Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Troll Tactic For Today (And Apparently For The Duration)

Posted 7 years ago on March 9, 2013, 6:15 a.m. EST by GypsyKing (8708)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All politicians are the same. . . !

Think about it.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

It reminds me of the old joke.

GOP candidate: "All politicians are crooked and all the government's policies are bad, and if you good people will elect me, I'll prove it!

by example

Of course this bunch of politicians, or trolls as we say, tell a consistent lie that helps only "third parties" and somehow they want you to believe that oh no, we're not people.

folks are folks


[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 7 years ago

Like many general statements, it has some truth to it. Similar personality traits can be seen in many politicians and there are certainly the same temptations offered to all of them.

The drive to sell themselves, show the voters they have accomplished something, and get reelected is there in most, as is the need to fund campaigns.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

both are the same
you are a judge & have to decide custody
...both parents are the same
except one parent is a meth drug addict
...both parents are the same
except one parent is a nicotine drug addict

who gets the kids?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 7 years ago

Choosing the lesser of two evils wasn't what was being considered. Unlike with parents, we have the option to pick our candidates. We also have an often neglected responsibility to seek out and elect new ones, without any addiction. I can choose a parent with the lesser addiction for your hypothetical, but do not accept the premise that it must carry over into politics.

I'm not evaluating party platforms or which philosophy is preferable. Whichever party you choose doesn't change the fact that most politicians share certain personality traits and that most pander to voting blocks and bow to special interests for money.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Nor does it change the fact the the GOP has always and will always support the interest of the very wealthy.

Facts are facts after all.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 7 years ago

It has nothing to do with either party. The drive to fund raise, the need to pander to voting blocks corrupts both. My statement is more about individuals not about the stated or implied goals of either party.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Fund raising and pandering is not limit to two parties, so you should say "goals of all parties" not "goals of either party" if you want to be both honest and accurate, but that may not be your goal.

My goal here is to help in stimulating discussion about wealth inequality and the danger that poses to both democracy and freedom. As a part of that discussion offering specific actions that people can do to address this problem, the most import action anyone can take is to defeat a Republican and keep them from public office. It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Republican Party as a whole supports public policy that increase the wealth disparity while actively opposing policy that would reduce it.

The MOST important thing any American can do is defeat a Republican

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Do you consider those who vote to give billions of dollars to Goldman Sachs to be corrupt?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

I decide to define things like this by law not by morals.
If t here is a law that they broke they may be corrupt. If t hey are convicted they ARE corrupt.
I think America is better served by debating laws that will make America better -
rather than debating morality and theory.
I believe ALL money going from non-citizens to pols should be ILLEGAL

Is it corrupting or immoral to use racial slurs
against a child walking down the street? YES
Is it illegal NO
Is it corrupting or immoral teach your children that
volution fake? YES
Is it illegal NO

I think we need to change the LEGAL system to
make all forms of bribery illegal.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

I gotta go now... Let me know when you and factsrfun get the muster to answer my question.

Goldman Sachs has violated all sorts of laws. Hell they sure as shit violated anti-trust laws. The feds don't have the balls to prosecute. In fact they dropped them like they did with charges against HSBC. Corruption at it's finest.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

What question do you need help answering?
Specifically what statute did GS break & WHO broke it?
Immoral is not the same as illegal

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Go read the RICO Act. Go read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among several states, or with any foreign nations, is declared illegal. -it's how they broke up Standard Oil.

Do you know anything about futures trading and price fixing? -read Matt Taibbi's Griftopia, if you don't understand this.

the big question - Do you consider those who vote to give billions of dollars to Goldman Sachs to be corrupt?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

answers- I know a lot about futures. I know about price fixing
I do not know about how futures can be price fixed. I consider "corruption" a legal term and I do not know
if GS or legislators broke the law or which law

I am more interested in fixing the problem than ranting about the past.
make ALL money going from non-citizens illegal
make ALL lobbying illegal
Do you agree with these two goals?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Figures you can't answer a simple question.

it's not the past. IT'S HAPPENING NOW. It's the plan for the future too.

You have to learn about the problems before you can know how to fix them.

Do you know that Goldman Sachs is corrupt? Matt Taibbi said it best "Lloyd Blankfein is a mother fucker."

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Still pushing the question/answer game without answering any yourself I see, same old, same old.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

I answered your question. I answered several questions from Bensdad and neither of you will answer mine.

You cannot answer my question because it goes against your party allegiance. Prove me wrong by answering the question.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago


I would have put some bankers in jail, but that not happening didn't make me stupid enough not to see the clear and present danger Republicans present.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Where is the link to my post that Goldman would pay for? or even like? You have not provided it nor have you answered the question concerning the support or opposition to MW that I have been asking you for a year if you want people to answer questions then you should as well, please include your answers to these two questions along with any questions you may have of me.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

you asked "Where is the link to my post that Goldman would pay for?"

