Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Protesting is an utter waste of time, you need a 3rd party convention

Posted 10 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 6:49 p.m. EST by OregonRuts (61)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The only way to get anything accomplished is to nominate candidates and create a party platform. Find a venue, NOT on the coasts, create delegates, create a power base of votes and go from there.

You will zero success outside normal electoral politics. To use a pun, 99% of the stuff listed here will never ever come to fruition. Its the lamest kind of socialist nonsense that America is NEVER going to accept.

Camping out in tents, blocking traffic, whining about what you don't have is useless. Quit getting arrested, clean up, put on suits and ties, and create a 3rd party.

Till you do, you look silly. You aren't getting a thing till you create real power, and that means money and votes. Young people are at the absolute mercy of older people because older people vote, while young people simply posture. Protesting in the 60's got nothing done, it was Mom's and Dad's seeing their sons return in body bags that changed the direction of the war.

Since there aren't any body bags to move people, you need votes and money. right now you have neither.

79 Comments

79 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

OWS beats the drum of the 1st Amendment right of the people peaceably to assemble but yet when I mention the 1st Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances I hear that that is not what OWS stands for, it's heirarchical, it's treasonous, or simply it's impossible. I appreciate that drafting that list is going to be a difficult task but I don't see how OWS is going to actually change anything if people don't use the right to petition as strongly as they've used the right to peaceably assemble.

I think OWS should morph into OLB, Occupy Liberty Bell or OIH Occupy Independence Hall. Have small peaceful assemblies all winter long in every congressional district spreading the word about the National General Assembly starting July 4th in Philadelphia. Ask the people of Philadelphia to invite their fellow Americans into their homes for the NGA and coordinate this all winter too. Have occasional "occupations" throughout the winter, growing in size as the spring approaches, the WE ARE THE 99% growing louder with each event. This keeps the light shining and the movement looks smart, smells like a rose. Imagine the city of Philadelphia's population doubling or tripling for four days in July 2012. Some ideas are just plain better than others. NGA NOW all roads lead to Philadelphia https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 10 years ago

harshly stated, but more or less true.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 10 years ago

Forget about a third party. Register republican and subvert from within.

[-] 1 points by ShaggyLaRevolution (7) from Loveland, CO 10 years ago

No civil rights have ever been won by legislation. They have been won by movements! My hope does not lie in the corrupt mind of a politician, nor in any election. My hope lies in each and every one of you.

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 10 years ago

I agree with some of what you say........can you check out my web page and tell me what you think? www.nationalday911.org

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago

yes a third party -
great idea -
lets not do what grover and tp have done so successfully -
work within the system to WIN by voting.

lets reinvent the wheel - ours will be triangular is this a metaphor?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 10 years ago

You are, in my opinion right. I do disagree in part though with the idea of a third party. It might be easier to co-opt the democrat party. Yes develop a platform, and get candidates that are not career politicians, uncorrupted "new blood" and run them in primaries. Even narrow losses will push the party closer to your platform goals.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

I disagree. How about the 99 party invites the long list of never-neverland third parties that already exist and form a union? Co-opting is dealing with the devil.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 10 years ago

Perhaps, I just see that third parties get stuck in the role of spoiler in the national elections. They split votes off from the candidate closest to your point of view and toss a victory to the one farthest from it. Anything is better then waiting around for someone else to do something though.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

I think things are going to be different, have we past the point of no return... yet?

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

The political system is rigged in so many ways. Only the Fred Newman, Leonora Fulani cult even know how to get a third party on the ballot in most states. And they take money from Bloomberg. The electoral system is rigged in other ways. More people live in my neighborhood than in North Dakota, a mainly white rural place and they get two senators and a member of congress, three whole electoral votes to my neighborhood's one point almost nothing.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

un-rigging it is the whole point

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

And the argument is about whether this very system can or would enable the unrigging. i don't think so. I think acting outside of the illegitimate system is the way to go.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

I don't think you can conflate corruption with illegitimacy. Petition the government for a redress of grievances is the system, 1st Amendment. Nobody is saying it's going to be easy, but it is legit and it's doable, sans guarantees. What's the downside risk of holding the National General Assembly?

