Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How about a little truth?

Posted 2 years ago on March 26, 2012, 12:34 p.m. EST by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Truth:

If Ralph Nader had supported Al Gore, he would have been elected instead of George Bush

Truth:

President Gore would have been much more active in fighting climate change, (and other things would have been done differently)

Truth:

In January of 2013 either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be sworn in as President for the next four years.

If we deny the truth, then we can do nothing more than spread the lies that got us here.

245 Comments

245 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It seems to me, that from the point of view of building a mass, organized left in the United States, we are not only not in a bad place, but we are in the best place we have been in for decades. There are over 1000 local general assemblies around the nation and over 60 encampments still in tact. Spring is here and the OWS Spring offensive has begun. In New York we are costing the Bloomberg administration millions in police overtime as he continues to insist upon using massive police presence to monitor the activities of a few hundred peaceful protestors.

Far from any doom and gloom, it seems to me that, small and weak as OWS is, an incipient left is in better shape than its been in this nation for decades. Whatever representatives of whichever party of the 1% gains political power at whatever level of government is basically irrelevant to our present growth and development. That is up to us. Long live OWS! Long live the Revolution!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not nearly as good as 2000 the third party got over 3 million votes then, where is that huge growing Green Party anyway? We paid 8 years of Bush to get it, what happened to those guys? Who they running this time? How's he/she polling? Must be doing great, seeing it's 12 years since the Greens really took off.

I get it you are into recycling, you just want to recycle the same old story over and over.

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

More important than the vote totals that Nader got in 2000 were the 130,000 who were active in the campaign. This cadre might have been the basis for a new mass party. Unfortunately that opportunity was squandered and within four years most of those folks were back in the Democratic camp. But there is no inevitability of any particular historical outcome. We all have to put our efforts in the direction which we think will be most productive, which may or may not be successful.

The great stumbling block for the potential of a mass independent American left has been its fealty to the Democratic Party for more than 100 years. During that whole period the Democratic Party has been the grave yard of one mass movement after another. Yet the struggle for a mass independent politics of the left continues.

What has been recycled, again and again, is the successful co-opting of one mass movement after another by the Democratic Party. What is yet to take off is a genuinely independent mass party of the left.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That Green Party must be HUGE by now, where are they?

Maybe they saw Bush and realized what they had done.

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

About 130,000 people volunteered for the Nader campaign in 2000. IMHO the Green Party had about a three month window in order to forge those folks into the beginnings of an incipient mass party. Unfortunately, at the time that effort was squandered as party leadership took the position that obtaining legal status for the party was more important than organizing its base.

As a consequence by the time the 2004 election rolled around most of that 130,000 was back in the Democratic camp. There is nothing unusual about that. As Rosa Luxemburg said, the revolution is an endless series of mistakes followed by one victory. We make mistake after mistake. The important thing is not to make the same mistakes over again. If we make our own mistakes we stand on the shoulders of giants who made their own mistakes.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

BLOWCHUNKS

Dell

Demian

F350

Ironboltbruce

Jph

Rebdem

RedJazz43

VantagePoint250624

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

And what is your point?

[-] 1 points by HapteMikael (162) 2 years ago

Dude, I've been reading your threads, wtf are you doing? "factsrfun" is a troll (or just very dumb). Stop feeding him please.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So when I'm haugin with my liberal buudies this is the sort of stuff we talk about what do you think of this?

"This is also about maintaining a dependent workforce.

Other places I use the word “slave” I use it because I mean to, it best describes what the GOP and the 1% want to achieve, though I admit I also like the word “peasant”, which is really closer to the truth, after all “owners” had to provide something to the slaves, the peasants work your land, you take what you want and leave them what you like.

If people can get healthcare, they might have the freedom to stand up in their workplace, or even quit.

They want you to believe healthcare costs a lot of money, they pay more to keep you dependent, it’s worth it to them, these guys didn’t get rich being foolish with money."

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Thank you for this very important post. The goal of this movement must be to unite ALL those who can see that our democracy exists no more, and who want to restore the power to the people. The only way to do this is through coalition building, and that in turn forces us to realize that there ARE differences between those who make up the current political spectrum. We should include and cooperate with all those who are in allignment with our goals.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Good morning Gypsy, anybody who looks at my stuff knows that I "get it" we have a long way to go, over the years everytime we get close, we split apart and lose, 2000 really hurt, the world really needed Gore, now I fear it's too late, damage controll is about all we will be doing going forward, I hope not, we did raise CAFFA to 55 mpg by 2020 I think, but what has it been 35 years or more since we raised them, would have been nice 12 years ago. I hope we get it right this time, we're running out of time.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Good morning!

I agree that we are running out of time, and that is why I have been so active in stressing that we not get caught up in infighting, but embrace everyone who is in essential agreement with us, and that we use whatever methods are available to affect change. There is urgency here, but fortunately we have tools available to us now that can, God willing, produce swift results!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You never want to give up hope but there is a climate clock ticking and as much as I wish it were different, the R’s look pretty good in the Senate maybe win it, then we lose the Court even if Obama wins, and of course the House is theirs and will stay that way most likely, the people here could change that, but I don’t know if they will.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

That's what we are trying to convince them of. We are running out of time, and must use every means, including POLITICAL to force change. Don't give up - where there's life there's hope!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Here where ideals rule it seems clear, but I'm not sure the street reads us, on a poll I took on the front page they did not even list participating in the forum as anything, so it's up to the group at large, they can figure they have all the answers already, or they can enter into a real discussion, we will see which they choose.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You are right, but I think this movement has a life of it's own, and that this forum ultimately will prove very influential. I see ideas created in this forum playing out all the time. Whether that is recognized or not doesn't matter.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

true I say

"When this is over they can bury me in an unmarked grave, as long as we kill this moster."

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, if I may be allowed, I think there is something truely cosmic at play here. We all know that many a good man and woman has gone into an unmarked grave, been reduced to ashes scattered to the wind, but the truth lives on, and those men and women live on with it.

Evil is the antithisis of spirit. It is negation. And let you and I go into unmarked graves, and Dick Cheney have an obelisk . . . Ah, I have a poem for you that might be worth reading on the subject, and perhaps give your spirit a glimpse of a higher reality:

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear -- "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.'

Percy Bysshe Shelley

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hope you don’t mind;

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land

Who said:

`Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert.

Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal these words appear –

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains.

Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.'

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Tolle brought knowlege to the masses of the "Now" have you read any Teilhard de Chardin?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Thanks for the correction of the stanzas. I'm getting tired. I haven't read either of the authors in question, but I'm glad you appreciate the Shelley. The last two stanzas of "Adonias" by Shelley, dedicated to John Keats, are stunning and profound. I wish I could quote them to you now, but as I say, I'm getting tired.

Hope NEVER dies.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

NP. I thought it was nice and wanted to for others, get some rest :).

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (28248) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I think May 1st is an important marker for the movements against corruption.

I pray for a huge turn-out all across the country.

I know going forward towards this. I see the need for communications and planning like never before.

So that when we hit the streets we will be carrying a coherent message of unity.

We can make a huge impression and make a great start for follow-up action through-out the rest of the year.

This may well be one of the most key gatherings that will ever happen.

Unite in common cause.

Talk issues not parties.

Money out of politics.

End ear-marking.

Remove conflict of interest from elected officials.

One subject at a time legislation - OSTA

Corporations are not people.

Fracking to be included in the EPA clean drinking water mandate.

No Tar sands pipeline.

Regulate fossil fuel speculation.

Implement green power generation - Wind Solar Geo-thermal Hydrogen Cold fusion etc.

Present information on things that need fixing and any petitions in existence that are already being used to lobby for change.

This is how we move forward together by sharing this information to the public and by sharing petitions concerning them hand out information at demonstrations. Publish leaflets for internet dispersal as well. Communicate clearly above all else.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Good Morning DKA! As usual, you are right on the mark. I wish we had a lot more guys like you! May 1 is it! It has to be! We must convince even our most reluctant allies to really get out and participate on that day. If we can do it, it will be a show of force that will make even the mainstream media take us seriously. We have changed the debate, now let's change the world.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (28248) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey GK and a good morning to you.

Yep. We need to attract and inspire.

This is where talking issues will be a good thing to do.

Present issues and any initiative that exist regarding them - petitions groups articles etc.

This movement is all encompassing and should reach out as such. There is so much to be addressed.

There is so much to appeal to all.

The really great thing is that no one has to commit to a group, a group that they may not understand. They can commit to issues - single or multiple.

We just need to communicate them clearly at every opportunity.

We move forward with common cause (s).

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I really like your approach. It seems exactly right. As we "speak" humanity is reaching it's thousands of generations of crisis. And what does that crisis really entail? It entails fear and hope. Fear that we have inculcated through the struggle for survival and opposed to that the realization that our problems are already solved if we could only open up and see that light.

Oskar wilde once said "We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."

Humanity has conquered the elements, now we must see if we can conquer our fear, and become the great beings that can steward the earth, the great spirits that we are and cannot see.

We are living that moment of truth, and thus our ultimate goal would be to include the 100% and to end the fight over what we only perceive to be scarsity, and begin our asscent to the stars.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (28248) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You are in exceptionally good form today.

{:-])

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Thanks DKA. I have lived on the razors edge, and it has honed me as much as lacerated.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (28248) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

One can choose to always live in fear. But is that truly living? Or is that choosing to live a life in hell?