I never said you are funded by Goldman Sachs. You suck at reading comprehension.

edit - If you ever said "Obama 2012" Goldman Sachs actually did pay for their own version of that. Over a million dollars directly to the campaign actually. About the same amount they gave Bush before he chose Henry Paulson. Then they all joined hands and gave billions to Goldman through TARP.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

What simple question did I not answer?
"mother fucking" is not a federal crime

Matt writes a lot of good stuff - I'm sure that you read it
SPECIFICALLY - what LAW does Matt say Blankfein broke

I look forward to Elizabeth Warren clarifying who did what and what laws were broken.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Mortgage fraud among many things.

Matt references the anti-trust act. Go read it. It's really short.

I included the provision they have violated in a previous comment.


If you want to play dumb about Goldman Sachs do it on your own time.

[+] -4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Do you consider those who vote to give billions of dollars to Goldman Sachs to be corrupt?

Do you consider those who write laws in the benefit of the Kochs to be corrupt?

One is a slippery slope and the other is a simple answer for you. Hmm...

Yes both cases = corruption. It's a simple answer.

here is a definition of corrupt if you're still having trouble - Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

Corruption - Accepts money from Kochs or Goldman Sachs for campaigning, in return votes in their favor.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

From WIKI:
some political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officials have broad or ill-defined powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions. Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually. A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by thieves".

Some forms of corruption—-now called “institutional corruption”—-are distinguished from bribery and other kinds of obvious personal gain. Campaign contributions are the prime example. Even when they are legal, and do not constitute a quid pro quo, they may bias the political process in favor of special interests, and undermine public confidence in the political institution. They corrupt the institution without individual members being corrupt themselves. A similar problem of corruption arises in any institution that depends on financial support from people who have interests that may conflict with the primary purpose of the institution.

All bribery is corrupting.
If alec writes a law & sends it to a rep - that is not corrupt - it is a form of lobbying - which is legal - ALICELAW.ORG does the same thing

I admit that I do not know how "corrupt" is specifically legally defined.
I care about laws that we have and what we can do about our problems.

I believe it is corrupting to teach children that using condoms cause AIDS.
But it is not illegal - and should be

Sending money to televangelists is corrupting - but it is legal .
Bribery & lobbying is not always illegal - and it should be.

I am interested in laws - not labels labels do not stop "bad behavior" - laws do

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

if you are too big to fail or too big to jail you have violated anti-trust laws.

So you don't think politicians that give billions of dollars to corporations after accepting campaign funds from them are corrupt? So you don't think any politicians are corrupt? Or what's your deal.

Why can't you answer this question?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

I think we should completely - BY LAW - eliminate all money going into politics from ALL corporations.
Do you agree?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

I do. Who is that sexy guy in the green shirt in the background? :)


[+] -4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

I've answered this question so many times from you. Yes money should get the fuck out of politics. Those accepting the money are equally guilty of corruption as those spending the money.

Public financing of elections similar to that the green party mentions. equal air time for candidates. no exclusion from debates. All on the ballet should be in the debates.

Why can't you answer my question?

Until money is out of politics, the corrupt must be outed. They must be known. They must be vigorously fought against to get this corruption out. Those accepting the money do not work to get it out. They are at best, hypocrites and at worst venal warlords for Wall Street.

[+] -4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

anything to dance around the question.

changing the laws to get out of jail free is a perfect sign of corruption.

We need laws to stop the CORRUPTION

Try using the english definition of the term corrupt.

You won't answer my question because you are a party shill.

You refuse to admit the guilt your preachers play a role in just like republicans do for their own puppet masters.

Good day sir.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

Trevor... I think we all agree... we need to stop the corruption...

I think the argument here.. is that until we define and implement a system that is above corruption.. we cannot win ....

I think all agree... punish the corruptness .. if we can ...

however ... that is much more a waste of time ... than using our energy to move forward...

We cannot fix a corrupt system by joining it....

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

reply to the following post... Trevor... you will find little "party allegiance" here...

back in the 60's we had a term; "groupie" ... which to us... defined those that "blindly followed their leaders" ... the gov & media did not like it... and changed the definition...

we will find few groupies here....

I personally often support the Dem candidates ... because they are most often the better choice... how-ever I also have supported some of the Gop... when I think they are the better choice.... and I have been a registered Independent for over 30 yrs ...

do I like what the Dem's are doing ?.. hell no... do I like all what Obama is doing?... hell no .... would I enjoy going out and getting drunk w/ Biden ? hell yes ... ;)

but.... we are not groupies... and definitely not the "party allegiance" followers you believe we are... let go of fears & pay more attention ... you will become a great contribution...

