Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: You Don't Represent Us

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 19, 2012, 1:50 p.m. EST by Ninetyninenot (-57)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It's too funny that the Occupy crowd that boasts of representing 99% of us, yet doesn't, is upset at Congress for not representing us either.

For something representing nearly everyone, turn out for OWS events compared to the populations of their areas have been consistently tiny. Further, thinking of the largely disaffected and emotionally needy 20-somethings and the other assorted left-wing cranks at the protests, it's kinda hard to see them as somehow "delegates" of nearly everyone. They aren't. You don't represent us.

51 Comments

51 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by 1169 (204) 2 years ago

99% is the condition of this economy/culture, its not a political party to join or not, its reality, 1% has control of the wealth, media, world ergo.OWS should stay focused leveraging fairness to spread the wealth evenly for all=100%.How, sorry I dont know, but there are a lot of people with the knowledge and energy to answer this problem.

[+] -7 points by biglovetexas (-13) 2 years ago

Your protesting the wrong things....please with all do respect read on....

What the federal government does is not authorized by the Constitution. Now, when you say that, you get political responses like, you want to do away with this and you want to do away with that? I'm not talking about that. Much of what goes on in the federal government has no constitutional basis whatsoever.

Woodrow Wilson didn't make any bones about his contempt for the declaration of independence and individualism and that's what statism, utopianism, socialism, communism, intertwined with bought off politicians LEFT AND RIGHT corporatism, or whatever you want to call it really is. It is an attack on the individual. He made no bones about his contempt for the Constitution. Woodrow Wilson said in a speech before he became president that the government is like a body, you can't have one organ working against the other. In other words, you can't have separation of powers. So he spent his presidency, as did subsequent Democrats, trying to evade the Constitution or rewrite it.

FDR, of course, did the same thing. FDR attacked the Constitution. And Cass Sunstein, who now works for Obama, he made the point that we now live under FDR's Constitution. You know what that means? A powerful centralized government, exactly what the framers of the Constitution rejected. This is the source of much of our problems going back 50 years or more...We are not a truly constitutional republic anymore. We are not a representative republic really in the true sense anymore. We have this massive administrative state with, you know, hundreds of thousands if not several million bureaucrats who are making laws and issuing them every day, 80,000 pages last year. So that's not a representative republic. So what are we? We are a nation that has heavy centralized power. It's getting more centralized by the day. Every so-called reform is said to require more government, more bureaucracy, and more taxation in pursuit of what? Liberal utopianism is a fantasy of arrogant philosophers and philosopher kings who believe their vision is superior to those of other lowly mortals. The latest and most prominent being President Barack Obama and his cadre of utopian elitists. They believe they are proponents of enlightenment thinking and rationalism who could construct the ideal society if deniers and other obstructionists would just get out of their way. In reality, however, they couldn't be more irrational, as they reject human nature, history and all empirical evidence that contradicts their vision.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shooz (17684) 2 years ago

They come much closer to representing "us", than you do, or could even hope to.

OccupyWallStreet!!!!!

[+] -4 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

Sure, but I never claimed to represent anyone else and certainly not virtually everyone. Can you understand the difference?

[-] -3 points by beautifulworld (21478) 2 years ago

Why don't you crawl back under your rock, troll? You're just jealous and worried. That's why you're here. Nobody cares about your precious Tea Party that nearly ruined this country in August and you don't know where to turn. Go ahead, criticize people who are trying to make this country better instead of putting us back 250 years.

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

I'll be happy too when OWS stops the propaganda about representing nearly everyone. That's a lie. Stop it.

It's a tiny group that has something to say, but it's a tiny group trying to PERSUADE the masses. It aspires to represent them, but that's all.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Let me help you on your way. I, personally, cannot speak for OWS but I want you to know that I wouldn't claim your ass for nothing. In fact, I wouldn't stop to save your life if you were dying in the middle street. I might just stand there and laugh at your ass.

Here's to hoping that you lose your house, your job, your family. :D

See, don't you feel better? Now, shoo fly!!

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

I know that group-think, pretending the world agrees with you, and the avoidance of hard debate are core for the slogan wielding OWSers. I don't apologize for taking you beyond the borders of a bumper sticker.

Your responses lack substance, but are typical. I'm not asking for your help or your love and I don't need a hug.

