Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: You can Raul if You Want To

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 5:37 p.m. EST by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It seems there is some confusion about the credibility regarding certain candidates for office. I would settle such matters, so that we may set them aside with confidence, and employ our efforts in some more productive direction.

First, a question:

  • What is the proper role of Government?

I am sure there are no end of possible answers to such a question, and so let us refine the nature of our search:

  • Is it not the proper role of Government to respond to the needs of the people in times of emergency?

During the month of August, one candidate did indeed, insist with his advocacy, that it was not a proper function of government to respond to the needs of the people during times of emergency. This was done with the assurance that if elected, one candidate would indeed end FEMA.

Do not take my word for it - though I saw it myself on CNN. Let me submit as evidence the following:

If indeed, it is a proper function of government to address with care the needs of the people during time of emergency, then it follows a failure to meet those needs will bring discredit to the government itself, raise questions of legitimacy to rule, breed discontent, unrest, and so usher in the possibility of revolt. We saw this clearly during Katrina.

  • What could possess a candidate for office to advocate ending such a program?

There may be many reasons, I have not researched with care the various points this particular candidate has raised. I would suggest whatever points he has raised must stem from one of three possible sources:

  • cynicism over fraud and abuse of government largess

  • cynicism in the face of incompetence and red tape

  • willfull and deliberate sabotage of the people's institutions for the benefit of large private enterprise.

None of these possible explanations for such advocacy as has been suggested - ending FEMA - is indicative of an individual qualified to meet the challenges of high office.

Such a fact is stark, readily evident, and rarely receives more than passing acknowledgement. But it does beg another question:

  • If such an individual is so clearly unfit for public service, why do individuals of influence advocate on his behalf?

Again, there are but few possibilities:

  1. a simple and fundamental lack of understanding regarding the proper functions of government.

  2. A very carefully thought out plan to deceive, divide, and conquer the electorate, and that thinking could lead in two different directions with two different purposes - both using the same Empty Shirt device:

    • By making the candidate attractive to a portion of either left, or right, will drain votes from an opposing candidate in a three way race;

    • By creating the appearance of support for such an Empty Shirt, it may provide incentive to those already in office, or those planning to run for office, to lean further in a specific direction.

    • If a society is sufficiently compartmentalized into silos of information, it is entirely possible that one candidate may suite the needs of either side of the political divide, simultaneously.

    • there is one further use of such an individual, and that is as a means of polling the public during election, to determine the degree of success behind various forms of political advertising, and gauge the public in terms of it's familiarity with the issues, and their degree of cynicism regarding the establishment.

These kinds of machinations are, in my view, extremely dangerous, and ultimately serve only to discredit the entire system. When perceptions of discredit and illegitimacy gain wide currency, it is certain that open revolt cannot be far behind.

53 Comments

53 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

Lawn Roll 2102! Stop the FEMA death camps! New Gilded Age utopia for all! W00t!

99% of Lizard People agree: Lawn Roll will fuck up their plans.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You can Rawl on the Lawn if you want to,

But I've got things to do

My vote's gonna count for something

I'm not gonna Rawl on the Lawn with you . . .

[-] 9 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

Yeah man. Lawn Roll will save us all from the UN Lizard People and liberal fascist socialists. He promised. You can thank us later when you're free of Soros and the Rothschilds and the warmist hoax of world domination. Buy gold now! Lawn Roll 2102!!!

Oh yeah, and EndTheFed, because Jews are the Lizard Peoples' favorite disguise.

[-] 3 points by frytoy (41) from Berkeley, CA 2 years ago

Haha, yeah that pretty well sums it up.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

: p

[-] 1 points by frytoy (41) from Berkeley, CA 2 years ago

:-D

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

The thing that disturbed me about this message is that if you didn't say "Lawn Roll", I really don't think I could differentiate between your message and that of one of his followers. Even the Lizard People part, I've heard before from his followers that were dabbling in David Icke's conspiracies.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I think that was an0n's point.

