Forum Post: What Laws?? Laws That Favor The 1% Criminals
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 18, 2011, 8:37 a.m. EST by dildo
(5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I get a kick outta these idiots here that say Oh you have to obey the laws Dumb ass Your obeying the rich 1% laws fool your all suckers there's No laws that protect the 99% Wake Up just sheepie go Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
The laws of physics rule the guillotine. Justice herself has been know to wield that very device. I believe she shares her time on it with fear.
fear is a myth
Maybe it was ignorance that she shares it with then. I get her groupies confused.
The laws of grammar apply to everyone. Clean this up. lol.
I don't give a shit how it is said....just say it! Screw the grammar .
[Removed]
We also have to fight to defend laws that allow protesters to demonstrate, for free speech, to organize unions. Many of those democratic laws were won after long struggles. People in the past have given their lives for civil rights, for the right to unionize. These laws are constantly being attacked by the 1%--witness the mass evictions from Occupy camps. Witness the 1% via Bloomberg overturning the rule of a judge who supported OWS being allowed to stay, with tents, in the park this week, by replacing the judge!
Replacing the judge -- how did they swing that?
Then they claim the selection was random (with the original judge excluded (huh?)) -- controlled by an electronic algorithm. Computerized judge selection, probably just as trustworthy as our totally illegitimate computerized voting system. They think we are so stupid.
They thought they could get away with overturning what was a huge, but short-lived, ruling they didn't like. A lot of this has to do with psychology, perception. The New York Times, which supports OWS to an extent, even caved in on its editorial page the day after the eviction: the heading to the editorial was, if I remember, "State Court Rules [for eviction]. Not, one lone judge that the 1% pulled out of their sleeve to overturn a ruling against them, no: "State Court Rules," obviously an attempt to give legitimacy to what seems pretty illegal to me.
And NOTE THIS: By twisting their reporting to say that a state COURT had ruled instead of one judge who disagreed with a different judge, the NY Times was using OUR methods: implying the 1% was the majority! In other words, the Times was attempting to convey that the (probably) illegal, new ruling had come from a whole group (i.e., majority) of judges. The 1% understand how important it is to isolate the movement, and in this case a judge who supported our rights. When, oh when, is the OWS majority going to understand the same point?
Somewhere Trotsky wrote that the NY Times would accurately report every detail so that when a big issue came up they could turn the public to support their position. The worst, historically-criminal example was Judith Miller's reporting right before the Iraq war to the effect that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Thanks so much!
Well, what are laws to power? The eviction was a power move, not a lawful one.
Dropping and picking judges is disgraceful enough. But there is also the question of how the NYPD could back private property claims without a court order. It seems to me that Brookfield should have taken OWS to CIVIL COURT. If they won, then ruling in hand they could lawfully have requested police help in the eviction.
In my opinion, the whole thing stinks and the eviction was probably illegal.
But that's corporatism (fascism) isn't it? The melding of corpoRAT and governmental power. Like Leona Helmsley said, 'Laws are for the little people' (or something like that).
The NYTimes sliminess is what one should expect from the corpoRAT press. The selective truth procedure you describe is also central to government controlled dissenters. Noam Chomsky being a government critic everywhere except for the really big crimes. Chris Hedges being a peacenik until it's time to attack Libya and sodomize Ghaddafy. Etc.
Hi, I really like that comment that Brookfield should have had to go to civil court (I wouldn't know, but they must have violated some law(s)). Thanks so much. Also, didn't somebody put up a post here about suing the NYPD? And I do remember that quote from Helmsley about the "little people," so horribly appropriate.
About fascism, I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I think it's better to reserve the term for when it really is fascism. And I don't know what that would look like today. But in the 30's, Trotsky characterized it as a movement by the big capitalists to mobilize the "petty bourgeoisie" (who would be small shop owners, professionals, people who weren't working class) to smash the working class. I know everybody uses the word fascist as a swear word, but I think we need to be as clear as possible about the enemy. Example: the effect on the movement might be the same if a misguided protester throws a rock through a window as a black bloc anarchist in Oakland, or an FBI plant, but it's important to know the source of the violence, even if you can't contain it immediately, it makes a huge difference in your strategy to know what/whom you're fighting.
I remember Trotskyists saying that they were afraid in the 1950's that Joseph McCarthy might succeed in organizing a fascist movement here. This was from some comrades in Michigan, I think, who were under extreme political pressure, maybe even a form of underground, for their political beliefs. We owe so much to those people who kept the movement alive all those years.
Just one more thing--I haven't seen anything by Chomsky that would make me feel he's avoiding criticizing the government's big crimes. And I've been listening to his interviews a lot recently. His only political stance I disagree with is anarchism. His description of how to run an anarchist society sounded hopelessly naive and not manageable (committees or organizations that would get in touch with each other... if I understood him).
Thank you again for replying and your very astute comments.
That's true. Wall St. and the 1% live in a criminogenic system, crime is rewarded, fraud is the business model.
William K. Black on bankster crimes: http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/keiser-herbert-british-justice/
Fraud as the business model: http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-180-max-assets/
The goal is to win over the 99%. To do that, you have to give them legal mass actions to join that don't put them at risk of arrest and losing jobs. Use the movement to educate about the unfair laws, but make it possible to win. We need the unions! We need the people who still aren't sure we can make society better. The way to help the 1% is to allow them to make us look lawless and crazy out of control. Have you ever heard of an infiltrator who tried to convince a group to do something peaceful and legal?
Here's my Point to you If someone from the 1% offered you 1 miilion dollars Cash to quit protesting what do you think you'd do? Take the $$$ of course Bribes is what turns the right thing to do to the bad thing to do It's a Losing battle
Ah dildo, so that's your game. Persuading us all it's a losing battle. Sorry, FAIL.
If so, you deserve your name -- a hard strapon, making up for the flaccid real thing. What a fake.