Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why Liberals are easy prey. They truly hate!

Posted 2 years ago on March 8, 2012, 8:28 a.m. EST by SatanRepublican (136)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

And we know I'm the man who invented hate!

Speaking of hate, I'm proud to announce that ZenDog has made it throught Republican boot camp and has already been promoted to the Mobile Oral Latrine. He's very happy, for a hateful SOB and doing well.

More updates later.

Feel free to list several more reasons why liberals are their own worst enemies........... but, whatever you do, do not listen to that Jesus meddler who would try to convince you to disavow hatred.

171 Comments

171 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Hot load of douchebaggery ya got going on there!

[+] -7 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Yessssss.... I've gifted you with profound douchbag loading skills!

Spew your ignorant and vile douche wisely, princess.

[+] -5 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Very predictable, you waste much and want more.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago
[+] -4 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Exactly, and you continue to prove my point.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (2959) 2 years ago

Liberals have to stop the people standing in their way of ending suffering within their societies. See it in wolf packs - they oust the selfish wolves that won't share from their packs because they know they'll all suffer for it if they don't. This is a species surviving in a collective way. Not like your species I gather. See how I'd come to girl Friday's aid? She has you down I'd say.

[-] -3 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Exactly, and you continue to prove my point..... and yours in reverse.

It's quite simple.

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

You right wing trolls come here only to spew hate. It's the only reason you come to a site devoted to leftist causes.

[-] 4 points by Deeptx (42) 2 years ago

Me personally am not left wing but I do not come here to spew hate. My hat goes off to you all for getting your ideas and purpose out there. For the most part the only problem I have with most views on this site is the wanting control of someone else's dollar whether it be a corporation or an individual who became wealthy on his/her own accord.(the evil one percent) I created my own wealth and live in this country because and only because for the most part I can decide what to do with that wealth. I can keep it all for myself and my family or I can give some to those in need. I hate the fact that my money is used for our welfare system because the system is flawed. People can actually make more money by having more kids rather than going out and looking for more jobs. If people on welfare had to participate in municipal work for 40 hrs a week to earn their welfare I would send my money to the system with a smile. It just seems to me that a lot of these ideals on this site come from a generation who expects thing rather than my grandparents generation who created things. I am sorry we live in capitalism, if you are out of work, create a business instead of focusing on squeezing as much out of the system as possible. I came from nothing and creating something and it was hard as hell, but it is more possible in this country than anywhere else and people taking away from those who have made their own way will destroy that for our citizens.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Why are you sorry we live in capitalism? I'm glad we have capitalism. I think it's the best economic system ever devised. It's helped me do well and it sounds like it helped you do well. Why are you sorry about it?

What sucks is that capitalism is gone run amok. When a society loses it's morality it creates the need for more regulation. We got less regulation which encouraged more greed. Wealth inequality is dangerous for society. It creates all kinds of nasty problems. Like anarchy in the streets even.

[-] 4 points by Deeptx (42) 2 years ago

Sorry it meant to read as such : " I'm sorry but we live in capitalism" typing on my iPad sometimes I mess up. I apologize.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

No worries. Just had to make sure. Some people around here want to end capitalism. Best to be super clear on that. : )

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

Your solution - just start your own business - is no solution at all for a systemic problem. WHen the 1% can brazenly destroy the economy, when credit cries up as a result, when there can be no consumer demand because unemployment has gone through the roof, what kind of business are you going to start? When you are being thrown out of your home? When you can feed your family?

By the way, people on welfare, unless they are disabled, must work at community service, just like criminals, for 30 hours a week for no pay. If one is single, that means that you must put in 120 of community service work for $140.00 dollars worth of benefits per MONTH. You seem to miss the point of the movement entirely.

Why do you harp on welfare for the poor in the first place. At most 3% of the population in on welfare. 90% of them are the disabled and the elderly. You object to their being helped while not objecting the TRILLIONS of dollars of corporate welfare that has been doled out? Where are your priorities?

Do you not understand that this movement is not about taking control of the 1%s money, but a protest that the 1% takes OURS by forcing us to have a greater tax burden than them, by forcing us to pay for bailouts they made necessary, by forcing us out of our homes and jobs by their recklessness and greed, by forcing up to pay for cleaning up the environment they poisoned, by forcing us to live with a greater threat of terrorism because their policies have made us hated around the world?

And you're concerned most about poor people, who are victims of this system in the first place, scamming you of a few pennies? Get real. Open your eyes. Get some humanity pumping in your blood.

[-] 2 points by Deeptx (42) 2 years ago

Ok I see your point , starting your own business is just an example of getting out of a bad situation, that's what we have unemployment for, that will buy you a few years until u can find work, start a business, or whatever. I'll have to check your stats but very positive you are making up the fact that people work 30 hours a week for no pay. The 30 hours of community service they work is what EARNS their pay. I'm sorry but I don't see the poor as victims because I was poor once, very poor and instead of sitting around and saying how the system was keeping me down I went out and changed my condition. I have humanity pumping in my blood and I support those causes I believe in so that statement falls on def ears. The 1% did not destroy the economy ( 4 investment banks caused a recession) which we r well out of: unemployment is not through the roof it's at 8.3%, it was through the roof in the depression at almost 25%, consumer demand which I'm guessing is consumer confidence is up by almost 50% since jan 2009, not sure what you r saying about credit but the prime lending rates are at all time lows u can essentially borrow money for free, you where not thrown out of your home you had to default on a loan which is tough but if you cant pay back a borrowed dollar it happens (news flash if you make 30k a year your are not able to afford a 300k mortgage), in fact the 1% has a much higher tax burden than you hence the increasing tax bracket as it relates to annual income. Maybe I don't understand this movement.

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

"The 30 hours of community service they work is what EARNS their pay."

Right. It forces American citizens to work for $1.16 an hour.

It is really too much, and I don't have the time now to address every single one of your many, many distortions. But let it be noted that you are not a supporter of OWS, yet you still feel it's ok to come here, to its support site, and post your inanities. Tell you what, why don't you go visit a Heritage Foundation site and start a pro-union thread. See how fast you will get banned there.

[-] 2 points by Deeptx (42) 2 years ago

What distortions? Please quote them. I'm not trying to get banned just expressed an opinion, and it doesn't force anyone to do anything it's a choice to go on welfare. Buddy I came here because I was interested in why OWS exists because no one really understands the point. I saw some things I can agree with and a lot that is out there but when I put facts on any thread people like you talk about bans. In any forum that is worth it's salt welcomes different opinions but feel free to keep using the word ban.

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

Every single one of your sentences after the first one is a distortion. I don't need to list them, as you already have.

The entire system of unfettered capitalism has not only caused this particular crisis, but has led to the most exaggerated distribution of wealth in the developed world. It has created enormous misery and poverty. It has made socio-economic mobility nearly impossible. It has completely distorted democracy itself, creating different sets of rules for the have and have nots, and makes sure the haves and have nots stay that way. That unfettered capitalism, and the mindset behind it, is precisely what OWS formed to oppose.

