Forum Post: Is the Occupy Wall Street movement against Ron.Paul?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 2:14 a.m. EST by ScrewyL
(809)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Yes or no?
Public Forum
1 comments 3 days ago by agkaiser
0 comments 6 days ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 3 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 7 months ago by gsw
2 comments 11 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 2 years ago by grapes
15 comments 2 years ago by gsw
12 comments 2 years ago by BrentWeirick81
YES - the FACT is the OWS movement via the admins on this forum are biased against Paul
That said, no one speaks for me.
This website doesn't.
This movement doesn't speak for me.
This movement is made up of many people with differing opinions.
Many in this movement support Paul, some partially, some none at all.
Ask yourself: WHO IS THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT?
And if 'the movement' comes out with official statements against Ron.Paul.
WHY?
Why has this 'official' OWS website defamed his name?
Why has this 'official' OWS website removed countless positive threads and comments about him?
Yet the same does not apply to other politicians mentioned here?
Then ask yourself why this movement is behaving like the corporate controlled media and attempting to blackout information about him.
Draw your own conclusions.
I think they are self evident.
And lame excuses regarding people spamming for Paul are bogus.
These comments whilst annoying to some, are irrelevant as they do not justify why they have targeted Paul only.
Just ignore the pro-Paul comments if you don't want to read them - same as any others.
That's right. It's self evident that the owners of this website are extremely biased.
Proof: which of these two names is mockingly mangled, in a disrespecftul and childish way which is inappropriate in political debate:
Barack Obama
Ron Lawl
Note, however, that my question was not about the operators of this site -- for the answer to that is obvious. My question was about the OWS movement, and what THEY feel.
But who are THEY?
I don't know who they are.
And for the most part nor does anyone else.
The admins insist they don't want this to be a political board.
I don't see how that's even remotely possible considering the most discussed issues are political and that it will take political solutions to make any changes.
Here are the so called 'rules'
http://occupywallst.org/forum/moderating-policies-will-be-reposted-somewhere-pro/
I have read countless threads hero worshiping Obama that have NOT been deleted.
The Paul supporters here have just as much to contribute as anyone else - but the admins/ owners of this forum have gone out of there way to alienate them purposefully and deliberately.
The person who runs this website is named "Justine Alexandra Roberts Tunney", and they have published the source code for the website on github.com here:
github.com/jart/occupywallst
You will notice that the headline, or "motto" for the project there reads as follows:
"Stomping out capitalism, one line of code at a time"
Since the ideology which most vociferously speaks out against "Capitalism" is Socialism, it is quite likely that the maintainer of this website is a Socialist.
I would be quick to point out that Capitalism is not an "ism" at all, rather an unavoidable result of the consequence of possessing things.
Note also that "possessing" is not a legal construct which can be debated -- but a physical fact having to do with who's hands an object is within or controlled by.
The example I have previously given was this:
If you have a broken car, and you ask me to fix it because I have expertise in fixing cars, and you then trade me two ears of corn for my labor...
Then I have 'capitalized' on my labor.
If you then turn around, and trade that newly repaired car for two pigs, then, lo and behold, you have /capitalized/ on my labor, in much the same way that I did.
The difference being, you /posessed/ the car iteself, which repsresents a much greater amount of labor input than my repair, and were therefore able to obtain a higher 'price' for it.
Question is this: Did you ''exploit" me?
And another question:
Is it even physically possible for a Socialist system to prohibit and prvent such transactions as I describe above, or, as I assert:
Is opposing and "stomping out" capitalism futile?
Hi ScrewyL, good post.
"Is opposing and stomping out capitalism futile?"
I would certainly think so. Even when attempted, it seems to squirt out and live in the black ("free") market. For example, when the market for, say, marijuana is destroyed by mandate/government, a new market arises in its place.
Very well said,.
Thank you. Astoundingly, 99% of the people here seem to disagree.
They must be bought and paid for by the 1% this site has changed horses in the middle of the race...
Ron P A U L is my pick for president, I will not cast a vote to any other candidate. I do not care if Ron P A U L does not have a chance to win.
I will not go down in history to be the person that voted for bought and paid presidents that will bring our country down. At least Ron P A U L is not bought and paid for... I cast my vote that way.
This appears ahem fairly biased.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_is_an_enemy_of_the_People_and_Truth
The administrators of the site are changing R-on Paul to "Ron Lawl", and telling people not to promote him. Is that against him? You tell me. Personally, I think it's selective censorship, and a shame to any forum that doesn't openly admit they're tyrants. I don't like Obama, but if people here are promoting him, that ought to be their right to do so.
Thats because his fans kept coming on here non-stop with the Ron LawlX1000. Im not exaggerating either. The obama zombies got pissed at us and left. We keep telling people that we are non-partisan as far as political candidates are concerned. Some people can't seem to let that go.