I choose to take my chances and live for life and not for fear.

Do what you can about the things you can. It only takes one step to start.


1 points by GypsyKing (5562) 0 minutes ago

Yes, that's the test of the human spirit. Those of us who have really faced life are capable and unafraid of seeing beyond it. You, I know, are one of those people. And as you know, fear is an illusion. Those who have stood their ground know that there is more to life than meets the eye. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (28248) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Life lived will have it's wounds - it is good to learn from wounding and remain positive.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, that's the test of the human spirit. Those of us who have really faced life are capable and unafraid of seeing beyond it. You, I know, are one of those people. And as you know, fear is an illusion. Those who have stood their ground know that there is more to life than meets the eye.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This one comes from about 25 years back, some of us have been at it a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chagwk0IyA0

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

At this point I think a republican president might even be better. At least when Bush was in office there was an anti war movment, now not so much.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

maybe because he was starting them instead of ending them

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

Barack Obama is committing the same crimes [as Bush and Cheney], in fact worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we’re creating more enemies, he’s violating international law, he’s not constitutionally authorized to do what he’s doing, he’s using State secrets, he’s engaging in illegal surveillance, the CIA is running wild without any kind of circumsribed legal standards or disclosure . . . why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

*And climate change would be even worse under a President Gore,

I've heard it all before.*

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

Yeah just like the way Obama did in Libya. Also the surge in Afghanistan that has really done amazingly well. Not to mention the countless drone attacks that Obama has carried out. Most of his forigen policy is just a continuation of the Bush administration. I shake my head in exaspiration at you on the left that still defend this ridiculous fraud in the white house. How the fuck can you win a nobel peace prize while sending 40,000 troops to go raze a 3rd world country?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Didn’t know I was talking to a Kaddafi supporter, did you oppose the Arab Spring everywhere or just Libya?

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So what do you think the chances are that Arinna will be voting Romeny? or third party?

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

By that line of reasoning I was a Sadam supporter for opposing the war in Iraq! I didnt realize you supported the Iraq war.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey you attacked Obama for Libya all on your own, I didn't do that, if your upset Kaddafi is gone, if your upset that Obama supported an uprising by the people to overthrow their dictator, that's your words not mine, if you don't want to take that position then don't take it.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Now remember, during their lunch breaks you have your 1% who get on here and bash "the truth"...but if you notice....they never, ever have a ready available reply that can cite logical information supporting their bashing, or gnashing of teeth!! I for one would like to know how Wall Street got started in the first damn place? I would also like to know what articles (or properties) of trade were utilized (or enslaved) to finance the start up of wall street as well as the beginnings of the economic systems (banks) of this country to get it where it is today? Now, forget Al Gore and Obama....what is the real reason why the global economic system must fail?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't think we've met, good morning, half the the time I just want to know what they are saying these days, I like to spend a bit of time each day crafting "message" I think that is something the left has not been so good at

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

The truth is OWS is about building a mass social movement of cultural opposition, not electing Democrats.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh so we should maintain the status quo? I disagree.

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

Whose talking about maintaining the status quo? Certainly not OWS, but it's not about electing Democrats either, which is really nothing more, after all than one of the two big parties of the status quo itself. Who started the bipartisan foreign and military policy? It was the Democratic Party? Who evicted OWS encampments all over the nation? It was mostly local Democratic Administrations advised by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI both agencies controlled by a sitting Democratic administration? Who's running the dozens of little wars and hundreds of imperial military encampments that the United States maintains around the world? A Democratic administration? Would a Republican administration be worse? The truth is we can't ever really know the answer to that question because we never get to examine a counter factual in life. All we can know is what is, and it is very clear to every OWS activist that I know, even when they choose to vote for Democrats as a lesser evil, that the Democratic Party is no friend of justice, social equality, world peace, or the capacity to build a movement in this nation capable of a serious struggle for justice, social equality and world peace.

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

"Would a Republican administration be worse? The truth is we can't ever really know..."

Yes, it would be MUCH worse, and yes we can know. All we need do is look at Supreme Court and federal court appointments. That track record is clear. And the consequences of not electing a democrat to the White House with Ginsburg about to retire would not be a minor shift in the status quo, but a disaster an entire generation would not be able to recover from.

We can also look at economics. The record is clear there as well. Beginning before Hoover, people have done better under Democratic administrations economically than under Republican ones.

And although it is conjecture, can anyone reasonably assert that we would have invaded Iraq had Gore been president? Yes, the war continued under Obama, but we all know that it is harder to get out of a war than to start one.

There are plenty of things about both parties that overlap, and that's a real tragedy. But the differences are there as well, and ignoring them is done at great peril. THe courts are no small matter, nor is it simply a mater of the lesser of two evils when it comes to them, but rather a clear distinction between good and evil.

That is not to say that one should stop being an activist and pressing for more sweeping and fundamental change - perish the thought - but only that while occupying, one must not use activism as an excuse to not insure that the courts do not turn even more sharply, and in effect permanently, to the right.

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

The point is that OWS as a movement is not particularly focussed on electoral politics and from my point of view, given that OWS is so small and new and fragile, that is a good thing. IMHO its current fragility is much more likely to be disturbed by a substantial core of its activists becoming distracted by electoral politics than it would be were those activists to continue on the most likely course of action which is to build OWS, to build more encampments, to re-occupy those encampments that have been evicted, to build more local general assemblies and to help grow existing general assemblies and working groups. Many OWS activists will undoubtedly take 10 minutes out on election day to vote. Many of them will undoubtedly vote Democratic, but no OWS activist that I know of thinks that activity is any where near as consequential as their continued activity and work in building OWS. The greatest tragedy that could befall OWS is that it become beholden to the Democratic Party which has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the days of the Populists. Fortunately, so far at least, that possibility in the immediate future seems unlikely in the extreme. Build OWS! Long live the Revolution!

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

"The point is that OWS as a movement is not particularly focussed on electoral politics and from my point of view, given that OWS is so small and new and fragile, that is a good thing."

I understand and -believe it or not - agree with that stance. But I do get tired with post after post on these fora stating,as fact, that there is no difference between the parties, and that voting is somehow wrong.

I also feel that those in OWS who believe that their votes are inconsequential in relation to their continued activism are making a false choice, and in fact are wrong. Indeed, it was largely the abandonment of the electoral process by the young and the left that gave us Nixon, reagan and two Bushes. It also led to someone like Clinton, an extremely conservative, virtually Blue Dog democrat to be positioned as the leader of what had up until then been a left-leaning party. We wouldn't be in nearly the mess we are in today had the activists on the left continued to vote in large numbers, and hadn't encouraged cynicism in the young people that looked up to them. The result is that the right, who have not stopped voting in large numbers, have captured the dialogue and ben successful for the local level on up, to shift the entire country rightward.

And there is nothing of more consequence than the makeup of the courts. If those courts very more rightward, even by a little, it could easily spell the end of the ability of OWS to do anything at all.

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

Of course there is a difference between the two parties of the 1%. It is in fact that difference that helps keep either one of those two parties in power and impedes the development of a genuinely anti-corporate party, a genuine party of the 99%. There is just enough of a difference between the two parties of the 1% to keep people voting for one or the other of them year after year and which especially keeps people of good will and good values bound to the Democratic Party, even though such subserviance is not at all in their interest. It is especially that tiny difference between the two parties of the 1% that keeps the institutions of popular power in civil society and the potential institutions of popular power so bound to the Democratic Party.

Fortunately most OWS activists see through this. Many OWS activists will undoubtedly take 10 minutes out of their busy lives on election day and vote Democratic, but in so doing they know that they will be voting for the lesser of two evils, what really is the lesser of two evils, and that is what makes the two parties of the 1% different. One really is the lesser of two evils, but the lesser of two evils is still evil and most OWS activists know that too.

There are many concrete aspects to the rule of the two parties of the 1%. One very important aspect is no doubt the capacity to appoint Court Judges, but more and more, even the party of the lesser evil tends to appoint more and more conservative judges. What is more it is the party of the lesser evil that is right now, today, in charge of American imperialism, of the conduct of American wars and of the administration of American military bases all over the world right now today. To the peoples of the world who are the subjects of American imperialism it makes very little difference which party is the lesser evil.

And for Occupy Wall Street occupations all around the nation, by and large it is Democratic municipal administrations that are evicting our encampments and unleashing police brutality upon us. For us to, in terms of our practical day to day activity, it makes very little difference which party of the 1% is in power and which party of the 1% is the lesser evil even though one clearly is.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

you see the Republican party is sooooo evil that I can get a lot of pleasure from seeing them go down, I find that very rewarding when I think of all that they have done to this country, one must take their pleasure where they find it I guess you should not be so pessimistic

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

Of course the Democratic Party is different, but it is just as bad. After all, they are both parties of the `1%. If anything the Democratic Party is much much more dangerous to the movement precisely because it has so many otherwise smart and well meaning people hoodwinked in a way that the Republican Party never could. I'm not at all pessimistic. I say fuck BOTH parties of the 1%. Long Live OWS! Long live the Revolution (and revolutions are not made by political parties of the status quo and what could be more status quo than a political party that controls the White House).

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Got to love that corporate speak "Of course the Democratic Party is different, but it is just as bad."

In one sentence you flip it all around, did they teach you how to do that or is it natural?

