Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 2 years ago on April 26, 2012, 9:50 a.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[DELETED]

60 Comments

60 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The real fraud is having to choose between two bought out parties!!

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Ain't that the truth !!

[-] 3 points by OliverTwist (3) 2 years ago

WTF??? You've got to be kidding me! Will that douche-bag Soros ever just keel over and die?!?!

[-] 3 points by FreedomReigns (72) 2 years ago

Well thank you for that impassioned response! For me, this makes it clear as day that its all rigged. Since when can't a few people in their own counties/towns/cities count their own district's votes? The elite don't even care that their being blatantly obvious.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we should all be counting the vote

it should not be necessary to trust an outside source

[-] 1 points by Shatterstate (1) 1 year ago

This is not true. George Soros is not connected with SCYTL nor is he connected with Diebold. Personally I am not a George Soros fan,but he has no in volvement with these companies. In anyway. There is no proof he owns or even invests in either company. This was spread by a chain letter and Fox news aired a story on it. The only federal contract with SCYTL is for voting for US troops over seas. i almost bought it, but I came to my senses after researching companies owned by George Soros, the company page for SCYTL and Diebold. George Soros wasn't listed on either company.

I am surprised you even ran a story on this with out researching the sourse matteral.

Shatterstate From Voice of occupy wallstreet.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

someone's got a count them

and another has to verify real people put them in a black box

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

This is pure nonsense.

Some manufacturer somewhere has to make voting machines. Before they are put into service, they must pass inspection and be approved by the local or state election boards. If they don't work properly or are found to distort the count, the fault is with the election boards, who are bound by law to ensure fair elections. No fraud can occur without tacit cooperation with state officials. If those officials wanted a distorted count, they don't need defective machines to achieve that result. That is true whether Soros, the government itself, or Mickey Mouse makes the machines.

This is a tempest in a teapot.

[-] 1 points by cooperbl (-88) 2 years ago

they ( dems) are gearing up for voter fraud.

[-] 1 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

Move along, move along, nothing to see here.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

There need to be at least 3 Article V threads at all times in this forum.

[-] 0 points by FreedomReigns (72) 2 years ago

Bumpity-bump! Have to agree with this! An obvious solution. All the cries for action in the world won't stop a thing. Is there any one physically ACTING on this or "ANYTHING" for that matter, than just more protesting?

[-] 0 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

"Bleating"-There appears to be a genuine sheep thing here. People cannot cognitively back actual functional strategy. Insterad it is social and its centered around a strange sensationalistic tendency and fear.

A basic inurement to reality while embracing an "anything goes" alex jones type generalization to justify pretending they are overwhelmed. Very little left brain dedication. Mostly emotional reasoning couched in minimalizations of any possible solution. Sort of, "Endless problems are easier, so we don't do solutions" kind of thinking.

Conditioned to react to only the icons promoted by material power while also dumbed down then mis or under informed, there is now a "milling" effect in the flock where incessant "bleating" is considered the most effective method to go about creating change.

The alternative to that nonsense is examination of strategy that is meshed into legal process. Article V. the right to "alter or abolish", the effect of "nullification" as a pre constitutional resistance to the federal, and murky extension of the English Crown.

This proposal for "Preparatory Amendment" does what some have proposed would be the only acceptable way to conduct an Article V, with a fixed number of absolutely constitutional amendments. In this case all that they do is return enough constitutionality to render the nation capable of conducting an Article V with the needed constitutional intent. This makes sense.

http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?33-Amendment-By-Layers-Of-Priority-Amendment-Package-Making-CONST.-Intent

[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

OMG.... someone is allowed to privately own a company!!!

They are allowed to as long as its not Soros?

Lets see we 'outsourced' the voting counting to a company in Europe and its biting us in the ass.... surprised??

When will the whole Ayn Rand - private ownership trumps common good thing end?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if we vote publicly, the count would be transparent

[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Would it? Isn't that why we need a third party to do this?

Nibs, and punched holes not going through completely, dead people voting, did you miss the Al Gore election fiasco?

