Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Get Behind Obama!

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 11:48 a.m. EST by mattyhag (2)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I was initially delighted to see the goings-on at Wall Street, but you folks are in danger of becoming irrelevant. Why has the Tea Party had such success? Because they expressed themselves at the ballot box. The President is trying to make the changes you seek, but is getting blocked by Congress and even members of his own party. Swarm Congress and demand that they pass the Obama Jobs Act. Make sure that Obama gets re-elected. Or would you rather have no new jobs legislation and President Mitt Romney? Support the one person who is fighting for the things you believe in. Otherwise, the Republicans will roll right over you and things will be much worse.

170 Comments

170 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

The biggest danger to OWS is the possibility that it will be coopted by the Democratic Party. Compared to that the cold winter, cop violence, anarchist craziness, and antisocial elements in the encampments are trivial issues.

[-] 2 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

Obama and NATO bombs that hit a Libyan girl (warning-extremly graphic).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4R3sFvy1zGg&skipcontrinter=1

Curious, is there just one piece of evidence, just one, just one for us in the public to know that indeed Gadaffi was killing his own people?

And why is NATO and the U.S. tolerating Al Quada now roaming in and through Libya. Such hypocrites.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

You raise a very important point.. Gaddafi was set up..By the corporate banking interests obama the war criminal represents he spent his life intent on exposing and resisting.

Obama is a frigging criminal..It should be a top demand to impeach the mass murdering scoundrel.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

You recognize this! is it not also a danger then to be co-opted by a fraction of the democrat party(environmentalists)?

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Why I recognize that the Democratic Party has been the institution in America where all popular mass movements go to die, I am naturally suspect on anyone who refers to it as the Democrat Party, a favorite nostrum of the most reactionary elements in our culture.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

That's interesting to learn. All I know is that I'm not one of them in that party, whatever their name is.

I'll have you know, I'm not a republicrat either

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

hey rube - there is no "democrat party" it is the "democratic party"
as long as we have no specific, a greed issues, we are as likely to be co-opted by elmer fudd.
seeker- in stead of slamming obama ( and i've done my share ) - do you have the guts to tell us which candidate you WILL vote for in the Republican primary?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

Ron Lawl

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

I think ron is one of the most honest men in dc but i agree with only about 20% of his positions - im not libertarian. Ii'd love to ask him the question his son was asked "should a lunch shop owner have the legal right to refuse to serve a man of color?" Rand (named after an author who modeled her heroes after a child murderer) answerd yes. How do you think Ron would answer?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

the same because it's not about racial prejudice, to them. It's about liberty to run a private business on private property any way you want.

I see both sides of this argument and like abortion I think it's best to just stay out of it. He's not entirely right nor entirely wrong.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

i'm glad you see both sides- but for me people ALWAYS have more rights than property

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

I agree with you on that. but what if the government made you sell something that was severely under-priced so that you were taking a loss everytime you made a transaction? FDR ripped everyone off that owned gold, this way. That is infringing on the rights of people.

I detest prejudice and would not say nice things about the business owner, but maybe he should have the right to sell or not sell a product at whatever price he chooses to whomever he chooses.

If you take my last statement out of the civil rights context, I think most people would say, "yeah, that sounds right."

It's an interesting argument. One that I wish the Paul's would keep their mouths shut about. Their good ideas are overshadowed by these abstract philosophical ideas.

[-] 0 points by sdcheung (76) 8 years ago

Hey leave the Anarchists alone...without Anarchists you wouldn;t have the Porcess of Horizontal Democracy, and Consensus Decision making and Direct actions so stuff it.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

I think it's more accurate to characterize the black bloc as nihilists rather than anarchists. Radical pacifism has always been a very strong current in the anarchist intellectual tradition.

[-] 4 points by Satyr000 (86) 8 years ago

Obama is just another puppet. Stop trying to fool your self.

[-] 4 points by Ravinous (38) 8 years ago

No, he's part of the problem. For god sakes he's backed by Goldman and Sachs.

[-] 3 points by Skippy2 (485) 8 years ago

Obama had 2 years of Dem controlled congress and did NOTHING to help main street. He is a corporate stooge just like the ret of the Washington bunch. Vote out All incumbents in 2012!

[-] 2 points by MortgagedTent (121) 8 years ago

Why doesn't he get behind us? Oh wait, he is. But not in a good way.

[-] 2 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

http://www.factcheck.org/barack-obama/ http://www.factcheck.org/tag/mitt-romney/ ---quite similar Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U Now for a real proposal that even Republicans and Democrats can agree on: Robin Hood Tax Even billionaries like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, NY times (hence Republicans), conservatives like Dave Cameron, and even Obama liked the idea as well. Congress is even proposing the idea and OWS should focus more on it as well. David Cameron ran on the Robin Hood Tax as his platform: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7487081/Conservatives-will-impose-tax-on-banks.html Noam Chomsky on the State-Corporate Complex: http://chomsky.info/talks/20110407.htm Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

[-] 2 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 8 years ago

You know how Obama got his jjob? Because he knew just how high to jump when wallstreet told him to. What would be the difference between Romney and Obama? Absolutley nothing! Both want to destroy medicare and social security and both of them want to ship more american jobs over seas. The only changes Obama is interested in is turning this country into the third world.

[-] 2 points by WatTyler (263) 8 years ago

President Obama has proven to be a poor leader with few answers and questionable allies. The sooner is he is replaced with some Republican nut case/corporate stooge, the sooner things will get even worse. Which means the sooner EVERYONE may finally get fed up and realize the rope-a-dope of the last 30+ years is the problem, not which party holds the presidency. The only difference in which party holds the office, is which party gets to dispense the patronage, the same people have been running this country for a long, long time.

[-] 2 points by youngmoney (1) 8 years ago

Something I do not understand is how most of you were the one bashing and blaming bush for every problem under the sun, and now there is no accountability for the current president.

When Obama was sworn into office democrats had held both the house and senate since 2006, they held it up until fall 2010. In (coming up on) four years under Obama's watch we have spent more than bush did in eight years. Was nearly two years not enough time to do something? To at least slow down spending? Or making this economy more conducive for businesses to conduct business? Or how about the transparency he promised upon election?

