Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Why cant you lead by example rather than destroy?

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 4, 2011, 3:48 p.m. EST by DunkiDonut2 (-108)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Many, if not most of the posts on here are consumed by destroying or taking down something that is in place rather than setting new or better examples that people will jump on if they see the benefits. I see nothing but bitter and miserable people with nothing to offer. I have hunted and hunted but find nothing on here but destruction of our current system with no options. I read a lot of noise.



Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 12 years ago

As usual, point out theoretical limits of capitalism based on dubious assumptions while ignoring that what is proposed to replace it has never worked and never will. Of course someone else is always to blame for the failure but none of that matters. Stimulus wasn't big enough, not enough invested in renewable technology, or people just didn't try hard enough.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago
[-] 3 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 12 years ago

Have you read the 99% Declaration?


[-] 3 points by Vooter (441) 12 years ago

And how do you think we got to this point, hmm?

[-] 0 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 12 years ago

"We're disorganized, and vague, and communistic, and our demands are all over the map, and we're unclear, and unpopular, and it's somebody else's fault!" Classic OWS rhetoric. When are you guys going to start listening to posts like this and realize that middle America is turning on you, and it's NOT THEIR FAULT?

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Sounds exaclty like the US government with the exception of Capitalism vs. Communism. If both are producing undesirable results, I'd be more critical of the highly paid officials who have been given extensive control of our daily lives (will a well-funded and lethal military to back their erring ways). I'm not saying don't critize OWS where you see fit. I'm just saying don' t overlook the core issues in this country because of your distance from the angle of one movement.

[-] 2 points by raychel (37) 12 years ago

Take it all down and get back our government. Take back our government. Good bye large bad corporations. Bye, Bye.

[-] 1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

"Our" government. You mean MY smaller government? Where do you get "OUR"?

[-] 2 points by ProAntiState (43) 12 years ago

"In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas. Eventually the ideology that has won the support of the majority will prevail and cut the ground from under the tyrants feet. Then the oppressed many will rise in rebellion and overthrow their masters."

Ludwig von Mises Theory and History

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Your ideology is a fracking long way from winning the support of the majority.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

Lead by who's example? The banks? WalMart? The so-called justice system?

It's not about destroying but rather about creating, but some people only want to see the negatives of what OWS is doing.

The destruction that you are seeing is due to the reins the 1% is putting on the public. It's not about destroying it, but breaking it, such that we can, in the future, determine the best ways to govern our lives.

OWS is a protest group that can provide a beneficial force for a number of organizations out there who are trying to incorporate a better and more just economy.

OWS is the key to breaking the reins of the 1%. We are telling the 1% that we do not want you nor do we need you. We are telling the 1% that what you are offering us is destructive.

Want destruction? Look at WalMart. They are destroying local economies.

Want destruction? Look at Bank Of America. Look at RAND. Look at the Chamber of Commerce. Look at the actions of the military.

Want destruction? Look at how the right is trying to destroy the ideas about climate science. Even if climate change is not wholly caused by man, that most certainly does not mean that we should continue to make it worse.

If we bring down a few institutions and then re-organize them in the interests of the public, then so be it.

From the ashes, we will rise.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Maybe the majority should bring down OWNS and then re-organize them in the interests of the public?

You are not a phoenix. They are imaginary. Unfortunately, they'd have more value to the public.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

I thought we were leading by example. What are we destroying? We'd probably like to destroy injustice, but in most instances our movement isn't strong enough to do that yet.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

