Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Should Occupiers be treated as domestic terrorist?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 14, 2011, 4:23 p.m. EST by Karl101 (-6)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Should Occupiers be treated as domestic terrorist? Trying to disrupt the U.S. economy was one of the goals of Bin Laden, so why are we letting occupiers try to do the same?

155 Comments

155 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 20 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Should the richest one percent be treated as domestic terrorists? Trying to disrupt the U.S. economy was one of the goals of Bin Laden. It is well known that a heavy concentration of income causes hardship for the majority and economic instability so why are we letting the richest one percent disrupt the economy?

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

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

MC : Very Nice Post ! +

Q1 : "Should Occupiers be treated as domestic terrorist(s) ?"

Q2 : Should 'Karl101' be identified as an anti-OWS Troll ?

fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The perception of mainstream America and the perception of the people associated with the movement are two completely different things. Feel free to focus solely on the latter at your own peril.

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

OK TJ. Thanx. R U still genuflecting at your Monied Masters and have they thrown you an iPad4 yet ?!

Re. "The Money Masters", watch this eponymous, excellent and extremely educational documentary : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936 for a real insight into "How International Bankers Gained Control of America" !!

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

“Nunquam Ante Numquam Iterum” "...If it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you…” “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us. Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions— in short, whatever is our own doing…So remember, if you think that things are naturally enslaved are free or that things not your own are your own, you will be thwarted, miserable and upset; and will blame both gods and men…And if it is about one of the things that is not up to us, be ready to say, “You are nothing in relation to me.” “There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things, which are beyond the power or our will. ” “It is not so much what happens to you as how you think about what happens." “Never say that I have taken it, only that I have given it back.” “Only the educated are free.” “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.” “Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you…” Epictetus

[-] -1 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr shadz66, mic check right back at ya. Why do the OWS do the mic check thing i.e. repeat what their leader says. Sounds moronic, and makes OWS look worse . OWS needs to hire a pr firm.

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

Propaganda and "Public Relations" are two of the three main reasons why you don't know your arse, (...x...) from your elbow, |_ ; the third being your 'ass' is a Donkey !!!

Your Blinkered, Selfish and narcissistic view means that the only time you ever do try to 'get a grip', you end up engaging in 'The Sin of Onan', which only further exacerbates the psychic blindness of your atrophied inner "eYe" !!

You really are an unconscionable dork !

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr shadz, you sound deranged just like must of the OWS people. I'm glad too, because that confirms my belief that OWS will self destruct.

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

Please stop jerking off on the attention you've been getting on this forum, see above and re-read slowly. Have the last word ; run along & sin no more ... Wanker !!!

verbum satis sapienti ...

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Shadz, please get some help, or cut down on the drug use.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 2 years ago

This this great work, Sir. This protest movement is bringing together great minds such as yours for the good of the United States. You are correct. The government won't step in. We must act. It means jailing the evil men and women who did these crimes - they are in the most banking executives. Once we had rid ourselves of the crooks, we can redistribute their plunder to the deserving 99%.

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

welcome to the gulag bitchez USSA United States of Russia America...

Literature

Many eyewitness accounts of Gulag prisoners have been published:

Varlam Shalamov's Kolyma Tales is a short-story collection, cited by most major works on the Gulag, and widely considered one of the main Soviet accounts. * Victor Kravchenko wrote "I Chose Freedom" after defecting to the United States in 1944. As a leader of industrial plants he had encountered forced labor camps in various parts of the Soviet Union from 1935 to 1941. He describes a visit to one camp at Kemerovo on river Tom in Siberia. Factories paid a fixed sum to the KGB for every convict they employed. * Anatoli Granovsky wrote "I Was an NKVD Agent" after defecting to Sweden in 1946 and included his experiences seeing gulag prisoners as a young boy, as well as his experiences as a prisoner himself in 1939. Granovsky's father was sent to the gulag in 1937. * Julius Margolin's book A Travel to the Land Ze-Ka was finished in 1947, but it was impossible to publish such a book about the Soviet Union at the time, immediately after World War II. * Gustaw Herling-Grudziński wrote A World Apart, which was translated into English by Andrzej Ciolkosz and published with an introduction by Bertrand Russell in 1951. By describing life in the gulag in a harrowing personal account, it provides an in-depth, original analysis of the nature of the Soviet communist system. * Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book The Gulag Archipelago was not the first literary work about labor camps. His previous book on the subject, "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", about a typical day of the GULag inmate, was originally published in the most prestigious Soviet monthly, Novy Mir, (New World), in November 1962, but was soon banned and withdrawn from all libraries. It was the first work to demonstrate the Gulag as an instrument of governmental repression against its own citizens on a massive scale. The First Circle, an account of three days in the lives of prisoners in the Marfino sharashka or special prison was submitted for publication to the Soviet authorities shortly after One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich but was rejected and later published abroad in 1968. * János Rózsás, Hungarian writer, often referred to as the Hungarian Solzhenitsyn, wrote a lot of books and articles on the issue of GULag. * Zoltan Szalkai, Hungarian documentary filmmaker made several films of gulag camps. * Karlo Štajner, a Croatian communist active in the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia and manager of Comintern Publishing House in Moscow from 1932–39, was arrested one night and taken from his Moscow home under accusation of anti-revolutionary activities. He spent the following 20 years in camps from Solovki to Norilsk. After USSR–Yugoslavian political normalization he was re-tried and quickly found innocent. He left the Soviet Union with his wife, who had been waiting for him for 20 years, in 1956 and spent the rest of his life in Zagreb, Croatia. He wrote an impressive book entitled 7000 days in Siberia. * Dancing Under the Red Star by Karl Tobien (ISBN 1-4000-7078-3) tells the story of Margaret Werner, a young athletic girl who moves to Russia right before the start of Stalin's terror. She faces many hardships, as her father is taken away from her and imprisoned. Werner is the only American woman who survived the Gulag to tell about it. * "Alexander Dolgun's Story: An American in the Gulag." (ISBN 0-394-49497-0), of a member of the US Embassy, and "I Was a Slave in Russia" (ISBN 0-815-95800-5), an American factory owner's son, were two more American citizens interned who wrote of their ordeal. Both were interned due to their American citizenship for about 8 years c. 1946–55. * Yevgenia Ginzburg wrote two famous books of her remembrances, Journey Into the Whirlwind and Within the Whirlwind. * Savić Marković Štedimlija, pro-Croatian Montenegrin ideologist and Ustasha regime collaborator. Caught on the run in Austria by the Red Army in 1945, he was sent to the USSR and spent ten years in Gulag. After release, Marković wrote autobiographic account in two volumes titled Ten years in Gulag (Deset godina u Gulagu, Matica crnogorska, Podgorica, Montenegro 2004) * Sławomir Rawicz's book, The Long Walk is a controversial account of his escape from the gulag during World War II.

