Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Protests at the Kerry confirmation.

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 24, 2013, 11:08 a.m. EST by inclusionman (7064)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

57 Comments

57 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

That's a better source. I had to sully myself with FOX. Thx

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Well, the penalties are a little stiffer, now. And I ask, "WTF did she accomplish?" She got tossed and she will be forgotten in about a half an hour.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are correct. I cannot say there will be any change from her 1 action. I believe that the continued protests add to each other and WILL have a positive affect. I submit it is a subtle affect, perhaps not enough. and of course any change would be fairly called too little, too late. I thought she should be immortalized here (and everywhere else) the MSM barely covered it in passing! I could find only 1 story (FOX!). but there it is. I also saw many (more behaved) demonstraters at Feinsteins assault weapons ban press conference. Drip, drip, drip!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

She may be immortalized here-I have no idea. +1 for Fox.

But did they hear her?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

FOX absolutely does not agree with her (I'm sure they know she was anti war, (Like Kerry was 40 years ago)). Fox jumped on it so fast because she was anti Kerry/Obama. but they ran it so I take it wherever I can.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yeah. I'm not a Fox fan. I can read them much better than I can listen to 'em. But, I heard Kerry's response and I have to ask, did he hear her?

These are the most non-listening mofo's.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I assume Kerry will be disappointing. I assume half measures, and compromise. I also expect that Kerry will continue resisting the neocon pressure to invade Iran. in fact I expect no new wars. I also expect continued drone strikes which I think will be the most important military demonstration against our government (until neocons get their way and invade another country) We gotta push the government to stop misusing our military force.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

As long as the Fed can keep the economy going with nonsense, no more wars.

As soon as it stumbles, and injections arent working, look for another war.

No one thought they could possibly keep it going this long, so who knows.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well I don't want war, but I know the Fed is run by banksters, for banksters and against the 99% So I cannot root for the Fed/banksters to succeed. I guess what I want is to end the drone strikes, declare the perpetual war on terror over, and stop invading every country that happens to have a group of militants who are anti America. The Fed is a separate issue for me. They are corrupt, and self serving, kinda like setting their own rates (LIBOR). I would like a public non profit banking system that serves communities and working class people. This would go the longest way to compete, take customers (working class 99%) away from big banks and keep our money working for us. I much prefer that the banks were just allowed to fail but that was decided against in 2008. Wow 5 years ago.! But we can put them out of business with a public non profit banking system also.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

did he hear her?

I did - and through the internet - so will others. Another crack in the dam?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

At this point, it is becoming more and more difficult to actually meet with these clowns as it is. In fact, the odds are that you are going to be in contact with a dimwitted aid and get the run around from them.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - til the dam bursts - why does it need to be that way?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I seriously question that dam bursting unless another way is found as far as listening.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I am thinking of the dam as a restrained public. A Dam/Public under siege - by profits over people.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Hmmmm........I had a the wrong visual.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

That happens - good to continue discussions to help get clear communication.

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

Still awesome. Now just think if everyone was doing that all the time. We have to start somewhere. If people gotta go solo, go solo. It's always better than nothing.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I don't know - I think it was very brave to sound off like that.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It was brave. True that.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good mornin - maybe the lone protest will go viral. {:-])

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thx for the additional link. Good to have truth shouted out to government.

A protester from Code Pink —a women’s organization promoting peace and seeking to end U.S. wars and occupation — interrupted the Massachusetts Senator, shouting at him.

“You’re killing thousands of people!” she yelled. “The Middle East is not a threat to us! When is it going to be enough? When are enough people going to be killed? I’m tired of my friends in the Middle East dying! I don’t know if they’re going to be alive the next day!”

