Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: You people are doing it wrong, really wrong

Posted 7 years ago on May 4, 2012, 9:19 a.m. EST by TheLibertarian (-1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am a Libertarian, I am against big corporations, the Fed, Hollywood Elite and so on, I am also against big government and unnecessary regulations, I could get behind some of the points you are protesting, however, I was sickened to hear and see what many of your marchers were shouting and doing.

  1. Racist chants by a Hispanic Group calling for the death of "Gringo's"
  2. Destruction of Private Property
  3. Leadership in movement is not about Liberty and Freedom
  4. To many fringe groups

These are my top four complaints about OWS, I do have more, but will not post them at this time.

The leadership of this movement is more about power for themselves instead of Freedom, many of your fringe groups are totalitarianism in their believes even to the point of violence, Anarchist with no respect for others private property destroying it just to destroy something. this is wrong. There were a couple of groups of color who were chanting death to people of another race, I know I was there and I recorded it along with the people and the banners and the groups who said it.

Like I said I could have supported some of your points but seeing and hearing way to much subversive behavior against Freedom and Liberty has caused me to have second thoughts.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Don't worry, we will sort it out. We will be happy to send the libertarians back to you. And we will send the bigots back to the Tea Party. And so forth, eventually cream rises to the top. Contrary to misdirection by trolls, nobody has tried to buy me and I don't expect Soros, or Bill Gates , or Warren Buffet to try.

There are a lot of people here and other places in the movement who believe in cause and effect, have correctly analyzed the cause of the current dilemma. They are discussing and filtering out the unworkable solutions. "Solutions Cause Problems,"

So listen in, offer an idea here or there but don't expect to end up as the Pied Piper, leading all of us rats to our destiny. We will find it ourselves, thank you. Have a nice day,

Or, as Nicholson said in Bucket List, "Nobody gives a __ what you think."

[-] 1 points by Kevinkyle (20) 7 years ago

Excellent Stuff! "We will be happy to send the libertarians back to you." Love it, Brings interesting methods to mind?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Just don't expect to get your deposit back. Not if you fold, spindle or mutilate.

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 7 years ago

Send the bigots "back" to the tea party? As if all bigotry emanates from there? LOL Yeah, I see a ton of retirees with tea bag helmets screaming "kill the gringos" LOL

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Where I live the High School I volunteer in is about 70% Hispanic, and graduates about 78% and has much less funding than the lily white High Schools where I previously lived that graduate about 95%.The locals here might have reason to yell "Kill the gringos" (there is a state Supreme Court decision that the schools are not being fairly funded), but they don't.

The TP has their constituency in the area of the "good" schools are and they turn out for rallies. Ask anybody in the state where the bigots are concentrated and what rallies they go to and even in that area the people will tell you that the bigots are there and they go to the TP rallies and cheer Tom Tancredo wildly.

So laugh out loud or quietly, bigots exist. They are most comfortable in mobs and if they can find one close to home they won't bother to drive across town.

I don't recall saying "all". Did I say that or did you just make that up? Or, are you busy driving across town? Being an expert in bigotry, why don't you explain why bigots behave as they do. I can't speak from personal experience, only observation.

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 7 years ago

I'm an observer just like you.

Unlike you, however, I try not to find evidence to fit my predetermined conclusions.

You see a white person being racist, and you think "That person is racist, what a loser", just like I do.

You see a person of any other race being racist, and you think "I wonder what the race they are angry at did to members of their race to make them angry."

So, the fact that your school does not get as much funding as some other school might mean it is okay to call for the death of another race?

This fascinates me greatly.

My school, 100% white, got much less funding than the Detroit public schools the year I graduated. I never cared. And I scored in the 99th percentile several years on national standardized tests.

Does this mean I am justified in calling for the death of the black race? Don't answer, I'm afraid you'll say yes.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Since you have projected several concepts onto me that I did not express in order to pass judgements of on those that have no relation to what I expressed, why don't just continue having both sides of a conversation with yourself? It is obvious you have no enlightened insights to offer and I am unnecessary for your mind games. Don't bother to answer.

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 7 years ago


You get angry when you are shown a mirror.

You said the locals might have a reason to shout "kill the gringos" because of school funding.

I answered. Hahaaaa!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

It took a month to come up with this???? You really do prefer conversing with the voices in YOUR head. I don't.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 7 years ago

Well, It’s not working for me. OWS won’t sort it out. I was an OWS friendly, believing they would get it together and accomplish something. But now I’ve just given up hope. Having just recently just found this forum, I’ve read through the threads and posts, and am just flabbergasted at all the craziness.

So, my estimation is OWS will fail. Way too many kooks that have their own agenda. Not much focus on issues. Just shouting about the wrongs of the world and claiming OWS is going to fix it all. Jeez, gimme a break.

I done with OWS, at least for now. I’m an adult and won’t be part of a bunch of kids just looking for a street party. If by some miracle OWS does re-invent itself I may reconsider. But for now I’m done. Oh, by the way, no one gives a _ what you or OWS thinks either.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

I am probably older than you are.

But we all have to find our own path. As you can see I have been here a while (brightonsage (1929)) The 99% or any given slice of it will have a certain fraction of all kinds. I have said for years, "It really doesn't take all kinds, but there are all kinds."I also am amazed that so many people who don't have much, are willing to vote against their own personal interests (and ours) even when that would also be beneficial to the country. Some would rather protect and project their hate than help someone improve themselves.

My grandson graduated today with degrees in Accounting and Finance. If you ever find yourself hanging over the cliff on a rope, you had better hope he is on the other end of it. I have a couple of little granddaughters, as well. So, I am doing what I can to give them a future. Gotta be willing to talk to folks you don't agree with to find those that you do.

But I understand your frustration and I wish you and all of us well.

I had a chemistry professor who after asking the class a question 3 times, called on me for my answer and followed it up with, ""Why does the voice of truth have to be so quiet?" I don't know the answer to that.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 7 years ago

Thank you for the post brightpage. I’m always more respectful and give more credence of Seniors because they’ve been around the block a few times and are more planted in reality.