One theory as to why people wont place blame on Obama is that the very people who labeled the tea party, "neocons", republicans and so on racist for calling out Obama on lies and faild policy, are scared of the label themselves.

Could someone maybe shed some light?

[-] 2 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

Why on this forum can we say Obama but not Ron Lawl?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

Ron Lawl? Who is that?

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

cant say..Its not allowed.you can say obama though.

cant even type his name here.There is a war on for your mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdRA04iIFtI

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

It must be a conspiracy against a particular group of followers that spend endless amount of time spamming their favorite candidates name all over every forum to an extent that gets on the nerves of everybody else and actually makes people begin to hate him.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

How is debate possible without the facts. Fact is one side can be promoted one side cant be named. It beggars belief.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

Spammers can make the same exact argument. There may exist some degree of truth to, "You just won a free iPod!" or "Herbal Viagara will keep you up for hours!" but we're just so sick of hearing it, that we don't care. If you truly want the rest of us to give what's-his-name a chance, stop marketing him with spamming campaigns.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

I posted a link for those that dont know of his name due to corporate sencor ship. Where its OK to support a corporate puppet warcriminal of the most evil intent. But not even say some ones name???

You dont care???

you are saying its good????

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

I'm saying that it's perfectly reasonable for a forum to take measures to prevent it from being spammed by his loyal followers. Perhaps you're not like the rest of his followers. However, his other fans have made other forums unbearable with their spamming campaigns. I vowed a long time ago never to support him based on the fact that he doesn't discourage this practice.

[-] 1 points by OWSreferee (9) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Partisan rubbish. Please try harder.

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 8 years ago

so you admit Obama is trying to end Capitalism and the American way of life? End the American dream?

finally we have an Honest Obaminite.

no, we can no longer support the Radical Islamist puppet, hell bent on destroying this nation

[-] 1 points by lekaybusiness (2) 8 years ago

Anyone would be pure foolish to vote for anyone other than Obama right now...look at your options. With any GOP candidate in office, this whole OWS/99% movement was all done in vain...think about it.

[-] 1 points by lekaybusiness (2) 8 years ago

Anyone would be pure foolish to vote for anyone other than Obama right now...look at your options. With any GOP candidate in office, this whole OWS/99% movement was all done in vain...think about it.

[-] 1 points by bettersystem (170) 8 years ago

Please watch this video, it is free on Hulu. Just click on the link. It will clarify things about the world we live in.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/151119/the-end-of-poverty

[-] 1 points by hermancain (1) 8 years ago

How shovel ready was the last jobs act. The biggest reason most of these job acts failed was becasue of over regualtion. Do you really think the Hoover Damn could ever be build today with the oversight from the EPA. The jobs act sounds great but the reason the last jobs bill failed was because of constant impasses from regulatory agencies.

[-] 1 points by tehm (32) from Knoxville, TN 8 years ago

Is this the president that says he understands where the 99% are coming from or the president that appointed Geithner and is even now attempting to cut a back-room deal to ensure that none of his banker buddies suffer any emotional or financial harm for the fiasco that happened back in 2008...

No thanks. I may be a liberal, but as much as the right would like you to believe it, Obama isn't. I may disagree 100% with Paul on 50% of his issues... but I also agree with him 100% on 50% of his issues too.

I don't know that I've agreed even 50% with Obama on anything he's ever done.

[-] 1 points by JPM2011 (9) 8 years ago

and now, a month into it, the true colors come out. "make sure Obama get's elected." enough said.

[-] 1 points by Josue (13) 8 years ago

Obama is the best we have, but he needs to start speaking more from the heart and using the powers of the office to get things done for his side. Fire in the belly. Let's not forget, nonetheless, that he has indeed accomplished historically significance things during his first term. There's no denying that much.

[-] 1 points by me2 (534) 8 years ago

I deeply regret that I voted for him. I won't make the mistake again. I'll be voting independent next time around.

[-] 1 points by Unger (22) 8 years ago

Dump the Dems and Reps: Start a New Party

The difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush made it clear what he stood for. Obama actually supports the same ideas and policies, but talks sweetly. Both the Republicans and Democrats are controlled by the corporate elite.

It would be a waste of time and energy for the 99% to try to influence the Democrats. With few exceptions, they are part of the good-cop bad-cop team.

I don't see how OWS can get any real changes made without getting people into political office, and I can't see that happening without OWS forming a new political party. Since OWS is spreading all over the country, it does seem to have the potential for the grass roots organizing necessary to organize such a party.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

well, tell obama to end the patriot act, bring our troops home, and quit murdering others across the world with drones. Also, legalize all drugs and end the prison industrial complex.....THEN i may decide to think about the MONEY issues. Until then....he is no better than bush and his plans will not work. OBEY THE CONSTITUTION

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

Yes Obama is better than any R and we can demand the jobs act - that has so much money against it BUT we need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple - that is popular -
that 83% of Americans agree on -
that 56% of TP agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS.
Everybody wins!

Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”
and
“money is not free speech”.

We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)


If they could tie the left and right into a success -
WHY CAN'T WE??????????


I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.

5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 8 years ago

Obama is a corporate stooge. He has done nothing for main street. He is the worst prez since Jimmy Carter.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

"He has done nothing for the man in the street" of detroit - ask the GM workers.

"nothing" "all" "always" "never" are the bookmarks of deception or laziness or ignorance.

[-] 1 points by occupy2012 (13) 8 years ago

REAGAN = bush 41 = clinton = bush 43 = Obama = next president if we dont do anything

[-] 1 points by occupy2012 (13) 8 years ago

if anybody wants to vote for Obama , go ahead , but please Occupy wall street , dont become part of the democratic party , it would be a big mistake, THIS IS A PEOPLE `S MOVEMENT

[-] 1 points by sassafrass (197) 8 years ago

Occupy can and will remain a people's movement, embracing everyone in the 99% who are getting screwed by the 1% (and even whoever may be in the 1% who isn't a slimebag) as long as it wants to be and can work toward change. It is not at odds with VOTING, come election-time. The election must be seen as part of the process. Some want very radical change--- for those who want that, the possibility will still exist after the election. Others want to work within our existing system-- then VOTE. Base your vote on who you think will fuck things up the least, whoever you think that is. Work for change with Occupy AND work for change with your vote.