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

I am just saying that to help not to hinder.

Your argument failed due to the association fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

"rying to disrupt the U.S. economy was one of the goals of Bin Laden."

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Next.

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

@ MC : Steady mate ! I think 'bbb' was addressing K101's forum-post & furthermore I agree with him ;-)

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Well, I got the notification of his comment. I thought he was ripping on me for lumping the rich into one category. But maybe, you're right. Thanks for the angle.

[-] 0 points by TheStop (53) 2 years ago

The first depression was caused by GREED?! wrong, if was caused by the public's sudden withdrawal of funds from banks and causing banks to go bankrupt and give up people's money forcing people to not purchase any luxure goods putting thousands out of business.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Don't you think that Albert Einstein would have considered that angle when he ultimately attributed the Great Depression to a concentration of wealth? Do you even know who Albert Einstein was? Don't you think that Mariner Eccles would have considered that angle when he ultimately attributed the Great Depression to a concentration of wealth? Do you even know who Mariner Eccles was?

Do you know who said this in the spring of '05' before Congress? "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." Ever hear of a guy by the name of Allen Greenspan?

Have you ever played a game of Monopoly? What happens when the winning player accumulates 3/4 of the board? Do you know when the game of Monopoly was created? Do you understand what real world principles it was based on?

Are you old enough to play a game of Monopoly?

Aren't you the guy who said 6 days ago that our goal was to "make everyone even"? Didn't you claim that making "everyone even" would cause inflation and ultimately make everyone poor? What would cause you to believe that our goal is to "make everyone even"? How many OWS protestors have carried signs calling for everyone to be even? How many OWS pages have been created calling for everyone to be even?

Are you old enough to use daddy's computer?

If our goal was to "make everyone even" in what universe would such an outcome be a remote possibility?

[-] 0 points by TheStop (53) 2 years ago

Albert Einstien?! what the heck does he have to do with any of this? I know someone who lived through the Depression and they lost all their money do to quick withdrawal of money from Banks. You are obviously just spewing out facts to prove a point.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Newsflash: Albert Einstein also lived through the Great Depression. To say he was a critical thinker would be an understatement. Not only did he go on record with regard to the primary cause of the Great Depression. He also went on record with regard to the mainstream media. Stating that it was controlled by the wealthy and often slanted in their favor.

[-] 0 points by TheStop (53) 2 years ago

Einstein never was in America during the Depression he came here 1939 when it ended. And i have heard several occupiers say they want redistributed wealth making everyone equal. In real-life apposed to Monopoly is when people run out of money to buy your items, you don't get more money because of a policy called bankruptcy. Did you ever look up multiple sources of political info before condemning the corporations the root of evil? You have no political knowledge of modern economics. Did you know that almost all europe went into a deeper depression then the USA? income gaps have nothing to do with the depression banks shut down do to to many monetia demands.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Wrong. He was here again and again for months at a time during the first years of the Great Depression. He moved here in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression, which by the way effected the industrialized world. Including Europe. Another point you should have considered when you said this "Albert Einstien?! what the heck does he have to do with any of this?". As I said, Albert Einstein went on record attributing the Great Depression to a heavy concentration of wealth.

Your claim that you "have heard several occupiers say they want redistributed wealth making everyone equal" even if true, which I doubt, still wouldn't support your outrageous claim that we as a group, want any such thing.

Your point about bankruptcy is irrelevant. You implication that I don't do my homework is crap. Your claim that I have no political knowledge of modern economics is crap. I already responded to your point about Europe. Your repeated claim that "income gaps have nothing to do with the depression banks shut down do to to many monetia demands." is dead wrong and very shallow. Check this out:

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." -Allen Greenspan testifying before Congress in the spring of '05'.

Next.

[-] 1 points by CriticalThinker (140) 2 years ago

No, you are not correct. The stock market crash of '29 was caused by manipulation. Excessive speculation being one of the minor causes. There were more important sinister forces at work. But, you're not ready for that yet. Sound eerily familiar?

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Were you ever a fan of Rocky and Bullwinkle's Fractured Fairy Tales?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Next.

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

you've got a lot of time on your hands. imagine if you put this effort to something productive lol ?

