Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: My apologies to all Republicans

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 3, 2012, 12:25 a.m. EST by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Recently my grown stepdaughter, who posts to FaceBook fairly regularly, pointed out that I had been posting on FB some "rather nasty" descriptions of Republicans. We've seen them all before here at the forum -- Repugnicons, Repugnicant's, Repelicans, etc. etc. etc. She further pointed out that she shared similar political leanings as me regarding the basic differences between Libs and Cons, Dems and Repubs, but in all good conscience could not engage in an honest conversation with me because of all the name-calling and obvious vitriol (indicating extreme bias and lack of objectivity) that I had been spewing.

And she was 100% correct.

I can remember back when I first started posting to this forum in January that the overall demeanor of contributions seemed...well, more civilized (for lack of a better word). It seems the closer we come to the election in November, the more visceral and hateful our expressions have become.

I hereby confess to everyone my failure to resist the temptation to "follow the herd" and engage in this low-brow form of expression. Don't get me wrong. I still believe that Republicans and Conservatives are possessed of MANY traits that I DEEPLY disagree with. But I also believe that nothing constructive can come from such adolescent name-calling behavior. It all seems like some childish form of verbal pissing contest to see who can out-clever and/or out-amuse the next poster.

Such should not be the behavior of adults who are attempting to make positive change in the world. In fact, we should be making every effort to take the highest road possible, because that is the way outsiders will formulate opinions about the movement. If we wish to gain new soldiers for the cause, we would do well to remember that people are usually attracted to erudite, principled speech rather than the behavior one would likely observe on Jerry Springer.

I am sorry, and ashamed, that for some time now I allowed myself to be swept up in the "Repubashing" that is so prevalent on this forum. I pledge to make a much better effort at taking the high road on this from now on, and hope that others who are inclined to present themselves in such a manner will do likewise.

283 Comments

283 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (1314) from Fredericksburg, TX 2 years ago

If you try to deal with repugnicants they'll take whatever you offer then try to deal for the rest. They want it all. There's no honesty or sincerity in them. Talking to them will only result in losing more to the cons who already own the world or control the mortgage on it. We could as well have bargained with Hitler. There's only one thing to do with that evil scum that's risen to the top of human culture.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

They sling mud. We sling mud. Yes, I am aware there is class warfare and deep divisiveness. I am not suddenly stupid. One could bring up a thousand cliches about them vs. us, love vs. hate, good vs. evil, etc. vs. etc...

At some point, in any conflict, a decision must be made as to how else to approach it unless you wish to continue the same course and achieve the same result.

I have not indicated I am choosing capitulation. I am simply choosing a different tactic and approach to the conflict.

To each his own.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I am not accussing you of slinging mud. Truth is truth. But the same truth can be expressed in different ways. That is all I am saying on this particular post.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

"leap the chasm..."

I have noticed some of your words have a poetic quality. I see where your 'Zen' comes from.

I must go contemplate my navel now master. :)

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I think the point that Under Dog was trying to make is that the people who support the values and objectives that the parties proclaim to embrace during election season are not the same people who are governing the parties; therefore, disrespecting the voters because of what their politicians say and do is getting us no where.

I bet there are as many disgruntled Republicans as there are pissed off Democrats, and when each side talks down to the other side, they both become more incapable of compromise.

Or maybe he has just realized that "respect begets respect."

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

I remember years ago when they were having a vote on a meaningful campaign finance reform bill. It was strongly endorsed by the good government group Common Cause, which I was a memeber of at the time. Anyway, ironically Jim Jeffords was one of the only republicans to vote for that bill, and Senator Leahy was one of the only democrats to vote against it. I wrote a letter that appeared in The Rutland Herald praising Senator Jeffords, and denouncing Senator Leahy.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

You went right over my head man.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

My stepdaughter would disapprove :-)

And I guess I'd be a pretty big hypocrite if I bought one now, right?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You certainly got the political hack part right.

My guess is that this upcoming election the vast majority of the sheep vote more D and R.

We will see.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

capitalist

[-] 3 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

This is a really great post. It would happen just when I was getting comfortable with being mean. I just want to add a couple of words. On the one hand, I know you’re right; we are in a public place and the world is watching. But the forums I’ve seen that are more civil and troll free have some admins dedicated to keeping it that way almost around the clock. People do tend to behave a lot better when there’s a code of conduct. This forum has been a kind of war zone don’t you think? The soldiers are gonna curse. So maybe we can cut ourselves some slack? There’s a lot of understandable tension floating around. We are exposed to more horrible realities on a daily basis than ever before because we access a constant stream of depressing and overwhelming information; just sorting out the truth from the propaganda is in itself mind blowing. I think it puts people in a state of agitation and hypervigilance that is probably common in times of protest and “war.” It may keep us on edge but doesn’t mean we’re filled with hate. We’re justifiably and riteously angry. I don’t know about others but I really don’t feel at peace with my world, I feel oppressed and frightened. Angry, yes- but not hate filled. My only consolation for the lack of peace all this generates is at least the truth is freeing, painful as it is. It’s very stressful having the truth and not knowing what to do with it. So maybe if you put it to your daughter this way, that right now being frustrated at what’s happening in our country is realistic and moves you to action, doesn’t mean you’re hateful. The way we deal with politics in my family is we just don’t go there at family get-togethers. I have separate FB pages, one for family and one for politics. It’s weird but my “fake” identify feels more like the real me than my “polite-mom” real identity. It feels good to let the dark side (haha like Dexter!) come out, and be yourself sometimes. This is the only place I don’t feel burdened by having perfect manners. But having said that, you are right. I don’t think you can completely tame these forums, but it’s very noble of you to remind us to make the effort.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I'm not noble. But I think at some point conversations need to be elevated up if there is to be any chance to end intractable divisiveness. As things are now, there is NO chance, so full-out class warfare is assured. So there will be carnage. Too bad mankind is a slave to the emotions. I know a sense of justice enters into things, but if someone at some point doesn't make an effort to extend the olive branch, then the war just rages on forever. 

On the other hand, you have people like Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs, so maybe war is unavoidable and there is no "high road" to take.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I'll try to pass your point along to her.

I'm not noble. I'm looking for a practical and effective way to end bitter divisiveness. I may not know much, but I do know you can't do that by continuing to spew venom. At some point, sanity needs to try and emerge and an effort made to extend the olive branch. I think both sides probably have some things that they could teach each other. Nobody has a monopoly on knowledge. But both sides are so antagonistic and intractable in there positions that there is NO chance of healing and coming together in reasonable debate. It is now all full-out class war. So there will now be carnage. I am not a "peacenik", but I believe (perhaps too idealistically) that war can be avoided if both sides can make an effort at it.

But on the other hand you have people like Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs, so maybe not.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Mary - well said - very well said ( except for Dexter - that one has me a little bit concerned ) - you should do this more often. Except for Dexter. {:-])

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

I know but my son practically forced me at gunpoint to watch it. It's well done but gruesome.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I saw some episodes on-line - gruesome(?) - sure - if you consider a cat being run over in slow motion by a steam roller to be a little gruesome.

I mean yeah a real chill fest - Haha

You could watch that stuff and not take you and your son straight to therapy?

Just kidding - kinda - {:-O

[-] 2 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

Don't worry I don't have a "dark side." :). I appreciate the concern.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I am not worried about your state of mind - I just had to tease you a little - you know - snips and snails and puppy dogs tails - that is what little boys are made of . . . . Hmmm . . . probably not the best childhood saying to go along with Dexter talk . . . . My Bad.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (2959) 2 years ago

choosing between a democrat or a republican is like choosing between verizon or comcast - which one will screw you less ? They'll both screw you but which one will be worse - this is really the only purpose the election serves; once they get behind the doors of the Congress they get busy passing laws corporations wrote and lobbied for. They've got everyone focused on abortions and gays meanwhile they are selling you out to Wall Street and making it easier for corporations to screw you every which way from Sunday. Look at the wedge issues, look at the wedge issues, then you won't notice we just sold your first born to Exon Mobile in exchange for oil and are going to allow telecom to micro-chip your brain with the latest device so you can communicate directly.

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Fuck the racist gay bashing anti women republicants. And fuck the horses they rode in on.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Feel better now? If you do, then fine. I will no longer feel better from doing that. Hopefully I might find the words to express not only my difference of opinion as to their opposing point of view, but an intelligent rationale that bystanders might agree with. You can never change people's deeply-held ideology. The deeper and stronger it is, the more intractable they are. But any thoughtful bystanders who have not yet reached an entrenched position might be won over through intelligent argument.

War leaves corpses and destruction. Can one not take alternative paths to victory? Diplomacy should always be an option if possible.

Remember, my opinions have not changed. Only my way of expressing them.

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

how about the anti woman clinton, you know him,......the serial adulterer and rapist.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

and the horse he rode in on

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3121) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

I hate both Democrats and Republicans,but the Republicans are worse than the Democrats by orders of magnitude.I consider Neocon Republicans to be mass murderers;Bush,Cheney and all of the Bush era officials at the State Department and Department of Justice should be in Federal Prison doing 30 years.Christie Todd Whitman should also be sent to prison for falsifying and misrepresenting the environmental dangers in Manhattan after 9/11.Carl Rove should have had to go to prison for his part in outing Valerie Plame.The reason none of those people will be held accountable is the same reason nobody was ever held accountable after Iran/Contra-the Democrats are too cowardly to go after them.If Democrats had gone after the Iran/Contra gang,many horrible things would never have happened because Cheney,Wolfowitz and numerous other neocons would have had their political careers ended years before instead of climbing their way back into power to engage in a veritable orgy of looting of the Treasury,torture,murder and crony capitalism.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I understand your point and I keep my language mostly on the polite side .

BUT

I believe that so much damage has been done to our country since the powell memo by "that" party and so many Americans have been sucked into thier insanity by LIES -
that many of us here, who exhibit "disrespect" do so
because we will not stoop to the outrageous LIES spewed out by the Rs.


How do you have an honest conversation with a LIAR?


[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I understand how people feel. I have not suddenly become a saint or changed my personal ideology. But words are powerful things...much more powerful than people realize. They have the power to wedge deep divisions, and the power to heal deep wounds. I see nothing gained by using words beneath the dignity of intelligent adults engaged in the forensic arena such as we here find ourselves. For me personally, and only for me, I can still express my disagreement with opposing ideology without "twisting the knife"...it is bad enough that the knife exists as is. At some point, a person has to do some self-reflection and come to a decision about how they want to conduct themselves. That's all I did. Do angry words serve any purpose other than to create a greater wedge than already exists? How are wars escalated?

I leave you with this quote:

“No matter what facts you are stuck with or encounter in your life, you always have the choice of how you respond emotionally. It takes a very strong person not to hate or get angry at unjust actions and behavior. However, hate begets hate and anger begets anger. If you respond to an injustice with hate or anger, you are adding fuel to the fire. Why do you think mankind is in a continual state of war? Is it because of love or hate?

  • Michael Anthony
[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks UD. Now it would be nice if true republicans could regain their party from the RINO's/corpoRATist's.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

In all honesty DK, i would probably still be spouting partisan hate speech if my stepdaughter hadn't snapped me out of it. There's an old saying in the Dhammapada I believe that goes something like "Hate is never quenched by hate. Only by love is it quenched. This is an eternal rule." (paraphrased...something like that).

