Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: PARTISAN.

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 3, 2012, 12:13 p.m. EST by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

On partisanship.

Some would use partisan politics as a thing that is bad. They (IMO) miss the point. Repeatedly. All strikes that have been successful were successful because of the numbers of people supporting the strike.

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

As such All People should be UNITED/PARTISAN to end the corruption of our governments - UNITED/PARTISAN to the Health and Prosperity of ALL.

92 Comments

92 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

We all want to end corruption of our governments, and have health and prosperity for all.

There are people, (the 1%), that are not allowing us to accomplish our goal of ending corruption. They like things the way they are now. We must change the process, (not closing our eyes to deceit or accepting crumbs), by sheer numbers of people becoming outraged and insist on getting money completely out of politics.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

YES - Money ALL MONEY out of politics. This is supposed to be a government of The People not of the money.

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

Our Congressmen spend one out of every 3 days begging for money! They might welcome a revolution that took that pressure away from them. Obviously, they can't express that sentiment because it would cost them their job, or at least a lot of money.

"That government of the people, for the people, and by the people, shall not perish from the earth!"

[-] 1 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

so where are we in the amendment to ban money process?

If 80 percent of people want money out of system, why can't we easily, with technology, get a system together to get this idea into our constitution as an amendment???

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

What's frustrating is Congress and MSM, (which benefits directly), could make this happen but they try to keep it as quiet as possible. Even though they constantly talk about how much money was spent in certain states or on particular elections, they don't discuss the obvious which is that money is determining the election results!

Matt below would prefer transparency and I agree that's crucial. Publically funded elections costs would also be miniscule. The money not only influences the elections, it also influences the laws our government make, which openly favor Corporatism.

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

government inherently involves money

Campaign funding miniscule compared to government budget

what we need is transparency

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Just think if those in office could actually spend their time on issues of the people instead of issues of their money - that would be a huge difference in the operation of government itself - you are so correct.

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

Discussions and decisions made without having to factor in the cronies that expect their bribes to pay off. The time is now. My sons and I will be on Wall Street next weekend, and Monday.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good For you - Wish I could be there with everyone.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thanks - I bookmarked. You got an instant minus 7 for that comment - I think trashy is going ballistic again.

[-] 1 points by tangential (33) 1 year ago

Both parties leaders and representatives should represent and promote the welfare of their supporters. Neither do, as most are full of corruption and greed and support the highest $$$. They are partisan toward themselves and their own greedy wants.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Which is why we ( at least I and some other really good people ) find ourselves here today as well as out on the streets - as we need to retake our government and get the insane into treatment.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Though I agree with you on many points, I refuse to line up with the Democratic Party; so far they have proven only slightly more pro-worker than the Republican Party. Both lean so far to the right, they leave no room in national politics for a true progressive wing.

Instead of promoting blind faith in broken hope and change, we may be better served by seriously challenging the system as it exists, which is what OWS is all about, not aligning itself with people, who have already demonstrated that they only support workers as a token gesture. As long as the Democrats count on the left supporting them, because the left refuses to break outside of the system as it exists, they will not change or even provide any meaningful reform.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I am all about the people taking a people partisan attitude. Booting out those in office who are not working for the people - voting into office those that support the people - and to do this we need to see some changes in the regulating of government - like an oath of office that is binding to service to the people society environment world. An oath where we the people can unite together and remove a corrupt official from office immediately - does not matter from what state as all national offices affect the nation as a whole and so should answer to the people as a whole.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The politicians already take an oath of office that is binding, but most disregard it with no consequences. Even outright criminals are rarely censured. They count on partisans to blindly support them, not because they have done no wrong, but because the other party attacks them for their corruption.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There should be a protest on line and in the streets calling for officials to live up to their oath of office. This is for the education of the population as much as it should be a kick in the pants to government. Part of these protests should be a call to everyone in office who believe in their oath of office and who support the people - a call to stand-up on the floor of Congress and Senate and speak out for the people - just like Bernie Sanders does - But they also need to speak directly to the public as well in support of public issues - they need to organize counter measures to corruption and call on the people to join in. If there are any honest politicians remaining in office besides Bernie Sanders these are thing that they should be doing. Not SAYING but DOING - and they need to present proof that they have actions going to help the people and they need to point out who is supporting and who is opposing the people.

This must be communicated clear to the public and to government.

Enough lip service - we will not listen to it any longer - show us works.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

So, who's downvoting you? I didn't see anything wrong in your posts. Maybe someone doesn't like the idea of making politicians accountable. That's the sad part. Once the bums get into office, they totally disregard the electorate until the next election when they pay a little more lip service to the notion of a democratic republic, which our country has long since trashed.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I believe that it is trashy doing the down voting - BensDad got an instant -7 for one of his comments - so it looks like bot or sockpuppet action.

