Forum Post: Trolls We have known
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 12:56 p.m. EST by tulcak
(698)
from Prague, Prague
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I am going to begin posting the names of known Trolls here. There are many, but, a lot have duplicate user names. They come here pretending be one thing or another, but, they are united in purpose. They come to incite. They come attempting to make it look like OWS is discussing seriously things like anarchy, communism, socialism among the usual labels. Please, when you identify an actual troll, come here and post the name/s. Here are some of them:
BofL, Jimboiam, fuzzyp, Thrasymaque, badconduct, Occupyfailed, vets74, nichole, w9illiam, JadedGem, betuadollar, April, Glaucon
One Question! Am I the only troll on this list that has been Arrested wile Protesting? I guess openly objecting to certain ideas makes me a troll. I love free speech.
I am sorry they don't apreciate your efforts. But please keep getting arrested for the cause it is helping us win. I think it would make a good statement to get arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest while assualting police officers by throwing feces at them. This will help the rest of the 99% see how evil the banks and big corporations are. We need the rest of the 99% to back our cause so we can successfully implement our goals. Let's focus on gaining the conservatives attention, becuase they seem to be refusing our direction. What we should do is have you get arrested and in the process talk about Obama being a failure (yes, he has failed us but we still plan to vote for him, he is the most socialistic president we've had in a long time after all.). Anyway I'm just very proud of you and hope to see your next arrest on the news soon. Go OWS!
Someone just called me a "troll" while I was trying to get more information. So sad. I love free speech, too. Long live the Bill of Rights!
I am a troll...a card carrying conservative who believes your movement is flawed by the drugs, thuggery, stupidity, and drone inspired ideology of the most profoundly misinformed movement in the history of the United States...What make you dangerous is your movement is in danger of being hi-jacked by real socialist's who will rob your freedom.....you are asleep at the wheel but too stupid to know it
Kind of like the drugs, thuggary, stupidity and drone inspired ideology behind Black Friday? Conservatives are not trolls by definition, they are as much a part off the 99% as the liberals, the libertarians etc. Aren't you tired of watching your government take kickbacks from big business for putting laws into place that favor those same big businesses? Aren't you tired of your one vote having to compete with the millions of dollars the corporations contribute? You have the power to change it to, all you have to do is reach out and claim what is rightfully yours. That is why most of the rest of us are here. We want to take this chance to remove the corruption in our government and return this countrey to the democracy it was supposed to be, where money didn't dictate the weight of your vote. We want you to join us too, come be the voice for your conservative brothers and sisters.
I believe it is flawed due to collective anger. Whether the economy is good or bad, there is always going to be collective anger. The answer to your problems is not on wall street. It is in the mirror.
you don't act like a troll. it seems as if you are just expressing an opinion. are you here to deceive?
all those stupid poor people that took house loans that ballooned
I'm here to tell up UP is a lie
It would've taken way more balloons to upheaval the house
[Removed]
:-(
I didn't make the list......
Me either dagnabbit.
Come! ...drown your sorrows in my soul. It never fills; a bottomless pit. Weep! ...and for each tear you shed, I will spill a dash of my blood. When your pain deepens, mine will deepen more, until, finally, we fall together in the soft arms of Morpheus and enter a dream we hope never ends. Together.
oh you so have the wrong girl............
Your state of being is temporary, not permanent. In time, the poison of my words will make you mine. Like Kierkegaard - "I fling the night about myself like a cloak, and harken towards you, not by the sound of your footfalls, but by the sound of your beating heart".
McCarthy much?
Phanya2011
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-poor-and-the-retired-suffering-less-in-todays-/
You can add theaveng to the list as well. Check it out.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/official-libertarian-and-ron-paul-haters-topic/
This jackass was making an argument that private health care systems are superior to public plans and then when he cited links two of them stated the exact opposite of his argument. Apparently he just grabbed a bunch of random links and threw them up there. What a jackass.
The occupy movement is not a political movement, its not an economic movement, its a social movement. this is what these people don't understand. they act as if this is some other version of the Tea Party. Its not. Obama got mic checked the other day. Any politicians who have tried to identify themselves with the movement have regretted it. The movement demands that they listen, not join. Politics is broken. It is owned by corporations. THAT is why this movement exists.
[Removed]
To hell with them, with trolls! Need to stick to their line, and do not pay any attention to anybody. Victory can be achieved only so!
The trolls on this site are hardly even trolls. Trolls are usually mildly amusing and will come up with a good argument, even if it's wrong. The trolls on this website are laughable at best... Then again that's no surprise. They are all Paul Fanatics and Republicans. Neither of which are intellectually competent enough to Velcro their own shoes much less troll a political forum.
[Removed]
I'm taking a break from this post. I want to focus on all the good things that are happening now with the occupy movement. Occupy Walmart, Occupy Goes Home (to prevent foreclosures), UC Davis victories, Occupy Washington DC, Occupy congress, Occupy Xmas, Occupy Thanksgiving, Occupy Total West Coast Port Shutdown, and the Mili-tents popping up everywhere and reclaiming our vacant public buildings for the people. Whew! wow, for a "dead" movement, and an "unfocused" movement, the Occupy movement sure seems to be very vibrant. Growing and making changes. As I've said before, its not going away. Its only going to grow and the changes the Occupy movement will make will be stunning and fundamental. Go 99%!! Its our day now! The American people's Day!
Actually, I am not a troll. I am a regular old real person. I have good days and bad days like anyone else. I support OWS most days.
Anarchy, communism, and socialism is the subject matter of most actual protestors. Why aren't you calling out, and taking video of these people? Instead, you stand behind your keyboard like a coward. Pathetic. To actually call people out is even more pathetic. This is the Internet freak, it's free for everyone. If you want to limit free speech, I suggest you start charging for access to your website. Only then you'll see who is commited to your cause.
I think OccupyGOP is a troll. A very young troll. One insisting that overproduction for example, does not and never did exist, and using such arguments to support the idea that the bailouts were bad in line with repelican ideals and philosophy.
Because of his/her total lack of historical fact I presume this troll is young - if I am mistaken then this is indeed among the most devious of trolls, seeking weakness in education or capacity to reason -
but perhaps a clear definition of what we mean by troll is in order? I mean, I've been making frizbees of words shaped into ideas and tossing them into the void for years . . . so, you know . . . I could be - and probably am by some, bent and twisted beneath the weight of repelican lies - considered a troll myself.
I want you to go to this post. I want you to speak truth to power!. Say it once, say it twice. Say it loud. Say it proud. I'm down with the KTC. The Revolution starts here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGaRtqrlGy8&feature=related
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
The Revolution starts here! No one can silence the Revolution!