[-] 1 points by simeonjeppsen (1) 8 years ago

As soon as ows backs obama all credibility is gone, Obama has done as much or more for in the creation of what is the modern american government as anyone. Has obama sought the indictment of any of the people responsible for the current economic devastation? Has he instead filled his cabinet with ex goldman sachs board members? Other than the repugnant nature of Republican party nominees, what exactly is the difference between these two parties.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 8 years ago

Wait a minute, Obama is blocked from doing his job, because of Congress? Are you suggesting that Congress no longer has the capacity to amend the Constitution to end the now lawful bribery of the US Government? Well then, Obama should look to Abe Lincoln and not OWS:

Lincoln reasoned that his duty, as President, imposed on Lincoln, the duty to preserve, by every indispensable means, that Government, that Nation of which the Constitution, was the organic law. If an action was indispensable, to this end, it would become lawful, even if it was otherwise unconstitutional.

The Globalists are undermining the integrity of our Government and are undermining our economy to grow foreign markets, effectively endangering the very financial soundness of our Government. The lobbying efforts actually open our Nation to control by foreign Nations, working through various interest groups.So why does Obama not suspend Congress, until Congress does the will of the people and ends the corruption and sale of our Government, by amending the US Constitution? This is what I would do, if I were in his shoes and the US population would be right behind me.

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 8 years ago

The problem is the Republicans are going to nominate Romney, so basically no matter how you vote you can't win. But don't forget the Supreme Court gave us Citizens United (should have been called Corporations United) and the string of Republican appointments gave the conservatives on the court the majority.

[-] 1 points by talination (10) 8 years ago

Did President Obama keep his 2008 campaign promises? Discuss one-on-one with a user here: http://www.youmepolitics.us/

[-] 1 points by sassafrass (197) 8 years ago

Matty-- you are going to see a lot of posts denouncing Obama supposedly because they want to be "non-partisan" but most of these are total bullshit because they just want THEIR partisan candidate to win. Others denouncing Obama may be more authentically non-partisan. My concern here is that there's a slew of people here whose only goal is to break up a huge sector (most) of the American populace for the sole reason of splitting the vote so that more Republican monsters can come in to fuck everyone in the ass even more than they already have. Think about it, the election is a year away--- that is not much time. Certainly not time to replace the whole existing system with something else. People who are in this effort for the long-haul and recognize that the changes we want will not come next week will see the value in making sure, come election-time, that we are at least going to maintain the footing we've got, and not going to be thrust into a Republican hell on earth. I don't think one even has to love Obama to see the strategic value in that. I understand some people may have serious problems voting for a candidate whom they feel has not been able to ideally represent their interests--- this is why I don't push people to vote for anyone in particular. But I do think people need to ask themselves if four more years of Obama is going to be worse than four new years of unimpeded Robber Barons who cheer at the thought of uninsured citizens dying in the streets. I think people also need to look much closer into the intentions and platitudes of those shouting the loudest against Obama and not shouting loud against the Republican monsters.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

I completely agree, but I have met many OWS people that are very smart and I am genuinely ( and maybe stupidly ) shocked that there are SO MANY Obama haters. He is FAR from my ideal - he broke promises - what happened to the public option - etc etc?
But how many of us seriously believe Mr. FlipFlop, Mr. Executioner, Ms. Homophobe, Mr. Homophobe, Mr. DisgracedSpeaker,
Mr. RandsDad would be better.
If I could vote for anyone, I'd pick Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
And there is an R that is not an arse - Buddy Roemer

[-] 1 points by sassafrass (197) 8 years ago

Again, many of the Obama haters are shills working for the interests we are fighting and are simply infiltrating the movement. Other Obama haters are either blindly following the propaganda of the shills or the peer influence of their friends but are genuinely sympathetic to Occupy. Other Obama haters are totally sympathetic to Occupy, have no nefarious intentions, are intelligent and form their own opinions and are simply disappointed in Obama's performance or as mistrustful of him as they are mistrustful of the Republicans. So it varies, and in general this is a culture of major mistrust right now. As is completely understandable by what's gone on. At the end of the day, we really CAN'T know who's secretly a scumbag and who isn't. Really-- we can't know it (until it's too late). But we can certainly tell who's openly a scumbag when they pretty much say, through their proposed policies and platforms, that they are a scumbag. What matters most is what any candidate's talking about doing to help people in this country ---how they propose to do it, under what principles, and how likely it seems that they will be able to, based on both their track record and the fundamental sane-ness of their argument. If it doesn't even sound sane when they're posturing and lying through their teeth as they all do on the campaign trail, it's pretty damn bad. If you sign onto any of the Republican candidates (or any of their basically like-minded ilk) after listening to their insane proposals and principles, you know damn well what you're going to get--- robbed, disenfranchised, dispossessed, money funneled up EVEN MORE to the insanely rich who don't funnel it back down, dehumanization of your dignity, and the Constitution slashed back to 1850. They are telling you openly that they will rape you and leave you for dead, and they barely bother to even hide it. Obama and other Democrats may be far from perfect, they might not be able to prevent it all, some might be intentionally deceptive or they might not. But jeez, at least there's a shred of hope. At the very least they are aware of the fact that some reference point of sanity and human decency is required.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

i think you are correct - and i hope you are!

[-] 1 points by mattyhag (2) 8 years ago

Thanks. I'm glad someone here is more or less on my side! You're right about splitting the vote, too. Look at how Ralph Nader insisted on running against Al Gore, thus giving the election to Bush. Because of Nader's huge ego, we got the Bush Tax Cuts and Iraq. Liberals could take a lesson from the Republicans; they stick together.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

so nader has an ego and bush and gore didnt?WTF?

[-] 1 points by sassafrass (197) 8 years ago

Fair enough critique... It's a shame, because I can understand and respect some people's decision to "vote their conscience"... Thing is when the opponent doesn't have a conscience it's not the best strategy. I hope enough people can see that change will still be possible after the election, and much easier if we don't allow the monsters to win.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

Obama is a warcriminal and corporate puppet.

Impeach him for the crime done in your name.

[-] 1 points by me2 (534) 8 years ago

Obama lost me, he fucked up my medical plan for next year. It was the last straw, I will probably never vote for a Democrat or a Republican ever again.