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Tell that to the Tea Party. Then, tell Limbaugh, Hanity, Beck, Levin, Bruce, Harley, McNamera, Ingraham, Coulter, O'Reilley, Doyle, and every other die-hard conservative partisan puppet to stop wasting so much time trying to intimidate us. It won't work.

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

hahaha - so you are equating yourself with them ? quite the ego ! not even close. try equating youself with Rachel Maddow lol!

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Equating myself with all of the above? That doesn't make any sense. But I know what you were trying to say. Check this out:

Last week, Glenn Beck authoritatively stated that even the poorest Americans were part of the world's richest one percent. Glenn Beck failed to consider that Americans represent roughly five percent of the world's population. So his claim wasn't' just foolish. It was mathematically impossible.

Equate myself with Beck and his gang of half-wit partisan puppets?

Hell no!

Next.

[-] 2 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

Aside from it's mathematical dubiousness, it's an incredibly stupid strategy on the part of Beck. As if America's poor is really going to feel better by the shallow idea and assertion that even the poorest Americans are part of the world's richest one percent (you'll eat bread and you'll like it!). Essentially Beck is saying that America no longer leads in its human capital, it follows (India, Honduras and China). What a fucking patriot.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Our poor are among the world's most fortunate 20%. I won't deny that. Its important to keep in mind. But its not a direct relationship with the undeveloped world. I do feel for those 80%. A lot actually. I used to support them through charity. But after years of frustration with outrageous population growth in the third world, I decided to support the less fortunate in the developed world instead.

I know that sounds horrible. I'm not even entirely comfortable with it. But Mother Nature dealt a weak hand to certain regions of the world. Very weak. The poorest countries in the world in general, have the lowest supplies of fresh water. They have some of the most barren land. They have some of the most harsh regional climates. Still, those people multiply like rabbits. Ensuring more and more suffering with each generation. I can't even come up with a word to fully express how incredibly futile humanitarian efforts are in those regions under such circumstances.

Those regions of the world should not be so heavily populated. I will not support them with another dime until I see some shred of evidence to suggest that they will get their population growth under control.

That being said, I'm not saying that we are innocent. We squander food (from the bottom up) and we squander energy (from the top down). But we are not to blame for the outrageous population growth of the third world. Therefore, our place among the most fortunate 20% of the world's population for the most part, is not a product of greed but of circumstance.

Its a different story within the developed world. Our population is nowhere near as dense, except for China. They are the exception. Our lands are relatively fertile, our fresh water supplies adequate, and our regional climates relatively comfortable. Our issues for the most part, are not of circumstance but of greed. There is no reason for widespread poverty or economic hardship anywhere in the developed world. Our problem is that too much buying power is concentrated in too few hands. That is not a product of circumstance but of greed.

So the point that Beck was trying to make was for the most part, a load of crap.

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

do you at least acknowledge we have the richest poor people in the world?

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

No but I do acknowledge that our poor live in the richest nation in the world and have access to free emergency health care and financial aid. This doesn't make them the richest poor but it does make them much better off than the lower 80% of the world's population.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

yes - much better off than 99% of the worlds poor. They are the 1% of the people in poverty.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Still well over 1%.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

ok - what's your point?

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

When my children were little-we watched tv ads-i want this i want that-they usually got it-i wondered what poor children thought about those ads-i want this i want that-didn't get it-next year-that doesn't apply to me-now i am struggling(nice word for poor)-see ads-think that doesn't apply to me-it's a lonely feeling....

[-] 2 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 2 years ago

I really appreciate this post. I was one of those "poor children" who did not get anything that was shown on the TV. It can send people into loneliness thinking that the world is divided for people who are able to buy things and people who aren't. Poor people have a bad enough rep from everyone thinking they are lazy all the time, that also not being able to participate in material America and be a "normal" kid is definitely another blow.

Interestingly enough, as I got older, I believe that my experience with advertising has actually been for the better. I don't desire things in ads really anymore because I see most products as money making schemes bent on keeping the masses unintelligent in their own decision making process. I want to purchase items because I actually need them and because they are actually useful to my life, not because some cute advertisement created to prey on my desires tells me I need them.

I actually sort of feel bad for children who get all of those things and don't grow up to see the "ugly" side of advertising.

Thanks for the post!

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

good job--me too... i find all the ads constantly trying to sell me to be practically creepy--like everyone's trying to take money from me all the time. gimme gimme gimme, buy buy buy

[+] -4 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

you AGAIN ! look at this rant ! If you had a job you would be thriving by now lol! nonsense !! excuses - excuses - excuses - blah - blah - blah . take another toke

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Next.

[-] -3 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

SPAM

[-] 6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

geez -

seems to me the savings and investment bankers have already fucked up the economy - and yet you don't say shit

so

treat me like a terrorist

I don't give a shit.

go ahead

waterboard me

can't be any worse than spending a decade in pocket

[+] -10 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Zendog, don't forget that the whole financial problem started with the liberals pushing for easy loans so that more people could buy homes. Some of the banks then stupid things with those loans. But, to accuse all investment bankers is foolish. btw, no one is going to waterboard you, calm down.

[-] 9 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

don't forget that the whole financial problem started with the liberals

that's a fucking outright lie

it's been completely debunked

go watch a movie

it's called Inside Job

or you could go visit 60 Minutes

I don't have time for your utter bullshit

no one is going to waterboard you, calm down.

you don't get it - I just don't give a fuck

and I'm not even upset

. . . .yet . . .

[+] -7 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Zendog, you obviously are upset, that's OK, you can't be expected to know everything.

[-] 4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

how about that, mr. carl with a K

I'm on the comment board twice

and the second one is above, currently with 6 points.