The following is the list of grievances of OWS. It is a part of the only official document OWS has published. Ask yourself if you agree or disagree with the majority of them. Then ask yourself if you support or oppose this list as a whole. If it is the former, help look for solutions. If it is the latter, posting your opposition makes you a troll. It is your decision:

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

[-] 2 points by Deeptx (42) 2 years ago

I don't want to repeat all but I'll just bullet your list and say true or false: also I'm guessing "they"means the 1%

1- false the foreclosure process is legal

2- true

3- no way to know this is an accusation not a fact but this seems like its not the 1% rather the government that placed this perpetuated inequality laws on corporations.

4- false you have watched one too many of the same documentary

5- I'm guessing lab rats and animals in which case true would you rather test new pharmacuticals on yourself? Not hidden all public record

6- false unions still exist in a very big way

7-false, the student did that, the one percent doesn't own the university and set tuition rates. Tens of thousands would be nice spent a lot more than that myself I'm doin just fine. Education is a right but a degree costs.

8- true on the outsourcing, false on healthcare and pay cuts, usually just get laid off, that's why I work for myself now

9-have no clue

10- true has happened for a long time

11- true but not the one percent, every damn company from google to mom and pops shop does this.

12- nope you all occupied my city for weeks cops watched and nothing was suppressed, also have 3 of the largest military bases in my town and they didn't show up. Must be an isolated incident you are talking about.

13- no idea give example

14- r you talking about government or the1% with this, because govt determines policy.

15- true

16- no one is blocking anything your ass doesn't realize that oil isn't just used for energy, every pastic product in this country is made using oil. Take away plastic and oil demand will slightly decreaseb but will never go away. Doesn't matter if your car runs on urine still going to be a demand for oil.

17- false generic medicine is available at ur pharmacy just ask.

18- false on oil spill, name one that was a "cover up", the rest just sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory but I would like to see cases.

19- true, but I'll give our citizens the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using their brain. Don't believe everything you see on tv.

20 - this has nothing to do with the 1%, I watched some poor people shoot down some innocents on the first 48 the other night. Guess both sides have their murderers. That drive by probably had something to do with the 1%.

21- ?? Colonialism

22- true on the murder false on torture, we r not torturing innocents.

23- true and thank god because there is a crazy ass country right above south Korea that's wants to use theirs. Not so much worried about the guy with 20000 weapons just worried about the guy with one or two.

Why do you call people trolls, man I might think you are slightly off the planet but I'm sure you are a nice guy no need, just saying how I feel, thought you all where into the being heard thing. By the way you still didn't list my distortions from previous post. Those are factual statistics from the census man, just sayin things could be much better than u want to believe.

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

Why do you call people trolls

that happens in uncensored forums

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

It seems you fundamentally don't understand what is referred to by the 1%. It is a meme. It is not a list of people, but a reference to a system of exploitation that creates vast disparities of wealth and power. Wealthy people are not the problem, the system that created the wealth and the poverty alike is. When 1% of the population owns 43% of the wealth, when merely the top 400 people own the same as the bottom 150,000,000 people, it is a systemic problem. When fully 50% of the American population is currently living at or near the poverty line (according to the latest census bureau reports) that indicates a problem with the system.

Well, I guess your response indicates that you are fundamentally opposed OWS. So the next question is, why are you here on its support site?

[-] 2 points by Deeptx (42) 2 years ago

I already stated why I am here but in typical fashion you end you retorts in a " why are you here or troll" fashion. Bud I came here to try and understand what this is and I am simply stating some facts that are contrary to some of your beliefs, not all but most. If you don't like it then take down the forums or disallow certain opinions, not my call. Unless you want to suppress certain opinions like the evil 1% then I suggest you get over the fact that i raise questions and maybe try to answer a question as simple as what distortions did I post in my first quote. Damn that's a lot of typing to get a straight answer.

By the way thank you for clarifying the meaning of one percent first straight question and answer you have given.

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

Now that you have found out that you disagree with most of what OWS stands for, will you stay and voice opposition, will you stay to argue, will you stay to learn, or will you decide to leave?

Keep in mind that this the supposed to be the gathering place, at least virtually, for OWS supporters. It is our "home". As such, it is no less real than anyone else's home. How would you behave if this were a physical gathering? I hope you would do the same here.

I well understand the desire to learn what OWS is about. I'm sure you have already read many of the threads here. I certainly hope you read the "about" page, linked to on the main page of the site. I would also suggest you follow the other links that page provides. And I hope that if you decide to stay here, you will act as if you are in our home, not some abstract general political discussion website. Remember, you came here. We didn't come to you.

My apologies for labeling you a troll right off he bat. But we have lately been inundated with those who come here for the sole purpose of opposing this movement. It gets a little wearing.

[-] 2 points by Deeptx (42) 2 years ago

Well I appreciate the apology. I haven't decided completely on how I feel about this movement yet. If this was a physical gathering I would react the same way I am nodding when I agree and stating truth through facts when I disagree. I keep it simple when in doubt ask questions and research the answers you get. I do not mean to make a political discussion it's just that it seems that most of this is politically driven so my questions come out as such.

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

You are correct that most of the discussions are politically driven. OWS is, (the way I see it anyway - I can't speak for the movement) essentially a social movement. As such, it engages politics. Politics, after all, is the method by which a society decides what values are important to live by.

But you should know that the movement was started by, as continues to be at its core, an unabashedly left wing one. The founders were virtually all political anarchists. In fact, it is largely because of that anarchism, the openness of it as a system and creed, that this website is open to all. If it were merely liberal, it would most likely ban opposing voices from the get go, as it would be more about achieving goals and objectives than egalitarian process.

Among the central beliefs of its founders is the observation that capitalism as a system is in the process of dying, and that new systems must emerge. It is not a call to specific action about any one system, but a creation of methods of discovering what might replace it. Before that process begins, however, a unified condemnation of the abuses inherent in capitalism must be exposed, opposed, and remedied.

Although I am less certain about the timeline of capitalism's demise that David Graeber and his colleagues (the founders) have stated, I am certain of its current abuses, and fully support OWS's aims of exposing, opposing, and remedying them. I see this movement - and this is a very personal take - as the inheritor of what Martin Luther King began, but not limited to opposing Jim Crow laws. Rather it is to undertake the broader assault on the very system of rigged economic and political power the current system maintains. That goal was also his, and his tragic death cut short actions on those things he only just began to address.

OWS seeks to make different world, hopefully a better one, based on entirely different values than we have been living by. In that goal, they have my loyalty.

[-] 1 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 2 years ago

Nobody is FORCED you twit. If you are willing to work for government money at 1.16 and hour, you've got a serious problem if you are willing to do that but not sell yourself for 5, 6, 7 or whatever you can get more than that....... and maybe try doing something you are good as well as enjoy doing........ ya might just manage to stumble onto something good for you.

Nah, don't bother, just cry about how your government rapes you and continue to expect something else because you vote.

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

Starvation forces one to do all sorts of things, you moron. And insuring that the state itself violates its own labor laws, its own minimum wage laws, making sure that the most destitute, the most needy, the most broken people are subject to slave wages in order to survive is not hunky-dory.

And yes, people who find themselves on welfare have serious problems, occasionally even of their own making, but more usually because of factors outside of their control. That's why they need the help in the first place. Either way, it still makes you a shit for judging them, for assuming that everyone has the same options because you found something that worked for you, and you alone.

[-] 1 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 2 years ago

I'm not judging anyone and you have never walked in my shoes.