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

it's going to be hard to fix the corruption when people act like it doesn't exist because of party allegiance. You have to remember we are the minority group here and the majority is voting for the corporate takeover and most don't realize they're doing it.

Manufacturing consent is real. It's happening. And until people understand the truth and the roles being played, the corruption will continue.

You have to understand the problem to be able to fix it.

The corrupt must be known.

With those that persist in selling out the country for campaign financing and for power and profits, to talk of alliances with them is to talk of mutual decepetion and mutual hypocrisy.

[+] -4 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

More like one is on heroine and the other is on crack.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

There is also some truth to the concept that people win elections and then affect public policy.

There is nothing anyone can do that is more important than ensuring that person is not a member of the Republican Party.

Affecting real change is about taking effective action more so than hearing yourself talk.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

They (the plants of the 1%) are right back at it again! Let us silence this talk of political party and focus on method, and moving forward. gsw and BradB among others have paved that road for us, so lets have the disipline to silence this talk of political parties! All it does is divide us, which is in the interest of the 1%!

Let's refocus on method and means.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

YEP - ISSUES. Fuck the Parties - Fuck the charismatic individual. SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ISSUES.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago


The american people do not have a party with say in congress.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

The People need to be the word. The 1st word & the last word.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

TROLL “tells” ►
attack the poster - not the post
"re-interpret" the post rather than quote it ( ala faux noose )
lie [ often obvious ]
change the subject
afraid to answer questions

……………………………………….Troll solution ►

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 7 years ago

they are bought and paid for like groceries at the store.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 7 years ago

I can't believe anyone actually still has a shred of faith in this "choice" system. There is no choice or potential for change. It's a scam and anyone who participates is letting themselves be deceived.

There is zero benefit in even discussing which is a better option. It's already been decided. The choice and backup plans have already been determined for the next election too. Bush lost. Obama is just a gimmic to make most people believe in democracy... What an amazing achievement! A non-white person in charge! Maybe a female will be next! Give me a break, TPTB don't give a shit what puppet is displayed, as long as it makes sense for their agenda.

Did you vote? Do you think it wasn't a complete waste of time? Did you and all your like minded citizens change the course of the future by pushing a button?


[-] -1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Nah, some politicians look better than others.

I vote for the one who has the most fashion sense (and do my politics with torches and pitchforks.)

[-] -2 points by nandoatake (-18) 7 years ago

I never read anybody on this site saying that all politicians are the same. That would make no sense.

I did read a lot of people, especially the anarchist who believe in Occupy, that the representative republic is broken beyond repair so that changing a politician will not result in drastic changes. Sure, Obama is better than Romney, and the greens would even be better than the democrats, but the idea of Occupy is that this is wouldn't be satisfactory because the system is broken to a point that any party would become corrupt.

Occupy is about the idea that people don't need politicians or parties because people are able to govern themselves. This is anarchy. Occupy is about anarchy. That's why it never wanted to make demands since this would legitimize the representative republic we want to undermine.

Most people on this site support the communist party in terms of their ideologies, they don't support Occupy. Very few people here actually want to overthrow the republic. They want to keep it, to keep the constitution, to keep representatives, but they want to decrease wealth inequality and create more social programs like free welfare, healthcare for all, and free education for all. This is communism. It is not Occupy. Communism want a bigger government, anarchy does not want a government because people can govern themselves.

I personally believe Occupy is right. Anarchy is the future. However, I don't mind people like yourself who support Occupy even though they don't understand the ideology, or don't support it in truth. It is your problem if you don't have the integrity to support a movement you don't truly believe in. For us who really believe in the Occupy ideology we are simply happy to have as many people as possible to attend marches, and other direct actions. We need a lot of people to topple the republic! It's not an easy task. So please, come along and resist as much as you can. Once we do implement anarchy and you realize the beauty of people governing themselves, I'm sure you'll realize the immense benefits of not having representatives.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

The overwhelming majority of politicians in the federal government support billions in giveaways to banks, as evident by TARP. They also support giving trillions more to the banks through unchecked Monetary Policy and picking frauds like the Ayn Rand believer Alan Greenspan, and his footstep follower Ben Bernanke.

They collectively started multiple wars. They both like Goldman Sachs and accept their money. They collectively created a spy network on American citizens through the patriot act and FISA.

They differ on many other issues, but their bipartisan support for above mentioned issues is shocking.

So it's not that they're the same. It's that the 2 party system is a plague.


Troll tactic forever - democrats and republicans pushing for democrats and republicans on an OWS site.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

So, politicians are the problem?

