Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Let's Support Splitting The USA Up Into Different Countries

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 28, 2012, 1:11 a.m. EST by 1971 (154)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What if the USA was to be split up. For example what if our nation was split up into five or six different independent sovereign nations? It seems our one nation is paralyzed in an intractable gridlock. The 1% have worked long and hard to corrupt and own the system. Also we have different regions who desire different directions. Some regions want to pursue a cutting edge progressive philosophy.Other regions want to hold dear last century's traditions and frack for oil.

Individual State sovereignty today is overshadowed by a monolithic overbearing globalist federal govt. Many people are of the opinion that our govt is too big to provide for the people's needs. Our govt no longer serves the people. Our founding fathers did a great job devising obstacles to ward off domination. Unfortunately the wealthy have had a lot of time and resources to systematically circumvent those protections. Today the 99% can see who owns the system, but we are too divided against each other. Instead of letting the division gridlock our nation, let's use political jiu jitsu. Don't fight it, go with it. Support the division.

For example the USA could be broken up into five different nations:

  • Northeast
  • Southeast
  • Midwest
  • Northwest
  • Southwest

Each nation could start over fresh, with a clean slate. Exclude any present politicians from involvement in the new nations.Each would draft their own new sovereign constitution that can deal with current new threats to the rights of the 99% that were unforeseeable centuries ago. Imagine being a citizen of a nation with no money in politics. No political parties, heavy sentences for govt corruption, no central bank, no activist judges, strong privacy rights, no drones, no homeland security or NDAA, No more Amerika.

A transition period could be implemented so people could finally decide which country to settle down in and become a citizen of.

74 Comments

74 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

TWO ITEMS:


I think OWS shoud do a fund raiser get collect money
we will pay Nexico to take texassI back. We might even throw in arizona.


For every $1.00 a red state pays into the federal government, they get back more than $1.10
For every $1.00 a blue state pays into the federal government, they get back less than than $0.90


so we could simply - for the sake of equity - TAX the red states more

[-] 3 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

I've heard that. It is actually worse. W. Virginia(red) gets $2.57 back for each $1.00 of tax they contribute. California(blue) gets $0.83 back for each $1.00 taxed. The red states are raping the blue states out of tax dollars. These same red states are the obstructionist and gridlock our politics.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Most red states have higher levels of poverty. I doubt that taxing poor people more is really the aim of Occupy.

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

We're putting the cart before the horse again. Before we ever consider new governments, or new boundaries, or new monetary systems, we must first put the people back in charge of the country so that they have the power to decide among themselves what course they should set.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Only if New Mexico doesn't have to be in the same region as Texas, Arizona, and Utah.

[-] 2 points by obombya (11) 1 year ago

It may be the only way. The establishment has set up too many firewalls to protect their corrupt deathgrip on power. The people are only used to pay taxes for the giant war machine. The phoney election system they have created just gives people the illusion their vote counts. They own both parties. Either way we vote we lose. It's a heads they win, tails we lose scam.

Our politics will remain a WWF wrestling match, until all money is removed from politics and people start supporting 3rd, 4th and 5th political parties.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20557) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Well I dunno

there are those who favor Vermont succession . . . we were a sovereign state at one time, from 1777 until 1791 . . .

Ethan and Ira kept pushing for admission into the union because it only made sense - with the British just over the northern border, and the lake a natural invasion route, the boyz insisted we formalize a relationship in the interest of defense . . .

say . . .

You don't think the British are just waiting for succession to attack again . . . ?

[-] 0 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

Some in Vermont believe you should separate and become part of Canada. The idea of separating Vermont from the States is very much alive.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20557) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Yeah, I think that idea is actually as old as the state itself.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Wasn't this what the civil war was kind of about? Back then, behind the scenes, it was the British empire financing the south, so the US could be divided and conquered. The British were doing it to retake the US as a colony.

Today, the conglomeration of huge financial institutions, and the people who own them, would like to do the same thing, which is divide and conquer the US. Having a large unified country is intended to protect us from such predation.

It's the same thing with China and Tibet. Our main stream media, owned by the banks, want to see China divided and conquered by the global financial empire.

