Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: MoveOn.org's "99% Spring" will fail to co-opt Occupy Wall Street

Posted 2 years ago on April 13, 2012, 2:47 p.m. EST by EricBlair (447)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

178 Comments

178 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

I understand your concerns about MoveOn.org masquerading as Occupy, but my understanding is that although they are supporters of the Democrats, they are still left-leaning and authentic. I remember well how MoveOn.org mobilized the people for anti-Iraq war protests in 2003, so they can't be evil.

OWS belongs to everyone, the more the merrier. No body can take over this movement as it is decentralized and leaderless. But everyone has the right to contribute what they can.

[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Eric Blair is not a friend to OWS and basically does allot of whining and complaining. With him around who needs enemies??? If OWS followed his advice they would become irrelevant and chaotic just like he clearly is. If you don't understand what he's saying it's not us it's him. He doesn't make any sense and this is an example of how it plays out.

After, all his diatribe, I wonder if he will bother to vote in November. If he follows his own advice he won't. I wonder how change will ever happen if none of us bother to vote. Jeez, mouthing off here doesn't count as a vote. The GOP hates OWS and tells them to get a job. I do think OWS n=knows who's with them and who's not. Eric can't change that because we know the truth. The truth can't be bullied by him, ever, only in his ego-centric mind can that happen. He may have convinced himself and now believes his weird lies

The Puzzler

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

Be gentle with the poor boy. You know he lives in mortal fear of anyone voting for a Democrat.

He gives scant lip service to the malfeasance of the (R)epelican'ts, yet seems to know every detail of Democratic issues.

He'll vote, but I doubt it will be for anyone with a chance of helping us move forward.

[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

LoL, that's a good characterization of what Blair has tried here. I think his end game is to get people apathetic enough, like him, so they don't vote seeing how, if they buy into his distortion, it would be a waste of time.

But, it's likely he'll vote for Mitt even though he would never admit to it. Mitt plans on even more tax cuts for the rich, and with the Ryan Plan, which he loves, he will gut all the gov programs meant to help the middle class and poor like Social Security, Women's health care. And screw health care reform we'll return to the GOP lip service that our health care in this country is wonderful (and it is for the rich). Yeah Mitt Romney, exactly what this movement has been against from DAY 1.

The Puzzler

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

He didn't come here to learn anything. He came here to insist and stomp his feet.

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Good job.

Don't let these morons come on here and trick you into using logic and reason.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Juan,

Oh, really. Now, your Mr.Reasonable. We know who you are Juan and what you said in other threads. Is it your playtime again? LoL

I must admit you are a funny guy. Stick around, we may have laughs with you!

The Puzzler

By the way glad to see you here. My heart always fills with joy when you post a reply to me. Maybe my evident truth stance will wear off onto you. Be careful the truth is not always what we would like. Our emotions sometimes wants us to ignore the truth because it just doesn't make us happy.

So happy truths to you Juan! ENJOY!!!

The Puzzler

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

Yet it would be advantageous for someone to trick you into using logic and reason.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

<<<I understand your concerns about MoveOn.org masquerading as Occupy, but my understanding is that although they are supporters of the Democrats, they are still left-leaning and authentic.>>>

Your understanding has been misinformed, they are most certainly not authentic. BP oil company is to greenwashing, as MoveOn.org is to leftwashing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwash

<<<<I remember well how MoveOn.org mobilized the people for anti-Iraq war protests in 2003, so they can't be evil.>>>>

Their hypocrisy in that regard is actually a great indicator of their inauthentic nature. MoveOn.org was happy to opportunistically support us in the anti-war movement when they saw it as a wedge issue to drum up support for the democrats against Bush. Now that Obama is in office pushing the same war-mongering polices the anti-war movement has mostly collapsed, in part because MoveOn.org and other similar pro-democrat organizations are complicit in it. They never really gave a shit and they contributed to us falling apart:

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/15/135391188/whatever-happened-to-the-anti-war-movement

http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/democrats-dump-the-antiwar-movement/

<<<<OWS belongs to everyone, the more the merrier.>>>>

It belongs to the 99% to the people---it doesn't belong to Wall Street and their pro-1% front groups like MoveOn.org.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Wow, conspiracies everywhere Eric. Mr. Conspiracy, we can call you.

I was wondering, do you plan on voting? If so, for who?

DO you believe it matters if you vote?

Try to answer the questions directly Eric. I don't need your attack. Just answer.

The Puzzler

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

<<<I was wondering, do you plan on voting? If so, for who?>>>>

No

<<<DO you believe it matters if you vote?>>>>

Yes. Voting is actually harmful---it helps to keep up the illusion that we live in a democracy and that the people have a voice in government when they don't.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

That's really all I needed. It really explains allot. It's certainly your right to believe as you wish. Thanks for taking the survey.

The Puzzler

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

Don't kid yourself, George voted too. Wanna know who for?

Frank Zappa, even did voter registration at his concerts.

Sometimes you have to watch more than clip to get the whole picture.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

<<<Don't kid yourself, George voted too. Wanna know who for?>>>

Nobody. You're just making shit up without having any idea of what you are talking about (a pattern with you)---as you can see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk&t=1m37s

Hard to be any clearer than that...

<<<<Frank Zappa, even did voter registration at his concerts.>>>

Frank Zappa also spread rumors around that he ate his own shit, to gain publicity for himself----and deliberately avoided denying it until years later.

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

Are you gonna start the echo chamber again?

It's lame.

You showed another clip. He was an entertainer. I read the book.

It tells a bit of a different story.

He liked liberals, and anarchists, and HATED (R)epelican'ts.

Can I be any clearer than that?

Zappa often did jokes on politics too, but still held registration drives.

You really must watch too much FLAKESnews. You don't know entertainment from reality.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Or are you really gonna try and claim that wasn't the point he was trying to make and that it was all just a joke?

Cause' then i'd have to conclude you can't tell satire when you see it or take a point---even when it's beaten over your head.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

You can't admit you were wrong can you? You claimed that George Carlin voted. Such a position is explicitly repudiated (and openly mocked) by him.

George Carlin was a brilliant satirist who constantly ridiculed both liberals and conservatives for their naked hypocrisy. You want me to dig up his acts were he mocks sheltered naive liberal idiots?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

George Carlin was absolutely left-wing. Wrong again O'Brian.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Of course he was left-wing---that's why he didn't support right-wing pro-war Wall Street tools like the democratic party.

