Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Occupy wall street infiltrated by the right wing

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 9:29 p.m. EST by mantaseed (36)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The Occupy wall street movement has been heavily infiltrated by the right wing and Ron Paul supperters, people lets not forget who Ron Paul really is, this man takes donations from racist organizations and has their full support, be carefull of these Ron Paul characters nad thoer end the fed message, they are wolves in sheeps clothing.

303 Comments

303 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

There definitely seem to be some people on this web site at least, who are spreading "Patriot" anti-Fed propaganda.

[-] 2 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 8 years ago

What exactly makes it "Propaganda"? Because those views don't agree with yours? Here I thought this was a march for the 99% where everyone is welcome.

Apparently, the right wing is not welcome? Would you put the right wing over 30%?

I got an idea. Lets throw the independents and conservatives out, and rename the movement to the other 35%. We can be the other 35% .. right?

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

I say that because the Fed is actually on the protesters' side, whether they realize it or not. But right-wing "Patriots" have been successfully lobbying against the Fed on these forums, because most people don't understand the Fed or it's missions and they're looking for scapegoats. That leaves the protesters vulnerable to being misdirected by people with their own motives. Specifically, right-wingers already have a scapegoat to vilify. The Fed. They hate the Fed because they don't think that the federal government should have the power to make them pay income tax, because income tax is a way for the government to force them to contribute money against their will to social programs and big government.

[-] 2 points by quadrawack (280) 8 years ago

The Fed owns 5.3 trillion of our debt. 1/3 of ALL debt in the Nation. Our TAXES goes to paying JUST the Fed. Everyone harps about China, but they own at most 1.4 trillion.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29880401/The_Biggest_Holders_of_US_Government_Debt?slide=16

What makes you think the Fed is on the protestors side? For perpetual debt servitude?

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

That's right, the federal government has secretly conspired to turn us into serfs! Tea Party patriots unite!

Anti-Fed conspiracy theorists are manipulating the knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism of the protesters to try to advance their agenda.

[-] 2 points by quadrawack (280) 8 years ago

That's all you can come up with despite a documented statistic that I just posted for you to see evidence of.

Do you have any idea how Treasuries work?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

Yes, do YOU know what the Fed does, or how?

The Federal Reserve board said in their statement on November 3: “To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities."

[-] 2 points by quadrawack (280) 8 years ago

And yes, I know EXACTLY how the Fed functions. It's all in the public. Read the Chicago Fed's Modern Money Mechanics to understand how fractional reserve banking works. Let's see.

Treasury deposits all tax payer money into the coffers of the Fed.

Fed loans out at whatever ratio they want... WITH INTEREST.

Then they BUY up treasuries to deposit in the Fed. Wow, great cash flow eh? Not only do they get interest on their loans, but they also get interest from taxpayers through treasuries, AND they get to issue the money! What a bargain!

No wonder inflation's gone through the roof.

[-] 2 points by quadrawack (280) 8 years ago

Let's see

Gold in 2003 - 400

Gold in 2011 - 1600

Silver in 2003 - 7

Silver in 2011 - 30

Unemployment in 2001 - 6%

Unemployment in 2011 - 16%

Sure, the Federal Reserve's been doing a WONDERFUL job controlling inflation! Of course! Sheesh, with a track record like that, in any NORMAL corporation they'd have been dumped a LONG time ago.

Control inflation? At 400% increase in gold and 435% increase in silver, I'd say they're sucking pretty badly at controlling it.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

That's certainly debatable. But we were a lot worse off before the Fed.

[-] 1 points by quadrawack (280) 8 years ago

Debatable? What cost you 20 bucks to buy in 1913 today costs 435 bucks. The dollar lost 98% of it's purchasing power. How in the hell does that even gaurantee economic stability? Inflation's the tax on the savers. Money is supposed to be a STORE OF VALUE and an exchange unit for trade. Not a UNIT OF DEBT. And we were a lot worse off before the Fed? Hello? Even with all the bank panics, depression/recessions, during the free banking era those stats were NOWHERE NEAR as chaotic as we have now.

But hey, if you love chaos, if you love rampant inflation (tax the savers), rampant deflation (depress credit and keep businesses from expanding), and a future that sucks for your kids, by all means, keep the Fed. Hell, because OF the FEd, we're now entering one of the biggest cyclical credit winters of ALL TIME. And unlike Japan, we don't have savings, because they inflated the hell out of it which forces people to spend!

So hell yes, end the damn Fed. They can't even do their mandate!

[-] 1 points by mbss (35) from Glasgow, Skottland 8 years ago

Take the argument back to de-regulation of the 80s and 90s and then see what Americans (from all political sides) did to defend their notions of "free markets". De-regulation is a euphemism, sad to say, for free-for-all--and has led to the likes of Enron and thousands of other companies, including banks, auto manufacturers, telcoms, gas and oil producers to claim that they could do whatever they damned please in the name of free-market-drive and "competition". And then, when things go belly up or they can't sustain virtuality they ask for government bail out. Amazing.

[-] 1 points by IndenturedNation (118) 8 years ago

The Fed is doing too little too late, that is why unemployment is rising again. Bernanke is a reactionary. I really liked Greenspan more. He was proactive. Greenspan would have lowered rates to zero by mid-2008 and been through QE5 already. Bernanke's always doing a 'wait and see'. He is like a 'take 2 of these and call me in the morning' kind of doctor, all the while the Nation is ailing, which feeds on itself because we have people who do not understand liquidity coming out of the woodworks complaining about liquidity being added and how they're concerned about inflation (but they want unemployment to decrease also...lol). If he would have just added the liquidity already the economy would be healthy, we probably would not have much inflation (it would take a lot right now to generate significant inflation), and the average Joes out there who are on a big learning curve about monetary policy would not be complaining at all.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

lolll...

open your eyes and see the results of the BI partisan Audit the Fed bill by Alan Grayson and Ron Paul!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-pav_yPFkI&feature=channel_video_title

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 8 years ago

You are completely misinformed and you're crazy if you think the Fed is "on our side", lol.

On the issue of the Fed: It is the central mechanism whereby the wealth of the many (the People) is transferred to the few (the uber rich banking dynasties). The reason "end the Fed" is a marginal issue with OWS is because so few are educated about what the Fed is and what it does.

With creation of the Fed, in 1913, America's money supply was PRIVATIZED, in violation of the constitution. Instead of the US issuing it's own currency, interest free, because of privatization we now have to pay a corporation to print money out of thin air and pay them interest on it.

[-] 1 points by IndenturedNation (118) 8 years ago

The right wing hates the Fed because they were told that inflation is bad, and the Fed is the source of all inflation. That amount of comprehension pretty much uses up their brain capacity.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

They also claim that it's "privately owned".. Which, even if completely true, is a strange thing for Libertarians to oppose.

Also, they complain that Federal Reserve Notes don't have any "real" value. But when tax time comes, guess who's always bitching the loudest?? Them.