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is all too easy to get carried away by anger - anger which is righteous - to be carried away into unreasoning.

The course needed is to take the anger and use it in a positive manner - to unite and put an end to the causes of the righteous anger - the ills of society/environment/world must be addressed and this is where the energy of anger can be channeled in a positive fashion.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Edit: I stopped to soon.

Thanks UD. Now it would be nice if true republicans could regain their party from the RINO's/corpoRATist's.

It would also be good for the Deomocratic party to expell it's DINO's/corpoRATist's.

For those of you who are wondering:

RINO = Republican in name only.

DINO = Democrat in name only.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I have made great efforts to avoid disrespectful comments. I continually urge all I interact with to refrain from insulting personal attacks, obscenities, and uncivil discourse. I agree with your concerns & that we can't agree while the distractions of vulgar, bullying tactics is the preferred form of communications.

I would only add that our focus should be redirected from parties/individuals to issues/policies. I believe that conservative policies (trickle down, weak fin reform, climate chg denials, war mongering, etc) are at the roots of ALL our problems. As such I believe the solutions lie in progressive policies.

So without calling anyone names I submit we MUST replace as many pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives, & we must grow this movement, join up with like minded groups, Protest bad policies, Pressure all pols, and Agitate for pro 99% progressive solutions.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I am a lifelong progressive, so I obviously agree. I wish the political structure of this country were different. Perhaps it will slowly evolve into something better. But you're right. Our conversations and approach should be based on issues/policies primarily. Unfortunately, I don't see how you can divorce yourself 100% from the political dialog associated with those issues/policies, because people choose parties based on those ideologies/issues/policies. It's like two sides of one coin. How can you have a one-sided coin? Wish there was a way to seperate it though.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LOL. Yeah the coin thing. I think I have that bumper sticker. I can avoid discussing the parties. I believe they are vastly different, but I believe the dems have been most disappointing to me. They have moved right (like the country) for 30 years, They have caved in to the right when they vote for conservative policies. They have lost their backbone in standing up for progressive solutions.

I prefer to discuss the progressive solutions we need. The policies that hurt/help the 99% can be the uniting factor for all 99%'rs. And with this we must get money out of politics and take our govt back!

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

the dem party has moved to the "right"? they're so far left KKK robert byrd wouldnt recognize them. "progressive" = code for socialist

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Blah blah blah. Do you really think anyone listens to your ignorant blather?

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

you did.

[-] 2 points by letsdomore (89) 2 years ago

I would love to see everyone on this forum get together in one big room. Have each person wear their user name tag. We all have a few people we want to "meet". Guaranteed it would turn into one giant brawl.

[-] 1 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

"...everyone on this forum get together in one big room."?? errr.....I don't think that would be a good idea epecially if we had any libations. lol

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

But then again, . . . .

Just kidding. I'm a man of peace.

[-] 1 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

was that peace or piece?

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

Heh heh heh. I guess that depends!

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Yeah, that would be really, really interesting to say the least. On the other hand, people have said so many things that sorta border on...dare I say it...treason, that revealing identities might prove to be a pretty uncomfortable proposition.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Sincerely, with all due respect to your stepdaughter,
I would ask her to imagine a conversation with an Rs:

D: Voter ID laws are trying to suppress the vote
Rs: But we must stop the pervasive voter fraud

What is her response?
she could say:
Do you know that there is almost no in-person voter fraud and these laws have been passed by the Rs to suppress seniors, students and minorities?
OR
You are an ignorant, lying ass.


Neither reply will change an Rs mind because it is etched in petrified scat.
but the second reply will make your stepdaughter feel better.


I am willing to respectfully debate anyone on anything - but not LIARS

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

everyone believes the elections are rigged

when elections are not IDed, that's just one less way to track the vote

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The rigging exists IN the voting machines or AFTER in the count


shrub spent years trying to find in-person voter fraud throughout the whole country - and found less than 100 cases


The penalty for in-person voter fraud can be very high - prison how many people are going to risk prison to add one vote.


The largest number of in-person voter fraud was caused by ex-felons who were entitle to vote as an ex-felon in their state - but moved to another state
that did NOT allow ex-cons to vote


Rs do what they do because they are Rs

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

MAssive voter suppression in not allowing other outside candidates to get access to the same methods as well.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

suppressing candidates is not suppressing voters. if a voter wants to vote for elmer fudd, he can write it in.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Suppressing candidates is like suppressing the vote in that the public does not get to know them - or even of them - so actually it can be worse then suppressing the vote.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

it suppresses who I want to vote for so yes it is suppressing voters too.

When the 2 parties fight to keep my preferred candidate off the ballot they're suppressing my vote.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Most states require a write in candidate to be registered. As much as I prefer Elmer over the other two, his vote won't be counted.

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

Perhaps we should only allow write in candidates. Are you in favor of that?

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

Not allowing for other options is much worse for the overall country than asking for ID.

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

san diego would have had a different mayor if the write in votes had also checked the box

the people were misrepresented by a courts

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

Republicans are attempting to get Gary Johnson removed in PA. They already got Virgil Goode to bail, not on the ballot anymore.

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

yep, it's not about democracy by those tactics

it's about winning

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

I dont think its been about democracy for a long long time.

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

we live in a succeed / fail paradigm

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

shrub would not have to prove cases if voters are not ID

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

how much clearer can I be? voter fraud is a FRAUD

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

I agree. There is relatively little fraud. And I also know that requiring ID to vote is not the shit storm that the media is making it out to be.

It shouldnt even be legislation, because there is no fraud.

But this whole thing is just another divisive ploy pushed through the media to keep us focusing on trivial matters while the entire country is being sold out.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I can't speak for her. She is totally capable of answering that for herself...believe me. But she has not indicated any desire to get involved on this forum, although I did send her a link in FaceBook to this post. I have no idea if she ever intends to read any of this. She is extremely busy working two jobs and raising two boys on her own.

All that I can tell you is that she doesn't think that name-calling and loss of objectivity does much to further one's case. Perhaps that has something to do with her training as a paralegal, idk.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

In the legal system, most of the time, your adversary will not LIE
The penalty can be perjury or loss of reputation or loss of your job


I speak for myself when I say that I use certain term like "Rs" [ say it out loud ]
because I am so angry at an adversary has no regard for the truth.
I rarely use "name calling". especially for individual people.
I do refer to the Rs "lemmings" often
What else would you call them?


I would like to take credit ( wishful thinking ) for MSNBC using the honest words LIE & LIAR. I have written Chris, Ed, Lawrence, Rachel a hundred
times in the last year to use these words.

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

lol

I bet many have lied so they didn't loss their job

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I would call the current batch in office and running for office ( majority of them anyway ) RINO's or corpoRATist's.

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

Better not debate the DNC or RNC then....

Decades of lies and fraud....

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

republicans are one of the two parties in power in the US

they have no platform

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

the only Republicans I've meet spew vitriol about welfare cheats

while breaking the white collar laws themselves

because government is evil

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

That's a shame. I've talked with quite a few conservatives who are very upset about the US carrying on wars of aggression, the fiscal irresponsibility of the government, the bailouts and corporate welfare which destroys the ability of small businesses to compete in a fair market.

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

a fair market would start with the people having money to spend in it

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

Yes, and then we need to have more choices about where to spend our money, so we can buy from local businesses who hire our neighbors and who make American products, which puts money back in our pockets, not the multi-nationals.

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

the poor have no money

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

are you talking obama s got being evil or american govt in general? if you want to experience evil govt, go to north korea, venezuela or cuba.

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

or the moon

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Great post.

[-] 1 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

The high road? How sophisticated.

Let's have a polite dialogue with people who are willing to put the world on the edge of nuclear war by strutting and blustering about Iran - so they can score a few political points - so they can fatten their already fat wallets.

You know, I was reading last week about the Maine, the battleship that blew up leading to the Spanish-American War (and American imperialism and concentration camps in the Philippines). I never realized the whole thing was just an accident, boys with toys blowing themselves to smithereens while posturing off the coast of Cuba. The brinksmanship our politicians are engaging in is much worse than stealing a bigger share for themselves. They're willing to risk nuclear war.

It's time to stop the politeness with the politicians. We're not trying to win their hearts and minds. We know a better world is possible, but politeness is not what they listen to.

Your phony sounding appeal is patterned after an evangelical conversion, but it's chock full of agism (childish, adolescent) and class prejudice against 'uncivilized' people who watch Jerry Springer.

Don't damp our spirits with your Miss Manners lessons. I for one will continue to tell snobsters like you to go stick it up your snobhole.

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

I'm with you ogoj11. We absolutely cannot let these people get away with what they have done. Their absolute greed and bellicosity have reaked havoc on this country and the world.

And, things were way more crazy here 6-8 months ago. There were hundreds of conservative trolls saying all kinds of crazy things so I am definitely not seeing how the forum is less polite today. Nah. It was less polite last fall and winter. Today things are mild with conservatives. What we have today, sadly, is a lot of in-fighting.

We need to realize that we are the 99% and, yes, that includes almost everyone, and even some people who are passionate about the election. Time to get over it. Just post where you want to post. There are plenty of threads for everyone. (This is not all directed at you personally, lol, sorry for the rant.)

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

I don't think Underdog meant that we should be nice to the Repub politicians. I think he's talking about respecting the Repub people. The voters.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

The people need to wake up to the truths regarding both parties. If conservatives are a bit worse, so be it, it is the truth.

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

Absolutely. But I have to agree that name-calling diminishes us.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

I have to think about that some more. The names are pretty silly, if anything. Geesh, it might be worse to call them what, in my head, I'm really thinking.

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

I actually thought some of them were pretty creative, and funny, actually. But what made me think about it was the outside perspective given by his granddaughter. Sometimes it takes the view of someone completely removed from a situation to give a clear, unbiased opinion. Forests and trees and all that. Look at the shitty response that Sandy girl got when she came here last week. I almost PM'ed her to apologize on behalf of the whole forum. It was an embarrassment and if that's what this forum is devolving into, we all need some kind of wake-up call.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

Oh, I thought Sandy was Thrasymaque. No?

You definitely make a good point, but then again, this is a passionate place and we're angry, right? That's why we're here. Apathetic Americans need to wake up. No the country isn't so perfect as many might think.

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

And you weren't wrong : http://occupywallst.org/forum/list-of-top-forum-contributors/ ~{~

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

Thanks, and, Matt's right. 483 replies, could be a record but we sure did turn it around didn't we?

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

Remember Mathias' ''Christianity / God / Religion" thread from back in the day ? 1000+ ! There have been 500+ ones too !! So, "sandystirling" wasn't 'all that' but like a new 'girl' at school, turned a lot of heads and got a lot of close attention but turned out to be a scheming, bitchy, airhead - trollette !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

LOLOL! You are so right!

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

IF she had anything, 'she' would have posted it but Trashy had nothing but hubris, high heels & falsies, so s/he 'talked his talk' but couldn't 'walk her walk' - not on those heels anyway :-)

fiat lux ...

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

Too funny. What a visual.