It does not appear like it. Protesting is not leading. I guess my thoughts of leadership are different than those in the OWS. My example would be,,,,,, a nice town hall meeting. See who shows up. Ask those attending what their beef is and if they have any real suggestions or a solution for change. Continue with more nice town hall meetings. Dress,,,, oh,,,,, maybe nice and respectful. Ask more questions of the people. Publish what's on everyone mine. Continue with more nice town hall meetings. Be respectfull. Watch how many more people would attend. Take lots of notes. Publish the notes. Raise some money. Publish the thoughts of people. Seek out goals for solutions to the published items. Select key goals. Identify people in the business community that may agree with the problems. Seek ways to encourage those business people participate by agreeing to follow a "NEW BUSINESS CODE" Find people interested in starting a new business. Help them with new owner/employee relationships. Start some co-op companies. Incorporate some small businesss that promise to do thing ethical. Create a new "Standard of Ethics" program and encourage others to participate. Show others how well it can work. Find people that want to be elected on platform of ethics in government. Find like-minded people and start some community banks to loan to people in need. Then take the last sentence in your last post and change it to say, "It took 200 years to get where we are today, it will be slow, but we can raise our heads high and keep working at it over the next few years or decades to create a better America for our children." There you go. That is leading by example. But what I see on here is this. 'DESTROY AND SHIT ON EVERYTHING BECAUSE YOU OWE ME SOMETHING. There you go.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Do you not agree with the First Amendment? Do you oppose the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly for the redress of grievances. To do that on a mass scale takes a considerable amount of organization and organizational skills, considerably more than attending a town meeting. As Malvena Reynolds once sung: it isn't nice to block the doorways, it isn't nice to go to jail, there are nicer ways to do it, but the nice ways always fail. What precisely are we destroying? On the contrary, we are trying to build a great deal and protect a great deal. We are trying to protect the Constitution and build a mass popular movement. What in the world is destructive about that?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

You're destroying the sanity of people who can't stand drums. And yelling. You're destroying the patience of people who want to get to work on time, or get home on time. Or use a freaking park without a TENT in it.

You're destroying ANY credibility you think you have by being obnoxious, unorganized, and without direction.

NO ONE wants to help you BUILD ANYTHING until they know what you want to BUILD. You have the RIGHT to assemble and PETITION the government for the REDRESS of grievances. You do NOT have the right to assemble and cause the general public to have grievances.

Keep it up. Just push it a little more. A great many of us are already petitioning our local governments to LEGISLATE clear, concise, and RESTRICTED ways for you to "petition" that do not interfere with the RIGHTS of everyone else around you. If the majority of people believed in acting like you are, they'd have done it themselves whenever THEY were pissed about something. But they DON'T.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

There are no drum circles in the park nor have there been since the eviction. There are no tents in the park, nor have there been since the eviction. The park is empty. It is surrounded by police barricades with only two small entrances. It is impossible to pass through the park for any reason, including getting to and from work. This is not because there are demonstrators in the park. There are very few demonstrators in the park. But it is still impossible to transverse the park because of police barricades.

In the past two days OWS has occupied several forclosed and bank owned houses and turned them over either to former owners or to homeless people in need of shelter. That would strike me as a pretty sound direction.

What we want to build is a more just, peaceful and loving world. Won't you join us?

Precisely what rights of others have been violated? You do not have a right not to be annoyed. In fact, the whole point of the First Amendement IS to annoy people. If it wasn't, not much would ever change.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

You just want to fart and have people smell it. Good Examples never smell.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Frank Zappa was once asked if jazz was dead. His response was that it wasn't dead, it just smelled funny.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

It's just the brown shoes that smelled.

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 12 years ago

I keep submitting www.nationalday911.org to the committee but no response yet......just to see if they would consider it as part of the demands

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

I've said over and over again and I've seen many other folks saying the same thing:

Get money out of politics.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall.

Create a more fair tax structure.

End corporate greed.

Not too complicated, I don't think.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

Run for president on that platform, get enough people to think YOU can get it done, get elected, and you solved the problem. Why are you spending your time on here? As the NIKE ad says, Just Do It.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

You are mincing my words. I did not mean that getting that list of things done would not be complicated.

I meant that the Occupy Wall Street movement is not complicated in what it stands for. People against this movement love to make it seem amorphous.

[-] 2 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 12 years ago

Amorphous, and self-contradictory. You say OWS wants to get money out of politics, but the port shutdown is in support of a threatened labor union in the northwest. So a movement supposedly dedicated to getting money out of politics is aligned with organized labor, which pours more money into politics than anyone, buying politicians by the dozens. You don't want money out of politics, you want corporate money out of politics. Money corrupting the system in your direction is just fine. At least be honest about it. Geez.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

Not true. Actually, I've had this discussion with a few people on these threads and we all feel that Rep. Ted Deutsch's "Occupied Amendment" to get money out of politics does not go far enough. All groups should be included, not just corporations. That means non-profits, union, religious groups, etc.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 12 years ago

