Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama is killing innocent people in 7 different countries, and it took money issues to get everyone in the street

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 18, 2011, 6:59 p.m. EST by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

That is very worrisome to me.

America is fine with war now. They seem to actually like it.

But dont fuck with their precious money!!

163 Comments

163 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

Why do you liberals keep trying to build up Obama? This site is about OWS

Obama is so fucking lame he hasn’t been able to start one war!

Duh, he could have owned North Korea,

He could have owned the oil in Iran,

but Noooooo, he is not capable are starting a war without probable cause.

I am voting GOP god damn it, They don’t need a real reason to start a war!

Wake up America our war factories should be humming and puking out huge profits off of no-bid contracts.

Vote GOP

[-] 3 points by Dutchess (499) 3 years ago

Obama is violating the constitutution, international law and the Geneva Convention just like Bush.

Don't believe me?

Read left leaning Constitutional attorney and writer for Salon. com Glenn Greenwalds book 'With Liberty and Justice for some'

The Obama administration is not only continuing the Bush policies but also violating the exact same laws!

[-] 4 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

Exactly, he is just a copycat president that can't do shit on his own. That's why we need to get the real deal back in office.

Let's quit playing around. Let's get another war or two started and cut socialist security and medicareforwhiners to pay for it.

Let's take American into the future

[-] 2 points by Dutchess (499) 3 years ago

Ron Paul

[-] 1 points by superomenna1 (89) 3 years ago

Even if Ron PauI became the president, he would not be able to do much with a rotten, bought out Congress.

[-] -1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

Serioulsy what does this old timer have to offer?

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 3 years ago

well this liberal did her homework and I suggest you do too.

Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich think just like Ron Paul that there needs to be a coalition between the very left and the libertarians.

Do your own research! Pick up a book!

[-] 0 points by deGrene (199) 3 years ago

This assumes he can read.

[-] 0 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

What book?

[-] 2 points by Skippy2 (485) 3 years ago

Dutchess is correct!(golf clap) Obama is worse than Bush for one reason. He told us he would stop the wars. He continued war, patriot act, gitmo, rendition, black prisons, drone strikes........etc etc etc. I voted for him once. NEVER again.

[-] 2 points by Dutchess (499) 3 years ago

ditto here. Although I donated to Kucinich and Paul the sole whistleblowers I ended up voting Obama. Never ever again!

[-] 0 points by mookie (38) 3 years ago

Your Right!!!!

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

Who here is building up Obama? What else is going on in your make-believe world?

[-] 2 points by superomenna1 (89) 3 years ago

Girl tries not to cry on live TV, as Israelis take her family home and happily move in, with support from Obama.

http://youtu.be/8TGGxHQdgr8

.

[-] -2 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

You don’t see the implication here?

You don’t see those that are trying to portray Obama on par with the true war mongers.

That would make him look strong and powerful. Conservatives know he is weak and fearful and therefore not worthy a second term.

Conservatives want and defend a president that is not afraid to start a war. That is not Obama

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

Again, who here is building up Obama? If you can't even begin to demonstrate that there is any widespread support for Obama here, then none of what you're saying has anything to do with the real world. It's just meaningless mantras repeated endlessly.

If I say you support someone and build some analysis on that premise, it doesn't matter how gee-whiz that analysis is, if you don't support that person, it's nonsense. It doesn't matter how many times I repeat it either, it's still just nonsense.

[-] -1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

Forum Post: Obama is killing innocent people in 7 different countries, and it took money issues to get everyone in the street

What did you think this meant? Wasn't it meant to portray him as a war mongering and powerful man who needs to be feared. He is anything but that, as a matter of fact he is a fearful wimp.

Did I read too much into this

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 3 years ago

I agree. He doesn't even have the guts to carry out the job people elected him for.

I think he either got the "JFK talk" by some high ranking CIA official in the shadow government... or he's just a liar. :p

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Go with the first one

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

It was a criticism of Obama. Killing lots of innocent people isn't usually a selling point.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

In depends on what you are trying to sell and who your audience is

That’s like saying attacking a sovereign nation isn’t a selling point. If you are trying to promote a leader that can keep you safe while fighting a perpetul enemy, then it becomes a selling point.

[-] 0 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

Even in that case, you don't go around bragging about killing innocent people. You sell your war on the lie that you can do it without killing too many innocent people.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

I don't think Obama is bragging about killing innocent people. It is hchc that is saying they are innocent people

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 3 years ago

Well that's kind of obvious isn't it?

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

I get it

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 3 years ago

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or really mean this, but I would ask you if you avhe ever actually been in combat? Not just serving in the military during a war, but actually fighting face to face with other soldiers?

If you're so hot for war, why not volunteer and go on and get in one, or get a job at one of the security contractors so you can get yourself into a freefire zone.

I think you'll ifnd it a lot different than you think it is.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

No thanks, I am good with the brainwashed lackeys and the greedy mercenaries doing the job

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 3 years ago

Anyone who wishes a war for others to fight without first volunteering to fight it himself has, in my opinion, neither right to do so, nor does he deserve the security his cowardice craves.

End of story -- I will not comment further on this or any reply.

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

Oh come on now don't be so hard on Bush, Cheney and the other chicken hawk warmongers.

Don’t be talking shit about the other chicken hawk Fox news worshipers.

You know what I am talking about, the guys who are always going to kick somebodies ass, but have never went toe to toe with anybody.

