Forum Post: REPORT: Trolls Take Over OWS. What's to be Done? Here's an Idea:
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 22, 2011, 9:18 p.m. EST by FreedomIsFree
(340)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
[-] FreedomIsFree 1 points 1 hour ago
The initial genius of OWS was identifying Wall Street as the primary source of the problem. The genius continued with the novel idea of being leaderless.
But somehow, instead of going after the criminals, we all seem pre-occupied with demonizing many of those who are our natural allies.
Could my views be considered libertarian? Yes. Do I get tired of the libertarian bashing? I did at first, but I've come to believe that until you stop going after regular, well-meaning people, regardless how wrong you think they may be, this movement is doomed to the margins.
Even with my libertarianish views, I've been able to fight through and find good common ground, but so long as everyone with libertarian sensibilities is hounded, heckled and otherwise mistreated, you'll just prove what the mainstream media has been claiming all along, that OWS and the like are just a bunch of left-wing crybabies that want big-daddy government to make everything fair and "free" and everyone equally broke.
That somehow some good fairy witch is going to suddenly get all the regulators to do the right thing, as if regulation was the magic fairy dust that would suddenly eradicate greed and prevent the near-total corruption of the regulatory agencies.
That some magic tax, well distributed, will suddenly mean we all have enough to eat, enough to pay the heating bill, health care, etc (ad infinitum it seems).That some magic "green" stimulus will suddenly fix the jobs problem.
That if we only give enough bailout and bonus to the corrupt "too-big-to-fails," then big-daddy government will finally be in enough debt to those vampires that they will suddenly find a heart and a conscience, or at least bleed you less slowly.
Forgive me, but I am skeptical.
Libertarians have had our backs with regards to the Bill of Rights. That's their kick. Don't you all get that? Is that not incredible leverage?
Do we believe that we have descended into a veritable police state, or what? If not, then libertarians have nothing for you.
Do you believe that the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st Amendment, is worth vigorously protecting and exercising? If not, then libertarians have nothing for you.
I could go on and on like this. Everyone is going to have to make up their own mind about whether these sorts of demonizations are worth the trouble to repel what could be some of your strongest allies.
I have never made the claim, but knowing myself to be a lowly union carpenter, yet very sympathetic to civil libertarians, I probably come off as being an enigma, yet I guarantee that it is believed by the Koch conspiracy kooks around here that I am a full-on salaried wall street "fascist" troll, mindlessly babbling some imaginary religion in hopes of duping some of the weak-minded, and otherwise disrupting, and all that other shit you guys keep claiming.
I see more anti-libertarian troll posts/comments from the anti-libertarian generals who do a good job at keeping down the noise level sometimes, but after weeks of posting/reading here, I'm starting to think that what might be really going on is quite the opposite.
Those who complain the loudest about trolls have become the very evil which they seek to eradicate.
I think that if everyone decides to cut out the name-calling and conspiracy theories, etc, just for a spell, and instead try a little love, acceptance and cordiality. . .who knows, but I think we could all band together to call out the dumbasses and gratuitous pot shots.
A facebook friend of mine inadvertantly put it very well when he posted a long long status on his lousy day:
". . .the man who is the father figure in my life called me the most narrowminded person in the world when I tried to have a serious discussion. I refuse the advice of those wellmeaning friends and relatives who say we just shouldn't talk about some matters. I maintain it is precisely in the contentious, difficult areas that we should be focusing our communication efforts. And that does not mean conducting verbal war with one another. It is time to dispense with oneupmanship and competitive debate. We all need to stop the putdowns, namecalling, and assumptions and actively strive for compassion, peace, understanding, and solutions that work for as many people as possible."
I agree.
If crap like the OP keeps getting posted, the precious consensus we seek will not materialize, and OWS proves itself unworthy of whatever influence it may wield, and lies every time it claims to speak for 99%. ↥like ↧dislike reply edit delete permalink [-] FreedomIsFree 1 points 1 hour ago
I notice I keep switching between first and second person. I've struggled with this. Sometimes I feel welcome, and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I feel fully part of all this, and other times I feel totally at odds with it. I want to be using We and Our rather than You and Your, but if aaphat is representative of the party line around here, then being concerned about whether I belong or not is solved. And I will be sad to finally admit that I can't believe that OWS will help much but the 1% simply by marginalizing (y)ourselves.
Ron Paul says it all right here about the 1% running everything in this amazing 1988 interview where he talks about corruption in congress to the corruption in the CIA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I2fRcFPzu4
Skip to 20 seconds in. The first 20 seconds is just a countdown to the start of the tape.
