Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Wall Street libertarians have co-opted Occupy Wall Street forum

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 22, 2011, 9:31 a.m. EST by aahpat (1407)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Wall Street's religious fanatics, the libertarians, have been allowed to take over this forum and render it useless for any intelligent conversation about opposing Wall Street's economic fascism.

If OWS is a libertarian front group then that needs to be exposed so that Americans can make an honest and informed choice about supporting OWS. If OWS is not a libertarian front group then it needs to stop the libertarian take over of these forums that is diverting attention and organizing energy from the OWS movement.

Simply put, OWS cannot claim to oppose the excesses of Wall Street while having its philosophical base to co-opted by Wall Street's religious fanatics, the libertarians, espousing their predatory free market religion.

179 Comments

179 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Julian (57) from St Lucia, QLD 5 years ago

Yes, they are the cancer that's killed this site and killing America.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Wow that's kind of fucked up. Wouldn't you say the cancer are the people that think OWS is stupid and should just get jobs, that most already have, and that Wall Street has every right to rob this nation blind? Those people are the problem.

People that have different ideals but still share a common enemy are not the problem. Wall Street, the federal reserve, the federal government, and big banks are the problem. Our government and Wall Street backed Obama bailed out a banking system that is stealing people's retirement benefits and even their homes. That's the problem. You guys shouldn't waste your times trying to separate a group. Power in numbers.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

I like that you tell them, Trev, but you and I know if they will stoop to calling us names like "cancers" "predators" "religious fanatics" "racists" that they lose everyone but their faithful.

[-] 3 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

The Libertarians DEPEND on selfish, narcissistic, clueless people, so they prey on the young and impressionable. These so-called "anarchists" are the biggest tools of the 1%. OWS did not start out as a Libertarian front group, but you could certainly make a case for it now.

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 5 years ago

No. Libertarians are people who don't NEED an institution to tell them how to live their lives, protect them, or take care of them. THAT is what "Libertarian Life" means. YOU might need government to protect you and dictate to you, but there are people who like to think, to feel, and do things for THEMSELVES!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

That's why I say------------------All libertarians should move on off to their own personal, private Galts Gulch.

I hear there's a nice improved cave available in northern Afganistan.

Ready for immediate occupancy. No worries about pesky government intrusion. All the guns you could ask for, no questions asked.

Your own personal paradise.

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 5 years ago

No Libertarians, BECAUSE of their lack of dependence on everyone else are capable of producing and existing far more advanced settings than caves. We don't like, or suffer from restrictions on our minds feelings and bodies by large institutions the way most of you sheeple do.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

That's right, you need a nice comfy gulch.

Hurry on off now. Your egos are becoming painful to watch implode.

Take that whiny Mr. P fellow with you, I'm sure you "non-sheeple" will need a leader. Hmmmm, just like sheep do.

Take some RAID with you, there seems to be a lot of flies buzzin' 'round you're Bull Shit.

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 5 years ago

You are telling me that it is "BS" that I am capable of living my life without a government or religion "taking care of me"? Telling me what to do with my own mind, body, and money? Telling me what "values" I should have for MYSELF? And I definitely don't need some "group" lumping me in with them as a victim, as a lower 99% income earner. I prefer to do things MYSELF to make sure I have a sizable income.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

That's exactly what I'm telling you.

Every libertarian claims to be a victim.

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 5 years ago

A victim of what??? Government intrusion? Religious intrusion? If that is what you mean, then yes, I do claim to be a "victim". But I, just like most Libertarian-minded people, am still a successful, happy person and will continue to be one using my own strengths, freedoms, discipline, and mind. You "robots" NEED external forces to make you happy. You need programming to lead your lives for you.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

See, I told you.

Whiny, vague, victimization, just like Mr. P.

Just go Galt and get it over with.

We want to see if you can actually make it work, instead of foisting it on the rest us.

After all, you claim you don't need us.

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

I;d like you to tell my friends and family and coworkers that I am "selfish, narcissistic and clueless," and that I am "out to prey on the young and impressionable." They would get a kick out that characterization. I know many who would count themselves among those you spit this venom at. And to what end? It convinces no one.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

The people are going to realize that Obama is a liar and that fake republicans like Newt Romney hold no water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I2fRcFPzu4

Obama is a fraud!!!

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

He's bombed more countries than Bush. Countries like Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... etc

He extended the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

He never actually closed guantanamo bay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

He lied about ending the wars in Iraq and the current withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. And there is a billion dollar military base in Iraq and I guarantee you that it aint empty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo

He supported the bailouts of banking institutions that are extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air, and Obama has yet to do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w

He also supported the patriot act, which essentially deletes the 4th amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqXmQYHV-1I

He's started unconstitutional acts of war against Libya, which he spoke out against when Bush did that to Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo

Obama signed for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial into law under provisions of the NDAA and "designates the world as the battlefield and that includes the homeland." -quote senator Lindsey Graham who supported the bill and argued in it's favor.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/

"The killing of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the threats posed by al Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States. The Conference Report ensures the United States will have the ability to meet this threat and neutralize terrorists from these groups and conduct effective interrogations."

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb

List of terrorist organizations our country could start war with and the countries they're in.

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

"This [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011] designates the WORLD as the battlefield... and that includes the homeland."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34

Next stop Africa and Yemen!!! Maybe Iran or Syria next? Fulfill that cold war with some Operation Northwoods and go to war with Russia? Who knows? It's the government. It's a threat to national security to tell you the truth all the time.Maybe China a few years from now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-heads-to-asia-with-sharp-focus-on-chinas-growing-power/2011/11/10/gIQAOsQkBN_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-us-to-send-250-marines-to-australia-in-2012/2011/11/16/gIQAO4AQQN_blog.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

“We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” -Cass R Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.

Oh and don't forget about this Hour long presentation in congress about Al Qaeda members being the Libyan rebels, as well as extremists, rapists, and murderers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0pUEU603Q&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=42&feature=plpp_video

In case any of you don't like the first video because it's a republican here is super Liberal Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda in the rebels as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video

And here is an article on the Libyan rebel leader admitting to having a bunch of Al Qaeda members in his "rebellion" which is actually just terrorism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

And to all the remaining Obama fans, please don't try and accuse me of being in favor of Newt Gingrich or tell me some bullshit about McCain Palin. My criticism for Obama is simply based around facts and in no way means I support a GOP agenda. Obama is a fraud and so is Newt Gingrich.

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 5 years ago

No way!!!!! You must now that ANYBODY who doesn't like Barry O' is, first of all, RACIST. Then you have to be a rich, Bible wielding, White guy. Or you are a Bible thumping southern redneck, with no brains and duct tape to fix everything. Definitely a RACIST either way. And if you are one of the very few Blacks who don't support Obama, regardless of his policies (,yet WHITES are the "racist" people), you are an Uncle Tom type.