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

I say illegitimate because we live in a coup regime. I mean since a long train of extra legal acts like assassinations, false flag operations of many sorts, ongoing coverups of all these things means that the holdes of power are in possession of something that has been stolen.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 10 years ago

If enough people looked at some of the worst political practices and voted for the opponents of those who did them, it could derail some nasty messes. I nominate Grover Norquist and his pledge to protect the super rich from taxes as a case in point. He has pledgers from both parties, and he's a lobbyist for pete's sake. (Behaving myself with polite language in public. You can hear what I mean.)

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

"Enough people" are not going to do that. Not this year, but more will. They already absolutely do not trust or respect the PTB in politics or economics or finance.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 10 years ago

If you talk to people and I talk to people, we encourage the process along. The grass roots isn't fast, but it's powerful in the long run.

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

The level of ignorance of the world around us by OWS would be funny if it werent so tragic. 50% of Americans now get some form of monetary reward from Uncle Sam. You think you are going to be able to deconstruct that with revolution? You will be shot in the street.

There is right now a huge gigantic transfer of money from young people to old people and it is going to continue till doomsday because old folks vote in droves to protect their own self interest. Right now seniors are agitating for interest rates to be RAISED, so their investments in safe bonds can flourish. Of course that means student loans and other instruments will rise with them.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Pitting generation against generation is a one percenter plot. If they were paying their fair share of taxes, like they once had to, and if we repudiated debt that resulted from their illegal wars we'd have more than enough for the young and old.

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

If you think its a 1%er plot, why then won't senior citizens and AARP volunteer to have their SS checks reduced so young people can get ahead. I remind you that 15.3% of a young person's efforts goes to pay for old folks retirement. Call for shared sacrifice and see how quick retirees fight tooth and nail to protect their income.

[-] 2 points by barb (835) 10 years ago

I might also remind you that those seniors were young once and through there entire working lives paid for their social security and medicare benefits. If our government had not been allowed to borrow from those funds we would have a surplus of money that could easily support the elderly. If our government wants to take that away from us then I expect a large check of every penny that I paid into it my entire working life. now.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Makes more sense for the one percenters to pay taxes. Why should old and sick people's pensions come from a regressive payroll tax? Why should it be a burden on young people who are struggling to get a start in life?

[-] 1 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

More ignorance. heaps of hopeless ignorance.

If you took every penny of the 1%,took their yachts and Mansions, and Bentleys, if you left them destitute and penniless, you would be able to cover about 1/3 of one years federal budget. Go ahead and take it, make John Paulson and Lloyd Blankfein paupers, and then NEXT year where would you find the money? Remember, the 1% are now gone and you would still have $10 trillion in debt AND Social Security to fund.

I will wait for this answer.

[-] -1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

43% of the financial weatlth of the nation would be a good place to start the reconstruction of this country and the healing of the generational divide.

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 10 years ago

Foolish...the numbers do not add up.....a purely vindictive way for people to FEEL as though they exert control within their lives which they always sought....

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

okay, you're right. let the rich avoid taxes, because they really don't have so much anyhow, yeah, you win.

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 10 years ago

Not trying to win..trying to frame realistic focus where it should be. Cut spending, tax the true wealthy ( which I regard at over 1mm...many here see it at 200k range which is absurd) limit political donations. I'm just frustrated with the extreme elements taking focus away from REAL good that could come of this. I am no doubt a healthy, leaning conservative, yet not the zealot Republican continually parodied here. Middle right and the majority of America (which is as middle of the road as you can get) have OWS sympathetic leanings.....when the emotional propaganda Spews from OWS (be it injured vets, pepper sprayed students, or whatever) it is perceived, right or wrong, as a tantrum never to be mollified...whatever the recourse...... ,

[-] -1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

' Middle right and the majority of America (which is as middle of the road as you can get) have OWS sympathetic leanings...." I agree. That's why it is really possible that OW is in the end going to come out the winner.

[-] 1 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

oh o.k. I'll go home now clean up, get an education, a job, and I'll vote.

[-] 4 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

aw wait......I can't afford an education, there are no jobs, and bc of the corrupt system my vote doesn't matter.

In that case, I better build a party, nominate a candidate, & secure a venue not on the coast.