I’m just in my late sixties, did my military service before Vietnam, attended school on the GI Bill after my service. I only have granddaughters, the oldest is starting college this Fall. Because of the expense of education these days we’re having to chip in to get her in school.

I wish I had more faith in OWS. I believe it could\can be a good thing if they can get it under control. But it’s starting to look like that won’t happen. And I can’t abide the bedlam factor. Probably because I’m an old geezer and see a lot of the problems as caused by youthful exuberance and inexperience.

This will probably be one of my last posts on this site. But I appreciate your understanding. Also, congratulations on the grandson’s graduation. Nothing would please me more than watch my granddaughters graduate.

[-] 5 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

I have you by half a decade. I am not preaching to a contemporary, but to a large extent, "they" is "us" (remember Pogo, We have met the enemy...) Yes there are a lot of anarchists, and Tea Party trolls, and R Paul libertarians, etc.

Most are, in fact young, naive, students etc. but the center of the OWS Universe is New York City after all. And, of course, anyone looking to do violence is going to look for public demonstrations for "support" which is not the moral or effective way. But we know that there are very large numbers of sane, responsible people who see the necessity of change in a system that is rigged against them. It isn't there imagination, it is rigged.

As they say democracy is a messy business. And when major change is necessary it is even messier. I don't see any way to keep it pure and clean and organized and focused and...and...and...So I try to be patient and keep pulling on the rope whenever I can.

But that's me. I have said, "In disorganization, there is strength." I mean that "thinking revolutions" have to bring people from where they are, closer to where they would be comfortable being. Those are not clearly defined small areas. They are large amoeba shaped areas that probably already overlap.

We don;t have to move everyone to the bulls eye of a new target.We just need to move the whole target say, closer to where it was in the 1950's. It wasn't perfect there and I am not saying to go back to the 50's. A am saying that a lot of the character and willingness to serve of the greatest generation was a good thing. But they were weren't as accepting of people's real differences (immigrants as one example) as they should have been but you get the idea. Of course, my idea of exactly where the bull's eye should be is wrong by some amount. But this is a model I can get my head around.

Any way, nice chatting with you. If you find a better venue for discussion, come back and send me a private message by clicking on my user name.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

For some, these forums will never work for them. It's understandable. I've experienced many forums, and, personally, I have found most have a mixture of knowledgeable intelligent posters and then brats who lack even a molecule of respect. It makes me feel old when I jump their case and call them out. The OWS forum leans to favor trolls too much. In other forums they get banned pretty quickly. Certain actions will give a quick exit. But then there's too far the other way as well. I was banned from another forum after about two years of posting. If your the opposition, and, want to survive, you MUST be on your best behavior. (I mastered the art and went into the lion's den. They wanted to ban me for a long time, they'd have open discussions about whether they would give me the axe or not. But I never gave them a clear cause other than disagreeing with just about everything they said.) It's a balance.

Personally, I believe we need give and take. We need lively discussion and we need the other side, the disagreement. We need to hear the facts, and not ignore those we don't cherish or love. This is extremely difficult and most won't admit their biases. You have learn to overcome your natural emotions and follow the truth no matter where it leads. We have to accept the truth when it's evident.

Brightonsage, it's like in a world of chaos and confusion, there's always a beacon of light there. Not all see it. It's very hard to get to a vantage point to see it. As I have grown older I understand this with great clarity. I have been diligent, and turned many leafs, looked under many rocks, and looked around the corner quite a few times. No one but I can understand this, but it was more than worth it. We seek truth ultimately. The greatest among us have found some and revealed it to us. But who's listening? Not enough.

Here I am. I do this because I hear the beat of another drummer. Many people have known me over the years and I learned from those who knew much more than I. I grew up in the sixties which had a way of bringing a political awareness to me early in life. Being an electronic design engineer, I have been in the technology sector for three decades. I wanted so much to figure out some complicated things and was afraid of nothing. I always wanted to know how this crap works around us. I love my work and I love this world. I have motivation that's unstoppable. I choose my battles wisely and I always stand on firm principles.

Anyway, it's interesting when we really think about who we really are behind these words. I tend to agree with JB here, those who slam these words around like their taking out the trash, do a big injustice to all of us. It demeans the words to no longer have that wonderful beautiful meaning. Worse, they don't know even what they REALLY mean. So here's the duality, they uncover their ignorance here, and it's for us to nudge them along. When the truth hits them, it goes in and sets up house quietly in their brain. It seeds itself there, and then lies dormant for some time, and magically it comes back to life when the timing is right.

Good Luck Brightonsage, we need your wisdom here. What we're doing matters and when we leave this planet for adventures beyond, we can be satisfied we didn't waste a good life here. We came here for action and we got it. We're in. As long as I'm here, I'm a player, I found my purpose, it's seeking the beautiful endless truth which reveals itself ONLY when we spend time looking for it. A critical mind is prerequisite for this pursuit.

The Puzzler

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Thanks for the encouraging words to continue participation and the kind words about me. I frequently tell people that am nothing special and that is true. I have my own set of experience. I have traveled a lot, met a lot of people been fortunate to be involved in a lot of interesting things, and happen to be interested in almost everything and I care about people especially kids and want them all to achieve their full potential.

I grew up on a farm, have a scientific education, experience in marketing, product development and management and I have been active in raising children and grandchildren. That qualifies me to have an opinion, as long as I can defend it. Everybody else can have one too, but I reject that they are equally valid. They aren't, as MSM likes to present, equally likely to be correct. There are a whole lot more opinions that are wrong than correct one's. Picking them at random isn't a good way to succeed in life.

I believe that humor is one of the best ways to get people to rethink their positions, although it may not work with the person you are engaged with, but may work well with those who are observing the exchange. That said, I don't have time to convince a whole lot of people to change their positions so I try to invest in those who are articulate enough that they would be effective if they were supporting the correct position. That gives me leverage. That is the kind of leverage that makes sense. I can't save the world, because most of it doesn't want to be saved.