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 5 years ago

No way!!!!! You must now that ANYBODY who doesn't like Barry O' is, first of all, RACIST. Then you have to be a rich, Bible wielding, White guy. Or you are a Bible thumping southern redneck, with no brains and duct tape to fix everything. Definitely a RACIST either way. And if you are one of the very few Blacks who don't support Obama, regardless of his policies (,yet WHITES are the "racist" people), you are an Uncle Tom type.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

They do act for all the world, like religious fundies.

3 months of it. Once one goes away, 3 come and take his place, starting the whole argument over.

It gets tiresome.

They remind me of the excuse some give for republican malfeasance.

The " I'm a real conservative", and they're not, kind of argument.

Delusional, is what it is.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

They have, I believe intentionally, totally undermined the usefulness of this forum as a means of communicating and organizing.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

It's CATO inspired multi pronged marketing/PR.

I wonder how long a phlanx of pro occupy posters would last at the CATO forum.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

It would be a waste of time for OWS people to attempt to rationally discuss responsible democratically promulgated regulation, for limiting the predatory excesses and victimization by stock market participants at a meeting of these same dogmatically absolutist free market predators.

[-] 6 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

Why do people think the "anarchists" are somehow better, or all that much different than Libertarians? In fact, many of these "anarchists" are going to vote for Ron Paul! No doubt the 1% loves them all, money is all the law they need!

[-] 7 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

Libertarianism is anarchy. The freedom to prey on others without the constraints of government oversight or regulation.

It s a total lack of civil order in economic systems that empowers economic fascists to fill the void with their predatory aggression.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22781) 5 years ago

I agree. Libertarianism has a veiled anarchy at its root.

[-] 4 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

I'm rather more an anarchist than libertarian. Your ugly spews smack of the same sort of emptiness that calls liberals communists, or Obama's critics racist.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 5 years ago

Market anarchy, yes. But don't call it anarchy; it is simply stupid to do so. We have anarchists here. They are reasonable people, who don't like their ideology being used as a pejorative to insult the people that they are diametrically opposed to. Use better pejoratives, such as 'market fundamentalism'. Market fundamentalism is the belief that everything that happens as a result of the free market is inherently ethical and just; that ambition directly translates to reward in the unfettered capitalist system.

Your use of the term fascism is also wrong. Fascists are adherents of the third position, putting them in the center of the political spectrum. They are in diametrical opposition to libertarianism, and many are supporters of the movement. An economic fascist would generally advocate state capitalism, i.e. a strong public sector with substantial economic regulation. This is puts them in diametrical opposition to the economic deregulation that you label them as adhering to.

You should probably watch out before you throw around ideological beliefs in such a pejorative, inaccurate manner. It insults our own protestors, and puts you at a bad position in an argument. You are no better than the market fundamentalists who see it as fit to label the movement as Marxist, and call the protestors 'commie hippies'.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

It is absolutist free market anarchy that I am addressing. And how the regulatory void created by libertarian market anarchy creates opportunity for fascists to fill the void with their like-minded predatory market capitalism. Predatory market capitalism that is no different from the libertarian anarchy.

Using different words that are less offensive to "anarchists" is kinda oxymoronic.

Typical right-wing bullshit. Redefining the terms when you don't like how they are applied to you. And defensively trying to turn the issue back on the writer while avoiding addressing the issue.

[-] -1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 5 years ago

I'm not a right-winger. I'm center-left on the political spectrum. It is not bullshit. You are insulting your fellow protestors. I don't like bullshit, be it the left-wing bullshit that you are using, or be it the right-wing bullshit that the reactionaries are using.

You are absolutely wrong, anyway. Economic fascists vouch for a strong public sector, not the neoliberalism that you and I detest.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

And more bullshit.

[-] 1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 5 years ago

How exactly? May you explain, rather than trolling? Economic fascists are in the center of the spectrum. Any evidence against that? Do you even know what anarchism is?

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

You have your own libertarian definitions of everything. there is no reasoning with someone who is so outside reality that they assert that "Economic fascists are in the center of the spectrum." This is ludicrous on its face.

[-] 0 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 5 years ago

No, it's not. You don't know what fascism is. I don't have libertarian definitions of shit. Libertarians and other neoliberal types are opposed to corporate handouts, because they view it as 'picking winners and losers' or some kind of crap like that. Fascists claimed to be in the third position; they went beyond left and right, and they syncretized radical views from each side. They held an opposition to both communism and neoliberalism. Hitler's policies were broadly Keynesian, as stated in the political compass.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

LOL!

You are delusional.

[-] -1 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 5 years ago

Still, no evidence. I am disappointed. Very sad. If you have a counter argument to make, make it now. tsk tsk tsk.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

Thousands of times I have posted this comment:

"Libertarianism is anarchy. The freedom to prey on others without the constraints of government oversight or regulation."

Libertarians invariably respond with personal attacks, long winded dissertations of libertarian propaganda or other distractions and diversions.

Never once has a libertarian denied my contention.

"Libertarianism is anarchy. The freedom to prey on others without the constraints of government oversight or regulation."

Not once!

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

You are plain stupid and completely lack any vision outside that of which you've been successfully programed to harbor as required reality. I recommend electroshock and more electroshock. I'm aware a lobotomy would be wasted effort.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 5 years ago

You are chocolate stupid with nuts in your brain and completely full of that which I avoid stepping in because it smells really, really bad. I recommend you crawl back up the giant frog ass you came out of. And take your smelly wings with you.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 5 years ago

I agree with you 1BillionZillionGatrillion%, btw, if you are a girl aahpat, can we go steady now? ;-)

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

You morons still don't get that IF, you choose to take your money to bet on the horse race or the one armed bandit, you have no right to expect anyone to be sympathetic if you do this, especially knowing the guys who own the wallstreet/casino are crooked Ivy League thieves that outsmarted you by using your own greed against you.

Reasonable and rational people handle their own money and find it outlandish that so many of you greedy wealth extractors want whole new and amazingly large branches of citizen paid for government to regulate and protect you from doing stupid shit.

All of you 99%ers that still have your money in the banks and stock markets, are just as much of the problem as the thieves running the show.

[-] 2 points by Libertarianliving (149) 5 years ago

You are actually expecting these sheeple to take responsibility for their own lives and futures. Religion and Government have deeply programmed not to think for themselves.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

not to mention greed............. everyone aspires to have a big slice of the easy money pie while ignoring where it comes from if they actually are successful and lucky, yet, scream bloody murder and demand that somebody needs to do a lot more something NOW to stop these Money Magicians from screwing anyone again... and I can't count how many I know that lost big within the last five years and STILL have money in the same Casino.... hoping this time it will work out better.