It's called satire.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

I'm aware of what his point was. But when the targets of satire make it impossible to take what they say and make it sound crazier than they do, it just disturbs me how bad things have become. There exists no reasonable limitations with these people. The crazier, the more they believe it. They have no interest in actually learning matters (like how the Federal Reserve works/or doesn't) because it's all just a big conspiracy intended to confuse them.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You make an extremely valid point - one I've been attempting to make since at least 2000, I took a class at CCV where the text - Understanding Persuasion by Raymond S. Ross - advocates taking positions that you know to be false, and designing your arguments with certain cues that may be interpreted by your audience as indicative of your awareness of the falsehood you are advocating.

Justification stems from the legal system, where defendants, even guilty ones, are entitled to legal defense.

I didn't like that book. And in fact, the problem is much much deeper than any single publication. The fact is that lying seems to have become a national pastime.

We had the issue of nicotine and the tobacco industries denials that it was harmful.

We have the issue of global warming and the oil industry insisting there is no such thing and paying scientists to provide doubt.

We have the ability to manufacture consent, and even one Lloyd Home [or Holme, I've forgotten] stated in Psychological Record 18 from 1968

  • we have the capacity to install any behavior we want

And then there is the issue of aliens . . .

Consider:

  • the rise of conspiracy theorists

and

  1. the heaven's gate cult

  2. Art Bell and his radio show - who did, just one day before their mass suicide, allow his show to become a platform that echoed their belief in a flying saucer hiding in the tail of the Hale-Bop Comet

  3. Such events and the book by Festinger et.al. When Prophecy Fails 1961

  4. widespread claims of alien abduction during the late 1960s

  5. FBI response today to claims of UFO sightings

.


.

there are no aliens

it's just another lie

told by actors

on a stage

.

z

[-] -1 points by wigglesthecat (3) 2 years ago

Yeah, you know THEM. THEY are all the same.

Why do simple minded people fall so easily into the mental trap of groupthink?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

I neither used the words "THEM" or "THEY" in my post....

You only pretended I did to construct a straw man.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are such a useful tool,

I voted for you.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

Thanks. You might get your parody sensors checked though...

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Please follow up with your own suggestions. otherwise you are no better than congress.

[+] -4 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago
  • Is it not the proper role of Government to respond to the needs of the people in times of emergency?

The proper "role" of government is defined by the U.S. Constitution. Why do people find this so hard to understand?

That legal document makes clear that responding to a natural disaster (flooding for example) is the role of the State governments. Not the Union government. -- It's exactly the same arrangement as the European Union, where natural disasters are handled by individual Member States not the central government (there is no such thing as an EU FEMA).

.

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

And let's see how well that worked for us: Louisiana was woefully unable to clean up after Katrina on its own. Eastern North Carolina is swimming in pig crap. Texas has a leaky nuclear waste dump sitting on an aquifer that provides drinking water to six other states. There are arenas where federal intervention may not be necessary, but natural disasters and environmental regulation require federal oversight.

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"That legal document makes clear that responding to a natural disaster (flooding for example) is the role of the State governments. Not the Union government."

Where in the Constitution??

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I need a sock puppet . . .

owait . . . waddamIsaying . . .

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

. . . . and it's clickable . . .

One person can make a difference

I believe that.

And if that is true, just think what all of us can do, together.

And so I plant my flag

right in your turf

I raise it high

and why?

because . . . . ... ... ... we all have hills to fly them on

and I'll fly mine on yours.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You can Rawl on the Lawn if you want to,

But I've got things to do

My vote's gonna count for something

I won't Rawl on the Lawn with you . . .

[-] 2 points by Bystander (41) from Sissonville, WV 2 years ago

Our government was meant to be a hybrid democratic republic, that incorporated the best features of both systems to combine the stability of a republic's rule of law with the representation of democratic elections. But now it has been hijacked by greedy elitist criminals who place puppet politicians in front of us to spew democratic rhetoric when they need soldiers to die in their pet wars but who will then ridicule and oppose democracy when We the People try to exercise our power for social issues.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

um, yeah - that's kinda what I said.

