Forum Post: It is time for OWS to decide if it wants to be a bystander or participant in this battle for America.
Posted 11 years ago on April 18, 2013, 6:20 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
“Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mark Pryor of Arkansas - rejected the background checks plan. Baucus, Begich and Pryor are up for re-election in 2014.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/18/us-usa-guns-future-idUSBRE93H06420130418
Get in the primaries or get up in the stands.
Do we know what America is? If occupy knows, where is it stated? If occupy knows, how does it save America?
[Removed]
You Are Occupy
I'm censored here, occupy appears to be occupied.
Occupy is incoherent and in denial. Somehow they think they can use their rights without referring to the contract that creates the rights and still have credibility. Hell, the nycga is completely unaccountable. It's a social event. If you don't fit in, no one is interested.
Then you don't believe in natural rights....
I guess constitutional rights becomes more important when congress feels like taking away human and individual rights. Do we get rights because we are human not animal. Do we get rights because God gave us rights. Do we get rights from the Constitution which is the basis for our federal and state governments signed by our ancestors. Do we get rights from an elected government that decides how much value to place on US Jobs, US Wages, US Benefits for Jobs, Continuity for Pension Programs, Insurance for Retirement benefits, Insurance for Savings.... and on and on.
Either McCain or Feingold can chose your kids fate.
Natural law, rights, constitutional intent I understand and believe in, PARTICULARLY as protected by law, as in the constitution.
It is up to the people to articulate constitutional intent, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" (Lincoln 1859), but when a false society rages occupying the forums with BS, making it look like people are actually interested in the regurgitated pep talk, its pretty hard.
Sounds good. I haven't really read all the other responses.
If a person anchors to certain principals, they can adjust later in life to change the principal as they see fit.
If a person is emotional about Guns. Hates Guns. And always opposes those with guns... I'm not sure it is as instructive about principals. I'm not sure a person gets the same overview or view over the Gun issue. It may not instruct them in other words. But the gun issue is just an emotional issue that I picked out as example. But it happens to be a constitutional issue as well.
I'm not the greatest reader. But I am amazed at the benefits from reading or working with spreadsheets. This gives me hope for the value of principals.
You guys crack me up.
Like modern libe(R)tarains, you have no idea of where the roots of what postulate comes from, and you don't strike me as a strict, traditional Catholic.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm .
Natural law indeed.
So what is it you're really puking up?
Well you still haven't worn out your welcome today.
People may agree there could be censorship, or they may feel they've felt censored, or there's plain disagreement on some focus of conversation, but you appparently have some open minded people left.
There's lots of strong opinionated persons, who may have key concepts that push their buttons.
There's no one message, at least several messages, all towards awakening,
There is contradiction.we believe in speech, and that we have a wee bit left.
May day protests, messages can't penetrate media, they won't send a message, except there may be an exciting spectacle, Woooooooooo.
Your last point too could be on point. People very critical and jaded.
Rights....ruh to.art. V has been spoken of by anti-people, so high bar to cross there.
Free speech...you'd think there'd be more understanding there, especially in lllight of today, little message penetrates MSM.
You've got the mike. Go for some constitutionally intense speech. Speak on the doc, seems some don't like "united" term. We haven Internet and cable with hundreds of channels, why dont "we" ave cable, radio message, after 1.8 years.
Our speech is all over the map....a foundation might be a way to focus resources and energy. Needs to be apart from Ows.org.
Go for it ZenDog, BradB. How do we get a web presence for progressive voice of Ows.org, where possible implement of good ideas from here, with this site providing ideas and feedback
A foundation might decrease, hone and clarify my personal written speech, obviously.
messages with gifted, trained, communications personel, would be advantageous.
(I'll admit my focus needs better glasses)
If one percent has a thousand foundations, should not regulars people consider it prudent or wise to ponder.
Your "focusing" is good in discussion, that's most important. Establishing by agreement, the fundaments of what we would define as constitutional intent, is intended by the framers to be a common foundation.
Yes, but let us shift context.
Our speech is all over the map
Yes, it lacks functional focus and unity.
Go for some constitutionally intense speech
Uh, constitutional intent I understand. I guess if it went on real loud for an hour or so:-)
"Rights....ruh to.art. V has been spoken of by anti-people, so high bar to cross there."
