Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Censorship? Isn't that something we should be fighting AGAINST!?!

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 4:18 p.m. EST by strivehappy (31)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for this movement mainly because it claims to be about freedom, yet it turns around and marginalizes and straight censors views and information that is not popular or is controversial. We should preserve freedom of speech, even on this forum. That means talking about unpopular views. We don't have freedom of speech so we can talk about the weather.. Stop the hypocrisy!



Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

What are examples of this movement marginalizing and censoring views and information that is not popular or is controversial?

I have had some very good discussions with people on this forum where our views were opposing.

I have also left certain topic threads, because of trolls who have nothing to offer -- no facts to back up very nasty name-calling statements. The intent of these trolls does not seem to be to engage in or foster a dialogue. The intent appears to be quite the opposite -- to disrupt and to shut down dialogue. I have no objection to these troll type of comments being removed.

It is important to provide specifics when one makes a statement so we are all on the same page --discussing the same topic. This is why I am asking you for examples.

[-] 3 points by Rael (176) 2 years ago

How about the fact that you cannot say Ron Lawl

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

From the rules "We do not support an election campaign for 2012. At all" So that means no promoting ANY politician. It's not just your precious r.p. And it makes perfect sense to talk about idea's and not about politicians. Politicians have had their change, they failed.

[-] 4 points by Rael (176) 2 years ago

First off, I am not a Paul fan. I do like some of his ideas, but he has too big a case of the crazies for my taste. If it was all politician's names being censored you might have a point but it isn't. Anyway, the person asked to point out an example of censorship on these forums. I did so. Do you disagree that it is a form of censorship?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

This is a private forum. Of course the owners are entitled to choose the topic. The topic here happens to be OWS. OWS does not concern itself with which politician is going to win the next election.

I support the adoption of shelter dogs. That doesn't give me the right to go on a private forum and go on and on and on about how people should adopt shelter dogs. No matter how passionate I may be about shelter dogs or how wonderful my goals may be. This is the OWS forum. It is not the shelter dog forum.

[-] 3 points by Rael (176) 2 years ago

True, but they censor ONE politician, not all of them. Perhaps OWS is meant to be a diversion and they want to censor the one pol who isn't bought and paid for by the establishment that this movements organizers work for.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

I am beginning to believe you. It is one week later. Since my post, I have gone inside of the OWS beaurocracy. They seem to have developed their own 1% complete with utter control of the OWS donations.

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

It's a forum with rules. So yes of-course you could call that censorship.

How do you know that other politicians are not being censored?

[-] 3 points by Rael (176) 2 years ago

Let's see. Mitt Romney Newt Gingrich Barack Obama Ron Lawl Rick Perry

That's how.

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

Oke. that's what you mean. I thought we were talking about bans. Yes i guess that is kinda strange to auto-change some names but not all.

[-] 1 points by seur (3) 2 years ago

This is approximately my seventh account on the OWS forums. The reason this is my 7th account is because my previous 6th have all been banned, and several of my comments have been deleted outright by site mods. One of my deleted comments was as simple as 'make sure you be careful planting gardens in urban areas because heavy metals in the soil can get absorbed by your crops' in a thread about community gardening. I am one of the 99%. Because of the censorship, and oppression of freedom I have encountered on this forum, not only will I never be a supporter of OWS, I will also actively discourage others that I meet from becoming a supporter of OWS.

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

Maybe they do ban unfairly. You seem genuinely upset about being treated unfairly and it's a shame that people with good intentions end up feeling like that because of forum strictness.

Still there are a also problems that do need addressing imo. From what i see, there are a lot of posts that i think should not be on here. And i kinda wish they had a more active banning policy on those, because all the hate posts are clouding the serious discussions.

All in all you can never do it right as a moderator i think. If you don't moderate enough, some people complain. And if you moderate to much, people will complain also.

