Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: In case this site shuts down ~~ which would be a shame ~~

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 27, 2015, 11:54 p.m. EST by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I long ago... had my point giving power here frozen ,,,

and now... I have recently been told that by a member that my personal msgs do not alert the receivers for some reason ...

and lately ... I find this site not available for various periods of time ...

I really don't care ... for it could be a simple bug in the code or something from an agitated moderator ..

who cares ? ~~~ I come here for content !!!

and this site has a lot of it !!!

and I hope this wonderful place .... stays around ... and opens up registration again ....


just in case this place closes ....

keep these links ... you ALL might like them ... in a month or two ... when I actually get them up & running ....

http://OccupyFaqs.com ~ an indexing tool for All Occupy related sites ....

http://ThePeoplesVeto.com ~ a Consensus Building ... polling framework ... as a intro to Direct Democracy ....

& http://SmashBull.com ~ a Fact-Checking tool & site ~ for smashing all the BS on the web ....

peace & solidarity ~

and those of you picking sides ~ Stop being Groupies !!! :)



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by gsw (3324) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

The top 50 contributors spent more than $440 million in 2014 races

Money is speech, ... Money equals votes ....Sharing link on "the kingmakers" of the election..... Our states races ...


The top 50 contributors spent more than $440 million in 2014 races....

Edit http://www.citizen.org/TPP The Same are writing the TPP

The association applied an effective strategy that’s becoming more common: giving money using multiple paths to circumvent limits on campaign contributions to candidates and parties, a Center for Public Integrity analysis has found.

[-] 3 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

money is a lot more than speech

those that pass out the dollars determine what kind of jobs the people will have work in order the pay rent or loans for property.. Money determines what we do.

to be allowed to stayed

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

I agree ... the current campaign system is broken ... it has become archaic....

We need a way to make the People's Voice more powerful than the People's money... ....

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

also... if we step way back ... and look at this from a bird's eye view....

Political Campaigning has become a business ....

why does our government allow it as business ?

because it provides jobs ....

we need more forms of economy's ...

An additional economy based on Social Wealth production.... will certainly help in diminishing the Campaign Finance Industry ....

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

The Senate Tried to Overturn ‘Citizens United' Today. Guess What Stopped Them?

Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressional Democrats calling for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. (AP/J. Scott Applewhite) A majority of the United States Senate has voted to advance a constitutional amendment to restore the ability of Congress and the states to establish campaign fundraising and spending rules with an eye toward preventing billionaires and corporations from buying elections.

"Today was a historic day for campaign finance reform, with more than half of the Senate voting on a constitutional amendment to make it clear that the American people have the right to regulate campaign finance," declared Senator Tom Udall, the New Mexico Democrat who in June proposed his amendment to address some of the worst results of the Supreme Court's interventions in with the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decisions, as well as the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that it's going to take more than a majority to renew democracy.

Fifty-four senators, all Democrats and independents who caucus with the Democrats, voted Thursday for the amendment to clarify in the Constitution that Congress and the states have the authority to do what they did for a century before activist judges began intervening on behalf of wealthy donors and corporations: enact meaningful campaign finance rules and regulations.

But forty-two senators, all Republicans, voted no. As a result, Udall noted, the Republican minority was able to "filibuster this measure and instead choose to support a broken system that prioritizes corporations and billionaires over regular voters."

The Republican opposition effectively blocked further consideration of the amendment proposal, since sixty votes were needed to end debate and force a vote. And, even if the Republicans had not filibustered the initiative, actual passage of an amendment would have required a two-thirds vote.

Though the Republican move was anticipated, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who has been one of the Senate's most ardent advocates for reform, expressed frustration with the result. "I am extremely disappointed that not one Republican voted today to stop billionaires from buying elections and undermining American democracy," said the senator, who has advocated for a more sweeping amendment to address the influence and power of corporate cash on American elections and governance. "While the Senate vote was a victory for Republicans, it was a defeat for American democracy. The Koch brothers and other billionaires should not be allowed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars electing candidates who represent the wealthy and the powerful."

Now, said Sanders, "the fight to overturn Citizens United must continue at the grassroots level in every state in this country."

Sanders is right to reference the role of grassroots movements.