[-] 1 points by kappers (1) 8 years ago

I thought "campaigning" would be deleted from the forum?

[-] 1 points by queenann (-220) from New Rochelle, NY 8 years ago

the democrats are the biggest rats, blood sucking devils. Obama stands for the powerful greedy unions and chicago dirty politics. wise up matty. No more barack,,,,,

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

With friends like you.......

[-] 1 points by maxkoda (52) 8 years ago

Politics can not provide the answer. It will only provide more of the same. This two-party system is an obvious failure. Obama is no different than all the others. He is bought and paid for!

As they say - think outside the box. The solutions we seek must come from outside the system. Politics is a waste of time!

A serious distraction!

[-] 1 points by SwiftJohn (79) 8 years ago

Mattyhag, In a prior post I raised some open questions regarding why I would vote for Obama or, for that matter the R's. See [1] and [2]. I personally would be inclined to vote for Obama if the charges that I lay out in [1] do not hold true. If they do not can you tell me how? Or can you convince me that things would be different in a second term? I look forward to your reply. Thank you.

  1. http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-should-i-vote-for-you-part-1/
  2. http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-should-i-vote-for-you-part-2/
[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 8 years ago

Obama Jobs Act is just another stimulas......Epic Fail.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

why hire people and pay them, when it is much easier to give the rich the money directly by cutting their taxes?

A serious business hypothetical for a serious capitalist-


You have a successful plumbing contracting company. You have 100 employees and after paying all of your expenses and taxes you make a net profit of $1,000,000 - ( $10,000 per employee. )


Republican supply side says:

cut taxes to give you an extra post-tax profit so your income is now $1,100,000. Can you explain why you would use this extra supply of income to hire two more plumbers? And what work would they do?

Or would you do what most American businesses are doing today- Sitting on huge profits because taxes are at historic lows and firing people because demand is low.

Or

Democratic demand side says:

Create demand for plumbing services - say by rebuilding public schools. Will you get part of this new business - and hire ten more plumbers to get your extra $100,000 in profits?

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

Independent Human Rights investigation of Obama and NATO crimes against humanity in Libya. Obama gave orders to bomb without congressional approval: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/10/11/sarkozy-cameron-obama-al-thani-and-the-suffering-of-the-children-of-sirte/

Fact check: Romney vs Obama: who lies more? -- quite similar. http://www.factcheck.org/barack-obama/ http://www.factcheck.org/tag/mitt-romney/

Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

An interesting perspective by Noam Chomsky: --Noam Chomsky on the State-Corporate Complex: http://chomsky.info/talks/20110407.htm

Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

Noam Chomsky on why Obama is worse than Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790 and Obama's imperilstic policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiwAFIgGCkQ

Did you know that Obama's health care reform is not public health care. After meeting with lobbyists (as reported by the NY times and Huffington Post), all it did was secure the corporate monopoly for a few for-profit health care industries especially the current health insurance corporations and BigPharma. It's like Obama has just put into law that everyone must purchase their car insurance from a few corporations, who now have full power to set the prices as however they want. Did you know that a deal was made to CUT the public option and if Obama had persuaded at least 20 or so Democrats, there would have been a public option. So lose-lose to those who wanted a public health care option and also to those who favor the markets. ---Read the articles how Obama met with lobbyists to kill the public option. ---Consequently, patients in the long run will lose, doctors and health care workers lose as the health care industry is now run by a few corporations.

Republicans were in power at one point and Democrats were in full power just recently up until midterm elections---the difference? Obama's budget for military spending per year was higher than that of Bush's. In fact, Republicans probably kept calling Obama a socialist to keep him in power as he continues to serve the will of Corporate America and the Big banks as both parties do. .. while offering the illusion that you're winning the fight from a false dichotomy.

Is it better to give allegiance to Caesar whether it be Romney/Obama OR your children. Two parties for two audiences, but same policies that serve the priorities of their corporate or wall street funders, maybe promising some bread crumbs after--each telling their own audience to demonize the other party providing examples of how 'racist,' or 'stupid,' the other party is, and thus get off free from bearing any responsibility or accountability.

NEITHER REPUBLICANS NOR DEMOCRATS have been representative of the people. CHOOSING BETWEEN THE LESS OF TWO EVILS IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY. DON'T BUY IT. The reason why change may not happen is not because of Republicans but us who fail to say anything.

You don't have to find people you agree with in everything, but the core things. Action speaks louder than words.

just my rant. sorry for the misleading title.

While I got your attention... Here's a Political Solution to Satisfy Progressives and Conservatives; Socialists and Libertarians http://occupywallst.org/forum/political-solution-to-satisfy-progressives-and-con/

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago
  1. Romney vs Obama: who lies more? -- quite similar. http://www.factcheck.org/barack-obama/ http://www.factcheck.org/tag/mitt-romney/

  2. Independent Human Rights investigation of Obama and NATO on war crimes against humanity: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/10/11/sarkozy-cameron-obama-al-thani-and-the-suffering-of-the-children-of-sirte/

  3. Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

  4. Noam Chomsky on the State-Corporate Complex: http://chomsky.info/talks/20110407.htm

  5. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

  6. Noam Chomsky on why Obama is worse than Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790 and Obama's imperilstic policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiwAFIgGCkQ

7.Allegiance to Caesar whether it be Romney/Obama vs. your children.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Get behind Obama? He works for Goldman..and he pays only lip service to OWS and the working class..Speaking about getting behind someone, Obama and CONgress have gotten "behind" the American People and you know what they've been doing back there...America now needs a$$ rejuvenation surgery..

[-] 1 points by BethesdaMD (25) 8 years ago

P.S. This movement is a 21 century movement....dissociating from modern politics all together. The movement will not be high jacked by politicos.....but, nice try ;)

[-] 1 points by BethesdaMD (25) 8 years ago

No thanks. I am a black physician who was very optimistic and 'hopeful' about the Obama rhetoric for about 2 years. I feel played. Sure, it is wonderful to see a person from a background of former slaves in the 'big house'. But, to perpetuate financial slavery to the new 'masters'.....the banks.....retards any promise of hope he could ever offer again.

I refuse to a slave to a master...black, white, purple or indigo.

