Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: "A Promise To The American People." What Every Radical Centrist Must Support To Prevent The Armwaivers and Libertarians From DestroyingThe Occupy Movement.......

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 2, 2011, 5:18 p.m. EST by puff6962 (4052)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There is still time for Occupy Wall Street to shape the face of the 2012 election and the strategy is rather simple. Take over the Democratic Congressional primaries.

There is no situation in American politics like a party primary. Turnout is low and there is rarely strict adherence to a single (Democratic) candidate.

In this setting, a very disciplined and cohesive minority can exert tremendous leverage; dramatically shaping the candidate field. One needs to look no further than to the evangelicals and the tealbuggers for examples.

If the Occupy Movement created a pledge detailing three core issues and then required primary candidates to sign said pledge.....I think you would rapidly see the crystallization around most of what you seek. Now, there are a lot of "pledges" going around out there, so I would title this one "A Promise To The American People" instead.

Of course, you must enthusiastically support those primary candidates who sign the pledge and you must energetically punish those who do not......Otherwise, what is the use of the damn pledge.

If you want to create a hurricane, then this pledge is the butterfly that needs to flap it's wings.

Many of you will feel uncomfortable with this strategy. You would like to create a third party, work around Washington, have direct Democracy, or overthrow the government. But these methods, as well as remaining an ill-defined mass of energy, are just not going to work.

What will produce real and gradual change is providing disciplined support of Democratic primary candidates who pledge their support to your core issues. You must identify these individuals now and begin applying your leverage.

This mechanism has turned the GOP into a party of crazy evangelical neoconservatives and has destroyed the tradition of Northeastern GOP moderates.

However, the same mechanism can be used for good and could easily transform the Democratic party into a servant of the people and a representative of the 99%.

I do not wish to distract from the strategy I've laid out by suggesting the three core issues of OWS. But, I do feel that chief amongst them should be getting big money out of our political process. Until you accomplish that, everything else will just be window dressing.

409 Comments

409 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 9 points by truth2p0wer (135) 2 years ago

Finally someone with a similar idea... I've been saying that OWS needs to infect politics at the local and national levels. Take over local democratic groups and push our agenda that way.

[-] 6 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes. I hate to say it, but the evangelicals provide proof that this gameplan will work very effectively over time.

[-] 4 points by truth2p0wer (135) 2 years ago

I heard a similar idea on the Randi Rhodes show where she proposed infiltrating local groups and moving upward from there. This movement is full of intelligent well spoken people so why can't we take our government back from the ground up? I read posts about running a 3rd party candidate for POTUS and it saddens me that this movement would consider wasting it's energy in a loosing battle like that. IMO if we, OWS, can capture a few seats in both houses in DC and then a few seats in the local legislative bodies in every town with an Occupy group we can actually do this in a shorter amount of time.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I've been saying that for like a month now, except that we should target BOTH parties incumbents in the primaries. Then the sleaze that gets through those should be voted out in the general election.

[-] 4 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Ya, I like the Pledge idea for this purpose. You support....become footsoldiers....for the primary candidates who sign and you become giant balls of mayhem for those who don't.

Primaries are often short of personnel and the candidates can be decided by a well heeled minority acting in concert.

This is the method. It's just up to the higher ups to formally adopt this strategy.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I've said the same thing too! We can band together and take the smaller seats. Going for POTUS this early is a foolish mistake that has pushed too many third parties to irrelevancy.

Look at the Libertarians. They put way too much time and money into electing a Presedential candidate, and that campaign only tore the party apart. If they focused instead on winning some House and Senate races then they might actually have some votes in Congress right now, not to mention a lot of money left over for entering MORE races next time!

Going for the World Series and losing when you should have been trying to win the Little League playoffs instead only makes your supporters feel defeated. Goodbye motivation, goodbye movement!

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

The Libertarians have unlimited resources.....they just lack candidates and a viable way forward.

Very smart, very rich people, have found that they face a dilemma. The more aggressively they promote a libertarian candidate, the more they split the Republicon vote.

So, the Libertarians....at least those who matter....have decided to turn the Republicon party into the Libertarian party.

That transformation began in 1994 with the Gingrich revolution. The opening was established. Supply side economics and the tax cutting cult began a road to doomsday where the Federal government would be starved of revenues, a crisis would ensue, and the Libertarians would opportunistically insert themselves. Their plan.....discredit government, bankrupt our social programs, and roll back all of the New Deal and the Great Society.

That day is upon us.

[-] 3 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

If you have 100 people divided in 20 groups with each group of five constituting one vote, how many people does it take to get to majority 11 of 20 votes?

51? No.

What you do is place 3 operatives in each of 11 groups.

All you need is 33 people to control the agenda of 100.

Welcome to the world of Karl Rove.

Now that you know the game, you will understand how to combat it.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

SOMEBODY LOOK AT THIS.

It is the most important thing that I've learned in 10 years and it is the key to this entire movement.

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

Finally!!! This is how our elective process is supposed to work. You vote. 2 mos ago most comments I read on this forum were against voting.

Now maybe you can pack up your tents and give the occupied public spaces back to the general public.

But 'infiltrate' sounds so evil. 'Join' would have worked just as well.

A third party candidate is a long row to hoe. Work within the system to effect change. Think I suggested that a few times in Nov and was called a troll, among other unrepeatable things.

Oh, and there is really no need to limit this effort to the Democratic Party. In fact, that would be a mistake/counterproductive. Like it or not, the 99% includes Republicans.To be a true politcal force, you must be bipartisan.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13199) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

The tea party is a fine example as well. Still holding the American tax payer hostage at this very hour.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

It's all a ruse. The Republican Senators who voted for the bill KNEW that the bill would die in the house. But, this way those Republican Senators can campaign and state that they supported the compromise.

Meanwhile, the more dismal the view of Congress.....statistics show....the MORE LIKELY voters are to choose Republicans.

Yes, that is the strategy. Make people hate Congress so that more Republicans who hate government can get elected to run it poorly.

[-] -2 points by DroppinScience (5) 2 years ago

The Federal Reserve "System" & Jewish Bankers

We all need to know the facts about who's behind the New World Order and who's responsible for the intentional destruction of the American Republic and the enslavement of its citizens. However, it's a mistake to react with anger towards Jews collectively. It's only the Illumiated boys at the top of the NWO pyramid who bear responsibility for the takeover agenda, and not everyone who call themselves a Jew. The Federal Reserve "System" & Jewish Bankers (Mar. 28, 2009)

http://www.rense.com/general85/feddrec.htm

The Federal Reserve - Jewish Private Bankers

JEWS CONTROL THE MONEY IN AMERICA. Period. End of story.

Jews own and run the Federal Reserve Bank that the US government continually borrows from...and is in debt to.

Napoleon said: When a government is dependent for money upon the bankers, they and not the government leaders control the nation. This is because the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Financiers are without patriotism and without decency.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of 9 Jewish-owned & associated banks with the Rothschilds at the head:

$1. Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin.

$2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

$3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

$4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

$5. Lehman Brothers of NY.

$6. Kuhn, Loeb Bank of NY (Now Shearson American Express).

$7. Goldman, Sachs of NY.

$8. National Bank of Commerce NY/Morgan Guaranty Trust (J. P. Morgan Bank - Equitable Life - Levi P. Morton are principal shareholders).

$9. Hanover Trust of NY (William and David Rockefeller & Chase National Bank NY are principal shareholders).

TIME LINE OF THE JEW-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

1791-1811: Rothschilds' First Bank of the United States.

1816-1836: Rothschilds' Second Bank of the United States.

1837-1862: Free Banking Era - no formal Central Bank through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson.

1862-1913: System of National Banks through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson.

1913-Current: Federal Reserve Act effects a consortium of privately held Jewish & associated banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank are the Rothschilds of London holding 57% of the stock which is not available for public trading.

On May 23 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden brought impeachment charges against the members of the Federal Reserve Bank. A smear campaign against McFadden ensued and he was poisoned 3 years later.

JEWS RUN THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

Here are the Jews that control the government of America:

1) Ben Shalom Bernanke: Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2020.

2) Donald L. Kohn: Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2016.

3) Randall S. Kroszner: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve.

4) Frederic S. Mishkin: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2014.

5) Alan Greenspan: Advisor to Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Recent Chairman.

HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK WORKS

JEWISH BANKERS PRINT MONEY at heavily-armed & guarded Federal Reserve Bank buildings throughout the US. Then these Jewish bankers of the Federal Reserve Bank loan the money to the US government at interest.

Since the Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (and all the others) is listed in Dun & Bradstreet. But according to Article I, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, only Congress has the right to issue money and regulate its value.

Thus it is illegal for private interests to issue US money. But because influential Jews like Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff bribed into enactment the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank were to be kept a secret. Only recently have the Jewish stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank come to light.

International cooperation with the Jew-owned Federal Reserve Bank has been intense to coordinate currency. In 1985, officials from the JP Morgan Bank of NY met with the Credit Lyonnais Bank of France. They established the European Currency Unit Banking Association (ECUBA) to get world cooperation for a unified currency.

In October 1987, the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe (AMUE), secretly met and recommended that the ECU (European Currency Unit) replace existing national currencies and that all European Central Banks be combined into one and issue the ECU as the official unified currency. This occurred in 1999 with the issuing of the Euro.

The plan of the international Jewish banking cabal is to have only 3 central banks in the world: The Federal Reserve Bank, the European Central Bank, and the Central Bank of Japan. All of these banks are headed by the Rothschilds.

And Next To Come Will Be The One World Government Run By Anti-Christian Jews.

Read the source article from Real Jew News with links here. http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=177

Related Articles

Pick-Pocketing the People: The ruling elite planned the global economic downturn. They timed the implementation and orchestration while controlling media coverage of it. http://thomaspainereturns.blogspot.com/2009/03/pick-pocketing-people.html

The Takeover of America, Republic Becomes Oligarchy: America has become an oligarchy (a government ruled by a powerful few) versus a Republic (a government limited by law) as the banking and Wall Street Masters of the Universe continue their tyranny. http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2009/03/23.html

P.S. Hey, we have to be slaves and not complain about it. Otherwise we'd be "anti-Semitic." It's "anti-Semitic" to notice what's happening and who's in charge, and it's "anti-Semitic" to complain about it. The FEMA camps will be full of "anti-Semites" otherwise known as "terrorists."

The Talmud scripture Understand the way they think and you realize that the FEDERAL RESERVE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH LIEING, CHEATING AND STEALING FROM THE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD. "To communicate anything to a non-Jew about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the non-Jew knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly." -Libbre David 37 10. "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the non-Jew asks if our books contain anything against them." JEWS THAT THINK THEY ARE PART OF THE ELITE JEWISH CONTINGENT 22. "When you go to war do not go as the first, but as the last, so that you may return as the first. Five things has Canaan recommended to his sons: 'Love each other, love wantonness, love robbery, hate your masters and never tell the truth.' 27. "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general' " ISRAEL 23. "A Jew is permitted to cheat and perjure himself; but he must take care that he is not found out, so that Israel may not suffer." -Schulchan Qruch, Jore Dia 29. "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A non-Jew is forbidden to steal, rob, etc., from a non-Jew or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a non-Jew." -Tosefta, Qbda Zara, 5 JON CORZINE

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Don't you get tired of this crap? Jews are smart people. They value mathematics and rational thought. They avoid dumb decisions. Ergo, they do well and are seen to dominate people like you.

There is no conspiracy against you, you're just dumb.

[-] 1 points by thomasthetank (41) 2 years ago

Thank you for saying that.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13199) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

there is a bit of resistance to the idea within the movement - but I've been saying the tea party template is the one to follow, using the dems of course.

wet clay . . .

hahha!

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes, very wet clay.

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

No, no, no. To do this will end OWS and play the same political game again.

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

It will do no such thing. It is direct action that can be taken NOW, while building the foundation for for a third party.If OWS os so fragile that it can't work the system, it is too fragile to have any effect at all.

GREAT IDEA, PUFF!

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

What if Abraham Lincoln had not stepped in and played politics?

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

The system worked for Lincoln time a new industrial society. WE are in imformation society which need wikism system to replace the old one.

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

wiki - A Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content. Um, I'm completely flabbergasted.......<speechless>

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

A revolution web site which anyone can be a editor so does our government which anyone can be a leader as OWS movement.

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

You are going to have to give me a more substantive and comprehensive answer if you want me to understand what you are talking about. Are you suggesting our government be abolished and replaced by a....web site???? <still flabbergasted> <more speechless>

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

OWS today will be transforming government tomorrow.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Have you heard of the tyranny of the majority?

Democracies, particularly those directed by referendums, fail and they end up dictatorships.

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

When goverment information do not open, there is a dictatorships as US most governments today. Wikipedia, Wikleaks and OWS is making an open government for a new world.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

All politics are local and OWS is a long way from being in every locale.

Forget about Wikipedia and Wikileaks and Wikidemocracy.....There are too many of late adopters in this country.

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

The more people know about OWS, the more local people involving.

v500-建华:我现在回帖全部:%雨中浪%: 12:35:34 新消息:解防均第41,42,均团已向乌,村进发! 一个悲剧即将上演我们无能为力,只能呼吁军人,不要向百姓开枪 2001.12.17

2011.12.17 Chinese amy surround a 20,000 people in Sounthen China.

[-] 3 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

“Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.” ― Isocrates

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

Now you're talking, that explains everything. Thanks.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Thank you. It will work. I promise.

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

The political system has worked for industrial society, but we are in imformation society so we are replacing the old system with Wikism society.

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

You are not replacing any system. Changing a political system requires a mandate. You don't have one. You probably (I hope) never will.

What you have a mandate for is ending the corrupting, caustic relationship between money and power in civic life. Doing so will mean tremendously hard, sustained work. And it will require having a Supreme Court that is comprised of too few conservatives who support the "corporations are people" mentality and "money is freedom of speech" corruption. Without a change in the makeup of the court, you can accomplish nothing.

Changing the makeup of the court means ensuring a Democrat is the President when a court member retires. Doing otherwise will only insure that that the continued consolidation of power by the 1%.

Even if I agreed with your ideals (I don't) ignoring practicality is simply foolish. Grandiose illusions of replacing the system with a fantasy "Wiki Society" is delusional.

Sure: work to change the system. While you are doing so over the next few decades, make sure your enemies don't further consolidate their power while you are acting out your revolutionary Wiki-Wonk fantasies. That means fielding candidates who support your desire for change and WORKING YOUR ASS OFF to get them a voice and a vote in congress.

That means voting in a president who will not put another Scaliaa, Thomas or Roberts on the Supreme court, but instead increase the number of Ginsburgs and Kagans. (That is the single most important short term goal). Doing otherwise is a complete abdication of your responsibility for helping real change. Giving the reactionary right wing 1% more time to accumulate power by sitting out the next election is a betrayal of OWS.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

What if a very rational set of objectives were described to you?

Do you want your children to exist in the world we have created?

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

I'm confused. Was that a reply to me, Puff?

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

No, I jumped to the wrong tab while waiting two minutes to respond to some gawdoftruth idiot and mixed responses. Sorry. This gawdoftruth guy is one of these wikidemocracy people who think that they started this whole thing. I don't know who he is, but he's a little creepy and he pissed me off.

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

Thanks for responding. I thought I had somehow made myself unclear. Glad you and I are copacetic.

Yeah these Wiki folks are real morons. If they love information so much, how is it that they understand so little of it?

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Amen. I think that people like him seek immortality....by being on some webpage....rather than results.

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

The old system is breaking down itself, we are the witnesses. Somebody has to have a system to replace it. The Wiki system just copy wikipedia.

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

And how on Earth does that preclude voting? Hoe does that translate into making sure the Supreme court can't be even MORE conservative and even STRONGER in it's support of the corporations over the people.

How does that make getting your own candidates in office, at the same level of effect the Tea Party has had, but in the opposite direction, while Wikipedia miraculously replaces representative democracy?

Get real, get practical. Do something that has an effect now.No dream, however compelling, is manifested without action. And if you think for a second that your tactics are better or more ethical than usurping the status quo by working the system, let me remind you that Ghandi talked frequently to the British, and Martin Luther King met as often as he could with Kennedy and Johnson, and worked doggedly on getting out the vote, presenting cases to the courts, and fielding candidates for office.

Wikipedia will not replace representative democracy. Nothing will short of a nuclear bomb. The alternative is to do the hard, often dirty work of politics in order to change laws and change corporate and Washington behavior.

Staring at one's navel or computer screen will change neither. In order to make an omelette, you must break some eggs. Contemplating the nutritional value of those eggs won't make you a meal. And contemplating those eggs too long will leave you with nothing but an inedible mess stinking of sulfur.

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

OWS is doing the same thing as Washenton and his friends did 200 + year ago.

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

Not even close. We are NOT engaged in an armed struggle.The founders of this country had a near-universal popular mandate to go to war. YOU DON'T.

You're living is some bizarre romantic fantasy instead of looking at what is real today. If you don't get real, you will change nothing, zero, zip.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

"The founders of this country had a near-universal popular mandate to go to war."

Are you nuts? Have you ever heard of the loyalists? Do you realize that without a little pamphlet by Thomas Paine there would have never been ANY revolution.

You fool.

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

The loyalists were a small minority. Whether it was Paine's doing or not, a consensus was achieved to oust the British.