Let me tell you, I'd starve to death before I'd accept a dime of welfare from the goverment and without any conditions, much less be treated worse than a fully exploited illegal immigrant as you describe......... by anyone.

Nobody has to sell themselves for 1.16 an hour unless they've managed very well to do something I can imagine a congenial and charming fellow like yourself doing, alienate all decent people.

Attend church if things really are that bad for you. Somebody will help you.

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

Illegal Immigrant? We're talking about your fellow citizens, asshole.

You can't imagine anyone being forced to work for $1.16 and hour. That's because you have never been in such a position, and your "imagination" is nonexistent. You would rather starve. Good for you. (I hope you come to that.) People with kids don't have that choice to make. Unless you advocate the creation of millions of orphans.

Most people who are on welfare DO go to church as well. It is not enough. No one would have to be at the mercy of private charity - who are under no obligation to help - when they are supposed to be protected by their government. But the government chooses to give welfare to multi billion dollar corporations instead. Maybe Exxon should go to church instead.

And maybe, just maybe, YOU should take in the message that the founder of all the churches espoused, instead of condemning the poor. You say you don't judge the poor, but in practically the next sentence you imply that the poverty is of their making, due to some undefined character flaw. It is a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty you never fail to exhibit.

So take your judgments and assumptions and shove them where the sun don't shine: your brain.

[-] 1 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 2 years ago

The point about illegal immigrants is, I don't know any of them do want to work and find it getting paid at least minimum wage.

You however, seem to believe welfare is owed to any and everyone who is poor, for whatever reason. Good luck with that.

It is a shame that there seems to be, according to you, millions of children whose parents seemingly didn't make good decisions, like having kids when they lack the financial wherewithal to do so.

I'm very well aware of the billions spent on super welfare for the elite, it's wrong. It's a shame that billions are handed to the DC club and what's done with it. It's a shame presidential candidates will spend billions and billions running when a small portion of any of those moneys would go a long way towards helping those who need it.

However, the plain truth is, your approach to it will never fix anything.

[+] -8 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

You are obviously very left, as in left to your own devices. Guess what? The people don't want to help haters like you who are clearly self-righteously oblivious to the non-stop hate you spew.

You are one of my hand picked messengers and I couldn't have done better getting five people to do your job.

[-] 9 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Listen up sweet potato! epa1nter is one of the best posters on this board with well thought out logical analysis, contributes constructive opinions and informative facts. Which is more than I can say for you.

No one is spewing hate here but you. You sound like a freaking lunatic. Are you mentally ill?

[-] -2 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs and suit yourself if you agree with his foul, hateful and classless attacks on those who know a different truth than it. It is merely one of many who would try and convince all who are easily led that voting (d) will cure America.

I invite all of you to compromise your integrity and honor by relentlessly attempting making deals with the devils on either side, in a system of governance that has not been of and for the people for many many many years.

It will fix everything ;-)

Trust me.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

How about cut the crap. If you have something contructive to say then say it.

It's your opinion that voting for a Democrat would be compromising ones integrity. I honestly don't know too many people that think this is a cure. But it's a realistic approach to try to reverse some of our problems.

You have a better idea?

And another thing - it's really very crappy of you to attack ZenDog in an OP when you know damn well he isn't even around anymore. Does nothing but bring in question your own character and integrity.

[+] -4 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

He's around and as hateful as ever, or would you try and tell me otherwise like you have with epa? I'd stomp anyone's ass real good, or they'd have to stomp mine, that thought they'd speak to me in person as I've seen both of them talk to many here.

I'd be surprised if ZD hasn't toted a serious stomping for the ways he's spoken to people. I'd have to say, and many agree with me, he, single-handedly, did more to hurt OWS than any other poster here and it's disturbing to see so many condone his very poor conduct.

There simply isn't any excuse to be completely lacking decency, class or respect, other than lacking the spine to step up in a real life situation with real men that will gladly teach one better and know they are obligated to do so.

How about you cut the crap trying to rationalize any justifications for anyone here with the same MO?

It doesn't fly in my world, not at all, and it doesn't matter if epa's views are the best thing since sliced bread, I automatically do not read anything typed and vote it's posts down, because of all the vulgar trash and hate spewed from your hero and cohort.

So do you condone and honor vulgarity and hate spewing?

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

Now you're just being silly.

How about you point out all the anti-liberal vulgarity posted around here.

You just want to complain about tit for tat?

I just posted in the thread that called us moonbats and bedwetters.

Double standard much?

[-] -3 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Why don't you learn a lesson and shut your mouth.

You, and many like you, have long ago decided it's an "us vs them" thing, and brother, I'm not with you, I'm not anything like you, I will never be able to relate to you, I don't feel bad about it and would enjoy putting a serious hurt on you because of how you are.

In person, you may be completely different and even decent. I'd almost bet that to be the case.

You see, I'm not a republican, a winger, a commie, blah blah blah, nor a voting lemming. You hang onto your belief in a system that has long ago FAILED, and it has mattered not WHO controlled DC, D's or R's you small minded and fearful punk.

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

OMG You just insulted me in a post where you were bitching about others being insulting.

You just belied you very name.

Conceptual continuity is not your strong point.

So you must be a "closet (R)epelican't".

[+] -4 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

says the entity blind to his non-stop insulting and labeling of all

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

You're insulted by shooz?

You are indeed as silly as they come.

Have you thought about getting a real job?

Evil is so 80s, so passe.

You have rendered yourself ineffectual.

You done twisted yer "silver tongue".

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO looks like you struck a nerve.

Point goes to shooz.

And we move forward - Together.

[+] -5 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

epa1nter spews more hate than almost anybody on here. You just haven't been a recipient of any of it yet.

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

You right wing trolls come here only to spew hate. It's the only reason you come to a site devoted to leftist causes.

[+] -5 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

So much for "inclusion of all views". I always knew that was an outright lie.

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

What view are you attempting to include?

You've not been very clear about that.

[+] -4 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

What you would call conservative.

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

The folks that crashed our Country, and refuse to admit it.

What do you call them, other than (R)epelican't?

[-] -3 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

And your gods the democrats?

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

You are obviously the one of those that worships politicians.

Please don't paint your failure to understand on me.

That seems to be yet another "conservative" thing.

I'm a forwardist.

[-] -3 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Just stop it. Overall the essence of this site is anti republican and pro democrats. That means one is better than the other. Whatever a "forwardist" is means nothing to anyone but you. Ignoring what the real problem is, republicrats, by inventing stupid titles does nothing. Changes nothing.

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

I just notice that every time a (R)epelican't gets into office, whether it's state or federal, things go to hell.

Last time they were federal, they crashed our Country and they still refuse to admit to anything at all. Now they just want to do the same things that got us here, and blame the "left" for the crash.

Sorry you don't notice that. Sad really, that you were asleep for 8yrs.

So you go ahead and worship at the (R)epelican't altar. Just don't expect those that desire positive change, to go along with you.

It's not gonna happen.

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

I don't think there is any such thing as conservatism or liberalism. None of the people I know who call themselves conservatives are interested in conserving much and none of the people I know who think of themselves as liberals are very interested in actually liberating anything.