I'd try to save you. I also hope you'll find some success in life. I hope you'll move beyond your blame and bitterness and learn to appreciate and benefit for all this country allows you to become.

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

I'm going to enjoy watching you lose everything. :D

[-] 0 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

Unless you change, you'll die broke and angry. Funny, your hope for me is that I lose everything; my hope for you is that you'll find a better life and some happiness.

Anyone can lose everything. I guess me too. But it's very unlikely and even if I lost my financial means, I'm still me and I'd get to work on putting it back.

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

Actually, unless you change, you'll die broke and angry.

And, I'm ok with that.

[-] 0 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

Unlikely. It isn't just the financial situation, it's the mindset and approach to living. Instincts of blame are self-defeating.

Shave your legs, get that piercing out of your lip, get a new attitude and get out there and make it happen.

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

My ears are pierced once. I wear business clothes. I have a job. Thanks for asking. :D

[-] 0 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

Now it's just the attitude and that's the hardest of all. Others really don't control your life, you do. Accept that and you're on your way.

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

It will be ok. The hardest part is getting you to admit it. Take that first step. You will no longer be allowed to steal from the public coffers. Say good-bye. :D

[-] 0 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

You misunderstand; I'm not in the union.

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

I didn't misunderstand at all. :D

[+] -5 points by muddFlapp (-108) 2 years ago

Obama We can take Unemployment from 6 % to 9%...Yes we can

We can take gasoline from $1.80 to $3.50/gal…..Yes we can

We can increase the national debt by $ 5 Trillion in 3 years…...Yes we can

We can get more people on welfare & food stamps…Yes we can

We can double the number of homes in foreclosure…Yes we can

We can eliminate 2 Million jobs from this country…Yes we can

We can give away $ 500 Million to Solyndra…..Yes we can

We can fly all over the country Campaigning on Air Force One…Yes we can

We can visit all 57states….Yes we can

We can down grade the US credit rating for the first time in history…Yes we can

We can increase the cost of heating oil to over $ 3.00 a gallon…Yes we can

We can decrease the sales of homes to its lowest level in 20 years.....yes we can

We can play the race card any time we want…Yes we can

We can run this economy without a budget...Yes we can

We can pass laws without Congress…Yes we can

We can create a health care bill that nobody wants…..Yes we can

We can cut our Military leaving the country weak…Yes we can

We can sit idly by while Iran builds nuclear weapons…Yes we can

We can discourage any drilling for oil in the US….Yes we can

We can go to Hawaii anytime we want For Free…..Yes we can

We can quit smoking cigarettes…ooops….No we can’t

[+] -4 points by 420 (40) 2 years ago

Police are keeping an eye at how big these events get. I know im not gonna put myself in a situation where i can be arrested just for protesting and im sure a lot of other people feel the same way. What dark times we live in. Who is holding these cops accountable for our first amendment rights. WHAT THE FUCK IS UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY!? FDR has a solution for the corrupt cops. (Yeah it's called the military) How dare this president sit back and let them run all over our constitution it is his job to protect it through any means necessary. THAT IS HIS JOB!

[+] -7 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

You have 1st Amendment rights. Protest and organize all you like in a variety of ways. But don't break stuff, don't shit in parks, don't block the roads, etc. and you're fine.

[-] 2 points by TedIV (40) 2 years ago

At least sh*t were I don't walk..well I walked all over NYC and well at least pick it up and throw it in the proper face of wallstreet Corp execs..LoL

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yeah, you too! Hey, its fun to make accusations against somebody I don't even know.

[+] -8 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

100 people turned out for the big march to occupy congress. That is .00000062% of the populace. Go OWS. We are the .00000062%!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by BystanderDC (91) 2 years ago

It was more like 1000-2000, slightly larger than the 100 you reported; slightly less than the 10,000 we were hoping for.

[-] -3 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

Exactly the point. Occupy's claims of representing nearly all of us are ridiculous and proven tiny turn-out by tiny turn-out. And then look who's there besides. Geeesch, these are our "delegates". Hardly.

[+] -8 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

OWS represents 99% of losers.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

In a sense the 99% are losers. We have lost our fair share of the wealth created in this country and we are going to take it back!

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Stop whining man. Seriously? Fare share of wealth? What nonsense!

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The GDP of the US is 15 trillion dollars, divided by the population of 300 million equals about $50,000 for every man, woman, and child. An average family of four should make about $200,000 if wealth was distributed evenly.