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

I read the book, you watched youtubes of his act.

Now, go back and watch some more FLAKESnews.

You have problems accepting reality, and I do hate to shatter your fragile little world.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

LoL. How do you handle the cognitive dissonance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

It would give me an aneurism.

I would ask you to cite evidence that he voted but that:

1) Gives the idea (which he himself has just thoroughly refuted for you) more credence than it deserves.

2) You don't have the honesty/integrity to even attempt to look for it any way (doing so would create anxiety and dissonance making it more difficult to sustain your bubble of comforting self-delusion)---so you are just going to avoid thinking about it, and find some reason to dismiss this post. This is called Belief Disconfirmation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#The_Belief_Disconfirmation_Paradigm

Let me suggest some possible cognition to help you avoid confronting reality and the associated stress:

"He's just a troll who takes out-of-contex youtube clips and doesn't understand Carlins work"

"George carlin was a Comedian and that was meant as humor---he really didn't mean to compare voting to pointless masturbation--It's all a joke!"

"This poster is a troll and he is just baiting me, I shouldn't play into his game---I'll just ignore him"

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

Well, I guess you can't watch a book on youtube, so you must be correct, as I can't provide a link and everyone knows everything on the internet is true..

Books always lie. Especially when George helped write it.

BTW: The term you used isn't really applicable.

Good try though...................:)

Are you going to explain how Zappa didn't do voter registration drives?

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Shooz? Title: ? Page #: ?

No?

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

<<<Well, I guess you can't watch a book on youtube, so you must be correct, as I can't provide a link and everyone knows everything on the internet is true.. >>>

I see. Hmm. I hadn't considered the possibility that the footage was doctored. You're right... I mean what else could it be? Some guy loaded doctored footage unto the internet. Surely.

<<<Books always lie. Especially when George helped write it.>>>

Which book is it? I have Last Words and Seven Dirty Words on my shelf. If it's either of those two I can look it up right now. Just tell me the page number where he says he votes.

<<<BTW: The term you used isn't really applicable.>>>>

It's even applicable to your claiming it's not applicable. lol.

<<<Are you going to explain how Zappa didn't do voter registration drives?>>>>

I don't doubt he did. He's a nutjob.

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

The only nut job is you!!!!!!

But then, you knew that, or at least everybody else does.

[-] 2 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

There are good people too amongst the 1%, what if you were born into wealth - should I regard you as my enemy. My object is to get the rights of the 99%, not seek vengeful justice against the 1% - but most people can't control their anger, they can't forgive.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

I don't want wealthy people to die; I want them to stop ruling the world.

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

I agree with you on that!

[-] -2 points by veepveep (-7) 2 years ago

So you admit OWS is a hard leftist organization then? Good to know for the record.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

LOL !!! WTF would you know about any "hard leftist orgainisation" you - just joined (April, 14th) - RightWing, Republitard, Reptilian Robot ?!! Mother Teresa's 'Sisters of Mercy' are Revolutionary Communists as far as you're concerned, aren't they ?!

I'll be your huckleberry if you want to play Trolly-Boy and as for your "record" - shove it, because it's scratched beyond repair and your needle has stuck ...

verum ex absurdo ...

[-] -2 points by veepveep (-7) 2 years ago

So you admit OWS is a hard leftist organization then? Good to know for the record.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

ECHO ; Echo ; echo ...

[-] 2 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

OWS stands for the rights of the oppressed, thats what I mean by left-leaning. Otherwise, people from all spectrums have joined OWS, which is not an orgaization but a movement.

[-] -2 points by veepveep (-7) 2 years ago

If you have rights, then exercise them. But don't infringe on the rights of others, something OWS espouses. Others OWE YOU NOTHING.

Your right to freedom includes my right to be free from you.

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

OWS is standing up for the rights of the 99%, they put their bodies on the line for the purpose. Violating minor bylaws like occupying parks to make an important point, something which will make or save this country, is acceptable in my dictionary.

How have they violated your rights?

[-] -1 points by veepveep (-7) 2 years ago

By demanding free stuff and demanding other people pay for it.

You want something, you pay for it.
[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

Everyone needs so much money to make a decent living, if you have more than that then you should pay enough taxes to take care of the poor. After all money is not earned in isolation, you make money from other people and if you acquire more than you need then you should return what you don't need to the people. Selfishness is not a good thing for society, it will lead to unrest.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22225) 2 years ago

Agreed. MoveOn.org is not Occupy Wall Street.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Methinks we need a short demonstration protesting their corporate lobbyist asses to drive the point home.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22225) 2 years ago

Yes. Agreed. I know someone who got an invitation to attend a training "event" from what they thought was OWS. They forwarded the e-mail to me to look at and I explained that it was MoveOn, but it wasn't very clear and it made me kind of angry, to tell you the truth. I guess OWS doesn't own the 99% idea, though, so don't know what can be done about it.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Maybe Anonymous should DDoS MoveOn.org and the Van jones front groups while we do it.... hehehe....

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22225) 2 years ago

That is one idea. LOL.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

It is essential that OWS is NOT Co-opted but there will be and indeed 'must be' overlaps with other Progressive, Forward Thinking and Pro-Social Justice Groups and Organisations. OWS's real strength lies in its diffuse and amorphous nature as it can help to mobilise behind Important Issues as opposed to mere 'candidates, individuals and personalities' !

In six short months OWS & the "WE ARE THE 99%" meme has affected a see change in attitudes in The USA and abroad. Nationally and Internationally a Consciousness Has Been Awoken. Thus the real question re. 'MoveOn.org' is what have they been up to for 15 Years ?!!

However, no doubt good and well meaning people are involved in 'MO.org' and thus we must all endeavour to work together against the "Global Insurrection Against Banker Occupation" and so here's a tight tune inspired by George Carlin and Max Keiser ( http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/ and http://maxkeiser.com/ ) : "G.I.A.B.O." = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGRu1uqJGkY !!!