[-] 1 points by origatomicapple (47) from Gift Lake, AB 3 years ago

Is this stupid top comment about war really one of the best of the day? America stop making war and fucking take back your country and the world like everyone else. War makes powerful corporations and secret families rich not the people. Sad

[-] 1 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

Get used to it. Wait the GOP gets back in charge. That's when the fun stuff starts.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Go tell that to Libya, Somolia, Uganda, Yemen, Iraq, Afghan and Paki. They may disagree that this maniac isnt a war monger.

Either that or hes too scared to pull out.

Either way, he's a fraud.

[-] 2 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

Obama is a fraud you are right. Although you sound like a brainwashed liberal when you pretend that Obama started a war.

He is too gutless to start his own war, so he hijacks the GOP’s wars

Then he tries to act like a third world countries civil war is his war.

If he wants credit for war then he needs to really start one.

Then he can stand up like a man and say look at the war manufacturing jobs I have created

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Last I knew the people of Libya were quite happy with both Obama and with Nato . . . .

I like your idea. Lets ask them!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Especially the ones that lost loved ones. They are beaming!!

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I'll bet they are. I'm sure it was a great pleasure and tremendous satisfaction for most of the country to witness for themselves the last moments of their Tyrant.

I bet that clip still gets play . . .

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Im talking about the thousands of innocent killed you hack.

War mongering maniacs in this country are going to ultimately destroy it. Then you wonder why the world hates us.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

My point is that by and large - last I knew - they don't hate us in Libya.

Thousands of innocents had already been killed by the time Nato acted. Thousands of more would have been killed had they not acted.

you fucking whine about the death of innocence, and yet refuse to do the math. it isn't complicated.

the Libyans did the math. they stood up and were counted. Even if it killed them.

I fail to understand how you can justify standing with a murderous thug like Gadhafi - but in essence that's what you are saying. You are saying the people of Libya would have been better to keep him in power.

It could turn out that way - I hope it doesn't.

They did the math. They rolled the dice and stood up. What are you doing?

[-] 2 points by losthumanity (58) 3 years ago

I fail to understand how you can justify standing with a murderous thug like Gadhafi - but in essence that's what you are saying.

Yep, principle taken to extremes leaves people without a moral compass.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

careful - I might get confused and suddenly think you are talking about me . . .

[-] 1 points by losthumanity (58) 3 years ago

:-)

Self-deprecating humor is pretty attractive, ya know?

In all seriousness, balance is always a good benchmark.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

balance?

balance?

wtf is that?

where can I get some?

how much is it?

how do I know if I really need it?

omg so many questions!

[-] 1 points by henoktg (66) 3 years ago

What do you know about Gaddafi ? why is it America's interest to kill Gaffafi? why would NATO spent so much to kill Gaddafi? Did any of the NATO member states parliament / congress approved bombing Libya?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I know the two most relevant facts as they pertain to our Movement.

  • Gadhafi was of the one percent

  • Gadhafi took a bullet in the head

I think these are pertinent facts. I like these facts. I would parade these facts in public.

[-] 1 points by henoktg (66) 3 years ago

So you do believe that NATO and the US government are against the 1%?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I don't think that the U.S. military or Nato will define their objectives with such a narrow set of parameters.

Regardless of what you think about the Lockerbie / Pan Am bombing, the fact remains the west could have taken Gadhafi out then, and did not. You might claim they tried, Gadhafi himself might make such claims, were he alive today - but the fact is they didn't try very hard.

A populist uprising, the threat of Gadhafi retaliation including mass murder, and the wave of refugees this threatened to produce, prompted action.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 3 years ago

illegal action....still illegal and not allowed under the united states constitution which takes power over anything the UN does....And besides, we have a trillion murderous dictators killing everyday and we do not go in illegally to save people. And how much money got wasted? it all adds up

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

The U.S. Constitution does not 'take power' over the U.N. they have their own charter.

It would take a specialist in international law to determine the legality of the action taken.

Since the people of Libya requested assistance, my belief is that it will be found to have been within the confines of international law.

As far as the President's actions go regarding our involvement, it should be noted that repelicans like John McCain did urge a much greater involvement, and at the same time condemned him for not notifying Congress.

I haven't read our treaty with Nato - but I'm sure that under the circumstances the Constitutional requirement to notify Congress hasn't been unduly marred by the President's course of action.

Congress today isn't simply disfunctional it's totally inoperable.

He made a very shrewd choice, a very smart choice.

And I will stand with the People of Libya. I am glad they no longer have to suffer beneath the heel of oppression. Let us hope they can keep it that way.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 3 years ago

actual it does take power over the UN...have you ever read the Constitution? So if the UN says we can imprison american's for saying something iran doesnt like they can do it? No. The US can only enter into agreements that stay in the bounds of the US constitution. He still had our planes in the air bombing others and that is war....dont be so quick to dismiss our constitution, it was written that way for a reason. And it is THE LAW. Read the War powers act (even though its unconstitutional) and we couldnt even follow THAT! And i do not care what a democrat or republican has to say on the issue....i care about the law, not want a crony white house lawyer pretends the law is. It is simple law 101 that the war powers act was violated

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 3 years ago

well, then if you were obama you would go to jail for high treason

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I'm a pragmatist. I'm all in favor of the law - but the fact is Libyans were facing mass slaughter.

I'm glad Gadhafi is dead.

I'm not ashamed the U.S. assisted the Libyan people. It was the right thing to do.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Well, he was our puppet until he wanted to create a gold backed currency. Then all of that changed.