There is no such consensus (mandate) today to replace representative democracy with an imaginary Wiki-wobble democracy.

We must, as you said, work the system that we have to enact positive reform.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Well said.

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

The armed struggle is 1% against a King. 99% against 1% revolution does not need any arm.

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

Are you being dense on purpose?

You DO NOT have a popular mandate for your bizarre Wiki revolution. Without such a mandate, you will effect NO CHANGE, let a lone a revolution.

Engaging in the political system IN CONCERT with political activism is the only thing that will get results. That is how ALL change has occurred in the past. You are falsely believing that it is one or the other. That is a false choice. You must do BOTH.

Really, you need to put down the doobie.

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.

Wikipedia

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

And what does the definition of revolution , which everyone knows by the way, have to do with antyhing I said? How does it refute one syllable?

I am saying your revolution cannot possibly, in a billion years, succeed if you don't have a popular mandate. I am telling you that whatever revolution would be possible short of bloody war can never be made to stick without the assent of the Supreme Court.

And the way to make sure the Supreme Court would not withhold that consent and make any change illegal is by making sure they are not right wing asshole in the majority.

That means voting. Even if the person you're voting for is corrupt. As long as he's not a right winger, you have a chance at a more just court. But by boycotting the vote, you hand it over completely to the right wing corporate oligarchy who will destroy anything you accomplish.

Now, do you want to post another irrelevant definition, or actually address the issue of effectiveness?

[-] -1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

The best arm is worms. A WANK worm make politicians and weapon makers wank.

"You talk of times of peace for all, and then prepare for war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WANK_%28computer_worm%29

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

You are a moron. All you effectively do is discredit OWS.

I don't even think you are a supporter, just a troll with an agenda.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Next time, you may need to get a sponsor.

[-] 0 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

I am a moron who do not need rank society so I do not vote.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Washenton? Am I your brudda frum anudder mudder?

[-] 3 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

You live in a world controlled by politics. Unless you overthrow the government, you will be ineffective unless you utilize it's apparatuses. I suggest that you start now.

[-] 4 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Hi! I'm an Aussie.... and..... a HUGE supporter of anything that could make everything better.... and I just want to ask, with tongue in cheek. I don't want to offend at all... but is an American answer enough now? This answers things for occupiers in Seattle or Washington....but what about Melbourne, or Amsterdam....? I think (and only I) that the time has come to discuss global solutions. And global contexts. I think your ideas are fantastic.... could they be expanded?

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I actually suggested this early on, but didn't get any positive responses. Generally, the response was along the lines of puff's comment below mine. Of course, I only brought it up a couple times and moved on. My reasoning was that not only would it be the right thing to do, but it would cast the US in a much better light. The second reason might seem a bit selfish but I stand by it. That's why, if we were to focus on only a few core issues, then Glass-Steagel needs to be one. What affects the big banks affects the world.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Hmmmm.... I see. I would like to table.... for the consideration of yourself and all involved, that a purely local political solution, would in fact only fix the area, directly around the individual, then, beyond local, to state, to include more people, THEN national to include all Americans residing in America. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't focus on local problems, state problems OR national problems.... I'm asking. Isn't it time to table that most obvious of solutions which would by its very nature impact in an extremely positive way, all of the above? If we (by 'we' I mean all of the supporters of occupy) have a global stage, with global audiences, with politicians from around the world saying "what do you want!?!?" Would world peace, not be something that can be simply tabled and explored? More.... what occupier, would disagree with this as a solution? Simple and straightforward. When they ask how...(?) we can involve them, instantly garnering further support still. I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be done in any place. As I said I'm a very strong supporter....BECAUSE it's a global movement. If occupy, decides to make this a strictly American, issue, many, many supporters (myself included) will no longer support you, because the issue is no longer something that they CAN call they're own...Because it will be something FOR Americans, BY Americans.... And.... think about this... when has world peace had a better chance? What movement, has generated this much GLOBAL attention, and what could be done with that...???

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

It's a begining, Blaze. We must find methods to actually get control of the agenda. I know our two party system must seem pretty weird to a lot of people, but the bottom line is Puff has the right approach in the short run. Even if we can turn the election though, people can't afford to go back to sleep!!!

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Perhaps it is.....but only for Americans.....I would table these things as relevant, and certainly so, for Americans....not for occupy....

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

That's true, but we are Americans are only capable of doing so much at a time. I truly believe Occupy has a greater agenda and we need to contine on. This must be a global awakening! But we are facing a potentially disasterous Republican victory in the next election if we allow the left to be once again divided here. A Republican victory would stop this movement in it's tracks, and we also need to reform the Democtatc party. It's become corrupt at the root.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

I support all Americans, in this endeavour.....but still support occupy as a global one...

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Absolutely! We are definately ALL in this together!!!

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

All politics are local.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

I would love to ask your opinion (further opinion) on my reply to gnomunny, and your comment above. I really believe world peace, is such a simply stated complex objective, that it could achieve all that 'we' (whoever 'we' are) are hoping for, and I think, your voice would really add to that.

Check these links out, at the very least they will be invaluable resources for you I think, no matter which way you/we go. I still support my brothers and sisters in America, even though they would keep these issues internally, but as such I would no longer be an active part. And I don't think I would be alone in saying that... only points to table, and things to consider... Amor vincit omnia.

http://www.unitinghumans.com/

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50500650/yourtopia-your%20official%20final%20beginning.pdf

http://www.occupytogether.org/discuss/#/discussions

And here are some others that have had a say, and would love to be heard...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/im-here-to-listen-what-is-it-you-want-to-be-heard/

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I would love the concept, except that this kind of language will brand OWS as a bunch of free-love hippie peaceniks.

Focus on the Democratic primaries and you will control a national party. Control a national party, discredit Fox news and talk radio, and provide a rational agenda and you will control a country.

Then enact rational trade policies that will end the economic Cold War now underway.

Restrict arm sales, strengthen the UN, and reward democratic movements around the globe and you will change the world.

Don't worry about "Z" when "B" is the next letter of the alphabet.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

LOL! Aren't we?!?! Hahahahaha...no seriously though.... I think that branding has already taken place. I think (from comments and viewpoints expressed on the mass media) that we have already been given that title, so why not run with it! When they call us 'peaceniks', can't we say, 'DAMN STRAIGHT!'?

I know I'm pushing, (and I'm probably not gonna give up quickly), but it seems that it is time to BE the world.

One solution, that would appeal to EVERY human, regardless of nation, sex, religion or creed?

World peace.

Ie; "Z", and "B"...

Should we not have an idea of the destination, so that we may plot the journey? Should we not discuss "Z" now? Is that not what you are doing anyway? Just with a different "Z"?

Btw... I know I might be sounding contentious, I'm not. I am far from 'all-knowing', and really am here to learn as much as I am to speak. I just believe. I believe that world peace IS the "Z", that occupy NEEDS to work towards...

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

The problem is that OWS would quickly look like a playback of the 60's....and the student protests and all of the energy that was expended....went for naught.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, everybody should study how in the 60s, when the democratic party split over Vietnam, it allowed the Republicans to get the upper-hand, and ushered in this age of corruption and cynicism!!

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Hmmmmm o.k..... you speak of those problems, but if I could for a second ask you to play devils advocate, what would be the benefits?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

To be effective, change must sometimes occur at the structural level first.

If you want to change the world, change the way we incentivize our leaders.

[-] 0 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Hmmmm see 'I', just me that is, want the entire sordid mess crumbled into dust. The entire concept of a leader at all...is abhorrent to me, for several reasons. I believe that we need to look at systems outside of traditional hierarchial systems. No leaders. Now THAT would be a system. Is that not something we could unify on?

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

What would the United States look like today without Lincoln, without Teddy Roosevelt, without FDR or MLK?

Read my post on how OWS could go the way of Justin Beiber.

There is such a thing as a hierarchial system and there is such a thing as a filter for good ideas.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

All those people were amazing! And there are many, many more examples (ie; leaders who do amazing things). There are other names though.... Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, George Bush.... Each one of these leaders rose to power and, through the demolition of the limits put in place by their/our fore fathers, they were able to accomplish the ends they did. As many examples that you could bring up, of when leadership was great, could not compete with even one of those names, and the chaos they caused, WORLD-WIDE. Since King David (should you believe he was the first 'leader'), we have had many leaders, and good, bad or otherwise, each one is only human. And humans make mistakes, are greedy, power hungry and have many many more 'undesirable', traits. Consider these two very old expressions:

"Power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely." "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Coupled with the fact that any single human being is incapable of having insight into every different aspect of communal life (how could one be in control of all these things, and do so effectively), I would argue that for these reasons, NO leader could achieve what needs achieving.... Spokes people, and advocates are different, and may, have a 'role' of leader, only in so far as they point to things which groups of people are saying....But actual leadership? I think that is a thing of the past....

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Consider:

“Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”

Isocrates said that one 2500 years ago.

[-] 2 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Excellent example...Socrates was an avid critic of democracy, but totalitarianism is not much better. I am not a supporter of either, which is essentially WHY I AM a supporter of OWS. Because it almost inherently rejects both of these standpoints which almost obviously leads to a need for something new. Which is what I am in support of. Check out my book, which details how a society may be run, without either of those systems, I really think you will, at the very least, find some useful info in it.

Enjoy! And btw, even if I disagree I still LOVE your work! Keep it up!

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Then how bout this one: “Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

. ...................... .

...................... . ......................

That one was John Adams.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

And completely true.... No true democracy has lasted longer than 70 years....

I would however state that regardless of whether or not democrcy works (I would argue that it does not), it is totally irrelevant in terms of support for totalitarianism. Which I do not think works either. And considering the quality, of your posts, I assume you could, just as I, find just as many quotes that would pull down totalitarianism as we have pulled down democracy.

What then is to be done? Neither works, and claiming that one does not work, to garner support for the other.... well, I disagree with that. And I also disagree with that being the reason to keep this national.

Again, please don't take offense! I may disagree with you, but I love that we're talking!

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

We must all come to clearly see the difference between philosophy (what we would like to see implemented) and means (how we go about implementing it). Puff6962 is one of those knowledgeable about means, and his thoughts in this area are well worth heading. Please do not confuse him with the troll trying to discredit him, Puff6269.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This strategy of Occupying the Democratic Party is by far the best way we can achieve short term results. It doesn't preclude a continuation of protests on the street, it just gives those protests muscle in the poitical realm, and this movement IS political.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I have given a lot of thought to this, and it simply becomes a matter of essential pragmatism and time. This movement must find a way to exert it's influence beyond the streets. Occupy Democratic Headquarters!!!

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes. The Democratic Party must be remade again as the party of The New Deal and The Great Society. It must become the logical stomping grounds of middle and lower income Americans.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

This is the most important post I have seen on the OWS site. We must rally, NOW, and do something EFFECTIVE! This is the most practical way, and also the most effective way to bring the most people to our cause! It also weeds out those who don't really support us and want to hijack this movement for their own agenda!!!

THose disgusted with the Democratic party to to reform it! This two party system won't just dissolve between now and the next election. If we want change we have to hijack the system, not let it steamroll us!!!

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

To people who say this movement shouldn't be political - guess what - this movement IS political. You cannot escape that fact. The question is, how will it be political. Puff here has by far the most pragmatic first step to actually getting this movement into power. We can start by backing Al Frankin and Elizabeth Warren to the hilt and go from there. THIS MOVEMENT NEEDS TO BECOME ACTIVE IN FORCING THE DEMOCRATS TO STAND FOR THE PEOPLE AGAIN!!!

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Here is the Pledge:

A PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

I, __, Promise To The Citizens Of The District Of The State Of ____ And All

Of The People Of This State That I Will Support The 28th Amendment To Our Constitution That

Shall:

I. Ban All Corporate Donations To Political Campaigns And Election Activities,

II. Limit Personal Donations To One-Hundred Times The Amount Of The Federal Minimum Wage,

III. Require That All Lobbyist Interactions With Congress Be Recorded And Made Public Information, and

IV. Forever Ban Employees Of The Federal Government From Engaging In Lobbying Activities Or From Being Under The Employ Of Such Firms That Do.

Signed

Date

Witness

Witness

Please Sign And Return To: Occupy Forward P.O. Box Blank Blank, Blank 555555

[-] 2 points by derek (302) 2 years ago

Here is a similar idea by sociologist G. William Domhoff (from a few years back): http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html "So what should egalitarian activists do in terms of future elections if and when the issues, circumstances, and candidates seem right? First, they should form Egalitarian Democratic Clubs. That gives them an organizational base as well as a distinctive new social identity within the structural pathway to government that is labeled "the Democratic Party." Forming such clubs makes it possible for activists to maintain their sense of separatism and purity while at the same time allowing them to compete within the Democratic Party. There are numerous precedents for such clubs within the party, including liberal and reform clubs in the past, and the conservative Democratic Leadership Council at the present time. This strategy of forging a separate social identity is also followed by members of the right wing within the Republican Party. By joining organizations like the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition, they can define themselves as Christians who have to work out of necessity within the debased confines of the Republican Party. That is, they think of themselves as Christians first and Republicans second, and that is what egalitarians should do: identify themselves primarily as egalitarians and only secondarily as Democrats. After forming Egalitarian Democrat Clubs, egalitarian activists should find people to run in selected Democratic primaries from precinct to president. They should not simply support eager candidates who come to them with the hope of turning them into campaign workers. They have to create candidates of their own who already are committed to the egalitarian movement and to its alternative economic vision of planning through the market. The candidates have to be responsible to the clubs, or else the candidates naturally will look out for their own self interest and careers. They should focus on winning on the basis of the program, and make no personal criticisms of their Democratic rivals. Personal attacks on mainstream politicians are a mistake, a self-made trap, for egalitarian insurgents. In talking about the program, the candidates actually do much more than explain what egalitarians stand for. By discussing such issues as increasing inequality and the abandonment of fairness, and then placing the blame for these conditions on the corporate-conservative coalition and the Republican Party, they help to explain to fellow members of the movement who is "us" and who is "them." They help to create a sense of "we-ness," a new collective identity. As candidates who present a positive program and attack those who oppose it, they are serving as "entrepreneurs of identity," an important part of the job description for any spokesperson in a new social movement."

[-] 2 points by thomasthetank (41) 2 years ago

Primary Season is upon us!!!

Get this thing written.....I need some legal people.

Any Constitutional Law Professors out there who want to make history?

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 2 years ago

Wow, had I seen this earlier, it would have saved me the trouble of coming up with the Union of American Voters http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1723/union-of-american-voters

This Pledge idea seems much more feasible as it already has a track record of success with the GOP. One of the three core issues I would propose would be a Freedom Amendment http://occupywallst.org/forum/freedom-amendment/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/demand-this-one-thing/

Once the voters are in control, they will be in a position to hold politicians accountable and bring about their own change.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Exactly.....but, I think we should move away from any reference to a "Pledge." Too much of that going around right now.

Instead, it should be entitled, "A Promise To The American People."

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 2 years ago

Personally, I prefer contract but whatever works. Perhaps people should be asked if they would prefer a politician to make a pledge to them, make a promise to them, or be under contract to them.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Newt had a "Contract" back in 1992. Grover Norquist has his "Pledge." Bill Clinton had his "New Covenant."

Semantics......but, "A Promise To The American People," has a nice ring to it.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 2 years ago

When I think of promises, I think of broken promises. Promise may be the term people would like best or some other term may be. That's where test marketing comes in.

Also, this idea should be employed at the state level as well by having three core issues for legislative state candidates to commit to. If the issues were

A state bank

Initiative

Referendum

Recall

different states would have a different list of core issues for achieving what they lack. Many would even have four issues if the issues I've listed were deemed important. Plus, candidates of both parties could be appealed to and put to shame for not supporting those issues. Whereas a state bank provides a degree of economic democracy that weakens the strangle hold of the private bankers on the state economy, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, provides a greater degree of political democracy that directly empowers the people to make needed changes.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

It is an unfortunate truth that the evangelicals never held true political power or influence until they understood leverage.

If you want to maximize your control of the mechanism of government....and change....you concentrate on those situations where one vote has it's greatest effects.

That means participating in ALL elections, but especially those where turnout is LOW. That means primaries, primaries, and primaries (and state and local elections).

A small, disciplined minority can control the choice of candidates and therefore the ultimate makeup of the election results.

The teabuggers did this in the span of 18 months.....

The evangelicals and conservative catholics have been doing it for 25 years.

Again, I don't like those examples....OWS should not be a Democratic version of the tealbaggers, but we can learn from their methods.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (35005) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is why we are here this is why you are needed.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/

Share, circulate, educate, inspire.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 2 years ago

this is what I would like them to sign onto - The Middle Class Agenda - More Democracy. More Jobs. More Fairness. Fewer Foreclosures. Less Financial Risk. Progressive Taxation. Better Schools.

More Democracy - Real campaign finance reform with public financing of federal elections. A constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court's bizarre rulings that under the First Amendment money is speech and corporations are people. End the "revolving door" of politicians and their staffs from ever becoming becoming lobbyists. End the filibuster - the continued tyranny of 40, the number of senators who can block action—perhaps representing as little as 10 percent of the American public.

