nothing, believe that you can cut government expenditure and create jobs when the private capital so transferred is shipped outside the US or parked in banks for lack of demand. Tea-baggers who should be in the 99% still believe American business invests in here, as it used to. They are confused. Their world is standing on its head!

[-] 0 points by Monkeyboy69 (150) 5 years ago

I am here to disrupt. The "movement" is garbage

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Well, at least you're honest about it. I admire that!

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

Am I Liberal or Conservative? I don't know what category you want to force me into, so I don't know if you are addressing me. Please clarify.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I don't want to force you into any category. The very fact that you ask the question the way you do assures me that you are no conservative. Are you an independent or libertarian, by chance? I've been having very productive discussion with people who identify themselves in this way.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

I'm an American.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Nice answer. I'm sure that you are also open-minded too, which is why you are here really looking for answers and not just to disrupt the conversation. I hope that you find the answers you are looking for!

[-] -1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

I'm here to teach. I'm always eager to learn, and have learned much here. But I spent years doing research. I now want to inform others of what I learned. 9/11 was an inside job.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 5 years ago

I like to challenge my beliefs. I read and reply on this board to test my beliefs as well as try to convince those who support OWS that theirs if a movement of misdirection and misinformation, as well as a movement that will result in oppression and the loss of individuality and individual freedom.

Their syllogism is flawed.

Government, not capitalism, is flawed. The remedy is to allow more freedom and less government control, not to empower the gov't to become more oppressive and controlling.

More individual freedom is the cure, not more gov't control.I like to challenge my beliefs. I read and reply on this board to test my beliefs as well as try to convince those who support OWS that theirs if a movement of misdirection and misinformation, as well as a movement that will result in oppression and the loss of individuality and individual freedom.

Their syllogism is flawed.

Government, not capitalism, is flawed. The remedy is to allow more freedom and less government control, not to empower the gov't to become more oppressive and controlling.

More individual freedom is the cure, not more gov't control.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Government and capitalism--as least as it is practiced in the United States are both seriously flawed and in need to some reinvention.

If by freedom, you mean freedom for individual entrepreneurs to make a decent living for themselves by creating or selling something that people really need an want--the basis of true capitalism--then I would agree with you completely. If you mean freedom for multinational corporations to run amok and manipulate the democrat process, then I have to disagree with you.

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 5 years ago

The question is if capitalism is actually allowing individual freedom. It would seem the free-market and free individuals are in direct competition with each-other. After all, capitalism is about making profit. Not about what is best for humanity.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 5 years ago

Capitalism is individual freedom. You are entitled the fruit of your labor.

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 5 years ago

And how do you ensure that you get the fruits of your labor instead of the company you work for? Assuming there even is enough work for everyone.

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 5 years ago

You get paid a salary, which is the fruit of your labor. The "company", which is owned by another person or persons (shareholders), was funded through the fruits of their labors (their investment in the company), which they are entitled to. Your investment in the company is in the form of the time that you put in working for it, and for that you are compensated. Now if you'd like to buy shares, or buy into being a partner in the firm, or in the case that your labor is so valuable that without it the company would be less profitable or could not survive, then perhaps you will be given shares of the company or a free partnership. Just simply showing up and clocking the same amount of time working does not entitle you to the fruits of ownership.

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 5 years ago

Salary doesn't even closely represent the labor people put in. It's a freaking insult that's what it is.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 5 years ago

Find a job that more closely approximates what you believe the fruits of your labor should be, or, start your own business and receive the fruits of your own labor with the only limit being how much effort you put into your business..

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 5 years ago

I'm self-employed. I have no-one to answer to. So i'm not saying this out of some current job frustration. There is a much bigger problem then just my personal life. I don't matter. Creating a sustainable society that doesn't destroy the environment we depend on is what our common goal should be.

Capitalism simply doesn't work for most people. And if we can't provide for everyone in our current level of technology, then we are doing something horribly wrong.

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 5 years ago

There it is in a nutshell. "If we can't provide for everyone". Capitalism doesn't "work" for most people. What kind of nonsense is that? We don't "provide" for everyone in America. We provide as much freedom as possible to allow people to provide for themselves and their families. We have a safety net for those completely unable to help themselves. The basic truth (that is just not acceptable to some people) is that to have the kind of freedom we have in our country, you will always have people who don't make it. Our country is just so unfair and greedy that immigrants from all over the world literally risk their lives trying to come here and live. I don't think they see it as you do. Capitalism doesn't work for some people. There's a lot of reasons for that, and some which could be improved upon to level the playing field. But the minute you guarantee equality of outcome of people's lives rather than equality of opportunity, you are living in a communist state

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 5 years ago

I want people to be more free too. We are not different in that. But you believe we can be free under the control of capitalism. And i don't see how that is possible. There is no freedom as long as we are forced to be in competition with each-other.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

free markets are the opposite of control. It is only through the distortions imposed by governments and the overgrown, soulless corporations that empower them that engenders the control of which you speak.