That huge ass loan we just pushed on them, along with taking the gold, and controlling their oil....Im sure they just love us.

I havent been there, but know someone who has, and as usual, the media has a message they need to get out.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

why would they let us take their gold?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

They didnt want to, hence no more Ghadafi or his gov.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

that's just silly

you mean to say that one of us, or that some of us, are so clever, so skillful in the art of manipulation, that we engineered Libyan social discontent for the purpose of stealing their gold?

That's absurd. The Arab spring didn't even start in Libya. It started with an act of self immolation in Tunisia . . . .

unless of course you are suggesting that was all part of the plan - and if so, my response is, maybe you should reconsider those meds . . .

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Anyone, when left in power long enough, will become corrupted (see the D and R parties).

Its up to us to change that. We have the power. Im not sure why you think Im not a fighter because I dont trust this government?

I think understanding your enemy is the most important thing moving towards a victory.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

When you say you don't trust this government what you are doing is giving it too much power to stand as a solid, monolithic entity. It is composed of people. Almost all of them American citizens.

Therein lies it's inherent weakness, and its strength.

By seeing it as the enemy you lock yourself out of using its strengths and weaknesses to your own advantage . . . .

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

You do things your way, Ill do mine. Fair enough? Please dont underestimate my ability to fight or organize those around me to achieve things greater than they thought possible.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Work smarter, not harder I say.

We will be victorious.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

If they can keep the people in the US buying crap, voting the same two parties, purchasing houses that incredibly expensive, accepting student loans that are unpayable, buy into these wars, give the banks trillions, devalue our currency, etc etc etc.....

A propoganda campaign in a country like Libya isnt really that far fetched.

The HUGE loan the IMF pushed on them, right after they crushed their currency, is all the proof you need.

This had as much to do with freedom as Iraq did. Sorry dude.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I do not dispute that there may and probably are opportunists at work. Where they are American, and it can be shown they have conducted themselves in a manner that sullies our reputation abroad and / or takes advantage of the Libyan people,

then I say let us round them up, charge them with Sedition, convict and then shoot them - in the head.

I still maintain, such opportunism would not be possible were the Libyan discontent anything other than organic.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Im not a defeatist, I just dont trust a thing this government does.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Anyone, when left in power long enough, will become corrupted (see the D and R parties).

Its up to us to change that. We have the power. Im not sure why you think Im not a fighter because I dont trust this government?

I think understanding your enemy is the most important thing moving towards a victory.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

then the authors of lies have won. They have successfully convinced you that the corruption is universal and that you are powerless; that if it is not you cannot hope to identify where it is not without appearing the fool.

every group of people is just a group of people - they all have differing systems of belief, commitment, sense of self and identity, sense of duty.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Threat of force according to who? Our bought out media? The same ones that reported WMD,s, and OBL death?

Its a scam dude, it always has been.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Are there scams out there?

of course.

is everyone involved?

Unlikely.

our bought out media

you claim. Yet reports are appearing in the media - many of them favorable, regarding our movement. Reporters are often English majors - many of them are idealists, kept under control by bosses who toe the administrative line. But as soon as there is an opening, provided by the newsworthiness of the story itself, the story breaks.

You are too black and white. You can't find the divisions if you have a preconceived notion that none exist.

ditch the defeatist attitude, will ya?

[-] 1 points by losthumanity (58) 3 years ago

No, the Libyans on the ground in Benghazi - some of whom are my friends - screaming for support. Want to call me a liar?

They rose up, and were being beat down murderously by an oppressive state - exactly the sort of thing you claim to oppose. There would be no Libyan opposition left if it weren't for NATO. They would be 100% dead or in prison awaiting their farcical public trials - like "dogs" as Ghadafi called all who opposed him.

You probably would have let Milosevic keep doing his thing, too, huh? How about Hitler?

Libya had nothing in common with Iraq.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

It doesnt take much to motivate people in poor countries. We could do the same thing in almost 100 others right now. But we only target specific ones, because of what they have.

We take it, then create our own puppet gov, then its on to the next one...

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

that is an oversimplification that does not take into account the network of relationships that Gadhafi himself nurtured and maintained in order to keep his position secure.

Nor does it consider the very credible threat of force Gadhafi also used, with abandon.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/23/destroying-libyas-welfare-state/

NOVEMBER 23, 2011 51 NATO's Great Victory Destroying Libya’s Welfare State by DAN KOVALIK The other day, I was listening to the voice of “liberal” radio, NPR, and was surprised to hear its bizarre, and yet quite candid, report on what it apparently views to be one of the more hideous aspects of the Gadhafi years – a modern welfare state which looked after working people.

Thus, without tongue in cheek, or any note of irony, NPR, in its November 14 report, entitled, “Libya’s Economy Faces New Tests After Gadhafi Era,” explained that the biggest impediment to the new economic era is the Libyan worker who was simply too coddled by Gaddafi.

NPR thus cited a 2007 book on the Libyan economy by authors Otman and Karlberg who called “the Libyan worker under Gadhafi ‘one of the most protected in the world,’” receiving job tenure, government subsidies of around $800 a month for the average Libyan household, and gasoline at a mere 60 cents a gallon. NPR, citing the same book, explained that workers now freed from such a tyrannical world by NATO bombs, have been left with a “’subsidy mentality’” and a “’job-for-life outlook which has ill-prepared Libyans for the more aggressive and cutthroat world of competition.’” However, lucky for them, Libya’s new acting finance and oil chief, Ali Tarhouni, is resolved to turn this situation around by disciplining Libya’s workers through “smaller government and a larger and freer private sector.” NPR describes that, Tarhouni, being the realist that he is, “has no illusions that it will be an easy transition.” The report thus quotes Tarhouni who states that, “[t]he challenge here is that this is a welfare state,” with Libyan workers expecting too much from their government. I’m sure Tarhouni, with Western support, will show these workers a thing a two.