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

seems many threads are growing long these days

\is traffic picky up?

is the election getting us attention?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

I think you may be right.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

YES - just like if you notice - every Occupy action day brings the nastys out to play.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That is a good theory DK.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I can't remember who it was now - but earlier I was having an exchange with someone else - it may have been TitusMoans. Anyway "we" thought it would be a gr8 and good thing to do to get people in office and running for office to declare themselves on the issues.

Did you ever do anything with your survey idea?


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (8660) 3 minutes ago

All pols must hear our dissatisfaction. If not they will feel free to go ahead and cater to the 1% contributers. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

nope

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep - and plenty of reason for protest. For everyone.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (8660) 0 minutes ago

I'm sure, And easy to bus in from ny, And dc. big populations. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

All pols must hear our dissatisfaction. If not they will feel free to go ahead and cater to the 1% contributers.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Lets just say the residents of the state have plenty to be agitated about.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (8660) 0 minutes ago

Yes I heard that. Charlotte is also closer to large OWS populations too maybe. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm sure, And easy to bus in from ny, And dc. big populations.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No Hurricane to contend with.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (8660) 1 minute ago

Well the protests in Charlotte seem more robust & larger than Tampa. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yes I heard that. Charlotte is also closer to large OWS populations too maybe.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well I have lived it for close to a year now. Some things set up a noticeable pattern over time - ask any of the long timers here.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well the protests in Charlotte seem more robust & larger than Tampa.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah I think vvv shot himself in the foot on that post - again - he has a good tendency to shoot himself quite often.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

Except I think it was Thrasymaque.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It could have been - neither of them like me. It just seemed to make sense that vvv with his PR BS would likely pull off a reporter disguise for a while - better then trashy would - but of course I could as always be mistaken.

[-] 2 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

The challenge, is to have more people direct that 'anger' to where it should go. Some of the things that would have outraged Americans fifty years ago do not even enter onto the Richter Scale of people's minds today. The corrupt MSM has a lot do with that.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

Very true. People are preoccupied with a lot of nonsense fed to them by the MSM. I was on line at the grocery store the other day near the magazines and got to talking to a couple on line. The woman was exclaiming "Who cares if so-and-so celebrity got fat while pregnant?" She said, "They're messing with the LIBOR rates. Does anybody care about that?" Of course, a discussion ensued between us but this was an extremely rare event. It's a pretty good summary of what's on the mind of most Americans though, sadly, the fat celebrities.

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

London Interbank Offered Rate

not really, I don't respect the banking system \ fat celebrity indeed

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

It's amazing to me how people are starting to wake up. I mentioned in a previous comment how the cable guy who came to my house had put many things together in knowing that our government did not answer to the will of the people anymore. Before he left, I gave him some more things to think about. It is this kind of one on one outreach that will help OWS grow.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

I agree, people are beginning to wake up and one on one is very important.

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Yep that personal contact is what Occupy Town Square is all about. They do a marvelous job of out-reach on their approximate once a month pop-up events in the parks of NYC.

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

shes fine , she had a hit thread day 1

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

What was the outcome with Sandy? I never received a reply from my email to her editor. Didn't ever see her supposed article. Assumed it must be thrassy.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

That's what I'm assuming too. I asked her/him if she/he worked for the Boston Globe because that was where the phone number led, but nothing.

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

I had heard the rumor about Sandy possibly being Thrash but was away for a week or so and didn't see if 'she' ever posted 'her' article for us to see. Did she, or did she just disappear?

[Deleted]

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

If you are, in fact, 'T' then you answered my next question. If not, I'll have to hunt the sumbitch down and ask him. He's usually forthcoming about his aliases.

[Deleted]

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

I didn't think you were him, based on the way you talk, but that rumor was going around for a while, I think. I find your "cherry on the sundae" paragraph very telling.

Trashy has numerous aliases, but his goal is not to take down this forum. I'd be willing to bet money on that.

[Deleted]

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

Agree on all counts.

[-] 2 points by Proteus (141) from Quebec, QC 2 years ago

Maybe you are right, but he may look like he want to save the forum while his true intents are to shut it down. As for his aliases, there is a new one or two almost every morning, but I really think there are 2 people at work behind the scene.

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

I can almost guarantee he doesn't want to shut it down. He could probably do more damage with an outright attack than to come on here and discuss the true purpose of this forum. People are too suspicious of the man, I think, although he did bring a lot of that on himself.

Interesting comment about "two people at work." I won't elaborate here, but to a couple of us, that's an interesting statement.

[Deleted]

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

Trashy says a lot of stuff, not all of it is true. In fact, he often contradicts himself. He may have said he wanted to see it shut down (I saw one post within the last week) but I think it's more frustration. I think he wants the site to be more true to its roots. By the way, I'm not trying to be a Thrasymaque apologist, I just like giving credit where it's due, that's all.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22252) 2 years ago

Never posted it as far as I know. A phony thread.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

My stepdaughter. If she were my granddaughter I would be about 87. Please don't bury me before my time. :-)

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

Oops! I really need to start proofreading my comments. Sorry 'bout that.

[-] 2 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yep.

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

I don't think Romney has much support from the republican voters

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

You're probably right. I just heard some crazy low number recently but I don't remember what it was.

[-] 5 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

You don't think I still share the same views as you just expressed? Go back and read some of the things I said when I got into that mode of expression I have now come to regret. I think I could "make a sailor blush" as the saying goes. But I have come to the conclusion that my stepdaughter was right. How far do you think the movement can get if it gets written off as a bunch of uncivilized whiners instead of a group truly representative of 99% of the American population? I agree that a certain percentage of that 99%, perhaps a very large percentage of it, prefers to think and operate the way I did (and I am obviously very capable of that form of expression). But is that really the way we want to present ourselves to the world here?

You might. I don't anymore.

[-] 1 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Kudos to you Underdog

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

When I look back at some of the newsreels of MLK during the civil rights era, I am impressed by what he said to those who were so clearly in the wrong in some of the most inhumane circumstances imaginable. He could have called them every name in the book. They certainly deserved to, but he took the high road and instead of making derogatory comments, he made admirers, followers, and friends.

Occupy needs to follow his example and others who did not descend to the level of their enemies, but instead raised their enemies to their own level.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

What's the name of that guy that got beat up badly when he was a Freedom Rider back in th '60s. He ended up becoming a Congressman from Georgia, and the white guy who beat him apologized to him years later. The Congressman forgave him. That is one of my favorites stories of forgiveness

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Thanks. That really is a wonderful story. Imagine the courage that those Freedom Riders had. I knew I could get someone else to do my research for me. :-)

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Sure. The civil rights movement included some of the most courageous acts I have seen. My admiration for many of them has grown by leaps and bounds over the last few years.

Don't expect me to do any more easy searches. Your keywords and Google is all that's needed.

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

They had a good PBS doc on a few months ago, about the Freedom Riders. That took so much courage to do that. I've told this story before on this forum, and I am happy to tell it again. - My dad left the comforts, and ignorance of white America in1963, and attended MLK's March on Washington. John Lewis was the youngest speaker that day. Very humbly, I'll admit it took me a long time to realize what my dad did, and the courage it took to even do that, as I do remember the racist sentiments of White America at the time.

In honor of my dad, I took part in the OWS march (8-9 mi.) this past MLK day from Zuccotti to St. John the Devine Church on 110th St., where we met other people outside on the steps, and listened to some speakers. Then we did a candle-light march onto Riverside Church on 120th St. That beautiful big church which has been politically active for a long time, is where MLK gave his famous Beyond Vietnam Speech, officially breaking with the Johnson administration in support of the Viet Nam War. His reasons were not only the war itself, but because of the disproportionate amount of African Americans having to serve in Viet Nam. I've read that MLK's speech at that church devastated President Johnson.

Anyway, there was an audience of several hundred, and there were many great speakers, singers, dancers even, and Occupy Wall Street had a really big prescence there, including Occupy the Hood, as in neighborhood...brotherhood, etc.

I wore a beautiful scarf that night, that one of my daughters had made me, and on it, was pinned a red, white, and blue button that my dad had brought back from MLK's rally. It had a picture of a black hand shaking the hand of white hand (I have it sitting on my work table here now), and it reads," Equal-Rights in '63." I had many queries that night on how I obtained that button, and I was very proud to answer them. Truly, I look back at that day/night as my fondest memory in OWS.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Glad to hear that the sense of injustice and the courage to oppose it still runs in your family. Now if we can just instill those same attributes into a hundred million more.

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Thanks jr. I have passed those attributes onto my kids too, who each in their own way are making this a better world

[-] -2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 2 years ago

Very mature of you, but don't expect the Vqs,DKas. Benspapas, shoozes or Aprils of the world to follow your lead. I am your age and was once a 'progressive' thinker myself.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I am not expecting anyone to follow me on anything. I am just acknowledging my own personal failure. This is a public forum. So I felt I had to apologize publicly for my actions.

[-] -2 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

I was only half serious, pretending to flame at you, but I do think you should look at some of the expressions you used (uncivilized, for instance).

I really do believe it's a mistake to tamp down our energy and feeling, to adopt an artificial respectfulness that we don't feel. Around here (NC) I get called a bleeding heart liberal (I'm actually further left) for defending the immigrants. It's very healthy for the conservatives to see that I'm not kindly helping the unfortunate, that I'm a determined enemy of injustice prepared to fight them as we fought the civil rights struggle --- BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY as Malcolm said.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I consider myself to be pretty far Left...always have been. And I'm 57. Many people my age start out on the idealistic Left and move to center or even into the Right the older they get. I saw my dad do that. He was a Dem for years and then just announced one day that he was a Repub. Very strange.

I would never want to "tamp down our energy and feeling". I just don't think that the energy and feeling you are talking about has to necessarily express itself in the way that I previously did. In fact, I think making a person's case about something can be much more effective in convincing people of something if it is expressed eloquently. Take, for example, a court of law. How many cases do you think a lawyer could win if he used a form of expression beneath the dignity of a courtroom...if he just "let it fly", so to speak? Probably not many. That's because the average person is just turned off (and sometimes flat-out offended) by "gutter talk". I know, I know...I don't agree with that either. But you have to reach people where they are...and most of them aren't going to listen to you if you don't present yourself as a reasonably intelligent person. In fact, if they think you're insulting them, they'll just shut down and turn you off entirely. So you will be wasting your breath and precious time.

Regarding "uncivilized", I can actually speak to that directly because I have had the opportunity to observe the world for many decades and I can tell you, without any hesitation whatsoever, that the world is quite a bit less civilized than it used to be. I know, there have always been atrocities and wars and bad things going on. But people used to be different somehow...more something...it is hard for me to put it into words. I don't know, maybe I'm just an old man who is losing his mind.

[-] 2 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

..."I'm just an old man losing his mind.". I don't think so, rather you are just a person who has taken the time to do some soul searching.

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

There used to be chivalry.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Yes. And more dignity I think. More concern for life in general. People would have been shocked by things back then that are now taken as a matter of course and that don't register much emotion at all.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Can't deny that JFK, RFK, and MLK hits didn't have a huge impact on the nations psyche. The 60s was a transformative decade in so many respects.

[-] 2 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

The real difference that I see between here, and the streets is that feeling of outrage that has been missing for so long is directed at the rotten system, not at each other, or one party in particular. I have also discovered when presenting our struggle as a right vs. wrong one, as opposed to a dem vs. repub one, it throws people off balance, and they start to listen more.