Here is where we can do some critical thinking. You would be referring to alec I think. There was a petition to test them to see if they intend an un constitutonal convention serving corporations or if they can respect obvious definition of constitutional intent, which ART5 must have. This seriously would put some heat on them if the people understood constitutional intent well enough to know that the proposal for preparatory amendment is exactly the kind of environment where constitutional intent can be properly defined by the people.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/975/440/does-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/
If congress listens to people, if we could get some action like state legislature of West Virginia
The Democratic-controlled West Virginia House of Delegates voted Thursday to call on Congress to enact a constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
The resolution, which passed 60-39, asks for Congress to draft a constitutional amendment which would allow for corporations to be regulated in terms of how much money they could donate and spend on behalf of political candidates, The State-Journal reported. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could not be regulated on campaign spending, deeming that they were covered under the First Amendment to freedom of speech when it came to campaign donations. A number of Democratic lawmakers and others have been seeking to overturn the decision.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/west-virginia-citizens-united_n_2974556.html
You calling anyone else incoherent??
Now that's a laugh..........................:)
There is no explanation EVER of how demands are to be met. I'm certain you cannot or will not describe constitutional intent. Of course when I describe it, you pretend you cannot understand.
I have no fucking idea how "describe constitutional intent", because NO ONE has been able to define it in an understandable manner.
Indeed, it's only been described in generalized gobbledygook by those who are promoting it, you included.
So yep, you're correct, I can not describe it.
But YOU have been anything but censored and that makes you something of a liar.
If I may, r&b often refers to this author and brief pdf document, (not that I'm endorsing either)
http://algoxy.com/ows/preparation_for_article_v.pdf discovered on a google search on constitutional intent
... that provides a little more detail. Still, the document is rather general.
It should be of note that the author is a New Jersey (R)epelican't, not the Emergency Manager, who just resigned from the Detroit school system.
The pdf really offers no more precision than the comments I've read here.
Until it can be explained in jargon free language?
Pffft!
A little research shows that the author is a california radical, and the notion of preparation for something as important as ART5, should be very easy to accept.
As far as the preparation proposed, ending the abridging of free speech, reforming campaign finance and securing the vote:well, only a tool of the elite would pretend to not understand.
Do you ever tell the truth???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_A._Brown
Or do you really just make stuff up whenever it's convenient?
Like all your Art5 BS?
Can't tell republicans from conspiracy theorists?
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html (REV. 8/12/12) Original page - Author: Christopher A. Brown argus1@earthlink.net
If you look at the rest of his site you'll see all the ART5 stuff.
http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html
That's all the truth.
Even more jargon, with added wack a doodle "theories", on a web site that would have looked bad in the 90s.
What else ya got?
PS, the guys still a (R)epelican't.
You must have a reason for thinking the author is a republican.
And looking at what you call theories, I find facts. Like a report from a civil engineer.
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
And it supports his theory. Now that I've seen this, I understand why the truth movement is a failure. They all believe FEMA, and FEMA lied about the core structure of the towers.
So you've proven very well that you don't know republicans, and your opinion on conspiracy theorie is not worth shit.
I'm very sorry, but I'm not responsible for YOU not following the link.
I've already seen you jargon ridden PDF. Posting it, yet again, is useless.
And now you want to drag 9/11 truther crap into the fray?
I don't think so.
Your post does not cognit. I followed your link and that guy DID NOT WRITE the .pdf you read.
You are wrong and a COGNITIVE INFILTRATOR.
The elite love that you cannot understand that things which serve purposes related to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" have constitutional intent.
Your label, doesn't work.
I happened to be participating in some threads like these last year and saw what is documented with my own eyes.
http://algoxy.com/ows/owsinfiltratingforum.html
That's still not a clear, concise definition of the term, and that's your failure, not mine....
The elite would approve of your inability to understand constitutional intent. Americans have no problem with extrapolating from, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to understanding constitutional intent.
As the elite approve of your repetitive gobbledygook.
The elite do not approve of my words or what they describe. They pretend to not understand it just like you.
I'm sure your ego won't allow for the simple truth that none of them have ever heard of either one of us.
BTW: Nice attempt at the conceptual continuity of cognitive distortion.
You are the house expert.
Explain how to "cognit" this.
"Nice attempt at the conceptual continuity of cognitive distortion."
How did I attempt "conceptual continuity"?