More Jobs - A ten-year federal program that involves a New Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to create over 5 million jobs rebuilding America that includes infrastructure banks run by engineers, not politicians. Also, a plan to create millions of clean energy jobs and to link those jobs to workers in fossil fuel industries who otherwise would be displaced. Pay for it by taxing all Wall St. financial transactions at 1% raises $400 billion a year, end the wars and reduce miltiary spending.

More Fairness - The fast-growing occupations in America are lower-paying service jobs, like home health care and food service, in which it’s all but impossible to make a living. To lift wages requires generous tax credits for low earners, a higher minimum wage, and guaranteed health care so that wages are not consumed by medical costs. Job training efforts must also focus on the service sector, helping to build so-called career ladders, say, from home health aid to licensed vocational nurse.

Fewer Foreclosures - An anti foreclosure plan that is up to the scale of the problem would include principal write-downs of underwater loans, expanded refinancings for borrowers in high-rate loans, and forbearance for unemployed homeowners.

Less Financial Risk - Break up the biggest banks. Reenact Glass-Steagall. Abolish credit default swaps. Derivatives must be traded on transparent exchanges. Ban "flash" trading.

Progressive Taxation - A federal tax code where the marginal tax rate should be raised to 50 percent on income between $500,000 and $5 million, 60 percent on income between $5 million and $15 million, and 70 percent on income over $15 million. There should be a 2 percent annual surtax on all fortunes over $7 million. The estate tax should be 55 percent and kicks in after $5 million. Capital gains should be taxed at 35 percent. End the home mortgage deduction on first homes over $1 million. End the home mortgage deduction on all second homes. Corporations should be taxed by a variable amount based on the percentage of their payroll going to US workers. A small business employing 100% US workers should be taxed somewhere between 15-20% while a company that has completely shifted its production overseas should be in the 50% range. Eliminate corporate loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, subsidies, end offshore tax haven abuse. Expatriation of capital should be subject to a maximum tax-rate penalty with violation considered a felony act.

Better Schools - Offer free public education up to doctorate level for a student willing to pursue a career in education and begin selecting our teachers from the top of this group. End tenure and LIFO for k-12 teachers nationwide and weed out the bottom 10%.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Actually, you don't have to confine yourselves to the democratic party. I'm sure there are reasonable conservatives in the country who could challenge all of the Republican congressmen as well...challenge them with a candidate who is not an ideologue, but who brings good, conservative ideas to the table.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes, I think that all Congressional primary candidates, Republican or Democrat, should be offered "The Promise."

OWS shall become the new Promisekeepers.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 2 years ago

keep puffing! :)

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

The anarchist and Libertarian movements are designed to confuse. These people are the hardest to have a conversation with, they double-talk, or redefine themselves mid-sentence, or they tell you they are not that kind of Libertarian, not that kind of anarchist, or are somehow separate and above any legitimate political question. OWS has been taken over by these people, who do nothing but talk in circles, while denying their glaringly obvious motivations with straight faces.

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

The Libertarian infiltrators are regrouping, now talking circles about anarchism. Same BS.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Like sharks smelling poop.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

This post is the most relevent we all have to address.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

This post is very much an active part of the debate right now, so I am going to move it up the forum.

[-] 1 points by anonymousoccupy (23) 2 years ago

wow some people want a wikipedia type system to replace the system we are tryng to repair...LMAO are they serious? They can't be...well GOP exists so I guess they can be.

Look anything in excess is bad! If we have captialism paired with an equal amount of socialism, well, we'd not be in this mess today! That is what we have to get back to. We need more socialism and less capitalism. We need regulation! Enough of this lawless, corportist wet dream of fascism!!

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

We need to get the people moving again, we can do as you say Puff, but let us be cautious in this. Our enemies should not be underestimated, especially when we play at their own game. We should get political but also stick to our roots, stick to the streets. We should make sure that the party members are apt at fighting off corruption. Do not trust the Democrats they are just the same the others. They also accept corporate funding so they are not so different from the Republicans. If we build a party, let us build it from scratch and bring the people to the front. The people united can do anything!

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Our enemies do not want for us to play their game. They want us to riot, burn our own neighborhoods, occupy a church lot, or hang out in a park.

The idea that protesters will show up at rallies or hang out in front of FOX news causes them some discomfort.

The possibility that OWS would operated to push an agenda through participation in the election primary process absolutely terrifies them.

There is NO PLACE where a politician is most vulnerable than in the primary stage of an election. Every vote counts so highly and a disciplined minority can sway the entire choice of candidates.

This is the lynch pin that must be flipped.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I keep reminding people: corporations and superpacs have money; people have the vote, and ONLY people can vote (so far). Let them spend their bezillions of dollars on advertising, but raise your voices and drown the ads out with truth. Or better yet, turn off the television. These are all good ideas; if subgroups can coalesce around whatever ideas they share, in the process but not of it, so to speak, then wield their own influence. The internet makes all of this possible.

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

I agree with what you say but the democrats cannot be trusted.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I hate to tell you this, but.....in life, where groups of humans get together in order to make decisions, nobody can ever be trusted.

The founding fathers recognized this over two hundred years ago and built mistrust into the system.

If OWS were it's own political party and enjoyed majority support over the other two parties, I would still not "trust" our candidate.

The Democrats, Republicans, or other party will only respond to force.....The force necessary is one in which, if the candidate does not do your bidding during his elected term, then you boot him out during the next primary election by supporting his rival.

That is 100% pure gold genius and I wish that I could take credit for such a simple, but effective, strategy.....But, alas, it instead came from Gomer Norquist, the evanjugulars, and the tearbiters (teabaggers).

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Puffy is the enemy, he is part of the 1% and he won't give his money to help the rest of us. Don't listen to him.

Come on Puff, hand over your money. You have already told us how successful you are.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Again, I have paid more in income taxes than you will make in ten lifetimes. And, statistics show that if you are an American who earns less than 60k per year, then you will most likely get more out of the system than you contribute in aggregate taxes. So, let me just say YOU'RE WELCOME.

I do not mind the idea of higher tax rates because I want Americans to have truly great educations and a system that meritocratic. That will increase total economic demand and it will be the best thing for my long term investments.

Your world is that of Mexico and you don't even realize it....of course, what do you realize?

Poor pooky, did mommy just not love you enough? Was daddy a little to rough? Is that why you're a little authoritarian just wanting the government to stop holding you down?

I hate to tell you this, but nobody has held you back......you're just not that bright.

And, again, you're welcome. You are the reason I want to pay my share....so that nobody ends up so bitter and so stupid.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

This is great news that you are so smart and have done so well. And your right I need help from you. You are one of those greedy filthy 1%ers who has not paid his fair share.

So hand it over... Tell everybody on the board here why you are not handing over your money to help the rest of us.

Your not a spy are you, do you actually work for the Koch Brothers. They are very mean people.

[-] 1 points by stoothman (18) from Des Moines, IA 2 years ago

If you want to do this then start by helping us Occupy the Caucuses in Iowa. We plan to occupy campaign headquarters until they surrender.

occupythecaucus.org

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Occupations always end and your message gets lost in the drama of somebody having to remove you.

Boycotts never work.

Marches just make your enemies wait you out.

If you want to alter the future, therefore, you have to employ different methods. These include clever, tactical, strategies and becoming the swing vote in an election primary.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Throw all the "Blue Dog" Democrats and their ilk out of office! They're not "Blue Dogs," they're Traitorous Dogs, and their collusion needs to be exposed!!!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I advocate this method wholeheartedly! It is the one way that I can see translating this movement into change in the short run! Everybody should get on board with this!!!!

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 2 years ago

Puff, I agree.

Obtain a signed pledge from liberal Democratic U.S. Congressional candidates running in the primaries for the support of the OWS National Movement. This is the most efficient transition to real change.

"I pledge in writing that if I am elected to the U.S. Congress my top priorities will be passing legislation that includes the following:

Get Big Money Out Of Federal Politics - Pass the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 750 and H.R. 1404). A law where political candidates for federal office would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100.00. Strictly voluntary by the candidate to avoid legal issues. Require the Federal Communications Commission to grant free TV air-time to all federal candidates that qualify.

Create Jobs Now - A ten-year federal program that involves a New Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to create over 5 million jobs rebuilding America that includes infrastructure banks run by engineers, not politicians to extricate ourselves from the Great Recession now and increase productivity later. Pay for it by taxing all Wall St. financial transactions at 1%. Raises $400 billion a year. A 3% annual surtax on incomes over $1 million. Raises another $200 billion a year.

End The Housing Crisis Now - Congress can and should modify the bankruptcy laws to allow primary residence mortgages to be eligible for restructuring by making banks lower the principal balance on all underwater mortgages to current market value and refinancing these loans to current market interest rates."

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I would agree with the intent of all three. But, to achieve the level of broad support that you will need to push big money out of politics, your message has to be very focused and crystal clear.

Nobody is going to sign up for the second two because the remedies cannot be immediately codified....or the remedies will fall into the trap of sounding out of the mainstream.

Overreach is the death nail of every populist movement.

Think of all the solutions as occurring in series rather than as a wave.

First you get the power, then you get your change.

Begin organizing "A Promise to the American People" and begin building organizations that will hold sway in Congressional primaries.

This is how revolutions in thought are used to create revolutions in action.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Are you aware of Dylan Ratigan's campaign to get money out of politics? Joining as many groups as possible with the function to achieve only ONE goal -- get money out of politics -- should be possible, since everyone can work together if they only have to agree on one thing. Concentrated light makes a laser; ambient light makes a mood. All of that energy focused on one problem should scare the hell out of those who would maintain the status quo.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes, but Ratigan goes the petition route....which is like pissing in the wind.

Politicians laugh at petitions. They laugh because there is very little evidence that petitions alter final voting patterns.

What scares the hell out of politicians is an attack on their flank during their most vulnerable time.....primary season.

Get motivated, united, and disciplined people together at the right time and you will carry more influence than a thousand petitions.

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

Love. This. I agree with everything you said.

For Occupy to mean anything it has to show political power. And creating a third party or anything like that will not fix the problem but would indeed create more problems. Due to the corruption and bribery in our political system a third party would either be to weak to do anything and/or quickly end up being just as corrupt as the other parties. Its the core of our system that needs fixing.

That is why I also agree that getting outside money out of our political process should be the FIRST and most important core issue of Occupy and when getting behind candidates because it is tied to all of the other issues. Get the money out then everything else will be addressed.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Look at:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-only-issue-the-only-issue-get-money-out-of-pol/

And, if you agree, please keep commenting on it so that it stays towards the top of the forum. Thanks for reading.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

If you have 100 people divided into 20 groups with each group of five constituting one vote, how many people does it take to control the 100?

51? No.

What you do is place 3 operatives in each of 11 groups.

All you need is 33 people to control the agenda of 100.

Welcome to the world of Karl Rove.

The control of the Senate often springs from these calculations. While every state is allowed two senators and large states......such as California or New York.....get the equal number as say......Wyoming or Kansas.

So, a Senator from Wyoming always has a disproportionate amount of power as does one from New York, California, Florida, or Texas.

Since red states tend to be concentrated into those with lower populations, the Senate can be very easily controlled by a minority of Americans.

Please read this article from the New Yorker:

How Many Voters Do Senators Represent? Posted by James Surowiecki

Did I say we’d be back from the holiday break on December 29th? I guess I meant January 5th. In any case, normal service, at least of a sort, resumes.

The biggest issue for the economy in the next month or so is, obviously, the question of what kind of (and how big) a fiscal stimulus package Washington will pass. At this point, Republicans seem unlikely to try to kill, via filibuster, such a package entirely, lest their reputations as neo-Hooverites become permanently etched on the minds of American voters. But they are jockeying nonetheless for political position, in part by pretending that the 2008 elections didn’t happen. The Republicans’ new talking point, unveiled yesterday by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, in an appearance on ABC News’ This Week, is that a bipartisan approach to enacting the stimulus package is important because Republican senators “represent half the American population.”

Now, that didn’t sound right, given that most of America’s big states have two Democratic senators. So I did a quick-and-dirty calculation of how many Americans the senators in each party represent, assuming that each senator represents all of the people in his or her state and that the currently open Senate seats (like Delaware, Illinois, and New York) will be filled by someone from the same party. And what you find, if you do the math, is that Republican senators actually represent about thirty-seven per cent of Americans. So McConnell was off by quite a bit, but then I guess it wouldn’t be quite as dramatic or as effective if he were to say that Republican senators need to be consulted because they “represent one third of the American population.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2009/01/how-many-voters.html#ixzz1fgi3cdyV

Now, if you do the math, California's population is 36,961,664. So, one Senator represents roughly 20,000,000 Californians.

The great state of Wyoming, on the other hand, has a population of 544,270. So, here one Senator represents roughly 272,000.

That means that a single vote by a person from Wyoming carries, in the Senate, roughly the same representative weight as 67.9 Californians.

That is why Republicans will focus absolutely enormous sums in Senate races in smaller states and are only to happy to ignore Senate races in larger, more populated, states.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

Since I'm against the Grover Norquist pledge, and would like to gather everyone to unseat all his pledge signers, I have a problem with your proposal.

I would, however, like to see a set of principles that we could agree to question candidates on. One that I'd propose is being against protecting the super rich from progressive income taxes.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Call it "THE PROMISE."

If you don't like the idea of a pledge, make it a promise to the American people.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

When we were screening candidates for endorsement, we'd give them a questionnaire and ask for them to reply on it, in writing. That gave us a written record of their positions, without having them swear on some issue. That is a process that I'd recommend.

In addition, we have an advantage now, because we have video records of so much from candidates. Many of them still seem to be clueless that many of their contradictions can be easily demonstrated. However, that video tends to be in the hands of news organizations, whereas candidate questionnaires would be ours.

Your idea of nailing them down on key issues - absolutely vital.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I'm not so sure that politicians really care about being caught in a half-truth, nor would they submit themselves to a questionnaire of this sort. Politicians will not allow themselves to get cornered on an issue unless that issues lends them powerful support in advancing their careers.

If there are two or three issues which enjoy broad support in the nation, such as get the money out, the stock act, and ending the bust tax cuts for the wealthy.......put that into a pledge before primary candidates......call it "A Promise to the American People".......then, they will sign.

Again, you have to become footsoldiers for that candidate in the primary, lending support wherever you can. And, again, for those who do not sign, you have to become their worst enemy......

As Sean Connery declared in The Untouchables, "You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


So, are you ready to play politics the way it must be played for change to occur?

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

I've been toiling in these fields for a long time. I'm just delighted to feel so much less alone.

The kind of questionnaire I described isn't anything unusual. If the politician wanted our endorsement, we got answers.

Our Sean routine looked like this: a state senator we had supported started to drift away from supporting our issues, and seemed to be wandering toward the more monied interests. We ran someone against him in the primary: a really good person who didn't expect to win and didn't want the job, but who worked hard and campaigned hard, knocking on doors and talking about the issues. He lost as expected, but the senator stayed true to his original beliefs after that.

I'll be right in there working again next year, and writing letters in the meantime to make sure they know what issues matter and making what donations I can to back that up.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

What if one candidate agrees to 7 out of 10 items and the other, stronger candidate in the primary only agrees with 6?

We are getting into semantics here, but the "Promise to the American People" pledge would wrap up about 2 to 4 items that a very large majority of Americans support.....big money out of politics, support for medicare and social security, and corporate reform.....and things would run from there.

Until you get the big money out and older Americans to vote with you.....you will not have a solid foot in the door of American politics and you will loose the muscle you will need to form change.

The Right, meanwhile, will only wait you out and win by attrition. I watched it happen in the 60's, and I'm afraid that I will see it again.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

We'd interview them, and vote. The questionnaire clarified where we wanted to ask more, and especially where to press them.

As I said above, since I'm against the Grover Norquist pledge, I'm uncomfortable with the pledge idea. You may be correct that it is the way to go, and I'm almost certainly going to be supporting those same candidates anyway, who are on the right side of the key issue you listed.

I still think that attacking pols who sign the Norquist pledge, and working to defeat them, is a strong tactic for reducing the power of money in politics.

We may end up disagreeing on a lot of details, but will be on the same side of these fights.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

You will never out-crazy the Republicans. Their primaries are dominated by social issue voters and they hate OWS. Anyone who believes otherwise is wasting their energy.

The Norquist pledge should be the impetus for the competing, "A Promise To The American People," document we would write.

No questionairre......just a yes or no. That is the best way to avoid confusion and divided support.

If you want OWS to work as a bloc, which is the only way for it to exert leverage upon the entire system, then you have to be clear about who you will support in the primary.

Let's do a hypothetical......Say there were four Democratic candidates in a Senatorial primary and three of them signed "The Promise." The proper thing for Occupy supporters to do would be to insure that the candidate who did not signed was blasted, harassed, and discredited.

Politics is war. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes, we're going through a pledgomania phase.

But, when in Rome....use the enemy's methods against him.

A Pledge is not an inherently evil thing....hell, used to, the parties had platforms and actually followed them....This was a version of a Pledge and was around for over 170 years without significant injury.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

I've been encouraging all who read my posts to use the Grover Norquist pledge as a standard for choosing politicians to oppose and unseat. As a result, I'm at cross purposes with your idea of formal pledges.

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

We already have one: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

When did America adopt the Pledge of Allegiance?

During each war, there has been erosion of the wall separating church and state.