Of course, had NPR gone further, they could have also explained that, according to the statistics of the United Nations Development Programme, Libya, at the time of the NATO invasion, had the highest human development indicators (which measure levels of health, education and income) in all of Africa, with a life expectancy of 74.5; undernourishment of the population at under 5%; and adult literacy at over 88%. Libya was in fact ranked 53 in the world out of 169 comparable countries, ranking, for example, above Turkey, (post-Soviet) Russia, Brazil and Costa Rica in terms of the human development indicators.

[-] -1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Richard- Please remind us of the vigorous response of the Reagan administration to the bombing deaths of over 250 U.S Marines in1983.

[-] 2 points by RichardGayTits (293) 3 years ago

Duh! He was a Republican?

I am not sure? didn't he cut and run?

I am sure he had a good reason. I don't think I have heard what Fox has said about that. Whatever they say, it is the truth "fair and Balanced"

[-] 4 points by entrepreneur (69) 3 years ago

It is 1% and mainly the FED and oil companies which is killing people in other countries. People have false notion that obama is controlling military just because that's what we are made to believe in. Can experts here explain to 99% how 1% is accomplishing wars for their interest. Although Obama couldn't resist un-necessary wars, he atleast tried to get back some of the boots back home.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 3 years ago

obama is the commander and chief....he could order them all home tomorrow and no one can say a thing

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

We are made to believe that, because that is how its SUPPOSE to be. Bought politicians are not how its suppose to operate.

If I take orders to go commit crimes, or my people are taking orders from others and using me as the faceplate, I am still guilty.

[-] 3 points by hotdog (29) 3 years ago

Since ZenDog refuses to answer my question, I will ask the general populace of this forum. Given that Barak Obama will be the Democratic candidate for President, which Republican contender would best address the concerns of the OWS movement and provide the best alternative (choice) to President Obama?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 3 years ago

Buddy Roemer

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 3 years ago

Lol Obama makes Bush look like a piker.

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

How about my question?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 3 years ago

Address OWS concerns? WTHDYTYA?

[-] 1 points by hotdog (29) 3 years ago

"WTHDYTYA?" I don't get it. I am a person asking a question. I don't see much to like about either party. Obama will be the Democratic candidate. I'm not seeing much in the way of change (just more of the same), and as for hope I think that bubble has burst too. On the Republican side it's a rather uninspiring lot for the most part, but if there is to be "change", it has to come from there. Which Republican candidate would you prefer to see on the ticket to challenge Obama and actually bring some real changes that would benefit the American people?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Doesnt matter. It will still be more fascism. Both PARTIES are controlled, doesnt matter who runs in them. Must destroy both parties.

[-] 1 points by hotdog (29) 3 years ago

So you are a romantic. Do you really think that you can "destroy" both parties? You are free to try, but, before the SWAT team arrives at your door with an armored vehicle, you might want to rethink your position. I feel the same way, but let's try to be realistic. Besides what would you really accomplish by destroying those (2) parties? Nothing. It is the system that is corrupt and you aptly point out that both parties are controlled. If you did actually destroy the Republican and Democratic parties, new parties would simply replace them and life would go on as always. The parties themselves are simply tools. Unless you are advocating violence, I think you have to work within the political system to effect change. That means being active and educated. Anyway, can't you play along for just a moment? Among the Republican candidates which is the least bad option?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

The only one that would stand a chance at doing anything that is remotely anti-facsist would be RP, but they will never give him the nod.

Its like making people choose between which hand they would prefer to have cut off in a factory accident, who cares, they are both horrible. Doesnt matter which one, they are both so far gone.

PArties are supposed to be created, and then eliminated, every so often. Our own stupidity at doing anything new is whats led to this massive corruption.

If OWS had a message that resonated with the people, and got majoirties in both houses, then you would see some serious action to get this thing back on track. Its not hard. It just depends if the population wants it or not. And clearly life here is too good to care.

[-] 1 points by hotdog (29) 3 years ago

http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-bill-to-be-voted-on-today-would-allow-the-military-to-sweep-up-us-citizens-at-home-or-abroad-2011-11 Well, before you take up arms against the militarized police of this country, you should try to make a difference politically. You seem like a reasonable person pushed to despair.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Politically is what Im talking about. Im not talking about overthrowing anything.

Its simple, if you have a message that the masses like, then you create a third party. If the majority vote for you, but you still lose, then you move on to other options.

[-] 3 points by unfleecedbysheep (153) 3 years ago

That statement is false, invalid, and contingent on a number contextual facts. Obama killed nobody personally, Nor did he initiate the war's. There are no official wars in 7 countries. And it is not just"money issues" but a rapid rise and peak in unemployment coupled with a do nothing stalwart congress that gave all all our money to institutions that had already shown irresponsible and corrupt practices once it had gained access to all of our deposit monies. There requires some specifics in your statement, that you failed to show, if one is to infer the intended meaning.