WTF???
http://www.cogit.net/
The dot com however is for sale.
Oh?
I guess you're correct, you lack conceptual continuity.
That would make you, quite simply a mess.
It show in your attempts to explain your position.
Thanks for making that clear.
My point I was not trying. If I were to try it would look like this.
A list that cognitive therapists use that lead to an understanding of how individuals justify their behaviors, or what leads to the behaviors, thoughts,feelings and beliefs. Using these in discussion can inhibit cognition by readers.
When speech is involved, the left or cognitive side of the brain is always involved. With reading and writing, it may be done with no cognition.
COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS
All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories. If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure.
Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous failure.
Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established
Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.
Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation. ie.
"Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.
By your own definitions you practice all kinds of "cognitive distortions".
A little introspection is in order.
Normal speech has distortion. Why one distorts is what determines if the behavior is acceptable or not. Distortion to evade, manipulate or deceive is basically dishonest.
On the other hand, between those sincerely working to understand, distortions are a communication tool.
You gotta love peeps that talk about cognitive distortion and then turn around and spend every waking moment doing it. It's like a 30 second B horror flic.
The horror. The evil. The shock. Hey little girl want some candy. The horror. The evil. The shock.
Distortion used to deceive and manipulate is dispicable. Distortion used within understanding or in an effort to understand is efficient and acceptable.
Bullshit. Manipulation and deception is despicable. Period.
Intention defines BS. All language is distorted, approximation. By your evaluation, communication itself is despicable.
No. You suck. You know you suck. There is no way around it.
GirlFriday wrote: "No. You suck. You know you suck. There is no way around it."
You probably say that because you know I'm going to ask you what your intentions are here. What are your intentions here?
Cognitive distortion is the life blood of the current iteration of the (R)epelican't party.
They couldn't survive as they are, without FLAKESnews, Limbaugh, et al and their constant distortions.
Not surprisingly, the Koch's are behind much of it.
http://www.politicususa.com/find-koch-dollars-root-calls-armed-revolution-obama.html
Yep.
Working so hard to impose emotional reasoning and foul cognition for deceptive or manipulative ends is the problem.
When parties are sincere towards understanding, distortions are good linguistic tools for increasing efficiency in speech.
Intent is everything. Btw, you never did state why you are here. Can you tell us?
I've told you multiple times. Are you begging?
LOL - Are you carryin beggin strips?
Must be. He like waits a week and then because nobody is paying attention to his dumb ass decides he wants to start shit.
Good times - good times.
Agree
Can be a good way to let off steam.
Recreational even.
Yep.
That is a familiar method of operation. Quite a few use that one. Including the one that should remain nameless. Still more fun than a stupid no comment down vote.
Yep. When I have all kinds of time to deal with the silliness, it can be rather fun.
and yet I read your words it's like you have magic power overcoming the censorship...what you say about assemblies has the ring of truth but I would not restrict it to just OWS
Yes, the Indymedia effort had the same problem. A social group completely derailed any democratic concencus and could not reason their actions.
given your inability to discern censorship from disagreement I am reluctant to embrace your analyses, my personal experience was that the fucking Greens were everywhere at the meetings, so that tells you a lot....
Disagreement has no effect on the availability of information, censorship does. I witnessed the censorship.
I too had the same problem with the greens. They basically have very conditional support for the environment. Protect it our way, or go away.
Myopic anthropcentrism might be a diagnosis, but simple misleading explains it better.
Nobody censors you. Lawd have mercy, you never shut up.
This username is a "refugee" from censorship. Last year I was drawn into a series of threads which became isolated and only those posting in them could see them. They never appeared to the viewers at large. Those threads were a major education, in addition to witnessing the techno censorship action.
It's called a shadow ban, you can get one by reveling what political hacks the Greens are, otherwise you're usually OK what got you one? The way I look at it is I don't own the internet and nobody on it owes me nothing, so I just tell the truth for as long as they let me they haven't thrown me off completely yet maybe that's got something to do with it.
The user names I had a year ago do not cause a thread to go the top of the cue when I use them to post.
Stop.
Just stop.
Do not bitch cry.
You aren't helping your cause any.
There may be problems on the site, perhaps when "I am censored here," gets 9 upvotes in less than a day while You Are Occupy none(not that I'm complaining, just seeing what is) maybe the mods should take a look see...
