Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I hate lying lefties who are perpetually WRONG

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 6, 2012, 12:10 p.m. EST by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Just more divide and conquer, ehh Zen?

For those that don't understand why i created this thread....

check this out: http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-hate-lying-righties-who-are-perpetually-wrong/

234 Comments

234 Comments


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

Do you really think the banks are controlled by lefties? The corporate oligarchy IS the right. The climate change deniers ARE the right. The austerity pushers ARE the right. Those who characterize the poor as lazy freeloaders ARE the right.

THEY are the liars. THEY are who OWS stands against.THEY are the ones who come here to troll.

Divide and conquer? Zen?

You are out of your friggin' mind, BFT.

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

I find zen to be very reasonable

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

I do too. I can't say the same of the OP.

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

I find ZenDog and epa1nter to be overly biased toward Obama just because they are democrats.

Sorry but Obama is a war monger who loves appointing Monsanto to the FDA.

I'm a liberal and I do not support anyone who chooses war over diplomacy and continues the Bush war legacy. Everyone responsible for 9/11 is dead. Yet Obama continues to make speeches like Bush "They're still out to get us." ...better spoken of course... Back in the day the democrats called that "Fear Mongering." Now that Obama does it, it's just the truth in their eyes.

It doesn't get too much more liberal than the ACLU, so I will use links from them to back my point.

ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

Obama also supports ACTA

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/

Obama, Monsanto, and the FDA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

The list of reasons of why I can no longer support Obama goes on. This is my newest batch though.

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

somewhere along the line change turned into hurry up and wait

both parties created that

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

No doubt that the GOP is a complete fraud. But people need to keep in mind that we do not have a republican president at the moment, therefore my commentary about the president will be solely based on Obama.

And to the people downvoting my comment, you only prove my point about how biased you are toward Obama. Those are facts listed there. The ACLU is a credible and great organization. They also hold no bias which is why I have a lot of respect for them. Always for the greater good of civil liberties and to uphold justice and reason.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

the ACLU is a left wing biased group.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26668) 2 years ago

Do you have a link for that "fact"?

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

Your argument is invalid. They are calling out the Obama administration, which many people consider LEFT WING.

They have filed lawsuits against both the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

Let me repeat the links from my previous comment.

ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

You were saying... ?

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

The Obama administration is right wing. I'm a liberal, and I like the ACLU. They don't like Obama. I consider them left wing just like me. What's wrong with that?

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

i was saying the aclu has a left wing bias.

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

Civil liberties are left wing?

... The bill of rights, is that left wing too?

"To defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." - Is that left wing? Nope. THAT'S JUSTICE.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

whers does the aclu stand on the obama forcing the church to go against its beliefs , forcing them to pay for birth control and abortion. it's a violation of the 1st amendment.

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

Forcing the government to change a law due to religious beliefs is asking the government to violate the 1st amendment in the constitution.

The government shall make no law respecting any religion.

If the catholic workers don't want birth control, they don't have to get birth control. No one is forcing anyone to take birth control. It is just simply saying their insurance policies would cover birth control if a person wanted birth control pills.

GOP propaganda = what you're talking about.

This is also a topic i do not care about in the slightest. Birth control pills are not a big deal to me.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

the govt is forcing catholic insitutions to PAY for abortions and birth control which goes against the church doctrine and the 1st amendment.

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

If a church believed in sacrificing the elderly to their God, it would not be unconstitutional to outlaw murder.

Your argument is invalid.

Also if they are "true catholics" they can just not ask for the birth control. No one is forcing anyone to use birth control. Obviously a lot of catholics use birth control. No one is stopping the church from believing birth control is wrong.

This issue is between the women and their doctor.

[-] -1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

So the ACLU is right wing?

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

No.

It's bipartisan.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

We live on the ground. Why do we need wings?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

That Epa guy is a Democratic Party shill put here on this board to influence the conversation. He is in cahoots with Puffy, who is also involved with the Party. Don't kid yourself, they need the votes and Obama has a machine like no other. He was trained in Chicago politics and is ruthless. You think Bush was the warmonger, hardly. Obama will break every rule in the book. You ought to hear his language behind closed doors.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

The corporate oligarchy is neither right wing nor left wing. They serve their own interests and will take any route to that end, either R or D. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indusall.php?cycle=2008 Obama got more campaign contribs from banking firms than Mccain. Please don't engage in identity politics, it hurts our movement if we sound like a bunch of democrat partisans.

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

Sorry, the corporate oligarchy is, by definition, right wing. There are right wing Democrats, too. Left and right are defined by actions, not parties.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Well... Maybe in the same way that Obama is right wing. Do you think Warren Buffet is right wing? He supported Obama. And if you mean they are by definition economically right wing, that is not entirely true either. Corporations consistently lobby to help craft new regulations, which they can use to their advantage.

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

I think Obama is slightly to the right of Nixon. Corporations crafting legislation for their advantage to the detriment of the common good is a very good working definition of right wing.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Not exactly.... most sociologists and political scientists consider economic freedom on a scale of left to right, left having the most interference in the market, right having the least. Have you seen the "political compass" test? they explain it better than I did.

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

The left's interference with the market is to protect the common good. It regulates polluters, for example. It supports anti-trust laws. The right interferes with legislation to protect its own interests, the common good be damned. By definition, the left is more about the collective good. (It is why the Right accuses them of being Socialists.) By definition, the right is about the individual alone, and that includes individual industries or businesses. The 1% is the Right, simply because it takes everything for itself and rejects any responsibility to the broader society.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I didn't say the left's interference with the market was bad, I said that most corporations support additional interference in the market, because they use it to their advantage. Secondly, can you really characterize all of the 1% as the right? Obama is a 1%er, so is George Soros, Warren Buffet, and Michael Moore. I'm not saying these people are bad or anything, but can you really say they are "the right" because of the amount of money they make?

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

The 1% does not, and never did, refer to individuals. It is a meme, signifying the fact that 1%of the country owns 43% of the wealth. It is a symbol of the unfairness of income inequity. In terms of that, the 1% is, by definition, the Right.

Obama is NOT to the left by a long shot. His policies are largely to the right of even Nixon. He has continued to wage two wars, appointed most of his economics team from either the Fed and and Wall Street or directl from the Bush administration, his health care plan was written by the Heritage foundation and the insurance companies, and on and on and on. He is the most conservative Democratic president since Harry Truman.

There hardly exists a left in this country any more. It started dying the day they stopped fighting Reagan's bullshit,the day they allowed him to dismember the air safety controllers union, when a Democratic president (Clinton) ended "welfare as we know it". The entire country has shifted so far to the right that what was considered extreme far right in my youth is now called "centrist". Money, among other things, has changed everything, and the party that once was the seat of the left might as well be Republicans.

Make that, past republicans: the current ones aren't simply on the right, they are so extreme that they can only be called proto-fascists or corporate oligarchs at this point. They are actually passing laws written directly by corporations, and they are so divorced from reality they are completely incoherent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/opinion/the-big-money-behind-state-laws.html?ref=opinion

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/opinion/krugman-severe-conservative-syndrome.html?ref=opinion

One of the reasons for OWS is to rekindle the flame of a left that was once vibrant and is now nearly dead.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

When I watch C-span and other political theater, I don't see the left blocking high earning people from seeing their taxes raised. For this reason, I believe The Guardians Of Privilege (GOP) are the party of the rich's interests. So because i come to the debate from this perspective, I welcome the rich who are for the Democrats, even if a claim can be made that they do it for their own self interests. Taxes going up and cuts in the entitlements, both high earner and low earner, have to be part of a compromise. If we can't begin paying our own way, as a nation, then there will be no certainty in the market. Call the next few years the negotiating era, and I ain't siting with the ones who bailed out the bankers then fought for their earnings to be taxed at low rates. I contribute their lousy management of the economy and their refusal to pay their fair share as the reason for the wars and the debt.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

"and I ain't siting with the ones who bailed out the bankers then fought for their earnings to be taxed at low rates. I contribute their lousy management of the economy and their refusal to pay their fair share as the reason for the wars and the debt."

I agree completely. You're referring to politicians in general, right? Both parties exhibit the behavior you are describing. I think they are all acting like despicable brats, in both parties.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I'll give you that. But you have to acknowledge that those politicians did what they did not only for themselves but for a select few private citizens.

[-] 2 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Yeah, absolutely. The two parties are just the foosball men of politics, the rich buy their side of the table and compete to see who can rape the country the hardest. It's like a game to them, they really don't care which party they buy as long as they are on their side.