[-] 1 points by Bystander (41) from Sissonville, WV 2 years ago

Good for you.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

well ty

[-] 1 points by Bystander (41) from Sissonville, WV 2 years ago

yw.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

don't you like those bullets?

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

You talk about "social issues" but what is anymore "social" then the desire to end all killing of human beings. That means DON'T vote for Obama or Gingrich or Romney or any of the warmongers.

I'm an anti-war person, and don't see the point of killing innocent foreign citizens who have the same Right to Life as we do.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 2 years ago

vote obama so we can get free stuff and keep killing them friggin mussies.. fuck the constitution..the bankers rule ok the 99% is decided on this. your either with us or a terrorist.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you aren't talking sense.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

yep

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Did you just agree with this?

No way . . .

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Nope, just bumping threads.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

whew!

you had me nervous!

LoL

My goddness you've been busy . . .

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Ron Lawl, and the "END THE FED" camp, also tend to attract violent racists. Many have been showing up to Occupy events, and they create a serious image problem, and even a security threat.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/

[-] 0 points by GreedKilIs (29) 2 years ago

Drown yourself. You'll feel better.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That is unfortunate - but it also provides opportunity.

That opportunity is this:

By standing together, arms linked, in opposition to radicalized elements, as was seen on national tv when some attempted to engage in vandalism, we create imagery of non-violence and steadfast opposition to radicalization that is a preexisting condition in America; a condition that in fact may be harnessed against us.

Radicalization does exist in America.

See its utility, avoid its harm.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Only by denouncing the "END THE FED" right-wingers will OWS be able to cast out these violent anti-government elements. What will happen to OWS when a free-market anarchist perpetrates domestic terrorism in the name of OWS?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"What will happen to OWS when a free-market anarchist perpetrates domestic terrorism in the name of OWS?"

If that day comes, we'll distance ourselves from them..

Until then, they are a part of the 99%.. They may be an extremely misguided part of the 99%, but that fact alone allows them a place at Occupy.

Also, in regards to violence, I sincerely think you need to differentiate them from teabaggers a little more. The only reason they seem to be the same is because RP fans go to every protest, no matter how absurd their views seem within it. Whereas teabaggers are condemning our right to protest (but not their own), RP fans at least remain consistent about everybody's right to protest.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

So, wait for them to blow something up in the name of OWS, then distance ourselves? Are you even listening to yourself? THEY ARE DANGEROUS.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Oh my!!

They're linked to terrorism??

Maybe Bush was right to invade Iraq then??

Nah, both you and Bush are full of it.

As for RP fans, I find the ones on the forums to be repugnant trolls. However, the ones that actually attend occupations, I find to be good people willing to protect our right to protest, despite the fact that we oppose their misguided views so much. If you succeed in throwing them out, I'm going with them(as will many others I'm sure) because throwing a group of protesters off of public property would make us nothing but hypocrites.

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Encouraging groups that are linked to terrorism give the public and the authorities a reason to fear and opposes OWS. Do you seriously not have a problem with people bringing assault rifles to Occupy protests, or burning down office buildings in the name of Occupy?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Those who staunchly advocate violence, and who will not be tamed by either reason, love of their own neighbor, or caution on behalf of the Movement, must be ostracized and disavowed.

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

time of emergencies is like the whole "at war" caused

used to imprison american citizens with out due process of law and speedy trial

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that is a distinct problem. If it is not addressed it leaves open the likelihood that it will not just be al-qaida operatives dealt with this way, but others as well, whose speech and whose advocacy runs contrary to the established systems of power.

People like me for example.

I would point out that we are not at that place just yet - as proof I have said in the past, and repeated just yesterday -

  • that the chief justice of the supreme court would look very nice were he attired with a hand axe, planted smack dab in the middle of his forehead.

I have not yet been arrested, you are welcome to check back in an hour, or a day, just to see if that is something that has changed. I don't think it will.

