Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What Happens to the People Who...

Posted 6 years ago on March 22, 2012, 6:36 a.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Refuse to comply with the new world order proposed by OWS should OWS be successful in destroying capitalism and the Constitution of the United States?

Many people will refuse to comply to a government that does not respect the Constitution of the United States. How will those people be dealt with? Will there be States that will be allowed to secede and align with other States that still wish to use the Constitution as the defining document describing the laws restricting government from infringing on the rights of the individual?

I know in my heart that the Constitution as written by the founders of our country is the greatest document that insures the individual freedom from the tyranny of government. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot infringe the right of the individual that were endowed to us by our creator.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by 2percent (0) 6 years ago

About the time OWS slackers take control of the USA, Cuba will reform their system to a society based on capitalism. They will have understood that the communist system left them in poverty. Basically, because there is no "incentive" to produce more in these Marxist/Communist/Socialist systems. Why would I work my butt off to gain more if you can't. If I get paid the same without and education as with an education, if I work harder than others and do not rewarded, WHY WOULD I? Back to the question asked; I will move to Cuba (LOL) or some other place that has freshly renounced the failed Marxist/Communist/Socialist systems to embrace a capitalist system. Mark my words, in my lifetime I will see a MLB game in Cuba!

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Let's hope they don't keep up on the no trade list.

[-] 2 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 6 years ago

What Have You Been Drinking.And for How Long?

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 6 years ago

You're assuming that we're all a bunch of idiots who'd rather throw the Constitution out the window than attempt to engineer a workable society within its confines, and I must say that's far from accurate. A lot of people here simply want to fix the system, altering it where necessary but leaving a lot of the more fundamental things (including the Constitution) pretty much intact. I'm here because I'd like to see well-managed, well-regulated capitalism and social democracy akin to what is practiced in parts of Europe; that model is quite firmly within the reach of the United States as a whole and can definitively be achieved without infringing on most if not all of the constitutional rights possessed by individuals.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

soros funded ows has no intention of leaving the Constitution intact.

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

"well-regulated capitalism and social democracy akin to what is practiced in parts of Europe"... falls outside the Constitutional confines. Once you start taking money from one person to redistribute to another, you move to the extra-Constitutional.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 6 years ago

Not quite; income taxes are perfectly Constitutional, just see the Sixteenth Amendment. By the same token the elastic clause and the interstate commerce clause make it perfectly Constitutional for us to place sensible regulations on large corporations. Now don't get me wrong; I don't believe in smothering an industry (and I must say I'm less than pleased with the CPSC's stance on fireworks, among other things) but even the Founding Fathers understood that some sort of reasonable regulation scheme is a must for a functioning society and left the appropriate tools in the Constitution.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

There is no mechanism in the Constitution where the government can give money to one person without giving it equally to everyone.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 6 years ago

There is; it's called the Sixteenth Amendment. The amendment allows the federal government to levy income taxes "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." That basically means that the government can collect income taxes directly from citizens, human or corporate, without having to go through or otherwise consult the states over how or on whom such taxes are to be levied. Further, the federal government has the right to spend the money it takes in as it chooses, making the redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation fully Constitutional.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

I didn't say there was no mechanism that allowed them to tax, I said there was no mechanism to distribute that money to other citizens.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 6 years ago

if the constitution is so great about insuring my individual freedom, then explain to me why i have to pay a government entity to carry a gun, or pay a government entitiy to drive my car, or buy insurance, or why do i have to wear a seat belt? where is my constiutional rights gone? wheres my 1 free warning when accidently speeding when driving up in a construction zone, when i havent gotten a ticket for years?

Why do i have to pay the government for a business license? What the hell do I need their persmission for, am I not the free man, and they are the bums who failed at self reliancy?

[-] 2 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

You are preaching to the choir, freewriterguy. It seems Progressives have been able to evolve the Constitution by claiming it is a "living document" to the point where we have been accepting laws and regulations that the Constitution does not support. Restore the Constitution and shrink the government.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

The first thing is to march your behind to the beach where the water is still polluted and have you sing Kumbaya. Then we will let you listen to your Rice Krispies-BUT we aren't going to let you do what they say.