I'm glad you're being consistent, beautiful world. But you are speaking only for yourself, not the movement as a whole. If one of the largest official projects of OWS this month is a shutdown of west coast ports in support of unions, then the movement is officially aligned with labor. At best, it is turning a blind eye to the corrupting influence of union money in politics. At worst, the movement has been co-opted by organized labor, not a surprise if that is the case. Either way, the port shutdown is inconsistent with what you state to be the first of four goals of OWS. That's why so many of us are confused about the goals.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

I don't know much about the planned shutdown, but a planned shutdown is very different than making financial contributions to politicians. I would agree that OWS is aligned with labor. For goodness sake, OWS is seeking a living wage for all workers and more economic fairness. Of course it is aligned with labor. Does that really surprise you? Unions rose up in the past when workers' rights were threatened. This is happening again. The average wage in this country is $26,000. It is not easy to live on $26,000. The average CEO, however, is now earning 343 times the average workers wage when 30 years ago it was 40 times. I don't see at all how the shutdown is inconsistent with getting money out of politics, reinstating Glass-Steagall, creating a more fair tax structure, and ending corporate greed. Seems consistent to me. Yet, I personally, don't think the shutdown is a great idea, the little I know about it, I would recommend they don't do it.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 12 years ago

Agreed. Their credibility gets shot to pieces, and the movement comes across as just another special interest group. The moral high ground of "get money out of politics" is gone when they cozy up to people who are pouring money into politics. That's my point.

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

Just a couple of years ago Apple came out with the Iphone and Ipad. Within a few years everyone wanted one. They provided an alternative and didnt burn down HP or Dell. If you have something that everyone wants, they will go for it. You cant force people to want something they dont want. If corporations are the problem, then form a corporation that sets standards according to what YOU believe. If you pay your CEO $30,000 and your corporation is succesful, everyone will buy stock in it. If you have a bank where the bankers are making $30,000 and loans are at a low rate and you get a sucker, then everyone will bank there tomorrow. What's your problem?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

30 or so years ago the average CEO earned 40 times the wage of the average worker. Today the average CEO earns 343 times the wage of the average worker, who, at an average wage of $26,000 barely can live. This kind of greed is a problem for me.

Money in politics is a problem for me.

No separation between commercial and investment banks is a problem for me.

Corporate tax loopholes are a problem for me.

The fact that 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps is a problem for me.

The fact that 22% of American children live in poverty is a problem for me.

That 21% of all homes with mortgages are underwater is a problem.

I could go on and on.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

I give YOU permission to start a company and pay your CEO $26,000. I hope you are happy now that I gave in to YOU. Let me know how that works out.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

Can all of you post the names of the companies you have started and if the CEO are enjoying $26,000/year you are giving them?

[-] 1 points by VeniVidiVici (14) 12 years ago

Please help us petition the White House to stop Obama from imposing harsh economic sanctions against a promising young African nation whose innocence has been vindicated by Wikileaks. Your signature can really save the lives of 5 million people. Thank you.


[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

What are your ideas for how it could work?

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

Our founding fathers didnt try to bring down England. They set up a new example in America of how it could be done and succeeded.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Actually, there was a war against England. Without it, America would not have become independent. Why not go to the library and read some history books?

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

I dont recall reading in any history book where we got on boats, traveled back to England for our independence. Can you fill me in on when that happened?

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

The map below shows the extent of the British Empire in 1763, about a decade before the start of the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). What's interesting is that the United-States of America did not exist at this time. I know it's hard to believe, but once upon a time USA did not exist! It's true! This war, The American Revolutionary War, pitted the Kingdom of Great Britain with the thirteen British colonies in North America. At the end, it turned into a global war between several European countries. A lot of blood was spilled worldwide at this time. A few years later, the Founding Fathers were signing the Constitution. America did not become a country without a war and it had to take a lot of land away from England.

You didn't get on boats and travel to England, but England did send boats to America to assist them during this war. The war was on American soil.

The history of United-States is fascinating. Why not go to the library and read some history books? Public libraries are free and offer worlds upon worlds to be discovered! Some books have pictures. It aways makes me laugh to see how people dressed back in those days! Males wore tights. Can you believe it! Fascinating!