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

I have been to many different local general assemblies and to the NYC GA fairly regularly and while they do not always agree with me and we do not always agree with each other I have not met a single OWS activist who shares your point of view.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I haven' t found any Republicans that agree with me either, and I hear there are a lot of them, telling the truth doesn't always make one popular.

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

From the perspective of this web site it is really irrelevant whether Republicans agree with you or not. This is a web site dedicated to the Occupy Wall Street movement. A movement that governs itself through hundreds of local general assemblies in the United States and thousands of general assemblies around the world. I have been to several of them. I go to one fairly regularly and I know dozens of people around the nation that are actively engaged in several others and I do not know a single OWS activist who shares your views. That being the case, I can't see what the fuck you have to say, whether it is true or not or whether I agree with it or not has to do with OWS or with this web site.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And yet there are so many here, and none of them bother to make a convicing aurgment that we should do anything other than work like hell to defeat Republicans, that's what they say at my GA, but I live in AZ, we may just know Republicans a little better than they do in NY.

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It seems to me that we should work like hell to oppose all those organized forces in society that oppose OWS and its values. That would include both the Republican and Demcratic Parties and right now, the Democratic Party controls the White House, which means it controls the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, two institutions that are trying to wreck OWS and it also controls many municipal governments whose police forces have been unleashed on OWS.

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

You sound llike a fool. Where do you think the Dems get the majority of their funding from? Wall street and other corporate intrests. Do you really think that lining up behind the Democrats at the polls is really going to make a difference when they all get their funding from the same people as the republicans?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The Volt is bulit by the same people who bulid the Suburban so it doesn't matter which one you buy, yeah I get it, I just don't agree.

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

Please see this, then tell me it doesn't matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/politics/in-the-court-split-seemed-partisan.html?hp

Like you, I abhor the fact that the democratic Party has become increasing more right wing. I attribute that, however, to the popularity of arguments much like the ones you just made. It is the left's abandonment of the party in favor of more ideological purity that has allowed the party to become more (though far from monolithically) a party of the 1% as the Republicans have always been. By abandoning involvement, the left has also abdicated its role of applying pressure to keep the party on the people's side more firmly. When the left essentially departed, what remained was more centrist - by definition a rightward shift.

Activism has its place - it very very important place, but it cannot substitute for engagement with the system itself. BOTH must be acted upon: activism both from outside AND from within the system if lasting change can take effect.

After abandoning its role as the conscience of the party for a generation - since 1968 - it is disingenuous to now decry that very lack of conscience in the party and exclusively blame it for our collective failings.

As to the Democrats appointing increasingly more conservative judges, it is nothing compared to the hard right wingers the Republicans have consistently appointed throughout living memory. Again, please read the article. The distinction could not be clearer. And it is far from the only case of consequence in which the distinction presents itself daily.

(Please bear in mind as you read my post that I am trying to make my point forcefully. We may not actually be in as much disagreement as it would appear on this page.)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

almost all movement to the right by the democratic party is the result of pressure from the GOP and their sucessful bumper sticker poltitics I invite you to search me "user:factsrfun" I write bumper stickers for the left, it is my goal to arm the "freedom fighters" of OWS

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

These guys work together, never comment on wealth inequality, just write about how bad the dems are, in all their posts they are both agents of the 1%.

RedJazz43

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Over and over again you hit that same note about how SMALL the OWS movement is . . . Bullshit. I'm not buying that. That's just what the mainstream media is trying to convince us of.

I would estimate that 70% of Americans agree with this movements fundamental goals. It seems to me that what is small is your ability to grasp how powerful this movement already is, and how much more powerful it could be if we embrace a wide variety of tactics.

I'm very uncomfortable with the way you want to limit our options and diminish our standing by repeatedly chanting that this movement is small and fragile. I don't think it is either one or the other, and that you continually reitterate that view seems to me, to put it charitably, counterproductive.

The point of this post is right on the mark. If the Gore Presidency had not been over-ruled by election fraud, and a partisan Supreme Court overreach of it's Constitutional mandate, we would be living in a much more positive era. I'm convinced of that.

"Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it."

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

I truly wish OWS was larger than it is. I draw my conclusions not from sources hostile to OWS but from sources within OWS itself, sources which, if anything, would tend to inflate the number of activists. The best source for this information that I have been able to find is the Occupy Together site which basically collects all the data from all the local general assemblies reporting to it. It is that source which estimates about 20,000 OWS activists. I certainly wish it were bigger, but that doesn't seem very big to me.

E#ven given the small size of OWS its accomplishments have been monumental. It has inspired and energized organized labor, the religious left, the women's movement, the gay rights movement, the environmental movement and the movement for civil liberties and against police brutality. For the sake of comparison, let us look at the size of those movements. The total number of union members in the US is about 15 million. It is the largest organized force in civil society in the US. The National Baptist Convention which was Martin Luther King's denomination has about 5 million members. The NAACP, NOW and the Sierra Club have about a million members each. Even if we assume that the membership of these groups is a paper membership and say only about 10% of the membership is truly active, those figure dwarf the base of OWS. This is by not means to trivialize the importance of OWS. Indeed it HAS energized and inspired those larger movements and if it were bigger it could do more.

There is much discussion on this site about what percentage of the US population supports what, but that is not what OWS is about and regardless of how critical the media has been of OWS it is something that the media understands also. Most supportive media has continually made the point that the most important thing about OWS is not any passive support but rather the fact that it inspired tens of thousands of people to get up away from their computers and tv screens, go out into the streets and meet and engage with each other.

For OWS itself, this is crucial. We can't govern ourselves from the front of our computer screens or tv's. We have to get out and engage. Self governance is about a lot more than the few minutes we spend in a voting booth each year and it takes energy and commitment.. Of course not everybody commit to living in an encampment, but nearly everyone could commit to attending a general assembly once a week or at least once a month and we are nowhere near that yet.

OWS is not an electoral movement. My personal position on this question is irrelevant. To be convinced that OWS is not an electoral movement all you have to do is read the copy on the home page of this very web site or spend 20 minutes at virtually any local general assembly. If there are a significant number of OWS activists and local general assemblies that want OWS to become an electoral movement it will become and electoral movement and my personal position will not matter one wit. But judging from my own part time participation in the movement, it just doesn't seem very likely to me.

Even with respect to people on this website who think that taking an electoral position is crucial to the survival of OWS I have seen absolutely no strategic discussion as to how exactly to change OWS's position and get it to take an electoral position. So it is not a matter of what I happen to want as an individual or what anyone else wants. What it's about is the political course of the movement and how that course might be changed in any direction and I have yet to see any serious discussion of that here.

One of the ironies of all this is that I have seen lots of criticisms of anarchists on this list and I'm no anarchist but it has been my personal experience that the anarchist organizers in OWS are far superior in terms of their thinking about strategy and how to get strategy implemented than any of the contributors to this list.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Ah, here is where the rubber hits the road, and where we both agree and disagree. I think we need as much engagement as possible with the movement on the ground, but I also believe that to build a truely mass movement we must engage in the poiltical process in one way or another, because I don't believe we will ever get a critical mass of Americans out on the street at any one given time, and even if we could, I'm not sure it would change anything. Building a mass movement is about building coalitions, it is about attacking the monster from every side you can draw into the fight, it is about keeping it real on the streets, and drawing upon all the allies you can get.

This movement ultimately isn't even about OWS itself, it's about forcing change, and doing so by any means whatsoever that will work; that will end corruption, restore government to the people, and achieve economic justice.

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

I've argued elsewhere that OWS is a self consciously revolutionary movement though exactly what that means is problematic. I don't think that OWS has a highly evolved theory of revolution but it does see the political institutions of representative democracy as part of the problem and as such to work within such institutions would give them legitimacy when they are part of the very problem that OWS seeks to challenge.

Of course, not everyone in OWS sees it that way, but the overwhelming tendency in OWS even among conscious reformers in the movement is that it is a direct action movement. Even people who as individuals might vote or otherwise participate in the "system" they tend to see that as a personal individual choice and not especially consistent with what the movement is all about as a direct action movement.

On the other hand OWS has done more to build coalitions than any social movement that the US has seen in the last 100 years. That's what it means when I say that OWS has inspired and energized every other social movement. And for the most part those other social movements are engaged in the system and do make demands on the system. It is not necessary for OWS to join in that part of the activities of their allies nor does OWS seem likely to do so in the immediate future, at least not during this electoral cycle.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

If OWS sees the institutions of representative democracy as part of the problem, then they had better have a unified message regarding what they would replace it with. I don't see the institutions themselves as the problem, but the corruption of those institutions, and I don't think humans have yet created a system that can't be corrupted. So if OWS has a better idea, then they better stake claim to it and speak in a unified voice, or they will become the catalist for a movement that will leave them behind.

That is how I see it anyway.

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

I think what OWS would seek to replace existing institutiosns with is pretty clear even from this web site, which, on its home page, calls for a general assembly in every back yard. Part of this is premised on what general assemblies are all about and how they are structured. Basically they are premised on the notion that no one can represent anyone, that we can only represent ourselves. I'd admit that that doesn't seem very likely to me. On the other hand, as I've previously noted OWS is a very new and very tiny movement and I fully expect that as it grows and more and more general assemblies are organized, they will either evolve into something different that is impossible to envision yet or they will be displaced by something different.

