Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: One Demand to Create a Cascade of Change

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 1, 2012, 2:42 p.m. EST by PoIemarchus (56)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The source of all problems brought up by OWS is money in politics. Period.

We should make one demand: remove money from politics. One demand is less confusing and has a much better chance of being met than making a gazillion demands. Protesting against corporations and the 1% is attacking the problem from the flank instead of dead on. If corporations cannot fund the representatives they want, then their money does not talk politics.

All parties and candidates should get their campaign funds from taxes. This model already exists in Canada and should be copied. When corporations are able to fund the parties they prefer in exchange for promises, then corruption automatically ensues. Always.

A strong protest with this one demand would have a chance to make a real change. If the that demand is met, then the government would become responsive to all people instead of corporations and individuals with money. Votes would once again have meaning. At this point, it becomes much easier to make other demands to fix the problems with banks and mega corporations.

60 Comments

60 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Shule (2062) 10 months ago

Money is politics.

One thing we can do though is each of us personally figure out how to get money out of our lives.

I planted a garden.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 10 months ago

It's a gradual process, and I don't advise that you ever give up the coin.

Just grow more food than you can eat, and work the market in exchanges from there.

It's not like it's something new to our psyche.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2062) 10 months ago

With all respect, but you don't get it.

Forget the markets, forget buy and sell, even trade and exchange. but take what you need, give what you have! No coin involved.

Every veggie I grow, is a veggie I don't have to buy. Every loan I pay off, is one I don't have to pay. Every bit of heat and energy I produce myself, I don't need to acquire. Every thing extra I don't really need, I give away. And everybody gives me so many things in kindness.

Sure, I have not been able to cast the coin away completely, but I surely have been able to significantly reduce the coins I do need, and so I don't worry too much about my job anymore. If my boss gives me a dollar more or a dollar less, I don't care.

True, nothing new, but how many people actually think it. How many people live it?

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 10 months ago

Keep setting the example, and people might follow.

What's the adage? Build it, and they will come.

[-] -1 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

Primitivism is not the answer.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2062) 10 months ago

Who said being efficient is being primitive? What is so progressive and modern about money and greed?

Capitalism is neanderthal thinking. Its time we the human race get away from it.

[-] 0 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

You confuse things. Money does not equate capitalism or greed. It's just a way to abstract materials and services. It's a more efficient way of making exchanges than the barter system. Greed exists with or without money. Without it, people would simply want more materials or services. Likewise, capitalism could exist without money. Money is just a tool. Capitalism is an economic framework, there are many others. I agree with you capitalism is not very good, I would even say it's bad, but that won't be solved by abandoning money. You need to create another economic framework, like socialism, communism, or something else. This has nothing to do with using or not using money to represent wealth.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2062) 10 months ago

The Fed is printing up money right now like there is no tomorrow. In doing so they are basically debasing our money. What you have today is worth only a portion of what it was worth yesterday, and its going to be worth even less tomorrow. It is like holding ice which is melting through your fingers. Relying on something like that for your welfare is thinking for a fool. Take heed and learn to become a little more self reliant. Figure out how to not depend so much on that money stuff.

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 10 months ago

you are confusing money and wealth - here is alan watts on the subject -on the fundamental confusion between money and wealth: Remember the Great Depression of the Thirties? One day there was a flourishing consumer economy, with everyone on the up-and-up; and the next, unemployment, poverty, and bread lines. What happened? The physical resources of the country -- the brain, brawn, and raw materials -- were in no way depleted, but there was a sudden absence of money, a so-called financial slump. Complex reasons for this kind of disaster can be elaborated at length by experts on banking and high finance who cannot see the forest for the trees. But it was just as if someone had come to work on building a house and, on the morning of the Depression, the boss had said, "Sorry, baby, but we can't build today. No inches." "Whaddya mean, no inches? We got wood. We got metal. We even got tape measures." "Yeah, but you don't understand business. We been using too many inches and there's just no more to go around." A few years later, people were saying that Germany couldn't possibly equip a vast army and wage a war, because it didn't have enough gold. What wasn't understood then, and still isn't really understood today, is that the reality of money is of the same type as the reality of centimeters, grams, hours, or lines of longitude. Money is a way of measuring wealth but is not wealth in itself. A chest of gold coins or a fat wallet of bills is of no use whatsoever to a wrecked sailor alone on a raft. He needs real wealth, in the form of a fishing rod, a compass, an outboard moter with gas, and a female companion. Alan Watts - Does It Matter?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 10 months ago

