Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Big Distraction

Posted 6 years ago on April 18, 2012, 4:55 p.m. EST by GypsyKing (8719)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Funny how the corporate media is now focusing on two scandals that invole sex and the "gubment." Nevermind that the amounts of money involved here are a tempest in a teapot compared to the hurricane of corporate/banking corruption that is devestating our society and Western Civilization itself.

Does it seem surprizing that these stories fit perfectly into the corporate created myth that "gubment" is evil and that "gubment" is the problem . . . ? Not when you consider who own the media.

We can look forward to ever increasing levels of this kind of propoganda between now and the election, at the same time they are trying to drive a wedge in the women's vote between working women and mothers who work at home . . . Clever.

This is why we can't ever take anything for granted and absolutely need to get out the Democratic vote in the upcoming election; to prevent another disasterous Republican administration.

They have many tools to engineer another Republican victory, which would be a disaster for OWS and for the world.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Yes, because the last four years where so much better than the 8 years previuous, and a big change from the 8 before that? See; the change of face really changes nothing, don't wast your time and energy on the 'bread and circuses' offered from the single party system, it is but a diversion and a distraction. It always has been.

Start building community in your own life, relocalize your community, expand your garden, till that suburban lawn and plant food you can eat and trade with your neighbors, and community. Study permaculture and intensive organic gardening, quit your job and start a local business, stop using cash, create an alternative currency for your own community, help build local energy systems that don't tie into the grid,. and on and on.

If you ignore the spectacle, and just work to create the world you want, you will achieve SO much more, than just adding your support to the system that steals from your mother, and oppresses all your friends and family.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

if you can't tell the difference between 1993-2000 and 2001-2008 maybe you should take another look

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Yeah, can you believe the agressive historical revisionism these people resort to nowadays? They learned some time ago that they don't need to learn anything. They make it up as they go along; convinced that either no one will know any better, or that they can make lies into truths through mere repetition.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Many honestly speak of disappointment, and I do understand, I had such hope for Gore, Clinton had just set things up, Gore was the one to bring it home, and to think of where we might be on climate change, the disappointment I felt when someone (Nader) whom I respected deeply, took off lying across the country for his own ego/fame he was so sure Gore would win running away, and now the climate change fight is all but lost.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

That was a devastating blow to humanity, and the election was STOLEN! That is the part I will never forgive. If I didn't hate the Republicans before then, I HATE them now. I want their party to be burried in the next election, burried so that the scum will never show their face to the light of day again.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I have a "big dish" (did then) and watched everything on backfeeds in those days you could watch unfiltered news, it was almost like live feeds from the park, to this day I swear Ted Olsen was advising that lady who designed the butterfly ballot, on election night when they where taking the critical steps early in the counting, he was right theere wispering in her ear, but the media never spoke about it

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

What a coincidence that it was the first time CBS called a State based on exit polls for a candidate, and turned out to be wrong! The first time, ever! Oh, and his brother just happened to be Governor. Oh, and that diebold, a Texas company, was then given a very lucratice contract to produce new voting machines for use throughout the nation, and they were proven to be easily tampered with.

Then again in 2004, the same thing in Ohio.

We can create ATM machines that can keep accurate balances on millions of bank accounts, but we can't produce a fool-proof voting machine? Give me a fucking break!

We all know what happened, and the Republicans should have been repudiated for it completely. Thay should no even exist today as a political party.

[-] 0 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 6 years ago

Personally, I just can't tell the difference between 2001 - 2008 and 2009 - 2012.

Wait, that's not true...

When GWB left office, I could still count on Habeas Corpus and a trial by a jury of my peers in a civilian court.

Protest wasn't a criminal activity.

You couldn't be strip-searched without probable cause.

US Citizens suspected of terrorist activity were captured and tortured, not assassinated without a trial by flying death-bots.

We were in 2 wars, not the 4 (5? 6?) that we're in now.

I don't think getting Bill Clinton back is an option. I definitely don't want to know what else Barack Obama has up his sleeve though, especially considering the number of things that are in a holding pattern until after the November vote...

Apparently there's a whole lot of changes coming, and the general feeling among our dearly elected officials is that if they bring these things to light before the election, none of them will get re-elected.

I just hope and pray that we don't end up looking back on his first term as the good old days of prosperity, liberty and free speech. He promised us change. Nobody said it would be for the better.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

yeah but we could of had Gore, and we wouldn't be talking about any this, screwing up again and giving the GOP more power is no answer no matter how bad we screwed up last time

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Damn - the 2000 election was STOLEN! Everybody knows it! So was the election in 2004! That alone should be the DEATH of the Republican party! Anyone voting Republican is a traitor to the cause of Democracy! Period!

I'm so sick of these lies and distortions! Gore would've been a good president. His loss got us into this mess, and he didn't even lose! I'm so tired of the LIES, LIES, LIES!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

It should of never have been that close, the only reason it was is because we split apart then.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

That's right, which shows the great importance of unifying and putting aside relatively minor differences to confront the common enemy.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3900) 6 years ago

not everyone owns land - huge problem and one of the most important in my opinion; we live in a land-based economy absolutely everything else rests on that http://occupywallst.org/forum/real-estate-4-ransom-global-property-speculation-a/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/fiefdom-in-america-land-discounts-for-the-wealthy-/ quit your job and start a local business with what your looks (what planet are you living in banks don't lend to you unless you have collateral?) You're above the problems of the common man clearly you are not from that ilk

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Still no alternate plan. What a surprize. And what does this have to do with the post - one note Johnny?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

boo, just the same tired 'lesser of two evils' argument,. in a long boring article. Go ahead and vote for the dems, they are marginally better than the rethugs, however the difference is so small that personally I see little point in it. Obama has been no better than Bush Jr. in any meaningful way. Why should we be forced to decide between evil, and lesser-evil,. how about good! How about a true participatory consensus democracy! Not hoping 'our guy' does not screw us too hard.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Well it seems to me that there are tree choices at least. But one of them isn't to vote for the ultimate good. You can vote for the lesser of two evils or perhaps the greater of two evils might be a more comforting way to frame it.

But the choice to vote doesn't seem to preclude any of the other actions you can decide to take. So, I think many will agree that there has been a significant difference in the last four years of what would have happened with the Tea Party House and a Dem semi managed Senate and Bush versus what has actually happened with Obama. Just imagine what would have happened with the passage of every bill proposed in the House by the GOP.

That should sober you up. Then just go through all of the policy issues and imagine the implementation of those proposed by the Dems if they had real control of the Senate and the House.

Now tell me there is no difference and that voting doesn't matter. It certainly won't get most of us where we want to go, but staying alive until help arrives is better than saying don't rescue me unless you are perfect.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Here's hoping you DON'T succeed in splitting the vote and winding up with what the Republicans seek: an complete and total packing of the federal courts with fascists.

Your failure to discern substantive differences between the parties, despite the obvious overlaps only demonstrates your lack of distinguishing ability, not any reality in the world.

How about building a true participatory democracy WHILE ensuring the country doesn't get flushed down the toilet, and fast, while you are in the 100 year long process to accomplish it? Do BOTH instead of putting all your eggs in some distantly future revolutionary success alone. If you think the republitards are no worse that the dems, especially in regard to court appointments, you haven't been paying attention, and I've got a bridge to sell you.