Anyone who watches "Inside Job" ( http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/ ) will see the need for Real Change and Emancipation from The Death Grip of The Criminal Bankster Syndicate and 'The Imperial Military Industrial Complex' - the dangers of which of course Ex-Soldier and President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned against over 50 years ago ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY ).

per ardua ad astra et dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22225) 2 years ago

Yes. You nailed it shadz66. Very well put.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

WHY WE SHOULD STRIKE

"We are all united: the system that declares unionized workers are bad for business is the same system that decides human beings are a commodity that can be "illegal". It's also the same system that causes students to graduate college with so much debt that they must chain themselves to a career in something they despise, rather than pursue their passions. It's the same system that measures the value of people by what they consume, and that measures the value of artists by how much they sell. It's the same system that believes you can put a price on a sustainable planet."

Eric Blair is a paranoid fellow who sees conspiracy under every leaf. He wants no one to vote so especially democrats who he relentlessly attacks here. The amateur article he points to is highly suspect and trashes Move On folks heavily. I've known some MoveOn folks, they do align themselves with the 99%ers in spirit and principle.

Blair set this post into motion to confuse people and have them start to believe that the dems are just as BAD as the GOP. This blatantly false. We can see what the GOP is doing and generally they are on the opposite side of what dem's want. To believe the GOP and the Dems are one and the same thing is the big give-away that this man Eric Blair has sabotage on his mind. For him the ends justifies the means. With this post being the mean his lack of intelligence shows clearly. He is simply a BIG LIAR period. Or he is truly confused so that none of us really understand what he wants. My assumption is that he wants no one to vote come November.

He's a troll but not the flaming kind. He's more subtle and tries with no success to sound as if he's telling something rational, but we see through it.

SO, with that said it's great entertainment to see his antics. Maybe it's test for us to see how we determine the truth when some one like him tries every which way possible to bend and distort it. Being that he doesn't flame spew us, he can voice his opinion although it's really lame.

What he may not realize is he is really wasting his time. He really wants a bigger soap box but he can only find this one. What a shame and waste. Maybe in his mind he's a big man. When Obama wins he can go back into hibernation and we will still have this movement to make sure Washington listens. The dems say good things about OWS, not all, but some. Not one GOP senator or congressman says anything good about OWS and in fact say bad things about it. They fear OWS because the only way they get elected is the blood money from wall street. The GOP has always catered to the rich. They blocked the dems to keep the oil subsidies going to big oil. The GOP supports Big Oil whole-heartedly. Make no mistake which side is more for the rich and gutting all the social programs that help the middle class and poor.



The 1% needs us to continue reaping their profits, but WE DON'T NEED THE 1%.

This May Day, Occupy Wall Street, in coalition with numerous other organizations and occupations, calls for a Day Without The 99%: No Work, No School, No Shopping, No Housework, No Compliance. Let's take the streets, reclaim our communities, and support each other. NOT the 1%.

If you can't strike call in sick. If you can't call in sick hold a slow down. We know how to shut it down because we're the ones that prop it up. If we continue to stand by while the 1% descimates our economy and destabalizes our lives, we will be powerless to challenge the forces that oppress us.

Occupy Wall Street

On May 1st, let us stand together to reclaim our jobs, our communities, our lives. Withdraw your consent and strike!

If you throw one stone, it's a punishable offense. If a thousand stones are thrown, it's political action.








The Puzzler

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Jesse, I think Eric is experiencing now what he may not have expected. This likely will knock him back on his heels. ANd he'll likely resort to just repeating himself. He has no facts and is fueling himself off of paranoia.

The evident truth stands on it's own (the irresistible truth) where we just need to amplify it some so others realize it. His positions are so disconnected from reality that I sure most here had to shake their heads a few times trying to even figure what it is he is saying.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It can't fail at something it it is not trying to do.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

We shall see.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I would think that you will need all the people you can get.Unless you want to relagate yourself to a few hundred die hards.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

That's why we got to keep MoveOn from co-opting us and alienating the mainstream.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Why not co-opt move on ?

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

This could just be the myopic view on the poster and his op ed choices.

Some have pointed out that the exact opposite is the truth.

OWS is co opting moveon.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/99-spring-moveon-occupy-wall-street

So much for the latest anti-OWS conspiracy theory.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

OWS is crowding in on MoveOn's territory of worshiping the democratic party?

No thanks, you are welcome to it. We've no interest in your electoral politics.

Next you'll be repeating that meme that feminists are wrong and men are actually oppressed by women.

Accuse the accuser---as it's known by attorneys.

Yep, I've heard it all before.

Sorry, the left just isn't buying the democratic party's lip service anymore. You don't own our vote.

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

Have fun with your conspiracy theories.

I would advise you to use more Bigfoot though.

By the way, who's we?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22310) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah - really who is we? Generally when I comment or post it is with the intention of speaking out against corruption, and I suppose that I subconsciously include those who are also against corruption in all of it's forms and representatives. These would be true occupiers, there is no party in occupy philosophy as far as I can see, it is a philosophy of the greater good of all regardless of association, you know Health & Prosperity for ALL - even the rich.

So - [-] 0 points by EricBlair (436) 18 minutes ago

Who is it you are speaking for?

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

Yeah, it's kind of funny isn't?

These folks come here to take digs at the movement and then when it's convenient, they pretend they are actually part of it in some way shape of form.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22310) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sad & Pathetic.

Supporters of evil looking to claim light as their virtue.

Usually gets as far as I can throw my car - but hey - they are plucky little devils.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Never taken a dig at the movement---just MoveOn.org which is not part of the movement.

Occupied liberty plaza back on the very first day on Sept 17th and have video evidence to demonstrate it. I (like ad-busters who originally put out the call for OWS and also condemns MoveOn's leeching and co-option ) have no more or less credibility to claim to be a part of the movement than anyone else.

MoveOn.org and the people trying to turn OWS into a Lobbying and get-out-the-vote campaign are the interlopers here.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

yes. thank you.

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

OIC You just take digs at those who support the movement.

Sooner or later, alliances will need to formed.

Were you expecting the Spanish Inquisition?

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

"OIC You just take digs at those who support the movement."

Lip service + co-option ≠ "support"

"Sooner or later, alliances will need to formed."

Like Occupy Wall Street: and alliance of people from various backrounds and political ideologies united to protest against the domination of giant Walls Street firms and corporations (e.g. Obama's top contributors and Cabinet members)

"Were you expecting the Spanish Inquisition?"

Nobody expects...the...eh...fuck it.

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

For you?

You're last statement was your best.

The rest? Divisive at best.