Personally, I do think that there is some point in the critique of existing representative institutions. When the first British Labour government took power after World War I in the British parliamentary system, an essentially "democratic" system, it was said that it governed but that it did not rule in that while it had power over the British state, the political economy of the nation remained dominated by capitalist institutions and corporate power. That remained true even after the second Labour government took power after World War II with much more sweeping reforms which included the formation of a National Health Service and the nationalization of the steel industry and several other major industries. Still Labour governed but it did not rule, and when the Tories gained a majority much of what Labour had done was rolled back, but even while Labour had state power it could be reasonably said that it governed but did not rule.

I'd be the first to admit that there is not exactly a lot of heavy theoretical work going on inside OWS, but in a kind of half blind, half conscious way, I do think they are trying to address the very problem outlined above.

Ultimately I'd be for a mass independent party of the left, but given OWSs size, I think such a project would be premature for it now and to launch such an effort at this point I think it would tend to reveal its weaknesses rather than its strengths. I also think that such an effort within OWS is extremely unlikely in the immediate future whether I am for it or against it.

Part of the problem with party politics in America is that in recent decades Parties are tended to be viewed as electoral vehicles and little else and election law is structured to foster such a narrow view.

My own view is that right now OWS already does everything that a mass political party ought to do EXCEPT run candidates, while, conversely, the major parties essentially do NOTHING that a real mass popular party ought to do EXCEPT run candidates.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You never addressed my assertion, and so I will (now irritatededly) say it again. If OWS does not support the current form of democratic government than what form of government does it advocate. If it refuses to advocate anything than at some point (and I think we have reached that point) that refusal itself becomes a decision.

If that is the case, that OWS does not stand for anything, but only against what is, than there is simply no way for OWS to succeed. It is impossible to bring about change without defining the change you seek. If OWS doesn't clairify it's stance on this matter it will gradually become irrelevent.

If you are going to respond, please respond to the matter itself, rather than taking us along another yellow brick road to nowhere.

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

I am sorry. Sometimes I get lost in the discussion. Most importantly, since OWS has made very few public statements about anything, often is is difficult or impossible to say with any clarity exactly what OWSs position is, but I'll take a crack and I hope I'm addressing it more directly than in the past. Most often what you hear at OWS is that we can only speak for ourselves and there is much that the movement as a movement has no position on at all.

Copy on the title page of this web site says that we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better world and elsewhere it calls for a general assembly in every back yard. Further, at most occupatons which I have attended, even when there is frustration with the mechanics of decision making in general assemblies it is still general assemblies that tend to be viewed in some way as the alternative to traditional representative democracy and those OWSers I have met who envision a world of post representative institutions tend to have a vision general assemblies everywhere, on every street corner, every work place, every work department, etc.

My own view is that we should not see the fight for representative democracy as an end to history, that there is some validity in the assertion that we can only represent ourselves. On the other hand it is also the case that OWS is very tiny and is in no position to displace existing institutions though it might eventually be if it were several thousand times larger than it is today. Today, for me, it is sufficient to say to corporate power BASTA! ENOUGH! NO! STOP! aand to continue to build a movement on that basis.

I hope that answers your question with sufficient directness and if not I am sorry.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I think this time you did answer my question, to the greatest degree possible, given what you see. I thank you for that.

I am in total agreement with "BASTA! ENOUGH! NO! STOP!" I even think that this simple statement that we have had ENOUGH is POWERFUL, and that it is resonating.

YET, when I see what is going on, right now, in Spain, I also know that this alone is not enough; that the struggle to bring the 99% around to this point of outrage may not be enough alone, or will simply lag behind the power of the Organized Establishment to suppress such essentially unfocused outrage.

That is why I plead with everyone in this movement to not reject ANY method of resistance, not to reject politics, strikes, boycotts or ANY avenue other than violence to destabalize the death-grip the international cartells have gradually coiled around the people of the world!

Now is not the time for such narrow conceptions, or niceties of political purity. We are in a fight for our lives and our freedom! This is not a game, and we must use EVERY means available to us to attain those ends because our opponents are powerful! They will crush us one at a time if we do not overwealm them with EVERY form of resistance at our disposal short of violence.

NO, No, No! This is not the time for bickering political distinctions and subtleties, or what exactly we see as the final outcome. This is the time for throwing of the closing coils of a new global fascist order that will leave us all in chains!

So what I say to your snails pace approach of building up general assemblies that will somehow, someday, maybe, supplant current institutions - what I say to that is BASTA! ENOUGH! NO! STOP!

That is one approach, but with the world hanging in the balance as we speak, and we cannot allow ourselves to be throttled by these turtle tactics!

Our approach must be vigourous and as widespread, as all-encompassing as possible! To me that means everybodies in who wants to be in! That means the movement is already far bigger and broader that OWS itself. It is a RESISTANCE movement in every sense of the word, and everybody can bring their cards to the table - everybody - including unions, and social justice organizations, and faith based groups, and online petition groups, and environmental groups, and civil liberty groups, and left-wing Democratic groups, and Anarchists, and Liberatarians, and computer undergrounds, and WHOEVER ELSE wants to see the end of this constricting tyranny - EVERYONE!

Let us have no more arguments over these stupid divisions, and theoretical niceties and untite against the common enemy!

There, you have my final response to all your muddled political philosophyzing! I just don't give a shit! We've got to win this thing!

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

In terms of "muddled philosophizing" revolution is a young person's game, but at the age of 69 I spend about as much time running away from police in the streets of lower Manhattan as I do muddling about on this site. I very much believe in "praxis" in uniting theory and practice.

I WISH OWS were more highly evolved than it is and it may well be too far behind the curve to make the kind of change we need happen. I'd acknowledge that OWS is an extremely slender reed on which to pin our hopes, but I also believe that it is all we've got. More than that, as an individual who cannot devote as much time to this project as I would like there is only so much I can do.

The way OWS is organized that tends to be true of nearly all its activists excepting for a handful who are both extremely talented and also have the time to be full time OWS activists and more. Nothing less is sufficient in terms of being able to have real impact on the movement. Neither time alone nor talent alone is sufficent to affect the course of the movement. Both are needed an in considerable quantities. I don't think that will necessarily always be the case, but even such changes in that regard will take time.

Patience is a revolutionary virtue and it has been my observation that the more radical an OWS activist is the more patient they are. They tend to reallized how tiny we are on the one hand and the monumental character of the tasks before us on the other.

On the other hand history does not move in a linear fashion. At various moments it speeds up and slows down. Examples of this are far far too numberous to mention but I will mention just one to make my point. In a mere 10 months between 1935 and 1936 a half a million working people in the United States violated property rights and "occupied" their work places. It was called the sit down movement. In tandem and in coordination with that and at the same time 5 million workers organized themselves in the greatest organizing drive in American history. No one would have predicted it even two years before. Beyond that, in terms of scale and proportion it shows the difference between a mass movement of truly monumental proportions and what OWS is all about at this point in its development.

[-] 1 points by DCInsider (54) 2 years ago

GypsyKing, seriously? You think 70% of the general public supports the OWS movement? If so, why are GAs less than a 100 on a regular basis. Why aren't the OWS coffers overflowing with donations?

Most of the general populous doesn't really understand the movement, because there are so many divergent ideas going on at once. On one way they is good. There is so much going on that by default there has to be something that should appeal to everyone. But realistically, there it's too scattered. Just my humble opinion. I think the number who support the OWS movement is more like 5-10%. And I am not talking direct action. Just people who think the movement is ok.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I'm looking at the polls, the very few (2) that I have found since November show a majority of Americans agree with this movements goals, ie getting money out of politics and reducing the gaping wealth disparity in America. I see those people as a part of this movement, based upon their concurring beliefs - an unenergized mass. We will not energize these people by downplaying our own significance, or asserting the relative unpopularity of their views.

[-] 1 points by DCInsider (54) 2 years ago

Ahhh ok I see what you are saying. Those two things are areas of concern by the American people, I agree. I thought you were saying a majority of America were in support of OWS overall. I just didn't see that myself but I can see that people agree with those two issues.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, and that is latent power. Our job is to translate it into power actualized, and that means inclusiveness, outreach, and the rejection of any form of dogmatism or fighting among ourselves. We must let the ego fall away, and allow people to see our message. It is the message that matters, not the messenger.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Swing and a miss...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Everything you say, all over the forum, leads us to do nothing, you and your 1% buddies must be getting worried.

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

Have you ever been to any local general assembly anywhere or any encampment anywhere? That is a serious question and I would very much like to have a serious discussion about it. I have been to several and to the NYC GA fairly regularly on a part time basis starting on September 17. While I have met several other OWS activists who plan begrudgingly to vote Democratic in November I have not met a single OWS activist who shares your fealty toward the Democratic Party.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What do my daily activities got to do with the ideas we discuss here?

Are you concerned about egos or getting something done?

And if you read my stuff it's about getting rid of the GOP, it just so happens that the D's are the only way to do that in most cases, they only benefit by not being Republican.

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

The ideas we discuss here are either connected to a living breathing movement or they are not. The people who discuss the ideas here are either connected to a living breathing movement or they are not. Regardless of what the ideas we have here are, if they are not connected to a living breathing movement they are meaningless. So it's not just about the ideas we have, but about how we are connected to a real movement that would express those ideas and how, concretely, we expect that movement to adopt those ideas.