[-] 3 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

I think about it differently. The USA is already divided. Different regions have different philosophies that have caused gridlock and dysfunction. Our govt is controlled by globalist and world govt advocates. The policy they implement facilitates globalization and the dominance by multinational corporations. Since the end of the Cold war, the policies of the USA have benefited the global ambitions of the 1% and harmed the 99%. Instead of TPTB trying to split up the USA, they are trying to expand it. Economically with NAFTA and other economic unions. Militarily by strengthening NATO and UN military unions.

If America had a govt that supported it's majority, there would be no desire to split it apart.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Good points, I must admit, but personally, I don't see how it would get better by dividing it up.

[-] 1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

I actually think this is an excellent idea.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

We shouldn't be trying to do "cool" stuff. We should be trying to do important stuff to make a better world.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

I'm the source of truth. Nothing more, nothing less. If you react in panic, it's because you fear truth. You should support Odin from now on. Today is my last day on this forum.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

I support some of your ideas. But, I'm explicitly supporting Odin because what he's about at the moment is critical. This will be my last day here. I might come back in a few months, but I will be taking a long break. I have done so before. You're new, so you wouldn't know. I've been here since the creation of this forum.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

You joined this site a month ago, how could you possibly know what my goal is or was? Unless, of course, you are being deceiving yourself and have been here all along?

You have no idea what I am about, you are simply regurgitating what some users here have told you. That's unintellectual and uncreative. If you talked to people like Odin and April you might understand why I'm really here.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

I always tell the truth. You've simply accepted all the lies you were told about me without taking a moment to think for yourself. You've only been here one month, you don't have a feel for what the forum is all about. I've been here almost a year. Read my postings and you'll see they are some that make the most sense here. If I'm arrogant, it's purely for self-destruction of the proposer. I want the ideas to matter, not the proposer. If I was everyone's friend, they would just twinkle my posts and move on. Like you, I would remain unread. By being a tad rough, I get much more readership thus by being able to push my ideas further. If you care about your ideas, you'll do everything in your power to bring them to a large readership, and you'll make sure nobody forgets them. I do.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

I post what I stand for all the time. Read my postings. It's all there.

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

It will probably end up that way, but if it does, the transition will be, let's say, EXTREMELY UNPLEASANT... Chalmers Johnson has written a lot on the American Empire, worth reading.

It seems that alot of people who worked in .gov who had serious problems of conscience with what was going on left .gov service in the 2002-2004 timeframe, Binney, and many others. That was the primary wave of dissenters. I know for a fact there are many people currently in .gov service biding their time, (clandestine units, 3 letter agencies, and special military units) maintaining their position waiting for a significant event. The system is out of control, it's a freight train with no brakes flying down a mountain. It's not going to be fixed.

One point I think many people who advocate large government don't think of is the perverse incentive structure in place and how power will destroy most people (especially secret power). Anyone with conscience will be plowed out of the way. Many others are too ignorant of the actual current state of things, or historical perspective to think differently (normalcy bias). People go along to get along... sad.

The system cannot be fixed at this point, it will crash.

From a historical perspective, things are pretty clear for what lies ahead. Any government that deploys the methods of tyranny, (surveillance, censorship, prosecuting whistle blowers, and a vast military empire) eventually turns the military aggression inward. East Germany did this at several stages then blew up at the most advanced stage. Historically, the outcomes have been economic collapse, domestic tyranny, or both.

Economic collapse from the perverse incentive structure that has terminally infected the .gov (Fascism) is beyond the point of no return. We will suffer, all of us, worldwide because of it. Any actions to give the .gov more power to "fix" things will ONLY be used to increase the efficiency of Fascism, domestic control, and oppression.

The second option (and more unpleasant) is that the government(s) are able to arrest the economic collapse (likely at a pointless level) but are able to maintain their power, or the Governments, in their quest to "stabilize" society in the face of an imminent collapse deploy the fist inward before full economic collapse. This can have several permutations, but violent civil war, and/or world war are usual outcomes.

Our best chance is for the financial collapse to occur first, rendering the military police apparatus unsupported, the logistics train starved. Without logistics and funding, extreme domestic tyranny becomes problematic, and ideally practically impossible. You may still have local gov take that route though.