[-] 1 points by 1jbh (11) 3 years ago
  1. Read this, http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/11-reasons-why-occupy-wall-street-protesters-are-hypocrites-if-they-do-not-call-for-barack-obama-to-resign AND THIS http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U
  2. Obama has been president for 2 years, 10 months ( actually 2 years & 303 days) where as the GOP dominated congress has only been in power for 11 months, prior to the "do nothing stalwart congress) Obama's party had roughly 2 years to do what ever he wanted. He did nothing about crony capitalism, The debt was $10,626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office, today it is 15,025 trillion
  3. "Obama killed nobody personally" is one of the most ridiculous comments I have heard in a while- neither did Bush,
[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

You're first link appears to be a repelican website dedicated to the spread of misinformation.

That anyone can compare Bush and Obama and somehow come out with Bush in the lead after such a comparison is most obviously, and most completely, full of bushite.

Does this mean the whole article should be tossed? Certainly not. It does contain some interesting information that may in fact be accurate, and therefore useful as we go forward pushing for reform.

But let us not be fooled - this is a calculated effort to shore up support for repelican policy and policy leaders. The issues this unnamed author point to are complex, making it easy to gloss over their surface and say "this is a significant problem" without ever examining in close detail how these things came to be or who, precisely, may be responsible, beyond the President himself.

But the most telling thing about this article is this: If we do not agree automatically with this author then we are both, in his or her terms, hypocrites, and sheeple.

I for one, will not be shamed for my beliefs, nor will I be shamed for casting my vote in accordance with those beliefs.

I say let not shame guide us as we decide individually whom we will vote for. Let us examine the facts, as closely as we are able, and let

Peace, Truth, and the Weight of Public Opinion

be our guide.

And as we do so, let us remember who, precisely, our opposition really is:


Memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street Posted 43 minutes ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 1:09 p.m. EST by madeinusa This content is user submitted and not an official statement

By Jonathan Larsen and Ken Olshansky, MSNBC TV

http://occupywallst.org/forum/memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-stre/

[-] 1 points by hotdog (29) 3 years ago

Every point is correct in the link. You simply disagree because the author is obviously a conservative. Or I might more accurately describe as a "true conservative. You fall into the same pitfall that most people do. You believe in the fantasy that there is a real political choice. You believe in the partisan smoke and mirrors. Is is it really important whether Bush was better or worse than Obama? The parallels are striking. At a minimum Obama would be the bigger hypocrite wrapping the same old tired, fascist, statist, freedom hating policies in different rhetoric. It's not the rhetoric which is important but the policies. You should be ashamed if you are simply voting your emotions. Your "beliefs"? People whom you would describe as the religious right have "beliefs" as well. Maybe you should vote your convictions, your principles. Maybe you should make an informed decision free of emotion and get beyond the democrat/republican fantasy. They all support the establishment (most of all Barak Obama). Since Obama will be the Democratic candidate, you should be concerned about whom the Republican candidate will be. Or maybe you don't like to exercise your freedom to choose own elected officials. Which Republican contender would you like to see as the Republican candidate in order to offer the best choice to the American people?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I do not care which repelican candidate is chosen to run in the general election. They will lose, and that is all that matters.

Corporations are people too indeed.

The media often claims both parties are to blame, and while there may be plenty of corruption and incompetence to go around, I do believe it is a gross mischaracterization to claim they are both the same. This is just another lie, and those who believe it simply lack the energy or the will to look closely.

Only one party claims there is no global warming.

Only one party would privatize social security.

I have indeed considered this situation carefully. I wrote about it on the eve of this last budget debate. What I wrote then mirrors closely what a repelican insider has written much more recently. I invite you to compare for yourself:

-- Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult Saturday 3 September 2011 by: Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

.

He says almost exactly what I said here: -- Upon the Question of Default of Our National Debt July 6th, 2011 http://zendogblog.net/blog/

.

you can find more of what I have written recently right on this forum - links on my profile.

http://occupywallst.org/users/ZenDog/

. .

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

Zen dog, are you afraid to answer my question? Which Republican contender would make the best candidate and provide the best choice for the American people in the next election with Barak Obama, who will be the Democratic candidate? I guess you don't even want to have a choice. Why would you not want a choice? What do you call a person who automatically votes for a particular party and refuses to even to consider a candidate for another party? You speak about glossing over surfaces without examining the details, so how can you make such broad statements such as "one party claims" or "only one party would..."? Those are generalizations and each candidate has different views on those issues. Besides are you saying that public discourse and debate on those issues is wrong? It looks to me like the Occupy Wall Street protesters are trying to bring issues to the public's attention which certain people would rather not be discussed. Why should anything be off the table of public discourse and debate? I'm not sure what you believe in, but it appears that you don't believe in freedom of speech, an essential tool of an informed democracy, and you do not wish to exercise your own freedom to choose our elected government officials. I am guessing that you actually have very little knowledge of the Republican candidates, and you are simply relying on faith in Obama. Considering past performance one can see why your faith would be so unwavering.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Zen dog, are you afraid to answer my question? Which Republican contender would make the best candidate and provide the best choice for the American people in the next election with Barak Obama, who will be the Democratic candidate?

I do not care whom they select I said. I do not care because there is no credibility for any candidate who would attempt to represent the people from beneath that banner.

Therefore, in my view, there is no best repelican candidate. Each and every one is a candidate of lies. Why would I pick one when they are all in this sense equal.

I did indeed answer your question.