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 5 years ago

These same sheeple will whine to the government to "outlaw gambling" to "protect them". These OWS sheeple are the types who need laws like holding bartenders liable when drunk drivers kill themselves or someone else. They would sue STANLEY for poking themselves in the eye with a screwdriver. Liberalism and Religion have trained people to follow a group mentality and have their thinking done for them. That is what probably 80% of "occupiers" are... Liberal Socialist Sheeple. I bet the woman who spilled the coffee on herself at MacDonalds would be an occupier, along with the judge and/or jury who awarded her "compensation", and the legislators who make one able to win such a suit. Wait, the woman won a $MILLION do she is no longer a "victim" of the "evil rich."

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Well, I'm trying to wrap my head around such mentality and it is very hard for me to fathom that there are many in our society who truly do function that way.

Vaporizing the orignal 13th amendment was a huge blow to our Republic with anyone jabbing back calling me a racist or pro-slavery type is the epitome of small simply mindedness. Our Declaration of Independence actually prohibited slavery with it's very first paragraph although I've never been opposed to any amendment clearly spelling it out for those who would think it within human rights for equal persons to own other equal persons.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

I watched it only because you posted it. It's mildly humorous, yet surprisingly ambivalent considering the source.

How are you?

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Dennis Kucinich is a real democrat. Barack Obama is not. It's actually a legit argument.

Obama is a fraud!!!

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

He's bombed more countries than Bush. Countries like Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... etc

He extended the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

He never actually closed guantanamo bay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

He lied about ending the wars in Iraq and the current withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. And there is a billion dollar military base in Iraq and I guarantee you that it aint empty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo

He supported the bailouts of banking institutions that are extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air, and Obama has yet to do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w

He also supported the patriot act, which essentially deletes the 4th amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqXmQYHV-1I

He's started unconstitutional acts of war against Libya, which he spoke out against when Bush did that to Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo

Obama signed for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial into law under provisions of the NDAA and "designates the world as the battlefield and that includes the homeland." -quote senator Lindsey Graham who supported the bill and argued in it's favor.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/

"The killing of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the threats posed by al Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States. The Conference Report ensures the United States will have the ability to meet this threat and neutralize terrorists from these groups and conduct effective interrogations."

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb

List of terrorist organizations our country could start war with and the countries they're in.

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

"This [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011] designates the WORLD as the battlefield... and that includes the homeland."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34

Next stop Africa and Yemen!!! Maybe Iran or Syria next? Fulfill that cold war with some Operation Northwoods and go to war with Russia? Who knows? It's the government. It's a threat to national security to tell you the truth all the time.Maybe China a few years from now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-heads-to-asia-with-sharp-focus-on-chinas-growing-power/2011/11/10/gIQAOsQkBN_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-us-to-send-250-marines-to-australia-in-2012/2011/11/16/gIQAO4AQQN_blog.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

“We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” -Cass R Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.

Oh and don't forget about this Hour long presentation in congress about Al Qaeda members being the Libyan rebels, as well as extremists, rapists, and murderers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0pUEU603Q&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=42&feature=plpp_video

In case any of you don't like the first video because it's a republican here is super Liberal Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda in the rebels as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video

And here is an article on the Libyan rebel leader admitting to having a bunch of Al Qaeda members in his "rebellion" which is actually just terrorism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

And to all the remaining Obama fans, please don't try and accuse me of being in favor of Newt Gingrich or tell me some bullshit about McCain Palin. My criticism for Obama is simply based around facts and in no way means I support a GOP agenda. Obama is a fraud and so is Newt Gingrich.

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1883) from Fredericksburg, TX 5 years ago

Libertaricons are idiots. They may have infiltrated with the intention of diluting or confounding OWS, perhaps. But co-opted is inaccurate. It implies they've changed OWS. They haven't. They never will. Libertarians are morons. The more they speak out the more obvious that is.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago

They are obstructionist. The framework of OWS is set up in such a way as to be extremely vulnerable to them.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago

At this juncture, the only effectual goal available to OWS, is to directly and explicitly oppose all forms of right libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism, market fundamentalism etc. and related political philosophies). At present, the singular focus of OWS can only be as a front against these forces, OTHERWISE ALL OTHER EFFORTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE RENDERED IMPOTENT. OWS must have an official policy against such purveyors of blind sociopathic hatred, in order to prevent total co-option by these elements, which already have a strong foothold at all levels within the movement (although OWS spokespersons, officials and supporters are generally in denial of this sad reality). Only after OWS is synonymous with unified anti-libertarianism, can the organization move forward to effect further progress on any area beyond the ideological realm.

Simultaneously, groups and individuals who identify as “left anarchists” and “libertarian socialists,” having common goals with OWS, must put aside semantic disputes based on their own unfortunate monikers, and concede that a united front against right libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is the only possible route forward.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I've been trying to tell them.......:)

Even coined a term to describe those who are doing this to us.

Neolibertarians.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago

They are "neolibertarians". They had to reinvent themselves after M. Friedman and Greenspan were proven wrong... Now those guys were never "real libertarians" to begin with. It must be so awkward for them. ;)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Neolibertarians are the ones that are obsessed with Ayn Rand.

There's boat loads of them.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago

Greenspan and Rand were totally bff's, they used to drink cosmos and talk about deregulation for hours. Shh, don't tell the trolls, they don't like it when you mention that little bromance. <3

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Then there's Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, and how many more already in Congress?

How many infesting the states under Republican and Democratic banners?

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago

Never trust anyone with two first names. Er, what about someone with a last name for a first name and a first name for a last name?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Maybe it's just the initials PR in any order..............:)

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago

Has anyone else thought about this? Sometimes I think that the following names look like creepy anagrams:

Ayn Rand Ron Paul Rand Paul Paul Ryan

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Clever, huh?

It's just a light touch of irony, as there are many, many more.

Those are just the "faces" we see.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago
[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Was that Kevin Bacon?

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago

Never trust someone who's last name is a pork product.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

It's OK I'm a gentile..........................:)

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 5 years ago

Kevin bacon cheeseburgers.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

But they can't even do it themselves, they seem to be hiring religious nutcase kids to post stupid "Dr. Paul" crap.

[-] 2 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 5 years ago

Hi aahpat,

Just some technical nitpicking, "fascism" is a system of government control of industry or vice-versa, industry's control of the government.

It is a contradiction to suggest that libertarians offer nothing for opposing economic fascism, the complete antithesis of what libertarians stand for.

Peace,

[-] 2 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

Yeah, I sorta like the term anti-fascist today. I'll name my views something else tomorrow. In the same way OWS is doing well to be leaderless, Ima try to be label-less. Tomorrow I'm thinking I'm going to be a cryptoanarchist or maybe a neo-paleon or something.

I am a Party of One (POO). I am a Wingnut.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

When one group actively conspires to filibuster and obstruct anything that is not their dictate and dogma you no longer have a conversation.

