Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Please stop trying to turn OWS into an Obama 2012 forum

Posted 2 years ago on May 11, 2012, 9:04 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Unlimited resources for the banks and nothing for the people. Does there exist a more graphic example of how thoroughly rotten this financial system is? We're bailing out banks while the banks are accelerating foreclosures on millions of American homes. 14 million out of work! 50 million without real healthcare (no public option for anyone) ...and Endless wars. The Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing, gives it to the banks, banks keep it on deposit, gain interest, pays high CEO bonuses, fat cat city... all while the rest of America falls apart.

Fed creates 7.7 trillion out of nothing for their own private interests - it doesn't get any clearer than this - PLEASE WATCH - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpXDZFtEHw

"There's another game going on way over our heads. The people are struggling... while the banks with the help of the federal reserve have captured control of our government. Could the threat to our nation's sovereignty be any clearer?"

OWS DOES NOT ENDORSE ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE 2012 ELECTION. The 1% has it's money in the pockets of both parties.

It is the one issue which helps fight the divide and conquer strategy set in place by the 1% and helps to unite the 99% to see the big picture.

Unite against the corruption in the government and the 1%

Vote for who you want... but this is not the place to propagate for Obama 2012 or Romney 2012.

338 Comments

338 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 10 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Look at what the tea party does. Like them or not their strategy is brilliant. They knew a third party would never make it so they pretty much took over one of the two prime parties. They focused on the primary system.

Just last week they took out Senator Richard Luger a Republican that has been at the trough for 35 years.

It is a shame the Christian right took over the tea party. It was a great group when it started. They were focused on bail outs, crony capitalism, and working within the constitution. They were against the Patriot Act and projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere". With the religious right hijacking the group the moved to "Defense of Marriage" and other bullshit unconstitutional causes.

In the end I do not think OWS has been one 100th as effective as the tea party in getting things done. Sure there are marches, arrests, and media but Americans get bored quickly. To them it becomes just another march by the OWS nut jobs. Just an inconvenience on the way to work.

When I look at the two movements it is like OWS is marching outside the castle walls with signs, drums, and costumes while the Tea Party is taking over the army and the the King's council and getting ready to take out the King in November.

That is just my humble opinion.

[-] 2 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

The two guys in this clip claiming to be Tea Party probably did not prove that they belong to the Tea Party and may be impostors.

Tea Party invaded OWS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnGcUnoNa5Q [right click]

Leaderless movements are similar to an unorganized mob. Probably capable of guerilla tactics, but incapable of running a government. The Republicans are organized. The Democrats are organized. Put the two together and you get a large and powerful unorganized mob.

Mourdock, who unseated Lugar in the Indiana primary says he has “a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view,”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76094.html#ixzz1vBsIgItY

The reality is the majority of Democrats have been psychologically conditioned to follow this behavior by 8 years of GW Bush, preceded by 8 years of Clinton, 4 years of GHW Bush and 8 years of Reagan. Democrats have ideological vertigo. They are at best weak moderates when extreme radical Democrats need to shock the country back to life. Franklin Roosevelt’s achievements have been under attack for 30 years. Obama is a weak moderate. Kucinich lost his Congressional seat. Bernie Sanders is an Independent, but could give seminars to Democrats on what they should be doing.

OWS needs more organizational structure, leaders who will enter the political arena or find someone who will represent the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?playnext=1&index=0&feature=&v=9vSYjGrNgHc&list=PL708C0323057EA510

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I did not say the Tea Party is picking the right people.

I said their strategy is sound.

The media will always pick the extremists in any group since that sells.

[-] 1 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

(Website:The Tea Party is not a political party nor is looking to form a third political party any time soon. The Tea Party movement, is instead, about reforming all political parties and government so that the core principles of our Founding Fathers become, once again, the foundation upon which America stands.)

• Limited federal government • Individual freedoms • Personal responsibility • Free markets • Returning political power to the states and the people

http://www.theteaparty.net/?gclid=CJ3H2PzMj7ACFQrf4Aod3io6pQ

I didn't know anything about Mourdock until he beat Lugar in the Republican Primary. Lugar was the longest serving Republican Senator. Isn't the Tea Party full of extremists? Lugar was at the core of the Republican Party for over 30 years. Mourdock sounds totally uncompromising right wing: "Hoosier Republicans want to see the Republicans inside the United States Senate take a more conservative tack, and we're looking forward to helping do that," Is that their strategy, take a more conservative tack? That is translated as do not work with the Democrats. That is tactical since we see no ultimate goal has been identified: cut taxes, defend marriage, kill healthcare, less government regulation... Stop the US from becoming a western European-style nation.

I don’t see a strategy in that. In a shrinking world where International alliances are necessary where would we be without allies in western Europe? It only works if Mourdock is backing the Project for the New American Century, the new American Empire which is far from an OWS agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYJM-Gcytg

Tea Party is not organized enough to have its own primary. It raided the Republican Primary. Poor Lugar was the longest serving member of the Senate, and probably should have retired awhile ago after grooming a suitable replacement.

Mourdock counted heavily on Tea Party support, with a recent poll finding that the 28 percent of Indiana GOP voters who identified with the movement favored the treasurer by more than a 40-point margin. Coupled with relatively low turnout, Tea Party enthusiasm appeared to be enough. Groups like the Club for Growth, the Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks and the National Rifle Association spent heavily and worked hard for Mourdock.

"The Republicans could be on the verge of selecting a far-right Tea Party candidate who will be running on a promise that if he is sent to Washington he will refuse to compromise on anything," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "He wants to beat Sen. Lugar for Lugar's ability to compromise. He says there's a problem, Mourdock does, of too much bipartisanship, and he can be counted on to obstruct. Well, there are a lot of things wrong in Washington, but too much compromise is certainly not one of them.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

"I don’t see a strategy in that."

That is because you did not read my original post. The strategy is to put their candidates in Republican primaries. I think it is brilliant. You don't have to be a right winger or agree with anything they stand for to see how smart the strategy is. Again, I am not talking about their position on issues I am talking about their strategy.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Joe, I agree with everything you said except the tea party ever starting out as a great movement. In the beginning it may of had some positives about it but at its core it was mainly a conservative austerity movement.

But with that said, the bottom line is that they actually got shit done politically. On the other hand we haven't chosen to run any Occupy candidates in any Congressional seats so far.

Hell we don't even have a core message that people can latch onto(getting money out of politics would be a great one). And our PR is so shit that we allow for the Faux New's and other anti-Occupy entities of the country to be able to successfully drag our names through the dirt.

If we don't plan on getting directly involved in the political system to change it then our movement will fail.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I agree. The Tea Party has been brilliant. They have a long term goal and they're achieving it. OWS is clueless and they don't even give the Tea Party credit for being the first of these leaderless movements.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

OK, sorry for the clueless remark but getting a grip on OWS can be frustrating.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

The tea party has koch funding. Funding makes it easier.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I am not talking about funding I am talking about strategy.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Tea Party "strategy" can only be sustained by vast expenditures of money.

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

Yeah the strategy that American for Prosperity gives money to campaigns for people to run on the Koch's ideals. That strategy is working. OWS does not have billionaires funding them... even though neocons like to shout out "Soros!"

I would love to see some OWS people rise to the plate and run for office though. I think that would be great.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

My friends who support the tea party are encouraged by their "progress" in the republican party. I believe the path of the tea party leads to a dead end, where "political realities" are not allowed to be changed.

The tea party may very well "take out the King in November", but the new King will not live up to their hopes, because the system is rigged.

When 100 million people don't vote, it's not entirely from apathy, but also because these non voters do not believe that it matters who gets elected. They are correct!

OWS can be more effective if the ideals remain pure. A non violent process that gets money out of politics and restores equality. A protest vote against the establishment parties is my hope. We will feed the hungry, help the sick, and protect the weak!

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually when it is not a presidential year only about 20% of the population votes. Not because of what they believe, but because football, baseball, American Idol, NCIS, and The Bachelor are higher on their priority list.

OWS will never get money out of politics.

Why not just feed the hungry ourselves. That is what we do. http://americasgrowarow.org/about

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

The low voter participation is because so many people believe that the elections don't matter! They are right. Instead of promoting a person as a third party candidate, let's simply promote a protest vote.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The low voter turnout is because most people do not know or care who represents them at the state or federal level. They don't care if there is a referendum issue on the ballot. They have better things to do like watch American Idol.

Less than 20% polled could name their representative in the House.

About 41% do not know who the Vice President is.

About 90% know who Tiger Woods and Whitney Huston are.

About 25% don't know who our forefathers declared independence from

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The dumbing down of America. It did not happen overnight and much money has been spent to make it so. Much money is being spent to see it continue.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

What is even scarier is that the 20% who do vote are only half paying attention. They most often vote party line pushing levers for a party. I have voted for three parties at a time (federal, state, and local) because I read the voting records of incumbents and platforms of contenders. I am in the 1%. Not financially but in educating myself before going into the voting booth.

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

I understand that many are watching American Idol or Jerry Springer and I don't question your stats. The reason that many people don't know or care who represents them is not because they are apathetic or stupid. They don't concern themselves with political issues because long ago they accepted that it didn't matter to them who got elected. They have not been informed by the MSM and misinformed instead. They might be awakened and energized by a protest vote and I believe the timing is right.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I agree with everything but your last sentence. I am not a pessimist, I am a realist.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

In my humble opinion, marching and protesting will accomplish very little. It will not get money out of politics, it will not stop crony capitalism, it will not wake up Americans. The marches are not even covered on the new any more.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

For the most part, you're right. Except for the part about it not waking up Americans. Well targeted marches will, for the right reasons, in the right places. In service of a greater good, the Separation of Wealth and State, marches and protests can accomplish much...

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

So your conclusion is to attempt to work within the democratic party to affect the necessary changes? The "political realities" will continue.

Americans are being awakened through facebook links, etc. My hopes are for a high percentage of people to vote for anyone other than republicans or democrats, which will encourage all of us. The people of West Virginia voted for a prisoner in Texas to protest against Obama! We can't fall for the myth that wasting our vote on a protest vote will allow the "worse evil" to win.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Yes working it from the inside makes more sense to me. I am not saying protest is irrelevant but it is only minimally effective.

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

Well, maybe you've heard that many West Virginians will not vote for a person of obvious African ancestry. Could that have been a factor? I think so.

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

I do not believe that was a significant factor.

[-] 1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Agreed. Protest by itself can only accomplish what "our" elected representatives allow...

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I agree. Might want to read the "Occupy the Vote" thread at www.theMultitude.org as well as this thread...

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I think anyone who has actually participated in some of these protests, understands that government (whether democrat, republican, or whatever) is not a friend of OWS. Democrats have I think tried to influence this movement (or at least tried to exert a moderate amount of influence), and some of this has taken the form of trying to divide OWS from anarchist philosophy (which seems particularly offensive to the establishment, for obvious reasons).

This does have some degree of influence. I mean, not all people who may be inclined to support OWS will dress in black and align themselves with anarchists. In fact, not all people who favor anarchist philosophy will want to dress in black and express their sentiment in that way.

I don't see this as a problem. I mean, at the NATO protests, anarchists were out in full force, but protesting a NATO or G8 summit is sort of an anarchist staple (they were doing this long before the inception of OWS).

Speaking for myself, I prefer to frame anarchist ideas in more familiar ways (because it's really not an alien idea in the American landscape). It's funny, when you ask people if they could support something like participatory democracy, a very large portion of people will say yes. I don't know many people who would like to see our society become more authoritarian. I think most people oppose police abuse, official corruption, corporate malfeasance, etc. I even think many, if not most people would favor a more participatory framework in our workplaces. There's not many people today who think woman's suffrage was a bad idea (and that was about ending the presumptive subjugation of women).

These are all anarchist ideas (the irony is, we're on safe ground, until we utter the word "anarchist" ... then people knee jerk to all sorts of horrible thoughts like riots and chaos and angry mobs with fires burning in the background and so on) :)

[-] 3 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I agree that Occupy shouldn't be about any specific party. But if Occupy doesn't expect to get involved in the political process at all then we have no chance at succeeding at anything. We will become toothless complainers.

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

I have no problem with OWS getting involved in the government... but Obomney does not stand for what OWS stands for. In fact Obomney works for the problem we're fighting... so therefore it makes no sense to support either candidate.

Neither Obama or Romney has come out to support OWS. So why would we support them?

If an OWSer ran for congress or some level of government.... they'd have my vote. Obama 2012, Romney 2012, and Ron Paul 2012, do not stand for OWS.

Opposing Ron Obomney at every level they are wrong is much better than blind support. If they're losing voters... they might change to regain them. Blind support of a candidate gets OWS nowhere.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Well shouldn't Occupy be working to form a clear focused simple core message that brings more people on board the movement(getting money out of politics, wall street reform, education costs, etc) and force the candidates to have to come to our side due to national political pressure?

This is the problem with our movement. We say that everything is wrong. Then we let the extremists vandalize and cause trouble causing ourselves to be alienated from a large portion of potential Occupiers due to our lack of focused message and PR blunders of the few crazies. And then when it comes to voting to many of us throw our hand in the air and say they aren't voting. Do you not see the error in that?

Instead of just giving up and not trying to gather enough people on board to force the candidates to be on board with PRACTICAL solutions like what I mentioned earlier, we have people talking about over throwing the government...

Both choices may suck but we aren't doing enough to change that. Just not getting involved and not voting will make things even worse.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Yes!

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

I never said don't vote. I plan on voting. I will not be voting for Goldman Sachs or war though.

Also there is more than 1 election. Congress is very important, more important than the president in my opinion and people need to pay attention in their state's to their candidates. The options are a lot more plentiful. OWS is not about the presidential election either.

A lot of people forget that Congress controls the budget and has the power to create mandates, regulations, and funding social programs.

This is my personal voting policy:

If they supported any of the following, I will not support them. The Financial Modernization Act (which helped create the financial crisis) The Republican Jobs Act (which can create another financial crisis as well as took away regulations protecting investors) The Patriot Act (which stole our 4th amendment) The NDAA of 2012, without removing Section 1021 (which stole our 5th and 6th amendment) The War in Iraq (which was based on fraud) The TARP bailouts (which gave billions to a fraudulent financial system that stole people's money and homes instead of creating a real solution and implementing regulations to prevent future problems) Defense of Marriage Act (which is supported by bigots) Bombing nations that didn't attack us (which is supported by warmongers). Following this list takes the corrupt out of the picture. No problem was ever solved over night... and people need to keep that in mind.

