Forum Post: People who vote for third parties are wantabes.
Posted 12 years ago on April 3, 2012, 8:01 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Voting for a third party can sure make you feel good, like a nice warm blanket by the fire, of course there are not any nice warm blankets by the fire in the park. Changing things sometimes means doing things that don’t make you feel all warm and fuzzy, like voting for a Democrat.
As the Democratic Party is one of the two parties of the 1%, how does that change anything? Most municipal administrations that are unleashing police brutality on local Occupys are in fact Democratic administrations. Even when they are not they are being given aide and assistance from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, both agencies of Democratic Administration, an Administration that continues the same bipartisan foreign policy established after World War II and which maintains military bases around the world, an administration whose campaign got more contributions from Wall Street donners than any previous campaign in history. How in the world does that constitute "change?" By no means am I advocating either voting Republican or for a so-called third party. It seems to me that the only way we can seriously effect change is to do what we are doing, to build OWS and to stand firm against the forces of the status quo represented by the joint rule of both parties of the 1%. I mean this quite sincerely. I am not looking for a gratuitous fight or to swap insults. All OWS activists are interested in change. That is why we are OWS activists, but part of the reason OWS arose is because neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties nor any marginal third party was fostering the kind of change we need. If anything they seem to be a road bloc. It seems to me no accident that OWS arose during a Democratic administration, just as the movement against the war in Viet Nam arose during a Democratic administration, largely out of frustrated expectations.
I would hope that my comments might lead to a serious discussion of these extremely difficult issues rather than the mere exchange of insults.
Neither party is capable of change because of the monied corruption. The parties are not the problem. The monied corruption is the problem. Get rid of the money and the parties will be led by the people, rather than the money.
Give it up. When Bush was in office he put Ted Kennedy, a sitting US Senator dying of cancer; the brother of a murdered former President, as well as the brother of a murdered former Attorney General, on a "no fly" list as a "suspected terrorist."
Can you add 1+1? This is total bullshit April!!! Total bullshit!!!
Nothing Bush does surprises me. But I'm not sure what your point is. What does this have to do with getting money out of politics?
Not getting money out of politics, but restoring democracy from the grasp of oligarchy, and I think it has everything to do with that.
So you're saying leave money in politics? Restore democracy how?
We can't get money out of politics without breaking up the oligarchy and their monopolies. That is why Bush is still relevent; he isn't in jail.
Those who have broken the law and committed crimes against humanity must be brought to justice for law to be restored, or they will pose a continuing threat to our democracy. If we are a nation of laws than laws need to be applied equally. There cannot be one standard for some of us and another for others. If that remains it will be impossible to get money out of politics. Above all we must have a return to the concept of equal justice under the law.
Oh now I see what you mean! Jeesh, I was afraid you'd been in the anarchy echo chamber too long and were advocating for some crazy direct democracy stuff or something. Whew. : )
Somehow, I think it will be easier to get money out of politics. Sad, but true. Sad, that both will be very very difficult. But we might have to settle for CFR. Move forward from there. But I think moving forward with CFR we will have alot better chance at achieving equal justice.
"I was afraid you'd been in the anarchy echo chamber too long "
LOL nice April ..
Anarchy echo chamber, echo chamber, echo chamber, echo chamber. : )
..PEACE , ..peace,peace,peace :)
I agree with you about process, one step at a time; in fact I really believe that is the only way this will be achieved. That is why I turn a deaf ear on absolutists. You simply cannot approach a society-wide problem with an absolutist, all or nothing, approach. IT DOESN"T WORK! You have to take your victories where you can get them and just keep on. Don't even think about stopping, because we are TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD HERE. You take your allies where you can find them, as long as they are sincere, and you just keep on keeping on! It's the only way to get it done!
You know what I said made a lot more sense, before I read the whole thread, what could I learn from that? hmmm
I don't know about you, but I could learn a little more patience. That is the effect the trolls are finally having on me. Their endless repetition of the same distortions, no matter how many times they are proven wrong, is starting to ware me down. I probably need to lay off for awhile.
I know what you mean, I useto do this real life, round rbin, think one of those chess guys that play serveral games at once, funny story that's how I met my ex, so sometimes I fall into a zone.
I'm sorry I came down on you so hard there. I think I misinterpreted you innitially. I'm just getting worn out by those who refuse to make distinctions. It's either all this, or all that. "We must ONLY allign ourselves with so and so, or such and such. Whenever I hear "both parties are corrupt," what I really hear is "Don't vote." I've just heard that so many times that I now have developed a kind of knee-jerk response. In your case it wasn't warrented.
This is really complicated stuff we're dealing with here, and there are a lot of people who get on this forum to spread confusion with certain methods, and no matter how many times they are refuted they're just back saying the same things again. So at times I get these moments of sheer frustration, I'm just so tired of refuting the trolls.
I shouldn't have directed that frustration at you.
direct democracy would be easier
it doesn't require the consent of the current politicians
it requires verification and popular support
Nope. Sorry. Direct democracy requires way too much time and effort. I'm not doing that work. I'll let my representative do that work. I have a life to live. And I don't want to spend it voting on legislation. And I don't want random idiots voting directly on legislation either.
Besides, it's already been attempted to some degree, the CA referendum process. It's a total disaster.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/12/daily-shows-jon-oliver-on-californias-dysfunctional-initiative-process/
It only works on a very small scale, with the most simplest of issues.
if the population has a way to express preference through direct democracy ,
it will
It will what? It will be a total disaster. Look at the CA referendum process. It doesn't work.
whether the vote on whatever issue the people vote on
is Official law or not,
It will be taken seriously if the vote is verifiable
Uh, no. I'm not taking anything seriously that is voted on by a bunch of random idiots.
elections are verified, it's just harder, this is hard work
if people voted public verification would be easier
What you are talking about is rewriting the consitution and who do you trust to do that?
the first step is a verifiable public vote that could be called frequently
there's no need to change the constitution
the leaders will follow the polls
jobs are small individual things, tough to be big enough to watch them all, and then there are family pressures, the private voting booth, is something we need to think a bit about before tossing out, the thing that is gained must be wieghed carefully
makes the booth seem embarrassing
thread ended, have you posted on this?
there have been problems with corerion, workplace, boss telling people how to vote, with this they would be able to check, anyway, if you'ver posted, seems worth talking about
yep, coercion could be exposed in a transparent voting system
follow up Bush never cared about polls
true
I hope once popular opinions are verifiable, the majority will know they have the power in numbers
from above and below are you suggesting that we do away with the private voting booth, making it public how each person voted?
if so would you mind talking a bit about it?
that's one I have not considered, a rare one, good job
It's pretty siple everyone would be responsible for standing by their vote
the worries are public voting would force differences of opinion out in the open and cause conflict
so a persons right to vote publicly needs to be protected and respected
Oh just let 'em go. He may have done horrible things (I know, I'm from New Orleans, lost my house and my childhood in that damn hurricane) but he's in the past and serves as a good example of a bad president. Forgive, but don't forget, and let's put our resources somewhere more useful. Marijuana is still illigal after all.
I have a feeling there is more going on here than I know about, you guys are both awesome, so april, what I think we are talking about here is that when government does the bidding of the few instead of the many, it acts like a King's personal guard, and seeing that this is a symptom of our problem, and doctors got to see those symptoms, am I right gypsy?
good morning gypsy, thanks for being willing to do the real work
Good morning! And you're welcome!
I am putting together my most important piece, a tribute to the men and women who gave up their seats so we could have a balanced budget, I never see anybody talk about those heroes, I’ve wanted to write something about that for a long time, but never had a place for people to read it. I put a lot of myself in my work, I can’t do it, when no one cares, and you guys are lifesavers :).
Thanks, it been great having you on the forum! I look forward to reading it!
thanks gypsy, this continues what we were talking about...
This is just back of the envelop, but I would say we need to get the GOP down to around 25% to 30% total in government before a “true people’s party” will be possible, but I could look back over the data, to check.
Well, you may be right. I'm hopeful though that the concept of what has happened to our democracy might really begin to take hold with the public. If it does, the political landscape might change faster them we might think. I'm hoping so anyway.
I do believe simple truth can be very powerful, people feel it in their bones when they hear it and it is hard to lie to them after that.
There is, I really believe, a funny thing that happens in the world of politics; and this is born out historically; that when things change they often change really fast. The global democracy movement really started in Tunesia only about a year ago. That's a lot of momentum when you think about it. And sometimes these things go exponential in their growth. Movements like this often chug along for awhile, and then there is a sudden seachange. I think this might be one of those things in progress.
I believe if I look I will find that when parties collasp they do so quickly, and of course we are not set up for one, or three, so another is born right away, I think this is our path but it is up to all of us to decide for ourselves.
Well, what I am really saying is that I hope the public will finally realize that the Rs really are the party of the 1%, and just ditch that party. Looks like Romney, the billionaire guy, is going to be the nominee afterall. surprize.
I mean at some point there's going to be a realization on the part of rank and file R's that they're being taked for a ride!
I think that depends on us breaking through the constructs they have created. In order to do that the left will have to do a much better job than they have so far. One of the problems through the years has been that the best see the problems with the system and just go after the whole thing at once, instead of playing the long game and winning. They grab a symbolic victory, (Nader gets 3 million votes) and give up the long war.
Then a decade or two later we do it again.
I agree completely that a lot of people seem unwilling to grapple seriously with the question of process. I hear a lot of comments that say stuff like - "we need to do . . . " without considering how we will actually get whateve they are advocating is accomplished.
It's when you actually address the question of process that you see the importance of acknowledging reality, and working from a recognition of what is. and what can actually be accomplished.
It's sad that as individuals people on the left are generally a lot smarter than people on the right, but the right-wing is more pragmatic. They hire the best political advisers money can buy, and they follow that advice. That relentless, almost Darwinian, tenacity is the advantage of the right-wing. While left-wing people don't want to simply focus on the practical, material world to the exclusion of everything else, that's all the right-wing does, which makes them better at it. We need to catch-up on the pragmatic question of how to actually make the changes we want, and that inevitably involes the political process.
To sum this up, whatever else people do, we better at least vote, and know who to vote for and why.
I have a feeling there is more going on here than I know about, you guys are both awesome, so april, what I think we are talking about here is that when government does the bidding of the few instead of the many, it acts like a King's personal guard, and seeing that this is a symptom of our problem, and doctors got to see those symptoms, am I right gypsy?
Yes, that is very true, and so from my point of view what we really have here is a very intricate and powerful problem that can only be resolved with a wide variety of tactics and with flexibility of mind.
That is why I get so frustrated with absolutists and dogmatism of any variety. Things just don't work that way. You take your victries where you can find them and your alliances where you can get them. If we want to win we can't afford to go down the road of exclusion.
But to show you how insidious these trolls are, you hear every now and then how we somehow have to include out opponents in the movement. Well, we can include anyone but our opponents. It's up to us to know which is which.
We have to use what strengths we have. In this battle between rich and poor our strength is democracy. Their strength is money. Wars are tough April. Many times it comes down to raw determination and small victories. We have made a few. It's been nice sharing this battle with you.
Nothing good can come from this corrupted system. We can argue ideology all day and night (and we do!). It doesn't matter.
Corporations and the wealthy don't need to vote. They buy their legislation. Until we get the money out of the political process, monied influence will be the major factor in all decisions coming out of government. No good can come from this. For God's sake. It's not rocket science.
All this talk about capitalism, not capitalism, alternative economic systems, is really quite ridiculous.
By getting the money out of politics, we'll be able to find our way. Whatever that may be.
That OWS doesn't focus on this is really just selfish and tyrannical.
"All this talk about capitalism, not cap..........," is not ludicrous at all. There are many people here who think that we are on a destructive path with capitalism including me--now...the wars...the degradation of our planet...the exploitation of people all over the world. This is not just an American movement, it's world-wide. Tell me, at what point since the industrial revolution at least have we not been involved in this shit? Yes, as you suggest, we do have to take baby steps, but that does not mean that we should not be looking for something else, something more sustainable and more humane. When I first came here April, i never thought I would be saying that. Really! However after listening to a lot of mostly younger people both here, in the city, and having a long phone conversation with one of my daughters one night in Alaska I realize that their future goes decades beyond mine, hence their different outlook. Then after thinking about the world my granddaughter will grow up in...I will say it: I think we need another system of government. Capitalism has run its course. It's a different world, and we are reaching a boiling point on a bunch of different levels. Old solutions...even all polished up...won't fix the world's problems, not at this point in time. By talking about this now...we are planting the seeds for a sea change, and that is what we need....a sea change.
No. I'm not going to have the 8000th argument stating the obvious. Capitalism works. Crony capitalism doesn't. Crony capitalism is feeding our political system and the polical system is feeding crony capitalism. Our system now obviously needs to be regulated and restrained better so it can provide the most opportunity for the most people. There's nothing wrong with people being wealthy. So long as everyone else has enough. And for many many decades this has been the case. Nobody ever said capitalism is a smooth road. Every time capitalism hits a bump people question it. The 1920's was no different. We fixed it and for many many decades many many people prospered.
You say capitalism has run it's course. I think China would disagree with you. You're making a wildly opinionated accusation. And the fact is China is just getting started.
Anarchy anything is not a solution. Collectivism doesn't work. Direct democracy doesn't work. And the more crap I hear about it - I'm "this" close to going to the other side.
You want to improve things for you children - work for practical and realistic change in the here and now. Give your children a stable foundation to make the changes that "they" will have to make 20 or 30 years from now. Changes that we can't possibly know right now. Because the farther out you try to forecast the future, the more wrong you'll be.
We all know that government is corrupted, on both sides. Can there really be any doubt that it's a byproduct of the enormous amounts of money in the political system? We know that corporatism has run amok. We need stronger anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws. This will allow for more competition. More competition will be self regulating. Instead of passing these insane pieces of legislation like Dodd Frank. Which is only necessary because the Wall Street banks are so too big. Because the obvious answer is to break them up. We have to break the vicious cycle. Cut off their power supply. That's just the most obvious and visible example of how economic power translates to political power. We make it all too easy for them by allowing the political system to be awash with money.