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Just the fact you bring up climate change shows your indoctrinated thought process. YES there is climate change. Always was and always will be. It is not because of starting our cars in the morning or because of one of your neat little lefty terms, "carbon footprints"

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

Your denial of human cause shows that you swallowed the Koch. The oil corp's propaganda machine made you swoon.

[-] 1 points by mako (42) 2 years ago

And you have swallowed the Marxian notion of evil Capitalism destroying the planet lol! are you kidding?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Are you another Blind Marching supporter of the corrupt status-quo?

mako

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined Feb. 4, 2012

If So.

Your other hole digging friends will be happy to see you. I think you guys get lonely digging your holes, it's nice to have friends.

[-] 0 points by mako (42) 2 years ago

status quo as in what depending on middle east oil instead of drilling here? Prohibited by the loons on the left. Status quo as in under utilizing Nuclear power? Loons on the left preventing Nuclear.

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

Look, you want to take it up the ass from the oil companies, fine. Just don't expect me to hold the KY for you.

[-] 2 points by mako (42) 2 years ago

you have a cheaper energy source you want to discuss?

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

So what's your objection, that current solutions are expensive or that all the scientists in the world are supposedly perpetrating some grand conspiratorial hoax to protect their $50,000 dollar a year university jobs?

Make up your teensy weensy mind.

[-] 1 points by mako (42) 2 years ago

I am not making any sense of whatever it is you just said. you must be a genius or high. which is it?

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

Just normal. You, on the other hand, are an idiot.

[-] 1 points by mako (42) 2 years ago

lol!

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

What caused the Ice Age? I don't see any dinosaurs running around? Typical of the narcissistic Liberal minded sheeple, believing that they are all powerful enough as humans to affect not just the earth in such a major way, but the galaxy too I assume..

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

Go ahead, don't believe the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists themselves. Typical corporate shill, regurgitating oil company propaganda, and too arrogant and stupid to realize you've swallowed something nasty.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Hey guess what, you are a fool and yes some banks are owned by lefties. I am shocked you don't get this thread it really speaks volumes about your "myopic". LOL Separating the left and right is divide and conquer. All i did is point it out by mimicking his thread using a different team.

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

No, the right is the enemy. They are proto-fascists. Confusing them with allies is what will divide and conquer. You are naive if you believe otherwise.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That makes no sense. Fascists are for a strong central government. Nobody I know on the right is in favor of that.

[-] 3 points by flip (4954) 2 years ago

i was with you up to this one - the right does not want a strong central gov't?? bush and reagan were radical statists - they both increased the power of the state dramatically. by that i mean the violent arm of the gov't - the military and police etc (and spending!). if by saying the government you mean social security and public education etc you are correct but i think that is a misreading of history. here is noam - "As for "neoconservatism," it is not clear what the term is supposed to mean. In practice it is the program of radical statist reactionaries, who believe that the US should rule the world, by force if necessary, in the interests of the narrow sectors of concentrated private power and wealth that they represent, and that the powerful state they forge should serve those interests, not the interests of the public, who are to be frightened into submission while the progressive legislation and achievements of popular struggle of the past century are dismantled, along with the democratic culture that sustained them. Within elite sectors, there is a great deal of concern over their brazen arrogance, remarkable incompetence, and willingness to increase serious threats to the country and to transfer a huge burden to coming generations for short-term gain. Their war in Iraq, for example, was strongly opposed by leading sectors of the foreign policy elite, and perhaps even more strikingly, the corporate world. But the same sectors will continue to support the Bush circles, strongly. It is using state power to lavish huge gifts on them, and they basically share the underlying premises even if they are concerned about the practice and the irrationality of the actors, and the dangers they pose.

Alam: Many leftists and liberals, including NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman and ZNet's Michael Albert, believe that Bush represents a radical departure from previous administrations, purportedly in its ambitions to roll back much of the progressive work forged through social struggle since the New Deal, including social security, civil liberties, and welfare. The majority sentiment on the left is that, subsequently, anyone is preferable to Bush and therefore rallying behind the Democrats is a necessity.

Some, however, disagree. Lance Selfa of the International Socialist Review recently argued that the so-called neoconservative clique has its roots in the right wing of the Democratic Party of the early 1970s and that the Democratic candidates differ only in rhetoric and not goals, citing Dean's refusal to rule out use of preemptive force on Iran or North Korea and his endorsement of the Star Wars program. Additionally, in the recent Avocado Declaration, Peter Camejo of the Green Party wrote that the Democrats are a party of "defeatism" whose message is "nothing is possible but what exists." What is your own take on these arguments and the situation surrounding upcoming elections?

Chomsky: The arguments are not inconsistent. Both are basically correct, in my opinion. The political spectrum is narrow. Elections are essentially bought, and the democratic culture is severely eroded. Furthermore, the population is aware of it, by and large, but many feel helpless. It is also a very frightened country, particularly men, polls indicate. That has been true for a long time, and those fears are exploited by unscrupulous leaders to divert the attention of the people they are kicking in the face, not to speak of what they are doing to coming generations. Nevertheless, though differences are not very large, they do exist. The current incumbents may do severe, perhaps irreparable, damage if given another hold on power - a very slim hold, but one they will use to achieve very ugly and dangerous ends. In a very powerful state, small differences may translate into very substantial effects on the victims, at home and abroad. It is no favor to those who are suffering, and may face much worse ahead, to overlook these facts. Keeping the Bush circle out means holding one's nose and voting for some Democrat, but that's not the end of the story. The basic culture and institutions of a democratic society have to be constructed, in part reconstructed, and defeat of an extremely dangerous clique in the presidential race is only one very small component of that.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26668) 2 years ago

Except for Reagan and a couple of Bush's?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

when I call the right a bunch of Fascists, I'm talking about the politicians, all except the TEA party lot. The people who believe in a small federal government are usally just taken for a ride and vote for the republican fascist party. You can't be the Guardians Of Privilege, if you don't use the Federal gov't as your personal piggy bank. That is why I rally for the Democrats. If I have to choose between a Socialist or a Fascist, being they both grow the gov't, I'm going to rally that they grow it for me.

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

Your distortions of meaning for rhetoric's sake is amusing, but are distortions nonetheless.

The right is ALWAYS trying to limit civil rights via a strong government. It reserves all rights to those with the most money. The right has tried to hold back voting rights for Blacks, for women before that, for a women's right to choose, for gay rights, for anyone but the millionaires. It's notion of limited government is only to limit social services, but there are no limits to the military to fight wars for oil companies.

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

a realize these left right terms come over the collective consciousness of the populous

and knowledge saved is knowledge gained

I don't know why a strong government would limit civil rights

the government is supposed to protect civil rights

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

A clarification: A strong government is favored by both the left and right. The right want is to be small and strong to protect the status quo: the wealthy elite and the military. The left want it to be larger and strong to care for the disenfranchised and promote change.

The assertion that the right does not favor strong government is a lie: they favor it, only to keep the the wealthy elite in power.

[-] 1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

It was the dems that were against integration , the republicans were for it.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

hehehehe ... how old are you ?

[-] 1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

what does my age have to do with this? read for yourself about faubus , wallace, fullbright, gore sr.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

was not meant to be disrespectful... it has to do with whether or not you were alive during the kkk rallies of the 60's

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You have heard of the Southern Democrats? How smart are you?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

hmmm... maybe not smart ... i was hoping I was asked how old ... so I could reply 28 ... ;)

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

Nope, that's another lie. Southerners of both parties opposed the Civil rights act, regardless of party, but the higher percentage of opposition was from Republitards. Northers of both parties supported the Civil rights act, but the higher proportion of support was from Democrats. After 1965, the Southern "Dixiecraats" bolted the democratic party and became Republitards. Nixon's later Souhern Strategy (repeated by Reagan and Bush 1, cemented the deal. the appeal to racism they used worked.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The two highest African American's appointed to a US administratino were executed by Republican presidents. So if Reagan was appealing to racism, he didn't get the message.

The issue was states rights just like it is with helathcare. People liuke you who don't like Catholics want to push your agenda on the rest of us.

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

States rights is a stance begun by Southern Secessionists to maintain slavery. The Civil war is over. You lost. get over it.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

States rights is as old as the constitution.

How is this OWS thing going for. Have you rampaged any City Halls lately. Not getting your way, just go vandalize something. That will do it.