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

OK,,,,, I will try this ONE MORE TIME and SEE if you can understand. Here is my original post. (([-]DunkiDonut2-2 points 23 hours ago Our founding fathers didnt try to bring down England. They set up a new example in America of how it could be done and succeeded.))) People,,,,,, LEFT,,,,,,, England for the NEW WORLD. England wanted to continue with high and unfair taxes. We fought for our freedom HERE on American soil. We DIDNTTTTTTTTT travel to England to fight. As I said, WE SET AN EXAMPLE of how we wanted the new world to be. Once again,,,,,,,,,, we set an EXAMPLE. That is the title of this post,,,, set an example. We didnt set the example by going to England. We wanted our own thing EXAMPLE. Now,,,,, what part do YOU see us getting on boats and fighting in England to SET AN EXAMPLE.... Please explain where the example was set,,,,, HERE,,,, NOT ENGLAND.. Read the post for God sake.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Sorry, I didn't read this. Is it possible to post it again in an easy to read format.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by lovenlight1 (11) 12 years ago

Want answers? Check out the "Thrive" website. It has a very thorough grasp on things that can be done TODAY to replace the old systems........ http://www.thrivemovement.com/

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

Fair enough point, DunkiDonut2. No one here is "bitter and miserable". We just see something is wrong. It is not the system that is wrong but that bad people are destroying that system. The option is that paid employees of corporations, mainly banks should be paid far less than what they are at the moment. To pay a person 100 million dollars for doing a job where that person's money is not at risk is insanity. Can't people be prepared to say get $100,000 per year and be satisfied with that? It is not difficult to run a bank or do a job in it. It is as simple as that. Make rules so that honest people will get an honest day's pay, and dishonest ones will go to jail. It is that simple. There are a lot of crooks in charge at the moment. We need rid of them. Simple as that.

[-] 1 points by rmolsonguitars (7) 12 years ago

Our monetary system was great before the greedy bankster got a Federal Reserve Charter voted in. Now they have stole from us for more than 70 years.. that's why the dollar is worth nothing

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

Exactly. Every time Wall Street index goes up, the dollar goes down. When the Wall Street index goes down, the dollar does up. Why is that? It is because the banksters are robbing the public blind.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

On every thread, I've read much fallacies from you.

You're correct that the value of the dollar is negatively correlated with the value of the stock market. The reason is because during a selloff, the mere act of trading your stock for dollars is implicitly an expression of greater demand for dollars. On a larger scale, the value the dollar must go up as a consequence. When everyone buys into the stock market, it demonstrates a preference for shares of stock over dollars. Thus the stock's value goes up while the dollars' value goes down.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

The fallacy is yours. The market is being manipulated by banksters. You obviously have no idea of FX. When people sell the USD, they have to buy another currency. The stock markets of both the US and the other countries go in the same direction, but the currencies go in opposite directions. Why? Banksters tricking people of course.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

TLydon007 Thanks for the common sense.

By the way - you do know who you are talking to don't you. Trying to put any sense into OccupyCentre is like trying to fill the Grand Canyon with ice cream in the middle of summer.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 12 years ago

A bit off topic, but I love how the prestige of being a "Bankster" is dropping into the realm of politicians and lawyers.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

True enough. As someone said here "keep punching and the champ will fall". We will keep punching, and these banksters will fall. The movement was a bit weaker over the last week. Expect a big bounce coming up for Christmas time. Banksters: WIR KOMMEN!


[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

No it is not as simple as that.

That person that you refer to usually has a lot of their own (money if you will-but more like wealth) fully at risk. Those bonus payments are not normally made in the form of cash only - guess - STOCK!!!!

Some CEO's might be paid a salary of $100,000 per year to run that business - but if you do not understand why the bonus is paid, who authorizes that payment, and what the CEO has to do to get it - you may, in effect, not even know who the "crooks" really are. Look at the stock ownership of your favorite corporation and see what the breakdown really is. Then figure out why WallStreet needs to bet on that corporation meeting its projected profitability standard - and this is not done by anyone who owns those shares. It gets more and more complicated as you look into what really happens.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

"but if you do not understand why the bonus is paid, who authorizes that payment, and what the CEO has to do to get it - you may, in effect, not even know who the "crooks" really are. Look at the stock ownership of your favorite corporation and see what the breakdown really is. Then figure out why WallStreet needs to bet on that corporation meeting its projected profitability standard - and this is not done by anyone who owns those shares."