I guess you better dislike it quick, before it goes viral.

[-] -3 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Zendog, i'm happy for you, it'll help your low self esteem.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

believe it or not, I seem to be able to keep my ego out of it.

My primary interest lies in practicalities -

namely: what is most useful

and I think I'm finding you

rather useful indeed.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

There's plenty of blame to go around. But as far as I'm concerned Wall Street gets the lions share. Yes, there were bad policies that contributed. But follow the money. Wall Street had the most to gain from deregulation. The deregulation that they bought and paid our government for. And gain they did. Casino bets on top of casino bets. They played the greed card for all it was worth. And when it came crashing down, it's barely a blip on their radar screen. Not to mention the crimes they committed.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

jeez, I was on the comment board twice this evening.

carl withahK has been voting me down, the fuker

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Mr Zen, I think it was 3 times earlier today. Way to go! You're giving Looselyhuman a run for his money. Maybe carl withahK is jealous.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

LoL!

fuk'em

and just call me z

you can skip the Mr.

makes me feel old

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I thought age was supposed to be a state of mind when you get old. And since your kinda losing yours, I think that means you're getting younger.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

LoL!

you might be right.

here

I think that proves it

[-] 4 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Well, gee, I don't see occupiers blowing up buildings and killing thousands of people. Do you? Do you really know the meaning of the word terrorist?

You have a very flawed understanding of what a terrorist is.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

You say that but I had a thread on here last night with an OWSer who stated that violance was an acceptable response to precieved injustice.

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Come on already, don't you know that this site has been infested with tons of trolls and posers. I would scold that person and say that inciting violence is not in the spirit of this movement.

I whole-heartedly support this movement and do not accept the idea of inciting violence and have never done anything of that nature. So knock it off with the sterotyping already.

[+] -4 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Ms Windsofchange, maybe you missed occupy Oakland (jk)

[-] 3 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Oakland was an unfortunate incident, but the way critical people such as yourself see OWS is very negative and distorted. If the Occupy movement were straight out terrorist, they would be doing terrorist like things--like blowing up things and shooting at people. Please don't tell me you see the Occupiers as a bunch of people who plant bombs in public places and hang out on roofs picking people off with high powered rifles.

If I could take your logic which paints such broad-strokes over a movement and calls everyone involved a terrorist. Then let me turn tables here. Let me make a broad-brush statement on another group of people by saying that Police officer who callously peppered sprayed peaceful protesters in the face is just like every police officer who enjoys engaging in police brutality,they live for it. They wake up each day wondering who they will harass and bully today. This is what they do.

Now, is that true? Absolutely NOT! But yet it is okay to make up stero-types about a group of people who are protesting the injustices they see in the world. Demonization and negative sterotyping are tools used to marginalize people and organizations. I am not saying that you are deliberately doing this, but the news media you probably listen to religiously is.

Come to your own conclusions about OWS don't have people tell you what to think. You don't have to like the movement or agree with it in anyway, but to say that they are a bunch of terrorists is just wrong.

[-] -1 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Ms windsofchange, The definition of terrorism is a little fuzzy, but OWS is committing criminal acts to push a political agenda.

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

So did Martin Luther King.

So did Ghandi.

So did Washington and Jefferson, and Adams, et al.

I'd say OWS was keeping good company.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary.......

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr epa1nter, to compare those men and their causes to ows is a joke, ows doesn't even know what it wants.

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

All civil rights movements are comparable, since all address issues of human equality, freedom and decency.

OWS has been very clear and very consistent about it's core goals: economic equity and the restoration of real democracy. Those are the same goals as M.L. King's were 50 years ago. Probably why the NAACP has come out in support of the movement.

The only joke I see is your not getting it after all this time.

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr eap1nter, I don't think that MLK was a communist as you are implying.

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

I never implied he was communist at all, although he did favor redistribution of money. He also was against institutional racism, which depended in large part on concentration and intertwining of wealth and power.

He favored real democracy, as does OWS. He favored meritocracy in place of entrenched cronyism, as does OWS. He favored expansive social safety net programs, as does OWS. So, although he was by no means communist (he was accused of being so endlessly, by the way, during his life) he was not in favor of capitalism without restrictions or without mitigation for the sake of human values. Same as the majority of OWS.

He opposed plutocracy and corporate oligarchy, as does OWS.

He favored equal rights for all races, as does OWS, who extend the principles he espoused to include women, gays, lesbians and transgendered people, the physically and mentally challenged - all marginalized and disenfranchised citizens.

King led pro-union marches for municipal sanitation workers and the march on Washington was for jobs and dignity.

The parallels are striking.

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr eap1nter, MLK didn't try to shut down wall st nor our ports. Everyone wants to say their movement is like MLK civil rights movement, but no comparison sorry.

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

King shut down traffic all the time, and led a boycott of busses. His sanitation strike brought an entire city to its knees. He also impacted all sorts of businesses, eventually forcing restaurants, for example, against their will, to serve people of color.

His movement also led to enforced school bussing, and end of redlining in real estate, and many other things that effected ordinary citizens and businesses.

There are a few differences in the specific tactics the two employed, but on the whole there are far more commonalities. (The march on Washington included a tent city occupation of the National Mall). And most of the differences, minor at most, have to do with the difference of their specific targets. But the goals of OWS and those of King are virtually identical: economic equity, political equality, human dignity.

I can think of no more apt comparison.

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr eap1nter, no one's buying your comparison, OWS is the laughing stock of the country. Sorry.