Please do vote. The point of my post is about the people on this site trying to alienate others for not supporting their candidate of choice. 98% of the time (rough estimate) when it happens, it's Obama supporters blaming people for all the problems in the world because they've decided to not vote for Obama again in 2012. And that is a rude and terrible tactic... and I've seen enough of it happening on this site.

I refuse to support the wars so I will not be voting for any candidate that is pro-war. If you want the Koch brothers to lose their power, you stop buying their products.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

So what candidates have Occupy gathered to run in state elections? From what I see we haven't began to run anyone. So how are we going to change anything by just complaining?

I disagree with everything the tea party stands for. There policies are horrible for this country. BUT the one thing they did right (for their goals) were to get their candidates elected. I see to many Occupiers on this site that come across like they are either to good/cool to get involved in the political process or they live in a fantasy world of completely overthrowing the government.

Im not putting you in any of those categories. But if we don't get our act together and realize we must get involved (especially in Congressional elections) then what power do we really have, and what do we really hope to achieve? Thats my point. We need to form clear common sense goals, advertise ourselves with those goals that brings more people on board the movement, run candidates across this country that have the goals and values of the Occupy movement.

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

Why don't you run for office? I'd love to support an OWS candidate... but as far as I'm aware, in my state, we don't have any. I think OWS trying to gain seats in the House and Senate would be great and would help the cause. We fully agree on that.... but no one is really stepping up to the plate.

Things like this need to occur on a local level though and need to be done on a state to state basis.

People can gather together and support candidates at any point in time. And at the same time you don't need the OWS name to do that.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

lol oh man, I live in one of the most conservative states in the country so I don't think I would have much of a shot. But you know what, maybe that doesn't even matter. As long as we are talking about what we stand for even if its a long shot more of us should run for office. So I understand where you're coming from. We absolutely do need to get involved in running Occupy candidates on a local level.

BUT I do believe in order for Occupy to achieve running candidates on a national local scale, Occupy needs a more clear core message. For instance I would suggest ending the bribery in our political system and getting outside money out of our politics. Of course I would have other important issues I stand for, like financial reform, education costs, ending corporate welfare, etc).

But I think the root of the problem is getting outside money in politics because its tied to ALL the other issues and is the most important thing we can fix in this country and it just so happens to be the most bipartisan. If you had every Occupier running on that platform then we would completely change politics. On a much larger scale than the tea party narrow austerity and depressing view point.

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

I've heard many people talk about just trying to take over the democrat party or try and influence it more. Similar to how the tea party got cozy with the republicans. Even if it was the hijacked version of the tea party. But many people have talked about that.

Outside money needs to go for sure. I fully agree there. Especially since there are loopholes and secrecy which can allow foreign money to super pacs.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I don't think of it as hijacking. I think of it more of converting people to the truth. ;) It doesn't just have to be the Democrat party but whoever we can get on board. Occupy shouldn't be afraid of outsiders because in a way we all are outsiders.

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

I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was talking about hijacking... I was referring to the Koch/anti-gay hijacked version of the tea party.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Yeah I completely misread that part of your statement. Sorry about that.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Excellent compliance list. I like it. Would you consider using it with a "NO CONSENT" vote?

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

No Consent vote?

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

I'd rather write an issue like "NO WAR"

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

If not voting for Goldman Sachs, war and twin-party way of life... then what?

A popular, democratic means to force Congress to call an Article V Convention?

Why?

Because, simply put, corrupt twin-party politics as usual is destroying our nation, and its democratic values, and has been for some time... Elite and corporate conduct has become so egregious people are finally waking up, taking notice and asking questions. But the fact is, there is no simple, direct, democratic means for us, we the people, to challenge our own government when it becomes corrupt, despotic and tyrannical.

We ought be trying to change that. Constitutionally. In the 2012 elections. By presenting voters a stark choice... either support the status-quo or oppose it. With sufficient voter support, our "NO CONSENT" opposition vote conveys our ability to force Congress to issue an Article V Convention call, thereby invoking Constitutional means to effect the changes we see necessary -- the Separation of Wealth and State -- removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political process.

Our founders did too good a job containing “mobocracy” (too much democracy) and protecting the elite. And while I am fine with private ownership, even great wealth, we must draw the line at great wealth corrupting our government, bullying the world and buying favors at our expense...

And, there is no democratic alternative to the elite's "heads I win, tails you lose" twin-party political game?

I don't think so...

It's our Constitution, our government and our vote. It's our decision.

A Convention will not runaway from us, we wield our votes, but is capable of ripping control away from the elite and their corporations.

Many argue ALEC has been trying to call an Article V Convention for years. I think not. By all credible accounts, more than enough state resolutions have been tendered for Congress to call a Convention at any time. In fact, it is un-Constitutional for Congress to refuse to call one...

Tell every sitting Representative and Senator: This is our petition for redress of our grievances; either call a Convention, now, before the elections, or we will withdraw our consent to be governed in your election and force the issue... Would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality opposed them by voting NO CONSENT in their election?

Citizens voting to withdraw our consent to be governed is a Constitutional crisis for the elite... Just because it is a peaceful revolution does not make it any less a power struggle. Nor any less effective. OWS emphasizes its process. Our process, voting, is every American's Constitutional heritage -- if we want politics to be more democratic, we must make it so.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Article V is not necessary if We The People take responsibility take participation in our government as we should always have instead of opting out and looking the other way.

Boot those who are not working for the people out of office.

Thank you Wisconsin for standing up and owning the process.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I would like to think an Article V Convention is not necessary, but... the volume of USSC decisions and legislation which needs to be decisively overturned is simply to great for a piecemeal approach. Moreover, a NO CONSENT vote would do much to help "[b]oot those who are not working for the people out of office."

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

At this point in time can you say that the Article V convention could not be stolen or otherwise corrupted?

Lets work with what we currently have and have never fully owned to make changes. If The People can do this - on a regular and growing basis - if some of the 1st changes we make are OSTA and repeal of corporate personhood , money out of politics. Etc Then I think we would be in a better position to have a successful Article V convention for The People.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

All the amendments a convention proposes must be ratified before becoming part of the Constitution. That pretty much prevents "runaway" and "stolen" conventions.

What we currently have, the status-quo, is moving rapidly to consolidate its elite grasp on power. Time is one of the things we're in short supply. We need to address this threat to our republic head-on and democratically. Now. In the 2012 elections.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What we have is a situation where the American People need to recapture government and get people in office that work for The People. Once we have done this minor thing we need to work on legislation as it stands. When we have experience as well as a working group in office - that would be the time to look at the necessity of an Article V convention and start planning the actions to be taken.

Right now we do not have a functioning representative body.

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I agree, we do not have a functioning representative body. This is why I advocate calling an Article V Convention. It is the next Constitutional step required to deal effectively with that very problem.

What you contemplate is no minor thing, especially considering the elite's twin-party political machine... Moreover, if we cannot agree upon a single, overarching, issue, how will we reach agreement on multiple "candidates"? And exactly how many candidates will be required? Who selects these candidates? Just how long will all this take? How many years? Where will the money come from?

Gee, what to do in the meantime...

"Right now we do not have a functioning representative body," you observe.

I propose we change that by withdrawing our consent to be governed under the Constitution in order to force Congress to fulfill its Constitutional duty and call an Article V Convention. I will return my consent by voting to ratify an amendment proposed by that Convention which establishes the Separation of Wealth and State.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Not at all - for this very moment in time? I advocate kicking all corrupted officials to the curb - You Know just like in Wisconsin.

You on the other hand are promoting something ALEC/Koch want to do.

Think they may want to do this too prematurely for the people and steal the constitution?


[-] 1 points by DSams (92) 0 minutes ago

Hardly. Not withstanding your "good" intentions, you advocate playing the elite's twin-party "heads I win, tails you lose" political game. Head-on, straight-up-the-middle. Bless you and grant you courage. You'll need it; they're waiting... ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

"Just like Wisconsin" might not work nationwide. Congress is at present, un-Constitutionally, refusing to call an Article V Convention. If billionaires wanted a Convention, there would be one...

Including obviously corrupt elected officials, whom do you recommend "kicking to the curb?" Who shall we replace them with? How will these candidates be selected? Do you have a party waiting in the wings? How is it funded?

What I advocate, I do so because from a strict Constitutional standpoint, it is what we ought do. The only people a Convention can "runaway' from is the elite; we the people have the votes to ratify, or not, any amendment the Convention proposes. At worst, no amendments will be ratified. But we will have discredited the twin-party system and de-legitimized the sitting Congress...

I think voting "NO CONSENT" our best strategy... withdrawing our consent to be governed, forcing a Convention, and basing return of our consent on ratification of an amendment effecting the Separation of Wealth and State.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Impasse - I believe you are putting the cart in front of the horse.

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Hardly. Not withstanding your "good" intentions, you advocate playing the elite's twin-party "heads I win, tails you lose" political game. Head-on, straight-up-the-middle. Bless you and grant you courage. You'll need it; they're waiting...

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i agree, every person I talk to is voting for ron paul, so i wonder who all these idiots are that are voting for romney, i did meet a woman at walmart a cashier who says, she will vote for obama though, wow, talk about blind sheep in line for the slaughter. I dont even care to help people anymore if they are that blind. Let them be slaughtered I say.

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

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Wrell said

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

Thanks. And you troo

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Again

2012 campaigners are flooding this site

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Who the hell are you?

Your not a leader of this leaderless movement.

You rail against Politics, but it is the ONLY way to bring change. Otherwise your just pissing into he wind. Personally you are troll-like to encourage others not to vote and worse, not discuss it. You know that gaint elephant in your room you seem to oblivious to.

Maybe the simple definition of just what politics is can help others here to stop listening to your horrible advice:

POLITICS

1. activities associated with government: the theory and practice of government, especially the activities associated with governing, with obtaining legislative or executive power, or with forming and running organizations connected with government

2. political life: political activity as a profession

3.* power relationships in specific field: the interrelationships between the people, groups, or organizations in a particular area of life especially insofar as they involve power and influence or conflict**



Please everyone do get and vote. It is paramount. And it does make a difference and matters big time. Romney is a return to Bush policies that got us into this mess. Obama, with both hands tied behind his back, has tried to get us out of the ditch which he did. We'd be in much better shape if it wasn't for the GOP sabotaging him at every turn.

Trevor, your motive is highly suspect. What is it your trying to do? (Be honest)

You can run but you can't hide. Speak up Trevor!!!

Puzzled

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

Whatever you need to tell yourself about my "motives" is your own business.

I'm trying to point out that BOTH parties work for the 1% and War.

Occupy Wall Street is not an Obama 2012 rally. It is not a Romney 2012 rally or a Ron Paul 2012 rally either. If you want to support a presidential candidate... do it... just please do it at their rallies or their forums. OWS has nothing to do with the 2012 presedential election.

But hey that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Go read the forum rules.

If politicians want my support.. they should start working for the people. I'm not going to let some politician have my vote because the other guys sucks more. They gotta earn my vote... and if you want real change they should have to earn everyone's vote. Playing into their game of divide and conquer is not change.

Not a single presidential candidate stands for the values of OWS

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Except that Romney's crowd said that OWS supporters need to take a shower and hit the pavement and get a job. Oh yeah, and stop disrupting business as usual.

If you really believe that Obama believes the same thing then you are not paying attention. He actually applauded the movement and says he understands. (But according to you, he doesn't, again your opinion, which is wrong) If you want to change, YOU MUST PLAY POLITICS.

Trevor if you truly represent OWS, I would not be part of this movement. I would quit effective immediately. Because it would be waste.

But truthfully, it is just your opinion. I don't agree with you, not even a little on this one. You can't separate politics out of any movement which seeks to change government as it's end goal. To me, you defy reality, But hey that's my opinion too. La te da.

The Puzzler

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Ok quit. You and your inefectual establishment armchair liberal friends will go home as soon as you get any Democrats elected anyway just like you did in 2007 when the democrats took the house and senate. That was the day the anti war movement ended for you people and you'll go home again as soon as Obama gets elected this time. If he gets elected and I believe he probably will.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

And, it's not surprising. It does make sense that is how it turns out.

We need to keep pushing Obama after the re-election, and again, to sound like a squealing wheel, if we don't pressure him politically, the movement will not translate into real action and reform. Otherwise, we bring light to issues but with no follow through to real concrete reform. Somewhere some how, we have get real tangible results for our efforts...........

Puzzlin'

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

I didn't see much pushing when the Democrats took the senate in 2007. You people take your orders from moveon and related front organizations for corporate controlled democrat party. Which means you will continue to be irrelevant.

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

When OWS started... why didn't they include Obama 2012 on their list of demands? The 2012 presidential election is not what OWS is about. Vote for who you want. OWS is not about Obama 2012. It never has been and it's not now. A bunch of Obama campaign people on a forum doesn't change what OWS is about.

Also... Romney is a fool... That does not mean I am not allowed to criticize Obama nor does that separate the truth that they've both been funded by Goldman Sachs. Sachs was Obama's #2 on contributions in 2008. One party might work harder for the 1%... but both parties work for the 1% and war. Hence, "Banks Got Bailed Out... We Got Sold Out."

Dennis Kucinich understands Occupy Wall Street. Hell, he straight up supports OWS more than Barack Obama supports executive orders for gay rights for workers under federal contracts.

President Obama stated on January 24, 2012, `Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.'.

Sounds like Bush talking about WMD's and how Saddam didn't work with inspectors. Just like when Clinton said the same thing about Iraq in 1998. And Bush Sr said before.... get it? My democrat senator Bob Kerrey, back in the 90's, helped write a policy for regime change in Iraq.

Sound familiar? Now Congress is budgeting for a war in Iran in 2013 with the newest National Defense Authorization Act - http://occupywallst.org/forum/congress-getting-ready-for-war-with-iran-hr-4310-t/

War has not yet been declared against Iran... but it's being budgeted for as well as becoming a part of US policy to prevent Iran from obtaining "nuclear weapons." ...Which do not exist yet.

Not to forget that Obama has bombed more countries in 3 years than Bush did in 8... and Obama support and NATO took out the city of Sirte in Libya. Completely destroyed. He increased the war in Afghanistan after the Bush administration destroyed Iraq and accumulated a huge civilian death toll.

