Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Some Thoughts of Solution

Posted 4 months ago on March 24, 2014, 4:36 a.m. EST by bullfrogma (448)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What is everyone thinking would be the best solutions to the problems of monopoly and lack of democracy that we face? What needs to happen for continued, positive change to really become possible? I've seen a lot of things floating around the forum and am curious if it's possible to consolidate them into some kind of precise understanding.

How can,

truth be more a factor of our evolution?

money be less directly related to power?

education and effort be motivated?

31 Comments

31 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by elf3 (2240) 4 months ago

banish all the sociopaths to an offshore island? I believe they are about 4 percent of society...we'll send them gmo rations

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

you changed the title of the tread. That's just weird man.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 months ago

well, it didn't help that you took a big shit on it and scared everyone else away.

but that was the point, wasn't it.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

you changed that text. In any case, a) that was not my intent; b) you asked, c) with all of the hoopla over the Snowden revelations, who can say what kind of response my suggestions may inspire . . .

. . . just the thought kinda makes me smile . . .

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

A strategy that I particularly enjoy is the possibility of creating a very secret non-partisan panel whose set purpose is to discover the breadth and depth of the current threat to national security that the Koch Machine and it's allies, its media circus, complete with its utter denial of global warming and dishonest discourse in general, does pose to the United States of America.

Once the magnitude of the threat is clearly understood, the President may then unleash the full measure of power that is at his disposal to address this pressing and weighty matter as swiftly, as authoritatively, as may be humanly possible.

The elimination of a wide variety of these individuals by as grisly and accidental a manner as may be had anywhere will no doubt induce disarray among the deregulationsist leadership, and in the chaos measures like the Fairness Doctrine and Glass / Steagall may be reinstated with little more than a whimper of opposition.

I do not suggest that all opposing opinion on the matter must be silenced, not at all, nor anything like it. Rather, those opinions must be presented in a fair and balanced manner, free of the repelican techniques of confusion, chaos, and propaganda

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 months ago

I think all of them might be in on it, especially the president. That secret panel would have to be composed of ninjas with adamantine skeletons and laser shooting eyeballs.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

I think the fact that the President hasn't addressed the issue of the Fairness Doctrine is simply a reflection of the fact that house repelicans have during the entire course of his tenure, right up until October of last year, engaged in a form of economic brinkmanship that has come to this nation's harm, and they have done so for purely political reasons. I expect that this is a significant consideration - something like reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine by the President would surely provoke a nightmare of a shitstorm beginning in Congress and echoed on right wing media outlets from Fux to CBS.

[-] 2 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 months ago

No seriously, aren't most of these guys part of the same Country Club? I think that secret panel is a job for the NSA, but aren't they the ones making sure people can't fight back?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

The divide between party is a very real reflection of that culture war - in fact the term reflection may be a bit misleading - it may well be more accurate to refer to it as an integral part of that culture war.

It really isn't fair to any of them to insist they are all the same, for it totally denies any of the real accomplishments that have been made, thus rewarding those repelicans who have very successfully made a priority of turning people away from the political system as a whole.

You really have to pay attention to get it. The links on the Fairness Doctrine and Glass / Steagall should go some way toward assisting people in identification of the ideological differences that do exist between party.

If you are not prepared to pay attention it really is a waste of my time attempting to provide proofs - you will likely ignore them anyway.

[-] 2 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 months ago

you're right, it isn't fair. I've come to respect the political system a lot more than I thought I ever would. it's those people though, who have the whole thing working for them, and I don't believe we even know who they are. we've been through this though. I like the conspiracy theory, too many instances have the same dishonesty, and i have my own reasons. it doesn't matter though. solution matters.

speaking of conspiracy, shout out to the jerk offs down voting everything i say no matter what.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

It's not a deep dark secret. The fukers are proud they have broken the system as bad as they have. You can google up Koch Tea Pary

or koch anti union

who fosters global warming denial but there is probably a better search string for that . . .

gop insiders confess which has two great articles right at the top, one of which I first ran across on this site and which very closely echos a piece I wrote and posted on my own *zendogblog - Upon the Question of Default of Our National Debt

and the other is a book apparently, which can be found on Amazon via the link: How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative

The point being that this is not some deep dark secret, conservatives today think no differently than conservatives under FDR, who did manage to save this nation from both economic depression and environmental catastrophe despite the conservative resentment - and if you think about it that makes no sense. Why would conservatives resent either a solution to the Dust Bowl or to the Great Depression - the investments FDR initiated resulted in greater wealth for everyone - as well as providing the frame work for an economic safety net for the public.

Conservatism is a mental illness. If you look at history, from An Gorta Mor and the END to the Great Depression to our most recent series of repelican government shutdowns -

it becomes undeniable. Conservatism is insane.

It's so insane conservatives really don't see it. But they are perfectly happy to abuse you if that is what it takes to get their own way.

I abuse the fukers right back. Consistently.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 months ago

Sorry I named the post after you, was just hoping to get a mixed bag.

I'll have to check those links when it's not my bed time. That wouldn't surprise me at all, that the people involved are proud. I've met people too many times who are proud of being evil. It's like being too weak to quit smoking cigarettes, and being proud of that. But Neil Young said it great, a greedy man never knows what he's done.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

a greedy man never knows what he's done.

Exactly.

What's really weird - talk to a conservative about FDR - you will find they still resent him. Never mind the great good that came from his policies. They hate him still.