From the rules:
"We do not support an election campaign for 2012. At all. We have removed election material for Obama, Paul, Warren, Paul, Cain, Paul, Perry, Paul, the green party, Paul, Nader, Paul, and did I mention Paul? The spamming by the Ron Lawl 2012 fan club was getting out of hand. We will continue to remove such material and any call for the Paul 2012 campaign will, at this point, be considered spamming. End of. We're tired of hearing about it. Main street debates are also largely off topic."
Yes. I am.
Why?
Libertarianism = the Gilded Age = private tyranny = the death of the middle class = plutocracy aka neofeudalism.
I don't follow you, at all. Honestly. I mean, I understand every term you used, and their relationships, but I do not comprhend your line of association.
Freedom starts with independence, i.e. self-reliance.
Governments and majority-dominance seek to make people dependent upon them, most simply and effectively through debasing of currency, however the corruption of education and the violation of public trust, and the proliferation of welfare are all employed as well.
Those things can only occur in a government where the leadership refuses or fails to police itself.
Ron 'Paul' has stated the intention to police those behaviours and prevent them; as president, that would be his job and his power.
You need to learn history, and from a source other than Austrian-associated historians.
We had the closest thing ever to a libertarian society in the Gilded Age and Roaring 20s. It was hell for anyone that wasn't a captain of industry or a member of the tiny middle class. The New Deal created the middle class as the dominant class in American society, and the liberal consensus years that lasted until Reagan perpetuated relative equality and prosperity. It wasn't socialism, it was liberalism; some people got rich, we were free, the working class was secure, the American Dream was alive. A single income could provide enough for a family to have a nice home, car, savings account, college fund, and long-term stability.
Now, we're in decline. Corporate profits and private wealth held by a few are at record highs, the middle class is on the verge of collapse. 1/3 or more of Americans are in the near-poor category. Two incomes are required to maintain, barely, a middle-class lifestyle, and it all started with the influence of Milton Friedman and libertarian ideas of deregulation, trickle-down, and privatization.
I realize Reagan doesn't seem like a libertarian to you, but his policies were more libertarian, and the expected result is playing out, a long steady march back to the Gilded Age.
See, this is the danger of overly specialised abstractions. You find 5 datapoints that classify something as "libertarian" and you then immediately apply to it the entire mantle of "libertarianism", as it occurred in a limited set of circumstances.
You feel you've been scientific, and it certianly appears that way, but in reality you have simply stacked a vast array of assumptions on top of eachother.
What's more, is the TRUE causes of the conclusions you use to invalidate the solution you're examining, lie outside of the data points you have considered. I.E. The true causes lie elsewhere, hidden from you.
I'm not in support of Libertarianism at all -- infact, I don't care what you call it -- nor do I support Ron 'Paul' -- however, I strongly believe that:
And I don't know of anyone else who intends to do that.
You obviously do support Ron Lawl, or you wouldn't be making all this silly fuss. He is a libertarian. I'm sorry if you don't accept that your support of him is support of libertarianism, or that the full definition of libertarian as it stands in the US is synonymous with anarcho-capitalism and married to Austrian economics.
Lol. You have doubly proven my point. That you can classify something as Liberterian, means that you will not consider it. Good day.
More to the point, is Occupy unquestioningly loyal to Pres. Obama?
No for the millionth fucking time!
Awesome! I wish you'd spread the word here.
We really do tend to be anti-obama/establishment politician here. A lot of people accuse us of being obamas personal re-election campaign,and there are a bunch of OWS peeps that will still vote for the guy. But there's nothing that I can do about that last point except tell people how crappy a president he's been.
Glad to hear at least one person say it.
Well I gotta be honest, when we were just starting out, we kind of exhausted ourselves from having to tell people that this isn't a pro obama movement. Thats kind of the reason why you haven't gotten much of a response. That and the mods kind of refuse to do their jobs at getting rid of the obvious trolls. Then when they do, the trolls use their sock puppet bots to astroturf their "bawwww I'm a genuine victim of censorship!" They then call for OWS supporters to be murdered, which in a sense is the worst form of censorship. I mean, how do you stop people from talking? You kill them.
People suggesting violence should be summarily booted, IMO.
Take it up with the mods then. I do know that they read the suggestions that people IM them.
No, Ron P. supporters believe Ron P. is the answer for any question posed.
Say I was to ask, what is four plus five, instead of answering with nine [just so you know I know how to add] the Ron P. supporters would answer with, "Well Ron P. is the answer for that there problem".
False. You're trolling.
No, we have nothing against Ron Paul.
You evidentally have magical powers. Perhaps you are more equal than the rest of us?
Don't you mean Ron Lawl?
Damn! Yes! What was I thinking? I meant to type Ron Lawl and accidentally typed Ron Paul. I know how much the admins hate when you do that. I promise that from now on when I want to comment about Ron Paul, I will type Ron Lawl instead. No more typing Ron Paul instead of Ron Lawl. I promise.