Old solutions? One old solution I'm gonna keep. Our Representative Republic. Clean it up. End the monied corruption. Then we'll be able to find our way. Leave a stable foundation for our kids. So they can make whatever changes need to be made in the future. I'll trust they can figure that out when the time comes. But they'll never be able to help themselves if we don't give them a stable foundation to work from. An uncorrupted government. Corporations and the wealthy are buying their legislation. It's blatant and obvious. We make it unbelievably too easy for them. If we can't fix the most obvious problem then wtf? Explain that to your kids 20 years from now.
Is it partially a moral failure on the part of our representatives. That they allow themselves to be swayed by the tens of thousands/millions/billions of dollars being thrown at them? Perhaps. But we are allowing this to happen. It's a moral failure of our own. If we don't change this it's our moral failure that we didn't do anything about it. Explain that to your kids 20 years from now.
You run the risk of dreaming up alternatives for which may never even be necessary, or which could be totally wrong given future circumstances which we can't know. The farther out you try to forecast the more wrong you'll be. Dream by night. Make realistic change by day.
Example, many many cities and townships all over the country are working to get signatures on petitions for ballot initiatives that would advocate for a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of corporate/special interest money in federal elections. This is realistic and achievable. I'm working on local projects as well. Volunteering and pushing for these issues.
And side note, since I brought up Wall Street, even the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas believes that the big banks should be broken up.
http://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/fed/annual/2011/ar11.pdf
"8,000th argument"...?...ding....ding...ding! (I couldn't help that) I appreciate your efforts in this movement April. My contributions go far beyond this laptop too. You are a bright very opinionated young lady, and i know i will never change your mind.. Your prescription for cleaning up our crony capitalism is spot on. BUT....I'm setting you up now :-)
I was a merchant marine for over thirty years, and I really like using those maritme analogies and metaphors....sea change...charting a new course...batten down...ground-swell (of support), and more. They are all great. So in the interest of unity, and my respect for all you do here, I would like to end this with one of them. It is not near as good though as the one you gave to ibanker in comparing the investment-grade derivatives the banks were selling to... I think it was....."wrapped, flaming piles of shit with ribbons tied around them!" I still can't get that picture out of my mind. It's beginning to be a problem, but it does make me smile. :-)
So here it is: We are both on a cargo ship that also takes passengers...which many of them did in the old days...The first port we come to is your destination, but for me it is just a port-of-call. We both know this place well...it's SAFE, and I know that we can both have a good time here... you and your boyfriend with your martinis, and me with my rum and cokes maybe. The ship is sailing though, and I want to go on to the place I have never been to before... because I know that I may never have the chance to go there again....even if that means the uncertainty of winter in the North Atlantic. That capsulizes our differences April, albeit in a benign stupid way... admittedly.
You've made me laugh. I have all the respect for you Odin. And your analogy is very sweet and funny. But unfortunately, you propose to throw me off the ship! I don't want to get off the ship. Because it's my ship too.
I read your post on capitalism. I'm sorry if I came on a little harshly. It's just that the more I hear about any alternative economic system, and I've heard, read, discussed, debated about just about all from Venus project to Anarcho-Syndicalism/Communism, Liberal Socialism, Marxism, the more it makes me "this" close to switching to the other side. It's all just reinforced my belief in capitalism. And I've been there with an open mind. And for me, it always comes back to the profit motive and individualism.
No economic system yet devised can capture and harness the energy of these two powerful forces the way capitalism does. And I'm not talking about Ayn Rand batshit crazy capitalism. I'm talking about well regulated, well administered capitalism, with some socialism sprinkled in for the common good.
But to keep hearing about anarcho-syndicalism or Liberal socialism, or other such alternative forms of government/economic systems, as if waving a magic wand of "solidarity" is going to make everything magically work somehow, because people will magically have the incentive to work together. wtf does that mean?! As if people don't try to get along now. As if people purposefully have different thoughts and opinions. Thank goodness we all have different thoughts and ideas! Life would be horrible boring if we didn't (ok, 'cept for my husband, he needs to think exactly like me and always agree with me.). As if capitalism makes everyone not get along. Really it's ridiculous.
For any anarcho or collectivist system to work, there would have to be mind control. Everyone would have to have all of the same thoughts and ideas. That only works at a small familial level. Not 300 million people. It works in my family because I practice mind control over my kid, and use totalitarian measures against my husband. That's how we get along peacably and make it work. I would not recommend this as a form of government or economic system.
It's not capitalisms fault that we have so much debt, a housing bubble that was absolutely preventable, wealth inequality and govt corruption. It's bad policy, that fed greed, some irresponsible legislators and an irresponsible electorate that let it get so bad. We we're all drinking from that punchbowl (ok, some more than others). Hangovers suck. And some are suffering inordinate amounts. That injustice is absolutely a problem.
But no other economic system is going to be without it's own unique set of problems. And dangers inherent in any other system will have to be guarded against by society as well. We did not do a very good job of guarding against the inherent dangers of capitalism.
No April, nobody wants to throw you off the ship..not yet anyway! :-) It is your choice which you have made..this is all you paid for...it's my lay-over or port-of-call.....It's sugeyed down, and polished up, 'capitalism.' That is where you want to go..your destination. You have made that clear to me. You believe that system was a good one before corruption and neoliberalism set in. I agree, it was much better than it is today, but should that be what we settle for, when we know the high cost that it has had on the enviroment, and all the inhumanity that it has caused. We, the world is in a crisis. Everything is inter-connected. Can't you see that?
I have been on every dirty, oily creek, river, and canal in the New York harbor.. from the Passaic River in NJ to Eastchester Creek in the Bronx, and even the Chicago River, and a lot of other harbors, and rivers on the East Coast, and the Great Lakes as well. Believe me, you would not want to swim in the overwhelming majority of those waterways, except perhaps the beautiful Northern Hudson River providing you don't mind some PCB contamination coming down from GE's plant in Glenns Falls. It's invisible, so no big deal, right? Then we have everyone hear yapping about the pipeline, seemingly forgetting about the barrel and a half of sludge that is a by-product of every barrel of oil produced from those sands, polluting an area the size of ..ucking England! My point is, I know well the high cost to the enviroment that our way of life has caused. I realize too, it is not just capitalism that has caused this mess, but it deserves its share of blame. Anyway, when I hear, people your age (30ish, right?) and younger talk about sustainability...I can well understand their concerns. For the first month I was here, I mostly listened...Anyway I find it surprisng that I have never seen that word 'sustainability' or anything pertaining to it on any of your posts or comments. Did I miss that?
Your pragmatism, level-headedness, and even hard headedness comes out loud and clear on your contributions here. I know your type well, very well! You are difficult to live with, and in particular you clash with equally especially hard-headed men of Scandivavian ancestry, right? How do I know that? You ask. It's probably better to ask that question to my ex who lives 4,000 miles away in Alaska! :-) If that weren't enough..somehow I have raised three...enlightened feminist-like daughters...who spent far too much time with their mother ;-)..., and they could all give you a run for your money much, much better than me. I know too, like the many other young people in OWS.... they would be at odds with you at the absence of your not taking the enviroment into consideration in your prescription for fixing the world. This, oh so important issue does not even seem to be on your no no-nonsense, practical radar screen. Why?
Then there's the inhumanity that capitalism propagates. We both know that war is a big money-maker for this system. This cannot just be blamed on neoliberalism, the corrupt money in politics, or REAL threats. It is capitalism to blame, plain and simple. That same system that has brought such a wonderful way of life... in terms of having a lot of crap we don't need anyway.... to so many of us here in this country has wreaked havoc on a good part of the rest of the world...causing untold human misery. I don't know your background, but I have family on three other continents, and yes i include my ex's family too as time does heal all wounds, doesn't it? Some of the countries they live in are ones that many Americans travel to and marvel at, like New Zealand and Sweden, but at least one of the countries i have ties to has been a victim of Western Imperialism. My family has also had kids living with us from five different countries, so my POINT is I have learned not only to value American lives, but rather all lives.
You may be able to go back living in denial of those facts....go to church on Sunday.... listen to From The Halls of Montezuma To The Shores of Tripoli... and say the Pledge of Allegiance at your kid's recital (I experienced this recently at a friend's kids school), and put all these injustices out of your mind and sleep well, but I can't, and neither can a lot of other people here, and around the world. Unlike any other time in history, the victims in these countries have awoken...and they will not go back to sleep.... unless we are prepared to put them to sleep....LITERALLY. Can you live with all that, and pretend that is not what capitalism thrives on? We need something else April, and yes it will take time to implement, and no I am not promoting communnism. Our problems, The world's problems are much vaster in scope than you make them out to be, as everything is inter-connected.
Imagine that...a bunch of kids sleeping in a park who inspired others to wake up, and they have done more in 6-7 months than in all of the years that altruistic good-governement groups like Common Cause, and Public Citizen have done in all the years of their existence. Yet, I hear you criticize them a lot. This movement was borne out of "fire and brimstone," and sometimes it seems as if you are trying to douse those flames..to ramp it down. They don't want those flames extinguished....they don't want to lose their recalcitrance, and have this turned into a CC or PC campaign.... Because then it will become controllable, thus rendering it impotent. At the same time kid, there is plenty of room here for us, and taking a plethora of different ways to achieve our goals is preferrable.
THINK about this: One of the reasons that this country has come so far 'right' is because of the wing-nuts, the fringe way, way over there, THEY were able to pull not only their party to the far obstinate 'right.'..but the democrats to the 'right' as well. Hence we now have a President that could have passed easily as a conservative thirty years ago. So following that logic April...can we not assume that those rambuctious people...our own 'beloved wing-nuts.'. sacrificing themselves out in the streets, and in the parks are causing this country to shift to the LEFT...for definitely the first time in your life-time, and probably mine as well. They deserve our support and gratitude April, yet I hear you criticize them so much. This is their revolution, and the main thrust of it is going to be waged on the streets, not behind our laptops... I respect that, and so should you.
As I have pointed out earlier, the world's problems are big. The solutions that you have put forth over and over again for bringing about a more representative republic are near perfect. Yes, The Venus Project is too far out for me too at this point. Young people with your kind of intelligence will be the kind we need to solve the myriad of problems we face in the world today. It's just that you will have to become more forward-thinking, and broad-minded in taking into consideration a lot more than I have outlined here, including our future roll in the world because it is not going to be the same as it was....and the sooner we realize that, the better off we will be. That's all.
"We cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein
You're assessment is pretty much correct. I don't talk alot about sustainability. But I do have an understanding and of course have concerns about it as well. But I don't necessarily attribute the problem to capitalism. It's correlated, but not caused by capitalism. It's mainly caused by fossil fuels. I don't think that capitalism is at odds with sustainability necessarily. I think that the innovation that capitalism provides, can, under the right conditions, help to innovate us towards a solution.
There are ideas out there to address sustainability, that are workable and not totally inconsistent with the regulated/mixed economy capitalism. Such as cap and trade and full economic cost pricing. Capitalism knows cost, not conscience. But we have a moral conscience. It's up to us to make capitalism accept the environmental cost of it's fossil fuel actions and contamination actions. Then behavior will change. When costs become to high, capitalism will seek more efficient, cost effective, and hopefully responsible, solutions. Cost necessity can drive capitalism towards innovation.
People start wars. Not capitalism. Were there no wars before capitalism? Was there total peace on earth before modern capitalism? I could also make the argument that capitalism protects democracy from dictatorship. Because capitalism expands wealth. It's dictators that want to destroy capitalism (except for monarchs in oil rich countries). Because economic wealth leads to political power. I'm no expert on China, but the little I do know - it's authoritative form of state capitalism is not sustainable. China knows this. There is no working model for long term state controlled capitalism. China will most likely have to become more liberal. Democratic even. If it wants to sustain capitalism. Would this be a bad thing??
I am sometimes critical of OWS. Not because I don't care. But because I do care. I ignore things I don't care about. I think challenging and criticizing things makes those things stronger. That is in essence what OWS is doing. Challenging and criticizing the status quo. Everyone that believes in OWS should challenge and criticize OWS itself. It will make OWS stronger. OWS doesn't get to call bullshit and tell me to put on the "solidarity" hat and just go along with the program. That's just the very height of hypocrisy.
I wouldn't be here at all if I didn't have an open mind. But you're absolutely right to criticize me and push me to think even more openly. I'll take that. I wouldn't dream of calling bullshit on you for that. But I'm not going to accept anything, including OWS itself, with an uncritical eye.
I have often given credit to OWS. It's made a ton of difference in raising awareness, changing the debate and national conversation even. Yes the country has moved dangerous far to the Right with really disasterous consequences. And I really have "come" to realize, that it will take a very hard left movement just to get the country to inch a little bit to the Left. I suppose it's like trying to move a big ship. You have to pull hard left just to move a big ship a few inches. I'm sure you could come up with a much better boat analogy than me! None of that is lost on me. But at the same time, I see a trade off/consequences. The consequences of being so hard left, turns alot of people off. People that could support mainstream reforms such as campaign finance reform, stronger financial regulations, are turned off by the anti-capitalist, communist, anarchist notions. I just fear that this movement is forgoing alot of mainstream support because of this. It's the radicals that started the movement, got it off the ground. But it takes moderates to keep it relevant. And high unemployment. Because the truth is, there wouldn't be people in the street were it not for high unemployment. I could make a very cynical argument that OWS wants millions more people to be unemployed. It serves the radical views of OWS.
Back to the Right for a moment. I am extremely uncomfortable, and even mystified, with the radical views that our problem is the form of government itself. Or even that politicians themselves are the problem. As if the government/politicians is some separate and distinct entity from the people. Because the fact is, which I think, is where you're going with the "wing-nut" part, 50 million or so people, half the voting electorate, are basically batshit crazy. Or at least a good portion of them. And batshit wing-nut crazy gets to be represented too. And no form of democratic government is going to eliminate batshit crazy.