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 8 years ago

"They also claim that it's "privately owned".. Which, even if completely true, is a strange thing for Libertarians to oppose."

"Q: Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank?

A:There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks. But the banks don’t necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate."

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"I'm just puzzeled by the "IF""

I'm going to have to concede that my use of the word "if" in that sentence is not easy to read.

"I'm not in favor of ending it, as I do not know enough to really understand the full ramifications of that. However, I do think the control of the Fed. is a serious concern."

Based on your factchecking and measured distrust of agency appointments along with private-sector influence within it.. I'm actually pretty sure we're on the exact same page..

I just think that calling the fed "privately owned", and stopping there, fails to recognize that it was intentionally designed to be composed of both government and private representation. I was also just pointing out how unusual it is that Libertarians usually cite this half-truth, as if they're more skeptical about the private influence than government influence.

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 8 years ago

Ahhh gotcha. We are very much on the same page. Not libertarian or trying to cite half-truths..nor is that something unique to that party. They all do it. That Woodrow Wilson regretted signing into law is enough to cause concern.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"even if COMPLETELY true" I'm well aware of what the fed is... I've already posted the same article for others to read

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 8 years ago

I'm just puzzeled by the "IF". I mean they admit it. I'm not in favor of ending it, as I do not know enough to really understand the full ramifications of that. However, I do think the control of the Fed. is a serious concern.

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

The Federal Reserve is not a part of the federal government and the income tax goes to pay interest to the Federal Reserve on debt.

[-] 1 points by Yeller (1) 8 years ago

Of course they are on your side!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

Don't let the Tea Party brainwash you into fearing their boogeyman.

[-] 2 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

Stop trying to divide people . You might not agree but we should all be trying to figure out a solution to the problems we face

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

I'm just pointing out something that I see happening. Not many Occupy Wall Street protesters started out with any opinions about the Fed. Then a bunch of people showed up who had opinions about the Fed. And so the only people around with opinions are people advancing an agenda that they've been pushing since long before Occupy Wall Street. You could end up brainwashed into working to solve somebody else's idea of the big problem, instead of things that really matter.

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

Ya, well Ok .... but what if they are right ? ... Can you prove they are wrong ... Can you debate them on the facts sounding whatever the fed does ... they don't have people that tell you to leave when you do try to engage them like the politicians do ... Maybe they have a reason they believe the FED is part of the big problem that needs to be solved. The original tea party name was co opted by the republicans and i don't think the tea party guys at the park are working for the republicans. Remember the system is trying to co opt the OWS protest for democrats. The Federal Reserve received our tax money to pass out. So yes Occupy Wall Street did have a beef with the fed from the start. In fact the Fed's Ben Bernanke would not tell congress where all the money went including foreign banks. So maybe the FED might be part of things that really matter. You don't think the government and bankers are trying to brainwashed you? terrorism be scared give up your freedom have to inspect you and so on ....a little off the topic but I hate seeing these Military looking police intimidating the people everyday ... How cool would it be to almost overnight break through to millions of people all around the world and infect their minds with life changing ideas of freedom… To give the people the confidence and intellectual foundation to get a REAL alternative to the “lesser of two evils” political system… To be able to show the entire play book of the Elite, so that no one ever is fooled by their games… To show the world the crimes against humanity by the few Elite that control our paradigm… To be able to systematically and speedily take people through the Stages of Awakening... To teach people how our debt/money system is rigged game… To give away the blueprint for leaderless resistance…

[-] 1 points by Lork (285) 8 years ago

"The open source nature of OWS is their greatest vulnerability."

Remember the Flat Tax scam? Remember "Fair" Tax? Oh Cainites and Paulites...ya'll do crack me open!

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

And the open source nature is also the greatest strength ... Do Remember and ya it's funny ... Don't worry what you are witnessing is just a opening salvo and the battleships are positioning ...

[-] 2 points by IndenturedNation (118) 8 years ago

Everyone is welcome. However, some of the right wing arguments are probably going to get torn to shreds here, as are others. We have to climb out of a situation where we go through crisis after crisis with no substantive change and just accept the arguments of the existing political bases. This is really about tearing all of those arguments to shreds in a search for why and how we got here and what to do about it.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 8 years ago

If you are don't understand how and why we got here, or what to do about it, how are you going to tear to shred anyone's arguments here, right or left? Wouldn't a searching and learning process be better facilitated by conversation with people who hold other views, than people who repeat what you say back to you?

[-] 2 points by IndenturedNation (118) 8 years ago

You are right. We should try to find common ground, otherwise we will not get anywhere. What I was trying to communicate above is actually that we need to be thick-skinned to some degree in order to accomplish that. Not everyone is coming at this from the same direction, but hopefully we can all get to the same place.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

The right is welcome, if they don't try to thrust their agenda down our throats. They seem somehow to think that other people are not allowed an indepedent position. They will see that we have a clear vision, and are willing to stand for it.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 8 years ago

How about independents who disagree with your position? Are they allowed too? How about those who would say the vision of this group is anything but clear? Them too?

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"How about independents who disagree with your position?"

As long as they promise not to be obnoxious and embrace the fact, ahead of time, that we will not adopt the views of an extremely small but absurdly vocal minority within the movement no matter how annoying and repetitive they get.

"How about those who would say the vision of this group is anything but clear?

Again, as long as they're not obnoxious about it.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 8 years ago

So its really just obnoxious people that aren't welcome. Got it.

One last question. What if said obnoxious person 100% agrees with everything you believe, but is just obnoxious about it?

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"One last question. What if said obnoxious person 100% agrees with everything you believe, but is just obnoxious about it?"

LOL!

Firstly, those who would say "the vision of this group is anything but clear", to an extent, do agree with me..

Also, there are definitely people that agree with my views, but are obnoxious about it. For instance, people that go on and on about the Koch Brothers opposing many things most of us believe in order to build up ad hominem cases against everything the Koch Brothers have ever supported. To me at least, that gets really obnoxious.

[-] 1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 8 years ago

Couldnt agree more.

[-] 1 points by GoldmanNutSachs (33) 8 years ago

Unite or die. We have to kill the 1000 pound dragon in the room before devolving into good ol' fistfights.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Lollllll ...a 100% agreed! Having been the Dennis Kucinich liberal ...I will be voting Ron Paul!!! Why? I did my homework and unlike the mass confusion of liberty and free markets...i read Griffin and Hayek...But what can we expect when RP is confused with Reagonomics and Friedman, Greenspan..et all not practicing anything remotely...Hayek and RP endorse...

let ignorance prevail..this empire will go up in smoke..

[-] 1 points by GoldmanNutSachs (33) 8 years ago

Just because I dont happen to agree with ending the Fed or returning to the gold standard or alot of other libertarian magic remedies does not mean I don't support them expressing revulsion with Wallstreet and corporate excess through the Occupy Wallstreet movement.