This is one reason you'll find many who support both OWS and capitalism here. The Fed is not capitalism. Citizens United is not capitalism. The corrupt/captured financial regulatory commissions are not capitalism. Massive international banks and markets are not capitalism. Fractional reserve banking is not capitalism. Bailouts are not capitalism. None of the above do anything positive with regards to the effective distribution of capital.

Until we can use the tools provided by our system of governance to drive out these distortions and corruptions, like RICO, grand juries, and simple, criminal prosecutions for fraud, no system of governance beyond the impending police state have any chance at success.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 5 years ago

Yea yea. I know the propaganda story. I just don't see any evidence that it can actually work as it is envisioned. The logic is simply flawed. And i have not heard one argument that is proving it otherwise.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

Well, we at least have evidence that what we have doesn't work, no?

So you suggest more of same?

Or are folks allowed to try to think outside of this captured system?

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 5 years ago

Oh i definitely agree that we should change.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

i think you are lumping capitalism in with a lot of other concepts there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

basically the core is private ownership and wage labor. all the other is a matter of structure largely determined by individual societies. european v american capitalism has some pretty wide ranging differences.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 5 years ago

That's the problem of putting a label on something. You'd end up arguing what the word means instead of talking about the problems itself.

[-] -2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

very true. the devil is in the details.

[-] 0 points by FalseFlag (121) 5 years ago

They are doing a good job. They are intimidating, bullying and threatening. They are acting like big brother to make people fear and to make people feel like they are under surveillance. I am already overwhelmed by their efforts. I know these kind of people, they are trying to look like they have reason and thought but it is all racism, hatred and paranoia inside. They are pure haters.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by daveindenver (36) 5 years ago

You are right, I have tried to make sense of this whole thing and trying to discuss anything meaningful with most people on this site is a complete waste of time. Guess I'll just go work to get moderates elected and quit wasting time reading the crap I read here.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Don't give in so quickly. There are some good ideas on this site and some wonderful people in OWS who are passionately committed to the cause of social justice. I was feeling completely cynical until I encountered some of the people in OWS in Zuccotti Park. They actually gave me some hope for the future.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 5 years ago

As a right winger myself, I know extremely well what our side believes. I listen to them all: Rush, Savage, Doyle, and Bortz. I also regularly watch FOX. But I also try to listen to Thom Hartman when I can get him and I have been on this site for several weeks. Part of me thinks you guys are whacked, but part of me genuinely is trying to understand your beliefs and learn. Your site has a wide range of views. Honestly, I agree with maybe 4-5 of them total. But you never know, I might discover something profound.
Also, why don't you try to follow the Tea Party model and start your own party on a local level?

[-] 3 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 5 years ago

Because Occupy is acting as a movement, not a party. It's a different model of action.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 5 years ago

For better or for worse, even if OWS is leaderless, if it is to have any impact whatsoever on the national stage, it is going to have to have a leader. Even if an established politician (gasp) decides to carry your banner, they will be the spokesperson and representative of your movement.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 5 years ago

Many past movements, such as abolition and women's rights to vote and own property, had many leaders, often pulling in a variety of directions. They were far from tidy. None the less, they had tremendous impact.

They supported various politicians but did not have a leader. Any one person that we might point out as the leader, led only a fraction of the movement. I rather expect OWS to look similar.

[-] 1 points by MoneyBad (20) 5 years ago

"part of me genuinely is trying to understand your beliefs and learn. Your site has a wide range of views. Honestly, I agree with maybe 4-5 of them total. But you never know, I might discover something profound."

It's not hard to understand -- in fact, when I first heard of OWS, I didn't ask "what do they want?", but "what took so long?"

Hints:

~How many thousands of registered lobbyists work Washington, considered against the number of people in Congress plus major federal agencies? [About 5 years ago it was over 11,000 -- probably more now.] "Lobbyists"? Think: professional, legal bribers.

~How much money pours from their pockets? Where does it come from (who do they represent)?

~To what extent do actual policies directly embody the interests of well-monied lobbyists, against the interests of ordinary folk? (How is it legal that lobbyists sometimes are allowed to write actual legislation?)

~Similarly, consider electoral funding.

~What proportion of all wealth in America is owned by the top 1%? The top 1/10%? What proportion of stocks?

~What does a picture of income distribution in America look like?