Occupy can do much resisting from the outside, And working with like minded issue specific groups who work on the inside.
Or We can do it all. We are certainly big enough.
http://www.nationofchange.org/can-working-inside-change-democratic-party-1367070000
I think we each get to choose, we certainly have a right, & an obligation to pose the question.
of course individual choice is the the cornerstone of OWS,
however thoughtful discussion would be helpful, if it were to occur
I have been to meetings of "issue" groups and to learn that after the primary I could support a candidate as a "non-partisan" (that is as far as using their tools) but not before didn't sit well with me, no wonder so many get lost in the wilderness of "statement voting" anyway how about an independent group willing to tell the truth and willing to do something to change the situation. From their view point that's what the TEA Party is, they don't pretend to not be involved in the GOP process quite the opposite MoveOn might have become something if it weren't "non-partisan" policy is affected by the TEA Party because they affect the GOP, OWS could do the same, but with the Ds.
Since there is individual freedom and justifiable disgust with our political process I find at the meetings that an official OWS role in campaigns is unlikely.
But most Occupiers (Some but not not most leaders), are clearly dem leaning progressives. So the anti political involvement Occupiers can't stop our supporters from getting involved.
Those against political involvement have to become witch hunting thought police, and that is always poor form.
In addition, OWS has excited, incited millions who will reflexively gravitate towards political involvement. OWS anti politics people can't stop that either.
Finally, OWS has encouraged, empowered, informed dozens of like minded, progressive groups who DO get directly involved. So Occupies efforts to stay uninvolved is silly, naive, they can stop it like they can grasp water or air.
So if we continue coalition building with like minded groups, continue to incite individuals on the issues (the our political process is addressing), and continue having the debate (allowing freedom of choice) within the "leadership" our influence on politics will grow.
Can't stop the tide. Those against political involvement should focus on the issues, and set aside the useless battle against the logical path we face.
I agree with your first statement which leads me to disagree with most of the rest, I find it very unfortunate that income inequality will be restricted to a noise in the street instead of power in the primaries where concern for the rich is well represented by the TEA Party, what I see coming as a result is a bunch of half measures at best if anything at all is done, already wealth inequality is falling off the political policy setting agenda. Even within OWS Wars that have already ended or soon will or drones which never will end, has taken over more of the discussion than the fact that the rich are too damn rich and we got to do something about it, that's the math that brought me here if we are unwilling to deal with that the rest is just window dressing.
I see the issue (inequity) still discussed however less, It is just under the surface to be resurrected quickly and easily when most effective, more likely to get support.
Inequity is falling off the national dialogue, and shouldn't (too much talk of Tea Party deficit reduction/cuts/austerity), but the economic equity issue can & will be brought back. I submit occupy always contributes to a chorus of like minded (empowered & influenced by ows) groups.
I assume and hope that occupies efforts, and all the other groups WILL influence the primaries, whether occupy thought police isolationists know or not.
How many posts do you see about the minimum wage increase and how many about dead wars or drones? Accepting what is, is always important for any useful action, OWS is what it wants to be and it no longer champions working class causes. Look at the three 24/7 noise machines has any of them even once mentioned the minimum wage bump? If OWS does not exist to give full throated support to that at least MW then it has little reason to exist I think, yet has there been any effort to push for this?
There is an annoying "belief or hope" that hating on government and politics will somehow fix all our woes, among some on this board. OWS, I know you're compromised, but please tell us this is NOT your delusional belief.
Every day OWS could post a new piece about wealth inequality and yet we must look to other sites and bring the information here. May Day has just passed and all coverage on the front page is about the protest not the message. If we want to be heard we must have something to say.
The Tyranny of Structurelessness
[revised version]
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/structurelessness.htm
Nothing is more frustrating than to see the path yet be unable to show others.
In life no matter what one's goals are it always comes down to doing the next thing.
When enough people do the same next thing, change occurs.
This requires leadership, and where humans become involved with their egos, things can go aria. Ego is the enemy.
There is a way out of this mess, choose truth, it's no longer truth the minute you put your ambitions above your veracity, say when people blur the differences between parties in order to build a third, perhaps a useful lie but still a lie and embracing it destroys all chance of anything truly new happening, another is the ideal that dealing with climate change will be free or even profitable, it is the defining challenge of humanity and we will not be successful without sacrifice. I'm picking on the left on purpose the lies told by the right are beyond the number of stars in the sky.