If you had any inkling of what OWS is all about. If you have been to a single general assembly, you would realize that virtually not a single OWS activist and certainly not a single general assembly shares your views and if that is the case, then what exactly is the point of your being on a web site that says it is all about a movement about which you are apparently totally ignorant.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Connectiong with a real movement with the message "they are all the same" is really a stupid waste of time, do I do that no there is your amswer, when i go to the GA all the people there know they hate Republicans, but we live in AZ you live in NY, we may just know Republicans a little better than you.

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

I do not know any OWS activist who is not staunchly opposed to the Republican Party. In fact opposition to the Republican Party within OWS is so universal that it is hardly worth discussing there is nothing to debate. We all agree on that. That is not the issue.

The issue is the Democratic Party and it seems to me suicidal to support a party like the Democratic Party all of whose major institutions would like nothing better than to smash OWS. Most local governments where OWS encampments were evicted are controlled by the Democratic Party after all. And all local governments that evicted OWS and unleased police brutality on the movement, whether they are Republican or Democratic look to an FBI and a Department of Homeland Security controlled by a Democratic administration to help them figure out how to smash our movement. The Republican Party is not our friend. That is not an issue. Every OWS activist agrees with that. But neither is the Democratic Party.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So if we are successful in pulling true liberals from the D's you don't think more R's will be elected? Or you don't think that matters? Or is that what you are working to accomplish?

This morning’s best response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chagwk0IyA0

This one comes from about 25 years back, some of us have been at it a while.

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

OWS is not a liberal movement. It is a revolutionary movement. It says so right on the home page of this very web site. It's not about winning over liberals. It's about challenging corporate liberalism from a revolutionary perspective. If it matters I'm 69 years old and I've been a revolutionary socialist for nearly 50 years.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

BLOWCHUNKS

Demian

F350

Ironboltbruce

Jph

Rebdem

RedJazz43

VantagePoint250624

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

And your point is?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Known by the company you keep.

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

I personally do not know anyone on this list or at least I don't think I do. In life politically I tend to hang out with independent socialists, ex-Trotskyists, democratic socialists, trade union activists and an anarchist here and there. A lot of my friends vote Democratic and we argue constantly about that. I've voted in every election since 1964 but never for a Republican or a Democrat.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

These guys work together, never comment on wealth inequality, just write about how bad the dems are, in all their posts they are both agents of the 1%.

RedJazz43

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

OWS was started by anarchists and the anarchists in OWS are still its best organizers. They will of course, not vote at all, not for any candidate, not even for a revolutionary socialist candidate, much less a candidate of one of the two parties of the 1%. The vast majority of OWS activists are liberals and they probably plan to vote on election day, but not waste any time otherwise on the electoral process. The handful of revolutionary socialists who are active in OWS will probably vote for Jill Stein or some other third party candidate.

If anybody thinks that fealty to the Democratic Party or its candidates has any currency at all in OWS I would defy them to name a single local general assembly anywhere in the nation that has endorsed any electoral campaign.The fact is a pro-Democratic Party point of view simply has no currency in OWS and anyone who raised it at any general assembly would be laughed down. The only place this point of view has any currency is on a forum like this which only goes to show just how disengaged a forum like this is from OWS as a living breathing social movement.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You may be right; OWS may do nothing and let the TEA party get all the attention, that way at least the 1% will be protected.

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

If that is your point of view I don't understand your activity on an OWS forum. I don't have any evidence that any decision making body of OWS anywhere in the nation is very likely at all to support the Democratic Party or any of its candidates. If you are aware of any countervailing tendency I would be most interested. But quite frankly, I've been to a dozen different OWS encampments and while I've met several OWS activists who rather begrudgingly acknowledge that they will probably vote Democratic in November, they don't plan to do anything else in support of the party and plan to spend most of their spare time building OWS. I have to say quite honestly that I've never met a single OWS activist either at an encampment or a general assembly who shares your point of view.

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

My word, listen to yourself, man! Anyone not toeing your party line becomes a agent of the 1%. Perhaps you would, if possible, have mass show trials to this effect (I dared not, but your statement above is the spitting image of what the real left fought so hard against in the 20th century.) I've read many of your posts, and think your are deservedly a well respected member of the forum, so shape up!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

One name removed already, looks somewhat silly now, all you got to do is tell a little truth and I'm your buddy, I hate lies, that's how we got here.

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

You're such a jackass for saying this. Its a one party system with two factions. We all know the republican party is bad, the reason we critisize the democrats is because they are only about half a degree better and in some cases worse. You are more of an agent of the 1% than either of these two. Hope and change you can believe in, what a bunch of bullshit!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Well you can divide us and keep us from taking effective action, by divide I mean some vote for R's and some for D's or you can help unite us and start changing the country.

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

Changing the country how? By voting for the same crooked corporate controlled motherfuckers every election year? I'll vote for a third party candidate probably someone far to the left of the dems. I dont care if they cant win, at least I'll be able to sleep at night knowing I didnt co-sign any of this bullshit.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

BTW it's been over a decade since the Greens got on every ballot, how's that going?

I guess we got plenty more decades we can wait.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

By destorying the Republican Party so that it can no longer hurt us, so that it cannot take over when we split the D's into a real labor party and what many of them have already become, I'll let them name theirs, but if we don't get the GOP to well below 40 in the Senate we can't do anything big, first things first.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Gore won the election. He lost due to election fraud not because an American was using his right to run for president.

Are you suggesting we should only let the Democratic and Republican parties be the only options? I hope not. Sounds like the same system that's been failing for years and causing war after war.

Obama's got this election in the bag. Even some of the "birthers" are questioning Romney now because his dad was born in Mexico. Romney doesn't have full support from the repubs and that is why he will fail. He should fail because he is a war monger hell bent on servicing the 1% but republicans aren't smart enough to realize that. They just like his blue jeans.

Both Obama and the GOP are wrong for America.

From Bush to Obama maybe we can have 16 years of war?

Hopefully the democrats will wise up by 2016 and stop supporting pro-war candidates. Maybe then we can elect a democrat with a peaceful agenda.

Diplomacy not drone strikes! We need to be supporting democrats like Dennis Kucinich. HR 2990, the NEED Act is the step in the right direction!

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Wrong, Gore surrendered the election. He didn't have the backbone to be the kind of president he knew we needed.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Could you elaborate on that please?

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Check that site out Trev, but, more important, my understanding is that the Supreme Court decision left it open to the Florida courts to find a remedy other than a full recount, but that didn't happen because Gore conceded.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is not true, the court stopped FL from counting votes while they decided, their reasoning was that if the count showed a different winner than their decision determined then that President would be undermined. They deliberated for a few weeks, then decided that Gore was correct that a state wide recount was in order, but since it could not be completed in time to declare a winner by the required the date, the needs of the nation over-ruled the actual law, this is the only time the court can do this. So to recap, the court said “stop counting the votes” then they said “there is not enough time to count the votes”. And half of America said I would rather win than support democracy, and the other half was too afraid of being called “sore loserman” to fight for democracy and the media said democracy is not really very important.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

The courts final decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment of equal protection. It was a shabby argument that has been widely criticized...

Although this argument was endorsed by seven of the nine Justices--all but Stevens and Ginsburg--it has generally been treated with derision by liberal and conservative commentators alike. As my liberal colleague Cass Sunstein has noted, the Court's Equal Protection conclusion "lacked all support in precedent and history . . . and clearly ignored a host of problems as serious as those it addressed." Not to be outdone, my conservative colleague Richard Epstein has sniped that the Court's equal protection argument is "a confused nonstarter at best, which deserves much of the scorn that has been heaped upon it."

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122240/

If Gore had pushed back (and the stakes were too high not to) he could have maybe stopped the Bush catastrophe that followed.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Good morning hitgirl, if I start to lose myself, I know I'm losing my reader. I know the equal protection clause was the finial vote, that one not being the most critical in my opinion. You have a good understanding of the events it would seem, what do you think of my distilled outline?

I realize that I came off looking for a fight, but what I don’t like to see is blaming Gore when everyone with a microphone is also to blame, there are many who failed us in 2000, and in truth I pretty much gave up myself, I figured if we couldn’t even defend basic democracy, what difference does it make?

I see in OWS some hope people are acknowledging the truth of the trend that will end us, if we don’t end it. That is the concentration of wealth, so I am here doing what I can and hoping.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I don't place the blame completely on Gore. It could be that he realized that any Supreme Court decision would not be in his favor. The Court had more credibility back then, so maybe he did think it would look bad to fight. Now - post citizens united - I think he could get away with claiming the decision was purely political, and taking it back to the Florida courts. Your outline is fine except for the half-and-half part. I doubt that Americans' opinion figured in it at all.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks, you seem to know your stuff so that means something to me, the Robert's Court is held in even less regard than the Rehnquist Court, I would agree, I hope we can move the needle the other way a bit going forward.

PS half & half, a little literary license ;).

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

PS here's a bit from the past, the lawyer who advised the "butterfly ballot" woman on election night was Ted Olson I'm pretty sure, I watched it all on a backfeed.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I do also want to make it clear that Bush is not the President of the United States. He is occupying that job, but he was not elected, he was appointed by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint the president. The Supreme Court broke the law and committed treason against the people in doing so. These people are criminals and traitors and have overthrown our nation through a right wing coop. Technically, the presidency is vacant. America has no legal president.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/index.htm

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You said - "Technically, the presidency is vacant. America has no legal president." -When you say that are you referring to the Bush era or is the current president included?