[-] 5 points by Ernest99 (16) from Aurora, IL 8 years ago

This post by "mantaseed" is deliberate misdirection intended to push this movement into the arms of the Democratic wing of the two party dictatorship. Occupy Wall St is in danger of being co-opted by the Democrats in the same way that the Tea Party was co-opted by the Republicans. Look at all the left wingers who have been speaking at the rallies lately. I say TO HELL with both parties. They both whore themselves out to the bankers. That's why they got the bailouts and the American people got nothing!

Anyone who defends a central bank that is owned/controlled by private bankers should not be trusted.

[-] 2 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 8 years ago

Just look at all the people of color marching with us. I saw one yesterday!

[-] 1 points by IndenturedNation (118) 8 years ago

Hear Hear !

[-] 1 points by gagablogger (207) 8 years ago

Hear hear!

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 8 years ago

Thank you Ernest for words of truth!

[-] -1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

ows from start has been democratic and all republicans do nothing but demonize the movement read the signs listen to the people and see tax rich get money out of politics end wars have never been backed by republicans tax cuts for middle class modernize roads and bridges invest in middle class not banking class by raising minimum wage thats the occupy wall street message

[-] -1 points by mantaseed (36) 8 years ago

I totally agree with you. But I will not march with people who support racism or people who do not denounce it, AND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DISMANTLE THE CIVIL RIGHT ACT OF 1964

[-] 3 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 8 years ago

Like the Democratic Party that openly fought against it . . . and had a KKK member in their ranks in Congress until he died last year.

[-] 1 points by gagablogger (207) 8 years ago

The Democratric party and Repugs each switched platforms since then. Please read up on it. Strom Thurmond switched to the Repug party in 1964 to support THEIR platform on being against the civil rights act, BECAUSE the Dems supported it.

[-] 4 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Anti-Fed and Ron Paul people are right wing? lol

[-] 2 points by quadrawack (280) 8 years ago

Ron Paul's been treated like the red headed adopted kid that every one wants to hide in a closet by the right wing. I can't fathom how in the hell he or us who oppose the Fed can be right wing. But that just goes to show you how effed up this need to classify everyone is. If you're an ethnic minority, you're not an American, you're a HYPHENATED American. If you think we should have lower taxes, you're a right winger! And if you think gay marriage is fine, you're a leftie! So what happens if you want lower taxes AND gay marriage? Well then you're a bird, because now you've got both a left AND a right wing. Prepare for take off.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Ron Paul has libertarian politics as a platform but he's more mainstream than you think. He's just the dark horse candidate.

Ron Paul: The Prophet - Time: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2090364,00.html

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

That made me LOL too. Talk about not understanding a message.

[-] 4 points by MrVMAC1776 (62) from New York, NY 8 years ago

not at all, im a lefty, in full support of ron paul. listen, hes not a right winger. hes a libertarian. his consistent track record and message of freedom and reduction of the federal govt is the only way to have feasible change!!!

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

I need a president who wants to end the wars

[-] 4 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 8 years ago

That leaves you with one choice, then.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul will win. Although I don't like his views on education. The repubs don't have any viable options and Obama will never have my vote after not accomplishing the 2 things which were the only reasons I voted for him.

  1. End the war.
  2. Universal healthcare.

well I guess reason 3 was "McCain and Palin." No way I was going to vote for that tragedy.

[-] 1 points by gagablogger (207) 8 years ago

Um I don't think RP is for universal healthcare either.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

He is definitely against universal healthcare. But no one running that has a chance is for universal healthcare. So I'm settling for just ending the wars.

[-] 2 points by gagablogger (207) 8 years ago

I'm tired of just settling. I think most of the 99% would agree to that.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

I agree. So far every time I have voted, it has been for a candidate I thought would suck less than the other.

[-] 4 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Ron Paul supporters are the right wing? I'm sure you won't find many right wingers that agree with you on that one. I would argue Ron Paul supports are guilty of nothing more than wanting to promote individual freedom and liberty. Oppose that if you like and add me to those you oppose if that's the case.

[-] 2 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

in Ron Pauls perfect libertarian scenario what laws would exist regulating people and businesses?

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

NONE. Free people and free markets regulate themselves. It's only been proven true throughout history. The rich are only ever able to plunder when assisted by government. Government can only assist the rich when they are allowed to regulate the markets. It's historically proven fact.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

So what is the difference between lawlessness and Anarchy?

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

There is none. But don't mistake what I am saying. I'm not an advocate for anarchy. I am an advocate for freedom to do what people do with the only limits being the infringement of the right of others. That certainly requires government and the concession of some use of force to that government but the limit on government should always be much much tighter than any limits on the people.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

So the governments only role in this case is to stop people from harming others and to do nothing else?

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Basically yes. Others and there property. To adjudicate disputes and things of that nature.

[-] 0 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

Well, what if I'm an inventor dealing with dangerous materials. Radio active stuff, genetically modified organisms and known poisons. All out of the privacy of my own private lab in my barn behind my house. What if I accidentally poisoned the water supply and a lot of people started getting sick and dying. Now nobody ever finds out that it was my fault. In this case should the Government have the power to regulate dangerous substances to preemptively avert tragic mistakes?

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Locally sure. I don't think asking people to be responsible and holding them accountable is out of the reach of government. On the other hand it must be done carefully because what if that inventor comes up with the new form of clean safe energy, do we want to stifle that with the hurdles of red tape and high costs of permits? Or do we simple want to be informed when someone is going to work with potentially dangerous materials? I don't have issues with needed to inform local government of works with dangerous materials so long as there is not a lengthy process of paperwork or costs involved that would keep you from wanting to start to work on an idea that could be beneficial to us all.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

Misguided, I completely agree with you that red tape should not inhibit progress but exist in a minimal but practical way to prevent accidents.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

Misguided, I completely agree with you that red tape should not inhibit progress but exist in a minimal but practical way to prevent accidents.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Absolutely. The role of government is to protect the rights of the people and it should be charged with doing so. If someone wants to work with dangerous materials so be it but they must be accountable in case there is an accident or abuse. That being said it should not be intrusive or expensive to those individuals that wish to do so. There must be a focus on protecting liberty and rights.

[-] 1 points by gagablogger (207) 8 years ago

So, misguided, please state for the record how government should protect the rights of people.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Please be more specific.

[-] 0 points by gagablogger (207) 8 years ago

Curious to hear the role you think govt should play in protecting the rights of people. Just a few examples is al, no need for a full report.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Ok an example of reasonable force used by government to protect the rights of the individual. One person damages the property of another and the courts force the person who committed the damage to reimburse the victim for his or her losses.

[-] 0 points by gagablogger (207) 8 years ago

Lololol. We the 99% for the most part don't even have jobs, let alone being property owners. Of course, all the Ron Paul supporter can state how the govt protects the people's rights is.....ding ding ding....ensuring the rights of the property owners! How many of you 99%'s out there have grave concerns about the rights of property owners??Typical and not surprising, of a Ron Paul corporate elitist supporter. Oh yea and I asked for a few examples, not one.