You don't get it with the libertarians. You are trying to foist off this delusion of "common ground" politics. Libertarian economic theory and philosophy is inimical to the values expressed by OWS of economic justice and responsible government regulation of the markets. Libertarians don't come here to find any common ground. They come here to obstruct the discourse about alternatives to absolute free market anarchy. They come here to proselytize the unregulated free market values that empowered Wall Street to trash the U.S. economy. The last thing the lib trolls want is to establish "common ground" with OWS.

[Removed]

[-] 5 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

The libertarians thank you for your open heart appeasement. They perceive it as a weakness to be exploited. And they do.

You have a group of people who have, for years, been creating group dynamics for controlling the discourse on forums. Exploiting the anonymity and openness to make any but their perspective the dominant topic of discussion. I would wager that there is a libertarian email group that is cuing its participants on who and what to focus on or intentionally ignore to keep them as the only topic dominant. I have seen them do this elsewhere.

But the basic point that I have is that the libertarians are filling the forum with their ideals and philosophy. Ideals and philosophy that is inimical to what Occupy WALL STREET is about. A casual reader of this forum would quickly come to the conclusion that OWS is a libertarian organization when it is absolutely not.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

"The libertarians thank you for your open heart appeasement. They perceive it as a weakness to be exploited. And they do."

Yep. They sure do.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

They won.

Mention WallStreet and they might give a nod, but it will be quickly on to something else. Anything else.

End the FED anyone?

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 5 years ago
[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

You know how the government established the use of "protest pens" in which only in such pens protesters are permitted to protest at many affairs. Could OWS be the internet version of such a concept?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Since this thread is even truer today than when it was posted, it's time for a little "catch up" on the libe(R)tarain attitude.

They are now attempting to play catch up with their (R)epelican't cohorts when is comes to violent rhetoric.

Still think they are all about freedom and personal "rights"?

Still think they are about nonviolence?

Think again.

" it seems those who support anti-gay hatred are sounding a call to arms. Mississippi Libertarian candidate for the US House Ron Williams wrote a letter to the editor of the Biloxi Sun Herald and suggested that gun violence should be used against the mayors."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/02/mississippi-libertarian-suggests-using-gun-violence-against-mayors-who-oppose-anti-gay-chick-fil-a/

The neolibe(R)tarians have spoken.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 5 years ago

Good that folks are starting to recognize. We had this from day one in Little Rock. We have dealt with it. Tulsa, too. Your turn.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 5 years ago

The actual OWS doesn't really a voice per say yet but it would great if all the topics on the forum were about relevant debates and were intelligent. Additionally threads that have actual meaning such as goals, demands, etc. would be nice. None of it has to be OWS official, but the movement would improve if the forum's threads were actually considered as possible solutions etc.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by DYLANDIRT (44) 5 years ago

Darn people. Don't they know this is a peoples movement? They breed like rats. They keep coming and taking over everything. Voicing their opinions.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

I do not believe in buying the shovel for the people who want to bury you.

You simply can't reason with sociopaths. Libertarians are sociopaths.

Play Neville Chamberlaine all you want with the libertarians, in the end you will end up buried in a ghetto with them laughing over your rotting body.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 5 years ago

I think the problem is alternatives.

Social programs are nice, but people are becoming less interested in living in a police state which is locked in a perpetual state of war. If Obama had a pair of balls and actually did what he said he was going to do (or at least gave the appearance of trying) fewer blue republicans would be defecting.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

To an extent, it's true that Randian-Retards & 'The Prophets of Private Profit' have infiltrated this forum !

Rabid ; Reactionary and Right-wing, Ayn Rand worshipping Free Market Fundamentalists who hate the very notion, idea and indeed ethic of "Society" and have no knowledge or comprehension of 'Capitalist Externalities' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality ) or any understanding or appreciation of the idea of 'Opportunity Cost' { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost } have really tried extremely hard to "Occupy" this forum as indeed have an alarming number of apologists and proponents of The Imperial U$A [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism ] !!

Going Into 2012, The Only Question Is : WTF are you, I and WE going to do about it ?!!!

facta non verba ;-)

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

You know, I don't really plot my politics on a line, whether rabid or not is probably subjective, don't like Rand much because she was just as nasty as you against any non-athiest, and as to an ethic of "Society" I'm certain these sorts of relentless attacks are perfectly good and right in troll world.

I have perfect comprehension of externalities, and opportunity cost, and have been trying to occupy a civil discussion here, often to little effect.

But on the proponents of the imperial u$a, I will fight shoulder to shoulder with you against them, brother shadz, but ridicule, name-calling, and all the other empty tactics I will not use, and would counsel against you using them, as well.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

I'm a tad baffled as to how you managed to take my rather generalised response to "aahpat's" forum-post, soo personally !! Ho-hummm ; Merry Xmas, anyway ;-)

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that OWS management/non-management is to immature to effectively wield the power that the mass protests have created. Or, more to this point, even to protect itself from the insidious nature of its opposition.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

@ahpat : It has been only a little over 3 months and things have only just started !

The acorn is now a strong sapling but there is still a long way to go yet !!

Patience and fortitude, mate ; Please try to 'Occupy Optimism' !!!

Merry Xmas & a New Year of Peace, Prosperity & Potential to you & yours and to US all ;-)

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 years ago

Did demobots think co-opting would be easy?

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 years ago

Everyone is accusing everyone else of co-opting OWS. Good. People either get it or they don't.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 years ago

OWS is just an economic theory intended to polarize. That's a good thing. The people who run the world deserve it.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

It's still going on....unabated.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Bringing up more hateful posts?

Things I agree with libertarians on that apparently you dont-

  • Legalize drugs
  • Marriage equality
  • No Patriot Act
  • End the Wars
  • End banking cartel

Things I do want that they dont

  • A strong EPA/FDA/SEC, instead of this puppet shit right now. PErhaps the people can elect the positions instead of letting the gov do it.
[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Forum?

They have infiltrated and co-opted the movement.

When the Kochs said "keep their filthy occupy hands off our government", agents made it so.

[-] -2 points by GNAT (150) 5 years ago

Your inability to see anyone without some sort of label is nothing short of breathtaking.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33204) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

New here? I don't think so. Who were you last time you got booted? trashy's left toe?

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 5 years ago

Based on what?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33204) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (17841) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 minutes ago

New here? I don't think so. Who were you last time you got booted? one of trashy's left toes?


[-] 1 points by GNAT (1) 0 minutes ago

Based on what? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


[-] 1 points by GNAT (1) 4 minutes ago

Your inability to see anyone without some sort of label is nothing short of breathtaking. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -1 points by GNAT (150) 5 years ago

I'm not good a riddles.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33204) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

We know - not even your own trashy.


GNAT No Profile Information Private Messages Information

Joined Sept. 11, 2012


So U R not new to this forum and trashy likes to keep lots of sock puppets fired up - So are you one of trashy's toes? What was your sock name before GNAT ?