I think in terms of a different way of thinking - this should include being much much more consciencious and critical of government. If anything, what I have learned is we can't take our eye's off of them for a second. We need to question and criticize constantly. Even as we might believe the government has the best of intentions- I really don't think Pres. Reagan intended anything evil to happen by promoting deregulation. But as citizens, we didn't do enough to question and criticize this logic. We can't leave it up to the goverernment. And a few activist and watchdog groups. We get what we give. And we haven't given enough.
And I didn't mean to disparage the dreamers earlier. The world absolutely needs the dreamers.
OK April I'm back from NYC. Seems like i never sleep well the night before I hang out with those mostly young radicals, and I never sleep better the night after. I respect your honest, thoughtful reply to me, and I realize that it should not be your goal to change your long held beliefs so they line up with the core of this movement. I do wonder though if your strong personality and these long held beliefs gets in the way of your thought process, as it did for me for many years.
This hard-headeness I am sure has served you well in much of your life as it did for me. I worked two weeks off, and two weeks on for most of my thirty year career. I was fair with my one other co-worker, the barge mate, whoever that was at the time. The consequences for having a screw up were terrible, since we could either be responsible for a major spill, or even having our ashes going home in a pine box, because we often carried very flammable products including gas..jet fuel..tolulene, etc. I enjoyed my career (especially when we went weather-bound or fog-bound...yoo hoo!), but I was also very disciplined and I knew it was no game. You either followed the safe system that I implemented or you got the fu.. off the boat, plain and simple. I was very fair with my co-workers over the years though, and did not try to micro-mange them, but rather I gave them a parameter to work within. At home though, that was another story, I caved into my equally strong willed wife for the sake of harmony, and most things weren't that important anyway. I regret that course of action that I took. I also realize that what a woman wants in the short term is not the same as what she wants in the long term....hope GF isn't around, I don't want a blow-up doll! :-) My advice..as a friend still.. is be careful. You may get what you wish for. OK, my marriage counseling is done...now getting back on subject.
I understand the concept of cost pricing, and how that could lead to more innovation in other types of less harmful energy. The problem first is so far are we have lacked the political will to implement such a system. Then for a population that has been stretched to the limit financially due to the effects of neoliberalism, that idea would even be more difficult to put in practice as it would encounter resistance beyond even the Right. The first step, is to start educating people to the necessity of acting soon and on a major scale, while at the same time following your formula for having a government that is representative of the people. You have done the latter very well but not the former at al las far as I can see. We are in a crisis...whole populations of people are soon going to have to move off their tiny island nations in the Pacific due to rising sea levels...remote coastal villages in Alaska are having to move further inland.....glaciers are receding at an alarming rate, and even disappearing altogether. I've seen this in both Glacier National Park, and in Alaska. This, combined with the extremely warm winter that just finished should serve as a barometer. I know a guy who runs a fairly big alternative energy project trying to raise awareness, and his views are not optimistic. I don't have all the answers April, but I do know that our solutions have to match the size of our problems, and despite my belief that you can learn a lot from history....the answers to many of our problems cannot be found in the past. I do believe that a system which requires constant growth...hence the constant degradation of our planet is definitely not the answer. Although I am an optimistic person, I too am concerned that no matter what path we choose, yours or mine....well I just don't know if we have time to implement it on a world-wide basis. Either way, it is not just an American problem, but it is a world crisis. Everything is interconnected...the enviroment...our choice of government..how we treat the world...how the world treats us... our future roll in the world, etc., etc. That is why this is a world revolution.
I had many good conversations this week-end in NYC with OWS members. The networking, determination, organization, and fellowship made it clear to me that they had not slept the winter away. I listened more than I talked, something that was a rarity at one point in my life. They understand all these things that I have just brought up. I feel you are out of touch with the core, and most of the members of OWS, and I truly wish that you weren't. We can probaly both agree on one thing at least. "The fault ....is not in our stars, but in ourselves...." Good Night April.
I'm busy right now, and getting ready to go to NY tomorrow, but i will pick this up with you again tomorrow night or Sunday. I will say from experience that being hard-headed can work well for you on a lot of different levels, but also be an impediment as you know. The next thing...married...kids? Is there any way i can get some leverage on you to come around to my way of thinking?.... ibanker.... martinis ....depends on my mood...little bar down-town....gone. Does your hubby know about this? ;-)
lol with any luck, you'll see that proven within the year.
Can you expand on that a bit. Are you talking about the election?
morning april, I can't figure richard out myself, he has his own site he promotes here, I know some people post both places, I have troble with editors so I stay here, haven't been censured yet, but he seems a good fellow a bit in the third party trap but other than that, but I don't know what he's saying here either, he's not a big election guy like me though maybe I'll ask him, he's got some game
Very - Very nice. This is how "WE THE PEOPLE" should be talking to "OUR" government. This is how our government should be addressing our businesses.
This is why we are here - to fight and end corruption in a positive fashion in a legal fashion in a fashion that is healthy for "ALL" by owning and using our given rights and responsibilities.
OWN "OUR" PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT> The World Wins!
Thanks
Thank you for showing true diplomacy and sharing reasoned thought.
You are correct in that Democracy is the way.
And the way Democracy will work and save the day is by getting "THE PEOPLE" involved in their ownership of Democracy.
Kick artificial entities out of the process for the good of "ALL".
Awesome Odin!
Thanks
Please read my post, Can Capitalism Take Us.......?.... and I will get back to you tonight. Thanks.
Very well put. I agree 100%. Democracy "IS" our government and "WE" the "PEOPLE" have let Capitalism steal it from "US".
A sea-change is a very apt way to put what we are trying to accomplish.
For we are looking to bring about a 1st time ever real ownership of the government by "it's" rightful owners "THE PEOPLE".
That is a very strong point. To not aspire for a True level playing field then we just seem like barbarians at the gate. I always thought that higher taxes for the wealthy would even the playing field because it would limit the disposable income of those who buy legislation.
But it seems that the most fair way would have to be for all of George Bush's tax cuts to be allowed to expire, and the proceeds go to paying for public funded elections. I guess the hard truth that we all have to grasp is that "he who pays the piper calls the tune."
A shitty corrupted government is only going to produce more shitty corrupted results.
The estimates for the 2012 election cycle is $6-8billion. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for just the top 2% could be worth $100billion/year. More than enough for a few election cycles.
The scary thing is, even the Simpson-Bowles plan, which will probably get more serious consideration after the election, proposes lowering the top marginal tax rates and reducing loopholes. This is frightening in the current corrupted climate. Because history shows that these loopholes quietly find their way back into the tax code by those that buy their legislation. Which will result in even lower effective tax rates for the wealthy.
Lobbying(democracy circumventing BRIBERY), and I'm sure campaign funding, is said to have greater than a 20,000% ROI.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/04/09/return-on-lobbying-investment-22000/
good article!
This one is more informative
Holy crap! This is for one piece of legislation, but even still.
"corporations now spend about $3.5 billion/year on lobbying alone. The Cato Institute estimates the value of the resulting corporate welfare at about $90 billion/year."
A 2,500% return.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/actually-corporations-tha_b_1144789.html?ref=politics
I should think that you would then like to support this:
http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100086255.557671.433&gen=1&mailing_linkid=49235
Share it out on social media. Spread the word.
I put it out on facebook and twitter - Can you?
Already on this, but I'm with ya. : )
{:-])
Dear April,
I see what you are saying, but hear this:
Let's just say for arguement purposes that money is controlling politics and thus making rules that favor the rich. How would you propose money be taken out of politics if the rich are in control of making the rules ,.. surely they will not make a rule to take money out of politics.. they would be shooting them self in the foot.
So we the people need something to over power their wealthy control of politics, and that is by using our constitutional voting rights and power. We the people vastly out number the Corporations and wealthy. And we the people are begining to sign petitions to show congress just how much strength we the people have .. can you think of another way to gain control of legislation? Sure we the people could perhaps make a collection and try lobbying /bribery. Would that work? Should we collect donations to bribe congress? and than what , bribe them to take bribery out ? ..might work .. but where does that end .. and is bribery our true strength in this ? Or is our strength in democracy and the power of vote ! when it comes to bribery , the wealthy would be justas , if not stronger than we the people .. but when it comes to vote , we the people have this beat hands down.!!
Of course the question is than asked , When we the people control we the government through democracy, .. than what? we no longer have to worry about bribery .. we could change the rules of that , but we will have already beaten it.. so control of the government , for the people by the people .. is what you and everyone else wants ..
It's about where do we want to go , and how do we get there.
We want to improve the economic system , by creating equality and fair distribution of wealth .. and we intend to do this through democracy and the freedoms we have through our constitution. Given to us by generations of people who had the same dream as we do , " creating a fair and just society for all.
Take a look at AZ, we "got the money out" ten years ago, then we got SB 1070.
It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
When people in US vote republican they're actually voting
Military > Banks > Wall street
When they vote Democrat it is
Wall street > Banks > Military
Banks are the third party as far as current system goes!!
Who is going to bell the cat? Or in other words, can we discriminate between ends and means?
They say we are dividers because we don't want the GOP, then they divide us from the largest group of people who mostly feel like we do, the democrats are not just a party, they are all of the people too, people who have been doing this awhile, that's all, why divide ourselves from those who think like we do?
Except to help our common enemy?
Exactly!
all we can do is tell the truth, and hope they hear...
That's right. from all the people who push the idea that the two party system is corrupt (which is true) I don't hear any practical plan for us to move forward, and so in effect they are just pushing apathy, which is what got us here in the first place! At the moment the two party system is what is. It is reality, and just wishing it wasn't won't change that; and one thing is clear, the Republican party is the political party of the 1%.
This is important to realize because if the Republicans are elected they are free to ignore and attack our movement with impunity. While we can exert influence over the Democrats, we can exert none over the Republicans. And since the two party sytem is reality at least until the next election, we must not deny that fact. The more we can reduce the number of Republicans in office the more our future efforts will be able to bare fruit.
I think in the next midterm election, in 2014, we could be in a position to run our own candidates. That will be the test of how far we can carry our message in the elctoral process, but until then, I strongly disagree with those who are insidiously advocating apathy. We must push forward on all possible fronts.
No way we run our own by 2014 except Maine maybe, if we do it right anyway, all we really need to do is make a few R's lose that were considered safe, then they will rush to the GAs to find out what happened, and of course you're right take down some R's in 2012, and the D’s will listen, in 2014 we go after primaries if we are smart and they will listen more.
[Removed]
Great point, April.
Divide and conquer. That is how the money uses the parties against the people.
By dividing us from the democrats that's exactly right thank you for pointing that out trevor.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
like I say below go ahead and tell yourself, "get the money out" will do it but I live in AZ I know better
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
Don't vote for Arpaio if you live there.
OK trevor, I'm cool with that,
keep the faith man
In AZ we have had public funding for over ten years, we passed it in 1998, since then almost everyone has ran on public funding, in AZ the Repulicans have just started talking about renewing their effort to pass a law that will effectively kill the public unions here, so no April you are wrong getting the money out does nothing unless you get the Republicans out, remember SB 1070 all those guys got public funding.
I would say that AZ is not an island unto itself. Those people are still subject to the party platform. And recipients of powerful political marketing machines. Getting indirect support from the party machine. And I'm sure there are people there who have higher aspirations for themselves. Who are going to follow the party line to some degree. The agenda of which is set at a higher level. I'm not necessarily surprised that there have been less than stellar results.
I'm with you about getting Repubs out.
Help me out with SB 1070.
And aren't the Repubs challenging the public funding laws in AZ?
yes they are:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/republicans-try-to-kill-public-financing-in-arizon/
SB 1070 is the immigration bill that has local cops arresting undocumented workers, (which apparently is providing a fresh supply of victims to the sicko's since immigrate children are like unprotected sheep, if you follow.) http://occupywallst.org/forum/another-republican-making-az-a-laughing-stock-here/
Getting public funding is one of my three, if you’ve read my bio, so it’s a biggy no doubt.
I'm with ya. Republicans are insane. And this insanity will not change until elections are publicly funded. Even then, they'll still be insane. Just not so powerful!
Life often is about choices; war is often about making choices you don't like.
So I vote for the Democrats, if you don't win the war, you don't get to build the peace.
That's not the way I read it when I talk to OWS activists, and by OWS activist I mean someone who idendifies with a particular local occupation and attends a local general assembly and its working groups on a fairly regular basis). To a person, every OWS activist I talk to thinks of themselves as a revolutionary and doesn't see the problem as corruption but rather built into the nature of corporate power itself.
Aren't you the very guy that keeps going on about how incredibly small OWS is. Well, if you base it on that criteria you are right. So the question becomes, how long are you willing to wait for change, until hell freezes over? Perhaps we should be coalition builders instead. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Whether OWS is small or large depends on your point of view. Judged from society as a whole it is tiny. Judged from the tasks it has set before itself (the fundamental social transformation of the entire world and the creation of a classless society) it is tiny indeed.
Judged from the inside it can appear quite large, especially to people with very little experience in social movements. Judged from the past several decades, and in my opinion, judged from the experience of social movements of the past 100 years it is quite large. Of course it is not as large yet as was the labor movement of the 1930s or the civil rights movement of the early 60s, but from the perspective of the project it has set before itself it is more fair to compare it to the Socialist Party of the first two decades of the 20th century or the Populist movement of the last two decades of the 19th century.
We are already making change. We have already energized and inspired every other social movement, all of which are expodentially larger than is OWS and we continue to do so. If that isn't coalition building I don't know what is. That in and of itself is a monumental change for such a tiny and such a new social movement.