OWS, on the other hand, is something else altogether and in many respects, small and weak though it is, may well be the last best hope of humanity or at least of civilization.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Okay. .."may well be the last best hope of humanity or at least of civilization". Are you serious?

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

Hate speech and trolling are not views. Opposition to the movement is not about sharing views about how it can move forward, which is what this site is for.

[-] -3 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Sharing views about how to move it forward.... Okay, Obama out of office would be a start.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

That's a little simplistic don't 'cha think? What's you're alternative? Do you have a problem with Pres. Obama specifically, or is it just that he's an incumbent? Personally, I'm bummed that Kucinich lost. There are some incumbents that I would like to see stay in office.

Actually, I'm curious. What's your deal? Are you right wing, anti-ows or both? I'm not trying to label you or anything- just trying to find a starting point. Because I haven't seen you post anything except one liner criticisms.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I am not anti OWS. I am anti Marxist. And anti anarchist. and anti republicrat. Getting rid of the present government should be one goal. Unfortunately a LOT of regulars here are convinced that only republicans are causing the evils of our present society. They really think that the democrats are different. Better somehow. I say they are all one and the same.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, but you advocate no actual strategy to go forward. Everything you say is simply negative. You have no plan; therefore you are simply an obstructionist, and an obvious Republican plant.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Wow. I'm surprised! Maybe I haven't seen enough of your posts. Because I had the impression you were anti-ows.

I don't let the Marxists and anarchists bother me anymore. Our Republic and capitalism isn't going anywhere. When you have a left movement started by anarchists - anarchists/Communists/Marxists, just comes with the territory. I actually think it's interesting. I've learned alot about anarchy anyway. I think it's alot of theoretical nonsense. All flowers and sunshine in theory. Total nonsense in practice. It's a left movement. So it invites alot of Democrats.

I'm a Democrat through and through. I happen to like Pres. Obama. Not that he isn't a dickhead sometimes. But he's stuck between two kinds of crazy. Wall Street on one side and Republicans on the other. I think the Democrats are way way better than the Republicans. They're just as corrupted, but they're corrupted by better things. : )

I think the Republicans have caused most of the problems. I place the majority of the blame for the financial crisis, wealth inequality and middle class wage stagnation on Republicans.

What's the alternative??

[-] 1 points by Variant (4) 2 years ago

I am an ardent capitalist and a proud Marxist. The blind demonizing of this particular person is sickening. Please read his works instead of tossing his name around as a pejorative. He was an excellent philosopher and perfectly understood the purpose and virtues of capitalism (these were included in his critique). I've never understood how people can, with such intention and vigor, ignore and misrepresent philosophical arguments in order to use them as a weapon or ammunition. It is nearly equivalent to book-burning.

[-] -2 points by JesusRepublican (110) 2 years ago

You'd be just as well off trying to row a boat with a rope to get the majority here to grasp that concept. Almost since it's inception, the DNC fools have run rife with their useless bi-party hate spewing and none of them doing it seem to have any awareness that plenty see it much more like you do.

They want to have a bloodless revolution at the crooked ballot box and think "D's" are their ticket to salvation.

The whole machine is broken and these people want to patch it here and there, hoping it will be fair and equitable to all. It will never happen.

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

And what does that have to do with OWS?

Nothing.

Good try, though.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

OWS can't make that part of its platform? Maybe getting all incumbents out?

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

There is no platform.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Okay. Never mind.

[+] -6 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

You are obviously very left, as in left to your own devices. Guess what? The people don't want to help haters like you who are clearly self-righteously oblivious to the non-stop hate you spew.

You are one of my hand picked messengers and I couldn't have done better getting five people to do your job.

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

You right wing trolls come here only to spew hate. It's the only reason you come to a site devoted to leftist causes.

Shall we go another round, hateful troll?

[+] -5 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

You are obviously very left, as in left to your own devices. Guess what? The people don't want to help haters like you who are clearly self-righteously oblivious to the non-stop hate you spew.

You are one of my hand picked messengers and I couldn't have done better getting five people to do your job.

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

Still no substantive response, just ad hominem attack. Thank you for proving my point for me.

[+] -6 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

You are obviously very left, as in left to your own devices. Guess what? The people don't want to help haters like you who are clearly self-righteously oblivious to the non-stop hate you spew.

You are one of my hand picked messengers and I couldn't have done better getting five people to do your job.

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

Still no substantive response, just ad hominem attack. Thank you for proving my point for me.

[+] -4 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

You wrote the book on "ad hominem attack"

Just in case you forget what you wrote:

argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.

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

Cut the crap. This incarnation of yours is devoted to doing nothing more than trolling.

[-] -2 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

I see you've read his book. What is a "incarnation"? Is that some kind of ice cream or milk product?

Sorry but also, that "incarnation" can't be mine I'm lactose intolerant.

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

I've read your book. Incarnation

Here like this: Wonder Twin powers activate: Form of evil villain shit starter.

[-] 0 points by sunstar (-14) 2 years ago

Wow,that was cool. Thanks,I'm glad you're not as mean and vulgar as some of the other folks here. At least you can have fun and not hold grudges.

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

I'm mean as hell. :D

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

It almost is as full of Spooge as me!

However, mine carries genetically supreme and non-mutated jizzoleum.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

My only comment here is that you don't have to put a Republican after your name, Satan, or even an R. Everyone already knows the politics of a figure as well-known as you.

[-] -2 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 2 years ago

We Demoncrats bank on the support of the millions just like you!

Keep the faith, sistah!

Pay no attention to the non-stop barrage of fascist and unconstitutional assaults on what's left of your liberty, the republicans are indeed fully responsible!

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep Satan is an equal opportunity shit spewing attacker. Absolutely no allegiance possible.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2959) 2 years ago

We hate things like this plus those who perpetuate it and choose to ignore:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=hunger&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS346US346&biw=1536&bih=772&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsb&tbnid=Cqe8a4rLLgATBM:&imgrefurl=http://knowmorethanyouretold.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-really-do-we-know-of-hunger.html&docid=1VHpN1GytvTaIM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1VZ3BQvk8xo/TTPO_uKtthI/AAAAAAAAAB4/wYf_YCKT6SI/s1600/Hunger%252B2%252Bsudan.jpg&w=268&h=433&ei=G0tMT8-HMufX0QGgh-W9Ag&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=135&sig=109490726731387633786&page=2&tbnh=140&tbnw=88&start=32&ndsp=40&ved=1t:429,r:26,s:32&tx=52&ty=78

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=hunger&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS346US346&biw=1536&bih=772&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsb&tbnid=EwIljb1Ly9FBFM:&imgrefurl=http://thinkloud65.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/o-god-to-those-who-have-hunger-give-bread-and-to-us-who-have-bread-give-the-hunger-for-justice-prayer-from-latin-america/&docid=WpHvaZl8m3q2_M&imgurl=http://thinkloud65.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/hunger.jpg&w=550&h=331&ei=G0tMT8-HMufX0QGgh-W9Ag&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=189&sig=109490726731387633786&page=1&tbnh=99&tbnw=165&start=0&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=77&ty=71 we are all here on this planet brought into existence by circumstances we can't explain... we are here to help those and be a voice for those who have had their chance taken by one percent of the population. The planet provided enough abundance for everyone - there should not be mass suffering or starvation especially when there's so much to go around. 1 percent we are coming for you and your time is over.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2959) 2 years ago

We're bad for ourselves because - we have to fix it or we can't continue...I think many liberals literally feel the suffering of others ...if they feel it too until they stop it for others - life doesn't feel worth it for them. They suffer when others do. It is a sensitivity trait that is seen in many species. The ability to sense others suffering was important genetically to survival. Compassion is self-destructive because the self suffers when others do. So yes, compassion is bad for the self , yes it probably is ... it's a little self-destructive to care about other people. But it's probably why we were able to develop societies and live together and develop further intelligence and things like technology and doctors. Compassion expanded the human brain and allowed us to live together and help one another survive. So if you suddenly want to revert to survival of the fittest - I think it's completely off-base from how humanity evolved. Without it we'll only go backwards.