How's that increase spending bill going. Oops, can't get it through Congress because the Tea Party blocked it. Now that's a real movement. They didn't have to vandalize anything. Put down the drink and take a shower.

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

Yup, the Tea party is very good at doing nothing and forcing everyone else to do nothing, too.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

the dems opposed the 13th , 14th, and 15th amendments, dems oppsed the emancipation proclamation,they opposed the civil rights acts of 1866,1957 and 1960, FDR's first appointment to the supreme court ws a life long KKK member ( hugo black) fdr oppsed integration in the armed forces. there's more if you want .

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

In the 19th century, I would have been a Republican. In the 21st, I would rather be shot.

And, btw, the voting in 1957 and 1960 was along North/South lines. Republitards from the South voted against Civil Rights by a higher percentage than did even the Dixiecrats, and voted against it in the North by a higher percentage than did democrats from there. Those racist southern democrats have since all joined the Republitard party. They're all yours now. (When Bush 1 won his first congressional seat n Texas, the democratic Speaker of the House called him personally to thank him for attracting all the formerly democratic racists to the Republitard party! Hahaha!).

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

robert byrd (d- w.virginia) personally filibustered the civil rights act of 1964 for 14 hours to keep it from passing, sam ervine and al gore sr. were the chief opponents against the act. jfk voted against the 1957 civil rights act. jfk opposed the 1963 civil rights on washington by MLK.

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

That's correct. They were Southern Democrats, exactly as I said. It was also a Southern Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, and Mid-Western one, Hubert Humphrey, that pushed Civil Rights through, alienating their own party and sending most Dixiecrats into the waiting and welcoming arms of the Republitards.

Since you apparently missed it the first time, here is the breakdown again:

Republitards from the South voted against Civil Rights by a higher percentage than did even the Dixiecrats, and voted against it in the North by a higher percentage than did democrats from there.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

He knows That. If you argued for the republicans, he would argue for the democrats. You should thank B7 for the football game and TV postings.

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

"You should thank B7 for the football game and TV postings."

And he hasn't been globally banned yet? Do you think the Mods aware of this?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

He is using proxy servers from over seas and keeps switching IP addresses. Thats why he can't watch youtube videos.

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

Jesus. What a fuck! Thanks for the head's up.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

the 1964 roll call tally on the civil rights act. In the House 64% of the dems ( 153 yes, 91 , no) voted against it, while 80% of the republicans ( 136 voted yes,35 voted no) voted for it. In the senate, 68% of the dems ( 46 voted no, 21 voted yes) 82% of the republicans voted to enact it ( 27 voted yes, 6 voted no).

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

I've already told you about the North/South divide, and also told you about the percentages of both party's votes. You may keep ignoring it, but few others are. You've also got all those racists on your team now, too.. The Democrats got rid of them. You appealed to them. Be proud.

[-] 1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

The racists are alive and well in the democrat party.

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

Hahaha! The Southern Strategy is all yours. Congratulations! It worked. You took 'em, you keep 'em.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

you refuse to acknowledge that dems are a documented party of racists.

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

No, I haven't. Can you actually understand what you read, or are there too many syllables?

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

jesse jackson, al sharpton, conyers, lee, andrew cuomo,lee p. brown, mary berry,bill mckinney, donna brazile,

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

Cool, its random name game now.

Go home, little troll-ie. Enjoy yourself doin' your first cousin some more. (Or is it your sister? Or brother?) Hahaha.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

read about those people, some are professional race baiters, others are just plain ole racists.

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

You are simply a baiter, I addressed your issue, multiple times, but you are too stupid to understand that.

This discussion is over. It's like trying to push a string.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

the right doesn't seek to limit Civil Rights.....and the opposition of voting rights for Blacks and Women came from the Democrat left....

The right to kill a fetus is not a "civil right", and gay's enjoy the same civil rights as all others......marriage is a contract, not a right.....

You are so blinded by your nonsense I am unsure you will ever see the reality of the world, until those who you support finally turn on you and make YOU the object of their tyranny.....

History is filled with examples of people with your myopia......they burned Jews, fed Christians to lions, burned people at the stake, killed, imprisoned and enslaved hundreds of millions for the sake of their ideology of "equality" and fairness, but those things were reserved, of course, only for those who agreed with them....

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The truth is that Limiting Civil Rights came from the Conservative Dems. Not from the Democratic Left.

The Democratic Left is who proposed & passed the Voting Rights Act. There wasn't a single Republican or Conservative Democrat vote on that one. Those Conservative Dems are now Conservative Republicans. Tell the whole truth, not the Half Truth.

The Right to an Abortion is the LAW! Disagree all you want, but it's still the Law!

If Marrage is a contract why can it banned be the Government? If you are a true "Small Government" Conservative why are you for this Government intrusion into a Contract between two consenting adults? Are you Homophobic??? You know what they say about Homophobes, right?

The people who crucified Jews, fed Christians to the lions, etc. WERE ALL CONSERVATIVES!

Jesus was a Liberal! For Pete's Sake!

You are so blinded by your hatered of a Black President that you can't think straight! Take off the Aluminum Hat it aint helping you deal with reality.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

race has nothing to do with dislike for obama, it's about ideology.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you like to homogenize words like the other fool......as if "conservative" or liberal are narrowly defined terms with very specific political meanings....which they are not....

Jesus was a liberal when you consider the governmental controlling body at the time of his life, or the Jewish leadership....BUT, he was a Conservative when it came to the doctrine of the Pentateuch and Jewish law.......

The voting rights act was co-sponsored by Everett Dirksen, who was a Goldwater Conservative......and the voting had a higher percentage of yea's and a lower percentage of nay's by Republicans than Democrats.....How about YOU tell the whole truth instead of misdirected truths......as for the "Conservative" Democrats....as in conserving racial boundaries, NOT conserving the Constitution (which is the meaning of the modern conservative in the USA)....they DO NOT have a place in the Republican Party, that is simply false and fallacious...

The government bans many contracts, and even if the parties are consenting the government feels the need to butt in (something I disagree with) but, as for same-sex marriage, the federal government doesn't ban it.....there are states which approved it, and states which sought to disapprove it, and in the case of California, which is a broadly democrat state....the ban was very popular... I thought you guys wanted more "democracy"....I guess just not when it goes against your ideology...then you desire the tyranny of the state to summarily intervene...

The whole issue is really NOT an issue, the government has no business sanctioning marriage of any sort, and there should be no barring anyone from assigning power of attorney, medical power of attorney, beneficiaries for insurance, etc....

I love the word "homophobic"......as if those who disagree with the behavior of homosexuality are afraid of it, I don't think that is the case.....

In my personal opinion....It's not something I am interested in, in any way....

I am not "afraid" of it, nor do I have any judgement on those who practice it discretely (the same guide I have for opposite-sex,"sexuality"...)

I don't care to see anyone expressing their "sexuality" in public, and I feel that my opinion parallels that of most Americans, we don't care if someone is homosexual, or care if they have a partner, or care if they are happy and like to mention their partner, or if they express themselves with reasonable class and dignity as to gestures of affection and such......but, the brazen and shameless displays such as those expressed in "pride" parades by more flamboyant members of the community and such..... I think those, and similarly....straight couples who act in such flagrant and outrageous ways...are distasteful and classless and have no business in polite society...and I think I would find most Americans on my side....

As for my displeasure and dislike of Barrack Obama...it has nothing to do with his race.....I would have voted for a Thomas Soles, Walter Williams, or going back farther, a Booker T Washington, or Frederick Douglas....in a heartbeat....... It is Barrack Obama's IDEOLOGY that I disagree with, and your assertion to the contrary speaks volumes about the person you are......

Conservative and Liberal can be used in many different ways depending upon the times....to use the definition of a Lockean Liberal to buttress the argument of the greatness of "modern" liberals is a lie, as is to say Jesus was a liberal when it came to Jewish Law....Lockean liberalism is more in -line with Constitutional Conservatism, as is Jesus a Conservative when considering the laws of god and there meaning......and those like YOU would certainly brand Jesus "homophobic" were he alive today....so it's interesting that you brought up those two points in the same comment......

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

Republitards opposed civil rights measures. They were JOINED in their opposition by a minority within the democratic party, the Dixiecrats. Those Dixiecrats fled the party after 1965 and became republitards. Before 1965 there were few Southern republitards. After 1965, because of the Civil Rights Act, the are few who aren't.

The ERA was opposed by Republitards.