good analogy !!! real wealth, in the form of a fishing rod vs gold.... maybe we can also look at it like... Real wealth allows one to live ... whereas Money allows one to get others to do their work for them...

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 10 months ago

i don't think money is bad. I don't see how to run a modern economy without it. there is an amish community near my hometown and they do it to some extent but they need it to pay taxes and get certain supplies that they cannot grow or make. the populist movement of the late 1800's did a lot of this thinking and had some pretty clear and interesting ideas - democratic control over a fiat currency and an expanding money supply to support an expanding population

[-] 1 points by Shule (2062) 10 months ago

When somebody is mucking with the value of the money that you are using, it stops being a measure of anything. That is the basic problem we are facing in the U.S.A. today.

Totally agree we need to stop measuring our wealth with money, but by items of real value like fishing rods, compasses, relationships, etc. etc.

[-] 0 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

We can't have big cities where everyone is self reliant. Primitivism is not efficient and doesn't work for a population of 7 billion people. We need to work together, to share efforts. That means electricity is created in big plants, than shared. It means some people are experts at building houses, and they build houses for people. Etc... You are confused. What you desire is going backwards. It doesn't work and would make things worse. What we need is a better framework for sharing. We need to create better communities where everything is shared, not become self-sufficient individuals. We are approaching a Kardashev Type 1 society. They answer isn't for people to grow their individual vegetables. That's absolutely and ridiculously inefficient. The solution is synthesized meats and vegetables, better plants for bigger production, etc...

The important thing is dealing with the economic framework. We must move towards socialism and abandon capitalism. That doesn't mean abandoning money, and it doesn't mean reversing towards primitivism.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2062) 10 months ago

Ideally, I agree, we do need to move to a more social economic framework. But the big powers running the show today have other ideas. They are out to screw you, and everybody else. They are out to take the last grain of real wealth that you have through capitalist money games. So, in the meantime until a socialist system comes about through revolution or hopefully otherwise, what are you going to do?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 10 months ago

It takes very little space to grow basic foods for ourselves.

The way corporate pirates have poisoned the food supply today, in the interests of selling more pharmaceuticals, supplying as much of our own produce is more of a survival initiative than anything else.

[-] -1 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

How is the food poisoned? Can you provide examples of mass deaths from food poisoning? Do you have links tp peer-reviewed research.

[-] -1 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

Hmmm, a lot of research used to back that article has already been discredited some years ago. For example, Séralini's research has been found to be flawed and was rejected awhile back. I'm surprised a document from 2013 would reference it. This must not be a peer reviewed article.

I'm not surprised. The site it is featured in is biased. http://www.responsibletechnology.org Basically an anti-GMO site that shamelessly uses discredited research to propagate its conspiracy theories and fear propaganda.

I suggest your read scientific articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 10 months ago

You mean a journal owned by a biotech firm?

Or an independent source?

And whom discredited the Seralini research?

http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/

[-] -1 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

You mean a journal owned by a biotech firm?

No, that would be biased the other way around. a typical peer-reviewed scientific journal. There are many. A lot of them are from universities. Some are independent.

And whom discredited the Seralini research?

The scientific community as a whole. There were various articles written in peer-reviewed biology journals exposing the flaws in his research.


The whole thing as it's own page on Wikipedia. The Serialini affair. It's a good introduction if you are not aware of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair

There are many scientists who disagree with him, so, we should ignore his research if we care about seriousness.