But I have always tried to pull on the rope, it is who I am and I will do it as long as I can.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Very good. Your viewpoint is quite keen. I think we do have quite a bit in common. That is refreshing and mostly rare. Every now, and again, I learn something important, and it becomes another stepping stone. The journey of life...Your good at laying some of them out for those who care to step.

And, you let out the secret, humor is a way past most of the walls many of us have built up. It is many times the only way to break through. Personally, I have found myself doing the same thing. many times. The best is when we can poke fun at our self and get some laughs there. It shows our humanity and allows others to let down those defenses a little and actually hear what what we say.

And, all this, we can blame on understanding. It is from there we may also proceed. Without it, we just knock into one wall after another.

Brightonsage, I'm on the same page, we are alive and being so we don't mind spreading a little truth along with some humor to keep interest. The truth has to be presented so others perk up to hear. Sometimes we can break through and others can and do follow our lead sometimes.

Your also right about the kids. Absolutely. I have two sons, one is in his last year of college, the other is 13 years younger. I have armed both of them with bullshit detectors (instruction on determining truth). It was something I thought of doing very intentionally and it works all so well. These two kids will be forces to be reckoned with since Papa here taught them so well. They won't forget what I told them.

Wonderful, glad to have this conversation. Although we both are highly motivated and involved, it's nice to have acknowledgement sometimes that our actions really matter. We do make a difference, and it's difference that's real and planted in fertile soil. Many will reject what we say, but every now and again we can hit one out of the park. We stand on the shoulders of giants like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Gandhi, MLK, and on and on.

Good Luck!


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Thanks Puzzlin for the encouragement and for the good that you do. There will always be those with their sheet of talking points, and those with radical utopian views. When I was young and working about 50 hours a week, and taking about 16-20 credit hours of engineering and raising two kids, their we kids taking their 14-16 hours and not working and because of the Vietnam war the were anti war (as I was) and they were anarchists and we were discussing Hayek and Von Mises and LeFevre (who I knew) and Rand. And it was in many respects about like now. So, it all seems familiar to me. Somehow I haven't shown up on anybody's bad list so far, although I don't worry about it. And I have never used another alias.

I just chip in a thought or observation or a question or a funny (I think) line. It is a short ground game but I moves the ball down the field a little. But, sometimes, if you run it perfectly, you can score on a quarterback sneak.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 7 years ago

sometimes it's better to read then write

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago


[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33788) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Nice speech.

Yes the path of enlightenment begins and it is a journey each must make on their own. Not because no one else is also traveling the path - but because your experience is your own. How can one share wonder and all of what you feel in that moment of awe. Does another experience that moment the same as you do?

The path to knowledge awareness enlightenment begins - there may be many walking the path. The path/journey never ends.

Sorry I don't think I explained that thought to well.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Yes, it is knowledge we seek, but we need to be careful that the knowledge is true. The harder part is finding the right kind of knowledge in this new age of information overload. I seek the knowledge of truth. That's the one that continues to draw me in. I have an abundance of motivation to seek truth which has a scientifically provable rationale for believing. Not that I don't dream and fantasize about things, I do. But, rather, I know the difference. Most things that come at us have to be investigated before we can just accept them as truth. Many skip that step, too much work.

Oh well. Just Puzzlin

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33788) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Yes the search for truth in the search for enlightenment. Compatible and highly recommended. That is unless the traveler is looking for a bewildering journey.

Truths will remain truths. Hence the mistake of repealing Glass-Stegal for an example.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Exactly. Some truths like Glass-Stegal can have profound effects on all of us. Unless of course, great depressions don't really happen.

The biggest truth we all face, individually, is what truths about ourselves should we know now before it's too late. What we don't know can hurt us severely or even kill us. We either take charge or wait for disaster.


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33788) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Introspection is not really a popular subject to be taught in school and many would rather not look to deeply in that regard as it also makes them aware of their standing in regard to the world around them.

But the good news is many are beginning to look and become aware and are starting to stand-up and speak-out.

Hard times can feed the spirit.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

It's like hitting rock bottom. Can you hear me now???

Good point DK. Also, very true. We have the floor!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (33788) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

LOL - can you hear me now - aAHhahaahahaha

Sad it takes a prolonged disaster to make people sit-up and take notice.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

It follows with human nature. We have good traits and bad. It seems politicians have learned more how to appeal to our bad nature and thus, divide us. Screws us but they win and gain power. The power of true awareness of what's been going down can rescue us before we start having that horrible feeling of hard edgy rocks at the bottom of the pit. If we become less aware, the pit grows larger, it will gladly accommodate everyone who doesn't care enough to locate the evident truth.

That's the price we will pay no matter what we may think about it. It's our choice to make, ignoring truth is perilous, if we take that path, we are in trouble.


[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33788) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

We are seeing the results of ignoring the world around us for the last 40 years and more.

[-] 0 points by ignoreDKAtoday (-2) 7 years ago

DKAtoday is mentally ill. Just ignore him. No kidding.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

What a waste. Mommy's calling! See Ya.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

Sounds just like the Libertarians to me. Your group encompasses all kinds from leftist -> right anarchists, minarchists, social libertarians, anarcocapitalists.... the whole kitchen sink in thought. Yet the same acceptance of a spectrum of ideas by OWS throws you? Thats funny.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

You people (as if you actually were a liberatarian) aren't 'doing it' at all. Why is that - too incompetent to start your own movement, or are you too lazy, or just plain scared?

I thought liberatarians were daring, independent types. Without RP to tell you guys what to do you seem sort of lost.

[-] 0 points by JoanWinters (13) 7 years ago

WTF? Aren't you the one that wants to turn OWS away from anarchy and make it like a democratic party number 2? Why don't you start your own party?

BTW - When are you going to make your official "I'm back" post? I'm sure many users are eager to applaud your change of mind.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

Ain't any of you business what I do. What you need is a psychiatrist - or an excorsist. Mommy didn't treat you right?

[-] 1 points by GregOrr (113) 7 years ago

I encourage you to check out http://the99percentvotes.com

I recently launched this site for people to propose, discuss, and vote on public policy ideas. I think it can make a big difference if it catches on. I hope you'll use the site and help spread the word.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 7 years ago

i dont know where u get yoru information from, but im ows, and i dont do any of those 4 points. perhaps its time to come out of your brainwashing to try and understand why a few men cannot and should not control the many dissect, and individuals that make up our free nation?