There have been a plethora of pledges throughout American history and this one serves to unite politicians with progressive aims.

What do you think is wrong with that?

Do you think that Americans, prior to 1942, were Unamerican?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

And what legislation have the evangicals managed to get passed?

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

Anti women legislation, especially around abortion. Anti-gay marriage laws at all levels, including federal.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Social issues, very different than screwing with the people's money.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

The conservatives, including the evangelicals, have the Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge that protects the super rich.

My understanding of Christianity has always suggested that they should be on the opposite side on that issue - for the poor and against the rich - but that is not the way the politics has played out.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Exactly. Anti tax has nothing to do with religion. The evangelicals get played every election. Every year this nation moves towards less class, decency and self respect. No amount of legislation can stop a cultural phenomenon of deteriorating public norms.

They get played, and if anyone thinks the Dems wont play them needs to wake the hell up.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

the Bush tax cuts....the invasion of Iraq....the gutting of the SEC and EPA....the nomination of four supreme court justices.....these are not the examples I would emulate, but they would have never come about without the evangelicals.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Dude, sorry, but the evangelicals didnt have anything to do with any of those. Those are fascist policies, with the exception of the supreme court nominations- and with citizens united, big gov won, so there goes any thought on making the court more conservative.

Maybe the evangelicals are globalist neocons/neolibs. LAst I knew they were isolationists.

And can we please stop with the tax cuts nonsense. there are so many loopholes, it doesnt really matter what the federal income tax rate is. The numbers they put out are all under the assumption that the holes arent there, which is a bodl faced lie to the public.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I saw that. But, it will falter. I think that only when you formulate it into "The Pledge" and threaten to punish those congressmen (Democrats) who do not sign it will it gain traction.

It will be a multi-year fight. But few valuable things are attained so quickly.

Who is this gawdoftruth idiot?

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

It's a start, and it will both boost morale and reinvigorate the movement.

gawdoftruth is a jerk who thinks he started OWS and has all the answers. In his post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/neos-phone-call/ he says, "First, I have been here since the start of this online, i was probably one of the voices that spurred adbusters to even think of the idea in the first place, I have posted here in length pages deep hours on end and So if you have been present with that you know i have been here hard core for this. Second, I'm right about everything, and unless occupy movement listens its going to fail."

He's also been trying forever to coopt this forum and get everyone to move to his wiki. At http://occupywallst.org/forum/flier-for-wiki-as-requested-by-my-ga/ he says, "This Wiki is CRUCIAL to the meaningful evolution of our species, It is CRUCIAL to human survival beyond this Century, and it is HOW all of WE can ever hope to give full and meaningful attention to the very LARGE NUMBER OF IMPORTANT ISSUES" then rambles on about his vision of the world.

Frankly, I think gawdoftruth is off his meds.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Without media TV and Radio working around the clock for OWS., nothing will happens(look at Aljazeera.net working around the clock for arabic spring)

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You're onto it. There are plenty of ways to skin the fat cat. Numbers mean everything in getting to this goal. Overall, consider including strange bed fellows, not just the DEMs. In the intellectual circles, in business, in politics (even in retirement communities) there are enough people who want to get big money out of politics. Have a program then ally with these people; you'll shorten the ramp.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Agreed. But it's tough to outcrazy the crazies.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You'll be able to tell the difference. Embrace those that aren't; run like hell from those that are. BTW, are you posting up your "top ten"? I haven't used them in general. But I did use SurveyMonkey on a limited scale. Worked ok.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Will try tonight....watching the Simpsons with the kids. Gotta luv Krusty.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Whew! I should have joined by watching the Simpsons, too. Instead, I watched a replay of Huckabee's Six Candidates (of Republican hopefuls)! Santorum energizes on emotion not ideas; Bachmann is too fixated on replacing O'Bama; Perry's a demagogue and Romney's just a politician. That leaves two for the GOP. But Paul can't hear any more. That leaves Gingrich as the last man standing on Huckabee's forum. How was the Simpsons?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Better.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13199) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

if you haven't seen it there is a credo action alert posted in the forum regarding the Keystone XL pipeline - it's an email action, and the forum post has all the links and stuff . . .

go and get'em!

Forum Post: Tell Reid and Pelosi - Don't be a Boner! . . . . . Dec. 3, 2011

http://occupywallst.org/forum/tell-reid-and-pelosi-dont-be-a-boner/

[-] 1 points by TheFitter (2) from Morganville, NJ 2 years ago

There are some competent OWS organizers, who I wish would make available in one cohesive list, their email. In my view, we need to facilitate direct communication of actionable ideas. There needs to be one page for action points and activities that organizers agree upon for group action. Blogging is too removed from that, in my view.

ie: Here's one idea I'd love to float: Take a page from Patty Chievsky (sp?)... In "Network", people were told to go to the window and shout, "I'm mad as hell, and won't take it anymore!". Let's face it, there are many supporters that, because of time constraints, age, disabilities, lack of where-with-all, etc, can't be a physical presence. Sooo... pick a special time perpetually, every day... say, oh, I don't know... 6:30 pm... the middle of the Network's evening news... Then, by some well established and known mechanism, present the country with a proposition... ie: "Appoint Bill Blackor his ilk, to a committee to investigate banking fraud, and prosecute where appropriate.". If viewers agree, go to your car at the appointed time... 6:30 pm... and set off your car alarm and/or honk your horn until 6:31 pm, and continue the procedure every day untill....???. Once the process is established, the media and politicians would be aware, and anyone could voice their view in a way everyone else would know... That voice would escalate until the noice would be deafening... Hard to ignore... throughout the country, especially DC.

And it would be easy. The cops would have a tough time stopping it... 60 seconds is not "disturbing the peace", and anyway, they wouldn't have time to react. Even so, it could only be a small ticket at worst... no clubs, no tear gas, no pepper spray, no evacuation orders, no jail. Rank and file supporters could be empowered in an obvious way, while the media listens. Possibly add another minute-worth every week until some "satisfaction" can be achieved. Then a new proposition would take it's place.

This isn't pie-in-the-sky replacement for other actionable methods... Just another tool in the tool-box to enable everyone to get onboard. But there needs to be a publisized and organized effort to establish this method of protest... Hense... Where are the organizers???

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The Organizers? It's like Nike- Just do it. Others will follow.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Like it. Here's another tool for consideration. Every day when you buy something, use cash and use bigger bills where the vendor will have to give you back your change. When you get your change, simply say, "I was expecting gold, silver or copper coin for my change. Where is it?" Once per week, say Tuesday morning when you're buying your Coffee, use a $10 bill; but, when you're given your change and your Coffee, say the same thing. But for this weekly transaction, as they're staring blankly back at you, refuse the Coffee and ask for your cash back.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

LET'S HAVE A TOP TEN.

What is lacking is a very subdued, rational, method for us to link our ideas and focus our energy.

If I posted a top ten, people could vote on them by simply replying yes or no.....and then we would tally.

Of course, trolls would be nicked from the tally.

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

We have a large number of great, well thought out, COMPLICATED ideas that will require a huge amount of "selling" and “explanation" and will garner GREAT OPPOSITION.
Every one of our goals can only be achieved by cutting the incestuous link between washington and money - we MUST start here:
ACTION -- JOIN US

We need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple – and that is proven popular -
that 83% of Americans already agree on -
That even 56% of TP already agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS.
Everybody wins! ACTION ----> JOIN US
Our only immediate goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decision Citizens United (2010) , that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons &
have no personhood rights”

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.
ACTION ----> JOIN US


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)


If they could tie the left and right into a success -
WHY CAN'T WE ??????????

ACTION ----> JOIN US


I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.

5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.
ACTION ----> JOIN US


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 that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.


Join the Restore Democracy Working Group at
............. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
Plan details with supporting documentation at: http://bit.ly/vK2pGI
RDWG regular meeting 6-8PM @ 60 Wall St @ Wednesdays

ACTION ----> JOIN US

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
SEE NEXT POST FOR RESOLUTION DETAILS
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

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

I liken OWS to being the referee's blowing whistles and calling fouls. This has had an effect on the game, but to truly win the game, you have to become players, not referees on the sideline.

[-] 1 points by crappyrainbows (20) from Flat Top, WV 2 years ago

Why just the Democratic Primaries, let's go after the GOP too, Vote, get others to vote throw a wench in the system, stop this left/right paradim, and lets make them both work in our favor!

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

The Republicans have core constituencies.....Evangelicals, Conservative Catholics, and Corporations. A bunch of young people talking about changing the world is only going to scare the hell out of these people and cause them to engage in the primaries more fervently.

Better stick with the Democrats. They can never tell who their constituents are going to be.

If you're going to shape something intricate, you'd better start with wet clay.

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

Assuming that you win some of the primaries, let me make a couple of observations about the general election.

The GOP is set up to go down in flames over Norquist's pledge for two reasons, first is that the majority of the current GOP and even the mythical TEA bagger wing both are done with being stuck with the short end of the stick on taxes. They can see that they are being screwed for the benefit of the 1%. And second, they are not pleased with a pledge that trumps the Constitution. Saying the pledge of allegiance to Grover for a patriotic American is tough to swallow.

So, your three core issues have to be consistent with the Constitution pre Citizen's United. And it had better address the unfair taxation issue. Then you have a shot at a lot of the fiscal conservatives. And you have a slam dunk with the traditional GOP, because now, they go by the name, "Independents." Here is the good news. If you pick the right core issues, you can get those GOP "independents" to change their registration to Dem so they can support you in the primaries.

It would be ironic to have the old moderate Republicans helping you with Democratic primaries. But, I think it is possible.

Yes you will lose some of the machine 1% Dems (rich) but there really aren't too many of them and there are some who are supporting us publicly already. I haven't read the rest of the posts because I wanted to wanted to give you my pure reaction. Great idea!

Doing that, you will still lose the evangelical slice and you will

[-] 1 points by rockyracoon2 (276) 2 years ago

current political system is corrupted and broken beyond repair. it makes most sense to ignore it

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

You would throw away a Rolls Royce because it had a dent.

[-] 2 points by rockyracoon2 (276) 2 years ago

just a dent i would try to repair. but when engine, tires, brakes, interior, lights, stereo, transmission, etc. has all been stolen bit by bit because i left it unattended, and then remaining body rusted, then yes, i would scrap it. initially it's a matter of perception and ultimately it's facing truth. suppose it ties together with boiling frog analogy, most don't realize until it's too late

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

It's not too late. Corruption in this country is actually dramatically LESS than it was during the 19th and first few decades of the 20th centuries.

[-] 1 points by rockyracoon2 (276) 2 years ago

who knows about then, it's all time high for current generations. Now the plot is beyond lost.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Revisit the Paulson stories, from TARP to tipping off his buddies. Jon Corzine, Bloomberg has his too.

http://sibob.org/wordpress/?p=8791

Why Is Mayor Bloomberg Not Held Accountable For Police Corruption And Homeless Shelter Rejections?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-collins/citytime-crime-is-mayor-b_b_890202.html

Michael Bloomberg has always yearned to be remembered as one of the great New York mayors -- maybe the greatest. Now, thanks to a monster City Hall scandal, the central bragging right of his administration -- Bloomberg's savvy businessman-approach to governing -- is teetering.

The scandal is known as CityTime, and it involves hundreds of millions of dollars stolen or wasted from beneath the mayor's slumbering nose. (If you think New York is the city that never sleeps, think again.)

Bloomberg needs to be forthright with his constituents about how this all happened. But it's taken him eons to even admit that CityTime -- a disaster- and fraud-ridden project to strengthen the city's payroll system -- was a bad idea. Recently, the mayor snapped out of it long enough to ask the prime contractor to give back the $600 million or so that the city has dropped on the operation.

Good luck on that one.

New York is, of course, no stranger to graft. But it's been a full quarter of a century since the last major corruption scandal. Queens Borough President Donald Manes committed suicide and Bronx Democratic boss Stanley Friedman was sent to prison over a scheme to win a city contract for a company that allegedly made hand-held computers. Even though he had no personal involvement, the scandal seriously damaged the reputation of Mayor Ed Koch, then in his third and final term.

But the scale of the corruption in 1986 --- hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribe money - has been dwarfed by CityTime. The federal government has charged that the project was looted by everybody and his mother.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Bloomberg also leaves a police detail in front of Fox News so that they will give him a free pass.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

So I see.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/01/nypd-gives-fox-news-special-protection.html

When Occupy Wall Street protesters marched past media tycoon Rupert Murdoch’s posh 5th Avenue penthouse during the “Millionaires March” on October 11, they were accompanied by a “very light police presence” according to a reporter at the scene. But down at Rupert’s News Corp. headquarters on Sixth Ave.–which has never been a terrorist or protest target of any significance–the media empire is guarded by a 24-hour-a-day New York Police Department security detail seven days a week, a patrol that one security expert estimated costs the city at least half a million dollars a year.

No other news network gets comparable NYPD protection, although a police department spokesman suggested in an email to the Daily Beast that they did. As best we could decipher a rationale for this extraordinary sentry at the gates of the Fox empire, it appears to be fueled by the security obsession of Fox News chief Roger Ailes.

The Daily Beast has observed at least two, and up to three officers patrolling the News Corp. plaza with one or two police cars stationed in front of the 45-story building on a regular basis. A security guard inside the lobby of the News Corp. building said that the police presence out front “has nothing to do with Fox News,” and is there simply because it’s a “high-profile” area. Yet cops who spoke with The Daily Beast said that they are posted at the site to protect Fox News as part of a counterterrorism initiative. Most officers explained that Fox News is a sensitive location, and one even referred to it as a “political” network. Some ex-Fox News employees attribute the patrol to the “paranoia” of Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes.

NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information Paul Browne, when asked why Fox News receives the protection when other media networks do not, responded in an email to The Daily Beast, “Each of the networks gets police coverage to varying extents based on threat information.” But interviews with security officials at other major networks–including CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC–revealed that the NYPD does not provide any security details to these locations. Instead, they contract security guards from private vendors, employ their own security staff and, in some cases, hire a paid detail of off-duty or retired police officers, whose cost is incurred at the network’s expense.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

We just need to vote for the Democrats, right Puff?!

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

No, you need to vote for Democrats and Republicans who sign your Pledge.

You will probably write in George Bush as a candidate, won't you little nutboy?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Keep playing their games, puff. And keep getting played.

Another Bush reference, to a registered Democrat. You are one naive and dumb sob. Why someone would want your handle is beyond me.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

If you are a registered Democrat, and a supporter of OWS, and you cannot see the logic of this.....then you really do belong in 4th grade, don't you?

If you are not a supporter of OWS, then what are you doing here? If you don't want to change the world then you should be able to explain to me what is not wrong with it?

Come on, Dilbert, let's see where your thoughts truly lie?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Puff, after you peel a few more layers of the political onion back, you will find what many here have already found- both parties are in bed together, and like any good advertisement, they tailor the messages to resonate with the personalities of the targeted.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

If you're going to make something intricate, then you'd better start with wet clay.

The Democratic Party is wet clay just waiting to be molded.

Control the primary and you control the party.

You may not like the evangelicals, but you should learn from them.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You are one naive little man, the parties have been corrupted longer than you have been alive.

Think it may be time to change things up?

Eh, fuck it. Lets just keep falling for soon-to-be broken promises.

These parties are beyond you, the voter, my friend.

Tell ya what, how many election cycles of getting screwed are you willing to take before you jump to the third lane, the lane of change?

1 more, 2 more, 4 more, the rest of your life?

This is a decision that you must make, because otherwise you will not know if your strategy is working.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

In ten years, you will be listening to Rush Limbaugh on your lunch hour bitching about the government and feeling bitter about how life has treated you bad. That is the fate of the ineffective.

And you, Sir, are ineffective.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Tell that to the dozens I get to occupyTampa every week.

Im not ineffective, and why the fuck would I listen to Rushbaugh? What planet are you from? And if you think the evangelicals have achieved anything but bigger governement, more spending, more wars, and less money for the aveerage man, then look around. Its all ANY of us have gotten from either party.

Wake the fuck up man. There was someone that came to OT with that pro Dem nonsense, spewing at the mouth with his partisan bullshit.

Needless to say, he was chased outta there pretty quick.

Partisan morons like you are destroying a chance for real change. thanks for nothing "puff"

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

The founding fathers often recited a popular toast of the day before downing a shot.....

"Freedom from Kings and from mobs."

I'm afraid that if you are running anyone away, when you really have no ideas of you own, then you are.....a fucking useless mob.

You can wave your arms and sing kumbaya, but you ain't gonna get the results you want. And then you'll get disillusioned, eventually bitter, and then you will find your scapegoat to explain how the world held you back and.....yes....you will be a Republican. That is the fate of all ineffective rebels and armwaivers.

I've seen it since the 60's and if you think you are any different......you're already sounding like them.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Will the REAL puff stand up!

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Wait, I have to remember who I am.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Comedian Steven Wright: 'Yesterday I was . . . no, that wasn't me.'

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I love that guy....no that was another guy.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5804) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

lmao

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ohyu7-b7F8

don't watch that unless you want to know why we are in the mess we are in now,

not pushing anything or any party. just good to have some truths in the toolbox

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

We are neither democrats or republicans!!!

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

Nor will we be if we follow this strategy. We will simply be using the party we can to effect change.