The rest of what you said I agree with... I'm just not sure about what you fully mean about the "vacant presidency."

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Sorry...that was a quote from the link I provided to Why Gore Failed to Become President. Here is another interesting link if you like details...

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe2000timeline.php

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Okay so I read through that site and it was talking about the Bush era... which makes sense. Originally I thought you were saying that about current president as well... which did not make sense.

I also found this quote on that site

"Just because they can get away with it doesn't make it legal. It merely shows that the systems of government have failed due to corruption at the highest levels." - Probably the truest statement ever.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

However he did wield the power, and that's what counts, as far as stuff happening, like the world roasting and such.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

There's that, and the housing bubble, and unregulated bankers splicing morgages together. The Bush era ended with America's finance system completely crashed and our international reputation in the shit-can.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Do you remember when Clinton got the standing ovation in the General Assembly?

When I think of how Bush trashed our reputation around the world, insulting our allies for daring to tell the truth, after we had decided to go with the lie.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I remember. It was like a different America...

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Many causes have said, "Never Forget"

The world really needed Gore in 2000, there might of been time to do something, but now I don't know, we lost 20 or 30 years on climate change.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Humanity has its faults. It didn't help that Clinton was not an overly moral man when it came to sex.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

No it didn't, it would also be nice if America were a bit more mature too, it was like high school and fart jokes for a while there, I blame him and the media, they should of said, so what?

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Clinton fed the fire. He should have said that his sex life was his own affair. No pun intended.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

One of the few mistakes he made politically, of course he didn't know she had that stupid dress. The Supreme Court pulled a dozy with their “it won’t be a distraction” ruling.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

LOL.

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Bullshit, that coup/force majure happened long ago......

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

We don't "let" the sky be blue, it just is (for now), and if Obama loses 2016 won't mean much, becuase a Republican in the White House won't be giving it up, so it will be 2020, and alll we've done is "drill baby drill" I don't think we have that kind of time, I think we most likly lost our best chance in 2000, when "Nader the Traitor" did his thing. Now if we get the GOP below 40 in the Senate then yeah baby, we'll getting stuff done.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The only way we end the wars is get less than 40 GOP in the Senate, then maybe we get change.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I think his above comment that Gore would have won if Nader did not run is indeed true. Gore lost Florida by only 500 votes (or won by 500, it was close either with fraud or without) and Nader had 97,500 votes. If even a small % of those people voted for Gore it would not have been close enough for fraud to occur.

What you say in your first sentence may or may not be true but what the original poster wrote is indeed true.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks for stopping by mooks, I think the truth is all we need.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yeah and if Gore would have stepped down and backed Nader then Nader would have won... What's your point?

If Bush stepped down then Gore would have won too. What is the importance of making such odd "if" statements?

Having options for a president is very important. Being limited to 2 is not the best idea.

I think anytime you win an election by millions of votes and you somehow still don't win... it's fraud. It's my opinion... I happen to disagree with the framer's intention of the electoral college as well as believe that it needs to be changed. Also the situation with the recount in Florida was not good.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Nader would not have won. I voted for Gore but that was basically a vote for Clinton. I would have voted for Bush all day over Nader, in 2000 or 2004. I think a lot of independents would have done the same.

I agree that options are very important. And I agree that the electoral college is a complete joke. But in our 2 party system, which does indeed suck, having Nader in the election took just enough voters from the left from Gore to give Bush the election.

Everything you say is true, and it is unfortunate that we have a system that allowed it to occur but it doesn't change the fact that it did happen. I am not talking principles or stuff like that, I agree with you there. This is just simple math.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Why would you support Bush over Nader?

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I tend to vote a little right of center but I didn't really like Bush so I voted for Gore because I really liked Clinton. Nader was just too far to the left for me, especially in his strong desire for free college education and a federal single payer healthcare system.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Why do you think a free college option is a bad idea?

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I paid my own way through college and dental school and it worked out fine for me but unfortunately too many people waste tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, on degrees which are essentially useless in the current job market. It would just be more wasteful government spending.

I think a better idea is to offer scholarships, awarded on a competitive basis, in those areas of the labor market which are in high demand, whether they be at a traditional 4-year college, community college, or trade school.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

A reasonable response. I also paid my own way through college, but I still think a free option is a good idea. But I would also support a more progressive and much larger scholarship program like you mentioned. That's something I think everyone can support, which is always a great start.

I still think the free option is a good idea. It would encourage competition with schools as well. If you can get it for free, the paid schools better be damn good. Kind of like private schools now, pre-college.

It's funny that you mention those 2 things specifically, because this post is kind of attacking Nader as well as attacking the idea of voting for a candidate like Nader, even though whoever posted this probably supports the idea of free college and real universal healthcare.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I can get on board with that as long as those free schools were teaching people things that benefit themselves, as well as the society that is paying for it. Not all degrees are equal, not even close, so I don't think it is fair for the tax payers to pay for someone to study something just because it may interest them. Once someone gets a good, marketable, degree it opens many doors including the ability to have the money and time to study those things you may find interesting.

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

I can understand being center-right and liking Clintin's morbidly right-wing policies, his (and Hillary's) paving the way for HMO takovers, his suckerpunches to the working class. But how could you really like Clinton as a president? Everything that came out of his mouth was a lie, from campaign to impeachment. The only reason I could imagine voting for Gore is that he would NOT have been exactly like Clinton. I've never been right wing enough to vote Dem, but if I was, I could never vote for Clinton.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What I am saying, is that Ralp[h Nader should have been going all the country supportting Gore and telling everyone the truth instead of a huge le, had he told the truth that Gore was the most enviromently firendly canidate we have ever had, Ralph could of helped, that's what I'm saying. Instead we have propably lost the earth because Nader wanted to strok his ego instead of doing soimething great.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Things Nader was pushing for

Free college.

Universal Healthcare

And he was also pretty environmentally friendly

.... hmmm and he also 100% supports OWS. Yeah he sounds like he was trying to make America a better place... not just stroking his ego.

Like I said, if Gore stepped down and backed Nader then Nader could have won. Your big "if" statement isn't realistic and it doesn't matter now.

If everything is Nader's fault, how did Clinton win twice? How did Obama win in 2008?

From Nader's site "The state of health care in the United States is a disgrace. For millions of Americans it is a struggle between life, health and money. The Nader Campaign supports a single-payer health care plan that replaces for-profit, investor-owned health care and removes the private health insurance industry (full Medicare for all)." - Sounds like something OWS would say.

"The rights of workers have been on the decline. It is time to reverse that trend and begin to give workers, the backbone of the US economy, the rights they deserve. Workers need a living wage not a minimum wage; access to health care and no unilateral reductions in medical benefits and pensions for current employees and retirees. Employers should not be able to avoid these benefits by hiring temporary workers or independent contractors." - Sounds like something OWS would say, but once again this is from Nader. You call it ego, I call them great ideas.

[-] 0 points by Variant (4) 2 years ago

Thank you Mr. Mnemonic, I generally think this factsrfun guy has his head on straight, but Nader was simply the better candidate. I've never been able to be quite as proud of any of my US Presidential election votes as I was when voting for Nader. What is really disgusting is this party bullying and shit-slinging: "Nader the Traitor" etc. It reeks of of the old style of party-worship against which the Left Opposition was so crucially opposed.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Nader is a traitor because he went from truth to lies, when he wanted power for himself, he could of said Gore is better than Bush but I'm better than both, that would of been truth not good poltitics, when it mattered Nader went with good poltitics instead of truth.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

No your wrong about that no way Nader wins with a Gore endorsement, like I have said before I care more about truth, that's all we need.

Truth is Nader thought it was more important that he had his say, than Gore be elected, he has his right to say that, I have a right to my brain that tells me when Nader said there was no difference between the two, Nader became a lying politician like any other and betrayed everything he ever stood for. If he had ran, but told the truth while doing it I would have voted for him.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I've made my point about Nader.

Let me know when Obama stops the wars.

Both parties work for the 1% - a key phrase in OWS

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Lulz

Wow it took him 3 years to end a "dumb war." I voted for the 16 month strategy... not a bunch of lies and rhetoric.

Go read the status of forces agreement with Iraq and look at the date of the withdrawal.

There is a much bigger game going on way over your head here.

So 8 years of war under Bush is bad but a potential 8 years of war under Obama would be good?

End the wars.

Don't forget about all the countries that didn't attack us that Obama has bombed. They don't call them wars under Obama, they call them operations.

If you really want to know why a lot of people in Pakistan and Yemen hate us... it might have to do with all the bombs we've dropped in their countries.

Diplomacy is the answer... not drone strikes.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How about a truce? Here’s something I said to someone, less real than yourself, but it explains where I’m coming from, how about we agree to disagree for now, maybe find some common ground?

“Certainly the more people who care about the movement that are drawn out of politics by your reasoning the movement weakens. Throughout the years every time people wake up and start to see the truth, people come along to lead them off to the Never land of perfection, this is how we got Bush, when I think of the opportunity that was lost to elect the most environmentally friendly person we have ever seen so close at a time when the world desperately need it, and to see it squandered by people deceived by your sort of insidious lies, breaks my heart.”

