Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: TP v. OWS

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 24, 2012, 9:40 p.m. EST by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

beware

The image above is from DailyKos which reviews four small surveys indicating support for OWS is greater than TP.

The image above is perhaps more salient than the surveys themselves.


Occupying Ohio: The Tea Party, Occupy Cleveland, and the Cold War That Wasn't

For a couple of hours last weekend, the Tea Party gathered in downtown Cleveland for a rally entitled "Occupy the Truth." Yes, the Tea Party was operating under the banner of their apparent rivals, the Occupy Movement. That is because the stated purpose of their gathering was to protest the mainstream media's lack of coverage of a foiled bomb plot by five individuals associated with the Occupy Cleveland movement last spring. One by one, the featured speakers railed against Occupy and the liberal media to a crowd of about 250 (the organizers claimed 1500, the cop I spoke to estimated 250) mostly 50 and 60-year-old white Ohioans. Except for Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and CEO of the Tea Party Patriots, all the speakers were themselves media pundits and producers; most were bloggers. In essence, it was a war against the media by the media. But the enemy was utterly absent from the battleground.

Deeming it a "war" is not the product of my own interpretation. The demonstrators adopted the word used by Andrew Breitbart, deceased conservative commentator and publisher, to challenge the media. Breitbart's face was prominent in the crowd, printed onto fans distributed to participants, some of whom wore t-shirts declaring "#WAR." His legacy was extolled extensively throughout the day. In this theater of war, the military-industrial-complex was replaced with the "Democrat-media-complex," as described by Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit. Hoft invoked the legacy of Rosa Parks to declare that, "with God's help, we are going to win this revolution!" When I spoke with Diane Mueller, a volunteer for the Tea Party Patriots from Lorain County, she told me that events such as this were "the battleground." On the importance of the elections in November, Mueller, a sweet mannered senior citizen, told me that it is "going to be do or die."

The two apparently complicit enemies in this "cultural cold war," as one speaker deemed it, were Occupy and their liberal media supporters. None of the mainstream media outlets were in attendance, but they were the target of claims that the media is quick to call the Tea Party racist, sexist, and violent although there has never been a documented act of violence among its members; to them, it is Occupy that runs a "campaign of chaos" perpetrating rape, assault, public defecation, and other crimes in their "hipster camps." The organizers also turned racism accusations around on liberals, making a great deal of their presentation of two black speakers (Sonny Johnson and headliner Michelle Malkin). The speakers led chants against Occupiers ("Take a Bath! Behave Yourself!"), called them Marxists who are somehow similar to the new rulers of the "Islamic State of Egypt," and singled out the few counter-demonstrators in attendance as "cowards."

And herein is the irony. For, those counter-demonstrators, all ten of them, embodied the deficiency of this purported enemy. They were not there on behalf of Occupy, but rather their own support group for the "Cleveland 4" accused of the bomb plot (there are five defendants, but one has entered a plea deal). Occupy has repeatedly distanced itself from the suspects, disavowed the incident, and reaffirmed its commitment to nonviolence. On the eve of the Tea Party demonstration, they discussed a response (a press release versus physical presence at the rally), and in the end decided on neither.

. . . . . . more


not exactly true

That Tea Party-Occupy Wall Street Venn Diagram

Everyone has been passing around this venn diagram about the grievances of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party.

Basically, there's a theory that both groups could ultimately join together.

. . . . .. . . . more:



we know who the enemy is :

Repelicans to undermine the Occupy Movement:



and we know who the TeaParty is:

and:

More on the TeaParty:



And we know Otpor was funded by repelicans:, including:

see also:

124 Comments

124 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The Venn diagram is closer to reality than the dailykos table. And the former demonstrates that there is an opportunity for cooperation between the Tea Party and OWS. They are like the army and the navy; fighting the same war on different fronts. Both orgs point out the problems with America, corporate and the governmental. We should require better performance from both.