We stand on the shoulders of giants who were also considered failures of the Parisian comunards of 1871, of the world wide general strike wave of 1919, of the Spanish anarchist comunes of the mid 1930s, of the world wide strike wave that followed in the wake of World War II, of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, of Polish Solidarity, and of countless other struggles all of which are counted as historical failures. But these were giants. It is ours responsibility to learn from the failures and mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them (but that doesn't include caving into our adversaries). We too may fail, but it is our responsibility not to repeat the mistakes of the past, to make our own mistakes so that those who follow can stand on our shoulders. As Rosa Luxemburg said, the revolution is an endless series of defeats followed by one victory. Long live OWS! Long live the Revolution!
I realize there is some minority out there that feel this way. But the simple fact is - some sort of fantastical revolution is completely unrealistic. They can fantasize and twinkle finger direct democracy all day long. It's not going to happen.
80% of the general population believes that money has a negative and corrupting influence on government. This is what people want. Not some fantastical notions of reorganizing the country into some sort of egalitarian societies.
OWS simply exists to promote these ideas, in an attempt to dictate "their" solution. Rather than focus on something realistic and achievable - that 80% of the population could get behind. But focusing on something that 80% of the general population wants - that would be way too democratic. OWS ptb doesn't care what 80% of the population wants, doesn't think that 80% of the population knows what's best for them. OWS thinks it knows whats best for everybody else.
All this General Assembly, direct democracy, leaderless non-heirarchical structure stuff - just their subtle way of telling everyone else what they should do.
Why exactly is a revolution unrealistic? It would be quite difficult, but why unrealistic? I'm assuming your use of the word "unrealistic" is a synonym for "impossible."
But what about the American Revolution? How many people said that would be impossible? What about the North Vietnamese victory during the Vietnam War? How many people said that was impossible? Or the Communist turnover of Cuba?
If instead of saying, "that's impossible" we actually gilded our guts with conviction, revolution would be easy. Instead, we just vote. We vote and hope for change. Nothing changes.
However, I agree with your criticisms of OWS.
Unrealistic, as in improbable.
You think we should all get behind a bloody revolution? To do what? End the Republic for another form of government? Because our campaign finance laws, or lack thereof, are bad?
How about instead of a bloody revolution, we just work to end government corruption and see how things go after that?
I truly believe that there are lots of people in government that would like to see this happen. But they can't do it without us. I don't think alot of them like the corruption anymore than we do. We are the most important branch of government. This is something that Howard Zinn said.
The Supreme Court screwed up. Buckley, CU. These were not unanimous sweeping decisions. They are human beings, making interpretations and judgements, who are imperfect as the rest of us. There were Justices that disagreed with those decisions. A different Justice here or there and these decisions could have gone a different way and we wouldn't even be here today.
Many many people in and out of government think these decisions were a bad mistake. Even John McCain said the CU decision was a horrendous mistake for democracy. And suggested recently that it would take a major campaign scandal in order to make changes. He knows it's going to take a major push from the bottom up in order to make change. And the people that benefit from the corruption are not going to take it lightly.
It's really not fair or accurate to blame politicians for this. We can't just put it all on them, our politicians, that we vote and nothing changes. The problem is the process. They are just part of the process. And it's the process that dictates the results. If the process is corrupted then the results are going to be corrupted.
But if you think we need a bloody revolution, go for it.
Why would a revolution have to be bloody? We live in a different day and age, beyond bloodshed and violence.
Since you bring up Zinn, if you've read A People's History, then you should be under the impression that he thinks the American government is a very wrong institution. Zinn writes on and on about the Socialist struggle in the United States.
I'll quote a passage I read last night in the chapter "Surprises:"
"What of the women who didn't have jobs? They worked very hard, at home, but this wasn't looked on as work, because IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY (or perhaps in any modern society where things and people are bought and sold for money) IF WORK IS NOT PAID FOR, NOT GIVEN A MONEY VALUE, IT IS CONSIDERED USELESS."
I capitalized for emphasis. Basically, Zinn suggests that the Capitalist model is completely backward. The wrong things are valued. And that's why we need a revolution of sorts--to get rid of Capitalism. It's not just "corruption," which will probably exist so long as Capitalism exists. We can always argue.
The problem is Capitalism. Capitalism is a corruption of values.
Can you tell me a revolution that wasn't bloody?
yeah, pretty much the only thing I like about Zinn was his idea about the 4th branch of government. But it's nice your a fan of socialism. I'm not.
Does society value women staying at home and raising children? In a capitalist kind of way? No it does not. That doesn't mean it's useless.
Sorry, I'm not getting on the end capitalism bandwagon.
The revolution in Tunisia from early last year--which serves as a precedent and inspiration for this movement--was bloodless, nonviolent, and powerful. If you've read Zinn's A People's History of the United States, you'd also be aware of many more "minor" revolutions in the United States which were nonviolent.
I'm not convinced that our current capitalist society values femininity in any significant way. Capitalistic tabloid magazines like TMZ have defaced and devalued women to a great degree. Still in our society women are predominantly trophies and objects to look at. Compare this to, say, the original Native American societies where women were actually given more rights and prestige than women currently have...
Sorry, but I can't jump on the Capitalist bandwagon. Though I've grown up in it, I have yet to see any proof that it is good.
It's not my experience that this is in any way a minority position among OWS activists. If anything it is a consensus. I personally am very troubled by the OWS decision making process, but it is what it is. I think it will change, but it's so embedded in the movement that such changes are going to be very evolutionary.
The fact is, OWS had energized and inspired every other social movement. IMHO that is its greatest achievement. I suspect it would not have gotten as far as it has w/o a revolutionary self image.
Other groups are, of course, free to take whatever course they want. My premise is that this is an OWS site and for that reason ought to proceed from OWS premises.
It's a minority position among the rest of the 300 million people in this country.
It's a waste of potential. Extremely selfish to continue to pursue something so unrealistic and unachievable.
Of course it is and OWS activists are well aware of that. The vast majority of OWS activists are well aware that we are a minority movement. The question is, how do you become a majority movement? The easy way, of course, is simply to adopt the point of view of the vast majority, the much more difficult but also much more rewarding way is the long hard effort to win them over. Patience is a revolutionary virtue and most OWS activists I engage with realize that this will probably take decades, if not several lifetimes.
Alright kudos for the patience and long term outlook. But it is highly unlikely that OWS is going to convince many people that anarchism is a solution. 1) it's never worked 2) OWS does more to illustrate the flaws of anarchism. lol. By using their methods they do more to work against their interests rather than for them. Because in theory, anarchy works way better than practice. It fails to even illustrate success with a few hundred people in a park trying to solve relatively simple issues. Let alone 300 million people in a highly complex globalized world.
Whatever success these methods had in gaining attention was simply a function of the discontent in society. Not a shining example of success of it's methods. It has way more to do with 10% unemployment. OWS just likes to think it was due to it's methods. That is just a wildly optimistic unobjective, prejudiced point of view of those that believe in anarchy. I can't really blame them. OWS is their baby. And everyone thinks their baby is beautiful.
The average person sees the manipulation and major major flaws of these methods. Which even you have admitted exists. Patience is not going to change the fails of these methods. OWS is not going to win people over in time for methods that are just completely flawed. Decades or lifetimes of trying to convince people is not going to make these methods more successful.
I don't think OWS is trying to convince anyone of anarchism. That many of OWS key organizers are anarchists is one thing, but I don't think they are trying to convince them of their point of view. What they are trying to do is mobilize them and in that they have been quite successful. One does not have to be an anarchist to support the efficacy of direct action.
Again, the fact is OWS has done more than any other single development to energize and inspire every other social movement. The fact that key OWS activists is not irrelevant to this, but it's not determinative either.
The "average" person as you put it, is as yet completely naive about OWS so they really don't have an opinion about it one way or another. They are much more likely to feel the impact of a social movement that OWS has inspired well before they even here of OWS.
OWS is not anyone's baby, and given your hostility to the movement I can't understand why you are on this web site except perhaps to act as a wrecker. While it is true that anarchists and people influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition initiated the movement and continue to have disproportionate influence within the movement, the movement is, in fact, considerably broader than that. What movement activists agree upon, and what continues to inspire ever broadening publics, is the direct action strategy which gave rise to the movement to begin with. There is nothing especially unusual about this. In fact, virtually any social movement you can name, whether labor or civil rightrs or the wormens movment or anything else, depended, in its most inspired period, on direct action.
April is not trying to take the wind out of their sales, but rather point out and give honest guidence and support of the movement. You would be advised to listen. Her words are very clear. Who in their right mind would support Anarchism !
There are roughly 20,000 active OWS participants in OWS according to Occupy Together. As anarchists are both a minority but also the most influential tendency in the movement I'd guess about 10% or 2,000 are full blown anarchists. I am not personally an anarchist, but the fact is anarchists started the movement and anarchists remain its best organizers, just as, like it or not, Communists were the best labor organizers in the 1930s. All the liberal "supporters" of the movement who complain about the anarchists would not be supporting the movement if it were not for the anarchists, because there would be no movement without the anarchists. All the liberal "supporters" of the movement who complain that anarchists can't organize basically sit around complaining that the anarchists can't organize while the anarchists are basically the main organizing force in the movement.
OWS is a revolutionary movement. Of course we realize that the vast majority of Americans are not revolutionaries, but patience is a revolutionary virtue. Our project will probably take decades and possibly several lifetimes. I'm 69 years old and I've been waiting a lifetime for this.
And what we have definitely NOT been waiting for are well meaning but innocent shills like April who remain dupes of the Democratic Party.
You are duped by OWS. They have misingenuous intentions. Their scheme is to prevent a movement of any size and strength , by using a tiring out" method of anarchy.
I am 69 years old. I have been an active radical for nearly 50 years. I have done considerable graduate work in American social history and the history of radical social movements. I think it would be more accurate to characterize me as a duper rather than a dupee.
I agree. That's what I see too.
So you blame the corporations? That would mean that we are electing mindless stupid morons who have no self control under corporate influence. Money is not really the problem- money is just the tempting apple in the garden of Eden. We need corporations and we need money. There will always be big money and corrupt influences out there in the world but that doesn't mean that our elected officials need to work for them by accepting bribes, kickbacks and other financial incentives to pass laws in their favor. It's the elected officials who are the problem and they need to decide who they are working for and we need to demand transparency from them in order to cast a well informed vote. At this point, electing any one of them is no different than electing the CEO of Walmart to be president or head of other government office. If our elected officials had a genuine concern for us, they would put an end to corporate influence by making the choice right now to say no to any lobbyist but there isn't a single member who will do that since they are already so financially obligated to corps. It begins and ends with the choices that every individual makes and if our leaders can't make an independent, objective decision for the American people then there's no point in voting at all until we can know exactly which corporations we are electing that will impact us at the personal, national and global level. Most people cast votes for a candidate that represents the party that they were taught to align with and are mostly ignorant about the specific issues and probably don't even care.
No. I never said that corporations were the problem. The political process is the problem. The politicians are part of the process. The process is corrupted by money. The results will be corrupted. The process needs to be changed.
Campaigns should be publicly financed. Lobbyists can still lobby for corporations or other special interests. They can state their case, make their concerns and wishes known to Congress. And those concerns and wishes will be considered and weighed on balance with other concerns. But it should not involve money. Like our justice system. Our justice system allows us to make our case to a judge. We don't pay the judge to get what we want. It should be the same thing with our legislative and executive branches.
There are currently five lobbyists for every law-maker. That's insane. The revolving door has to be shut too. Money or favors will creep their way back in. We don't need them.
April, you have made your point quite clear. Although, I still feel there is hope for the system to work if we the people use democractic force to counter any corporate lobbying. After all, how do you hope to get " money out of politics" if not with the use of democratic force ?
You said that neither party could change because of the corrupt money. But, I disagree because the men and women who in leadership COULD change if they wanted to, that is to say, if they grew a conscience, moral character and a spine. Then again, how many invertebrates grow spines? The process is corrupted by men and women who have chosen to partner with the greedy and corrupt the system. Here's the thing...we are the insane ones, not them. They are exactly who and what they are. As the old adage states, " birds of a feather, flock together". We are the insane ones, not them, because we keep voting these corrupt animals into office , the same invertebrates as always, and then expecting a different result. Isn't it time that we voters put an end to this and demand a different process and different leadership? For starters, it doesn't require money to know how to lead. Money can't buy wisdom and intellect. Obviously.
There are people in government who try to do the right thing. There are opposing forces and political choices to be made. You and I may disagree in that I think most of them have good intentions, but are limited in their abilities to get results because of opposing forces and the money that is behind it. And when money is involved, these forces have alot of skin in the game. That's why things get ugly.
You say "demand a different process". That's what I'm saying. Get money out of politics. Change the process. If the process is changed, the results will change.
Maybe that will mean new people. Depends on how we vote. Will the new people still not do what we want? Perhaps. So we vote them out. Eventually, the behavior will change. They'll start being more responsive, making better choices, when money is not buying legislation and is so influential in the process, and they know that our votes are more powerful than money.
Our votes now only have a degree of power to get them elected. Whose interests they are serving after that is the problem. Too often it is the monied interests. They try to do a few good things for their constituents, because they know they need us to go to the polls again for them. But our interests are not being served as fully as they should be, because they are too consumed with the neccessity of raising money and getting contributions. Which of course they have to "repay" the favors, the money that is given their campaign funds.
It's just a vicious cycle and vicious balancing act, trying to balance the needs of the constituents as a whole and the necessity of raising money, in order to continue to try to serve the needs of the constituents. There are perverse incentives in this process. Poor decisions could be/are rewarded with money. Because the process allows it.