[-] -1 points by GNAT (150) 5 years ago

Sept. 11, 2012 was yesterday. Has this forum stopped accepting new users?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33204) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

You did not appear here yesterday - your new sock did - but not you.

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 5 years ago

There is something unnatural and offensive about your inquisition. I think I'll pass on your engagement at this time.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33204) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

U do that trashy.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

You're ability to see labels, where there are none, is astounding.

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 5 years ago

Forum Post: Wall Street libertarians have co-opted Occupy Wall Street forum

[-] 1 points by shooz (12607) 22 minutes ago

Forum?

They have infiltrated and co-opted the movement.

When the Kochs said "keep their filthy occupy hands off our government", agents made it so.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 0 points by elpinio (213) 5 years ago

How is it possible? I thought you were the 99%

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22781) 5 years ago

OWS in no way, shape or form supports libertarian ideas.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

That is becoming less clear with each passing day.

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (22781) 5 years ago

How so? What about this movement is libertarian? You can't listen to the libertarians on this forum and say that OWS is libertarian because it isn't. The actions of this movement are anything but libertarian.

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

The initial genius of OWS was identifying Wall Street as the primary source of the problem. The genius continued with the novel idea of being leaderless.

But somehow, instead of going after the criminals, we all seem pre-occupied with demonizing many of those who are our natural allies.

Could my views be considered libertarian? Yes. Do I get tired of the libertarian bashing? I did at first, but I've come to believe that until you stop going after regular, well-meaning people, regardless how wrong you think they may be, this movement is doomed to the margins.

Even with my libertarianish views, I've been able to fight through and find good common ground, but so long as everyone with libertarian sensibilities is hounded, heckled and otherwise mistreated, you'll just prove what the mainstream media has been claiming all along, that OWS and the like are just a bunch of left-wing crybabies that want big-daddy government to make everything fair and "free" and everyone equally broke.

That somehow some good fairy witch is going to suddenly get all the regulators to do the right thing, as if regulation was the magic fairy dust that would suddenly eradicate greed and prevent the near-total corruption of the regulatory agencies.

That some magic tax, well distributed, will suddenly mean we all have enough to eat, enough to pay the heating bill, health care, etc (ad infinitum it seems).That some magic "green" stimulus will suddenly fix the jobs problem.

That if we only give enough bailout and bonus to the corrupt "too-big-to-fails," then big-daddy government will finally be in enough debt to those vampires that they will suddenly find a heart and a conscience, or at least bleed you less slowly.

Forgive me, but I am skeptical.

Libertarians have had our backs with regards to the Bill of Rights. That's their kick. Don't you all get that? Is that not incredible leverage?

Do we believe that we have descended into a veritable police state, or what? If not, then libertarians have nothing for you.

Do you believe that the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st Amendment, is worth vigorously protecting and exercising? If not, then libertarians have nothing for you.

I could go on and on like this. Everyone is going to have to make up their own mind about whether these sorts of demonizations are worth the trouble to repel what could be some of your strongest allies.

I have never made the claim, but knowing myself to be a lowly union carpenter, yet very sympathetic to civil libertarians, I probably come off as being an enigma, yet I guarantee that it is believed by the Koch conspiracy kooks around here that I am a full-on salaried wall street "fascist" troll, mindlessly babbling some imaginary religion in hopes of duping some of the weak-minded, and otherwise disrupting, and all that other shit you guys keep claiming.

I see more anti-libertarian troll posts/comments from the anti-libertarian generals who do a good job at keeping down the noise level sometimes, but after weeks of posting/reading here, I'm starting to think that what might be really going on is quite the opposite.

Those who complain the loudest about trolls have become the very evil which they seek to eradicate.

I think that if everyone decides to cut out the name-calling and conspiracy theories, etc, just for a spell, and instead try a little love, acceptance and cordiality. . .who knows, but I think we could all band together to call out the dumbasses and gratuitous pot shots.

A facebook friend of mine inadvertantly put it very well when he posted a long long status on his lousy day:

". . .the man who is the father figure in my life called me the most narrowminded person in the world when I tried to have a serious discussion. I refuse the advice of those wellmeaning friends and relatives who say we just shouldn't talk about some matters. I maintain it is precisely in the contentious, difficult areas that we should be focusing our communication efforts. And that does not mean conducting verbal war with one another. It is time to dispense with oneupmanship and competitive debate. We all need to stop the putdowns, namecalling, and assumptions and actively strive for compassion, peace, understanding, and solutions that work for as many people as possible."

I agree.

If crap like the OP keeps getting posted, the precious consensus we seek will not materialize, and OWS proves itself unworthy of whatever influence it may wield, and lies every time it claims to speak for 99%.

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

I notice I keep switching between first and second person. I've struggled with this. Sometimes I feel welcome, and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I feel fully part of all this, and other times I feel totally at odds with it. I want to be using We and Our rather than You and Your, but if aaphat is representative of the party line around here, then being concerned about whether I belong or not is solved. And I will be sad to finally admit that I can't believe that OWS will help much but the 1% simply by marginalizing (y)ourselves.

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 5 years ago

I totally agree, some people seem to forget what "all inclusive movement" means when their sacred cow is under political pressure to actually do something about preserving peoples rights instead of signing them away.

If the movement is not all inclusive its going to stop growing and die of stagnation like other inspirational movements which turn into ideological fringe cults mired in group think.

People who hate Libertarians seem to be more concerned with social programs than personal freedoms, and I guess its fine if you prefer living in a police state so long as its busy handing out free money; but asking OWS to shun people with different opinions because they are afraid of them...

...that's as fascist as the system these people are purportedly fighting against, and at least IMO they're just as guilty as taking bribes, they're selling their vote and their freedoms for the promise of free cash.

[-] 0 points by francisw (3) from Walnut Creek, CA 5 years ago

 From John Galt’s famous speech in the novel “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.

“I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” A statement by Ayn Rand meant to vilify socialism and government. It also says, (but not intended to) that we, the 99%, should refuse to live our lives for the sake of others: the heirs of Sam Walton or to sheepishly allow unbridled capitalism’ for the sake of that 1%. There is another 1%, citicens solders. Citicens are entitled to their own HONEST gains. They used us; took from our labor and took ower freedom from us unjustly. And continue to. Money is freedom to most. The more you have the more freedom. Freedom to eat well, to see a doctor, to go to a movie , to get educated and to contribute to and have a say in government . With wealth comes power; with vast wealth and power came corruption

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

I would rather not respond to you crazies BUT:

You are citing a fantasy character conceived from the delusions of a demented egomaniac.

Give me a freakin break!

[-] -1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

You may be right aahpat, but why even bother? To heap more ridicule on someone you could instead be gently educating? Do you advocate that people live for the sake of others? Is that something that should come naturally to folks (which I think it does) or do you believe in coercion to form your beloved Society?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Head for Galt's Gultch.

You deserve it.

PS. Have a Merry Moneymas Day.