Also you have to keep in mind that a only few people are in control of the forum and this website. It's not representative for the movement as a whole.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

I have no idea who Ron Lawl is; however, I will look him up and get back to you. It may be a bit, because I have got to get off this computer and take my dogs out.

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

"What are examples of this movement marginalizing and censoring views and information that is not popular or is controversial?"

How about the connections between Wall Street, the drug trade and Huffman Aviation?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

I have not heard about this. Do the connections between Wall Street, drugs and Huffman Aviation have something to do with the OWS movement?

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I guess that's up to the participants. It seems completely relevant to me. Huffman Aviation is the flight school where alleged terrorist ringleader, Mohamed Atta allegedly learned to fly twin prop planes. He actually already knew how to fly when he got there.


My database is no longer on line, so I have to rely on less well integrated sources.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

The destrtuction of the WTC, although a very important issue, is not an OWS issue.

OWS knows the goverment is corrupt in a myriad of ways. No one is arguing that. OWS aims to replace the government. This is what we are working towards. Once done, you will be able to access all available inside information on your issue.

Meanwhile this is a private forum -- one in which the forum's owner(s) have decided is to be aout OWS. You can start your own forum that can be about anything you want.

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Perhaps 9/11 Truth has nothing to do with the objectives of the owners of this forum, but it is arrogant and patronizing to claim it is not an OWS issue. The 9/11 Truth movement has similar self-appointed thoughtpolice. They have crippled that movement as surely as your position will cripple OWS. I wonder if that's the objective.

You clearly do not speak for 99% since a good chunk of the 99% are on my side.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

I support OWS, although, to be honest, the more I look into the organization of it, the more I see that it is being run along the same lines as our current government. I believe that the government has infiltrated the movement at the top ranks. This level of honest back and forth that you and I are having here, does not seem to exist in the NYCGA forum. Of course, I have only been in there trying for a few days, but still, it seems that a few at the top of the OWS chain are making all the decisions for the rest of us.

9/11 is an OWS issue -- since 9/11 the militarization of our police force is huge. So lets assume that the government did create 9/11 so they could create a huge army to use against the American people. Convincing those of this forum will have no result. We are already trying to overturn the government. OWS is well aware of many government abuses. Why is it so important for you to convince people HERE of the 9/11 issue. The government is on its way out anyway.

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

"The Government" isn't the problem. The official and publicly visible components of government have become, in many ways, a front organization for the Shadow Government. The Shadow Government is pretty much synonymous with the world of high finance. Their control over the MSM is at least as significant as their control over government.

I really believe that understanding 9/11, at least to the extent that one understands that it was perpetrated from within, is essential to determining how to fix our current problems. It's the difference between thinking the people running the company are illegally pilfering the retirement fund, and understanding that they are killing employees who dare to stand up to them.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

There are many other issues that point to the existence of a Shadow Government. This existed long before 9/11.

I, along with most Americans, did not want to see this. We are fed a lot of propoganda about how free we are and how incontrol of our destinies, we are as individual American citizens. It is a lie.

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Don't give up on America. That's what they want.

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

Go read the "no platform" clause in the comment rules. Until you state otherwise, we will assume your statement above was made in ignorance of that blatant censorship issue.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

I do find it odd that the author of the clause says that fascism has a very specific meaning yet fails to tell the reader what that meaning is.

[-] 0 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

The No Platform Clause:

No Platform. Conspiracy theories, including any attempt to spam material by David Icke, Lyndon LaRouche, David Duke or Alex Jones, will be removed immediately and the spammer will receive a swift global network ban. Fascist propaganda (including any attempt to spam these four people again), will be treated with the similar actions. In that we are very specific about what fascism is: the word has a meaning.

What is your issue with this clause? I am not being facetious here. It is a lengthy clause and I want to know exactly what it is you object to and why rather than bore you to death with a lengthy analysis of the entire thing.