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

NIce point of view. Thank you.

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

I ain't got tome to read 148 comments

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

Only haters here are trolls like you.

[-] 0 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

I know very well how to use the search feature in the may ways it works.

The forum stars here are all MVP's for my agenda, gang colors matter not.

Rock on with your being led by your Bi-party nose ring, I like lots of swine in hell.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

You are non-existent.

[-] 1 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

You say to me again.........

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Good morning Beautiful. Having corrupt supporter problems? They should be banned just due to their usernames. So obvious so lame. If they are bothering you - you must be making sense and providing good input. Which figures you being an intelligent individual and all.

Give-em Hell.

We move forward - Together.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

Thanks for being a voice of reason, DKAtoday.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Only for good people like you. Fighters of the good fight.

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

If there were any. Liberalism is a long dead doctrine. It died with the death of the pre-corporate middle class in the late 19th century, which was the social class which that doctrine best represented, to be replaced by progressivism, the dominant ideology of the first two thirds of the 20th century, an ideology so pervasive that at some points it was shared by the dominant tendencies of both major parties and several minor parties.

It appears to be being challenged today by an incipient OWS ideology which is more anti-corporate than progressivism ever was, but more collectivist than liberalism ever was. Of course liberalism is easy prey. It's as easy a prey as monarchism. Any ideology who social class it represented is dead will of course be easy prey. There is simply no social basis for it. The same cannot be said for the incipient ideology of OWS (an ideology without a name) as the social formations it represents are something new under the sun.

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

Your definition of liberalism is certainly different than mine is. As such I would disagree with your assessment of it. I would suggest that instead of disparaging the label (that you are not defining) it would be better to keep putting forward what you believe is a proper agenda and seeing if you can garner more support for it.

I consider myself a liberal, progressive, leftist, what have you, and have yet to disagree with you about the problems at hand. We MIGHT have disagreements about solutions, but I don't know enough about your proposals to be able to say, nor do I know if those potential disagreements can be attributed to liberalism or just differences between individuals. Again, since you don't define your terms, it's impossible to respond.

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

Any ideology that would include both Jefferson and FDR under its aegis is by definition meaningless. Jefferson was, after all, fundamentally anti-statist. That is what classical liberalism is all about. FDR was about as statist as it is possible to be within the framework of a capitalist political economy. They were polar opposites. It makes no sense to characterize them both as liberals.

Historically liberalism was the free market ideology of the pre-corporate middle class. It championed free trade and personal liberty and generally eschewed democracy and statism of any kind (opposing, for example the statism of the merchantilists). As an ideology liberalism pretty much died with the pre-corporate middle class whose interests it represented. With the rise of corporatism in the late 19th century the new corporate middle class was threatened both by the corporate interests from above and the rise of an increasingly militant and agressive labor movement from below. Thrashing about for an ally it found it in the form of the state. Thus was born progressivism, the ideology of the new corporate middle class in distinction from the corporatism of the ruling elites and the incipient radicalism of a growing and restive working class. Progressivism reached its peak in 1912 when three of the four major parties advocated it and again in the mid 30s with the rise of the New Deal. Meanwhile, after an incipient socialist movement was effectively crushed by the Democratic Justice Department of Woodrow Wilson, a tamed labor movement fell in line with the progressive tradition which was the dominant political ideology of the nation, cutting across party lines, for at least the first half of the 20th century.

What is so inspiring about OWS, whether people are aware of it or conscious of it or not, is that OWS is the first genuine incipient opposition movement in living memory. This is why both supporters and opponents have so much trouble understanding it. In its fundamentals it is much more radical than the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the women's movement or any other social movement in living memory.

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

Thank you for that thorough response. I see clearly from it that your definitions of Progressivism and Liberalism are very much at odds with the looser, more popular definitions of the words. I would characterize them as "bookish" and also essentially wrong in some of its fairly important details. I also take issue with your analysis of history, including your assertion that OWS is the first opposition movement in living memory. My memory recalls movements equally oppositional, and equally radical, though in different forms and about different issues. Your definition and history are valid, but based, in my view, upon a polemically ideological foundation coloring the conclusions that you present as simple fact. That's not necessarily bad, but it is very specific and serves a very specific purpose.

I would agree, however, that the core of OWS is far more radical than most people realize. I also believe it will not stay that way as it grows, but will (and already has begun to) morph into a reformer, rather than a revolutionary movement. And although I am indeed more of a reformer, I hope that doesn't happen for a while. As left as I can be about certain things, I can probably use being jolted a bit farther over, as can most of the country, and if the movement mitigates too much too soon, that greater shift to the left won't happen. That would be a tragedy, in my opinion.

Again, thank you for sharing your views. Understand that my critique of them is meant in good faith, and is far less important than my support of your efforts and those of OWS.

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

Actually there is nothing especially peculiar or singular regarding the outline of liberalism and progressivism that I presented and they are widely held views by virtually all scholars of political ideology and political and cultural history. There are quite literally libraries full of books which describe exactly what I was outlining in extensive detail. Check out, for example, the work of Gabriel Kolko, Robert Wiebe and Jim Weinstein for starters.

There are people around the edges of OWS who would undoubtedly be happy if campaign finance reform were passed. But if one looks at the Declaration of the Occupation, really the only political document that OWS has produced, it is profoundly radical at its core. Unlike civil rights or antiwar or women' movement, it is not about the salvation of a particular group of people, or ending a particular war or even directed toward a crisis in a particular nation state. It is not directed toward any state. Rather, it is addressed to "the people of the world." And it promises solidarity and moral support for the struggles of people everywhere. It makes no demands (itself a rather radical notion). Instead it lists more than 20 grievances which are an indictment of the whole social system under which we live internationally, not just the misfortunes of a particular nation state. As someone who have been active in every social movement that has arisen in the United States in the past 50 years, I can certainly say that I personally haven't seen anything so radical in my life time.

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

Again, thank you.

In the terms you use, I would certainly agree that the world-wide implications of OWS are very broad. But I think an argument can be made that the civil rights movement did not effect only African Americans, indeed not only Americans, but everyone. I would say that about the Women's Liberation movement as well. And, although not in living memory per se, the anarchist and labor movements of the early depression and earlier, were equally concerned with the entire world. That takes NOTHING away from OWS, in my view, and I do not present those other examples as a criticism of OWS in any way. Rather it places it in a context of activism that has a rich history, a history that OWS stands on the shoulders of. And it is easy to look down when standing on someone's shoulders. I would say, however, that the sweeping nature of OWS, it energy, determination and many of its ideas are new to most people. And not since the Sixties have I felt as exhilarated.