[-] 0 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 6 years ago

Then please explain it to me. He is correct in saying that many( if not all) progressives consider the constitution to be a " living document" subject to whatever petty whims of the judiciary. There are many judges, including 3 on the Supreme Court that believe it. So can you explain it to me or are you just going to spout more childish nonsense?

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

That certainly cleared things up.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Feel better now?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Perhaps you did not understand the question.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

I understood your question just fine.

[-] 1 points by badreadnaught (55) 6 years ago

Great question! What will happen if and whaen the roles ae reversed, when non-conformists become the establishment and the establishment becomes the non-conformists? How will they be dealt with? Will they move to remote locations in order to continue their capitalist ways? A modern day Whiskey Rebellion where they move to the isolation of the mountains of West Virginia and Kentucky?

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 6 years ago

Fema Camps. Duh.

[-] 1 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

What will happen when unicorns will replace cars as the means of transport? What will happen when copper will turn into gold?

I wonder...

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

The former gas hogs will utilize Dairy Queen Quadricorns.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

I don't think any new world order is being proposed by OWS, though I would acknowledge it is implied. OWS has issued very few political statements of any kind. It's first political statement is in its name Occupy Wall Street. As Michael Moore said at the Left Forum, the purpose of Occupy Wall Street is to occupy Wall Street.

About the only other document issued by OWS of which I am aware that could be construed as political is the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City issued by the New York City General Assembly shortly after the occupation first began. It contains no a single demand, but over 20 grievances. It is not addressed to any power or authority but rather to the people of the world and promises solidarity, promises to stand with them in their struggles for justice and freedom. It might be implied that this document advocates a new world order, but it most certainly doesn't state that explicitly. As is the case with most political documents, its formulations are very broad allowing for the widest possible interpretation and participation.

Actually, it is not the Constitution that uses natural law to guarantee individual rights. That principle is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution and no US Court has ever accepted a defense based on the Declaration as opposed to the Constitution.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, often called the Bill of Rights, are not part of the main body of the Constitution and were added as something of an afterthought when many of the states would not pass the document without some guarantee of individual rights. The main body of the Constitution is largely dedicated to the structure of the state, the separation of powers, bicameralism and similar issues.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

So, y'all just bitchin'? Y'all not talking about bringing down capitalism and the United States government?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

In a sense you are correct, but that is often the case with new social movements. When any social movement starts it is really not in a position to do much more than say NO! BASTA! to its adversaries, and right now OWS is a very, very new and very, very small movement. It is really not yet in a position to do much more than say NO! BASTA! ENOUGH! THIS MUST STOP! to the ruling elites.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

OWS goal is the destruction of the United States. They proclain it, their leaders and supporters claim it and talk of how to do it, and they are working to do it.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

they are the pawns or soros,.....................his goal is the economic destruction of the USA. try going to the GulagBound.com website,.......read it for yourself. read the story about the murder of a hillary delegate.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Where is it proclaimed that the goal of OWS is the destruction of the United States. I've been active in OWS since September 17 and the only goal of OWS of which I am aware is to occupy Wall Street. Who are the leaders of OWS? It claims to be a leaderless movement. What do you know that suggests otherwise?

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Frances Fox Piven: “We can work together because we have a really huge task before us, transforming America and the World.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/democrats-socialists-and-communists-we-are-all-together-piven-draws-chilling-connections/

Van Jones has been postulating that October is going to be the start of a progressive revolution that will eventually overthrow the government of the United States and bring down the capitalist system. http://news.yahoo.com/van-jones-occupy-wall-street-american-version-arab-201500860.html

George Soros... Soros claimed the riots will “be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.” http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/soros-occupy-to-turn-violent/

former official of SEIU plan to destabilize the country. day of rage OCCUPY WALL STREET http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0PlElVWshk

It is not leaderless. It is being supported and led by socialists, communists, Islamists, democrats, unions, and many other people and orginizations that are anti America. They say you should know your enemies, but I would ask you if it may be more important for you to know your friends...