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

What is my issue with this clause... Tell me, do you object to the implicit assertion in the following statement:

"Murderers and whores, including monjon22 and his mother, will be tried and imprisoned for their crimes."

-- I have a feeling you would not appreciate being "included" with "murderers and whores".

And yes, your are quite right that the author's use of the word "Fascism" is strange and out-of-place. He is making a tongue-in-cheek reference to his ideology that A.J. is a 'crypto-fascist', and yet he does so disingenuosly -- wiking to those who know, but leaving no room for rebuttal by those who disagree.

They (the author) made the accusation while maintaining plausible deniability, and there is nothing honorable about that.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

I don't understand the murderers and whores thing? What are you saying. Is it that you do not believe David Icke, Lyndon LaRouche et al. or one of them are fascists? Which one or ones are you refering to? I don't know who some of them are and would like to look him up to see whether I agree with you or not.

The Marium Webster dictionary defines fascim as: (1) a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (2) a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Well, here in NYC we are definitely living under fascism. Mayor Bloomberg certainly has a tendency toward or actual excercis of strong autocratic and dictatorial contol. We do have a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader. The man changed the law so he could have a 3rd term! Yesterday he created a "frozen zone" around his residence to prevent citizens from excercising their Constitutional rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. He completely ignored a restraining order to maintain full control of Zuccotti Park.

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

"Murderers, including monjon"

Implies that you are a murder -- but you are not.

And yes, I am saying that I don't believe ANY of those four individuals are fascists -- more to the point, it's not that I don't /believe it/, it's that that is not the DEFINITION of fascist, which the author of that clause goes so far as to reference (as you pointed out)

No, they are not fascists, but the author "believes" they are, using a twisted, hyphenated, form of the word "fascist" (specifically, "crypto-fascist")

And yes, I would agree that what you describe is indicative of fascist rule, as well as many other conditions of American society.

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I have to really question what is meant by "conspiracy theories". Insider trading requires conspiracy. Are we to believe that insider trading is not happening on Wall Street, except in those rare instances when the SEC stops watching porn long enough to indict someone? Google SEC and Porn, to know what I'm talking about.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

Definitions of terms used is always a section when legislators write laws. Otherwise the laws become impossible to follow or enforce. I, too, am curious regarding the definition of "conspiracy theories". I will read the thread under the rules to see whether it is defined.

[-] 2 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago


"TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide."

Continued on the site.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

Okay, but what does this have to do with the OWS movement? Anymore than the exposure of the horrors of puppy mills is related to the OWS movement.

People come to this site to discuss OWS related issues. That is the purpose of the site. Freedom of Speech is never absolute. It must be weighed against other issues. (And it does not apply here at all in a private forum.)

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

9/11 was the worst crime ever perpetrated on US soil by big money. If they can get away with 9/11 why should they care about a few noisy protestors camped out in a park down the street? OWS has the opportunity to really spread the word on 9/11. The group I've worked with in DC dc911truth.org has been protesting for years. We're just a few people who meet at someone's house and plan some small action such as handing out flyers.

I guess I should print some and hand them out at McPhereson Square.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

You may be right; however, this still is not the forum for it any more than it is a forum to elect Mike Blookberg for President. No matter how strongly you feel that he should be president.

OWS stongly supports replacing the government. OWS knows it is corrupt. OWS knows that it is controlled by an elite. This is the place for discussions concerning that.

Once you replace the governmet, you can get all available inside information regarding your issue. Until then, this forum cannot help you with it.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago


Sheep (Waters) 10:19

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;

Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.

You better watch out,

There may be dogs about

I've looked over Jordan, and I have seen

Things are not what they seem.

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.

Meek and obedient you follow the leader

Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.

What a surprise!

A look of terminal shock in your eyes.

Now things are really what they seem.

No, this is no bad dream.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want

He makes me down to lie

Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.

With bright knives He releaseth my soul.

He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.

He converteth me to lamb cutlets,

For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.