He got bent out of shape because I blew one of his longest lasting campaigns to shreds where he has been going after partisan politics and saying that OWS has nothing to do with politics at all..

So I do believe that he is in the middle of popping his gasket again.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

It's up to the people to legally demand works.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/

It's up to the people to take control with affidavits and take any politician to court if an affidavit is dishonored.

The affidavit is the sift through which the people can select and support the right politicians to do what needs to be done.

Politicians without popular direction will simply go their own way which is naturally towards the money. Only with legal control can the politicians be made to serve the demands of the people. Politicians will never place legal controls upon themselves. It's up to the people to take control and seriously protest any court decisions that fail to support the upholding of an affidavit.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Why not advocate an amendment that 80% of Americans already want?
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Because it doesn't get to the source of what Americans want which is assurance that their wants will be met. It doesn't matter what 80% or even 100% of what Americans want if they can't ensure that their wants will be carried out.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Changing the constitution wont change this?
If that was true, why did the super-pacs NOT exist before the court OKed Citizens United ?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

If it were simply a matter of changing the constitution, it would already be done. It's a matter of legally ensuring that those in the position of changing the constitution will do so. People can vote for unaccountable politicians and continue to Hope for Change or people can legally enforce the change http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ that they seek.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Pardon my pomposity - I KNOW THIS ISSUE
"If it were simply a matter of changing the constitution, it would already be done"
this is a very difficult task - only 17 times since the bill of rights
but since the Rs in the house block all of them, it can't be done

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

It doesn't matter what party is in the house if a majority of either party is legally bound to uphold the will of the voters. If two-thirds of the house is legally bound to uphold the will of the voters, the will of the voters will be realized.

If the will of 80% had any significant bearing upon those in the position to change the constitution without the legal binding of an affidavit to compel them, it would have already been done within the past two years. If a single party is responsible for blocking a change to the constitution, pushing for a constitutional change isn't going to change that party's block. So long as the fundamental issue of unaccountable politicians remains unchanged, the ignored will of the people will remain unchanged.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"So long as the fundamental issue of unaccountable politicians remains unchanged, the ignored will of the people will remain unchanged."


politicians are accountable to their employers ( or owners )
and as long as we let that happen, we are screwed


If the kochs or exxon could not buy congressmen, why would they would they screw the citizens ? The CITIZENS would be the only resource for a polit ical campaign

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

I didn't understand your last sentence.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

Good post but when no one does what you demand, do you still vote for the lip service guys or are you mad enough to vote for someone else!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

There are 28 senators & 92 house members WHO are doing
what we demand on this issue. Nearly all D of course
look it up
http://corporationsarenotpeoplewebuda.com

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No you give the lip service guys a fat lip - nothing more.

The idea is to replace all of the lip service people along with all the openly corrupt people.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

You hit on the difficult part earlier, not SAYING but DOING. Without negotiating from strength, (meaning not voting for them), the lip service guys, they will just let you give them a fat lip and still do nothing.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

That is why they need to show works. Support for issues like Removal of corpoRAT personhood and support for one subject at a time legislation and for a strong EPA and for ending fossil fuel subsidies and for ending tax cuts and loop holes for the wealthy and for the bringing home the money hidden off shore and the support for true green energy production implementation for industry and transportation. They need to show their position on these things by giving reference to sources of confirmation of standing on each issue. - no not speeches - actual legislation or campaigns where they have gone on record. Tune into senate or house coverage and see them actually pushing issues of the people and naming the supporters of these issues.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

Get them on record, one subject at the time.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - and on ending corpoRAT personhood. And on all other issues.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And so the trashy has been taken out again!?

[-] 1 points by ogoj11 (263) 1 year ago

Were trashy harry's posts deleted? Why?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't think trashyharry. (I don't really know that one) I was referring to an individual from yesterday whose login was "politcalsquabblekillsows" and who we thought was an old troll named thrasymasque trashy, but I don't know him so well either.

But his comments were removed and he was banned. Which was great because he didn't contribute anything positive, and only attacked people he didn't agreewith.

[-] 1 points by ogoj11 (263) 1 year ago

Thanks for clarifying VQ. I really like trashy harry. I will refrain from saying anything bad about your dems for the rest of the week.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am a registered independent. I support the Dem platform because it reflects my beliefs (and much of OWS positions). In the many OWS marches, meetings I have met Dem leaning voters. NEVER, never, never republicans!.