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

We know OWS is a pain in the ass; and it intends to be. Get the 1% to give the 99% a fair shake, and OWS will go away.

[-] 0 points by Marwark (4) from Beaverton, OR 7 years ago

Everyone has a fair shake in this country. OWS is like real-life forum trolls. They troll the streets instead of the internet, turning whichever way looks shiniest (and has the best chance of shocking someone) today.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale. I'll give you a real fair deal on that.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 7 years ago

Hogwash.You are a paid republican who monitors to subvert.

[-] 0 points by ClaraSprings (91) 7 years ago

This is the problem with OWS. It refuses all criticism. Because of this, it can never improve itself.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 7 years ago

Another little Ms.perfect always trying to improve everyone.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 7 years ago

So whats your beef.Corpratarian?

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 7 years ago

dude i am fairly sure they don't have leaders...

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

Sounds just like the Libertarians to me. Your group encompasses all kinds from leftist -> right anarchists, minarchists, social libertarians, anarcocapitalists.... the whole kitchen sink in thought. Yet the same acceptance of a spectrum of ideas by OWS throws you? Thats funny.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

Then please go away and do it 'right' somewhere else. If you can get three liberatarians to agree with anybody about anything you'll have your own movement.

[-] -1 points by ClaraSprings (91) 7 years ago

The danger for OWS comes not from those who criticize the movement, but from those who dismiss all criticism without a second thought.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

How apropos...

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

If you are not campaigning for libertarian candidates, and just posting on the internet, then you have no room to bitch.

This is the most apathetic nation on the planet. And thats why its turning into such a shithole.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

what change would be worth working towards ?

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

Removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political processes... is a good first step.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

You want Freedom and see Liberty as the way to achieve it. We want Freedom and see Equality as the way to achieve it. Let me direct you to a site that discusses the opposing nature of equality vs liberty. The ideas come from a Libertarian named Carl S. Milsted.


[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

Interesting site... thanks for the link.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Further to your succinct comment replying to this 'negastivist forum-post' , I append the following :

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

I prefer to steer around 9/11 conspiracies. Just not enough verifiable information to make an informed opinion on the subject. Maybe, Maybe not.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

I take your point tho' The Official 'Commission Report' is perhaps The Definitive 'Conspiracy Theory', especially in its total inability and refusal to even address the not insignificant matter of WTC Bldg.7 !!

Further, re. "verifiable information" - well of course there's the nub of the matter. Thus I append herewith, http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/category/911/ - with 'Mysteries' on page 4 being quite as brain jarring an experience as you can possible imagine - "Maybe" !!!

multum in parvo...

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

I agree, however, perhaps the following is worth serious consideration: The TAP pipeline project.

During the mid and late 1990s, several oil companies with large leases in the Caspian Sea oil fields were negotiating with the Taliban for a oil pipeline route across Afghanistan (and thence thru Pakistan to the coast). Taliban leaders scotched the deal in early 2000 in no uncertain terms -- no pipeline period. The rest as they say is history, except for this little known footnote: The first contract let by the US government for reconstruction of Afghanistan was for construction of a $325M trans-Afghan highway -- which just happened to follow the original pipeline route.

It's also worth mentioning that there are three possible pipeline routes out of the Caspian Sea region. The first leads to Europe which is a well-served mature market. The second leads through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Pakistani coast and has the lowest shipping costs to India and China which are emerging markets. The third leads through Iran to the Persian Gulf (shortest route to existing loading facilities and thus lowest infrastructure costs).

Just food for thought, especially considering all the saber rattling toward Iran these days.


[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Then again there was Timothy McVeigh. I could have supported right wingers, but seeing way too much subversive behavior caused me second thoughts...

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 7 years ago

OWS is a leaderless movement. Why is it so many people have difficulty with that point? Maybe they don't or refuse to understand anarchism, which has nothing to do with terrorism, aside from that some anarchists have been terrorists.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were war criminals. They provoked the invasion of another nation under false pretenses and destroyed the existing government of that sovereign country. Does that make all Republicans and Americans war criminals? Only by that fact that we are all Americans.

Obviously, since OWS is leaderless, there are no leaders to grab for power.

Any political movement has fringe groups that may seek a totalitarian state. Check what Trotsky said about Stalin and the Russian bureacracy.

Finally, anarchism has nothing to do with respect for private property: it is a poltical ideology that emphasizes a ruler-less social structure.

[-] 0 points by iamausername (119) 7 years ago

look OWS is leaderless, but it's not an anarchist movement unless I have been horribly, horribly wrong. I dont think that is what you're saying, but I'm not sure.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 7 years ago

OWS was founded by anarchists on anarchist principles. So, yes, it is basically an anarchist group. I don't know what your definition of anarchism is, but before you make any judgements--good or bad--I suggest you study the history of anarchism a bit and current relatively famous anarchists like Noam Chomsky.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

OWS is an anarchist movement. What do you think all the direct democracy in the park is all about? That's a central anarchist principle. Leaderless, direct democracy, non hierarchical - all anarchy principles. Anarchists started the movement and anarchists are running the movement.

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 7 years ago

Maybe you're right. But wouldn't direct democracy be the majority ruling? A direct democracy still restricts people's actions, the same way a regular one does. Wouldn't that not be anarchy? Again, maybe I'm mistaken in my concept of what anarchy really is, but that sounds like a government to me.

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 7 years ago

Well yes, but what I'm suggesting is this: In a straight, 100% direct democracy, OWS might not be able to hold protests, so long as 51% of people disagreed with them. the whole point of a constitution is to protect the minority that most people disagree with, because they still have rights.

Then again, I have no idea what I'm actually talking about, so yeah.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

It's really about equality vs. aristocracy. Direct democracy means everyone gets an equal say and does not want aristocrats (elites) to rule over common people. Pretty simple concept.