I agree wholeheartedly with this:
...and this:
I repeat the same things over and over in various different ways every day that I post here. You can see a lot of it in the thread about the question that I focused on today: 'why is OWS against cops?'. The typical responses to my constructive criticism are accusations that I'm a "Wall Street executive" or a government psy-ops agent, or my serious, respectful questions are labeled "trolling" by people who call me names.
If one person is respectfully asking serious questions and another is dismissing that person completely and calling him names, then which person is a "troll"? On this site, does "troll" apply to people who criticize OWS, rather than childish name-callers?
I've been here for nearly three months now, and in that entire time I have not ever called anybody a name or disrespected anybody. I have carefully read every reply to all of my posts and I've tried to respond thoughtfully and respectfully to as many of the, as I have time for. But I'm the troll?
There are a lot of people associated with Occupy who have the mind set that the way to relate to people who disagree with you is to shout them down and cut them down personally with ad-hominem attacks. Didn't we learn better in kindergarten? Doesn't the left revile ideologues who shout down dissent, like the God Hates Fags people?
Very good points TechJunkie. I may well have rebutted you harshly a time or two myself. I don't know, I'd have to do quite a bit of digging in old posts to confirm one way or another. But you will always have to consider that passions here will tend to run high in this forum because of what it is trying to be dealt with and a natural response to a perceived attack is anger. I am just as guilty as anyone else to reacting to quickly at times. But for me it has never been intentional malice, but just a reaction to the injustice being accepted and going on all around us. As there are many here who do actually support the greed and corruption of the powers that be, it can be difficult to be properly restrained at times. I know it's no excuse, but just like everyone else here and around the world, I am not perfect. So try to continue taking things into consideration with a grain of salt. Never give up and never give in, do your best to do good in whatever way presents itself. May God bless your efforts to do good.
Thanks for the respectful response. I've been here for almost three months and I'm still here, so if the anti-troll trolls haven't run me off yet then they're probably not going to. Unfortunately all that I can offer is constructive criticism, not support, but I'm still trying to contribute to the advancement of the movement in my own way. I could be a supporter some day but it needs to advance a lot more first.
I've been here for about the same amount of time, and yes I've fended off quite a few attacks myself. Some were misunderstandings and some were intentional attacks by the blind supporters of the greedy and corrupt and some were by sick individuals getting their kicks by baiting an argument. This is a serious matter - positive growth, positive change, retaking the government by the people for the people. Much is at stake so there will be much ugliness expressed. But I have noticed that there is more well thought out and expressed " good " content as the days go by, and more crossing party lines in support of each-other in support of saving the USA. The movements are young, but they are starting to take on a more cohesive positive direction every day to the dismay of the current powers that be which have been fucking everyone up ( please pardon the french ) . So hang tough, and glad to have you here.
In fact read this and share it as it is about the best explanation of why we are here that you are ever likely to get. http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-occupy-protest/#comment-530137
That explanation that you linked to is a real turn-off because of that huge paragraph where every sentence starts with "They..."
I'm not saying that I disagree that the post that you linked to is about the best explanation that I'm ever going to get. I'm just saying that it's a real turn-off to see someone so focused on blaming other people for their problems. That's probably the single-biggest reason why I can't support Occupy: because I just don't think like that. I don't try to shift responsibility for all of my problems onto other people.
It's just a fundamental incompatibility in world views and value systems. I believe in personal responsibility, and I think that it's weak to try to blame other people for your problems. But that paragraph full of "They..." sums up how most Occupiers feel about that.
I do put my money where my mouth is. Very literally. I wasn't just one of the people saying, "Get a job! Take responsibility for yourself!". I offered a job, and free training. Somebody who I met through this site took the job and is now in his fourth week, and he's doing great. He took responsibility for himself and he's investing in himself instead of wasting time here blaming other people. I have a huge amount of respect for that and I'm really glad that I met him. I have far less respect for people who would rather blame some 1% scapegoat for their unemployment, or their underwater mortgage, or their student loan debt, or any of the other things that "they" supposedly did.
Well I think your being a little hard on us. I don't know your background or your life experiences. But you can't just shuck off the fact that hard working and dedicated people have been given a raw deal for decades. I'm not going to try to convince you as you seem to have pretty much already made up your mind. I just suggest that you keep your eye's and ear's open as there is much that you are missing.
Take care.
I'm a hard-working, dedicated person, and it has served me well. My life is good and I'm nobody's slave. My new employee also had to put in some serious work just to get my attention, and now I'm working him pretty hard. But that hard work was his ticket into a high-paying occupation in an industry with full employment. So it's pretty obvious to me when I see people here still complaining about unemployment, weeks after he got his first paycheck, that he has a better strategy than the people who want to find a scapegoat to blame for their unemployment, or any other problem. Believe it not, taking responsibility for yourself and investing in yourself works. 'The Man' is not holding you back.