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

In fact many, if not most people, especially including the NAACP, are highlighting the comparison, and very favorably.I suspect the NAACP knows what they are talking about in this regard. Several polls also indicate how favorably the movement is being perceived nation-wide.

Your refusal to note the identical goals, and most often similar strategies, clearly and specifically listed for you, speaks more to your ideological prejudice than to any reality. If by "no one" you mean only you and a minority of others, you are correct. But if you mean most other people, (including those who were closest to King) you are demonstrably, quantifiably wrong. Sorry.

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr epa1nter, no ones takes the naacp seriously anymore. You are living in the 60's still.

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

It's not a matter of them being taken seriously. (And I would certainly dispute that your assessment is shared by Black people or many other. Do you have survey results or poll numbers to indicate that no one takes them seriously?). It is a matter of people who worked side by side with King noting the similarities of goals and strategies. It negates your position that "no one's buying" my comparison. Indeed, the comparison is not mine, but theirs. And it belies your assertion that those close to King think that comparison to his effort "is a joke".

There are many, many other organizations who support OWS for similar reasons. If nothing else, that clearly demonstrates your "no one buys" the comparison is nothing more than an invention wholly of your own making, without foundation and in contradiction to the evidence.

Since your statement has been shown to be, let's just say, inaccurate, instead of acknowledging that fact, you simply belittle those who disagree with you as being marginal. As intellectually dishonest as that straw man is, the fact that the NAACP support OWS is not something you can, or have denied. 60s or no 60s.

You have no argument. You have no evidence to support your assertions. You have only a predisposed animus.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Is it too late for your mother to abort you?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

LMAO

[-] 4 points by Longshoreman (34) 2 years ago

No. Are the NBA players Union terrorists for holding peoples jobs hostage? Non union regular folk that work at those basketball arenas? On that logic George Washington was a terrorist who founded s rogue state. The USA

[-] -2 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Longshoreman, sorry i'm not following your logic. If the occupiers are the same as George W. , then what exactly is their (occupiers) goal? To destroy the U.S. and give us back to England?

[-] 0 points by Longshoreman (34) 2 years ago

Your guess is as good as mine. What are their goals?

[-] 3 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Wall Street has been the biggest disruptor of the US economy, by exporting jobs, etc. Perhaps we should consider Wall Street bankers as domestic terrorists.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

wrong. wall st/business responds to laws the federal govt makes. the federal govt is the biggest disruptor of the US economy. they force businesses to export jobs, they make it all too easy, they created the environment where starting or running a business (especially manufacturing) is far too difficult to turn a profit, etc.

I wonder if ows people realize just how much more support they'd have if moved this protest to the white house and capital hill.

but that won't happen because ows is a left wing mob, the president is a leftist, and the senate is has a left wing majority.

hello, irrelevance.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I agree with you about the government, it is corrupt, but I believe that it is money that has corrupted our government and money comes from Wall Street. Now, Wall Street and the government have a symbiotic relationship.

There has been some protesting to government over the last year or so, a lot of people had occupied their congressman's offices when local meetings for the constituency were held.

I think Wall Street is the source of the problem though. Its more like an external entity, a global empire like the old English empire, and its corruption of our government has been a kind of neo-colonial process like what happens in third world countries.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

and the fact that pols swear an oath and business does not...that doesn't resonate with you?

the fact that it takes a pol to take a bribe to corrupt the system...that's not compelling at all to you?

the fact that govt makes it so difficult to start and run a business....that doesn't matter enough to you?

you're just dead set on protesting business no matter what.

so it all comes down to ows is a left wing mob and a left wing mob isn't going to protest a left wing president and senate majority.

kinda what I thought all along.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Not so.

Of course it bothers me that they break their oaths, but who pays them to do so?

It bothers me that they take bribes, but who pays the bribes?

I hate it that government makes it hard to start a business, but who pays them to discourage the competition?

I'm not against business, in fact, the financial oligarchy is against business.

I believe in business and government working together in a positive way, like under FDR's New Deal. The government provided credit for public works, development of infrastructure, and business manufactured the products and materials that were required.

Or under Kennedy, when government did the space program, and business found profitable ways to market the spinoffs.

In these two good examples, science, technology and infrastructure are emphasized. They're provided stable credit for decades at low interest rates, through more of a national style of financing. They pay the money back through revenue, and then some.

In the periods of crisis, like now and the great depression, you had high finance making money off nothing but bets and liquidation sales.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"Of course it bothers me that they break their oaths, but who pays them to do so?"

people who, unlike them, have not taken an oath to do the right thing by us, the taxpayers. the ones who pay their salaries.

"It bothers me that they take bribes, but who pays the bribes?"

like I said, people who do NOT take an oath to us. people who are NOT paid by us. and you think business' offense is worst than the offense of breaking the covenant of the governed and the elected? what?

"I hate it that government makes it hard to start a business, but who pays them to discourage the competition?"

those who are IN competition. and the pols who are supposed to keep the playing filed level and take the bribes...they're clearly twice as bad for selling out AND fucking with the level playing field!

despite this, you STILL think those who offer the bribes are worse offenders than the bribe takers? you can't be serious.

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

The guys who pay the bribes start the cycle, don't they?

What does it matter if they have taken an oath or not? The global financial oligarchy is like a foreign country that uses money as a weapon to attack us by corrupting our government.

The people who pay to discourage competition are the ones who have the most money and are forever striving to consolidate their wealth.

Its not a matter of who is worse really, its about understanding why we have an economic crisis and what can we do about it now.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"The guys who pay the bribes start the cycle, don't they?" - no, not always. and why does it matter?

"What does it matter if they have taken an oath or not?" - what a ridiculous question.