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What lies have I told?

Relating your comment ending in "insidious lies" to me is implying that I'm lying.

What am I lying about?

I would love to establish common ground.

Blaming me for Bush is funny... I couldn't vote back then because I was a minor... and I would have voted Gore too.

There is a difference between Gore and Obama... it's called being a warmonger.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

There is also a difference between Obama and Romney.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Indeed.

I can tell you one thing they have in common: Pro-War (but their tactics differ)

And you dodged my question.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Note the quotes and the statement overhead, I would have thought you might of caught that, that's why I didn't answer, that's me being polite,

I think I can find daylight between Obama and Romney on the war issue, I don't believe Romney would have pulled out of Iraq, and he has said so.

Even more important, though I feel we should address whatever issues people want to address, we started more as an economic movement, 99% v 1%, not purely an anti-war movement, so considering their positions on economic policies seems at least fair, and there I see large differences.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What lies have I told? Quit stalling and answer the fucking question... or don't make false claims and relate weird quotes to me.

The wars are an economic issue as well. Modern day imperialism and the 1% profiting at the expense of war and death. "Why do they always send the poor?"

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

so you want to act like I brought the fuck out? and you want to pull something from a quote that I clearly stated was sent to someone else, and say that my inference was enough but yours wasn't, in case you haven't caught on by now i don't go for bullshit, sorry this didn't work out we might of had some decent chats but it's clear now your intent, be seeing you.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

OK fuckhead, I was talking to somebody else but every time you say there is no differtence you lie!

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I never once said there is no difference between the two. There are many. I said both parties work for the 1% which is a common slogan in OWS and is a true statement.

Nice name calling by the way.

The wars are an economic issue as well. Modern day imperialism and the 1% profiting at the expense of war and death. "Why do they always send the poor?"

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Do you actually know Gore?

I actually have a place or two, less than 15 minutes from his house. I'll go see how he's doing the next time I'm there....

If you really think Al's not just another one just like the other one, have him run as in Independent.

Newsflash, he's all about the money and for himself.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

BLOWCHUNKS

Demian

Ironboltbruce

Jph

Rebdem

RedJazz43

TrevorMnemonic

VantagePoint250624

[-] -1 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Oh, are you trying to say Gore and maybe even the Clintons have shared much of their amazing wealth with you?

I didn't think so.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Took mine from the trust fund babies back in the 90's it was easy then, so in a way yes that's exactly what I'm saying, more like Clinton gave America an ecomoney where anybody with a brain could get rich.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

This means nothing now.

You can't handle a mess if your hands are closed in a finger point.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It means everything in Nov, there are people on here that say Obama goes to war so you can't vote for him, in 2000 Nader said they take corporate money so they are all the same, people say that today, I don't know if this movement will do anything or not, if we stick to the truth we have a chance, if Nader had told the truth, that Gore was a 100 times better than Bush but still not as good as he wanted then hell I might of voted for him, McCain was going to take AZ anyway.

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

Truth: you have no idea what Gore would have done as President. Truth: either Romney or Obama will be elected. Unfortunately.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

But I saw his movie, and if you are so blind that you have no ideal then maybe you should study a bit more before you vote.

[-] 1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

Yeah, we'll Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize too.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That's a very good point, do you think he will get another for ending the Iraq War?

[-] 1 points by trader (9) 2 years ago

If 'ifs' and 'would haves' made any difference now, you might have a point. But they don't.

And besides the chronological error in your third 'truth', you can look at it two ways - your comment reeks of pessimism (that would be the optimist in us), or 'okay, so what are we going to do about it?' (which is the activist part).

What are you getting at?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Sorry about that date, can't fix it,so what are you having problems with, do you think that if Ralph Nader had barnstomed the country in support of the most enviromently friendly canidate we have ever had, that had a chance of winning, instead of pulling 100,000 votes away in FL, it's not "wishs" and "ifs" it's a fact. So you want to not support an imperfect Obama and give us Romney, been there done that.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Q: How about a little truth?

A: 9/11 Truth: 19 Arabs armed with box-cutters did not bring down three of the world's tallest buildings at near freefall speed and blow a Tomahawk missile-sized hole in the side of the world's most well protected building without the defenders of either getting off so much as a spitball in response.

Next Question?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

well well you are stupid aren't you, but hey welcome aboard, should I just start out by calling you pussy or do you want to dance for a while first?

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I am confident you don't either.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'm sure your confident about a lot of things, I'm sure you were confident invading Iraq was the right thing to do, at least we finially got a man in the White House and brought that punk Bin Laden to justice, Bush made us look like such whimps for 8 years.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

First, it's Ralph Nader. Second, truth is relative, unless you believe in an absolute, such as a divinity.

I believe Al Gore would have been a better President than George W Bush, but that's certainly debatable.

As for the lies that got us here, I believe people did that: some actively, some passively.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Go ahead debate it, tell me how you think Bush was better than Gore and vice versa, I'll start Gore would not have drilled in AK.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I didn't say Bush was better, since that's a moot point; Gore has never been President.

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy): a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Sounds like a (R)epelican't dream..........:)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The curse of being King, oh my!

[-] -1 points by lobbypoo321 (1) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

what are you talking about-bama never tells the truth-ah, but bad is good good is bad

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

keep believing the lies, and keep the 1% in power

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

Exactly what lies are you talking about? Are you at all interested in a serious conversation? Do you have any knowledge about what OWS is all about and how it functions on a day to day basis?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure it's about how less than 1% of this country controll almost all of the poltitic power and I know that the Republicans have worked and continue to work night and day to protect the power of that 1%, it has become the only cause for which the Republicans will shut down the country. I know I have been talking about these things for thirty years, I don't know if OWS is a flash in pan or there are serious people involed, we will find out when we see how many Republicans lose their seats.

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

Of course I would not take issue with the fact that the Republican Party is a reactionary institution. I don't know any OWS activist that would. That's not really the point. The fact is that it is the Democratic Party now that controls the White House, which to say it is the Democratic Party that controls the US military. Which is to say right now that it is the Democratic Party that is in charge of US imperialism. Further and of more immediate interest to local OWS general assemblies, most local muncipal administrations that have evicted OWS encampments and unleashed police brutality on OWS are local Democratic admninistrations and even where the Republicans control local politics they are getting advice on how to smash OWS from an FBI and a Department of Homeland Security controlled by a Democratic Administration. Of course the Republican Party is no friend of OWS, but neither is the Democratic Party.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So what you are saying is that, for right now, we need to give the country back to the GOP.

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

Not at all. What I am saying right now is that the most important thing for OWS activists to be doing is building OWS, not helping some candidate of whatever party get elected. I'm not even saying not to vote on election day. After all, that only takes a few minutes. I am saying that as a movement we shouldn't get distracted by electoral politics right now, and that our main task, our primary task, our exclusive task ought to be about building our movement. Even to the extent that people do choose to vote on election day, and many OWS activists will, I see that as a personal choice and not something that OWS as a movement should be concerned with or will be concerned with.

This latter point is most important. So far as I am aware, no local general assembly has taken a position of any kind on electoral politics. I could be wrong about that but I haven't seen anything like that and even if a couple of general assemblies here and there are taking a position on electoral politics I really don't see that resonating with the movement as a whole and from my point of view I think that is a good thing.

If there is a serious movement among a significant number of general assemblies to take a position on the election I would be most interested in such a development, not because I oppose it. In truth I don't think I could have much influence over such a development one way or another. But I am interested in the decision making processes of our movement.

To the best of my understanding, nationally right now the main focus is on building for the May Day manifestation and I expect, after that the focus will be on both re-establishing encampments and a mass mobilization at both major political conventions.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I looked over what you said, I'm pretty sure i got it right.

So if we are successful in pulling true liberals from the D's you don't think more R's will be elected? Or you don't think that matters? Or is that what you are working to accomplish?

This morning’s best response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chagwk0IyA0

This one comes from about 25 years back, some of us have been at it a while.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Man made climate change is a figment of your imagination. It is a Marxian doctrine to get you to hate Capitalism. Get real already.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

This one is twisted, even for you Dell.

Sound like a sound blurb from Glenn Beck.

Just as devoid of veracity too.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago
[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Here's something from actual scientists.

They aren't concerned with making a movie, to make a buck off of it.

They are concerned with facts.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-close-to-becoming-ir

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Skepticism is a good thing, though it helps if it's done by someone who has the knowledge to be one.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

And Sourchwatch is the authority how? Both sides of any issue can spin it any way they want to appeal to their supporters. The point is - dont make any radical changes that might be impactful to peoples actual lives before you know what you are doing. Everyone has an agenda. Even the virtuoso's on your side. http://windfallthemovie.com/index_1.html

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Everyone has an agenda???

Only in the world of conse(R)vatives.

Peoples lives have already been impacted by corporate malfeasance, all over the world.

I have yet to hear you complain.

All you do is attempt to change direction, in an attempt to avoid reality .

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

keep believing that stuff - you will be a big success someday.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What stuff is that?

Care for some more stuff from actual scientists?

You know, instead of hacks that fit your "agenda"?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-west-antarctic-ice-shelves-seams.html

At least I don't believe the liars you do.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so the scientists who support your argument are the only scientists out there? How do you know the scientists that support your agenda are not the hacks?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Leave it to you to not answer a simple question, and then ask a convoluted one, based on assumption.