Perhaps you did not care for my answer.

and Yes, to say that:

**Only one party claims there is no global warming.

Only one party would privatize social security. **

is to generalize. It is true. It is as true to say these are generalizations as it is to say these two points are true and indisputable.

I have generalized.

I have said what is true.

I think it is clear that behind each topic lies a great deal of controversy, and discussion of both whether, let alone what, should be done.

It is no Gregorian knot.

It is simply bushite.

Only one party claims there is no global warming.

Only one party would privatize social security.

Only one party has irrefutably ceded all claims to credibility.

and for that, I am not to blame.

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

Zendog, whether you care or not is irrelevant. You have not answered my question. You have simply avoided it. You have attempted to deflect it. Anyway, I think most people will see that you are dogmatic, close-minded and represent exactly what so many people (including the OWS protestors) are fed up with. People want to escape from the narrow confines people like yourself have placed on the public discourse. It is perfectly fine to have beliefs, principles and convictions. However, you simply make statements with no logic or rational argument with no facts or supporting evidence. I suppose you think using words like "bushite" or "true" somehow lend credibility to your claims. They do not. Maybe you think it makes you look clever. It does not.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I think I have answered you. You claim I have not. You are entitled to your opinion, but for the sake of clarity, let us review; what was the question again?

Ah yes . . .

Which Republican contender would make the best candidate and provide the best choice for the American people in the next election

And what was my response? Ahh yes . . .

Only one party claims there is no global warming.

Only one party would privatize social security.

Would you care for more specificity? Perhaps from the fruit of their own lips -

Ronny LawL, who would take deregulation to some extraordinary new depths:

"I would abolish FEMA"

Mitt baby, whose position stands in stark opposition to Occupy:

"Sure I believe corporations are people too"

Herman Cain, business tycoon and sexual predator extraordinaire:

999! Nine Nine Nine! Nein! Nein! Nein!

Nein seems to be his answer for everything, and kinda gives a whole new perspective on the party of no, doesn't it? Did you grope that woman? NEIN! Tax Policy? Nein! Nine! Nein!

There is no one running for the repelican nomination qualified to serve the interests of the American people.

That is my opinion.

I will not say there is a candidate among the repelican camp who is, when I so clearly believe there is not.

I do not care if you do not like it.

I do not care if you lie.

you have my answer.

[-] 1 points by hotdog (29) 3 years ago

I understand that you may disagree with individual candidates on specific issues, but you apparently support President Obama without thought. How can you support a President who received more than double the financial support of McCain from Wall Street in the last election and has stacked his cabinet with people from Wall Street? What do you think people mean when they say "Wall Street has occupied our government", so we are going to occupy Wall Street? They are talking about Obama's cabinet. Your support of Obama and refusal to even look for an alternative makes you a supporter of Wall Street. Your solution is more of the same. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman Jr., Ron Pau l, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer are I believe to be all declared Republican candidates. By the way "ZenDog" what do you do? I'm a teacher.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I throw darts at bullshit like yours.

Here

compare that to

This

or consider

this

or

that

or

The Other

or

What did you say?

z

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Let Canada fly planes over your city and drop some bombs. You may reconsider your views on "war".

[-] 2 points by unfleecedbysheep (153) 3 years ago

I had stated no views on war.

[-] -2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

So bitter! You must be a closet supporter of Sharia Law . . . .

[-] 3 points by unfleecedbysheep (153) 3 years ago

what was "so bitter"? and how did you get to sharia law?

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I was responding to hchc

[-] -1 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 3 years ago

ZenDog what up?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Not much - I was sleeping when you posted that.

I'm currently responding to comments left overnight, and then I have to decide on whether to write some new post, or perhaps just provide a synopsis of the three articles from yesterday's business section of the NYT -

or go cut some wood.

My back hurts. But we'll see.

What's up with you?

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 3 years ago

I'm doing great. I have been getting my co-workers interested in supporting OWS

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Cool.

I confess - I am a bit twisted. Check this:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/so-what-are-you-trying-to-get-out-of-this-a-commun/#comment-394568

That comment, and the one directly above it are both mine.

It has been said that I am quite mad.

They weren't kidding . . .

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

maybe if money was taken out of the military, we would not see every problem as having a military solution. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail."

http://www.abraham-maslow.com/m_motivation/Maslows_Hammer.asp

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Obama's recklessness just killed 24 more people in PAkistan.

Way to go america. Good thing you are coming up with other parties and people...

Oh, wait...what?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 3 years ago

NO more war monger presidents!

Obama supported terrorism in Libya. The rebels are sadistic creeps who rape, torture, and slaughter. Their kills range from torturing Gaddafi supporters to slaughtering black Libyans for being black.

Romney, Obama, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich will continue these wars if they are in office in 2012.

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

I think not voting for either party is a colossal mistake. For God's sake, don't let the Republicans back in. The only thing to do is vote Obama back in and then work hard to create another party. I think the time for it is now.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Thats the thing, there isnt a difference between what the two do. What they say, yes. What they do, no.

A vote for either party is a vote for fascism, and Im not playing that game anymore. Let the rest of the sheep play along, Im done.

Only indies, npas and third parties for this guy. No more falling for hte tricks.

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

I'm not taking this because of the stigma attached to names

I don't trusted the false partisan bent

The military industrial complex is killing innocent people in 7 different countries, and it took bi-partisan team rivalry to get everyone in the street

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Fair enough. I'll rephase. The people that the US people have elected are bombing 7 nations.

Better?

Im just saying that our apathy towards killing is unacceptable.