[-] 0 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

then you need to consider the lesser of two evils.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ohyu7-b7F8

if you actually watch that I already know what you will decide.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheForestGuy (35) 2 years ago

I say apply pressure to all facets. That is how you polish a diamond!

With some careful, quiet planning, you can enter the den of the lions. With people in the right places, you can open gates when needed. With the support of the people, you can change the world.

I say, plan for the primaries. Work both sides of the streets. One side may be a little quieter than the other, but then you can catch whatever bus comes by.

The minimal core issue idea is a given. Don't confuse issues. KISS!

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

how about UNconfuse issues for ya?

knowing who the criminals you Elected are is Priceless.

unless you are one of the real trolls, a democrat "communist organizer" here using Obamas smoke and mirrors to cover up truths like this. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ohyu7-b7F8 from previous reply )

knowing HOW you got to be where you are today is as important as realizing where you are.

THAT video should have had a MAJOR impact on your brain, unless you are part of the ones Covering it up, or a zombie.

[-] 2 points by OccupyTheForestGuy (35) 2 years ago

I don't rely on videos to form my belief system. I rely on people and their actions.

Too many people here want instant change through untested methods. I doubt that will work. Yes, there may be ideas to take current process through an evolution, perhaps a revolution, but the idea that the entire population, or their "elected representatives", will instantly accept and act on these ideas is naive. This change will take time, effort and a lot of sweat. Get used to that idea.

I don't place trust with any of the elected representatives. They all play the game, but working from within the system is the fastest way to effect lasting, legal change. That doesn't mean that one must limit one's work to within the system, by any means. Do both. But, do it!

There may still be some elected officials who actually have a conscience. Find them. Work them hard. The internal pressure on the system will make other efforts more effective.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 2 years ago

i totally agree!

A New Direction For OWS and America!

"Occupy Congress!"

To affect Real and DRAMATIC change we must eventually take over the levers of political power by putting together a slate of candidates that are honest people drawn from the occupy movement's ranks and elect a lot of them to Congress.

The first order of business is to take big money out of federal politics.

Pass the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 750 and H.R. 1404). A law where political candidates for federal office would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100.00. Strictly voluntary by the candidate to avoid legal issues.

Require new FCC regulations granting 100% FREE TV air time to all federal candidates who obtain sufficient petition signatures and/or votes to get on the ballot and participate in the primaries and/or electoral process.

End Political Corruption - End the "revolving door" of politicians and their staffs from ever becoming becoming lobbyists and prohibit all federal public employees, officers, officials from ever being employed by any corporation, individual or business that they specifically regulated while in office.

Clean Up Wall St. - Break up the biggest banks. Reenact Glass-Steagall. Abolish credit default swaps. Derivatives must be traded on transparent exchanges. Ban "flash" trading. Tax all Wall St. financial transactions at 1%. Damp down speculation and raise $400 billion a year.

Solve The Housing Crisis - Congress can and should modify the bankruptcy laws to allow primary residence mortgages to be eligible for restructuring by making banks lower the principal balance on all underwater mortgages to current market value and refinancing these loans to current market interest rates.

Create A Fair Federal Tax Code - The marginal tax rate ought to be raised to 50 percent on income between $500,000 and $5 million, 60 percent on income between $5 million and $15 million, and 70 percent on income over $15 million. There should be a 2 percent annual surtax on all fortunes over $7 million. The estate tax should be 55 percent and kicks in after $5 million. Capital gains should be taxed at 35 percent. End the home mortgage deduction on first homes over $1 million. End the home mortgage deduction on all second homes. Corporations should be taxed by a variable amount based on the percentage of their payroll going to US workers. A small business employing 100% US workers should be taxed somewhere between 15-20% while a company that has completely shifted its production overseas should be in the 50% range. Eliminate corporate loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, subsidies, end offshore tax haven abuse. Expatriation of capital should be subject to a maximum tax-rate penalty with violation considered a felony act.

Make Health Care Affordable And Accessible To All - Medicare For All. Allow Medicare to purchase drugs directly. Give the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC) more authority to drive down medical costs. End fee-for-service in medical care.

End The Wars - Reduce the military budget by half ($330 billion).

End The Police State - Repeal the Patriot Act

Clean The Air - EPA to STRICTLY enforce the Clean Air Act.

Create Jobs Now - A ten-year federal program that involves a New Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to create millions of jobs rebuilding America that includes infrastructure banks run by engineers, not politicians to extricate ourselves from the Great Recession now and increase productivity later.

Create Jobs Later - To create long term quality jobs, the nation needs a massive Manhattan-style project involving government, business and unions with the goal of leading the world in alternative energy innovation and production.

Invest In Education - Begin with the federal government paying tuition and fees for all students, part and full time, who are enrolled in two-year public institutions in the United States.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

To build coalitions, you have to avoid overreach.

That was the reason I suggested OWS focus only on three initiatives that enjoy vast majorities of support.

[-] 0 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 2 years ago

Pass the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 750 and H.R. 1404). A law where political candidates for federal office would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100.00. Strictly voluntary by the candidate to avoid legal issues.

Require new FCC regulations granting 100% FREE TV air time to all federal candidates who obtain sufficient petition signatures and/or votes to get on the ballot and participate in the primaries and/or electoral process.

End Political Corruption - End the "revolving door" of politicians and their staffs from ever becoming becoming lobbyists and prohibit all federal public employees, officers, officials from ever being employed by any corporation, individual or business that they specifically regulated while in office.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

The maximal contribution should be tied to some multiple of the minimum wage. That way, Congress has no reason to meddle in the law in the future. So, 50 times the federal minimum wage of 7.25 would be 362 dollars.

Free TV won't work because those guy's make a hell of a lot of money during election season. Getting big money out would already dry up a great deal of advertising dollars for the candidates. With fewer dollars to spend, the limited messages they would project would more likely focus on a positive image of the candidate. (Negative adds work to suppress voters for the opponent and are most effective if repeated and repeated). Also, there is the web.....Free TV would be a limited span of time and the candidates will make up for it by trying to go viral or being controversial. That way, local TV will pick up the add and cover it on their news programming, thereby skirting the controls.

End Political Corruption.....I would call this the Abramoff rule. That is where I first heard of it and I do think it is a fantastic idea. However, every paradise has it's serpent. Congressional offices would likely create some system of nonemployees performing work for their representative. In this fashion, the person would never have "officially" worked in Washington, but would have the proper connections to then transition to a job in the lobbyist industry.

I would add an additional caveat to the End Political Corruption legislation and would declare that all lobbyist activities should exist within the public realm. That would mean that all interactions between members of Congress and a lobbyist should be written or the conversation transcribed and a copy inserted into the Congressional record for all to see.

Corporations and Unions are not people and do not enjoy full first amendment protections. Their interactions with agents of our government should therefore not be carried out behind closed doors or on Scottish golf outings.

[-] 0 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 2 years ago

90% of all political advertising is spent on TV. Make it free and you dry up the problem of big money in federal politics. The 99% own the airwaves. We just lease them thru our government to the 1%.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

There is nothing free in this life.

[-] 0 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 2 years ago

How's this?

"I pledge in writing that if I am elected to the U.S. Congress my top priorities will be passing legislation that includes the following:

Get Big Money Out Of Federal Politics - Pass the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 750 and H.R. 1404). A law where political candidates for federal office would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100.00. Strictly voluntary by the candidate to avoid legal issues. Revise the Fair Elections Now Act to include 100% discount (up from 25%) for TV air time for political advertising.

Create Jobs Now - A ten-year federal program that involves a New Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to create over 5 million jobs rebuilding America that includes infrastructure banks run by engineers, not politicians to extricate ourselves from the Great Recession now and increase productivity later. Pay for it by taxing all Wall St. financial transactions at 1%. Raises $400 billion a year. A 3% annual surtax on incomes over $1 million. Raises another $200 billion a year.

End The Housing Crisis Now - Congress can and should modify the bankruptcy laws to allow primary residence mortgages to be eligible for restructuring by making banks lower the principal balance on all underwater mortgages to current market value and refinancing these loans to current market interest rates."

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

The second two are too controversial. The WPA and CCC were effective programs in the mid 30's, but the notion of rerunning the Great Depression will not fly because of the political ramifications.

Ending the housing crisis is extremely difficult. I have posted about it elsewhere. I would applaud changing the bankruptcy process if that could be a solution. But, restructuring....and lowering the value of the loan....becomes a positive feedback loop. A huge percentage of Americans are underwater in their mortgages and, with further deflationary incentives, will be inclined to walk away or attempt restructuring as you imply.

The answer is more nuanced, I feel, and I will post it as a forum topic. Right now, I've got to get the kids fed.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 2 years ago

Puff - you're over-thinking this. the number 1 issue in the country is and will remain - JOBS!!!!! We need 10 million jobs to reach full employment. I am providing a paid for path to 5 million jobs.

Ending the housing crisis is easy. its just the banks don't want to do it. the legislation is already in the Congress. its called "cram down" legislation. look it up

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

What are the three core issues?

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

First, get the money out:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-only-issue-the-only-issue-get-money-out-of-pol/

Second: The Stock Act http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h682/show

Third: Constitutional Amendments affirming Social Security and Medicare. This would bring older Americans into the movement and would divide them from the Republicans. (Republicans would, of course, come out against such amendments and that would alienate older voters.....who actually vote. I have said it before, but the true measure of any movement is whether it can convert your parents).

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

I'm in.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Ya, I just thought of that last one and I think it may actually end up being the most important of the three. It's rather ingenious if I can be temporarily immodest. But, the long term, historic, goal of the Right has always been to roll back the New Deal.....and they've never been closer.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Have you read Bill Moyers' speech from a few weeks ago? Love his historical insight on this current phase (40 years) of attacks on the New Deal: http://www.truth-out.org/how-did-happen/1320278111

If you want to skip to the part I'm talking about, search for "1971 was a seminal year."

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I will watch it. I've read Countdown to Doomsday which is some years old, but still relevant.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Unfortunately he skips most of the text of the speech in the spoken version - I get the sense he wasn't feeling well.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Ya, I'm feeding kids right now, but I'll read it later. Liked your response to Rico w/r to the Friedmanites. It's tough cleaning that dog poop off your shoe......Milton will go down as the economist who destroyed the American dream by purporting to save it.

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

You had me at "get the money out" when you didn't limit it to Federal and elections.

Heard Abramoff on Hartmann today and was reminded of a few more dimensions of the corruption.

I suggest writing the whole thing up and posting it on Occupy DC and Portland. They are the more practical ones. Have pretty good declarations.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I will try that.

In fact, I have never asked, but what is out there in regards to all the forums, occupy newsletters, meetings, and etc?

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

It is a matter of simple math enough votes can swing any election. That is what makes America Great. You just need to make sure the voters are accounted for to let the candidate know who elected him and that if he does not represent them then recall him. Occupy Candidates only We can change everything this election! Vote together Who would have ever Thought Obama would win. The Rep party never did.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes, it is simple math. But, there is nowhere else....besides a primary election.....where one vote counts for so much and where one group of voters can effect so much change.

Dominate the primaries and you will choose who the candidates are in the final election.

That is how you shape a new America.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

vote for tweetle de or tweetle dumb what a choice. we need a change from this not more of the same

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

why take a winding road to nowhere?

that is the third party option.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

a 3rd and 4th party would shake things up but they would become like what was there before them. a new form of democracy is what is needed, one where the citizens are a LOT more involved. Communication has changed since they drafted the constitution so now we can participate more easily, it is time to use this new way to communicate as a new way to govern.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

In our country, multiple parties could produce odd bedfellows.....but we do not have a system truly set up for a parliamentary division of power. In the end, a third or a fourth party would end up strengthening the most cohesive single party and that would be the Republicans.

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

Shaking them up is one thing you can do with dice. If you really need to win against a crook, it's better to load them. Make the outcome predictable.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

The single most effective thing you can do in life is to learn from the experience of others.....learning from your own experience takes up valuable time and can be painful.

In this regard, I think it is instructive to look at the effect of the teabuggers upon the GOP. Here was an astroturf organization, largely financed by some crackpot billionaires, who was able to rope itself to two issues....the deficit and the Democratic health care plan....and they quickly held sway in a large number of Republican primaries.

That meant that a few nutcases made it into the general election....Christine O'Donnell....but, if you were from a Republican district, you probably still one.

The result was that the teabuggers, in the span of a year, shaped a powerful minority within the Republican party.

And, in a world where there is near parity between the Democratic and Republican members of Congress, a powerful minority within one bloc has significant leverage....as we have seen....in shaping the agenda.

Now, I am not suggesting that the Occupy movement should push a bunch of crack-pot, witchcraft practicing, candidates through the Democratic primaries, but it is clear that a cohesive and energized cohort in the Democratic primary process would tip the balance in the selection of Democratic candidates for Congress.

This is the road we must travel. Yes, both parties have been corrupted, but only one is salvageable.

If Occupy unites behind a rational and widely supported Pledge, submitted to candidates of both parties, and supports the signors of that Pledge, it will likely field about 80 candidates (Democrats) that are strongly beholden to the Occupy movement.

Those 80, some in the house and some in the senate, will be the votes required to support any Democratic bill in either house.

They will have hand. Occupy will have it's foot soldiers.

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

Here is the one thing we don't have and there is a really low probability of our getting it. The $25 billion each checkbooks of the Koch brothers.

So, as I have said in previous posts, the one thing we should be able to marshal is numbers. In the end that is what it takes to win, isn't it? But if you are the guys with the $25b you can also get the numbers. And muscle.

Just between you and me, those guys really hate to lose and don't do it gracefully, if you catch my drift?

Practically, there will be a number of amendments introduced (one already), and Bernie Sanders is about to offer one. He is smart enough to try to get ALL of the money out.

If we find one that we like, that is what should be in the pledge, referencing a specific amendment, to keep it simple. I thought you might go for the commerce clause for number 3.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

other countries have more than 2 parties Israel comes to mind England too I think. And yes they have to form a government with the other parties to get a gov. formed. It is a bit curious to me as I am used to a 2 party system. But I try to keep an open mind, so i consider everything that I can. Those that need to be strengthened the most are from the "we the people" party, yet to be formed. Republicans and Democrats seem so similar now. both seem dirty for some reason, I just want to go wash my hands after listening to them speak.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I have two words for you.....Green Party.

Ralph Nader's arrogance undoubtedly gave us the disasters of George Bush.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

we need a party that will represent at least 75% of the people. Rig those election results at your own pearl

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (35005) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes. Use the six degrees of seperation concept.

It would also be helpful if people created and forwarded petitions to be signed and submitted. All worthy petitions created and successfully submitted on behalf of the 99% ( "US" ) help forward our cause in regaining our government and correcting abuse's caused by past and current corruption.

Please review sign and forward the petitions attached below. Then perhaps create a petition of your own.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/fb/petition/petition/force-industry-implementing-hydrogen-fuel-technology/Pqd8bP9q

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/fb/petition/petition/creat-more-access-housing-using-subsidy-program-there-not-enough-participation-rental-properties/bxpVgq8J

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/fb/petition/petition/endorse-wwwthe99declarationorg-which-petition-redress-grievances/Q6qYt2H9

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Forget petitions, you need a SINGLE pledge offered to all candidates....Democrats and Republicans. I don't think that too many of the later will be game, but at least you offered.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

so OWC is now a democrat run group like the tea party is a republican one?

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

The Pledge would be offered to Democratic and Republican primary candidates....although I don't see the later showing much interest.

[-] 0 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

so OWS IS a DEMOCRATIC partisan thing and OWS is not open and welcome to Republicans then, I see....I was wondering how inclusive a group claiming to represent 99% of the people is. And we talk about congress not being able to get along, when we can't get along inside of OWS shame on us. We let the government divide us, shame on us for falling for the 50 sheep to a pen thing...republicans here and democrats there. OK snipe away you government depends on it.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

note the ? mark at the end asking for discussion. Good move to stop discussion and lower to whatever that is, not

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Blah blah blah I'm a rightwing nutjob blah blah blah OWS is communist democrats blah blah blah I love masturbating to Chris Christie blah blah blah I'm jumping now!

[-] 0 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

Occupy D.C. is an open community of diverse individuals, facing different forms of oppression and impacted by economic exploitation to differing degrees, but united??? by a shared vision of equality for the common good.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

whatever.

[-] 0 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

do your thing then enjoy yourself grin

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I'll do my thing then leave it on your chin.

[-] 0 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

I'll say a prayer for your soul tonight

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Can you make sure that you sacrifice a goat or something....after you're done fucking it of course.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

I will say another prayer for you, may God bless you and keep you safe. Have a good day, see you tomorrow, smile

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

You too. God bless.

[-] 1 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Colorado Springs, CO 2 years ago

This makes perfect sense, I want to do this. All who are in favor?

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Just keep commenting on it so it stays at the top of the forum.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13199) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Yes!

This is what I've been saying - only better said.

And here is a post on a general shape of these issues:

Great post!

Original forum post on the OccupyDC Declaration:

. . . . just me - clickable . . .

...

It is absurd that the 1 percent has taken 40 percent of the nation’s wealth through exploiting labor, outsourcing jobs, and manipulating the tax code to their benefit through special capital tax rates and loopholes. The system is rigged in their favor, yet they cry foul when anyone even dares to question their relentless class warfare.