I provided some facts, you provided agendas.

You should answer your own question.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what facts? some link lol! Anyone can produce a link to say anything. What's the simple question again? let me take another stab at it.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Are you really that lost?

That confused? You can't tell the difference between science and pundits?

I provided links to respected scientific sites.

You provided links to agenda driven movies.

Please note the difference.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Heritage?? You really do like propaganda..........:)

No comment needed for their BS.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Canada_Free_Press

Nothing but lies.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what gives your sources such authority? What about the emails? looks like a hoax to me based on thoe emails. Or is that a lie too lol!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Info from an unpublished article.

How did you manage to find Canada's version of FLAKESnews?

It appears to only take into account CO2, so there will be answers to this published after it comes comes out.

There's this thing called peer review, and it matters.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yada yada yada - I can find anything you want - that took about five seconds. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/02/climategate-ii-new-leaked-emails-cast-doubt-on-climate-change/

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The moon is green cheese, there are dragons over the edge of the ocean, rain is the gods tears and thunder their laughter. Hey this is fun let’s do some more.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790&feature=related

Here is what your pal Noam has to say about Obama.......

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is a year old, first off yes we would be in much better shape all over if Nader had supported Gore in 2000, being this is where we are, both the wars that were ongoing have date certain end dates since this was recorded, Gitmo should be closed, however I am not sure that closing Gitmo is worth giving the White House to the GOP, that means we open more Gitmos, and so far OWS has not indicated that they would be there to help fight the fight if Obama took it on, no one does this alone, not even the President.

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Oh and in the last year you are saying obama has performed much more like all the fools who believed in him expected him to do? NDAA.... a bit of crossing over other constitutional lines with martial law stuff.... should I continue?

How many nations have US troops there and killing?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Mostly I just say Romney will be much worst if elected....

If Nader had supported Gore, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

You have got to be kidding.......... again.... it doesn't matter who buys the office this time or didn't back then...... the corporate owned US would still have fought the same wars and 2012 election will make no difference in what all happens next.

One would have to be a lunatic conspiracy theorist, without anything but wishful thinking to support their delusions, to know the reality of this "nation's" finances, and what is taking place daily, and still believe that any semblance of democracy exists in the USA, or that even a landslide victory for either candidate will assure anything different than the same tyranny.

Not even a die hard shill for the GOP or DNC could be so blatantly blind and blissfully ignorant as to be unable to connect the simple dots.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How blind do you have to be, to think President Gore would have had the same energy policies?

How stupid do you have to be to think energy policy doesn't matter?

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

And he would have conducted exactly the same imperialist foreign and military policy as does his fellow party member Barak Obama. And like his fellow party member Barak Obama he would have used the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to help local Democratic administrations crush OWS.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Don't forget Ralph Nader helped to put Bush in office and anything Obama deals with as a result is the fault of every person who voted Nader, just as much as Obama or Bush.

Now you were saying Gore would have done nothing to address global warming or were you saying global warming doesn't matter, I didn't catch which?

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

Ralph Nader didn't get Bush in office any more than any other candidate other than George Bush got George Bush in office. Do we not live in a democracy? Is it not the right of anyone who qualified and who has sufficient support to run for the office of President, and is it not everyone's democratic right to vote for whomever they want for President? Is that not what representative democracy is supposed to be all about? And the fact is, it was the Green Party, not the Democratic Party, that challenged the outcome of the Florida election. The spineless Gore campaign in particular was content to leave well enough alone rather than create the possibility of a Constitutional crisis until the Green Party dragged them into the struggle kicking and screaming.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

He could have vigorously supported Al Gore if he had, a 100.000 in FL would have heard him and there would not have been a President Bush or Iraq War, now that is the truth, you can pretend it's not, but that's how we got in this mess.

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

There is a lot going on here. It is not just about Nader. It is about the Green Party who urged him to run and about the three and a half million people who chose to vote for him and more importantly the 130,000 people who actively worked for him. Do or do not ordinary citizens have the right to make choices about their lives and who they choose to vote for? Is that not what democracy is all about. The millions of people who chose to vote for him might have chosen otherwise, but they didn't the tens of thousands of people who actively worked for him and got those millions of people to vote for him might have chosen otherwise, but they didn't. That, as we say in the movement, is what democracy looks like. And that is what real democratic leadership looks like. Not the choice of a single person, but people working collectively in their own percieved best interest. Ultimately, it seems to me, that your attachment to the Democratic Party is not very democratic.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

As far as I'm concerned you got a right to shoot yourself in the foot, but I recommend against it.

[-] -3 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Ok, despite my appalling stupidity, I fully understand your position.

There are a few things however, that I do know,

Gore's personal energy policy and hedonistic lifestyle of vulgar excesses

AND

it makes not one tinker's damn who buys the office as the POTUS, Congress and the entire US government machine is absolutely owned by the families of which it can never even repay the interest on it's long standing and painfully increasing debt.

The US government only serves to extract wealth for those who own it and it's worked that way for a long time as people generally only see reality for the short window of time in which they are alive, or give a shit.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Of course there was that 15 months when we didn't add to the debt, but the GOP took care of that fast enough, guess we might as well put more of them in office.

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Wait, you keep harping on those 15 months as if they are some kind of empirical bench mark of proof.

Does the GOP currently control the Whitehouse or Congress?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Might not be that big a deal to you balancing the budget and all, but hasn't happened at any other time in 40 years, we got to get rid of a lot of Republicans if we want to do something like that again.

[-] -3 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

But wait, I actually watched all the last round of budget discussions broadcast from DC......... you didn't did you?

The owners are not going to have their DC government reduce BORROWING, making the interest payments current or anything like the USA being not indebted to them.

D or R does not matter, all you have to do is watch the DC charades with open eyes, ears and mind.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Get the R's below 40 in the Senate and see what happens, maybe we can't do this but maybe we can.

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Really? Are you paid by the DNC to perpetuate the myth that democracy exists and all people have to do is vote correctly?

D's have the Whitehouse and the House of Congress......... now how many trillions does the D budget want to add to the deficit? No, the R suggestion probably isn't any better.

Do you see any D's actually resisting any fascism that sails through all three halls/houses without any problems?

I refuse to even acknowledge entities such as yourself or any of your pleas for help. Vote in D's or R's, you simply must know it will make ZERO difference.

The USA will continue war and never get out of amazing debt while DC will even accelerate the pace of funneling wealth, extracted from the working slaves, straight to the elite via all manners of scams.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This morning’s best response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chagwk0IyA0

This one comes from about 25 years back, some of us have been at it a while.

[-] -3 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Yeah, I bet you love you some cockburn.

So the DNC pays you in Valtrex?

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28248) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

As true then as it is now: ( Thanks factsrfun )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chagwk0IyA0

Why do you think that is?

Could it be lack of involvement by the people?

Could it be no accountability to the people?

Could it be a lack of proper communication from the people?

Stand-up Speak-out.

Band together in clear communication to our government. Educate them as well as each other.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And all cars have four tires and you can die in any of them. Guess it doesn't matter which one we buy, that's your point?

[-] -1 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Had you said all cars with four wheels, driving on DC's roads, will indeed harm only the passengers while the drivers and cars are unscathed, you'd be closer to a valid analogy.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'll have to check Nader's book see how he put it, though it seemed to me back then he did see a difference.

[-] -1 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Back then?

Back then, and likely much further back then is very relevant to why DC's government is exactly how it is today.

Check out Ross Perot's debates with some of the elites "back then" and it was a short enough "back then" as to possibly be deemed relevant by even you.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Ross Perot? Really? So a billion don't get you into the elite club?

[-] -1 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

I didn't and don't agree with his entire platform, shillmeister, however, he did promise to destroy the halls of congress and replace it with direct democracy, most likely it would have been rigged since he indeed owned the viable technology to make it happen, but, it beats the fuck out of the nonsense garbage you and your other DNC shills want people to believe will fix things.

And by the way, who has run before or since that promised they would give the government back to THE PEOPLE and do the fucking job without accepting a penny of compensation?

You'll never hear any D's even hint of giving the government back to The People.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This morning’s best response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chagwk0IyA0

This one comes from about 25 years back, some of us have been at it a while.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Good comment, you start off with a preimise that you are "appalling stupid" and go on to prove it, well done.

[-] -3 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

You prove what you are, nothing but a forum troll for the DNC as well as a repulsive federalist.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This morning’s best response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chagwk0IyA0

This one comes from about 25 years back, some of us have been at it a while.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I wouldn't blame you for not noticing that the Iraq war ended, if you were just one of the sheep, but someone on here should know better, should I mark you down as troll?

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Why would I care what YOU consider me to be?

You're very naive if you think the only relevant world events having a very pronounced affect on your today's reality have taken place only during the period of time that you have recollection, or were even alive.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

wow man that's deep

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and so your point is that Romney will be so much better, yeah, I lived through Bush, sell it somewhere else

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

Not at all, the reality is that it won't matter........

our congress and nation is owned

http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6890) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is from spring 1993 before Clinton and the heroes of the Democratic party passed the bill that balanced the budget.

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

1993? Really? Nah.... 1933 and the BK has never been discharged. The US is owned so get over your bi-party idiocy and accept the truth as you'd have to be blind not to see it manifest itself before you very eyes and think something else was the cause.

"It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States." "