When cometh the day we lowly ones,

Through quiet reflection, and great dedication

Master the art of karate,

Lo, we shall rise up,

And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.

Bleating and babbling I fell on his neck with a scream.

Wave upon wave of demented avengers

March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Have you heard the news?

The dogs are dead!

You better stay home

And do as you're told.

Get out of the road if you want to grow old.

[-] 3 points by MrPickles (4) 2 years ago

All OWS comments are equal but some OWS comments are more equal than others.

[-] 3 points by saged (33) 2 years ago

while i strongly support Zeus and his control over mt olympus (the greek gods were all part of the 1%) i realise this is not the proper form to discuss those views. thats not censorship

[-] 2 points by shooz (26739) 2 years ago

Do you really want to see censorship?

Head on over the Heritage forum and try speaking well of Obama.

See how far you get.

this forum is pretty lenient.

[-] 2 points by Wook (4) 2 years ago

I also don't like this website because if say something these moderators apparently don't agree with they delete your posts. Very mature.

I used to support the idea of OWS. Not anymore. I know now the OWS movement is very ignorant considering the 1 guy (RP o emm gee I can't even say his name anymore!) that could actually help restore the "99%" and end the elite federal corruption in America is laughed off by a bunch of idiots who apparently just want free hand-outs.

[-] 2 points by Wook (4) 2 years ago

I used to support the idea of OWS. Not anymore. I know now the OWS movement is very ignorant considering the 1 guy (RP o emm gee I can't even say his name anymore!) that could actually help restore the "99%" and end the elite federal corruption in America is laughed off by a bunch of idiots who apparently just want free hand-outs.

[-] 2 points by Totems (14) 2 years ago


[-] 2 points by jjfromva (2) 2 years ago

alex jones is not a fascist. he speak out against it. you need to look our government on both sides they are the fascist

[-] -1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

It's old-school crypto fascist technique to point to the other guy as the fascist. When you're screaming in anger and instilling fear about the immigrants and gay agenda, using ultra-nationalistic themes and violent imagery, talking about restoring a christian theocracy, hosting holocaust deniers and speaking in code about the international jewish conspiracy (NWO), then you might be a fascist.

[-] 2 points by bre0001 (50) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

So someone should not be able to post when they want to know about something they see in the news? For example. OWS money handlers staying in 700 dollar per night hotel rooms. Or why this site was established months before September 2011. Questions like that.

People want to know about it, it is true or not and other questions. Posts have been removed from this board and I wondered why. So much for free speech.

[-] 2 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

This is an OWS forum and does not pretend to be about anything else. So the the extent that topics are limited to things in some way related to it, I support censorship.

For example, while I strongly support the promotion of adoption of adult dogs and strongly oppose the operation of puppy mills, I do not believe that this is the place to discuss these things unless they have some link to the OWS movement.

[-] 2 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I guess I don't get what you are saying. Some of us might consider the banned ideas fully relevant to OWS. I'm not a supporter of any of the explicitly banned "conspiracy theorists" per se. But am I also expected to refrain from mentioning Cynthia McKinney's views on related matters? I'm reluctant to share the information I've gained through years of careful research into the corruption of power and money in the US of A for fear of being banned.

[-] 2 points by 108bleeblop (2) from Edmond, OK 2 years ago

censorship of Alex Jones points to a broader co-option of ows by the political establishment. does ows really want to function as Obama's re-election campaign? and to use 'conspiracy theories' as an excuse is disengenuous and hypocritical. does occupywallst.org not believe that members of the finance and banking elite are conspiring against the 99%?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

ZOMG!!!! You are SO right. Here, let me show you out. The door over there leads out.

[-] 3 points by strivehappy (31) 2 years ago

Lame...Was that supposed to be funny?? I see a lot of people take our constitution and bill of rights for granted. Spoiled f'n brats who don't know how good they've got it until its gone.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Not at all. And it's not any "lamer" than one more thread on censorship.