Financial institutions gambled with our savings, homes, and economy. They collapsed the financial system and needed the public to bail them out of their failures yet deny any responsibility and continue to fight oversight. Corporations loot from those whose labor creates society’s prosperity, while the government allows them to privatize profits and socialize risk.

Corporate interests threaten life on Earth by extracting and burning fossil fuels and resisting the necessary transition to renewable energy. Their drilling, mining, clear-cutting, overfishing, and factory farming destroys the land, jeopardizes our food and water, and poisons the soil with near impunity. They privilege polluters over people by subsidizing fossil fuels, blocking investments in clean energy and efficient transportation, and hiding environmental destruction from public oversight.

Private corporations, with the government’s support, use common resources and infrastructure for short-term personal profit, while stifling efforts to invest in public goods.

. . .

Join your voice with ours and let it amplify until the heart of the movement booms with our chorus of solidarity.

. . . .

Yes!

See also: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

and: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

and the White House petition:

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/endorse-wwwthe99declarationorg-which-petition-redress-grievances/Q6qYt2H9

...

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I like this. But, it outlines our grievances rather than detailing the remedy.

The difficulty, and where most populist movements fall apart, is in deciding upon the remedy.

Many on this forum want to jump up and down and arm wave. Revolutions are great for overthrowing dictators, but they are lousy ways of improving Republics.

And, sometimes, the best solutions are those that will occur gradually. It's like the story of the two bulls.....watch it explained and then jump below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHcoMMaW2ZU&noredirect=1

The toughest thing in politics is being patient. People, and movements, fail most often because they simply give up. But, the best results are often achieved by the most deliberate of methods.

I would rather work gradually through all the changes that must occur rather than expending my energy on symbolic gestures that will change nothing.

In other words, I want to fuck all the cows.

Can't believe I just said that.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13199) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

LoL!

I'm with ya on that. Lets just walk down that hill and fuck'em all . . .!

; D

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

First power, then change.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

It's a great concept that could take shape. The only problem within OWS is, if you limit it to two or three core issues, you will lose 50% of the following. Not every supporter is here for the same reasons and once you try to scale down what is important to some and not to others, you drastically decrease the number of members that will sign on.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

The Iowa Caucus begins in January.

Will this idea fly or are we just going to fart in the wind?

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

No, real power starts in the streets, which is where we are.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Are you fucking kidding me? Real power starts at the swearing in ceremonies for our nation's leaders.

The world if filled with armwaivers and, unless you plan to overthrow the government, then your methods and results will only be symbolic.

It may help you get laid, but it ain't gonna change the world.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Once our movement is big enough and there are enough of us occupying (say 10 to 20 million people occupying) WE will be our nations leaders (we are already our leaders, it's just that most of us haven't figured it out yet) and who gets sworn in will be irrelevant. That is what democracy looks like.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Ok, Jane Fonda, go burn your draft card.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Is that meant to be serious discourse, or do you simply resort to such inane comments when you run out of thoughtful responses?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I'm watching three kids right now and could still squash you like the little dreamweaving bug that you are.

Continue to study and prey that reincarnation brings you back as a bug.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Where did all this hate come from? Are you a Christian? Does not the Bible tell us to love one another?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

"Once our movement is big enough and there are enough of us occupying (say 10 to 20 million people occupying) WE will be our nations leaders (we are already our leaders, it's just that most of us haven't figured it out yet) and who gets sworn in will be irrelevant. That is what democracy looks like."

This is one of the dumbest things I have read on this forum. You've had your 2 minutes. I don't even want to insult someone as foolish as you.

I have serious thoughts to contend with.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I presume if you think you are wasting your time you will not respond to this. If not tell me exactly what is dumb about the hope of building a mass movement.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Read all of my forum topics and then we can discuss.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Can Anyone Help Write "The Promise To The American People"?

Please send drafts or ideas.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Record_of_Puff_the_Troll_comments_and_actions_after_confronting_his_%22Co_opt_the_dem_copt%22_Con_scam

The real solutions are to form a third party, and have an article 5 convention, in conjunction with a wiki centered paradigm shift.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/OccupyThisWiki:About

Puff is not just here to sell you evil stupid advice ladies and gentlemen, hes also a gead gamer troll who will stalk you if you stand up to him.

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

dude, if you go back and see past elections where viable third parties ran, you'd see that a third party in a majority takes all election is retarded. you'll most likely nuder the democrats and give the election to the republicans, and if you win, you'll have to pick a side to caucus with. even independents caucus with dems. the most tactical way is to subvert a party. that's how the game has been played for over two hundred years.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Dude, if you stop telling me about how every other time they lost, i can tell you how this time we can win.

In a winner take all election, you only have to be the group that gets 70 percent of the vote and then even if they rig the vote it will be transparent.

The first assumption you make is the false assumption. Why can't we achieve a 70 percent coalition between now and election day?

You can't give me one good reason its impossible, just very strong definitions of very difficult high order problems we would have to solve. I'm well ahead of you with long lists of high order problems we have to solve. Stop being a plug up stoppage in the matrix andcome help work on the variety of problems.

Subvert a party. Why do we still need a social movement? because subverting demons is entirely impossible, they just find a way to con scam you deeper into a new pit just as you think you have finally payed your way out.

You tell me how the game has been played for 200 years as if thats some reason to go on playing that same game.

Maybe you hadn't noticed. Your still losing. The civil rights movement? all 10 of your rights long ago vanished and are not enforced esp when it comes to police in cities and towns.

Race Equality? The bush election was rigged by denying African Americans the Vote.

Gender Equality? Women escaped the gender role cage only to find themselves also just merely patent corporate slaves, instead of slaves to their husbands like it was rigged in the 40s.

All your so called social movements which co-opted the system because that was the only way to get things done? Got co-opted and their entire agenda shafted at the end and then used again in replay anyhow to corrale and control and screw us all.

And you STILL haven't learned the lesson so BAD you think you are right enough to FIGHT ME over it.?

WTF?

Wake up dude.

what more can be said?

stupidity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

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

all those problems you defined could be solved in one of the two parties. the problem I see is that we, as a society, worship wealth so only wealthy people get our vote, and then we cry because they reinforce the rules of wealth. stop voting wealthy people into office and we would stop having the same outcomes. you want a third party get a bunch of your friends together take over a party have a convention and implement proportional representation standards. I majored in political science and know how the game is played, not by hear say, but by research. and I don't know about you but I still have my rights.

[-] 2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

No, you can't solve such or any problem inside of the parties and 50 years worth of bad laws prove this.

you don't have your rights to peacably assemble. you don't have your rights to keep and bear arms, you don't have your rights against unlawfu ldetention, or against unlawful search and seizure..., you don't have freedom of speech since your speech is actually suppressed in the market system, you don't have any of those rights any more, the actual events of the protests are most relevant because they prove; right to assemble peacefully for redress of greivances as per the USA Constitution DENIED. Thus. This is not a country run by the constitution, but a thuggery economic ku, using it as a pretense and vamping on the caste system.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

You didn't stand up to me, you were an asshole. Everyone knows you're a little dungeons and dragons nerd who thinks he started the entire Occupy movement. Do I have to pull up your early posts again?

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

crap. For you to tell us what will or will not work is for you to claim perspective you don't have. Your plan won't work, and you claiming to have something people must read is a crock. most of the things you post are not only not memorable the board would have been better off without it.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Then don't read my posts and tell people not to email me support for putting these things together.

My background is in medicine and history.

My perspective is mine, and mine only, until others agree with it.

So, in other words, go fuck yourself.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

i will not only read them, i will shoot them down. And i will make sure that as i do, i make the point that you have no business trying to tell us all how to play the game, and that your conceptualization of strategy is adolescent. I'm sick and tired of letting people like you ego trip themselves through thinking they have the grand design which we all should hop on board with, when you don't , you are dead wrong, and you are arguing insanely and stupidly against the real answers. I am sick of being polite to you, i am sick of walking on egg shells, and i am particularly fernyoyyed because i did bother to do my homework. I did bother to do the work that would warrant me telling everyone what to do and sit up and pay attention. and you Did not. And neither did dozens of other people.

So YOU are the one who can take your STUPID and IGNORANT con scam of a non solution, and go FUCK YOURSELF over it.

Meanwhile, back in ADULT LAND, we will be forming a third party, instead of letting fools like you lead us always back into compromises with slavery.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

A third party? LMFAO.

How many people have tried to form third parties in the last 160 years and have succeeded?

You are one eggshell walking, polite, homework doing nutcase who belongs in a park singing kumbaya while masturbating on your new I-phone.

What is the dumbest thing you can say in two words......Third Party.

If you want to attack my posts, my advice would be to bring it on. I have tried to avoid being harsh with people, but you are now my bitch.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

yes, it is my job to educate you, ad hom junkie. this is you" finding me"? oh, it hurts... oh.. oh.. pleeeeease.. don't hurt me any more... ....

I figured you out and flushed this turkey. you are a con scam co-opter trying to run a co opt con scam and this is meant to intimidate me.

Its not working.

every place you "find " me; you are exposed.

I know what is best for people. That they actually bother to self educate before trying to solve problems with opinions. That we meet human needs instead of operate by greed, and that we operate via ethics instead of minus them.

Yeah, i know that cuts you out. sucks to be you.

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

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

You're an idiot.
All I have to do is find your posts and just comment on the above message to comment on your posts. You won't even know I'm doing it....unless you backtrack to all of your previous posts....not an enjoyable task. I've read a few of them and I think I'd rather get a root canal through my nose...without anesthesia.

good night assdouche.

oh, and thank you for STARTING THIS MOVEMENT. what a fucking idiot.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

I have a 180 IQ. You are the idiot.

I am sure the general public will love this tactic. It will show everyone what a troll you are.

plus you will seem to be attacking those other people. haha.

in no time at all you will get booted from here.

============

yes, it is my job to educate you, ad hom junkie. this is you" finding me"? oh, it hurts... oh.. oh.. pleeeeease.. don't hurt me any more... ....

I figured you out and flushed this turkey. you are a con scam co-opter trying to run a co opt con scam and this is meant to intimidate me.

Its not working.

every place you "find " me; you are exposed.

I know what is best for people. That they actually bother to self educate before trying to solve problems with opinions. That we meet human needs instead of operate by greed, and that we operate via ethics instead of minus them.

Yeah, i know that cuts you out. sucks to be you.

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

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I have never known a wise man who divulged his IQ. Strike one.

If you truly have Asperger's, then your 180 IQ would also tell you that you are unlikely to have the social skills to be any kind of responsible leader......LET ALONE THE CREATOR......of OWS. Strike two.

You have been identified by a number of people as a professional troll and a farce who serves his own ends.....and that is strike three.

I have never been contacted by any moderator on this site and have had any of my posts, even the ones bitchslapping little miscreants like you, removed.

So, have a nice night Sheldon. Just remember which sock you masturbate into tonight so that you don't wear it again tomorrow.

Too easy.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

My IQ is just a number which proves i am smart, which is only material when some fucktard says otherwise.

I never claimed to be THE CREATOR, just a key integral force.

professional troll? hahaha. I think you are the proffessional troll, and if there is anybody else who thinks i am, they should raise their hand and explain to me how it is a paid pro troll would be linking back to their real legal name on FB.

So all you have is you trolling me, trying to intimidate me, and proving the whole time that you are an evil basterd, all because you want to subvert and co opt the movement as a dem, and i stood up to that.

You are not going to intimidate me or control me and your effort to do so has been duly recorded.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Perhaps you do not recall your original post to me which sparked all of this, sparky. Sorry, to interrupt your session with silicone, but you are the one who seems intent on suppressing ideas.....especially when you have to copy and paste your own.

I have watched every incantation of dreamer during my life....going back to the 60's.....and the biggest of the bunch of fools has always been the third partiers. It's a copout.

Shit, 9 times out of 10 these people become so obsessed with their desire to start anew that they never really think out the details of what they actually want....99 time out of a hundred, they somehow think that everyone will just lay down for them (not for you spanky) once they taste a little power, and 99.99 percent of the time they have no idea how government really works.

But, don't flatter yourself little dude, I wouldn't include you in any of those groups. You are from a new breed of idiot who thinks that technology will trump human nature and your intelligence, whatever your IQ really is, has been thoroughly wasted.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Record_of_Puff_the_Troll_comments_and_actions_after_confronting_his_%22Co_opt_the_dem_copt%22_Con_scam

Puff, the troll. You are so mad that i pulled the veil on your dumb co opt the co opt con scam that now you are going to come prove you are a troll instead of hide behind the scam. I pwned your sorry but and now you are a crying whiny be-otch who think i owe you a lay or something.

We aren't really that close, you can go find somebody else to be a crying whiny beotch and mind fuck.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Ha, I'm on wikipedia! Hurray.....you really don't have a clue, do you?

I'm trying my best to steer this movement away from the same kind of people that ruined the student protests of my generation.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

really? that sounds like a funny story.

why don't you tell us that story, it would certainly frame where you are coming from?

until then, your judgment is impaired, and you are trolling me for making the neccessary and evolutionary points needed for strategic right action.

You are out of your depth, you don't have any business trying to tell us what to do and in the end if all you can do is troll me then you doubly have nothing of merit to share.

I have seen and avoided many of your giant long winded rants on this forum, and let the thing slip by, but the truth is you are trying to have a controlling influence here, and selling garbage which is as a whole dumble down nonsense.

You can't protect yourself from whats got you, you are in no condition to protect anybody else, and certainly not yourself from me making you an easy road kill point so that people SEE what they are up against.

You are wrong, and if i put my foot down you escalate to trolling.

Proving what you really are.

A co opt the co opt dem troll.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes, with trolls like me who needs friends.

Put a few beads on you, grow your sideburns a little longer, and sprout a few pubes and you could have been at Altamont.

You would also have to switch from meth to LSD.

And, who the hell do you think you are letting things "slip by."

Do you think that you own this movement? Are you placing yourself above others? Are you some sort of new-age or tech-age demagogue?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Where are the contested Democratic primaries?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

All primaries are contested if you are a Democrat. There is rarely a core constituency of....or loyalty to...Democratic candidates. Wet clay.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

But have there been announced candidates going against incumbent blue dogs, or thers?

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

If the Occupy Movement created a pledge detailing three core issues and then required primary candidates to sign said pledge.....I think you would rapidly see the crystallization of most of what you seek.

Of course, you must enthusiastically support those primary candidates who sign the pledge and you must energetically punish those who do not......Otherwise, what is the use of the damn pledge.

If you want to create a hurricane, then this pledge is the butterfly that needs to flap it's wings.

Many of you will feel uncomfortable with this strategy. You would like to create a third party, work around Washington, have direct Democracy, or overthrow the government. But these methods, as well as remaining an ill-defined mass of energy, are just not going to work.

What will produce real and gradual change is providing disciplined support of Democratic primary candidates who pledge their support to your core issues. You must identify these individuals now and begin applying your leverage.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The best thing Occupy can do is keep on occupying.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Occupations always end and the narrative only becomes how will the cops remove you. Get real and become effective.

You're better off ending the occupations with some momentum than to let them go out with a cold whimper.

Gosh this is a good episode of Archer....love that show.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Occupations look to be just starting. Let's see what happens over the next few weeks.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Change doesn't happen in parks.....it happens in the offices of men who are usually filled with pomposity figuring out that they have run out of ways to elude the will of the people.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Tahrir Square is not a park, but it's an occupied space held by revolutionaries.

I refer to plans announced by Occupy, as well as Portland's re occupation. Then there's http://bailoutpeople.org/occupy4jobs/o4jcall.shtml

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

OK, but why haven't they achieved the changes they have sought?

Get out of the fucking park.....you're losing the narrative.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You on drugs? Occupy has been very active since Bloomberg's Army trashed the consitution and chased out the people from a public space where they were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly to petition the government, and to hold discussions among themselves about the dire situation most people are in or are close to facing.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

How many Religious leaders have endorsed you? How many politicians show up and tell you they're behind you? Hell, the unions are afraid to be associated with you.

You might as well be holding up banners in Antarctica....you have lost the narrative and you're barely getting press.....except if you're getting pepper sprayed....and even then your message is not percolating.

You have lost the narrative and no amount of armwaiving and singing kumbaya in a park is going to accomplish shit.

When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he responded, "because that's where the money is."

You don't even understand what game you are playing let alone how you will need to maneuver your players to accomplish anything.....anything.

Who gives a shit about Mayor Bloomberg.....if you want to control Congress, I have given you the gameplan.

That is the bank which must be robbed.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You go ahead and take control of congress. good luck with that.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes, and then you and your little burnouts will say that you were part of it from day one. Little assdouche, you should really be studying or something. The GED is not that hard if you put your mind to it.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

good luck.

[-] 0 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

A democrat that is pro guns! Lots of republicans in the south say they'd vote democrat if they'd leave off gun control. Can we not consider it? I know we want peace but we'd be scarier if we were all PRO GUNS.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Guns have nothing to do with OWS. Overreach is to be avoided.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Oh, well. I'll keep telling them to vote democrat, and yet donate to the NRA!

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

like!

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Why stop at one party?