A Troll is someone who is posting with the ulterior motive of trying to damage the movement by using deceit and deception. I won't call you a Troll if I simply disagree with you. The posters I've already listed are true Trolls. They come here wearing the clothes of concern and support and "to learn" when in fact they are coming here to do damage to a movement that is made up of people who have already experienced a lifetime of damage. They are the worst kind of human beings. They are psychopathic with no sense of right and wrong who value sustaining their hurtful ideology over helping their fellow human being.
but yall have talked about implmenting communism
I just came for the global ban. OWS, if you weren't so damn transparent, people might wonder if you're actually of shit. PISS OFF!!
After reading a majority of the comments on these forums I have come to a conclusion. Those who disagree with OWS are labeled trolls or ignorant. I am about to be labeled both.
OWS....Who's on first?
The Trouble with Trolls http://occupywallst.org/forum/forum-topics/#comment-172344
"They come attempting to make it look like OWS is discussing seriously things like anarchy, communism, socialism among the usual labels."
I am confused. There are threads that discuss these things; are they not serious threads? For example, I engaged in an interesting discussion of anarchy (actually anarcho-syndicalism), which I previously knew little about. It was pretty interesting. And there are people who seem to be pretty serious communists espousing their philosophies (for example, communistbob or bobthecommunist or something like that). Are these discussions unacceptable?
ask Thrasymaque or otherwise known as Glaucon. he/she has posted many many times over and over on these topics. the occupy movement has nothing to do with anarchy, communism or socialism. None. period. these topics have been brought up by trolls coming here to make it appear that the occupy movement is interested or associated with these. It is not.
What is Occupy about if it is not about anarchy?
well, Thrasymaque, its about the voice of the American people against corporate greed. this is clear. it has been from the beginning. you are the one that doesn't see or understand this.
I never said this wasn't the case. Occupy is definitely against corporate greed, and corporate greed is a major problem in today's America.
My point is OWS is organized in an anarchic manner; that is, without leaders and with the use of general assemblies to give everyone a voice with the use of consensus. Are you disputing this claim? If so, who are the leaders of Occupy? Can you give us some names? And, if Occupy is not organized horizontally without leaders like an anarchy, then what type of hierarchy is it? It is run as a totalitarian regime with a few leaders deciding what will be done, or is there a type of republic where Occupy protesters vote for representatives? If Occupy's organization is not based on anarchy, then what political system is it based on?
its not a political movement. its a social movement. your fundamental assumption is incorrect, therefore, all your logic chain from then on is flawed.
Where did I ever say it was a political movement? I never said that. I said it was a movement structured as an anarchy. You're right, it's a social movement. They don't have any politicians running for office. You're wrong, I never said it was political. Are you able to read?
that's a fine example of back peddling as I've ever seen. wow. you forget Glaucon/Thrasmaque, that I've been reading most of your posts. just your idea that the Occupy movement is "structured as an anarchy" (what a load that is) is a political statement about the politics of the movement. you are so clever (as you implied in more than one post and with your attitude), you've outwitted yourself.
You still haven't answered my question. If it is not structured as an anarchy, that is, with direct democracy and consensus in an effort to spread the power equally to the people, then how do you think it is structured? If it isn't an anarchy, then it's a hierarchy by definition and has official leaders. Who are these leaders? Do you have any names? If you can tell me who they are then I will believe you.
Glaucon, I did a bit of research and I thought I'd let you know...
What you describe; evenly-distributed lateral power structures; is properly termed "pan-archy", which means "Rule by all".
Anarchy literally means "an" - without, "arch" - ruler, "y" - the quality of being; or... "the quality of being without rulers"
Yes, I know. I don't agree with the idea of pan-archy or panarchy. It's a neologism and not an official English word. The reason is it doesn't make sense. Rulers always rule over others. Leaders always lead others. The idea of people all being leaders is a play on word and sounds cute, but it's a theoretical impossibility. In theory, there is only the dichotomy of anarchy/hierarchy. Either you have leaders or you don't.
Then, you can subdivide anarchy into different types. Anarcho-communism is when people make decisions together as a community (that's probably what you imagine with pan-archy). If everyone is independent and don't care about each other, then it would be something like anarcho-individualism.
Occupy is influenced by the anarcho-syndicalism of 1930 Spanish anarchies. This is what Graeber brought to the movement. It has also been called anarcho-communism because of the direct democracy and the consensus which implies that people work together as a community to make decisions.
dude i hate to bust bubbles but this "My point is OWS is organized in an anarchic manner" is a contradiction in itself. And yes, there are leaders. Who appoints the mods on the livestreams? I have an email from infinity at global who had to clear me before i could use the chat to look for writers. I try to stay out of the politics of it because i support the protesters but i have about had it with your little bullshit ruse.
You are right, I should have said structured, and not organized. The word organized comes from order which is always hierarchic. My point is that Occupy claims to be structured in an horizontal manner with general assemblies and a consensus so that power is spread evenly throughout its members.
I do not think anarchies are possible in practice, even with Occupy's method. And, I don't believe Occupy is being transparent. I do believe they have leaders working behind the scenes. Still, they do claim to be structured as an anarchy and this is my point for tulcak. He claims Occupy claims to be structured as an hierarchy. I do not agree. There is mention of general assemblies and consensus on all Occupy websites.
This doesn't prove anything. The general assemblies might be appointing them through consensus. I do not know. You'll have to show how these mods are being appointed without the use of consensus to prove your claim that there are leaders in the background. This is what makes it so hard to dismantle Occupy's veil and really know who is behind it. Unless you have proof for your claims that the mods are not chosen by consensus, then you are basically just making an assumption and that doesn't help much.
ok well that make the GA is the leadership then. OWS is not anarchy by any stretch of the imagination. this is a psychological ploy and it's bs.
This from the Occupy Together site from their FAQs section:
What is your agenda? Are you anarchists/democrats/republicans/independents/etc.?
We have no agenda other than to provide people with information about the events and actions happening in their area in solidarity and support of those that currently Occupy Wall St. Our political and social beliefs will remain neutral for this cause; this is not about us, this is about the movement. The only thing we will promote openly is peaceful demonstrations.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Also excellent, and I'm very glad to hear that as well. Sounds like Occupy Together is intent upon remaining a simple movement and not becoming an organization. it is not about stating specific goals, but about raising the rancor against politicians and Wall Street until politicians figure out real solutions, as they are paid to do and then enact them. It's a protest, not an advocacy.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
And, look at all the good things that are happening now with the Occupy movement. Occupy Walmart, Occupy Goes Home (to prevent foreclosures), UC Davis victories, Occupy Washington DC, Occupy congress, Occupy Xmas (buy nothing day), Occupy Thanksgiving, Occupy Total West Coast Port Shutdown, and the Mili-tents popping up everywhere and reclaiming our vacant public buildings for the people. Whew! wow, for a "dead" movement, and an "unfocused" movement, the Occupy movement sure seems to be very vibrant. Growing and making changes. As I've said before, its not going away. Its only going to grow and the changes the Occupy movement will make will be stunning and fundamental. Go 99%!! Its our day now! The American people's Day!