That said, corps can be punished instantly for their actions by individual consumers, you must wait 2 - 6 years to punish politicians and since elections are winner-take-all individuals may have no voice at all.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-ten-boycotts.php

http://www.viet.net/web/nike//public_html/

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/latestboycottnews.aspx

[Removed]

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

You appear to have just said that you don't think that corporate lobbying in Washington is a significant problem?

I'll wait for a comprehensive study that is based on empirical data before I will relinquish my suspicions that in fact this diagram not only overstates the case when it claims lobbyists lobby Congress for more government power

[Removed]

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

Demanding less oversight by regulatory authority is exactly what the center of the Venn diagram is talking about. Among other things.

[Removed]

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

Okay so if you don't think that 'lobbying for less regulation' is covered by that phrase, then what is your impression of what lobbying for more power would entail? Clearly the diagram needs to be edited because all of those words are throwing people off.

[Removed]

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

If this is how you behave when somebody is trying really hard to agree with you then I can't imagine a political faction that includes you ever accomplishing anything substantial, so your behavior is its own punishment. You're fighting to marginalize yourself by obstructing the progress of any group that you participate in, assuming that you behave like this all the time.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I really don't find much evidence that the nation is suffering from too little regulation. It suffers more from over regulation (e.g. licence requirement to braid hair) and the lack of enforcement of regulations that are already on the books.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

So what's the solution?

One thing is for sure, it is not feasible for 200 guys in Washington to try to regulate 300 million people spread out over 10 million square miles, all pursuing self interest in quasi-free markets. They simply can't compete.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Just to add a bit more complexity. It's important to note, that they do like regulation of we the people.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/repelicants-dont-want-no-stinkni-democracy/

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Let's look at some data. Make your self a list of all the laws that regulate your life, then count the number of Dem and Rep votes each law gets. Which list is longer, and which has a greater restriction on your liberty?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Spoken like a guy who didn't follow the link, let alone read it.

I don't need a list. (R)eplican'ts are the most restrictive, hands down.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Personal liberty decreases with the increasing size of Gov. Dems generally prefer larger Gov. The bigger the Gov the smaller the citizen. - DP

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Simple minds look for simple solutions........

:D

Come Together for a REALITY CHECK

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

  • A. Einstein
[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

Obscure. Never heard that one. He has much better ones.

LIKE

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Albert

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How about:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

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

Still spoken like guy who didn't follow nor read the link.

Your assumption about small Gov. (R)epelican'ts is BS anyway.

It was proven false in a thread here on the forum many, many months ago.

Not surprising that you would attempt to claim it true again, after all these months though.

It's the repetition of the BIG lie.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I wrote that Dems generally prefer larger Gov. The Reps are not much better. However if you study the laws that affect your personal liberty you will find Dems voting more frequently in their favor (BTW, they may have quite good motives for the way they vote).

One edifying example: Ask yourself, why do Dems fight so hard for Gay Marriage laws?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Hedging your own words now are you?

You still didn't follow, nor read the link.

You are completely wrong on your assessment of governmental size.

The reality is the opposite of what you said.

Now you want to drag gays into the mix?

You want me find some quotes on the issue from (R)epelican'ts?

Mr. Ryan had some dubious words, just the other day.

But that IS a digression.

Read what's in the link and get back to me.

Don't expect further response on the subject, if you once again refuse to do so.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Gov in MI is another example of over-reach and encroachment on individual liberty. Why does it surprise you? It is the nature of humans for one people to dominate another. In this case it is the tiny minority in Gov dominating free citizens.

The quickest solution to the MI problem is to get your kids out of the public school system. At least in this case there is a free market alternative that will partly insulate citizens from the problem.

A better alternative is to get Gov out of the business of education. They really have no capacity for it. Why does a small town that cannot properly collect the trash believe itself capable to prepare children to be competitive in 2012? Go to vouchers like the effort in LA.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/21/13395335-school-vouchers-make-a-comeback-amid-concerns-about-quality?lite

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

School coupons????