[-] 2 points by JonoLith (467) 3 years ago

And people wonder why the entire world hates America.

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

The whole world hates politicians. Whores have a lot more class.

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

Hyperbole is not helping anyone. The whole world does not hate America. We have allies, not because the top 1% conspires with the rest of the world, rather because the country has done things worthy of respect. Off the top of my head: giving considerable foreign aid to Jordan, Colombia, Pakistan, India, Haiti, Russia, and so on. Our government does many good things. We have simply let things get out of hand with members of Congress, the Senate, and the Executive branch catering to the wishes of corporations and other large donors the 1%. I would like to know what improvements Obama tried to make to the school lunch program which supported special interests. Special interests shot down the changes.

[-] 2 points by elwad (44) from New York, NY 3 years ago

who are we fighting these wars for?

the answer is the true enemy

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

It's not one thing. It's everything.

Occupy Wallstreet.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Right, and the people you are protesting could care less if a few hundred to a thousand camp out. And your elected leaders dont care either.

[-] 1 points by Bellaciao29 (99) 3 years ago

The ambiguity of Obama will destroy America. Stop him to start other wars against Pakistan, Iran, Siria, Russia and China. It's impossible to defeat the whole world. Only a madman can think so.

[-] 1 points by thrasyamque (-1) 3 years ago

Financing Fascism: The Military-Industrial Complex and the Rise of Neo-Conservatism By: Andrew G. Marshall


pdf 48 pages http://www.multiupload.com/0F5YEMBGVP mirror http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MarshallMilitaryIndComplexPNAC.pdf


mp3 33 minutes http://www.multiupload.com/B6TQ5M3XI0


excerpt: Today, and in fact, for much of our recent history, our governments in the Western world have been controlled by an unseen hand. Most of us have been aware of some aspect of this hidden hand, but cannot identify who moves its fingers and controls its actions. This hidden hand goes by many names; among the more prominent being the shadow government, the iron triangle or, more accurately, the military-industrial complex. So it is necessary to now take a look back at the history and role that the military-industrial complex has played in all our lives, and continues to play today. It was on January 17, 1961, that President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the nation, in which he coined this term and gave a stern and necessary warning to the American people. His use of the term ‘military-industrial complex’ was in reference to describing the intimate relationship between the military establishment, the political structure and the defense industry. In his speech, Eisenhower stated: This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.


training web page http://url2it.com/jsne thrasymaque

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Dont forget, neo-liberalism goes hand in hand with the neocons.

First you invade, then the corporations and banks move in...

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 3 years ago

We can always occupy here. We won't get one peep from one soul.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/enterprise-rent-a-car-murders-children/#comment-443659

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

so sad too because it seems to be a natural law of the human condition:

what goes around comes around.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Hundreds mourn the loss of loved ones as O-bomb-ya cant keep his ego in check.

Either that, or he's too scared to call it all off.

Either way, can we please come up with a party that will say no to preemptive war?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

o common. face it. some people just plain need killin'

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Yep. it bothers me too.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Looking like Syria is next. Did you know we are building four more bases in Africa? - this is from cbs and nbc

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Yes. The plan to take over Africa was aluded to in the The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Program

http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles/strat_trends_23jan07.pdf

In that document, which was touted as a "study of trends" there is a map showing all of Africa covered in "demographic and environmental stress bubbles", however the document truly is a surreptitious announcement of the PLAN of the globalists.

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 3 years ago

Sick, sad, myopic fools. As I conservative, I fully respect Obama and any president, regardless of political slant for one supreme reason......you and I will never know nor appreciate what our minds would  have to conceive after a daily security briefing. This is a fact well beyond partisan lines.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

I agree. And it takes a man with huge stones to say "Fuck it, I dont care".

And not be afraid get the B/JFK treatment.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

I have to agree. Obama should be tried with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell and others for war crimes.

Thing would have been very different with a draft, but they keep the economy in the toilet so that there is vast pool of unemployed to draw from. And when things get bad and they need even more troops, they can always send in the National Guard for unlimited tours of duty. And let's not forget privatization! Vast fortunes are made spending public money on mercenaries.

Use the media to build support for lies (anyone remember the WMDs?), but don't show dead soldiers, bodies or coffins retuning to the US. That's what ended the Vietnam War.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Thing is, the US gov is now promoting rebels over seas to fight their wars for them. The rest of the globe now has enough media connections that they can begin to be exploited and controlled.

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

Nothing new here. Been doing that for decades.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Ya I guess your right....Do you have any examples?

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Ya I guess your right....Do you have any examples?

[-] 1 points by Var (195) 3 years ago

"He's so articulate". That's what they said about Obama, remember? Ralph Nader warned us Obama was going to be an "Uncle Tom for the corporations." Oh boy was Ralph right.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Anyone who votes for the D or R party clearly is too dumb to fail

[-] 1 points by hotdog (29) 3 years ago

Too dumb to fail or too dumb to succeed?