So if you don't think Obama works with the Military Industrial Complex and the oil legacy.... why is it playing out like that? Military bases in Iraq remain. Big oil remains in Iraq. Halliburton made 5.3 billion in 2009.Halliburton attributes their robust earnings to increased domestic production under Obama” - http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/04/26/207970/halliburton-profits-oil/

Iran is the prize in the center

Oliver Stone was right - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFlsjhpGfw&feature=related

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

Some more fun links for some truth

ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

[-] 1 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

The two guys in this clip claiming to be Tea Party probably didn’t prove that they belong to the Tea Party and may be impersonators.

Tea Party invaded OWS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnGcUnoNa5Q [right click]

Leaderless movements are similar to an unorganized mob. Probably capable of guerilla tactics, but incapable of running a government. The Republicans are organized. The Democrats are organized. Put the two together and you get a large and powerful unorganized mob.

Mourdock, who unseated Lugar in the Indiana primary says he has “a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view,”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76094.html#ixzz1vBsIgItY

The reality is the majority of Democrats have been psychologically conditioned to follow this behavior by 8 years of GW Bush, preceded by 8 years of Clinton, 4 years of GHW Bush and 8 years of Reagan. Democrats have ideological vertigo. They are at best weak moderates when extreme radical Democrats need to shock the country back to life. Franklin Roosevelt’s achievements have been under attack for 30 years. Obama is a weak moderate. Kucinich lost his Congressional seat. Bernie Sanders is an Independent, but could give seminars to Democrats on what they should be doing.

OWS needs more organizational structure, leaders who will enter the political arena or find someone who will represent the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?playnext=1&index=0&feature=&v=9vSYjGrNgHc&list=PL708C0323057EA510

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

Apparently someone really agreed with this post.

I just found this on the OWS forum today

http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-supporter-purge-initiated-by-ows-bots/

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Exactly, I agree with your thread entirely. This is a revolution, not election central. Vote for whoever you want, but leave that sewer out of this noble movement.

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

Hells yeah!

[-] 1 points by anonbankster (16) 2 years ago

If Obama was about taking on Wall Street then WHY HASN'T ANY BANKSTERS BEEN ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED?!?!?!?! Because He knows who pulls his strings! No politician will save you. We can only save ourselves!

[-] 1 points by tiredofthebs (59) 2 years ago

3rd Party Presidential Candidate Being Ignored?

Seems like every election cycle there is a Presidential candidate that is completely ignored by the mainstream media. Theres the Democrats and the Republicans and… well… the Democrats and the Republicans.

Not this 2012 election. There is a third party candidate running for the 2D party and he has already taken on national televised debates with both President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. How come you don't know about this?

You would if you were a fan of THE GUINEAS SHOW.

http://www.blip.tv/theguineasshow

The popular animated series which features the Guineas family and its patriarch Salvatore Guinea Sr., who is running as a candidate in the 2012 Presidential election, is the backdrop for Americas favorite dysfunctional family.

In between running the family pizzeria business in Hollywood which caters to the stars, Sal Guinea Sr. was elected as the "2D Party" candidate and has the full support of his family which includes his outspoken mother Nanna Guinea, his single sister Marie and his two sons Sal Jr. and Vito Jr.

Sal's time has been split between Hollywood and Washington in this 15 episode first season which appears on numerous sites including Blip.Tv and Youtube.

In the hilarious debates between Sal Guinea Sr and Obama and Romney (episodes 13 & 14), he takes on and pulls out all stops in his bid for presidency. His "run" for President, although disheveled at times, takes an "out of the box" look at our popular culture and parodies the lives we lead and the people we know.

Featuring celebrities from all corners, the family drama intertwines with some of the worlds biggest egos. Rumor has it that in this election, there are a number of folks who aren't too thrilled with either of the two parties candidates, and so given a third option, many are are already behind Guinea's campaign.

I have seen numerous blogs, vlogs, videos, votes and even bumper stickers, all showing support for his candidacy.

Who would of thought that Washington was one big cartoon?

OBAMA DEBATE : http://blip.tv/theguineasshow/the-guineas-show-season-1-episode-13-6089456

ROMNEY DEBATE: http://blip.tv/theguineasshow/the-guineas-show-season-1-episode-14-6116418

Accompanied by some of Hollywood's hottest celebs, life goes on at Guineas Pizza... Its just one bigga meatball familia!

LYAO at: http://www.theguineasshow.com

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So Trevor why don't you stop trying to make yourself King?

So I see elective politics is what your main concern here is OK let's talk about that, Who do you think we should support for President and why?

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

You and epa1nter and Jiffysquid are the people that harass and blame people for all the world's problems for not wanting to support Obama... even though they voted for him in 2008.

So tell me... isn't your agenda to try and get everyone to vote Obama? If it's not... why do you constantly try and get people to vote Obama?

Please.... no hypocrisy.

I speak out against everyone who is contributing to the problem. Maybe you read my Let Them Eat Bombs post about congress cutting funding for a bunch of social programs the other day? Or my posts accusing the Fed and the Banks of having control on our government, including the president and congress? I make all kinds of posts on different topics.

The Lion King was a good movie by the way.

Go read the forum rules facts! This is not the place to propagate your support for Obama... it's not the place for people to propagate support for Romney. BOTH PARTIES HAVE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS FROM THE 1%

If we had a republican president, he'd be getting criticized by me to the bone just like when I spoke out against Bush during his presidency. The year is 2012 right now though, Bush is no longer president, and Obama has been in office working with Wall Street for over 3 years. Also Wall Street is still making a killing in profits from the current wars and bombs and contracts to sell weapons to the government.

Stop being so obtuse.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So you do understand I want ALL Republicans defeated right?

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

Yes and I want all the corrupt and all those who work for the 1% to be defeated.

We have a lot in common. Which is why it's fucking annoying how you always try and accuse me for all the problems in the world, referencing the Carter days, the Bush day, and so much more shit. Obama is not Gore. Saying I will not support Obama does not mean I did not support Gore in 2000. Saying I refuse to support any pro-war candidate does not mean I support Romney. So stop with the spin games and annoying crap. That's all I ask. You can vote for Obama all you want. I'm not going to and I'm not a bad person for that. I refuse to support the wars. Just like I stopped buying Koch products to end the reign of the Koch's... I'm not going to vote for pro-war candidates because I do not support the wars or any of this

Obama appointed Monsanto's Michael Taylor to the FDA

Obama even reappointed Bush's Ben Benrnanke to the Federal Reserve

He has been sued by the ACLU several times for war crimes

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these (torture) photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. - ACLU

If these torture pictures were released, crimes could easily be brought against the Bush administration. So why the suppression?

He refused to sign an executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He's bombed more countries than Bush.

Obama also turned his back on whistle blowers even though before his presidency he said they should be praised. Free Bradley Manning! All it takes is a pardon.

Obama also supported the patriot act, which essentially allows the federal government to delete the 4th amendment.

His administration has continually suppressed and refused to reveal information about the wars.

Goldman Sachs was his second largest backer in 2008

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Trevor I appreciate your honesty, and your obvious humanity.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You can get in the game.and make a difference or sit on the sidelines you are the one trying to limit debate.

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

Blind support will get you nowhere. At least criticize Obama where he's wrong.

Take this list to Obama and say "Fix this!"

Vote for Obama all you want. At least criticize him and call him out where he's wrong. Obviously there are some bad things on my list about Obama. Don't deny that.

If you're suppressing people pointing out the bad in Obama... you're covering his tracks instead of trying to get Obama to fix his problems.

Criticize all those who are wrong. You can still vote for him. I won't be. Just like I won't be voting for Romney. I refuse to support the wars. If Obama wanted my support he shouldn't have bombed more countries than Bush. End of story.

No massive problem was ever solved over night. Remember that.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The only bad things that matter are the ones Romney wouldn't do when it come time to vote (since we got Obama in 08), there seems to be a blind spot in your criticism you find no fault with the GOP. I never post about Obama, or mention him in my post I know that he is not the only one running for office, and I want all Republicans defeated, Obama can't beat them all, so do you hate all Ds or just Obama, I don't run into him much to give him a list, but if I do, I have one of my own, and they are all things Romney is even worst on.

So when I talk about politics I talk about what matters who I think we should vote for, but I talk about the need to rethink the way about money entirely too, that’s the part about changing the system but till folks are freely talking about wealth in this country, at least as much as it affects us then we still have lots of work to do and yes every cycle as early as possible we should be finding good people who can win, by good I mean those willing to raise taxes on the wealthy and do all we can to get them elected.

There are those who say don’t be involved or don’t be involved here, what do we do here if not reach out to supporters and tell them how they can help, I do that by saying vote, how does telling them not to help? Or telling them you don’t care how they vote, what do you care about then?

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

You're really going to claim I have no criticism for the GOP? That's laughable.

Like I said Go Read My Post "Let Them Eat Bombs" which is entirely a criticism of congress and cuts being forced in by the GOP. Also not to mention you made a post recently where someone commented about Mittens and the poor and my immediate response was how Mittens gives no fucks about the poor and even quoted him on the "safety net..." even though Mittens wants to cut the "safety net." I also called him a tool of the 1%.

I'm not going to play your democrats versus republicans game. Divide and conquer is their strategy. I have criticism for POLITICIANS on BOTH ends of the political theater.

We've talked many times of my true support for people like Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, and Bernie Sanders.... Obama is not like any of those people I listed. Therefore he is on my list of people to criticize for the problem in this country.

This is my policy

If they supported any of the following, I will not support them.

The Financial Modernization Act (which helped create the financial crisis)

The Republican JOBS Act (which will create another financial crisis, this also further deregulated Wall Street and repealed regulations put in place to protect investors, the regs put in place after the ENRON fraud. This bill also did not create a single job)

The Patriot Act (which stole our 4th amendment)

HR 347 (the anti-protest bill)

The NDAA of 2012, without removing Section 1021 (which stole our 5th and 6th amendment)

The War in Iraq (which was based on lies)

The TARP bailouts (which gave billions to a fraudulent financial system that stole people's money and homes instead of creating a real solution and implementing regulations to prevent future problems)

Defense of Marriage Act (which is supported by bigots)

Bombing nations that didn't attack us (which is supported by warmongers)

Obama did not make that list.... and as president he therefore gets my criticism along with a majority of congress, both D's and R's

[-] -2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Very articulate way to put it.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I have a post for that. It has two addresses that you can use to send your thoughts to the one currently holding the office of president of the USA.

Communicate your observations PEOPLE don't communicate to our elected officials and let them claim ignorance.

Put the pressure on. To Who???? To everyone in office!

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I speak out about the need to defeat all Republicans not just Romney, and I feel strongly that is the only chance OWS has of getting anything lasting done. Yes I blame all who support third parties politics of our current condition as the Nader voters could have made the difference but choose not to, in 2000.

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

Lulz the Obama supporters are working hard with their down-vote clicks today.

"He said Obama works for the 1%!!! Down-vote him!!!"

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't remember saying anything about Obama working for the 1%, though like everyone who works, he does, after all don't all money flow to the 1% in time? But i sure have been getting down voted are you sure the trolls didn't start this?

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

I said Obama works for the 1%

and stuff like this too

Obama appointed Monsanto's Michael Taylor to the FDA

Obama even reappointed Bush's Ben Benrnanke to the Federal Reserve

He has been sued by the ACLU several times for war crimes

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these (torture) photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. - ACLU

If these torture pictures were released, crimes could easily be brought against the Bush administration. So why the suppression?

He refused to sign an executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He's bombed more countries than Bush.

Obama also turned his back on whistle blowers even though before his presidency he said they should be praised. Free Bradley Manning! All it takes is a pardon.

Obama also supported the patriot act, which essentially allows the federal government to delete the 4th amendment.

His administration has continually suppressed and refused to reveal information about the wars.

Goldman Sachs was his second largest backer in 2008

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Till you make the case that Romney will be better you've said nothing, i never claimed he was perfect or even good, hell i voted for Hiliray but not doing all you can to defeat every Republican up for office, is just helping the 1%.

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

You are down-voting my comment which is 100% factually accurate.

Why? Because it doesn't favor your Obama 2012 campaign agenda?

Why would you try and denounce fact and make it disappear? That's what repubs did during the Bush administration.

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

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Blind support won't get these problems fixed.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Vote for who you want... but this is not the place to propagate for Obama 2012, Romney 2012, nor Ron Paul 2012."

You have a point there.

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

Is this the United States Congress.. or the Board of directors meeting for Goldman Sachs???

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

In short order, we'll have representatives for corporations instead of districts.

And then the Pledge will read:

                                   Pledge of Allegiance

"I pledge allegiance to the CEO of the United Corporations of America and to the Fascist Republic for which it stands, one corporation, under dictated media, divisible, with less liberty and corporal punishment for all."

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

lol

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

ok I've given the whole electorate process a lot of thought. And this what I've come up with.

first most of us can agree that anything out of a politicians mouth is either bogus or a lie or just out an out dodge of the question at hand.

I suggest de-evolving the politicians from the money process by ignore every party and every incumbent and voting on one issue alone. that issue should be who has the least amount of money. whom ever has the smallest bank roll wins. over time we may be able to drive down the influence peddling so were does obama stand in all this? who cares I'll judge his bank roll on election day, and romneys as well I do believe we need to be apart of the process otherwise we will be ignored

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

Lulz... what's funny is the best option usually has the least money. Dennis Kucinich being a prime example from 2008, in my opinion.

He was the only democrat who ran for president that voted against the Patriot Act, voted against deregulating wall street, the only candidate to introduce legislature to end the fed and the manipulation from the big banks on our government and our economy, and the only one that when OWS formed, supported it from day 1.

Then he got redistricted and lost his seat this year.

When you make videos like this - the 1% can't have that

Is this the United States Congress.. or the Board of directors meeting for Goldman Sachs??? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimTs6Q_xD0

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

i allways liked dennis but I don't agree with getting rid of the fed

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

Why not? You should really look into how the federal reserve works. They have way too much power over our economy, our currency value, and our government.

Do you think creating trillions of dollars out of nothing for their own private interests is acceptable behavior?

Have you read the NEED Act and what could be done if we had that power back? A power the fed stole with a bought congress in 1913.

this bill is the best solution to many problems - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text

If you want to fund social programs, free healthcare for all and free education for all.. there is no greater way than taking the power back from the Federal Reserve.

Here's a new fun story from the federal reserve - they just sold a bank in the states to the Chinese government. First time in history. - http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/09/federal-reserve-approves-chinese-takeover-of-american-bank/

[-] 2 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

WOW ok I looked into this 7 trillion bailout and infact the source is crediable, it came from bloomberg market report and then it went to abc news. It's not internet hype. I'm floored I don't know what to say

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

Here's another story of a 1.2 trillion loan of public money - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

That kind of power is supposed to be for the people and by the people. But the federal reserve stole it with a bought congress in 1913.