Gay marriage IS gay rights. And there is no way to dissemble that. Without it, they don't have the right to joint income tax filings, the ability to adopt children, sign a medical order for their partner, cannot fulfill next of kin duties or enjoy the benefits of next of kin rights, and dozens of other thing that marriage grants. They are denied all those rights, which are civil ones, by being denied the right to enter into the marriage contract. Marriage licenses are issued and enforced by the state.

I never said a women's right to choose was a civil right, I simply listed it as a right.

You just keep believing your lies and distortions. But you should limit where you spew them to the toilet, where they belong.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

HAHAHA...you are apparently full of nothing but lies and distortions.....clearly

Let's start with Everett Dirksen a Goldwater Republican, (read that "conservative")...A man who co-sponsored the voting rights act, and helped write the "civil rights act of 1964"

Both of those Laws received a MUCH larger percentage of yea votes and lower percentage of nay votes from Republicans than from Democrats....and your assertion that they "became" republicans is a common one, but false and incorrect....although there were a few, most remained in the same party, two notable examples are Al Gore Sr....and Robert Byrd...who remained lifelong Democrats and were revered and held in esteem by the democrat leadership long beyond their attempts to block civil and voting rights legislation.....

The FACT is: In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes......

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Fascists are for a strong central government controlling industries and businesses. This is different from the forcing of morality on us. I do have to agree with you on some of those points. I would call those folks the religious right.

Right now both sides are for big government. It is a shame the Libertarian party has no chance of making it.

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

I was using the word in the colloquial sense, as in "asshole." Libertardiansism is the same.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually Libertarian ideology focuses on individual freedom over state control of anything. IT is as far away from right wing as you can get. The core of libertarian ideology appeals to me.

Individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

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

By insisting on unregulated free markets, it is as right wing as you can get. By abrogating any fealty to the social contract, it is as opposed to the left, which advocates common responsibilities and obligations, as it can possibly get.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I guess the problem is that these terms have been so misused for years that it is impossible to pin them down.

Traditionally right wing meant those who sat on the right on the monarch and were pro monarchy. They were for a hierarchical society with a strong government. Over the years the left was regarded as those who want reform and change (progressives) and those who resist change (conservatives). Later people started associating left with Democrats and Right with Republicans. In actuality there are left and right wings in each of those parties. Later people started piling on new meaning like “the religious right” Differences also exist in the Libertarian party. Just like any other party there are different factions. A common misconception is that most Libertarians want no government and no regulations. Another misconception is that wanting free markets means wanting no regulations. This however is not true. “Individuals should be free as long as they do no harm to others”. Polluting a river harms others, stealing someone’s pension is harming others, deceitful lending practices harms others. The real problem with government regulation is it is often misplaced and badly enforced. An even bigger problem is the bail outs. That sends a message that it is OK for you to miss manage your business and take on high risk loans because the government will take money from the middle class and hand it to bank executives so they can still get their bonuses. There should be no such thing as too big to fail.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

where is the "fealty" to the "social contract" by those who consume but yet do not produce? what is their requirement in this so-called "social contract" and what is the limitation we should have on those who can be the beneficiaries of, rather than the providers for, this nonsense of a "Social Contract"...

With 47% of taxpayers paying NO federal taxes (which include deductions for state, local, property, and sales taxes, and for childcare costs and the like...so don't try and use those as foils) and yet still using a disproportionate share of the public services it seems your "social contract" is long on beneficiaries and short on providers......might be time to rewrite it to benefit those who actually pay for the services instead of those who use and consume the largest share of them.....

Feel free to answer clearly without a lot of nonsense...I know that will be difficult.....

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

The requirement of those who consume but don't produce is that they make every good faith effort to produce. The requirement by society at large is to help those people when they CAN'T produce. It is a two-way street. (One that apparently doesn't apply to big banks and wall street).

It is a distortion and intentional misdirection to assert that 47% of people pay no federal taxes. Payroll taxes are federal. What's more, the poor pay MORE as a percentage of their incomes on taxes overall, even if they don't include specifically income taxes.

The nonsense is what you're spouting.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

payroll taxes are insurance premiums.....those who pay them collect on them......and they collect in EXCESS of what they pay, so that doesn't work either.....it's just another bad bargain for those who do pay the bulk of the final bill......we need new actuaries in the federal government...the cost benefit for most who pay is very poor...

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

Payroll taxes are federal taxes. That they function as insurance is true, but they are taxes nonetheless. And the poor get to collect on them less than the wealthy do: they happen to live shorter lives. Nor does it take away from the fact that the poor pay a higher rate of overall taxes, combined federal, state and local, than the wealthy do.

Nice that wealthy don't have to pay the same rate of payroll taxes than the poor do, though, isn't it?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

they do not pay a higher rate of taxes than the wealthy do...that line is simply nonsense......when you factor out the tax deductions, and factor in the subsidies like food stamps, EITC, AFDC, etc......the "Poor" pay zero, and often receive MORE in "refund" than thye paid in withholding (something which NEVER occurs for "the rich") and while there may be some who earn capital gains only on large holdings and may appear to have lower rates that the typical taxpayer, those gains, if they are dividends are taxed beforehand as corporate income, and if they are increases in equities were subject to risk....and gained on money already taxed in the past......

and really, it's a non-issue.....a gains only taxpayer, such as Mitt Romney (since he has been in the news lately) who paid an effective rate of 15% on his federal taxes.....which is a similar effective to a family of four earning as much as 65K with the deductions they are allowed.....

BUT......Mitt Romney paid 3 million dollars in taxes.....he paid more in one year than most families will pay in their entire lives, over a couple generations.....his actual dollar tax payment is massively higher than anything the poor can claim.........

and, the poor and lower middle incomes collect far more in social benefit for their miniscule contributions compared to the massive contributions and little government social benefit used by the wealthy.....no person who pays the full amount of payroll taxes on wages (the only one that is capped is SS) will EVER see that money returned....while those in the bottom half will be subsidized by those same programs funded by the payroll taxes....

You keep beating the drum that people deserve things they haven't earned based on some nonsense "social contract" and see how far it gets you......people who work hard to earn lives that excel the average are waking up to the disparity in their contributions vs benefits

You people think you can rally the poor and downtrodden who were too lazy and uninitiated to rally themselves into prosperity, are in for a rude awakening as the "other people's money" dry's up.....and keep telling them they have no chance to keep them down, and when the bottom finally falls out, and if there is no change in the spending of government and it's "bite" out of the private economy.......it isn't far off.....

We are Greece Octupled or worse when our debts finally get the best of us, and there is no nation in the world big enough to bail us out.......it will be tough times for you "entitlement" types.....those who can, do, and will work hard without complaint will always be OK...but you and those you advocate for will simply perish because you demanded Kobe Beef from those willingly giving you chicken....because you thought is wasn't fair THEY had it, and you didn't.......despite your not earning it...

Sorry that there are benefits to earning more, and the cap on SS is one of them......in the absence of animal or mechanical transportation some people are able to travel farther and faster than others, do largely to the same reasons.....behavior, effort and life choices......do you claim it unfair that I can run a mile in 6:15 and can thus be present for opportunities sooner than someone who doesn't maintain the effort required to do so? It is the same with wealth......it requires a certain behavior, effort, and lifetime of choices to become wealthy, and maintain that wealth....those who don't abide by those rules don't become, or remain wealthy....and there is little on this earth that is MORE fair than THAT......

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

I don't believe the wealthy have earned their money

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

I need say nothing in response. Your post is so full of obvious lies and distortions, so full of naked contempt for the working poor, there need be no rebuttal. It condemns itself.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no, my contempt is for those like you, who shield the poor from the real cause of their troubles by creating straw men for them to hate...while they continue the behavior and action that will determine they remain in the same conditions they find them selves in....rather than change the behavior and improve those conditions......

And....you say nothing because you have nothing to say.......because the reality is what it is...despite your attempts to repaint it to be otherwise....

I know it's possible, I've witnessed it first hand, and experienced it myself....I don't need some foolish notion to tell me about the life of poverty......I know it well, and I know it well enough to know I never wish to return.....nor see anyone I care about experience it's conditions....

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

No, asshole. You think the poor are poor because of flaws in their character. Well, buddy, 50% of all Americans are poor today, living at or near the poverty line. It is NOT a character issue. You are not morally superior to half the population. You do NOT have a better work ethic. Guess what, shithead: the poor work and they work hard. You are merely a self appointed judge, without the slightest idea of what causes or sustains poverty except your completely impoverished ideology of contempt.