Sounds like you have been very fortunate so far in your life. But don't make the mistake of judging others by your own experience it is not that simple, Some people are fortunate in their life experience and others not so much. Life is not black and white. It is complex to say the least. Consider yourself blessed for whatever reason, but don't expect that it has been the same for everyone else. Who knows someday you may experience severe adversity. Then you will have a better understanding of others if nothing else.
I lost everything in the dot-com crash. I had to build myself from zero -- twice. When the markets crashed in 2007 it never occurred to me to blame other people for my problems, just like it never occurred to me to think that way in 2000 when my entire industry evaporated nearly overnight.
Losing everything teaches some valuable life lessons. I actually highly recommend it. The goal is not to be the richest person in the cemetery, the goal is to live a good life, and losing everything can counter intuitively help you to do that. After you go through the experience of losing everything, and you find yourself inexplicably still alive afterward, you realize that it's all just STUFF, and you stop worrying so much about acquiring stuff. I make six figures again now for the second time in my life, but I haven't bought a car since 1999. My wife and I share one car that's a dozen years old.
Another thing that it teaches you, is that your true net worth is based on your skills, your persistence, your aptitude, your abilities, and your resilience. Not money. Money comes and goes, but nobody can take those things away from you.
Would I be a better person now if I had lived in a country where everybody was guaranteed an equal become, where the economy was always stable? Absolutely not. Severe adversity has been as good to me as the two different technology booms that I've surfed. The dot-com bubble, and the boom that's in progress now.
Did you know that there is currently a technology boom in progress? That venture capitalists are desperate t fnd people to hand millions of dollars to? That there is full employment in the technology industry and in others as well? You don't hear much about any of that from Occupiers because they don't thnk that way. They don't look for opportunities, they look for scapegoats.
We are not looking for scapegoats as you say. We are looking to correct imbalances. If you honestly can't see the work's of greed and corruption going on around you, then I am sorry.
That statement was self-contradictory because identifying the problem as an "imbalance" between you and somebody else is the same thing as blaming somebody else. "I'm not blaming him, I'm just seeking to correct the imbalance between him and me."
Your perspective is seriously skewed. You seem to have no understanding of corrupt practices and their consequences. You seem to be in support of letting anyone do what ever they want and damn the consequences. No accountability for anything or anyone. Well then that would be like saying welcome to hell, we hope you enjoy your stay.
That's not true at all, that I don't support accountability for anyone. The only difference here is that you're emphasizing accountability for other people, and I'm emphasizing the idea that YOU are also accountable for the consequences of your own life choices.
No shit! So here we are trying to address the in-justices and corruption in our society. Taking responsibility for ourselves while also standing up in defense of others.
This movement is all about the 1%. Scapegoats. That's the closest thing that this movement has to a unifying idea: blaming the 1% for our problems.
your efforts of trying to convey the concept of personal accountability is utterly lost on these people.
+1 for the effort though thumbsup
I know for sure that I've made a life-changing difference for at least one person from this site with all of my talk about personal responsibility, and I found a very valuable new software developer to train. Which means that I've achieved more tangible accomplishments through this site both for myself and others than almost all of the Occupiers. It's a delicious and very sad kind of irony.
I commend you again for your efforts. Keep up the good work.
in my opinion the best way to get out of our current problems is to remove the federal reserve and put money printing back into congressional hands, paying interest to the federal reserve for printing US dollars has put us in all of this debt... i mean the fed and the European central banks are all about to collapse anyways. as for the liberal leaning crap... it sucks ill admit that, but what do you expect out of kids just out of college who most likely dont understand how it feels to work 40hrs+ a week for slave accommodations. make no mistake we are in an Orwellian state of debt slavery right now. we could be so much more wealthy in our current positions if we would just stop this endless war on terror and save ourselves at LEAST a billion dollars a day. imagine all of the construction jobs that would create to begin with, i mean look at our infrastructure crumbling around us. i completely agree, we dont need more government. we need to restore the constitution and get out of these wars that we created through terrible foreign policy. if any of you kids dont believe what im saying on foreign policy go watch "charlie wilson's war" . change our foreign policy, defense budget, and absorb the federal reserve back into congress. if OWS can rally around these three points we will be well on our way to reversing all of our current economic problems, the rest will follow. folks, if you keep staring at the tree tops you are just going to end up tripping over a root.
I like it, Samsquatch. I have been surprised by the support for the Fed and have yet to square it exactly. We can't just end it, really. I like the idea of not renewing its 100 year charter, and that would give time to work through a transition off of debt-money. But I'd never advocate ending it without the right person in the white house to do it responsibly.