Anyway i'm not saying it will happen just that the few times people have gotten close to sticking to the truth things have changed it seems.
Ya, vote for more war because of a background check.
Im sure Africa and the Middle East really give a shit about Uncle Bob filling out some goverment paperwork.
So you're against the background checks that will reduce illegal gun trafficking/violence too.
You stand with NRA/gun mfg in their efforts to retain high profis, over attempting to protect people.?
Im against the government taking freedoms away from people. I have friends who are not allowed to purchase a gun for their own self defense who are extremely decent people but got in trouble when they were younger.
Im also against taking away someone's voting rights because they got in some trouble.
Are you adding voting rights as a distraction/cover for giving felons guns?
I support background checks which take away no rights, I support forbidding violent criminals access to guns.
You ridicule background checks, and support criminals getting guns? Another Tea party position you in synch with.
Is this an epiphany for you?
Your idea of what a criminal is is horribly repressive. Many people are considered criminals for doing things we have all done- just they got caught.
3/4 of what this society considers criminal is total bullshit. Im not for taking away ANYONES rights, on ANYTHING, for shit that this repressive police state is responsible for.
Well I didn't define what I thought a criminal is. Do you wanna discuss that specifically?
I'd be interested to know if you think people guilty of domestic violence (beating women!) should have access to guns?
Have you ever known someone who has been arrested for domestic? Ever?
I have zero respect for anyone that does that. That being said, Ive known people who have been arrested for that who really didnt do anything. And Ive known people who did but are very different people than that one lone episode would indicate. And then there are those who are simply abusive and should just die.
But heres the thing- where do you draw the line? If someone got arrested for beating someone up 5 years ago, they are ok, but 4.5 years they arent? What if they got screwed in the court process, as happens to many?
What if the cops lied? What if they did something really stupid but otherwise live a moral and decent life? What if they used to have a horrible drug problem but dont now?
What if that drug problem led them to be someone they werent? What if they are now cured? What if they fall back into it? Whats the timeline for cured?
The amount of questions needed for creating what is nothing more than an opinion from one person about another is staggering.
Anyone who beats a women even once should never see a gun again.
All your wishy, washy, equivocating is offensive to the women living in fear or who have been shot by their abuser.
Justice system problems are no excuse for inaction, the passage of time is irrelevant, no cure should be recognized for acts of violence. Drug addiction is never cured.
A bar brawl conviction should constitute enough to remove access to guns.
You can reach for excuses to give guns to violent people, I prefer to remove guns from any hint of violence.
That ain't me taken rights away from anyone, that's the violent people losing/giving up rights.
So someone who got arrested for domestic should not be allowed to have a gun?
Or someone who has been in a bar fight either?
I watched one time as a woman attacked a man, the man restrained her, left a bruise on her arm, and she had him arrested for domestic.
In the real world, not this well off dream land you live in, lots of this happens to all sorts of people.
People dont lose rights. They dont misplace them. They are taken. By the state. And by people who live in white fence bullshit wealthy dreamlands like you.
Well he should not have bruised her, or should have had a better attorney, or should have not started the fight,or should have been involved enough in his community to assure a fair trial. It's a ridiculous scenario.
I know one thing boss, the problem ain't the poor abuser getting unfair treatment, the vast amount of examples are leniency by wife beating apologists like you who let abusers off easy or with no punishment and the women winds up dead.
I prefer to err on the side of saving womens lives (I like women more).
And we take the right to freedom all the time, nothing wrong with taking the right to gun access for the sake of the women & children victims of brutal abuse.
You use ridiculous outlandish exceptions in your scenarios. The facts tell an opposite story of male abuse of women being allowed for centuries and then overlooked, not prosecuting, and being treated leniently.
Time to put these fuckers in jail for decades and remove access to guns.
It's the least we can do for women & children victims of this terror.
Cant afford a decent laywer, something people like you know nothing about. Didnt start the fight either. It is ridiculous, and it happens everyday. Go talk to some cops about women pressing charges on men for nonsense, happens all the time. It might happen to you someday.
FYI Ive been the guy putting abusers in their place before, on numerous occasions, so dont take this as my defending them. Chances are if the two of us were out and saw that Id be the one stepping in between em while your privelaged ass watched like a scared stooge. Seen that alot.