I agree. It's accomplished more than any protest I've seen in getting people all over the world to start speaking out. That all by itself is WAY overdue. Critics of the Occupy Wall Street movement are hyperventilating in order to try to find ways to bring the OWS movement down. -- Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
You have no agenda and your political and social beliefs will remain neutral? ... and this is clear?
I've been browsing this site for several weeks and I'm just as confused about this group's goals today as the first day I came here.
Try this it is pretty objective.
The 99% Declaration https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
[Removed]
This is from the about section of http://www.nycga.net/about/
It says the general assemblies are organized horizontally (without leaders), and we know this is what anarchy means (without leaders).
Are you saying Occupy is an hierarchy and not an anarchy? If so, who are the leaders of Occupy? There must be a list with their names somewhere, no?
I'm curious. How old are you? And, did you finish high school?
The occupy movement is not a political movement, its not an economic movement, its a social movement. this is what these people don't understand. they act as if this is some other version of the Tea Party. Its not. Obama got mic checked the other day. Any politicians who have tried to identify themselves with the movement have regretted it. The movement demands that they listen, not join. Politics is broken. It is owned by corporations. THAT is why this movement exists.
Excellent. Glad to hear it! That makes Occupy Wall Street a rare movement, indeed, that has no interest in cozying up to any political power but an undivided interest in making EVERY political power shut up and listen to it!
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
So many people don't seem to get this, they're not realizing how succesful this method of organizing is turning out to be. They seem to want OWS to become about some single issue or embrace their ideology wholesale. We've seen all too well what happens to movements they can pin down to some specific platform. I hope the present stance can be maintained.
I think it might be necessary to resurface and rebrand from time to time to cast off these types, keep them chasing, with their attempt to co-opt always remaining elusive.
right on! man, I agree completely.
:Obama got mic checked the other day. "
Does that mean heckled?
no, it means that the people spoke in a way that he had to listen. they had a specific and short message. The Occupy protesters spoke to the president and to the people on two levels. There was the message itself and then there was the way in which the message was delivered and by who.
[Removed]
They are indeed unacceptable and trollish. Follow without question. Occupy is your new religion. Grab my hand and follow. No! Do not question I said.
ScrewyL
and edited to add Daennera.
I am honored, FridayBabe
However: merely creating this page is an attempt to label and "characterize" particular people who you would prefer not to DEBATE with -- it is a cowardly tactic, and, to overhyperbolize as tulcak does above...
...It is evil.
I'm sure you are.
You aren't here to debate. You are here to whine. You don't wear victim well. :)
You have used that canned phrase ("you dont' wear victim") twice now, in addition to your other canned phrases: Paulite, Troll, and "you look like shit". You repeatedly say I am "whining" and "playing the victim" when infact I have done neither even once.
Your demonstrated ability to debate an issue on its merits is thus far, at best, questionable.
Po' wittle troll.
You don't have anything to debate because it is called WHINING.
Logical fallacy: appeal to motive. Fight the arguments, fighting the proposer of said arguments only makes you look weak. Your other option is to keep quiet. Whatever you do, do not make logical fallacies.
Glaucon, that's all she's done to me since I asked her to quit being sarcastic to everyone she met. Now she hounds me everywhere on this site!
Perhaps a case of Internet lust?
I definitely think I have a chance with her. Just biding my time, Thras. Jus' bidin mah time.
this is all you make glaucoma
If you spend all of your time crying about censorship--your a troll. At any time, this individual could have tried to contact the mods but chose not to.
You left out richardgates, a.k.a. richardkentgates, fredastaire
what occupy means to you, does not hold true to me. that is why anarchy would never last for ever, it would only reshuffle the deck, and start a new game, which would create new winners and losers. lets use the deck that is already in play, but be wiser in how we play the game. no?
no, and why are you speaking of anarchy? what does that have to do with the occupy movement? nothing.
well, anarchy, in my opinion, is the act of going against lawful orders. even if you find those orders to be repugnant to your up bringing, laws are laws. I am proud my nation is addressing their perceived injustices. but to go against laws, is just addressing injustice with injustice. be wise and bold and drink the hemlock, metaphorically of course. no?
Actually, Anarchy has nothing to do with laws,for or against.
An-Archy means, literally "no heirarchy" that is, self-reliance, independence, and freedom.
Definitely things to be "stomped out", for sure.
but hierarchies form whether there is laws or not. just look in the ghettos and you will see there is hierarchical order every where. and to create anarchy is just to begin new hierarchies. no?
You said: 'hierarchies form whether there is laws or not.'
I said "Anarchy has nothing to do with laws, for or against"
So, in that respect, we have said the same thing.
However, NO, creating anarchies does not "begin new hierarchies" -- because that's not what anarchy is.
If you do that, then you have not "created" anarchy; you have, well, created new heirarchies.
Anarchy is truely rare, and occurs only when a people are fully willing to take responsibility for self reliance. In such a situation, no one is safe.
That said, I would point out to you that, anarchy is all there ever is. Democracies, socialism, capitalism, and heirarchies -- are all but an illusion.
true. but can society survive the long run without heirarchies? AND IF SO, what books could I read to get a better perspective about ordered anarchy. which, not to offend, seems kinda oxy morronic.
Not only are anarchies rare, if you managed to create one, it would only last for a fleeting moment. In practice, anarchies are all but impossible.
I agree for any attempt to create them outside of a very small scale or as you noted, the very short term. For small scale organization they can be quite handy, I know of a number of co-ops that have been chugging along nicely for years as anarchies.
Indeed, anarchies do not scale well at all. They are so fragile. The problem is obvious; you only need one person to gain more power than the others for the anarchy to become an hierarchy, and the chance of this happening increases each time you add a person to the group. Even if you have a million members who share power perfectly, add one person who gains more power and the anarchy is no more.
I would argue that in practice anarchies are impossible. Of course, you can have a co-op like you mention and people can make decisions through consensus. But still, in practice, this doesn't guarantee the perfect spread of power. There will always be those more intelligent than others who can influence either through strong arguments, or with a type of sophist trickery like Thrasymaque would use.