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Good for her. It takes people getting up and voicing their opinions. Thats what self governing is about. The more people do it, the more join in, the more it grows. And while unruly behavior is not what we are after in teh long run, its about damn time people start voicing their opinions.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I saw at least a dozen "demandaplan" signs at Feinsteins assault weapons ban pres conference also. It's good to see un afraid protesters even though TPTB have tried to curtail our demonstration rights. It is also encouraging that we are protesting the supposed left wing solutions because people must see that the left was abandoned more than 30 years ago. We can't just accept the Dem party as the best we can do. It's not good enough. We want more! We need true leftward solutions. And of course I give Occupy the credit for this rebirth of activism.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

From my own perspective, we are experiencing a breakdown in representation at the most basic level of governance -- our elected representatives no longer represent the voters whom elect them to office. However, whoever they do represent is not as important as the simple fact that they do not represent the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford large campaign donations and lobbyists. This issue is basic to Constitutional self-governance which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based solely on the principle that government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".

However, the democratic aspect of our little constitutional republic is limited to popularly electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and electors in the Presidential election, as well as serving on juries (and grand juries) in criminal and civil matters. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's articulation of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", there is no other Constitutional means to assert democratic (that is to say direct citizen) control over our government.

The Constitution does not confer rights upon citizens, rather it merely articulates some of our inherent rights as contrasted with the limited duties, powers and responsibilities we delegate to the government it describes. Or, in other words, the Constitution is a formal agreement between Americans, individually and collectively, about how we govern ourselves. As such, elections serve to elect citizens to Constitutionally described offices whom then constitute the actual and functional "government" which presides over our (we the people's) business. Thus, each election not only constitutes a "new" government, but also conveys our consent, individually and collectively, to be governed under the Constitution by that government. Individually, voting for a candidate in an election conveys your consent to be governed by any candidate elected to office and, collectively, our consent legitimates the new government regardless of whom is elected.

If consent to be governed under the Constitution is implied, both individually and collectively, by voting for a candidate in an election for office, it follows that any citizen withholding their consent must do so explicitly in an election, insofar as elections are the only Constitutional means of democratically determining our (we the people's) political will both individually and collectively. Moreover, it also follows that a citizen withholding their consent is also casting a vote against all candidates for office.

Individually this is political protest in the only poll that counts. Collectively it becomes democracy -- an expression of our (we the people's) political will under the Constitution.

By withdrawing consent, a plurality of voters presents the lame-duck Congress with an undeniable Constitutional crisis if the House of Representatives proves unable to seat a quorum come January.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well I believe 40% of eligible voters withhold consent every election. Has that had any affect?. NOPE! Sounds like a logical plan but I don't see how it would work. Thanks

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Doesn't count if they don't show up and cast a ballot. There is no way to determine individual or collective intent by not voting. If you want to withhold your consent to be governed under the Constitution, you must show up and be counted.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Aaah. Well the next election is a midterm in 22 months. Is there any actions you support in the interim?

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

All kinds. Anything to monkey-wrench "their" plans in the short-term that builds support, knowledge and morale within context of the larger goal.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"their"? Who are "they" for you? And what is your "larger goal"?

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

The simplest description would be our "ruling elite"; the plutocrats and oligarchs financing politicians and/or buying elected officials. My larger goal is to call an Article V convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. I personally support any proposed amendment that would effectuate "the separation of wealth and state".

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree that the monied class (plutocrats/Oligarchs) are the "they" who have stolen the peoples government. My larger goal is getting money out of politics and implementing solutions that improve the lives of the 99%. I am a bit suspicious of the article V route but otherwise I think we agree.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

It's not paranoia if they are really out to get you... I agree with your caution and urge you to explore the issue for yourself. Amending would certainly be no walk in the park, but I think we have little in the way of options at present. As for myself, the ratification process for proposed amendments reassures me, and if successful, the scenario described above will severely damage, if not shatter, the twin-parties' political credibility and legitimacy before delegate selection...

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Certainly a constitutional amendment is required to change corps are people, money = speech, overturn CU, so I support movetoamend.org & occupys corporationsarenotpeople effort. Is that acceptable to you?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

The key to a successful effort to amend (for any reason) is calling the convention. That is my focus. If these organizations do not have concrete plans to call, or force Congress to call, an Article V convention, then they have no plans at all, only a good idea. Personally, I like the sound of "the separation of wealth and state", but without means to call a convention, it's merely a pipe dream.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I support passing the necessary amendment as we have always done so. but good luck in your article V work.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Thank you. And you as well.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"The key to a successful effort to amend... is calling the convention." Hmmmm. Really? You might be surprised to know that NO successful amendment has passed as a result of an article V convention. You should also no that there has NEVER been a successful article V convention in all of our history. So the existing efforts to pass an amendment therefore are much more than good ideas, they are excellent ideas with plans based on historical precedents. Their plans are utilizing the only process that has EVER worked. Your plan has no details (you have no amendment written, they DO), no precedents, no support, no hope. So why is your (never successful) idea "the key" while movetoamends plan (based on the only successful amendment process) is "only a good idea"? Are you kidding?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

No, not kidding. And I support movetoamend's efforts (and others). The more good ideas we have out there the better.