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

lol, this will not take a hundred years, hardly! America is at the very end of it's empire, flailing for a way to maintain power and control. Capitalism has degenerated to the point of proving to the world, that a system promoting and based on simple greed is destructive to everything, around it.

This system is failing now,. and has little time left.

Voting only encourages them!

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Tell that to OWS's founders. they are i it for the long haul. We MIGHT be seeing the end game of capitalism (though I sincerely doubt it) but end games take a century or more to play out. If you think that 300,000,000 people are willing to overthrow the system they know for one that hasn't even formed yet, you are clueless.

The whole "voting only encourages them" meme is utterly meaningless. The far right will not abstain, and they are not magically going away any time soon. YOUR abstention serves only one purpose: making the most extreme hard right forces more completely powerful. And no amount of protests in the streets will change that dynamic if the system, which will remain intact despite our best efforts, does not get support fro reformers within it.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

LOL, do you even think to look at history, this tends to be a good source of how things may go in the future. Did the U.S.S.R. take 100 years to fall? Most empires fell VERY quickly, this is why they are said to have fallen and not simply declined.

Just go ahead and vote already, and please stop propagandizing for the two-party oscillator system of top down slavery.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

I'll be happy to, if people like stopped trying to encourage others NOT to vote, if you stopped YOUR propagandizing.

LOL, people have been saying "End Of Empire" about the US since my youth, in the Sixties. And David Graeber (one of the founders of OWS, if you recall) has talked about the end game of capitalism, in terms of our being in the beginning of the last 100 years of it. He started OWS as a way to begin a conversation about what would replace it eventually. (His characterization, not mine).

The USSR was a country, an empire, not a faceless economic system that is globally interconnected. Its citizens universally hated the government's repression. Everyone lived in constant abject poverty and fear and had been living that way for more than half a century. And the only change possible, since they had no democratic institutions, was through a coup, with Yeltsin forcing Gorbachov out at the barrel of a gun.

That is in no way comparable to the US. Most people are really pissed at the way that the government is working, not the fact that there is one. And the country is evenly split between what it believes the solutions are: more capitalism or less capitalism. And the overwhelming majority, rightly or wrongly, have no interest in overthrowing either capitalism or the political system at all. Even the overwhelming majority on the left talks about reform, not revolution, including even the great Noam Chomsky.

You can cite history all you want, but it needs to actually be relevant to the current circumstances, comparable in SOME way to what is going on here, in order to have any meaning. Otherwise, it is just noise.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

yes, I suppose that was uncalled for, I only post against voting in ht rigged game, when others post for voting in it,. so it is some chicken egg situation, so let us just continue to hash it out,. .

Obviously I just think your wrong, (and vice versa),. the point I was making is, as that great canadian band The Tragically Hip once wrote;

See when it starts

To fall apart

Man, it really falls apart

Like boots or hearts

Oh when they start

They really fall apart

I just see that the bubbling of the tensions, and the current world wide situations, indicating to me that the stability of the american empire is getting more and more tenuous,. and I know things can, and IMHO will, change very quickly. For me OWS is just getting some folks together in affinity groups and decentralized communities that when the inevitable happens and the economic, environmental, social issues boil over,. we can work together to build a new and vastly better social organisation, a participatory consensus democracy.

Vote if you must,. i agree the dems are better than the rethugs,. but they are not the solution, only a lesser evil.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Let me be very clear about my position. I have never said that the Dems are the solution. I have only said they are the Little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike, holding back the torrent. That torrent MUST be held back. It would destroy even more lives by the tens of millions if it breaks through.

While we are making sure there remains a Dutch Boy and that he still has a finger, an effort that would take a few minutes at a voting booth, we must work to make real changes tha have nothing to do with that system. That work won't get easier by our voting for the Dems, but it will get impossibly harder if we allow them to lose, and as I said, seriously harm the lives of everybody in this country ( and much of the world as well).

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

There is no hard right. It is fascism. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You clearly dont know too many typical registered republicans. Get out more often. Only a fool looks at things through a d vs r glass. Most of the R voters are not happy with the fascism going on at all. But they dont want you to get power.

You and the other party are both in desperate times, clinging to what your party should be.

What will it take to jump ship?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Jump ship to what alternative, idiot? None exists right now. There IS no 3rd party that can win the post of national dog-catcher, let alone any office that can effect change.

The hard right IS Fascist: that is the DEFINITION of the word, and it exists in abundance! Is English not your primary language?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Fascism is government and multinationals partnering up, and usually using war to keep the people scared while their rights are stripped.

No where in the conservative handbook does this level of government involvement come into play. The left usually wants honest regulation, the right usually wants as little as possible.

Neither wants the gov partnering with the multinationals, choosing winners and losers, stealing our rights, etc.

Man you are fuckin dumb. Good thing Obama is a lock, because if this was 08 again, I would have said we dont have a chance, if I had to work with hacks like you.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Bullshit, you have as little knowledge of what fascism is (or the right wing in this country) as you clearly do about anything else. Really, have you ever once read a fucking book? Are you 14 years old? Or did your brain simply stop working when you reached puberty?


fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)


an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Show me the word multinational in there somewhere. Do you make up definitions as you go along, or is there some secret handbook you are referencing? Tell me again that Fascism doesn't mean right wing, and that right wing doesn't exist. Tell me Conservatives are for tolerance and anti-authoritarianism and liberal, progressive policies that favor individual and civil rights.


[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 6 years ago

In the interest of fairness and exchange:

'Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power'. - Benito Mussolini.

Now you have to define 'corporatism' which has a different political/economic definition than the popular one. In a nut shell the society is structured like a corporation, into specialized groups. Corporatism is different than the 'Corporatocracy' which I believe we live in today.

Fascism is right wing. But to call all right wing believers fascists, is as wrong as calling all progressives communists.

Many of the right wingers are Objectivists ala Ayn Rand, which is anti-humanitarian, and the greediest, self centered philosophy I can think of.

Also, the majority of right wingers that I have come across aren't 'bad' people but believe in a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, and they are badly in need of an education in macroeconomics.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Fascism, in its every day common usage has little to do with corporatocracy. It was about pure authoritarianism. It was about genocide. It was about extreme nationalism. It was about racism. However Mussolini initially thought of it at the beginning, it quickly became the basis for Nazism.

It is true that not all those on the right are fascist. But they are closer to that than they are to egalitarianism or the exercise of democracy. When I hear the words of an Eric Cantor, I hear strong echoes of fascism. When I listened to Santorum, I heard the same thing. The right wing Republican party as a whole attempts to eviscerate public education, eliminate scientific literacy, make distortion of history in school textbooks the law (in Texas) tried over 500 times in three years to pass anti-Women legislation, increase police abuses by making strip searches for jaywalking legal, pass demagogic Stand Your Ground laws, eliminate the entire social safety net,...... the list is endless. That resembles fascism more than anything I can think of in our time. And it is certainly not left wing.

The majority of right wingers do not believe in a "stricter" interpretation of the Constitution, but only a selectively stricter one, one that is cherry picked and ignores 200 years of legal history. They would give government less room to provide for its people, but far more leeway in its authority to repress them. It is not simply an education in macroeconomics they need (though I agree that they sorely need it) but an education in the Constitution itself.