When Dylan Ratigan freaked out on his show and how wealth is being extracted from our country.... this kind of bs is what he was freaking out about.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

look you can't get rid of the federal reserve when you still have wall st. and a whole global economy operating. that would create a power vacuum then you would really see anarchy on wall st. true it did a terrible job of policing wall st. before crash and that needs to change. but factually speaking they did a great job when the crash came down. however congress dropped the ball after the initial crisis had passed and let wall st. ofthe hook to keep bis as usual. that's not a fed fumble

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

Wall Street is not okay, factually speaking. And the job done around it was filled with fraud and corruption.

And your missing the number... over 10 trillion dollars created from nothing for their own private interests since 2008. I'm talking about making it national and public... not private for private interests. But to benefit the people of America.. not the 1%. T as in TRILLION.

Please watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpXDZFtEHw

You should really read that link to the NEED Act that I shared. It lays out the transition very well and it will be used to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text

I was skeptical at first too... but I've really looked into the ideas Kucinich has come up with... He has a flawless voting history and has proposed a lot of progressive bills.

The Fed needs to be moved under the treasury. Some people get confused by "End the Fed." I'm just saying transition the power from the private ownership of the 1% and make it public.

Currently it's unlimited resource for the banks... and nothing for the people. Why should we be stuck under the spell of this debt based monetary system?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I believe Occupy should consider trying to do what the two major parties can't - combine capitalism and socialism in a constructive way that is easily understood by all.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

In the forum rules it says: "We do not support an election campaign for 2012."

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

In Australia, online polling has actually forced governments to amend our constitution.

It was in regards to releasing paedophiles into the public, and equipping them with the latest GPS tracking technology.

In less than a week, enough votes were cast, to force the govt to do what the public wanted done.

Is that possible in the US of A? Worth looking into, maybe??

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

That is direct democracy, no? A plebiscite or referendum. Not sure if it's doable within the way elections are outlined in the Constitution though I know at the state level it is done on certain issues.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

The poll was actually instigated by a newspaper that I believe is under the Murdoch-owned multi-national media umbrella, which is surprising to me, but any such petition can be started by anybody, and it only needs X amount of votes or online signatures to force the govt's hand.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

My opinion is ... referendum voting, while it may imply direct democracy, is not really participatory (in a meaningful sense). It's not groups of people coming up with solutions, it's someone generating an idea, and pretty much using the same venues politicians use now to generate support. It can augment participatory democracy, but without a real participatory democracy as a primary driving force for ideas, referendum voting can be manipulated just like everything else.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Well, we have plenty of petitions floating around. I think a real vote is different than that.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I guess it depends on the type of constitution the people live under. We have a constituitonal monarchy, with state governments under a federal govt, under a governer general. Different to your system, for sure.

Was looking for a link to what I was talking about, and came up with the following. Huge page full of info about direct democracy. Interesting reading, but I guess you have to live here.

http://www.directdemocracy.org.au/index.php/opinion/comment

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

You are in Australia, right? I have to go now, but will look at your link later. Thanks. It is good to keep thinking and considering all alternatives.

[-] 0 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

Yes. Online petitions are feel-good mental masturbation and the highest form of slacktivism:

http://inewp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/political_impotence.jpg

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I would say that forcing a politician to go against their personal wishes, having to meet the obvious wants of their electors and other constituents is a whole lot more than mental masturbation. It's a prime example of the power of numbers in the voters forcing the issue at hand, and not taking the bullshit fed to them from a lying politician.

In this instance, the politician claimed that there was insufficient funding available, after using a private jet to turn up at an interstate football match. One critic did the costs involved, and made it public. Within one week, the polly had to concede to the wishes of the voters.

Which part of that would you label slacktivism?

[-] 0 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

Please read this and follow the links. Your questions are all answered:

Does Voting or Signing Online Petitions Make Any Difference?

http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/03/13/does_voting_or_signing_online_petitions_make_any_difference_1

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

You have a defeatist attitude.

You're already a loser in your own mind.

You ever heard of AVAAZ?

Their online petitions are so successful, their website has been under constant attack for some time now.

If they were not to be concerned about, how come they are making such waves?

Your negativity can own you. I think it already has.

It won't affect me, or this organisation.

[-] 0 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

"Defeatist"? You could not be more wrong:

Refusing to plan the Man's game by the Man's rules is not defeatist (ask Anonymous). Refusing to be distracted by social wedge issues is not defeatist. Refusing to vote on false choices in rigged elections is not defeatist. And refusing to waste time on feel-good mental masturbation slacktivist activities like online petitions is not defeatist:

http://inewp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/political_impotence.jpg

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Assuming that people can't be organised into a functional force and a financial weapon via the internet is defeatist.

Unfortunately, you're quite willing to bury your head in your belief system.

I've looked at your link. Now return the favour, and look at mine.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/haiti_funding_report/?cid657

[-] -1 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

"Assuming that people can't be organised into a functional force and a financial weapon via the internet is defeatist."

I made no such assumption, and I will not allow you to suggest I did. And BTW, in American English the spellings are "organized" and "favor". Where are you posting from?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

You're still making assumptions.

In English, the words are "organised" and "favour".

I'm posting from Australia. The west Kimberley, to be exact.

[-] 0 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

Sorry mate, but you are the one asserting false assumptions. Recognizing that the game is rigged and refusing to play is not "defeatist". It is, rather, the first step towards thinking outside the box and focusing your efforts where and how they can make a real difference. It's combining Saul Alinsky with Sun Tzu.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Now you're twisting my words. I'm talking about online polling and the effectiveness of same, and you're swinging that around to talk about the ineffectiveness of supporting one candidate over another in a system where it really makes no difference which bought and paid for politician wins.

I agree with you there one hundred percent.

I disagree with you about online polling one hundred percent.

Now, twist that around, and see what you can make of it.

[-] -1 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

Reply to Builder:

This exchange was never about "online polling". Perhaps we have a language problem...

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Sometimes they make a difference, but I get you. LOL !

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

no constitutional national way to do that
but
some states can put a proposed law on the ballot to be voted on to become law

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Thanks. It might actually be time to do away with the "UNITED" part of the US of A, I'm thinking.

Wondering what that would involve. I'm aware that there are differences in some laws from state to state, but from a change POV, it would probably be easier to instigate changes on a state level first.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

We already had that discussion as a nation. It was called the Civil War.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Hmmmm, and I believe there are those who consider that to be unfinished business.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Wow...

So Builder what are you suggesting?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Not suggesting the Sowth wil ris agin. Just stating the obvious, is all.

There was a truce called. It's still a truce.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

There was no truce, there was a surrender. The Union was affirmed and slavery abolished. There's no unfinished business that I'm aware of regarding the indivisibility of the nation.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I stand corrected, but there are plenty of sites talking about thi issue. I will just post the first one in the search list'

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120511191638AAbFcx6

Here is the poll question from the link;

Who else will vote for Southern Independence in the 2013 refrendum? In 2013, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, and South Carolina will all vote independence. Do y'all think it will pass and who will vote for it?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

If the south had a referendum and chose independance I doubt there would be much objection in the north but I doubt this will happen.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yes, I know about those. These are hard right republicans who are making a statement in protest of the Health care bill. They want to keep their populations poor and sick (seriously) and manipulate their electorates through demagogic propaganda. It is a ploy by the 1%.

These also are largely the states that cried the most loudly about "state's rights" as a cover for federal interference with segregation and JIm Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact the entire States Rights argument was invented by the Southern Democrats in the 1800s originally to justify continued slavery. Mainstream republican state legislators have since picked up the extremist positions originally laid out by people like Governor George Wallace standing on the steps of his state university, blocking Black Students entry to the registrars office, in defiance of a federal court order to admit Black students, yelling "Segregation now, Segregation forever!" and "States Rights!" This secession movement is an echo of that legacy. These self-defined "real" red-blooded Americans, jingoistic patriots all, are the ones pissing on the Constitution they profess to love, the preamble of which is ""We the People, in order to form a more perfect UNION...." a pointed declaration against a mere confederation of individual sovereign states. And all to make sure the rich don't pay more taxes, unions are weakened, environmental laws can be ignored, and no one has to participate in broad civil society. It is disgusting.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to fill in the gaps for me.

I appreciate your efforts.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

My pleasure.

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

I believe the states' rights argument goes back further than the 1800s. Isn't the whole Cato argument against the federalist papers predicated on states' rights?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The CATO arguments are completely revisionist and have no relationship to accepted history. They are, as usual, based on cherry-picked documents for the purpose of promoting feudal oligarchical right wing libertarianism. In other words, Koch funded propaganda for the 1%.

The States Rights Argument was dispensed with by the preamble to the Constitution. That preamble was written specifically to eliminate the notion of a confederation of sovereign states in favor of a Federal union: "We the People, (all the people of one indivisible nation, not selected states) in order to form a more perfect Union....." One is not a New York citizen or Kansas citizen first , but an American citizen.

The States Rights argument was really invented by the Slave States in an attempt to forestall emancipation by denying the right of the Federal Government jurisdiction in "internal" state affairs. It was a purely transparent ploy by slavers. Southern resentment of the Yankees forcibly changing their slave labor based economy has never entirely gone away, so the States Rights argument resurfaces from time to time by the Republitards. Those arguments are parroted by Libertardians - like the Koch founded CATO Institute - for whom private property is sacred instead of ownership of other human beings. But there is enough in common with the false rationalizations of the Old South that Ron Paul garners tremendous support from White Power racist groups.

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

well if history tells me anything, it tells me that no idea can be put to rest just because a decree is issued. But I do see your point.

Cato was the pseudo name of one of the writers of the antifederalist papers and is the name of a citizen of Rome who warned Senate against the intentions of Caesar. I believe this is why the writer of the intiFederalist papers chose the name, in my opinion. What can I say, I love history.

My only point is that the idea that states have rights is part of the fabric of our nation, whether you or I agree with them or not.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

THat's funny. I confused the two Cato's, I don't know which papers you're referring to. But the funny thing is, the CATO Institute also comes out strongly in support of scurrilous State's Rights positions as well. So even though I didn't get your citation, both are equally wrong.

The fact that states have certain rights is not at issue: of course they do. But that is different from THE States Rights argument, which is an exaggeration and distortion of the law . States Rights arguments hold that the states are sovereign and that their rights trump federal ones, as opposed to the the fact that only those rights not claimed by the United States as a whole are reserved to the states. The federal Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, takes precedence over the various States. The Equal Protection clause, for example, trumped individual state JIm Crow laws.

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

so you think jefferson davis & robert e lee were correct ?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Without googling, I'm guessing you mean right about slavery?

There were other issues involved, I'm sure.

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

splitting up the country to validate states rights
in their case to own slaves

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Thanks.

And now here we are trying avoid being made wage slaves to the banksters. Things have gone full circle.

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

we ARE wage slaves to the banksters and the kochs etc etc
BUT
the overwhelming majority of Americans want this DONE
and want an Amendment to stop it
if you are part of the 80+%


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 - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - 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:

Overturning the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision which enabled the flood of secret money that is drowning our political system,

Overturning the 1976 Buckley Supreme Court decision which equates money and speech,

Eradicating the corporate personhood rights invented in the courts that
have enabled corporations to buy our democracy,

Supports campaign finance reform to level the playing field for all candidates.

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 )

www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

regular meetings Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium


░░░░█░.░███░░.███░░█░..░█░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█.█░.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░.█.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░░░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░██░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
█░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░█░.░█░░
..███░░ ░███░..░███.░.█░░░█░░░░.████░.░███░░░


[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

We are far beyond on line polling as an effective means to change anything here, and i consider myself an optimist.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Oops. I missed that.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I forget, how are the rules amended?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

I guess by asking the moderators.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I think that many of the posters here who are advocating for specific parties or canidates could do more for this movement by making a lasagna dish for their local occupiers/protesters, or better yet taking part in a protest.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Very well put and true, Odin.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Thanks, I appreciate your open mind.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by ICantEvenSpellShoes (6) 2 years ago

That's so stupid. What has Obama done to make us throw him to the GOP wolves like this?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

I think that the change that Occupy Wall Street really wants to bring is outside the realm of any of the existing political parties and the staid structures they work within and, so, it refrains from supporting any.

That being said, we vote as citizens and I'm voting for Obama for reasons that are obvious to me. OWS never tells anyone how they should vote as far as I know. I, and you, can support OWS and Obama. I think people are making this a bigger deal than it needs to be.

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

If only everyone would make as much sense as you. I may not vote, or vote for a third-party candidate, or even vote for Obama. Whatever I choose, just as you have chosen, doesn't really affect whether we support OWS or not.

The idiocy is to make the election or for whom we vote an OWS issue. It is not, and I wish all the liberal and conservative posters would stop bombarding those of us, who choose anarchism, with their incessant drumbeats of supporting whatever candidate they have set on a pedestal.

For God's sake, if you want to vote, vote, but all you vocal shills, please, keep your traps shut, at least for a while.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Yes. Thank you. We need to respect each other, stick together, and change this thing.

[-] -2 points by ICantEvenSpellShoes (6) 2 years ago

I most definitely will vote for Obama. When the next round of bombs fall into some foreign country, I want my name stamped on them.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Strange desire.

[-] -2 points by ICantEvenSpellShoes (6) 2 years ago

I have to rationalize my vote somehow!

What do you want me to do, vote for him hoping the bombs won't fall, and then whine my head off when he openly molests the constitution? Who do you think I am???

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

You are the guy who can't spell "shoes" so I don't expect much.

Look, I knew you were being sarcastic, but let me ask you this: Who would you like to see in the Presidency?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL - can't spell shoes. LOL I swear you can tickle my funny bone with a straight up statement of facts. Luv Ya BW.

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

Do you realize who you are laughing at?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

U ?

[Removed]

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

Anyone with the right letter after their name! It makes all the difference!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Explain.

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

Well, you see, there are two parties in this country. US, and THEM. They are bad, very bad, and the whole world will explode if they get in office. You can tell US from THEM with handy letter markers, after their name. Look for the right letter and everything will be fine!

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

I would really like to understand you, but you speak in such an esoteric way that I'll just be honest, I don't know what you are talking about with regard to these "letter markers" and "right letters." So, either I'm ignorant (could be) or you are talking in code.

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

Trashy and his Quasi-Platonic Greek monikers of old had a certain irksome elan but the rancid new Trashy-Bot-Monikers (ICSS, Euroboy et al) still speak with the same "Worm Tongue" !!!