The majority of ownership is by the mutual funds. They authorize the payments. You can look this up on Edgars forms for any mutual fund under SEC Form N-PX. It will show all their votes. Under "Recommended Vote", that is what was recommended to them by the mutual fund's board. I have only seen 1 instance in a Fidelity fund where they voted against a measure to "Amend Executive Incentive Bonus Plan". It's also rare that they vote in favor of any proposition made by the shareholders.

My problem is, if these funds are my 401K, why on Earth do they get my votes?? Also, why can't I find where the details of "Amend Executive Incentive Bonus Plan" are?? Maybe they're available.. I just can't find them.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

What you need to do is a simple coorelation calculation between the projected profitabilty standard set by that mutual funds (also a corporation) and how much the CEO received in compensation. That probably will reflect the fact that a 100% coorelation will exist when the projection is 100% on target.. The Board, in the meantime is the party setting that standard and the 'one' to gain the most from meeting that standard - especially if individuals on that Board are also betting on the stock market.

This is very difficult to explain in the limited space available here, but if you will reference the GE experience under Jack Welsh, and the skyrocketing increase in stock value during that time - vs- the status of the stock of GE in todays market, you will see that the 100% projection rules the roost, so to speak,

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

Where do I find the Mutual funds' projections of profitability??

Statement of projected profit and loss, as I see it, is set by the company..

Also, that wouldn't explain any of the increases in bonuses the banks' Executive boards' received after the financial crisis.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Almost every large corporation projects their quarterly earnings based on incomes-expenses. This may be set by the company, but more likely is set by the Board of Director of that company..

It would explain why the bonus was NOT paid during the crises, but was paid in an expanded manner once with crisis for that company was over. Check out Fannie and Freddie. They are now planning to pay out multi M$ in bonus to their CEO while still loosing money. The CEO's are simply guiding the company into a transition period where they project less losses, thus the companies loses less than before SO their CEO's come out ahead and get a huge bonus.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

That is half the problem. CEOs are given large stock "bonuses". That dilutes all the stock available. They cannot lose. If the stock goes up, they sell and make big time. If it goes down, they win on their short selling position, and of course they will get even more stock next year at the reduced price. The authorisers you mention are also stockholders - you scatch my back and I'll scratch yours. Sorry. They are all crooks these banksters. The whole lot of them.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

And you are asumming that the stock goes up and down automatically for some reason, right, and the CEO is at the mercy of that unknown force?

Go ahead with your general classifications. That is the equivalent of saying that all OWS's are totally ignorant. How do you like that generalization??

So let's say that your most disliked CEO is killed tonight in a horrible accident - how does that in any way correct the direction of that corporation and what you see as the "Crook" problem. Does it suddenly come to a stop and everyone lives happily ever after??

Your analysis, in my opinion, is far too short sighted to develop any kind of a plan to correct anything.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

Not only CEOs. We are after all these banksters. They are the ones laughing at the 99%. We want the whole practice stopped. These banksters are greedy and don't care who they hurt, ruin. They are monsters.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Fine with me, I actually wish I was one of the big banksters, just so that I could understand the target of your rath and change my ways.

However, your target is SO LARGE that I really doubt you can miss, even though you may hit a lot of innocents you your headlong run towards whatever it is that you want out of your words.

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

Dont go into a bank. Dont borrow money from them.

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

What you fail to see is that I own a corporation, a portion of it. You can own a corporation, a portion of it. ANYone can own a corporation, a portion of it. You vote on who you want to be CEO. You can vote on his/her salary. It would appear like we must all agree on the salary, hence, they are being paid that salary. I want the best person to run that corporation, MY CORPORATION, and I with other decide that. If you dont want to participate in owning stock or being a partial owner, go start your own company and leave those of us that like this plan alone. Do your own thing. Pay yourself what every you think is appropriate. If I dont lile the salary a CEO is getting pain, I attend a stock holder meeting or invest my money somewhere else. It is really none of a non owner to decide a salary.

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

I have read and read post after post. EVERYONE on here is bitter and miserable. I see hippies with tents. I see battle with police that cant change the system YOU want changed because they cant change it. Why slap a baby for messing in their pants if they cant control it? You want to take over an empty building. You want to block a sidewalk. If that is not an example of bitter or miserable, what would be?

