Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I 'm not accusing anyone of racism

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 9, 2012, 9:56 a.m. EST by ericweiss (575)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

But this is what I see:


today, many Moslems label al non-Moslems as the enemy
it is the easy, lemming way to label them all with one label


in the 1500's some protestants labeled witches evil & burned them
it is the easy, lemming way to label them all with one label


in the 1930's the nazis labeled Jews evil & burned them
it is the easy, lemming way to label them all with one label


in the 1800's the south labeled Africans animals & enslaved them
it is the easy, lemming way to label them all with one label


in the Crusades the catholics labeled Moslems evil & killed them
it is the easy, lemming way to label them all with one label


today, many in OWS label all electable politicians the same and won't vote for them
it is the easy, lemming way to label them all with one label


Tammy Duckworth, Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Sherrod Brown and hundreds of others may not be your perfect candidate, but the will be able to help our country if we can break out of the simplistic lemming mold.
AND
heaven forbid - unlike grover's cabal, we should put our allegiance to America before alegiance to our "tribe"

48 Comments

48 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I agree, all or nothing is a foolish attitude. In psychology, it's called dichotomous thinking.

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

heaven forbid - unlike grover's cabal, we should put our allegiance to America before alegiance to our "tribe"

or the humans

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Let's not forget political bigotry. It's just another form of groupism that can look no deeper than one's political label.

Voting for the party is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. Vote for the person instead.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Vote what the person believes on the issues that matter to you.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Vote for the person that considers all of the people, not just your own selfish interests. If we only vote for what is good for us, then we become exactly what we should vote against.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Vote what the person believes on the issues that benefit the 99%

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

All people equals 100%.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The 1% have already benefited by taking from the 99%. I believe that helping the 99% will benefit even the 1%.

So I think they are covered.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Sounds like trickle up economics.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That would be a welcome change from trickle down no?

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Exactly.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Solidarity

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

True. Vote: "Anybody but Obama."

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LOL. A little anti Dem partisan political campaigning?

Good luck in all your good efforts

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Please take this idiocy to your local GA.....

Oh ya, you dont go....haha...how typical.

[-] 0 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 2 years ago

Do you really expect anyone with an ounce of intelligence to agree with you?

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

Those weren't racists, those where bigots.

That must be OK,..........bigotry is fully endorsed by FLAKESnews.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Being fair minded and resisting absolutist extremism is not always easy when things are clearly so screwed up.

But you are 100% correct, Any generalization of politicians does a disservice to the % who are fighting the good fight (I like using Sen Sanders as an example)

Vote the issues, Vote your conscience, And protest all pols to get all money out of politics so we can take our govt back and create the environment for more Sanders, Duckworths, Warrens, Graysons to succeed.

[-] -1 points by oneandone (-67) 2 years ago

So,...other than one current example showing muslims as haters...all the rest of your dopey examples, occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Looks like we only have to deal with the current problem....muslims

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ok, so out of 536 people we have about 10 who are decent.

If that doesnt show that this entire system is totally fucked, then what does?

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

You make a strong point. It is a very poor ratio. But here is my question. Who put them in office? The following may not increase my popularity here, but here goes. I think the people are part of "the system". Changing the system, calling it by a new name; Socialist, Direct Democracy, Anarchism, etc. does not, imo, address the issue of an ill informed populace. Tyranny can be imposed under any label.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Uh oh. Easy buddy. You are treading on calling the people the main part of this problem, which I endorse 100%, and am usually hung over it.

It doesnt matter what system you impose for this nation, the people dont give a fuck. The ones that do are easily fooled.

The amount that "get it" are so small they will never be taken seriously. Allthough that number is growing fast.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Yeah, I'll go beyond "treading". That is 99% (pun intended) of the problem. If people can by made aware, no amount of campaign propaganda should be able to fool them. Guess they're gonna need another scaffold.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

To a degree, people are aware but their personal biases are more important to them. For such people, it is better to be enslaved with the persons they want enslaved than to be free with the persons they want enslaved.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Nicely stated.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Where did you get 10? I think it IS a small, & embarrasing number, and that does reflect the level of corruption in congress. The ideas is that we must lift up and add to the pols fighting the good fight.