Long term, a redistribution of power to the lower level (individual and municipal and state) is the likely outcome, but that could take years. How that occurs could vary widely including secession of several states, or a break up of the USA. Certainly, it will mean the end of US hegemony, and the US empire. A Balkan style collapse might be a good model.

Plan for that, all the high level operating people I know in .gov are. What would you do if your neighborhood turned into a Bosnia style war zone, or international supply chains were disrupted from major war and economic collapse? Intensity level may be different depending on geography, and what city/country you live in.

[-] 2 points by BIGBRUISER (-4) 1 year ago

"Plan for that, all the high level operating people I know in .gov are. What would you do if your neighborhood turned into a Bosnia style war zone, or international supply chains were disrupted from major war and economic collapse? Intensity level may be different depending on geography, and what city/country you live in."

Yes the TPTB are not pushing for women to be in combat because they support gender equality. They just want twice as many people eligibe to draft when their plan for WWIII has begun.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Das ist forbotten! Ask the ghost of Lincoln. Or maybe you'd rather support Jeff Davis? I'm sure one of the splinters of the wreck of America would support outright slavery.

[-] 0 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

Ah, Lincoln, America's Stalin... Hopefully that era won't be repeated.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 1 year ago

Slave-owner apologist

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

If you are interested, I wrote an article that explores the same idea. But instead of breaking up the country based on region, you just break the country up based on economic systems.

Everyone will have the freedom to participate in the system they want without having to move. You can choose a libertarian system with minimal taxes and regulations, or a mixed economy like we have now, or a socialist system like what I advocate. If there is some minimal level of support for a particular system, then they get a right to build that system.

Choosing an economic system will be like choosing a cell phone plan. You sign up for a minimum number of years which means you would have to work at and buy all your goods and services from that system.

This would give people the opportunity to choose the system that works best for them without having to move. And the competition between systems will finally demonstrate which one really works best.

Initially, all cities would be a mix of all systems. But this does have some drawbacks since each system would then have to share common economic infrastructure like roads, water and police. So some future cities would likely be developed that were 100% socialist or 100% capitalist in order to better work with their economic system.

I also go into how the new systems would be launched.

You can read the post here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-to-make-america-socialist-and-get-100-to-go-al/

[-] 1 points by SoratStirs (3) 1 year ago

So now you want us to move from "every man his own priest" to "every man his own economic system"? Each individual chooses the economic system he wants to live within as he would choose what station to watch on television??? That is Libertarianism run amok.

And your point about the national infrastructure is on the mark. It is essential to have a central governing body over the national infrastructure if we desire to maintain any semblance of civilization in the USA.

I will read your article today.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

No, you can only choose from among the available economic systems. An economic system needs a certain amount of people and production in order to be viable. So an economic system will only exist as an alternative if it has some minimum level of support.

I don't get how you think that is libertarianism run amok. If you are a socialist because you are against exploitation and want a system where everyone is wealthy, not just a few at the top, and you choose to live in a socialist system, you will be living in a socialist system. That system will have zero capitalism, so it has zero libertarianism for the people living in it.

Libertarians and the people on the Right disagree with your claim that you need central planning to make infrastructure work. So let them live in a decentralized system and you can choose a centralized system.

Everyone wins.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 1 year ago

If you think things would improve under cessation, you are way off, my friend.

[-] 0 points by SoratStirs (3) 1 year ago

A policy of deliberate and official Balkanization of the United States would serve no purpose except to bring the world one giant leap closer to planetary chaos, endless warfare, and, most certainly, eventual domination of the globe by forces far worse than anything presently emanating from Washington DC. Although I agree with your overall disenchantment with the plutocratic regime, and respect your advocating major revolutionary alterations to the system, political jiu jitsu ( as you call your idea ) is, quite honestly, insane. Tearing the the USA apart in order to fix it, is not exactly a solution. The 1861-65 conflict comes to mind, or, even better, the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Far better to stand beside Erasmus than Luther.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

This is not the Balkans, 16th century reformation or 1861. Sometimes it's good to learn from history. Then there are times when it is right to prescribe new thoughts to make history. Old ideas have gotten us into this dystopia. The time for your old thinking is obsolete. Washington DC is not America. It has become it's own separate entity. A parasite that feeds off of it's citizens while pursuing global ambitions. Trying to save the world has bankrupted us. You are the one that is disenchanted if you think Washington will solve the world's problems.