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Frances Fox Piven is a nice and interesting person, though frankly more conservative in her views than most OWS activists and she most certainly does not represent any "official" position of OWS.

Van Jones is even to the right of Franny and is even less representative of what OWS is all about than is Franny.

Billionaire Soros is in turn to Jones' right and less representative of OWS than is either Jones or Pivin, though all of them together have virtually nothing to do with OWS>

One of the more significant aspects of OWS is that it has created the first alliance between sections of organized labor and the radical intelligentcia that has existed in this nation since the 1940s, but that is exactly the point. It is an alliance. While staff people and rank and file members from a number of unions have been active in OWS from the beginning, this has been of their own volition and often the unions for which they work and of which they are members have at least been indifferent to such efforts and often down right hostile. The SEIU in particular has tried to corral OWS into the Democratic Party, so far, thankfully, without success.

The key activists in OWS tend to be either anarchists or strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition. Many socialists are involved in OWS but their influence is marginal. As a life long revolutionary socialist myself for nearly 50 years I am keenly aware of this. The mass base of OWS tends to be liberal or politically unformed, at least this is my impression having been active in OWS on a part time basis since September 17.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

You are either ignorant or lying. My bet is that you are lying. You know the people I have mentioned are part of the movement and you want to make them appear like they have nothing to do with it.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

I happen to personally know Franny. She is an elderly woman and in no position to be of significant influence in the movement though she does support it. She is also much more moderate in her political views than is OWS. Franny quite recently stated that she plans to vote for Obama but not to campaign for him. That is most certainly not the position of OWS, most of whose leadership is either anarchistic or strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition and as such not about to vote at all, much less for the candidate of a bourgeois political party like Barak Obama.

The other figures you have mentioned are even more closely bound to the Democratic Party than is Franny Piven and as such have even less influence over OWS than does Fran. Without question they have at various points expressed their sympathy with OWS, but there is a vast difference between expressed sympathy with a movement and active participation in it. Beyond that, typically linked with that expressed sympathy have been various notions as to how to draw OWS into the orbit of the Democratic Party. Fortunately these plans so far have been totally unsuccessful and OWS remains hostile to electoral politics of all kinds, including the Democratic Party.

We plan to demonstrate at the Democratic Convention, not inside because we are not part of the Democratic Party and they would not let us in. We will either fuck them up or they will fuck us up or both.

Most of the municipal administrations that have been unleashing police brutality on OWS encampments are Democratic administrations and they are being advised by the Department of Homeland Society and the FBI, both agencies under the control of a Democratic administration. The Democratic Party is most certainly no friend of OWS and every OWS activist that I know is well aware of that.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Now I know you are full of shit. She is a progressive, radical liberal who is stirring up OWS to violence.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Actually Franny is most certainly NOT a "progressive, radical liberal" (whatever the fuck that is or is supposed to mean) she is admittedly and openly a democratic socialist and a Vice Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. Some members of DSA are quite active in OWS (though not Fran) and as an organization DSA is totally without influence in OWS.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Francis Fox Piven - 'It is ok to use violence as long as it is a BIG part of your strategy'

In her own words... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELvINNajtCQ

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

The question is not what Fran wrote at any particular moment, but how influential she is, as an individual within OWS and the fact is, her influence is inconsequential. No OWS activist of whom I am aware, whether they are liberals, socialists or anarchists ever makes any reference to Fran or to any of her writings. They are far more likely to refer to Bakunin, Proudhon or other anarchists or perhaps a Marxist like Gramschi.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

You are a tool...

Here is the strategy and the link to OWS... http://cloward-piven.com/

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

I am 69 years old. I've been a revolutionary socialist for nearly 50 years and I'm nobody's tool. I come by my ideas on my own and I'm certainly not influenced by someone like Fran Piven whose views are, in fact, considerably more conservative than my own. If she scares you a twenty minute conversation with me would terrify you.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Fran Piven is a leftist political theorist and always have been though her association with ACORN or most other organizations is virtually nonexistent. In fact she is essentially anti-organizational which would become evident to anyone who bothered to read her book. As I previously noted she is a Vice Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America which is not an especially active organization and which has virtually no influence in OWS.