[-] 1 points by sassafrass (197) 8 years ago

So who are you going to vote for? If you want to talk slavery, connect the dots and be very, very afraid of any candidate advocating: strict voter id, redistricting, "states rights", no more minimum wage; no Social Security, no welfare; no medical care for the uninsured (instead to be dependent on "private charity"), monetary policies that will make it impossible for the economy to expand in times of need and impossible to get any kind of government loan or assistance, much looser gun laws, an educational system that increasingly favors the privileged, and a return to "the Constitution like the founders meant" (meaning the ones who had slaves and made their laws of "property rights" and "liberty" work to justify it); candidates who want to nitpick or rewrite or rip up the 14th Amendment; candidates who come from intellectual circles where the question of whether it would be acceptable for someone to sell themselves into slavery is a common rhetorical parlor debate; candidates who don't want that meddling "Big Government" interfering with their right to do what they please in their own states or on (or to) their own "property"; candidates who run in circles where their cohorts actually ---if you can possibly imagine this without wanting to vomit--- consider themselves "slaves" if they are taxed on any of the millions they've earned off the work and spending and taxation of others. All of the candidates on the Right espouse all of these beliefs. All of them. They all add up to slavery, in one form or the other, for the millions of people with curtailed voting rights, slashed wages, jobs exported, weakened education, increasingly dependent on rich people who are increasingly rich, well-armed and unaccountable to higher law. I would sure hope you won't be running to any of these masters to escape what you think is bad about Obama.

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 8 years ago

Same here, I was so optimistic. What a disapointment.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 8 years ago

His talk is all phony. It all depends on who he is talking to. He talks out of two sides of his mouth. He wants to please every one which is impossible. I always questioned his being black and white and why he "chose" to be black. I am not belittling his choice but it's just a curiosity to me. He honestly seems lost to me. This job is far more complex than he dreamed it could be. His "team" is bad news. I think if he had a better experienced team he may have made better choices.

His latest with the student loans is making them due in 20 yrs instead of 25.Big whoop. On average it will save a person $4-$8.00 a month. All he did was appease those with student loans.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

In this society, you don't get to choose to be white if you are mixed race. I'm a pale face, but there's evidence that one of my ancestors moved far from his family to "pass". By the Mississippi definition, I'd be "colored". That doesn't mean as much now as it did in the 60's, but it is still part of the culture in much of this country.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 8 years ago

Really? Why is that?

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

By law and custom, anyone who was part negro (I'm using historical terminology) was negro. One half. One quarter. One eighth. One sixteenth. And they therefore were segregated and subject to the Jim Crow laws.

This still is powerful in the American culture, although it is weakening with each generation.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 8 years ago

It is more "weakened" in the north compared to the south?

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

Don't really know from personal experience.

[-] 1 points by BethesdaMD (25) 8 years ago

We know who owns him. Money, greed, and the 1%. I dont necessarily think he is an evil man....at all. I just think it is false to believe anyone of any color or any background can rid a corrupt system of corruption. It is a huge dissappointment to me and the world. Believe me.

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

"the president is trying to make the progress you seek" ????!!!!! REALLY!? So we want to continue policing the world, have a borrow 8 billion dollars a DAY? FUCK OBAMA. We should impeach obama for war crimes, and the murder of an american citizen with out due process or any charges.

[-] 1 points by mattyhag (2) 8 years ago

But do you honestly think that, if the occupation continues, the bankers and corporations will say, "Oh, we now see the error of our ways!"? Will Eric Cantor say, "You know they're right! I'm not talking to any more of those awful corporate lobbyists"? Congress is afraid of the Tea Party because they've gotten a lot of people elected and can get even more put out of office. If you don't want to be co-opted by the Democrats, then co-opt them!

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

The first half of your comment, I disagree with. Nobody thinks they'll just realize the err of their ways.

That said, your last sentence is exactly what I hope happens.

We need to blitz every primary election we can. This is the one thing I think the Tea Party did that was genius.

Everyone complains that we only have 2 choices, when in reality, everybody neglects primary elections, and as a consequence, your vote would matter more in a primary. Especially since most mayors in major cities are always Democrats. They would definitely think twice before sending riot squads in to disburse hundreds of likely primary voters.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

The tea party has had success? If the election of Obama becomes a necessity because of this idiotic winner take all "democracy," it will only be a begining - a precurser to real change!! We are not prepared to stop there!!

[-] 1 points by mattyhag (2) 8 years ago

Fair enough. Help get Obama re-elected and then stay on him to make more significant changes. Get some OWS people to run for Congress to help his laws get passed and make your message clear. Work with whatever lawyers you have in your ranks to change this "Speech equals money" posture of the Supreme Court, because that's a huge part of the problem. Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Yes, we need to do this, because this is practical, AND not let up until we have fundamental, structural change that Pemanently bars corporate money from politics and makes the financial system transparent. No more hiding under the corporate cloak of secrecy!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

I want public health care and alternative energy projects from the job act

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Yes, that way he can dump on us more easily.

[-] 1 points by MortgagedTent (121) 8 years ago

How about he gets behind us.

[-] 1 points by mattyhag (2) 8 years ago

I respect your comments, but you folks are missing the point. It's easy to be negative. Telling me you hate Wall Street is like telling me you hate hurricanes; it's meaningless. You want to put people back to work? Push for the jobs bill. You want to curb Wall Street excesses? Fight for strong financial reform. You want representatives that are closest to your views? Vote Democrat. You want change? Find allies among the most powerful. Otherwise, you might as well all go home and get warm.

[-] 3 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 8 years ago

So wall street is now an act of god? Obama is a puppet of wall street who has received more campaign support from wall st. than any other candidate in history. Its not a Republican of Democrat issue. its the fact that both sides have sold out and are now incapable of running this country. Get Obama out, Keep Romney, Cain, and Perry out. Keep anyone out who has made a career out of lying. You are seriously blind if you think Obama has your best interests at heart.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"Obama is a puppet of wall street who has received more campaign support from wall st. than any other candidate in history."