That being said, shit happens, and your entire concept of whats criminal is based off of repression and a police state.
Someone whose been in a bar fight should have their rights taken away? Really? Are you really that privelaged that you just said that?
"Piviledged"? Where did you get that lie from.? My personal life is none of your business. You dishonest personal attacks to distract from your support of abusers is disgusting.
You can't pretend to be anti abuser after numerous comments offering cover for abusers with your ridiculous isolated scenarios.
"happens all the time"? Whaaaaaaat? Please. that is blatant bullshit. What happens all the time is men beating women & children, raping their wives & children, & courts letting them off. When a women is killed it is most likely the boyfriend/husband.
The fraction of cases you suggest happens "all the time" is offensive to the victims.
And someone who gets drunk (or is sober) and is found guilty of starting a fight (in a bar or otherwise), should absolutely lose their freedom & lose their rights to guns.
Abso-fuckin-lutely.
You disagree? Why.? Why would you stand with the violent criminals?
Braggin Brooklyn and never been in a bar fight.
Hysterical. Come up to Rochester some time, you may learn a thing or two.
Rochester? Aaaaaaaaaaah ha ha ha ha ha. Been there! Dead industrial city. I been in lotsa fights. I said I've never "started a fight".
There is difference y'know.
It is a fraction, but it still happens a lot.
There you go labeling people as violent criminals. You've never been in a bar fight before?
Let me guess, youre going to again say your personal life is none of my business. And yet there you are, claiming you should be able to interfere in other's. Only privelaged douche bags think like that.
I'm not saying I should be able to interfere. I support strict penalties on violent offenders.
My personal life IS none of your business, but I have never started a fight. Defended others from bullies and wife beaters. But never started a fight.
You? Ever "bruised a women after she attacked you" (long euphemism, you need to shorten that)
The women thing no. Bar fights? Did I ever punch someone in the mouth for acting like an asshole? Hell ya I have. Have I slapped someone right in their mouth for disrespecting women? Fuck ya I have. Thats what suppose to happen. Have I ever taught someone a lesson for robbing people? You bet.
Your "defending" people from abuse can be obscured into a criminal charge very easily if someone want to, and specifically if they have more money than you do.
Where does a fight start? Does it start with a verbal threat? Or the shove? Or the first one to throw the punch? All comes down to who has the better lawyer, as in who has more money.
Some people are confused about what starts a fight like you. but most know that violence in a fight is the 1st physical act. Pushing or otherwise.
hitting someone for things they say IS NOT justified, IS starting a fight, SHOULD be prosecuted, and access to guns SHOULD be removed.
Ain't that the law? Sounds fair to me.
[Removed]
With domestic violence, it is clear that mental health care needs to be MUCH better. In fact, the mass murders indicate that people do not have an option because mental health care is so shitty. They would rather kill and die. The lack of good mental health appears to be something imposed by unconstitutional courts and non-mal-feasing government.
I found this link here last year. Mind boggling legal actions with VERY unconstitutional judicial actions all the way to the supreme court.
http://algoxy.com/law
But you didn't answer my question.
Got link? I think I missed it.
Or you could always look at TIMELINE: Deinstitutionalization And Its Consequences How deinstitutionalization moved thousands of mentally ill people out of hospitals—and into jails and prisons.
[Removed]
Ya stick your head in the sand and your pretend world is perfect.
You throw your vote in the trash can and try to tell me it doesn't matter if the D or the R wins the seat, you're just full of shit.
Did it matter with Monsanto?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00044#position
Nope. Not one fuckin bit.
Does it matter with Afghanistan? Libya? Mali? Yemen? Somolia? Pakistan? Nope, not one bit?
Which party is going to throw all these Wall St execs in jail? Neither. This site is called Occupy Wall St. Theres a reason we dont believe in your bullshit. Theres nothing to believe in.
Tell the parents in Newtown it doesn't matter if the madman has a clip with 7 bullets or 30. You fucking lying sack of shit.
Ya, its a few reloads. Drop, pop and go. This kid was reloading like he was in a video game, reloading wasnt an issue. It takes literally less than 2 seconds to reload.
Background checks and magazines wouldnt have stopped this maniac. I understand to want to do something, and do it quick. Its natural. That being said, I would have expected this tragedy to put us in the middle of a huge national conversation on mental health.