The republican platform is clearly anti 99%. The republican pols, groups, supporters ALL attack OWS.

You can attack Dems if you like. But they are our natural supporters. I may be profoundly disappointed with Dem pols who cave in and vote for conservative policies, but I know the Dems can be co opted, dragged back from the right and made to serve the 99%.

I prefer seeing a new system emerge. and I anxiously await that, until then I will not pretend that power doesn't reside with these 2 parties, and there isn't an election in 8 weeks.

And so I say replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives, Protest, pressure, & agitate all pols to pass the progressive change we need, and lay the ground work for the new system.

But I have been harassed to not be too pro dem. So I will refrain unless there are dem attacks, or I am questioned about it.

Peace & Solidarity

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I don't know. Even if he gets booted he returns.

BTW - thanks for your patience with me asking you to correct some of your phrasing/language.... um....on that note....could I suggest RINO or DINO as the terms you use for those in office or running for office who are against the people and in support of the copoRATions?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Thats fine. I really prefer discussing and refering to issues. If I am dealing with what I believe is a repub troll, I think I will use theparty reference. But I do make an effort never to say don't vote repub" or do vote dem"

I prefer the less party affiliated terms progressive/conservative when referring to how voting should be conducted.

But I'm not against utilizing Rino/Dino if I am referring to politicians who have betrayed their party principles.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Call em a Rino or a Dino or a corpoRATist. Don't call them what they are not Dem or Rep. There is a very big difference. pro Dino or pro Rino or pro corpoRATion should get the point across.

RINO = Republican in name "only"

DINO = Democrat in name "only"

CorpoRAT CorpoRATist CorpoRATion = it is what it is = profits over people/society/environment/world/life.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I know buddy. I'm gonna try!

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I know you will - habits are hard to break. Maybe copy my comment above to your profile page then refer to it after you have written a comment or a post and see if there is something you overlooked. Thanks for your patience on the subject.

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

The oath almost every R takes AND OBEYS is to norquist

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I don't see that fine line between Rs and Ds, though if push comes to shove, I will vote D, only because I believe it will slow, not stop the flow toward corporatism.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

you might want to look up the most important anti-corruption move that is in congress
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
virtually every supporter is a D

[-] -1 points by CarlAndrews (-113) 1 year ago

You should vote for what you truly believe in. That's the only way democracy can work.

[-] 1 points by tangential (33) 1 year ago

I completely agree with you DKA - How would this look practically speaking though? (I've contemplated this from different angles before and haven't found a plausible solution.)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Oath of office for 1 - politicians actualy being held responsible for acting in the best interest of the people/society/environment/world.

The education of the public must be ongoing - truth - not spin and not lies - facts about the issues. And an easily checked roll to see who has supported or opposed what issues - perhaps a daily tally of what is going on.

The people need to be involved and stay involved and this should start at day 1 for kids going to school. Continuing out in public through all social media.

[-] 1 points by tangential (33) 1 year ago

I'm not saying I disagree on your statements, just wondering HOW this would look on an everyday level. For example, when the politicians are divided along party lines and based on that cast their buddy votes, how is it their fault if a measure is defeated based on party lines?

As a child, I was very outspoken throughout school - the problem was that if a teacher happened to disagree with my viewpoint, they would not be mature enough to keep from being retaliatory with their students. I would not like to see politics in the classrooms - on the contrary, I would rather there be greater emphasis on independent and critical thinking, logic, inductive and deductive reasoning. Kids need to learn how to see things in a multifaceted way, not necessarily in a political way. They will then be able to use these skills and apply it toward politics, business, and many other things in life.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I would want the pulse of the public to be a guiding factor on issues. Why the hell they can not communicate to us and get our opinion - I do not know. This is supposed to be some kind of democracy - let the majority weigh in as the decider as long as they are up to speed on the issue.

All the more reason for one subject at a time legislation and to keep the shit simple rather then dedicating a new library for each piece of legislation.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

As long as the money flows from special interests to washington,
we will be powerless
What can we do to sever this ?
nothing is more important
OR
do you disagree?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I believe hierarchical government is the problem; such a system automatically creates a class system: the rulers and the ruled, though you are right in saying the people with the money that controls the rulers are what keeps the current system so unbalanced.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

pardon the capitalist reference:
Imagine you are an employee with a "difficult" boss
now imagine all of the employees are also STOCKHOLDERS


we must fire the present stockholders - and become the stockholders


how2:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Naw - part owners - the stockholders can take a bath too. - Enron.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

pardon my "obtusion" -
if you are the STOCKHOLDER -
YOU get to fire the boss -
and elect a new one

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OK - and as stockholder in this set-up you would also be involved in the decision making process.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

In reality, non-partisanship never got anything done.