If I recall, it's not ' legal' for government to compete with private sector business. I recall an incident where a university laboratory was working for profit and competing with other privately owned labs providing the same services. The subsidized lab was bidding against my lab for contracts. My lab as well as others took them to court. When our government representatives take money from corporations and vote on legislation in order to secure employment with them at a later date, etc... it's a very similar dynamic. This is why Obama's healh care reform doesn't really sit well with a lot of folks. He's trying to play both sides of the fence by appeasing big insurance while making American's believe they will reap some benefit. Why should our gov't be subsidizing big insurance while also providing them MORE customers AND allowing them to continue to operate much the same as always ( with only a few exceptions). This is a no brainer. My gosh, if I were big insurance, I'd be jumping for joy, it's a dream come true for them. Americans will not benefit and it will be disastrous for everyone's wallet and their health. I realize it takes money to ' advertise' but those costs are so inflated, the funds so abused by our candidates. They are not frugal or realistic. But, even so, it comes down to personal choice like the rest of us who must mortgage our homes to start a business or make our first record album. Better yet, why not do like most and apply for a loan from a bank. :D I wonder how many of them would be willing to make that sacrifice for their country? By the time these candidates even make it to a presidential election, they are wealthy enough and have enough assets to liquidate to fund their own campaign.
You're pointing out lots of problems. The best single answer I can come up with is to change the political process. If we change this process, we have the ability to get better results. The poor results we are getting is a function of the process. The form (process) is corrupted. Form shapes content. Even if politicians (content) are all acting in perfectly good faith, the results will still be tainted by corruption. Form shapes content.
Well then, like I suggested, they should refuse corporate money and do like the rest of us when we want to start a business or advertise, etc... Take out a loan, mortgage their properties, liquidate their assets and portfolio.
What you are suggesting is to leave the monied corruption process in place. How is this a good idea?
By your logic, a potential politician should finance their own election with their own money. We already have a distorted process that allows people to contribute an unlimited amount of money for their own campaign. This genius idea favors the wealthy. How is this a good idea?
You expect a person of modest wealth to liquidate all their assets?? You can't be serious. This is beyond ridiculous. Mitt Romney spent $42million dollars of his own money in the 2008 election. So you suggest a person of modest wealth should liquidate all their assets? Even still, how does this person compete with $42million? A person of modest wealth has no choice but to accept large contributions in order to compete with a wealthy person running for office.
Are you familiar with Buddy Roemer? Buddy Roemer does not accept money from PACs or special interests, no contributions greater than $100. That got him no where in the corrupted process that is driven by money.
The problem is the process.
Anyone who runs for office is going to need money for those ' advertising' expenses. Why should I or anyone else offer them money for such when it's their job. It's an expensive job for sure but if all the candidates knew they had to do this from the get go, then the cost would be much lower across the board. I see your point though. As it is now, when one candidate has 42 million , then the other candidates feel the need to find more money as well. What's ridiculous is for anyone to need that kind of money in the first place. Part of the problem is that the American people like all the hype and media drama surrounding candidates and ultimately, that costs money ( but then the voters whine that they elected a wealthy shyster who is out of touch with reality).
We will never have a middle class running for president for reasons other than money ( education, friends of friends, etc..). It's a mindset- sort of like how people don't want to see movies without celebrities in them or buy clothing with my name on the label. As much as Americans whine, they respect the big shot aggressive wealthy guys who wear Stetson hats and talk like down home hog farmers. Americans like those savvy, greedy JR Ewings of the world. This is why Jimmy Carter, Ron Paul and Obama get such a bad wrap from people. I don't get it April but a lot of others do. Well, I reckon I'll just have to keep hoping that someone can come up with a better ' process' in the near future.
[Removed]
INDEED.
I think you need to stop painting parties with a broad brush. Find the qualities they have. Focus on that. They are basically the same people in groups. It's their motivations that set them apart. Give them new motivations, new concerns. If there is one thing I am noticing recently, we the people need to get involved more with our representatives. Show them the way :-)
Help elected officials rededicate to the job as it was intended.
We need to speak to them - communicate the issues that will bring health and prosperity for all not the few.
Help them see the fact of the strangled economy and how that can best be alleviated.
This where we unite and this is how we move forward - Together.
For the health and prosperity of all, using sane practices and regulations.
I have been watching this for a very long time, there might of been a time when that was true, not anymore, but OK let's just get rid of the ones that signed Grover Norquest pledge, now that won't leave many if any Republicans but if you can find one that is not an 12 year old then maybe.
The "qualities" that the two major parties of the 1% have are that they are both parties of the 1% that function somewhat differently. The one (the Republicans) is openly reactionary whereas the other (the Democrats) has essentially managed to hookwink and sucker virtually all the progressives in the nation into supporting American imperialism and American capitalism for more than a century. I am trained in American history. I am ABD in American history and that is how I read it.
The whole point of OWS, the reason it started and the view of virtually all of its actual activists is that it is pointless to engage in these institutions that are completely bought and paid for by corporate power, at least that's the way I read OWS having attended general assemblies and occupations in several different locations and talked to Occupiers from several other occupations.
That is the one major flaw in OWS thinking.
Glib assertions that somebody or some group has flawed thinking without some explanation of exactly what is flawed and how, strikes me as flawed in and of itself at least in the sense that it doesn't show the respect to get into a serious dialogue.
To abandon the institution entirely because it has gone off in the wrong direction, is simply a flaw OWS has taken their stand on. Where were theses anarchists 6 or 7 years ago when the economy was booming ? Why weren't they complaining about the system then?
The reality is simply that we need to tweak and tune " what we already have.. and support the efforts of the good willed politicians .. which IMHO , is where we the people have failed ourselves. Cor[porations and lobbyists have been aggressively at the front doors of congress for decades making and advocating change , where were we the people ? sitting back in an unorganized learderless mass of people ..doing nothing about our future.. come to think of it , maybe that is why OWS founders don't want us to have leaders , because than we may actually accomplish something .. Did someone say koch has sponsored this movement .. perhaps to prevent a rebellion of the people with anarchy .. I knew there was something wrong with this movement , I just couldn't put a finger on it till now.. ! The whole purpose of OWS is to exhaust a rebellion without any real results with anarchy.. very clever !!!
I'm not sure what the point is to complain that a particular group of people were not so publicly visible at some other historical moment.
That said, there is nothing new in the anarchist critique of the state and its institutions. That is what it means to be an anarchist after all. Of course, the relative strength of all movements ebbs and flows and anarchism has always been a tiny tiny movement, though it counts among its thinkers some real luminaries of western thought like Thoreau and Tolstoy.
I don't think there were as many anarchists around 6 or 7 years ago, and I'm rather astonished at the number of anarchists that have surfaced from within OWS nationally. While I'm not personally an anarchist, I've been a radical for nearly 50 years and I always thought I had some sense of how significant anarchism was as an intellectual trend on the left. Of course the extreme left is very tiny in the US and has been at least since the collapse of the Communist Party if not before and anarchism has always been a tiny movement within that tiny movement. I didn't think there were more than a couple of hundred anarchists in the whole nation before September 17. Boy, was I surprized.
Whatever one thinks of them, and I have many criticisms. It can't be denied that they initiated OWS and they remain its best and most dedicated organizers.
Anarchists have never been against government. What they oppose is the state, which they view as the coersive aspects of government--the police, the army, the prison system, etc. Historically, for example, many anarchists have been trade union leaders.
It is true that OWS in particular is calling into question classical parliamentary procedure. While its current alternative does leave much to be desired, I think it is correct in pointing out that existing parliamentary rules are the human creation of human beings at certain historical junctures and as such subject to human failing.
Also, it is not true that OWS is leaderless. First of all there are media celebrities like Michael Moore that the media would love to appoint as leaders. But it is also the case that talented people with the time to spend naturally emerge as leaders. What they haven't done is establish personality cults that would make them celebrities.
Michael Moore as a leader ! Have you lost your mind !!
I would most certainly not look to Michael Moore as a leader. My point is that the media is hungry for a leader, basically because they are lazy. They want an individual who they can go to for authoritative and definitive sound bites.
Personally I've met dozens of people without notariety who are already better movement leaders than Moore could ever be.
To his credit, while he has a cosmic ego, Moore does not present himself as a leader and he is very deferential about that.
My main point is we already have wonderful leaders. What we don't have are celebrity leaders or personality cults and that is all to the good.
Okay I see your point.
These wonderful leaders that OWS has , perhaps I expect too much from them.
Yes, I really think so. I am 69 years old and I have been an active radical (not a liberal) for nearly 50 years. Obviously, my point of view is to your left, but quite frankly, from my point of view, I am in total awe of OWS. It is a movement I have been waiting a lifetime for.
From any simpathizer's point of view, liberal or radical, the accomplishments of OWS in its very young life have been truly astonishing. It has energized and inspired virtually every other social movement, all expodentially larger than OWS itself. Of course, everyone has criticisms of every social movement, no matter how close they are to it. But for the most part, most of the issues that I am most concerned with seem to be working themselves out, though perhaps not the way I would most like and not in the way I would prefer. But again, that is the nature of a movement. Any individual or group of individuals can find matters of concern.
I don't think it's about to disappear, but I also don't think it's likely to become an apendage of the Democratic Party or electoral politics in general for that matter. That doesn't mean that individual activists won't vote. Of course they will, but as a movement it is essentially a direct action movement and pretty much wedded to that approach. I personally think that is a good thing. I suspect you don't. Reasonable people can disagree.
What's their alternative?
It’s so great outside the system,
Where the sky is candy apple red
And unicorns are not dead.
Out here... outside... the sys-tem..
It don’t matter how you vote,
They’re no Republican monsters,
Waiting there to cut your throat!
I’m just living in the third party paradise,
It’s so free to outside reality!!!
Do you know anything about Occupy. It has nothing at all to do with electoral nonsense, whether we are talking about the two parties of the 1% or a pack of trivial and inconsequential third parties. Unlike any of them our project is to change the world.
oh question:
Why is electoral politics the only thing you ever talk about anyway?
It's got nothing to do with you red, don't you know, we know that?
Never mind her she's an agent of the DNC
1sealyon
BLOWCHUNKS
DanielBarton
Dell
F350
Farmerbrown
Ironboltbruce
MsStacy
Rebdem
RedJazz43
VantagePoint250624
1sealyon
BLOWCHUNKS
DanielBarton
Dell
F350
Farmerbrown
Ironboltbruce
MsStacy
Rebdem
RedJazz43
VantagePoint250624
I do not support the current administrations foreign policy of violence and opaque government
matt I would like to see things stop that niether party will stop today because they are things that are bad for our country but good for certain people in order to change this me and others wil have to convince people about what is happening, I feel that if we can't show people how bad the repulicans are then we will have little luck when it comes to these even more hidden things, think of it as a trial run, first get rid of the stupid bad to get strong enough to get rid of the smart bad.
a lot of people don't support war, but not so much they want to actualy do something about it
If only I were King, wait a minute that propably wouldn't be a good idea. I don't support the war so much that I'd like to see us do better, I know that doing better in the future, involes understanding the past. I know and no I can't prove it, that if Ralph Nader had supported Al Gore as much as he did his own ego, Gore would have won. I know that if Gore had won Robert's would not be on the court, no Robert's no SuperPacs, and no war in Iraq. We can keep screwing this up or we can start getting it right, I don't know what people will do this time.
That's a little offensive. That is the biggest problem with our system is that it is only two parties. We should have more like five or six dominate parties not just two to pick from.
But we don't, I'm hardcore, and tried of seeing America get it's ass kicked by the Republicans, if you're OK with the way things are going help them stay "balanced" that will make sure nothing, at least nothing good gets done.
Well we can't get rid of anyone outside our own districts
That's kindof like me saying I got no interest in what's going on in NY, they go to Washington and affect everyone, yes if you are lucky enough to live where you could vote one out great remember whoever they are, they will support the GOP plan to enslave Americans, I just think we lost any chance we had on climate change with Gore, if Romney were to win the court which is already the worst in modern history:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
will become much worst. Even if the GOP only takes the senate which they are likely to, it will set things for the next twenty years or so.
Yeah Even if we got rid of the GOP we would have another party emerge of out the Democratic one with the same values. You can't kill an idea it doesn't exist in the real world. You can't even suppress it.
I was there in 93 when we did great things, we could again, help us us get rid of the Republicans we can do a lot of great things if we stick together.
And the system is slanted toward them. You can't get any recognition or federal campaign funding (not that they should, or any of them for that matter) unless you get X percent of support. Chicken and egg.
Yes anyone voting in the present system is a wantabe.
It’s so great outside the system,
Where the sky is candy apple red
And unicorns are not dead.
Out here... outside... the sys-tem..
It don’t matter how you vote,
They’re no Republican monsters,
Waiting there to cut your throat!
I’m just living in the third party paradise,
It’s so free to be outside reality!!!
Wow... Because there has been such a difference between Bush and Obama in practice... When push comes to shove there will be such a huge difference between a Romney and Obama administration? Yeah right! We've seen the supposed polar opposites of our narrow political spectrum in the past 12 years.
There is one national agenda and both parties are the puppets of the 1% masters, make no mistake. A two party election is a mere distraction at best. Not that it matters anyways, since third party candidates aren't allowed in the presidential debates anymore.
Voting for either party is voting for the status quo. Make no mistake about it. Occupy becoming a defacto PAC would be the worst possible thing to happen come November. I can't think of any faster method of stifling our voices. Occupy has potential because it does work outside the system, and realizes that true change from within said system isn't possible by conventinal means.
You would have us become a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party? No thanks. I myself will keep slugging along, I'm in it for the long haul. There is more than just removing money from politics, the hands that take the money can't be trusted to stay in office either.
For shame.
It really comes down to if you think the Iraq War and Citizen’s United were really that bad.
I mean I guess it could be possible for someone to be so stupid as to think these things would not be different if Gore were President, but if someone is that stupid, why should anyone care what they have to say?
So then we are left with those who actually like the Iraq War and Citizen’s United, but come here to lie about that.
So should we listen to logic and reason, and do all we can to defeat Republicans, even when it means knocking doors for Democrats, or to the stupid or liars? I’m for reason and logic.
Pray tell, who removed their lipservice veto of the NDAA and signed it into law as a nice lovely New Year's gift? The same bill that breezed through both the House and Senate?
H.R. 347, with it's 399-3 vote in the House??? Do I really need to go on with the list, or will you keep playing the fool? Sorry, but I'm not biting on your bullshit.