Poor families make just over a tenth of that average amount. Rich families make ten to a hundred times as much.

I am not saying divide the wealth evenly, just more equitably. The key to their wealth is deception. They have convinced you and the 99% that they are entitled to it because their labor is more valuable than yours.

Please explain why the 1% deserve to make 100 to 1000 times as much as the 99%?

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

because they are smarter.

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

Why would it be distributed equally? We're all different in terms of skills, motivation, goals, and personalities. Some take risks, others don't. Some are extremely talented and hard working, others aren't. Some don't really have goals, others are absolutely driven. Some commit crimes and end up in jail. Some are born to or create their own life dysfunction. Some people we imported utterly without skills, other graduated top schools are years and years of education.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Does a man who works twice as hard deserve 10 times the pay?

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

It's not how hard a person works, it's the value of the work that makes the difference. Lot's of people work hard according to their own abilities. That doesn't necessarily mean it's valuable. I'm sure the person digging ditches works very hard. But it isn't a unique valuable skill. The person that makes medical break throughs in science that help to cure illnesses should be paid alot more.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Very good. So what is the proper way to determine what their value is?

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

The market decides. The market will pay what the market will bear. Supply and demand. It's Econ 101.

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

No. How "hard" someone works is only useful when taken in consideration of what he or she is working at doing. If hard work was the sole determinant, I'd advise you to go to work tomorrow blindfolded and seating upside down. It would be way harder and therefore more valuable. See, it doesn't work that way. Get on your bike, pedal hard, but then get into a higher gear.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"If hard work was the sole determinant, I'd advise you to go to work tomorrow blindfolded and seating upside down. It would be way harder and therefore more valuable." is not the normal way people describe hard work. It is usually considered quickly completed and or long hours.

[-] 0 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

Making something harder should make it better, right? Well, if how hard something was mattered most. The point is to make it clear ridiculousness of the "hard work" should equal high reward thinking. Hard work at something valuable, see now there's the task.

I have a friend that works for government. He thought he wouldn't have to work hard because it's government. Seriously, he did. He was disappointed to find he had a lot of work to do. I told him that he confused not accomplishing anything for not doing anything. Digging a hole in the morning, but then filling it in after lunch is a lot of work, but...

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If risk is a determinant of wages, should a soldier make more than an investor?

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

There's no one determinant of anything. Risk taking is part of it. You won't find many successful people that didn't take chances in their lives. Now, not all risk taking produces success either. Buying a motorcycle and driving real fast is taking a risk too, but little positive comes from it.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

In the example of the soldier who risks his life versus the investor who risks his money, what other determinants are there? If your statement about risk is true, the soldier should be paid more.

[-] 0 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

I'm beginning to understand why you struggle economically.

Risk taking is part of it. See if you notice how people that never took risk by moving away to school, taking a job that was a reach for them, investing in something that might not work out, chasing a passion that also happens to be of economic value to someone else... see these are risk taking behaviors. You might not recognize any of them in yourself, but maybe at a class reunion, you met a successful person that did something like that.

What soldiers do is wonderful. Sometimes those risks do pay off economically. Great leaders can come out of experiences like that. But the hard answer is that a lot of people are willing and able to take those risks. There isn't a scarcity that ends up creating value at the individual level.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Please answer the question. If your statement is true about risk, should the soldier be paid more? If the soldier is not paid more, then the statement is false.

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

I did answer the question. Let's try again. No, he shouldn't because taking risk isn't the sole determinant. Geesch, how many times can you get an answer? Now, I'd like him or her to be paid more because I personally support and respect our military. But it isn't some mystery to me why he or she isn't.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I am not saying divide the wealth evenly, just more equitably.

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

I hear you. But wealth and opportunity remain more available than many people realize. In some ways, for the people complaining, it's safer that way. It's more comfortable thinking you're trapped in a bad life than realizing you're not and then having to come to terms why you haven't created something better.

[+] -8 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I'm so glad you took the time out of your day to share. :D

[+] -4 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

My pleasure entirely. Out for an extended lunch dear. So had some time.

[+] -12 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I'm so glad you took the time out of your day to share. :D

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

You're welcome, sweetie. Just calling the OWS bullshit, post by post.

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

Yeah, Sweet Pea, that's kind of how I'm calling you and your little group of Koch whores. :D