Do they ever embark on such an education? I have never seen it. Their selective Constitutional purity is based on the same motivations that inspire them to unceasingly blame the poor for their poverty, claim Blacks have unfair advantages (affirmative action, etc) over Whites, and substitute mythology for fact at seemingly every turn as basis for whatever policy they promote. Intolerance and justification for greed is what they see in the Constitution. It is not based on that document, but on what they bring to that document by way of their own predispositions. Being right wing is indeed a character issue.

And while I agree than right wingers are Objectivists, Objectivism itself, in practice, in its implications, in its consequences, is overtly fascist in nature, even if its route to fascism is slightly different. Hell, John Gault was modeled largely on the serial killer Rand was enthralled with, and is the hero of Libertarians world wide. Objectivism is based, absolutely overtly, on pure selfishness as a creed. Social Darwinism is the consequence and objective. And no matter how you look at it, Social Darwinism is the analogue, in practice, of the notion of a master race. It simply defines race differently. It justifies overlords.

Most right wingers are indeed bad people. Not in their own conscious minds, but in terms of the policies and the consequences of those policies they support and promote. They are simply too stupid to see how ethically corrupt their stances are. It is not simply a matter of ignorance. That ignorance is decidedly, energetically, forcefully willful.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 6 years ago

What I see going on is the left demonizing the opposition as much as the opposition demonizes the left. Again, I am a left leaning Independent.

"Fascism, in its every day common usage has little to do with corporatocracy. It was about pure authoritarianism. It was about genocide. It was about extreme nationalism. It was about racism. However Mussolini initially thought of it at the beginning, it quickly became the basis for Nazism."

Stalin killed between 6 - 20 million people total, depending on what your sources are. He also predated the Nazi's in genocide.

" The highest Soviet authorities ordered 386,798 people shot in the “Kulak Operation” of 1937–1938. The other major “enemies” during these years were people belonging to national minorities who could be associated with states bordering the Soviet Union: some 247,157 Soviet citizens were killed by the NKVD in ethnic shooting actions.

In the largest of these, the “Polish Operation” that began in August 1937, 111,091 people accused of espionage for Poland were shot. In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions. The total figure of civilians deliberately killed under Stalinism, around six million, is of course horribly high. But it is far lower than the estimates of twenty million or more made before we had access to Soviet sources. At the same time, we see that the motives of these killing actions were sometimes far more often national, or even ethnic, than we had assumed. Indeed it was Stalin, not Hitler, who initiated the first ethnic killing campaigns in interwar Europe." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/?pagination=false

If you want to add Mao to the picture his Great Leap Forward killed around 45 million in four years.

I don't want to be in the position to defend the right, as I am not right wing, so I will end with this.... Neither Stalin nor Mao were big on womens rights, freedom, nor education.

What I find to be the biggest problem in the world is extremism, fundamentalist thinking of any type, be it in politics, economics, or religion. A sure indicator of that is demonizing the other side... that sends up red flags.

An extremist position is usually non-negotiable and non-productive. Neither the extreme right or left have their hands clean.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

You again prove you have never been to OWS, or we wouldnt even be discussing this. Where did yo get your def, off of a cereal box!!

Try going to a political site if you want a definition. Or you can settle for a one sentence butcher job of a complex system.

You like being dumb, dont you? I really am starting to think you kind of have a martyr thing going.

And you still havent answered #2

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Moron, Corporatism is corporatism. It is different than fascism. Read even ONE history book in your life, you snot-nosed adolescent tragedy. Fascism, not corporatism decimated my family in Europe. You don't know SHIT. You are an ignorant, fucking goddamned son of a bitch DOUCHE BAG.

Get out of OWS before you destroy it.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

^ Still hasnt answered #2, and is being exposed as a mole.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Please enlighten me then. What is your definition, dumbshit?

And please let us know the last time you went to OWS too. Just to be sure you arent a poser.

So, to recap, we need 2 things- Your definition of fascism, and when the last time you were at OWS. You can prob just make the last one up, but the first should be funny regardless.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

I posted it, dumbshit. It's from the dictionary. Can't you read?

Seriously, I'm done with you. OWS should be too, because they allow morons like you do it so much harm by letting you pretend to speak with their voice. I understand OWS's tolerance of the mentally challenged, but there have to be some limits.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 6 years ago

In the interest of fairness and exchange:

'Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power'. - Benito Mussolini.

Now you have to define 'corporatism' which has a different political/economic definition than the popular one. In a nut shell the society is structured like a corporation, into specialized groups. Corporatism is different than the 'Corporatocracy' which I believe we live in today.

Fascism is right wing. But to call all right wing believers fascists, is as wrong as calling all progressives communists.

Many of the right wingers are Objectivists ala Ayn Rand, which is anti-humanitarian, and the greediest, self centered philosophy I can think of.

Also, the majority of right wingers that I have come across aren't 'bad' people but believe in a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, and they are badly in need of an education in macroeconomics.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

I like your point about the fascism being a right wing thing (allthough I have yet to meet an ordinary right winger who likes the government partnering up with corporations) but not all right wingers being fascists.

Many argue that it is liberal leaders and people who benefit the most from fascism, since their companies have the ultimate partner in the government. Most on the right want nothing to do with the gov (or so they say)

I get lots of different meanings from lots of different people. I think there is a reason we never hear our leaders talk about corportism or fascism- they dont want that topic being brought up.

Keep in mind Rand grew up in Communist SU, and had no chance at doing anything she wanted, so I can see why she was so "leave me along and Ill leave you alone"....Anyone in business here in the states has certainly had moments like that.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 6 years ago

But remember Corporatism doe not equal Fascism. The government partnering with Industry is a Corporatocracy.

The term 'liberal' has undergone many changes as well, in the US a liberal is considered left wing, in classical terms a liberal tends to be one for less government control and can be either left or right.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

How do you explain the actions then of our government. This is an honest question.

We can call their legislation fascist. What do we call the legislation in a corporatocracy.

There is still no formal definition for corportocracy, and I dont think thats a mistake. That, corporatism and fascism are all things you will never hear our leaders speak of.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Why is your record still skipping?

I still have to ask if you've ever followed the link I provided for you on Rick Scott?

You need to save some of your vehemence for the entities that put us in this mess.

There is very a good reason this forum is called.


You seem to getting away from that.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Rick Scott is a pawn. He's an R. What am I going to see in there that I didnt already know?

I know who put us int his mess- A fascist government and idiot people that keep voting for these two criminal operations.

Until the people wake the fuck up, it wont change. Wall St will keep winning. Our defense is either put people in charge who will change the laws, or directly affect the banks by pulling our dollars out.

Im attacking the people because they deserve it. Egypt showed that when the people smarten up decide THE GOV has got to go, things change.

Cant fight fascism and endorse its current face in teh same breath. That is not the stuff that movements are made from.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I take it you didn't follow the link.

Besides, you didn't think he did anything wrong. You thought he was alright, in fact, when I first asked you about him.

So you endorse him one minute and curse him the next?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

I never endorsed him. I said he hasnt really had a chance to do too much, except for the two things I listed that I said were bullshit. He's a state governor, the feds have limited the states powers to do anything substantial.

