Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: learning who you are. I am a conservative that shares some of the same views

Posted 10 years ago on Jan. 5, 2012, 11:45 a.m. EST by ninetymillion (32)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I would like to better understand this movement. Right now I relate more to the tea party than any other party/group. I have reviewed your top issues and other than #9, 12, 15, (no vote) I had 5 yes and 5 no votes. So it is worth learning more about your movement.

One thing I totally disagree is forgiveness of student loan payments. You signed up and should be responsible enough to step up and pay what you borrowed. Plain and simple, if free education should be available that has to be established first. It's not give take loans then say I shouldn't have to pay them. Other that this I may be able to support your movement.

I have modified the Tea Party values to some I can relate too and want to share and see if we are closely related.

Here it is-

Tea Party patriots are normal, everyday, working people who are fed up with having to balance their family budgets while Congress and the lawyers in Washington, D.C., cook up ways to “tax the living daylights out of us”. Politicians must be held accountable for their actions.

We also believe in American sovereignty — not being ruled by the United Nations.

I’m not convinced that globalism is great; we want our military airplanes made here in the USA. (I personally believe globalism is part of the problem. America was strong when we were self sufficient.)

The Tea Party could care less of someones race, creed, religious beliefs, etc. They are extremely concerned about the way politicians are leading this great Nation.

I am here to learn, we have differences but I am open to see if I can support your movement.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TrollDestroyer2000 (29) 10 years ago

(One thing I totally disagree is forgiveness of student loan payments. You signed up and should be responsible enough to step up and pay what you borrowed) Im glad you brought this issue up. You are mistaken about student loans in general. I believe the student loan default rate is around 20% today(it could be higher Im not sure). Well in the early 1950 the student loan default rate was about 0.7% some times lower, but there was this myth that doctors were graduating med school and declaring bankruptcy as soon as they finished school to avoid paying back there debt. To put this into perspective credit default overall at the time was around 5% so this issue was clearly not a top economic priority. Anyway all the big rich bankers got a lobbying team together and lobbied congress to pass a bill making student loans unqualified for bankruptcy. The bill passed but they added a few provisions in it that really dont make any sense from even the dumbest persons perspective. Like When a person defaults on their loan for whatever reason the lender gets compensation from the government(ie you the tax payer) in the amount of the original loan oh by the way they still get to collect the debt. They put provision in the bill that allow them to take your business license of professional license witch if you think about dosnt do anything but doom you to low paying jobs and keeps you from ever getting it payed off witch is their goal. They can change the interest rates at any time withount warning. The law makes it impossible for some people to ever get it payed off if you didnt start off right out of college with a good paying job. You can not consolidate withount approval from the lender witch almost never happens. These are not like credit cards. They are worse and they dont have to tell you all the rules of the game like credit card companies do. If you get in an accident and become disabled they take your social security check. They are not required to consider dependents or basic living cost when making income sensitive payment plans. When they start garnishing they take less then the APR and refuse greater payments this just proves they dont want you to pay it off. I think most people would like to pay them off , but the law has allowed it. The laws around student loans are unfair. You think these people want something for free I dont. I want justice and fair lending practices. I have a question for you. Do you think the American tax payer should be on the hook to bail out banks when they make bad investments? Like loaning money to a person that cant pay back then uncle sam comes in to save the day with a fat check for the elite bankers. You think the wallstreet bailout is the only time the banks got free money from the tax payers? The student loan companies have been doing it for 50 years.

[-] 1 points by TrollDestroyer2000 (29) 10 years ago

Haha your funny. You should know I owe no money in student loans.

[-] 2 points by buphiloman (840) 10 years ago

@ Ninetymillion...

If someone held a gun to your head and told you that, if you didn't sign off on a loan you knew you'd likely not be able to repay, then you'd be killed, would you refuse to sign? or would you sign and hope that things worked themselves out down the road?

That's how student loans work. The poor are told that without education they cannot hope for a decent job or a better life. And then they are told that in order to get an education they must take out loans (sorry but the days of working your way through are really at an end given the massive increases in tuition expenses even at small regional schools over the last 15 years). So they take out loans and hope for the best, then the economy tanks, jobs disappear and they are left with no means to repay a loan they signed for under duress.

I think Student Loan amnesty makes a hell of a lot of sense. And would pay for itself quickly, given the fact that it would free up billions of dollars that could be taxed when spent.

[-] 2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 10 years ago

No I'm sorry no one should sign up for a loan they know they will be unable to pay. That is purely their fault and no one else's.

[-] 2 points by buphiloman (840) 10 years ago

So the poor and lower middle class, who cannot afford access to higher education, even at public university rates, should just accept that they will never be able to get a quality, accredited, education and therefore that they will have zero chance at breaking into the (rapidly shrinking) educated middle class in order to get a better life for them and their children.

They should just learn to love being poor and having no future?

For the record I was homeless, and parentless at 17. I worked in a factory from my 18th birthday to my 25th. The most I ever made in 6 years was 9.65 cents an hour. 50 hours weeks, daily physical exhaustion, and little disposable income to enjoy. I took on Student Debt to go into college at the age of 26. I now have a BA, an MA, and a PhD, and a mountain of debt to repay. if it had not been for college I never would have gotten into the middle class. But I know what it is like to have the gun to your head, no future, and taking on debt being the only way out.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 10 years ago

There are plenty of 20 somethings putting themselves through college.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

I don't want to make this about student loans. I hate to see so many young people strapped with such huge debt. I do know some that owe $100K in loans. I know not all of it went toward school too. It is a terrible situation but this movement has to be something bigger than loans.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 10 years ago

The movement is much, much, bigger. But I think Student Loan Amnesty makes a lot of sense, and frankly, not everyone in the movement is advocating for it, that's how big the movement is. This issue issue is just a corollary.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

why do I think you are asshat with a different name?