Getting back to the other comment: What do you do when you believe that some of your allies, are not really your allies at all, but rather your opponents?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Learn from it I guess. And move on. Being betrayed is one of the most difficult things to handle in life. There's no guarentee that anyone can get through life unscathed. As a matter of fact, anyone who does get through it without taking some damage has probably missed out on learning one of the most difficult lessons of all.

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

And if it is ongoing, should we just turn a blind eye to it?

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

That is a decision only the individual can make. No one else can make it for them. The response, if there is any, probably depends on the spiritual makeup of the one being betrayed. It may require a lot of soul-searching in order to come to the decision one chooses to make.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Yes I have found the value in that.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"our struggle as a right vs. wrong one, as opposed to a dem vs. repub one"

Xlnt way to put it.

[-] 5 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

OK, let's face some facts here, and admit that there are people on this forum from both the left, and right who are not here for altruistic reasons. To put it as as euphemistically as possible, the success of the struggle that we are in is not at the top of their priority list. That is not the case though for most people here, I know, who are here for all the right reasons, but have different opinions on the tactics we should use moving forward. Some people here believe 'out of conscience' that we should make this a political movement, or both that, and a defiant one....while other people like me do not believe that we should get involved in the political system, or at least not until we can enter it from a position of strength.

So now let's look at what might work best in terms of strategy.

Those who think that this should be a partisan struggle... do so, I would assume because they believe that is what will work best, that, that will be the quickest, most efficient way that we will achieve our shared goal, of having a sea change in the way our political, and financial institutions are run. Since this is not my belief, there may be something I have left out, or something that someone may want to expound upon further. Feel free, and I know you will. ;-)

Then there are the people like me, who believe that by perpetuating the left vs. right..repubs vs. dems dichotomy on this OWS forum, and in OWS on the whole will only assist in keeping us where we are, or at least be an impediment to the most expeditious way to reach our shared goal of knowing that.... another World is Possible.

We have been in the left vs. right paradigm , for a liife-time, and where has it gotten us? I have had many arguements with conservatives, and yes the veins were probably popping in my neck, as well as my face was probably turning red too. We both 'dug our heels in,' and refused to back down. Some of these arguments, I am not proud to say took place in bars, hence these alcohol-fueled 'discussions' often got ugly.

Every Sunday, I go to a good friend's home for dinner, where I bring dessert. Since I rarely have sweets in my home (exception being Klondike bars;-), I usually get my once a week 'fix' there. All of my friends there are republicans, although with the exception of the son-in-law, Rob, and perhaps a daughter-in-law, Megan, they are rather clueless politically speaking, having relied on catch phrases to make what I believe were erroneous dicisions on who to vote for.

Rob, and I have had many heated arguments where he extolled the virtues of the repubs, and I, the righteousness of the dems. Quite a few times we were asked to 'take it outside,' and we often did just that. lol I almost always felt that I made little, or no progress in convincing him to my point of view in our heated discussions.

It is on this forum that I humbly admit that I was able to put all the pieces of the sordid puzzle of what has been going on, together. From the legion of great contributors to this forum, many of whom do not share my view that this should not become a partisan battle, I have learned so much, and I thank you all, really.

Now getting back to Rob, and me: I have taken what I have learned here, and from the numerous documentaries, and things I have read, and went back to 'tangle' with Rob in our weekly arguements, which have indeed have now turned into polite-like political discussions. Truly he was disarmed the first time I was able to articulate myself well from what i had learned,.... that 'this was not about dems vs. repubs, but rather right vs. wrong'.....and that the foremost problem that we all share is, 'a government that no longer answers to the people's interests, but rather one that answers to corporate, and big banking interests.

I know that I have made inroads to Rob's political psyche, and although we may never agree on the role that government should play in our lives...we can set our differences aside for the 'greater good' of realizing that there are perverse dynamics in play that affect us all in a very negative way.

Perhaps....just perhaps Rob, and my metamorphosis could/should serve as a model for moving this struggle forward.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Glad to hear that you had the courage and climbed out of the political box. Have you been able to also show him some of the hard evidence that is available that clearly shows the great gap in wealth increasing. Here are couple I like to show because the gap has grown under every administration, both dem and rep over the last 40 years.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2008/05/18/inflation-in-the-untied-states-1774-2007/#.UELgQ6A4KpT

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Thanks. I haven't shown him any charts, but i will try to remember to either print out the first chart (printer is down now) or bring my LT over to show him. I have told him about the wealth disparity that has grown steadily since Reagan took office (that should pacify VQ lol), and instituted neoliberalism. The top one percent then held just under 10% of the total wealth in the country. Today they hold 24% of the total wealth, which is about the same as it was in 1928.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Make sure you have the correct numbers and definitions from multiple independent sources. I usually see the 1% wealth listed at about 40%. Their income is somewhere in the low 20's.

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Yeah, i know that I need to brush up on that a little, and started googling after my last comment. I usually understate those per cents if anything. The trend though is the most imortand thing, and like you said, this disparity has been increasing through both dem, and repub administrations. The average CEO pay is also an interesting thing to look at, as that has increased astronomically

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

I have to agree that, since last October, I've learned more on this forum about what's really been going on in the world than in the previous ten years, maybe more. And I believe painting this as 'right vs. wrong' is exactly the way to breach the left-right mindset that we've been indoctrinated into since birth. In fact, when kept in the left-right box, it's all just 'opinion.' There is no opinion in a discussion of right vs. wrong, as long as the facts support the case. The right vs. wrong paradigm could be the answer to getting through to some people. It seems like it may have with your friend Rob. I'll bet he's been doing some thinking this week, eh?

[-] 1 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Yes I definitely feel the 'right vs. wrong paradigm' is the way to pursue this struggle. It was actually several months ago, when I was able to get through to him. The good part now, especially with the colder weather coming on is, we probably won't be asked to 'take it outside' as much. I do kinda miss those 'stimulating' disscussions though. ;-)

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I know I should not have deleted what I wrote, but even though I sometimes feel that what I wrote is needed to move the dialog forward, I sometimes believe it is just me being egotistical and unrelenting. Calling people names does nothing to show them the errors of their thinking, it just makes people more recalcitrant. I do like conversations that are full of passion and conviction but I guess even that can be taken too far.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Life is a learning process for us all. Even an old man like me can learn some things if he keeps his mind open to input and doesn't assume he has reached the "know-it-all" stage. That happens to a lot of people...regardless of age. But if a person can admit to themselves first, that they were wrong, and then to others second, then that is a good indicator that they are not braindead yet.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

You win a free copy of my favorite Manu Chao song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbd7JvN2blw

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

We have already lost many members because a few prefer to take the low road. We need to get millions to listen to our message, and to understand the threats we face as a result of continued economic inequality, and political impotence. Continual war is a symptom. We must fight the cause, not the effect. It will require tact, civilized discussion, irrefutable evidence, and above all, great numbers of people.

We cannot win this battle if we don't enlist enough soldiers. And we don't deserve to win this battle if we become as uncivilized as the people we are trying to remove.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Nicely put.

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

Good comment, jr. I see you've made it on the "shit list."

[-] 0 points by oneandone (-67) 2 years ago

Typical limp wristed liberal Nancy boy. C'mon...bring it on bee-otch. We can take it.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Please Ban This User: Violence

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

That act of contrition was very inspiring. Very humbly, I too have learned a lot from the younger people in OTS and OWS, as well as my own grown children. What I see going on in NYC is nothing like what goes on here. Rather I sense a quiet determination to see this through, while at the same time setting the example for the world that we want to live in.

I would be a hypocrite though if I left this conversation without mentioning my own part in the deterrioration of this forum. But what do you do when you believe that there are people here that are just here, to sap the energy from this movement for ulterior motives? And if you strongly suspect, that if they are successful, it will mean the failure of our struggle. Consequently then all the work, blood, sweat, tears, and unbelievable sacrifices of my young friends that I know is in vain. I can understand and respect Zen, you, shooz, and a few others here that out of conscience believe that we, OWS should enter the political fray, but it is very difficult to respect the former especially when they bait you with nastiness. You don't have to agree with me, just understand my position. It's from the heart.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

But what do you do when you believe that there are people here that are just here, to sap the energy from this movement for ulterior motives?

I can only answer that, for me personally, I will try to rise above it if I can. All of Occupy is beset with opposition for what it stands for. A great struggle will have great opponents. You mentioned "quiet determination". I think that's the best way to describe that attitude people ought to have.

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Maybe so.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Excellent post! Two thumbs up! Not just for the words, but for the courage to say them!

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Excellent post. Thank you. This should be a permanent post on the forum.

[-] -1 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 2 years ago

I'm neither party. I seem to be one of the few around here that is intelligent enough to actually see beyond the two parties. Unfortunately most around here continue to parrot the party talking points. Guess that is what this "movement" has devolved to. Too bad.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I guess it's ok to bash Democrats? To leave that out is clearly pro republican anti Democrat partisanship campaigning.

Is it ok to say that conservative policies are at the root of all our problems? And that progressive solutions are the way forward?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Speaking only for myself, and no one else, I would prefer that all bashing come to an end. Again, my opinion only, I would like to see intelligent, thoughtful dialog on both sides in a spirit of cooperation toward solutions to our country's problems. That's why nothing is getting done in Congress. I watch a lot of C-SPAN, so I can tell you that their division seems to mirror the division of the country.

I don't know if they monitor this tiny little forum, but if we could set an example of how opposing viewpoints could come together and work out differences, maybe Congress could learn something from that.

[-] 2 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I am with you, UD. Seeking the truth is distracted with all the bashing. Thought needs time and space but can't get much of it done when both are filled by diatribe.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Well said. I think most Americans (you know, the 99%) can find things they like and dislike in both parties positions. Some may lean more one way or the other but anyone who agrees 100% with all of one party's position are probably not paying close enough attention or incapable of independent thought.

A big problem we face is all or none 2-party politics. Most votes in Congress are completely along party lines. It is like once someone gets a elected, they are to vote the party line as laid out in their platforms or else.

I prefer my politics a la carte because who can honestly say they agree with either party's platform 100% of the time? Unfortunately those types of politicians that cross party lines on issues are becoming increasingly rare.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What do you agree with the republican party on?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Mostly economic issues like debt reduction and reducing the size of the federal governments budget.

Essentially I feel it is way too easy to be lazy in America these days. It is difficult, however, to separate people who are honestly looking for work and to better themselves from those who are perfectly content to live off of the system their whole life, regardless of how poor they may be. We need to help the former but give a kick in the ass to the later.

I also feel that people should be allowed to opt out of SS. It fits the definition of a ponzi scheme to a T and the payouts, per the SCOTUS, are not even guaranteed. I think a lot of people don't realize that. It should be an option for those who want it, but there should also be other options.

I have mixed feelings on Obamacare.

GM should have been allowed to fail, as well as the banks. If I make shitty business decisions I have to deal with them, why shouldn't they?

And someone making $250K per year is far from rich so they should not be taxed like a billionaire.

I genuinely agree with and disagree with a large portion of both parties platforms, but since they are both all or none, and both bought by the 0.001 %, they both disgust me.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh well. You sound republican to me. Debt/deficit reduction does not concern me because I know If we can cut taxes/debt of the working/middle class the economy will explode and the deficit/and debt will start being paid down.