Obama is campaigning within a system in which you can not win without taking wall st money. Whether or not he or any of the Republican Primary challengers are opposed to that system remains unknown because campaigning against this problem remains certain loss. This is the same reasons corporations frequently act unethical, but within the law. If not, a competitor with less regard for what's ethical will put them out of business.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago
  1. Romney vs Obama: who lies more? -- quite similar. http://www.factcheck.org/barack-obama/ http://www.factcheck.org/tag/mitt-romney/

  2. Independent Human Rights investigation of Obama and NATO crimes against humanity in Libya. Obama gave orders to bomb without congressional approval: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/10/11/sarkozy-cameron-obama-al-thani-and-the-suffering-of-the-children-of-sirte/

  3. Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

  4. Noam Chomsky on the State-Corporate Complex: http://chomsky.info/talks/20110407.htm

  5. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

  6. Noam Chomsky on why Obama is worse than Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790 and Obama's imperilstic policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiwAFIgGCkQ

7.republicans were in power at one point and Democrats were in full power just recently---the difference? Obama's budget for the military was higher than that of Bush's:

Is it better to give allegiance to Caesar whether it be Romney/Obama OR your children. Two parties for two audiences, but same policies--each telling their own audience to demonize the other party, and thus get off free from bearing any responsibility or accountability.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago
  1. I strongly believe that media should spend more time factchecking what every politician says.

  2. I refuse to read any article where the author was too cowardly to attach his name to it so I can't address what was said by whoever wrote that article(Gadhafi?)

  3. That actually helps prove my point. The votes go to whichever candidate spends more money. The candidate needs more money than who they're running against. It's a systemic problem whereby both Democrats and Republicans have to compete over who can whore themselves out for the most money. It would make sense that Democrats would accumulate more in their whoring campaigns because the Republicans already admit that they are cheap whores and enjoy getting f*ck'd anyway

4,5,6. I'm well aware of Noam Chomsky's writings, which is why I believe that the problem is systemic and not personal.

  1. So I'm assuming you must work for the pentagon's accounting department? Because otherwise you wouldn't have any account of military spending beyond 2009.
[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

Here's a sample 2010 budget I believe by the Obama adminstiration though I can be mistaken: http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

With regards to Gadaffi, I'm not declaring he's innocent but come on.. you really think the U.S. are the righteous liberators of Libya?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

Now I get it. The "budget". I was looking at "spending".

Either way, we just fundamentally disagree on the Libya issue.

The week that Gadaffi's troops were outside Benghazi, I was very vocal that if Obama opposed intervention that I would never vote for him in 2012.

I fully understand that some people hold a strict anti-interventionist view that we have no right to intervene militarily where we are not directly involved. I don't think it's a black and white issue where you are either wrong or unpatriotic for opposing it. Also, it wasn't so much a matter of being "righteous liberators". That's just an argument from the Neoconservatives. Some of us Democrats on the Center-Left believe in what's called "Liberal Internationalism". The distinction between Liberal hawkish views and Neocons is that we tend to believe that intervention can be justified when the likelihood of a large humanitarian crisis is great enough and it follows the guidelines of the international system (the UN). I'm sorry if you feel betrayed or mislead into thinking Democrats are strictly anti-war for many opposing the Iraq war. Its a common misconception.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

In my mind, there is no distinction. Whether it's to protect the homeland or for some 'humanitarian' causes, we all know the real reason is oil and selling U.S. weapons to countries to kill each other is just a way that they think would profit the economy.

I hope there won't be a day when we reap what we sow.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

My goodness. Go look into spending and see the 1 trillion dollar defecit and how 2/3 of that was SPENT on the military. Just search it yourself.

TLydo007, then why doesn't the U.S. intervene in countries that have worse oppression than Libya like North Korea, Sudan, Burma (by the way, you know of just one, just one piece of evidence that Gadaffi was indeed killing his own citizens, when even the ICC is investigating now?)

I think Obama may have killed more civillians in Libya than gadaffi did with his drone strikes. This girl may have gotten hit hard by one of Obama's bombs (warning-extremly graphic). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4R3sFvy1zGg&skipcontrinter=1

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"TLydo007, then why doesn't the U.S. intervene in countries that have worse oppression than Libya like North Korea, Sudan, Burma"

In regards to North Korea, it's because China holds veto power on the UN Security Council. Again, you're not recognizing the distinctions between Neoconservatism and Liberal Internationalism. You're ignoring the part where I address the international system.

In regards to Sudan, we did intervene through the UN. What on earth do you think John Kerry, Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, and all the UN electoral monitors were doing over there before, during, and after the referendum vote for secession?? Part of the Liberal Internationalist views are to exhaust diplomatic alternatives through the international system when there doesn't seem to be an immediate threat of a humanitarian crisis.

In regards to Burma, whether you feel that Burma posed a greater threat of a humanitarian crisis in 2008 than Libya did in 2011 isn't relevant to what I said so it's not worth arguing. The reason why the commander-in-chief in 2008 did not respond in a way you feel are consistent with the Liberal Internationalist views I've described is because he is not a Liberal Internationalist and has never claimed to be.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

Yeah, then can you show me just one piece of evidence that indeed Gadaffi was slaughtering at peaceful protesters? Here's a girl that got shot from a NATO led rebel: http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D4R3sFvy1zGg

NATO? you consider that international? I highly doubt China and Russia would've advocated bombing Libya.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"That's my point. China and Russia held veto power, but did they really authroize the intervention? or did a few NATO countries go in themselves?"

No, they abstained. They neither voted for it or exercised their veto. Both countries had good relations with Libya prior, so if they voted for it, the abrupt change in relations would likely unsettle some of their relations with other countries. However, neither of them wanted to veto the resolution and bear sole responsibility for the humanitarian crisis that would follow. So obviously, no countries on the UN Security Council agree with you that there was no threat of a humanitarian crisis. Not even Gaddafi's allies.

"so I'd like to see the evidence of this mass oppression and slaughter you're taking about."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpEcv4HgsPw&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D7AVbmzVgJ24

http://www.youtube.com/user/JakDerrida?feature=mhee#p/a/f/2/38EXALI60hg

Also, notice how the videos above are dated in February of 2011?? Meaning they actually happened before the Intervention while yours are dated in October of 2011 so attributing them to the rebels before the intervention is completely absurd.