Which people are taking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for granted?

Which part of the Constitution and/or "Right" are they taking for granted? http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

[-] 1 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

Ron Lawl ..... Ron.Paul ...... Dr. Paul

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Why does every website on the Internet have to look the same and provide a space for frothing, juvenile hordes spewing the same nonsense? I don't think there's anything wrong with laying down a few rules about what the purpose of a website is and what it intends to provide space to discuss. Doesn't mean it needs to allow the Internet monkeys to come in and throw their faeces around: they've got the whole rest of the Web to do that in, nobody is infringing on their free speech by laying down a few rules on one particular website. That's the website owner's prerogative.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 2 years ago

This forum and its censor ship and blatant agenda has done more damage to the crdibility of the movement than corporate media..

Its a slap in 5the face to genuine occpiers who have sufferd for the cause.

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 2 years ago

There are lots of forums on the net....pick one you like. Why keep posting here if you don't like it.?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26739) 2 years ago

Where do they come up with this?

There's no shortage of trolls around here.

Some can even get out of hand on an open forum, and then complain?.

Tell me, what's this view you think has been censored?

I've seen many and find what you are saying to be unbelievable.

I'm waiting.

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Well, the reports of censorship on this forum is what called it to my attention. I'm glad that many within the movement are open to critical thinking on the generally accepted dogmas of recent history. And, yes, these things are very relevant to Wall Street corruption and abuses.

I don't know what the mods here think of Richard Gage's participation in the last two days. I'm curious to know.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

This, of course, ignores that fact that there are many people willing to use their freedom of speech with the direct intention of preventing the expressiom of free speech through innundo, charactor assassination, intimidation, confusion, misinformation, and in a hundred other methods. This need for the prevention of this is obvious, and is why almost all internet sites need to be moderated. If you don't like having hate-speech, for example, blocked on this site ,than all you have to do is go to a site where it will not be blocked, a Neo-Nazi site perhaps excercise your ritght to spread hatred to your hearts content..

[-] 1 points by Aretia (1) 2 years ago

News flash, the revolution will not arise from thoughtful, intelligent conversation in the comments.

No amount of censorship will help the revolution. Don't worry too much about "worthless" posts. Get in touch with people you actually care about or set up a separate private chat if you want to get something done without certain people or viewpoints involved. If it's up on the Internets, it is 100% free space and fair game. That's the best we can do here.

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

If they take this thread down, you'll have a point..

Till then, it's all hot air.

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

They took down this thread:


Do we have a point yet?

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

They didn't delete the thread, you idiot.

The person that posted it edit their 'title' and 'content' to [DELETED].

Post a thread. You'll find out.

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

1. It is inappropriate for you to call me an idiot

2. You do not know what what you described is what occurred, you only hypothesize.

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

OK. Sorry I called you an idiot. I should have just called you gullible. But the fact that all the comments are still on the thread should of been a hint of what the poster was doing. If something was truly deleted, then you wouldn't be able to find it because it would be deleted. It wouldn't just SAY [DELETED] at the top. I can't believe you're clinging to this nonsense.

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

I'm not "clinging" to anything. That's a rather loaded characterization.

I noticed a post deleted, and then I noticed this thread and replied to you. You replied to me, I replied back, and now you have replied again, and here I am replying once more.

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

[message deleted]

[-] 0 points by Scout (729) 2 years ago

now look what the politicians in Washington are proposing ! ha ha ha I guess nothing should surprise us these days?..... How much more proof do people need to understand the significance of what is going on? Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window " The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world " http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being



[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

We have enough to deal with in reality without catering to crackpots and right wing noise makers. If you are not with the program and not supporting OWS then you have no credible reason or right to be here. This is not "crackpots anonymous". This is OWS. If you aren't actively in support and service to that, and are blibbering up heaping stews of propaganda fecal matter- that shit SHOULD BE REMOVED.