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 7 years ago

wow i failed. I just replied to my own comment in stead of yours. derp. /\ its the one above yours i believe.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

"the whole point of a constitution is to protect the minority that most people disagree with, because they still have rights."

Ever noticed how the privileged, the elite, are able to bend the laws to serve their own needs. Ever noticed how they have unequal access to privileges, 'rights', reserved only for the elite, the wealthy, the powerful. Where is the universal right to health care for all? The majority agrees this is how it should be. But I suppose you are right, we should protect the rights of the elite and powerful, the aristocrats, to dictate to the entire country who deserves health care and who does not.

The constitution is only a document. Words written hundreds of years ago by people based on what their model of governance should look like. When written, the wisdom behind it was exceptional, but for all of its elite mastery of governance, apparently it still fell short of building an adequate model that could preempt a civil war against slavery. I would say that is a glaring flaw in the constitution's ability to be considered an elite document on the affairs of human rights.

I would look to a more international document on human rights, that isn't bent on preserving the rights of the elite at the expense of others (something more like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 7 years ago

I didn't say that. The minority isn't always the elite. The Constitution is there to protect people when the majority is "wrong". What part of the Bill of Rights concerns universal health care? How are "the rich" using that document to bend us to their will? This movement, and ALL movements, rely on the First Amendment. What happens when the majority of people benefit from the exploitation of a minority of people? what protects them? Minority isn't synonymous with elite.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

"The Constitution is there to protect people when the majority is "wrong"."

Wrong by what standard - the existing laws of the land? Who writes those laws? The constitution is not the - be all, end all - document on human affairs. If you disagree, that is your prerogative.

"What part of the Bill of Rights concerns universal health care?"

Good question. The answer is - no part NOW and no part EVER in the future, as long as people act like these documents are infallible and beyond reproach. They are model works of legislation, but only models. Once upon a time, people had a RIGHT to OWN another person, now they do not.....time marches on.

"What happens when the majority of people benefit from the exploitation of a minority of people? what protects them? Minority isn't synonymous with elite."

What happens when an elite minority of people benefit from the exploitation of a majority of people? what protects them?

Majority is synonymous with lower and middle class (working class).

Minority is synonymous with upper class (ruling class).

The math is pretty basic here. Today, around the world, we have a pretty classic case of the uprising of the lower and middle classes against the upper class. If you think this is not the case, you have lost your marbles.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

Just my two cents, but wouldn't universal health care fall under the "promote the general welfare" clause in the Constitution?

The Constitution is silent on the subject of political parties. The elite twin-party structure is exactly that, an elite twin-party political structure. To regain control over our government we must first illegitimate that means of selecting candidates to appear on the ballot.

Other than the "Separation of Wealth and State" I do not advocate any of my other political positions. Why? Unless able to get elite and corporate money out of politics and end elite dominance, then none of my other positions matter.

To get elite and corporate money out of politics we must form one hell of a coalition; right, left and center will need to join in common cause. That will require a simple message which is both easily understood and will, in and of itself, create agreement between widely varying ideological points of view.

Such a coalition will not last of course, but if it accomplishes its immediate goal that does not matter. What matters is that with elite money gone, we will have a "level playing field" in our political arena and can work for the other changes we think necessary.

One other point. Even if we prevail (in removing elite and corporate money from politics), we will not have "won". Why not? Human history is rife with examples elite domination of majorities -- the elite will reassess their circumstances and...

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

"Just my two cents, but wouldn't universal health care fall under the "promote the general welfare" clause in the Constitution?"

No, not really. I think most people think this clause means 'welfare is generally for people that don't want to work for whatever reason.' (pulled that right off a yahoo answer page as one of the top answers when I searched that clause) I think this popular myth is perpetuated for the purpose of undermining attempts to level the playing field.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

It is simply a myth, agreed. But I am referring to actually basing the Constitutionality of a single-payer health care system on the Constitution's general welfare cause. Seems a good fit to me, although I doubt the Supremes would agree at this moment in time.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.[1]


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

Three-Fifths Compromise

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.


[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Thanks for the info. Did you have a point to make?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

constitution wasn't all cherries

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Lol. I guess not.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

There is a political problem with direct democracy -- if the majority rules absolutely, what happens to minority rights if the majority simply decides that minorities have no rights? (And minorities is not synonymous with elite.)

I'm not trying to provoke an argument, but simply following up lameusername's observation. This problem was of great concern in the colonies and led the founders toward a republican system...

The elite have spent years creating an extra-Constitutional two party system to control access to the ballot. They have spent years creating an appearance of ideological differences of opinion between those parties. They have spent years consolidating their power and control by whittling away at Constitutional provisions holding them back.

I argue we simply amend the Constitution to end their dominance, beginning with the Separation of Wealth and State -- removal of all elite and corporate money from electoral and representative political processes. The Constitution was not perfect when written -- many compromises were made (consider the concessions to the slave states). Nor were the founders' "value" neutral -- they were very concerned with maintaining their economic and social position in post colonial America. And, the Constitution is over two hundred years old -- our knowledge and society progressed greatly.

Even so, they provided a framework republican self-government wherein all legitimate political power is derived from the people. Perhaps we simply need to expand the democratic aspects of this framework (for example, eliminate the Electoral College, reaffirm the common law right of jury nullification, ect...)? People have been working on these issues for years -- let's make common cause with them.

If able to get elite and corporate money out of politics, we will have an opportunity to change government to reflect our values, which happen to be, generally speaking, those of most Americans. But to do so we will have to compromise to achieve our core goals, just like our founders.

I too have read the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. It is not a perfect document either, nor is it a governing document.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

First, why do I need someone to represent me? Why can't I participate directly?

Second, if participatory democracy is a real threat to minority rights, why has no one in the months I've been posting on this site ever provided me with specific examples to back up this claim. Are there specific historical incidents that help prove this fear of 'mob' rule is real.

Third, I appreciate the amount of clarity you provide to reinforce the idea that using representative government is the best way to go. But I am in full on skeptic mode these days and it takes a lot of convincing to make me back off questioning any authority (constitution or whatever) these days. If you want to say direct democracy can not work, then explain why it won't work. You can make arguments for representative government and how careful the colonial dudes were. But I can see firsthand how well our representative government is working - and it ain't pretty. So maybe it's time to measure twice before we make the next cut.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

Good, full skeptic mode ought be employed 24/7. Am short on time, and thus will have to add to these comments later.