Repubs like making these things an issue as An excuse to cut pgms for the middle/working class.

Lazy Americans? Wow. Americans work harder than any one else in the world. I think you are way off. So we disagree on that.

Social security will not work unless everyone is contributing. What should happen is we should cut the payroll deduction for lower income workers. We should eliminate the payroll deduction cap so that all incomes are contributing. We shold also means test it so that the wealthiest elderly do not use it!

I'm glad GM didn't fail although I can appreciate the concept of not rewarding failure. Too many families depend on those jobs.

The banks are another story they should have failed, no bail outs for banks. That we agree on.

250k annual income? Ok they don't have to be taxed a billionaire. But I think we need to reinstate the 90% tax bracket for income over $1 million.

So there you go. I'm ok voting for Dems and agitating to get the change we need. The difference now is that a robust movement can make the difference.

What are you gonna do? Vote for Romney?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

No, probably some 3rd party candidate. I haven't really looked to see who my choices will be in my state yet but it will probably be Jill Stein. I am a big fan of her renewable energy plan to both stimulate the economy and reduce carbon use. I am also quite confident that she is not being bought by the .001%, which I can't say about Romney or Obama.

Re-read my paragraph on lazy Americans though. I said not those who want to work but can't, but those who do not want to work because they are happy with the pittance the government will provide to people who sit at home all day and play Xbox. That is not right. And if you think they don't exist, you need to get out more.

Honestly though, as some anonymous guy (girl?) on a message board, you can label me whatever you want. You can call me a Nazi for all I care, I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. I just have a very healthy skepticism of our all or nothing 2 party system that criticizes people who don't completely toe one party line or the other. You, ironically enough, actually demonstrate what is wrong with such a system quite nicely.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Whatever. Your not a Jill Stein supporter or a supporter of renewable energy.

There ain't that many people taking advantage of the govt. That is what betrays your republican leanings. The whole "blame the victim mentality" "we gotta get money from the people on the dole". THEY'RE THE POOREST AMONGST US! Ain't that much money there. It;s just being mean spirited. (very republican)

Privatizing Social security.? Republican strategy for 50 years! Ceate, then scream about cutting Debt/deficit? republican starve the beast tactic for 30 years.

Please You ain't kiddin anyone but yourself. LMFAO!

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Haha I am glad you know me so well. If it makes you feel better, I like Jill Stein's plan more for what it will do for the economy in the long term by positioning us a world leader in clean energy technology than for the effects on the environment. The Chinese are going to keep dumping out carbon anyways.

Like I said, I agree with each party on some things, and disagree with them on others. And believe it or not, a whole 40% of Americans agree with me and register as independents. 40%!! It is the highest number since Gallups began tracking voter party affiliation. I am sure that record number and the rise of all this extreme partisanship is not merely coincidence. Most real voters hold a great deal of skepticism of both parties and their all or nothing do as we say philosophy, as well they should.

Some of us will vote Democrat, some will vote Republican, and some will vote for a 3rd party candidate or stay home. Either way, it is us that will determine the outcome of the election.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Jill Stein cannot win! Whoever wins (& I hope it's not the anti SS, blame the victim, cut all pgms for debt reduction party) When it is over hopefully we will pressure all pols to pass the change that the 99% needs.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Thank you. And I agree she cannot win, no 3rd party candidate can and that is truly sad. I will just feel better voting for her than the other 2 guys.

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

bashing brings attention to the party

much in the way Repubs support obama by constantly repeating his name

all focus is on the 2 parties

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Yes UD "Congress could [indeed] learn something from that." First though, we have to get there ourselves.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But you're not making a big, showy effort to get the dem bashing to stop. So I guess it is ok?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

No it's not ok, imho. But it's a free country. People have a right to express themselves however they want to. I'm the last person on earth who would advocate censorship. Each individual must examine his/her own conscience. But I wish we could "raise the bar" and have constructive conversations rather than destructive ones. We spend a lot of our precious time not getting very far by doing that.

Of course, I do understand that some people are not here for constructive purposes, but more like entertainment or who knows what else.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I've seen a lot more dem/Obama bashing. You left out that detail. Thats all.

I agree with you on civil, respectful discourse. I do not support just seeking that for one side.

Peace

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Agreed. I've seen that too, just chose not to comment on it as it seemed possible to lead to flames. Not trying to avoid conflict. Just don't see the purpose of conflict for conflict's sake. I've seen a lot of that too here.

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

You don't see a lot of Rep bashing because this forum isn't infected with "vote for Romney" day in and day out. Obama is discussed far more, hence more Obama-bashing. It's as simple as that, although some people can't seem to grasp it.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

You mean to tell me that Occupy isn't made up of a bunch of Tea Party loving right-wingers? Well I, for one, am shocked.

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

Shhhhh!

Truth is, we're ALL Tea Party loving right wingers, but you weren't supposed to say that until after the election.

Now look what you did, Mooks. Way to go.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

oh shit my bad......Vote Obama 2012 to be free from the chains of Wall St forever!!!!!!!

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

I'm with ya, buddy! To infinity and beyond!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh don't be afraid of creating fire by stating the truth. That would be submitting to the bullies. The people bashing dems /Obama would certainly gang up you but you have to be strong in the knowledge that you are right.

Right is might!

No bashing of dems either. Civil, respectful discourse both ways. Its the only way to find solutions to our deep problems.

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

yep the repubs agenda seems to be bashing obama

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

RINO agenda - lets not be needlessly hurtful.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The side that serves the 1% is uncompromising and perpetrating massive resistance against the needs of the 99%.

We need to replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives. Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change.

[-] -3 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Excellent post, underdog. In fact, that's a gross understatement. Fantastic post.

[-] 1 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

I agree totally. UD's post showed a sense of humilty

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

I thought so too, it actually inspired me somewhat. I rarely used any of the anti-Repub epithets, but there's a bigger message to be gleaned from it. Personally, I thought it was one of the best posts I've seen in weeks, spoken from the heart. What I find equally telling is the response it got. It shows a visible (and extremely childish, I think) bias on this forum. As you noticed, my comment was at -8. I didn't slam Obama. Wasn't boosting Romney or the Repubs. For telling a man that not resorting to insults was inspiring. What kind of bullshit is that, my friend? Minus 8 means at least 9 down-votes. Assuming no one upvoted. Trevor's and hirsh's were a couple points lower as well. Apparently V isn't the only one using a second computer for the purpose of down-voting us. V actually has three usernames, I think.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by PoliticalSquabbleKillsOWS (-29) 2 years ago

You've been here for months, but you still fail to understand OWS.

The issues brought up by OWS are not the key. The issues are brought up by many other groups. David Suzuki writes about Global Warming to educate the masses, GreenPeace fights on the ground for Global Warming, some politicians fight for Global Warming through the political engine. Similarly, there have been groups for years who fight against capitalism and corruption. There's not one issue brought up by OWS which is new!

What makes OWS special is how we fight for these issues. We don't use partisan politics because we want everyone to take part in the movement no matter what their political affiliations are. You fight against the republicans in the same way moveon.org does. You do not fight in the style of OWS.

Party platforms are complex. It's not black and white. I have many republican friends who are not religious, who favor same-sex marriage, who fear Global Warming as you do. They vote republican for other reasons. They might believe the republican party has a better economic platform and that this is the most important issue.

We should remain out of partisan politics so that everybody can be included in OWS if they wish. Their party of affiliation does not matter, what matters is that they are disgusted with corruption just like we are.

You close the door to many protesters when you call them repelicans, not to mention it's childish and unintellectual. You could easily fight to solve the Global Warming problem from outside the system à la OWS without dwelling in partisan politics. Instead, you choose to fight à la moveon.org.

There's nothing wrong with this, but it's certainly not in the spirit of OWS.

I honestly wonder why you are here, not because it shows you don't believe in OWS, but because it shows you don't believe in your ideas. If you believed in your ideas and your way of achieving the better world, you would fight with those who share those same ideas. For example, an OWS supporter really believes he can change the system from the outside without talking about political parties. That's what makes him an OWS supporter. If he joined the democrat party, or volunteered for them, etc... it would show that he doesn't really believe in his idea, the OWS idea, that change can come from the people from outside the political system.

So, why are you here instead of being with moveon.org where people share your philosophy?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Occupy mentions parties all the time! They protesting the RNC Convention & will be at the Dem convention. They all have signs that referr to political issues that hurt the 99%. They all want solutions (progressive) that they are pressuring ("from the outside") all pols to correct.

You don't know what you're talking about. I say without reservation and in total agreement with what OWS is agitating for:

We must replace pro 1% conservative, with pro 99% progressives, & Protest against bad policy, Pressure all pols, Agitate for progressive solutions.

That is the positive way forward! Onward! Peace & Solidarity!

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

me

I drive my car when I feel like it

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

U use partisan politics as a thing that is bad. U miss the point. Repeatedly. All strikes that have been successful were successful because of the numbers of people supporting the strike.

Like wise all past protests that have been successful have been due to the popular support of the people.

There is no working outside of the system - not at this point in time.

Why?

Strikes and Protests are legal per the system. So taking those actions falls within our current system. INSIDE.

If people hold to the ideals of their parties and not to the direction of those elected representatives in those parties - those representatives which could be RINO or DINO - but hold to the ideals of the formation of the parties Democracy and Republic. Then those two parties share much in common with each other in their ideals. Both parties ideals look to the good of the people and to the society as a whole.

Both parties - the people of both parties need to take a lesson from true independents that are concerned with issues - addressing issues. Issues to be supported in the best interest of the people society environment world. Issues to be opposed in the best interest of the people society environment world.

So in a sense both parties Dem & Rep. should be partisan - PARTISAN to The People Society Environment World.

In the final say the bottom line - ALL Parties need to be partisan to The People Society Environment World.

As such All People should be UNITED/PARTISAN to end the corruption of our governments.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well said. I agree!

Every issue that affects the 99% IS political! Every issue is affected by the current power holders, and we must engage them and the system if we want to take it back.

This guy is only trying to serve republicans. He likes anything pro repubs, and anti dem.

I'm not impressed.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks VQ - having said that you 2 have some bad habits to break as do I - look at your comment and see if you can spot what was wrong in the phrasing.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You mean the "serves repub" & "likes ....pro repub.... anti dem" comments?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah - those references - could be better put - as I think we can all agree that there are many RINO's in office and running for office and they are not Republicans just hiding behind the banner. Same with the Dems. there are DINO's as well perhaps not as many visible as with the other group - but DINO's none the less. Yes this is a mainly left leaning forum and the movements would be considered as more progressive then conservative. But we have all kinds of people protesting the abuses of wallstreet corporations and government - yep even conservatives.

So if we can ( you and I and others ) change our terminology a bit - it will not be less correct but in fact more correct and inclusive instead of exclusive.

Think about it everyone and - Keep-on Keeping-on.

[-] 0 points by Evergreen38 (14) 2 years ago

Agreed

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah sure.

Of course I agree that the forum and OWS supporters ARE left leaning progressives. I believe, like me most are more angry with dems who betray progressive principles when they've voted for the conservative policies that created our problems.

My comments specifying the 2 parties were a description of what polsquabble boy has espoused. He is very pleased with the anti dem rhetoric, and shows great support for ending anti repub comments. I can't not use these terms unless he stops doing it.

