Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ben and Jerry's supports Occupy Wall Street

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 7:04 p.m. EST by powertothepeople (1264)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

36 Comments

36 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MJT (138) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

Don't underestimate the importance of an alliance - even if it is "corporate America" not all of these 'citizens' are dishonest.

[-] 1 points by BigDikdJew (61) from Stratford, CA 3 years ago

These clowns have you clowns pegged... all it took was ice cream! LOL!

[-] 1 points by Blueskies (49) 3 years ago

Corporate greeders posing as us!

[-] 1 points by MadCat (160) 3 years ago

Copied and passed along. Thanks for posting this.

[-] 1 points by silentxzero (8) from Avondale, AZ 3 years ago

they should go down to the protests and give out ice cream!

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

Ben and Jerry's is owned by UNILEVER! Unilever owns all the brands that destroy the planet. Unilever owns Dove which is destroying the rain forest for palm oil and puts petroleum in your products.....PART OF THE PROBLEM!!

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

[-] 1 points by ForTheWinnebago (143) 3 years ago

What influence does Ben and Jerry's have over Unilever?

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

Also Ben and Jerry's puts genetically modified high fructose corn syrup in their ice cream. Yummy orwellian ice cream! Yay!

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

That's awesome.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

No its not!!! It's like a subsidiary of Exxon saying they are with you!

[-] 1 points by Esposito (173) 3 years ago

Hey! How about gasoline flavored Ice Cream? Plus buying by the pint is cheaper than buying by the gallon!

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

You joke but they would if they could!!

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

Why not? The more good publicity the better. We're going to get corporations out of politics regardless of which corporations support the movement.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

Because it is hypocrisy!

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

Hypocrisy on their part. OWS didn't solicit their support they freely gave it. As long as "we" didn't accept money from them, they are free to offer statements of support if they choose to.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

Having a corporation extent legitimacy to the movement to those who value what corporations say is bad because you think it's hypocritical? Our goals are too important to be influenced by beliefs in hypocritical purity.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

What exactly are "our goals" anyway? This is the problem with this movement. It's undefined.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

It's a democratic, bottom-up movement. Goals take time and they are being worked on. Feel free to use persuasion to help us reach consensus.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

Okay first: I don't want to live in a democracy I want to live in a free republic like America was created to be. You must learn the difference between these. Democracy alienates minorities! Democracy means the 51% mob controls everything and the others are left out. Think about how you felt when a president was in office you didn't like.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

That is not true. You are confusing direct democracy with representative democracy. But any way, it doesn't matter. We don't have a republic either. We have a corporatocracy. The different between a republic and a democracy is really splitting hairs from where we're standing from.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

Right. First we have to get rid of these scumbags and then we'll figure out what to do in the future.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

Sure, works for me.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

I have to admit. This mob scares me. I am a student of history and these things always turn into a dictatorship. I don't want this government or a new government telling me how to live. The economy and the dollar are going to collapse and every time in history that event leads to a dictatorship. Nothing ever good happens in a mob...

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

Mobs are a symptom of widespread human dissatisfaction. If our political/economic system isn't fixed now, the mob down the road is going to be larger and more angry. These people shouldn't have to form a mob to get their voices heard, but because our electoral system is broken that is the only way.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

Well from what I've heard from people on the ground in New York the mob has the lefts money on its side. I am a libertarian that doesn't vote republican or democrat. Last time I voted I voted for Nader. Here in Austin the mob is a total white house propaganda machine. Last time I checked I was part of the 99% and my views are not represented by any of these groups.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

I consider myself a libertarian too (although more of the socialist type). I voted for Nader in the last election as well.

It's unfortunate if the mob in Austin is a WH propaganda machine. Propping up the two-party system is not what this movement should do. We should be tearing it down.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

Tearing it down is great as long as what it is replaced with is a fair system for every individual human being. They have to be terrified right now!

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

I agree. But do you not agree that 1 person=1 vote, along with a Bill of Rights, is a fair system?

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

Yes for sure. There needs to be campaign and election laws. There needs to be term limits for congress. There needs to be many political parties that reflect the views of their constituents and they all need to be able to debate. I personally don't think the government has the right to tell you if you can or can't have an abortion. But if a district whose citizens believe it is wrong they have that right not to have it in their community. Also the government doesn't have the right to tell you who you can and can't marry. Gay marriage shouldn't even be legal. Marriage shouldn't be legal. It's stupid that you need the legal system to give you a marriage license in order to form a union with someone! The problem with democracy is that the mob says "legalize abortion" and a bunch of people don't like that and don't want it in their community. I personally think that what a woman does is her business but I understand the argument. I don't think it's fair to push that on people. Same thing with gun ownership.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

I agree with the first part of your statement. But in the middle, where you say that a woman shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion because a majority in her community may feel that its wrong confuses me. You were saying above that direct democracy is bad because it puts the majority's will upon the rights of the individual. I would say a woman's body is her right, and no democratic majority should be able to take that from her. You seem to be against the mob saying "legalize abortion" but you don't have a problem with the mob saying "delegalize abortion"?

The institution of marriage is, indeed, stupid on general grounds. It should not exist and there shouldn't be tax considerations for it.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

Abortion is a complicated issue and as a man I have no right to impose my views on a woman in the matter. Her body is her property. I think the issue of abortions is that we are a desperate, unhappy, unhealthy culture. I think that if we have a happy society people will be less likely to be in situations where they need to abort a pregnancy. We're getting away from the meat of our problem.

The only reason the government is involved in marriage is for the IRS which is a bullcrap org that will go when all this is done. When you give the government payment for something, like a marriage license, you are asking for permission which is bullshit.

The Fed is the big problem here and needs to be the first institution gone.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

Exactly, marriage is simply an IRS/insurance issue. 100 years ago, common-law marriages were duly recognized in a majority of states but now everything must be documented by the government.

[-] 1 points by anima (60) 3 years ago

They'd try to tell you who you can and can't sleep with if they could find a way!

[-] 0 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

Stop spamming, please.