Mental health of a kid who has a father in a global accounting firm. And a second shooter at the scene that no one wants to talk about.
And look at that, the duopoly managed to get just enough votes to do what they wanted to. Im soooooooo fuckin shocked.
http://current.com/community/93994918_what-happened-to-the-second-shooter-arrested-trying-to-flee-into-the-woods-will-there-ever-be-true-justice-for-these-kids-families-why-is-the-media-lying-to-us.htm
enough time for 11 kids to get away with each reload keep spreading your bullshit and protecting the 1% because they're going to be needing all the help they can get
Really? 11 kids are going to get up and make it out of there in 2 seconds? That doesnt even make sense. Just go try it with a paintball gun. If reload times are what we have been led is a solution to this, even a part of it, we are really fucked.
Listen, that line is a lie you were fed so that it makes it seem like these fuckin sociopaths that run this country are doing what needs to be done.
They arent. They arent even coming close. They love the violence.
looks like a dem blogger got a little out of hand and rumor got started, sorry about that, it was only six,
http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-23/news/hc-lanza-gunjam-20121222_1_rifle-school-psychologist-classroom
That says the weapon jammed. If that is what happened, then its a miracle from god to say the least.
that's one possibility or he dropped a clip when he went to reload, the BushMaster isn't known for jamming, people wouldn't pay close to two grand if it were, how could he clear a jam that fast anyway? much more likely it was a clip change-out gone bad(or good) but I guess guns is just another of the long list of stuff you don't know shit about
Well, none of those weapons are really known for jamming, thats why they are so expensive. I guess the AR's maybe, but even that is a shot in the dark so to speak.
Clearly you have never cleared a jam. Sometimes its as simple as yanking the action back. Im not a gun guy, I'll gladly admit that.
Regardless, we are talking about a jam. Thank god it jammed.
There is no evidence that it was a jam, the evidence is that there were multiple bullets on the floor indicating he dropped a clip during reload, as the story says he did.
Yes, and until there is a federal government which is robust in constitutionality, no compromise to the 2nd amendment should be allowed.
[Removed]
So you going to go take your gun and start shooting soldiers are you?
That does not cognit. Perhaps I would give them a copy of the "Soldiers Inquiry". Have you heard of that?
Well tell me more then just how would you exercise your 2nd amendment rights?
At what point do you take arms against the federal government?
Certainly not when its leader places protesters out of sight in "free speech zones" that didn't cause a whimper from the folks who claim to care about the Constitution.
I wonder if there is a name for a mental disease where the sufferer
can only perceive similarities and cannot perceive differences
If I was a conspiracy theorist,
I would conclude this disease was invented by the koch minions.
Brian Schweitzer is progressive enough for most of us - but with a dose of moderation that got him elected and re-elected in Montana as Governor of the very R state.
He is the obvious replacement fo max "k street" baucus.
please do anything you can to support him
http://news.yahoo.com/brian-schweitzer-great-progressive-hope-120207825--politics.html
I have been hearing good things about Schweitzer, I think he was going to challenge but now he won't have to, I hope he wins the seat as well.
[Removed]
Good riddance to Baucus, Never very progressive anyway.
Hope we can get a real progressive in there.
http://www.youtube.com/user/thetubesproject
thanks for the link
AZ peg
Heres the Senators that voted for poisoning the food supply more so than it already is:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00044#position
100% of these fuckin losers need to go. Every. Fuckin. One of em.
So there was something in the budget you didn't like I gather?
This is the vote not to shut the whole government down, what a lying misleading asshole you are.
So Baucus decided to resign, rather than face our wrath, a good choice on his part.
We have a wonderful "open" website, perhaps that's good enough.
What we REALLY need is a PARTICIPATING ELECTORATE!!!
I went to a meeting of another "non-partisan" group a few days ago, and i don't see just taking whoever wins the primary and I'm sure as hell not taking any chance on the Republican winning if I can help it, so that means "primaring" their asses if you want to create change, and I guess "non-partisans" have a problem with that.
I just can't remember if it was posting the Con and Dem party platforms that got me banned/frozen or telling the unicorn chasers they were working for RepubliCons!!
So now we have Waco and a Fertilizer Bomb? And "they do not need help"?