"Burma: We've heard from charity groups of the violations North Korea: We've heard from teh 1000's of refugees who have escaped and Doctors without Borders' own witness. U.S. hasn't even proposed anything to the U.N., so how will we know China will veto? Sudan.. yemen.. we've have some evidence to go by."

I NEVER said there was no evidence against these countries. It's absurd that you ignored what I said to attack some argument you just made up.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

If you're trying to make a point that airstrikes can be ugly, I agree. However, I don't think a graphic video you found qualifies as evidence of what you claim, I assume that it's possible that's what happened. I admit I can't prove to you that peaceful protesters were getting slaughtered no more than I could prove the Holocaust happened. Also, I know better than to accept a dare from someone to prove something they would rather not believe. It's a fools errand and a waste of time.

"NATO? you consider that international? I highly doubt China and Russia would've advocated bombing Libya."

China and Russia both hold veto power within the UN Security Council and could have easily vetoed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 which authorized the intervention in Libya. I never said that I think interventions should be contingent upon China and Russia participating. I have no idea where you came up with that nonsense. I only said that the intervention should follow the guidelines of the international system.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

That's my point. China and Russia held veto power, but did they really authroize the intervention? or did a few NATO countries go in themselves?

My goodness. Just give me 1 man.. that's all I ask. Of course you can't prove the Holocause unless you're a lot older than me.. but we're fresh off this war, so I'd like to see the evidence of this mass oppression and slaughter you're taking about.

Burma: We've heard from charity groups of the violations North Korea: We've heard from teh 1000's of refugees who have escaped and Doctors without Borders' own witness. U.S. hasn't even proposed anything to the U.N., so how will we know China will veto? Sudan.. yemen.. we've have some evidence to go by.

But I've been searching. trust me I have. but I seriously can't find the evidence.

All I found was one clip of 1 milliion of gadaffi loyalists having a demonstration much like OWS but in support of Gadaffi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHKAThdqo_M&feature=related

Again, I'm not saying Gadaffi's innocent, but I don't see anything about 1000's of peaceful protestors being shot at by air planes, nor this oppression gadaffi committed against his own people.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

What are you talking about? All you have to do is look up the federal budget of previous years and the amount of money into the military. I'm sure you can even look it up on wikipedia.

[-] 1 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 8 years ago

I wish you could hear how stupid you sound trying to excuse everyone's terrible behavior. Oh its ok, its just the system. If we dont someone else will. pathetic. HOLD PEOPLE TO A HIGHER STANDARD.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"I wish you could hear how stupid you sound trying to excuse everyone's terrible behavior."

I excuse nobody. I am addressing that there exists a systemic issue and I think it's rather stupid that you think there isn't a systemic issue in favor of believing that all the politicians within that system are just evil. If what you believe is true, surely the system, that you feel is so blameless, would bring more ethical candidates to the polls. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So my conclusion is that there exists fundamental problems with the system.

[-] 1 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 8 years ago

I will agree with you there. But why would you still want to work within the system. I know it will be hard to change. But Obama isnt the answer. We need to radically change the system, so we dont have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. And calling you stupid is harsh, but i sincerely feel that not trying to fix the core problem is stupid.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"We need to radically change the system, so we dont have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. And calling you stupid is harsh, but i sincerely feel that not trying to fix the core problem is stupid."

When the day comes that we have such a system, it will be great. However, when these are pretty much your 2 choices:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bR_9wmNnD4

I think that boycotting the voting booth will only render this movement impotent.

When you promise not the vote, ignoring you is the only logical path for any politician because they don't need to worry about losing your vote. The one thing the Tea Party definitely got right was blitzing every primary and general election they could. It was especially smart to vote in every primary because not only do they usually win by very few votes, but it makes the whole party more accountable to you.

I strongly agree that letting Democrats co-opt OWS should be avoided. But if we all (or even 1/10th of us) pledged to vote in every primary, we can easily co-opt the Democratic Party.

[-] 1 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 8 years ago

I like that idea. I wold consider myself a moderate conservative but I'd agree that Obama might be the best candidate we have to choose from, even if just for the fact we know what we are getting, Nothing. lol.

And those videos are sad. I am sincerely worried about the future of our country if we cant make some serious changes.

[-] 1 points by leftfield (6) 8 years ago

We had a Democratic majority in Congress and the Senate, and they did not do a damn thing. So, how will voting in more Democrats help?

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago
  1. Romney vs Obama: who lies more? -- quite similar. http://www.factcheck.org/barack-obama/ http://www.factcheck.org/tag/mitt-romney/

  2. Independent Human Rights investigation of Obama and NATO on war crimes against humanity: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/10/11/sarkozy-cameron-obama-al-thani-and-the-suffering-of-the-children-of-sirte/

  3. Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

  4. Noam Chomsky on the State-Corporate Complex: http://chomsky.info/talks/20110407.htm

  5. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

  6. Noam Chomsky on why Obama is worse than Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790 and Obama's imperilstic policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiwAFIgGCkQ

7.Allegiance to Caesar whether it be Romney/Obama vs. your children.

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 8 years ago

You are a jackass

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Democrats and Republicans feed at the same trough.

Check the facts, starting with their voting records and campaign donors.

[-] 1 points by Nakiourse (3) from Genève, GE 8 years ago

For sure! From my HEART American friends, re-elect OBAMA! He has to be able to achieve his program! Be confident! he is honest!

[-] 2 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 8 years ago

Hahah good joke. Obama is the worst thing to happen to this country. But i guess if you just judge a man on what he says and not what he does, then I can see where you're coming from. He's amazing. Lets all ask him do adopt us so we can be his children.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

What politicians don't tell you... do you expect them to? And of course the main stream media won't cover it because their source of funding would dissipate.

  1. Romney vs Obama: who lies more? -- quite similar. http://www.factcheck.org/barack-obama/ http://www.factcheck.org/tag/mitt-romney/

  2. Independent Human Rights investigation of Obama and NATO crimes against humanity in Libya. Obama gave orders to bomb without congressional approval: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/10/11/sarkozy-cameron-obama-al-thani-and-the-suffering-of-the-children-of-sirte/

  3. Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

  4. Noam Chomsky on the State-Corporate Complex: http://chomsky.info/talks/20110407.htm

  5. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

  6. Noam Chomsky on why Obama is worse than Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790 and Obama's imperilstic policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiwAFIgGCkQ

7.republicans were in power at one point and Democrats were in full power just recently---the difference? Obama's budget for the military was higher than that of Bush's:

Is it better to give allegiance to Caesar whether it be Romney/Obama OR your children. Two parties for two audiences, but same policies--each telling their own audience to demonize the other party, and thus get off free from bearing any responsibility or accountability.