His attempts at divisive disinformation - sometimes comedic, oft insidious - can erode us here or coalesce us and concentrate the mind ... our choice.

SOLIDARITY ... is the word a narcissist like Trashy will never be able to spell or understand and we should always be ready to hurl a "shoe" - at his sorry (x) because Trashy ain't nothing like as good at ducking as 'Dubya' !!

caveat - anguis in herba !

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Solidarity, Shadz. Absolutely. End this divisiveness now!

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

What's a "Shoe"? ...

....

....

Oh! You meant to say "hurl a shoo"

I got it now.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

R and D are the letters.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Oh, hi builder. So you think it's R & D. Research and development? Oh. No. Duh. Republican and Democrat. I'd like to hear the guy who can't spell shoes say that.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Hmmm, maybe research and development is what those people need BW.

Might be better than taking bribes and fabricating falsehoods.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

Why would you vote for the man who signed NDAA 2012, HR347, HR3606 and HR658? Why would you vote for the man who renewed the Patriot Act and maintained Guantanamo? Why would you vote for the man who left Goldman Sachs alum in charge at the Treasury and opened the cash floodgates for the Military Industrial Complex at the Pentagon? Why would you vote for ANY Democratic or Republican candidate knowing that they answer only to their global elite masters? And why would you vote in rigged elections with predetermined outcomes guaranteed if necessary by judicial overrides?

http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/01/04/american_elections_false_choices_hiding_other_false_choices

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Honestly, only because I think about the children, the unemployed, the elderly, the people in foreclosure, etc. That is really the only reason. I think Obama, in the end, does support more help to real people who are suffering. I think that these same people could seriously be turned out on the street by the Reps. Otherwise, I agree with you. I'm furious about all of that.

[-] -2 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results ... like voting for the lesser of two evils in elections staged solely to make you think your vote matters:

http://images.stuffofawesome.com/the-march-of-tyranny-1307458807-2503.jpg

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

I know. I hear you. I just know some old people who need their Social Security and some kids who are covered by CHIP and things like that. I don't want to see people suffer. I also know you are right. It's a tough call. It's dividing people on this forum, but there is merit to both positions. So, while I think Occupy should stay far away from getting into politics, I personally, will vote for Obama while holding my nose. I absolutely do not think OWS should have anything to do with Obama or the Democratic Party. I want the bigger change that is needed in the long run. I just cannot bare the thought of the short term suffering to real people. Bleeding heart, I guess.

[+] -4 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

No matter how lofty your goals or laudable your intentions, by participating in a corrupted process (voting in America) you help to perpetuate that process. Like the man said, "you cannot BE the problem and SOLVE the problem".

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

I'm just trying to be practical. I pay attention to real Americans and from what I can tell they are not up for changing this system drastically any time soon. So, if I can prevent the Reps from doing further worse damage (like say, appointing another extreme right winger to the Supreme Court) than the Dems, I'm going to vote. I wouldn't criticize you for not voting, though. Both positions have a great deal of merit, in my mind, and this is not easy.

[-] -3 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

In saying "I'm just trying to be practical" perhaps what you mean is "I'm afraid to do what must be done to retake control of our country".

I wish you courage...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

You give me something to ponder. You also make it very black and white, which I'm not sure it is or has to be, but I'll think about it.

[-] -3 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I think it essentially black and white at this point. One either supports the political status-quo, or opposes it. Question is, how do we legally enumerate that support and opposition? I suggest we vote to withdraw our consent to be governed under the Constitution in the 2012 elections... thereby forcing Congress to call a long overdue Article V Convention. www.theMultitude.org

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20537) 2 years ago

Now that is a concrete suggestion. Interesting.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yes, I'll think about this proposal also.

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

What has Obama done to earn our support?

So far his presidency is little more than an echo of George W Bush's. I haven't any change that I can believe in. What about you? What has Obama done for the proletariat?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Less than he should have - no argument there. But unless you have a better candidate than him or Mittens. There is no choice - not at this point.

[-] -1 points by ICantEvenSpellShoes (6) 2 years ago

There sure as heck aren't any third party candidates I agree with! I mean, sure, I might agree with them, but I am not going to vote for them because am a good little zombie.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Who asked you to. Vote for those in office who have shown by their actions that they are trying to work for the people. Then look at the candidates that are coming up for an election race look into their background and what they support/ stand-for and go from there. Continuous process improvement. Support those who demonstrate that they believe in the constitution and vote out those who demonstrate other allegiance. Lets not be shy about petitioning recall on those who fail the public.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

The correct choice is NO choice.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey - it's - Eore. What is your brilliant plan to save the country and then the world Eore?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I don't know Eore. That just sounds like opting out and handing the game over to the corrupt to do with as they will. Did you talk this over with Christopher Robin and Poo?

[-] -2 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

Vote all you want, Chump. The flight plan doesn't change:

http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/deesvote6.jpg

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You are correct Sir. Only you do not know it ( are deluded in "your" approach ). Yes the flight plan has not changed. Fight the greedy corrupt white collar criminals and have them brought up on charges for their causing the economic meltdown. Part of this process will be reclaiming our government to make it again what it has always been meant to be - a government Of The People By The People FOR The People.

[-] -2 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

You can't do that by supporting the Democratic Party, which is just the flip side of the Republicans. You can't do that by voting on false choices between two corporate puppets in rigged elections. The system is broken and cannot be repaired from within:

You cannot BE the problem and SOLVE the problem at the same time.

http://evilofindifference.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/march_of_tyranny.jpg

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Sounds like you are just anti democratic party. If OWS supporters do not vote then the 1% would be very happy. The only hope the 99% have is to vote in politicians who can be made to work for the 99%. The parties are not the same!. One supports financial regulation, one does not. Vote out the politicians who do not support financial regulation. Support OWS

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The idea ( as you appear not to have been paying attention ) the idea is to vote out all in office that are not supporting the constitution. This is determined by actions taken while in office that run contrary to the good of the people. At this very point in time there is a very visible group standing shoulder to shoulder and are screaming at the American public - Fuck You. These will be a focus for replacement and or recall if we can get enough people aware and fighting mad. Are all of the others in office right now working for the people? Some are more so then others - those who don't get the message will also go the same way as those who are blatant in their support of corruption - out the door. We start with the worst and most obvious and continue on in the cleaning of our house - that is what is known as - Continuous Process Improvement.

Suck on it Eore.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 2 years ago

That's what I've been saying but you said it much better.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by ICantEvenSpellShoes (6) 2 years ago

I hate the constitution also! Good times!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Fuck you.

[-] 0 points by ICantSpellShoes (2) 2 years ago

I'm on your side!

Let's unite together and destroy that infernal document once and for all!

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

dyslexics untie

sorry left the voter's pamphlet in my off hand

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

"chump"? Name calling betrays the weakness of your argument. You cannot bully these OWS people into staying home and turning over the gov't to tea party 1%'rs.

[Removed]

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

Why hasn't Obama supported OWS like Alan Grayson or Dennis Kucinich did? Is it because he is in the pocket of Wall Street? If you look at the money he's accepted as well as his administration... then the answer is obviously yes.

Obama can talk... but his policies show who he supports. TARP bailouts... deregulation with the passage of the Republican JOBS Act.... come on.

At no point in time has Obama attempted to solve any of the problems listed by OWS. Obama even reappointed Bush's Ben Benrnanke to the Federal Reserve.

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

[-] 2 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

And Obama appointed Wall Street's water boy Timothy Geithner as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. In other words, Wall Street, through its cronies, Bernanke and Geithner, control our financial system, thanks to Obama. Yet, there are a number of trolls on this forum who aggressively support Obama. It is a contradiction in terms for #OWS supporters to also be Obama supporters, unless they actually like the pain that Wall Street has inflicted on America and continues to inflict on America.

[-] -2 points by ICantEvenSpellShoes (6) 2 years ago

He has a "D" after his name. That's all he needs!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I'm all for The People, all the time.

"SQUANDERING!"

That is what I have a problem with.

I've been doing this a long time, I've seen people with good intentions squander their efforts and concerns, lose in utter defeat, and end up giving up. We succeed only with UNITY! I want success, don't you?

Didn't last night teach you anything??? Those were political agents ~ zombies but agents of the Right, the RepubliCons, the 1%. Dems, Libs, Progs don't do that. I've been dealing with this form of censorship for YEARS at other boards and forums.

If you advocate the denial ~ THE FORFEITING ~ the squandering of the system/weapons of defense our forefather left for us to ward off this tyranny ~ American democracy ~ you are asking for complete surrender. And I am Totally Against Surrender of any kind to tyranny!

There is LESS perfection, less moral goodness in surrender than participating in or UNITING with our political system to defeat the tyrannical right that has enslaved us!!

[-] 0 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

Economics professor Mike Hudson nailed it in a Democracy Now interview awhile ago.

Democracy Now Mike Hudson Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qJMrTa2hWE&feature=autoplay&list=PL708C0323057EA510&playnext=12 [right click]

Mitt Romney would be worse.

Mitt Romney's Economic Plan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vL9LRR55Jw&feature=relmfu [right click]

Mitt Romney Gets Heckled http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrWWSkKaZ8U&feature=fvst [right click]

Mitt Romney the candidate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MofWPexIabc&feature=related [right click]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Wouldn't that be nice?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

American Politics 101: A non-vote for one party becomes a vote for the other.

If you are going to insist that "the two parties are the same," you are either not very bright or working for the Cons, intentionally or by accident, the damage is the "same." The Cons are the political arm of the plutocratic 1%, who are waging a class war against the rest of us 99%. Which is what Occupy is protesting.

Cons lose when more people vote. But their zombie base of about 50 million will vote for them no matter what. So the only chance the Cons have to hold or gain positions in our government and do the dirty work for their masters is to suppress the vote any way they can. That's what the Cons are doing with voter IDs, caging, gerrymandering, and anything else they can't get away with. Even sabotaging and filibustering Dems in Congress and our duly elected POTUS (who has driven the Cons completely mad) to make them and him seem ineffective to voters who don't pay attention, are inexperienced or are easily duped. That's what they did in 2010 and, since they got away with it with complete impunity, plan to repeat this November, 2012.

Votes are the name of the game in a democracy, but when we don't participate, some people who see a way to game the system for their own selfish gain exploit our negligence and subvert our democracy. Our negligence and their greed has replaced Votes with Bucks. Now we have a system that requires those who wish to participate in our government (good or bad) to pay for the privilege. We have to get the money out, but the greedy people who are gaining-by-gaming us like the pay-to-play system we allowed to develop and will fight to the death to keep it.

This leaves us with a mess. But there is no magic wand to wave to fix it. Our forefathers created a system of government to handle and avoid these (tyrannies of Kings) problems: elections and voting (democracy), but we haven't been using it. We have the worst voter participation of any democracy, and the Kings in 1% love it. More political negligence, dereliction and impetuousness will just give us more and worse of what we have, and what some people cite as terminally unsolvable. But they are wrong.

Stop being wrong. Be a proud American, and Vote!

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

American Politics 101: Both parties are filled with liars just trying to get elected. Both parties' have elected politicians that are financed by the 1%.

Go read the forum rules. OWS does not support any presidential candidate.

He did not even propose the public option healthcare system: he had campaigned on that system, promising to propose it. (Wikipedia: ”President Barack Obama promoted the idea of the public option while running for election. After becoming President, Obama downplayed the need for a public health insurance option including calling it a “sliver” of health care reform,[4] but had not given up pursuing the idea before the health care reform was passed.[5] The preceding statement is disputed by evidence that the Obama administration had agreed to drop the public option from the final plan in the summer of 2009[6] in a back room deal with representatives of the for-profit hospital lobby[7]“)

He has appointed countless Wall Streeters to his top economic team, failing to appoint labor rights voices.

He has bailed out Wall Street instead of Main Street: remember TARP? And then the banks dispensed $6 billion in bonuses in that year to its executives.

He failed to attack the mortgage crisis, leaving an elephant still in our “room”, with one-third of home mortgages now underwater.

He failed to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, doing away with habeous corpus, allowing the government to arrest and detain indefinitely without a trial or hearing.

He agreed to an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and on top of that, he agreed to an egregious reduction of the estate taxes on the rich, exempting as much as $10 million from any estate taxes and lowering the estate tax rate down to a ridiculous rate of 35%, when our country has a $15 trillion debt. That alone saved the Walton heirs $17 billion in taxes.

He has failed to indict and imprison any of those banksters involved in all of that fraud on Wall Street from the subprime mortgage, including robo-signing, and selling shit-backed mortgage securities known to be worthless.

He appointed Jeffrey Immelt to head his Jobs Council when GE has been saying “China, China, China,” and shipping all jobs overseas while closing plants here in the US.

President Obama is now considering and proposing to lower the corporate tax rate to below 30%, when corporations are not only at a low-time rate of paying taxes but getting billions in tax subsidies from our government and opening up offices on the 19th floor of one building on the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes altogether.

President Obama spoke in favor of ACTA, PIPA and SOPA, when the internet is the last vestige of free speech and the availability of free information to the general public.

There were no indictments by President Obama of all the contractor fraud reported on by Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul in a Congressional Report released over a year ago. Whenever the rich and big corporations are caught in fraud, Eric Holder adopts a policy of “looking forward”, instead of holding them accountable.

President Obama agreed to the “grand bargain” (ended up getting refused in congress) to cut over $2 trillion in spending, including social security, medicare, medicaid, and other social safety-net programs merely in return for hypothetical “revenue increases” of $800 billion relying on “dynamic scoring”.

President Obama has done nothing to level the trade treaties, where corporations are shipping labor to Cambodia (22.5 cents per hour), China, Philippines, etc., where labor is paid 25 cents per hour. This is exporting slavery to other countries. Where is the level playing field for Americans?

President Obama in 2009 only proposed $140 billion in infrastructure spending when Paul Krugman and other economists predicted that $1.5 trillion was needed for our economy to recover. And last year only proposed a paltry $108 billion in infrastructure spending.

President Obama praised the recent JOBS Act, which allows corporations to go public and raise capital without audited financial information in their public presentations for the first five years, allowing them to present fictitious numbers and defraud investors? Repealed regulations put in place after the ENRON fraud that were created to protect investors.

President Obama has failed to propose the return of Glass-Steagall, separating commercial and investment banking, which will soon plunge us back into another mega-bailout of Wall Street.

President Obama has failed to propose the break up of the big banks and corporations and the federal reserve.