There is also an interesting dilemma to consider. The more a consensus is approached, the more the people who disagree feel the peer pressure to cave in and agree. If your co-op is formed of 100 people and 97 agree on a certain point, it will be very difficult for the 3 who don't to stand their ground. They will have to be very independent and strong. Most would cave in due to the peer pressure. There can thus be a lot of lobbying going on behind the scenes to create situations that at least come close to consensus. It's like an avalanche, it gets stronger exponentially the more snow is gathered. Get 70 out of the 100 to join you, and soon you'll have 80, then 90, then 100.
This is what I think the anarchist who started Occupy are doing. It's clear the movement is based more around their ideas than those coming from other ideologies. Somehow, they manage to have the upper hand.
Warning: Take my words lightly. Tulcak claims I am a troll for criticizing Occupy, and an0n has pinned me as a highly intelligent psyops. Both believe my mission is to destroy the movement. Do not let me infiltrate your mind...
Anarchies have nothing to do with the relativism of power you say forms a hierarchy.
Hierarchys form willfully, by the participants choosing to become subject to something they place over themselves, either by consensus or apathy.
If those same subjects instead choose to throw their bodies upon the tanks, then you once again have a fully functioning anarchy, albeit a bloody one.
This is the basis for my argument that anarchy is ever-present. That people's apparent loyalties and subjugation to systems is fleeting and temporary, but their enactment of their will and choice is, even if they decide not to, always present.
Anarchy is all there ever is.
Your argument doesn't hold. It is a simple twist on the definition of the term anarchy and serves no real purpose. Again, if everything is anarchy, if we accept your relativist argument, then the anarchy/hierarchy dichotomy has lost all meaning. Anarchy simply means without leaders. It doesn't matter how this situation comes about. If people give their power to others, they have entered into a form of hierarchy. If you look around, you will see that hierarchy is essentially everywhere. It's near impossible to find situations where people share a perfect equilibrium in power.
If I am correct that anarchy is omnipresent and heirarchies are temporary, then the "dichotomy" you speak of was imprecise at best; imaginary at worst.
That's right, if people give their power to others, then they have entered a 'hierarchy'. However, no, anarchy is NOT "a perfect equilibrium in power." Such a thing does not exist, as you point out. Anarchy means "no heirarchy", and it's rather a relative thing; you may do what your wife wants to make her happy, yet she needs you to protect her. Who's on top there?
You don't see "perfect equilibrium in power" when you look around because the dissipation of entropy is not instantaneous, as explained by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Nonetheless, heirarchies are temporary. They exist subjectively within the minds of their subjects only as long they subject themselves to it, and their causes and reasons are up for debate.
However, the realities of anarchistic action are objective and undebatable. They happen. Why? Dunno. But they did.
Systems are imaginary and exist only from a certain perspectve for a certain period of time. Chaos is both the origin and destination of all motive force.
Not impossible at all. Anarchies are all there ever is.
It's law and order and loyalty to systems which are impossible.
Do you have a historical example of an anarchy? Remember, the power must be perfectly spread throughout the people.
It is right now. People have simply chosen apathy as their motive.
People always do what they want; just sometimes they dont' want very much.
This statement is nonsensical, and meaningless to our discussion.
Nonsensical? No it's not. It is the very basis of my assertion that anarchy is all there ever is.
You believe people do things because the law tells them to. I believe they do them because their will decides to.
Don't get aggro on me, I'm really growing tired of all the hyperbolic mudslinging here.
Anarchy is the perfect spread of power. As long as one person has more money then the next, then there is an hierarchy. If you can afford to buy a TV, but a homeless person cannot, then there is hierarchy.
You are making an appeal to relativism. If everything is anarchy, then the words anarchy and hierarchy are meaningless and you should apply to have them removed from the Oxford dictionary.
or.. i could just reject the oxford dictionary's authority to define the words... ;) Troll on, brother!
civil disobedience is what it is. as in Ghandi and the Civil Rights movement.
true. but there are LEGAL WAYS TO BE DISOBEDIENT, and that is not oxy morronic, in my opinion. just take your example: you left america because you despised her methods. that is commendable and disobedient. no?
no, i took a bath and went and got a job. Anywhere that I could.
Get your hands off that hemlock, it is reserved for Socrates the immoral vagabond!
so, he was immoral, as you say, because he questioned Athens laws, but never participated in writing her laws?
Do not listen to Thrasymaque. He is a sophist and was Socrates' nemesis in The Republic. His opinion is biased. I can tell you from first hand experience that Socrates was an honorable man without a hint of immorality. You may drink the hemlock.
Glaucon is Thrasymaque. He/she is here to deceive. a wolf in sheep's clothing. Here is a list that I will continue to update. Please tell me if you see anymore trolls - be honest, I'll be checking. http://occupywallst.org/forum/trolls-we-have-known/
no, shit. but that does not mean I would not enjoy going toe to toe with him. no offence to you for my use of vulgarity.
Naw, it's not so fun, I thought the same too, but if you get the check mate on a particular debate, he just disappears from the thread. The back and forth up to then is ok though :)
I never shy away from debates, but sometimes I lose track of them because they get hidden with minus scores and I don't have time to dig for them. Revive any debate you wish and I will discuss until no further argumentation is possible. Give me the links to the threads in which you feel you have checkmated me and I'll be glad to respond if I feel there is something left to debate. If indeed you have checkmated me, I will admit defeat like I have many times before on this forum.
Another reason I stop is when users use logical fallacies. Unfortunately, this is very common on these boards. There is no point in arguing with someone if all he or she can do is use ad hominem after ad hominem.
Socrates was immoral because he claimed to be moral.
and morality is something you keep to yourself. i believe that. you argue with facts not with condemnation of others. no? but I always thought him disavowing what the Delphi junkies told him was him questioning his absolute morality? in stead he used arguments and when the government sentenced him to death he did not run but took his medicine. is that not moral?
Logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. My stating that Socrates is immoral in no way implies that I consider myself moral.
Morality must be absolute. When a man commits an immoral act, he is no longer moral. When I claim that Socrates is immoral it implies that I judge him in light of his entire life, and no man, even Jesus, led a life without committing acts of immorality as small as those may be. If we judge Socrates's morality only on the acts he committed at the end of his life, then our judgement is flawed.
I hear your retort - "The morality of a person should be judged from his mature self only, and not by overviewing his entire life. We all grow and learn. It is the end result that counts." Perhaps, but where do we draw the line? We could then arbitrarily decide to judge a person at any point before his death. In this sense, most anyone could be deemed moral if he or she is judged a mere seconds before passing. This is the reason God reviews one's whole life upon entering heaven, and not only the most shinny moments.