[-] 1 points by SoratStirs (3) 1 year ago

I never said anything about the present regime being able to solve the world's problems. I agree with you that the so-called "government" in Washington has become a monster and is running amok. My point of disagreement is in your advocating a policy of Balkanization as a partial solution to the present and ongoing crisis. A splitting of the USA into a series of smaller state formations will only exacerbate an already seemingly insoluble national and planetary disaster. My reference to Luther and Erasmus was only meant to illustrate two ways of looking at corrupt international institution: Rip it to shreds, which will lead to decades of bloodshed ( Luther ), or revolutionize/reform it from within with the least amount of disruption to the social order as possible ( Erasmus ). Personally, I favor the latter.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Good idea hwever everyone here favors a Soviet style centralized planing group for all Americans.

[-] 2 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

So everyone here can live together in 1 of the 5 new nations that support their philosophy. Each nation can choose a different idealology. Each nation can create their own new constitutions.

[-] 2 points by captcha42 (54) 1 year ago

So imagine everyone on this forum living together in the same new nation. Say the Northwest. I got a feeling there won't be any fracking or Republicans there.

[-] 2 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

I would rather live in a smaller, better country, than one big fucked up country like we have now. Does anyone really think deep down that this albatross we live in now can be fixed. It has become too screwed up, corrupt and divided to heal. The powers that be are too deeply entrenched to dig out. The Rubicon has been crossed and we can no longer go home.

One new country might seek to have an anarchist govt like #OWS supports. Another new country might want something like direct democracy. Another a socialist govt. Another a Hybrid of a Republic and direct democracy.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20414) 1 year ago

I could actually see this happening down the road if we don't get our act together and start taking care of the masses.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

One can always move to some other smaller country if you do not like it here. Dividing this country is not an acceptable solution. One big problem here is the belief that voting does not make a difference. It actully can if people would just excercise the power that is in their hands. It is the one thing that politicians are the most afraid of, yet we continually fail to vote out the entrenched. Most of the time the reason is voting for a party, not the individual. They then complain that their congressman/government is corrupt, yet they vote him/her in again every two years. I say give them a term or two and turn them out. Give someone else a chance. What could be worse?

[-] 3 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

Quote: "One big problem here is the belief that voting does not make a difference."

Voting will NEVER make a Positive difference if the electorate is uninformed, misinformed or ignorant. That is the problem with today's electorate.

Your say about voting: "It actually can if people would just excercise the power that is in their hands." The power of voting is not in people's hands but in their minds. It's not the act of voting that is powerful. It's the act of voting by a wise, informed and educated voter that makes it powerful.

Today we have many barriers to a politically educated electorate.

  • An absence of accountablility from officials. Most voters do not know the names of their representitives, much less have comprehensive oversight of their activities. In my opinion each voter should get a quarterly report card that provides full accountability of all their representitives. This report must be provided by a non political/neutral entity.
  • The MSM, Corporate owned press whose objective is to control the population, not provide it with a free press. When you control information, you control the people's minds.
  • A political establishment whose objective is to keep truth away from the electorate. Obfuscating the facts and distracting the voters with convoluted, futile debate.
  • In practice, without money it is impossible to be elected. To get money, you must sell loyalty. Hence today only the rich have loyal representitives.

Without complete reform of our voting process, we will never achieve empowered voters.

.

[-] 3 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

Quote: "One big problem here is the belief that voting does not make a difference."

Voting will NEVER make a Positive difference if the electorate is uninformed, misinformed or ignorant. That is the problem with today's electorate.

Your say about voting: "It actually can if people would just excercise the power that is in their hands." The power of voting is not in people's hands but in their minds. It's not the act of voting that is powerful. It's the act of voting by a wise, informed and educated voter that makes it powerful.

Today we have many barriers to a politically educated electorate.