[-] 2 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

You own NO property? No clothes? No money? No life? All of those things are your property. Just because you aren't a land Owner doesn't mean you don't have property.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Ok since you don't care about property rights. I'm going to go take whatever device you are using to participate on these boards from you. It's all cool cause it's not your property, you're not a property owner. Nice attempt to "ambush" me.

[-] 0 points by gagablogger (207) 8 years ago

Lololololol. I rest my case.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Thank you for acknowledging you are wrong.

[-] 0 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

gagablogger did no such thing. And you threatened to rob him/her.

You just made a case for disenfranchising people without property which takes you back in history to pre-Revolution times, which makes you either a Tory or a Roundhead on the political spectrum.

What's next? Do you think we need a pharoah?

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

No fool I made a case for property rights. It seems you are both for them once they are threatened and they are yours. But you apparently have no respect for the rights of others to own their own property. You both are the worst kinds of hypocrites and need to educate yourselves further. If you have no respect for the rights of others don't expect others to respect yours.

[-] 0 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

I don't see any connection between this response/accusation and what I or gagablogger wrote.

You are either mentally handicapped or disingenuous, I see no point in trying to convince you of anything. I just recommend you get help for your condition, whatever it may be.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Well if you don't see the connection either you cannot read or your comprehension of the English language is severely lacking. Read the thread it's in plain English. Your buddy there tried, poorly I might add, to stick something on me with some really weak argument which I then turned on him almost too easily which you obviously understood enough to get upset so you jump in claiming not to know what's going on. I think you are the one that's mentally challenged. I'm done talking to you I don't argue with the mental handicapped. I unlike your friend have respect for others.

[-] 1 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

And there it is! Called me the same name I called him, continuing to just argue about nothing specific.

Troll behavior #1 = I know you are but what am I

Go away trolly troll troll, glad we're keeping you confined to this thread though!

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

You're right I repeated what you said that makes me a troll. You are brilliant!!!

[-] 0 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

I like the way you think.

[-] 0 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

1st. your comment there was awfully broad. 2nd the main question in my paragraph is should dangerous poisons be regulated?

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

Like someone mentioned below, this is an topic that could take hours to present. May I suggest a book? Read Murray A. Rothbard's "For a New Liberty". Its available at a minimal cost here: www.mises.org.

The short answer to your question is no, poisons should not be regulated, however the consquences of misusing those poisons in an anarchist system would be so high, that no one in their right minds would misuse them.

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 8 years ago

Rothbard's "FANL" might be a touch radical for this group. Although I would recommend his "what has government done to our money" as being wholly relevant to the OWS movement.

Peace,

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

Agreed but FANL does address the issue of pollution in an anarchist society.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

would if they could make a lot of money disregarding the consequences of their actions. Oh, wait, that would never happen.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

Any short term gain would quickly be wiped out when their reputation, their finances, and their character are all attacked.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

when you have low population density you don't need a lot of government and regulations. When you have high population density like on the east coast and you encounter hundreds sometimes thousands of people everyday who you've never met and probably won't ever meet again you need a strong and just system of central oversight.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

Why can't that "strong and central" system of over sight be a LOCAL council. That is the problem...the further the "strong and central" system of oversight is from the people the more likely there will be abuse and subjugation.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

it can be a local council, as long as it is democratically elected and fairly represents the views of the electorate. It should be more powerful then secular forces in the region but not more powerful than the electorate as a whole.

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Their philosophy is a broad-brushed academic theory that purports to solve basically everything in its fantastic simplicity. I provided a forum to apply it against a simplified real-world problem.

The answer to your question about poisons, if the responder is a purist, is "no."

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

I know that, at 1st glance I thought you were one of them. Now I know your not. I'm using the Socratic Method to get them to examine the practical short comings of their philosophy. Basically converting them. Misguided is like the 3rd or 4th one who I've gotten to slowly take back their argument. I find it to be more effective then battling it out.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

I'm not taking back my argument. I recognize a need for government. I'm not an anarchist. I may make statements that are broad but they narrow as the issues narrow and the specifics should be handled locally. It is a simplistic philosophy on the surface because to delve into every issue would take hours upon hours because at the edges the philosophy is not as simplistic as it appears.

[-] 2 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

I like having these conversations with you guys they really make me think.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

I'm glad. I enjoy them too. It encourages me that my discussions make people think. I enjoy being challenged intellectually as well. I forces me to think about my positions.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

You're probably right.

[-] 1 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

Uh, he wants to tear down church and state and repeal just about all restrictions on corporations, so uh, yeah, that's right wing, you should look it up maybe next time before you spout off?

[-] 3 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Sorry bro I think you need to do some more reading. I would normally have a discussion about these things but you are obviously getting your info from some far off land and I'm not about to have a discussion with someone who just wants to place labels on people so they can oppose them. You have a lot of learning to do my friend.

[-] -1 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

From the wikipedia, quoting the man himself in writing(and don't make me link to the youtubes where he is actually saying these things): In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility."

Churches teach civility! They should eclipse the state in importance! Maybe the black churches of the civil rights movement taught civility, maybe quakers and unitarians, but the one I was raised in was filled with constant hate, not only against non-believers but all the other christian denominations who are all bound for hell due to minor misinterpretations of ancient texts.

It's a slow day at work so I have enough patience to help you see your error.

Enjoy the cognative dissonance!

[-] 4 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Enjoy inserting your own opinion into what you read. A man's opinions and legislative intent are not one and the same. Like I said you need to read more and you also need to improve your sources. None the less when did defense of the 1st amendment become a bad thing. If you want to read anything into the meaning of his statements it's that your religious freedom is guaranteed here. Enjoy being dead wrong and having fantasy's about tyrannical oppression of those who have a faith.

[-] 0 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

Introducing Ron Paul's We the People Act:

* We the People Act. H.R. 539, 2009-01-14, 

originally H.R. 3893, 2004-03-04. Forbids all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex unions, sexual practices, and establishment of religion, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law. Makes federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts,[58] and forbids federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.

Because it forbids federal courts from adjudicating "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion", secularists have criticized the bill as removing federal remedy for allegations of state violation of religious freedom.[59] As an example of potential for violation,[citation needed] Article 1 of the Texas Constitution provides the (currently unenforced) requirement that office-holders "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act#We_the_People_Act

I liked what irregular times wrote about it: "Ron Paul's legislation, if enacted, would have enabled a two-class system of rights in America, with members of majority religious groups able to establish special rights to enforce their beliefs through the power of government institutions, and others unable to protect their right to not participate in the majority's religious rituals through the constitutionally-guaranteed access to the courts." http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.html

But at this point I do not expect you to understand this, it is more for the sake of readers who come later.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

What does the supreme court rule on? Asking to see if you have an understanding of the way our government works because it's becoming apparent to me that you do not.