Ending wars is simultaneous stimulus and deficit reduction. I love that! :)
we dont necessarily have to end it right away, just tax the profits and interest they make and you could pay back the debt in a few years. but in the end we NEED to end FIAT currency, all they have to do right now is have a book of codes, go to the black screens in the federal reserve as well as several banks, enter the code, enter the amount of money they wish to create, and boom! $12,000,000,000. as far as supporting the fed... the board members for the fed are also major players for many of the wallstreet firms, who pay off most of the congress with anything they can. legal or not. in fact one of the major schemes the lobbyists have is to have a congressman buy a house for 500,000, have them sit on it for a few months and then buy that house from the congressman for $2million. personally i would rather just absorb the fed immediately, because in the end we can replace the entire congress and the president in the next few years. by contrast we have absolutely no control as to who is on the board of the federal reserve. i believe if you could squarely place blame for economic problems on the shoulders of elected officials, it would spur a lot more people to vote and educate themselves on their congressmen. accountability is what we need right now.
I have been in a couple of decent conversations about alternative currencies here. I think one of the easiest transitions is to legalize alternative currencies and let them help drive the debt money out of the system.
Fractional reserve banking can't work the way it's done these days, and since credit is so freaking tight right now, we just as well institute a 100% reserve requirement.
But the term "Investment Banking" must be retired to the dustbin of history.
Let hedge funds do the speculating. They fail all the time and tend to regulate themselves and not get big enough to cause systemic risk.
These are a couple pieces of my working model for a post-Fed world. My theme is to democratize the monetary powers, and work towards a rugged monetary system that is not open to the risk of catastrophic failure a globalized cartel poses at every moment it's allowed to continue to operate.
thats basically what is going to have to happen, the dollar and the Euro are both about to collapse because they are no longer being propped up by the non-aligned nations, thats the real reason we are in a recession and if anybody wants to dispute the fact that the dollar is no longer being accepted almost anywhere outside of the states... go try and exchange currency in brazil... they will tell you to gtfo. lincoln and kennedy were both assassinated DAYS after telling the treasury to start printing gold/silver backed currency. i wonder why we havent tried to bring in an alternative currency since then...
I think what generally goes over peoples' heads is everything is going according to plan. The global debt fiat ponzi has hit a critical mass, and we are in a controlled collapse designed to squeeze the last bit of blood and fight we might have in us.
Ask the folks on the Res what it's like to be living in prison camps, a defeated people at the mercy of the Feds and without even the decency of Constitutional protections, as if those even matter anymore.
Like Russell Means says, "Welcome to the Reservation." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LA-S64QY3o
the collapse was planned, but the information people have been finding about what is going on was not.
About this:
Do you really think that bringing lobbyists into monetary policy is going to improve the situation?
After I asked that question, did anybody suddenly realize WHY the Fed is set up to be uniquely independent from political forces?
uhh the guys who control the lobbyists run the federal reserve board...
Oh right okay, the Illumnati?
did i say that? no. most of the people who staff the federal reserve are former wall street bankers...
an independent corporation, with no oversight, with the ability to print the world reserve currency. nothing to see here folks everything is safe and under control...
A congressional office, subject to the influence of corporate lobbyists. Improvement?
i prefer being able to kick somebody out of a position if they are screwing with my life, rather than a board of appointed people i have NO control over... ill feed you troll, just to prove you wrong.
How has being able to kick out members of Congress been working out for you so far? Has that eliminated corruption? Or are we all here whining about corporate lobbyists in Washington?
i didnt say it was a perfect solution because there arent any. once again i would rather have somebody getting paid by the lobbyists than the lobbyists themselves. once the congress is back in control of something that actually matters to people personally, they will be more apt to vote in new people. we need to stop this corporatism one way or another, we can at least get rid of their ability to print money out of thin air.
Unfortunately, you are right. What too few seem to understand here is that they need to answer every question, attack, and barb thrown their way; revolutionaries have that task. I do not agree with OWS. I have good dialogue with several individuals, like shadz66, puzzlin, etc. A few are, quite frankly, the most mean-spirited, bitter people that I have ever run into. There are good ideas here that need to be addressed and tested in the local and national arena and I hope people with sense with take the helm here.
[Removed]
Well said.
[Removed]
Nicely stated! Thank you for that PandoraK.
[Removed]
No. Seriously thank you!