First, the majority rules absolutely -- there is no limitation on power. No constitutional limits... anything goes which passes. To hedge against this problem most proposals would have to be passed by a super majority which will make it difficult to reach agreement and accomplish tasks and goals. Consider the problems the GA faced in this situation -- it led to a small group of people (10%) being able to control the GA by essentially vetoing reasonable proposals supported by the majority.

Second, the old Jim Crow laws in the South after Reconstruction -- an example of a majority oppressing a minority (not a perfect one).

Third, no corrupt system works as intended -- it works in favor of those corrupting the system.

(more later)

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

If the majority rules absolutely, then how does a majority vote lead to 10% being able to gain control of the assembly??? It makes no sense mathematically. Did the 10% take control at gun point? Does the 10% have special veto powers? I don't get it.

During the period of Congressional Reconstruction, which lasted from 1866 to 1876, the federal government declared ILLEGAL all such acts of legal discrimination against African Americans. Moreover, the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, along with the two Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 and the various Enforcements Acts of the early 1870s, curtailed the ability of southern whites to formally deprive blacks of their civil rights.

As a result African Americans were able to make great progress in building their own institutions, passing civil rights laws, and electing officials to public office. In response to these achievements, southern whites launched a vicious, ILLEGAL war against southern blacks and their white Republican allies.

I think the majority oppressing a minority started a lot earlier than reconstruction. Started back when some assholes wanted some cheap labor and decided to enslave other people based on the color of their skin to get it, but I often have a weird perspective on things.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

A super majority voting structure has a way of effectively preventing change and is prone to maintaining the status quo - whatever that status quo may be. Especially when the threshold is so high as 90%. In order to affect a change to the status quo, it needs a 91% vote. That's how the minority 10% controls the majority.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I don't like that scenario at all.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

Thank you, well said.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

Agree with all your thoughts about Direct Democracy. A truly horrible horrible idea. Your stuff was very well said too. I think Plato said it best when he said “A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.”

[-] 1 points by DSams (-71) 7 years ago

Sorry am writing in a hurry...

In a democracy, the majority rules absolutely -- there is no limitation on power. No constitutional limits... anything goes which passes. To hedge against this problem most proposals would have to be passed by a super majority which will make it difficult to reach agreement and accomplish tasks and goals.

Consider the last sentence carefully, this is where the problem lies. Remember the GAs? A "super-majority" of 90% was required to "pass" any proposal (consensus). Thus, all it takes is one more than the minority position (in this case let's call that 11%) to prevent a proposal from passing. That's negative control of the entire process by a tiny minority.

OTOH, if a simple majority is all that is required to pass proposals, then 51% rules 49% period -- and the 49% is at the mercy of the majority if there are no minority protections -- which there cannot be if the majority does not consent.

As far as your second comment: I'm not arguing that what southern whites did was legal. I'm arguing that a majority dominated and oppressed a minority based on skin color and that this was a "democratic" arrangement among the white majority.

And I think your third comment dead on target.


[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

To the OP; OWS is a leaderless movement. Now run along.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

OWS can't take responsibilty for the behavioir of people out to subvert it any more than the Tea Party can take responsibility for their movement. OWS should not address social issues at this time.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

OWS should not address social issues! There, you've heard it from the horse's ass.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 7 years ago

Yep and I do know a horse's ass

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

Who agrees on all the issues? Occupy a space and watch those at the top cannabalize themselves.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

If you think OWS should address all issues then you're just shilling for a major party. What does OWS stand for?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

OWS is a social movement as much as it is a political one. The two areas are inseparably intertwined and have been since day one. There's even a name for it: sociopolitical.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

I believe you are right.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

Truth and Justice.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago


and the president can't stop bombs from dropping

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

What do think about Libertarian Socialism?

To me, freedom is people being in control of their own lives and work.

Occupy Your Workplace



[-] 0 points by OccNoVi (415) 7 years ago

TheLibertarian states three valid points that relate to what happened in the period immediately after the Zuccotti Park occupation event.

-- The leadership of this movement is more about power for themselves instead of Freedom,

-- many of your fringe groups are totalitarianism in their believes (sic) even to the point of violence,

-- (also) Anarchist with no respect for others private property destroying it just to destroy something.

Each of these complaints is valid. But the approach needs perspective. The great flow of people into OWS in New York was not related to any of this. Around the country, even more, the flow of people had no connection to these statements whatsoever.

Occupy Wall Street was rooted first and foremost to anti-corruption.

The mortgage scams amounted to organized crime operations and took $2.1-trillion that has been documented. Wall Street committed frauds related to phony bonds and the CDS scams that total to $5.2-trillion that has been audited. These crimes are gargantuan -- the whole country is only valued at $55-trillion lock-stock-and-barrel.

Not one in a thousand of the criminals has been indicted and prosecuted.

Meanwhile millions were cast out of work and millions more are losing their homes and the Middle Class is ravaged economically. While it is true that some money of OWS 501(c) contributions went to personal extravagances, it was surely less than $10,000 in total from near a million. We spent far more than that on tea -- so's we could keep people hydrated and warmed.

We want jobs.

Violence is mostly from agent provocateurs. Washington, D.C. at the Air & Space Museum. Oakland late in the evening after the port closure event had ended and people were going home. No major violence or arson or vandalism has been perpetrated by the main body protesters -- "Black Bloc" costumed provos, yes indeed.

Power inside OWSGA has been grabbed off by shills. Individuals with questionable income sources, claims of left-leaning backgrounds, etc. But it turns out that what they did was to sabotage legitimate sub-Groups such as Community. The Far Right has financed shills for decades. It's not FBI. It's private wack-job Far Right paranoids.

Patrick Howley. Mike Stack. Neal Rauhausen. Provos and shills. Their acts are not to be blamed on Occupy Wall Street.