YOUR experience in poverty is not everyone's. But you make the most basic, stupid mistake you can: you generalize from the particular. It is completely narcissistic.

The problem with poverty is systemic, not personal character. Asshole.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

The poor are poor because of behavior, NOT character...do you understand the difference? Certainly some have character issues, but as a rule, I wouldn't say that......

As for the 50% of Americans being poor, that is false, misleading and foolish......especially when the criteria of poverty is what it has become, and includes all the "perks" of success and technology so as to sell the version of the truth sold by the poverty pimps....of which, YOU are apparently one.....

Working "HARD" isn't the path from poverty, you can work hard as long as you like, but if your skills are low, and you don't improve them you won't rise.....if your use of the resources you produce is foolish and wasteful you won't rise, if you project your deficiency outward, onto others....then you won't rise. Only by assessing your situation realistically, and improving your behavior can you rise from poverty, and THAT is based on behavior, which is based on your mindset....and IS within one's control......

I am not a judge, I am an observer.......I am not claiming living one way is right or wrong, only different, with different behavior and different results, and regardless of the position a person is in, applying those behaviors and actions consistently, will eventually yield similar results for all who do...

It is YOU who seeks to define people by their weakness and not their strength, not me......and it is not just my experience, it is the combined experience of those I know personally, and those I know by witness of others, and the results are consistent....

The problem with poverty is in assuming the economic result is the cause, rather than the effect.......the economic reality is the result of the behavior, not the cause of it......

When people discover that, they are freed from the constraints of poverty, and can rise above it.......

Your denial of that truth doesn't invalidate it......it only invalidates you...

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

what of property ownership laws?

can humans live on another humans property freely?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Not without permission.

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

so each property owner is their own government over their land

many don't own property

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I would not say they are their own government because they do not have people that own property withing their borders.

Although I do have a set of laws that my children must abide by so in a sense I am the king of my domain. It is certainly not a democracy. That would not work very well in a family situation.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

conservatives ( and tea party people) favor a small govt.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

no... they favor small regulations

[-] 2 points by shooz (26668) 2 years ago

Teabaggers raised my taxes.

Bunch of liars, the lot of 'em!

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

the same rant with no identification of who exactly raised what taxes.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26668) 2 years ago

Same fact, same bunch of pseudo political analysts, proving just how lazy they are.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

still no word on who raised your taxes.

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

stagnant money needs to be recirculated back to the consumer so entrepreneurs have a market to present new products and ideas

this money can be captured and re-released thorough a government tax system on stagnant money

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

What do you consider to be "stagnant money"?

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

money that isn't changing hands

money that is collecting

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

are you against people saving their own money?

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

[-] 2 points by skylar (23) 5 minutes ago

what a person does with their own money is their own business. People should be encouraged to save.My income is more than my out go, i save the difference. Why is that wrong?


because money is needed for resources and and services to be paid for

if all the money in the system is horded,

a few people can control the market by releasing and with holding large amounts

(monopolies underselling small businesses comes to mind )

If a small population controls the majority of the money,

they can dictate the rules of social structure

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

you didn't answer saving money regarding me.i am not a 1%'r. i pay my bills and buy goods. i save to take care of any thing that will come up in the future.

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

http://occupywallst.org/forum/you-troll/#comment-637081

I am suggesting ideas and will not align to one side of the topic

after a certain point, money saved no longer serves just individual wealth and freedom

I would suggest a graduating tax on income rising with income

those who will still make more money after taxes

[-] 1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

what a person does with their own money is their own business. People should be encouraged to save.My income is more than my out go, i save the difference. Why is that wrong?

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

NEO-cons and NEO-libs are the enemy, that's right the fake left and right.

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

Jesus!

Neo-cons are the right, by DEFINTION. Neo-liberals are the right, by DEFINITION. Who the hell do you think they are? The LEFT???? Who do you think is being referred to when by the phrase "the right"?

At least get your definitions straight, for God's sake.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

For sake of argument ill just call them fascists. They use both left wing and right wing polices, the worst of both worlds if you will, to enslave. One more thing id assume you believe the Nazis were right wing, right?

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

The right uses left wing policies? Huh? What kind of doublethink have you got going there?

Neo-conservatism is right wing. Note the "conservatism" part of the word. Neo-liberalism (Laissez-faire free market Capitalism) is a weird name for the right wing branch of Chicago School economics. Neither uses left wing anything. they are die hard right wing Republicans and right wing Libertarians. They seek to destroy the Left and any and all government social programs the left initiated. They fight for the rights of Wall Street, Bankers, deregulation and all the rest. They believe that the rich should have unlimited power.

That's who Zendog attacks. That's who OWS is protesting against. It is UNIFIED in doing so.

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

The tree of liberty is absolutely under significant siege today from a gathering storm. Call it it Euro-socialism, democratic-socialism, Marxism, liberalism, or simply the policies of the Obama administration partnered with an ever-expansive government in Washington, in the end the storm has one name: utopianism.“Utopianism is not new...“ It has been repackaged countless times—since Plato and before. It is as old as tyranny itself. In democracies, its practitioners legislate without end. In America, law is piled upon law in contravention and contradiction of the governing law—the Constitution.” You don't know shit!!

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

Obama is the most right-wing Democrat in the presidency since Truman. Even the health care plan is to the right of Nixon's proposals, and was modeled on the American Heritage/Romney plan.

Your demagoguery notwithstanding.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually Laissez-faire free market Capitalism is "Classical Liberalism" not Neo Liberalism.

Classical Liberalism is a political belief in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the state. Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States.

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Laissez-faire Capitalism is a policy of the French Royalty. To call that Liberal is a Bastardization of the word. While you rightly define “Classical Liberalism” it cannot be applied to Laissez-faire Capitalism. What it can be applied to is the French Revolution which was the final outcome, and demise of Laissez-faire Capitalism. Royalty were the 1% and Conservative. (Which means they wanted no change, just like now) The Revolutionaries, (who wanted to change everything) were the Liberals in that case. Get it right.

To call Fascism Liberal in any way is not just a lie, it’s a pernicious lie! Mussolini was a fascist. Hitler was a Nazi. They were both dictators who wouldn’t compromise. There is nothing Liberal, or Democratic about either system!

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I never called Fascism liberal. It is as far from liberal as you can get. I would not call it conservative either. Liberal is not the opposite of conservative. The opposite of conservative would be progressive.

I would call fascism it what it is, fascism. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power.

As a political ideology, fascism exalts nation above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I'm sorry, but the opposit of Conservatism is indeed Liberalism. Look it up in your Funk & Wagnalls! Progressive is a trem recently coined by those who are embrassed to call themselves Liberal in the face of critics like Newt.

I have no problem calling a spade a spade.

What is amazing to me is that you can correctly identify what Facism is, but cannot see that Facism, and the virulent form of Conservatism we now endure are the same. You can call yourself a "Small Government" Conservative, but that is just ruse. Isn't it?

You really have no problem wtih Government intrusion into my daughters Bedroom. Or a Dictatorial leader like Scott Walker who has actually "Stuffed" his agenda down the throats of both Democrat & Republican. Conservatives are now and have always been the "My way or the Highway" Dictators!

But the bottom line is that it is a complete falsehood to say that Mussolini, Hitler, or Stalin were Left Wing Dictators. The only Liberal in WWII was Rooseveldt! And, he was clearly a Right Wing Democrat! Who By the Way, Conservatives hated!!!

Get your good guys straight Joe!

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I do not need to look it up in Fuckin Wagnalls.

  1. A Conservative is disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions and is marked by moderation or caution.
  2. A progressive is more open to moderate change of political existing views, conditions, or institutions and is comfortable with aggressive change.

Those are clearly opposites.

Liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

FYI, In Canada there is a "Liberal Conservative Party".

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

one wants to stay put and other wants to move

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

neoliberal |ˌnēōˈlibərəl|

adjective

relating to or denoting a modified form of (economic ed.) liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.

"Free market" capitalism is Laissez-faire. So is classic Liberalism in economics. There is also a classical liberalism in politics, and it refers to what you mentioned.

But liberalism in economics and liberalism in politics are two distinctly DIFFERENT THINGS with the SAME NAME. And that, unfortunately, causes a lot of confusion.