Im not defending him. I honestly dont have a whole lot to say about him. Or Kathy Castor, or Wasserman shultz, or Pam Bondi. They are all pretty irrelevant to me. They dont really have the power to do too much anymore. And the things they do, they always fuck up. Sound familiar ?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Yepperz. Sounds like you really don't pay much attention.

In fact, it was spoken like libe(R)tarian.

The BS about states rights, is a dead give away.

I explain and show you examples of what's actually happening in the States, and you pretend it doesn't matter, and skip your record again.

Your lack of commentary on threads dealing with ALEC, CATO, and Heritage, combined with your broken record, is telling as well.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Are ALEC, CATO and Heritage trying to coopt the movement? No? Then I dont care about them. I could give a shit about the ones that are, too, but want to let people know to be careful.

If dont think that the feds have limited the states ability to do things, then you just have a very poor understanding of whats been going on. Its from both parties, ok, so dont jump to the conclusion I think you would there.

And I realize whats going in states, especially with abortion stuff. Its nonsense. I dont agree with it at all. I dont live in those states, so I cant comment on them well. They have no ability to control their finances, and they seem to want to bring every social issue out of the woodwork. Get everyone all riled up. Arizona, as usual, is leading the way.

And as usual, your libertarian comment is just further proof of what an entire lifetime of selective propaganda can do to someone's mind when discussing politics. You shouldnt assume...

There are plenty like me out there. Most dont vote. You do realize the majority of the population doesnt vote because they realize its all bullshit., right? That is the majority that is going to rise up and create change. None of this partisan, silly shit.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (3900) 6 years ago

No corporatism degenerated us not capitalism there is a difference - there must be balance - In corporatism there is endless monopolization and complete annihilation of all other competition. In capitalism you have free markets and laws to regulate that type of destructiveness - you must have an equal balance of socialism and capitalism to make it work. There has become this notion of capitalism VS socialism but we need both if there is no balance both will become communism. Socialism prevents corporatism and capitalism prevents communism. How about equal parts Socialist Capitalist country together to make things work.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

You need to brush up on definitions. I have thought a similar line of reasoning, till I read up on the specific meanings of these terms.

-capitalism is private ownership, (makes no claims of democracy)

-socialism is collective ownership with democratic control if the collective resources

-communism is collective ownership administered by the state/great leader (makes no claims of democracy)

I now see that only socialism actively promotes democracy. How can we have democracy (or does it even matter) if 1% own the bulk of every thing? (capitalism, what we have now)

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

The are all fasicsts already.....

Too bad you cant see that.

Here is your 99% spring nonsense: Is the 99% Spring movement a veiled attempt to co-opt and sanitize Occupy? Is it a marketing ploy for Obama 2012? According to occupier Charles Young, it would appear so:

“The first clue that my evening might go otherwise was the sign-up table, where there were a bunch of Obama buttons for sale and one sign-up sheet for the oddly named Community Free Democrats (are they free of community?), which is the local Democratic clubhouse. That killed the “inspired by Occupy Wall Street” vibe right there. No piles of literature from a zillion different groups, as there had been in Zuccotti Park. No animated arguments among Marxists, anarchists, progressives, punks, engaged Buddhists, anti-war libertarians and what have you. Just Obama buttons, which didn’t appear to be selling.”

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

They are a different animal entirely from OWS. They have a different purpose and agenda. Apples and oranges are different, too, but neither one is poison. The real poison is what the republitards are trying to feed everyone, and if the left is divided, they will succeed.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

The entire thing is falling apart dude. No one has a party, unless you are rich. Both sides are falling apart.

And I say good, its about fuckin time!

Power to the People!!

Would you support ridding ourselves of parties all together? Just people?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

I would indeed like to see both the Republitard party disappear and the current manifestation of the Dems ether change radically or disappear, too. But since neither will happen in my lifetime, I will work to apply pressure, both from within and without, to the one party that has always been more willing to move to the left when pressure has been applied.

As to getting rid of political parties altogether, or eliminating representational democracy as a system, no, I don't support that at all.

[-] -1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Then you are in for a long and painful ride. Representative government is always going to be corrupted, only removing the mechanisms that facilitate the corruption will end it once and for all. Change the face, (party in power) and things may look better for a while, however the corruption is build into the representative system, if you leave that, it will always return. You must see this?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

There is no other viable alternative now or in the near future. Direct democracy will not be the system in any of our lifetimes, and if you believe that, you are really fooling yourself. What's more, most people in this country, including me, oppose the notion of direct democracy. It is not even the majority position of OWS activists.

All forms of government, whether representative or direct, will always be corrupt, simply because people are not angels. Lynch mobs were direct democracy, too. So was Prpp 8 in California that stripped GLBT rights away. So was Prop 13 years ago that destroyed California's once great school system and crippled its economy.

Corruption is built into the HUMAN system. And representative democracy, along with checks and balances was designed, quite brilliantly in my opinion, to make sure mob rule would not hold sway. IT is not the problem. Unfettered, unregulated, unmitigated capitalism is the problem.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

No, you miss the point, we can build a system of self governance where no individual is given excessive power over any other. We are not talking about a "direct democracy" where every one votes on 'referendum' issues, we are talking about participatory consensus democracy, where we all have input into the issues that effect us, and we use process to develop a general consensus on how we live. This is know as deliberative democracy or discursive democracy, and is not simple ballot initiatives.

I can see why you would oppose 'all people voting on all issues', as that would be tough to work with. That is simply not what I am taking about. There is something call the benefit of the doubt where you give a new idea a change so you can fully understand it before you pass judgment on it. Perhaps before opposing an alternative you take the time to learn what it is.

Voting only encourages them!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

I think you miss the point as well. Right now, this moment, your system has not taken over. It will not do so in my lifetime. Does that mean you should not continue to try to build it? You should do whatever you think is the right thing to do, whether it is realistic or not. I am NOT saying, as you keep trying to tell me I am, that you should stop what you are doing.

What I AM saying is that whatever transformation you believe you are making happen, there is no alternative NOW, in this moment, in practical terms, to representative democracy. Government still impacts the real lives, day to day, of the mass of people. I am saying that the courts in this country have power and the republican members of those courts are hurting people daily. And that simply by dropping out of the current system, it does not make that system and its consequences disappear. The right wing will NOT stop functioning because you have embarked on building a parallel society. Taking five minutes to keep the republicans from gaining even more power, does not take away anything but five minutes for your efforts to build a new social/political/economic paradigm.

I am also saying that you are badly misinformed if you believe that the two parties, despite all the overlap despite all the corruption they have in common, are identical. They are not. And I am saying that allowing the courts to become more packed with Scalia's, Roberts, et all, will hurt 300 million people RIGHT NOW.


Finally, I am pretty familiar with what you are calling deliberative democracy. It is a foundation of anarchist thought. I lived as a member of an anarchist community for 7 years in the sixties and seventies, and understand more that you know about how such a system works (and doesn't work). I was the most exhilarating time of my life. It was hard work, it was frustrating, it was joyful, it was contentious, it was loving, it was empowering. And we still voted during elections. It took nothing away from our community to do so.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

I simply disagree. I voted once, it was a thoroughly dis-empowering experience. You only get to decide the dictator for the next four year, that is straight up not democracy, it is a joke and a scam. Vote if you think it matters so much,. I see Obama dropping bombs on kids in Pakistan from robot death drones. I see the police state building up more and more power for itself,. the rights of all people being striped away,. the bankers continue to work the machine they pushed on us in the 70s the debt based currency and the endless interest for no good reason, Obama appointed the same people bush jr. used,. do you not notice this? i see Obama doing things he specifically promised not to do,. arresting compassionate medical marijuana dispensers in California a state where that is legal! The hypocrisy is just way too much for me,. I will not be voting, I can not!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Obama is not the issue. I fully agree that he is the most conservative Democratic president this country has seen seen since Truman.