Sorry. But I will endeavor to limit reference to the parties in all other occasions, as I do generally.

Is this & the below ok with everyone?

We must replace pro 1% conservative, with pro 99% progressives, & Protest against bad policy, Pressure all pols, Agitate for progressive solutions.

That is the positive way forward! Onward! Peace & Solidarity!

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I think as long as we try to be very clear as to what we are having a problem with and that it goes to sellouts in government and outside interference with our government - that we will be moving in a good direction.

EVERYONE ???

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sounds good. I like to be clear that I have problems with specific issues. Everytime I go to OWS marches I am encouraged because all thesigns refer to issues that I support, ALWAYS against the conservative policy and in support of the progressive solution.

ALWAYS! Without fail!

'Everyone' was for the trolls reading the comments, not just you.

Stay strong.! "Don't let the bastards drag you down" B

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Cool. I would like more people who go to the street gatherings/actions/protests to share what they see. Like messages being givin to the general public and perhaps some comments shared by the general public.

Street and Internet - we are all in this together.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Just watched a report on OWS protests yesterday in Charlotte. Many people, Many signs, No anti dem signs, Many anti conservative policy signs (against weak fin reform, against trickle down, against education grant cuts). Many pro 99% progressive signs that dems support!

Heard a woman say she was voting for Pres Obama "because he is better, and we can make him even better!" with many supporters around her cheering in agreement!

Another guy stating "dems have done good things, but they have to do better"

And another large group stating "Pres Obama is doing an excellent job in the face of massive resistance, He would do better if republicans let him do his job" Again with many cheering in agreement!.

That's OWS on the street!

That IS OWS!. politicalsquabbler does not what he is talkin about!

Dems are natural supporters of OWS. Repubs have only attacked us and any issue we take a stand on.

Dems have serious problems that we must change. Repubs are too far gone.

We must replace pro 1% conservative, with pro 99% progressives, & Protest against bad policy, Pressure all pols, Agitate for progressive solutions.

That is the positive way forward! Onward! Peace & Solidarity!

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

Keep relying on the MSM for your views instead of going to GA and getting to know the key people.

The vast majority want an entirely new system.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The GA is a tiny percentage of OWS supporters. WTF are you talkin about.? They don't represent anyone but themselves.

You think the supporters I meet on the street are wrong because they support dems? You think the people I see on the news are lying? The GA is doing great work I'm sure. I am waiting patiently for the new system thatI support.

I'm not gonna pretend that the thousands of protesters I march with here in NYC are not dem voters. They are. And the marchers in Charlotte were also.

Sorry you are wrong! And if the GA is pretending that OWS supporters are not Dem voters, then THEY are wrong.! Imagine that. The revered GA wrong? Huh?

LMFAO!

Rely on MSM"?. STOP. I rely on my eyes. On reality! You rely on the GA? Why? You think they speak for OWS supporters?. I think we speak for ourselves.

I speak for myself. I do not look to anyone to think or speak for me!

Who speaks for you?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by PoliticalSquabbleKillsOWS (-29) 2 years ago

You do not frighten me, and it does not bother me much that you are here. This forum means nothing really. At worst, you'll insult a republican and turn him away from OWS. You're old so you choose conservative ways to protest. You come on a forum and use lame name calling (repelican) and engage in lame partisan politics. This is normal and to be expected from the older "OWS" crowd.

I just don't understand why you are here if you don't believe in the fundamental idea of OWS. That doesn't scare me, it simply leaves me bewildered.

[Removed]

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

It's a lame term that means nothing. Do you like pelicans or something?

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You are clearly bewildered, as always, and you appear to be maligning the older OWS supporters.

So you're against insulting the people who stand against and attack OWS (repubs) And you insult OWS supporters who you deem too old?

I ain't bewildered. You are serving republicans with these positions & actions. No one should be fooled!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Some positive thoughts, not very believable since you've attacked as much as anyone.

In any event IMO you only touched on the right approach in your last line "against bad policies". We don't have to "attack individuals" to have OWS message be understood, or universal, In fact I think you are dead wrong on that.

Understanding the universal message of OWS is best achieved by attacking the policies that we are against. The corrupt individuals, and even parties are interchangeable.

The real threat to the 99% are the policies that allow wall st execs to scam the 99% and get away with it with no consequences (weak fin reform). The economic inequities that only benefit the 1% plutocrats (trickle down), The anti people selfish policies that hurt minorities, immigrants, womens rights, LGBT, student debt, elderly earned benefits (SS, medicare).

We MUST attack the policies we are against! Attacking people and parties are distractions from the necessary focus on specific policies.

If we devote the time & effort in identifying the specific policies that hurt the 99% I believe we will find that all our problem are rooted in conservative policies. Both parties have voted for these anti 99% policies so we don't have to isolate a party or person for attack.

We must replace pro 1% conservative, with pro 99% progressives, & Protest against bad policy, Pressure all pols, Agitate for progressive solutions.

That is the positive way forward! Onward! Peace & Solidarity!

[+] -4 points by PoliticalSquabbleKillsOWS (-29) 2 years ago

Your discourse always revolves around partisan politics. You always push the democrats, and you always accuse those who disagree with your ideas of being republicans. You fight à la moveon.org, but not à la OWS. You don't understand OWS. You should reread my comment above.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Not true. Just anti dem partisan lies! You (and your followers) are the only ones advertising Moveon.org. I never do!

I think the smart people here recognize your KarlRovian tactic of repeating a lie over & over with the belief that eventually people will believe it. Maybe you have convinced yourself and your followers, but that is not important.

I am a registered Independent. I support the progressive policies in the dem agenda, I am vehemently opposed to the pro 1% conservative policies that are at the roots of all our problems & that are listed !n the repub platform.

We must replace pro 1% conservative, with pro 99% progressives, & Protest against bad policy, Pressure all pols, Agitate for progressive solutions.

That is the positive way forward! Onward! Peace & Solidarity!

[+] -7 points by PoliticalSquabbleKillsOWS (-29) 2 years ago

Not true. Just anti dem partisan lies!

There you go again, more partisan political attacks à la moveon.org.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Right back atcha' anti dem partisan politics boy!

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

You're wasting your breath if you think re-reading your comments will help him see the light. My dogs understand OWS better than these guys.

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

haha/..

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

Let the childish wrath begin. Oh, wait, it already did. Took all of five minutes for my comment to get down-voted. I'll race ya to the minus 8 I got on my first post here! heh heh heh.

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

US military training camps uses shouts like "kill Hadji "

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Matt, I gotta tell ya. I follow a lot of your comments but rarely reply. Your comments are usually very, very short. And they are sometimes difficult for my primitive ape brain to follow.

Did you study Zen or something? Are you a master I should be looking up to with awe and reverence? :-)

The US military training camps have an agenda of brainwashing that they deem necessary in order to transform normal human beings into killing machines. Otherwise, normal people capable of objectivity might not be so easily inclined to grab a gun and fly halfway around the world and kill someone they don't know because their government says so.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Just watched a report on OWS protests yesterday in Charlotte. Many people, Many signs, No anti dem signs, Many anti conservative policy signs (against weak fin reform, against trickle down, against education grant cuts). Many pro 99% progressive signs that dems support!

Heard a woman say she was voting for Pres Obama "because he is better, and we can make him even better!" with many supporters around her cheering in agreement!

Another guy stating "dems have done good things, but they have to do better"

And another large group stating "Pres Obama is doing an excellent job in the face of massive resistance, He would do better if republicans let him do his job" Again with many cheering in agreement!.

That's OWS on the street!

That IS OWS!. You do not what you are talkin about!

Dems are natural supporters of OWS. Repubs have only attacked us and any issue we take a stand on.

Dems have serious problems that we must change. Repubs are too far gone.

We must replace pro 1% conservative, with pro 99% progressives, & Protest against bad policy, Pressure all pols, Agitate for progressive solutions.

That is the positive way forward! Onward! Peace & Solidarity!

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Great comment and story. Thanks.

[+] -6 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

If you are incapable of "taking the high road" on basic ethical issues, of human interaction informed of civility, what makes you think you are any more capable of assessing the ethics of politicians?

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I can still assess their ethics and disagree with their tactics without resorting to name-calling and "down in the mud" verbage. The intent is the same as before. The expression of it is what has changed. That is what I used to do anyway. I got caught up in the "style" of expression that so many espouse on this forum. I am sorry I did it. It was a mistake.

[+] -5 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Caught up in the style... not of the forum, but of the party. And do you think I would invite such people to MY party? Would you invite them to one of yours?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

What party are you talking about? I am a stupid old man.

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

I think it is worth noting that Republicans are not just the politicians from that party. They are also ordinary people who are members of that party, many of whom are as fed up with the system and their representatives as we are.

Those people should be our allies. We have many differences, but we have a lot of common ground as well.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Agreed. And I would love to win them over to Occupy if at all possible. We need as many people working for the cause as we can get. I still think we can be critical, even hyper-critical, of neo-con views and actions. But I don't think we can win many converts unless we can put forth highly intelligent and convincingly worded arguments. People might be inclined to slowly come around with that. But I doubt they would ever come around by being the brunt of insults.

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

My brother and best friend are both republicans. They are fed up too, but still cling to the party just like my other brother who is a democrat. Somewhere outside of both parties lies the common ground. If we could all meet there, this corruption we all despise would be swept away in an instant.

[+] -5 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

You want to know why I'm a Republican? It's because the woman whom I hoped to vote for, as a somewhat conservative descendant of the Davy Crockett family, and a neighbor and long time family friend, needed my Republican vote in a primary. And by and large that's how most choose a party. It has nothing to do with ideology which most assess on an independent basis.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Well, what you say might be true for a certain percentage of the population. I have no idea what that percentage might be. I can only speak for myself and tell you that I am a D because I believe in the ideology. I am well aware that many people on this forum think everything is a sham and party-politics is all for suckers now. To a certain extent I agree with that. But until things change in ways that are being advocated on this forum, I still think people need to get out and vote. I have been a lifelong progressive. So regardless of whether there were a Dem party or not, I would stand oppossed to conservative ideology.

[+] -6 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Well then you present a really interesting phenomena don't you? Because it would appear to me that most in this forum espouse a more conservative ideology respecting governance. How is it the party of love fails to acknowledge a responsibility to civility? There is no sense of civility, no mutual respect, no "common decency," no equality, no justice. If you were the mother of five children, living off the land in an Alaskan wilderness, would you not be more "conservative"? What is it that you "people" failed to learn in childhood? And then you expect Americans to accept you as the intellectually "enlightened"?

[-] 4 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I cannot speak for others on this forum. I can only speak for myself. Fortunately, the 1st Amendment of free speech has not been repealed (yet). I am not appointing myself as some sort of moral judge of other people's mode of expression. I am just saying I am sorry that I fell into that without realizing it really. My stepdaughter sorta shocked me out of it and made me realize I had strayed from what I fundamentally believed. I am not god. I make mistakes.

You can think whatever you want. It's a free country. I don't consider myself "intellectually enlightened". Just a very concerned citizen about the direction this country and the world in general is headed.

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

1st amendment text

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[+] -4 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

We're so done with the Left in this country; it's as if we can't dig a hole deep enough.