"Its not a matter of who is worse really." - sure it is, you just don't want to face it.

why not just admit that you are a govt stooge and nothing will make you oppose them for their ultimate culpability. be honest.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

"The guys who pay the bribes start the cycle, don't they?" - no, not always. and why does it matter? - Because the problem has to be stopped at its source.

Business men take oaths too, if they are US citizens, they say the pledge of allegiance each day as children in school, which, in the case of Wall Street, they betray as adults.

"Its not a matter of who is worse really." - sure it is, you just don't want to face it. - To me it is a matter of solving the problem primarily. - I just think it is a mistake to spend your energy deciding who is worse Wall Street or government. I believe business and government need to be able to work together.

why not just admit that you are a govt stooge - Its hard to take anyone seriously when they regress to such playground tactics as name calling, I'm sure you have a good justification for it though.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"Because the problem has to be stopped at its source." the source is the pol accepting the bribe.

"Business men take oaths too" no they don't. stop grasping for straws.

"I just think it is a mistake to spend your energy deciding who is worse Wall Street or government." only because you don't want to accept that govt is worse and more culpable.

"I believe business and government need to be able to work together." they work together just fine, at our expense. how's that working out, sport? govt and business should have as little to do with each other as possible.

"...name calling, I'm sure you have a good justification for it though." sure did. read your messages. what are you, if not a govt stooge?

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

It seems you are committed to the idea that government is inherently bad and business is inherently good. I believe that either can be bad or good.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

Then Apple is a domestic terrorists too. It's the corporations sending jobs overseas, not Wall Street. You think a bank on Wall Street makes decisions for Apple and other corporations?

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

You got a point there. But I think the decision making process must be somehow intertwined. Apple stock, for example, is sold on Wall Street.

[-] 3 points by Fitifong (39) from Kingsville, ON 2 years ago

You're on the wrong site for this, buddy.

[-] 2 points by Marquee (192) 2 years ago

Actually Fitifong this is the right site to expose those facts. The perfect site. We all should continue to speak the ugly truth. That is what OWS stands for , exposure of the robbers and their ilk. Kudos on ya', Modest Capitalist.

[-] 0 points by Fitifong (39) from Kingsville, ON 2 years ago

I was mainly taking your original post as a direct insult and nothing more, sorry about that. (Trolls never belong here, hence my comment)

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Fitfong, not really, this site is great for open discussion. I've got to give that credit to the site owners.

[-] 2 points by Fitifong (39) from Kingsville, ON 2 years ago

^^ Read what I wrote as a reply to Marquee

[-] 2 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

The British Empire thought the original Tea Partiers were terrorists.

[-] -3 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

mr opensociety4us, if you are comparing the occupiers to the American Revolution, that a far stretch. Any occupier would consider any of the founding fathers the enemy.

[-] 2 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

Any comparison made is your own. The point of my post is to demonstrate that the term terrorist is highly subjective and our legislators are currently preparing to pass a bill that allows them to accuse, with that highly subjective term, and therefore hold US citizens indefinitely. This is something that Occupy Wall Street opposes and the founding fathers would have vehemently opposed as well.

You know little substance about OWS. I am an occupier and do not consider any of the founding fathers an enemy. I don't know of any other occupiers that do. Don't spend too much time speculating about who people you don't know consider the enemy. Who and what OWS is resisting is pretty clearly written all over.

[-] 2 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 2 years ago

definitely Fox news and the tea party and the republican party are the biggest terrorist threats of all.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

can you really be that stupid and offensive?

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 2 years ago

ok, definitely msnbc, cbs, abc, cnn, bbc and the Occupy movement and the democratic party are the biggest terrorist threats of all. but, we've all heard this for so long (except for the Occupy movement part). does it become stupid and offensive when its directed at the organizations you feel are acceptable?

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

as expected, the point went flying right over your head.

also, what makes you think I believe those groups you added are "acceptable" (whatever that means!)?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Frizolio (80) 2 years ago

YES!!! Thats what they are. Say hello to FEMA camps punks.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

By the way troll here's another for ya's http://goo.gl/kmhK8

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Certain corporations, CEO's and banks with the help of the US Government are the one's who screwed up the economy and should be labeled as domestic terrorists, traitors and jailed.

[-] 1 points by kogonon (3) from San Antonio, TX 2 years ago

Is this a serious post?

You are suggesting that exercising rights guaranteed in the bill of rights (what for a while was an exclusively American phenomenon) is a form of terrorism? Muslim terrorism, in the forms hostile to western society is a bygone threat. The terrorists were mostly protesting US support for corrupt Arab regimes which kept the Muslim population down. Now that the US government has embraced the Arab Spring, the United States is no longer an easy ideological enemy of the terror movements.

So surprise, the US government (whose main export is arms and wartime industries), needs a new enemy. Why not cut out the middle man and make the US population the enemy?

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Kogonon, you have serious mental problems if you believe that Muslim terrorism is gone because of the arab spring (now arab winter).

[-] 1 points by soloenbarcelona (199) from Barcelona, CT 2 years ago

If by "we" you mean you and the rest of the 1% then of course the uprising of the people is terrifiing and you can consider your neabours terrorists that might disrupt your lovely way of life. If you are part of the 99%, you might say the occupiers are your national heros. Right now, the press, police and even your govenrment are tools of the socalled 1%, so I reacon foxnews will certainly say our heros are terrorists.

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Soloenbarcelona, You are a very estupido communisto.