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

government transparency is important

it makes the people custodian of the government

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yup - too many times in the back room deals the people get shafted.

And we still don't know what Ken Lay and Dick Cheney were up to with any clarity.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago


You can Raul if You Want To

Anon - Just For Fun



the repelican party is DONE

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

You seem to be suggesting we the people should not vote at all.

Which is ridiculous. You can not have a democratic Republic if you remove the Demos (the people) from the equation. What you're essentially saying is that even if a Founding Father reincarnated, somebody like Thomas Jefferson, you would still refuse to vote. Dumb.

I'm supporting Ron Paul because he is as close to Jefferson as we are likely to get in the year 2012. The rest of the candidates (including our president) want to send the army overseas to kill hundreds of thousands of Afghanis, Libyans, Syrians, and Iranians.

[-] 2 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

The more of your nonsensical posts I read, the more I become convinced you are mentally impaired.

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Nice insult.

But if we remove the insult, there's NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE left in your post. Why don't you try again, so I have something to reply to. Thanks.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm not saying that at all. Most folks around here already know who I am going to vote for, there is no need for me to stump on their behalf, that is not the purpose of this website.

I was simply pointing out my perception regarding the matter of a single candidate that keeps rearing his head in this forum.

To suggest that all of the other candidates simply want to go over seas and spill blood is naive, simplistic, and a base appeal to emotion that is not based on fact.

Now, were you referring to myself, why that would be a completely different matter. I am, I confess, in my darkest hours, a most bloodthirsty bastard. Fortunately for everyone ensconced hard upon the right fringe of America, I am not running for office.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I just read your original post. It's pretty clear you have ZERO respect for the Bill of Rights (I'm talking about the 9th and 10th amendment specifically).

Most folks around here already know who I am going to vote for

I obviously do not. Which is why I asked. Given your comment about killing people on the hard right fringe, I will guess you are voting for leftist Obama.

To suggest that all of the other candidates simply want to go over seas and spill blood is naive

No. I'm not. You should listen to the CNN foreign policy debates. Every Republican (except one) has stated they plan to attack Iran, if they do not stop building a prototype nuke. It's right there in clear HD video.

And President Obama is in a position where he could have ended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2009. He never did. On the contrary he recently negotiated with Iraq to send troops BACK to the country in 2012 - just over 1000 men. Plus he involved us in another war in Libya, where he blew the jaw off a little girl (see the video on youtube) and killed who knows how many people. I'm certainly not voting for him or any of the rest.

Quoting Huffington Post:

"We now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )

"Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the change [from George Bush]."

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20547) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You are entitled to cast your vote any way you want. I don't understand why some people so adamantly oppose our involvement in Libya - the mass graves of Gadhafi have been documented.

Gadhafi would have flattened Misrata and everyone in it. Next you will claim al Qaida is flying their own flag over the capital - which, even if true, I'm sure the people in Libya are or will soon deal with - I don't believe they will accept such a new form of oppression after working so hard to overthrow the last one. Iraq and Afghanistan were situations the President inherited from the last admin, and he has worked hard to see to it proper military leadership is in place - by firing several high ranking officials - whose strategy did not focus closely enough on the minimization of civilian casualty.

On point 2 - it's a complex and fucked up situation - negotiating terms with the banks to end the foreclosures has not worked up to this point - lets create some pressure I say, lets have some arrests. The DA in Boston has begun. More pressure from the public will, I'm sure, have advantages.

As for items 3 and 4 - some of the technology and apparatus you whine so loudly about is already in the private sector.

Maybe you've never heard of corporate espionage.

No one wants to talk about it. Not even you, apparently. I could show you how, using modern surveillance devices, a little bit of language, combined with principles of behavioral conditioning - I could show you how to either a) radicalize almost any individual to the point of bloodshed; or failing that b) kill themselves, in most unseemly fashion, screaming all the while:: they are out to get me!

There was a span of time where that behavior was becoming common place.