[-] 0 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 5 years ago

They are being paid by Homeland Security or some private corporation.

I have struggled to start a discussion about something important but they are always laying in wait...to tell us just how stupid and useless the movement is ...but they hang out on this board for conversation. Sure.

If other posters would respond more often to good posts, they would be at the top of the forum. But per usual, people just react to idiots instead and those posts are always at the top of the forum shutting down what could be useful discussion.

[-] 1 points by Julian (57) from St Lucia, QLD 5 years ago

That's a good point. These people are acting just like COINTELPRO that they claim is always attacking them. For some reason people always respond to the dumb topics rather than the constructive ones and it wastes everyone's time and it turns the site into a garbage dump.

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

The thing is, sometimes a "dumb topic" is designed to get people confused, twist facts, or make OWS look bad in some way. Sometimes I feel the need to use dumb posts as "teachable moments", and set the record straight.

[-] 2 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

You're good at that, Blue. I appreciate it.

By creating all the troll bait against anti-fascists like me, you keep us away from what you'd consider the good threads. I have little interest in many of those, because they generally advocate more of the same, just a little better somehow, maybe somehow with better people, or better rules.

I am a pretty big fan of the Constitution, and I would hope to somehow be able to consider it, especially the Bill of Rights, common ground. Our dear leaders swear an oath to it, and it seems a reasonable minimum standard to hold them to it. I'm open to any ideas that do not go against it.

We all want the democratic aspects of our system to be more effective, for example. undue political influence from nearly any one of the moneyed interests you can think of would be one thing. Another would be the scam our voting systems have become. Another would be the erosion of privacy and civil liberties. Another might be the shrinking diversity of ownership to major media.

Maybe not. Maybe OWS doesn't really care about these things all that much.

I can't, in good conscience, allow Posts like the OP go relatively unchallenged. If they weren't made, I couldn't care, could I? And I am as good a judge of a troll as anyone and would love to go troll-hunting in substantive threads. Posts like this exacerbate the problem they are trying to help, IMO.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

I do what I do. If you spout Koch Brother lines, I will catch it and call you out as anti-OWS.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 5 years ago

It would be totally inadvertant. I do live in Brownbackistan, however. But I ignore state-local news as much as possible. I don't even want to know.

And I live in the state that is apparently nothing more than a Koch plantation, with generous helpings of some creepy faith-based initiatives and fundie sacred cows.

Koch, Kansas . . . I'm one K a way from a set. Lay your bets:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-kansas-gov-sam-brownback-puts-tea-party-tenets-into-action-with-sharp-cuts/2011/11/02/gIQAkbnOAP_story_2.html

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 5 years ago

Outrageous, that's a good link. "To help fund its new fatherhood initiative, Kansas has shifted $600,000 from an Early Head Start program in Riley County, which has double the state’s percentage of residents in poverty. Head Start officials said they already have strong fatherhood programming in place and that they would rather have used those funds to get children off the waiting list for day care."

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

They're still here and they NEVER mention that they drove you away.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

"libertarians have co-opted Occupy Wall Street forum "

Well, that should tell you something like get over your small minded garbage thinking that people who are for the restoration of our Republic are in bed with, or on the side of, the Wall Street abusers.

Not at all, you're just too simple to see reality.

So are you pouting because you can't co-opt people with your irrational and unreasonable way of not thinking?

Lemme toss you a binky, son.

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 5 years ago

Shut everyone up who doesn't agree with us!!

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

You are naive to think that libertarians come here to simply express a differing opinion. They come here to undermine, co-opt and subvert OWS because they hate you. They want to destroy everything that OWS represents. Libertarians are Wall Street's foot soldiers in the class and economic warfare being waged against middle-class and poverty oppressed Americans.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 5 years ago

Do you really think they fear us and want to destroy us? I get the impression they don't take us that seriously.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

If they, and their Wall Street masters did not take OWS seriously they would not put so much time into co-opting and disrupting these forums preventing focused and topical discussions about OWS actions and planning.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 5 years ago

What really bothers me is it doesn't seem to take that much to disrupt us. We are warned over and over to ignore trolls but we continue to freak out and spend huge amounts of time on them.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

Based on how threads get prominence on this forum, that is not entirely as you perceive it. The libertarians have, for years, used tactics on public forums of ganging up, using email alerts o focus their attacks and undermine the viability of voting for posts by using multiple ID's and concerted ignore attacks to make the on topic views of others harder to find and respond to in the first place.

I have been fighting these bastards, online, for fifteen years. They are not honest debaters. They are underhanded tech subversives who get pleasure from making honest democratic discourse impossible for anyone but themselves.

[-] -1 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 5 years ago

good ideas always win out. sorry.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

That is simply not true.

[-] -1 points by Brandon37 (372) 5 years ago

"Wall Street's religious fanatics"

where do people come up with this stuff?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 5 years ago

met·a·phor n.

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

2. A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract.

[-] 0 points by Freebird (158) 5 years ago

Straw man

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 5 years ago

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur.

Either that or you don't understand the concept of a metaphor.

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 5 years ago

I was responding to the fact that the majority of OWS has not the first clue of what libertarian philosophy is, or if they do, they routinely build straw man arguments to try to smear libertarians. The wall street crooks are NOT libertarians, they are Statists, and they could not get away with what they have without the State (e.g., the bailouts).

[-] -1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 5 years ago

This was some of the best comedy I have read in days. Thanks guys. LOL

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

They never left, not even briefly.

I know what you thought, you thought that they might.

What was the problem?

The problem is chiefly.

We're on the left wing

and they're on the right.

( a nod to Martin Mull)

thanks for voting me down and proving it so!!

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I'm really getting sick of people using the term co-opt all the time. Oh my god! Other types of people with different opinions on things than you support OWS. Sounds terrible. Those liberatarians are hardcore End the Fed and don't support fraud. Inflicting financial harm on other people is in clear violation of the libertarian view point.

The Federal Reserve created 7.7 trillion dollars out of nothing after the bailouts and gave it to their fat cat wall street frauds. Now do you understand End the Fed? Here's super Liberal Dennis Kucinich on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpXDZFtEHw

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

An internet forum and OWS are not directly related. I would definitely say most people on this forum are not even in New York and don't participate in OWS protests, not even in their own cities.

[-] -2 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 5 years ago

Libertarians are primarily populists and anti-banking sector (Wall Street), especially when it overstates its importance in the economy and colludes with government.

IMO, your premise is false.

Being anti-Wall St. is a perfect place for the fairness (libertarians) and the justice (progressives) groups to get along.

Respect and peace,

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 5 years ago

Delusional propaganda crafted to deflect from the predatory reality of libertarianism.

[-] 0 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 5 years ago

Aw crap, you're on to me. I'm going to infiltrate your cocktail party, bore everyone with Austrian business cycle theory and peacenicky anti-war talk, and then forget to recycle my soda cans.