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

True enough. That is the perception of a lot of the public. The 99% are not rich. It is not about being bitter or miserable. It is hard though, in the bleak midwinter, and in cold tents. The batle with police, only limited, is only ever when the police attack the Movement. Many police are privately on our side. They have to cope with the world as it is, with people fallen on hard times because of bankster greed. Police do not pay themselves huge bonuses. A policeman is lucky to earn over $100,000 per year, a long way of the 10s of millions or more thieved by each criminal bank fraudster.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

If the 99% you claim to be a part of agreed, there would 300,000 million people in your empty building. Let me know when that happens. (( I hate to tell you,,, the guy in the nice car next to you and next to him and next to her and next to him and so on,,,, are driving in their car and not joining your protest. You are alone.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

Maybe. About those in cars. We are certainly not alone. Personally, I don't own a car. Many of the 99% can't afford one.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

99% percent of the American population as you stated cant afford a car? Really, are you nuts?

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

How is building a little tent community destroying anything?

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

It isnt, as long as you pitch your tent on your own property. I built my house on my own property.

[-] 1 points by rmolsonguitars (7) 12 years ago

Years ago a people were being abused and overburdened by being taxed of their prosperity just like today. Like today, all there was left to do was to fight for their freedom....

I am talking about the men and women who truly fought for your independence and freedom.

If we don't stand up and fight we should at least revoke our enemies banking charter...

Allowing the Federal Reserve to exist and force us to use their Federal Reserve Debt Notes was the start of the downfall of our economic future.

Those Federal Reserve Notes are just like your house or car note... they are debt instruments but you can't pay them off... you lose about 5% every year we continue using them. That's why our dollar is so worthless. I bought my first car with only $3000 $1.00 bills. Now it would take near a wheel barrel full of $1.00 bills to buy a new car. That's because the Federal Reserve Notes are designed that way. It is a way of stealing from you. When we used silver dollars, they could not clip a little off each coin because we would notice. They could not steal directly from the vault because we would notice it. So they found a way to steal using just plain paper for our trade and commerce.

Everyone should know by now that those banksters are not Federal and that there is no Reserve at least for our benefit and the the Notes indicate debt for us as long as we allow the use of the Federal Reserve Notes... Demand... we go back to Constitutional money.

Do you know what Constitutional money is? It is central to our freedom under the Constitution! As long as they can destroy your ability to have a rich financial future. they have taken your freedom for everything else away too!

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

You have one major flaw. The fight for independence was done after they left England and went to find another location to set an EXAMPLE. They didnt fight in England, they fought in a new world and established a constitution, setting a positive example. They didnt burn down England.

[-] 1 points by Xxskillzz (18) 12 years ago

They didn't burn down England... instead they used them financially to fund the trip, killed the natives, and then successfully revolted against their rule due to the advantage of distance. So then you are suggesting the American taxpayer fund the invasion of a third would country, we kill the native peoples (or most of them), and then revolt against any notion that America has any entitlement to the "new land?" That is quite an EXAMPLE..... quite positive???

It appears you advocate: "Get out of my country and don't disturb my enjoyment of the status quo?"

By your logic, is it ok for China to invade, kill us all, and set an example? Would you define this as positive?

Curious... r u a troll

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

Am I a troll? How would that be possible? If the 1% are rich and would have zero interest in being on this site and the 99% are OWS and hate America and I'm NOT OWS or hate America, and you add 99% and 1% and that adds up to 100%, the OWS has a very major math smarts.

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 12 years ago

That's because these people think they are thinkers, and none of them know how to turn thoughts into actions.

There might be a few, and they tell the non-thinkers to sit and think in a park somewhere. All that thinking, and nothing to show for it. I'm with you bubba.

[-] 2 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

There's a Dr Seuss book in that somewhere....

"And the thinkers sat thinking and pondering all day- While the workers went working and collected their pay. Then the workers went whistling to purchase and play But the thinkers just thought there and wasted away.


[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

Set an example and everyone will follow you. I dont see any examples from OWS that anyone has created to follow.

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

Occupy an empty warehouse is not a movement. It is just one more homeless area.

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

EXAMPLES. Get rich democrats that you voted for and start your own banking system. Get rich democrats that you voted for and create new corporations and pay the CEO $50,000. As the NIKE ad says, JUST DO IT.

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 12 years ago

One auto company does not blow up another auto company to sell their new car. If they have a better car, everyone will want to buy it and the other auto company will go away.