If that bugs you- take it to some place else thats designed for nonsense and noise.

I'm sick of the trolls, sick of the trollhatten nature of this place, and glad that the garbage and bile of trolls is being removed.

deal. grow the fook up.

join the adult conversation, or get lost.










[-] 0 points by infoassurance (25) 2 years ago

they are already censoring my post on this that was VERY popular by not allowing it to be seen on the main forum list. Go here and let them hear about it!


[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5691) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

That's bullshit. It IS on the main forum list, that's where I found it.

[-] 0 points by infoassurance (25) 2 years ago

they are already censoring my post on this that was VERY popular by not allowing it to be seen on the main forum list. Go here and let them hear about it!


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

This website does not speak for the movement, they merely purport to.

[-] 1 points by youpeoplesuck (17) 2 years ago

That is a good point. They are not responsible for the movement they just wish to be a forum for the movement. Therefore, just be that and stop trying to influence the forum. If you do not like the responses you are getting take down the forum. No one is forcing you to have this website.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

OR and this part is good---go find another forum.

WOW. It took a lot of energy to solve that.

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

GirlFriday, I am not in the slightest bit impressed by the sarcasm you have littered these pages with, and I do not intend to leave. I ask that you begin to act with a greater degree of maturity, and refrain from qualling dissent by resorting to the tired old "go away if you disagree" ploy.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Don't try me. I am not the least bit impressed by the constant attempts you make to play the victim. You don't like the forum and you don't like OWS. Fine. Ain't no ties that bind you here. Your whining is a game. This little game makes you look like shit. K? We good now?

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

I didn't say I don't like OWS. You are conflating what I DID say with your desire to defend against critism a movement you are merely a subset of. You must not fall prey to groupthink GirlFriday. I meant it when I implored you to behave more Maturely. THINK! You are not unintelligent, and you can do better than telling me that I "look like shit" everyone is reading your responses here; this is a public forum, and you are not doing yourself any credit.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

You are not doing yourself any credit by whining about censorship. Oh, this is not group think. I am calling it precisely as I see it.

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

Precisely as you see it, eh?

Well then, /precisely/ when did you see me state I don't like OWS?

Now, I am trying you. We shall see if you have the wherewithall to back up your accusations, or if namecalling is the extent of your capacity.

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

So then, that is "the extent of your capacity." Noted.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago


Your a Paulite.

Do not seek to bring down capitalism. That is futile. Bring down corruption, conspiracy and political deception -- and your goals will have been met.

Not too many people calling out to bring down capitalism. In fact, most support it. And although you could take note of my sarcasm, you lacked the ability to find out this. More of the same. :/

Yeah, my stance hasn't changed.

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

By the way, I've been telling everyone around me that the Federal Reserve needed to be shut down for the last 17 years...

Did you read that post, and consider its arguments on its merits?

You should.

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

n the bottom-right corner of every page on this site, there is a link which reads 'github'. That link will take you to a site where the author of this website has released the source code:


The title phrase, or motto, of the project 'occupywallst.org' on that site reads:

"Stomping out capitalism, one line of code at a time"

I would take that to mean that stomping out capitalism is the primary intent of this site. I would agree with you that it is not the overarching intent of the movement.

Hence my initial statement,

"This website does not speak for the movement, they merely purport to."

-- So, when is your stance going to change?

(your 'Paulite' smear and failed contraction was ignored as irrelevant)

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

The Paulites are the biggest whiners.

http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/ What does the above say? ^^^

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

Okay. I read it, but I'm not going to paste it here. What is your point? How si that site relvant to the argument you have started with me here?

Or, more to my point, what does THAT site have to do with THIS site, and the motto of the author who wrote the code for THIS site:

"Stomping out capitalism, one line of code at a time"

-- and given that those are the facts at hand, I'll ask you again:

When are you going to review your actions thus far vis-a-vis myself, and conclude that you have been hoisted by your own petard?