[-] 0 points by nandoatake (-18) 7 years ago

The idea that we need politicians is the problem. Having representatives means power is allocated to a few in society. This opens those people up for corruption. People with billions need only meet Obama or another politician behind closed doors to offer a big bribe. Because the politicians have power, they can implement policies which favor those who bribe them.

Occupy's goal is to create a society based on anarchy where everyone would have equal power. This makes corruption very hard. Who will the billionaire bribe? Nobody has the power to implement policies, only the community does.

Like most other users here you don't understand Occupy. That's why you spend your time talking about policy changes and partisan politics. Occupy is one level deeper than that. It does not want to attack particular parties, politicians, or policies, it wants to attack the framework upon which they operate. Form creates function. The representative republic creates corruption, not the politicians. Even if you put the most honest people in power, they would become corrupt. As Machiavelli said - Power corrupts.

The only way to avoid corruption is to avoid having some people with more power than others, and the way to accomplish this is with anarchy.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

Occupy's goal is to create a society based on anarchy where everyone would have equal power.

yes... but we should call that "democracy" ... not "anarchy" ... easier to win over ...


[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

ok... call it "Direct Democracy"

[-] 0 points by nandoatake (-18) 7 years ago

My problem with the term direct democracy is that there are other types of democratic systems that can be used within the political framework of anarchy. Direct democracy defines a particular method/tool, not a political framework. In addition, direct democracy can be used within other political frameworks than that of anarchy. An example is referendums within a representative republic like US. Referendums are a particular type of direct democracy. Arriving at consensus during a general assembly is another. Arriving at a 2/3 majority vote is yet another.

Also, Occupy is not just about anarchy. It's about a particular type of anarchy; anarcho-communism. Anarchy as the political system, communism as the economic system. We don't want anarcho-capitalism. Half our time is spent fighting against capitalism!

The best term is anarcho-communism. It clearly defines what we want. No other term does.

I agree this is a marketing nightmare, especially in the US where huge propaganda efforts were made for decades against anarchy and communism. However, if we are to create a better world we must be honest. We can't hide our intentions under imprecise terms in order to fool the population into following our dream. This is a recipe for disaster. In fact, I believe it was one of the biggest mistakes of Occupy. Many on this site are still confused. Many left after a few months when they realized the true nature of the protest. I don't think it's because they feared anarcho-communism, but because they didn't like the idea that we tricked them. We must lead by example, by honesty.

We need to educate the people. To counter all the propaganda efforts done in the past to tarnish both anarchy and communism. It's the only way, even if it takes a long time. The new better world can only be achieved with utmost honesty and clarity. We cannot deceive, for deception is what we are fighting against.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

nando... the point I'm trying to make... is it's important what u call something... u can have the Perfect system designed... and if you call it something that people already have a preconceived definition for it.. (whether accurate or not).. u will spend eternity fighting semantics ... and no time making progress

[-] -1 points by nandoatake (-18) 7 years ago

I understand, but there is no other term which precisely defines Occupy other than anarcho-communism. Hiding behind false or ambiguous terms will only help in the short term (while people remain deceived). Once they realize the deception, the backlash will ruin everything. There is no other way, we must fight against the propaganda efforts of the past with education. This is possible even though it is hard, long, and tiresome. Honesty is the only path towards a new better world.

Have you not seen the damage caused by Occupy hiding its anarchist roots? At the beginning, thousands were protesting. When they realized we didn't want to make demands because we didn't want to work with politicians, many people left the protest. This is because they felt deceived, not because they are against anarcho-communism. Very few of them even know what that really means. We must educate them.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

wrong.... ;) .. maybe your view is ... Occupy is anarcho-communism.

I might see it as anarcho-capitalism. ... or anarcho-socialism. ....

fact is... we all are striving for the same goal ... Peace & Prosperity for All

[-] -1 points by nandoatake (-18) 7 years ago

We all strive for the same goal, but the political and economic frameworks we choose to implement will greatly affect the outcome. From form comes function. Choosing the correct frameworks is key. They are everything. Once the frameworks are implemented and running, we can make adjustments, but they will only have a small impact on the result. The frameworks make all the difference. That's why policy changes and president changes don't have a great impact on the political and economic trajectory of US, and other countries. They create but small impacts in comparison to what changing the frameworks would do.

Occupy has chosen anarcho-communism at the very beginning of the protest with very good reason. That's why you see red and black everywhere (black for anarchy, red for communism). That's why you see the sickle for communism, and the raised fist which represents the power of the people, anarchy. Many of the old posters for Occupy were directly based on poster designs from the early 20s communist regime in Russia.