Doesn't anybody realize we are all creatures of prudence, that areas of difference are so minimal as to be irrelevant?

Whatever... give me a million more stepdaughters, and don't let the door hit you in you in the ass on the way out.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Very divisive. How will this help heal the nation? And bring it together? I said I'm sorry. Is forgiveness not possible?

I am trying to get blatant insults out of the dialog. Can we not come together and at least attempt to reason things out? What other intelligent course is there? The current course doesn't appear very helpful.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

The table of intellectual debate is a path of prudence; good bye.

Can you say the word, metempsychosis? Intelligentsia is about to assume a new throne, and an entirely new face; who shall wear the crown?

Will it be you?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

You have used the word 'prudence' several times. Could you provide your personal definition of it? I looked up the dictionary definition of it just so I would be clear on the standard definition. But I would be very interested in knowing your personal definition of it.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Well, I think we are all faced routinely with choices. Sagacity and wisdom not only serve to inform a path of prudence but also serve as an example to others. We should not make flighty decisions; we should not risk all to a temporary happiness. Allow us instead to build a foundation, to assess, to prepare, to formulate a defense where necessary and to strike when the iron is hot.

Would you recommend to your children that they party like rock stars? Or jeopardize all to the pursuit of happiness? Some parents certainly do; I am not one on those - I will always recommend the less risky path of prudence. This applies to relationships, both "foreign and domestic," and economic concerns as well. It is the essence of "conservative."

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Having a difficult time making the connection between children, who must obviously be shielded from the world to some degree until they are adults, and the state of our country. Understand your conservatism. Just not really making the connection, but trying to in the interest of extending the olive branch.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

You asked me for my definition or prudence. It's a behavioral word related to decision making. What prudence is not is throwing all to the wind in the pursuit of happiness; it's not the flighty decision, it is one in which we analyze and weigh risk.

Whether personal or public, debate is an excersise in prudence - we are attempting to both assess the present and plot the future.

I am only using child-rearing as an example - most parents, I believe, if truly concerned about the future welfare of their children, will recommend the path of prudence; it is a decidedly more conservative approach.

This isn't about the olive branch, this is not war and peace; it's about common decency, respect, intelligent debate, conversational civility. The vitriol that emanates from this party is despicable. And then you expect us to flock to you as some intellectually superior position?

I know it's hard for the Left to grasp but there are many places in this country where people simply do not talk to each other in this manner; to do so would both label them an outcast and invite immediate injury. I blame it on the childhood. And I don't vote for children.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

This isn't about the olive branch, this is not war and peace; it's about common decency, respect, intelligent debate, conversational civility. The vitriol that emanates from this party is despicable. And then you expect us to flock to you as some intellectually superior position?

Understood. There is a deep divide. Very unfortunate. Agree that conversations should remain civil regardless of differences in ideology.

Some of this may be a backlash and pent-up anger being released after decades of conservative domination in politics (and the political activism of Christian fundamentalism that also emerged) that allowed for the ascendancy of those things now generally regarded as loathsome by the Left. Progressive thinking and advocacy was in full retreat for a long time under neocon tactics designed to move their agenda forward and to now dominate the economic landscape. I can clearly remember during the Reagan era that no one would even dare to utter the word "Liberal" -- so successful was the conservative propaganda machine of the time that Liberal was equated in the public mind as a dirty word.

So in the very dirty world of politics there have been ruthless tactics employed by both sides to further their respective agendas. No one is clean.

Agree?

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

No... I've actually been trying to put my finger on this for some time now because what I see is some form of common psychosis similar to that which we observe in spoiled children. This realization invites exploration which I have not concluded yet. But I have begun to wonder if the correct word is not "sociopath," and if thus confirmed, again we must address the "why."

The Liberal Party has been in existence since forever. It remains a minor party without voice in one of the most liberal regions of our country simply because its ideology is less appealing. But certainly there is a venue, an audience, no reason then to vent the prohibition of the word.

I met a Liberal once; I asked him for his wallet. He said no. I asked him for his daughter; he said noooo... so I asked him for his car, and he said no; I shook my head and walked away. Because this was after several minutes of discussion in which he attempted to impress upon me his social justice, his vast "liberalism"; he himself, it seems, was possessed of a certain conservationism.

And we are all possessed of a certain liberalism.

This isn't backlash; this is an attempt to drown out all further discussion by a minority which knows its position is untenable.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Sorry to break the thread up, but I reached the limit on reply capability below after your last response, and felt that I had to.

You said -- ..."what I see is some form of common psychosis similar to that which we observe in spoiled children. This realization invites exploration which I have not concluded yet. But I have begun to wonder is if the correct word is not "sociopath,"..."

That's funny in a way, but actually terribly sad, because the word sociopath and psychopath is being discussed increasingly by those in the mental health profession as the perfect description for what they are observing in the workplace.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/19/business/psychopath-boss/index.html

I think what we might be talking about here in common can be boiled down to one word -- selfishness. But that word can be applied to more than one thing. You're coming to the conclusion that it applies to Liberals/progressives as "spoiled children" as you say, and my use of it is that it is applicable to capitalism and neocon agendas. Ultimately, I guess everyone is selfish to one degree or another, because everyone is looking out for #1 to one degree or another. I have never met a totally altruistic person. Perhaps I have just been unlucky and they do actually exist but I've never met one.

Still looking for common ground and trying to bridge the gap. I do realize, however, just how great that gap is and find it disturbing that people choose these polarized positions, dig in their heels, and refuse to talk things through. Seems really self-destructive and defeating. Wish there was a way out of it for humanity. We need solutions, not war.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I don't see the vitriol spewing from the mouths of conservatives or even the far right. Let me ask you something, what is it that you see conservatives attempting to conserve, therefore the moniker, and do you view their desire to conserve these things as wrong? And if so, how so? What is a sociopath? Is the violent psychopath not a sociopath?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Good questions, and good dialog opening up.

In my view, correct or not, and reduced to the most "fundamental" (forget the religious label) concept, Conservatives are lovers of the Status Quo. They just don't like change and will resist it. I really think the difference goes right to the heart of the tendency to demonstrate the "Fight or Flight" response you may have heard about. Libs will "Fight" for change, and Cons will "Flee" from it. I think it's in the DNA, and studies are beginning to show the underlying biological basis for it. So a Progressive will say "Let's do something to try to make this better." The Conservative will say "No let's don't change anything, because you might make things worse than they already are." Again, there is that Fear Factor coming out.

I don't really view Conservatism as "wrong", per se. What I disagree with about it is that it doesn't really address the need, or have a mechanism, to cope with change. We live in a world of incredible change, mostly brought about by technology and science. I think that Conservatism, whether intentional or otherwise, will hold back necessary progress that is needed within political and economic institutions that need to evolve as rapidly as possible and catch up with the technological explosion. Like it or not, technology is here to stay. So, imho, we now have things out of balance. Institutions created to serve a purpose of social governance thousands of years ago are no longer adequate to address a world of "Instantaneousness".

Regarding "violent psychopath", you are thinking of Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer types. But there are psychopaths who are completely non-violent...but who still do almost as much damage in a different way. You can read up on it on the Internet under "Boardroom Psychopaths". Sociopaths are a slightly less damaging example of mental illness, but the word can also be used more or less interchangably with psychopath.

Here's the definition from the dictionary:

Sociopath -- a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I don't think today's conservatives are status quo types at all. We see a world of social and economic dystopia on every front, primarily the result of progressive-ism. And I don't see how anyone can successfully argue the benefit of a continued dystopia. It would not be accurate to say, for example, that Wall Street, corporations, or government, is inhabited by conservatives; they are not - all is the result of a "progressive" view. So is virtually every aspect of social dystopia expressed as hubris.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

According to the dictionary, dystopia is defined as a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.

Pretty harsh. How would progressive-ism (aka Liberalism) have produced this, when progressive policies have brought about the list below (regardless of the party of the time)?

  • The founding of the United States of America

  • Freeing of the slaves

  • Interstate Commerce Act (1887)

  • Women's Suffage that produced the 19th Amendment

  • Sherman Anti-Trust Act

  • Pure Food and Drug Act

  • Meat Inspection Act

  • Labor Unions

  • Child labor laws

  • Social Security

  • Interstate Highway Act

  • Civil Rights legislation

  • Medicare and Medicaid

  • Affordable Care Act

This is but a short list. What have conservatives done to match it? How could the removal of these things reduce or eliminate "dystopia"?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Ok, so could you provide a crystal-clear definition of what you think a "conservative" is? There has been a lot of dis/misinformation about a lot of things in politics, mostly by the media, who are owned by those who have their own agenda.

There is (below right off wikipedia)

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleocon) -- a term for a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism, anti-corporatism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity. Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture—an identity that is both collective and personal". Paleoconservatism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.

Neoconservatism -- a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which combines features of traditional (paleo) conservatism, military interventionism, social conservatism, nationalism, and a qualified endorsement of free markets. Neoconservatism (or new conservatism) is rooted in a group of former liberals, who in the late 1960s, began to embrace nationalism and interventionism in opposition to the rise of the USSR and moved significantly to the right of the spectrum. The term "neoconservative" (sometimes shortened to "neocon") was initially used in the 1930s, to describe American liberals who criticized communists for following a path closer to Soviet communism.

And there is even something oddly named

Neoliberalism -- a contemporary political movement advocating economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets. Neoliberalism supports the privatization of nationalized industries, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society. It is commonly informed by neoclassical or Austrian economics. The term neoliberal today is often used as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies and advocates. Neoliberalism shares many concepts with mainstream schools of economic thought.

Neoliberalism is often thought of in association with Republican economic ideology because it advocates complete free-market economics and privatization with no government regulation, and the 1% love this.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

2/3s of our population, in fact, of any populace in the world, is paleoconservative - it's evolutionary. If they were not paleoconservative, the populace would not - indeed, could not - exist as a people.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Where do you get that figure? Could you provide the source please? How do you know it's that large?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Sorry I had to break the thread again, but I ran out of reply room again.

I would be very interested in knowing if you agree with everything in this link. What, if anything, do you not agree with? Do you actually classify yourself as a Paleo? If not, how do you define yourself as a conservative?

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I see virtually everyone on the level of subconscious as a paleoconservative. But I define it somewhat differently, or to put this another way, I define it through use of an evolutionary microscope.

I suppose this is a "textbook definition," right? Where do I disagree...

I'm not in favor of Free Trade; I would prefer a greater protectionism.

I'm not opposed to war, but I am opposed to the political war, and using tax dollars to create more favorable foreign market conditions for the corporation.

I am Lockean only to the extent that the Father's were Lockean... I discarded his "tabular rosa" in it's entirety; it's simply not true. And that's unfortunate since this theory has been heavily promoted by academia.

I categorize morality... we are possessed of an innate morality which is relatively limited in scope, yet cannot be denied, but much of what we describe as "morality" is actually but a social norm. What is fully acceptable in one society may constitute a perfect evil in another - these are societal constructs. But the societal construct is also evolutionary.

I see Lock's "contract theory" in a slightly different light. I date the written social contract in terms of written rights and obligation to the 13th century; this predates Lock. But certainly "rights" are a negotiated item.

There is much today that is labeled by progressives as a "right" that we cannot support; which defy all definition of rights negotiated.