I find it unacceptable that an article in 2013 like the one you published doesn't mention this. At the very least there should be a note indicating that his researched is questioned by many other scientists. I can't take your article seriously because it omits that.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 10 months ago

"The scientific community as a whole" meaning co-opted biotech stooges?

Read the story here.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/11/29/notorious-seralini-gmo-cancer-rat-study-retracted-ugly-legal-battle-looms/

[-] -1 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

Oh, and you are aware that it was recently retracted from publications right?

In November 2013, Elsevier, the publishing company for Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal that published the 2012 paper, announced that the journal was retracting the paper, after the authors refused to withdraw it.[6][83] The editors of the journal concluded that, after an in-depth look at the raw data of the study, no definitive conclusions can be reached regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in overall mortality or tumor rates, given the known high incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats and the small sample size. Normal variance could not be excluded as the cause of the results.

[-] -1 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

"The scientific community as a whole" meaning co-opted biotech stooges?

No, meaning scientists. Sorry, I am not into conspiracy theories.

There are so many problems with Serialini's work, not only in the science methodology itself, but in the way it was presented to the public.

What the scientific journal Nature (very well respected) had to say is telling -

"They should spell out their results clearly; emphasize the limitations and caveats; and make it clear that the data still need to be assessed, and replicated, by the scientific community. That didn’t happen. The paper was promoted in a public-relations offensive, with a related book and film set for release this week. Furthermore, journalists wishing to report the research had to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from contacting other scientists for comment on the paper until after the embargo had expired. Some, to their credit, refused, or accepted and then revisited the story critically once their hands were no longer tied by these outrageous restrictions. The result was the exclusion of critical comment in many of the breaking stories — the ones that most people will remember"

I guess you're going to tell us that Nature is part of the conspiracy. That's what conspiracy theorists always do. Anyone who disagrees with their claims is on the conspiracy.

Sorry, but I'm a scholar. I go to university everyday. I don't waste time with conspiracy theories and biased websites. I read proper peer-reviewed information.


In any case, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, if your article above was serious and we should respect it isn't strange that it doesn't talk at all about the "controversy" surrounding Seralini's work? Surely, as a reader you would like to know. At least they could say it like you that it's all a conspiracy theory, but they DON'T even mention it. Why? Because it's not an honest article.


You have to be more careful with what you read. Talk to scientists. Don't you have friends in biology, chemistry, or such related fields? You need those kinds of people to balance the Alex Jones in you.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 10 months ago

So, this is why markets like China and Japan, and many nations in Europe, South America, and the UK, have turned back whole shipments of GM contaminated corn and wheat?

Perhaps these nations haven't been following the Seralini controversy? Or perhaps they have their own scientific peer-review process, and they remain unconvinced by corporate propaganda coming from the US of A?

Nice try, Thrasy.

Here's the goss on GM produce around the globe. http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned-gmo-crops

[-] -2 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

You still didn't address this article, which describes quite clearly why Seralini is taking the matter of retraction up with the courts.

It doesn't surprise me that he's bringing the matter to court. His researched was backed to the tune of 7 million Euros by anti-GMO firms. Like other conspiracy theories, they do not operate via the normal channels of science. Good scientists invite criticism. They want it to better their work. He hasn't replied to the critics via peer-reviewed channels like he should have. That's why he was retracted. When your paper is criticized, you respond point by point to defend your paper. He didn't do that. Most likely because he couldn't.

What you should be worried about is papers like the one you linked which talk about his research without mentioning that it is being contested by many scientists. This is simply dishonest. You shouldn't read such garbage. It's important to have both sides. Read his work, but also read his critics. Be wary of people who use his work to make points, but refuse or ignore critics.

I'm certainly not here to change your mind. That's impossible. Conspiracy theorists will believe their delusions no matter what evidence is laid on the table. That's why conspiracy theories are so dangerous. We see it time and time again. When something is criticized, they ignore it, and when you bring it up (they would never do that), then they claim the government or some other agency is out to soil the scientist or whoever else. Conspiracy theory 101.