When push comes to shove both parties work in a surprisingly bipartisan fashion on big issues, especially those that keep them entrenched in power.
ohh I'm so proud of you HR's and everything, ok before I look your going to porve that Gore would have invaded Iraq? with votes brought about by a bunch of lies that Gore would have never told, or do you not believe those were lies? Are you really this simple minded or are you just that desperate to lie.
Actually, America's first third party, the Anti-Masonic party, produced one candidate who was eventually elected to be president - John Quincy Adams, who turned out to be a truly great president.
I believe he was not elected as an Anti-Mason, however, but later as a Whig. During that period, the Masons were looked upon as somewhat of a sinister organization, which was attempting to rule our country in secret.
Many conspiracy theories of today, of the type which are not allowed in this forum, suggest the same.
I'd say the 1% are pretty much out in open about running things, though that is a matter of discussion.
I think we can do away with the GOP today just as the Whigs were done away with at one time.
Getting rid of the GOP is the first step toward changing things, and voting for a third party these days hurts that goal, therefor the "wantabes" label, I am sure many of those people would want to be doing the right thing just can't quite get there.
Your Democratic party had a majority and shoved it up your ass. Just like the Republicans do.
How many times you going to be screwed over by the same two parties and still forgive? This isnt the stuff that revolutions are made of.
In 1993 my Democratic Party did a great thing and you know it, based on your claimed knowledge of the 1993 bill, therefore you are truly a liar here only to destroy us.
"destroy us"....if you mean the status quo Republican and Democrat parties, then yes. That is something most occupiers would love to see.
Im not sure what bill in 1993 you are talking about.
Then you don't know about American great heros, more on that later.
You really shouldn't vote if you don't know about the 1993 bill, good point there.
Yes afteer reading both your comments and posts i feel pretty certain your just here to help secure seats for the GOP so that they will be able to stop OWS from addressing wealth inequality.
Pretty much. Most posters on here have probably never been to an occupation for that matter as well. Especially the ones who so quickly would have us all become lapdogs of either the Republican or Democratic party come election time.
Amazing how quickly these self-professed "occupiers" forget we're non-partisan for good reason. Is the reminder at the beginning of every GA not enough anymore?
"Most posters on here have probably never been to an occupation for that matter as well. Especially the ones who so quickly would have us all become lapdogs of either the Republican or Democratic party come election time"...- exactly. THank you
I believe that there still is a fraction of the 1% that manipulates many things from a position that is hidden. They are the source of, and continue to manipulate, many of today's ideologies for intentions that are kept mostly secret.
One example would be environmentalism, which has the surface level objective of maintaining a clean environment, but on a deeper level is intended to prevent economic development, allowing the people to be controlled more easily.
Damn smart of them to get almost every scientist in the world on board too.
Have you ever met one of them?
My best friend back in grammar school went on to be a big deal in science, worked out for him he lives in Paris now. But I remember he didn’t give a damn about science, just screwing the economy.
No, can't say I have met one of them.
What do you mean when you say your friend just cared about screwing the economy? When I hear environmentalists on the liberal radio channel here in LA, they mostly believe that they are doing a good thing. Does your friend really believe that environmentalism is not true, but promotes it anyway?
I waited with three other people somewhere around 50th St, and 6th Ave for a bus that was coming from Brooklyn that was to take us to Obama's inauguration. I felt compelled to go since my Dad had went to MLK's March On Washington in 1963. My kids all supported me in this trip.The bus was an hour and a half late. The other people and I thought we may have been snookered, and maybe there was no bus. I called my kids and told them, and they started looking for alternative transportation for me...their idea. There was no place to go inside, and it was a cold night.
The bus finally arrived, and the warmth felt great. It was not a typical bus though where you could lay back, and go to sleep. It was a party bus,seat backs only half as high, facing the other way...different color lights all over the place...blinking on and off...a strobe light even.. music blaring...good conversation with the Brothers. It was great, BUT it was not the type of bus for that four hour trip. Just a half hour before reaching Washington, and after having listened to Hip Hop music all the way down, which I learned to appreciate (really!)....all of a sudden, it was nothing, but country music. I was amazed...did someone say that big white dude is OK, let's play some country for him? lol
After arriving in Washington with a really sore back. It was another cold day. I had someone take my picture holding my Dad's picture with the Capitol in the background. I couldn't stand in one place. I had to keep moving to keep warm. All this was worth it though because I knew that Obama was going to make a difference. I came back to NYC, and while waiting for the bus home from there, I bought a couple of newspapers. Then went home and fell sleep.
The next day I took one of those newspapers with a picture of President Obama being sworn in on the front page, and put it in a clear plastic bag, and went to the cemetery, and put it on my Dad's grave. I felt really good about that. He had left all those years ago to do what he thought was right. I know that he must have been ridiculed by a very different America back then for having done so. It took a long time for me to appreciate what he had done and the courage it took. This was my way to now say that I did. I finally had a better understanding.
To say that I feel betrayed by President Obama would be to put it mildly. I was determined that I would not vote for him. Gypsy King, and I went back and forth on this forum..He tried to convince me that I was making a mistake. It grew testy between us, but I stood my ground. Then late one night...just before going to bed. Someone replied to me here in one sentence, and said....you know the next President is going to probably make two Supreme Court nominations. It made me think...I still am.
Ok I don't want to hound you, but IM(not so)HO we already paid the price of the plant to learn this lesson in 2000, let's not let the country go down, because we fell alsleep in class.
At the time of the 2008 election I was in a long term, we thought forever relationship, with “a woman of color” her words, her family’s words, she was the white sheep in the family, in any case she had never voted. It took some effort on my part, she did not like to be led to say it mildly, but I got her registered and I got her to the polls, and by the time the night was over she could not contain herself. To see this through her eyes, was worth every door I knocked. But I do know what you mean, but they will not leave the office open.
God knows, this country, needs thinkers.
As opposed to those who vote for warmongering assholes?
exactly right revolution is dirty business, sorry you didn't know that going in, there may even be nastyer things we have to do before this is over
^Just admitted he is willing to keep bombing innocent people in the middle east and africa, in order to economy more balanced over here.
You are one sick little guy, whoever you are.
I admit i am hardcore, it can put some people off, esp. those who are just here to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy.
"hardcore" and probably never been in a real fight before ^
Listen, you want to vote for the status quo (thats quite the revolution you are waging) and I want change. Lets just agree to disagree.
Did I tell you about the time the guy went after my 4 year old because he didn't like my politics?
You think I can't smell punks like you a mile away?
Went after your four year old? I hope you gave him the ass whippin of a lifetime.
like you would know anything about it
Well you are "hardcore" so I guess I will assume you did....
True change can only come from outside the established political systems here in the U.S. I don't mean simply voting for a third party and then sitting back. I mean we must all actively provoke change through active resistance, and other means in a manner that forces change upon the ruling elites.
Revolution is not necessarily about changing governments, but its about changing the minds of people. -Che Guevarra.
First is to change their minds about voting for third parties, of course, people must understand how damaging that is, so we can finally start making things better.
It is much cleaner to sit high on a horse and look down at those who are shoveling the dung, but we are the ones doing the heavy lifting, and getting the job done, so you can keep your feet spotless and clean.
I don't know if your referring to me, but I'm not so sure my feet are all that spotless and clean, I'm already standing in plenty of dung myself. If your out trying to get somebody to vote for a third party that is great. I'm just saying there is more work in addition to that; it takes much more than just a vote.
I feel that in order for OWS to move forward on its goals we must defeat as many republicans as possible at all levels of government. In most places this means supporting democrats, I would like for every supporter of OWS to give “four days in the park” to that cause by knocking doors and making calls for 100 hours this year. I know that is only a small part of what many will do overall for the cause, but I would not want to take away from other important work.
Surely you must be joking Mr. Factsrfun
more like dreaming, but hey I can dream can't I? I also want a million OWSer's to move to AZ so we can take over this place, I like to dream big.
This is funny:
Nader the traitor has crawled under a rock,
It’s the only place safe from the things that he wrot.
As millennia approached us, we had one last shot,
To keep the plant we’re on from getting, too damn hot.
But Nader thought better his name should be heard.
And Gore was left standing with only his word.
Until the tyranny of the two-party system is broken significant change will clearly not occur. Obama has had more than three years and how much change has he actually brought about? It's baffling to listen to the right-wingers whine when in reality Obama seems to be more on their side than the side of what OWS represents, which is, i think or hope, a fair Democracy where a rational government fights for the rights and interests of all its citizens and strives to make the nation as a whole a strong, independent, resourceful and innovative entity, not a trough for the improperly wealthy.
Here's a little reality, without Bush there would be no Iraq War or Citizen’s United.
So anyone who criticizes Obama is a Bush supporter? Use your fucking head. Obama has done very little to earn another vote from me. Simply voting against the Republicans at this point seems futile. The only route to change is to break the two-party system, and it has to start somewhere. That said, I probably will give in and vote for Obama again, and the cycle continues. YAY.
Ain't it a bitch it always ends that way? I hear you.
everybody who voted for Nader was
it starts when we crush the GOP, til they are gone, we cannot create the party we need
Here's some more reality, without Obama there's no Libya nor Uganda involvment neither.
Both parties are simply two sides of the same coin. This guy above has it right.
Maybe we disagree about this but I think Obama helping those involved with the Arab Spring to get rid of Kaddafi was a good thing, and I wish we were more involved in Uganda, now that may make me a “warmonger” but we got a lot of trained men and women with guns and I think we should put a stop to that crap.
BTW I also think it was good that Obama got the whole Arab Spring thing going back in 09:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Why don't we concentrate on getting others to not vote for evil?
all that evil needs to suceed is for good men to vote third party
I'm not going to be locked into the paradigm of thinking that the solution to the problem is more of the same. We have 1 part with a Republican and a Democrat head. Starve the beast.
More of the same is voting third party, that's what the people who see truth have always done it's what I did in 1980, before Reagan, but I learned the hard way, it's my job to warn others.
Remember Nader = Bush
Keep repeating that mantra if it makes you feel better. My vote isn't for sale nor is it changed by whom others may vote for. We have traded out leadership between the two major parties for a century and what exactly has happened? More of the same. I don't think the evidence matches your opinion.
More voters unpersuaded by reason, that's exactly what we need, no wait a minute the GOP give us plenty of those already. I guess you're just one more.
Except you haven't used reason as a persuasive mechanism at all. You've conjured hobgoblins with which you attempt to scare and cajole me to your position. The facts of the matter are, and facts are what persuade a reasonable mind, that electing either of the two major parties to power has not changed the course of our Nation.
One form of insanity is to continue to try the same actions while expecting different results.
Oh my apologies let me help you catch up:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-republicans-serve-a-purpose-in-american-politic/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/picking-a-team-and-sticking-with-it-in-sports-that/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/some-call-me-a-fool-for-thinking-that-supporters-o/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/republicans-try-to-kill-public-financing-in-arizon/
There are and will be more, take your pick and have at it.
You don't provide anything in any of those comments that would cause a reasonable person to change their mind. In fact in one you champion what is used to illustrate the inanity of partisan politics - the sports team mentality.
In the first I talk about how the GOP are willing to cut taxes and are never willing to raise them and how this will always lead to an unstable system, while the D's are not so riged, willing to raise taxes when needed and cut them when we can, I feel that is a much better way to govern. Do you disagree?
and another
http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-just-heard-some-r-on-fox-say-he-wanted-more-limi/
hmmm seems a bit thin what exactly did you have a problem with?
Get Out the Vote this November!
If YOU don't Vote, YOU don't Count!!!
That would be an action, what would that make you? anybody...anybody..
I don't know what you are asking. Could you explain?
I am sorry, I thought that one might be tough, I was referring to "activist" on here so many "hardcore" activist pooh-pooh voting, it was a bit of a taut, with a Ferrs Buler reference built in, I like to do these thing, sort a Denise Miller thing, really it's a British thing, best friend in college was a brit. But I use common man trivial; my son is always telling me I go too arcane.
For some reason people always get the Caddy Shack ones though, falter them rich people if you want to remember I guess. Anyway, my bad.
I lean toward the detective in Cafe Flesh with a Blue Velvet foundation soaring to Thin Blue Line, but people think I'm supernaturally idealistic, but only in Plato's lighter ways.
Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!
Touche’
Its a democracy. People vote for what they believe in. If enough people believe in a 3rd party then for damned sure they should vote for them.
You contradict yourself by saying that change can come from voting for one of the same two parties that have been both screwing the people for decades, in one way or another. Real change means having real alternatives.
Every time in our history a new more responsive party has sprung up, (and it has happened), it is because one of the two main parties got so weak it collapsed, because of the way the government is set up a new second party jumps into to replace it, the new party is what the people, at that time, make it. Like anything else.
The GOP has gone crazy, I really do believe we could kill it and create a new party, but if we cannot make a case against something as obviously bad as the Republicans, then sadly we are unlikely to "bring down the system”.
Killing the GOP is the first step toward freedom, and no I have no interest in helping another Nader giving us Bush deal no matter how good it makes me feel, this is not about me feeling good.
The definition of insanity - Voting for R's & D's repeatedly and expecting change. Both parties are on the take. They whore themselves out to monied interests and will defend their sugar-daddies to preserve the present corrupt system.
Wantabes or whatever you would like to label me - I'm voting 3rd party !!
Actually the definition of insanity is believing in things that are not real, yours is a cliché. Mine is more like truth.
but hey love you sparky I got mine you got yours
These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama
If you don’t believe them,
…….ask Newt Gingrich or John McCain about Citizens United
OR
…….ask the family of any soldier killed in Iraq about bush v Gore
OR
Are you afraid to
……tell me why supreme court appointments make no difference ?
……tell me why ( roberts + alito ) = ( sotomayor & kagan ) ?