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

Zen - I haven't called you any names. I don't deserve any dis-respect from you. I have never been on this site. I came to see if I can relate to this movement as I was talking with some clients who believe in what the OWS is doing. I wanted to see for myself. If you want more Patriots to support this movement, you need to clean up your act and be respectful of other peoples opinions.


[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 10 years ago

Well,here's an example there Dog.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

an example of what, exactly.

Context - Context.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 10 years ago

I partially agree with what you are saying. True, our society has brainwashed people into think that they need a college degree when in fact lots of people who went to college should have gotten into a different occupation.

As far as working your way through college - I know lots of young people who are doing just that. Go to any Fridays, Red Lobster, Olive Garden restraunt and talk with the servers.

Lots have been in college and are cointintuing their education, and are paying their way through.

I have two very good friends who just graduated from college and they only owe about $10,000. Why, because both worked their way through college even though they didn't get any support from their "sleeze bag father".who has long since devorced their mother.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

Thanks for coming, and I'm glad to see that you're open enough to try to find out what we're about. I've written a few different pieces explaining what I'm doing at OWS and what I want to see this country heading in the longer term that I think you'll find quite informative and I've linked to them below:



and I can find more if you're interested. In the second link, there's a good-sized debate going on beneath the original post that I invite you to check out.

[-] 2 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

ARod, Thanks for sharing these links. I really can relate to the 2 article. We have a lot of common beliefs, I want to learn more. When you have time please share some more.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 years ago

I believe reasonable people, whether they be conservative or liberal or somewhere in between, can work together to solve problems that balance the two perspectives. I think it requires only that people give up the need to be right (correct, that is) and permission to make mistakes; i.e., if a plan is implemented and it doesn't appear to be working, change it or drop it, whatever is called for. Of course, the key word is reasonable.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

Phanya, your right, we need to get away from the ego and greed and work together to unify, find logical issues and hit them hard. Not everything for anyone will be accepted.

If you present an issue and it is not accepted, move on, get over it, realize that not everything can move forward. One way to think of it is like repairing a street. You go after the biggest potholes first then when those are repaired you can work on smaller or other types of damages.

We need to unify on "what are the major issues"? The 99% org has a great headstart on this process. I have not reviewed everything they have identified, I do like what I have seen there. Check them out here


[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 10 years ago

Supporters are a dime a dozen. OWS needs activists, not mere supporters.

[-] 1 points by TheEvilFuckaire (208) 10 years ago

We have all been tricked and brainwashed. There is NO DEBT. If I print 10,000 IOU's while I have no real property to back them up, I AM BORROWING from you, not loaning. By accepting Federal Reserve Notes as payment for anything you are loaning the FED money, you are the one who should receive interest payments from the FED. WAKE UP FELLOW SLAVES!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

list the issues by definition

I know not what list you are referring

taxes are a means of changing number to allow the movement of resources

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

You did not mention the word corporation, or banker. These are who OWS see as being responsible for the mess we are in. I can't understand how anyone can consider themselves a patriot and then blame the government - our 235-year-old democracy, the very definition of what it means to be an American, as the problem. This is where we part ways, because when I hold that flag I hold up the symbol of democracy. I will not see it replaced with The Golden Arches, or the logo for Exxon Mobil !!!

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 10 years ago

You're right about globalism. National security demands a strong manufacturing sector... the UK found out in WWII that it was difficult to equip its soldiers with watches when they were all produced in German territories, and your own people have no expertise to build a good timer.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 10 years ago

I am completely in agreement with you.

[-] 1 points by burningman2012 (187) 10 years ago

students should be able to declare bankruptcy for loan debt.

[-] 1 points by julianzs (147) 10 years ago

Memories are fresh how teabaggers thought the way to employment in recession is to cut government limbs! Perhaps there are confused, forgotten teabaggers who belong to OWS and don't know it. Just another reminder to teabagger folks who like to display their patriotism, that the greatest sacrifice to defend America this time as always has come disproportionately from the ranks of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

Julianzs, what a short sighted comment. You should get more facts before making conclusions.

Bring jobs home, become a self-sustained nation. That will grow jobs.

With the tea party movement, just as I am seeing here, people take the part they believe in and not necessairly understand anything else. Here is my take on the tea party read this before you put down someone for reasons unknown.

Tea Party patriots are normal, everyday, working people who are fed up with having to balance their family budgets while Congress and the lawyers in Washington, D.C., cook up ways to “tax the living daylights out of us”. Politicians must be held accountable for their actions.

We also believe in American sovereignty — not being ruled by the United Nations.

I’m not convinced that globalism is great; we want our military airplanes made here in the USA. (I personally believe globalism is part of the problem. America was strong when we were self sufficient.)

The Tea Party could care less of someones race, creed, religious beliefs, etc. They are extremely concerned about the way politicians are leading this great Nation.


[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 10 years ago

Student loans? Colleges shouldn't even exist

[-] 0 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 10 years ago

Here's the issue, sir. You support "American sovereignty" and personal responsibility, but:


'liberty and justice for ALL?" are you going to live up to it, or just give lip service to it? Do you celebrate thanksgiving?

[-] 0 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 10 years ago

The difference between Occupy and the Tea Party is basically Stockholm syndrome. We are coming from the same social strata, and the same dissatisfaction with the unfair structure of American society, but conservatives and Tea Partiers can't help but blame the victim while defending the elites who have victimized all of us, whereas Occupy blames the perpetrators and demands a change in the status quo.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

Hey stoned, you are so wrong. You think Tea partiers blame themselves for this screwed up mess? I think Tea partiers are pinning the tail on the donkey and getting accountability from Congress.

Sure there are some zealouts in the Tea Party but I believe I am seeing some of the same here.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Yes, Tea Partiers blame Congress but not the Financial market, where it really belongs. The Tea party itself got its initial start by getting pissed off and scared by health care reform, which will help tens of millions of Americans. The Tea Party wants lower taxes, but part of the solution to today's problems involve raising them progressively on the inordinately wealthy. Most Tea Partiers (I don't know about you, so I won't include you in this majority) characterize taxes as theft rather than the price we pay for civil society, and fail to understand that we have the LOWEST tax rates of the industrialized world.