Indeed, a repetition of a (R)epelican't talking point.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

"The rest? Divisive at best."

Yes, yes---accuse the accuser. More lawyering tactics from Shooz. That's Ok. Nobody's buying it and we aren't going to be divided by your front groups.

"Indeed, a repetition of a (R)epelican't talking point."

Republicans are supporting OWS on the basis that we oppose the political bribery of Goldman Sachs? That's news to me. Good on them. We could certainly use more talking points like that.

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

I'm flattered you think I'm a lawyer.

One of the things a lawyer knows how to do is ask the correct question.

Do you echo me just to make your posts look bigger?

(R)epelican'ts take plenty of "donations" from WallStreet, so your point is useless.

For your next (R)epelican't talking point, please insist on how both parties are identical.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

It would be a useless point if I were advocating voting republican instead. I've made my point perfectly clear:

They are serving the same masters---they are on the same team: A Good Cop/Bad Cop routine.

Obama is the very epitome of everything Occupy Wall Street is protesting.

You're point that the democrats are a "lesser evil" for OWS supporters is demonstrably false:

Obama is the all time record holder for Wall Street bribery (significantly more than any republican): http://influenceexplorer.com/industry/securities-investment/0af3f418f426497e8bbf916bfc074ebc?cycle=-1

And it has bought them compete control of the economy under the Obama admin:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-27-lobbyist_N.htm

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/ex-white-house-budget-director-joins-citigroup/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19gensler.html?ref=politics

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/10/nation/la-na-obama-jobs-council-20111010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303732.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/business/schneiderman-is-said-to-face-pressure-to-back-bank-deal.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/business/19dimon.html?pagewanted=all

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKGZkktzkAlA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545908/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/obama-selects-bernanke-second-fed-term/#.Tw0j0PntlnA

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13631.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/06/05/analysis-shares-obama-idUKNOA53525520080605

http://dailybail.com/home/where-are-the-wall-street-prosecutions-gretchen-morgenson-ag.html

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

There's no need to spam. You've posted this umpteen times and we've all seen it.

On the other hand where is the so called, "other side" to your DATA?

You are, I would think, aware of the fact that GOP pacs are far ahead of the Dems. So I won't belabor that.

I will also point out that there are 50 States in the Union, and the (R)epelican'ts are flush with cash in most of them.

I would also tell you at this time, that it is becoming apparent that the Kochs are going to take back the libe(R)tarian party they helped found.

This isn't about one thing. It's about everything.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

If the Republican party were trying to hijack OWS I would be highlighting their own crimes. Right now democrat party front groups are trying to and I'm going to point out the relevant facts.

When republican Ron Paul infiltrators come around I set them straight too.

I don't treat republican operatives any different from democrat operatives.

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

You still didn't do the DATA. In fact, you ignored most what I said.

What is most telling about you to me, is the fact that this is about the only thing you ever comment on.

The only thing you seem to worried about at all, is that someone in OWS might vote for a Democrat.

Now, why is that?

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

I think you're a little confused. MoveOn makes no secret about their reverence for the Democratic Party...where is the "theory"?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22310) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Is it the democratic party or the democratic process?

Currently not much difference in the real world as the democratic party is still holding closer to the process. No not perfect but better than the Reugs in office.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

"democratic process"

lol...Now there's a conspiracy theory...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBdk5n68gdM

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

Yeah, so?

Were you expecting the Spanish Inquisition?

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

So how is it a conspiracy theory to suggest it?

It isn't a conspiracy theory---it's a matter of public record.

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

It's the general theory of co-option.

What "public record" are you referring to?

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

The sum total of all MoveOn.orgs publications.

They support the democrats. They aren't trying to make it a secret. This isn't a conspiracy theory.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Seems to me you were one of Tr@asy's bots at one time. So now you're back working your divide and conquer voodoo again. Same symphony, different theme, composed by the devil.

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

What is it you think you have for an effective alternative?

The Spanish Inquisition?

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

I don't propose an alternative to MoveOn.org.

I propose a counter to MoveOn.org:

Occupy Wall Street.

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

Cool. I like that idea too.

So what's the problem if moveon wants help Occupy, and march with us?

They are mostly about voter activism, and registration. They can't "force" you to pull any particular lever.

The other plus, is that Limbaugh, Beck and FLAKESnews hates them. That's a plus in my book. That puts them in our "club"......:)

I believe the Coffee party, which is much closer to the Democratic party has made overtures to Occupy as well, though I have no idea where that's gone..

Are you that sad that we spurned the overtures of teabaggers?

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

I'm sad that the Tea Party (who's original purpose was to protest Bush's bail-out plan) was hijacked by the Republican party and turned into a cesspool of bigotry and paranoid conspiracy nuts.

At one time they had a legitimate cause going and brought attention to many of the same issues that OWS does.

I'm determined not to let the democrats do the same thing to OWS---and I urge anyone from the Coffee Party to consider the option of Japanese Ritual suicide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

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

They where (R)epelican'ts to begin with. Stop kidding yourself.

Look at the crap they've passed in the States and how badly they have gridlocked Congress. There isn't one of them worth a dime.

Look at what they still "protest", as if they ever really knew how.

Teabaggers are shit!

Ask anyone to die again and I'll see to it you get banned.

Go ahead and try me.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

<<<<They where (R)epelican'ts to begin with. Stop kidding yourself.>>>>

Wait a minute. Hold the phone. So...if a group of people are associated with a political party that you disagree with then they are worthless and repellent---even if they share common goals with OWS (such as ending the Fed, getting money out of politics, and protesting against the Bush administration and the bailouts.)

Weren't you railing about something like that for two days now? Something about "Ideological purity" and not alienating groups that choose a different way to "change the system"?

What blind partisan hypocrisy.

<<<<Look at the crap they've passed in the States and how badly they have gridlocked Congress. There isn't one of them worth a dime.

Look at what they still "protest", as if they ever really knew how.

Teabaggers are shit!>>>>

The Tea Party is pretty disgusting. They're racist, homophobic, classist, sexist etc.

That's what getting co-opted by a political party does to you.

Anyone trying to push that on OWS is our enemy.

<<<<Ask anyone to die again and I'll see to it you get banned.

Go ahead and try me.>>>>

So now you're an internet tough guy, eh? You're gonna complain to the mods about my support for euthanasia? Oh dear.

