Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We Hate Lier's & We don't much like Groupies :: the trilogy

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 7, 2012, 8:14 a.m. EST by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

50 Comments

50 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by ZenDog (20643) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

the thing is that we have already been divided

In order to overcome that division that already exists it must be understood that the ideological division has been based on certain lies.

Lies like: there is no global warming

Lies like: single payer healthcare is evil

Lies like: ending bush tax breaks is a new tax

These lies already exist, and have traction among the public. These lies must fall if this existing divide is to be bridged.

These lies will fall, because they are transparent.

If these lies do not fall, it is because the US has been driven to economic collapse in part because of its burgeoning debt.

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

I agree with ya ZD... I wonder if the right can express their list of what they think the left are lying about ?

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

How about the following left wing lies:

  1. A human life is not lost when an abortion is performed.

  2. It is ok to punish the child for the sins of the father as long as we are taking about affirmative action or abortion, but not when we are talking about the Kennedys.

  3. Raising the tax rate always increases government revenue

  4. We don’t have to trade liberty for equality

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago
  1. This is your opinion - just like some have the opinion that evolution is not a fact. Just like some have an opinion about how they will go to heaven if they pray to the right God - or kill the right people. Just like some people bekleve that God will forgi ve a pedophile if he goes to con fession. Just like some people they alone know the truth.
  2. see the above
  3. Which "left winger" said this:
    "Raising the tax rate always increases government revenue"
    or is this what you believe?
  4. Which "left winger" said this:.
    "We don’t have to trade liberty for equality"
    or is this what you believe?
[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Every medical school in the US teaches that human life begins at conception.

See the above.

People still dispute the Laffer curve: http://blogs.wsj.com/financial-adviser/2010/06/08/why-the-laffer-curve-might-be-wrong-here/

Good treatment of left-equality vs right-liberty debate here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/civilization-the-west-and-the-rest-by-niall-ferguson-book-review.html?pagewanted=all

But, do you think that they are lies?

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

"Every medical school in the US teaches that human life begins at conception"
And every christian church taught that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Teaching does not make truth. Truth makes truth - and you can't handle the truth.
Can you cite any verifiable text that defines human life {other than a anti-abortionists}

I dont understand? You claim Laffer said:
"Raising the tax rate always increases government revenue"
NOT IN THAT LINK!

Which "left winger" said this?????????.
"We don’t have to trade liberty for equality"
your second link- the words "liberty" and "equality" are not even in the article!

You tell the truth like a foxian - but you are very poor at it.
Go back to the murdoch school for liars and study harder

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

The science is pretty convincing that human life begins at conception. Some texts that are fairly easy to find include:

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14

Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30

J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.

The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006.

In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005.

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

thanks sealyon .. any more.? ... anyone ?

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

There are surely more, however I had hoped that this list would be enough for you to cast a critical eye on both sides.

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

yes it is good sealyon, .... the abortion is a tough one... personally I would like to never see abortions done... however I do believe that that is something that should not be legislated... imo that is up to the woman... especially if it is life-threatening to her... ...

but this discussion is good ... what else does the right think the left lies about ?

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

One other vexing issue that is the trade-off between personal liberty and equality. OWS is interested in equality, but the price will be our freedom.

Should all people be considered equal?

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

===> the trade-off between personal liberty and equality.

this really confusing to me... to the left... equality is liberty & freedom ...

does the left want everyone to share equal wealth ?... hell no ...

but the left does want everyone to have equal opportunity to be able to participate

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

Well not everyone has equal opportunity either.

Take the son of say, Mit Romney. Do you think that he has the same opportunity to get into Yale as the daughter of a poor, black, single mom living in Mississippi?

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

good point... I was rushing to out the door.. and got sloppy... how bout...

but the left does want everyone to have the opportunity to be able to participate in the American Dream...

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

The reality is that we are not all equal. I am 5' - 6" and tone deaf. I will never play for the Celtics and won't make first chair violin for the NY Philharmonic. People are not equal. We have different talents and hopefully at least one good talent.

If we let the government force people to be equal we will have crappy music and un-watchable basketball games.

The US has been successful because we have let people be free to excel at what they do best. Some people are really good at making money. So they have more of it than people that are less good .

This is essentially the trade-off between equality and liberty.

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

---> This is essentially the trade-off between equality and liberty. ...

I still don't get this.... what does that mean ?

that someone is capable of making more money than someone else ?

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

Suppose that you are a graduating senior from High School with a perfect SAT score and the top math student in your class. You apply to MIT and are not accepted. You later find out that MIT turned you down because you are of Asian descent and they had exceeded their quota for Asians. They have a government approved equal representation admissions policy which is quite common today. Since only 5% of the people in the US are Asian they only admit that percentage regardless of qualification.

This is an example of the conflict between equality and liberty.