You claim that the Tea Party doesn't care about race, but dozens upon dozens of the organizational meeting were sponsored and hosted by White power groups throughout the Southeast.

DIck Army was the force behind your movement, an essentially astorturf one, well funded by the power elite that caused this mess, and pushing its agenda aggressively. It is an exclusively hard right anti tax movement whose solutions in Congress have in part been to keep all government investment in job creation from occurring.

I would agree that your movement and OWS stem form the same anger about our having been screwed by the system, but your solution is to maintain that system and make it stronger. That system is the unfettered, unregulated free market, whose predictable abuses are built right into its very structure. Taxes aren't the problem. Lack of regulation is, access to big money for politicians is, unfettered capitalism, without checks upon it and without well funded social programs to supplement it is, the wealthy not paying their fair share is.

I appreciate your coming here to express your views. If nothing else, that took some courage. And I feel, based on how you presented your points, that you did so in good faith rather than to mindlessly troll.

But the solutions your party proposes are anathema to what this movement stands for.

That said, I personally thank you for your appearance here. I hope you stay awhile. Although there are many young'uns (and not so young'uns) who react more from emotion that knowledge, and although this place cat get, shall we say, rowdy at times, it may still be worthwhile. Despite some weaknesses, there are a few here who know their economics and are passionate and articulate writers, and I hope you and they can mutually benefit each other. In other words, welcome.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

epa2nter, you make some good points but again your interpretation of the Tea party is different than mine. People are spinning off with their own particular beliefs in this movement, maybe myself and others I know that believe in the Tea Party movement are doing the same.

I personally blame Congress and the greedy execs of corporate America for this problem. Executive have raped companies of profits and pensions, when is enough, enough. How much money does one man need? I believe in free enterprise, that is what made this a great nation, we just have to stop the greed. I also believe a lot of them have their money sheltered in accounts outside the US, in foreign countries that do not share banking information with the IRS. Most big money is gone, they will not take a chance of being hit with the big taxes.

I had not heard of the racists groups leading any Tea Party meetings and will do more research, that sucks if true.

Government job are not the answer. The private sector must create the jobs. With EPA and OSHA rules and regulations many businesses cannot make money here. The regulating pendulum seems to swing too far to the right then too far to the left and can never stay near the middle where some common sense could be used creating a good environment for business to stay in the US and make money. This is a major problem. There is a gold mine here in Colorado that does tours. They estimate there is $150M still in the mines but the government costs to mine this gold is over $170M. This is a problem.

This Tea partier firmly believes we must stop corporate greed and corrupt politicians, if we are going to ever get back on top. There are many other issues I feel need addressing. Hopefully we can identify them and find some common sense solutions. Cheers

[-] 1 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 10 years ago

Blame themselves? No, they blame everyone other than the perpetrators. Poor people, minorities, liberals, etc. Our political system has been taken hostage by corporate and concentrated wealth, and the Tea Party is blaming everyone from the hostages (congress) to all the people the hostage-takers have victimized, but they have a sick love for the criminals that have taken our government hostage and a deep-seated need to defend them from accountability.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

I am not sure where you got this info but I disagree. The Tea Party would like to clean up Congress and get the crooks out. They would like to protect America and get back to what made this a great nation.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 10 years ago

Actually it boils down to racism in my view. They aren't concerned with the economy because they want anyone except a black man to fix it. Hell, most of them even loved Clinton, so it really isn't to do as much with party lines as it is to do with blind rage. Str8, uncontrollable rage toward a black man being in charge of something important. Keep in mind, these are the same people that believe Jesus will save their souls but refuse to admit that he wasn't a white guy just like them.

[-] 1 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 10 years ago

"Most of them even loved Clinton"

That's outright ridiculous dude, the black-helicopters/FEMA camps/Amero conspiracy fiction that underpins the Tea Party movement was created under Clinton.

Racism may (or not) explain Rightwing hate for the Center-Right Obama, but it doesn't explain their sick adoration of the corporate elite that have taken America hostage.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 10 years ago

black-helicopters/FEMA camps/Amero

I know just as many libs who spout this stuff. It doesn't seem to me to be a party line issue. just general conspiracy. I also think your perception of how much the tea party adores corporations is a little blown out of proportion.



[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

You may be making the same potential mistake that I made months ago when I also envisioned OWS as a liberal alternative to the Tea Party. I learned the error in my thinking after I posted this:


You might learn a lot from the replies. My conclusion was/is that this is not a political "movement". It's a group of people expressing discontent together, not necessarily all expressing the same discontent about the same things. What ties them together is a willingness to blame the 1% instead of themselves for society's problems, and an interest in protesting for the sake of protesting, not for the sake of making government more responsive to their concerns.

[-] 8 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

There's a large number of upper middle class and well-to-do people on whose shoulders this mess squarely does not land, and then there's a fairly small group affiliated with the financial industry that in general has made out like bandits despite the incredibly high social cost of the game they were playing. I bear no animosity toward the former group (in fact if things work out for me I'm well on my way to becoming one of them), but the latter group must be called to account for the collapse.

I support the Occupy movement not because I agree with the more poorly targeted rhetoric on here that seeks to demonize any particular demographic or because I believe that living in parks is going to effect real political change, but because so far they're the only group I've found with enough anger and enough raw manpower to begin to push for change. I don't worry about the content of the more extreme rhetoric I see on here because given the sheer volume of people like you out there I can't see it gaining enough traction to ever be implemented.

I feel like given the current economic climate and the current strength of the ties between the government and private industry (especially Wall Street) the Occupy movement has enormous potential as a catalyst for change (if not the movement itself then one or more of its spinoffs) and it would grieve me greatly to see that potential go to waste. Your complaints are valid, and more often than not when it comes to the specific matter of tactics I agree with your position; I just find it easier to offer those criticisms as a concerned supporter (which I am) than a detractor or dissenter.