~What kind of economic crisis are we in, if each of the Koch brothers "earned" about $190/second on average, all day, every day, 24/7, during the 6 months March-September of this year? And others have made 1-4 $billion/year since the crash? (A billion seconds = about 31.5 years.)

Inside-the-beltway priorities skew far to the right of ordinary Americans' values, way far over toward corporate priorities. The corporate media berates itself for being the "liberal" media, effectively negating genuine liberal voices (this is more the case on economic and foreign policy than social issues).

Given these considerations (among many others) . . . is it so hard to understand?

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 5 years ago

I have stated before the notion of a flat tax for all wage earners in addition to a tax on consumer goods. An extreme simplification such as this will most likely change the complextion of the Beltway. If no tax loopholes or tax breaks are available for anyone, there will be a need for fewer lobbyists

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

I too am a "right winger" and I follow none of those so called leaders. Quit lumping all of us together.

[-] 1 points by tedscrat (-96) 5 years ago

I listen to them to get ideas and I listen to others and watch this site to get other ideas. Then I examine them and think about them and decide which hold merit, but it is all a matter of learning

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

The point is to quit automatically assuming you know what we believe. A huge mistake of you leftist people is in thinking that the right wing is some kind of monoliths bloc. IMO the right wing in this country doesn't really exist.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

"IMO the right wing in this country doesn't really exist." !!!

O.M.G. !!

!

ab absurdum ?

[-] 1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

So what is the right wing? Is it the MSM version of the republican party's butt boys Limbaugh and Hannity? Or those deadly neo nazis that have so much influence on everyone?

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

MSVN : I honestly don't know where to start, so I quit ! You're 'Right' (maybe) and I'm certainly 'Left' ! As to who is 'Right or Wrong', Only Time will tell ...

et tempus fugit !

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 5 years ago

Your statement illustrates the problem that most of the 99% has with OWS. No one knows what you believe therefore, the majority doesn't want to get behind you. You all are often your own worst enemy when it comes to the public court of opinion.

[-] 1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

I am not of the left. Not everyone that regularly posts on this website is. Perhaps that is hard to believe with all of the ignorant Marxist left wing blah... Or the so called conservative/Wal mart iscgod/have faith in the republicrats blah...

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

I'm with you there, MV. When I have discussions with "lefties" they think I'm a right-winger, and with conservatives, they think I'm a liberal. What is hard for folks to understand is that the division is false, and incredibly detrimental.

But one thing I am not is "center." I do my best to be a party of one.

[-] -1 points by tedscrat (-96) 5 years ago

I wish I could meet you!! If you knew me, you would realize that I am not a leftist. I happen to believe in people running the show; the smaller the government, the better. I have been conservative for many years. However, I am very interested in what the left are thinking. You can take it one of two ways: know your enemy, or listen to the other side and get all the facts. Remember my "affililated with no one post" yesterday? How many leftists would follow that platform?

[-] 0 points by kaysha (6) 5 years ago

Fear.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

sophi@omni : Your post made me smile a wry smile ;-) as the contents of this link to a previous thread will show : http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-is-this-forum-such-a-troll-magnet-and-how-why-/ !

The Bottom Line is that Reactionary Right-Wingers and The Teabagger Trolls don't know sht ; have heads full of sht ; talk sht and 'think' everyone and anyone NOT glued to (Lame) FUX SNEWzzz is sht !!

Their (so called) Minds are Closed and their (barely beating) Hearts are Hardened and their Heads are up their own (x)es ! No amount of empathy, love, reason and exhortations to open their 'hearts and minds' seems to influence their 'fear and loathing' based thoughts and personalities.

Their Karma awaits them ...

momento mori ..

pax .

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I don't mind making you smile, as long as it is indeed a wry smile. I know what the motivations are of conservatives who come onto this site. I just want one of them to admit it!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

I don't mind honourable, thoughtful and principled 'Conservatives' to debate with ; it's the Rabid, Rancid & Reactionary Right-Wing Nutters with their insistence and invitation to switch off the brain, that get on my nerves ! Click the link in my post above and you'll get where I'm coming from !! pax et lux ...