Stay angry, friend, but you are targeting the wrong enemy.

Peace and respect,

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Take a closer look at who funds the party, CATO and the various front groups, think tanks, PR firms and astro turfers that support it.

[-] 2 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 5 years ago

Hi Shooz,

I'll concede that the Cato institute has Koch/Corporate funding.

As a small-l libertarian for about 15 years, we've long been a unfunded super-minority that can't muster even 2% of the vote.

The libertarian party, for example, is having trouble raising a lousy 1/4 million:

http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/41000-short-please-help

All this aside, I'm reflecting on my own opinions and worldview which isn't directed nor funded by any Wall St. interest.

Peace,

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

You both have the same goal of getting rid of a corrupt system. Decreasing numbers and enforcing separation is a dumb idea. Strength in numbers. Your problem is the same. Wall Street and the corrupt federal government are the problem. The problem is not the tea party and it is not libertarians.

And here's some fun info for the OWS Obama fans.

Obama is a fraud!!!

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

He's bombed more countries than Bush. Countries like Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... etc

He extended the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

He never actually closed guantanamo bay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

He lied about ending the wars in Iraq and the current withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. And there is a billion dollar military base in Iraq and I guarantee you that it aint empty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo

He supported the bailouts of banking institutions that are extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air, and Obama has yet to do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w

He also supported the patriot act, which essentially deletes the 4th amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqXmQYHV-1I

He's started unconstitutional acts of war against Libya, which he spoke out against when Bush did that to Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo

Obama signed for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial into law under provisions of the NDAA and "designates the world as the battlefield and that includes the homeland." -quote senator Lindsey Graham who supported the bill and argued in it's favor.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/

"The killing of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the threats posed by al Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States. The Conference Report ensures the United States will have the ability to meet this threat and neutralize terrorists from these groups and conduct effective interrogations."

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb

List of terrorist organizations our country could start war with and the countries they're in.

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

"This [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011] designates the WORLD as the battlefield... and that includes the homeland."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34

Next stop Africa and Yemen!!! Maybe Iran or Syria next? Fulfill that cold war with some Operation Northwoods and go to war with Russia? Who knows? It's the government. It's a threat to national security to tell you the truth all the time.Maybe China a few years from now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-heads-to-asia-with-sharp-focus-on-chinas-growing-power/2011/11/10/gIQAOsQkBN_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-us-to-send-250-marines-to-australia-in-2012/2011/11/16/gIQAO4AQQN_blog.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

“We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” -Cass R Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.

Oh and don't forget about this Hour long presentation in congress about Al Qaeda members being the Libyan rebels, as well as extremists, rapists, and murderers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0pUEU603Q&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=42&feature=plpp_video

In case any of you don't like the first video because it's a republican here is super Liberal Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda in the rebels as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video

And here is an article on the Libyan rebel leader admitting to having a bunch of Al Qaeda members in his "rebellion" which is actually just terrorism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

And to all the remaining Obama fans, please don't try and accuse me of being in favor of Newt Gingrich or tell me some bullshit about McCain Palin. My criticism for Obama is simply based around facts and in no way means I support a GOP agenda. Obama is a fraud and so is Newt Gingrich.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 5 years ago

"Obama is a fraud and so is Newt Gingrich " and so is Ron Paul.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

How so? His actions are 100% representative of what he says he will do.

Fun facts! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSkqColZhV4

[-] 1 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 5 years ago

Thank you for your cogent synopsis. Don't forget though that the big $ interests have been running the country increasingly since we went off the gold standard and instituted the fractional reserve banking system.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Definitely!

[-] -3 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

You're plain stupid and bent on muslim conquest of the United States.

How can any fool who honors, supports and upholds The Federal Reserve have any room to suggest intelligent conversation? You can't.

Fool.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 5 years ago

There's a big difference between wanting the fed to open their books be transparent and try to restore our banking system to a nice boring one that works and turning back the clock to 1907 with rampant speculation and bank runs." End the fed" is a stupid uneducated irresponsible concept.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Far from irresponsible and also a position taken by many who actually have no clue as to the historical events that brought it into being. It was never right from day one and those who supported our Republic fought hard for many years to keep World Bankers from being able to destroy our Republic.

The Fed, primary note holders of our nation's still not discharged 1871 bankruptcy.

I've no use for all the multi-national wealth extractors who patently could not care any less about the citizens of this once great nation. It's a shame there are any people who ignorantly share your views supporting them. There has already been enough uncovered in less than a two full year audit, that they should all be executed for high treason.

I'm sure that is an inconvenient truth that people like you prefer to ignore.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 5 years ago

I agree about the audits --------I agree about the laws regarding banking and the irresponsibility of the past 30 years. I just don't think going back to 1907 is a good idea 1907 pre fed was a disaster I hear a lot of babble about getting rid of the fed but what exactly would you end the fed people do to prevent runs on banks and some of the other pre fed disasters?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

How about walking me through runs on the banks and how this occurs with such devestating results if the banks are not gambling with fractional methods or even more risky practices?

The bottom line is, know your banker and what they are doing, don't hand your hard earned over to degenerate gambling addicts. Bankers who don't do these things don't have the amazing palaces as their honest earnings will be quite modest.

If people want to gamble with gamblers, fuck them and good luck is all I have to say. Once learned, it's not my problem.

Bank with honest people, what's wrong with that?

Do not invest your money for the sole purpose of anonymously extracting wealth off the backs of working and productive people where your investment adds zero value to the final product and forces lower wages plus higher prices.

Many 99%ers do this and it makes them just as bad as the money magicians who have been robbing our nation blind.

The wealthiest do not work nor do they produce anything, they simply make money by extracting wealth from others.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 5 years ago

I agree with everything you just said. Please consider what happened to the fractions in the fractional banking system under Greenspan's fed. The fraction went from probably around 10 to 30. That means that if a bank had 10000$ they could lend out 300000$ if the price of those mortgage bonds went down just %3.3 the banks would be insolvent. MF Global was using 44X leverage to go bankrupt with. With 1 to 10 leverage MF Global would not have gone bankrupt and the housing bubble would never have blown up to such horrifying proportions. First of all they would have had 2/3 less money to lend second of all that much smaller market could have probably taken a 10% hit. It's not the fractional banking system itself---- it's the fractions that got used under Greenspan's fed. Disastrous. Even under the gold standard we still used a fractional banking system.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Agreed, but, if The People want to do business with fractional crooks, let them do so at their own peril. It's bad business and very mild compared to the wildly exponentially bizarre and outlandish wealth extraction schemes that have been cooked up in modern days.

It defies common sense that just allowing some slime balls to hold your money for a while, nets one wild returns without ever doing a day's honest work OR that it really can be that EASY to borrow more money than a person is likely to ever make in their entire lifetime, all in the name future financial security or home ownership!

The masses of people are greedy and patently devoid of financial prudence.