(On a personal note, believe it or not, I attended a school in the Sixties and Seventies that had a lot in common with much of OWS, although in limited form. It was based on overtly anarchic foundations. Although trivial in comparison the the breadth of OWS and its potential importance, for me, personally, it was transformative. I still look back on that place as the best experience in my life, and miss it terribly.)

In terms of the definition of Liberal, et al, I would again say that the definition is not the one in popular usage, and is "bookish". Other definitions apply as well, and are not included in the definition you supplied. That, however, is a minor quibble. At least I know what you meant, and that is what I was hoping to understand. Your reply helps me "get" the other things you say a bit better. Maybe I can now add to your ideas, or support them better, or even provide better informed critiques, too.

Thanks.

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

There were certainly people with extremely radical world views involved in all the social movements of the past 50 years, but the fact is within the context of those movements we (and I say we because I was one of them) were always holding back on our full program. We were socialists, and radical democrats and radical pacifists who had a vision of a very different word, but within the context of the movements within which we were working, our goals were always much narrower. As radical as many CIO militants were, the same was true of the labor movement in the 30s, which ultimately was essentially about bargaining rights, not a fundamental transformation of society.

That is not the case with OWS. It has been from the beginning comprehensively radical and has resisted the tendency of liberals to narrow its vision. Often when I've pointed out that many of the initiators of OWS are strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition I've been accused of red baiting, but the fact is that unlike any other social movement that I've been involved with nobody at OWS makes any effort to hide or equivocate about their actual politics and are in fact quite open about them.

To some extent perhaps SDS and even more SNCC activists had very radical personal visions, but in practical terms they tended to function much more narrowly and often dissembled about their actual politics. IMHO perhaps the greatest accomplishment of OWS is that it has forged the first alliance between sections of organized labor and the radical intelligentcia since the 1940s. There are plenty of radicals that have staff positions all over the labor movement, but those politics are rather incidental to what they actually do and how they actually behave on a daily basis. The alliance between OWS and labor is quite interesting given how different they are culturally and organizationally. Neither side has demanded anything of the other in terms of style or organizational structure, yet the alliance is quite real and essentially sound.

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

Hmmm. You said a lot there, and most of which agree with. However (there's always a however) The early labor struggles were not simply about bargaining rights. They were an attempt to form a worldwide social movement. They were anarchists in the same sense that you guys are. They took to the streets. They made sure women had equal rights within their organizations, they made sure Blacks had equal rights, and they advocated nothing if not worldwide socialism, and said so. They attacked the foundational mechanisms of capitalism. They protested unfair and unsafe labor conditions, wage slavery, corporations, the banks, the prisons. This, of course, was long before either of our lifetimes, but it was real, it was radical, and it sought to be universal and utterly egalitarian.

Woody Guthrie wrote some songs that echoed some of the themes. A generation later, Pete Seeger did the same, as did the very young Bob Dylan later still.

OWS is not new in that respect. It's vision of a post capitalist society is new, as is it's organizational structure, but its universalist scope, its anarchism, its anti-capitalism, its egalitarianism are not. Nor does it have to be in order for it to be the most important social movement in a half century. It is what it is. We don't need to say it is the best, or most radical, the most extreme, or most universal for it have the very real importance that it clearly does.

I do share your assessment that among the more important things OWS has done (so far; there's more to come , I'm sure) is the alliance it has forged with organized labor. I also think one of OWS's greatest strengths is that is fundamentally a social, rather than simply political, movement. That gives it the flexibility to form alliances with not only organized labor, but with anti-foreclosure groups, prison reform groups, educational alliances, and myriad other organizations. It has the potential of becoming a kind of glue that holds all these specialized activist groups together. That can be immensely powerful. At least I hope that is one thing that can happen. Other things can result as well, and you are privy to them far more than I can hope to be. But so far, what I see is positive.

I'm less certain about David Graeber's vision, or Marina Sitrin's vision. I think they have some merit, but I don't think their visions will ultimately hold. Neither this country nor the world is ready for them. Frankly, neither am I. But as providers of a gravitational pull on the movement and the dialogue, I believe they are indispensable.

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

I think you could make a case that perhaps the Wobblies were visionary in the sense that they called for "abolition of the wage system" but in practical terms they essentially fought for better wages and working conditions, though in some ways their style was quite radical in that they opposed collective bargaining agreements. What they typically did was to post the conditions of work on the plant bulletin board and they took the position that any violation of those conditions was strikable at any point. They also frequently engaged in "on the job" actions like working to rule. The activity of the CIO was even more narrowly construed. Radicalism in the American labor movement was pretty much put to rest once Gompers kicked the Socialist Labor Party out of the AFL in the 1890s (read Gerald Grob's book on the subject). It's not that there were no radicals in the labor movement after that. There were plenty of them. They just couldn't act like radicals, which is my point.

There were moments when this narrowness was transcended (e.g. the Seattle General Strike in 1919) but these were really momentary episodes. Certainly an event like the Flint sit down was radical in style and quite militant, but its essential demands were quite circumscribed. What they were after, was bargaining rights, not a transformation of the social system.

One of the things that makes OWS as radical as it is, is the fact that it makes no demands, a position that is quite disorienting even to labor radicals, but which they begin to understand when reflecting on labor history--but in so doing they have to reflect way back, not to the 1930s, but really to the 19th century labor movement, which is exactly my point. It's not that there has never been a movement like OWS in American history, only never in living memory. Even the Council of Elders, made up of veteran activists from the labor movement of the 30s and the civil rights movement of the 50s recognizes how fundamentally different and more radical OWS is than the movements in which they participated. It is not that OWS is more radical than these movement elders, but it is more radical than the movements in which they were active.

Artists always tend to be among the most visionary of people, but they fequently, perhaps out of wishful thinking, tend to read more into a movement than what is actually there. I am 69 years old. I have been involved in every social movement in this nation in the past 50 years and in my personal experience it does seem to me that OWS is quite different than any social movement that I have previously experienced. It's vision is much more comprehensive and the radicals who are active in OWS are much more open about their politics than was the case in any past movement in which I was involved.

For most of the past 50 years I've been a labor activist and it is hard to describe what a breath of fresh air OWS has been to the labor movement. It is also the case that (especially in the Cold War era)we labor radicals had to be extremely circumspect about our politics. That is no longer the case and the reason for that transformation is OWS.

It is interesting that liberals and the politically unformed far outnumber the radicals in OWS and the radicals tend to be more influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition than Marxism. But it is also the case that despite the fact that the rads are a minority, they are also far more politically coherent than the liberals. The liberals complain that most Americans are not radical and will not accept a radical leadership. Yet the fact is that it was the rads who initiated the movement and those very liberals who complain that people won't respond to a radical leadership are the people who responded to those radicals in the first place! The rads continue to be the movement's best organizers, while the liberals in the movement spend most of their time complaining that people won't respond to a radical leadership, or at least that is my experience.

By no means to I think that everything these young people are doing is spot on. Their notions of consensus and direct democracy, for example, are already, I think, creating an organizational crisis, something that is little discussed on this forum, I suspect because few people who engage in this forum have any experience at an actual occupation.

