Forum Post: I Heard You Guys Have Been Hijacked - Democrats Now eh?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 3:16 p.m. EST by webmouth
(46)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I heard you guys are against Ron Paul, Anti #endthefed Is this true You guys just want to promote democratic and socialist points?
You were hijacked
Nope, I want to stay trans-party. I think the Tea Party and OWS can all get behind economic justice for the majority of the people. It's not rocket science.
It's not rocket science, but there are deep differences that should be openly addressed, and not ignored as if they don't 'exist. I've suggested that #OWS start a subcommittee to do just that: common ground vs. differences and how to bridge differences. Maybe not needed today, but soon...
Haha, YOU MUST ASSIMILATE!!! Please choose between one of the right or left side and step into the line!
We are not against anyone.
As for being hijacked, many people / groups are trying. I don't know if we have been hijacked yet but we do have to stop squabbling over loony Libertarian economics and extremist socialistic ideas and remember what this movement is all about... We will get hijacked if we don't.
Amen. it seems that all of the corporate backed minions are trying to praise and worship the movement in hopes of a backing or endorsement.
Yes they are. Obama is expected to hijack / endorse the OWS movement on his current bus tour.
Preach on brother TR289!
If Ron Paul had been president during World War II, you'd be speaking German right now. Why? Because he doesn't believe that the Federal government has any role in our lives. And in that time, when FDR needed to, the entire economy and heavy industry was retooled to defend the planet from fascism. His insular, xenophobic orthodoxy would have ensured that the United States never got "involved" in the genocide taking place against Jews and the terror spreading over Europe by the Nazis. Also:
...if you drive a car on the highway, please stop doing that. It's the result of socialist government intervention.
...If you are using the Internet, please stop now. DARPA, a federally funded entity, invented it and that's socialism that you're supporting--cease and desist.
...if your parents or grandparents get a social security check--go quickly, and take it away from them! That's socialism!!
...if you get mail, throw it away at once. That's more government on your back.
World War II was a much different scenario than anything happening right now and irrelevant
I have not hear Ron Paul come against all things federal. Only those things that are wasteful, and for lack of a better word, stupid.
Your telling me that the other corporate funded candidates are a better choice?
WWII: the point isn't literally that it's not being fought today. The point is that if he needs to, a laissez faire president puts orthodoxy over reality. The economy needs to be managed by the federal government sometimes. In fact, all modern industrial economies have some form of government involvement. Every. Single. One.
As for "all things federal," no, not "all" just the vast majority. I've read his bullet points. And the truth of the matter is that eliminating government regulations--the Ayn Rand solution--is what got us into this mess in the first place with Alan Greenspan, back in the Reagan era, moving into Clinton, through Bush, and into Obama's presidency.
Insanely risky securities like the derivatives that were traded and should have been illegal would be what--regulated or outlawed under Ron Paul?
Here's what Ron Paul says on his website:
Rush is Right About Ron As I explain at The Daily Caller: I became a conservative because of Rush Limbaugh. In fact, only three contemporary American political figures have had a real life-changing influence on me: Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan during his presidential runs in the 1990s, and Ron Paul, for whom I remain a humble servant as his 2012 campaign’s [...]
(source: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/)
In fact, I think I'll post this on the larger forum. Ron Paul posts this on his website. The writer is an unapologetic Rush Limbaugh supporter.
That's who Ron Paul is--someone who agrees with Limbaugh. That's all you need to know...
He didn't say that another corporate candidate was better....
He's right, Ron Paul wants "The banks to regulate themselves" and wants no government intervention in anything. He wants to remove the last small barrier between us and getting raped by the banks.
I love his foreign policy though and still respect him for speaking out and being strong
We aren't "against Ron Paul." Some Ron Paul folks got their panties in a bunch though because they want to use Occupy as a place to hand out Ron Paul campaign literature. Occupy is about coming together as "the people" and determining our own direction, collectively... then acting on it. They are trying to make the movement "look to Ron Paul" for solutions, and that is exactly contrary to the movement. Believe me... people in the movement have exactly the same reaction if someone tries to do that with a Democratic candidate. Strangely though, at least in our city, it is only the Ron Paul people who don't seem to grasp the idea that we DO NOT endorse ANY party or candidate.