Certainly, these framework choices can still be debated. We are far from toppling the republic and implementing them. However, saying you prefer anarcho-capitalism over anarcho-communism, or that you prefer some other system is not enough. You must provide many arguments, many reasons, and debate the issue thoroughly.

Social anarchism, or libertarian anarchism perhaps. I have a hard time imagining anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-communism sounds great.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

hehehe.. God ... couldn't convince America to support anything labeled communism ... w/o flooding them all out and starting over... ;)

[-] -2 points by nandoatake (-18) 7 years ago

It think it's possible with proper education. It's long, but it's the only way to implement communist ideas which will last for a long time. Fooling the public into communism by using shady terms will only create a huge backlash once the public realizes the deception. We have to think long term.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

??? what make you think I want communism or to trick someone into communism ??? ....

communism works about as good as capitalism .. and vise-versa ... I want Peace & Prosperity

[-] 4 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

May I ask, if you don't believe in the ideologies of Occupy, in what ideologies do you believe? ...

John Lennon, Bob Marley, 2pac & Immortal Technique .. for starters ;)

[-] 0 points by Micah (-58) 7 years ago

With communism, everyone is equally miserable.

[-] -2 points by nandoatake (-18) 7 years ago

what make (sic) you think I want communism

You've been participating on the forum of an anarcho-communist movement since October 11th, 2011. I presumed you supported anarcho-communism, just like I would presume an active member of a republican forum to support the republicans, or a regular church goer to support the ideas espoused by his church. I think it's a reasonable assumption. Most people with integrity support movements and ideologies they believe in themselves.

May I ask, if you don't believe in the ideologies of Occupy, in what ideologies do you believe?

[-] 1 points by Renneye (3874) 7 years ago

Anarcho-communism: From Wikipedia

"Part of a series on Anarcho-communism

Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism,[2][3][4][5] and communist anarchism[6][7]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property),[8] and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[9][10] direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[11][12]

Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are strongly influenced by egoism and radical individualism, believing anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realization of individual freedom.[13][14][15][16] Most anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society.[17][18][19][20][21]

Anarcho-communism developed out of radical socialist currents after the French revolution[22][23] but was first formulated as such in the Italian section of the First International.[24] The theoretical work of Peter Kropotkin took importance later as it expanded and developed pro-organizationalist and insurrectionary anti-organizationalist sections.[25]

To date, the best-known examples of an anarchist communist society (i.e., established around the ideas as they exist today and achieving worldwide attention and knowledge in the historical canon), are the anarchist territories during the Spanish Revolution[26] and the Free Territory during the Russian Revolution. Through the efforts and influence of the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Revolution within the Spanish Civil War, starting in 1936 anarchist communism existed in most of Aragon, parts of the Levante and Andalusia, as well as in the stronghold of Anarchist Catalonia before being crushed by the combined forces of the regime that won the war, Hitler, Mussolini, Spanish Communist Party repression (backed by the USSR) as well as economic and armaments blockades from the capitalist countries and the Second Spanish Republic itself.[27] During the Russian Revolution, anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend—through the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine—anarchist communism in the Free Territory of the Ukraine from 1919 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921."

full wiki...


[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 7 years ago

Are you willing to let the perfect (as you define it), be the enemy of the good (as I define it)?


[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

A sensible first step is to change the US House.

This institution was established at a time when it took two weeks to travel by horse from Phila to Wash.

Today there is no reason that individual districts need representatives to vote for them. The people in the districts can vote directly on bills brought to the House by elected Reps (Let the Reps keep their jobs for a while, but the job changes to the formation of bills and educating the folks in their district on the content. Later bills will be created by referendum then by private organizations that will grow organically from this process.).

There are really only one or two bills per week that require a vote. It will take 15 - 30 minutes out of each voters week to review the bills and vote on line, smart phone, or at the public library .

This change will also eliminate the two-party system. Think about why.

This change can be done today. The biggest obstacles will be the members of the House and entrenched groups that profit from the current system.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

The corrupt politicians are one of the many problems.

The corporate takeover of government and buyout of politicians is also a huge problem.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

Look, I've come to have a respect for you, even though we come at "the problem" from very different perspectives.

Can we have a dialogue here, putting aside our differing perspectives, and really try to get at the truth of what the problem is?

What I see here increasingly is that we all just have a script, and play our various rolls, and it really gets us all nowhwere.

Can we have that open, honest discussion?

[-] 4 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

What I see here increasingly is that we all just have a script, and play our various rolls, and it really gets us all nowhwere.....

Aw.. the never-ending truth....

we have had the answer/s from near day 1...

"Get the money out of Politics" ....

What steps have we made towards that ? ....

well... here's a few facts....