What is at issue is the courts, and in that area alone, Obama and Romney could be more far apart. Romney has already declared he wants more Scalia's and Roberts on the court, and would appoint hard right wing purely pro-corporate pro-police state jurists. He has said, specifically, tat he would appoint people who would overturn Roe v Wade. Who did Obama appoint? How many 5/4 splits on the court have we seen lately? And who has decided for the most pro-corporate, anti-rights record in the history of that court since Hoover? And who has dissented? The differences are as subtle as a baseball bat across one's head.

The House Republicans, just the other day, voted to defund food stamps, in a time of their greatest need since the Great Depression, by 33 BIllion dollars. Did the Democrats do that? They have voted to defund Planned Parenthood several times (and Romney have vowed to kill the organization if he becomes president, leaving millions of low income women without basic health care services.). That has real impact on real people's lives right now, not is some distant New Society. And in the last 3 years alone, have proposed well over 500 separate pieces of legislation specifically attacking women's rights. The Democrats have beaten back this ongoing assault.

The Republicans, just yesterday. killed the Democratic proposal to end oil corporation subsidies, and a couple of days ago killed a Democratic measure to introduce the Buffett rule, making sure the 1% still got every single unfair tax break they possibly can at the expense of everyone else. INdeed they have proposals to INCREASE those tax breaks, while destroying the entirety of the social safety net. That net would be even more critical by virtue of the even greater wealth disparity they are trying to create. The Republicans want to eliminate most funding of the Education Department, gutting public education and throwing it back to property-based municipalities. Since States will no longer have that Federal money to distribute and make up for local tax differences, poor neighborhood, overwhelmingly Black or Hispanic, will be condemned to an even more unequal access to education. The republicans have tried repeatedly to gut the EPA. The only ones standing EFFECTIVELY in their way have been the Democrats. The list is endless. The parties, for ALL of their overlap,every single bit of it, are STILL radically different in many ways that still count, and impact everyone's day to day live RIGHT NOW.

You can focus on the overlap all you want. I am NOT saying it is not there. But to ignore the differences that also exist, and are incredibly substantive and important, and say "they are both the same" is ignoring such a glaring reality, it leaves me breathless. And the consequence of doing so, being too left to support what little left has any real power, is to simply hand power to the MOST right-wing, proto-fascists rather than simply those with a mixed record. Your not voting is handing power to the darkest forces in the universe. And as bad as they are those ain't the Democrats.

What's more, it was the abandonment of the party BY the left that is largely responsible for its moving so far to the right. To then turn around and say "they are not left enough" and forgo any effort to turn them back to the light, is what I see as too much hypocrisy.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Why not?

Why dont you support removing party tags from these clowns? Then we could just judge them by their actions, and wouldnt have to worry about the media painting cozy pictures of them, depending on if its FOX or CNN you choose to watch ones "news-if we can it that"

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Direct democracy in a nation of 300,000,000 people is a naive utopian and utterly unworkable fantasy, and is it subject to even more manipulation and than the current system. Direct democracy is mob rule, and mobs are easily manipulated. Lynchings are but one example of direct democracy. Prop 13 and Prop 8, the latter of which tried to strip civil rights from gays and Lesbians in california, are but two more examples.

Political parties are valuable in terms of gathering both resources and support. Only through them can the status quo be changed for a whole lot of structural reasons I don't have the time or patience to get into here. They are a double edged sword, however, especially if there are too few of them, (like now with only two viable parties - it wasn't always like this) as they also allow for the kind of insularity and unaccountability that we - both of us - find so objectionable.

I would, however, like to see a few more parties, at least five, who could all have a real shot at representing the various interests of the country.

And I would DEFINITELY like to see money taken out of all parties and politics, so that the representatives aren't obligated to quid pro quo corruption, but are free to do the will of the people. I have personally known individual politicians throughout my life, on all side of the political spectrum, and from local to national. Some were as dumb as rocks. Others, brilliant and noble and self sacrificing. Most were somewhere in between. And if the money were taken out of the process, they would be free to be honest in presenting their views to the electorate, instead of falsely presenting what their buyers tell them to present. They would be free to make the necessary compromises inherent in a consensus system of government, which, if not for the money, is what we actually have on paper now.

Corruption will always exist in politics, because all politicians, party or not, are human beings, and we are all corrupt to one degree or another: we are relative, imperfect beings, after all, not absolutes or gods. And that corruption will always be more evident and powerful in politics because those who seek office in the first place ted to have outsized egos, and are therefore more easily used by forces that seek to gain unfair advantage. So parties or no parties, we, the electorate, the people, must still remain ever vigilant, and will always have to take to the streets from time to time. Getting perfect representation means that we would have perfect people in power, and that means we will have evolved into a species that does not exist. If we accomplish that, no government would be necessary at all.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Very good points there. I too, am not in favor of direct democracy.

I am glad you would like to at least see other parties involved.

My only problem with parties is the through propaganda they are able to define themselves, and it never is close to reality. And unfortunately people fall for it.

I can help but think that if there were no parties, one could simply look at their states politicians, and decide for themselves whether they wanted to vote for that guy again... All of this is under the assumption that if we pulled this off, we would have gotten the money out of politics too, beforehand.

That way, no one can hide behind a false banner of Party philosophy. Each man is judge on his/her merit. No party traditions whatsoever.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

This is going to be the most well funded election propaganda circus the World has ever seen.

Unleashed on a public, that has no idea of what Citizens United, is really all about.

"Citizens United" what a rosy sounding piece of propaganda in the first place.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Yeah, we can't count on the outcome of the elcetion at all under the circumstances. That is why I don't think we can afford to be "un-political."

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

The only thing that won't be "demonized", will be the neoliberal agenda that got us in the mess.

In fact it won't even be mentioned.

It's the "gift" hidden under the election tree for the eventual "winner".

The question becomes, how do we, as a movement point that out to an unbelieving public?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

We need an effective plan to go forward. These creeps haven't even attempted to put one forward. Just the same idiotic thing over and over again. That IS their strategy.

[+] -4 points by tellTale (-3) 6 years ago

OWS is not a movement tard, it is a fad that is now dead

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Only to fanatical believers in FLAKESnews.

And the occasional troll, who's existence on this forum, proves your statement a lie.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Hard to remain patient in the face of entrenched ignorance and subversion.

[-] 3 points by cbernard7 (16) from Coral Springs, FL 6 years ago

I can hardly stand for either party. we need to get rid of this two-party system entirely

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Look at how the talk was here six months ago. It was incredible.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Yeah, because it was focused where it should be, at Wall Street and the corporate oligarchy. At that time, an Obama hatefest would have been seen as rediculously out of place here. Just goes to show the power of propoganda. Just stay "on message" long enough and eventually the great distractions becomes the issues.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

I think the only reason the Obama hatefest is so rampant is because there is so much proObama/anitRepubulican/keep the people divided talk on here these days.