  • An absence of accountablility from officials. Most voters do not know the names of their representitives, much less have comprehensive oversight of their activities. In my opinion each voter should get a quarterly report card that provides full accountability of all their representitives. This report must be provided by a non political/neutral entity.
  • The MSM, Corporate owned press whose objective is to control the population, not provide it with a free press. When you control information, you control the people's minds.
  • A political establishment whose objective is to keep truth away from the electorate. Obfuscating the facts and distracting the voters with convoluted, futile debate.
  • In practice, without money it is impossible to be elected. To get money, you must sell loyalty. Hence today only the rich have loyal representitives.

Without complete reform of our voting process, we will never achieve empowered voters.

.

[-] 3 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I believe we are in agreement. So our challenge is to educate the voter. Too many vote like sheep (both sides). Voters have to re-learn how to listen and comprehend, to differentiate fact from fiction, become multi-sourced for their information. Today we have people voting for whoever their movie or rock star says to vote for without any idea what the person actually stands for. Funding elections is a problem that really needs addressing. Money out of politics is easier said than done.

[-] 3 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

The system must first have all the mechanisms present for an honest fair system:

  • No money in politics
  • Representitives who provide accountablility to their constituents.
  • A true free press that educates the voters.
  • Stiff criminal penalties for official malfeasance.

Until those things are present, the voters cannot be held fully accountable for their ignorance. The voters can only fail the system when it is just. The system fails the voters when it is unjust.

I totally agree getting money out of politics is easier said than done. It's almost impossible to have the system changed by those who benefit from it.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Make it illegal (meaning prison time) to benefit financially from insider trading. That alone would stop a lot of wanna be millionaires from trying to join political parties.

Would also slow down the bombing of other nations. Win-win situation.

[-] 3 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

Yes, they are taitors to the people and deserve severe prison sentences. In extreme cases the death penalty.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Who or whom is supposed to take action when politicians commit obvious fraud?

[Quote]; Many Democratic analysts have taken issue with Romney's Swiss bank accounts that he refuses to disclose and his holdings in companies based in the Grand Cayman Islands.

Considering she(Nancy Pelosi) is one of the top ranking Democrats- and easily the first or second most powerful woman in Washington (depending on whether or not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in the country)- it should not come as a surprise that her financial disclosures would come under intense scrutiny.

She was caught in a similar predicament last fall when it was discovered that a company that her brother-in-law had invested in was awarded a $737million loan guarentee from the Department of Energy.

At the time, she was heavily criticized as many saw the move as a form of cronyism.[/Unquote]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172296/Nancy-Pelosi-Calledi-hypocrite-MILLIONS-foreign-investments.html#ixzz24upw9Y00

[-] 2 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

Who is supposed to take action? Good question. It should probably be an entity outside "the system or boys club". Possibly a rotating panel of university scholars who scutinize congressional conduct. When they find significant malfeasance by an official, they can recommend prosecution by the judicial system/supreme court(? or ideas)

There is a provision in the constitution that makes it very difficult to prosecute officals of congress while in office. I can understand the original logic of not having officials intimidated by prosecution while deliberating. Unfortunately, this protection of congress has provided a sanctuary for hubris and malfeasance. I do think they must have greater liability for their actions than present law provides.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I'm thinking that the "system" is set up for criminality of the highest order.

No wonder criminals are attracted to the political parties. The bribes alone would be worth it.

[-] 2 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

There is a lot to gain when you're able to set up a "system" that allows you to rule with impunity. It's funny that people are conditioned to reject conspiracies as theories. All throughout history conspiracies have led to great successes.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Hmmm, but in this instance, there is a clear and present factual base to work with.

It would appear, even to a casual observer, that crimes are going unpunished right through both of the political spheres.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

"...educate the voter." Yes that is the key, and it is that, imo, that is easier said than done. If we truly could accomplish that, the money would be irrelevant.

[-] 3 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

One time we should just vote out whoever is in. That would send a very clear message. I try to do that now with usually only a few exceptions. We must first fix voter apathy, get them "mad as hell and not going to take anymore". But it must be done with facts, not rhetoric. Any deviation from that would put us right back to where we are now. A true verifiable web site of information would be a start, completely nonpartisan, would not endorse anyone, rigorously monitored, and not anonymous. Written at different education levels where each would find information comprehensible to the reader. No slant, just facts and positions of candidates or parties.