Actually, I'm usually against the death penalty in almost all cases. With one exception: powerful war criminals and heads of state who commit crimes against humanity. My reasoning is that they are still a strong political force that can exert power and influence even from inside the walls of a prison cell. Normal murderers are no longer a threat to the innocent once they are captured, so it's pointless and inhuman to kill them.

For example, I consider it the right thing that the Nazi high command was sentenced to death. If we applied the same legal standards (the Nuremberg code, which codifies wars of agression as the highest possible crime) to Obama, Bush or Clinton---they would all be executed. And rightly so. Obama (a child murderer) should be tried and put before a Firing squad in accordance with international law---like he deserves.

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

The only blind hypocrisy is yours, you base it all on one sided facts.

Teabaggers are (R)epelican'ts, you didn't deal with that, you tried to attack me personally.

That makes you the partisan hack.

See above, they are and always were (R)epelican'ts.

Even though you used your cheezy echo chamber, you didn't talk about the "teabagger effect". You ignored and went for another dig.

They weren't co-opted....they were what they became.

I'm no tough guy, but go ahead and try me.

Are you going to continue the echo chamber BS?

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

Spoken like someone who didn't bother to read the link.

BTW what makes you think this is a conse(R)vative movement?

It isn't you know.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

The democrats aren't a right-wing conservative party?

Could've fooled me:

http://www.obamatheconservative.com

Right-wing, reactionary, starts multiple wars, murders children with flying-robots, expands wiretapping and domestic spying on citizens, appoints Wall Street lobbyists to run economy, assassinates US citizens without trial, expands the use of torture in secret prisons across the globe, has taken more bribes from Wall Street than anyone else in the history of the world, shield the criminals responsible for the fraudulent mortgage foreclosures from prosecution etc etc.

Obama is a crypto-fascist.

I guess I'm supposed to forgive the fact that Obama's department of Homeland security coordinated the nationwide crackdown of police brutality that shut down hundreds of our tent communities. I guess I should just forget getting beaten with nightsticks and turn the other cheek right?

We just gotta vote for him or a republican will get in and...and...well...shit...

What else could they possibly do that's worse at this point?

Obama could rape your own mother in front of you and you'd find some excuse why you still need to vote for him. "But..but.. if Romney gets in he'll stack the supreme court with Justices who will make legistlation making it more diffuclt to prosecute rapists like him!!!"

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

You are apparently in denial of just where we are, as a Nation.

If you did, you would begin to understand the origins of why there are similarities between the 2 parties.

You would also understand that there are differences to be exploited.

The potential for exploitation is much better on the Democratic side.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thank you shooz. This is the obvious truth they are trying to prevent us from appreciating.

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

Who's zoomin', who?

There is a potential to co-opt the Democratic party, rather than be co-opted by it.

It's kinda what we thought we were doing in '08'.

We just have to work a little harder to get there.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, the whole point is to force the political spectrum to the left. If we eschew "politics" than we must overcome the system with public resistance. This is, I believe, both less likely to do, and far more dangerous than to push that political spectrum to the left. Better yet is to do both. Direct action to show the politicions we're serious about ending corporate tyranny and reasserting actual democracy. We got in this mess through apathy; only it's opposite, engagement on all fronts, will turn it around. No distinctions, united.

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

In actuality, the only non political person is in a coma........:)

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, the ancient Greeks had a name for a person who wasn't aware of, or engaged in public affairs: they called them an "idiot."

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

In many ways politics is the outward expression of our inward beliefs.

There is for instance, personal politics, sexual politics and religious politics.

In fact, what is politics, might make for an interesting thread.....:)

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, very good point. I think we need to clairify that, as well as that Republicans are making hey with the use of the word "work" to propogandize people about woman's rights That is such a typical Roveian method. They found the perfect wedge issue among women - separate working women from mothers who work at home.

And anyone who believes Mrs. Romney had to do any of that housework must be on crack!

[-] -2 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

GypsyKing: Doesn't know a Good Cop/Bad Cop routine when he sees it.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

No, I don't like game players. This isn't a game.

[-] -3 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Glad that you finally recognize it. Now get the fuck out of the way with your empty political theater and let OWS do some serious work.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!! I'm glad I'm irritating you, you phoney, half-wit, reincarnation of Tr@shy!!!

[-] -2 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

"You are apparently in denial of just where we are, as a Nation."

Empire you mean. I think you're in denial.

"If you did, you would begin to understand the origins of why there are similarities between the 2 parties."

Gee, I don't know...because they are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Wall Street? Because people like you keep pursing a near-sighted defeatist lesser-evil strategy that only works for the time frame of one election cycle? Because the entire political spectrum has shifted right-ward over the past thirty years, to the point where Obama is to the right of Ronald Reagan on central issues? Because the democrats know they can take the blind support of people like you for granted and just keep kicking you in the teeth over and over while they sell you out to the Republicans?

Even some liberal democrats are starting to wise up: http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/diary/8119/the-center-does-not-hold

"You would also understand that there are differences to be exploited."

You might understand how you are being exploited if you'd crack open a history book.

"The potential for exploitation is much better on the Democratic side."

The aptitude for exploitation is much better on the Democratic side.

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

Peppered with lame thinly veiled insults now?

Along with your "patented" echo chamber?

Let me ask you, in the simplest terms you can muster, just how would you describe us as a Nation?

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

I've already gone through this:

Empire.

Form of Government:

Plutocracy.

If you are looking for a different answer formulate your question better.

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

Empire? Eh. Not in a traditional sense.

Plutocracy? Yes. Yet no matter what you are told we are still capable of mitigating through the electoral process.

It has become harder though because of the power of the fourth branch of government. It's a power few want to admit exists, yet it is very real and very powerful.

Can you name it?

[-] -2 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

<<<Empire? Eh. Not in a traditional sense.>>>

You're right. No other empire in history has achieved the level of Global Hegemony that the US government has. Not Genghis Kan, Not Rome, Not Alexander the Great, Not the USSR. Not Even the British Empire: http://antiisgood.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/review-article-the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/

<<<<Yet no matter what you are told we are still capable of mitigating through the electoral process. >>>>

Yea. And don't forget the power of prayer too. That's sure to influence things.

<<<It has become harder though because of the power of the fourth branch of government. It's a power few want to admit exists, yet it is very real and very powerful.