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 5 years ago

I'll explain. I'm a republican. Think like a Tea Party person but I'm not a follower. I believe in a smaller government. I believe in fair taxes, not less, not more, fair. I believe in responsibiltiy. I believe in God, family and country. Now to answer your question. Democrats hate Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the very small minority of republican voices compared to the fast number of media outlets, ABC, CBS, NBS, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, AP, Chicago Trib, St Louis Post, LA Times and the list goes on and on. Democrats hate Rush, one guy with a microphone, and Fox News and rant against them but never take the time to listen to what they say. "I Hate RUSH,,, never listen to him,,,, but hate what he says," OK, fine. Here is the difference. We, republicans listen Rush, Fox but we also watch the vast liberal leaning media, including the worse, MSNBC. We read the New York Times, we read the Washington Post. We even log into left sites, like OWS. We participate. We get informed. We study and learn. You have zero idea what the right says since you claim you dont listen to them,,,, that is YOUR CLAIM,, not ours. I learn from following left and right issues and making decisions on what I have found. So there you go. It would appear like the left are brainless robots based on the question posted.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

If it makes you feel any better, I happen to listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh fairly regularly because I like to know what the opposition is thinking (i.e., what they current talking points are).

My objection to your position is that you assume that corporate owned media entities like ABC, CBS, and NBC are leftist. From my perspective, they certainly are not. They are there to prop up the interests of the corporations that fund them. The right wing is clearly represented by stations like Fox and various newspapers and radio stations. The left is represented nowhere...except maybe here.

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 5 years ago

I watch Fox and MSNBC almost every day. You are watching the worst of the Fox hosts, Hannity. Watch Greta or even O'Reilly. Much less strident than Hannity and less repetitive. If you tell me the left is not represented on MSNBC, you are not even on the merry go round anymore. Ed Shultz might as well be a paid employee of the labor unions, "Hannibal Lecter" O'Donnell looks like he literally burning up from the inside out in rage, Sharpton (?, really? Sharpton?), Matthews?, and the smartest lefty in the class, Rachel. Yes, just your run of the mill centrist journalists there, solid reporters all.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I agree totally that MSNBC is a liberal station. It was created, I believe, specifically to be a liberal counterbalance to FOX. But I certainly don't think that the other corporate-owned stations are liberal by any means. I certainly don't hear my views represented on ABC for example.

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 5 years ago

YOU,,,,,,,,,,, are probably the ONLY PERSON that does not think ABC, CBS and NBC are not leftist. You make your point when you PRAISE those networks and cut down Fox... you proved MY POINT.

[-] 2 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 5 years ago

She didn't praise them, she vilified them.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago

Here's the truth about the right-wing "END THE FED" libertarians that they don't want you to know:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

Actually I come here to see what the enemy believes. I've discovered thatvi agree with some and disagree with others. Some spout mindless propaganda that makes no sense but appeals to irrational propaganda ( see the post below by bluenose) and people with limited intellect. But one thing: do not assume you can pigeonhole every right winger here. Don't pretend you marxists know everything we believe.

[-] 3 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago
  1. Don't assume that I am a Marxist just because i enjoy hanging out with people who are committed to the cause of social justice. I consider myself a communitarian.

  2. I asked the question precisely because I really am interested to know why brings conservatives to a site like this. And I am very glad that you are open-minded enough to agree with some of the things that you hear on this site.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

Fair enough. And you are right, I know that not everyone here wants Marxism.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

"But one thing: do not assume you can pigeonhole every right winger here. Don't pretend you marxists know everything we believe."

We don't know what motivates you to hate jews or want to exterminate them and arabs. We're trying to understand, though. Until then, we'll continue to oppose fascism and genocide.

[-] 1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

I don't want to exterminate anyone. You make assumptions that make you sound stupid. I'll give you some advice: try thinking for yourself for once.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

"Don't pretend you marxists know everything we believe."

"You make assumptions that make you sound stupid."

As did you, dumbass. That's why I did it back. My god, you people are stupid.

[-] 1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 5 years ago

Sorry. Ain't buyin' it. Liar. Stand up for what you believe.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 5 years ago

Same for you. Just remember, I will fight to the death before I watch you kill the Jews or Arabs in your sick genocidal plan.

[-] -1 points by NonParticipant (151) 5 years ago

I'm here because I HATE, HATE, HATE the methods of OWS. HATE, DESPISE, am DEEPLY OFFENDED by the OWS movement. I'm here to see what OWS is up to so I will know how to be ready when they come. I'm here Protesting the Protesters, Occupying the Occupiers, exercising my rights to express my opinions and beliefs just as OWS says it is doing. For every bent thought OWS spews out, I am here to negate it with words of my own. I'm here to tell OWS that the movement will NEVER, EVER, EVER represent me and those who surround me. I'm here to let OWS know I think they are awful people and all the world is not falling over themselves to be a part of it. In fact, not one person that I know anywhere and I know a bunch approve or recommend anything about OWS. I'm here to tell OWS they ain't all that.

[-] 2 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 5 years ago

Are you done foaming at the mouth after your freedom seizure?

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 5 years ago

A question was asked. I answered it. No foam. Just passion.