[-] 2 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

damn tried that too, but the systematic suppression by the media and the strict party line voting/power in government made creating my own party a moot point. Also I don't have any money so my candidate went with a corporation......with all the media misinformation they pump out and the financial backing they were able to offer he is sure to get elected cept he won't represent me.

As for a venue not on the coast. Well I live on the coast - said trouble with getting good paying job was next to impossible since most of the jobs here have been outsourced. So I work for a low wage with no union or benefits at a nonprofit with a tight budget. Plus <coughcough> I'm starting to feel sick

now what?

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

Well if you dont vote, there is a senior citizen who is, and he or she is voting in their self interest. And there is a guy/gal your age striving to work for Goldman Sachs and that person will control your life because you won't vote and you wont work from within.

[-] 3 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

There is no one to vote for.......besides I live in California & as aLouis pointed out the unfair distribution of votes means that my voting doesn't count for squat.

I didn't vote for Bush come to think of it the MAJORITY of votes in the US didn't vote for him. Yet I also remember him being president. Pls advise me what is my next move bc I feel trapped in a corner with no way out.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

I dunno, support the movement and the delegates to the National General Assembly? Is there any real downside risk? Hey, you might be one of the 870 delegates. What You Gonna Do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjPJ45kmDz8

NGA NOW all roads lead to Philadelphia https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

Oh you are one of the dopes who live in California, the personal fiefdom of the Public Employee unions. You are screwed. Sorry.Until provate workers take bck the reins of government, you are being swept out to sea by your local public employee. I know a fire captain who retired from a city fire dept and he has a house in Mammoth, a house smack on the beach in Huntington 2 streets west of the pier, and gets $200000 in retirement money locked onto a nice cost of living bump. You sap.

And he is only 55.

[-] 1 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

you sap? I did this? I ought to apologize for this whole system? I grew up here - third generation. I swear it was like this when I got here.

jeez I guess I will have to apologize when I arrive in OR with my resume & take your job - don't worry I'll take you out for a drink that's all we really can do.

lol ah the 1% love it when the 99% criticize each other and fight it out for the crumbs. I bet there ears are burning as I type.

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

I am a 1%er or close to it. I believe that OWS has a few decent ideas amongst the really wacky stuff being spewed, llike banning money or forgiving all debt.

If you got one or two really good ideas, you might have a shot. Right now, OWS is just a really gigantic, hysterically funny Kabuki theatre.

[-] 1 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

well we do aim to please ;)

[-] 1 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

since we are sharing I worked my way through college to get a "real" degree (B.S. ahhh I luv that its acronym stands for its worth as well), have a job, a masters, & a career, which I should leave since it's obvious I'm not getting anything done after five.

As for OWS yes this system have pumped out a lot of funny ppl that make me shake my head and scratch my head in wonder that the human race is still alive.

However all these politicians bought & paid for blatantly by Wall Street with no accountability for white collar crime. That whole business has just got to stop (well more likely just be reigned in a bit)...

[-] 0 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 10 years ago

I hate to agree, but its the truth. If we think the public sector is our allies , forget about it. The ones suffering in this country are the private work force and small businesses. The big Corps. and the Public sector are fighting now only because the big Corps. having destroyed the private labor Unions no longer want to pony up for the public ones. The Public workforce is now in the bulls eye and wants the rest of us to come to their rescue. Sorry, but I'm too busy working four min. wage jobs paying for their health care and nice retirement pensions. Its funny because many of these people are high school grads. and I have a masters. Means nothing, their connected politically.

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

Uh oh. Someone who has read and understands. Damn short supply here in Bedlam. I commend you.

[-] 0 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 10 years ago

Don't get me wrong I don't blame the PS workers for fighting to keep what they have. Its just I don't want to pay for it. If they can get the 1% to pay up its fine by me. The problem is that will only solve their problem and do nothing to revive the economy for the rest of us.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

so public health care isn't possible

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

Single payer public healthcare isn't possible. Medicare is on its way to bankruptcy. Medicaid is underfunded. Single payer one size fits all would only work if America decided to get very very healthy all at once. But since we remain the fattest country on earth, healthy fit people are not interested in underwriting sloth and gluttony.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 10 years ago

The only reason why Medicaid is under funded is because someone is dipping into it and using it for other interests. Medicare should never be on its way to bankruptcy since all of us pays into it our entire working lives so there should be a hugh surplus. If not, some explaining is required.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

We need to change the corruption in the system too. Our institutions are pawns to Wall Street power.