[-] 5 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I meant if we all vote with our name,

the vote could be publicly counted

we could all stand by our vote

[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Maybe you could go into more detail.... voice recognition? How does one vote with our name. Names are supposed to be checked before you actually vote.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I'm against the death penalty

I just expressed my vote with my name

anyone can see that and if I am contact I will verify

that I am against the death penalty

that is how one votes with their name

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

I can respect opposition to the execution of criminals. May I assume you are also against abortion ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no,

is Necrophagia your real name ?

[-] 1 points by Necrophagia (-1) 2 years ago
  1. Okay.
  2. Yes.
[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Why is this an immediate assumption? Being Pro Choice, against the government intrusion and dictation regarding what goes on within a woman's body and her personal decisions, is not being pro murder or pro execution.

[-] 0 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

I guess he thought Matt might be against violently killing things, since he didn't like the death penalty.

[-] 0 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

You think Bin Laden should still be alive? Gosh, I think the death penalty is applicable in certain circumstances.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

it's a question of how a civilized human should behave

[-] 0 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

Could you please elaborate on that? Do you or do you not support the execution of Osama Bin Laden as carried out last year?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I do not support the execution of Bin Laden

[-] 1 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

Okay. That's all I wanted to know. And as before, it's just more proof Obama is a neo-con.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Getting a guy who murdered 3,000 of our citizens makes one a neo-con? That's just ludicrous.

[-] 1 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

No, that alone doesn't make him one. Dropping bombs into Libya does, though. Keeping Gitmo open does. Expanding the wiretapping program does. continuing extrajudicial retention does. Allowing eminent domain abuse to continue does. Appointing racists to the supreme court does. Giving out corporate welfare while the poor starve does.

Do you support the death penalty/Bin Laden execution?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Then my apologies dude ....

[-] 1 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

No... I didn't do it, the site software does it after around 15 reply layers from the OP. I'm not the type, I really want to know what you think and how you arrive at your conclusions.

Just go up several layers and resume there.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

For the record, I'm not in favor of the death penalty (and liking the fact that we killed Bin Laden does not require one to endorse the death penalty as a general rule). Acts of war are a special case.

[-] 0 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

How so? Bin Laden was not engaged in any acts of war, when he is on his knees, unarmed, begging for his life. If he is not a threat to someone's life, and you have the option to take him alive, you are officially making the choice to kill someone, exactly the same as giving someone the death penalty.

I have no earthly idea how you can condone this and be against the death penalty.

If it is any different than the death penalty, it is actually worse, because there was no judge, no jury, and barely an identification (I remind you, they did not even have positive ID until he was on the boat, and this was someone who had been away from society for years). Any time someone presents a threat to an innocent person, they are in a different category from the death penalty/Bin Laden execution. That is what you are describing as "acts of war", similar to someone in the US pointing a gun at a police officer and being killed in self defense. There is not even one shred of reason in claiming the Bin Laden execution could be construed as self defense.

Even so, why should we treat just as big of a sociopath (BTK, for instance), differently in punishment, merely because he did not have the means to kill as many people?

What makes Bin Laden different? Race? Wealth? Citizenship? (Opening the door to executing illegal immigrants) Number killed? If so, what is the threshold that allows the death penalty? If you believe lives are priceless, as I do, then killing one person is just as bad as killing a thousand.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

You're lumping everything into the same pot, without making any distinctions, or analyzing the merits of each individual item, which I think is sloppy analysis. Yes, I do support what we did to Bin Laden, and I support what we did in Libya, I wish we would provide some sort of assistance to Syrian rebels, but at the same time, I do not support the existence of a Homeland Security Dept., or expanding the wiretap program (or for that matter, the continued authorization of the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.), much less torturing detainees, or any of that shit.

I have no problem making these distinctions (I think each of these items are very different things). When you blow up an airliner, or a skyscraper, and kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, I mean, that's exactly what we have a military for (and all people have the right of self defense, and if that's not self-defense, I don't know what is). I don't mind the argument that this should have been handled as a law enforcement issue, but my answer to that argument is, I don't think that approach was possible in this case. I mean, could we realistically expect the FBI to air assault into Afghanistan, and shoot it out with the Taliban? That's (from a tactical standpoint) absurd.