[-] 0 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

That's all you've got? roflmao, it's worse than I thought. No wonder the right wing has to hire people to post this stuff, it must hurt your brain.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

Really? You are so misguided it's crazy. What you posted was a proposed bill that states that the supreme court was only to rule on the Constitutionality of possible infringements of the 1st amendment. And your response is roflmao. Very well now I know that you are completely ignorant and I will now take my leave.

[-] 0 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

I know you are but what am I = #1 troll tactic

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

So don't use it it doesn't fit you well. You want to argue politics on such thin uniformed basis and then once you can't argue anymore your response is "roflmao" and you continue to call me the troll using tactics. You're not even a good troll.

[-] 0 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

All the evidence links in our discussion are from me, none of which you even addressed.

[-] 2 points by gagablogger (207) 8 years ago

Right on mindhawk! Ron Paul supporters = rightwingnuts. And you only just touched on the issues. Trying to speak the truth to them is like talking to a brick wall.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 8 years ago

I don't need to copy and paste support for a premise that anyone can easily find themselves by simply reading our Constitution. Thanks though. BTW forgetting the political debate here is not the point of this entire movement to get politics out of business and business out of politics? If so what are our options and who represents that premise best?

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 8 years ago

Hi Mindhawk,

As an anti-religion atheist, I have no delight in expressions of religion in our public spaces. I agree with you that religion is a force of constant hate, and I'll add that is is a force of ignorance as well.

This said, the nativity scene at the town hall or the mention of God in the pledge of the allegiance seems like a bit of trivia compared with Paul's big issues of ending the wars, ending the control the banking sector/wall street has on our government, and ending the war on drugs.

Your post, IMO, seems to indicate that you think he would codify Christianity into Federal Law, which he wouldn't, but he would likely not forbid states to do it. (I'm in Massachusetts, not Mississippi, so this doesn't strike fear into me).

Respectfully,

[-] 1 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

Anyone who thinks that on the list of problems this nation has that 'not enough religious expression in government' is on it, (and near the top!) is not smart enough to get my vote.

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 8 years ago

That is precisely my point. Not only does Ron Paul not request more religious expression in government, it wouldn't even make the top 50 of important issues such as war and the role of banking in govt that he advocates for.

Thanks for your reply. Do you have a presidential candidate you prefer? (not that a single ruler is the key to solving our mess)

[-] 1 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

I don't trust him not to make it a higher priority once elected, I find your confidence that he wouldn't act on this to be naive.

The main reason I won't vote for him is because I do not believe he could effectively protect citizens from the abuses of corporations. It would be literally voting to be poisoned more.

I do not support any candidates, I only support a title V convention to reform congress entirely and of course, the main wall street reforms promoted by OWS, which I think would be productive to focus on, rather than this endless discussion of why Ron Paul and the tea party are not allied with us.

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 8 years ago

Thanks for your reply. Paul supporters are here because we have a common enemy in the corporate banking system that largely resides on Wall Street. I'm sure that is about far as an alliance goes.

Thanks again for your time and enjoy your day. (disclosure: I'm a guy wasting time at work right now, enjoying this board, and nowhere near the protests)

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 8 years ago

“The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.” That’s precisely the problem. :)

[-] 3 points by deldeldel (23) 8 years ago

As soon as OWS becomes lockstep ideological, or even just loses its ability to keep SOME libertarian/conservative folks interested in a positive way -- that is when it gets put in a tidy little box to be picked up by the trash collectors on Monday. Please try to focus more attention on being inclusive of different ideas and ideologies.

I think we can trust the 99% not to magically become a white power organization just because we let some Ron Paul supporters speak their minds about what's going on. Lefties have to be as willing to question liberal orthodoxy and their various sacred cows as they would like libertarians and right wingers to be.

Let's try listening to each other instead of sowing distrust and confusion.

[-] 3 points by OpenSky (217) 8 years ago

what we need is a system of proportional representation, not the current system that is designed to prevent the rise of third parties http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-have-a-winner-takes-all-system-it-basically-mea/

[-] 1 points by smarzie (62) from Portsmouth, OH 8 years ago

AGREED. But not just a third party, but multiple parties. People start talking about third parties and everyone goes on about Ron Paul. No, no thank you.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

The system represents disproportionately because a lot of people don't participate.. When people boycott democracy, their opponents can not only use the system against them, but also change the system so that it's more slanted.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

This is true, but mostly because media brings no good reason to participate. All that is brought is a confusing 1/2 message. This is why I'm certain the media has to be dealt with first by revising the First Amendment at an Article V convention. Insure we have information first, then an election system with integrity. The basic concept that speech with information vital to survival must be shared, . . . or survival is not assured, is what this is about. http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

Your solution to society's problems is for the government to regulate the media, eliminating the free press, by adding the words "forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

This article is about infiltration from the right wing, and if such a thing were to really occur then I have to imagine that part of it would be flooding the dialogue with distracting parodies and red herrings like that one.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

Here is my draft of the revised first amendment.-----

DRAFT REV. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

Where in there do you see I advocate gov regulating media eliminating freedom of the press? It is not there, you are mistaken. What it does it compensates for a corporately owned press collusive with the infiltations of the government.-------

Please be accountable.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

You can't legislate respect, trust, friendship and love. And you're proposing that the government should control the media. This idea is an obvious non-starter. A distraction. Something that people could use to ridicule this movement.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

Uh, how does enabling the people to use national broadcast tv to share vital information for survival equate to "legislating respect, trust, friendship and love". It does not, you are generalizing. Generalizations are cognitive distortions. Cognitve distortions are extensively used in social infiltrations to foul proper logical, rational conclusions from information.------

I am proposing that the human attributes of; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, which DO protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness be respected, and used as criteria for public support of speech that invokes such attributes. Your position protects CORPORATE MEDIA in their neglect, non feasance, malfeasance and manipulation.------

Now you need to explain yourself to show your fidelity to the interests of American citizens. Accountability please!

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

A proposal to legislate touchy-feely values by amending the Bill of Rights to enact government control over the media is very obviously not going to fly with conservatives, and with most independents. And even with many on the left. That's what makes this a useless thing to spend time discussing.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

Corporations and the nwo love your response. Are you saying that the public should live for other things, possibly available from corporations, other than human values or the attributes that protect them, such as; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love?

What principles and values would you advocate instead of "touchy feely", which BTW, ause of those words in this context are an act of labeling, working to mimize those attributes. Labeling is a cognitive distortion.------ http://algoxy.com/poly/nwo_cognitive_distortions.html You are using the tactics of the nwo here. Explain yourself, be accountable please!

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

You are now a proud recipient of an Iserbyt Award, for excellence in fringe, crackpot ideology.

[-] 1 points by OpenSky (217) 8 years ago

even if everyone voted, the system is set up to resist more than two parties. Its in the math of it

[-] 1 points by randallburns (211) from Washougal, WA 8 years ago

I would agree. However, this mean that both Greens/Naderites-and Ron Paul-and Pat Buchanan supporters will have to grow up. Right now, neither of these groups have much representation. Under PR they would all have a real voice in legislation-which would carry with it some real responsibility-and accountability.