We are the 99% and we must go in peace. Always. And thanks to TheLibertarian for focusing the question. OWS has been very bad at playing defense, at excluding "bad acts" criminals.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 7 years ago

Don't make the mistake of thinking that every bad actor has been planted by the state. There are lots of bad folks out there waiting to take advantage of a group of idealistic people, and they're doing so for their own purposes. Those include predators, criminals, parasites, violent radicals and an assortment of others, none sent by the government or business. They've got their own agenda, and it's taking advantage of you. You saw some of that in the encampments, and you'll see more. Be on your guard.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 7 years ago

Well said.

[+] -4 points by cooperbl (-88) 7 years ago

ows is rooted in destroying capitalism.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Wrong. OWS is about the process of discovering what will replace capitalism as it destroys itself.

[-] -2 points by cooperbl (-88) 7 years ago

is that what the ows people keep telling you? that's not what Lasn , who started ows(adbusters) says in his book, "Culture Jam". he even makes fun of you, calling the start of ows last fall as "airhead autumn".

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Lasn has not been in charge of OWS since its second day.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago


[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago


Love hearing commentary straight from Libertopia.

TheLibertarian No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message


Joined May 4, 2012

[-] 0 points by TheLibertarian (-1) 7 years ago

I know people like you want to control others and what they have, you are what is referred to as a tyrant.

[-] 3 points by OccNoVi (415) 7 years ago

"Taxes are the price of civilization." Sigmund Freud

Moving $17-trillion from the Middle Class to the Top 1% over the last 30 years has been exactly "control" over what others have.

The corporations had tax and reporting rules changed in the 1980s so that they could stop paying out dividends. Maintaining that dividend-minimizing system is exactly why today's CEOs are paid such extravagant sums.

Tax rates were also changed to benefit the wealthy. Then in the late 1990s investment income was de-taxed by 50% in one Act of Congress.

"To control others" is exactly what happened. The politicians figured out how to take bribes -- by wearing post officio sheep's clothing as lobbyists -- and the looting was on !

These "people like you" are the main victims of these schemes. The American Middle Class.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

You mistake a desire for equal treatment as tyrannical behavior, but how can we achieve more equality without infringing on some other person's liberties - such as the liberty of the 1% to not pay taxes. We want them to pay a fair share.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

A 'cris de coeur' from Stephen King - the novelist, that speaks to the jist of your comment :

ad iudicium ..

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

Read that - good for Steven King.

[-] -3 points by ShadowBan (-27) 7 years ago

now if only Elizabeth Warren would do it

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

ShadowBan (0)

No user profile information

Joined May 4th, 2012.

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength!"

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

the more you buy, the more you save

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago

That's a great example. It grates me every time I hear it.

"And it's absolutely free! Just pay shipping and handling."

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

You got it! LOL!

[-] -3 points by sandheden (-13) 7 years ago

You made several postings to this thread, GypsyClown, but not one single contribution.

[-] -2 points by ShadowBan (-27) 7 years ago

he's just a plant. ignore him

[-] -1 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 7 years ago

He has a point. Warren's a hypocrite.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

No, she's not. And you really don't get it. She advocates POLICIES that would, in fact make sure she would pay more taxes, but not individually.

Individuals voluntarily paying more tax don't not make the slightest dent in the budget. A law that makes every millionaire pay more does. I'm sure you are upset with the government debt. Are you also a hypocrite for not giving the government every dime you have? Or do you instead advocate for policies that would effect everyone - it's called shared responsibility - that would address the problem?


[-] -1 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 7 years ago

She can't chose to pay more taxes until she gets those polices passed? If it's the right thing to do, step up and set an example. She's worth 14 million, so she can afford it. She talks a good game, but when it was time to put her money where her mouth is, she chose the lower tax rate.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

how about you putting YOUR money where YOUR mouth is?

Did you even bother to go to the link i posted? Of course not. You just went ahead and followed up your first idiocy with repetition of the same idiocy.

But since you are too lazy to click on a link, let me do the work for you. Orin Hatch made the same bullshit argument to an organization called Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, a group of millionaires who advocate higher taxes on everyone in their tax bracket. Here is an excerpt from their response:

First, we are well aware that making voluntary contributions to reduce the deficit is an option that is open to us. That you seem to think reminding us of this is a constructive contribution to this serious debate indicates that you have missed the point. In our democracy, individual citizens do not get to pick and choose what government spending to pay for. You and your colleagues over the past decade have voted for vast outlays that many of us as individuals might not agree with. Nonetheless, we recognize our responsibility as citizens to pay for these expenditures, which were authorized by our elected representatives, and are therefore ultimately our collective responsibility. That is an intrinsic part of living in a democracy: you don't get to opt out. But letting people opt out is precisely what you are suggesting with your proposal of paying down our debt with voluntary contributions. In World War II, when we faced great challenges as a nation, we didn't ask for voluntary contributions to pay for the war, or ask only those who supported the war to contribute. We had high taxes during the war, and high taxes to pay down the debt, afterward. Today, we benefit from that fiscal discipline. But we are undoing those benefits to society by cutting taxes on the wealthy at the same time we face enormous expenses and are carrying enormous debt. We need all of the above to address this problem, just as we have done in the past.

During World War II, we even resorted to rationing to share the burden of war more equally. Who is paying the burden of war, today? Our less privileged, who fight and die in disproportionate numbers, and our future generations, who will bear the burden of the debt. We think that is shameful.

We are ready to step up to the plate with a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good but we are not willing to make that sacrifice in vain, which it surely would be if we followed the course that you suggest. You even point this out yourself in your letter when you note that "the Bureau of Public Debt recorded only $3.1 million in gifts in 2010." We have been more fortunate than most people, but we are a very small group. If there were even the remotest chance of making a noticeable dent in the problem by acting alone we would have done it already. But we are a few dozen people in a nation of over 300 million facing a debt measured in the tens of trillions. To suggest that we try to tackle this problem by making individual contributions is, frankly, insulting. It is like suggesting to someone expressing a desire to serve their country by bearing arms that they buy a rifle and a plane ticket to Afghanistan. Some problems are too big to be solved except through COLLECTIVE EFFORT and shared sacrifice, and this is one of them.