Obviously, lying to get us involved in Iraq to enrich your military contractor buddies, is (as far as I'm concerned) the textbook definition of a war crime (and Bush, Cheney, and everyone else involved, should be prosecuted). Spying on your own people, erecting an authoritarian police state, etc. (using fear of terrorism as a pretext, which is the worse sort of human exploitation), are things I also obviously oppose (and in no uncertain terms).

[-] 1 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

I agree with all of your charges against Bush. I just wish you would apply them evenly. I am anti war, so I don't support throwing bombs into Libya and escalating the violence, when we likely could have assassinated Khaddafi and ended much of the strife. Why don't you think O-bomb-ya has any military contractor buddies? Why do you think he went from ending Iraq and Afghanistan, to extending Iraq for three years, and Afghanistan for six? He did exactly what he could get away with, and no less, to fund his military contractor buddies. He cut the military budget. By one percent, just so he could tell naive people that he cut the budget and they would believe him.

I'm not sure if you're referring to giving Bin Laden the death penalty is what you are referring to as self-defense, but I understand that you are in favor of the death penalty and don't hold it against you, as plenty of people are. But what we did to Bin Laden was not self defense, not when he was unarmed and we could have taken him alive. That is akin to shooting a mugger in the back, not self defense.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

don't know what a neo-con is

[-] 0 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

A neoconservative, a bomb dropping maniac like O-bomb-ya.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Whats to stop your name being listed several times?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

confirmation

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I don't mean to be picky about this, but what level of confirmation would be suitable? If you have 150,000,000 people voting, you know how much time it would take to confirm all of them just through telephone calls? What about absentee ballots?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the vote is public

people can vouch for each other

[-] 2 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

Thanks Tinkerbell.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

them pirates is hiding behind the vote

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Among the most sacred rights we have is the anonymity of our vote. It is the ultimate defense against tyranny. It is the ultimate defense against coercion.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the ultimate deference against tyranny is to resist it's orders

.

understanding what all people want is good place to start

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No one,but no one, has the right to know who voted for whom. Anonymity is there for the protection of the electorate from reprisals. Those reprisals do not have to come from any government, but from the mob. It has not been uncommon for people who voted for the "wrong" person i the eyes of either his neighbor or at times from the government to have been found and murdered. If that's not coercion, nothing is. THe right to have my decision be a private one is among the few rights that the 1% has still not trampled in tis country, and I would fight with every ounce of of strength to keep it. It is a foundational principle and practice of the free exercise of democracy itself.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Indeed, anonymous voting is a basic foundation of democracy. Without it, the little democracy we have left, is gone.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the electoral should be capable of protecting itself from reprisal if it is the majority

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

it is the people duty to protect themselve and each other from reprisal

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The electorate should not have to be required to in the first place.

Elections must remain free, and that means free from even the slightest potential for violence, and that means they must remain anonymous. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to know who I vote for unless it is MY CHOICE to tell you.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

Well, in the real world, we try to separate wealthy donors from doing things that might influence elections or present a conflict-of-interest.... Some people(cough cough) don't mind money in politics though.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Hypocrisy. In the real world there is no separation of money and politics.

[-] 1 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

You're telling me Citizen's united doesn't matter because it's going to happen anyway?

And if you're calling me a hypocrite, I have no idea why.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I find hypocrisy in the statement, "Well, in the real world, we try to separate wealthy donors from doing things that might influence elections.." In the real world this isn't true. What are SuperPACs about, an $35,000 a plate fund raisers? You think people attend these without expectations of ROI?

[-] 1 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

Of course they don't. There is currently tons of money in politics, that's what OWS is fighting. You like the status quo?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

If I did I wouldn't be here.

[-] 2 points by extroll (47) 2 years ago

Exactly. We need to get money out of politics, just as I said. That includes potential conflicts of interest noted in this thread.

[-] -2 points by daness (10) 2 years ago