You're here to one up others. Not to discover the truth. I saw that yesterday when you accused me of not clarifying what type of conspiracy theory I was talking about, only minutes after you were accusing me of talking about the particular type which is derogatory. Not only that, you were claiming is was not a correct definition when many scholars have been using that definition for decades.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 10 months ago

"Many scholars" does not a reality make.

The English language remains just that, despite attempts by certain known propagandists to alter meanings of words or phrases.

Conspiracies are a part of life, particularly political life.

Any attempts to befuddle and confuse the original meaning of words, particularly considering just who is attempting to befuddle and confuse, are discounted by those of us who see through the ruse.

Try and keep up, Thras.

[-] -2 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

If you're not one sided (you probably are, all conspiracy theorists are - cognitive bias - heavy cognitive bias) and want a good understanding of the full picture, an understanding you can reach by listening to both sides, I highly recommend this.

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/

That's the type of serious reading you should do. Look at what's going on at universities like Cornell and MIT, not what some new-ager website's publish.

Excerpt -

Following a decade and a half of scientific and field research, I think we can now say with very high confidence that the key tenets of the anti-GMO case were not just wrong in points of fact but in large parts the precise opposite of the truth.

[-] -2 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

So, this is why markets like China and Japan, and many nations in Europe, South America, and the UK, have turned back whole shipments of GM contaminated corn and wheat? Perhaps these nations haven't been following the Seralini controversy? Or perhaps they have their own scientific peer-review process, and they remain unconvinced by corporate propaganda coming from the US of A? Nice try, Thrasy. Here's the goss on GM produce around the globe. http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned-gmo-crops

There aren't that many bans really, most countries only ban a few particular seeds. Places like Australia are reversing the bans as they realize Seralini's research findings were pure bunk. The article got retracted only a month ago.

There is/was a conspiracy theory surrounding GMOs. You're part of it. Whether you realize or not, your thinking is perfectly in sync with conspiracy theory type thinking on this issue. You refuse to listen to scientists because you claim they are all into this conspiracy. You will listen to Serialini even though almost everyone is discrediting his work. It's called cognitive bias. You aren't looking for the truth, you just look to find some flaws with GMOs. I'm sure there are flaws, but they aren't big like the ones you are claiming. I can't change your mind, I can only suggest you stop reading garbage on hyper biased anti-GMO sites. I'm not sure why they interest you when they aren't even honest with you. They could have mentioned the Serialini problem, they didn't. More convenient to simply ignore criticism and errors. That's a hallmark of conspiracy theorists.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 10 months ago

You still didn't address this article, which describes quite clearly why Seralini is taking the matter of retraction up with the courts.

Quote; Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).

Goodman had no documented connection to the journal until February 2013. His fast-tracked appointment, directly onto the upper editorial board raises urgent questions. Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science? Unquote

http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/

[-] -3 points by moiat (5) from North Bergen, NJ 10 months ago

"Many scholars" does not a reality make.

It is a part of reality. Perhaps you mean it does not make truth which is correct. Ultimate truth is not verifiable at this point. However, one should weigh in all factors. It should bother you that anti-GMO sites don't even talk about the problems with GMO research. They hide it. You'll only read it if you take the time to read peer-reviewed journals. They paint a broader more real picture. I'm sorry, but your reality is flawed if you ignore the vast majority of the scientific community. Hell, it's flawed if you ignore a few. That's why I don't ignore Seralini's research. It's part of the whole, but it's important to realize it has been severally criticized. To ignore the anti-GMO conspiracy theory is to ignore a big part of reality.

The English language remains just that, despite attempts by certain known propagandists to alter meanings of words or phrases.