President Obama touted a $25 billion robo-signing settlement when a trillion dollars of our pension and retirement funds were stolen. While campaigning, President Obama promised to put on his walking shoes for labor, but failed to even show up in Wisconsin and walk the picket line against Governor Walker.

President Obama has not declared war on the Supreme Court, as President Roosevelt did, to oppose the corporate/rich posture of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. Why not take them on?

President Obama has arrested and raided more marijuana users in less than four years than George Bush did in eight years. Why is President Obama proposing cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid while spending more on marijuana arrests and raids, especially when a majority of Americans are for legalization of pot and for the open sale of marijuana for medical use?

Obama also appointed Monsanto's Michael Taylor to the FDA

He has been sued by the ACLU several times for war crimes

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these (torture) photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. - ACLU

He refused to sign an executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He's bombed more countries than Bush.

Obama even reappointed Bush's Ben Benrnanke to the Federal Reserve

Obama also turned his back on whistle blowers even though before his presidency he said they should be praised. Free Bradley Manning! All it takes is a pardon.

Obama also supported the patriot act, which essentially allows the federal government to delete the 4th amendment.

His administration has continually suppressed and refused to reveal information about the wars.

Goldman Sachs was his second largest backer in 2008, Obama accepted over 1 million dollars from them.

A vote for Obama or Romney is a vote for 1% and war. If you don't believe that ask Eileen Rominger, Michael Taylor, Ben Bernanke, and all the dead civilians from bombs since 2008.

Both parties work for the banks and the fed... Why hasn't Obama supported OWS? Is it because he has no intention of doing anything about any of the problems listed by OWS? Yes.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

That's so awful!!! Just imagine what the Cons would do!! Holly Jeeeezzaaazzz, WE LIVED IT!!!

Look, this guy can't have it both ways. He wants to ban partisan promotion (the positive), but he wants to rag on the Dem POTUS (the negative). All hate'n on the Dems. Hmmm...

Hypocrisy is the calling card of the Con. U C it from all the Con trolls, pundits and Pols. If it walks, quacks and sells Aflac, like a duck, it's a Con!!

"Me thinks thou doth protest too much!!" Busted, TROLL!!

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

Lulz. So according to you anyone who doesn't support Obama 2012 is a troll? ...yeah that's productive.

You must have failed to read my "Let them eat bombs" post today ... which heavily criticizes the cuts suggested by the repubs.

Sorry... there is not a republican president right now so I don't have a republican president to talk about. If Bush was president, I'd still be ragging on Bush. If McCain was president, I'd be ragging on McCain. But Obama is the current president and the only president there is to talk about currently. Does that make sense?

Go read the forum rules. OWS DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY CANDIDATE in the 2012 election.

Also my original post is about the fraud on Wall Street and the corruption in BOTH parties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVmq9dq6Nsg

Now no more responses for you.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

The Strawman argument is such an old RepubliCon ploy.

The insidious end-goal to take ever more of our government away from the 99% is aided by the suppression of the Vote and allowing more Cons to take office, means. This disgusting RepubliCon "Citizen United" state of our political system is the result of an electorate being duped by these "means."

Collusion does not need cognizance to work! Don't be duped!

Vote!

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

OBAMA 2012! the world's problems will be solved and everything will be perfect. JUST LIKE IT IS NOW BECAUSE HE IS ALREADY PRESIDENT

I just don't buy it

All Obama had to do to earn my vote again is to not bomb more countries than Bush... had he passed that standard... he'd have my vote.

Instead his administration has covered up torture evidence which could be used to build a case against Bush and his administration for war crimes.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Wouldn't it be nice if everything was not messy, not complicated, not compromised and not sabotaged by a reckless democracy-hating cult (RepubliCons)? But as the inherited fraudulent wars and the historically heisted economy show, our idealistic world is not our reality.

News flash: one man in the White House does not control the world!

All our problems are deliberate sabotages by the right in their life or death war against democracy and a collective state. Quit falling for it. You help them. Is that your intention??

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

War with iran in 2013! Read the new NDAA for 2013!!!

(6) President Obama stated on January 24, 2012, `Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.'.

"(b) Declaration of Policy- It shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112d0yc3G:e737116:

This all reminds me of Bush talking about Iraq.

[-] 2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Whatever horrors you believe about Dems is 50 million times worse with RepubliCons!

We have neglected our political system and money has taken over. Even good politicians need to play the money game if they want any chance to succeed at all. More imperfection. But the idea that both parties are the same is a RepubliCon-MSM-1% tactic to suppress the vote like they did in 2010, which got us all those crazy Tea Baggers and Koch Bros pols like Scott Walker!!

Don't be fooled again!!

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

Get out the VOTE!!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You posts are not original or special, they're naive and under-informed. I stinkle the posts I run across that weaken the cause for the 99%.

Reset. Now tell me what you advocate to solve the problem of 1% tyranny!

Obama administration, if you are listening, please hire me, I'm dying of poverty and a million cuts from this aimless sea of rebels without a fucking clue!!!

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

All you ever do is call me a troll because I do not support Obama or Romney.

Please again tell me which part of this list is not 100% factually accurate?

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

go talk to some ambitious campaign manager with a plastic smile that thinks you're too old

[+] -6 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Nightmare.

..."who" thinks...

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Obama is bush on roids...they both do the same thing and are funded by the same people...take a look at campaign contributions...if you think obama is solving this countries problems...you're as naive as someone thinking bush was solving them....or that mitt romney will.

[+] -4 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You are clueless, a Troll or both.

What is your solution for the 1% tyranny problem?

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Stop the source of tyranny...a corrupt banking system (read through www.hmscoop.com for a quick cut to the chase overview of how the middle and lower class get screwed)...and a corrupt government in bed with big business. Cap total income for all members of congress (from all avenues of possible income for them (stocks, campaign funds, side jobs...whatever) to stop the ability of big business to influence government and not work for the people...which is what has been happening to screw over the average joe.

I'm clueless? What has obama done that is any different than bush (who i hated too). You can now assassinate american citizens without a trial...you can indefinitely detain american citizens without a trial...he didn't close down the secret prisons that were promised to be closed down...he's increased government debt that bush got us started on....he's gone against his word of not using superpac money and has cozzied up to big business and wallstreet....he promised to veto the NDAA act but ended up signing it into law...which could be the most dangerous piece of legislation in this countries history....there are now safe zones in which you can protest....he increased most of the wars he promised to end (which bush got us started on).

Wake up...snap out of it..stop looking at this as democratic vs republican....it isn't...they both do the same crap.

Taxing the 1% more is treating the symptom of the corrupt system....the real question is where does the inequality come from...that's what you need to attack.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Sorry JIFFYSQUID92, this stinks to high heaven. You are pushing party politics. He is looking for an effective alternative, radical though that might seem.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

This is just another Con means to a 1% cult end. Don't be duped.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Define please...

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Voter suppression.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Seems there is a lot of that around here.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Define "here."

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

This message board, and others serving Occupy generally.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Is RW troll, zombie sabotage new to you?

On CL they flat out censor posters they don't approve of. Here they can't, so they pretend to be "Occupy Supporters" who just so happen to discourage and disparage the democratic process, the bane of the right.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Actually, yes it is...

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

How is that? Hope it's not too rude an awakening.

The right simply hates free speech and freedom of the press. Which is why we have the most ignorant and uninvolved electorate among "democratic" nations. Their 1% employers own MSM.

Our system isn't broken, it's fixed.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I tend to write and argue in different circles.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Do tell...

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Trevon works only to weaken OWS

[-] 0 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

Attacking Democrats is not the same as supporting Republicans. Attacking Republicans is not the same as supporting Democrats. They are the two sides of the same coin, and they answer to the same masters. It makes no sense to vote in rigged elections for either one, and consequently it makes no sense to argue about which one to vote for in an OWS forum:

http://www.occupyoakland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Bushbama.jpg

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

The Strawman argument is such an old RepubliCon ploy.

The insidious end-goal to take ever more of our government away from the 99% is aided by the suppressing the Vote and allowing more Cons to take office, means. This disgusting RepubliCon "Citizen United" state of our political system is the result of an electorate being duped by these "means."

Collusion does not need to be cognizance to work! Don't be duped!

Vote!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

JIFFYSQUID92 wrote: "A non-vote for one party becomes a vote for another."

This is not necessarily true, if the "non-vote" is for something positive, such as withdrawing the voter's consent to be governed under the Constitution. Doing so in the 2012 elections would be a powerful tactic and, given sufficient votes, could de-legitimize the twin-party's political game and any candidate that game seats...

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Not even half of the eligible population vote this has sent no clear message of dissent this has just made it easier to control the polls. Opting out has never worked or made any kind of impression other then that those who don't vote don't care, and allow their silence to be perceived as acceptance.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Not "non-vote" as in not voting. Rather "non-vote" as in not voting for a candidate. As in specifically voting to remove the voter's consent to governance under the Constitution to force (not demand or ask) the Congress to call a long overdue Article V Convention...

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

The Existential Danger of an Article V Constitutional Convention
IT CAN DISCARD OUR CONSTITUTION AND
CREATE ONE FROM SCRATCH

that plus exactly one other fact is all you must know -
ALEC spent a fortune to get an article v convention


but here are the details:


ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by [state] Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.


TO CREATE CON CON: ( 2/3 of House + 2/3 of Senate ) OR ( 2/3 of State Legislatures ) RATIFICATION OF CON CON PROPOSED & PASSED AMENDMENTS: ( ¾ of State Conventions ) OR ( ¾ of State Legislatures )


This language clearly states that only the Convention itself is authorized to determine the amendments that are to be proposed and what subjects will be addressed in those amendments. During the first 100 years of the Republic, applications for a convention did not try to tell the convention which amendments to propose, that is, they were, as stated in Article V, general applications for a convention. Early applications, since 1788, properly left the determination of the content of the amendments to the convention. As time passed, the state legislatures lost sight of the clear language and intent of the U.S. Constitution. Later, they attempted to dictate to a convention what amendments it could propose. They did this by stating in their applications that they sought only a limited convention with authority to propose an amendment on a single subject. By issuing single-issue convention applications, legislatures sought to turn the convention into a rubber stamp which could do only what the applications stated. These unenforceable, unconstitutional limitations defy the intended purpose of the convention, which was to deliberate and decide what amendments to propose. Most recent calls for a con-con has been dressed up as a movement to require Congress to call a convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment requiring a balanced budget; to ban flag burning; to ban abortion…. Topics to which a convention is to be limited are designed to be appealing, but most jurists agree that Congress has no authority to dictate or limit what subjects to address in a convention. The Article V ratification process was not sufficient to stop the runaway convention which met in 1787. The delegates were called to meet in Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress. Yet it did not take the delegates long to assume upon themselves more powers than what they had been given. In fact , they completely discarded the Articles of Confederation and wrote a completely new Constitution – defining the first “runaway convention” - discarding the original document and starting from scratch The primary argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to propose whatever amendments it deemed beneficial. Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” - exactly like the 1787 Convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened. U.S. Supreme Court justices and the nation's leading legal scholars have stated that these single-subject limitations cannot be enforced; that if a convention is called, it will be free to propose any kind and number of amendments to the same effect, as if the limitations in the applications did not exist. In other words, although applications are effective, all such limitations must be ignored. We even have a warning directly from James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” concerning the inadvisability of calling for a constitutional convention. When the states of New York and Virginia formally petitioned Congress in 1788 to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, Madison wrote a letter in 1788 in which he emphatically warned against convening such a convention: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... An election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans ... [and] would contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the [nation’s] very foundations.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger, vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention wrote on June 22, 1988: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda. The 1787 Convention ignored the limit stated by the Confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose”. Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.” Associate Justice Arthur J Goldberg: "One of the most serious problems Article 5 poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from passing wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups, whose self interest may be contrary to our nations well being"

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe stated that a Con-Con could not be limited to a single issue. "The stakes in this institution are much greater because you are putting the whole Constitution up for grabs. In 1787, there was at least agreement on the direction we should move ... today, we don't even agree what direction we should move. In 1787, America had a treasure of enlightened leaders such as Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson. I don't know how you feel about the current cast of characters." Tribe also noted that a runaway convention could even change the rules of ratification, as the 1787 convention did, and make them ratifiable by national vote or some other method. (The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification by all 13 state legislatures, but delegates at the 1787 convention recognized this might not be accomplished, so they changed the ratification rules to three-fourths of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions.)

Professor Rex E. Lee, former law school professor and later president of Brigham Young University wrote, "In short, if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is 'No', but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is 'Yes'. In our history we have only one experience with a Constitutional Convention, and while the end result was good, the 1787 convention itself was a definite runaway. Could a constitutional convention called to consider a particular issue be limited either by Congressional directive or otherwise to that single issue. The only safe statement that could be made on this subject is that no one knows. But the only relevant precedent would indicate that the convention could not be so limited. Anyone who purports to express a definitive view on this subject is either deluded or deluding."

Professor Charles Allen Wright, a Professor of Law at the University of Austin. "I feel quite certain that even opening the door to the possibility of a constitutional convention would be a tragedy for the country." Professor Gunther, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School wrote "The fear that a constitutional convention could become a 'runaway' convention and propose wholesale changes in our Constitution is by no means unfounded. Rather, this broad view of the authority of a convention reflects the consensus of most constitutional scholars who have commented on the issue. A convention, once called, would be in the same position as the only other convention of this kind that we have had in our history - the 1787 Philadelphia Convention - the first runaway convention." However, if we use precedent of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, that includes one vote per state, just 14 states – a majority of a quorum [ 26 states ] is 14 states - representing less than 16,000,000 Americans could write & propose a completely new Constitution!

Some possible Article V convention Amendments : No one can own a gun. Evolution cannot be taught. No corporate tax. No inheritance tax. The gold standard. Labor unions are illegal. The EPA & FDA & SEC are abolished. Islam is banned. Abortion is illegal. For the purposes of house representation, women are counted as 3/5. Birth control is illegal.

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Yes, I've heard about "runaway" conventions. Those "fears" are somewhat overblown considering that all proposed amendments must be ratified. My preference is a popular vote for ratification of each proposed amendment.

The reason everyone supporting the status-quo does not want an Article V Convention? "[T]here is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention" wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger.

It scares the hell out of them (the elite).

You argue we surrender our only Constitutional means. The only political option that consistently scares them. I don't think so.

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

There is NO constitutional means to "popular vote" an amendment NONE!
Why not advocate for a plan that is legal and is constitutional and is supported by 80%+ of Americans ??????????????