[-] 2 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 7 years ago

you're right. she's awesome.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Yes, she is.

[-] -1 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 7 years ago

as far as hypocritical 1%er's go

[-] 0 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 7 years ago

Thanks! (sorry, there's no reply under your post)

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Wow, you understood absolutely nothing. That's impressive even for a troll.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

Why vote for a hypocrite when you can have the genuine asshole?

[-] 0 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 7 years ago


[-] -2 points by ShadowBan (-27) 7 years ago


No Profile Information

Joined Oct. 11, 2011

now what?

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

The rest is silence.


[-] -2 points by ShadowBan (-27) 7 years ago

As opposed to you being the mouthpiece for the Democrats that you are? Good. Let us non partisan OWS'ers talk, plant.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

What a staunch OWSer. Joined as far back as TODAY!

Oh, wait. My mistake. Was banned so often for being paid to post, or trying to drum up profit from OWS for his PR company, he just keeps popping up with brand spankin' new user names ever day!




What a tool.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Actually, citicommons is closed, I closed it. Secondly, why are you spamming others with my links? I use and reuse a single thread for that. I know I know, you ASSume that troll is me because some of you found my dad online running for office in Iowa, and he catches hell because they think I'm him and we are ideological opposites. Watching you people act like idiots while thinking you're smart is irritating to say the least. Now if you would, let me worry about marketing what I feel like marketing, ideas, news or otherwise. There are 15 people using this forum aside from myself, and you're all lobbyist from the left and right, at least thats the apperance. Get a grip and get off my fuk'n back.


[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

I was glad to find the links in your profile

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Your troll is your problem. You are however using my real name and since I know you have the money to pay out on a liability suit, I would stop assuming.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

i hope a don't down in litigation

but it will be a public fight if that happens

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

I can't get to CNN on facebook

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Exactly, keep that in mind. Your continued assumption that you will uncover some hidden truth is going to cost you money and face. What will it look like when a democratic lobbyist is caught slandering an Occupy supporter? Better check your facts homie.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

that would be a good time to check facts

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Yeah, why would I bother spending the time to change it, you guys ran off all the actual non-insiders. What the fuck do I care if lobbyist are getting my accurate info :/

[-] -1 points by ShadowBan (-27) 7 years ago

what the hell is going on around here?

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Stephen King does truthfully & eloquently what Ted Nugent does ignorantly & brazenly. Sends an implicit message without being stupid enough to call the secret service down on him.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago


Not at all.

[-] 0 points by TheLibertarian (-1) 7 years ago

Then why the troll like response?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Why the troll post?

[-] 1 points by Rebdem (71) 7 years ago

He has every right to post it here stop being the 1% of the thread and trying to control it. He does make valid arguments when ever at a occupy and they start to get violent against private property i try to stop them.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

And another troll enters from stage left. Good job, you! Now sit down and STFU.

Unless you are the same troll under a different name?

[-] 2 points by Rebdem (71) 7 years ago

no im a real member i've been with the movement since day one sorry i dont get online enough to post as much as you but i find being in the streets is better than being online

also New York is my home base

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Yeah, ok. They all say that.

Here is a thought, if he has such a legitimate bitch, why would he not take it there?

[-] 1 points by Rebdem (71) 7 years ago

no idea but this a free forum he is allowed to post so ppl who try to suppress free speech should shut it

When was the last time you marched i marched on Tuesday did you show up?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

You protesting NATO? Get over yourself and start paying attention.

[-] 2 points by Rebdem (71) 7 years ago

yeah i will its bullshit what they are doing in Chicago this is a bullshit military state we are living in

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33788) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

I love your no non-sense commentary in the AM - goes good with coffee.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Thanks. After about 50 threads on the same topic in a three day time frame, it makes you want to smack the living crap out of a couple of them. Then there is the moral superiority claims. Buncha neanderthals.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33788) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

All they have is fiction. They are so easy to spot due to that fact. No grounding or contact with reality. No argument to support their troll masters. So they need to as they say, lather rinse repeat. Not shampoo and not hair - foaming/lathered mouths. Too bad for the confusion of any new visitors to the forum.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

I'm over it. What's his name is chasing GK around the forum like a little yap-yap dog. Repetitive nonsense.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33788) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

They do seem to develop a crush/fixation on individuals who are outspoken. trolleratzi's - ugh - poor guy.




[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

You need to call the Koch brothers on how to become a real libe(R)tarian.

You're just not doing it "right".

However once they regain control over CATO, I'm sure you will fall into line.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 7 years ago

Ad hominem attacks don't contribute much to the discussion my friend. Surely you must have a more mature and thoughtful comment than this one. Or do you take the position that OWS is above criticism?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

What ad hominem?

Just a little taste of the truth about libe(R)tarianism.

For a "self made" man you sure are over sensitive.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

a bit like a straw man

an argument is replaced by another (in this case the speaker of the idea)

the speaker is than discredited

instead of the issue

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for 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.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]


[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

That would make the thread a straw man in the first place.

In fact, the tenets of the "party" are a straw man for what they actually do.

For proof look no further than ALECs claim to be based on Jeffersonian principles.

In reality......very few of those principles......very little of the time.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 7 years ago

I'm not over sensitive at all. I think you look silly and immature when you do this sort of thing, and I think its beneath you.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Not really, I've just grown tired of the constant onslaught of lies placed here by libe(R)tarians.

It is, after all the party of the 1%.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

So am I. They're back without T.P. urr . . . R.P. and it's getting tiresome.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

So few or them admit or know what the libe(R)tarian party really is.

Let alone that Mr. P. is actually a Dominionist with Christian Reconstructionist tendencies, masquerading as a Republican as do the libe(R)tarians .

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 7 years ago

I don't think you're getting my point. Look at your last few posts. What have you done other than throw juvenile insults at other people? I suppose you may think you're impressing them with your caustic wit or intimidating them with your rhetoric, but I can assure you that you're not doing either one. And you're not changing anybody else's mind or contributing to any solutions either.