[-] 1 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 5 years ago

Passion with you types is often fanaticism.

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 5 years ago

You types? And what type would that be? A middle aged full-time working mom with a teen at home who rolls his eyes when I tell him to do his homework, the type who works hard, cooks supper, cleans house, helps with homework, wraps presents after the kid goes to bed, spends a little time catching up on the day with her hubs, falls into bed after writing in her gratitude diary, works in the church food bank on Saturdays, takes in a movie now and then? That type? Yep, that's me.

[-] 0 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 5 years ago

Ok so you took the path of least resistance(as far as your life goes). Good for you. I don't think that people like you, who opted to bum off of some guy so you wouldn't have to work and so you can be a bitch to your offspring in order to fill the empty pit that is your emotional center, should be bitching at people for trying to fix the things that are wrong with this country. Not only have you put ZERO effort into fixing this country, you have elected the same banal, pointless path that billions before you have chosen. Maybe you should try to fix things yourself and succeed or fail FIRST before you think that you have the inherent, noble right to bash others that are trying to do good in this sinking ship that we call a country. After all, all you did was become a mooch off of a hard working guy and popped out a couple of kids, just like every one else. How status quo of you.

[-] 1 points by NonParticipant (151) 5 years ago

Apparently you didn't read my statement correctly or I didn't write it clearly. I was trying, with fail humor to show that I am a normal middle-class person, not a Your Type fanatic. Absolutely not have taken the path of least resistance, You have no clue what school of hard knocks I have attended. I work full-time outside the home and am also full-time mom. No mooch; in fact, I am the major breadwinner in my family. I have been laid off many times during my work life, so has my husband. We have done what was needed to continue to support our family and both work today. There is no empty pit in my emotional center, very full, happy, content. And I have as much right to express my opinions and thoughts as anyone who is part of OWS, including you. Your condescending tone will not shut me up or intimidate me. But thanks for the convo. :>)

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I'm really impressed by the way you responded to criticism. I'd love to debate with someone as thoughtful as you on the right! If you are a working mother than you really should be a supporter of this movement. How are you really benefiting by having most of the wealth of this country concentrated in the hand of a small number of wealth individuals. Greater income equality like we had in the 60s and 70s would definitely benefit you, wouldn't it?

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 5 years ago

I wouldn't waste too much effort on trying to counter OWS. If you want to negate them, devise better solutions.

[-] 1 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

Believe it or not, I really love your statement. You sound like a modern day Thomas Paine (I mean it!). I can relate completely with your antipathy because I have it for our government, our corporations, the military-industrial complex, the teacher's unions, and the entire food production industry of the United States.

I assume by the language that you use that you are a libertarian, and, if so--despite your hatred--I bet we would agree on a few issues at least. Are you that enamored, for example, with the role Wall Street played in almost bringing down our economy? Do you really like the fact that corporate lobbyist are writing most of the legislation for members of congress? I bet you hate things like this almost as much as you hate OWS. Right?

[-] 2 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 5 years ago

Unless he's told to hate them, he won't. Those types are minus their own free will. They need to be told what to think.

[-] 3 points by sophiaomni (289) 5 years ago

I really prefer honest antipathy to condescension or deception. If a person is honest about how he feels, you might be able to persuade him that your point of view is correct.

[-] 1 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 5 years ago

I totally agree. Its just that, if you ever notice, all the negative things that they say, for OWS for example, is always fed to them thru insert media outlet here. Its never an independent criticism of, say ows for example, because they aren't really capable of independent thought. Sorry if this comes off as dickish but I am tired of having to fight the never ending war against the media zombies.

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 5 years ago

Thanks for your civil reply. There is room for improvement but I see protests, break-ins to buildings/houses that don't belong to OWS, camping in areas where OWS shouldn't be camping, stopping traffic, trying to stop Wall Street from occupying as fruitless, empty exercises in futility. Civil disobedience does nothing but piss. me. off. Which means I will never respond positively to OWS or want to be a part of it. I see OWS as naive and unrealistic. I see OWS thinking they can level the playing field for all Americans, whether or not they want it, and then in time, power rising to the top as it always will as long as humans are involved. All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 5 years ago

I always love it when someone on the right quotes socialist Orwell...

Can I, in turn, quote individualist Thoreau?

Civil disobedience does nothing but piss. me. off.

"Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?"

"A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the State with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated by it as enemies."

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 5 years ago

Thoreau was good in theory when I was young, but today he would piss. me. off! To me, deliberately breaking the law to make a point loses the point on me. As to Orwell, socialist or not, he understood human behavior which transcends political parties or theories.

Off to bed, so to all a good night.