I say that because if everyone who disagrees with particular pieces of the movement's conduct or rhetoric decides not to support it, then the only ones left inside the movement will be a ragtag group of idiots and radicals and its capacity to push for change will be pretty much neutralized. If however, enough people choose to say "I support Occupy Wall Street" and then suggest rational, practical policy initiatives that are in the spirit of the movement but sans deliberately inflammatory rhetoric, then in time that is what Occupy Wall Street will become. The more reasonable and moderate the movement can become without compromising its principles, the more support it will gain, and instead of fizzling out on the fringe the movement will become a strong positive force in American politics.

I want Occupy Wall Street to become a positive force for the entire 99.9%, and I personally prefer getting on board early and attempting to influence them in that direction over waiting for them to become that before getting involved.

[-] 2 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

ARod, that why I am here. I am mad as hell at the state of the once great Nation. I want to see change, I want my Grandkids, (that are not yet born) to enjoy a Great Nation as well.

I agree with your insight as well. This movement needs some clear concise objectives. I relate more to the conservative side and hope some of my views can be adopted and supported by this movement. I will assemble a listing and see where I /we stand.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

I don't think Occupy should change anything at the moment...

There is so much diversity, so many things that need to be 'brought into the light', Occupy is very good at bringing up the subject, and we (generic we throughout) need that.

There is the potential for 'offshoot' groups which identify with Occupy to not only state the objectives, but with more than just one huge group, by growing several large ones, more effect will be felt.

We've the 99PercentDeclaration, http://www.the-99-declaration.org/ which is attempting to put together a National GA with delegates from all districts and protectorates, with an agenda to present a representative 'list of grievances' working within the existing framework of our governmental processes.

We will be seeing 'grassroots' independent political parties developing in ways that will actually be independent, unlike the Tea Party, which has attached itself to and co-opted the Republican Party.

I think the problem is we want everything under one 'roof', we can't build a roof big enough to cover it all.

Tearing down the system, as the anarchist group would like to do, isn't an answer, we've a good system, it's damaged, we've tried bandaids, but major surgery may be necessary, mean time, we can try some less invasive procedures.

Occupy is the alarm, it needs to ring.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

PandoraK, great site you have going, thank you for sharing. I will be pushing this going forward. This appears to have the organization and method set up to attack the system. I will be submitting ideas.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

Remember this grew from OWS.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

however, wherever it started, this is the kind of organization needed to bring about sustainable change

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I think I agree with you. But there is alot about this movement that I disagree with. I think because of the size and momentum, it might have potential. I think the sheer size of the movement is an indication of the discontent in society. That makes it important and gives it credibility.

I'm curious. You say it will gain support with more reasonable and moderate voices - without compromising its principles. What principles do you support? I feel like the principles that the movement is based on are holding the movement back from gaining more reasonable and moderate support.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

I'm not talking about the "principles" of anarchy or revolution or anything like that; I'm looking at those more as means of implementation and as such I feel like they failed. What I mean by the general principles of the movement is the belief that America needs to find some way of looking out for all its citizens and the understanding that you can't simply strip out the controls on our markets without ugly consequences. Those are things that most people can get behind, especially large groups of moderates. It is entirely possible to make this a moderate, policy-driven movement without compromising those principles.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 10 years ago

Why blame the financial industry for the collapse? Didn't see you complaining when 401k were shooting off the charts, or you could buy a house today and sell it a few months later and make a good profit? Didn't hear you then telling us to tone it down? Because then it served your purpose. I didn't see you guys questioning yourself if you can really afford the house you are buying.

Wall Street is a fair place. Here people are respected for their knowledge and smartness and nobody cares what country or religion you belong to or the color of your skin. Most of us are from fairly humble families and we have done well for ourselves here at the street. Duh, how evil is that!

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

I've been looking at this and being highly wary of it since about 2004 or so (when I was around eleven) because rule number one of bubbles like this is that they don't last and that the only people who walk away from them richer than they started are the people that get in early and get out before things start to go sideways. Rule number two of bubbles is even more important: it is almost impossible to predict when exactly a bubble is going to collapse until the collapse is already underway. The fact that some people bought into in and got rich off of the bubble does not make it acceptable any more than the existence of the one guy who beats a street huckster at a shell game makes it acceptable that a hundred or a thousand others got screwed.

I accept that our fortunes rise and fall based on the flow of capital between industries and enterprises, and feel that choking off that flow would be in very poor judgement. I further accept that like it or not Wall Street is part of that flow and is thus an essential part of our economy. I do, however, believe that capital is inherently an amoral force (not immoral, but amoral) and thus should be directed, firmly but gently, toward the enterprises where it can do the most good for the most people.

As far as the financial industry is concerned; I do not see Wall Street as a monolithic villain but rather as a complex entity comprised of many different groups of people, and that the particular group you're referring to is not directly responsible for what happened. I actually had the same discussion with someone else on here whose sister's colleague was a Jamaican immigrant who came from nothing and made it into the upper middle class.

I said this then and i'll restate it now; we're not here to lynch the upper middle class workers but rather we want to see upper upper management held to account, both for the explicit crap they pulled and for creating a system in which anything goes so long as short-term profits stay high.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

They've been very clear from the beginning that they are not a political movement. It's written on this site's home page and on many other OWS sites. They will never make demands to the government, because they don't believe in working with politicians. They want a revolution. I'm not sure why everyone misinterprets this very clear message they have been sending from the very start of the protest. These are anarchists after all. They don't believe in hierarchic forms of governance.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

You're also guilty of a common fallacy: over-generalizing OWS as though they all agree -- about anything at all. Plenty of Occupiers think that they're participating in a political movement, just like plenty of them insist that they're not. Any blanket statement about all Occupiers is automatically invalid because there is no consensus on any issue at all among all of OWS.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

I don't agree. Even though there are many protesters with many view points and ideas, OWS is very unified in its marketing, presentation, goals, and tactics. I'm sure many OWS protesters did not agree to block the ports, print certain posters, to the idea of not making demands, etc... but the fact is these ideologies and actions have not changed much since the protest started. It's still being led by anarchists who haven't changed their game plan even though some OWS protesters wish they had. OWS's goal is to create tension with the government through civil disobedience. It's not to work with the government and never will be.