[-] 0 points by JohnMarsden (47) 2 years ago

If this requires more work than typing on my iPad/Mac book pro or sitting in a park screaming and eating vegan pizza then count me out.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

All you have to do is vote.

[-] 0 points by JohnMarsden (47) 2 years ago

Can I vote through tumblr? If not then no deal.

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

Does anybody have suggestions for Dem primary candidates to sign the pledge?

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

We ask the NYC-GA to adopt the following resolution:


The Occupy Wall Street New York City General Assembly endorses the
........................................Peoples' Rights Amendment
to the US constitution ( H. J. Res. 88 ) ending corporate personhood and demands that
each member of and candidate for Congress and
each member of and candidates for all state legislatures
pledge her/his support for the amendment,
and will oppose any member or candidate who does not.

The General Assembly also calls upon its sister occupations to join in this demand.


We recognize that there are other demands working their way to the GA. However, the Peoples' Rights Amendment resolution has proven widespread support and should proceed on its own track:

The ABC News/Washington Post poll found that
...83% of the entire US population -
...85% of Democrats
...81% of independents
...76% of Republicans
oppose the Citizens United decision, which declared that corporations are people.

The OWS Declaration of the Occupation of New York City (approved by the General Assembly on 29 September 2011) echoes these sentiments when it states that
"a democratic government derives its just power from the people,
not from corporations."

We also recognize that by endorsing this resolution, OWS will be clearly aligning itself with the vast majority of the American people –
giving us even more credibility –
and attracting external support for our other goals.



House Joint Resolution 88
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 15, 2011
Mr. MC GOVERN introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress & the States to regulate corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

SECTION 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

SECTION 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.''

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

The real puff? I guess a clone would explain why I read your posts and comments and I either think "wow this guy is a douche" or "this guy was a douche earlier but now it seems like he's been reading."

It's weird how much time some people have. Someone really copied your name? Crazy.

Edit: Oh wow speak of the devil. I just saw a post from the clone/douche as soon as I clicked away from this page.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Which one was I, the douche or the douche who could read?

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

lulz sorry that's not how I meant it. I meant my first encounters were with the TROLL version so every encounter after that where you were being reasonable seemed odd. So until now I had no idea you were being trolled with a fake account.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Sometimes I post troll magnet topics and then just fuck with people.....but, this puff6269 is like a stealth bomber.....he always gets through.

[-] 0 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

The single most effective thing our movement could accomplish in the near term, which provides a foundation for obtaining nearly every other goal that's been stated so far, is politically available to us right now. It's this:

                                            House Bill H.R. 2990

        <http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/HR-2990.pdf>

This law would eliminate the current debt-based system of money in the U.S. in one clean sweep by returning the sovereign power of money creation exclusively to the federal government, as the constitution provides.

This bill was introduced in the House on September 21, 2011 by Congressman Denis Kucinich. Read it for yourself and try to imagine what life would be like. No endless circle of debt -- government debt OR private debt compounded by interest. Think of the potential of that.

Banks would immediately lose their strangle hold over the economy and over politics. We'd have a real chance to TAKE OUR DEMOCRACY BACK.

IF OWS does anything, it should do this: DEMAND that House Bill 2990 be enacted into law. Spread the word (and the pdf).

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

You don't remember what the Great Depression was like and how maintaining the Gold Standard was a fool's errand.

Monetary policy has erred in many ways, but the quickest way for you to take us to 1933 is to tighten monetary policy right now.

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

You are absolutely correct. Again.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Wait, somebody actually agreed with me? Hallelujah.

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

Puff, I'd ask you to marry me, but in my heart, I know I'd just be outclassed and out of my league.

GREAT reading your posts.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I'm sure you're quite a catch....and I'm married with a lot of kids.

[-] 2 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

This bill would not return us to the gold standard. I agree, that would be crazy. No, this bill doesn't change the fiat nature of the currency on a floating exchange rate -- that would stay just as it is. The bill would make the creation of new money only via government issue, not through private bankers. Right now, banks create money when they approve loans. Banks would still be in business, but they would no longer have the power to create money and charge interest on it just for the privilege of using it. Please read the bill. You'll see what I mean.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I am stuck on the conceptual here....banks take in deposits and underwrite loans based on their level of assets. Leverage is inherent as is the multiplier effect on the money supply.

Are you suggesting that financial institutions should not be able to leverage?

Do you really want politicians controlling our money supply?

[-] 2 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

Banks make loans based on a small fraction of their level of deposits (10%, 3%?), theoretically. In actual practice, however, this requirement is not what banks consider when they make new loans, because banks manage their reserve accounts at the Fed through overnight borrowing and lending, either from other banks, or from the Fed itself at the discount window. So banks make loans irrespective of their reserve balances. At the end of the day, if their balance is too low, they simply borrow what they need to raise it, or lend any surplus to other banks in the overnight market. If push ever comes to shove, the Fed will ALWAYS lend any required amount (at a slight penalty rate), so there is never any risk that the bank would not be able to meet its reserve requirement. As a result, banks are not limited by their assets. This is especially true of the giant ones. That's why they were able to underwrite all those billions in subprime mortgages. They were completely free to do so. They did so recklessly. Then the housing market collapsed, borrowers unable to pay, and the credit system seized up because banks were suddenly not willing to lend to each other on the overnight market.

Such reckless lending should never have been permissible in the first place. Banks are not guardians of the economy. They don't think about what's good or not good for the general public. That's the government's job. As private corporations, banks will seek profits wherever and to whatever extent they can. This time, of course, they really went crazy and got into fraud, manipulation, and deceit as well, and really cleaned up. But they never should have been in the position to construct such a money-making operation in the first place.

So the short answer to your question is, yes, I want congress to control our money supply, not private profiteers. Banks could be then be instructed to lend at no interest, or minimum interest based on risk assessment, and profit, if there is any, could go back to the government, just as it does now from the Federal Reserve.
Why should people have to pay interest to use the country's money?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

If you look at the history of corruption in tariffs, it very dubious to suggest that politicians would not use the money supply as a campaign tool.

The profit motive has, in history, been shown as the best tool from separating the good from the not so good......Now, this broke down in 2008, but to adopt the system you espouse, you are ignoring the entirety of the history of economics.

Congress should be kept as far away from our money supply as possible. The federal reserve should have never been led by Alan Greenspan, but it should now remain independent.

[-] 1 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

Kucinich’s bill would not take the profit motive out of the economy. On the contrary. It would stimulate even greater industry and competition for profits in the economy because more people would have access to money.

As for economic history, I’m not suggesting we get rid of our market-based, profit-making economic system. I’m saying that that system would be a much better one if money itself were not a profit-making business. How is it better in economic terms for money to be borrowed at interest than borrowed at no interest? By reducing the overall debt for someone who wants to start a business, for example, you lower the cost of doing business and increase potential profitability, no? People would still have to qualify for loans. Poorly run businesses would still fail and good ones flourish. Debts would still have to be repaid. But access to money would be at no or low cost (interest).

As for keeping Congress away from control of the money supply, after WWII and before 1980, government strictly regulated the banking industry, and that was the most productive and egalitarian period of our whole history. Those regulations included much stricter control over the money supply as well as over other aspects of banking (fractional reserve banking is fairly recent). So more government control over the money supply, in addition to other kinds of financial regulation, was very good, not only for the market-based economy as a whole, but for providing more opportunities for more people to accumulate wealth through the production of goods and services. Since 1980, increasing deregulation (keeping Congress away from the money supply) has created not only more instability, but also a much bigger gap between haves and have nots.

As for corruption, we have corruption now. Our whole economic system is corrupt. It only works for those at the top, private individuals who are accountable to no one, who run corporations and invest in industries for their own private gain at any cost to the rest of us who depend on those industries for jobs, homes, health care, energy, food, and so on. And we have political corruption now by a financial elite who control the process with money and influence.

There’s always risk of corruption in politics. But at least politicians are accountable to the public if they want to stay in office. That’s more control than we have over the private corporations that control our economy and the banking industry that controls the country's money.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Would you trust Republicans to control our monetary policies?

You understand that the current strategy of the fed is to induce minor inflation.....ironically, that helps the little guy.

Those who tend to denounce the Fed more fervently would rather that deflation continues....because that actually favors those with high net worth.

I am all for regulating banking, standardizing derivatives and trading them upon an open platform, requiring complete transparency of financial institutions, and breaking up big banks and reseparating commercial from investment banks.

I cannot, however, think of a better system than an independent Fed or a better Head of the Federal Reserve for the current circumstance than Ben Bernanke.

Can you imagine what would have happened in 2008 if what you are suggesting was in place? Chaos would have led to paralysis which would have led to disaster......much worse than what you can imagine, but try.....

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I have always admired Kucinich’s spunk. What has to occur is quite complicated and simple.

We have to return to the banking world of 1968.....boring, predictable, honorable, and regulated. The complicated part is how to get there.

[-] 1 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

I have nothing against the Federal Reserve or Bernanke -- you continue to misunderstand my point of view. In our current situation, I think the Fed SHOULD target modest inflation -- to my mind it's not aggressive enough on that point. I like Bernanke and believe he knows what needs to be done, and that he acted quickly and courageously when the crisis hit. So, as far as the Fed goes, on the whole I'm a fan, not a supporter of Fed-bashing gold bugs or the like, who think the Fed is more independent than it actually is and misunderstand how it works. (I don’t agree with everything the Fed has done since the crash, but that’s a different discussion.)

We also apparently agree on the benefits of broad and strong financial regulation. My reason for pointing out the benefits of the post WWII to 1980 period (the "banking world of 1968" as you put it) was to indicate to you that Congress did just fine when the money supply was more ‘government controlled’ (i.e., regulated), so that your belief that "we need to keep Congress as far away from the money supply as possible" was in error. It is government regulation that prevented the financial industry from developing into the monster it is today. It is deregulation that freed it to invent financial schemes and put anyone and everyone into debt so as to gain from those schemes.

My concerns are with commercial banks being able to create money as debt ad infinitum. This is, to a great extent, the result of decoupling banking from investment banking, as you say, and I agree with you, as far as that goes. We’d be a whole lot better off separating banking from investment banking again. But that doesn’t go far enough.

There are more fundamental issues in play, namely unsustainable growth (consumerism) and increasing social inequity. This crisis could provide an opportunity to address those issues by making money itself more accessible, without exponentially increasing private debt. We need to reduce the incentive that makes stock market trading the driver of economic growth. Kucinich’s bill would do that.

Why not go further than just bringing back financial regulation? Why not reform the corporate monopoly system? Change the current direction of capitalism, away from the development of bigger, more integrated and more powerful corporations, which ultimately threaten democracy itself?

That’s the conversation I want to have.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Agreed and very good points. I am going to print this comment. One of the best I've seen.

I would add one more.....Corporations are no longer international. Many are now a-national. They exist outside of nations and national institutions. They play nation against nation in their strategies of avoiding taxes. The jump from one country to another based upon costs of labor and avoiding regulations.

The result, is an impotency of nations in their dealings with corporations and a weakening of national structures overall.

A similar dynamic occurs within the United States when states compete for corporate facilities and jobs by becoming very anti-union and scant in their regulatory regimes.

The race to the bottom is the result.

Corporations have become the Old Roman Church and are kingmakers, arbiters of nations, and influence peddlers.....all the while increasing their power by playing one nation against another.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

Here is one of those rare times I'm agreeing with you, puff. At least mostly. I think Bernanke has been as bad as Greenspan, though, Barbara. Inflation is a killer that hits the poorest hardest, and when the money supply grows in a way that does not reflect the real underlying growth of the economy (if any) then we only get price inflation on real goods and commodities, and so long as wages don't keep up, a decrease in purchasing power for the dollar, and because of "hedonics" and the like, we can't even get a straight answer for CPI/price inflation anymore.

And here's another uncomfortable truth, the marginal benefit of a dollar's worth of deficit spending: http://eisic.ws/ext/jpg/marg-benefit-debt.jpg

IOW, stimulus simply doesn't work like it used to.

Bernanke and other a-national (h/t puff!) monetary authorities are dumping massive loads of liquidity into the top of the pyramid, setting the stage for currency collapse. Needless to say, little of that "easing" is helping regular working folks.

You may not like the goldbugs, and I don't advocate a gold standard, but gold is pretty good indicator of the devaluation of fiat currencies. This has spread to equities, as well, and neither, in real terms, has moved at all, in spite of the numbers going up and up.

[-] 1 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

You agree? So what do you think of Kucinich's bill?

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

I agree Congress should be kept as far away from our money supply as possible, except that this currently means we leave it in the hands of the very corporations we are supposedly so disgruntled about.

[-] 1 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

Yes, that's the conundrum. But maybe we've become too allergic to politics and politicians. When you get right down to it, after all, politics is our only means of power to influence the kind of society we live in.

So why should we be afraid of Congress getting "too close to the money supply"? That's what financial regulation is -- Congress making laws about how money flows through the economy.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

I am less afraid of Congress taking back their power over our money than I am leaving it in the hands of a rogue Fed. As it is now, we must borrow every dollar into existence from the banksters of the world. We should simply print it into existence like has been done numerous times over our history. As much as I tend to distrust government to do the right thing, I distrust a privately-owned central bank even less.

[-] 1 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

Agreed. The government deliberately restricts itself (by law) to "borrowing" (i.e., selling treasuries) in order to spend. It isn't really borrowing, but it looks like it is. This effectively limits government's ability to manage the economy because it makes it look like the government goes into debt the same way non-government does. So people start to worry that the government's going to "go bankrupt" or "burden future generations with unpayable debt" or something, and get al upset about government spending, precisely when it's needed most!

The whole set-up is such gross misinformation that it makes me want to scream.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

Well, we actually DO owe that money. That's a problem. Even at these incredibly low interest rates our poor management of term on our outstanding debt is trying to sink us. See my reply above to puff, and a long but interesting and recent vid on this (where I pulled that graph from) is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V3kpKzd-Yw

[-] 2 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

We need to pay the interest, yes, if that's what you mean. But (unlike the EZ) we can always pay the interest. That's not what's sinking us. What's sinking us is a misunderstanding of the deficit – a belief that the deficit is too high even though such a large part of the workforce is idle and the rest are underpaid. (BTW, I started to watch the youtube video you linked (thanks), but the discussion was way off base IMO. Comparing the Euro situation to what's happening here just confuses the subject.)

People, including Congress, don’t understand that the deficit represents private savings, which are currently lying around in banks instead of being invested in the real economy by putting people to work. They fear the deficit because they see it as an albatross when it’s really just the flip side of what private industry is doing. If private industry isn't spending then government has to, and it can, without inflation. There's no other way.

We need to expose how the private money system works against the national interest. I think Kucinich’s bill is a good way to start the conversation.

BTW, do you know how to find past conversations on this Forum? I had a hell of a time finding yours again after I’d read it.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

That video covers a lot of area. We are fundamentally in a different position that the EZ, and that was a major point of K Bass.

I can't go along with this, though: "People, including Congress, don’t understand that the deficit represents private savings, which are currently lying around in banks instead of being invested in the real economy by putting people to work. They fear the deficit because they see it as an albatross when it’s really just the flip side of what private industry is doing. If private industry isn't spending then government has to, and it can, without inflation. There's no other way."

There are no savings. This was sorta true way back when people actually did save, but that was the point of that graph I posted. One of the reasons the marginal utility of new debt is so small is that it is not savings that are being liberated. The only thing we have left is to borrow, borrow, borrow, as in deficit spending, which has only been possible of late because the Fed has been buying up the debt that hasn't been able to be sold on the open market (QE, aka monetizing the debt).

Credit expansion tends to always lead to inflation, as we saw in the housing bubble. So when home values plummeted, thus putting in jeopardy the solvency of the banking sector, rather than letting the market rebalance to reality, we "saved" the banks from their own profligacy and accounting control fraud, and suspended the mark-to-market rules that are STILL threatening to show how insolvent the big banks are.

I am a fan of Kucinich, but I have concern about his wanting to put the powers of the Fed in the hands of the executive branch. I need to read his bill carefully, but that was my first reaction to it.

[-] 1 points by BarbaraNH (35) 2 years ago

If you look at the whole economy in terms of sectors, with the two basic ones being the Government sector and the Non-government sector (which includes everything else -- domestic households, domestic banks and other institutions, and all foreign u.s. currency users (ie., foreign bondholders, etc.), then you’ll see what I mean I think.

When I said “private savings” I meant “non-government” savings, i.e., money in the non-government (private) sector that’s not being spent or invested but just being held. Most households don’t have much in savings, true, and that’s why people have borrowed so heavily, agreed. But banks and other corporations and businesses do -- and they’re not investing it or spending it, they’re sitting on it.
The way I see it – correct me if I’m wrong – is that all money that exists in the Non-government (private) sector is either being spent, invested, or saved. The fact that we have to borrow it from a private bank at interest before doing one or the other is, to me, the problem, because the interest created causes a build up of additional debt that burdens people unnecessarily.