See link for additional info:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ah4n2uAy0KWs&refer=home

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

I think you got the law mixed up.... Affirmative Action.. (not my field) but I recall states... that if a University wants Federal money... it must include at least the % of a minority in their enrollment... ie, if a minority has 5% population of US... then the Univ must have at least 5% of their enrollment of that minority.... not "no-more than 5%" as your example said....

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

well ... that sounds like a fucked up law... you think the left supports that ?

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

You can look at the people that support it and then decide if they constitute the left.

I sometimes wonder why folks that support laws like this are called liberal. It does not sound very liberal or even progressive to judge someone by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character. Actually, it sounds about 50 years out of date.

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

Today we look back on the generation that lived through slavery and we ask why did you look the other way? What did you do to stop it? Some at that time argued that it was a personal property issue. I fear that in 100 years folks will look back on our generation an ask why did we look the other way when 50 million of our brother and sisters were killed? What will we say? It was a personal privacy issue?

There are other issues but they fade in significance in the face of the magnitude of this one. I am puzzled that pro-life is considered a position of the right. It would seem to me a better position for the left along with anti-death penalty and other human rights issues.

Why do you think that is the case?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26734) 2 years ago

Care to provide links to the quotes?

I can't recall anyone saying any of those.

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

In 2008 President Obama was asked if human life begins at conception and he answered that the question was, "above his pay-grade".

So he is not sure whether the un-born child is human and would rather err on the side against protecting her life.

If you are driving and see a person laying in the road do you assume he is dead and run him over?

The question is do you believe the above is a list of lies?

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

EXACTLY FOXIAN AGAIN !
You quote a liberal or democrat and translate his words into
"fair and balanced" BS
you are an Rs

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

Not sure what an Rs is, but I expect it is not a compliment.

This issue above all seems to divide us right and left more than anything. Don't you think it is worth discussing?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26734) 2 years ago

They would all be either lies, misinterpretation, or non-contextual.

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

So there are factions on both sides that want to divide us by demonizing a whole group of people using these lies as ammunition.

There is a thing called the truth, it is often un-clouded by shades of grey, and belongs to neither the left or right.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26734) 2 years ago

What lies are you telling me I told?

I asked for links to the "quotes", you provided.

You had none, and now you're off on some other road, intimating demons.

I mean c'mon.

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

yes that is what OWS consider's Solidarity.... when all realize that we are all in solidarity reaching for the same goal... which is truth...

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

healthcare should be publicly available

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20643) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yes it should

I think the President made it clear that single payer was his preference, but it lacked support in Congress . . . .

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

no... I think that's not exactly correct ZD... I listened to most of the hearings.... congress did have the votes... and they wanted single payer... Obama stopped it... I don't remember the exact words ..but he said ... it is not the right time... 14% (?) of the economy is in healthcare management and insurance right now... and I am not going to add them to the unemployment lines in this recession... figure out to keep them included...

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20643) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Link please

I have a hard time accepting the premise that there was sufficient support in Congress to pass single payer - I believe that statement is in error

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

the hearing I heard was either on npr or c-span ? I'll look for link tonight

[-] 3 points by CookieParker1 (5) 2 years ago

We are divided because of religion. We need to allow people their worship of their religion, and then those who worship religion, need to allow all freedoms of the secular government, IMHO. We cannot keep pushing MORAL values which come from the dogmas of religion onto a nation where all people have the right to pursue their individual rights.

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

We Are All Individual

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I understand what you are trying to get across here and it is commendable. I find my self being a left wing groupie and I wish it was not so. The whole political process kinda reduces the people into warring factions. As a working class political science major, I decided to take a side. I know this is probably how the Federal government keeps its hold on power by making us call each other names. I believe unions are a good way to ensure a worker makes enough to support his family. I believe Universal health care, or at least a public options is a way to lower health care costs, these reasons are why i am a left wing groupie. But i wish that a third way could be hashed out, but I have to be practical. Good day and I wish you the best!

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

Conservatives conserve civilization. Liberals expand civilization. Socialists help people. Libertarians help themselves.

I won't play the left right game

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ BradB: To be surely united the reactionary's need to be gone.

They are for the present status that's way their reactionary's.

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

I agree Chuck... but also a good healthy argument can be good once in a while... seriously there are many who come here shouting & cussing at the movement ... healthy adversary response often is heard better than logic...

we need both imo.... but the ultimate goal is to find the common ground where consensus is reached...

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@BradB: Have you ever had a productive debate with a reactionary? I haven't, I've found them to be rigid and dogmatic.

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

yeah I think I have... how-ever not many and likely not lasting ....

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

While I admire with the sentiment, I see no way of bridging the gap, nor do I want to. As far as I'm concerned, the right wing is virtually pure evil. I include Libertarians in that category. It is, in fact, their policies that have gotten us in the mess we're in. Yes, we need unity, but it is unity against the harm they have wrought.