It became bland.

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

Shhhhh - you are not supposed to say that !

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The cat's out of the bag now kidz!!!

Look out, it'll scratch ya' if you're not careful.

Partisanship is part of the natural human condition.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thing is there is nothing wrong with partisanship per say - just in what an individual or group may be partisan to. So I truly do try to push the concept of being partisan to the People to Society to the Environment and to the World.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I believe that wealth inequality is a huge issue, so I am partisan for a tax increase tilted toward the top 1%.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Exactly.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

This was the post that got trashy pissed off with me last time as it blew his latest attack out of the water. Now he is up to another angle on the same tack I guess.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

There are a lot of concepts that totally escaped threshy.

He was always obsessed with lizard people.

The jerk.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I honestly believe that he needs medication and therapy.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm no shrink, but he does seem to be in bad need of "regrooving".

Regrooving.....LOL that's a 60s term for you young 'uns.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Think trashy got to much of a groove on - took a magical mystery tour and never returned.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

He could use a couple hits of Orange Owsley.

He never had a groove.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Orange Owsley?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

LOL

More 60s stuff.........Owsley was a chemist and THE supplier to Leary.............:)

Once upon a time.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ah ok - never heard L-sid referred to like that before.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Everything had a cute name back then.

Orange Sunshine was a knock off of Owlsey's stuff.

Purple Haze, I believe you've heard of?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sure as well as orange sunshine - kids got a little less cutesy in the 70's and started calling it blotter or micro dot - dependent on form. Funny the language that grows out of various things.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Blotter was on paper and the good stuff had a Mr Natural stamp on it.

Micro dots looked like little pieces of plastic. I met folks that would put that stuff in their eye.........I was like.....count me out on that.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Those crazy days. The stamps were pretty funny. One was a window - it was called window pane. Must have been a good batch - everyone talked about it or was looking for it and nothing could compare to it. It was like listening to wine connoisseurs or something.


[-] 1 points by shooz (12445) 1 minute ago

Blotter was on paper and the good stuff had a Mr Natural stamp on it.

Micro dots looked like little pieces of plastic. I met folks that would put that stuff in their eye.........I was like.....count me out on that. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Food for thought.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Lets review this again. ( see the post )

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

GoodNight GoodMorning GoodDay GoodAfternoon GoodEvening EverBody {:-])

[Removed]

[-] 5 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

U fail miserably and continually to understand - the protest arrests and strike breaking goes on because the People have lost control of THEIR POLITICAL PROCESS. And so actions that are legal are opposed by those who have stolen power - and those people must go.

U fail to understand that whatever system is in place - whatever system of the people that is put in place - IS POLITICAL - the thing is the PEOPLE NEED TO BE THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

[Removed]

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

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

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

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

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

That's OWS on the street!

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

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

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

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

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

[-] 0 points by hoot (313) 1 year ago

this is an example of trying to co opt OWS with progressive agenda.

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

I support a progressive agenda! Everything I have seen from OWS also does.

How can I co opt OWS with a progressive agenda they already have?

If OWS does not already have a progressive agenda how would you describe it.?

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 1 year ago

I feel as though OWS' agenda is closer to that of an anarchist agenda if there is an agenda at all. I think most people on here have different views on issues that cross at various points. Also i do apologize for attacking what it is you support but i don't think everyone is happy with the current progressive party they are a faction of the 1% (imo)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

the progressive party? Who heads that? I don't know of this party. I ain't talkin about them.

But I am familiar with progressive principles. And I've always believed Anarchism was on the left side of the political spectrum. Certainly the Anarchists in Spain were progressive, and the positions OWS has taken are progressive, (money out of politics, student debt forgiveness, tax the wealthy, jobs, health care public option.)

What exactly is your problem with progressive principles.?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH GO Babble Prattle and Squabble among "YOUR SELVES" trashy.

[Removed]

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

I try not to use the word :you" when I post. I causes unnecessary attacks

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27764) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Bot or Sockpuppeting (?) Trashy trashy trashy - U just reached your meltdown point haven't U - well U have been threatening 4 a while - 2 bad so sad {;[...... that you can not collapse comments anymore. Now - back into your closet for a good cry. It is very stress relieving it is said. Who should we look 4 next Lazarus?

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

Or DK could continue his great work here and disregard your incorrect advise, and your inaccurate definition of OWS! He is doing more work with letter writing/petition signing/supportive comments than your perpetually banned, angry, useless rantings that serve no positive purpose.

Don't you have a new name to create.?

Solidarity with DKA!