The Declaration of the Occupation is quite a radical document. I don't know of any social movement in the last 80 years that has produced anything equivalent to it. Or just look at the home page of this web site. It says "we don't need Wall Street or politicians to build a better world." I've read the entire run of UAW weekly papers from the 1930s, probably the most radical documents of the CIO and they are quite inspiring, but nowhere to they come anywhere near the kind of vision in the Declaration of the Occupation.

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

Wow. Thank again. That''s a most generous reply. And extremely informative. But let me thank you for something else as well: your involvement with labor activism. For many years I did my small part by organizing every place I worked. I usually got sacked as a result, but really didn't lose much, as I sometimes eventually won settlements in labor court. And I usually had the satisfaction of knowing i ushered in organized labor to those workplaces. It was sometimes very dangerous work. I have been threatened, beaten, and have had a contract put out on my life. (The FBI and eventually even Interpol made sure the contract was lifted, but I spend an entire year looking over my shoulder, fully expecting every step to be my last, even though the contract had been stopped.)

I met some truly wonderful people along the way, too. Harold Ickes, Jr was one. A couple of other dedicated labor attorneys, too, at the NLRB, and professional labor organizers. In all it was a wild ride.

When I eventually started teaching art I was able to be an activist is an entirely different way. I didn't teach kids how to draw an eyeball (well I did, but that was the least of it). Instead I taught them critical thinking skills, how to observe, not the outside world alone, but the inside world of thought and feeling and spirit. I taught them about ontology its relationship to syntax, and history, and ethnography, and comparative religion, and mythology, and how to collect data and how to extract meaning form that data. I taught them the difference between illustration and propaganda, vs freely expressing their conscience. (I taught them how to not make demands. LOL) I tried to make free thinkers. To me, that was more radical than anything I did regarding labor.

Thank you again for all your efforts.

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

Sounds like my personal experience was not all that different from yours. I did not get an undergraduate degree until I was in my late 30s and I was able to pay for it because of a Labor Board decision. Most of my experience in the labor movement has been as a rank and file union member though I've occasionally been a shop steward and local officer.

I did graduate work in labor history, but most of what I learned about labor history I already knew before I entered grad school.

One of the really nice things about encampments is how supportive everyone is of each other. I've wanted to be more active but health and job issues have prevented me from being as active as I want. Basically I've been able to attend an occupation several times a month and stay over night even after the evictions. Usually I'm apologetic about my limited involvement, but activist kids young enough to be my grand children are universally grateful about what limited contributions I can make.

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

"Activist kids young enough to be my grand children are universally grateful about what limited contributions I can make"

I am, too.

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

The real problem here is with the (R)epelican't belief that all things are predatory.

Thinking of the other party as "prey" is heinous. Especially with World conditions the way they are.

The thread is just another example of why........

(R)epelican'ts are done!

Or at least they should be un-elected by anyone with an ounce of sense.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I don't know any liberals. Even progressivism seems to be a dying doctrine. Most of the OWS activists I've met I'd have to characterized as lower case radical democrats, some are clearly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition. IMHO many seem to be politically unformed (but not uninformed) and prior to their activity in OWS had no definable set of politics.

[-] 0 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

How can anarchist be all about bigger and more government?

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

bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE……………………….. BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . .

[-] -1 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Liberals have no sense of humor.

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

I dunno. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert seem pretty funny to me and there is a long history of leftist funny men from Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl to Will Rogers.

[-] 2 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 2 years ago

More libertarian than Liberal but I take your point and only wish we had a dose of that legendary left wing wit on this site... Instead of a bad imitation of the Spainish Inquisition sketch.

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

Libertarianism is really all that is left of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was, after all, anti-statist, for a free market and free trade, for personal liberty and not especially enamoured of democracy. But if cornered, Colbert, Stewart, Mauer and company would undoutedly all characterize themselves as liberals. I've heard them all interviewed and they make no bones about it.

I do think that it is true that people are rather humorless here, which IMHO has to do with this sort of communication not being especially loving. I really suspect that most of the contributors to his forum have never been to an occupation. My own experience at the several occupations that I have been to is that while people often disagree with each other face to face, they generally hug and express affection for each other regardless of how strenuous their disagreements and while I've seen actual fist fights at encampments, I've never seen the kind of insults thrown there that I have seen here.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

This comment is pure bullshit, RJ. Just flat, plain, pure bullshit.

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

Thank you, but that is not particularly helpful to me and my personal understanding of my own experience and what has actually happened to me at encampments. If you have had a different personal experience at an encampment I would very much like to hear about it.

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

Let's see, you guys got who? Dennis Miller?

He wasn't even funny on SNL.

The funniest thing you guys got going is the (R)epelican't debates(sic).

A real laugh riot, except these idiots are serious. The best of leaders of the (R)epelican'ts.

You must all be bull goose loony, because they certainly are.

[-] -2 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Denis Miller?... Forget him. We got me. Top seven BEST comments of the day! They took it down now but it was there, really.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Adam Carolla....PJ O'Rourke....Nick DiPaolo....Ron White....Drew Carey....Ben Stein....Jackie Mason....Bob Hope(RIP)....Dennis Leary....

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Who the hell are they?

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

You included Leary who is no kind of (R)epelican't at all.

Quite the opposite.

The rest of them aren't very funny.

You got bupkis.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Reptiles are not renouned for a sense of humor; it requires the use of the more evolved part of the brain. Witness Ann Coulter; she increasingly takes on the physical appearance of a velosoraptor,

Such people believe they have discovered the truth of the Darwinian order: that life is merely a matter of survival of the fittest. They are proud of their cold, calculating and reptililan "discovery" and satisfied to to sieze the opportunity to feed. It sustains that base primordial instinct inherant in all the creatures of the earth, arrising from the mud and the sea spawn. These neo-cons call this Christianity, and demand that we accept their peculiar vision of Christ.

And yet, this isn't the stuff from which humor is made.

Humor, of any caliber, requires introspection, and I am not sure of the reptilian ability to introspect, but given a few million years of the continual savage and meaningless tearing and rendering of living flesh, I have hopes that a light might dawn on the futility of such existance and they will yet aquire the capacity of self-reflection.

Or, they might unexpectedly arrive at an epiphany; realise the full enormity what they have come to represent, and with it the possibility of a laughter.

One must always hold out hope.

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

Figures Christian fundies wouldn't understand Darwin.

Survival goes to the best adapted, or the most adaptable.

Not the fittest, or strongest.

Humor is an art form, if it's well done, and we all know what reptiles think of art.........:)

They think it's the guy who runs the gas station down the road.

Epiphanies are hard to come by, with that attitude.

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

Right winger trolls have no sense of ethics.

[-] -2 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Left wing trolls have no sense.

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

Right wing trolls apparently have no homes or lives. That's why they come here to harass others.

There are NO left wing trolls here. This is a left wing website, soulless troll.

[-] -1 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Left wing website"? Then what's a fascist like you doing here.

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

Yes, I'm a fascist. And black is white and up is down.

YOU are the anti Union pro 1% troll. This is a pro worker movement, moron. OwS marches WITH unions at times.

Why the fuck are YOU here?