Nope, NO thanks.

Pofitization of education is asinine.

I don't give a fuck who advertizes it.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why is it a good idea to use the free market for colleges and universities but not for primary and secondary schools (arguably the more important years)?

The current system (aside from achieving ranks of 17 th and 26 th worldwide in reading and math, respectively) is racist. It forces minorities into the crappiest schools making them incapable to compete so whites can take their spots in college.

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

What part of there is NO free market are you having as problem understanding?

It's an illusion. It will always be an illusion. It has never been and it will never be.

Why relegate education to an illusion?

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

is ows keeping the tea party alive ?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Yes.

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

I posted that same diagram here, and the only thing that came of it was that a lot of people thought that it meant that I was a Tea Party supporter.

I'm fairly certain that there are too many words in the center of the diagram and that nobody here has the attention span for it.

[Removed]

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

Lobbying for less regulation of your company or industry is not lobbying for more power?

What this confirms is that my suspicions about that diagram were correct. There are too many words in the center of that diagram. You don't seem to realize that we're both saying the same thing. You don't seem to realize that the diagram is saying that, exactly.

Can you please knock it off with th ad-hominem name-calling? That's called "trolling". Try to focus on the conversation at hand?

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

Teabagge(R)s never said a word about this.

http://www.propublica.org/article/trillion-gallon-loophole-lax-rules-for-drillers-that-inject-pollutants

They're just takin' the bribes all over the States.

[Removed]

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

FYI, the diagram is talking about companies lobbying for more power for themselves. Lobbyists encourage the government to become larger and turn it into an instrument of corporate will. Both get more powerful in the process. Take a look at the RIAA or the MPAA for specific examples.

Yes that diagram really does need to be edited.

[Removed]

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

When a company goes to Washington to press politicians for less regulation of their companies and industries in exchange for campaign contributions, you don't consider that to be "lobbying"? Are we going to have an idiotic argument over semantics when both of us probably actually agree about the topic at hand?

[Removed]

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

I will "lose"? Like we're opponents? We don't have to be opponents, we could be united against the lobbying. Our mutual opponent is the corporate lobbying game in Washington. We may have other mutual interests too, like opposing the unlimited anonymous corporate campaign financing made possible by Citizen's United. By displaying this kind of animosity toward somebody who is trying really hard to agree with you, you're part of the problem.

[Removed]

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

You're telling me that you absolutely cannot conceive of the idea of cooperating with somebody who does not agree with your entire political ideology. That's just sad.

[Removed]

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

Having a conversation with you is difficult enough the first time around. I'm not going to re-read it for fun.

If I were here talking about campaign finance reform and I had a "D" on my voter registration card, then it would be a love fest. But because of that "R", you can't even conceive of the idea that you and I agree on the issue. You're more focused on telling me that I'm wrong and attacking me on a personal level for having that "R" on my card than you are on the center of that Venn diagram.

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

It's all about context.

Didn't anyone tell you?

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

I posted it in the context of advocating a consensus around common-ground issues like campaign finance reform.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Context my "friend".

You did notice the name of this forum?

Campaign finance reform's been a given for many, many months now.

It's not a new subject, and it has NOTHING to do with teabagge(R)s.

Nothing. Lip service is all they give it. Drop the liars like a hot potato.

Or if you prefer the more supportive of conse(R)vatives.........potatoe.

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

The thing that I think is probably not a given to you is that campaign finance reform is not a left-versus-right issue, and that bipartisan (non-partisan) cooperation could advance the issue far more rapidly than if we all call each other names based on our voter registration cards.

I also don't think that it's obvious to you that making a substantial change would require a constitutional amendment, which isn't possible without a bipartisan coalition.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

In the end you're just plain barking up the wrong tree.