Neoclassic Liberalism (again, economics) is Libertarian. (""The Chicago school of economics describes a neoclassical school of thought within the academic community of economists, with a strong focus around the faculty of University of Chicago. The school emphasizes non-intervention from government and rejects regulation in markets as inefficient. It is associated with neoclassical price theory and libertarianism and the rejection of Keynesianism in favor of monetarism...." From Wikipedia) They are economically, and politically on the right. Bannedfortruth seems to be confusing, as you just did, the economic meaning of "liberal"which is right wing, with the political/philosophical definition, which refers to left of center politics and ideas. Neoliberal is also an economic, not political, term referring to the globalization of liberal (right wing, free market capitalist) economics. Nixon and Milton Friedman's interventions in Chile are the perfect example of Neoliberalism in action.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Thanks for the low down. A lot of people need to hear what you have written here. your sentiment is the same idea that was given to me in college and is something that really needs to be discussed. Neoliberalism is Market Fundamentalism. like all fundamentalists, they pray to and really on an invisible hand, either of the market or of God. I am not knocking those forces but they are not the only forces that guide humanity's wealth and actions.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

If you were to describe what separates neo liberalism from classic liberalism, what characteristics are different?

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

In a nutshell, internationalism and globalization is Neoliberalism. Classical Liberalism and Neoclassical Liberalism are limited to domestic economies.

Hayeck and Ron Paul are neoclassical liberals. Friedman and Nixon (and Bush Jr.) are neo-liberal.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Actually word NEO means new as in not what they claim. The Chicago school of economics and mainstream republican and democrats use Keynesian economics considered by many to be left wing but now we are debating semantics. MAINSTREAM politics are getting you a bit confused.

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

I don't understand how you can insist on so much misinformation. The Chicago school is OPPOSED to Keynesian economics. It is right wing and Libertarian. It advocates Laissez Faire free markets. That is the OPPOSITE of the left, which advocates a strong welfare state and government regulation of the private sector.

As to Neo-conservative, and neo-liberal, PLEASE look up some definitions before you continue to repeat your ignorance.

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

while you are correct that neo libs are against keynes they use it to promote globalization which is somewhat of a leftist polic they are also not completely for the free market, they are for more of the same crap we have today with obama, support of the corporate intervention. This doesnt mean they represent the right wing.

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

Milton Friedman was the consummate Neo-Liberal economist.

neoliberal |ˌnēōˈlibərəl|

adjective

relating to or denoting a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.

Neoliberalism is essentially Libertarian. Libertarianism is essentially right wing economically. It is definitely NOT left wing. The left favors government regulation and the social welfare state, The right favors what you see in the definition above.

[-] -1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

also neocons are the left, you should look at the definition of that one before you speak in contradiction

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

lets not forget that the Chicago School was founded by a former Keynesian, and is an evolution of economic theory, not a regression.....

You play semantics and use loose and varied definition so you can make your arguments seem plausible, another misdirection technique used by collectivists......yep, I said it....

let's just cut through all the verbose nonsense and get to brass tacks...there are two conflicting theories: one of individualism with sovereign rights borne of creation, and one of collectivism where sovereign authority belongs to the "collective" group to determine the rights of the individuals (the assignment of that authority doesn't much matter, whether it's by brute force, or force of the mob, born of despots, or created democratically, the results are the same) ....and THAT is the fight mankind has been waging all throughout history.....you can repackage it, and redefine it anyway you like, but the results are ALWAYS the same......

One side stands for the individual and his right to live as he chooses, to be left alone by others, and to be unencumbered by attachment or responsibility for others......and the other preaches that men must be shackled to each other, provide for one another, regardless of merit, and everyone deserves equal reward regardless of effort......THAT Collectivist "least common denominator" system drags EVERYONE down........In the Individualist system no one is "dragged" down, those who are down are there for tangible reasons; contribution, behavior, lack of effort, poorly attempted effort, foolishness, and ignorance......

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

As usual your distortions and misdirection are amazing. The Chicago school, regardless of who started it, and regardless of his FORMER affiliation, is now, and has been for a LONG time, a tool of the right wing Libertardians and Republitards.

Absolute individualism is despotic and unethical. So is absolute collectivism. Only Libertaradians advocate a single extreme.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

individualism is despotic? that is the dumbest thing I have EVER heard anyone say in my life....hahaha

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

Without any fealty to the social contract, there is no obligation to act in any way that is not despotic. As one business gains a competitive advantage over another, there is nothing holding it back from taking over the loser. In a purely individualistic system, the big fish always each the little ones, until you are left with a system of despotic corporate oligarchy or plutocracy.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no...that is what ever increasing centralization does......and there is no "social contract"....beyond equitable exchange between persons...and the persons themselves determine that...not a "social contract"

Individualism creates a necessity to equitably trade with other men, to the mutual agreed upon benefit of both parties........and the desire to NOT be inequitably compensated for your efforts by others......

where responsibility is expected it is tendered, when it is not required it is lacking.......plain and simple...

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

Ever increasing centralization is the inevitable consequence of individualism without communal restriction. Every society works to achieve a BALANCE between individualism and collective responsibility. That balance is what is called the social contract; it is a mix of rights AND obligations.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

HAHAHA....you really are entertaining me

first individualism was despotic, and now it creates centralization.......

You are hopeless.......

You'll just say anything to try and shore up your failed ideology.....it's pathetic and pathological......

Rights are granted by creation, not by a "social contract"....and no man is "obligated" to another by his creation.....that is a construct of your feeble mind.....

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Fascists? You are the ones who want to force the Catholic Church to provide contraception. What's next, when to not save soembody.

You want to take away people's liberties to conform to your ideals.

You just want big government to take money away from others. Liars? who is hiding behind some ridiculous pseudonym?

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

"People's" liberties cannot be hampered by a corporation, secular or religious. Health care is now a right, and no one may circumscribe it for their employees. The hospitals and universities are not seminaries or churches. They hire people of all faiths. They are not pastoral in nature. The people who work for them are at greater liberty because of this law.

It is fascist who want to curtail this liberty, the liberty of the employees.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

People have freedom to work where they want. They don't have to work for the Catholic hospital. You and your community organizer want to craft everybody to look like you. Go to your SEIU meeting and talk about how you will garner power. Go ruin your own communities, not ours.

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

Right, and there is such a glut of jobs that everyone can simply choose where they work. HAHAHAHA. Tell me another one. That one was good.

Universities and hospitals are not churches. And it is the insurance companies that must provide the coverage, the same as in the Hawiian System.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You want everything now, you want me to provide jobs to. Here's some advice, go to school, read a book, stay married, get off the drugs and alcohol, take a shower, and don't get a tattoo. That's reality not some fanatsy world.

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

Your characterization of the poor as drug-taking, dirty, lazy slobs, is belied by the the fact of 50% at or near poverty rate of the entire population. On what evidence do you rest your assertion that 50% of the peoplel in this country aren't hard working, ethical people? Your declaration only demonstrates how fact-challenged you really are.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

So there is no correlation between how well people do and their marital status, educational attainment and whether they are on drugs and alcohol? Come on this I have to hear.

There is reams of evidence to support this and years of anecdotal evidence.

yeah, employers want to hire some kid who is dirty, tattooed, and is running around Oakland vandalizing City Hall. What world do you people live in.

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

The 50% of the American population who are currently at or near poverty today aren't different in terms of their overall marital status of education or drug use than those who aren't living at or near poverty.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Don't let facts get in your way of a good argumernt. From the US Census:

Income has a high correlation with educational levels. In 2007, the median earnings of household headed by individuals with less than a 9th grade education was $20,805 while households headed by high school graduates received $40,456, households headed holders of bachelor’s degree earned $77,605, and families headed by individuals with professional degrees earned $100,000.

According to the US Census, 5.8% of all people in married families lived in poverty

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

About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, (also called "near poverty") commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau in its 2011 report that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population.

According to the US Census Bureau, 50% of them are married.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

"A stretch? Hardly. People fall into poverty or near poverty for a variety of reasons. Millions have this time around because of the recession. But according to you, they are all lazy, drug addled dirty scum. SURPRISE! they're not, and its only tour characterization of them that lacks character.

And yes, the recession IS the banker's fault, nitwit".

Oooh, here we go, can't get your point across and you have to resort to name calling. I never called anybody dirty scum, that was yoru connotation. There is a direct corrleation between poverty rates and income level, marital status and drug use, not only in the US but in other countries as well.

Where did you learn your economics? The bankers were only responding to the money supply as where all of those people who took out mortgages. How is that stimulus going for you? Not responding the way you want, huh? You didn't realize that you actually havre to have people take risk and that you just can't order people to produce. The community organizer thought he was back in Chicago. Well companies arent' unions controlledd by henchmen.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

We are in the middle of a recession, way to stretch...