[-] 1 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

YES!

[-] 2 points by mindhawk (175) from Jefferson City, MO 8 years ago

A third party could not make a third party feasible, that was what the green party tried, and they really tried.

Only a constitutional amendment could do it.

[-] 1 points by AMCD (46) from Antioch, CA 8 years ago

I've been so disgusted with the Democratic party that I've been voting Green, when I can. I don't want to throw away my vote in protest and have a John McCain or, heaven forbid, a Sarah Palin elected.

I'm ready for a third party. I haven't found a Republican I could vote for so the Democratic party thinks it has a lock on my vote. Which in a way it does.

[-] 1 points by mancanbemore (30) 8 years ago

did they have as many people behind them as the party would if it had the combined voices of OWS and the tea party

[-] 2 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 8 years ago

Funny, there are many saying that it is the lefties and communists that have infiltrated and are running OWS.

I have two comments:

1) Ron Paul is not right wing; in fact he is definitely considered an outsider with respect to the Republican establishment

2) Insulting and/or excluding various groups of people who make up the 99% will ultimately doom OWS to failure

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

Libertarians are not Right wing...

Anyway, those that support Ron Paul need to be careful. If they attempt to turn this into a vote for Ron Paul campaign, they open the door for the OWS movement to be hijacked. The Liberals, Progressive and Unions will bury this movement in Obama propaganda so thick even they will forget who Ron Paul is.

The OWS movement is not a political football.

[-] 1 points by mantaseed (36) 8 years ago

So why are the Koch brothers the cash machine of the right wing, they claim to be Libertarian and are morally repulsive.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

No clue, maybe because the right wing is easier to buy ? More willing ? More powerful ? I don't know the answer my friend .

[-] 2 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

OMG...I am a Dennis Kucinich liberal who has investigated Ron Paul for the past six years and read every book in the world to understand libertarianism. If there is one person who is right on in every possible way it is Ron Paul and he is no racist! Libertarianism and Ron Paul are the most villified and misunderstood of our time. I read from Hayek to Griffin to the Bush Agenda from the left to the right! How dare you. Throw me an argument and I will pick it apart!

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Solve the tragedy of the commons, or perhaps just talk about how a large company that sells paint globally, upstream from several villages, polluting their river, would be solved by market forces in the perfect regulation-free state.

Describe a viable Libertarian response to the Dust Bowl, the Great Depression (without some crap about it would never have happened) and the rise of Nazi Germany.

Explain why greed is good.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

First and foremost.....True Free market capitalism is when markets respond to supply and demand, have sound money as an accountability factor and are backed by a strong legal framework that holds the system accountable.

Do we have that today? No we do not.!

We have Big Corp/Banks in bed with corrupt Govt not backed by sound but FIAT money. It is called.............Corporatism!

Global economy is the race to the bottom in wages and is aided by fiat money which feeds monopolies. As I stated a STRONG legal framework to hold the system accountable is a MUST in order for free market capitalism as defined by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations.

Hayek was brilliant and ahead of his time. Economist in the 1930's and 40's he predicted and how it was possible for someone like Hitler to rise to power.

Pre WWII Germany ( the Weimar Republic before that) had very strong socialistic tendencies ( collectivism) where people looked for government ( a central entity) to solve their problems. This paved the way for Hitler to centralize power even more and promise the Germans a better future.

Civil Liberties and Economic Freedom go hand in hand. When economies ( like ours today) are controlled by a Federal Reserve System ( the private and Independent middleman) which was put into place by Congress , so Congress could spend WITHOUT the public knowing it is being taxed, can march to war anytime they please. One close look at history and we find out, WAR IS PROFITS for BANKS!.

Do Americans know that their income tax today goes SOLELY to pay interest to the Federal Reserve on money they merely ordered to be printed of the printing press and NEVER had in the first place but merely said they would 'guarantee'?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

"Throw me an argument and I will pick it apart!"

I provided three areas for discussion, you responded to none. You're supporting an ideology that is elegant but simplistic, and unsuited for many real-world problems. You responded with propaganda instead of trying to convince me that you, or any Libertarian, has thought about the theory meeting reality from any perspective other than that of your pocketbooks and your ideals of rugged individualism.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Question nr 3) The great depression..

The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of money in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933..

The crash, as devastating as it was to the speculators, had little effect on the average American. Unemployment didn't become rampant until the depression years which came later and were caused by continued government restraint of the free market. The stage was now set for recovery and sound economic growth, as always had happened in the past.

It did not happen this time. The monetary and political scientists who had created the problem now were in full charge of the rescue. They saw the crash as a golden opportunity to justify even more controls than before. Herbert Hoover launched a multitude of government programs to bolster wage rates, prevent prices from dropping, prop up failing firms, stimulate construction, guarantee home loans, protect the depositors, rescue the banks, subside the farmers, and provide public works. FDR was swept into office by promising even more of the same under the slogan of a New Deal.

In 1931, fresh money was pumped into the economy to restart the cycle, but this time the rocket would not lift off. The dead weight of new bureaucracies and government regulations and subsidies and taxes and welfare benefits and deficit spending and tinkering with prices had kept it on the launching pad. Taxes and regulatory agencies forced companies out of business. Those that remained had to curtail production. Unemployment began to spread. By every economic measure, the economy was no better or worse in 1939 than it was in 1930 when the rescue began. It wasn't until the outbreak of World War II, and the tooling up for war production that followed, that the depression was finally brought to an end. — G. Edward Griffin; The Creature From Jekyll Island

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

But WWII was a massive government spending project, and the New Deal certainly had a major impact (most historians and econs agree). But more importantly, the rest of your response is the typical "it wouldn't have happened." Depressions will happen. What's the appropriate response?

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

Depressions and recessions are the correction to the artificial boom created by inflation and government spending. Depressions are the cure, the boom is the problem.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Its happening now by the Fed printing diluting the money supply causing inflation and keeping interest rates artificially low. Allow for the markets to respond naturally and they constantly correct themselves. Nobody today can wrap their mind around the current global system because it is too complex. A strong legal framework AND sound money are THE REGULATORS for Capitalism and Capitalsim CANNOT exist without it!

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

So, magic markets - do nothing. Thank you, that will do. I'm tired.

I suggest (re)reading this article in entirety, and maybe think about which of his policies you wouldn't have supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt The policies did not have a perfect record, far from it, but the alternatives were abyssmal. Your new ideology rejects all of it, outright. Do nothing, ever. Dispute the depression's causes if you like, but perhaps consider a history without FDR. It's not a pretty picture.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Federal Reserve policies led to the crash of 1929, the expansion of money supply as a menas of helping the economy of England, the resulting wave of speculation in stocks and real estate, and evidence exists that the Fed Reserve Board knew of the crash and even executed the events that were designed to trigger it (Chapter 23 of the Creature of Jekyll Island)

The jury is out on the diluted version of the Bipartisan Audit the Fed bill by Alan Grayson and Ron Paul which was diluted by Bernie Sanders in the Senate!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-pav_yPFkI&feature=channel_video_title

FDR was president under the very Federal Reserve that is cause for all booms and busts. It does take more then Wiki to read up on the cause and effects..I know it is a lot to ask from people. I read a political book a month being the political junkie I am but Ron Paul it is...He knows like nobody else what he is talking about and if you had listened carefully enough, he would even be willing to spend the money we save from all those unconstitutional wars oversees and spend it on people at home until we have set up a system that works..