It's important to understand what type of protest you support. There are clear expectations of what OWS will and will not do as a movement. Making demands to the government and working with politicians is one of the things it will not do.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

We found something to disagree about! Congratulations, my friend, we did it.

I don't know if you ever saw this:


I posted that because I wanted to understand why Occupy Oakland shut down the Port of Oakland. Not a single one of the people who responded knew the actual justification provided by the Occupy Oakland GA for the port shutdown.

What that tells me is that OWS is NOT unified in its goals or tactics, because there were so many people trying to rationalize a justification for a tactic after the fact, who had no idea what the GA's goal really was. And they didn't care. Because they were protesting for the sake of protesting, without requiring a consensus on the reason for protesting.

I agree with you that it's important to understand what type of protest you support, and I had a really hard time understanding why it didn't bother any of the people involved to not understand why. I couldn't understand how people could be so passionate about something without being interested in the ideology behind it or the objectives. It doesn't make sense.

And that was the error in my thinking. I assumed that it had to make sense. It has to make sense if it's a political "movement" aimed at objectives. But the reason why it doesn't bother any of those people on the page about the port shutdown that they don't know why is that Occupy isn't really a "movement" that's aimed at objectives. It's just a group of people expressing discontent. That's all. They're protesting for the sake of protesting. You and I feel like there is a contradiction -- but there is no contradiction if you just don't care about "why", or about objectives.

If you're motivated to protest just for the sake of protesting, just to tell the world all about how frustrated you are, then "why" and objectives are both useless abstractions.

[-] 2 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

TechJunkie, ARod, My first day here and I can already see what your saying is so true. Many are here with one or two causes or because their opinions can be posted where ever they choose.

I do see some with concise ideas, thoughts, directives, with a broad vision and understanding of how the machine is oiled and what it takes to bring about the change we need long term. Tech, ARod, thank you for your insights. I look forward to exchanging ideas and seeing how we can move issues forward.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

If anything good comes out of this forum other than me meeting the awesome new test engineer that I hired, then it will be some kind of miracle. I'll try to stay open-minded.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

You illustrate my point quite well. The central GA, this site, and many other OWS central groups and resources don't care what many protesters think. They are not transparent and OWS decisions are made in small general assemblies mostly attended by the anarchists who started the movement. For example, even if 90% of the OWS protesters on this forum asked the site moderators to remove the caption on the front page which says OWS is not interested in working with politicians and wants a revolution, the site moderators and owners would not do it. Even if 90% of protesters asked OWS to start making demands, they would not do it.

I don't think this protest is just for the sake of protesting. Not at all. The people who started it are very serious about creating a revolution. It's their dream even though they might know it most likely won't happen in practice. When David Graeber talks about anarchy, he's not joking around. He's a thinker and truly believes his theories could work in practice. Read some of his essays.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

This is like the classic question of whether George W Bush was evil or just inept.

I was puzzled by that question for at least eight or nine years, before finally concluding that he was just stupid. Sort of the same thing here. I think that it was a temporary spike. A Slashdot effect. It flared out from the same radical extremist activists who push the same set of left-wing causes on every college campus and every rock festival everywhere, and that it will eventually return to that level. After it fizzles out naturally it will return to the same simmering level as before, from the same extremist radical activists who will still be doing their thing, repeating the "Occupy" meme and pretending that they're bigger and more cohesive than they really are. Sort of like Anonymous. I don't see a conspiracy. I don't see many people capable of that kind of thing having any interest in any of this.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

I think that you are correct about the INITIAL goals and tactics of the movement as not being tied to a specific political agenda. I don't believe that has ever been the long term goal.

Partly the initilal policies and procedures were set up in order to attract the greatest numbers of people, create a kind of Gestalt, and most important, create an open participatory democracy movement that would organically evolve through open discussion, consensus, etc. It was never supposed to PREVENT involvement in politics, but hold off until it crystalized into something that was broad based and strong, becoming so through a process of self-determined direct democracy. Until that process was well under way, tying it to any political stance was viewed as dangerously premature. And creating an initial, top-down agenda was antithetical to its purpose. But, as far as I can tell, an agenda was supposed to have emerged from that process.

Why this has not happened so far is a mystery to me. I suspect it has to do with internally competing voices in the leadership and/or participants. But I don't believe that having no agenda or action plan or platform permanently was ever in the original plan.

Going forward, if we're lucky, we might, as a recent reporter said, find ourselves with a movement that looks like an octopus: one headed and many tentacled, moving in one general direction but doing many things along the way. It is in the hope that he is correct that I stick around.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

I would prefer to see this stay as close as possible. We have to have common issues that the majority believe in and move forward with these. Yesterday I was beginning to feel this movement was going to turn into microcells of groups on their own personal agenda, fortunately after reading more posts I saw there is a chance of this morphing into a sustainable strong, driven movement.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Your analysis is wrong. There is no mystery as to why Occupy has not changed its game plan and has not started making demands. The people who started Occupy are anarchists and they truly believe a revolution is needed. They will not work with the government as this is against the deepest principles of anarchy. Read the works of David Graeber. Most OWS protesters have no clue what OWS is and isn't.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

I think you paint too monolithic a picture. I have read other reports, both on the founders and on some of the internal dynamics that support my conclusions more than yours.

You may, however be right: my sources of info may be wrong.

I hope I am more accurate in this case, because if not, this movement has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

But now you have peeked my curiosity. You have written quite eloquently on these pages on issues that concern OWS and seem to share most of the economic and political message that's at its core. If you are so pessimistic about its success, why do you continue to help? Please know that I am NOT accusing you of anything, but am only curious about how you see your involvement.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Time will tell if OWS plans on making demands and engaging in the political process, but until they do I will assume it's not in their cards. If it is part of their long term strategy, they have been hiding it very well.