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

Unions could care less about you goons. America is laughing at y'all

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

You're confusing unions with the (R)epelican'ts.....

They don't care much for Americans in general.

Unions? They've done more for middle America than anything else that's ever been.

They are desirable, if not necessary in ANY large organization.

To think otherwise, is foolish.

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

Got that right.

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

It's not like we haven't been over this umpteen times in here already.

In most places, having a union is better than not having one.

In some places, it can save your life.

The larger the place, the more it's needed.

It's really that simple, no matter who your employer is.

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

Exactly. We have been over this umpteen times.

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

onetime claims he's been around for a while, so if he was paying attention, he already knows that.

As well as why they are still important.

And they wonder why we can get insulting sometimes........:)

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

By his own admission, he has been shadow banned numerous times, and keeps coming back under different usernames. And he says he doesn't understand why he has been banned! Astonishing.

He doesn't get that if he went to a discussion site in support of, say, the Heritage Foundation or the Heartland Institute, or CATO, and talked PRO-union or PRO-climate science, or PRO-social programs he would be permanently banned in a heartbeat. The level of sheer willful stupidity is incomprehensible.

What I don't understand is how he can keep coming back, how he can't be banned at the ISP level. Nor do I understand why so many like him are permitted to come here (and stay) for the sole purpose of disruption. I understand that in an egalitarian framework, all voices are theoretically allowed, but when those voices use the openness itself as an opportunity to try to bring down the organization itself, some sort of self-protective mechanism should kick in.

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

Tag......We're it!!

I've been know to vote up and down until I get shadow banned.

I just take my punishment, and come back later. A shadow ban isn't permanent.

These guys are just bozos, and sock puppets.

I've never used another name here.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

I assume you meant IP address correct? Your IP address isn't necessarily static. If there is an IP ban, even the dumbest of trolls can look up how to change theirs to a dynamic IP, as it can be changed quite easily.

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

Yes, that's what I meant. There are ways to ban people permanently. There are ways to make sure that signups be verified so the same person can't signup more than once under different names. I'n not a technical computer guy, but I know that it is possible. Other sites have such systems.

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

Of course he does. He's a shill.

My bad. Was that insulting?

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

Shill?

They are at least good at what they do.

This is just the umpteenth repetition of the same old, same old.

He's just another flake of the flake he used to be.

Did he ever admit to what his other usernames were?

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

Not that I have seen.

[-] -2 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

Unions are the reason that automation evolved in most unionized industries. Unions constantly demanded higher pay and the workers became less unskilled, more lazy. Unions are the disease of America

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

You're still confusing unions with (R)epelican'ts.

Are they unskilled? Yes! they need ALEC to write laws for them. Are they lazy? Yes! See above. Do they demand higher pay? Yes! Every chance they get.

In fact, you're just plain confused.

(R)epelican'ts ARE the disease of America!

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

Why are you here?

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

Have a good evening epa dimwit

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

Can't answer?

Have a bad one, moron.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Familiar type of appearance? And so soon it abandons the mask.


onetime

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined March 9, 2012

[-] -2 points by JesusRepublican (110) 2 years ago

touche.........

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

using French words might just get your Republican credentials pulled for we all know how you guys like hating on the French. In fact, I believe righties hate all non USA cultures and languages. Is that not one of the qualifications for being a Republican? Hating non Americans seems to be a major tenant of the Guardians Of Privilege.

[-] 0 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

Handled it expediently. I'm glad I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to finally learn the parities are quite interchangeable.

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

Yeah, you are probably right. It probably is that all American professionals are haters of other cultures and languages. I've often thought that Congress is just a sample of the American population. What corruption you find in Senate, is found in every facet of the American condition. Oh, thank you mighty Jesus, I was blind, and now I can see.

[-] 1 points by Newspeak1 (39) from Mt Shasta, CA 2 years ago

So the whole U.S. is corrupt. Okay. So what would you in your infinite intelligence replace it with?

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

I'd replace the American empire with an American Republic. Go figure, Empires don't work. Just go ask Great Britten and Germany, they'll tell you.

[-] 0 points by Newspeak1 (39) from Mt Shasta, CA 2 years ago

Hmmm...Japan's empire lasted a long time. So did the Chinese empire. Certainly the Roman empire did. And the first reich did too. As did the Holy Roman empire. Empires come in many shapes and sizes.

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

And they all fall because it costs so much for the up keep. While the citizens go without, all the money is spent in foreign lands. Besides, it is hubris to think our empire will be the exception to the rule.

[-] -1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

Now that sounds like overthrow the government ranting.

Telling that restoring the Republic rhetoric is considered by your colleagues, here, to be insurrection.

It's been destroyed long ago.

[+] -5 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

I bet you'd like to see some of the welding I do. I don't really have to be concerned about unions or right to work.

They call me when the rest of you can't make the magic.

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

What the fuck does your mad welding skills have to do with Republicans being bigger haters than Democrats?

[+] -5 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

You really don't know how to talk to people, do you?

[-] 1 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Hey,I touched a douche.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by JesusRepublican (110) 2 years ago

News flash, more than 50% of the 99% are not left wing liberals, not at all.

It's obvious you have zero tolerance for anyone who doesn't see things your way.

So on behalf of the other 50%, I'm telling you to cease and desist calling yourselves the 99% when it's a blatant lie.

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

Newsflash: OWS is a Left wing movement protesting against what the right has done to the country.

It is an anti capitalist movement, moron.

[-] -2 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

So YOU say.

You are a sociopath with no ability to empathize with anyone not identical to yourself.

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

So says the title page of this forum, or can't you read?

Did you not follow the OWS protests at all? Did you not understand that occupying, in and of itself, is an anti-capitalist stance? Were they protesting socialism and communalism, or capitalist greed, the foreclosed or the bankers?

Do your brain cells actually work?

[-] -1 points by JesusRepublican (110) 2 years ago

I don't think you can read and what little you do, you sure read much into it that does not translate into plain English.

I know yours are working waiting to die and are well on their way.

No loss and I'm sure very few will miss you.

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

By "plain English" do you mean the monosyllabic jingoism and hate slogans and fact-free FuaxSpews talking points of the right? Yup, I don't enjoy those limitations.

You clearly do, and are so incredibly arrogant and stupid you come to the official site of OWS, a movement begun by and for anarchists and leftists trying to make a better world and spew your bile at them. And somehow you are surprised (or just feign it) that you get push-back. Amazing.

But I understand that was WAY to many syllables. so let's make this as simple as you need in order for you to understand:

Go. Fuck. Yourself.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by GreatBallsOfFire (11) 2 years ago

Goodness gracious! Negative comments?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Awwwwww, no foul potty mouthed welfare royalty cares to talk trash to the devil?

[+] -6 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

I have had several ID's on here but keep on getting shadow banned for telling the truth, go figure!!!!

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

Hahahahahaha.

Go figure.

Gee, why would an anti union right wing troll get banned on a pro-labor, left wing website?

Gee, that takes sum thinkin' huh, eh Goober?

And multiple ID's is the height of honesty! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Care to inform us as to what those IDs are?

You're a FLAKESnews fan, therefor you avoid of the truth.

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

I will post some of the ID's this evening

[-] 1 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Give up nothing to these bi-party pawns.

[Removed]