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

Corruption is inherent on all gatherings of men. We are designed to be greedy acquisitive people. Has Michael Moore cast off his riches to the poor? Has Susan Sarandon? Has Bill Maher? The Kennedy family?

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

There are plenty of example of people that act out of caring for fellow humans or other motivators instead of greed. Humans are social beings. We want to help each other.

Corruption is NOT inherent, we are NOT designed to be greedy. We just happen to be living in a world where those values are rewarded. It can be changed. It's not set in stone.

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

Yes it is set in our genetics. If it werent, there would never have been wars, there would never have to been a 10 commandments. Men would not covet other men's wives or property.

Ina very interesting experiment, scientists gave chimps little tokens that they could redeem for food. Female chimps learned quite quickly that male chimps would give up a token if the female chimp had sex with him.

Why do people adorn themsleves with outward expression of wealth? It has been occuring for 5000 years, at least.

[-] 2 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

Genetics goes back much further than 5000 years and we aren't chimps, though 99% sure look like chumps for accepting that this is the way we are supposed to be. 1%, you awake the giant, and they seem kinda pissed.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

If it was genetic. If it was unchangeble. Then how do you explain that not everyone is greedy. Why is not everyone selfish. And why are some cultures more greedy/selfish then other cultures?

The only explanation is that those characteristics are based on the culture/environment you were brought up in.

[-] 1 points by nowoccupy (40) 10 years ago

The problem is beyond politics. For an incredible explanation of the causes, the problems and the exact solution... read this please: http://pastebin.com/gm2UV08D The New Common Sense.

It's mind blowing stuff.

If OWS is smart enough to adopt this, there will be no stopping them. It is IMPOSSIBLE to disagree with this document.

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

Its very possible to disagree with this, because its silly. The Supreme Court has to be free of politics and appointments are for life because if not it would be just another partisan branch of government. Citizen's United was a good decision. Free speech is free speech, plain and simple. One sort of speech isnt better than another. Form a 3rd party and refuse corporate money, its that easy.

[-] 1 points by nowoccupy (40) 10 years ago

Uh huh. You go right ahead and do that. Good luck with that. Did you even happen to read that doc? All of it? Honest question. :)

[-] 1 points by AmericanMachinist (24) 10 years ago

Congress has been a waste of time for a year what there excuse?

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 10 years ago

I agree but dont stop the protests

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 10 years ago

Everything seems okay except "3rd party convention". You mean an article 5 convention . . . I think.---

If not, where is the authority of a "3rd part convention" created?

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 10 years ago

Read what George Washington said about party in his farewell address.

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/10/george-washingtons-farewell-address.html

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

<<<<The only way to get anything accomplished is to nominate candidates and create a party platform.>>>>

This is precisely how the left has NOT gotten anything accomplished in the past 30 years.

Electoral politics are meaningless. You don't live in a democracy.

Revolution is the only way.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 10 years ago

If 99% of the population voted for honest independent candidates then they would be elected to office and could close the corrupt loopholes in the system.

The problem is the 99% is really a lot more like 4% and the majority of the country continues to vote along party lines.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 10 years ago

That is too funny, we never had an honest independent candidate or any other honest candidate.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 10 years ago

Then maybe you can start to read deeper and realize we must seek them out from amongst us, support them, elect them, and allow them to close the loopholes. This is a lot more work then holding signs and protesting. It's also the only way to change things. If the people you protest against cared even a little bit that you were protesting they would never have created the mess we are in in the first place. The protests are for blind men that will not see. If you want to correct the wrongs you have to elect independents that don't bow to the the heads of the parties and the corporations.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 10 years ago

Exactly when has an independent been elected for President?

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 10 years ago

The Senate and the House hold more power then the President. They write the laws and have the ability to override a Presidential Veto. That's where we must start. An Independent President would meet nothing but resistance from a Republican/Democrat Senate and House.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 10 years ago

Absolutely correct!