Many people on this forum misunderstand my position and work very hard to tarnish my reputation. Most of these people are conspiracy theorists who accuse someone of being a government operative when he or she makes even the slightest criticism of OWS. They are simple minded and cannot accept that a person can hold a position that is not black or white, i.e. 100% for or 100% against OWS.

OWS is much needed and has accomplished a lot already. The problems it targets are very real. There is much room for improvement in the government. That being said, I believe OWS has made many bad decisions and could itself be improved greatly.

One major issue is OWS's lack of transparency. Some might say this is good as it keeps the government on its toes, but I believe it only harms the protest. Many OWS protesters on this forum are wondering what OWS leaders will decide to do next. Many like yourself are wondering if demands will eventually be made. Because of this, many protesters have already become disenchanted with the protest and have started to create their own sketches for new movements. I'm thinking of the set of demands that was being proposed a few weeks ago by some protesters who were doing this without passing through OWS general assemblies.

Personally, I see OWS's strength has being a disruptor, not a partaker in solving governmental problems. AdBusters promotes culture jamming and other tactics that are meant to disrupt. They don't have a double practice of disrupting and solving like GreenPeace. OWS uses direct action and civil disobedience to disrupt. They don't make demands or enter into clear discussions on how the democratic republic could be altered for improvements. Protesters hold signs and complain that such and such problem exists in the country, but they don't offer clear solutions. That's fine. They are raising awareness.

I see OWS's worth as being the ones who raise awareness and pry open the doors for other movements to come in and partake in the political discussion to try and solve the problems. They are problem pin pointers, others will be problem solvers.

That being said, I think OWS wasted a lot of time trying to keep their camps going and engaging in a propaganda effort to demonize the police. I don't think this was productive in the least. I really believe there isn't much use in camping or trying to take other public spaces like ports or buildings by force. This just leads to clashes with police and turns the discussion into us vs. the cops. I believe they should stick to organizing big marches to raise more and more awareness. They should never make demands, but only pinpoint problems. They should be clear about what they are trying to accomplish to their protesters.

OWS are activists, they are not politicians and economists. This is very important to understand. Jart and the moderators don't participate in the political discourse found on this forum because they really don't care about that. They just want to organize more protests to make more people aware of the issues. They don't want to try to solve the issues. This is not their goal.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Thank you for articulating all that. It's hard for me to process because I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with your assessment. (I like evidence and reason as well.)

I think, based on what I have seen, that much of your criticism has merit. I am less sure about that tactics of keeping the park occupied. There was something dramatic about it and it caused headlines.

Whether those headlines helped or hurt is something I'm in no position to assess, but it seemed to add energy to the cause, if not garner more broad-based support for it.

As to it being specifically about disruption, so far that seems to be the modus operandi. And certainly AdBusters is known for that as well. But I have a feeling the movement is going beyond that.

I remember two articles in particular that indicate this is possible: one from a link about one of the consultants brought in early on who helped in the organizational structure, that was actually put up by one of the conspiracists (who seemed to misunderstand the implications). Another was in, of all publications, New York Magazine. It detailed some of the goings on behind the scenes. (It was that reporter's octopus imagery that I paraphrased.) I have no reason to doubt the reporter's veracity. But his accuracy is questionable. Again, I don't have enough information to know.

I do agree wholeheartedly about the lack of transparency. It's possible that long range plans had to kept under wraps for a while as the movement coalesced, but I really feel it is time to open up more. There may be tactical reasons still for not doing so, but I fear they will lose supporters by the tens of thousands soon if the leadership keeps it up. Indeed , I don't even know if the opacity is intentional or simply part of the structure of the movement, as in "you have to attend the GA's in person" to know what's going on.

Beyond that, I don' know. I hope that you are proven wrong (as I suspect you yourself do) about disruption as the only stance, and that the energy, momentum and vitality of this movement can be harnessed into effective political action. Splinter groups will be less and less effective the more of them there are. I myself am beginning to experience the sense of disaffection with OWS that you described. And if I'm feeling it, I pretty sure many others are as well. But I will keep on hoping and supporting until I can't anymore. After all, most activists in the past were neither economist nor politicians, either, and many accomplished an awful lot of good.

Thank you for sharing your perceptions about the movement and letting us all who read here know about your own motivations. You have given me much to think about.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

True, taking Zucotti park by force was a good tactic to get the protest noticed at the beginning. I just feel this is no longer important, and that a lot of time is being wasted trying to reclaim the park.

I also agree that it would be a shame if the protest broke up into several smaller protests. Its definitely better to keep it under the same umbrella if possible.

It seems we mostly agree on everything except on what OWS might be planning for the future. At this time, this is just a guessing game and a matter of opinion. I'll check out the sources you mention. I might be ignoring some important elements. Essentially, my position is to assume OWS will not make demands and take part in politics until they do.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

"It seems we mostly agree on everything except on what OWS might be planning for the future. At this time, this is just a guessing game and a matter of opinion."

Absolutely. I wasn't arguing, only discussing. I am trying to be hopeful, so my opinion tends toward more optimistic guesses, but I have nothing solid to base them on.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

It seems like the protest is on a hiatus of sorts, just waiting for round two. Many things are possible. Let's hope whatever happens will be for the betterment of America and other nations.

I'd like to enter a stage where the protest starts talking about immediate and long term goals that are realistic and achievable. What can we do to make the country better by 2013? What can we do to make it better by 2020? That sort of thing. I'm sure there's a lot of stuff we could accomplish, but I'm not sure what. Certainly, protesting is one of those things and we are already doing it. However, this is by far the easiest step. The really hard work is finding and implementing solutions that are long lasting.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Agreed. Of course, genuine change, even if its about glaring, obvious injustice, (like the Civil Rights movement, for example) has historically taken at least a decade to achieve. And those decades+ were filled with determined, impossibly hard work, real sacrifice and actual blood and tears sometimes.