It used to be filled with people who wanted an all out revolt on the ENTIRE SYSTEM. Now it seems its filled with the typical left voters.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Smoke and mirrors that is the game. They offer no substance just distractions. Thing is people are starting not only to recognize this - but instead of like the old days people are not getting apathetic they are getting pissed. This is the start of a new deal. People involved in government as never before - Why ? some might ask. Self defense and self preservation, we can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines and watch our world be ruined.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Damn well said, DKA!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Thanks GK - good post. It must never be forgotten that they live off of lies.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Yes, and they canabalize the very society they live in.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

That has never been more visibly true than now at this point in history.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Look how terrified they all are at the prosepect of a unified left combined with all sane and aware citizens to combat the 1%. They desperately want to sow divisions between us in every way they can. They want us fighting with each other, not fighting the common enemy. We need everyone in this fight, so tell them to take their false political purity ploy and shove it. This movement has enough enemies without making enemies out of allies.

The power of the corporations is united. To defeat them we must also be united.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Yeah, You're correct. It's still the corporations.

Silly season is coming up hard though, and there are those attempting to "demonize" liberals.

The push against unions, was hard enough, now I have to defend my liberalism too?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

We are going to have to stand tough against a fusilade of hostile propoganda in the coming months aimed at dividing and confusing everyone into apathy. This may be the greatest test this movement will face. If we can come through it united and with a more progressive and responsive government than I think we can succeed. If they succeed in dividing and confusing the electorate yet again, our prospects will be much dimmer.

We must push hard for every candidate who will genuinely support the people over corporations, and we must kick the Tea Party in the House out on their asses.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I fully expect another major troll invasion that may last all the way to November.

At least the overt Paulittes have calmed down, now that he's out of the race.

It just gets so tedious addressing the same troll questions and antics, over and over.

My bookmarks are a mess and I'm a dyslexic typist.

But I will soldier on.........:)

As the list of candidates comes out, we will need to some research on candidates all over the US.

LCV, Sierra Club and others can help us to a degree.

I have a feeling ALEC backed off, to try and appear more distant from (R)epelican'ts.

I have to get some sleep, it's been a busy day,here and around the house........:)

See you tomorrow my friend.Tougher, yet brighter days are ahead.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Good night shooz, and thanks.

[-] 2 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 6 years ago

This GSA scandal is getting way too much time in the media. This is definitely for the benefit of the Cons.

The amount of the taunting about excessive spending in these video, and the flat stupidity in the emails/videos involved has me even questioning if this is indeed something that just happened, or if it was manufactured to demonize "gubment".

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

You bet it's manufactured. Look who's sponsoring CBS right now, if you haven't already noticed . . . Goldman Sucks.

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 6 years ago

I don't just mean the coverage; I mean the event being covered. Have you seen these videos. Very unnatural feel. I don't think these were spontaneous. I think someone put these GSA employees up to this.

Either way, they got what they want. I've already seen people using this as an excuse to argue against the Buffet rule.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I'm with you there. Things are more manipulated then most of us are aware. That's what happens in an oligarchy. To think otherwise is to simply deny the way oligarchy functions. When a small class has control of practically all the mechanisms of society, their ability to shape public opinion is tremendous.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

I think it is a case of the head of the GSA was forced to resign over it. I want to know who she pissed off. Because clearly, at 15T in debt, this thing happens regularly.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 6 years ago

Secret Service kept expenses under Per Deim. As a Tax payer, I'd like to say "Thank you".

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 6 years ago

Hi Gypsy, Agree. Best Regards

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Best Regards, Nevada.


[-] 0 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 6 years ago

Sounds like another democrat apologetic.When will they learn that the people do not need another four years of a Goldman Sacs goverment .

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

So how do you recommend we change that fact?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

anybody who has been in a hot tub on the company dime has got nothing to say

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I would think you refer to the GSA thing I have posted on this, my point being that if trips like this are bad, they are bad for everyone. How tax money is spent by cities to entice companies to do this very thing? Some people are always saying "the people" know better, well "the people" spend money on this crap (or is it?) all the time, via, IBM, GM and every other company I know of.

Here's my link, to my take on this.


Your point that the media, spelled FOX, focus on pennies when billions are being stolen, is also true, I just hate this thing where people expect those who work in government to have none of the perks that those who work in the private sector, the same people who can’t wait for their company junket to Vegas are pulling the long knives out on the GSA guys for having fun. It may very well all be crap, but why not talk about the whole thing if are going to talk about it at all, it’s only a tiny amount anyway.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Obama is going to win. The banksters and war machine have their perfect face. You can take it to the bank.

You will get your way. This "election" for president is a show for the morons.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

That is only a forgone conclusion for babes in the woods. What do you think Citizens United is all about?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Citizens United is nothing more than a path for the corporations to further bribe. These corporations dont give a shit which one is elected, they are both bought out. And they were LONG before CU came into play.

Get the money out. Plain and simple.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Who decided in favor of citizens United? Who appointed those judges that created an easier path for the corporations to bribe elected officials? Which judges dissented from the ruling allowing it, who objected to it, and who appointed them? Answer those questions and you will understand that for all the overlap, both parties are NOT the same.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

I understand that the Supreme Court is usually pretty close in numbers, just like the House and Senate. Its always close to 50/50, gotta keep the people believing.

That one swing vote the SCOTUS has always sides with the corporations. If the corporations dont have a lot of money to lose, they will side with the other argument.

When the SCOTUS upholds this fascist healthcare plan that is blatantly unconstitutional, you will see what I mean. You could put all 10 liberal judges in there, they arent ruling against the corporations.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

First, you didn't answer the question. Why didn't you?

The decisions of SCOTUS "pretty close". They are virtually always 5 to 4 exactly. Do you know who comprises the 5 and who comprises the 4, always the SAME PEOPLE? The question is not simply the numbers, but WHO decided what? Who appointed those that have consistently voted for the 1%? (And one can never have 10 people, liberal or otherwise, on the court, since the number must always be 9!) Do you know why there are 5 right wingers on the court and 4 leftists?

Try, if you are able, to answer the question.

As to the Health Care law, WTF are you talking about????!!!! What kind of right wing libertarian shit are you espousing? NO constitutional scholar sees it as unconstitutional, and what the FUCK do you have against 30 million more people finally being able to get health insurance and get health care without having to go bankrupt in the process? What the FUCK do you have against preventing 45,000 American deaths each and every year due directly to lack of health insurance, and millions having to become impoverished in order to get access to second rate health services?

The Supreme Court is likely to strike down the law, not because the LAW is fascist, but because of the 5 conservative assholes on it, who are the same 5 assholes that upheld Citizens United. Do you even know their names? Do you actually know anything at all about that court, the single most powerful body in the government?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Ok, from the 50s to the 70s it was liberal. Since then it hasnt been. and they havent overturned Roe vs Wade, or Brown v Board. There is no money in overturning it.

Its always a 5-4 to keep simple minded idiots like you thinking that the CRIMINALS in power dont appoint FELLOW CRIMINALS.