Four years ago, when the US Supreme Court removed barriers to corporate spending to buy elections, serious reformers said a constitutional amendment would be necessary to reverse the Court's Citizens United ruling. Most pundits and politicians, even those who recognized the threat posed to democracy by the opening of the floodgates for big money, dismissed a constitutional fix as too bold and too difficult to achieve.

But the people embraced the constitutional route to reform. Grassroots organizing succeeded in getting sixteen states and close to 600 communities to formally demand that Congress act.

At the same time, the money poured in, with campaigning spending breaking records in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections—and heading toward breaking the record for midterm elections in 2014.

That was enough to shake up even the most cautious Senate Democrats, who began moving earlier this year to advance the Udall amendment. Though activists wanted a stronger amendment, the Senate deliberations confirmed that there is broad support for a constitutional response to the money-in-politics mess—and that a substantial number of senators now see that constitutional response as right and necessary.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

"Less than five years after the Citizens United decision sparked national outrage, we have seen the movement to get big money out of politics go from local, grassroots organizing to a vote in the United States Senate," explained People for the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker, who worked with activists from Public Citizen, Common Cause, Free Speech for People and other groups to collect and deliver 3.2 million signatures on petitions supporting an amendment. "Today's historic majority vote is a remarkable milestone for this movement and a platform for taking the fight to the next level. The debate in the Senate this week is a debate that Americans across the country who are passionate about fixing our broken democracy have wanted to see."

With the DC debate done, for now, the fight goes back to the grassroots. Activists with groups such as Move to Amend, Public Citizen's "Democracy is for People" campaign and Free Speech for People will continue to organize and agitate, not just for an amendment but for an amendment that makes it absolutely clear that money is not speech, that corporations are not people and that citizens have a right to organize elections where votes matter more than dollars.

"We have amended the US Constitution before in our nation's history. Twenty-seven times before. Seven of those times to overturn egregious Supreme Court rulings. For the promise of American democracy, we can and we will do it again," declared John Bonifaz, the president of Free Speech for People, said Thursday. "The pressing question before the nation today is whether it is ‘we the people' or ‘we the corporations and big money interests.' This not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is a deeply American issue. Whatever our political differences may be, we all share the common vision of government of, for, and by the people. Today's US Senate vote is just the beginning. While this amendment bill did not receive this time the required two-thirds support in order to pass the Senate, we will be back again and again until we win. History is on our side.'


[-] 3 points by gsw (3324) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

Hey people....before we can create a better planet it seems we will need to tolerate each other, even love another.

I recommend we seek more common ground here on the site.

How about reopen the sign up page too?

Good post!

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

Yes, the Sign Up on the forum should be reopened, gsw. Agreed. This website and forum do not belong to one single person or cadre of people. They belong to the 99%, always have and always will.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

yes money is out of balance

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

The founders, operators, and moderators have sold out the very cause.


[-] 1 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

Thanks Brad. I copied your sites down. I can't wait to check them out when they're running.

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like this site is hinting at closure "No sign in page, 404, 504 server errors, etc", it looks like jart is saying: 'last call for alcohol'.

I sure hope this site has a big turnaround though.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

yeah ... me too ...

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

That's right Green party promoters. Stop being groupies. Stop supporting the 'triopoly'.

Right Brad?

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

:) yep... in my opinion Occupy is about trying to move ahead ... trying to build a system that can't be corrupted by money ....

why are we still living in the dark ages ?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

As long as the 1% are forgiven, excused or even tolerated for holding over 40% of all private wealth, they will have sufficient monetary influence to corrupt any system built by anyone.

They must be persecuted relentlessly as individuals and as a group.

No excuses. No exceptions.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

aaaahh ... I'm a Buddhist ... I believe energy wasted on retribution .. is energy wasted for progress ... fuck the 1 % .... let's focus on what the 99% can do ... :)

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

As long as the 1% is tolerated, nothing significant.

[-] 2 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

Quote: "as long as the 1% is tolerated"

SMC, not only do YOU tolerate the 1%, YOU CAMPAIGN for them!!!

SMC, are you an Idiot OR paid infiltrator?



[-] -1 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

I don't think it's "both," only the latter.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

You know damn well what I am. I'm just one of several users who see you for what you are. A poser here to discourage non-conservative voters.


[-] 0 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

You're right SMC, I do know exactly what you are. You're a sell-out paid traitor. Pretending to support the 99%, while doing your best to obstruct change. You are a pro establishment bootlicker who promotes the status quo.