Hemlock was a poison for Socrates, but a medicine for the rest.
true, and i guess my interpretation of morality is to be true to one's upbringing. as my logic, method and ethics change as I grow, then my sense of morality should change too. i don't know if I'm moral that is for others to decide but i believe that being true to one's upbringing is the best anyone can do. so if other people's actions fly in the face of what I believe to be true, my sense of right and wrong should not waver because of their actions. When I was young I used to steal, but i did not stop because others thought i was wrong, i stopped because stealing was becoming easier and the bad feelings it brought upon me were waning. feeling bad about my actions is my sense of morality. but breaking laws gets easier as those laws are broken more and more. until eventually my rational mind explains away my actions. so my point is: morality is subjective and being true to the way I was raised is the only template i can use, or else then my morality is just dust in the wind
If morality is subjective and depends on the way someone is raised, then there is no way to judge if someone is moral since we have no way of knowing how that person was raised; we cannot be there at every step of the raising, and, even if we could, we wouldn't have the same experience as the raised one since our point of view and brain process would differ.
Is a serial killer moral if he decides to stop on his own? Does it make a difference how he was brought up? If morality is subjective, then it's best we agree that everyone is immoral. Morality is a very high virtue. It shouldn't be recognized in anyone if it is subjective and not provable. Thus, Socrates remains immoral just like the rest of us.
I guess Plato knew what you know so that is why he created Socrates and did not claim to be moral. no?
Plato did not create Socrates. Socrates was a product of the coming together of Sophroniscus and Phaenarete. Plato created the Socrates character you know from The Republic and other works, but not the real Socrates I knew. The real Socrates was not as sharp as the one in Plato's books.
Plato was very intelligent. A Derrida before Derrida. That, I admit. To understand his works, they must be deconstructed. He was not like Luke or Marc; writing an historical account of the life of Jesus. His characters are all hybrids of their true selves and their author, Plato. They are like mythical centaurs. Even Thrasymaque in The Republic is not the Thrasymaque you see before you. In the Republic, I am the Thrasymaque/Plato amalgam.
No one knows what Plato claimed for himself because he always spoke through the mouths of others. Personally, I feel this was a shame in a sense. A type of sophistry. How ironic that he accuses me of similar philosophical shames! Then again, I might be indulging in logical fallacy. We should argue against the arguments presented in The Republic, and not against the motives of their author.
Occupy is an anarchy!
You forgot to add Glaucon, Thrasymaque's nemesis from the Republic.
Is there something going on in your brain?
nothing at all
Finally a truth. ; )
[Removed]
tulcak...I'm back and wanted to take the time to laugh at you and how fucking stupid you are.......
And now you know why you are considered a little bitch.
you want to laugh at me. who cares?
[Removed]
Well, I don't think nichole is so bad. She seems nice.
I actually like Glaucon. He/she may talk about the same subject, but the posts are well-written and polite.
Jimmy44, however, is a real troll. All I have seen from that poster is insults and profanity. Jimmy44 should be banned from this forum, if such a thing is possible.
You forgot about me; brianobx
Fuck Occupy Wall Street http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBXrD9_DK1g
I would suggest that all of you spend about one hour a day and begin posting "troll magnet" topics. Something like "Republicans were the ones who kiss the popular kids' asses." Or, "The Libertarian Fairytale."
Trolls are like moths to a flame and, best of all, you get to sincerely fuck with truly deranged individuals. Kinda worries me sometimes.
But, it is a decent strategy to keep these people off relevant pages....for a little while at least.....and, if they're abundantly demoralized then they may leave us alone. Be commandos on the board to protect the rest of the board.
Thi
Why is OWS scared of constructive criticism? Does it have something to hide?
Trolls are not constructive. They are gopher puntang and must be eradicated.
Some of the trolls listed above are very constructive. They bring strong arguments to the discussion. Why not eradicate them with stronger counter-arguments?
I picture a video game where you get to blast the trolls. I would even let my kids play that one.
hahahahahahah tulcak....yeah we landed on the moon and i am no flatlander....but i know history and you do not my friend....in fact i feel sorry for you...your too stupid to know everyone is laughing at you.....
how old are you kellywankenobi? I want to try and be kind if I'm speaking to a child.
@ tulcak....
Liberal economic theory is flawed and intimately related to socialism which is basically communism lite.....that is why I want it destroyed! I want a free market with limited market controls...just enough to keep the system honest and if there are those who abuse it....throw them in jail....occupiers bitch and moan about corporate america when most of corporate america is the small business with less than 100 hundred employees that struggles to make it ...tax hikes will shutter the doors of many of those businesses and we will watch the unemployment rate go from 9 to 20% in a year and a half. This is not theory it is a mathmatical fact......We have a viable precedent of conservative economic theory at work that turned similar times around....Reagan in the 80's and Coolidge in 1920.....read the economic theory behind these actions taken....we ahd the roaring twenties which was the most technologically creative time in history up to that point and the eighties which started the most successful economic time in history....we have liberal theory at work with carter, fdr, and now obama.....how great did that turn out for them?....Wilson and FDR we're a cluster fuck that prolongedthe great depression by ten years.....world war2 saved our ass unfortunately......You need to read some history besides that Socialistic dribble your professor forced on you that is his point of view...go think for yourself TULCAK
which socialist dribble are you referring to? I haven't had any. your rant is something. really. there really is no reply to something that ignorant. I suppose we didn't really land on the moon either?
Is it "Jimboiam" or "Jimbolam"?
You could certainly add to your list ronimacarroni. justfactsallowed, l31sh0p, Trogdor, kellywankenobi, RichardGates, richardkentgates, fredastaire, RexDiamond, progletariat, ScrewyL, Redmist, FriendlyObserver, weeicemon, Joyce, Joeschmoe1000, angelofmercy, RicoSuave, Rob, therealdeal2011,1percenter4life and literally hundreds more...
To understand WHAT MAKES A TROLL TICK - AND have a chuckle while you're at it - go to:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-trolls-think-trollosophy-exposed/
[Deleted]
huh? wow, you are making no sense. no, really.
[Deleted]
Deep! Bordering on the profound. Do you realize tulcak is a triple-agent?
XD
^^ Thras... I used up my two minutes for that
I have one user name. tulcak. that's it. and I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I'm proud to see the American people finally finding their voice and taking action. Not talking about anarchy or hemlock - how ridiculous.
"I'm proud to see the American people finally finding their voice and taking action."
HEAR, HEAR!
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
I thought Occupy was based on the anarco-syndicalist ideas of David Graeber in turn influenced by the 1930 Spain anarchies? You're saying that's wrong? Isn't there a system of direct democracy with a consensus and general assemblies? Isn't it an horizontal anarchic system where everyone has a voice and there are no leaders? (At least in theory)
What are you saying? That it's an hierarchy with a transparent leadership? Who are these leaders? What are your arguments to support your unique point of view.