It is passion, and I will admit I get carried away a lot....I do it cause I fiend the debate..I guess like a drug!.Sometimes, it leads to a point of view with proof offered from the other angle, and allows me to re-evaluate my point of view. I stand to no belief system or ego, I take in data from all sources and weight the options. I encourage that everyone on here stands up, and offers links as proof, as I offer links to support, & sometimes I rant, but all of you have been great. There are a "select few" that start trouble, and start bogus anti-semite/racist/advertising, useless posts lately that flush anything worthy of discussion to the bottom, and you can clearly see they are de-rating the points. If I don't like someones point of view, I abstain the vote, and only vote up what I like. When I first started on here, it was not so bad, but it seems as of lately the trolls have run amuck flushing posts & threads, and derating. I like the disagreement. Eventually we agree to disagree, keep the emotional bashing, swears, etc out of the discussion and we can get our points out. Let everyone verify on their own, I get a lot of boycotts on my links. I have read every link and watched every you tube , despite my differences on global warming some time back..This forum is as of late falling apart, lets stick together on the issues, even if we disagree and boycott the crap.
[Removed]
[Deleted]
[Removed]
I sometimes ignore them too, but then things get hot, they move to top - it is entertaining for a bit, distracting, and I move on....Sometimes I do not post either...Depends on who is on there, if people I know are credible are getting bashed I try to offer help. This is probably why my posts often get derated.
[Removed]
Some of the best minds here are also some of the worst offenders. But I don't worry about them. I know puff and zen and loosely and arod maybe some others that I don't know are sometimes fighting on two fronts needlessly.
Others who are generally in that camp bashing all the anti-fascists just as well be paid trolls, because they are as disruptive as any died-in-the-wool partisan. I have a feeling there may be a bit of projection, or at least, over-compensation going on.
But it is funny as hell to push their buttons
I don't really get any satisfaction from it, myself. If things continue as they are, I'm going to actually try to get a job as a paid troll. Then I actually WOULD probably enjoy myself. Actually sounds like a fun gig, to tell you the truth.
I do not approve of OWS. But there are points brought up that I agree with. The rest makes for good, constructive debate. And I have good debate with them. Others just need to get laid or something because they go ballistic.
I admit I enjoy the sport of it. I write every day, and lately this has kept me in that mode, and helped me understand what really is common ground, and what is a step or two removed. I suppose I mostly hope that everyone stays honest and earnest, and works towards solutions that are not as prone to corruption and general failure as our system has come to represent.
I'm about as mean spirited as they get. I'm angry.
I don't have any proof of course.
But the fact remains.
Some of my own friends are dead.
.
What is my response to this unambiguous fact?
.
.
and I have not forgotten that butterfly ballot of the 2000 election, implemented in Florida, resulting in the appointment of Bush, who did indeed push this nation along the path of fascism
As with all fascist progressions, the legal system itself became the principle tool of subverting our freedom, our democracy.
repelicans gave us that butterfly ballot.
repelicans no doubt, gave us MKULTRA
repelicans no doubt, under the conservative banner, have sought to deregulate our financial industry, and the consequences are all around, in the millions of foreclosed homes, and millions of middle class citizens now homeless on American streets.
the repelican party is done
the process of deregulation is done
I like your mean spirit, Zen. I'm glad that people are smart enough to be properly pissed.
Repelicans is a great name, but it isn't broad enough. If I could pull a lever to vote in 535 random citizens to replace our Congress, I would do it in a heartbeat.
But what can be done with the career bureaucrats that never change and infest every corner of our governmental and regulatory instruments?
You know that Gore would have stunk just as bad, just a different sort of foul, and nobody but those who've always known presidents were puppets could have imagined the level of stink emanating almost immediately from the current administration.
I've done pretty well not going after our current president. I think he's been a disappointment to all but the 1%. But he's just the talent. The front-guy. Even with best intentions his administration was doomed to fail. Even with a most impressive mandate, beautiful inauguration, and all the goodwill and support we could lend, he had no chance to do change.
I wish he'd have figured out how to find the courage to not run for another term, but I'm pretty sure the power wants him right where he is. To defy them would just guarantee his martyrdom, and provide further excuse and the cover of chaos to ramp up everything wrong and scuttle everything good.
I wish it were a simple partisan thing, but we are naive to believe that, and make it worse by acting out the ruse.
Senator Sanders is one example of a career politician who has in fact served the people, and served them well. Given that, I don't find blanket statements like that very helpful. In fact, when I hear them, I tend to suspect some indoctrination either is, or has, taken place.
No I do not know that. What I know is that the will of the people was subverted with a butterfly ballot - and one Donald Norman, a human engineer, came out complaining vociferously about that ballot design.
I also know Gore attempted to tell the public the truth about global warming, and has been vilified over it by the repelican party and their brain dead supporters.