Moreover, you've made my point: Congress has never called an Article V convention, despite an adequate number of state applications and in clear violation of their Constitutional duty. If Congress has refused, thus far, to call a convention to propose amendments, it is logical to assume that Congress will not call one unless compelled to do so.

The Constitution has been amended in the past by Congress proposing an amendment for ratification by the states; Congress sidestepped its duty to call a convention several times by proposing its own amendment. The question is, can the current Congress be trusted to propose an amendment(s) sufficient to the task before us? Please bear in mind, I am interested in the separation of wealth and state -- can Congress shake off the billionaires' purse strings and do the right thing?

To be precise, I have no plan. I simply related how individual (and thereby collective) consent to be governed is conveyed or withheld under our Constitution. Hopefully, this information will be useful to organizations like movetoamend. Again, I reiterate, the key to a successful democratic effort to amend is compelling Congress to call an Article V convention.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So - you still feign blindness?

Support Move to Amend people - the process in motion.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No problem - support = Move To Amend.

There that was easy - Hey?

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Better yet - start a state by state campaign - people can vote by supporting individual issues like:

I withdraw consent for corpoRATions to have personhood status.

I withdraw consent for government to continue giving subsidies to Fossil Fuel.

I withdraw consent to allow fracking.

etc.

This can be done now and does not have to wait for you to throw away your voting right.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Does nothing to solve the basic problem as outlined above... You will not solve our problems piecemeal within the current electoral framework. But your lack of understanding as to the most basic underpinning of constitutional self-governance, as demonstrated above, and by many other of your posts, renders your comments moot. Obviously, you either don't know what you are talking about, or if you do, your comments simply ring with party fanaticism.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You sound like a repeat of opt out defeatism. Funny we had quite a few attackers on the forum just before the last election - that were doing their best to get the Mitten elected by default/opt-out.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

See above: comments ring with party fanaticism.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ummm actually your comments ring with Koch/ALEC/CATO/Heritage fanaticism. But I suppose if "you" want to pick a party for yourself - that would be the RINO party ? I would have suggested you pick the RINO/DINO party ( unfortunately for you they don't exist as a single unit ) - but for your purposes - I guess the RINO will have to do.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

See above: persistent ignorance mixed with twin-party fanaticism.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes you koch suckers really are fixated. So you buy both parties wherever possible - but I think you would be open to buying anyone regardless of party.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Ah, the inevitable rant and name calling. Surveying your posts here indicates one of two things: Either you are an ignorant party fanatic, or a paid political shill. Nothing else accounts for the volume of your posts and consistent theme of "nothin' but the party line". Thus, in the future, I see no reason to respond to your replies -- simply put, you are capable of doing little other than wasting time.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Lookin in the mirror as you say that? Is that how you koch shills live with yourselves? Berate yourself in the mirror while typing ? Then choke and swallow the bile as you try to attach it to someone else? Or have you managed to kill your soul already - and now you are just numb as you follow koch orders.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago
[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

opting out got us to the mess we are in today. Push issues People. Get involved and stay involved. Fundamental change for the better - For ALL - will come through the involvement and actions of the people.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Obviously you do not understand the basic concepts involved, else you you would not use the term opting out. This is democratic involvement, and inclusion, for all Americans willing to vote whom do not support corrupt twin-party politics.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sorry your comment sounds so very defeatist.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

David Souter was right when he said “pervasive civic ignorance” in America could bring dictatorship from within.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

“pervasive civic ignorance”

Good one - that is why your comment about opting out sounds so defeatist.