[-] 1 points by soloenbarcelona (199) from Barcelona, CT 2 years ago

Hey Karl, I know what you mean by terrorists (I´ve seen where it come from and the riots that took place in UK this year are terrifiing) I will not take part in riots, nor ask the 1% to be imprisonned so that others can take over there power. I´m and economist from a very libaral oriented University and I´m sorry you find my comment stupid and left oriented. I just don´t want your country to look like Somalia soon. And to prevent that, some healthy open discusion won´t harm. Calling the occupiers terrorists will lead to the oposite effect of what the Brits and you are trying to acheive? But anyway, it´s a good point you make. "What is a terrorist?"

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Soloenbarcelona, sorry for the 'estupido communisto' comment.. . it's a tough crowd. Don't worry, the US won't ever look like Somalia (Johny Depp is just a make believe pirate).

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Oct. 15, 2011 marked the start of the first major action by Occupy Wall Street.

Oct. 14, 2011 Dow Industrial Average closed @ 11,644.

Nov 11,2011 One month later the Dow closed @ 12,153.

Dec. 14, 2011 Two month later the DOW closed @ 11,823.

One month after the Tea Party attacked the U.S. economy in Aug. 2011 the DOW saw a 7.3% decline one month after the Tea Party attack on America's free markets.

August 1, 2011 the DOW closed at 12,132.49

September 2, 2011 the DOW closed at 11,240.26

In terms of attacking the U.S. economy it is the right-wing tea party that has been more intentional and effective at damaging the U.S. economy.

OWS goal is to restore the American Dream by liberating the U.S. economy from the Wall Street predators who are waging economic warfare on the American people for their own greed.

The tea party is a Wall Street front group and their effective attacks on the U.S. economy prove this.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

On September 11, 2001 Osama bin Laden struck a blow at America free market capitalism when he directed jetliners at the World Trade Center.

Osama bin Laden failed.

August 2, 2011 the minority Tea Party in Congress struck a blow at American free market capitalism when they extorted the majority of Congress with a threat to manipulate the free markets by forcing a downgrade of the United States government credit rating.

September 10, 2001 the DOW closed at 9,605.51

October 11, 2001 the DOW closed at 9,410.45

A 2% decline one month after al Qaida's attack on America's free market system.

August 1, 2011 the DOW closed at 12,132.49

September 2, 2011 the DOW closed at 11,240.26

A 7.3% decline one month after the Tea Party attack on America's free markets.

The Tea Party has done more damage to America free markets than alQaida did.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

OWS might not even exist if not for the housing crisis scam which played a significant part in disrupting the economy.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Because it's a false economy that continues to erode and suction wealth from the middle class. How about that for a reason.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

what are you saying? if we fuck with their money, they will kill us all?

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

Our adversaries terrorized first therefore prosecute them first.

[Removed]

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

The cops should be treated as domestic terrorists.

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

No

OWS is non-violent

they do not seek to influence policy by fear of violence

[-] 1 points by arcodorko (49) 2 years ago

No.....and comparing them to Al-Qaeda is retarded.....

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21543) 2 years ago

For what? For expressing their First Amendment rights?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I consider this thread a vindication of my warnings that shutting down ports with no clear objective or message looks more like sabotage than protest, and that it will lead to mainstream Americans viewing that as domestic terrorism, and associating the Occupy movement with domestic terrorism.

[-] 1 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

Their banner at one of the sites read, "Block their world. Unleash ours." That was not the best slogan to get the attention of the average citizen. It would scare the unaware more than anything else.. They need to hire a PR person .

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

This web site is driven by software with the tag line, "Stomping out capitalism, one line of code at a time." And it's also full of people who absolutely insist that the movement is not anti-capitalist. And they can't come to a consensus on anything less important, either.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

well, this site (and OWS) is run by Adbusters....so it's pretty clear what the initial goal was - to disrupt American capitalism/consumerism. The founder of Adbusters, Lasn, hates America.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

I would also point out that the the group in Houston was extremely misguided. The ports of Houston are always on high terrorism alert due to oil.

www.chron.com/business/article/Testimony-Port-terrorist-attack-could-cripple-2139917.php

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes definitely. I can't imagine a worse course of action if you don't want to be labeled a domestic terrorist organization than to intentionally attack a shipping port.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

but ows isn't disrupting the economy. not one bit.

they are disrupting the nation's olfactory sense, some traffic here and there, and lots of working people's favorite outdoor lunch time relaxation spots, but not the economy.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 2 years ago

This type of resistance is what formed the country we call America. If it wasn't a part of who we are then we would still be British subjects. We are just upholding the American tradition of freedom.

I still wonder why there is so much interest in the British royal family.

[-] 0 points by danmi (66) 2 years ago

Who allowed the 1%'s to get where they are today??? The Gov that's who and why are they not being occupied??? Seems like the OWS is going after GOP and skipping over the dems, even though the dems are evenly corrupt as the rest of them

[-] 0 points by stuartchase (861) 2 years ago

NO!

I present to you the Lords of the Dirty Fucks!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-the-evildoers/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

It depends on how they manifest themselves if they feel the movement is failing. If the OWS movement allows itself to be highjacked by one of its more extreme sects it very well could be viewed that way. If it remains a prodominantly protesting and non-violant movement than most likely not.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

yes the occupy people should be locked in gitmo with no trial and beaten... heck yes; obama isn't gonna take my guns er my jobz...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

"The Gulag (Russian: ГУЛаг, tr. GULag; IPA: [ɡʊˈlak] ( listen)) was the government agency that administered the main[1] Soviet forced labor camp systems. While the camps housed a wide range of convicts, from petty criminals to political prisoners, large numbers were convicted by simplified procedures, such as NKVD troikas and other instruments of extrajudicial punishment, and the Gulag is recognized as a major instrument of political repression in the Soviet Union.