Forcing people to buy a product from a corrupted insurance cartel is about as unconstitutional as one can get. Go ask Dylan Rattigan, he's on MSNBC which Im sure is trusted source for a toad like you. Or ask Rocky Anderson. He;s talked to plenty of occupies.

Forcing people to get it, by buying it, doesnt address any of the issues that we had already. You obviously dont know whats going on.

Please let me which scholars think the federal gov forcing me to buy something from the corrupted insurance cartel, while they get free and great care, is fair? And giving waivers to big corps like McDonalds, etc.

When the court upholds this, and they will, because they always side with the money, you will see.

Then again, you think fascism is a good thing, so go fuck yourself.


[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

You STILL didn't answer the question. Who are the liberals on the court and who are the ones who ALWAYS vote for the 1%? Who appointed them? Why are the numbers as they are? (Clue: How many years , as a proportion, have either party been in office since the longest serving judge was on the bench?) You didn't even know the number of judges, so I don't expect you could answer a question that might actually take some thought.

Nor do have the slightest clue about how insurance works, and more importantly doesn't, without the law. Nor do you have the slightest understanding of the constitution. You are simply repeating right wing libertardian drivel.

Nor do you care that 50 million people can't get insurance without this law. The tragedy is that 15 million still won't, but 30 million more is a move in the RIGHT direction. EVERYBODY on the left would have preferred single payer. EVERYBODY. But this was able to be passed now, and it is better than things staying the same and watching millions of people suffer, become destitute, and tens of thousands die.

By the way, the law is being accused of being communist by its opponents, not fascist, which is its opposite. At least get your unsupported invectives straight!

You really are dumber than shit on a stone on a cold day. Granted, you are not a troll: (they tend to be smarter than you) as you really support OWS. But your idiocy does more harm to the movement than any hundred trolls combined can ever do. With friends like you, OWS needs no enemies.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

The number 10 was said for effect, glad it didnt go over your head.

Yes, I realize that the conservative presidents appointed fascists with conservative points, and the left presidents appointed fascists with liberal points.

I am repeating what we talk about at Occupy. When was the last time you were at OWS? Go there and discuss Obamacare. You will quickly find I am not alone.

The healthcare deal was a sell out. Im glad you are fine with getting fucked over, but that is your personality. The country goes further into the shitter, but you love getting fucked so much it doesnt bother you. They sold us out. You are fine with it. Shocking.

You obivously hand in some really dumb circles, and Im pretty sure you may never even been to OWS, because last time I was up there, it was all talk of fascism. Unless mediabots like you drove out the thinkers.

People like you didnt start the movement. And were never an important part of it. And they will never bring anything of value to it. Because at the end of hte day, you are still scared to step out of your comfort zone. Lesser of two evils idiots got the eye rolls at GA's last I knew.

Please come to TAmpa, and get on stack, and talk about how we need to get as many Dems in there as possible, because then we can eliminate the R.

So fuckin dumb its funny. And you're a fraud too, to boot.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

You clearly have no fucking clue if you think that Ginsnburg and Breyer are fascists. You have shown on the other thread that you don't even know the definition of the word. And you are too fucking lazy to have ever looked up any of their decisions.

The talk may have been about fascism when you were their, and it is clear that you didn't understand one syllable of it.

So go fuck yourself, you brainless troll.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

And no answer to the main question. And I will go with what I assume- you are a fucking fraud, and therefore arent worth the time.

Its a shame you have infected this site with your partisan, pro establishment and fascist loving tendencies. You are the threat we are trying to change.

I bet you are one of those idiots that didnt know what the Fed was until we go this thing going, too, huh?


PS- when you finally have the balls to go to an Occupy, ask around for some definitions of fascism. Come to Tampa, Ill take you. But when all the answers are what I just said, you have to pay for the beers.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

It is YOU who have not answered a question. You don't know their record of decisions, You haven't a clue.

When a Ginsburg or Breyer vote AGAINST the corporations, they are fascists? When they vote AGAINST the death penalty they are fascists? When they vote AGAINST Citizens Untied they are fascists? When they vote AGAINST police powers to strip search everyone they are fascist? When they vote to UPHOLD women's right to sue corporations they are fascist?

You have no idea what you are saying. You don't know how these judges voted. You declare them all fascist simply because they are judges, and have no knowledge AT ALL about what their decisions have been. In your book deciding for the corporations is fascist, but so is deciding against them. And to kick it off you don;t even know what the word "fascist" even means!!! ROTFLMAO.

You are a clueless shill for the 1%. If I didn't see how incredibly stupid you are, I would suspect you are a right wing 1% plant. But they would not hire someone not as transparently stupid as you.

It is a shame you have infected this site with your brainless trolling. I am far from the first who have called you out on this, and have been more than patient, hoping that the others were wrong about you. But clearly they weren't.

And just of the record, I was an activist LOOONNGGG before you were born, LEADING student strikes against corporatism and risking my life organizing labor while your parents were still in diapers, you fucking brainless twit.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Im sure you were, but when was the last time you were at OWS?

And as I stated before, yes the votes are usually 5-4. They obviously arent going to go 9-0, dumbass. But they always seem to have the votes for the fascists. Even in teh 50s-70s, the money always won.

Maybe Obama will appoint another one, who is liberal, and they will reverse Citizens United.

Theres about a good of chance with that as me seeing you at a GA.

Get lost freak. Have fun being a troll for the establishment. Hows that worked out for ya the last 30 years? Dumbfuck.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Do you have one single brain cell that can analyze a fact? WHO VOTED WHICH WAY????????? WHO ARE THE 5 AND WHO ARE THE 4????? WHO APPOINTED THEM?

It is NOT a monolithic entity. It is NOT abstract numbers that exist independent of the people who cast those votes. 4 of the judges consistently vote in EXACTLY the way that OWS would approve of. And OF COURSE the votes are always 5 to 4. FIVE OF THE JUDGES ARE REPUBLICAN RIGHT WINGERS appointed BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS!!!! The other four ARE NOT!

Jesus, you are stupid.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Still no answer to my question.

Thank you for explaining the answer to yours. It is exactly what I was saying. The liberal presidents appointed 4, the Republicans put in 5. And yes the vote usually goes 5-4. Funny huh? They always seem to have just enough numbers for the money. Just like the Senate shooting down the oil subsidies. Always just enough. The real proof is the cases they WONT hear. Those are the ones that are neither conservative nor liberal. They are direct handouts to corporations, the banks and the warmongers.

So which Occupy you go to again? Occupy Trenton? You arent a Democratic mole, are you?

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

^officially too dumb to fail. Life continues to go in the toilet, and you stay a pawn for a poltiical party that doesnt care about you.

Quite the revolutionary you are!! Way to Go!!!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Wrong. They care a lot which ones are elected, or they wouldn't need to spend a dime . . . duh!

You have no program for this movement going forward, as I have pointed out time and again, and you just respond with a differently worded verson of the same shpeil over and over.

You're a fraud and a tool, with no ideas, just negatives.

"Just get the money out" . . . HOW?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

The latest polls show Obama and Romney absolutely tied at 46% each.

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Hate to bust your bubble but all great movements go to the Democratic party and die.The intended purpose is to placate the working people with crumbs and false hope.But I will admit they do SOUND good.Voting only gives you false hope.Only system change will bring about democracy.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I'm glad you reviewed your talking points today. You're handlers will throw you a bone. Woof woof.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Sorry that I do not have the deeply blind love for a corrupt system that a king has.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

How are we to change that system?