--And subsequently, change your stance... vis-a-vis, myself...?

And what do I care if the paulites whine? What does that have to do with me? As I said, that smear was irrelevant, and as I demonstrated, also inapplicable. AFAIK, R.P was not calling to "end the fed" 17 years ago.

Therefore, you'd be more accurate to mock HIM as a "ScrewyLite" rather than the other way around...

-- When are you going to consider the harmless, humbling, and potentially medicinal revelation that you are wrong? Ever?

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

That was the declaration of the OWS, see anything about stamping out capitalism in it? No. Didn't think so. That would be the movement. Yeah? Thought so.

See the following: About OccupyWallSt.org is the unofficial de facto online resource for the growing occupation movement happening on Wall Street and around the world. We're an affinity group committed to doing technical support work for resistance movements. We're not a subcommittee of the NYCGA nor affiliated with Adbusters, anonymous or any other organization.

Occupy Wall Street is a people-powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally. #ows is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.

The occupations around the world are being organized using a non-binding consensus based collective decision making tool known as a "people's assembly". To learn more about how to use this process to organize your local community to fight back against social injustice, please read this quick guide on group dynamics in people's assemblies.

Solidarity Forever!

Which you will have found here: http://occupywallst.org/about/


You are not dissenting, you are whining. Sometimes I am wrong. But NOT TODAY. You don't like OWS and you don't like the forum. Fine. Ain't no ties that bind you here.

Victim is so not your color. Thanks for playing.

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

I have not whined. I have pointed out a difference between the goals of 'the movement' and the author of this site -- and you agree with me even to the point of proving that you agree with me -- and yet thus far you have refused to agree that you agree with me, most probably because you are incapable of admitting that you were unneccessarily confrontational. This demonstrates a lack of integrity, and I have known many like you. As such, your tone is nearing my threshold for tolerance, and begging my dismissal. Consequently, this will be my last reply on the topic.

One last time, real simple:

1: The author of THIS website (occupywallst.org, i.e. what you call "the forum") is named "Justine Alexandra Roberts Tunney"

2: That person, J.A. Robberts Tunney, has, of their own volition, in apparent contradiction of "the movement" (Occupy Wall Street) attributed the project by which he or shee created this website as follows: (and I quote verbatim) "Stomping out capitalism, one line of code at a time "

3: The two assertions I have just made are plain visible by scrolling down to the bottom of this page, and clicking the 'github' link in the bottom right corner. On the page which comes up, you will clearly see the quote phrase I describe as being the Author's stated intent for this site.

4: As you have pointed out, and provided ample evidence of, this is NOT the intended purpose of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Therefore, as I have said twice now:

"This website does not speak for the movement, they merely purport to."

I said it and proved it.

You said it and proved it.

Now, why do you persist in attacking my character?

[-] 1 points by thegrinchwhostoleyourmoney (15) 2 years ago

He/She is also a self proclaimed "anarchist communist" if you find his/her google+ page

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

The answer to my question was apparently "Never"

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Oh, I am necessarily confrontational to people that repeatedly whine. Especially with numerous threads that rehash the same.

You are whining about censorship on a forum that if you don't like, you don't have to be here. Does not change my stance at all. Which by the way, is not "tired" or "old". You have reached my threshold for tolerance and you may, now, go fuck yourself.

[-] 1 points by youpeoplesuck (17) 2 years ago

if you are for easy solutions maybe you should lead the movement. Maybe you can make better use of your energies.

[-] 0 points by strivehappy (31) 2 years ago

I see. So it's just a website run by a bunch of hipster posers that don't know the first thing about revolutions or movements. Should explain a lot.

[-] 1 points by MrPickles (4) 2 years ago

Screwy implied all that? Wow. English is a language filled with so much in the way of subtle nuance. You highlighted so much I missed, I blame public education.