I define the Laws of Nature exactly as the Puritan did - as that which is "universal" and "perpetual" to all people and all societies. The Puritan applied reason and preferred actual living example, practical experience, to the cerebral construct; if their exegesis did not align with that which people everywhere were obviously doing in practice than that interpretation was discarded and the process renewed. Every aspect of their exegesis was "reasoned"; in terms of the methodology this, of course, was in whole defiance of everything English or Romish.

I see enlightenment as an act and not a "movement".... it is the realization of some greater understanding, the result of intellectual pursuit - in societies rigidly constructed or constricted this is a rather radical position. The highly educated clerics in the form of American Puritan, as Non Separatist Dissenter, were in every sense of the word, highly enlightened. This applies to all intellectual pursuit whether we speak of science, literature, philosophy, religious and political doctrine or biblical exegesis. Our Founding Fathers, with the initial exception of Jefferson, rejected all of Enlightenment theory in favor of their own. This too is an unfortunate truth since this has also been promoted heavily by academia; it's entirely false. The Founding Fathers themselves were "enlightened" in a far more extreme sense than the European philosopher; as the result of a culturally inherited mindset articulated through self-education.

I support Roe versus Wade; what it actually represents is the absolute limit of an American tolerance. I am undecided on the issue of morality; worse, I see it as subjective... but I also recognize a need. I support equal rights for Gays in respect to the Civil Union; I don't mind if they get married in churches that are receptive but they have no right to impose their beliefs on others who may be religiously or morally opposed. And I think we have a problem in that there is this sense of two equalities that are incompatible. The transgendered who teach children in elementary school should not wear makeup and miniskirts; the two Gays that opt to adopt, mixing sperm cells to impregnate a surrogate mother, should not list only the males on the birth certificate as the child's parents, but also the surrogate mother. But these are the kind of absurdities that are now occurring in America. And this is not "equality."

I am relatively casual in religious belief... so it would not be correct to label me a fundamentalist. I see religion itself as evolutionary, born of a more archaic form... but... on the other hand, it is every bit as valid because it is "paleo."

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I see virtually everyone on the level of subconscious as a paleoconservative. But I define it somewhat differently, or to put this another way, I define it through use of an evolutionary microscope.

I suppose this is a "textbook definition," right? Where do I disagree...

I'm not in favor of Free Trade; I would prefer a greater protectionism.

I'm not opposed to war, but I am opposed to the political war, and using tax dollars to create more favorable foreign market conditions for the corporation.

I am Lockean only to the extent that the Father's were Lockean... I discarded his "tabular rosa" in it's entirety; it's simply not true. And that's unfortunate since this theory has been heavily promoted by academia.

I categorize morality... we are possessed of an innate morality which is relatively limited in scope, yet cannot be denied, but much of what we describe as "morality" is actually but a social norm. What is fully acceptable in one society may constitute a perfect evil in another - these are societal constructs. But the societal construct is also evolutionary.

I see Lock's "contract theory" in a slightly different light. I date the written social contract in terms of written rights and obligation to the 13th century; this predates Lock. But certainly "rights" are a negotiated item.

There is much today that is labeled by progressives as a "right" that we cannot support; which defy all definition of rights negotiated.

I define the Laws of Nature exactly as the Puritan did - as that which is "universal" and "perpetual" to all people and all societies. The Puritan applied reason and preferred actual living example, practical experience, to the cerebral construct; if their exegesis did not align with that which people everywhere were obviously doing in practice than that interpretation was discarded and the process renewed. Every aspect of their exegesis was "reasoned"; in terms of the methodology this, of course, was in whole defiance of everything English or Romish.

I see enlightenment as an act and not a "movement".... it is the realization of some greater understanding, the result of intellectual pursuit - in societies rigidly constructed or constricted this is a rather radical position. The highly educated clerics in the form of American Puritan, as Non Separatist Dissenter, were in every sense of the word, highly enlightened. This applies to all intellectual pursuit whether we speak of science, literature, philosophy, religious and political doctrine or biblical exegesis. Our Founding Fathers, with the initial exception of Jefferson, rejected all of Enlightenment theory in favor of their own. This too is an unfortunate truth since this has also been promoted heavily by academia; it's entirely false. The Founding Fathers themselves were "enlightened" in a far more extreme sense than the European philosopher; as the result of a culturally inherited mindset articulated through self-education.

I support Roe versus Wade; what it actually represents is the absolute limit of an American tolerance. I am undecided on the issue of morality; worse, I see it as subjective... but I also recognize a need. I support equal rights for Gays in respect to the Civil Union; I don't mind if they get married in churches that are receptive but they have no right to impose their beliefs on others who may be religiously or morally opposed. And I think we have a problem in that there is this sense of two equalities that are incompatible. The transgendered who teach children in elementary school should not wear makeup and miniskirts; the two Gays that opt to adopt, mixing sperm cells to impregnate a surrogate mother, should not list only the males on the birth certificate as the child's parents, but also the surrogate mother. But these are the kind of absurdities that are now occurring in America. And this is not "equality," it's insanity, as appeasement.

I am relatively casual in religious belief... so it would not be correct to label me a fundamentalist. I see religion itself as evolutionary, born of a more archaic form... but... on the other hand, it is every bit as valid because it is "paleo."

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Thank you for that very detailed response. Most people would not have been that forthcoming about their views.

I am curious. I don't want to probe too deeply into your personal background, and you are, of course, at liberty to tell me I would be intruding. Such views as you hold are quite alien to my way of thinking, so our upbringing and environmental background must be light-years apart. But this is all very educational. I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit (as much as you would like) about how you were "forged", i.e. where/how you grew up, your socio-economic class, how you came to acquire your views (i.e. your influences), etc, etc. I know that you represent, to a certain degree, millions of others with similar (though certainly not exact, obviously) views about reality. We all view reality through our own personal prism/filter. I'm just very, very curious as to how you formed yours, and the environment and/or influences that produced them, because it might provide me with a little insight as to how conservatives are "created" so to speak, if, in fact, they are products of their envionment at all and not born that way (Nature vs. Nurture).

[-] 1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

My background? lol...

Part of the problem is that you view the conservative as an anomaly that must be dissected and categorized to further your own interest which you find perhaps at at odds with the interests of others; to gain you must take, as the forfeit of one right to the favor of another. And so we all assess the enemy.

What I am saying is that we are ALL paleoconservative; even your desire to dissect to discern is "conservative."

Both religious exegesis and science... originate from the exact same source in the human mind. It becomes a question of hermeneutics.

I've studied the word "worldview"; it is lacking, although the Germans do offer some greater insight. But there IS a word in either Greek or Hebrew that means to be "possessed of a worldview," or a means of viewing, assessing, and understanding our world, which is exactly what this is; at the present time, unfortunately, this word escapes me - to "forget," I find, is a rather humiliating experience.

My background, my influences... perhaps my mother, as practical as she was intelligent; she insisted that I read... my father, although conservative, was also a reader, and very intelligent, and in many ways far more liberal minded than you might suspect; my grandfather who was German American, raised on the farm of his German grandparents... he was a pseudo-parent... his mother was a very liberal minded woman of the 20s, light years ahead of the American woman... in fact, we are only realizing some of these ideals now. But this grandfather was the paternal great-grandson of the tutor to the "Theater Duke," or Georg II, the Duke of Saxe-Meiningen, who as curator of the University of Jena later served to influence many of their more notable alumni. And he, of course, was the grandson of the scientist who discovered, among other things, thermal electricity. My grandfather's great grandmother tutored in Calcutta, the children of the then, Emperor. How this branch of their family landed in America is a huge story that involves world heads of state and international finance. But my grandfather was an influence.

My parents are Puritan by birth. Although no longer possessed of the religious fervor, the structural tenets still remain. It's really very interesting - my grandmother had a saying for every day of the week and virtually everything that happened in life; these inspire us to some greater curiosity, a need to analyze.

And analyze is what I do... write down the first ten thousand questions that come to mind related to philosophy and history and the dozen or so derivatives - archeology, anthropology, genealogy... astrology, cosmology, on and on, etc - all must agree - and this is what I am... I consider myself a student of history, a child of the universe, possessed of huge curiosities.

My direct paternal ancestors are 12th or 13th generation... whereas most research to draw from the primary documents of a single court case related to an event, I'll find two court cases and then go on to identify and research the backgrounds and interests of every single individual who enters upon the stage, what I seek is a greater understanding in an effort to satisfy my curiosity.

They were all working class Americans... but relatively intelligent, hard working, and determined... and all as a result are "comfortable," beyond average.

As a working class American I had learned to skin a deer by the time I was five years old... I began working at the age of eleven, and was handling high voltage by the time I was fourteen. These were the days before the single-head-of-household which has served to foster the over emphasis of risk. My playground was coastal rural America; I explored all of it, and these experiences served to influence.

I don't consider myself to be "forged." In fact, I created my personal philosophy independently before I even knew that what I was doing was "philosophy." It was merely an attempt to gain greater understanding, which itself is a word that requires our definition; and that's where it begins - with definition.

There is a tendency, I believe, to misinterpret the effects of environment. What we find is that descendants, even entirely removed from knowledge of their ancestry, possess the very same or similar structural tenets of personality, as qualities or characteristics, which date hundreds of years, with just enough variation amongst siblings to ensure that some might find a niche relative to circumstance of ever changing environment. What I am trying to say, is that yes, I believe there is influence relative to environment, circumstance, and cultural influence, but we should not ignore the significance of the genetic meme, which I believe, descends in large part on the X chromosome.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Part of the problem is that you view the conservative as an anomaly that must be dissected and categorized to further your own interest which you find perhaps at at odds with the interests of others; to gain you must take, as the forfeit of one right to the favor of another. And so we all assess the enemy.

Not at all. I know you have no reason to trust me, because you do not know me. But I too am a seeker of knowledge, and view our interactions as an opportunity to learn from each other (at least I am trying to learn about you). Your concerns or assessment about ulterior motives is unfounded, at least in my case. But it is very understandable, given the demeanor that you have previously indicated very definitely exists on this forum. I myself have engaged in behavior I now deeply regret, as indicated in the OP. So I certainly understand your reticent and cautious approach.

This is the way I look at it. I am making an attempt to reach out and understand one representative of an opposing ideology...not understand to use as a weapon for future combat, but as information to help me understand the world better. Only when we understand each other better, coupled to a commitment to try to work together regardless of differences, will we be able to repair the damage to this broken world/country/environment/et al... If you and I, two people, can do this, then two more can do it, then two more, and two more. Eventually millions can reachout and understand millions, and that is the ONLY way that I see any hope for this country/world to resolve its political divisiveness. People need to understand each other a LOT better. Everyone is very polarized. Everyone thinks they are right and the other is wrong. All spirit of cooperation, understanding and compromise has been obliterated in this country. We have become a country of civilized savages. Were the veneer of civilization removed, I shudder in horror to contemplate the result.

Thank you very much for providing all that background. Your family history is quite interesting with its connections to the nobility. We are both working class, so that is one point of commonality. I was hoping to understand the more direct influences, but this is certainly enough. I will take it on faith that it is not really necessary for me to conduct that level of analysis in order to understand someone. That will hopefully likely become clear in the process of further discourse.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Wow, the last three paragraphs were excellent!

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Just more anti dem partisan campaigning!