Yeah, I'm sure its the bankers fault

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

A stretch? Hardly. People fall into poverty or near poverty for a variety of reasons. Millions have this time around because of the recession. But according to you, they are all lazy, drug addled dirty scum. SURPRISE! they're not, and its only tour characterization of them that lacks character.

And yes, the recession IS the banker's fault, nitwit.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I don't know about you, but growing up where i did, those Catholic girls were the loosest little hoochies this side of the Mississippi. If any demographic need contraceptive, it is the children of sexually frustrated bible thumpers.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I find it interesting that you equate the Constitutional Right with Fascism, there are NO correlations.... Fascism is about centralized authoritarian control of EVERYTHING, and the individual is hardly considered of much value in contrast to the state......the only thing you could site as even in the ballpark between the modern Right in the USA and fascism would be the nationalist ideal......but, that would be incorrect, and a misunderstanding of what those on the "Right" actually hold as ideal, and that is the Constitution.... not a bloodline, a race or any other physical factor......the right is not nationalistic, it is Constitutional-istic.....

The right believes in the rights and responsibilities of the individual over those of the group, and in the simple fact that a government that gets too large and powerful, becomes out of the control of the people and is the enemy of liberty and freedom......no business has that power in a market economy, and no group has power over the rights of another......unless granted those powers by intrusive government....

The Left believes in large centralized authoritarian government....yet they think that somehow that the power, and it's misuse can be controlled if the right sort of people are in power.....which is myopic and naive.....

absolute power corrupts, absolutely.....

You could more easily use the Fascist Label on our modern liberal Democrat Left than on the Right.......

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You need some advice, clinically, to stay away from things that you hate and that are upsetting to you. You should stop logging in here and go read some books. Books that make you feel good and calm would be appropriate choices.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

ok, I don't get it. Separating the left and the right? They couldn't be more separate already. The two party system demands the separation. There is divide, but no conquering. Only the status quo. Until there is campaign reform.

And I don't see the right supporting this in a big way. They basically advocate not for any real campaign finance reform, but for more transparancy of campaign donations. Which makes absolutely no sense. That would only serve to give them more information about who is bribing them for what. If the right really wanted campaign reform they would advocate for the opposite, complete anonymity of donations. There would be strict limits and it would be completely anonymous.

According to Mitt Romney corporations are people, and I don't think he was talking about for contract law purposes.

“I would like to get rid of the campaign finance laws that were put in place,” Romney said at a debate Monday night in Myrtle Beach, S.C. “ . . . Let people make contributions they want to make to campaigns, let campaigns then take responsibility for their own words and not have this strange situation we have.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-influence-industry-activist-groups-want-to-undo-ruling-that-led-to-super-pac-frenzy/2012/01/18/gIQADUCR9P_story.html

[Removed]

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

I'm on the right and I'm not seeing any of that banker money. What gives?

The left is in NYC everybody knows that. The left run our newspapers and TV, Rush tells me this, good enough for me.

There is more proof that the world is run by the left than the right.

When was the last time you saw anybody on the right starting a war? We're all going to church while the liberals are starting culture wars.

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

Hahahahahhahahha!!

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17666) 2 years ago

It's NOT a question of 'Left or Right' but a question of 'Right or Wrong' and as Gandhi said : "An eye for an eye just makes The World go blind" and also bear in mind and meditate upon - as I myself was reminded recently, that when asked about what he thought about 'Western Civilisation', Gandhi replied, "I think it would be a very good idea" !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Most of the top contributors to Obama are banks, bankers, and media outlets,

  1. University of California
  2. Goldman Sachs
  3. Harvard University
  4. Microsoft Corp
  5. Google Inc
  6. JPMorgan Chase & Co
  7. Citigroup Inc
  8. Time Warner
  9. Sidley Austin LLP
  10. Morgan Stanley
[-] 0 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

When you critize Obama for taking Corporate Cash, you should not forget about Teddy Rooseveldt who got all his money from Corporations and still busted the Trusts.

I know a Farmer won't understand this, but there are two kinds of people in Washiongton. There are Politicians who take Corporate money, and do their bidding, and there are Statesmen who take Corporate cash and do what’s right for the Country.

The President, from what I've seen, is a Statesmen. Sadly, Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell are merely Politicians.

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

Under the current election financing system, how could any politician be elected without taking this cash? It would be impossible. That's why the system must change, and no one can do that but us.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Most of the top contributors to Mitt Romney are banks and investment firms

  1. Goldman Sachs
  2. JPMorgan Chase & Co
  3. Morgan Stanley
  4. Credit Suisse Group
  5. Citigroup Inc
  6. Kirkland & Ellis
  7. HIG Capital
  8. Blackstone Group
  9. Bain Capital
  10. EMC Corp
[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Isn't it obvious that Mittens is a Politician? Is there any doubt in your mind that he will do what his masters want him to do?

The way I see it, they're investing in Mittens to promote their agenda. They're investing in The President to hedge their bets.

The only way to get a fair deal is to replace the all the Teabaggers with OWS Democrats.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

What make you think OWS folks are democrats? Most I have talked to dislike both republicans and democrats and see them as one ans the same.

What I find most interesting is that when Obama takes it you defend him with reminiscences of Teddy Roosevelt and when Romney takes it you criticize him.

Truth is, Obama gave a ton of cash to banks and corporations with over 700 billion in "stimulus" going to fat cats at corporations who took huge bonuses after screwing up tier companies.

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

What makes you think they're not???

If someone dislikes both Republicans and Democrats they won't vote, and are irrevelent whiners. Come November, people will have to choose. Do you really think they're gonna choose a Republican?? I don't think so.

The People of OWS are smarter than Teabaggers who complain about the status Quo, and vote for people who maintain the status quo while they ridicule anyone who hopes for change. It's like the Stockholm Syndrome for half the country.

OWS Folks are not stupid, and won't make that mistake again. But, I am sure you will!

Teddy Roosevelt took Corporate Cash, and busted the Trusts that supported him. Mittens takes their cash to insure the Status Quo. There is a difference, and if you can't see it you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past.

If it's not Obama, Than who is your candidate??? Ron Paul??? Mittens??? Newt??? Thats your Choice. Pick one!

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

From what you've seen, yes, Obama is a statesman. You, as an uninformed and naive New Yorker, obviously haven't done any informed or objective research on the matter, and merely want to fit the facts to suit your agenda. You voted for Obama, therefore he cannot be wrong about anything, or else that would mean you make stupid decisions. We can't have that, can we? Of course not. So we will ignore the fact that both major parties are equally corrupt because we want to be on the winning side. nice.

"Yeah, Joe! Stop being such a farmer! Be more like us Neh Yarkers! Understand Obama always has your best interest at heart! {takes antidepressant, because let's face it, Igarz does} Obama 2012! Power to the banks!"

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

obama is a statesman? in what country?

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

See! That's what's wrong with you! You can't tell the difference between a Statesman, and a Politician.

Jacob Javits was a Statesman, Newt Gingrich is a Politician. One guy works for the good of the country. The other guy works for the people that support his campaign.

You probably think Tebow is a real Quarter Back, and Brady is a loser.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

javits was stateman?? lol. he considered himself a "liberal republican". that's an oxymoron. regarding football, i have no interest in it. i don't watch it.

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Everybody else considered him a Statesman! What's wrong with you???

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

Everybody? wow, you know the entire population of the planet. that's impressive.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Your world view is microscopic. You really need to get out of Christiana, TN.

And some basic English lessons would be beneficial. Especially spelling. Also, some understanding of the concept of irony would be good, too. You might try looking it up in a dictionary. Do I need to explain to you what a dictionary is?

[-] 3 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Ahem... you might consider the term "myopic" instead of "microscopic". I'm just saying....

[-] -2 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

I suppose you have never made a typo?

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Your existence is a metaphorical typo.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I think we understood from the first two words.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

zen tends to ramble incoherently when asked a direct question. Never heard from OP before.

What is the purpose of identifying with right/left/republican/democrat/libertarian, etc? Any time I see people pointing out what the [insert political label here]s are doing, they completely avoid talking about the moral points inherent in whatever it is they are trying to discuss. Why not just pick a topic, discuss why or why not it is acceptable or moral, and come to a conclusion based on consistent principles?