[-] 3 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

I agree. I've thought of very similar solutions. I would like to see a non-political quarterly report card that is mailed out to each constituent. I don't like the fact that our govt is keeping increasing information on it's citizens. I'd like to turn the tables on them. Let the citizens keep information on them. Comprehensive report cards from an independent non political entity, with guards against corruption.

We want ALL the details,salaries, expense reports, info on their staff members, attendence records, voting records, membership/ affiliations(think tanks,CFR,etc), travel records, What they have voted for, what they are voting for, and what they're going to vote for. Detailed comments on what they liked and disliked about each bill. Perhaps non-poltical acedemic scholars could also contribute their expert comments regarding the candidate's legislative actions and effects.

Some people say, the information is "out there" and that people should be responsible to "look it up". I totally disagree. Then it's totally on the voters and "they" failed to properly research, etc. It would have to be an official one source report card. Otherwise all the political games start.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

At least we have something others before us did not have - the internet to reach out with education/communication.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Yes, but it's more than just presenting the information. How to overcome the preconceptions, prejudices and biases is the hard part. You know the phrase; you can lead a horse to water....

[-] 1 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

The voters don't like the DIRTY politics. The horse might want to drink the water if it was CLEAN.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - but how to get the horse to drink? That is why the more people who reach out the better - because everyone has a different style of communication ( ultra polite - to down and dirty tell it like it is ) and this is where peoples attention can be nudged and caught.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Let's hope. But on the issue of having the internet; are you aware of this? http://stopthetrap.net/

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I had not seen that before - thanks for sharing - I signed and tweeted the petition as well. http://stopthetrap.net/

This TPP BS could be so devastatingly bad that I shudder to think about it.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

It's the worst yet, by far as much as can be determined. The details are being kept secret. Not a good thing.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH HELL NO it is not good - the politicians in office that are supposed to be working on this have absolutely no idea in hell what is going on - but it sounds like we are giving up sovereignty of our country to the whim of corpoRATions foreign and domestic. Good bye environment - good bye workers rights - fucking bend over and kiss your ass good bye American people.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"One new country might seek to have an anarchist govt like #OWS supports. Another new country might want something like direct democracy. Another a socialist govt. Another a Hybrid of a Republic and direct democracy."

Why don't such people just move to countries that already have such governments?

[-] 2 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

BetsyRoss, What an inappropriate name you selected. A woman who supported those who opposed the rule of injustice.

If the REAL BetsyRoss had an attitude like you, she would have been an establishment King George III lap dog. She would have told the founding fathers to go sew their own flag and move to another country.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Another mind reading, magical thinker who pretends to have the ability to discern what complete strangers think and feel and believe.

I oppose injustice in all of it's forms, in particular when it comes from individuals or groups who proclaim to be authorities on what is truly just and what is not-and then behave in ways that prove that they are hypocrites.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Everyone on this forum....how many people exactly are you counting on to create your new nation? I'm sure you'd want to divide up the nations EQUALLY based upon the number of people actually wanting to reside in each one right? So....you'd need a much smaller area than the "Northwest".

[-] -2 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

Interesting idea, but you lose it here:

Imagine being a citizen of a nation with no money in politics. No political parties, heavy sentences for govt corruption, no central bank, no activist judges, strong privacy rights, no drones, no homeland security or NDAA, No more Amerika.

Don't be so naive. Separating America in various nations might help, certainly with so many diverse regions and cultures. However, to think that this will magically fix everything is flawed. Some of the nations might even be worst than what America is now. I can imagine the Bible Belt people would make sure that their new constitution does not give rights to gays and lesbians. It could definitely help some parts of US, but it certainly won't be as rosy and dandy as you paint it.

[-] 3 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

Tell me why you think keeping America together is so important?

[-] -2 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

I never said it was and have no idea why you think I espouse this idea.

What I said was that your article was interesting, but you lost it when you started writing that separating America would suddenly lead to a perfect world.