It could be even harder to achieve anything when the changes needed are about what many consider abstract concepts like income distribution gaps and arcane banking regulations.

Hell, most people can't seem to agree with each other about anything here on these fora, even when they are on the same side!

Anyway, I'm tired....didn't sleep at all last night, so I must be getting cranky. Maybe I'll be more upbeat after a bit of a nap.

Until then.....

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Hell, most people can't seem to agree with each other about anything here on these fora, even when they are on the same side!

The reason there is so much disagreement on this forum is because the discussions are mostly amateurish. There is a lot of cheap basement talk here. This is not the place to find scholarly discussions on politics or economics.

[-] 2 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

Thrasymaque, I just reviewed the home page I am aware of and did not read this as you had interpreted.

Your statements make me think of a couple of my thoughts -

  • we would still be under English rule if there was no revolution. .
  • People would still be walking outside corporate America trying to form unions if it had not been for violence.

While I am not supporting violence, sometimes that is the only way to get something done. In our Great Nation, I hope something can be accomplished by voting. I hope this can work, it has never been put to the test like it must be now.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Look at the bottom of the right column on: http://occupywallst.org/

This #ows movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society.

the only solution is WorldRevolution

OWS has a hard on for the Arab Spring protests because it wants to create a revolution like those that happened in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. That's why it publishes so much news about Egypt.

They haven't made demands because like they say "they don't need politicians". They want general assemblies on every street corner so that citizens can take care of their own business instead of letting representatives do it for them. The Spanish anarchies of the last century are also a big influence.

[-] 2 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

I saw it, I hope people realize you cannot run a Nation like that. That sounds gang run neighborhoods, no States, no Cities, no defined communities. The baddest guy on the corner run each neighborhood.

I would like a consensus of people we are communicating here. Am I reading this wrong? Who stands by this model?

Who thinks we can bring in change by voting out corrupt politicians and bringing in patriots to run this nation?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

In their defense, the idea is not to let the "baddest guy on the corner run each neighborhood". They want to use general assemblies to make decisions by consensus. That means everybody in the neighborhood would be involved.

I don't think this could work at all, and I favor having a representative in the government making decisions. I don't have time to participate in the economic and political decisions of my country, and I certainly don't have the proper formation to make educated decisions.

Their idea might work in small villages, but certainly not at the scale of a nation.

That being said, I think OWS is a much needed protest. It raises many issues. My thinking is that it will eventually break into various pieces, some of which will perhaps become political parties. Many OWS protesters don't understand the first thing about OWS and expect it to start making demands. Once they understand it never will, they will become disenchanted and leave the movement.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 10 years ago

The type of consensus required to legitimize any blanket policy is not possible in the structure provided by OWS, it's an ideological paradox.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago


[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

Wrong. There are more and more off-shoots of this movement that are working on direct political change.


[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

I know. I'm talking about OWS, not offshoots. The reason there are offshoots making demands is because OWS isn't doing it themselves. You're only proving my point.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

Technically, the 99percentdeclaration is a working group and part of the NYCGA, so it is a part of OWS.

Everyone in the movement doesn't agree with this working group, nor do they have to. It seems like the best solution for people to do something is to split up into groups that are pursuing whatever specific goal those people have. If the entire movement had to agree on everything, then nothing would get done.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Perhaps, but if the entire movement gets divided into groups that have contradictory views then the entire protest doesn't make much sense. If one's goal is to work with politicians and make demands, why would he want to be under the umbrella of a protest which makes it clear it does not want to make demands and engage the politicians.

You can't fit a multitude of contrasting ideologies under the same hat. That makes for one confused brain.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

Its not that bad, really. We need people on the ground, staying visible through protests just as much as we need people fighting the legal battles in the courts, and others still trying to change the government. The issue that OWS is fighting is like a hydra that manifests itself in a million heads. I understand if people want to try and cut off certain heads first based on what they are most passionate about (or in my case, what I think will have the biggest long-term impact.)

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Hydra has one body, but many heads. As long as OWS keeps one body to hold all its heads together, this might be a good tactic. My fear is that it won't, and the heads will just go in their own directions without being in sync with each other. At that point, we can't call it a unified protest anymore. There could very well be some splinter cells which contradict others, just as some of the goals of the democratic party contradict those of the republican party.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

Good post TechJunkie, you are totally right. To demonstrate is one thing, the Tea Party did it and got zero attention. But they mobilized and voted, this made the difference. This got corrupt politicians/citizens concerned, concerned for the lifestyle they have. Concerned that people are taking notice and demanding change.

You have to vote, or get physical, this is what brings about change.


[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 10 years ago

You opened up a rather large can of Leftist worms that are mean,shitty and have nothing but loathing for anybody who declares themselves a Conservative.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago

First of all I would like to tell you that this is not a pro-Obama movement. This is Occupy Wall Street and Barack Obama's administration is full of Wall Street execs and his new campaign guy is a Wall Street Lobbyist and Obama also supported bailing out the fraudulent actions of Wall Street. Which the Federal Reserve used our bailout money to create trillions of dollars out of thin air, which hurts our economy while it helps them greatly. This kind of bullshit needs to stop. We bailed out a system that operates on fraud and stole people's pensions, 401k's, and their homes.

Here's what I want to see done.

End the wars.

End the fed and restore the power of the constitution over the monetary system and pass HR 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense Act and start making America great again.

HR 2990 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2990

Pass the OCCUPIED amendment which get's corporate money power out of politics and restores the power of influence to the people.

The OCCUPIED amendment http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org/

I'd also like to see something done about monopolies like they used to do back in the day.

I think if we stopped wasting money on wars and bullshit sectors of government and passed HR 2990 we could have lower taxes and universal healthcare and a better economy.

[-] -1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

Trevor, You make some good points and we should get rid of the unaccountable Federal Reserve.

While were at it lets get rid of some more usless Federal Departments like the EPA, Dept of Edu, How much waste and redundancy is there in the Federal bureaucracy? I suspect we could reduce Fed employees by 60% and not miss any of them.