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

He would not spend money on anything my dear, he would stop any/all federal spending he could get away with and cut taxes to as near zero as possible, then abolish the Fed to do away with any additional capacity to spend, and that would be his sole focus. There would be no money to help anyone, unless you earned it yourself, which is the ideal, I know, but not always the reality.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/22/ron-paul-cut-overseas-spending-to-pay-for-health-care/

Categories: Culture

Rep. Ron Paul has been an opponent against the Democrat’s plan to reform health care. Paul believes that programs like Medicaid, Medicaid, and Veteran’s care could be better provided by private insurance. “It doesn’t make any sense. It’s a total failure to run anything by a bureaucracy, it always costs more and the services are always less favorable,” Paul told CNN’s Kiran Chetry.

“I would like to see with the government out completely because that would be a much better system,” said Paul. But he knows the reality is that government will continue to provide some health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid. “You don’t want to cut under these [economic] conditions medical care from poor people who have been dependent or the elderly. I would cut from overseas spending I would cut from these trillions and trillions of dollars that we have spent over the years and bring our troops home so that we can finance it.”

This video is from CNN’s American Morning, broadcast July 22, 2009.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Yeah, I don't believe him a bit. He's an extremist Libertarian and all that runs counter to his ideology.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

So lets explore were your accusation comes from. FYI, Ron Paul agrees more with Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader then anybody in the Republican Party.

They agree on the Federal Reserve Civil Liberties Trade Agreements Foreign policies.

Thats more I can say from most people in my own party, the Democratic Party that is including Barack Obama.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

a.) Untrue regarding trade. He is a free trade fundamentalist.

b.) They are diametrically opposed on the core issues of the role of free markets, which is central to our times. I'm of the radical center but see no chance of productive cooperation on fiscal policy with free market fundamentalists, any more than I would with state fundamentalists from the USSR.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

a) Did you ever read Hayek...There is absolutely nothing 'fundamentalist' about true free market capitalism unless of course you never picked up a book and actually read up on the arguments. Since true free market capitalism has NEVER been practiced, it is premature for anybody to dismiss any of it.

b) these three agree on four major issues! It is a fact! The conversations can be found on YT!

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Yes, I have read Hayek. Austrian Econ is fundamentalist. It is at one extreme of the state/market ideological spectrum. The ideas of the free market should inform good policy, but Ron Paul is a purist. Anything he says differently is bowing to difficult questioning on issues where the extremist position is unpopular.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Elaborate WHY Hayek was a fundamentalist. You cannot make a claim and explain such thorough work by just giving it a label.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Because there are two poles: 1.) Free markets are entirely self-regulating and resolve all societal issues, 2.) Free markets are satan and a planned economy is the way to go. Either end is an extreme by definition, and Austrian econ is at the free market extreme. W/regards Hayek, I recently saw him called a statist by some of your Libertarian compatriots because he does allow for some tiny areas in which the state functions better than the market. They prefer von Mises. Then there's Ayn Rand.... Nice company you keep.

I don't know what sort of watered-down kool-aid they've been selling you but all this stuff about keeping some healthcare, etc, is outside of Libertarian orthodoxy, as are highways, parks, education, and everything else that's not purely private. Ron Paul is all the way in that camp, but has tempered it over the years in tailoring his message to the college crowd and I'm guessing that's where you hopped aboard. If you really care about societal & environmental issues primarily, and fiscal ones secondarily - as a means; if your focus is on human needs for the many, and not just you and yours, you're in the wrong crowd. It's the ideology of the Koch brothers and the 1% and those who aspire to join it.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

OMG kool-aid fest. I'll let others read the below propaganda yourselves. Objectivism + Libertarianism are joined at the hip. Ron named his son Rand, and we get from him that pure free market principles would've shut down Woolworth's so they shouldn't have desegregated by law. Oh whatev. Reagan and markets, of course not pure enough, never will be, judge for yourselves... This is the ideology of the class that wants to keep all their money and not have it stolen by the leeches that are the rest of us.

Ever get into it then realize you're probably arguing with a campaign volunteer (if not paid troll)?

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Free market CANNOT exist without a strong legal system or sound money. Those are THE accountability factors.

Ayn Rand is against altruism. She is the opposite of Ron Paul ;) Got to know the differences though ;)

As for the koolaid..to even think that Ronnie Reagan practiced true free market is beyond ludacrous and right down dumb. He practiced Keynesian economics with the Fed at the wheel to the contrary of what he preached. Actually a friend of mine sent me a slamming review by RP on Ronnie Reagans economics. No wonder people are confused ;) Let me see if I can post it for you. Got to search for it though.

The Koch brothers are corporatists who hijacked the Ron Paul Revolution. They pretend to be Libertarians as well but they are not and Ron Paul warned against this...that his movement would be hijakced by the Neocons! You obviously did not do your homework. When the Republicans preach 'trickle down economics' it does not work because they excercise the exact same platform of economis the Dems do. Keynesian with fiat money. So when the so called 'left' looks at the right.........they rightfully see.............it does NOT work.

Too bad you did not comb out the entire political spectru, Got to go for now but i will find all the info to clear up your misguided opinions and the confusion that is brought to you by our Corporate mainstream media which is merely the propaganda mouthpiece of the Military Industrial complex.

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Its confusing...I'll admit that ;)

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

So.. here I am ...showing you how Milton Friedman, Ronnie Reagan and the Teaparty are ALL out of line with Ron Paul!

All those who have proven to fail you mistakenly thought as Free market guys and gals INCLUDING Alan Greenspan who DID NOT PRACTICE what he preached privately!

;) Next please..

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

On Ron Paul with regards to Ronnie Reagans economics..

When Reagan was president--we later learned from Treasury official Manuel Johnson--the first Reagan budget was balanced, and the White House asked for a deficit of $100 billion, a lot of money in those days. (Deficits were always the order of the Reaganite day.)

Despite much pressure, Ron Paul would not vote for it; hilariously, he and the others were promised there would never be a Reagan deficit again. Ron was the lone Republican dissenter for economic sanity, as has so often been the case. He did not vote for any of Big Government Reagan's six huge tax increases, nor his greater and greater spending, nor his greater and great deficits. Reagan asked for more spending that the Democrats passed. Tip O'Neill was a restraint on him.

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

On Milton Friedman under Ronnie Reagan!!

NOT TRUE FREE MARKET but a MIX!