Tulcak, PLEASE ADD TO YOUR LIST OF KNOWN TROLLS :
ronimacarroni. turak, justfactsallowed, l31sh0p, Trogdor, kellywankenobi, RichardGates, richardkentgates, fredastaire, RexDiamond, progletariat, ScrewyL, Redmist, FriendlyObserver, weeicemon, Joyce, Joeschmoe1000, angelofmercy, RicoSuave, Rob, therealdeal2011,1percenter4life and literally hundreds more...
This forum has become so TROLL-INFESTED as to be virtually unusable. We have official "moderating policies" : WHY are they not being applied???
To understand WHAT MAKES A TROLL TICK - AND have a chuckle while you're at it - go to:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-trolls-think-trollosophy-exposed/
I sincerely disagree wholeheartedly with a great many of you, therefore I cannot possibly be a "Troll."
Anyhow, please provide a link to the trolling you accused me of.
Happy trolling, ScrewyL.... :o)
Damnit, do not smile in my face while you stab me in the back!
You have made an accusation; as serious as one can be online.
Now, either support it or retract it.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
This does not mention the deliberate dissemination of dis-information. Should it?
WHERE?!
Defining the word does not prove your case.
WHERE have I done that?
There, there now, go cry on Mama Troll's shoulder...
I have been labeled a "Troll" for the following, but so-be-it.
The person who runs this website is named "Justine Alexandra Roberts Tunney", and they have published the source code for the website on github.com here:
http://github.com/jart/occupywallst/
You will notice that the headline, or "motto" for the project there reads as follows:
"Stomping out capitalism, one line of code at a time"
You can verify this is true by scrolling down to the bottom of this very page you are reading, and looking to the right. You will see a link which reads 'github'. Click it. At the top of that page, underneath the smiley face, underneath the word 'Code' with an orange underline, you will see the project headline.
NOTE: I am fully aware that I am discussing the views of J.A. Robert Tunney, and NOT the OWS as a whole. -- However, it is time for the schizophrenia within the OWS movement to cease and for them to actually discuss, debate, and come to consensus on, what is their purpose and a sane solution to the majority's complaints.
The doubletalk about "we are not really socialist but yeah we are but not really" is being used cover for the co-opting of a huge mass of genuinely concerned people.
Since the ideology which most vociferously speaks out against "Capitalism" is Socialism, it is quite likely that the maintainer of this website is a Socialist.
I would be quick to point out that Capitalism is not an "ism" at all, rather an unavoidable result of the consequence of possessing things.
Note also that "possessing" is not a legal construct which can be debated -- but a physical fact having to do with who's hands an object is within or controlled by.
The example I have previously given was this:
If you have a broken car, and you ask me to fix it because I have expertise in fixing cars, and you then trade me two ears of corn for my labor...
Then I have 'capitalized' on my labor.
If you then turn around, and trade that newly repaired car for two pigs, then, lo and behold, you have /capitalized/ on my labor, in much the same way that I did.
The difference being, you /possessed/ the car itself, which repsresents a much greater amount of labor input than my repair, and were therefore able to obtain a higher 'price' for it.
Question is this: Did you ''exploit" me?
And another question:
Is it even physically possible for a Socialist system to prohibit and prevent such transactions as I describe above, or, as I assert:
Is opposing and "stomping out" capitalism futile?
Jart is "out" as an anarchist. It is not hidden.
Socialism and the various forms of anarchy are different.
No reply from the namecaller.
This doesn't seem too troll like in my view - but I will leave open the possibility that you are of the more insidious variety . . .
And yes, two ears for your labor? To my two ears sounds like exploitation. Especially if you labored all day, have nothing to go with them, and a scrawny chicken will cost you three.
What if all I did was replace the ignition fuse, thereby returning the the non-starting car to "working" state and raising its value significantly?
Besides, assuming that I agreed to two ears of corn, then no, I was not exploited, regardless of the labor I input.
And as I said:
I sincerely disagree, therefore I cannot possibly be a troll!
The word "Troll" makes assumptions about motive and intent which are rarely evident despite the frequency with which the word is used.
Whenever you see the word "troll" bandied around, recognize that you are most likely perceiving masked weakness on the part of the speaker.
I sincerely believe that the repelican party is even now in its last days of earthly existence, and yet not all believe.
I would persuade them otherwise. I would induce fits of nervousness and abject despair among these party faithful.
I would do so with all sincerity, and great joy in my heart.
I suspect this does, in the minds of some, make me a troll.
I embrace it.
I am a troll.
Indeed, using the word troll is a logical fallacy: appeal to motive, and/or ad hominem. Users would be much better to counter the claims they don't agree with by using strong counter-arguments, or by simply ignoring them. Using logical fallacies does not work.
Tulcak does not have any arguments against the idea that Occupy is organized as an anarchy with general assemblies using consensus to distribute the power evenly to its protesters. For some reason, he says the people who claim this are trolls, but he doesn't provide arguments to back his accusation. I have asked him to show us what type of hierarchic system Occupy is using: nothing. I have asked him to tell us who the official Occupy leaders are: nothing. Only logical fallacy after logical fallacy. One has to wonder who the real trolls are. Sad.
If someone claims Occupy is an anarchic system using general assemblies to establish consensus in order to distribute power evenly to all its protesters (at least in theory), do you call this person a troll? If so, can you specify for us what type of hierarchic structure Occupy is using, and who are the official leaders of the movement? Could you please provide strong arguments for your claims and links to show us that Occupy is an hierarchy, and not an anarchy. Please, let's debate honestly without using logical fallacies and/or name calling. Thank you.
I would focus on your first question - in part because I presume that at this time the question of leadership is not a matter of debate - there are no leaders. There are no followers. There are people joined together to achieve a common goal - which for myself I define as the eradication of repelican lies and the ideological commitments that have produced them - but that's just me. I like to get to the heart of the matter.
And so to your first question:
Are you a troll?
To answer that question I would ask, what is the purpose of your focus on the issue of power distribution? Is it to invite division? Is it to advocate for or to disempower those who oppose one form of structure over another?
Is it personal aggrandizement?
Answering these questions will provide illumination on the matter of your trollness - it's intent, purpose, and whether this is in fact a good, or a bad, thing.
I am not focused on this issue at all. When I started to learn about Occupy, I read many articles and came to read the essays of David Graeber and found them quite interesting. I like the idea of general assemblies and the use of consensus to unite all the people and give them a common voice. I don't believe this idea can scale, but I find it nice for small groups. Where I live, in Indonesia, there are small general assemblies like this all over and they are quite efficient. I am not for or against anarchy per se, it depends on the context and how it is used.
My posts are mainly focused on other critical aspects of the movement like its use of propaganda in posters and news articles, and if the general assemblies are being corrupted from behind the scenes.