I saw Fran a week ago where she was chairing the Left Forum. Zuccotti Square was only two blocks away and we made a valiant effort to re-occupy the square but Fran was way to busy entertaining friends and comrades even to participate in the movement in any meaningful way, much less lead it. Michael Moore was dragged kicking and screaming to lead a march, but he could hardly be characterized as a movement leader either.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

You do not terrify me, you make me sad. Someone as old as you misleading people here to support your own ends. You are old enough to know the failure of communism and socialism around the world, over and over. You are old enough to know the death and poverty brought on by centralizing governmental control over production and freedom. There is a very good possibility that you are not a tool if you are friends with Piven, you would be the one who is using these poor OWS kids as tools.

To you, the OWS crowd is a group of useful idiots for you to use to further a goal to enslave them.

Or, you are just a useful idiot yourself, lying about your relationship with a key orchestrator of the OWS movement. I suspect this as I doubt someone who rubs elbows with Piven would come to this board to argue with the unwashed masses.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

I swear your comments get lamer and lamer. You need to just pack it in. Your conspiratorial claims and lack of understanding make you look like a gullible little girl. if any one on this forum is a useful idiot, it would be you, loony toons. Just because you want to go through your life being a corporate boot licker, don't make you a smart person. It makes you a sell out and a wimp. So instead of wasting these good people's time, why don't you go to a corporate site and kiss that ass like you are so good at doing.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

All my adult life I have been a staunch opponent of Stalinism. Far from being a socialist, Stalin murdered more Communists, socialists and anarchists than any capitalist state ever did. As for what you call socialism, I suppose in the Scandanavian nations, well it isn't there is no place on earth where the market and market relations were displaced and overthrown. What is popularly called socialism is more accurately a managed capitalism.

Socalism has absolutely nothing to do with government control. What socialism is about is the overthrow of capitalism, the capitalist class and capitalist states by the working class and the rule of society by the working class.

OWS activists, while young, are far from "kids." Their mean age is 33. Most have BAs and many have graduate degrees. The smartest and most talented among them are anarchists who are a good deal more radical than Fran Piven who is at most a rather tepid social democrat.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

the ows people are either knowingly fomenting violent unrest or are pawns with no idea of how they're being used by people that will discard them when the destruction is accomplished.

[-] 0 points by Secretariat (33) 6 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""


[-] 0 points by Kabouche (2) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I know what happens. They get laid off from their banking jobs for blowing the whistle. They loose their home and strain their marriage. They put their kids in public schools. They get real creative with rice and soup combinations and all the while screaming at the top of their lungs, "This corporate citizen is running all the red lights! Help! Help! Someone stop them - they're dangerously out of control!" Meanwhile on K street the banks engineer "financial reform" legislation that will cost the consumer billions in fees and generate huge profits. Our "Democracy" has become a sad distortion of profit-driven citizens who bully our elected officials....why should we comply to such a faded shadow of the Constitution? WE SHOUDN"T! Don't trade your integrity as an American for the complicity of the corporate initiative - REVOLT on behalf of your friends and neighbors. STOP using the banks! REFUSE the lifelong servitude to your debts!

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

What about people who are not bankers? What about the people who are self sufficient? What about those who home school? What about patriots who will not let the fire of the freedoms granted by our creator die because there are those who wish to have government grant and control our rights?


[-] 1 points by Kabouche (2) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

You mean the Amish? More power to 'em.

[-] -1 points by JPB950 (2254) 6 years ago

Your question, while valid is very premature. I don't think anyone wants to admit that dissent would even exist once utopia is created. The point is moot however, there isn't enough misery yet for the government to collapse and allow any new order to be established. If the country didn't fall with 25% unemployment during the Great Depression, then 10% certainly won't bring it down now.