The hard part for you will be getting the Kochs to back your proposed amendment.

It really won't be that difficult to get OWS to do so.

The teabagge(R)s? To convince them you need to convince their funding fathers.

So get thee to a Kochery!!!

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

I must congratulate you for finding a way to work the word "Koch" into the conversation in a way that's relevant for once.

But I still have to refute your premise that this is a left issue that the right would not support.

This corruption blocks both the Left and the Right. For different reasons, it blocks us both from getting the change that each seeks.

The Left wants climate change legislation. It will never get that so long as this corruption remains. The Left wants real health care reform—with real competition for insurance companies and real competition in drug prices. It will never get that so long as this corruption remains. And the Left says it wants a vibrant and modern broadband Internet infrastructure. But it will never get the competition it needs to inspire that building so long as the incumbents can spend less (through the regulatory system) to block competition than providing that service would cost.

The Right wants different things, but again, they are things it will never get so long as elections are funded as they are now funded. The Right wants a smaller government. But so long as a bigger government means more targets for fundraising (i.e., the regulated), the system is biased against what the Right wants. The Right wants simpler taxes—whether Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan or Rick Perry’s flat tax. But taxes—or, more precisely, the complexity of today’s taxes—are tools in the fundraiser’s toolbox. Got a tax benefit that’s set to expire? Expect a call from a congressman or his fundraiser, eager to enlist you in the fight to “preserve your tax freedom.” What congressman would simplify taxes when that only complicates his opportunity to raise campaign funds?

http://byliner.com/lawrence-lessig/stories/one-way-forward-excerpt

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

Now it's you who has changed the subject.

This is lobbying reform.

Can we stick to campaign finance reform please?

The Kochs have already spent upwards of $100,000,000, just on it's Obama smear campaign, much of which is evident here on the forum.

Keep in mind that that is just ONE prong of their campaign spending, and it's calling out just ONE group that's participating.

there are many others.

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

Lobbying is campaign finance, and that's the exact problem that I'm talking about. Lobbyists make campaign contributions in exchange for favors from politicians. That happens because it's not possible to get elected in Washington without accepting private campaign financing.

Why do you think that Obama was the first major-party Presidential candidate in history to reject public campaign financing since it began? He did that because it dramatically improved his chances of coming to power. He broke the seal, and now both major-party candidates have rejected public campaign financing. IMHO, private campaign financing should not be legal. Either openly, or through the mechanisms made possible by the Citizen's United ruling.

Making private campaign financing illegal would require a bipartisan consensus, and that's why you're going to have to find the strength to work respectfully with people who don't necessarily agree with you on all other issues, in order to make progress. You are a progressive, right?

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

We're done here.

If you don't understand the difference between the two, it's useless to carry on.

As a parting gift, I offer an oldie but a goodie on the Kochs and their political activities.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/exclusive-audio-koch-brothers-seminar-tapes

Judging by you continued commentary, they have had a heavy effect on you.

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

The difference between lobbying and campaign financing? Lobbying is campaign financing.

That's the problem!!

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

Repeating yourself again, does not make it so.

Like I said, we are done on this subject.

You should take your whole spiel to the teabagg(R) site and see if it can grow some legs there.

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

When a lobbyist makes a campaign contribution to a politician in exchange for political favors, you don't consider that campaign contribution to be "campaign financing"? Are we arguing over semantics?

Or are we not actually arguing over anything because you're preoccupied with partisan slurs?

[Removed]

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

It's not possible to get elected in Washington without accepting private campaign donations. Which means that politicians have no choice but to allow corporations to lobby for the favors that they want. Public campaign financing would break that cycle and make politicians beholden to their constituents instead of to their financial backers.

So yes, that's exactly what the diagram is about. Campaign finance reform is the solution to the problem expressed in the center of the diagram.