Have you noticed how the OWS population has shrunk ?
Ask anyone you know outside of OWS -
We are crumbling because we are marching and wishing -
WE ARE NOT DOING


"You argue we surrender our only Constitutional means." This is not true - I argue for reality - and I work - I do something - to get an amendment passed


I am not a novice on the article v convention- you may not believe US Chief Justice Burger - but kee in mind - we had exactly one convention and it was a total runaway - they even changed the rules to ratify itself. Where is the law that states that a convention cannot be "runaway"?


ANd do you really want to "STAND WITH ALEC" ?

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Is ALEC any different than the old DLC? Thought not.

It's good to know you're looking after us and doing something. And granted, OWS could be doing more and may even be played out. But others among us are doing something too.

In particular, I am trying to find a democratic means to force Congress to call an Article V Convention.

Why?

Because, simply put, corrupt twin-party politics as usual is destroying our nation, and its democratic values, and has been for some time... Elite and corporate conduct has become so egregious people are finally waking up, taking notice and asking questions. But the simple fact is, there is no direct, democratic means for us, we the people, to challenge our own government when it becomes corrupt, despotic and tyrannical.

We ought be trying to change that. Constitutionally. At the 2012 elections. By presenting voters a stark choice... either support the status-quo or oppose it. Depending on sufficient voter support, our opposition vote conveys our ability to force Congress to issue an Article V Convention call, thereby invoking Constitutional means to effect the changes we deem necessary -- the Separation of Wealth and State -- removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political process.

Perhaps you ought read "Occupy the Vote: Removing Consent of the Governed" in either this thread, or at www.theMultitude.org

Our founders did too good a job containing “mobocracy” and protecting the elite. And while I am fine with private ownership, even great wealth, we must draw the line at great wealth corrupting our government, bullying the world and buying favors at our expense... And there is no democratic alternative except the elite's "heads I win, tails you lose" twin-party political game?

I don't think so...

It's our Constitution, our government and our vote. It's our decision.

A Convention will not runaway from us, we wield our votes, but is capable of ripping control away from the elite and their corporations.

I recognize and understand exactly whom you quote in your posts. Elite funded professors. SCOTUS Chief Justice. You argue ALEC has been trying for years to get an Article V Convention called. I think not. By all credible accounts, more than enough state resolutions have been tendered for Congress to call a Convention at any time. In fact, it is unConstitutional for Congress to refuse to call one. And this is exactly the leverage we use.

Tell every sitting Representative and Senator; this is our petition for redress of our grievances, either call a Convention, now, before the elections, or we will withdraw our consent to be governed in your election and force the issue... Would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality opposed them by explicitly withdrawing our consent in their election?

Citizens voting to withdraw our consent to be governed is a Constitutional crisis for the elite... Just because it is a peaceful revolution does not make it any less a power struggle. Nor any less effective. OWS emphasizes its process. Well, this is every American's electoral process, and if we want politics to be more democratic, we must make it so.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The only way a true non-vote would or even could possibly work is to have a box on the ballot that say's I reject all of the candidates currently on the ballot for this office. Kick em to the curb and leave the office vacant until an acceptable candidate of the people FOR the people can be presented to the American public for approval. No legislation can be enacted during this time period.

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Interesting thought. Actually, Constitutionally speaking, there is a way to pretty much do exactly that... Perhaps you'll consider it as a serious alternative in the 2012 elections. Please take a look at the "Occupy the Vote" thread at www.theMultitude.org

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Don't think you could get it instituted in time for this years elections.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Well, that is a concern. On the other hand, there is more interest in the subject than I've seen for many years. With proper prep, and starting soon, it might be possible...

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I have no problem with the concept none what so ever. I believe that this should always have been an option for the voter in any and all elections.

In fact during the times of a vacant office - any emergency legislation would need to go before the people.

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Interesting. Get that reply a lot... What I expect is a "fractured" Congress where only a handful of Representatives and Senators are considered legitimate and the rest tainted by pluralities whom voted against them by withdrawing their consent. Clearly we voted to force Congress to call a long overdue Article V Convention... and predicate return of our consent to be governed on the successful conclusion of a Convention with the popular ratification of a proposed amendment to effect the Separation of Wealth and State (much the same way the Constitution was ratified).

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We ( the people ) must claim and own the process 1st or an article V convention could be stolen from us.

If we do reclaim our process - own it - an article V would not be needed - so nothing would be put to risk.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

We have several tasks: First, we must agree on an effective goal (the Separation of Wealth and State). Second, we must agree on an effective strategy for achieving our goal ("NO CONSENT" vote in the 2012 federal elections). Third, we must educate ourselves and overcome any practical or local problems while getting the word out peacefully. Forth, we must act now... time is short.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

" we must act now... time is short ". I agree - but I also think we already have the necessary tools - we just have not been making use of them.

Petitions. Like the use of which has forced a recall election to be enacted in Wisconsin. This can be used everywhere and for everything. The deal is to own it and then use it. Petition OSTA , campaign finance reform, implementation of green energy technology, enforce the EPA pollution control mandate, regulate the fossil fuel speculation, remove subsidies from fossil fuel and etc etc etc etc etc etc - OWN THE SYSTEM.

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

The only petition I am interested in, at present, is the one for redress we plan to deliver in the 2012 elections: calling an Article V Convention to effect the Separation of Wealth and State.

We do own the system.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago
[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I agree, vote! But voting for candidates will do little good at this point. I suggest we vote to force Congress to call an Article V Convention by withdrawing our consent to be governed under the Constitution... I will make my re-consent known by ratifying a proposed Constitutional amendment(s) which effect the Separation of Wealth and State. See www.theMultitude.org

[+] -5 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Legislation takes legislators, and we Vote them in.

That's how our founders brilliantly formed our political system. They did not foresee the Big Media, Big Money, Big Swindle we have today.

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Hence my statements above...

[-] -3 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You don't vote to "force." You vote to replace 1%-serving Cons with 99%-serving Dems. "Hence" reform and progress.

But Cons have come out openly sabotaging our democracy, right in front of our electoral faces, with complete impunity. Critical mass may be nigh, the cold class war my be turning hot. Change (garlic to 1% vampires) is in the air!

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

No I think "force" appropriate. Politics is war by other means.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Bastard - go do your recruiting at Blackwater.

SFB.

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

What kind of idiot are you? Fried or baked?

Go away. This conversation did not involve nor concern you.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah and I have some prime bottom land to sell you. Hope you don't mind what it is the bottom of.

This is an open forum if you didn't notice.

You wanna have a private convo?

Take it somewhere else.

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

You are a truly irritating asshole, DKAtoday. The anarchists who moderate this forum took pity on your whining candy ass, and now you think you're the cock of the walk? LOL. In your fucking dreams, pussy...

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What you defending your whore pal now?

Wow what a show of togetherness. Quite often you dumb shits don't even recognize each other (?) and pick fights with one another. Is that called casualties of moronic fire?

Yeah the NYPD pulled the same blunder when they arrested Their Journalist.

Are all blind marchers like you really blind?

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Nobody gives a shit about your random babbling, DKAtoday. You have no fucking clue who I am, where I am or what I do for OWS, so you can stop pretending you do, POSER.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What ever.

You do nothing FOR OWS.

Or they would not continue banning your stupid ass.

[-] -3 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

You have no fucking clue whether I've ever been banned or not, poser. And who gives a shit about "getting banned" anyway? What, you're only a cool revolutionary if you follow forum rules like a good little nerd?

Fuck you, DKAtoday. You're a pussy and you don't know shit from shinola.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Your right.

Are you shit? or shinola?

You seem to be pretty well informed on some things. So I figure you have been here before.

Your talking points are familiar so I figure Koch whore.

You try to put words in my mouth and the question is confirmed.

You are a mittens loving blind marching Koch whore who has had little or no success fucking around on this forum.

Getting bitter?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You are your own worst enemy. You call me a joke and laugh about how no one defended me during the bot attack. If you were not here how would you know (?) what was going on? If I am the laughing stock you say I am why do you even bother to acknowledge my existence - let alone go ahead and try to discredit me in the same manner as was happening leading up to the major attack?

OH - BTW I have some pretty good friends here who did stand up for me even though it got them onto the attack list.

So - I - Will - Say - Again - you suck at your troll work.


[-] 0 points by able132 (6) 3 minutes ago

DKAtoday keeps calling me and everyone else who sees him for the poser he is "Koch whores", but I have yet to see him post any proof of same about me or anyone else. I say post the proof or shut the fuck up, pussy. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

DKAtoday keeps calling me and everyone else who sees him for the poser he is "Koch whores", but I have yet to see him post any proof of same about me or anyone else. I say post the proof or shut the fuck up, pussy.

[-] -2 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

DKAtoday says "OH - BTW I have some pretty good friends here who did stand up for me even though it got them onto the attack list."

I say how pathetic can your life be for you to have to call pseudoanonymous forum posters your "pretty good friends"...

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Specifically our democracy, by design to replace and negate revolution.

But it ain't a spectator sport.

Runoff elections would help.

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Oh, a little revolution is good for the democratic soul. And it is a spectator sport...

Our "democracy" is actually a republic with (more-or-less) democratic voting by the people for candidates offered up for elective office by two "competing" elite parties.

A little direct democracy, voice of the people, in the 2012 elections would be... interesting.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

How is poverty, war and death collateral damage a spectator sport? A thriving democracy requires Voting, even more participation.

We have a democratic-constitutional republic, we elect people to represent us. But our "We the People" America is an experiment in democracy. Neglected as we have done, it has been exploited and turned against Americans in favor of a few plutocratic would-be Kings in the 1%, soldiered by RepubliCons whom they employ.

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Democracy, politics, is a spectator sport. And perhaps I might add "a little Constitutional revolution is good for the democratic soul."

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Democracy is by nature a participatory activity. The would-be Kings in the 1% and their RepubliCon mercenaries would have the rest of us 99% believe it was a spectators sport, but they would also have us pay our taxes directly to them as well.

Your "revolution is good" mantra is sounding libertarian, are you a fan of Ayan Rand?

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I understand your point... and no, defiantly not a fan. (That, by the way, was the spell checker's correction. Karma's a b!tch.)

But, for the vast majority of us, politics is merely a spectator sport, especially national politics which is out of (our) control. (That is to say, any semblance of democratic, we the people, control.)

I support an Article V Constitutional Convention for simple reasons. Democratic reasons. Everyone (even shills and trolls) offers homage to "democratic participation" and bemoans "if we could just get people to participate." But people know the game is rigged. Unless offered a real choice why play?

I simply propose we offer a real choice. A democratic choice. A voting choice. With teeth in it.

Then the question is: Exactly how many of us do not consent to the present conduct of the government of the United States of America?

Are Americans disaffected with things as they are? Ask them.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Cart before Horse - AssHole and you damn well know it.

You push the Koch agenda.

Get them to call for an Article V convention before they can actually be ready for one.

Zingo - Slingo - Another gift for the greedy corrupt criminals.

Whew so close - I could feel the people breathing down my neck - fortunately they bought that crap about an Article V convention - DAMN BUT THAT WAS CLOSE.

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Go away. This conversation does not involve you.

Sticking around will simply prove you the village idiot...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You've said that before - and I have said this before - You want a private conversation - Take it somewhere else.

When you spout crap in public it is every good citizens right to respond.

Just trying to follow my civic duty. {:-])

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

We have neglected our political system and money has taken over. Even good politicians need to play the money game if they want any chance to succeed at all. More imperfection. But the idea that both parties are the same is a RepubliCon-MSM-1% tactic to suppress the vote like they did in 2010, which got us all those crazy Tea Baggers and Koch Bros pols like Scott Walker!!

Don't be fooled again!!

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

Get out the VOTE!!

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

JIFFYSQUID92 wrote: "But the idea that both parties are the same is a RepubliCon-MSM-1% tactic".

No, this is a historical and sociological fact, but you will not find it in a HS or college general ed civics textbook. Might have to do a little research, but it is a fact. Suggest you start with Tom Dye, PhD and Carroll Quigley, PhD if you're interested in facts.

[-] -2 points by able123 (174) 2 years ago

This forum is to support OWS, not the Democratic Party. Please take your partisan promos elsewhere.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Occupy movements from coast to coast are to support the 99% from the tyranny of a few in the 1%.

Keep your newbie naivete to yourself.

A successful democracy takes Votes, Voting is intrinsically partisan.

If Occupy is successful it will manifest in elections, partisan ones.

[-] -1 points by able123 (174) 2 years ago

To JIFFYSQUID92, close competitor to Shooz for the title of VIllage Idiot of the OWS Forum: I am neither "naive" nor a "newbie" you pro-regime nutcase. The date a forum ID is created and the forum groupthink points it accumulates reflect absolutely nothing about the virtues of the poster or the veracity of their postings.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Never said they did.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

IronButt - Is that you IronButt? Hows the PR business going?

You advertizing for me in a left handed fashion now?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

"This forum is to support OWS, not the Democratic Party. Please take your partisan promos elsewhere."

Which part of this did you not understand, Demopublican?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

"The Occupy Movements from coast to coast are to support the 99% from the tyranny of a few in the 1%.

"Keep your newbie naivete to yourself.

"A successful democracy takes Votes, Voting is intrinsically partisan.

If Occupy is successful it will manifest in elections, partisan ones."

What part of keep your newbie naivete to your lame-ass self don't you understand. You can't honestly be this dumb, you have to be a TROLL! A Troll pretending to be an Occupy supporter, discouraging and disparaging the one thing that will make the Occupy Movement successful, VOTING!!

Get out the Vote!!

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Yeah, yeah, I'm a troll because I don't follow the party line like you do. Chris Hedges says:

“Don't waste any more time or energy on the presidential election than it takes to get to your polling station and pull a lever for a third-party candidate-—just enough to register your obstruction and defiance—and then get back out onto the street. That is where the question of real power is being decided.”

So I say go fuck yourself, JIFFYSQUID92...

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You could get checks from the RepubliCon Cult, they have all the money and you are certainly helping them.

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

The corporate-controlled Republican Party exists to make the corporate-controlled Democratic Party look like a viable alternative to wannabe revolutionaries who don't really wannabe revolutionaries.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You're already getting RepubliCon checks, aren't you?

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Get somebody who can read big words to explain my posts to you, moron.

Believe in an America you can't hope to change. Vote Obomney for President in 2012!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luWgyVpDEa8

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Oh, I get it, opposite world.