The fukers cannot even learn from history - and it is all ideologically driven. It is insane when you consider that they resent policies that both insured and produced wealth . . .

the fukers are insane.

seriously - if they will not release the reigns of power . . . then I say kill'em.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

don't be dense

Getting repelicans out is but the first step. We still need to keep pressure on the political establishment.

But why am I discussing this with you? Last I heard you were a deregulationist . . . . which naturally means you are a libertarian intent on turning people away from politics as a whole . . .

[-] 1 points by JGriff99mph (507) 4 months ago

decentralization =/ deregulaltion

"Getting repelicans out is but the first step. "

How many decades has each side been attempting to do this? I mean honestly, how long is the nation going to run at that carrot before they decide to just toss the guy dangling it overboard?

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

twisting legislators arms is good enough for the Koch whores, but not you. Now why is that . . .

you libertarian scum

O wait! I get it! you are a Koch whore, and you just want the rest of us out of the way . . .

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

Zombie Alert!

[-] 1 points by JGriff99mph (507) 4 months ago

mmmuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh

Welcome to Terminus my little friend :)

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 months ago

"The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?"

What could balance public and private so not to create an abusable advantage?

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

What could balance public and private so not to create an abusable advantage?

Identification of the power abuser and the ideological dysfunctionalist, and kill them.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

And finally to underscore the nations commitment to honesty and integrity, a process should be set in motion that brings about the arrest of all the major players from 2001 regarding the invasion of Iraq, they must be found guilty of the most severe crimes punishable by hanging known to American jurisprudence, and they should hang . . . during this process the Secretary of State at the time must be found blameless, his name cleared of any wrong doing, and the portions of this process that air in public should take place during the course of the next administration, and while the repelican leadership - from the strategists to principle donors - nationwide remains enmeshed in chaos and in fear . . .

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 months ago

What's wrong with killing innocent people and destroying hundreds of families just to make excessive amounts of money, while at the same time perverting a government to misrepresent an entire nation? You know I don't think anyone should be punished for being human, but that isn't really human, is it. People live out their life in jail for isolated acts of passion, not even this methodical or genocidal. One thing in possible defense is that gang mentality is compulsive, and psychotic behavior is a mental illness. As of now, while everyone is going to movies and sucking on milkshakes, we're the ones letting these people continue to drive. We have to unite, all of us, seriously.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

As of now, while everyone is going to movies and sucking on milkshakes, we're the ones letting these people continue to drive. We have to unite, all of us, seriously.

We could, potentially. Maybe. Assuming we aren't distracted by the myriad voices demanding an end to all government, or whatever other distraction might be devised . . .

I've attempted to provide a simple alternative. If the agencies committed to protecting this nation actually got busy and addressed that threat that does present itself from within, then the public actually could pretty much kick back and just keep on keepin' on.

It might even be fun to watch . . .

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

We used to have anti-trust laws. I'm not an attorney but it does appear that both the Fairness Doctrine and Glass / Steagall are important components in anti-trust law that must be restored.

The Fairness Doctrine is itself a classic example of the divide that does exist between party as demonstrated with the Heritage Foundation argument against the FCC regulation

While many may point to the fact that the President can with either a Presidential Signing or simply a brief discussion with the head[s] of FCC, may reinstitute that doctrine as a matter of FCC regulatory authority - and since the President has done neither it may appear to some to be evidence of bipartisan corruption on this very issue.

I say it is most likely because of the flaming racist shitstorm sure to follow from Fox News and the like that account for the President's inaction.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 months ago

Wow, fairness doctrine sounds pretty cool. Sort of like forcing the media to actually talk about what's going on and be honest about it. No wonder they nuked it. Outrageous.

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 months ago

Would a non fundable, standardized campaign process that gave candidates equal exposure be helpful to get money out of politics? If not, why not?

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

I don't like you very well. In fact, I don't like you at all. the reason I don't like you is that you simply present a facet of reality that suggests either a complete abolition of government or, failing that, then just do nothing because obviously there is no good solution.

So here's another fact to counterbalance your negative suggestion.

  • You cannot conduct emergency response of any kind without a very clear hierarchy and a delineation of authority and responsibility.

It has been tried though. New York had a kind of anarchy when it came to fighting fires about170 years ago. What would happen is the boys would set to fighting each other over whose fire it was rather than fighting the fire itself. Not a good deal for either the property owners or anyone trapped - although to be fair anyone trapped back then was much more likely lost than today I'm sure.

So why does it not work? There are many reasons I'm sure. One of them is that it is impossible to simultaneously observe a large scale situation and then share that understanding with a large crowd - much less do so while that large crowd is organizing itself into some form of rational response - it just doesn't work that way.

Everyone needs to know what their job is, and get on it, in other words, deploy, while command assesses the overall and decides on strategy. That is how emergency response works - doesn't matter if it is a fire, an earth quake, an active shooter - or an act of war - the response is basically the same. The reason it is basically the same is because the needs of those responding is the same. The priority is to react both quickly and efficiently. Large groups of people do not generally do that without a great deal of clarity that simply does not exist in the midst of chaos.

you chaotic mutherfuker

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by JGriff99mph (507) 4 months ago

garble garble

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13270) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

You bitch about jobs while your beloved politicians shipped em to China.

what a fukin nimrod - any politicians who wrote or who signed policy would not, and could not have, done so in an absence of

conservative insistence and pressure demanding such policy

Politicians don't ship jobs anywhere - you stupid shit.

Politicians write legislation and spend money. That is what politicians generally do.

Business men ship jobs

you stupid mutherfuker

conservative business men.

[-] 2 points by JGriff99mph (507) 4 months ago

Here, do yourself a favor:

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

Not the most in depth, but a good starting place.