If people would allow the money changers to do this without their participation, the bastards would be left to gut and murder themselves.

Enlighten me, when was fractional banking introduced to the United States and where there not other financial institutions that operated in more prudent manners, at the same time?

It is wrong to fraud people into believing they are being loaned money of with the creditor does not have, and these days, unless you borrow hard cash from a person or entity, you don't even borrow actual money to buy a home, it's merely a debt instrument created out of zero actual hard cash, to the be sold many times creating even more fictitious money for the financial wizards.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 5 years ago

You are not going to get any arguments out of me about the excesses in our financial systems. I will also agree that the fed can make such excess easier . After the panic of 1907 the fed was invented to spread out the risk. It didn't take long for speculators to come up with some great schemes pump up the market. If you look at the structure of the derivatives bought and sold in the 1920's they are almost identical to the CDO's that crashed the markets in 2007. In the 20's they were based on stocks 2007 on mortgages. As long as the market was moving up they did well. they sucked the middle class into buying in with the promise that they could become a part of this new found wealth. Both turned out to be nasty bubbles that popped and left people with nothing and just sucked the life out of the entire economy. The answer they found in the 30's was Glass Steagall, but that law got repealed in 1999. We had a quiet fed and a sane stable banking system for at least 50 years, combined with out stellar manufacturing it probably the best system in the world, till they started deregulating. We used to export goods around the world, now we import our goods from China and export our debt. It's our product and it's Europe's product as well. Our trade deficit is our root problem IMO. In the 1920's we were on the gold standard it didn't stop the speculation or the overly creative financial products. The question I have is can we build our way out of it this time?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

The exportation of jobs began in the early 70's when the Owners decided that middle class had grown large and upwardly mobile enough that they could become political factors if left unchecked.

Ross Perot pointed out the rapid acceleration of vanishing jobs in 1992 and where they were going as well as where our nation was going as a result.

Even at the basic level of finances, I've never had anyone explain to me why fractional banking practices shouldn't either be abolished, or left unregulated and uninsured, by The People's government, as it is far more fraudulent than rigged casinos. Of course everything beyond those basic wealth creation/extraction devices is exponentially more fraudulent and evil, and should too be regarded in the same way.

Tell me why having a system based on sound and honest practice would fail? That would do more to increase productivity and honest wealth creation than even banning imports into our nation, which I also think is long overdue.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 5 years ago

Why do you think sound and honest practice can not include a central bank or fractional banking? I think unregulated uninsured non fractional banking would cut off most of the money flow in the country. Even our most basic needs, farming for food depend on bank loans. Your looking to the banking systems of third world countries to try to solve America's problems. If you think it's a good Idea for us to go completely broke and slow down the money supply to a trickle then go for it. I'd say why don't we try to go back to the laws that worked all we did by deregulation was turn our banks into casinos and our fed into a giant welfare program for billionaires. We already know that an uninsured unregulated banking system wont work, that's why we had to fix it in the first place.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

I have no desire to insure, with my money or created wealth/production, fraudulent fractional bankers or the stock markets, not in any form or fashion. The people should never have been forced to backstop such practices.

Let people choose with whom they want to do financial business and assume the inherent risks. I have no problem insuring real banks, although I prefer they insure themselves and include it in the cost of doing business, just as, and especially as, fractional thieves should.

Real money and honest banking will force open now idle factory doors and production will begin if there is no fictitious fractional money to be had, even if it comes down to bartering.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 5 years ago

No it won't it there are no factories. The small business that is out there won't be able to get loans to operate, farmers won't get loans to plant, a very select few rich people might get loans to buy a house. You need to remember that our country was "running" on a 30 to 1 fraction (Ok to high for sure) and you want to cut that down to 1. So take the money that is out there and divide it by 30. That's what we would have to use. No new business and most of the ones out there would be forced to close. It's a draconian idea about as functional as communism turned out to be. We'd need to get charity rice shipments from China.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Of course there are MANY closed factories that did indeed simply close, they weren't bulldozed over. Most all of the production machinery is still on our soil, that which isn't, is easily replaced with new that working people build.

That "1" of which we'd cut it down to, would actually be worth something and would prevent bankers from making outlandish amounts of wealth from mere thin air and some paper magic.

Read the last sentence of my prior post and China does indeed get good from our nation. There is nothing wrong with much slower and un-artificial growth, which in turn is naturally sustainable.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 5 years ago

For some reason I can't link to that last post --so I skipped back. I actually thing there's 3 things going on out there with The Obama administration and Liz warren in the center. Libertarians want no fed no FDIC and an unregulated banking system --Liz warren would want more rules for the fed and banks ,the right wing wants self regulating banks but keep the fed. The last idea is the worst because that's how we got our current giant welfare program for billionaires. I say regulate the crap out of fed and FDIC banks, but if folks want unregulated banks fine --but no FDIC or fed money or loans from fed banks or bailouts, as a matter of fact all of wall street should operate completely outside of the fed system. One of the problems now is deregulated banks with casino departments tied to the fed. They need constant government over site to make sure they are not getting into another MF Global of AIG situation, way more over site than with Glass Steagall

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Well, you don't seem to be unrealistic to me at all.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 5 years ago

I think slower growth based on real production and not artificial asset bubbles is exactly what we need. What we've been going through the past 5 years is deleveraging IE reducing that 30 to 1 number, remember it took us probably 20 years to pump that number from about 10 to 30 all done IMO to cover up the fact that we lost so much of our real production. All the injection from the fed has just left us treading water which is a very scary reality. We have a long way to go.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

Cool, what I suggest may not be viable, however, it does work in many real world communities where their economies and growth is rock stable.

Maybe 2:1 or 3:1 would be viable and not so unsustainable, if we could get people back to producing durable goods. I'm fine with 1:1 and have lived that way most all of my life. It's not for everyone who demands instant gratification and gimme more now!

It would be interesting to assemble large numbers of "players" to realistically enact several situations in regards to forms of governance to determine snapshots of how they play out.

It was interesting to see how many direct democracy experiments failed quickly.

It would be equally interesting to have access to some of the powerful AI computer simulations already run.

[-] 1 points by Durandus (181) 5 years ago

This viceous comment is wholly underserving of Occupy, if the aim is to exemplify intelligent, civil discourse. On that score, FWW is every bit a part of the problem that this thread points up. Really ugly.

Anyone who talks like this should be ignored entirely as being irrelevant to the movement for social justice, a pariah intellect unworthy of participation.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

You say that because you've obviously missed, or don't care about, much of the trash this muslim extremist and Fed lover has posted all over this forum.

[-] 1 points by Durandus (181) 5 years ago

I haven't followed that thread, so I can't tell what your inspiration might be. Perhaps I'd be more sympathetic if I had, though we can still do better than to encourage animosity whatever the reasonable cause of our discust.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 5 years ago

That thread? There are too many to count. Are you by chance not an American?