If you cannot see the difference between the democrats and the Rs –
.……and believe that President Gore would invade Iraq,
…….or that President Gore would NOT read his PDBs –
…………..………………………………………………..you are blind
If you want to do what Davis & Lee failed to do
……………..……………………………………….…….you are crazy
Just because Scalia and Thomas take koch money – you don’t have to
At least voting for a third party means you not are not part of the problem. Voting for the democrats or republicans is voting for the staus quo. I believe that before ANY real change can happen the iron grip those two parties have on political power must be broken. I think it is sad that most of OWS refuses to see that.
Have you ever read that poster, if you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem, it's true.
I am part of the solution. Voting for republican democrat blah blah is part of the problem. Frankly, I'm not stupid enough to think that one of them is better than the other.
I don’t know if you are one of these “I won’t vote for a warmonger” guys, but I believe when the tale is fully told, Nader killed more people by putting his name on the ballot in FL, than all the warmongers that ever lived, but I’m hardcore.
At least I'll know I'm not contributing to dropping bombs on nations that didn't attack us.
At least I'll know I'm not supporting the candidates that are taking away our bill of rights.
At least I'll know I'm not contributing to the ongoing problem of the corrupt 2 party system.
If you vote for a pro-war candidate, you better believe those bombs and sanctions that have also killed innocent people are on your hands too.
In 2012 vote for Goldman Sachs by voting for Obama or Romney. No thanks. I'd rather not contribute to the problem.
I'll vote for the best in this country and hope eventually everyone else will wise up and realize they've been supporting the things they despise... maybe then they can learn to support what they actually believe in.
Like I said warm and cozy, good afternoon trevor, there would be no war in Iraq if people, esp. Ralph Nader had understood this, maybe someday we all will, I hope we can hold out that long.
Yes it's all Ralph Nader's fault. Everything is Nader's fault. He planned the wars. He ordered the bombs. He killed those 2 American citizens. He approved the sanctions. The patriot act! Those supreme court decisions! Goldman Sachs! It's all Ralph Nader!!! GET HIM!!!!!!!!!!!
I like you most of the time. But your Obama / Nader conspiracy theory is funny. STICK TO FACTS! They're more fun!
OH AND GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE
I'm with you on this one Trevor. the vote was what it was, and Ralph had every right to run.
I place it squarely on the shoulders of the SCOTUS.
Playing the game of what could have been is foolish fantasy.
We can never go back and know what might have been.
people had a right to vote for Bush, that doesn't mean they should of done it
What I've noticed, even in the States, is that the (R)epelican'ts push for something close to a 50/50 split, so they can work their shenanigans.
The sad part is that Nader deserved a much higher count, and it should have come from the "right", but they are much too ill informed.
the thing is at first Nader said he was going to stay off the ballot where his votes might make a difference then he got on in OH and FL, FL killed us, at least it did the planet, he should not have started lying when he started running, I know they all do, well since Mondale anyway, he told the truth look what happened, but if Nader was in it to say something the least he could of said was the truth
Yeah I guess.
Nader is well meaning enough, but things do change on the campaign trail too. The world doesn't stop.
In the end, the (R)epelican'ts punk'd him in Florida to get their 50/50.
Oh they stole it alright, then in 2004 in OH they did it again by putting machines where they wanted votes and not where they didn't, made that guy their chairman as a reward, now Steele is still living off that theft.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
I believe the Kochs are maneuvering towards taking back full control of the libe(R)tarian party they helped found.
If that happens? It's going to get a lot worse.
I really do believe if one of them gets "elected" they for damn sure won't "lose" the re-election.
he got on the ballot in FL
I believe when the tale is fully told, Nader killed more people by putting his name on the ballot in FL, than all the warmongers that ever lived, but I’m hardcore.
You are a fucking moron if you really believe the wars are because of Nader. End of story.
Have fun voting for Goldman Sach and War in 2012.
not the wars, the climate change
It's everyone's fault, that's the way it works in a democracy, sure I may have been a moveon percent captain, I may have knocked a thousand or so doors, I made calls sit all day outside a polling place, but I could of done more, I blame myself really.
cutting military & wars
adding jobs
medical care
fair taxation
education
a supreme court that works for the people
EVERYTHING starts in one place
Because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant,
without FIRST ending corporate personhood.
Because 83% of Americans already agree on it - we don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position.
Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals.
Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal –
jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.
I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - is a straight path for us to success
Our current project is developing and implementing,
a voting bloc petition to create voter support for candidates throughout the country.
We want to vote for candidates who pledge to support a Constitutional Amendment that includes:
The People For the American Way found 74% of Americans
want to vote for candidates who support an amendment.
Koch and the tea party and ALEC have the money –
and the government –
and they use them.
We have
the people -
and the vote -
and we must use them !
Join the our NYC
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
………….( even if you are not near NYC )
regular meetings Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium
░░░░█░.░███░░.███░░█░..░█░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█.█░.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░.█.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░░░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░██░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
█░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░█░.░█░░
..███░░ ░███░..░███.░.█░░░█░░░░.████░.░███░░░
hey thanks for coming back by ben, can you believe somebody "disliked" you conpilment and they say I'm being rude, go figure.
[Removed]
So brilliantly eloquent!
Thank you ben, I really do try.
In what sense is the Democratic Party change? Last I heard it controlled the White House and half of Congress. It invented the notion of a bipartisan foreign policy and the police under the control of its municipal governments are kicking the shit out of Occupy actiivists.
Oh still having trouble telling that difference are we?
Well let's start with this the Republicans want the state to have the right to make you stick things inside you that you don't want the Democrats are against that, one for the Ds, are we agreed?
There's the Republican Party which is one of the Party's of the 1% then there is the Democratic Party, the other party of the 1%, then there is us, Occupy. As far as Them and Us go, Them is the Republican and Democratic Party and their minions and Us is Occupy. If you think Occupy has ANYTHING in common with either the Republican or Democratic Parties then I suspect you have never been to an Occupation.
I see your plan divide us and squash us, I hope it doesn't work
Divide WHAT? I've been to half a dozen different local Occupy general assemblies, I have friends in several others and I participate more or less regularly in one. In none of those forums have I ever experienced ANY discussion of electoral politics except to oppose it across the board. If there is anything that is divisive it is to introduce that particular divisive discourse into our movement.
so that explains why that is the only thing you ever post about?
you guys never talk about wages, or wealth?
In many respects it seems to me that the question of wages and wealth is also a settled question in Occupy. Clearly Occupy is anticorporate and opposed to the maldistribution of wealth. Any further "analysis" on these points is likely to have exactly the divisive result about which contributors to this thread are so concerned.
no need to talk about the things we agree on?
your so funny, you troll
1sealyon
aburrunderyourblanket
aflockofdoofi2
BLOWCHUNKS
Boric
DanielBarton
Dell
EricBlair
F350
Farmerbrown
HapteMikael
hchc
Ironboltbruce
JanitorInaDrum
jimmycrackerson
JuanFenito
MsStacy
po6059
Rebdem
RedJazz43
slammersworldwillnotbecensored
slizzo
EricBlair
Wellhungjury
Well, the president orders the assassination of American citizens and claims the authority to detain them indefinitely without trial. Those are major changes.
What did the dems do that is good?
raised minimum wage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chagwk0IyA0
wow a song about shooting people, great argument
yeah working class people make too much money, yours was so much better
Mine was at least an argument, which you could have refuted, yours wasn't a refutation of my point.
ok I disagree I think wages are too damn low
If I make 3 dollars, and my labor earns me my boss 2 dollars after he pays me, and a law says he has to pay me 9 dollars he's gonna fire me, not lose money.
Yeah but that's all hypothetical, in the real world if your boss has got you on the clock and don't need you then he's soon out of business, if he needs you on the clock, but has to pay you more than he was, he will find a way or he's out of business. People who are in business find ways to stay there, if they don't they shouldn't be there, but no body has anybody on the clock they don't need just cause they are paying a buck less.
this is the complete MW debate
No he'd find another way, say robots, move to china or shut down.
oh I got it he's going to ship the dirty toilets to China have them cleaned then shipped back, yeah that could work
you really don't know know who gets MW do you, what? he's going to move the sandwhich shop to China, r e a l l y, or I like the robot thing that's so Jetson! and if he shutdown good, a compendent person can move into the spot
yea but if it was a factory, and with praxology logic beats facts (not really but thats what lefties think)
Factory workers making minimum wage?
Now that is a problem!!
Minimum wage could work if it were tied to making a living wage. It should be re-approached as a minimum living wage. This would allow for differences in economy and costs through-out the USA.This again would necessitate regulating the basic essentials of life to reflect reality of income - Housing, Rent, Insurance, Food. All luxury items could find their own niche - price themselves into a small or broad market and be taxed appropriately on both sides of the transaction ( sale/purchase ). This would also allow the worker to market their skills out to employment competitors to honor their skills achievements.
This could be promoted by monitoring the business bottom line.
Is the business profitable?
How are profits shared out?
What is the difference in wage from executive to entry level?
What is the amount of business reinvestment?
This is a matter of top to bottom responsibility accountability and fairness.
Business could be taxed on a proactive basis on wage and profit parity. Investors and owners and executive management to be penalized on their income in relation to disparity. Business money/holdings to be penalized on the amount that is parked and not actively working to promote the business after considering a sane allowance for security reserve.
The point is min wage doesn't work
FYI I'm in favor of setting up co-ops and worker run stuff/voluntary communes as alternatives to corporatism, but not threats of violence that don't work
maybe a worker run co-op could move in
yea, but the austrians are the best capitalist economists, free choice FTW
I'd like all people to make enough on the job to have a little freedom, that would be nice, maybe we could make it a law.
It blows me away that this little post got 358 comments...opps 359 ok a lot of them were me responding.....
This turned out to be a pretty long discussion of the subject.
[Removed]
perfect example of stockholm sundrome.
"say, these soulless pricks who treat me like a subhumanoid aren't so bad. let's try to work with the slavemaster and get him to completely reverse his nature. that's a can-do winning strategy with a fresh minty taste!"
it better, to help you swallow the competition-sized shit sandwich you just ordered yourself.
bon appetit!
Sounds like a divisive sezzo trying to keep us from taking effective action..
as if you need my help.
take a look at your pathetic may day global extravaganza! they came out in the 10s and 100s!!
we're on the brink!!
maybe their slipping in the back door
They have you right where they want you
Ahh yeah that's the kind of reasoning that should sway people, people who are swayed by thoughts like that they will do great things for this country, no wait a minute I got that backwards, only a stupid supporter of the 1% could be fooled by such an non statement, why don't you make a case for your GOP brethren you love so much, troll.
"troll" "GOP brethen".....
Wow. Quite the insult. Only a fool believes what D/R says.
And for the record, Im still a registered D.
Only a fool believes their lying eyes:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-republicans-serve-a-purpose-in-american-politic/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/picking-a-team-and-sticking-with-it-in-sports-that/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/some-call-me-a-fool-for-thinking-that-supporters-o/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/republicans-try-to-kill-public-financing-in-arizon/
Keep on helping the GOP hchc, not that you're doing that good a job or anything, really kind of crapy, but hey you're doing what you can.
Why would I help the GOP? Because I enjoy fascism and giving my kids less opportunity than I?
You arent making any sense.
Im not for either one of them. And quite honestly, you would have to be fairly new to political theater to support either.
Let me know when you've caught up :)
I support winning and that means not being divided from the largest group of Americans that feel like I do, I know you would like to keep us divided so the GOP can win, I am just a little more honest about my goals.
Wow.....
Good luck buddy.
thank you and may God help us all
I'm the insulting one? who are "they" anyway?
The assholes that keep this country divided and hence voting for a lesser of two evils EVERY FUCKIN ELECTION FOR 100 YEARS.
They are the ones that gave us Obama, the ones that got John Kerry (a pathetic choice) to run against that idiot Bush, and the ones that are getting this current clown Romney to eventually lose to Obama.
Damn right!! Those assholes who divide us from the dems and keep helping the GOP win, those buttheads are assholes.
Don't forget they gave us Bush instead of Gore in the first place, no Bush = no Obama
this country is screwed...
That's correct. The (R)epelican'ts screwed us over.
Now their busy screwing over our women.
The lying teabaggers even raised my taxes!!!!!
Throw the bums OUT!
maybe not, we might get rid of the GOP and start getting this thing fixed who knows, could happen
Go join the wars you sell out. Real progressives want nothing to do with simple, follow orders lemmings like yourself.
Let me know when you've caught up.
we've been talking a while, anyone whos has been reading knows that you present no case, how do you feel about that?
Does it affect your self worth?
I'm concerned I wouldn't want you to feel bad.
Go vote for another war monger. Better yet, just go join em if you support it so much.
My case is you are voting for a man who bombs people. Its a fact. Sorry you are blinded by some media induced bias.
1sealyon
aburrunderyourblanket
aflockofdoofi2
BLOWCHUNKS
Boric
DanielBarton
Dell
EricBlair
F350
Farmerbrown
HapteMikael
hchc
Ironboltbruce
JanitorInaDrum
jimmycrackerson
JuanFenito
MsStacy
po6059
Rebdem
RedJazz43
slammersworldwillnotbecensored
slizzo
EricBlair
Wellhungjury
Or, as often is the case, not changing things. Yay for the establishment parties!
No doubt Nader changed things in 2000, before Bush everybody had jobs, now that's change aright!
A majority (around 60%) of Americans say it is time for a third party. Yet like beaten spouses, we keep coming home to the ones that destroy us. Free yourself. Live in tyranny or die with principle?
About 80% want strict gun control, you don't mind if I wait till I see that first, do you?
Not a bit....
Trade links?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147461/support-third-party-dips-majority-view.aspx
If you are a good partisan, you can go ahead and pick one of my pre-selected responses from the following list:
Attack the source "Gallup is not a trusted source for polls, and have been known to cook data"
Attack the messenger "You just like the status quo, and want to keep us from sticking together", "You first, YOU LITTLE GOP TROLL", or make an unrelated attack "Troll"
Say it won't work "What good is voting for nader going to do? I'd rather keep my party identity"
Ignore it completely. Usually signifies non-verbal "You win", or "hmmph!"