I recommend looking at the congressional progressive caucus. That might be the foundation we can build on.

But we must continue growing the movement and protesting for all money out of politics and real change.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

The basic anarchist position is that any pol that takes corp money
is a whore and we are not allowed to vote for them
in stead of - vote for electable people who will fix this


dream in a perfect world
vote in a real world

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The attitude you are suggesting is the one that has caused this fuckin mess.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No he isn't. Why do you say that?

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

He says that because it's the progressives that have demanded more money IN government.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What are you talkin about? Progressive concepts dictate fairtaxes (more on the wealthy) healthcare public option, expanded college aid (Pell grants), environmental protection, ending war,

It's the conservatives who have expanded govt spending/debt in the last 30 years.

Sorry your statement doesn't stand up to the facts.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

By "fair" you mean that an increase on the wealthy will be a decrease on all others, correct? Because only a significant decrease in taxes is "fair."

How can anybody support a policy that affords healthcare to illegals while simultaneously decreasing the benefit to members of the military and their families? How is that possible? And you call this an American President? And an American Congress? Are you sure? Because the rest of us are NOT convinced that that is true.

Conservatives have never won an election. But that's beyond the point - I am NOT a Conservative; the statement above was not made by a Conservative.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"illegals"? I don't use that term to refer to the people trying to become citizens.

But I don't support the healthcare plan you described. Nor do I believe our healthcare plan is as you describe.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Well, believe it...

But listen, I'm easy.... if you prefer to use the word "UN-natural," or "alien," or "invader," or "outlaw," I'm cool with those, too.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please don't respond any more. I have great respect for the immigrants struggling to get here, work hard, and provide for their families.

Your mean spirited disrespect of these decent people seems bigoted and I don't see any value discussing anything with you.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

It is mean spirited as an act of defense. And if that makes me a bigot then so be it.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That view is simplistic and self defeating. We MUST get money out of politics. And we must do that with the pols who hold power.

If we only vote for the pols not accepting money (unilaterally disarmed) we will be throwing our votes away because they cannot win!

So....

!st - replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives,

2nd - Protest for no money in politics.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

It's actually the opposite. You can't get money out of politics by voting for those who benefit from money in politics. You must vote for those who have the integrity not to accept unlimited and unidentified money and make that the standard of the people.

It all comes down to the people. No amount of money in the world is ever going to sway a person from their true convictions. It won't sway committed Democrats from being Democrats and it won't sway committed Republicans from being Republicans. Likewise it won't sway committed Independents to vote for corporate owned politicians if Independents are committed to not doing so. That will only happen if it is made an issue for Independents and everyone else.

Who is going to do that? Who is actually going to make money out of politics a main issue of the people?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It's up to the people to make this happen.

Do you think we can wait until the 2/3'rds necessary to pass an amendment have been elected without taking money?

Really?

Wow. I think we have to pressure all pols. whoever they got money from. Don't matter. they must be pressured, and massive numbers of people can force them to implement change.

The people CAN force the change we need. The movement has to grow a great deal more. We ain't there yet.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

People are not proactive. In order for people to make it happen, some kind of organized effort has to be directed towards making it an issue of the people. Who's going to do that?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

OWS isn't doing that?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Is it?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Beats the hell outta me. Is there someone we can ask.?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

I don't know. I would assume that individuals involved with the General Assembly or perhaps even individuals who moderate this forum would know.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

GA's are a little too disorganized for my tastes.

So if we organize the people what will an organized group do to get money out of politics?

I'm talkin about a constitutional amendment. Are you talkin about that?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

No. I'm talking about galvanizing the public to reject candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions and only supporting those who only accept voter contributions. A constitutional amendment would be an additional endeavor.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh. organize to reject all pols who accept corp money. I could support that if I saw any movement that way. but we immediately exclude half the population that wants union money out. And there are so many people who are not convince their representatives are corrupt.

I have found that many across the political spectrum support all money out of politics. An amendment is the one way that is being pushed to do just that.

But that would require pressuring existing pols to support that.

You don't support?