  • Most Politician's are either corrupt or corruptible ... from both/all sides ...

and let's add one more characteristic ... those politician's who are "the believers" ... those who "believe" in their agenda ... they don't know that the agenda is true... but they believe it... and can't be bought & can't be taught ;)... I think we should label them the "Mentally Old" ... ie...

  • Most Politician's are either Corrupt, Corruptible or Mentally Old... from both/all sides ...

  • Most of the population ... do not want to decide ... they want decision made for them ...

  • It benefit's the corrupt.. when the population is divided and arguing with each-other...

  • The arguing of Socialism, Imperialism, Capitalism, Any-ism... is just another form of distraction... keeping us from being productive....

The Answers are found in the simple goal & focus of... "Getting the money out of Politics" ....

how ?..

A) Identify & support the current politician's who are NOT Corrupt or Mentally Old....

B) Identify & support the Bill's & legislation that Is corrupt and or sloppy (allowing corruption)...

C) Educate the population ... on those specific topics....

D) Provide the platform / framework ... for the population to voice opinion on those specific topics... (this at the least provides us an accurate poll)....

E) simply gather & print the truth ... ignore the garbage & division - making arguments... and all the answers will fall in place...

"Get the money out of Politics" .... is but step 1 ...

let's finish that ... then...

"Get the profit out of War"

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

Our OWS working group has been working on "money in politics" since 2011
we have signed up two candidates ( 1D + 1G ) to support an amendment
unfortunately, none of us was expert enough to steer thousands of Occupiers away from peripheral & impossible goals.

our "library" site explaining CU & CP & the amendment
includes 40+ documents & 70+ videos

If haliburton & ge & nra & exxon could not contribute any money,
imagine how America would change

HJR29 is THE first step:

Bill HJR 29 Constitutional Amendment XXVIII Introduced in Congress
by Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN) & Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI)

Section 1. Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. Money is Not Free Speech
Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

This responds to hundreds of local & state resolutions and Move To Amend for a “We the People” Amendment - The movement for constitutional reforms that would end “corporate rule”. The Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that: Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities; and that Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment. Government belongs to the people & must not be for sale to the corporations and the wealthy and the 1% special interests. The Move To Amend coalition of nearly 260,000 people and hundreds of organizations has helped to pass nearly 500 resolutions in municipalities and local governments across the country calling on the state and federal governments to adopt this amendment. This bill is specifically different from the other proposals that have come forward in response to Citizens United because it also specifically addresses corporate personhhod. In every single community where Americans have had the opportunity to call for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw corporate personhood, they have voted to end “CP”. The Citizens United decision is not the cause, it is a symptom. We must remove big money and special interests from the legal and political process entirely with this amendment.

If you want to understand Citizens United & Corporate Personhood & the Amendment Process Please visit our OWS Amendment site: http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com 70+ videos & 40+ documents on this issue from Sanders, Chomsky, Maher, Hedges, Lessig, Warren, Grayson, Hartmann, Hightower, etc

►►Support this bill◄◄
Write & email your congresspeople house:

Rep Rick Nolan 202 225 6211

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

looks Fabulous BD.... study it tonight

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Sure. What's your topic of choice?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

My topic of choice is this . . . humanity is in a state of increasing crisis. Why, if you coud find a central reason, do you think that is?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

there is no such thing as a central reason for such a large dilemma. Nothing is that simple.

unless you just went with greed, fear, and aggression. According to Yoda this leads to the dark side.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

Thanks. Now here is the problem as I see it. I think we must, in some sense break that complexity down, until we find a root problem that we can address. My belief is that there is always some underlying truth, that is the crux of very complex problems.

I think we must search for that crux issue. We must do so to find common ground.

I believe there is such a crux issue. But I want to know how you think we can all approach this problem together?

If we are to survive as a species we must find that common ground.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

i think we're gonna have to solve one issue at a time until you figure out the crux.

i'd be cool with solving 10 or more issues at a time too.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago


Well, we tried. I really wish that people like us could somehow put everything aside and simply try to seek truth, outside of the storm of conflicting interests.

Perhaps we may yet do that.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

IMAGINE - what would happen if the 1% could not own our democracy


[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

Thanks again, great comment,


[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Operation Breadbasket 2.0

[-] -2 points by nandoatake (-18) 7 years ago

The crux is that, with our current political frameworks, politicians have much more power than ordinary people. The other aspect is that with our economic framework, capitalism, rich people have much more power than ordinary people. Power corrupts.

Politicians become prime targets for the rich who want to corrupt the system in their favor. Rich people become rich because they want power, so they always want more power. It's very rare to see someone rich say - "Hey, I'm 40 now and I have millions, so I'll just retire and do what I always wanted." Instead, they keep trying to get richer until they die.