The left hardly exists here, unlike in Europe. The small amount that does is divided, They are the ones we need to unify, and we can't be unclear about who the enemy is. Compromising with, finding common ground with evil simply makes everyone partake in evil. I think it is an unworkable strategy and a bad philosophy, good intentions notwithstanding.

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

epa1nter, you may be correct... imo... but I hope not... I hope that maybe while not bridging the gap we might be able to at least narrow it... ] and honestly ... imo if we are going to be as successful in this movement as we all hope for... we do need to include a majority of the population if not a mass majority...

we need to hear what everyone is saying.... when we don't listen ... communication stops and name calling starts...

honestly ... I am happy ZD started this ... w/ the first thread ... for I was beginning to feel the same ... a zillion non-constructive attacks of 'losers'.. 'get a job'... etc.... not even attempting to find out what was going on... so ZD responded in kind ..imo...

so... do we want to move the movement ?

let's try to understand what the OWS haters really want to change...

we may find we all want the same thing... freedom & prosperity for all... and we may also find that the propaganda that has been slung at both sides has got us all blaming each-other... let's communicate....

a quick story... when I was high school ... we had a gang-type war between two high-schools.... at first was just fun ... beating each-other up... then escalated to destroying each-others cars... then people started ending up in the hospital...

the staff of the two schools got together... and shipped about a hundred of us from my school... over to the other one... we all had to sit in a circle in the gym... and start talking about what was happening....

well after about 3 hours of yelling, screaming and blaming each-other... a councilor asked if anyone wanted a smoke... of course we all did...

so they said... everyone go in the bath rooms and smoke... but if one fight breaks out... no more smokes the rest of the day....

will... after about ten mins.. we all started laughing about the fucked up shit we did.... and that was the end of the riots

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

That's a great story, but I don't think it really applies here. While everyone claims to want freedom and prosperity, one side wants to achieve that by clinging absolutely to the status quo, and even go significantly backwards. They are entirely myth driven, nostalgic for a past that never was. They want to bring us back to days of the Robber Barons. They want no dissension. They believe that the left lost the Vietnam war. They believe Roosevelt was a communist. They see themselves, the white mostly male majority, as the real victims and claim affirmative action, astonishingly, is racist. In other words, they want to go backwards.

That simply cannot be reconciled with the need to go forward, of gaining more, not less, equality and equity. Middle ground in this context is not two gangs who mistake each other as enemies figuring out that they are really the same. The desire to go forward vs going backward are not the same. Racism is not the same as racial justice. Mysogany is not the same as advocating women's rights. Defending the 1% at all cost is not the same as opposing concentration of power and capital. A social welfare sate is the opposite of a militarized but small government.

To exaggerate for the purpose of illustration, there is no common ground between a Jew and a Nazi. What they want are polar opposites.

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

but.. ;) ... epa1nter, makes a good point.... most of the left feel that the right wants to go backwards....

so I ask the right... is that true ? ... do you feel that you want to go backwards ?

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

Sorry, Brad, but that's a silly question. Nobody perceives themselves as wanting to go backward. It is the nature of the policies each side advocates that is the issue.

The polarization we see today is not a bad thing, in my view. It makes the issues very clear. It makes our choices very clear.

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

just trying to get some dialog on it going .. ;)

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

I understand, but maybe a series of questions about individual issues would be more effective. Self-perception is not the issue. (After all, everyone has an ego.) What precisely is being advocated is what's relevant.

I am also far from convinced that any dialogue is useful at all. We each know the other's positions by now. I remember a time when the women's movement was still relatively young. Feminist leaders decided that the best way forward was for women to give up - for a while - trying to talk to men about the issues, and talk only among themselves. Initially, i was offended. But it became clear very quickly that that was exactly was what called for. Philosophies, ideology, tactics, and all the rest, had to be worked out by the women themselves who wanted change BEFORE they implemented anything in the larger patriarchal society, which opposed change. And guess what? It worked!

The left needs to come together cohesively first. It cannot battle the evils of the right effectively without that cohesion. Dialogue between the two has consistently proven, for the last century, to be ineffectual and beside the point; we simply don't share the same language.

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

epa... your words well taken ... I can see truth in it ...

my problem I think... is.. around '91 in moved to downtown DC, and I met & knew fairly well many members from both sides ... and lived there for about 11 yrs.... and honestly... imo ... for the most part the Republican's/Conservative's from that era were honest Integritable people... I leaned more left... but I appreciated much of what they wanted... now-adays... I don't even consider the new extreme right as Conservatives ... so I really do want to understand ... what they really are thinking.... maybe it is waste of time... who knows ... but I have seen many show up here to this site... start dialog and actually see what OWS is and it changes them... I really believe that the new hate-filled destroy the liberals movement is a small percentage of the real conservative party....

[Removed]