I've also posted a rational, coherent and accessible explanation of why that's not either a left or a right issue, why both sides can agree on this issue. I'm quite certain that you have no idea what I'm talking about because you were too busy railing against 'Repelicans' while shooz was accusing me of being a tea bagger.

Unfortunately, people like you who seek to divide and obstruct consensus have a much simpler task than the people like me who seek to find common ground.

[Removed]

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

OWS "version" of Move to Amend


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

A constitutional amendment to

Overturn Citizens United { CU }
and
Corporate Personhood { CP }

For a complete analysis of the amendment issue,

and the text of all amendments,
and our comparison of all of the amendments,
and the Citizens United case transcript,
and the Citizens United decision,
and the Buckley “money is speech” decision,
and analysis of corporate personhood,
and analysis of Article III,
and the ABC News poll on CU / CP,
and the PFAW poll on CU / CP,
and 70+ video clips on CU / CP from

Chomsky, Hedges, Witchcraft, Reich, Nader , Justice Stevens,
Warren, Lessig, Hartmann, Maher, Kucinich, Grayson, Yugur Sanders, Hightower, etc.

JOIN our OWS Working Group:
http://nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy

REGULAR MEETINGS:
Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium

Our OWS Working Group has one goal -
To support the OWS Declaration

“a democratic government derives
its just power from the people,
not from corporations”

and to do what polls show
80% of Americans want -

To get corrupting money out
of our political system by passing
a Constitutional Amendment that will:

►Reverse the 2010 Supreme Court decision
..…Citizens United that enabled super-pacs
►Reverse the 1976 Supreme Court decision
..…Buckley that equated money is speech
►Eliminate the 1886 judicially created fiction
..…that corporations are people

We will attract candidates to …support an amendment, and we will attract voters to …support an amendment, and we will attract voters to support …candidates who support an amendment

[Removed]

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

This "Move to Amend" petition that you're talking about is not about campaign finance reform, it's about the Citizen's United ruling.

Let's go over this again... in the center of the diagram, it says that the problem that both the left and the right can agree on is that corporations lobby politicians for favors and they get them. Why does that happen? That happens because politicians need money. Because it's not possible to get elected without it.

In your above post, you predictably failed to comprehend what I was saying and responded with something unrelated as you almost always do, and you just as predictably responded to a call for unity with a "Repelican" slur.

[Removed]

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

The system was bought out long before CU came about. Repealing it only solves the problems of the last 3 years, not the last 30.

ALL MONEY OUT. Corporations, unions, all of it!!!

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

thanks

the government is going to spend money to provide services

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

Alright, so it was really predictable that you would respond to that perfectly reasonable post by calling me a "fraud" and a "liar" and then lapsing into a series of Tourette's-like slurs against the right. But I do see how you could misunderstand what I meant when I said "campaign finance reform" and lump the Citizen's United ruling into that blanket term.

To clarify, I was referring to the practice of lobbyists making campaign contributions to politicians in exchange for political favors, which is what the center of the Venn diagram is talking about. Citizen's United is a different shade of complexity that is certainly related, but the diagram is explicitly talking about lobbyists and so was I.

(BTW, it requires a truly pathological kind of prejudice to make accusations about the nefarious motivations of a person calling for setting aside squabbling in the name of unity and progress.)

[Removed]

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

I was talking about the center of the Venn diagram that you and I both posted, which explicitly refers to lobbying. If you think that by continuing to talk about lobbying, that I'm talking about "something else entirely", then I truly do think that the overall problem with that diagram is that there are too many words in it for many people to comprehend. Present company being a perfect example.

I already acknowledged that Citizen's United is a different flavor of complexity that could be included under the blanket term "campaign finance reform", and then I explicitly clarified what I was talking about. But you're just so intent on calling me a liar and associating me with Karl Rove and the Tea Party that you can't even carry on a rational conversation with somebody who very probably agrees with you about both aspects of campaign finance reform. Citizen's United is simply not the aspect that I was talking about when I was pointing out the center of the Venn diagram. You have an involuntary twitch that's almost like that of a Tourette's patient, for making knee-jerk ad-hominem attacks instead of participating in conversations like a respectful and rational adult.