In Plato's Republic, written some 2,500 years ago, he already predicts that republics always tend towards oligarchies. This is what is happening all around the world. Capitalism created men with riches who are now able to corrupt politicians with political power.

The only way to stop this is to dismantle the representative republic which gives political power to a few, and capitalism with gives money power to a few. The replacement is anarcho-communism, and, that is exactly what Occupy is.

So, help us use direct action to topple the government and replace it with anarchy.


[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

██████░████.░░.█████.░░█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ ████░░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░.█░░█░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█.░.█████ ░░█████░ █████

TROLL “tells” ►
attack the poster - not the post
"re-interpret" the post rather than quote it ( ala faux noose )
using gross generalization to “prove” a specific
lie [ often obvious ]
change the subject
mccarthyite accusations
afraid to answer questions

……………………………………….Troll solution ►


[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago


Man, if I had a dollar for every time I've been accused of being a republican plant or a democrat plant.

Funny thing is, I'm always staying on the same message I always put out.

-How Do I Know You're Not Mel Torme?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

Yes, you are real. I've come to see that.


[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

But now you're collectively bumping this thread.

Maybe curiosity is the answer to your question. Why did you check this post?

-also I don't tend to take those seriously when accusing me of such wild claims.


[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

Don't be afraid. You can debate all people. No need to target one particular opinion as unwelcomed.

Free speech is a freedom most of us believe in. No need to seek silencing, banning, isolating or shunning based on political beliefs.

Kinda childish no?


[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

I think knowledge prevails. If it wasn't for people constantly pushing truth on me, I would probably have stayed a party hack drone. I remember when I used to get in arguments with my old boss about who's party was worse. Then i finally realized, they both suck in many different ways.

I should have did all caps. lol

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

Oh man TM, who is this guy?

Sounds like Big Brother.

Well, thanks for our effort to find common ground.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

I'm looking forward to the example he makes of me. LOL

Operation Breadbasket 2.0 is something that can be down outside of the political arena. One of many ways to take down corporate policies or corporations we don't like.

The real operation breadbasket - http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_operation_breadbasket/

I do need to find a big and tall shop that doesn't buy imported clothes from places that violate American labor standards.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 7 years ago

I'm sorry TM, I have to get some sleep.

I am Very Much looking forward to continuing This Conversation!

We might actually do something worthwhile!



[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

in all honesty i just got called a republican plant by factsrfun, and here you are calling me a democrat plant. How are you any better? You say such a thing when I bring up their guilt too.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Are you referring to this:


You need not be a "plant" to employ their tactics, sorry for the confusion, if there was any.


[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Shouldn't you be trying to destroy liberal organizations outside of the democratic party?

Oh that's what you're doing now.

I'm getting trolled by party hacks! OH NO!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

So good to know you don't mind getting caught in a lie, thanks wasn't sure about you trevor, thanks for clearing that up:


[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

What lie? That you hate on Nader and blame liberal organizations like third parties for Bush? You definitely do that. And that is propaganda designed to take down liberal organizations outside of the 2 party system. Suggesting that if Nader did not run and that those voters would have instead voted for Gore is like suggesting that if Bush didn't run then republicans would have voted for Gore. In all reality the republicans would have voted for a different republican and the third party voters would have voted for another third party candidate. This is where your argument betrays logic. You also blame a few thousand Nader voters and dismiss the fact that 10 million plus registered democrats voted for Bush. If you want to blame anyone for Bush, blame republicans that voted for him.

People pushing for Obama on an OWS site. Obvious troll. You should join the likes of VQ and take a hint already.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I have not called you a GOP "plant" as you accused me of doing, and I don't think you're a plant, I just think you hate Obama and fear that the GOP will lose seats if OWS spreads the word of wealth inequality so you try to keep the focus elsewhere, anyway that's my read, trevor feel free to prove me wrong someday.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

you used another phrase, like "you got those GOP talking points down" same fucking thing.

You're reaching. and there's nothing to grab.

I don't like Obama. If you picked up on the fact that I don't like Obama, then you are captain fucking obvious. In fact I do not like the overwhleming majority of corrupt politicians in the government.

Fuck the GOP regime and the Obama drones. I do not support those that sell our country out to banks.

Do you consider those who vote to give billions of dollars to Goldman Sachs to be corrupt?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Really? You think I don't believe you own a TV? BULLSHIT

I think what you really don't like is OWS talking about wealth inequality.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

You can't answer my question because you're a shill.

The obvious answer to my question - All of those who vote to give billions to Goldman Sachs are corrupt.

Goldman Sachs is a criminal organization that commits massive fraud that creates price inflation which extorts money from the poor and the working class. They destabilize the economy and contribute to massive job insecurity.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

What "honesty"?