You Cons are sooo elementary. What do you say next, "I know you are, but what am I?" You know you want to, don't you democracy-hating TROLL?

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

For JIFFYSQUID92 below:

The two-party tyranny we have is NOT democracy, fuckhead.

If it weren't for "shooz", you'd be the dumbest poster in this forum...

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Occupy the Vote: Removing Consent of the Governed in Elections

Just a few thoughts regarding removing our consent to be governed in federal elections.

Traditional forms of political protest are only an indirect means of influencing elected officials. This why traditional protest has a limited effect in our republican system — it’s not that it cannot accomplish anything, but rather that it can only accomplish whatever "our" elected representatives are willing to allow…

In our little republic, we, the people, democratically elect representatives who, in turn, are supposed to represent our best interests by making, modifying and annulling the laws by which we govern ourselves. At this point in history, however, our ballot is dominated by a “twin party” system which is beholden to moneyed interests and our representatives are, essentially, bribed and corrupted by those elite and corporate interests to do their bidding. It may be an old political saw, but we really do have the best government money can buy (from an elite point of view).

This is the great open secret of American politics: The system is corrupt, but to challenge it directly (that is by independently offering a full slate of candidates for election) is not only extremely expensive, but requires a high degree of commitment and discipline because it takes significant time to change it. This is because, simply, our founders designed our system of governance for stability, that it might overcome any “momentary passions” of the democratic majority (which they referred to as “mobocracy”). Moreover, any challenge which proceeds on the current basis of “party” politics and campaign financing is open to the same corrupting influences (witness the Tea Party).

Problem is that while our founders may have protected minority rights (read that as the rights of the 1%) from possible tyranny of a democratic majority, they neglected to provide equal safeguards to protect us from them. Despite Constitutional affirmations of individual rights and prohibitions restricting police power, there is no direct, democratic mechanism by which we, the people, can challenge a despotic and tyrannical government. Even Article V places Congress in a “gatekeeper” role when the states petition for an Article V Convention…

What the radically democratic idea “None of the Above” ultimately proposes is that our democratic franchise, the vote, must be expanded to meet this very real and present danger to the republic. Expansion of the voting franchise has occurred several times, most notably by incorporating former slaves and women into the voting population. However this proposal differs insofar as it expands the range of political choice available to each and every voter. That choice is, at base, a rejection of all candidates for a particular office, be it a seat in the House of Representatives, Senate, or the Presidency of the United States.

But, since rejecting all candidates is not now law, what can be done?

Democracy (in this case defined as the ability of people to elect honest representatives in our republic), in and of itself, is a normative value. That value holds that no form of governance is valid that does not originate in the people themselves. That this nation is self-governing and does not rely on a grant of permission or power from outside the people themselves. Normally, if our elected officials plainly do not represent us, we replace them in the following election with candidates who do (and whom proceed to alter or abolish the offending law and its resultant policy).

But if our elected officials are corrupt and plainly do not represent us, and if the political process for selecting candidates for the ballot (i.e.: the two party system) is corrupt as well, then there is little to no democratic choice to be had. Though deceit and treachery our ability to self-govern has been subverted and the resulting government (defined as the sitting Congress, President, and Court), although having been elevated to office using our democratic forms and processes, is illegitimate.

Since we cannot simply reject all corrupt candidates, the only other mechanism available is petitioning our elected representatives for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution. Unfortunately, our petitions tend to fall on deaf ears, insofar as we are petitioning the very representatives beholden to elite interests…

Fortunately, the Constitution does not limit “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Thus, no avenue for political protest is Constitutionally foreclosed so long as it is peaceful. This encompasses the full range of “traditional” political protest including Occupy itself.

These traditional methods of political protest, however, as well as their attendant petitions for a redress of grievances, fall outside any recognized, Constitutional means for compelling elected representatives to take notice and act. Most particularly, there is no method of accurately determining exactly who (that is to say, how many voters) are demanding a specific act by elected officials to redress their grievances.

It is time to remove this ambiguity by moving our protest and petition for redress of our grievances into the electoral process itself — the vote. We ought advocate that all voters write-in a consistent “mark” (for example “NO CONSENT”) in each and every federal election.

By merely placing our consent in the electoral ring we, the people, can choose to either support the status-quo (by voting for a candidate), or oppose the status-quo (by voting to withdraw our consent to be governed). This is a powerful democratic political statement that cannot be ignored -- given a sufficient number of votes it will de-legitimize the current twin party political process and any government that process seats.

This is a direct, peaceful and Constitutional challenge to elite rule.

If we openly and peacefully and horizontally organize and prepare for an election where we employ this protest, our votes must be officially recorded and all votes cast for “NO CONSENT” counted and reported. This is a Constitutional and undeniable enumeration of citizen support for a specific redress of our grievances (calling an Article V Convention to effect the Separation of Wealth and State* -- removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political processes), because that redress is the object of our vote.

Although our protest may not be considered legal by the current government, our political circumstance is far more complex: Voting is a normative democratic value which serves as our implied consent to governance under the Constitution -- no government is legitimate without citizens voting for representation — voting is the means by which the “will of the people” is determined and expressed to representative government. Thus, when the political process for selecting candidates to appear on the ballot becomes corrupt and government ceases to be representative, it becomes necessary to express our “will of the people” directly, on the ballot itself, as petition for redress of our grievances as provided in the Constitution.

Question is, are Americans "disaffected with things as they are"? Exactly how many of us do not consent to the present conduct of the government of the United States of America?

If few, then either a D or R candidate will be elected (and our vote may simply swing the election one way or the other).

If many, however, a completely different political circumstance emerges as a consequence of the normative democratic value of voting and withdrawing our "consent of the governed". Consider the Declaration of Independence, our founders' statement of democratic virtues -- would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality opposed them by explicitly withdrawing our consent in their election?

What happens if a majority of us withdraw our consent?

People voting their consent to be governed in the 2012 elections is our democratic choice -- our right -- to either support the status-quo or oppose it.

Choose your side. Take a stand. Be counted.

In the meantime, get the message out, register voters, demand transparent and accurate vote counting, do whatever it takes to make our voices heard and our message clear. We support democracy, demand corporate money out of politics, and intend to end elite domination of our government.

DSams

NOTES:

*EvolutionNow's phrase:

"We are the 99%. We demand Democratic Government that is Of, By, and For the People. We demand the Separation of Wealth and State.

It is past time for Us, the 99%, to declare, and rally around, a unified purpose. Can anyone reasonably object to the above demand?

Consider:

In order for any of us (of the 99%) to effectively embark on the collective pursuit of economic recovery and positive social change, we must first obtain Access To and thereby Rightful Control Of our own Democratic Government. In order to do that, we must first demand and enforce the dismantling the many anti-Democratic structures that uphold the corrupt marriage of Wealth and State.

The marriage of Wealth and State has has allowed the institution of Private Ownership to invade and conquer the institution of Public Citizenship. That invasion and conquest has laid waste to our democratic ideals, and reaped havoc on our economic system. It has enacted the systematic disempowerment of the citizen majority (the 99%) and enabled the harmful redistribution of Wealth to the micro-minority (the 1%).

There is no place for the monetary purchase of Super-Citzenship in a People's Democracy. There is no place for Corporations in the ranks of a Democratic Citizenry. Wealth must afford No Special Power, No Special Treatment, in the halls and courtrooms of Democratic Government. These commonsense truisms, and the democratic ideals that inspire them, flow through the Beating Heart of We, the People. And the Realization of our Common Democratic Vision begins with the Common Cry of our Common Demand: the Separation of Wealth and State!"

www.theMultitude.org

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

"And the Realization of our Common Democratic Vision begins with the Common Cry of our Common Demand: the Separation of Wealth and State!"


so which electable candidate is closest to this ideal?

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

Electable? Meaning Romney or Obama? The 2 people that are both funded by Goldman Sachs?

It's that kind of state of mind the media puts out on people to make them forget about the real ideal. Are they "electable" ?

It even happens on a local level.... In my city, our newspaper didn't invite a man running for senate to a debate because he didn't raise as much money as the corporate backed candidates. They also cropped him out of a photo. Funny how the presidential candidates with the most money almost always get the nominee.

[-] 2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

This is another example of a corrupt electoral process... We will not solve our problems by voting for parties or candidates. We must unite behind something. I suggest the Separation of Wealth and State, removing all elite and corporate money from elections and the halls of representative government, which strikes at the root of the problem...

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

If you want to sever the money - government connection - here is something
YOU CAN DO


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 - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - 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:

Overturning the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision which enabled the flood of secret money that is drowning our political system,

Overturning the 1976 Buckley Supreme Court decision which equates money and speech,

Eradicating the corporate personhood rights invented in the courts that
have enabled corporations to buy our democracy,

Supports campaign finance reform to level the playing field for all candidates.

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 )

www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

regular meetings Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium


░░░░█░.░███░░.███░░█░..░█░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█.█░.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░.█.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░░░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░██░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
█░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░█░.░█░░
..███░░ ░███░..░███.░.█░░░█░░░░.████░.░███░░░


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

Twinkle!

Money out of politics! Because our elected leaders should be working for us... not corporate cash.

[-] 1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Would you perhaps consider reading a short thread "Occupy the Vote" at www.theMultitude.org ? Would appreciate establishing an on-going dialog. The thread concerns triggering an Art. V Convention using our vote to withdraw our consent to be governed under the Constitution in the 2012 elections.

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

in what category?

[-] 1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Planning, the thread title is "Occupy the Vote".

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I think the OP has an extremely valuable idea. For a number of reasons, all good of course.

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

if that means stopping business as usual,

I support that

demand elections be national and state holidays

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

what do you think matt? about OP?

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

Obama is responsible for the actions of the military that have been bombing many countries

As to law, budgets and bank collusion, congress should be responsible.

Concentrating blame on a person rather than addressing the issue is an "ad hominem"

have you heard the news? the dogs are dead,

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is what I'm talking about should have inc. link

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-suggest-this-november-we-occupy-the-polls-and-a-/

This would actually be a case where being partisan would be illegal.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

It does.

[-] 1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

None. It's time to put an end to the elite's political Potemkin villages...

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

Amen. I do get tired of these party shills trying to remake OWS into the image of whatever party they support.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

RE: Yesterdays RW-RebuliCon Troll attack:

Politics MOST CERTAINLY has EVERYTHING to do with "it" ~ the censorship of Free Speech especially that which conflicts with the dictatorial propaganda that comes from the 1%-owned, RepuliCon, RW, MSM, Fox (RepubliCon-TV) Lies, and Hate-Lie Talk Radio ~ UNDENIABLY and IRREFUTABLY!

Specifically, "conflicting Free Speech" that advocates a solution to the 1% tyranny of our Government, Media, Country and the 99% People: UNITY and VOTING!!!!

Sorry to spoil the party, but we are in a Class War! We, The People, are suffering the casualties, are losing the war, and fight each other instead of who our real enemy is. The real enemy is a group of would-be Kings (the "descendants" from the King of England's Loyalists and Royalists and hate democracy) in the 1%. We abandoned our democracy so they stole it and use it against us to make unimaginable wealth and power. That we might get smart and Unite against them, makes us mortal enemies. That's why we are the most ignorant, divided, non-voting, slave-waged, uninsured, population among modern democracies. All of which makes the "Kings" very happy and rich!!! And they will do whatever it takes to keep it that way!!!

That's the RW, RepubliCon, 1%, POLITICAL reason they sent out their cretinous Zombie Trolls to Censor posts on this Forum ~ and why we have to VOTE to kick and keep them out of our Government, local to DC!!

UNITE AND WIN!

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!!

Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They WROTE!!!!

Occupy the America's Alarm Clock, then Occupy the ELECTION!!!

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

You call anti-war liberals trolls because they do not support pro-war candidates.

You make all the Obama 2012 campaign supporters look bad. At least have some respect like factsrfun does.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You are a naive fool! And discouraging the Vote is the only way Cons can win! Fool!

Can someone else talk some sense into this idiot!

Help Wisconsin! The partisan spark that inspired OWS in the first place!! Idiot! Discouraged Voters in 2010 caused this!!

http://www.alternet.org/story/155624/koch_brothers%27_americans_for_prosperity_goes_all_out_in_wisconsin_recall--and_denies_it!/

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

All Obama had to do to earn my vote was not bomb more countries than Bush. I didn't want a warmonger president with Bush and I don't want another one now.

Nice name calling by the way. Very adult.

I don't blindly support anyone. If they want my support they gotta earn it. I'll be voting... just not for a person backed by Goldman Sachs.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I don't have time for your foolishness! Seek help from someone else!!

Perfection is a myth, like Raygun!!

Get LOST!!!

TROLL ALERT!!

All hands on deck for Wisconsin! The partisan spark that inspired OWS in the first place!! Caused by the same Voter discouragement campaign in 2010 that we see here, now! Don't let history repeat!!

http://www.alternet.org/story/155624/koch_brothers%27_americans_for_prosperity_goes_all_out_in_wisconsin_recall--and_denies_it!/

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

I believe you meant to take your aggression here to your warmonger president that has killed American citizens in Yemen without providing proof of their crime or legal authority to kill them.

http://www.barackobama.com/splash/stand-with-the-president?

Then ask him why he's covering up the torture photos from the Bush administration. If these photos were made public, a case based on war crimes could be filed against Bush.

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

And how many jobs did that republican JOBS act create? Obama signed that far right bill. It was before he refused to ban discrimination toward people based on sexual orientation working under federal contracts.

Have a nice day! And again... very mature response.

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

Again very adult response. I like how you countered my list of facts with name calling. That's exactly how debate works.

Why do you hate my freedom to not vote for Obama nor Romney? Why do you hate my freedom to vote for someone who doesn't support a pro-war agenda?

Why won't you speak out against Obama for his wrongs? You can still vote for the guy. Blind support will get you nowhere.

[-] -2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I don't debate with ignoramuses. Go learn something and we can talk. You can't even follow a simple line of intent. Look up the words, they are your answers.

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

Once again, great name calling!

The more you comment the more my post goes to the top of the forum.

Thanks! And again I believe this is the site you meant to go to push your Obama support - http://www.barackobama.com/splash/stand-with-the-president?

I'd say the same to a Romney supporter.

[Removed]

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

It was just ignorant cowards leading the attack.

This forum is pretty much meaningless to OWS anyway.

So I promise wholeheartedly not to co-opt the movement, if you'll stop being such ass about it.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by gosso920 (-24) 2 years ago

OWS = Obama's Winning Strategy

Get with the program, son.

[+] -5 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Please buy a clue!