The only reason I am talking about anarchy in this thread is because tulcak has been stalking me for several weeks and has called me a troll simply because I believe Occupy was structured by anarchists (David Graeber) to use general assemblies and consensus in order to spread the power over the movement as evenly as possible. To me, this is a given, but tulcak says it it not true and considers anyone who claims it is to be a troll. I would simply like him to back his claims with strong arguments and to show me what structure Occupy is really using if not anarchy with general assemblies (perhaps some form of hierarchy?), and who are the official leaders of the movement.
Here is his claim in the main post of this thread:
You're discussing anarchy with me. Are you a troll also?
I have said I was, and I have, with the above post, I think demonstrated troll like behavior - I attempted to bait you with the following statement:
There are people joined together to achieve a common goal - which for myself I define as the eradication of repelican lies and the ideological commitments that have produced them - but that's just me. I like to get to the heart of the matter.
You did not take the bait.
I tend to agree with what you have said regarding anarchy - I don't feel theatened by it, nor by discussions of it.
Any discussions regarding direct action that involved violence would be an entirely different matter. I have not seen that happen, and I have not seen these two topics joined in any way.
I did see the quote you cite:
"They come attempting to make it look like OWS is discussing seriously things like anarchy, communism, socialism among the usual labels."
I believe we should discuss such things. Discuss them openly, before the whole world. I believe we should do this because of the failure of repelican party policy and ideology that has given rise for alternative ways of thinking and of organizing, allowing them to assert themselves on the public mind.
Are they afraid of horizontal organizational structures? Their failure has nurtured their own fears.
Let them know fear.
Let them explore its depths in a most intimate, and microscopic detail - and then reassure them, that fear itself, is utterly
un-American.
We could not have conquored the West had we been governed by fear.
We could not persue our Manifest Destiny had we been governed by fear.
And it is the Manifest Destiny of the People to rule. This is our destiny, given us by Contract, taken by force from the hands of old
British Empire.
We are not afraid.
Those who know fear will perish.
Mr Hall. I'm sure you know of my site. You should contact me if you would like to have any input on a story about the faceless leaders of OWS.
Tell me Mr. Hall's first name and I might agree to your proposal.
your questions are not real questions. you do not want answers to them. you use them to characterize the person you are "addressing" them to. you are a fake. you are the worst kind of person there is. you dress up in the clothes of sincerity and concern and good will, but, your purpose is to destroy. you don't want the occupy movement to succeed, you want it to fail. that is your ambition and you are taking a lot of time to do it. you must be the classic psychopath. someone who feels no remorse, no sympathy, no morality, no ethics. I have suspected I've met people like you before, but, with you, I really have no doubts at all. You are evil.
There are millions of your fellow human beings who are suffering, who have been suffering for a long time and yet, you feel nothing. millions around the world and you play this deceitful and vicious game.
With all due respect, I would be interested in the answers to those questions too. I don't know a lot about anarchists (except what I read in Orwell's great book, "Homage to Catalonia") so I don't really have a good sense of how the structure of this movement differs. I went to Zuccotti Park a couple of times in October, and there were groups there with banners about anarchy. So at least some of the people involved are anarchists (in the Occupy Burlington Vermont spin-off, there is a sizable contingent from Green Mountain Anarchists). Of course I realize that doesn't mean the whole movement is an anarchist one, but the answers to those questions would explain it better, at least to me. Thank you.
well, why don't you go to an anarchists web site and discuss there? its way off topic here.
Actually I did that (anarchy101.org) and here is what I found:
"Occupy Wall Street was started by Adbusters. They could be called leftist, but are off the traditional political map in my opinion. They're inspired by anti-capitalist, anarchist, and Situationist ideas...In any case, anarchists have been involved with Occupy* since the beginning and have related in different ways (if at all) in different places. The movement incorporates certain anarchist principles to various extents--the leaderless movement, general assemblies, non-endorsement of political parties, no demands, direct action, systemic/revolutionary analysis, etc...."
"Also, anarchists have the talents and history to strategize with OWS in a way that can disrupt and dismantle key institutions that stand in the way of building a truly "people first" way of living without oligarchic or corporate state ruining out lives."
Stuff like that. There are also comments describing elements that do not adhere to anarchist theory, but it does suggest a significant anarchist-like morphology and morphogenesis.
so, you are telling me that talking about anarchy is on topic here because an anarchist web site says that the occupy movement is? what kind of logic is that? Who the hell cares what anarchy101.org says about the occupy movement? its off topic here.
No. I simply asked you (as others did) to explain how OWS differs from an anarchist movement or philosophy. You said I should look at anarchist websites, so I did that. I found some discussion of the similarity (and differences too) between OWS and anarchism. Why is the discussion of this aspect of OWS censored here?
oh poor troll. no freedom of speech. no, you are not simply asking. its way more complex than that. Your motivation for the discussion is deceitful and cruel. its to cause damage to people involved in a movement who have already been damaged enough. and why? because you and others don't want to see them succeed in changing it. why? that I don't know. perhaps you like things just the way they are - you are the 1% or perhaps sustaining your ideology is more important than fellow human beings. you're disgusting.
No, I am actually truly interested. I have been to Zuccotti Park twice (in October), I met a lot of interesting people, some of whom have excellent ideas. From an anthropolgic or sociologic perspective I find it a fascinating phenomenon. But like the man said, if we don't know history we are doomed to repeat it. I think if you know where you came from, and understand the history, you can get a sense of where you are going to end up.
By the way, did I make the troll list?
the American Revolution did have leaders. But, they did something revolutionary. They and not Kings decided their destiny. For the first time in history. George Washington refused to be a King of the new nation. Radical and revolutionary. And so, here we are, having a revolution without leaders. radical and revolutionary. the first time in history. I believe that if we repeat history, we are doomed to it. its time for something new.
You would have to ask an anarchist....I don't know what anarchist principles are so I can't tell you how my views are different. I can share my views and you can compare?
Thanks. I am not sure that would be helpful, since I really don't know much about anarchy (anarchism?). I just though that the people who vociferously deny that this is an anarchist movement would be able to politely explain why it is not. I guess I was wrong. But I do appreciate your offer.
You know, I've decided I don't much care if this movement does have its roots based in anarchist philosophy. I do not care because it has provided the public a most valuable service - and that is the opportunity to wake from their slumber.
I was concerned at first, - it seemed that associations of violence with that term were inescapable, that the utopia espoused unattainable, that such considerations would hinder our growth and so the opportunity of the public to awaken.
I am not an anarchist.
I see that a focus on this topic is bothersome to some. I'm not sure why. As we grow as a movement, it is certain that more and more people will be drawn in who are not anarchist, and will not be so persuaded. Does it matter?
Let us instead focus our attention not on issues that will certainly divide us, but rather on that which will unite us.