Damn I quit looking when we gave up that fight.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144887/Continuing-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Control.aspx
Look if you can't kill the GOP you can't build a third party, it would be like building a house without a foundation.
You bet we can. Haven't you seen how fractured the GOP is? They're all voting for different people. Let's face it, Romney is the most liberal GOP nominee in the last three decades. None of them want to vote for the guy, now is the perfect time to fracture the GOP.
OK I'm with you this election get the GOP under forty in senate and 150 in house, then we will be well on our way, the best way to that now of course is to get behind the Ds in a big way, but we can do it by just crushing the GOP with truth and let the chips fall, as long as we don't put anybody up, we should be ok, the people who worry me are the ones who go on and on about what the Ds are doing bad, when it is not nearly as bad as the Rs, but even that doesn't matter as much as we have to pick one to kill so we can have a party of our own someday.
You're kidding, right?
Who on earth would take that deal?
"We'll help you get a third party after you help us strengthen the establishment parties"?
No dice. I am saying we have the chance to tear BOTH establishment parties in half.
tell me how you plan to do that
By pushing a third party. A majority of Americans say it is time for one. The left wing is properly furious at Obama for accelerating the Bush war machine agenda and corporate welfare programs. The right is properly furious at Obama for accelerating the ridiculous domestic and foreign spending of Bush. There is a ton of populist anger on both sides. Let's turn it into political change.
when you get somebody on the ballot with a shot at winning let me know
Exactly. Until then, you are just going to keep coming home to your abuser on payday.
Moving out permanently is what gets the abuser's attention.
This whole idea, possibly by design, has turned into some sort of political Mexican stand off. No one wants to leave either major party because the boogeymen on the other side will "win".
I am sorry you are too blind to see that the differences between the parties are nearly nonexistent.
Actually I'm going to keep trying to keep the GOP from doing any more harm, when enough people see what they are, they will be gone and we will have a new party, because we can't have one or three, so the way to get a new one is to get rid of the worst of what you have, those who split us off so the GOP stay in power just help the status quo keep power.
And Democrats have a long and trusted tradition of changing things for the better. lol
Democrats and Republicans are the same thing. They're the ruling elite class. They bicker and squabble over things and rely on us, the stupid, uneducated public to think that they're going to get around to fixing our problems. Yet do they ever really fix those problems? Like, for instance, reducing our dependency on foreign oil? No. Bringing down the national debt? No. Getting people back to work? (this is a trick question considering the Govt doesn't produce anything and actually sucks money out of the economy like a drain at the bottom of the sink)
Bottom line, the govt makes rules by which we have to live, yet disregard those rules for their own lives. They take our money, they give it to whomever supports their campaigns, and says "fuck off" to the rest of us.
And you believe their bullshit. Way to go.
Twisted again.............................:(
That's just sad. We are in the worst way, because of the teabaggers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/economy-has-grown-the-most-when-democrats-have-been-in-power/2012/04/09/gIQA1VhS6S_blog.html?wprss=rss_ezra-klein
They gifted us with the worse possibility to get out from under the recession.
Wait a minute are you saying it's better to have good government?
I never hear that anywhere,
Thanks for the post shooz
Yes I am. Things all around the World tend to get much worse with any version of conse(R)vatives in control.
Even in Japan they worry about and waste time with pointless ideology.
They don't like women much there either.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120411a3.html
when the focus is on maintaining control, as opposed to making things better, well then better doesn't happen
Maintaining control is the primary focus of conse(R)vatives.
It's true all over the World.
It occurs to me that one of the reasons, people don’t understand certain things is that they think America is a democracy, when in fact it has become a monarchy.
I think of it as more of a plutocracy/oligarchy. Supporting kings costs them too much................:)
That's a good way too, but inheritance plays a large role that's where the monarchy comes from, we are very class based in this country.
Jon Stewart called it a wealth incumbency; I liked that one a lot.
You are right though maintaining our Kings does costs us a lot, I mean a car elevator, really?
He like to park his wife's Cadillac next to the bed at night.............:)
He needs the headlights to find the bathroom.
way back HBO had a speical, flimed by one of the Johnson hiers, (Johnson's & Johnson's) about life amoung the trust fund crowd, now keep in mind there are circles of the trust fund clan, and yours must be large enough to enter each one, but this show was great every OWS soldier should see it.
So, until you can do lunch in Monaco, Dinner in France and breakfast in Tahiti, you haven't made it to the top?
That's about right.
I spent a hour looking for the doc on their website, they got lot's going way back, but not his one, my guess is the guy who made it bought it after he grew up, if HBO complained he would have just bought them, from what I saw in it.
It really is a circle within a circle within a circle each more expensive to get into.
When growing up I had friends with dirt floors, and friends with billiard rooms and photos with Presidents, it wasn't the norm.
What exactly have the "teabaggers" done? And where were they mentioned in your completely reliable blog? lol
First off, your completely unbiased blogger started off his blog saying that he linked to a "goldman sachs research note". That right there discredits the entire blog. Goldman and the rest of Wall St are in charge of your pathetic president. They own him. Just like they own you. Just like they owned Bush, and just like they'll own Romney if he wins.
This country is doomed. The democrats and republicans have us by the shorthairs, and they're spending us into oblivion. And to top if off, the public either A. Doesn't care B. Are too stupid to realize what's going on or C. Realize what's going on but can't loosen the stranglehold that these parties have on them.
Either way, we're doomed.
Most of their real damage is being done in the States.
Teabaggers raised my taxes.
Teabaggers fight against unions.
Teabaggers push lousy legislation.
Teabaggers fight against education.
Teabaggers fight against women's rights.
Teabaggers have forced Congress so to the FAR right as to render it ineffectual , when we as a Country can ill afford such shenanigans.
Teabaggers have cause further disharmony among the States as well.
Teabaggers have proven deleterious to our union.
You may be negative.You may be a fatalist, but I am not.
I will do what I can to throw these lying teabaggers out on their ears.
Too bad, because in an earlier time I could have tarred and feathered the buffoons.
For all of their promise at the start, they bring nothing positive to the table in actually.
[Removed]
They raised your taxes? You do realize that it's the Democrats who have a hard-on for raising taxes right?
Unions? Unions are a dinosaur and should be fought. They're a money laundring scheme for the Democrat party. Who owns the Unions. Thus, they own the workers.
Lousy legislation? Be more vague, okay?
Fight against education? As in, the Dept of Ed? They should. How much money does the federal govt spend on it and yet we're among the stupidest countries in the world. You do the math, if you can.
Womens rights? Lemme guess, abortion? Who really thinks abortions are a good thing? Sure if you're raped or your dad knocks you up, but anything else is just irresponsible. Don't want a kid? Don't get pregnant. Simple as that.
Everything below that is just vague MSNBC talking points that are opinions. And since everyone is entitled to their opinions, I'll leave you to yours.
Teabaggers raised my taxes..That makes them liars. They did it to off set a corporate tax cut. That's insidious. They got a conse(R)vative court to ignore our states constitution to do it. That borders on treason.
You're response was opinion.
Unions? Your response is total propaganda. Almost every word a lie.
In my State teabaggers passed legislation making it legal to bully little kids, for religious reasons. Such a law respects religion.
That's treason.
Education is messed up for a number of reasons. You haven't correctly identified even one of them. That stupidity shows in your response. There was no math given.
There's a whole thread dealing with this, and abortion is but one aspect among many. (R)epelican'ts passed the most personally invasive anti rights legislation in our Nations history, and it affects all of us.
The rest of your response demonstrates a decided lack of understanding, of a complex issue and borders on pure misogyny..
None of this is an opinion, it's fact.
Learn to understand it.
So the tea party (which isnt even an official political party) runs your state completely? Sounds wrong to me.
Every word about unions is a lie? Do they not take money from Democrats under the guise of jobs bills? Then do they not practically force their slaves to vote Democrat? Yes, they do. Then they donate that money to the Democrat party. Sounds like money laundering to me.
I'd like to see the legislation that makes it ok to bully kids. Sounds like more MSNBC nonsense.
Education IS messed for a number of reasons, and you also failed to identify one of them. Could it be... teachers UNIONS? Where teachers are kept on even if they completely suck at teaching? Could it be the benefits that they are promised even though they'll practically bankrupt the company?
I'm tired, and sadly feel that I'm on your level mentally.
You're at least as tired as your fact free propagandized response.
That would be very tired indeed.
Every word you've posted about unions is an absolute lie. No question. Tunnel vision, with no sense of history. I'd rather not have to repeat it.
The bully issue has nothing to do with TV, I rarely watch it.
That fact that you think it's BS, just shows how little you know about the effects the teabaggers have wrought.
That would make you political naive.
Teabaggers are bunch of liars.
Really? I've known a lot of union workers and they have told me time and time again about the bus trips to polling places where they're "encouraged" to vote democrat. The local 222 (right across the street from where I work) had a huge sign that read "The local teamsters 222 supports Obama for president". The fact that you brought up the history of unions, I feel obligated to remind you of why they were implemented and how different it is nowadays as opposed to the 1920s where you were forced to mine coal or cut trees for 14 hours a day and were paid in "company scrip". If you don't know what that is, look it up. During those times, ya, Unions were useful and needed. Nowadays? C'mon, tell me that any worker of any race (except for the whiteys) can call up the ACLU and sue the shit out of their employer over ANYTHING at all.
So if I'm naive to the bullying issue, wheres the legislation that says it's okay to bully? Link it to me. Otherwise, I think you're a moron and you're regurgitating some shit you heard come out of Chris Matthews' asshole.
Your beloved Democrats are a bunch of liars. So are the Republicans. They're all the same thing. They perpetuate the argument for issues that they know will get uneducated people "up in arms". Then when they tell them that they're doing everything they can, but they're faced with obstructionists on the other side of the isle that always seem to keep them for fixing anything, and nothing gets done. I'm talking about both parties still by the way. They all do it, and it's bullshit no matter who's in power.
You really haven't noticed that nothing gets done no matter what party has what part of the govt? C'mon, I assumed you'd at least have taken 8th grade US History.
If you think I'm wrong, look up the history of "America's dependency on foreign oil" and see what every President going back to JFK and Nixon has said. It's all the same lie, over and over again.
Why in the World would union a support a (R)epelican't?
That would be like you voting for a Kennedy, or Elizabeth Warren.
You're just silly. A lot of words, and nothing to say.
We need more unions, not less. People still die in non union mines.
People who get injured are still screwed over in non union factories.
As far as the rest of the crap you wrote?
Where have you been? The military industrial establishment became another branch of government back in the 60s. It's now the most powerful one.
You must have been sleeping. There are still some very real differences between the parties, although it's more obvious in the States.
The similarities at the top, are mostly because of this fourth branch of government, that now includes more and more industries and thanks to the conse(R)vative SCOTUS, they don't even have to based in the US.
Now isn't that special? One of those BIG foreign corporations, provides military support.
Can you guess which one? It has ties to a former VP, and the Carlyle Group.
Yeah, there still are some very real differences.
Military industrial establishment? Are you referring to the "Military industrial complex"? Do you even know who coined that phrase? It's ok, you can look it up if you don't. It was Eisenhower. And what he was talking about is NOT a branch of the govt. lol I can't believe I'm still arguing with you. It's like arguing with a black panther that they're racist too. They just either don't have the brain power to think outside their accepted reality, or they're just too invested in the lie. Which one are you?
Pretty good harp on a simple mistake and ignore the gist of what I said.
Do you have any more insinuations?
I've heard all these from other trolls already.
They were wrong then, they're wrong now.
You folks never seem to have an original thought. Ever.
How about presenting an original thought, yourself? All you do is tell me that I'm wrong, yet when I asked you to provide proof for your lies, you ignore it.
I did. You just missed it.
Were you sleeping?
Halliburton is now based in the Middle East.
Who the fuck cares where a private corporation is based? I mean seriously. Does it change the price of gas in your tank? Does it change the quality of programming on television? Is your sex life any worse off with Halliburton in the Middle East?
What I guess I'm trying to say is... WTF is your point?
Wtf? Are you from a different country originally? You write the way a chinese man sounds.
You're a nitwit. I'm done with you.
Open your eyes. That's all I can tell you.
Get a real job. It would go a long, long way towards opening you eyes to the real World around you.
Trust me. It beats the hell out repeating someone else's propaganda.
PS: Stop making such silly uninformative comments. It makes you look bad
I have a real job jackass. I work my ass off 5 days a week. And I'm not the one spewing propoganda.
Can you even find anything in my posts where I've been wrong?
I'm retired, ya bone head. I already worked for 40+ years.
Everything you've spewed so far is nothing but wrong wing talking point propaganda. All of it.
I hate to tell you, but your ass grew back. To bad it grew back in the wrong place.
and in your world the blind should lead?
I mean really you can find no difference, or are you a liar, either way why should people listen to you?
The blind are leading. They obviously can't run anything. Govt? 16.2 trillion dollars in debt. Social Security? They already spent the money. Debts and deficits? 2 Trillion dollar deficit with a projection of 4 trillion once obamacare goes into effect.
Open your eyes, otherwise they're leading the blind, which oddly enough, is what they're counting on.
My eyes are open, and my memory is good,
I’m here to tell you what everyone should:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-republicans-serve-a-purpose-in-american-politic/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/republicans-try-to-kill-public-financing-in-arizon/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-stop-this-from-happening-again/
"The decision was a victory for the jails and for the Obama administration, which argued for strip searches of all those entering the general jail population, even those arrested on minor offenses."
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-upholds-jail-strip-searches-194134556.html
Like I said revolution is dirty work and wantabes, are never going to get it done, if you’re not ready to suit up and start getting rid of the problem then you’re just camping out.
[Removed]
hahaha! you mean voting for a communist cloaked in a positive sounding label.
That's a nice description of yourself there.
Damn dell how many people have you pissed off?