I hate the New Democrats, so how do you think that we are going to remove both major political parties between now and November, and do you think it doesn't matter which party wins?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

We are not going to remove them.It does not matter which one wins.We can begin change by small steps of non acceptance .Example ,I do not accept your banking institutions.I do not accept your chain stores.some for now are a must like energy.I will only pay in cash.I will not buy my dog a licence.The list is endless.By a commitment of refusal each action is thought out and choices can be made to free yourself from the control that has been forced upon us.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I agree with all you recommend here, and I think that can have a real effect, but these cartels are international and they use the industrial might of America as their military enforcement. They don't need us that much anymore because they have the whole world as their market. Right now they are moving to China because they don't have a peskey democracy in their way there, so they can treat workers and citizens as slaves, which is what they want. I don't think you can overturn such a vast and entrenced international power structure with such a limited approach, although it is definately a component.

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago


[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 6 years ago

The problem isn't with government or corporations. It's people! Their greed and envy corrupts most institutions eventually.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Remove all Party tags. Let these scumbags be judged on their actions, not what their "party' is supposed to be about.

It may make it easier for some of you clowns to think for yourselves.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Remove all party tags, and you will find the most notorious stuff is being done by an unrecognized neolibe(R)tarian movement

Not just here, but all over World.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

I would say that the fascist nature of our gov allows for both neo libs to set up businesses wherever the like in the world, due to the neocons blowing our way through the front gates.

FAscism is running rampant. I saw someone say the other day that Germany lost WWII, but the real winner was Fascism.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

To the victors, go the spoils of war.

We allegedly "won" the cold war too.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

"This is why we can't ever take anything for granted and absolutely need to get out the Democratic vote in the upcoming election; to prevent another disasterous Republican administration."

Wow, what a pro establishment sheep you are. Have fun supporting the Duopoly. I hope the pay is worth your conscience.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

You're full of it. I've made my case here a hundred times. All you want is for OWS to fail. That is obvious.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

You are the exact type of person we are trying to keep away-

Read this, its how we feel about your types-


[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

If I'm the exactly type of person you (whoever you are) want to keep away than who exactly are the kind of people you want and what do you want then to do that will change anything?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

The average person who is sick and tired of all these games that our government plays. Sick and tired of the corporations getting all the breaks, while we ALL get shit on.

I bet you would be pretty shocked to hear that there were quite a few Tea people involved at the beginning. And a ton of libertarians. And anarchists. Sheep like you are chasing them away. Its why the numbers were great six months ago, but not a good now. This used to be something that wasnt about "getting out the vote for the Democrats", because only a blind fool couldnt see that they were part of the problem.

I even know some progressives who have left, because they feel its being taken over by the Dems, and the Dems arent progressive.

We dont support fascists. And that was why the popularity soared at first. It was like "Holy SHit!, Is someone finally getting something going that I can finally support?!"

Pro Dem hacks like you are ruining that spirit. You are more than welcome to attend, but the more rah rah Dems nonsense you spit, the more great thinkers and cross spectrum support we lose.

Fuck the Dems, Fuck the Republicans, Fuck the Corporations, Fuck the entire System. Thats the message.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

The Tea Party IS the problem, and as far as "the entire system . . .

What do we DO about it?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Typical divissive approach. The more you try to exclude the people you need, the less anyone will take you seriously . . . and where is the plan to go forward I keep asking you for, the one that includes letting the Republicans win the election?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

If you look at the proof, before all you Uber Pro Dems started showing at regular basis, it was much bigger. The numbers were great. Get teh money out. End the Fed. End the wars. Etc.

Look at the numbers now, its not as whole. There was an incredible swell of people who were pissed off at politicians as a whole, which is a group just as large as R and D voters.

It was something new. It gave hope of something meaningful.

Falling in line with the Duopoly destroys that. I realize you think it doesnt, but it does. And the proof is in the action. Just look at this forum. Its died down dramatically. So has my local Occupy. And most of the facebook fanpages.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Okay, tell us how to proceed under your "plan."

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Just like we had in the beginning. Fuck the Dems, Fuck the Reps, Fuck the MultiNationals, Fuck the Fed, Fuck the Banks, and Fuck the Entire System.

And if don't think we know what we're talking about, then Fuck You Too! (not you specifically :)

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Good "plan". I can see you've given this serious thought. So you want a club, somewhere to go and act more radical than everyone else, and you don't really give a shit about how to actually acomplish this. Thanks, now I know. Over and out.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

The numbers were incredible in the beginning. After your type swooped in with your Get out the Vote for the Dems thing, it shrunk.

Its a shell of what it was.

You do the math.

Remember, the biggest voting bloc in the US is those that dont vote.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago


[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I thought we talked about this the other day?

Care to check in with your thoughts on the latest conse(R)vative SCOTUS ruling?

There are indeed, VERY REAL differences.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

That wasnt conservative. And it wasnt liberal. It was fascist.

Why are we having such a hard time realizing that the left and right parties are neither conservative or liberal. They are fascist. They promote concentrated power, military control and partnerships with the big multinationals.

Im not sure how people can always see fascist policies, and assume they are right wing here.

But I go on other sites, and I see conservative calling the same fascist politics as "liberal" or socialism. Its total BS.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Well if you look at it that way. You can make a case that the (R)epelican'ts are the the ones who placed them there.

That makes them, (the (R)epelican'ts) the fascists.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

I am also predicting that the Supreme court upholds Obamacare, because of the HUGE profit windfalls that powerful insurance companies will make.

Fascism is undefeated in the House, the Senate, the POTUS and the SCOTUS.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Yes, they are 5-4 conservative appointments right now. If it was reversed, I suspect we would get the same nonsense. SCOTUS ruling is similar to the Senate blasting NDAA through at a 93-7 clip. Raw fascist powers moving quickly. If they were "conservative" they would not have passed that. If they were "liberal' they would not have passed it.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

There you go, makin' stuff up again.

Unprovable suspicions of past events.

I've been investigating why that provision of the NDAA might have been put there.

It has to do with counterfeit parts getting into the military supply chain.

The sponsors of the bill, also led the congressional investigation of the matter.

The parts were found, installed in an experimental nuclear sub.

Shortly after that, the offending passage was added to the NDAA.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

What does counterfeit parts have to do with indefinite detention?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I didn't say I like it. I didn't say I agree with it. I said, I understand why it was done.

It's been part of military behavior for some time now.

It's not really new stuff, and as the corporations they now rely on go global, they want to extend their legal reach.

This falls "right" in line with the recent SCOTUS decision to allow corporate torture overseas.

Ask yourself as well, if you want to see a potentially disastrous event from a nuclear sub malfunction.

Quite frankly? I want Bradley Manning released!!!

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Bradley Manning is probably lucky he got arrested before the NDAA passed... I don't imagine we'll even hear about it next time.

Fair enough, but I still think the real reason has more to do with the powers that be anticipating massive social unrest.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Applying it on a massive scale would be a PR nightmare for them.

Such a thing would be difficult to pull off even with FLAKESnews going full tilt.

It's not that the law couldn't be used that way, just that I believe they would loathe to use it that way.