Let us focus on ridding corruption in our political system.
Let us determine how best to achieve that aim.
Great post Zen..we really need to focus on the common thread between us. Anarchists, Republicans, Pro-choice and pro-life....regardless of the labels people wear....we are all people angry that the government we put our faith in, is screwing us sideways with a rusty chainsaw. At the end of the day, the 99% will have to remember what unity is all about, or this won't work.
a rusty chainsaw!!
brRRr!
This is a good article from Business Week. It's a must read if you want to understand the background of Occupy (7 pages)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/david-graeber-the-antileader-of-occupy-wall-street-10262011.html
Thank you.
And another...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/occupy-wall-street-welcome-to-the-occupation-20111110
These are real questions and I would like to hear your answers.
You should address Thrasymaque's questions. A sophist can only be beat with strong arguments. Be careful, he is clever.
What we really need is to pick our battles. Carefully. We should not be encouraging arguments that are intended to divide us along lines that have nothing to do with forwarding the movement or achieving the goal of removing corruption and abuse from our government.
This from the Occupy Together site from their FAQs section:
What is your agenda? Are you anarchists/democrats/republicans/independents/etc.?
We have no agenda other than to provide people with information about the events and actions happening in their area in solidarity and support of those that currently Occupy Wall St. Our political and social beliefs will remain neutral for this cause; this is not about us, this is about the movement. The only thing we will promote openly is peaceful demonstrations.
Seems pretty clear to me.
he thinks he is clever. but, if he was so clever, he'd know that the occupy movement is about the American people voicing their desire to end corporate greed. that's what its about. so, you see Glaucon/Thrasymaque, he is really not that clever.
Corporate greed drives productivity. Go learn some basic economics.
Corporate greed produces terms like externality, terms designed to deny the very thing they define.
Externalities are costs of doing business. These are costs thought of as external. When PG&E poisoned their neighbors water, the costs associated with both prevention before the fact and remediation after meet this definition.
These are costs of doing business that are not counted as a cost of production, because of the mindset that possits they are external and therefore unrelated.
This is what greed does. It introduces a mindset that permits a state of denial surrounding actual costs of doing business, and do so in the name of profit.
Over time greed has had a corrosive effect on the availability and provision of customer service, reduced competition in the marketplace, and even skewed the perception on whether this is a good thing or not - not to mention having devised new and more intricate ways to pick the pocket of the American citizen.
I see that industry has become so engulfed in a morass of greed and that it is so rampant that there is no longer any need of its denial. It has become so rampant that, as a matter of principle, it has become embraced, as if it were a good thing and not a vice; yet there was a time when this was not so.
I say we Americans do not like to have our pockets picked.
I say we will break the hand that would pick our pocket.
right. and use up the human "resources" until there is nothing left.
Proving my point. Thanks.
How would you describe yourself?
awww, poor baby.
Larouche (in rare non - inebriated form) has had input as well.
Larouche has no standing here in OWS. That guy is a schmuck.
His words are here.
How so?
You goons are pathetic compared to to the Tea Party. Rapes, murder, looting, drugs is all y'all know
you statement means nothing. it is devoid of any information
Feeling usurped, Mr Czechoslovakia? :)
Czechoslovakia? ha ha you really are ignorant, aren't you. by the way, the map of Europe and the Middle East on Fox news is incorrect. Greece doesn't border Iran.
Man you're more fixated than I am.
Its the Czech Republic now and has been since January 1, 1993. You know, the Velvet Revolution? how appropriate that you fuck up on another democratic populous peaceful revolution. you truly are an ignoramus
i.e. a dumbshit
And how much is you tax base there, huh, Mr Czechoslovakia, and in light of that, why are you protesting here?
26% Total taxes. I get excellent universal health care and almost free prescriptions, excellent and cheap public transportation, 40 work week with 5 weeks paid vacation, sick days, paternity/maternity leave for up to two years, beautiful and cheap and convenient rail system. what did I get in the US?, 33% total taxes and I got NOTHING. 88% of real revenue in the US last year went to corporate profit only 1% went to salaries and wages. AND, my tax money and yours went to bail out the banks. and my salary has been going down in the US for decades. I had to work 60 to 70 hours a week and only get paid for 40. If I didn't like it, they'd just fire me and hire another slave. if I even thought of taking vacation, I'd be let go. no health care (couldn't afford it) expensive drugs, no public transportation don't you think something's fucked up?
Your country is less than 20 years old. As we speak those of England and Germany are crossing your borders, in search of your welfare benefits for cheap. How long do you expect your new found financial euphoria to last?
I do think things are fucked up; it's an upside down economy, and our current direction is definitely not the curative I was hoping for.
you just better stop now. because everything you've said about the CR and Europe just shows how incredibly stupid you are. you know nothing about how things are here. "England" (I suppose you mean the UK), Germany and the CR have excellent social programs paid for by the people's tax money. I didn't mention welfare programs. You probably think the Social Security benefits in the US are welfare. Man, you are incredibly ignorant.
I've lived there and I know many who would NOT agree with you regarding the state of their welfare state.
oh brother, give it up. I know you haven't. I can tell by your statements and your attitude.
Actually, yes, I did... and I've been examining these questions for years. Germany currently does not agree with your evaluation of the welfare state.
bullshit
They're being over run by Russian and Muslim immigrants. Their tax rates are over 50% and they do NOT have entirely free medical care or free education. And as a result their children are now leaving for Austria and Czechoslovakia where taxes are considerably less.
Its called the CZECH REPUBLIC. you moron. look at a map! you are an IDIOT.
@ tulcak...no deception here...just gawking at the train wreck that occupy is and commenting on my thoughts....wish you all a conservatives dream of success and wish with all my heart for the destruction of liberal economic and social philosophy since it is so twisted and illogical....
no you're not. you're the same. you come here clothed in sincerity and concern and to "learn". if you want to talk about a train wreck, look around at your country. the occupy movement is about the American people finding their voice and taking action - how can you call that a train wreck? what would like to see this country become. should we go back to the 1880's?
Why are you scared of anarchy?
The occupy movement is not a political movement, its not an economic movement, its a social movement. this is what you don't understand. you act as if this is some other version of the Tea Party. Its not. Obama got mic checked the other day. Any politicians who have tried to identify themselves with the movement have regretted it. The movement demands that they listen, not join. Politics is broken. It is owned by corporations. THAT is why this movement exists.
I don't think it is political nor economic. When did I ever say that? What are you talking about? Occupy does not want to enter politics, it wants to create a revolution. I have no idea why you imagine I believe it is an economic movement? Where do you get your strange ideas?
Occupy is a social movement aimed at revolution, structured as an anarchy, and using direct action as its main tactic.