Here are a few more things I would like to see-

  • The USA become self-sufficient and export more than we import.
  • Incentives to bring jobs home, no tax break for moving them out of the US, but a tax increase for taking jobs overseas.
  • Term limits all politicians
  • No pensions for congress
  • No diplomatic immunity
  • Accountability for congress actions, stiff prison terms for insider trading
  • No balanced budget, no pay
  • Hard look at foreign aide, stop most
  • Spend more on retired people than on prisoners
  • No lobbyists
  • Line item veto
  • End pork barrels

There are countless issues that need to be addressed. Are you guys wanting to address these type issues?

[-] 15 points by nucleus (3291) 10 years ago

As if "big government" was the problem, and not complete and total domination of the political process by corporate money ...

First: get corporate money out of politics. In France there are no lobbyists, and a "campaign contribution" ends with a stiff jail term.

Second: restore true progressive pre-Reagan tax rates. The kind that paid off the WWII debt (120% of GDP) and built a nationwide civilian infrastructure and created the middle class and created the longest period of stable growth in history.

Those two things alone would restore much validity to the electoral and legislative processes,at which point government would become a viable instrument of the people.

"Big" government is not the problem. Government that is owned by corporations and the rich is.

[-] 3 points by TheirLyingPropaganda (54) 10 years ago

If the problem is "big government," it's big government run by big corporate money billionaire bosses, who line their pockets at the expense of the rest of US.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

Those two things alone would restore much validity to the electoral and legislative processes,at which point government would become a viable instrument of the people.

What you just posted is diametrically opposed to repelican policy and dogma.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago


Term limits, no pensions, no "diplomatic immunity," and no healthcare for congress has been an issues in OWS but I don't think it's on their list. These 2 are essentially OWS, "Spend more on retired people than on prisoners, No lobbyists."

And as you can see the Obama lovers downvoted my comment for telling you what they don't want to hear. This is not a pro-Obama movement no matter what some die hard Obama people tell you. Obama works for Wall Street.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

like the EPA

we aren't getting rid of the EPA - only the oil industry is in favor of that and that is insane

are you insane?

[-] 1 points by NappyIsGone2012 (2) 10 years ago

EPA is corrupt

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

your name makes your agenda perfectly clear

you are an idiot and a stooge of the repelican party machine

you're a fukin tee shirt

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

Zen, If the EPA did what they were set up to do, you would be right.
This EPA is a do nothing department, do some research.

The EPA had good intentions just like many other Govt departments, but the bureaucracy built yet another worthless giant

Here are some links for you to start with




[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

Instead of 'getting rid' of the EPA, then fix it so it does what it is supposed to do.

Eliminating a program such as the EPA, and even the Dept of Education is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Instead of tossing everything out, get the politics out, then agencies could do what they were designed to do.

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

I say send Education to the States, get the Fed out of it.

Do you know how you get a promotion as a Federal Govt employee? You get more people under you? You know how your boss gets a raise and promotion? He gets more people under him. It Is Broke..... This is why the bureaucracy is is enormous.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

I watched the states handle education. No standards, children from one state were 1 to 11/2 grade work behind children from another. Teachers with no certification. Send Eduction to the states? Wasn't doing so good before, why would we want to return to it?

[-] 1 points by ninetymillion (32) 10 years ago

I think that given the $69B allocated to the Dept if Edu, the states could do a much better job.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

You do realize that the states are allocated funds for education and the states follow guidelines which are reasonably 'loose' when it comes to spending, do you not?

Too often departments are created and then not allowed to do what they were designed to do because of politics...and whether it's at the federal or state level there will be politics affecting it.

It's a typical American response when something isn't working the way they want it to, toss it out. Ever hear of repairing it? Learning how to make it work properly, or...shocking thought! Allowing it to do what it was designed to do.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Republicans cut their funding, over and over.

So please, before you "throw out the baby with the bath water".

Ask that it's funding be put on par with it's opposition.

Write to republican representative, and demand it be done.

Ask that it be allowed to function as it was designed to do.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

that's repelican

  • repelican

    repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican repelican

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

They are rather replant.

I will promise to use the term (r)epelican studiously, if you will vow to use the FLAKESnews.

I use that term because it seems to turn otherwise decent people into flakes.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

umm, flakesnews . . .



I dunno -

faux nuuz seems kinda nice - I will definitely give that some thought.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

It really tics em off.

They're used to the variations of faux nooz.

[-] 1 points by NappyIsGone2012 (2) 10 years ago

It's called Fox news, libtard. Fair and balanced. Number 1 in ratings, not to mention the hottest chicks

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Sure it is, but so is American Idol.

Keep watching, flake. You can't look away. It's gross and perverted.

Just like you.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 10 years ago

nbc, cbs, abc, msnbc, cnn ny times = Lame Stream Media

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

You left off FLAKESnews. The lamest of all. If it's on TV, it's mainstream.

I guess you could always go loony for Limbaugh.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 10 years ago

MSM is the acronym for the Main Stream Media. LSM is what it is. nbccbsabcmsnbscnn ny times all in the tank for 0bama.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

FLAKESnews and Limbaugh, and his many mini-limbaughs, are in the tank for flakes.

So what's your point?

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

flakes.snuuz has a nice ring to it - and it's accurate in a backwards kind of way. It tends to put the flakes to sleep to the realities and radicalize them on the basis of their nightmares.

I'm laughing.

I don't know why.

it isn't even funny.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

3 months of fending them off, will do that to you.

I laughed the first time I thought of it.

Laughter is my profit.


[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

Once I laughed for two days

. . . two whole days . . .

It all started in a nearly empty mall - and the sound of my laughter echoing in the empty space . . .

it sounded spooky

. . . . and completely insane . . . .

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Perhaps, but it must have been amusingly frightening.

Did you get it on tape?

Sounds perfect for a remix.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

I missed that opportunity.

But I still laugh over it.

weird but true.