If there are still people on this site that don't see through you now, well some will always be fooled I guess, but I doubt there are many, if any, supporters of OWS that will read this and not see what you are.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Honestly, you support people funded by Goldman Sachs. People that then give billions to Goldman Sachs.

You've called me a republican many times on this forum. Stop pleading ignorance.

Are people who vote to give billions to goldman sachs corrupt?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Honestly you help elect REPUBLICANS just like Nader did, you might be a Republican if one looks at it on your posts that would make the most sense, but I don't think Nader is a Republican even though he helps elect Republicans I think Nader is a ego whore maybe you're a ego whore like him.

(Republicans support Goldman too, but you wouldn't know that reading your posts)

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Actually you would.

You don't even think people giving billions in taxpayer dollars to goldman sachs are corrupt.

Here is you essentially calling me a republican again. You have answered your own question.

Later. You are a hopeless party hack who has no moral core.

You should see my post blaming the Ayn Rand believers for devaluing the dollar.

From Reagan to Bush to Clinton, they all chose Ayn's number 1 fan Greenspan to destroy the dollar while giving trillions to Wall Street.

the 2 party system works for Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

and you've been outed, how does that feel trevor? knowing that all your hard work to fool people on this site has been blown to shit

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Here's a right wing lobbying groups anti dem/anti occupy document he was pushing awhile back.


He had to stop when it was checked and he was called out on it.

People should know what he is really about. He sounds good but if you take the time to analyze his comments it is obvious he is some kind of plant/shill for the right wing.

I think most people know.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

how many banks have been prosecuted under Bush and Obama? Is it zero still?

How many billions have democrats and republicans given to to wall Street?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Weak desperate distractions. What Do your paymasters Clark, Lytle, Geduldig, & Cranford say.?

We already KNOW the govt is owned by the Wall st corp 1%, you fuckin idiot!

What's your point? What are you gettin at? What action are you proposing.?

Or are you just Jerkin off.?

What does your RW paymasters suggest we do?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Why? You wanna make the same old tired point!? For what? What action are you proposing? What solutions are you offering?

Or is this just more of the same old "they're both the same" RW fallacy talking points that your paymasters have ordered you to do.?

Whaaaaaaaat? Are you gettin at?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Hi VQ! How many accounts do you have now? 4? I know it's at least 3. Pushing your propaganda, flooding the forum. Stalking comments.

That link was one of the few times I actually admitted you were correct about something. But okay. Scroll down and read my reply.

Also democrats and republicans do all sorts of shit to get elected. Seeking voters is what they do.

Have fun thinking working for Goldman is acceptable behavior.

From the link "here's one he linked me a while back. http://richardkentgates.com/docs/CLGF-msnbc.pdf"

He being RichardKenGates.

Here is the previous comment - "Democrats aren't funding OWS. They were trying to co-opt it and curve talking points and use OWS for votes. I've seen the Documents. Richardkengates shared them a while back. Similar to how the Kochs took over the tea party, except the Kochs 100% succeeded, now they fund it, and the prejudice signed on. They turned it into an anti-gay mudslinging match, they don't even talk about the banks anymore. But that's what political parties do. They do it to everyone, hence the ads all over tv where money interferes with democracy."

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

The Kochs didn't take over the tea party you moron. They created them. Dems have never been involved with OWS, despite what your RW lobbying paymasters tell you.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Address your connection to the right wing lobbying group Clarke, Lytle, Geduldig, & Cranford.

Is that who pays you to come here and disrupt the forum?

Your weak attempts at distraction by bringing up old unused logins, and attaching me to your meaningless thread topic is obvious and pathetic.

And it isn't so much that I was right as much as YOU were wrong!!

You got busted pushing a right wing, anti occupy, propaganda piece paid for by the American Bankers Association. Is THAT who pays you?


This is Rich!

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Outed for not liking the 2 party system that works for Wall Street? I openly talk about this all the time. I would say I outed myself in this regard from day 1 of being on this forum.

If anything you have been outed for thinking working for Goldman Sachs is acceptable behavior and not an act of corruption.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago


By some and distribute at republican events, dem events. Then go distribute them at Occupy. See where you get your biggest response from.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8256) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Provide the link please.


[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

They arent all the same. But the things they are the same on are all the big ones.

War Banking Cartel Accepting Corporate Money Poisoning Food/Water/Air Selling out to Big Oil and Insurance

Deciding to eat apples or oranges when they are both rotten is futile.

There's a reason this system is set up like this.

It leaves you doing this for an entire lifetime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoS-MCnTPtQ

[+] -4 points by highlander3 (-62) 7 years ago

All politicians become the same once they have played the Washington game for a while