[Removed]

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

I posted the thread that I'm talking about in February. I added the diagram on September 17th after I saw it on Facebook. But I'm really having trouble understanding what that has to do with the conversation at hand. You have successfully devolved this portion of this thread from a conversation between two people who most likely agree on the issues that we're discussing, to desperate ad-hominem sniping and totally tangential subject matter.

And then you cap it off by calling me a "motherfucker". For agreeing with you about campaign finance reform. Both aspects. For trying to seek common ground with you. How does that make any sense?

[Removed]

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

Liberals are just fine with corporate lobbying in Washington?!? No concerns about the influence of lobbyists over policy and legislation? You feel that your elected representatives are more responsive to you than to their campaign financiers?

I was wrong, this has turned in an interesting direction. You've said twice in this thread that you don't think that corporate lobbying is a problem. Which makes me wonder why you're here.

[-] 0 points by Bulworth (0) 2 years ago

I think your on to something if the O.W.S. concentrated solely on the influence large corporations have on our government and that government simply has to much power. We would have the support of the vast majority of Americans, including TEA party. Additionally, a large number of issues supported by the movement would be solved directly or indirectly through this action.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Why would OWS be against the Tea Party or visa-versa? Do these people at Tea Party rallys look like they're in the 1%? Just more weak narrative here.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

If they're not part of the 1% and they don't bother anyone then what's the problem? Feel free to occupy your own mind for a minute............................................ OK, feeel better? What is a repeliccan?

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

OK, I get it, but I still think it sounds like a bird.

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

It's all about ZenDog's hatred for the entire political right. He's highly prejudiced and it clouds all of his thinking, which is ironic since tolerance is supposed to be a liberal ideal.

He's gone so far as to contort himself into supporting corporate lobbying in Washington, apparently out of an uncontrollable urge to NOT agree with Tea Partiers or with me or with any Republican. The quote is a little hard to parse because of his bizarre writing style, but he's saying that he's not convinced that corporate lobbying is a problem or that the left and the right could ever agree on the Venn diagram.

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

lol

[Removed]

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

There are definitely too many words in the center of that diagram if what you got out of it was that we should all agree to oppose all regulations, on everything.

I would refer you once again to Lawrence Lessig's One Way Forward for in-depth explanation but somehow I know that's futile.

For the benefit of the people who might read this who are a little more rational: both the left and the right can agree that there is a corruption at the core of our government. The root cause of that corruption is that it is not possible to get elected in Washington without accepting private campaign contributions. Corporate lobbyists are happy to provide those campaign contributions in exchange for political favors. (Not simply limited to "regulations", but often including exemptions from regulations.) This mechanism causes our government to be beholden to corporate lobbyists who finance campaigns instead of to constituents. Making all private campaign contributions illegal and requiring public campaign financing would address the root cause of this form of corruption. The unlimited and anonymous campaign contributions that are now possible after the Citizen's United ruling are another, similar corrupting influence over our government. Both forms of private campaign financing should be illegal.

To accomplish making both of those forms of private campaign financing illegal would require a constitutional amendment, which would require the same sort of bipartisan (non-partisan) coalition that led to the passage of every other constitutional amendment. It can be done. It is feasible. But not if people like ZenDog dominate the conversation. People who are intent on dividing instead of uniting.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

The Tea Party is speaking OCCUPY now. Excellent. I love the Tea Party.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

The two party system is just convincing cows that they have freedom and choices on the way to the slaughterhouse. Good luck with that.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

And the methods purported to fix it are the same ones people have been trying for hundreds of years, without avail, and will go to the same place as they have been--things will continue to get worse.

The more you play, the worse it'll get.