The fact of so many wall street insiders in this admin is damning. I think it is more a reflection of the depth of damage caused by wall street on our economy than it is of corruption by the President - and I am well aware that is a minority view.
If Presidents are
then please explain the issue of
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq which led us to war
and the outing of one Valery Plame
Explain that, if you please.
FYI the entire solar system is heating up, the moons of neptune are melting. im pretty sure we dont have a bunch of coal factories up there causing it...
gimme a break.
where did you get that bit of nonsense?
I mean wtf
I am skeptical of centralized power. Like the sun, it can render all of our best intentions totally meaningless.
CO2=poison equation is OBSOLETE.
The sun can trump all our best intentions, and return versus investment fuel-wise will moderate this quicker than any global commission of carbon bankers ever will. The real market wins again.
I'm not sure that that all means, but I've never been all that crazy about carbon credits - sounds like a lame ass scam to me.
Compartmentalization and hierarchical structures have given millions of people jobs in "public service" in a cozy nook and cranny of the bureaucracies most apparent in government, large corporations and the military.
The higher the position, the dirtier and more corrupt you better be, or you simply won't keep your generous salary, benefits and retirement plan.
I'll let you keep your "minority view". . .for now. -- I'll be watching Corzine/MF Global for indications that you may be right. They did do a bit of a dance with Elizabeth Warren, so we'll see.
I'm not sure how those two bulleted points address my puppet theory. I don't get the idea the Bush ever disagreed with his puppet masters. He and Cheney didn't need a gun to their heads, because they couldn't wait to get troops into Iraq.
The difference between Bush and Obama is that it is totally obvious that Bush was lying his ass off to get elected. I've tried my best to give Obama the benefit of the doubt by at least trying to believe he may have believed in his campaign promises, and maybe even that he could give them a chance.
He changed U.S. policy in Iraq just by saying he would pull out if elected.
Within two days bush came out with statements supporting a timeline.
Of course the President believed he could do great chit - especially after that. The war was his principle focus - everyone kept doubting how bad and how far the economic unraveling would become.
People are still disagreeing about whether the bailouts were necessary or not - they have already forgotten that with the collapse of Leman bros. those questions were temporarily forgotten and TARP began.
Whether or not the bailouts were necessary, the sum total could have easily paid outstanding personal debt, which I'd have rather seen. Neither position is defensible, bailing out main street or wall street, but given the two, I'd have bailed out main street and let the chips fall where they may.
lol deregulation worked EXACTLY as intended, the banks that were ruining everything were falling apart. we should have let them fail. deregulation is a great thing if it is allowed to take its course, corruption only exists in the absence of competition. the companies who are the worst offenders were the ones failing... imagine that. now they are concocting giant ponzi schemes to try and stay afloat. i find it hilarious that anybody can still think there is a difference in the parties... the NDAA 2012 martial law bill passed the senate 93-7. Obama already announced he had the authority to assassinate american citizens.Neo-cons arent true republicans, ron paul is what republicans used to be. that is what we need right now.
lawn raul is one more scum sucking repelican
one who would abolish FEMA
Vermont had a crazy season this year, weather wise. Even had the remnants of a hurricane cause flash flooding.
FEMA - serving the function of addressing the people's needs during time of emergency.
They seem to function just fine where there is an admin in place committed to the proper functions of government.
As for the NDAA I'm sure most of the Senate hadn't considered various parts of sections 1031 and 1032. They have adjusted, psychologically, to the new norm.
Levin and McCain may be exceptions.
Some of the other lawyers in the Senate may be as well.
If you suggest that our bi-polar approach to terrorism is insane and runs counter to our Bill of Rights, then I agree.
Various members of the Obama administration have come out with their concerns regarding the portions of this bill that are most controversial.
Once the repelicans are gone, I have no doubt that the public will be more than able to sway those who remain, and close Gitmo, reverse the policy of indefinite detention, and end confusion over how we will conduct our approach to the issue of terror.
because FEMA has created 800 prison camps across the US capable of housing a million people each... if they didnt know what they were voting for (yeah right), all the more reason to kick them out. we dont need more social welfare, which is a form of slavery the government came up with to get segments of the population to vote a certain way so that they can keep getting their money. the only reason im responding to you at all is to point out the flaws with your argument so others can think about it. i realize that i will make no headway with you, its like arguing religion. no matter what i tell you, you are addicted quite literally to that train of thought. when you have repetitive thoughts it creates a crease in your brain which allows for a much easier path for those thoughts and emotions to flow. just like in nature, it is much easier to flow with that current than trying to change it. all emotions are addictive because they charge those pathways, trying to think another way causes physical pain because you are literally causing your brain to make new wrinkles, resulting in anger. the deeper that neuro-pathway is, the more intense the pain. unless you can accept that pain as cleansing, you are doomed to a stagnant dogma because it literally hurts too much to change your mind.
well they haven't locked me up in a FEMA prison camp yet - and they have had the legal means to do so under the administration of Bushite -
over statements like this
im not saying its going to come to fruition, im saying that was the plan behind the NDAA. in reality as soon as NorthCom were to infiltrate a city, large portions of the military would come to our defense.