[-] 4 points by 1971 (154) 1 year ago

Perfect world? That description is not in the post. You're allowing yourself to extrapolate too freely. I listed a scenario were a nation could start off with a clean slate and adopt policies that would ward off schemes that foster corruption.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17668) 1 year ago

Interesting moniker. Even more interesting syntax. Does Odin know that you of all people are "insupport" of him ?! Or are you just on another usurpation mission ?!!

temet nosce ...

[-] 0 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

He knows. We support each other. You've never understood what Thrasymaque was all about because you never seriously read my postings. This does not matter to me. I am here to push ideas, not to gain high-fives from forum "friends".

Read Zen's last posting if you want to have a clue as to why I am here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/hey-listen-up/

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17668) 1 year ago

If I "never seriously read" your postings, it's most probably because I was distracted by your antics, bad behaviour and multi-monikered manipulations. Where you "are" seems desultory, mutable & transitory but nevertheless, this is an open forum & all are free to contribute. We all stand or fall by what we say and to some extent, how we say it. You must know or feel by now that I am as little concerned with "high-fives" as you are. We'll see how things pan out.

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

I've never read anywhere that this was an "open" forum whatever that means. There are actually strict rules to adhere to. Conspiracy theories, electoral campaigns, off topic rants, hate, etc... All these subjects are forbidden, but, sadly, the rules are not enforced in a proper way.

Where did you get the idea that this place was a free for all? And, if it is, why not name it the "Free For All Internet Forum"? We could use it as a date site, a site to sell merchandise, a site to push capitalism, to push republicans, to talk about cooking, etc... Why is a free for all forum under the Occupy banner?

We all stand or fall by what we say and to some extent, how we say it

No one is standing or falling. Reputations here are of no importance, only ideas matter.

I'm assuming you think those with high scores are standing, and those in the negative are falling. Well, this really ain't no Donkey Kong. I think the scores are antithetical to Occupy. They represent hierarchy, not anarchy. They help in no way since ideas matter, not scores. Furthermore, I find these scores quite annoying since they constantly displace comments in a posting. When I come back to a posting the next day, I'd like to be able to read it as it was. It's more useful to have all comments in chronological order than to have them constantly change order because of a useless score.

Also, scores discourage people from reading the postings of new users. This encourages conservatism. People are encouraged to read the ideas of high scoring posters, ideas that seldom change. Fresh ideas that come with a score of 0 are often overlooked even though that poster could be a long time member of occupy, and could be much more active and knowledgeable than the people with high scores on this site.


I use aggressive antics at times because it grabs attention, much in the same way that occupiers use on the ground. Being forceful is sometimes necessary. You might not understand my ideas now, but, in time, they will seep in. What's important is that I didn't come here unnoticed. People will remember my ideas for a long time to come by the way I presented them.

You should be concerned about the people here to hurt the forum, namely, those that come from moveon.org. I explain why in Zen's posting.

Odin and I are very much in sync in terms of how we feel about this forum. And, there are many others who feel the same way. Perhaps one day you will understand how dangerous partisan politics can be to an anarchic protest. It basically destroys it by sucking the protest inside the system rendering it powerless to fight the system as a whole from the outside.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17668) 1 year ago

Abrasive ; confrontational ; facile ; hectoring ; pedantic ; specious ; tendentious ; unnecessary and vacuous ... but really worst of all - BORING !!!

I leave you to your self-absorbed, self-referential, self-referencing hubris & your delusions of relevance, I've better and more rewarding things to do today !!

Get well soon and good luck with your New Forum !

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 0 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

No problem. As usual, since you don't have counter arguments, you use logical fallacies. It's easy to throw ad hominem around. All too easy.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17668) 1 year ago

I have 'counter argued' your conservative, reactionary BS extensively over many months, as have others but keep provoking me and I'll set some time aside to show links to your numerous nefarious posts and comments. It'll be easy but tedious to do as you and your "Illogical Fellatio" are totally self-exposed !!

gnothi seauton ...

[-] 0 points by insupportofOdin (-25) 1 year ago

Sigh... Again just logical fallacies... emptiness...