Can you name it?>>>

I've always thought he 4th branch of government analogy was misleading---it gives far too much weight to the other three.

There's really only one branch: The conglomerates of banks and corporations that control Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, the Oil industry etc etc.

And there is really only one solution: World Revolution.

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

<<<<<You're right. No other empire in history has achieved the level of Global Hegemony that the US government has.>>>>>>>

This is mostly a matter of treaty with the host Nations. NATO, SEATO and I'm sure a host of others. So, like I said, not in the traditional sense.

"Yea. And don't forget the power of prayer too. That's sure to influence things."<<<<<<

I'm sorry, that's just an idiotic response. Was this your (R)epelican't talking point about how they are all alike?

-----I've always thought he 4th branch of government analogy was misleading--------

I call it the military industrial establishment. The complex part of it is now global. Try and convince your neighbors it exists as a branch of government.

World revolution is a long ways off. Know this. WE need to start here and evolve our own government, and that fourth branch has woven a very tangled web.............

Careful steps must be taken, as needed to keep this Union from falling apart.

I'm no great lover of the Dems, but if we allow the (R)epelican'ts to tighten their grip anywhere else, we will in effect be committing suicide.

OWS's political aims are on 2016, so we have to do what we have to do, to keep things from getting any worse.

bensdad, isn't lying about the SCOTUS. It matters a lot!

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

well that does sound quite disingenuous,. the dems as a target rise on my list,.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Good linked article. I suspect MoveOn will begin to lose credibility pretty quick with antics like this. Landis didn't know anything about May 1st? Jeez!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Move On started with complaints about the Republican attack on Clinton's sexual life in order to create non-issues in government

[-] 0 points by uncensored2 (-3) 2 years ago

OWS was started by the likes of MoveOn, the unions, and various other socialist orgs and you patsies got suckered into it. Wake up.

[-] 2 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

MoveOn is incapable of creating a successful movement---they just rush like sharks who smell blood whenever one arises (so they can devour and kill it).

And while we were not started by unions, we certainly support them and are grateful for any support from unions. It's better they support OWS than corporate democrats who repeatedly betray and sell them out to the republicans---all while pretending to give a fuck when they take their money.

[-] 0 points by uncensored2 (-3) 2 years ago

You are a stooge of crony unionism. Nothing but a useful idiot to them.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Nearly every Occupy activist I know believes that the social function of MoveOn is to co-opt Occupy into the Democratic Party. That includes even liberal supporters of MoveOn who happen also to be Occupy activists. Only the most politically naive could possibly believe otherwise.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

What do you know, more Anarchist Trollery. I thought Redjazzypants had that covered. I guess this is the Newbie Anarchism version.

Too many problems with the TCBH "article" to get into it. Suffice to say this is complete Bull Shit and destructive to the Occupy [America] movement. Which means, little newbie troll, you could definitely get a check from one of the many monied Republicon "Front Groups" cashing in on all that fresh Citizen United money. They most definitely LOVE your dumb-ass work! That is assuming UR not working for the darkside already.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Your point being that we should distance ourselves as far as possible from anyone who wants public funding for elections or to raise minimum wage and stuff like that, hmmm interesting perspective, stay as divided as possible.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Who is co-opting? This is not a competition. It isn't about scoring ideology purity points. It is about reform, progress and change that is desperately needed. People need all the help we can get. OWS will NOT radically change the very structure of society and/or government in our lifetime.

It will, and already has, changed the dialogue. It will effect some changes. But the system as a whole will remain intact.

Progressive movements - all of them - need to work together to make whatever changes we can in the time we have on this earth. Calling another progressive movement "fascist" is beyond ridiculous. OWS has its own vision (long term, mind you) of revolution. MoveOn and others like it have reformist visions rather that revolutionary. This divisive shit is nothing more than a pissing contest about who is the more "pure"?. Who the fuck cares?

They will not and cannot co-opt OWS, and vise verse. They are two different entities both pursuing progressive change, each in their own way, and each with their own founding ideology. Your fixation on them as an enemy is utterly misguided. It reminds me of the same kind if internecine battles that undermined much of the peace movement in the 60s and early 70s, and eventually tore progressivism to shreds via sheer exhaustion. You are making exactly the same error, not learning from history.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

well they can try to co-op me, but I'm more likely to take over the place

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Dividere et Vincere

Let's make sure occupy remains a really small group, divided from the mainstream, and thus remaining without influence over the mainstream . . . Great idea. Then infiltrate them with cops, to make sure they can't even function, and walla! Success!

[-] -2 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

You're right Mariner. It is important that we prevent fascist infiltrators like MoveOn.org from dividing and destroying us.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Moveon.org is now fascist? You've been spending too much time in front of the mirror, O'Brian.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”---Benito Mussolini

Sounds about right.

[-] 3 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

That's right, and I suppose you'll be saying there's no difference between moveon.org and The Heritage Foundation. See, the thing is, the only people who are going to be coopted by moveon.org, is people who can't read, because moveon.org is moveon.org and Occupy Wall Street is Occupy Wall St.. But if you say they can't work in tandem, or can't work in tendem with unions, etc. then there is no movement, there's just the same old isolated groups that can't find common cause.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

OWS is happy to work with unions, like the NYC transit workers union.

Now fake anti-worker sell-out union like the SEIU...

We might not get along so well.

And yes MoveOn.org is the opposite side of the coin to the Heritage Foundation or the CATO institute or whatever. They aren't fundamentally different---just serving rival factions.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

That's because it is a two party system.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

There is only one party that holds power in America comrade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

[-] 3 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Round and round and round you go, and where you stop . . . well somebody knows anyway.

When people say we shouldn't allign ourselves with Ron Paul, they are correct, because he is promoting the opposite agenda from OWS, but if you won't allign yourself even with those who have common cause, while still keeping your own identity separate, than you fail. As humpty dumpty said . . . "That's logic!"

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

"allign yourself even with those who have common cause"

They have the opposite cause. They support Wall Street's number 1 politician.

They supported Clinton and now support Obama for President.

I support having them stand trial and executing them for their war crimes.

They advocate voting for the same person I advocate be put before a firing squad---these are irreconcilable positions.