[-] 0 points by hazencage (58) 2 years ago

maybe occupy should become a corporation.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 2 years ago

do you know anything about shareholders?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 2 years ago

perhaps the anti-corporate message should be refined to allow for a more enlightened dilouge.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 2 years ago

Share Holders in many corporations are not allowed to vote against a incumbent candidate and can instead only abstain. its been a issue for decades.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I just found this while looking for something else.

Might do a thread on it tomorrow.

It's for those that seem to think the Kochs are a theory and not a conspiracy.

http://exiledonline.com/the-daily-beasts-megan-mcardle-a-covert-republican-party-activist-trained-by-the-billionaire-koch-brothers/

The Beast got the news webby this year too.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Would the Koch bothers do that?

Yes.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Amazingly or not junkie refuses to accept their behavior as a problem.

You and I know better.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I pummeled him with Koch truths yesterday and he ignored them all.

I will just keep pummeling.........:)

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

I ignored them because they were irrelevant. You bark "KOCH!!" at random times like a Tourette's patient yelling "FUCK!!" You mentioned them at the top of this thread today in a way that actually was relevant to the conversation at hand, and I responded directly. But when you responded to an article about the MeK in Iran/Iraq or some other unrelated topic with one of your "KOCH!!" twitches, I politely ignore it in the same way that I always ignored my dad's Tourette's patient's tics.

[Removed]

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

Oh my!

Insults from you?

I should have expected it. It's what conse(R)vatives do to ignore certain truths, on every forum I've encountered them in so far.

This one is no different.

I guess you should have read at least a few of the links I posted.

They were very informative.

By not doing so, you are not.

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

Okay now that was just plain old hypocrisy.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Thanks for proving my point, at long last...............:)

Sure you don't want to add in an ad hominum accusation?

They like to use that one when they quote from idiotic sources.

[-] -1 points by HeatherL (-30) 2 years ago

That is a joke that OWS provides free food for the participants. OWS cannot afford to do this and the corrupt unions buy the hot dogs, pizza, or other fast food junk to OWS only because they do not want to be attacked by them. Every TP event that was ever held had zero violence and no littering. On the other hand virtually all of the OWS events were filled with violence, that including theft, rape, murder and not to mention trashing up every place they went

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

OWS is simply a person occupying a space. They are not responsible for the behavior of stupid people who tag along.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

So much stupid in such a small post.……

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

It's very strange to see this guy contort himself into supporting corporate lobbying simply because he's so determined to disagree with me and call me names. I was pretty surprised when it happened. Like -- wait -- he's in favor of corporate lobbyists making campaign contributions for political favors?!?

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

I'm not crazy enough to think you can stop it the only thing I think you can remotely do is term limits to not give them enough time to buy the politics

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

congress men are corrupted long before they enter office

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

Yes they tend to be. I know I couldn't be around all thy money for long periods without it taking a toll on me.

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

It seems kind of crazy to think that alcohol could be completely prohibited, but yet a coalition came together and made it happen. (And then another one came together to undo it.) Constitutional amendments really do happen.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

It was made to happen so hamsters could jack the price up and control it. They undid it because of the violence and corruption the previous brought. You plug one rathole the rat will make another, forgive me if I don't have faith we can keep the rats out

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

Then why are you here?

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

To see for myself if this place is actually trying to do good or If it's just the left wing crazy version of the right.

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

Ah well yes, I can sympathize with that.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

Well then sir/mrs you are a rare logical breed on here then. Most on here only tow the "progressive" line and if you don't we'll you know the reaction.

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

Yes I do.

(And my iPad keeps saying "we'll" when I'm trying to say "well", also.)

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

I have iPad so I know how they like to spell words you don't want it to say

[Removed]

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

brilliantly concise post
NOW the key is


..................... DO


[Removed]

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Pretty interesting - it's vegans versus beefers; both are hungry, ehh?

But you know, the real question is, who's cookin'?