The movement is so disparate that I'm sure there are those for, as well as those against, Ron Paul. Of course, there are dummy websites and, now, politicians rallying to claim the slice of OWS cake and claim that the protesters are, or should be, part of their base. Personally, I enjoy the fact that there are a number of different ideologies that comprise the OWS protesters. It speaks to the fact that, as a movement, we may disagree with each other about the intricacies of our personal political beliefs, but we ALL agree that Corporations (now in longer-lasting Corporation-Citizen flavor!) have assisted in pushing our collective cart down an unpaved road toward a clearly-defined precipice. Essentially, this movement cannot be hijacked, as it's base is so broad and far-reaching. That is, of course, unless you subscribe to the world as viewed through the corporate media lens. According to them, we've been hijacked and are no longer an interesting or worthy news story. And neither is Fukishima, or the Oil in the gulf that they would have you believe has magically vanished from our ecosystem.
I agree with you. The wide variety of views represented here can prevent being hijacked... as long as people from both sides continue to come on and try to find places e where their ideas match and make progress there.
The first idea we all need to agree on is that Corporation-Citizens are irresponsible, often too big to be beholden to anyone, and that they are ruining more than just our society, but our world and its' limited resources. That's where our progress needs to be applied.
No one's been hijacked. The OWS' goals are simply more aligned with the more liberal elements of the Democratic Party's (not the centrist portion) and so it might appear that way to Ron Paul's cult members.
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/ron-paul/ron-paul-2012-ron-paul-economy http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/the-federal-reserve/blame-game-end-the-fed-gold-standard
Bad Cop No Donut !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and take his nite stick too..
It takes two to screw us! Politicians to hold us down, so then the Corporations can do the screwing!!! Politicians need better rules to follow to prevent lobbying! We tax payers should fund important elections, so the best person wins and not the one with the most money!!! The movement need at least these demands!!!!!!!!!!! Pass The Word!!! Lets Get It Together!!!
warren buffet says yes we should pay more republicans say send a check in thats why ows is on the streets inequality
Ron Paul is a Republican and has no chance of being elected. Nice guy, honest, straightforward and I like him. But as for his ideas, too far out. Remember, if he were Prez, he would not get the support of many from his own party as his ideas are not realistic, feasible, or doable. Hell, I would like to see the Senate abolished but it will never happen. I take it for the most part that this movement is Progressive, NOT Regressive which is where Ron Paul wants to lead us. You can't overturn social reforms from the last 80 years.
Dude, too far out.. wtf? you think the close in ideas of the present are working real well? You think that this country would have existed if the men of the time said, "hell no Franklin, lets just stay with what is normal, we can not secede from Britain and form our own country. that is too far out"
And you can overturn social reforms that have been in existence for the last 80 years. Its like ripping a band aid off. it hurts but it has to be done.
It is time for radical action, radical ideas that if you think about it are normal when compared to the thought of our founders.
Dude: he is too far out for Americans (no necessarily me). I have seen this kind of idealism many times in my years (I am older) and it never leads anywhere. There are even those who claim Ron Paul really does not want to be Prez, based on his own statements. He has not a snowball's chance in Hell of ever being elected, much less nominated. I use to say the same thing about Ralph Nader to friends who wanted me to vote for him. You can vote for Ron Paul as a protest but sorry, it is hopeless. You may be a True Believer. I don't even think he has broke 10% among Republican voters in most polls.
Yes, instead of progressing we should REGRESS
Didn't the Bushhole say you are with us, or you are a terrorist?
Wrong. Some democrats have decided to take part. They don't speak for the movement.
We are for the redistribution of wealth. We are for ending the connection between wealth and old fashioned ideas such as merit and hard work. You see, society creates and owns the wealth. It is not tolerable that 400 people have more wealth than 150 million others. Time to make a little adjustment.
you can not forcibly steal from one and give to another. we are not a society of thieves.
what you can say though is that the rules are definatley skewed in favor of the rich as the congress has been bought by corporate interest. They tax you heavily everytime you get a paycheck. You work, earn get taxed and then you spend.
the rich work earn spend and the get taxed. See the difference. They play by a different set of rules than you do.
learn about it from Rich dad Poor dad and other books.
This is against everything you claim to support. You claim that Wall Street has somehow persecuted you even though you can't name a single person who has done so, but now you want to take property and money and wealth from people whom you've never met.
You're the agitator.
No I'm the 99%. I want it all and I want it now. They have stolen the wealth of this country and we want it back. NOW. And I want them to go to jail. NOW. And I want my student loans forgiven. NOW. And I want Free Healthcare. NOW!
And why should they forgive your student loans? Why should they give you free healthcare? I don't pay taxes so that you can be a spoiled brat and talk trash on the internet when you should be OUT WORKING FOR A LIVING. Get a job. NOW!