Ron Paul (-;
[Removed]
Honestly I see no candidate that I truly like. Obama is the "great compromiser" compromising with everyone except for the activists who elected him. I am strongly libertarian leaning, but see a role for government in preventing "the tragedy of the commons". This takes many forms, but in its most general form is where self interest leads to disaster on a large scale.
The current health care system is a great example. Insurance company self interest excludes those with preexisting conditions. The free enterprise system left to its own devices leaves the sick dying in the streets.
However I strongly agree that its time to drastically scale down government intrusion into private affairs except when required by "the tragedy of the commons". Government should not be telling a trucker not to truck a park on land because it bothers well to do neighbors. But they do have a legitimate cause to regulate emissions in polluted areas.
OWS isn't against Rp the admin got tired of board being spammed with politicians. Obblama is blocked amongst others
Barack Obama is not blocked.
Ron Lawl is.
Furthermore, removing spam looks very different from replacing words with mockery. ('Paul' with 'Lawl')
Not to mention, vague references to crypto-fascism and "republican whackjobs" were made surrounding Ron 'Paul', so I do not buy the 'campaign spam' excuse.
To be very clear: removing spam is one thing. mangling words into sarcastic name-calling is another entirely. One is defensible. The other is not.
To call one the other is at best disingenuous.
It's kinda weird to me too??? But I do know RP a few weeks back was posted every ten seconds. This site isn't here to promote him or Obama anyway. Like you said the admining could be done a lil better but nothing is perfect
[Removed]
No because we have nothing against him personally. The fans of him kept coming on here and spamming Ron Lawl 2012 and around the same time we kicked the obama zombies out as well. We are a non-partisan group as far as politicians go and we are trying to keep it that way. People come on here and harbor a grudge against us (on both sides) and give us the "you are with us or against us and you are automatically for the other side. LALALALALA I can't hear you insert political candidate in caps here 2012!!! tirade. And that my friend is the story of why ro n p aul is changed to Ron Lawl
I don't buy it. Know why?
Barack Hussein Obama
^^ see any perjorative name-mangling up there with obvious tinges of sarcasm?
We kicked them out of here a while ago. If you wanna be a whiny bitch about it still go ahead. No one cares any way.
How is pointing out the disparity between
Ron Lawl
and
Barack Obama
"being a whiney bitch"?
What is it with you people?
Because you people come on here with your broken record mentality and won't drop the subject! Why are you even loyal to a politician anyway? They're all crooked scum!
I'm not loyal to a politician. Why do you believe that?
Then why do you care if we openly mock a corrupt politician? We bash obama on here all the time, and yet, its like you don't believe me when I say that. Tbh, politicos are irrelevant on here.
Cheers to those who are keeping the Occupation non-partisan and leaderless. (Not against leaders, but this is a movement of the masses that does not need a leader. It does not need a manifesto. It is an effort of people to assemble to voice their various great dissatisfactions with the government and with corporate America in order to crank up enough pressure to get government to take serious steps. Republicans should feel as happy to join this expression of collective outrage as anyone else. Ron Lawl can come an hold a sign if he wants.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
no, but we are not for him either. occupy movement is outside of the old box. Ron Lawl is just one more playing piece of the OLD game. Many very good ideas he has do not compensate for many insane ideas he has. we are not against ron, we just aren't for him and aren't appreciating being spammed regarding him. I happen to rather like ron. Hes my favorite republican. Actually hes the only republican that doesn't make me feel sick.
I'd invite him to my birthday or christmas party. but. i wouldn't allow him to be president.
You mean you don't want to join Newt and his fight against child labor laws? Lol. I guess Ron would be my pick of that litter too.
What insane ideas do you think he has?
Shut down the EPA and repeal Roe V Wade.
Are a couple.
May I explain those positions?
The EPA is a relatively new idea. We didn't have it until 1970. Dr. Paul's positions sometimes require explanation to not seem radical.
The goal is to protect the environment, right? Dr. Paul believes there is a better way to go about it, that's all. When you delegate solutions to the federal govt. you get inefficiency, waste, and often corruption/lobbying not in the people's best interest. The EPA, FDA, FEMA and Dept. of Education are a few examples. Dollar for dollar these bureaucracies don't give the people the best value.
Dr. Paul believes in limited govt., but strong contract and property rights. That means you can't pollute your neighbor's property. People can enforce this better than the govt. I mean the EPA is getting ready to regulate the amount of dust on DIRT roads! :) That's going too far.
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12899662
As for Roe vs. Wade, Dr. Paul believes this should be left up to the states. Obviously this is a sensitive and complex issue. He believes the more complex the problem the more LOCALLY it should be decided. When the federal govt. makes the decisions, any mistakes mess it up for everyone. Dr. Paul is pro-life and believes that we as a society should come to the fundamental recognition that defending liberty means respecting all life.
[Deleted]
Thanks for the gobbledegook............:)
Seems what he wants is civil war.
I'm even more against him now.
Plus he's a republican.
nope ;)
However I feel the rules of this forum may be: http://occupywallst.org/forum/sad-moment-for-ows/