[-] 1 points by untold (24) 2 years ago

We must stop using words like left and right. They are bad for debate. Dead ideas. My view of left is different than yours. My view of right is different from yours. There are a million issues. Each issue has a spectrum with a million points. Using vague terms like left/right and conservative/liberal does nothing in logical debates. We might completely agree on something but we will never know if we use these words. Using these polarizing words perpetuates the idea we are TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE when in actuality, that is what we are fighting against. We are not TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE. We are MILLIONS OF GROUPS OF PEOPLE.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26668) 2 years ago

I'd hate 'em too, except I never met one.

I have, on the other hand, met lots of lying (R)epelican'ts.

In fact, pretty much all of them.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

We Hate Lier's & We don't much like Groupies :: the trilogy

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/we-hate-liers-we-dont-much-like-groupies-the-trilo/

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

hehehe .... well there obviously is one thing that we can ALL agree on...

We Hate Liers ... ;)

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i cant tell what the difference is i think people are all crazy, and im not sure i agree with the left or the right. how could any of the issues be divided one way or another, when hardly any candidate has even begun to address any of the real issues, and im not talking about generalities, but a real plan of action of specifics. NADDA. Well actually ron paul hit some of them generically speaking, and Obama is the closest to driving 2 points out of the park, but as of yet, hes still in the generality phase, cause he hasnt moved forward yet on a specific like streamlining his small business website www.businessusa.gov. As long as its empty saying "coming soon" hes still in the generality phase like the rest of the canditates.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Starts off his post with the words I Hate.

[-] 0 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

People like Zen and girlFriday are the reason why our Country is so divided. They are in this forum almost 24/7 spewing their liberal propaganda garbage

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (21784) 2 years ago

Not true, sweet pea. There are items of interest that I post on. I'm sorry that you don't like it. You haven't demonstrated that you have the capacity to debate. The items that I post happen to be issues that were presented in the declaration and many of them I have personal and professional knowledge of and I am passionate about.

This country is divided because a portion of the population listens to Fox News. There is work to be done and you are either ready to pull your head out of your ass or you are not.

[-] -1 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

No the Country is divided, all because of Mr "hopey no changey"

[-] 4 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

karl rove... long before Obama... started the biggest push to divide this country

[-] 1 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

maybe so, but now it is divided like none other. Like I said if we remain divided then we as the 99% are going to be the only real losers

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

truth

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 2 years ago

No, this country was divided before.

[-] 0 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

This is the reason that us Americans will never be able to make a change for the good for our Country because we are divided. A few of you that think Obama is going to make every thing perfect and rosy, y'all are dead wrong

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21784) 2 years ago

That's just silly. Why would you think that?

[-] 0 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

You tell me how he is then. 1.6 million jobs lost since he has taken office, and almost 6 trillion added to the debt in four years, just for starters

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (21784) 2 years ago

Nobody said that Obama was going to make everything perfect and rosy. Nobody believed that life was going to be easy. This is one of the worst financial crisis that this country has seen in a very long time.

If you are a staunch supporter for deregulation-we were divided before his election.

If you are a staunch supporter for faux privatization-we were divided before his election.

If you are a staunch supporter of religious interference into the public sphere-we were divided before his election.

If you are a staunch supporter of war-we were divided before his election.

If you are a staunch supporter of privatizing social security-we were divided before his election.

If you are a staunch supporter of keeping medical care out of reach of the majority of US citizens-we were divided before his election.

But, we won't know actually know how divided that we are until you get over your anti-liberal everything is Obama's fault diatribe.

[-] 0 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

You know I would not be so ant-liberal if you folks quit attacking Rep, Dems, religion or whatever. If we can all put aside our political differences and stand as one then we can make a change or remain divided and we are all going to fall

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 2 years ago

Again. If you are a staunch supporter of any of the above then we were already divided. Stand as one does not mean silence on my part for you to carry on with the above agenda.

[-] -1 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

I am referring to the going back and forth amongst ourselves, "our political affiliation" dems are getting blamed for this and that and also rep, liberals the same way. That is the divided part that I am referring to.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21784) 2 years ago

Every time something that is beneficial to the public is blocked in our current state, who is behind it? When you begin to denounce those that are blocking the resources it becomes believable. Until then, this is more of a game of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

You don't wish to discuss the "political affiliation" simply because you firmly believe in it.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I agree... albiet I do get verbal when the extreme right here... start their crap... however the extreme left... have their crap too.... the 60's anti-war movement started a word "groupie" ... someone who needed to pick a side... and could not stand on their own... we do... need not be groupies' ...

We are not Groupies... We are the 99%

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The reason this country is divided is because one side wants to fight, and the other side wants to Govern. Just a few days ago Jim DeMint said that Conservatives do not share the same goals as Democrats.

The Democratic goal is to Rebuild America. What is the Conservative Goal, to Tear America Down?

And, these are the Country First Republicans! They wave our Flag, and scream that they love America. But how can you love America and hate so many Americans?

The difference is that one side, the Dem side, is worried about the health of the Country, and the other side, clearly the Repubs, only worry about the health of their Party.

The only side that has to use "Propaganda," is the Right side. If they were concerned about their Country they wouldn't have to Lie to get their program across. They wouldn't have to say Abortion is Murder to get support. They wouldn't have to attack Birth Control to get any attention. They wouldn't scream Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and not pass a single Jobs Bill. No, that is propaganda in it's finest form.

Hello, the biggest problem in America is Jobs! How does restricting Birth Control create any jobs??? C'mon, be real. The Country is divided because White Folks cannot accept the fact that the President is Black, and no other reason! It's gonna be a long 2nd term for those folks!

Cause It's gonna be Obama by TKO Early!

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

I hate people who think that the Democratic Party is leftist and the Republican Party is rightist. They are both parties of corporate liberalism though one is slightly more conservative than the other. People who consider this a left and a right are lying without even being conscious of it.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

another leftie here to undercut support for the Party from among the college demographic, no doubt.

I see you really aren't an over achiever, are ya.... ehh zen

A house divide amongst its self..?

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Does he use that comment a lot or is it just chance you cut it from his response to me in another post?

[-] -1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Just cut it from his response. I am trying to get him to realize how dumb this is.

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

republicans will raise taxes on the wealthy to create government programs for the general welfare of the people?

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Are you insane, do you not get the point? You are just play sides off one and other and in the process losing support.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

He is a pretty seriously fucked up individual. His posts and comments are laden with the deepest vitriol and hatred for anyone who thinks differently than he does. Youre wasting time trying to get him to see outside his brainwashed mindset. He is a true believer, and completely jealous of anyone who is even modestly successful financially.

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

http://occupywallst.org/forum/you-troll/#comment-628312

honestly

I prefer this subject stay on topic

there seems little interest is disparaging the left

I don't car for the left/right political paradigm anyway

[-] 1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Okay, I understand that completely. I am not against democrats, I just hate the fucked up leftists who are out on the edge of reality, pushing their fucked up ideology on us. I hate the douche suckers that have bankrupted this great country, you know, the sitting congress, and some who were kicked out in the previous election. I hate them. Hate.

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

lol

Conservatives conserve civilization. Liberals expand civilization. Socialists help people. Libertarians help themselves.

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

Good one.

[-] 0 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

lol conservatives conserve religion liberals came up with a new religion socialsts bring everyone down with them to let the 1% prosper and libertarians believe in a world of where every one is responsible for their own life and a society of non violent people who help each other out on a much more localized level

[-] -3 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Lol. And liberals and socialists do it by helping themselves to other peoples hard earned labor.

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

those who own the means of production help themselves with other peoples hard earned labor.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

simple proof - thats why the best performing aspect of our economy is the stock market
kill more unions, kill the epa, ship jobs to china

profits go up for the owners

look for the sale, in a year or two - soylent green

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

jobs are shipped to china because of unions and the epa as well as every other tax regulation we put on business. I know this may sound crazy to us first-worlders but maybe if we were to get rid of the idea of minimum wage jobs would come back

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

maybe if we were to get rid of the idea of non-slave jobs and institute a proper policy of anti-jumping nets.

CRAPITALISM IS

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

capitalism gives you the ability to have non slave jobs, as for suicides in china, im not sure how much it has to do with capitalism

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

It goes both ways now doesn't it? If I dont like the wages I'm being paid, I'll go down the street for 50 cents more. When the boss tells me he'll pay me 1 dollar to stay, it's nice to tell him to fuck off, you should have been paying me that last week, and I wouldn't have gone looking for a better paying job. I'm a worker bee, not a job creator. I don't expect anymore than the going labor rate. If I can get more, I take it though.

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

too bad for John Doe though

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

I understand

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