Because society creates and owns the wealth. Without society the individual is nothing but food for lions and bears. Society has a right to distribute the money fairly. 400 people should not control more wealth than 150 million. It ain't gonna stand. WE AIN'T TAKIN IT ANY MORE!
"Fair" does not mean "the same." And I'm a socialist.
Well. I wouldn't say the same either. I'd say that some people are more equal than others. For instance blacks and native americans who have suffered a lot at the hands of the establishment. They are more equal. Next would be gays/lesbians/transgender/blah blah. Next would be anyone with any amount of non-caucasian blood in them. Those are the people who should get more because they are all victims.
I know you're trying to make someone say something really stupid. It's not working.
Not trying to make anyone say anything. That is what I mean by fair. What do you mean by fair?
You're not the 99 percent, by your own admission you want redistribution of wealth, so you're the dude who wants to steal from ninety nine percent.
Wake up brotha. I'll bet you right now that I could get 10,000 people to your one who would like to sit on their ass and live free of charge at the expense of other people. You bet on people wanting to work and I'll bet on sloth. I'll win. I am the 99%. I want wealth redistribution NOW. It is society's wealth. Wealth cannot be created without society so society should decide how it gets distributed. Obviously, 400 people in a society should not have more wealth than 150 million. Ain't gonna take it no more!
You're a right wing troll. You do a really, really bad impersonation of Leftists.
Nah. Not a troll. Just showing solidarity with my brothas. Is there anything in my post you don't agree with 100%?
You spent the money of OTHER PEOPLE like me----who pay taxes. Get to work and you pay back the American people kind enough to loan you money to get an education. People like you disgust me. I want free car - so give me yours moron.
You speak only for yourself. I advocate an end to money
Then we are together. Instead of redistributing money we'll redistribute goods and property. Whatever floats your boat brotha!
Sounds fabulous to me :)
Now riddle me this: How do we get the property and goods away from those who currently possess them? I haven't quite figured it out. Should we eminent domain it? Nationalize it? Call it a commandeering in the line of duty? What should we do if they resist?
We need to stop believing people have the "right" to own and control what they don't need. We can't rely on the government to nationalize or redistribute wealth for us. It's up to the people to collectively seize control of land, factories, buildings, etc. A house should be owned by the people who live there, a factory should be owned by the people who work there, etc. And of course after we take back what the rich stole, we have to be respectful of their needs as well.
But how do the people collectively seize these things? I understand it must be done, I just don't know how. Also, when we take the factory, what if there isn't a worker who knows enough to run it? Should we force the factory boss man to run it?
There are many tactics for people to seize control and defend land. In Liberty Square we managed to do so very peacefully by getting a lot of people in the park, setting up camp, and refusing to be intimidated by police violence. Our presence is a show of force. While we're entirely peaceful, the police know that if they try to remove us that they would have to use an incredible show of force themselves. They know that if they did this, there's a chance some people would choose to defend themselves. That would lead to a very ugly situation that no one wants.
When it comes to bosses, they're workers too, so long as their relationship with the people they coordinate is based on respect, egalitarianism and freedom of association. If we don't have the right to walk away, not work at all, and still be able to have our basic human needs met---then we have no freedom in the workplace. The reason bosses control us is because economic desperation forces us to work for them, and because it's rare that workers have any sort of ownership in the company, we have no say in choosing the people from who tell us how to do our jobs.
But what if the boss doesn't like the new arrangement where he makes less and no one around knows how to run the thing? This happened in Yugoslavia when it was communized. The whole country went to shit. We have to figure out a way to whip these bosses into submission.
Also, the cops are letting us do this now, because we don't have any real power and we aren't able to do that much damage. What is going to happen when things get real? Riddle me that.
I believe such problems are better explained by being disorganized rather than not reaping ridiculous rewards. If you look at our current society objectively and determine who contributes the most utility with rare skills, for example scientists and engineers, you'll oftentimes find that they're part of the 99% just like the rest of us.
People will always work because it's one of the most defining characteristics of life. It's built into our species, we have to be doing something and have some purpose to our existence. Another thing people generally do is shame others who don't contribute to society in accordance with their abilities and hold those who do in high esteem. There's very few anti-social people who aren't swayed to work by passion and the esteem of their peers.
There's also work which sucks yet prudence demands which can be best managed with collective responsibility. When things need to get done, a society that's well organized will find some way to get it done.
and when your mother has a heart attack, you want the chest cutter to have the same compensation as the guy who empties the trash at the hospital. Right? The two skills, at that moment, are of equal value? Right?