We are political enemies.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Yes, but there are millions of democrats who are decent people, and who are in line with this movements goals. Lets face it, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the situation we are in. As one exapmple, we could have elected McGovern. If we had we wouldn't be in this mess. But we are in this mess, and we have to find a way to win. That does not include excluding all those with whom we have common cause, does it?

You can wish things were differen't but they aren't. If we can't allign even with the left-wing of the Democratic Party what chance do you, Eric Blair, think we have of winning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

You keep repeating this concept that the democratic party is in line with our goals. The Democratic Party are Mass Murderers. What part of this do you not get? Their goal is to serve Wall Street.You do not live in a democracy. Your vote is meaningless. That is the way things are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBdk5n68gdM

Groups like MoveOn represent the Old Left that Monty Python is parodying in the Life of Brian clip (actually they were, specifically referencing Marx-Leninist).

They are nothing but a tired shell that no one gives a shit about---that's why they are trying to leech off Occupy Wall Streets vitality and energy. You seem to believe that party politics represents the mainstream. It doesn't. Most people don't vote. And for good reason it's a fucking waste of time. It's isn't real. It's doesn't bring change.

It's there to pacify you. To have you running on the hamster wheel not going anywhere.

What the hell chance do you think we have by aligning with the democrats? We aren't going to take political power---it isn't real. You are chasing the Utopian dream. EVERY positive reform in history came from direct action---from taking the streets, from civil unrest. Voting has never changed anything, nor is it meant to. Revolutionary politics is far more effective at achieving reform than Reformist politics are(not at all).

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Well, I wish you luck getting Americans into the streets in sufficient nimbers. How long would you consider a sufficient waiting period before taking alternate action? This is what the communists said; politics is corrupt therfore we will not corrupt our revolution through the existing political spectrum. They ended up with Stalin. That was worse than a fucking waste of time. That bit of utopian dreaming cost 20 million lives.

Furthermore, I already spit on your tone of authority, your dictatorial tone. We're not having any dictators you liitle shit.

[-] -2 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

Unions corupt our political system just like the corporations that we say are the problem

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Well, I see that the con man is picking up the divide and conquer message here accurately. You're known by the company you keep.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

Accusations are weak.

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

Not at all.

You've done nothing but lie since you got here.

The accusation is accurate.

[-] 0 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

So the Unions don't make campaign contributions and OWS has not allied itself with the unions is that what your telling me?

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

That's what you keep telling yourself.

Over and over and over.

Punctuation free too. Is that why you hate teachers?

Lots of people that make campaign contributions are allied with OWS.

What's the big deal?

[-] -1 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

So openly endorsing giving campaign contributions is gonna fix our system make govt by the people for the people?

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

Are campaign contributions illegal?

You must be new to politics and the internet.

Why is your thinking so lazy and incomplete?

[Removed]

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

You're repeating yourself in another thread now.

There is no comparison, of the influence. None whatsoever.

It just doesn't wash. You can't come close to proving it.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Unions are one of the only countervailing forces against corporate domination.

Working people uniting together and using their collective power is the very essence of the movement.

Saying that is "just like the corporations" is like saying that the woman who jabs her car-keys into her rapist/mugger's eye is no different than her attacker because she uses violence too.

The two are completely different things.

[-] 0 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

Look if you wanna start atually solving any of the problems discussed in this forum you have to get too no money politics first, a Goverment by the People for the People you can't get their supporting Unions who are major players, contributors in our political system to say you can is hypocrysy

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Unions put up what little counter their is to the giant corporations tremendous power.

What you are saying is like:

Someone is beating you up but you refuse to fight back because that would be violence and it would be hypocritical to use violence to stop violence.

It's nonsense.

So long as corporations exploit workers, I support union using every means at their disposal to fight back.

[-] 0 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

Try supporting no money politics

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

There is money in politics. Until the money is out, unions are one of the poor and the workers only defenses against the wealthy who control politics.

I mean it's like if you saw a woman being mugged and when she fought back you said "Hey! Try non-violence! If you don't like that they are using violence on you then why are you being such a hypocrite!"

Why are you attacking the only means that the weak have against the powerful?

I want unions to have more power than they do now. Union are great. I wish they had more money.

I wish the women getting raped had a gun in her purse to blow her rapist away.

[-] -1 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

You've bought into the corrupt political machine nothing will change.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

It just seem odd that for some concerned about money in politics, you would focus on large collections of people who have to work for a living pooling their resources together---instead of giant conglomerates that represent a tiny elite group of billionaires.

[-] 0 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

I want to focus on the entire issue corporations, unions or anyone else but can't because of the hypocrysy and power structure apparent in OWS.

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

Unions are not the major players you think they are.

Please stop repeating yourself, after folks have explained it to you.

It would seem, you are the real hypocrite. Unable to accept reality..

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Although MoveOn is not OWS, I wish them all success. I don't really care how we get to financial and political equity, I just want to see it begin to happen. And if the battle is being waged on more than one front by more than one player, all the better.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Who donates to campaigns or PAC's can't be controlled (although politicians could "in theory" return money, they rarely do, and I doubt campaigns even have have a mechanism for returning money). So the only thing Wall Street donations tell me, is they either expect Obama to win (and hope to garner favor through donations), or they're donating money to his campaign in hopes of creating a perception that he supports Wall Street (to give republicans, who make no secret about their support of Wall Street, an advantage, by trying to drive a wedge between Obama and his natural constituency, or at least try to take the issue away from Obama).

Just like I wouldn't base my opinion on someone like Ron Paul based on who may have given money to his campaign, I won't base my opinion of Obama on who donates to his campaign (since in both cases, this is largely outside the control of candidates). I may dislike Ron Paul's agenda, but not because some skin head went online and donated $20 to his campaign. I may dislike Romney, but not merely because he has well funded superpacs supporting his campaign, or even based on his wealth.

The starting place for me is what these candidates are actually saying, and in judging their actions, I consider (the best I can) all the factors they had to deal with in contemplating those actions.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

This post is satire right?

Just so I know I'm not going crazy.

...Right?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yeah crazy judging people by what they say and do rather than who gives them money, good thing the GOP don't take any of that dirty money, since they get every seat the dems don't.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

I want you to read this right here what he said:

"or they're donating money to his campaign in hopes of creating a perception that he supports Wall Street (to give republicans, who make no secret about their support of Wall Street, an advantage, by trying to drive a wedge between Obama and his natural constituency, or at least try to take the issue away from Obama)."