[-] 1 points by soloenbarcelona (199) from Barcelona, CT 8 years ago

It´s the other way around. Not the people that should support the president, but the president will represent the people. He´s trying.

[-] 1 points by Teacher (469) 8 years ago

Supporting either political party is like choosing which bully takes your lunch money. Its my damn lunch money!

[-] 1 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 8 years ago

Exactly the point. Obama is equal but opposite to George Bush. Just as horrible for this country in his own way.

[-] 1 points by happybanker (766) 8 years ago

Ok. Lube or no lube?

[-] 1 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 8 years ago

no lube. hes got a loose butthole

[-] 0 points by happybanker (766) 8 years ago

Lol.

[-] 1 points by MortgagedTent (121) 8 years ago

lol

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 8 years ago

obama

  • has the same, if not more, neoconservative foreign policy as bush
  • supported TARP and bank bailouts
  • supported the stimulus which was 90% one time spends (not stimulative, like a new road)
  • picked and chose winners through crony coporatism (solyndra supported, their competitors not. fisker supported, competitors not)
  • fixed the student loan/cost of education problem created by 100% guaranteed student loans and inability to discharge in bankruptcy... by handing the government the functions that the private collections agency owned by sallie mae used to have. this just means even more money goes to the government when you default, yes the government makes MORE MONEY if you default on your student loan.

goooooooooooooobama! celebrate good obama C'MON!

[-] 0 points by IChowderDown (110) from Dallas, TX 8 years ago

The President does not seek changes for the people, but for Wall Street and Banks. The regime change may have happened but Obama continues the corruption, business as usual. He is just a little more smarter, smoother and has chosen the same people in his Administration as Bush had. Sorry there is a difference, they are all a bit more richer.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-you-you-follow-like-sheep-to-the-slaughter-fall/#comment-300878

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 8 years ago

Obama should not be reelected no matter what movement you're in. He's no different than Bush.

Big Government =/= prosperity for anyone.

[-] 0 points by mynameisfred (115) 8 years ago

Get behind him. Just like in a parade. Scoop up the crap he leaves behind.

[-] 0 points by stevo (314) 8 years ago

Odumba's jobs bill= Epic FAILURE. Even dems won't support it

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by greedisgood (39) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

Just a word to the wise. Get behind obama he will lose.

The violence in Oakland under the umbrealla for OWS just made you irrelevant and toxic.

The GOP will run commericals with you burning things in the middle of the street and say anarchists. We want law and order in our society.

So I wouldn't if i were you but im a republican usually so if you want to help me out please go ahead.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

You do not get it, no one believes either party has the answers. Obama had a democratic controlled congress and he made no progress except passing his healthcare which has done nothing to control healthcare inflation.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

And even his 'healthcare' plan was a closed door deal with the insurance companies to force everyone to buy health insurance. Got to make sure the corporations get their cut even if it means people die. Nearly 45,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford health care.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

[-] 0 points by jandle (1) from Houston, TX 8 years ago

The President has indicated support for your cause, and tried to get bills passed to create jobs, but they were stopped. "We can't wait" for Congress to get their act together. I have created a petition of solidarity. http://wh.gov/bxH With enough signatures, he will respond to it.

[-] 0 points by RichardGates (1529) 8 years ago

ok. i'll get behind him on one condition. i get to kick him square in his backside for not doing more to squash the defense budget!

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

According to Heritage (right-wing think tank) he has tried to do exactly what you're saying.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/07/what-obama-doesnt-know-about-defense-spending/

[-] 0 points by RichardGates (1529) 8 years ago

hey, i totally appreciate that. i was definitely not up to speed.

[-] 0 points by entrepreneur (69) 8 years ago

Mattyhag, Both obama together with the congress does not have the power to fix this America's problems, because we keep forgetting that this country is being ruled by FED together with its allies like goldman sachs. your ballot cannot do anything unless you root out the evil first.

I suggest go after FED and goldman sachs and big banks who bought the congress and made them their puppet.

[-] 0 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 8 years ago

I'm a Romney supporter, but mattyhag is a Democrat who knows what he is talking about. We have a democracy. Use it.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Agreed. Furthermore, we have a Capitalist economy, so VOTE for your favorite companies with your dollars ! See http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-power-of-the-people/

[-] 1 points by MortgagedTent (121) 8 years ago

A democracy of candidates presented to us by the corporate elite? Its actually a corporatocracy but you haven't realized it yet. The sooner you see this the better off you'll be.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

You don't have to VOTE for politicians who do not represent your interests. You ALSO do not need to BUY from corporations whose policies offend you or BORROW from the "banksters" and increase their wealth. People have phenomenal power, but they leave most of it unused. See http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-power-of-the-people/

[-] 1 points by MortgagedTent (121) 8 years ago

You DO have to vote for politicians who do not represent your interests becuase they are ALL bought and paid for. Blog that.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Another loyal subject of King Obama. You can't be serious can you? Don't get me wrong,I didn't vote for the man and I won't again for my own reasons but aside from that how can you promote a man that was the biggest Wall St. shill EVER?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"I didn't vote for the man and I won't again for my own reasons but aside from that how can you promote a man that was the biggest Wall St. shill EVER?"

According to Fox News and Limbaugh, he's the opposite. And the whole Republican party calls him anti-business.

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

you are citing fox news as if that is credible.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"you are citing fox news as if that is credible."

Incorrect. I am quoting Fox News (and Republicans) as if they have an agenda. If you don't believe they do, fine. But if you do, you may want to rethink what you said or at least, how you said it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

What's funny is that one of us actually believes that, while the other was joking.

[-] -1 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

you mean the Obama tax bill right?

[-] -1 points by mynameisfred (115) 8 years ago

Doggy style.

[-] -1 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Ronald Paul

[-] -1 points by happybanker (766) 8 years ago

Agreed!

[-] -1 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Fuck You.