GULag is the acronym for Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies (Russian: Гла́вное управле́ние исправи́тельно-трудовы́х лагере́й и коло́ний, tr. Glavnoye upravlyeniye ispravityel'no-trudovih lagyeryey i koloniy) of the NKVD. It was officially created on April 25, 1930 and dissolved on January 13, 1960.[2] Eventually, by metonymy, the usage of "the Gulag" began generally denoting the entire penal labor system in the USSR.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature, introduced the term to the Western world with the 1973 publication of his The Gulag Archipelago. The book likened the scattered camps to "a chain of islands" and described the Gulag as a system where people were worked to death.[3][neutrality is disputed] Some scholars[quantify] concur with this view,[4][5] whereas others[quantify] argue that the Gulag was neither as large nor as deadly as it is often presented,[6] and it did not have death camps,[7] although during some periods of its history, mortality was high in the labor camps.[3]

On March 1940, there were 53 separate camps and 423 labor colonies in the USSR.[6] Today's major industrial cities of the Russian Arctic, such as Norilsk, Vorkuta, and Magadan, were originally camps built by prisoners and run by ex-prisoners.[8]"

~lock these hippies up and water board them. NO TRIAL for protesters. Heck, let the US Militury shoot them on sight; shoot 1st askz questions lat8er fools. Welcome to the united USS of Amerikua. Amerika phuck yeah.

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

ah - YES

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well, I think that many here are far too emotionally engaged, and that it is only a matter of time before some grow frustrated with the minimal response and begin to advocate for far more sensational means. As I have said from the beginning, there will a philosophical schism, and a new faction will appear with terror as their mantra; it happened in the 60s...

[-] 0 points by Karl101 (-6) 2 years ago

Mr Betuadollar, Good analysis, eventhough i hope you are wrong, we don't need to deal with another group of black panthers and weathermen.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Unfortunately I think we may have to deal with them - two police officers have already been murdered here; it is an induced exasperation of their anger; it empowers in the face of, to destroy others.

Very few criminals convicted of heinous crimes ever admit of remorse; they are not remorseful. Do you want to know why? It's because they are possessed of an inner anger, for whatever reason, that allows them to justify that heinous act; it becomes an act of defense rather than an act of aggression. And try and find that one in psychology class; it's not there.

[-] -2 points by stuartchase (861) 2 years ago

The Revolution has a new theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ

http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-name-of-allah/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I don't get it... what? stuartchase what? get some; get your kill face on son; kill haji...you know when they get me-- with a suicide bomb-- when these Maslims get me son, I coming after Allah with a suicide bomb myself and a harem of the 99 percent if the 1 percent hottest blond bitchez.... death from above. airborne. nuke the middle east. phuck yeah.

Major T. J. "King" Kong: Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies. Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin'. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do..." ~Dr. Stangelove

"The banks have said, leave us deregulated, we know how to run things, don't put government in to meddle. Then with that freedom of maneuver they took huge gambles, and even made illegal actions, and then broke the world system. As soon as that happened then they rushed out to say 'bail us out, bail us out, if you don't bail us out, we're too big to fail, you have to save us'. As soon as that happened, they said 'oh, don't regulate us, we know what to do'. And they almost went back to their old story, and the public is standing there, amazed, because we just bailed you out how can you be paying yourself billions of dollars of bonuses again? And the bankers say, 'well we deserve it, what's your problem'? And the problem that the Occupy Wall Street and other protesters have is: you don't deserve it, you nearly broke the system, you gamed the economy, you're paying mega fines, yet you're still in the White House you're going to the state dinners, you're paying yourself huge bonuses, what kind of system is this?

When I talk about this in the United States, I'm often attacked, 'oh, you don't believe in the free market economy', I say, how much free market can there be? You say deregulate, the moment the banks get in trouble, you say bail them out, the moment you bail them out, you say go back to deregulation. That's not a free market, that's a game, and we have to get out of the game. We have to get back to grown-up behaviour."

Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University

[-] -1 points by stuartchase (861) 2 years ago

You talk too much.

The Revolution starts here!

[-] -1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, That saved a wretch like me. I once was lost but now am found, Was blind, but now I see.

T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear. And Grace, my fears relieved. How precious did that Grace appear The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares I have already come; 'Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far and Grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me. His word my hope secures. He will my shield and portion be, As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail, And mortal life shall cease, I shall possess within the veil, A life of joy and peace.

When we've been here ten thousand years Bright shining as the sun. We've no less days to sing God's praise Than when we've first begun.

[-] -1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

locked cocked ready to rock. get some fuckers

the color is red to show the world the blood we've shed; blue...that we are true; white...that we are right black...that we are back; gold...that we are bold; green...that we are mean; brown...that we get down; gray...that you will pay

[-] -1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3dc7hJ1k9E

just posting random shit just like you son

[-] 0 points by stuartchase (861) 2 years ago

You like to watch dirty videos because you are a pervert. There is nothing worse than perverted old men trying to pick up hippie chicks on the internet. You're so sad.

[+] -4 points by brettdecker (68) 2 years ago

To answer in a word: YES!!!!

[-] 0 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

The rank and file probably aren't. The leadership most certainly is.

[-] 0 points by brettdecker (68) 2 years ago

It doesn't matter their all involved with malicious and possibly terrorist type behavior. Trying to disrupt and collapse the US economic system is something that would make Al Qaeda very proud.

[+] -5 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

talk to obama about it. he's their enabler.