[-] 1 points by 1jbh (11) 3 years ago

11 Reasons Why Occupy Wall Street Protesters Are Hypocrites If They Do Not Call For Barack Obama To Resign

"If the Occupy Wall Street protesters truly believed in the things that they are proclaiming, then they would be calling for the immediate resignation of Barack Obama and his entire cabinet. The truth is that the Obama administration is responsible for most of the things that Occupy Wall Street is supposedly complaining about. If the Occupy Wall Street protesters were intellectually honest, we would see a flood of anti-Obama signs during these demonstrations. But instead we have barely heard a peep of criticism for Obama. In fact, the vast majority of the protesters seem very excited about sending Obama back to the White House in 2012. As will be clearly demonstrated in the rest of this article, this makes the Occupy Wall Street protesters tremendous hypocrites. If Occupy Wall Street wants to have any credibility whatsoever, it needs to call for Barack Obama to resign. Either Occupy Wall Street protesters will call for Barack Obama to be held accountable for his actions, or they are just a bunch of sheep. They cannot preach to us about how principled they are and yet turn a blind eye to everything that Barack Obama has been doing for the past 3 years....."

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/11-reasons-why-occupy-wall-street-protesters-are-hypocrites-if-they-do-not-call-for-barack-obama-to-resign

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

The OWS movement is highly critical of President Obama, but they are not looking to become a tool for either the Democrats or the Republicans. They are focused on the injustice of our political system. In fact it is the only true free market left in country, where politicians are bought by the highest bidder. Where political influence is the formula for economic success. Those with the money no longer need to take any risk to ensure their economic success. They simply buy off a few politicians in Washington. Wall Street is the poster child for this cronyism. And by and large both parties are guilty.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 3 years ago

i would respect anti Ron Lawl folks more if they called for Obama's resignation as well his cabinet....and then concentrated on a ant war anti big business democrat and respected constitutional rights of individuals

[-] 1 points by steven2002 (363) 3 years ago

They ae not the 99%. We do not care. Take your rhetoric someplace else troll.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 3 years ago

Trolls must be Cops. Trolls hate it when you send them a private message...

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

So if someone jumps in on gang beating, they can just claim they didnt start it?

You pro-war neocons kill me. Prob never been in a real fight in your lives.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

Pathetic what we've become, ain't it?

[-] 0 points by BrighterFuture (13) 3 years ago

NOT Obama. The Republicans & most Democrats. Obama's a student of peace & mutual respect & co-operation among peoples. It's REPUBLICANS and HAWKOCRATS making Obama do bad things.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Wow, Im going to assume this is sarcasm..

[-] 0 points by saltybones55 (0) 3 years ago

i think i build up obama is because historically dems represented the working middle class. a vote for dems is the lesser of 2 evils.and one that appeared to have our interests at heart. to me republicans equal military spending and big bussiness. we need to publish all the corruption that caused our problem. facts that cannot be disputed. show our nation the truth. i think we might be able to sue. maybe a huge class action suit against corrupt politicians and wall street. any good lawyers out there? the american people vs. big brother and their cronies. it would be the largest settlement in the history of the world. with the money we could fix our country. from the the lawyers that helped us get our money back maybe we could start electing them to represent americans. i love america. born and raised american. but we need to get back america. i will continue support owc. lets sue the basterds pants off! saltybones55

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 3 years ago

Well at least he wants to cut military spending...

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

450 billion over the next ten years, in which we will be proclaiming more wars that are accounted for as appropriations (not on the budget) amounts to 45b a year. Thats 5% cut. Thats nothing.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Whatever gets people moving gets people moving. The principle of solidarity means we are in solidarity with each other's issues. The point is people are in motion now. What got them in motion is of tertiary importance. What is important is that we now stand in solidarity with their issues and not trivialize them no matter how frustrated we are with what ultimately put people in motion. Virtually the day after day one of OWS, the movement came out in solidarity with existing labor struggles without asking permission or imposing conditions. That open show of solidarity has created an alliance between OWS and organized labor which has been crucial to its very survival. OWS activists from the peace movement would do well to heed that example.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

It took you this long to figure it out?

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Ive felt that we were pretty disgusting in our apathetic aproach to war for a long time, just wanted to see people;s discussion on the topic:

Which is worse- Losing money or innocent killed....

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

In this society it would be money. Most amerikans may wring their hands over those poor victims of war but damn it all Jersey Shore in on tonight and the pizza is late!

[-] 0 points by DoodlesWeaver (64) 3 years ago

These people in the streets for OWS are Obama's people.

OWS is Obama's army of the disenfranchised. I'm sure he is hoping they stay disenfranchised and in the streets at least until Election Day 2012.

Since OWS has started, Obama's poll numbers have gone up.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Good point. But there were major anti-war demonstrations at first.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 3 years ago

its amazing how the anti war demonstrations went away as soon as a D was elected.....shame on them for abandoning the cause

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

The physical protests stopped while Bush was still in office.

[-] 0 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 3 years ago

We've been fine with war forever. But we're ramping up our militarism substantially with our Nobel winning president. What a joke.

[-] -2 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 3 years ago

hchc, This is a bunch of crap hchc is a troll hchc Owner of HCHC Advertising, a buzz marketing group based out of Tampa, FL. Always involved in anything politlical that invloves alternative options, exposing hypocrisy, and Americans love of the same ol, same ol.

Our latest promo is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6e5qRUCI1I

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Thought it was an interesting take on our lack of war protests.

[-] 1 points by alexanderhamilton (0) 3 years ago

An attack ad hominem is not going to earn respect with anyone who thinks for themselves. hchc asked a good question, "Do you have any examples?" Where are we promoting rebels to fight wars? In the past, we have supported rebels and regimes that opposed communism. What do you think is happening now hchc and nucleus1? entrepreneur, what is the basis for your claims.? I believe that OWS may have hit on something which can really help this country. However, undocumented and unfounded claims are doing OWS no favors.