You and your ilk are the sleeziest snakes that slither in the skank holes of our society.

YOU are the POSER, the SELL-OUT, the LIAR! NOT me!

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

I've already proven myself true to the cause. True as I was long before this site was even founded. I've also proven that it's been taken over by posers hell bent on discouraging fiscally liberal voters.


[-] 3 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

So does this look like an Occupier to you?

  • one who proclaims himself as a "Capitalist". Is that a real Occupier?

  • one who campaigns for the corrupt, 1% financed Democratic party. That is a real Occupier?

  • one who obstructs change and tries to confine us to 1% politics. Is that a real Occupier?

  • one who condemns celebrities who advocate justice in society. Is that a real Occupier?

  • one who admonishes those who advocate changing the Status Quo. That is a real Occupier?

  • one who campaigns for 1% lackeys and war criminals. That is a real Occupier?

  • one who recommends voting for evil. That is a real Occupier?

  • one who attacks REAL occupiers. Calling real Occupiers "posers". That is a real Occupier?

  • one who smears true Occupiers with false accusations. Having not a shred of proof. That is a real Occupier?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

See reply to your little poser buddy or alias johannus below.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

i don't think you know what the cause is

[-] 1 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

Are you still trying to convince us, that if we want to have systemic change, we should vote for people in the duopoly parties? And if we don't agree with you, you then label us "disgruntled liberals," who have a conservative bent? Do you think this is good coopting logic?

[-] 3 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

last post name I saw claiming logic was bordering long winded and suspect to inspection

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

I don't co-opt with posers. Say that reminds me.

I'll remind the poser posse that I was well received here back in 2011. In less than three months, I had accumulated way over 2000 points. That was before Justine Tunney and Micah White sold out and turned against the cause. That was before dozens of legitimate users had their comments removed and their accounts canceled by the sold-out co-founders and operators of this site.

About three years ago, I took a two year break for personal reasons. When I left in January or early February of 2012, my user rating was still way over 2000 and nearly all of my comments were highly rated. When I returned in the election year of 2014, the site had already been taken over by the sell-out/conservative poser posse. Since then, hundreds of my highly rated comments and several entire pages from 2011 have been removed by the sold-out co-founders and site operators.

In addition, I suspect that they and/or the poser posse have hit the archives and marked many of them down. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, my old user rating remains at way over 2000. About 2300 as I recall.

Without further adieu, I give you indisputable proof:







I am just one legitimate user true to the cause to be singled out by the sold-out co-founders and operators of this site. If I had not taken that long break for personal reasons, my account probably would have been revoked prior to the election year of 2014.

Check the evidence quickly. It may not be around much longer.

I've been typing the truth all along.


Update: 01/25/14. Evidently the site operators are trying to blur their true motives. They have restored my ability to post but I am not able to private message anyone. Not even those who share my views. This is worth noting because I've never abused the privelage in any way.

They aren't fooling me and they never will.


[-] 0 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

Yes, I can NOW understand why at one time, you were "well received," or at least I can easily see how you garnered over 2,000 points. It seems like it was only a day or two ago, that you were minus more than 100 points, and look now, your PLUS!!

Your machinations will not hide the true reason why you are here, no matter how high your point total becomes.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Understand this.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the lower majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A TRUE recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 38 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people.

By the way, the CBO just recently confirmed that government stimulus will be necessary, get this and get it good, FOREVER. One of the primary factors hindering growth according to the CBO, is, you may want to sit down for this one critics, that's right, THE HIGH CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH.

Like I've been saying for 9 years now, the rich have become too rich. Now, we are paying for it.

So please, those of you who care about society more than you care about your favorite gadget or celebrity, STOP GIVING SO MUCH OF YOUR MONEY TO RICH PEOPLE.

No? Ok then. Plan for another severe economic depression. The likes of which have not been seen in 80 years. It will be here by 2020. Sooner and more severe if we implement more conservative economic policies. That's a promise.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

circulation of goods and services

need not be limited to the coffers of illegitimate wealth

[-] 2 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

Thanks, for your sage advice; your history lesson AND for presenting us with excellent reasons why we should not vote for members of either party in the duopoly.

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

You have no clue what conservative or liberal means at this point.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

those that have money determine the jobs we do