He is conjecturing that Goldman Sachs et al. are donating millions of dollars to Obama against his will so that they can create the false impression that he supports Wall St. in order to trick his potential voters and get the GOP elected.

I genuinely think he's got to be using sarcasm. For the sake of my faith in humanity, I really hope he is.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

see I'm hardcore and will take money from the devil himself if i need it to kill this monster

If you can show me how the GOP will be better than the Ds I'm listening or if you want to tell me how you plan to have someone who is not a D or R in any given seat i'll listen, but this is a real fight with real things at risk, and i am going to stay with what's real

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

I notice you didn't address whether you think he's using satire. Did you just read that section, see how absurd his comment was and the decide to back away from defending it? I also notice that neither of you address what the majority of the links refer to. That is: What Wall Street got for their money. That Obama put the very same people who caused the Sub-prime mortgage crisis in charge of the economy---that his administration is filled with with lobbyists from Goldman Sachs, Citi Group and JP Morgan---that he has done everything in his power to shield them from prosecution.

<<<see I'm hardcore and will take money from the devil himself if i need it to kill this monster

If you can show me how the GOP will be better than the Ds I'm listening or if you want to tell me how you plan to have someone who is not a D or R in any given seat i'll listen, but this is a real fight with real things at risk, and i am going to stay with what's real>>>>

Oh see, I don't plan on anything like that. I'm not concerned about getting people into seats---ya' know, causes it's rigged and fake.

I'm not under the naive Utopian idea that you can vote change in. The reality is that we need to foment civil unrest and build a mass social movement---something that has actually brought change before in history.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

ok I get it, you're not here to affect change through public policy, that';s cool, that really is why I'm here.

Look as I've said i'm hardcore, so those that know, know that means I supported Hillary, but a lot of young people bought the "change" thing and hey he is a heck of a speaker, but I am hardcore live in the real world and i know how bad the GOP is, first thing we have to do is kill the GOP, if can't do that we are miles from another party of our own

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

Lol, your hardcore because you supported hillary

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Please tell me about how you would address the wealth inequality?

Maybe I could learn some stuff

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

I think your name is really O'Brian.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

I think you should re-read that book. It's sounds like you could benefit.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Most, though not all, of their causes are the same as OWS. They are not as radical, and are trying to work within the system. OWS is working from outside the system. That could become a pincer movement, and all for the good. The direction of both is decidedly leftward, also for the good. If, down the line, they try to oppose progress, then, and only then, will I view them as the enemy. Until then, I welcome anyone and everyone who works to change the system for the better.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

"Most, though not all, of their causes are the same as OWS."

Their rhetoric is the same is ours, because they lifted if from us.

"They are not as radical, and are trying to work within the system. OWS is working from outside the system. That could become a pincer movement, and all for the good. The direction of both is decidedly leftward, also for the good. If, down the line, they try to oppose progress, then, and only then, will I view them as the enemy. Until then, I welcome anyone and everyone who works to change the system for the better."

They are trying to keep the system moving smoothly. They are trying to elect their chosen corporate faction---and that direction is decidedly right-ward:

http://www.Obamatheconservative.com

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"Their rhetoric is the same is ours, because they lifted if from us."

They preexisted OWS by several years. And they are decidedly progressive.

That they are trying to get Obama reelected is a good thing considering the alternative. That's not saying he would be my first choice - far from it - but allowing a Romney in to appoint the next round of federal judges and upcoming open seats on the Supreme Court is too dangerous to even consider seriously.

Yes, they are not as radical as OWS. But they have also been harshly critical of Obama many times, and I have personally signed many petitions from them that opposed his positions on various issues.

As I said, they are working for change from within the system. OWS is coming from the opposite direction. I don't share your view that it must be either/or. It can, and should, be both. Again, once they oppose change, I will no longer support them. As of now, they support change Maybe not as big as you would like, but it is positive change nonetheless. Any pressure that can be exerted leftward is good, even if it is incremental. Chomsky himself called for reform rather than revolution, and I don't see him as someone who is only trying to keep the current system moving smoothly. I see MoveOn similarly.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Obama is a republican:

http://www.Obamatheconservative.com

[-] 2 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

Thanks for posting this and nevermind what the obamazombies have to say. They are like the AFL-CIO every election year they go and vote for the democrats and every year the democrats turn around and kick them right in the fucking teeth. No matter how much proof you lay before them that the democrats are just as bad or in some cases worse than the republicans, they will still support the democratic party. Its like the people that don't believe in evolution or global warming, except they are liberals.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

Thanks for the drop of sanity in this ocean of confusion. This one guy still has me really concerned for my species:

"or they're donating money to his campaign in hopes of creating a perception that he supports Wall Street (to give republicans, who make no secret about their support of Wall Street, an advantage, by trying to drive a wedge between Obama and his natural constituency, or at least try to take the issue away from Obama)."

Please tell me that you know this poster and that he's joking. This is just really good satire right?

Seriously...?

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

Oh i'd laugh if it wasnt so sad! Who said that? I'll gaurantee he believes it just as much as that clown allen west believes that there are 81 communists in congress.

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

Sad, just sad. If I was a paranoid person I might even think that some of these people are put on here by democratic front groups like moveon to co-opt the movement. But that would be crazy, wouldn't it?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

you're a hoot!!

so Romney is the REAL liberal right?

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

You seem to be under the impression that criticism for one means praise for the other---under the impression that your options are to vote for one or the other.

There is a more reality-based solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk&t=1m37s

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I know for a fact not voting for one puts the other in office.

2000 never again!!

We gave up on climate change so we could "feel good" about Nader, now you want to give up on the rest.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

A simple deduction:

P1) Al Gore won the 2000 election.

P2) From P1: Al Gore did not lose the election

Conclusion) Ralph Nader did not cause him to lose the election.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And the Iraq War didn't happen and neither did Citizen’s United, great we can all go home now.

[-] -1 points by PresidentialCampaign (2) 2 years ago

Please visit Matthew's Campaign Website and learn about the monumental changes we are going to bring to America:

Copy and Paste full link:

Campaign Website: www.wix.com/usa2012/campaign

Matthew hopes to gain the support of all the Occupy Wall Street Protesters. If you all stand united under this one cause, Occupy will have been successful