Languages evolve all the time. When a word or an expression is used to mean something over and over again by many people it acquires a new meaning. That's how languages evolve. Many scholars, philosophers, etc... have been using the expression "conspiracy theory" in a derogatory way to talk about the conspiracy theory narrative which is just junk science (junk research). It is used to talk about 911 Truthers, chemtrails, reptilian overlords, birthers, etc... because all these things have one thing in common: A highly similar and highly flawed research "methodology". There is no propaganda. There is only a precision in thought which separates conspiracy theories from proper journalistic work.

Conspiracies are a part of life, particularly political life.

Nobody every said they weren't. But conspiracies are usually on a small scale and used to hide something bad that happened. They aren't usually on a big scale and used to create something. I'm talking about conspiracy theories which is a literary narrative used by people like Alex Jones and David Icke. Real conspiracies that have been found out have been found out using proper journalistic investigation. None have been proven using the flawed methods of conspiracy theorists.

Any attempts to befuddle and confuse the original meaning of words, particularly considering just who is attempting to befuddle and confuse, are discounted by those of us who see through the ruse.

There's no attempt to confuse the original meaning of the word. The word has acquired a new meaning decades ago. That's not because of me, it's because of scholars, philosophers, journalists, and all other types of people. The derogatory use of the conspiracy theory is much more common that the original use. It has basically become the de facto standard. I don't make definitions, I just use them. If conspiracy theories have acquired a bad rep it's not my fault. It's the fault of conspiracy theorists who use flawed methodologies.

Personally, I don't really care what word we use. We can use another if you wish. We just need a word to describe the flawed method used by 911 Truthers, Birthers, chemtrailers, etc... as opposed to the proper methods of historical analysis and journalistic investigation. I simply use the framework presented by Chomsky and Barkun more than a decade ago. I don't see a reason to use another framework when this one is clear, but if it makes you happy just propose another word or expression.

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

there is other corruption of the vote by money beside financing

high paying jobs are offered to members of the staff after a candidate is through serving

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

Getting the money out of US politics is like getting water out of the ocean. Not gonna happen short of revolution.

[-] 1 points by Wildling (1) from Ottawa, ON 10 months ago

This is an excellent idea and the kind of simple 'to-the-point' kind of thinking and communication that is needed by any movement which seeks to change the power structures imposed by the status quo. I would expand upon it to say that paid lobbyists have no place in a democratic system. Get the money out of politics and back into the economy.

[Removed]

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

I like campaign funds from taxes only

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Without funding a poor candidate wouldn't have a chance. This could have a dire affect on equal representation. Only the wealthy would run for congress. Yikes ! Perhaps this was the underlying / hidden OWS motive all along ?

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

This is an ignorant comment and is absolutely false. The reverse is true.

Look at the Canadian system. Funding exists, but it comes from taxes. It is then distributed amongst the parties depending on how many seats they have. Big parties need more money because they have more candidates and districts. Parties starting out need less because they have fewer candidates. No money can be used except for the money allotted from the taxes.

Canada's NDP party recently went from being a small party to a big one. There is more variation and parties in Canada than in US. In US you have two parties, that's it.

Canadian politicians are not the wealthiest people in the country by a huge margin. They also get much small salaries than US politicians.

As long as you have outside influence providing money, they'll always be corruption because they'll always be paybacks.

Get informed. You don't know what you're talking about.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You should stick to observing.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

They should do the same when spending the budget. Let each seat decide what to do with their share. Or even better let each party have their cut according to vote. This would give everyones vote some true meaning. Because than even the minority would have control. Not just the majority take all method.

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

It's Thrasymaque again under another moniker. Just have to get your two cents in eh?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

And this new one as well.

florian No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

Information

Joined Jan. 30, 2012

[-] -3 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

Yes. That's me. I'm not trying to hide it. I'll use TH at the end of my next monikers if that makes you happy. I figured everybody could just tell from my writing style. Although, you should fight the arguments, not the proposer. It's not important who posts what. The only thing that's important is the contents of the posts and comments.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The only person ignoring this is you. Hand over the information that is requested or I have to assume that you are, in fact, a Koch head. I mean, people will merely go question your parents, possibly talk to former teachers, or former bosses. What's the harm? I don't see any harm in transparency here, do you? Only a Koch head would have a vested interest in 15 different accounts and continuously trying to pull people and speakers out and casting them in a disparaging light. Koch head. This would be the reason that you keep saying things like you shouldn't pay attention to the why someone is writing a post but look at the posts. amiright?