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

I'm sure there were some Americans in the 1770's saying the same sort of thing.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

The system is rigged. Business interests control the US government. Your vote is meaningless. Independent candidates would never be allowed to reach that level. If they magically manged to defy all odds against a stacked corporate election system then they would be violently dealt with long before they had a real national campaign (see COINTELPRO). Stop pretending this is a democracy. It's a trap. It's meant to distract you with political theater. We need a revolution.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 10 years ago

what's that quote, I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees? Nothing to fear but fear itself? We have Resolves, as they had in Suffolk in 1774. It's all we need, come what may.

NGA NOW all roads lead to Philadelphia https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 10 years ago

Calling for a revolution? You need to have the FBI monitoring your every move!

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

You think that the State should covertly spy on anyone who speaks out against it?

You should consider immigrating to North Korea. You'd get along well there.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 10 years ago

You are calling for a revolution. Quite a different thing then speaking out against your government.

The method for change is there but you are already defeated and believe it can't be done. That and you are probably too lazy to try. Much easier to stand on a street corner holding signs then to actually do something that will bring about real change. Organize yourself and others and vote for honest independents. Legally change and right the system. I'm not interested in having a bunch of pissed off whiners and trust fund babies rewriting the constitution.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

<<<You are calling for a revolution.>>>

Uh, yes. We're pretty open about it. It's at the top of the page you are reading right now. What about this is shocking/confusing to you?

<<<Quite a different thing then speaking out against your government.>>>

How does one call for revolution without speaking out against the State? Seems like anyone calling for revolution is, categorically, also speaking out against the government. Why is this hard?

<<<The method for change is there but you are already defeated and believe it can't be done.>>>

Oh we are doing it right now. We've already changed the whole public dialogue. And we are only just picking up steam.

<<<hat and you are probably too lazy to try. Much easier to stand on a street corner holding signs>>>

You think it is easier to: Get beaten by police, march daily for miles, organize strikes and sleep on concrete.

Than it is to: Sign a petition to your congressman and pull a lever in a polling both.

???

I think your confused.

<<<then to actually do something that will bring about real change.>>>

Like voting in meaningless/rigged elections? I think that any readers here can see what is bringing real change, and who is taking the easy way out.

<<<Organize yourself and others and vote for honest independents.>>>

We're organizing against the established political system.

<<<Legally change and right the system.>>>

I suppose that depends on what legal theory you subscribe to. If you subscribe to the Lockean theory that government derives it's legal powers from the consent of the governed then you should oppose the US government (which is illegitimate and illegal):

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

<<<I'm not interested in having a bunch of pissed off whiners and trust fund babies rewriting the constitution.>>>

Then stop voting democrat? What can I tell you?

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 10 years ago

Eric, in principle I agree with you, but if you OWS folks down there in the States want a "revolution", why aren't you doing any of the things every succesful revolution does?

Where is your parallel government-in-waiting? And if the gov't is not legitimate, why isn't OWS challenging its monopoly on legitimate use of force? Who do you call if you need police services? The police, right? That is consent to the gov't monopoly on legitimate use of force. You'll never get anywhere without breaking that.

It can and has been done. Revolution isn't lollipops and rainbows, and it is no place for a pacifist (Gandhi notwithstanding, even in India you had the Azad Hind parallel gov't and its army, bombings and attacks on military depots, assassinations, etc).

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 10 years ago

Speaking out against the government and its policies is not akin to a revolution. Revolution would be treason punishable by death. The .04 percent of the 99% isn't qualified to speak for the majority of the 99%.

[-] 2 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

Revolution isn't punishable by death. Violent insurrection is punishable by death.

Incidentally, death is a price I am willing to pay for justice---if it ever came to that. When I enlisted in the US army I swore an oath to defend and uphold the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the US government starts murdering protesters waging peaceful revolution (or attempts a fascist coup d'état) you better believe many (including many active duty soldiers/marines) will take up arms against them.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 10 years ago

Treason is punishable by death. What are you a lawyer that loves to play with words? The thought of the .04% of the 99% raging a revolution is down right funny.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 10 years ago

The US is very unusual among all the countries in the world, in that it is charged, at its very inception, with the duty to revolution. "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government." (my emphasis)

[-] 0 points by OregonRuts (61) 10 years ago

Disrupt the Macy's parade or blockade that bacchanal of corporatism, the Super Bowl, and see where you are afterward.