As for what happens in the Government sector – which is the sovereign currency issuer -- the unnecessary requirement of making government issue bonds at interest in order to deficit spend makes it seem like government needs to “fund” its expenditures, but of course it doesn’t – it could just spend, as you say, directly into the economy, even when the budget is in deficit, just like it does when the budget is in surplus. The requirement that deficit spending has to be “funded” through bond sales creates a false picture. Government never has to fund expenditures because it issues the currency and can never be “short of money,” including interest. All those bonds the Chinese buy are not money being “borrowed” by the government so that it can “fund” spending. They’re private-sector (Chinese) savings, on which the government pays interest as an incentive, so the Chinese or anyone else will put their (private sector) savings into Treasuries instead of someplace else. The need for Government to sell bonds in order to deficit spend is an imposed, budgetary constraint – not a real, financial one.

When you think about monetary activity, you have to separate government activity from private-sector activity because they’re so completely different in nature. The private sector has real constraints on its activities because it gets money from the sovereign issuer. Government has no real constraints (only voluntary ones) because it IS the sovereign issuer. Government “borrowing” is different from private-sector borrowing, and it’s important to recognize just what the differences are in order to really understand how money works. Anyway, that’s what I’ve learned.

So that’s what I meant when I said the federal deficit represents savings in the private sector.

I do disagree with one thing you said, though, which is that QE is the same as monetizing the debt. This is a misconception that the orthodox view perpetuates. Actually, there are two misconceptions (1) the two concepts are distinct, and (2) “monetizing the debt” is a fallacy in and of itself. ‘Monetizing the debt’ is said to be the Fed buying bonds directly from the Treasury by printing money, which increases the money supply and leads to inflation. This doesn’t happen because first, the government doesn’t need money in order to spend, and also because the Fed can’t buy securities at will since that would screw up the short-term interest rate (reserves would increase, pushing the target rate down eventually to zero). As for QE, the orthodox myth is that it can cause inflation because the Fed prints money to purchase the securities, thereby “increasing the money supply.” But the Fed is merely exchanging one form of private financial asset (the securities) with another (cash) in reserves. (The increased cash reserves will not influence the banks’ ability to lend.) What QE does is lower long-term interest rates when short-term rates are already close to zero.

I agree with everything you said about credit expansion and what happened when the housing bubble burst.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

Good stuff. I agree that it is not necessary for the government to borrow in order to spend, but so long as we are under the charter of the federal reserve, that is exactly how it works. Congress HAD the power. Lincoln and Kennedy both tried their hand at it, but those efforts were, well, short-lived. More later.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

"However, the same mechanism can be used for good and could easily transform the Democratic party into a servant of the people and a representative of the 99%."

Except that...um...and it's time you faced REALITY, the OWS movement really does NOT represent 99% of the people, and the Democratic Party only represents....let's see....checking Rasmussen Reports- 34% of the American people. (34% self identify as Democrats).

Not to mention there are states where a very low percentage of the population actually participated (s) in OWS so they'll have little effect on an election.

And that whole "pledge" thing worked out SO well for the Tea Party didn't it?

At least we now have proof that you've been a shill for the Dems this whole time. (Does that mean that the news outlets and pundits that predicted this was a Democratic movement will get to say "I told you so"? )

[-] 11 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes, you figured me out. I'm a pawn of the party that gave us the middle class, civil rights legislation, and led us to victory in World War II and to the moon.

[-] 1 points by leavethecities (318) 2 years ago

Im not sure the party did all that. JFK led us to the moon, not the party. FDR and the generals led us to victory. Many people in congress were for civil rights legislation. It is more that you are in the party when these things. That being said, civil rights is what the democratic party is known for and I appreciate, but there has been a significant erosion of civil rights both in the bush and obama administrations which is troubling only a few like dennis k seem to be on the mark. I have a fealing there is a mixture of issues which wont be addressed by either because of the 1 percent both in and out of government.

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Oh sweetie, you're uneducated it seems.

"As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]"

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2005/02/history_of_the_.html

It's silly that you believe that everyone else will forget that there have been TWO parties for more than a century and that Republicans actually worked at and for NASA, and fought in the World Wars! No one believes that the Democrats did ANY of that on their own.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

There are just too many things wrong with that statement for me to respond.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Pretty much as wrong as stating that "your party"-and your party alone-"gave us the middle class, civil rights legislation, led us to the moon and to victory in World War II.

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

We won't solve this by refighting the civil war. puff has a good idea that can be supported by the largest registered voting group, the Independents, and slices of the the other two large enough to win if people can sit on the egos for a little while.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

ONLY if OWS can agree on, AND get candidates to agree to and sign, specific core demands that Independents and slices ALSO agree with.

And while it's a great idea that I fully support (depending on what those core demands end up being) most elected officials find out once they are in Washington that actually following through with and succeeding in noble goals isn't as easy at it sounds. There is always opposition.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Ever hear of Wendell Willkie? Ever hear of Nixon's southern strategy? Do you want to know why so many NASA installations were placed in the South? Can you describe to me what "The Great Compression" was and by what mechanism it was achieved?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

What does Wendell Willkie have to do with your point?

As far as the Southern Strategy-read this-http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

NASA installations in the South? Because firing rockets is usually best done over WATER?

As far as the great compression goes, I suggest an EXCELLENT paper written by Timothy Noah called "The Great Divergence". http://img.slate.com/media/3/100914_NoahT_GreatDivergence.pdf

It examines ALL of the theories and ins and outs of economic inequality and gives the reader a very profound understanding of the past 30 years of economic behavior.

If I can handle (and actually thoroughly enjoy all 40 pages of it) so can you Sir.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Wendell Willkie, and Republicans at the time, were staunch isolationists and would have let Hitler overrun Europe for political gain.

Rockets are fired near the equator to take advantage of the greater angular velocity at that latitude.....it's like getting a 1000 mph head start. Huntsville and Houston.....essentially all of the military and NASA investments in the South at the time.....were payoffs to Southern Democrats for allowing the Civil Right's bills to advance in the House and the Senate.

The "middle class" is not a historical entity. It did not exist in the 1890's nor in the 1930's. I would suggest that you hold your nose and read Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal." I already read Noah's article in Slate.

The middle class arose because Americans had a blank slate on which to form it. Poor Americans saw advancement. Rich Americans were too weak to see anything.

But Democrats, like cities building expressways, financed their own destruction. The Democrats and moderate Republicans of the 1940's, 50's, 60's, and 70's guided processes that would allow Americans to reach a level or wealth that they could think of themselves as 1920's Republicans.

I see the emergence of Libertarianism as nothing more that the reincarnation of the philosophy of Calvin Coolidge. When someone was told, in 1933, that Coolidge had died, they responded...."how can you tell." That description will aptly circumscribe the Libertarian politicians of our future and the 1920's is their template.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

So you're admitting that Democrats had to be "bought" in order to pass the Civil Right's bill. But it's odd that you think facilities which existed before the Civil Rights bill was voted upon were somehow "payoffs" for something that happened AFTER they were built.

Huntsville- pre-1948 Houston-started in 1961, it opened in 1963

Civil Rights Act-called for by President Kennedy in 1963-didn't hit the floor until 1964

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Huntsville was a lock up for the German scientists....the city and area were dramatically expanded in the 60's at a time when those facilities could have just as easily headed north.....and of course the bribes were made before the bills hit the floor. Do you think that LBJ threw out this money all at once. He supplied carrots wherever he needed to and then threatened to yank them back. Read, The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, and realize how much you didn't want to cross this guy.

Yes, Democrats had to by bought.....because there weren't enough moderate democrats and republicans to get the bill through.

I would say that single action, passing civil rights laws, has shaped our nation, for both good and bad, than any other in our last 150 years.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

I would agree that it's passage was monumental. I just refuse to agree that it happened because of Democrats alone, or even for the most part.

If you are indeed a fair and honest person, you are forced to admit that the facts indicate it was a bipartisan effort. So stop using it as a wedge to further split our country in half.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Who were the Dixiecrats and what party did they join.....

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

"Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.

I know. I was there.

When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first "outsiders" to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.

In fact, very few party switches came about right after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Some exceptions who did switch were Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml

I've done my due diligence on the Dixiecrats my friend. If and when you can provide names and dates of the supposed Dixiecrats (other than a handful I've documented myself) that "switched parties and infiltrated the Republican party" I'll be happy to take a look at it. But nice try with the stale old talking point/lies!

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Isn't 1933 around the time that blacks began moving up north?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Note the quotation marks and the source of the quotation.

One would think that "freed" blacks would have begun "moving up north" long before 1933.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I don't have that much time to waste with you, but the point is that Republicans were indeed progressive by modern standards until the time of Nixon's southern strategy. I've read every book by Kevin Phillips, the architect of that strategy, and I would say that progressivism amongst Republicans died at the point that it because politically expedient to kill it.

Your argument that Republicans have been more progressive since 1933 and providing some article as a reference is like saying that Stalin was a nice guy until everyone figured out that he had killed 15 million of his own people.

The endpoint is what defines history and the endpoint for the Republican party has not been to good.

In fact, the party of Reagan would today probably castigate, would probably, castrate, Reagan as a liberal evildoer.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

You mistake my argument. I'm not arguing that Republicans have been more progressive since 1933-at least not using today's definition of progressive. Most Republicans/conservatives loathe the word Progressive (not to be confused with actual progress) You and I could very well understand that term very differently.

My point is FACTS. The US Legisative RECORDS prove that "In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes."

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]"

I'm saying that the DEMOCRATS did not bring "us" the Civil Rights Movement-the Republicans were going to trounce their butts UNLESS the Democrats got a little Southern Strategy of their own going and ADDED civil rights to their freaking Party Platform! And what year was that? How long had equal rights been a staple of the Republican platform?

Hell, one of the most revered Democratic Senators of all time, Robert Byrd "...led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, according to the United States Senate's own website, filibustered the legislation to the bitter end appearing as one of the last opponents to the act before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could pass. At the time, Byrd was in the the midst of a 14 hour and 13 minute filibuster diatribe against the key civil rights measure"

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

Did you get that? A coalition LED by a REPUBLICAN had to invoke CLOTURE in order to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 PASSED because a DEMOCRAT (and a former KKK member and Dixiecrat) was filibustering AGAINST it???

FACTS should define history-not anyone's biased interpretation of those facts. Edited-for some reason the first link above does not work. Here is the corrected location- http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Of the 3 links you provided, only the "GOP" "capitalist" page @ tripod actually works. Interesting.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml

That's the article that provided the links after the quote shown.

The "money quote" from the above article can be found here: http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

So besides NewsMax (I'll let others giggle) we have analysis from the Dirksen Center that features:

"The Republican pro-civil rights forces were blessed with gifted leadership. Although Senate minority whip Thomas Kuchel initially managed the party's forces, it increasingly became clear to Democrats, Republicans, the press, civil rights groups, and the White House that Everett McKinley Dirksen was the key man in the entire civil rights legislative effort."

I'm not disputing the facts about the Southern Democrats, just the spin.

It's also common knowledge that those Southern Democrats are now mostly Southern Republicans (their heirs, anyway). Were it to come to a vote today, the situation would be entirely reversed. Who's talking States' Rights? And, it is still a fact that Democratic-controlled congress and the presidency presided over passage.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Democrats controlled the south and that is where the opposition to civil rights was festooned.

Just as Nixon went to China, the Civil Rights legislation could only pass through the efforts of a southern Democrat.

You are Mark Twaining the history. Republicans could be progressive on Civil Right's bills because they were the loyal opposition and the minority party. Plus, they didn't have any blacks in their districts anyway.....it was an academic argument.

Contrast that sentiment to the time of school busing and forced integration of our schools and you will see the darkness beneath.

The final point is a simple one.....The Republican party of today is in no way similar or an outgrowth of the Party of Eisenhower. It is not even the Party of Goldwater. The Republican party of today is the Party of Gingrich in all it's complexity, corruption, contradiction, and paranoia.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

And Republicans controlled the NORTH-where the birth of civil rights-through a civil war-originated.

"They didn't have any blacks in their districts". Want to take that one back on your own"?

Your original point had nothing to do with the "parties" of today. You mentioned the parties at the time of the "civil rights movement, World War II, taking the US to the moon, and the middle class". You don't get to change your argument simply because I provided facts that prove you are most likely wrong.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

From the late 19th century through the mid 20th, I would have probably aligned or at least been sympathetic with Progressive Republicans. Now, many of those Republicans would be Democrats. Lincoln, Teddy, Eisenhower, Rockefeller... It is what it is.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics....

Mark Twain.

You would have made him proud.

[-] -3 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Ya know what? You just proved I'm right about you. Knew it would happen. Thanks. Keep on spreading the establishment propaganda.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Oh yes, I am so establishment. Go back far enough and you will see my post on "The New Slavery" and bringing back the draft. If you dig deep enough, you will even find me arguing that second term abortions should not be aborted. Ideology is what you listen to, philosophy is what you create.

Pawn of the compressor.

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

And what if no one listens to your philosophy? Is that because they find it less than ideal? snark

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

We are on an anonymous forum.....do you really think that I care what you think of me? Are we going to argue a little and then go out for a beer?

I like to think and I would like to be part of something larger than myself. Why are you here, Officer Friday?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

To observe and examine whatever "larger something" you create that you seem determined to foist upon the rest of us. You of all people should know that not paying attention to what groups of people are doing, or intend to do, to society as a whole is what got us where we are in the first place.

If I think very little of you, then I'm most likely NOT to support your actions. You should care very much what "others" think of you, your proposals etc, because that directly affects the end result.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Fine, I'll continue to write, to harass the nucases, and I may even sing kumbaya a couple of times.

[-] -3 points by Joyce (375) 2 years ago

Not a pawn....worse, a progressive that the democratic party wants nothing to do with.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Back for more, Spanky? I thought you would have at least changed your name.

[-] 0 points by Joyce (375) 2 years ago

No...no reason....more "puff pieces" to read and enjoy.....

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Why don't you write any pieces? I'm sure you've got some good ideas percolating up there.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

I'd call him more of a prawn myself...just a shrimp but pretending to be a BIG one, feeding off of the decay and leftovers of the bigger, more fierce water predators. :) Good to see you Joyce.

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

I like this idea but because I like the Democratic Party more that I like the Republican Party my greedy ass would like to see the Republican Party get Occupied. Then I can finally have my cake and eat it too

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

It is really the only realistic option.

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

it's just learning from other revolutionary movements, like the Tea Party, but tweaking the idea a little bit. That's how I believe society moves forward, and is why I don't believe that there should be such a big gap in wealth, considering the one percent could not have done it with out all of us to different degrees.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Income disparity is the issue that no Republican will discuss and which neoconservatives will not even acknowledge.

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

The fact that they could be so callous makes me never want to be one of them.

[-] -1 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

Ashton Kutcher sucked in Butterfly Effect He can't act worth a damn

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Ya, he's taking down 2.5 men.

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

Figures he can't finish anything that's why Demi dumped him

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

They need to let Charlie Sheen smoke crack on the set or anything.....just make it funny again.

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

now that would be funny then the ratings would go through the roof Sheen is just holding out for more money and I bet he'll get it when CBS bows down to him

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Or when CBS blows him.

[-] -1 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

so OWC is now a democrat run group like the tea party is a republican one? NO We vote for the Occupy Candidate. They can be from either pary and still vote our wishes

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Then you will be a member of the Green Party and you will help elect another George Bush.

There is such a thing as being idealistic, and there is such a thing as getting what you want.

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

Agreed. This kind of coke vs pepsi discussion is a waste of time. OWS has to hold the National General Assembly so that it can petition the government for a redress of grievances, as per the 1st Amendment, on behalf of the 99%. OWS has no right to be pledging anything to any candidate until the need arises, if ever, to form an independent 3rd party. OWS will know the answer to that in November 2013 after the next president and congress has had reasonable time to address the issues raised in the List of Grievances. You would see the first crop of 99r candidates in the 2014 midterms, and then 99r's will finish the job in 2016. There is no quick fix in letting OWS/99% be co-oped by the Democrats.

[-] 0 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

who is the occupy candidate? need to know so I know who to vote for. What is more powerful than a vote? ok lots of things...

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

There won't be a 99r candidate in 2012, but there will be very hard questions asked of all candidates after the National General Assembly July 4th. During the primaries, knowing that the NGA is coming up, a lot of the discussion will be colored by the #Occupy movement.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

are we making a list of questions for each candidate to answer? can we post the answers?

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

I would guess no

I would guess there will be a NGA website

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 2 years ago

if someone knows of a site that is collecting ideas please link me.

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

this is gawdoftruths project, it's a good start

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

[+] -5 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

his name is Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron LawlRon Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl Ron Lawl

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

You have to admire the tenacity.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

No, his name is David Koch. RonPaul is the nice old guy that can sell you a Yugo owned by Old Man Potter and make you feel like you saved the world.

[-] 1 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

David Koch is the guy in No Country For Old Men who will smile at you as he pops you with his compressor shotgun

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

He even has the haircut.

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

lol yea when a guy approaches you carrying a compressor tank wearing blue jeans you Run like Hell

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I picture this "Joyce" character on this forum as looking like that guy.

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

then Run!!!!!!!!!!

[-] -2 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Yeah.

Ain't gonna happen.

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

aylor shouted Damn all you bloody apes to Hell Damn You!!! while Nova was parking her Chevy in back of Cornelius ape Hut Taylor shouted Damn all you bloody apes to Hell Damn You!!! while Nova was parking her Chevy in back of Cornelius ape HutTaylor shouted Damn all you bloody apes to Hell Damn You!!! while Nova was parking her Chevy in back of Cornelius ape Hut