FOR ANY MILITARY PERSONNEL READING THIS(i doubt it but putting it out there) if the NDAA 2012 is enacted and you are ordered to detain citizens, remember your Oath. this may seem like a paradox but as soon as that document is signed, the president and every person in congress who voted for the bill will have broken their own Oath of Office and would no longer be able to legally hold office. Therefore your Oath requires you to uphold the Constitution and defend it and the american people from all enemies foreign...and domestic.
Yet is the key.....
well I'm sure they know right where I am
Bush is a neophyte compared to Obama when it comes to wielding power.
Bush took the bull by the horns and was perfectly content with the evil agenda.
Obama may be conflicted, but he complies just the same. He seems not such a willing QB, but it was apparent early on he wasn't playing on the side of the People. I wish somebody'd run against him in his party.
Darwin hasn't taken you yet?
not yet - why, what's he look like -
not that it matters
I'm ready!
Don't worry, you will NEVER see it coming anyways.
hence the Darwin reference in the first place.
That depends entirely on the specific agenda at the time. More often then not multiple points of utility come gift wrapped in a single . . . gift . . .
And it is the . . . giving season . . . isn't it . . .
yeas it is.
I would note there was a plane crash in NY recently - presumably due to icing conditions, five on board dead. None of my friends on board.
Doesn't the weather service have analytical tools designed to identify icing conditions and so provide aviation alerts?
Ah well.
they were just bankers, after all . . .
and like I said -
I'm ready!
@ FreedomIsFree....................................................................................
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source. So what is this belief-set, and why is it so popular in certain subcultures? The following is an outsiders view of Libertarianism. From proponents, you might be told
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.
In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.
To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic. Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach.
There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory.
Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion).
But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.
Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized.
Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms.
What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms.
They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships".
However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk. In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.
To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic. Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory. Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion). But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.
Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized.
Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms.
What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships".
In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up". It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.
Just to pick an example from one public exchange (directed to me)
Too complicated. All you need is one proposition: No person should initiate the use of force against another person.
All libertarian thought flows logically from this. For instance, taxation is undesirable since it is backed by the coercive force of the state. Naturally the key word is "initiate."
So, the question is, does Seth agree with this proposition or not? Of course he will say there have to be certain exceptions. This is the difference between him and a libertarian. Libertarians (like free speech advocated!) prefer not to make exceptions.
Note that this is the only political movement, so far as I know, rooted in one simple ethical statement about human rights. This alone biases me in its favor.
My reply to this point was to ask if he agreed "No person should do anything evil". I get to define evil, "evil" is taken according to "Sethism". The response: Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ...
On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.
Observe the aspects pointed out above. It's an "agree or disagree" where implicitly "initiate force" is taken to be that of the Libertarian ideology. And it's justified by the axioms, the "chain of logic".
Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept. When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force. It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense". Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".
The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda. They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct. "initiation of force" is Libertarian term of art, meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology". It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force". The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to Libertarian ideology. It was just phrased in their preaching way.
While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business. The words "individual rights", in a civil-society context, are often Libertarian-ese for "business".
That's what what they derive as the inevitable meaning of rights and freedom, as a statement of principles:
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.
The whole idea of a contract is that government enforces relations among individuals. The above sentence is a nonsensical, it's conceptually that they oppose all interference by government in the areas of government enforcing relations among individuals.
Seems like a boo boo with the paste job, but good stuff in there.
I like 'libertarian' to be adjective rather than noun.
Or maybe it's a blend of liberty and authoritarian, but that is contradiction.
Unless it is individual in nature: Just like any religion it ends up ultimately personal and perhaps even habitual.
I've been at a low-level war with Groupers since I can remember.
Forming groups is apartheid and elitist and racist and cedes personal sovereignty.
It is alright to live life as an analogy to lifelong prayer.
I'm one of those wingnuts that believes that Love will always win, all you have to do is let it.
And derivatively,
Murder Never Was Love
I like this response a lot. I will likely return to it.
@ FreedomIsFree2 ...... Unfortunately for you we live in reality, where love almost never wins on its own.