[-] -3 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

You're stalking me from post to post like TIOUAISE used to do before being banned. I already answered the questions you are posing a gazillion times. I need someone to test my bots on, I was planning on attacking the conspiracy theorists, but if you keep stalking me I'll use you. Please realize, this means you won't be able to use the forum any longer. This is a friendly warning. You shed first blood. Stop stalking me and I won't do anything.

If I have many characters, it was to escape stalkers such as yourself.

I'm already married girl. Find someone else if you need to midnight pleasures.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You have many characters because you are a troll. Nothing more and nothing less. You seem to have no problem talking about me in post to post. Do you? Your just occupying the forum, amiright? I will just occupy Thrasy. Why on earth would you object?

[-] -2 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

I don't object if you Occupy me. That's fine. I need a guinea pig for my bot testing. Your stalking is the reason I have many characters. I created them to avoid TIOUAISE's stalking and destroy his forum character.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Stay banned and you won't have this problem. Or shut the fuck up and take what you subject the rest of the users to. :D

[-] -2 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

I have other ways to solve problems such as stalking.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Quit crying Thrasy.

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

You've been banned from this forum. What you are doing is simply vandalism. You must really hate Occupy Wall Street.

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

Yes. I like contributing opinions to this forum. If that bothers you, simply ignore. If the moderators didn't ban me for posting criticism of Occupy, I wouldn't have to use civil disobedience and change my username. Unfortunately, certain things cannot be discussed around here. It takes me a sec to create a new user so bans aren't very effective. It just creates more mess on the forum as usernames change up.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The only person ignoring this is you. Hand over the information that is requested or I have to assume that you are, in fact, a Koch head. I mean, people will merely go question your parents, possibly talk to former teachers, or former bosses. What's the harm? I don't see any harm in transparency here, do you? Only a Koch head would have a vested interest in 15 different accounts and continuously trying to pull people and speakers out and casting them in a disparaging light. Koch head. This would be the reason that you keep saying things like you shouldn't pay attention to the why someone is writing a post but look at the posts. amiright?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Hand over the information? What information?

[-] -3 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

TIOUAISE used to stalk me. Now it's you? I was using him to test my bot. Now that he's banned, do you want me to use you instead? I already answered your question a zillion times, and I'll remind you that asking forum users to reveal their personal identities is against the forum rules.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Let me remind you that I am not asking forum users. I am asking a known troll with 14 other accounts that has been repeatedly banned. Your threats are meaningless. You have tortured other users. Isn't this fun? Isn't this what you came for? Save your sanctimonious BS for those who are willing to buy into it.

[-] -3 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

Stop stalking me or face my bots. I'll be happy to show you how meaningless my threats are. If you take a moment to look around, you'll see that TIOUAISE is no more.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am not afraid of you Thrasy. :D

[-] -3 points by florian (-2) 2 years ago

OK. Perfect. Let's see if your mind changes after you've met my bots.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

There will be no changes on my part. You are a threatening and bullying troll that uses passive aggressive techniques.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Get informed. You don't know what you're talking about. I've said this before and I'll say it again. You should stick to observing.

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

I agree that this is the fundamental issue underlying so many of the country's problems. It is an issue which is quite focused and which I would expect to have broad public support.

I feel kinda queasy about Occupy championing this issue though. They seem to have a knack for alienating a lot of people.

[-] 0 points by relthinkr (64) 2 years ago

end the fed.

nothing else will do one damn thing.

http://jinnwe.com/quest.php?id=434

[-] -1 points by jennifer (-67) from Allentown, PA 10 months ago

I agree 199%.