Fortunately for me, I thrive on love, and so does my reality. That you have sold it out is no reason for others to participate in that nightmare, especially in ways that cede that incredible power to clunky, corruptible hierarchies, without even a cursory respect for the rule of law anymore.
@FreedomlsFree2........Why are you putting words in my mouth the denouncing for them?.
I said.."love almost never wins on its own".
Is this not a true statement, Love needs more than itself to succeed.
I agree with and approve of this post. We are all the 99% and its our differences that the 1% is attempting to use to separate us.
"I think that if everyone decides to cut out the name-calling and conspiracy theories, etc, just for a spell, and instead try a little love, acceptance and cordiality. . .who knows, but I think we could all band together to call out the dumbasses and gratuitous pot shots."
I agree with this. Ranting and venting and venom might feel good on some cathartic level, but ultimately, it alienates potential allies and inhibits meaningful dialogue. There are certainly valid reasons for anger and rage, but only love and compassionate communication can break down the formidable walls of propaganda, misunderstanding and mistrust that characterizes our polarized populace. Take the high road when you can. Happy Holidays. 99
The focus is on common conditions of 99%. No power can take over 99%. It can only be absorbed by it.
Even if OWS fails and people think it is stupid I still think it at least opened the eyes of alot of people out there who had no idea these things were going on. It gave people a jump start to want a change. I notice people at my job who only talked sports all day actually talking about how fucked up things are.
I agree, brother. I noticed that, too. It has been an excellent springboard for conversation. I had been ranting about wall street for years by the time OWS came around, so OWS ended up giving my rants some creedence with folks at work and snapped their trance for a while. And you never go back into that trance quite so deeply.
Yup before all this I was a crazy conspiracy theorist. Now they are telling me things I didn't hear about yet.
Yeah, me too! Once they catch the scent, I don't need to tell them any more. It's like when you learn a word you didn't know, and suddenly you hear it evrywhere.
You can't fail if you never pick a goal.
First Amendment abridging the freedom of speech. Stop deleting comments, and banning people because there views don't coincide with yours.
Either everything is ok to say or nothing. I don't deal with Liberal Nazism, and OWS can Fvck themselves. You're in war people. The people that have the power are laughing at you guys. They don't care about your delegate little speeches. You have to come at them hard. Put the fvcking fear in them. Thomas Jefferson said that!
I do think that it's true that the 1% are laughing at OWS. I'm not one of them, but if I were then I would probably find it even more amusing than I already do when people point to criticism as proof that the 1% feels threatened. "This guy is disagreeing with me, this is obviously proof that the wealthynaremshaking in their boots and that they're dispatching psy-ops agents to disrupt us!". That idea is so common here that it has become a cliché.
"The people that have the power are laughing at you guys. "
Yes they are. Unless we learn to identify the real enemies, OWS is a lost cause. I'm sure the Koch brothers are especially getting a big chuckle. Soros, I'm sure, gets his share of his jollies. Folks like that do trolling writ large, just for the satisfaction of being demonized, I figure. And to take heat off of the real powers that be.
You win or lose on your ideas. so far the OWS is losing because their ideas are for losers. a collective temper tantrum is not an idea!
movements never last as long as the ideas that come out of them. im just trying to put out some ideas i believe will work.
A collective temper tantrum. That's a very appropriate phrase that I plan to use in the future. Thanks for writing that.
"OWS and the like are just a bunch of left-wing crybabies that want big-daddy government to make everything fair and "free" and everyone equally broke."
Truer words have never been spoken.
But OWS and the word genius don't belong in the same sentence or descriptor at all.
You need to understand OWS and stop trying to change what it is. This is a go no where pseudo-movement that will destroy itself from the inside. Hopefully sooner then later.
You might be right. I already have a horse in the race so the OWS thing is also-ran at this point. I have a bad feeling it will end up as co-opted as the tea party, and more divided than the GOP. It may already be that way, for all I know. It will crush some hearts if it hasn't already, and will likely serve nothing more than to reinforce the single-dimensional line everyone so willingly plots every position, policy, or candidate on.
More than thinking outside the box, somebody's got to start to thinking outside of the line. It's a trap.
@FreedmisFree....The Tea Party from the start was a front for the 1%, I was beginning to listen to you, but now have a new opinion. Your clueless.
i wonder if you are talking about 11 civ 8500, if not check it out.
Yeah, that's waaayy outside. Caught that in comment on zerohedge, I think. Maybe actual post, don't remember. What a trip.
when there is a story that far out and the media completely stonewall it, you know something is up... just like the NDAA 1031+1032.
How'd you like to be THAT judge?
i bet the first thought he had after he realized how real it is was, "hey can i get a Kevlar helmet please?"