Friedman was a Keynesian in the 1930s and 1940s, and always said he favored some aspects of the New Deal such as "providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand... an expansive monetary policy"; however, he never advocated wage and price controls.[3] His challenges to what he later called "naive Keynesian" (as opposed to New Keynesian) theory[3] began with his 1950s reinterpretation of the consumption function. At the University of Chicago, Friedman became the main advocate opposing activist Keynesian government policies; he has been characterized as "the leader of the first recognized counterrevolution against Keynesianism",[4] although even in the late-1960s he described his own approach (along with all of mainstream economics) as still wedded to the "Keynesian language and apparatus" albeit rejecting its "initial" conclusions.[5] During the 1960s he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy known as "monetarism". He theorized there existed a "natural" rate of unemployment, and argued that governments could increase employment above this rate (e.g., by increasing aggregate demand) only at the risk of causing inflation to accelerate.[6] He argued that the Phillips Curve was not stable and predicted what would come to be known as stagflation.[7] Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy.[8]

Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation of many types. He once stated that his role in eliminating U.S. conscription was his proudest accomplishment, and his support for school choice led him to found The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Friedman's political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, emphasized the advantages of free market economics and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the opinions of American conservatives and libertarians. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax, and education vouchers.[9] His books and essays were widely read, and his words had both underground and overt influence in Communist countries.[10][11][12][13] Friedman's economic theories had an international influence in era since 1970. Some of his laissez-faire ideas concerning monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation were used by governments, especially during the 1980s. A combination of his monetary theory in regard to credit and Keynes's belief in deficit spending to stimulate growth has influenced economists such as Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve's response to the financial crisis of 2007–10.[14]

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28844

Ron Paul Warns Of Neo-Con Takeover Of Tea Party Movement Grass roots groups founded by Congressman’s supporters have been infiltrated by Republican party operatives Paul Joseph Watson

Congressman Ron Paul warns that the movement his supporters founded nearly three years ago has been infiltrated and overtaken by neo-cons, following the de facto election of Sarah Palin as the leader of the nationwide tea party movement.

Speaking with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Paul said his message was “somewhat different” to what the tea party groups are now espousing and that his core ideals had been “diluted” since the tea party movement began to grow.

“The Republican party wants to make sure there’s a neo-con type of influence,” said Paul, adding that Palin’s endorsement of his son’s Senate campaign and platform gave him pause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfODrTCzSEM&feature=player_embedded#!

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Why did you not watch the vid on what the fed does?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I'm not defending the Fed but it's a single issue and I don't believe it's our biggest concern. Audit it, nationalize it for all I care. It won't change the fundamental problems of a free market run amok and human values pushed to the wayside or completely out of the public sphere.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

but....its not True free market capitalism thas is failing...it is corporatism that is.

I think this debate needs to take place and in all honesty...Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises make very compelling, and intelligent arguments that cannot any longer be ignored. Austrian school of economics is not explored at all and American libertarianism doesn't exactly allow for the brilliance of Hayek to shine through when they argue free market.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Milton Friedman's policies have been at the core of the US economic fiscal trajectory and of neoliberal international trade policies since Reagan (and somewhat before). They have failed.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

John Mayard Keynes theories have ;) and quite frankly...Reagan preached the correct format of ecoomics but it was NOT excecuted at all and quite frankly the opposite happened. Under REagan the govt expanded our national debt and the Military like nobody else before. Friedman may have wanted one thing but again....the record shows it is in total contrast to what happened under Reagan. I am not a REagan fan but I start to believe he had to have a very early onset of Alzheimers and recently saw this in a documentary where he was propped up to give a speech. Although Friedman was a Keynesian in the 1930's and 40's..Friedman became the main advocate opposing activist Keynesian government policies. However...that DID NOT MATERIALIZE under Reagan whatsoever!

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

"John Mayard Keynes theories have ;) "

Not since the 70s-80s, dear, not at all. We've been witnessing the dismantling of all that - except in periods of crisis and a countercyclical policy CANNOT work when only applied in one part of the cycle.

Reagan took us further down the path than any before with regards to the economy and society - yes spending on military too so not pure - nothing will ever be pure - and look where it has gotten us.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

oh dear God....its a funny world in the world of corporate propaganda ;)

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

AGain..Ronnie Reagan practiced Keynesian with Fiat money and nothing remotely to what Ron Paul has been preaching..true free market capitalism

On Ron Paul with regards to Ronnie Reagans economics..

When Reagan was president--we later learned from Treasury official Manuel Johnson--the first Reagan budget was balanced, and the White House asked for a deficit of $100 billion, a lot of money in those days. (Deficits were always the order of the Reaganite day.)

Despite much pressure, Ron Paul would not vote for it; hilariously, he and the others were promised there would never be a Reagan deficit again. Ron was the lone Republican dissenter for economic sanity, as has so often been the case. He did not vote for any of Big Government Reagan's six huge tax increases, nor his greater and greater spending, nor his greater and great deficits. Reagan asked for more spending that the Democrats passed. Tip O'Neill was a restraint on him.

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

On Milton Friedman under Ronnie Reagan!!

NOT TRUE FREE MARKET but a MIX!

Friedman was a Keynesian in the 1930s and 1940s, and always said he favored some aspects of the New Deal such as "providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand... an expansive monetary policy"; however, he never advocated wage and price controls.[3] His challenges to what he later called "naive Keynesian" (as opposed to New Keynesian) theory[3] began with his 1950s reinterpretation of the consumption function. At the University of Chicago, Friedman became the main advocate opposing activist Keynesian government policies; he has been characterized as "the leader of the first recognized counterrevolution against Keynesianism",[4] although even in the late-1960s he described his own approach (along with all of mainstream economics) as still wedded to the "Keynesian language and apparatus" albeit rejecting its "initial" conclusions.[5] During the 1960s he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy known as "monetarism". He theorized there existed a "natural" rate of unemployment, and argued that governments could increase employment above this rate (e.g., by increasing aggregate demand) only at the risk of causing inflation to accelerate.[6] He argued that the Phillips Curve was not stable and predicted what would come to be known as stagflation.[7] Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy.[8]

Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation of many types. He once stated that his role in eliminating U.S. conscription was his proudest accomplishment, and his support for school choice led him to found The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Friedman's political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, emphasized the advantages of free market economics and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the opinions of American conservatives and libertarians. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax, and education vouchers.[9] His books and essays were widely read, and his words had both underground and overt influence in Communist countries.[10][11][12][13] Friedman's economic theories had an international influence in era since 1970. Some of his laissez-faire ideas concerning monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation were used by governments, especially during the 1980s. A combination of his monetary theory in regard to credit and Keynes's belief in deficit spending to stimulate growth has influenced economists such as Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve's response to the financial crisis of 2007–10.[14]

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

I did

1) how to keep from true free market capitalism to prevent pollution ANSWER: Capitalism REQUIRES a strong legal framework that DEMANDS accountability

2) Rise of NAZI GERMANY! As Hayek describes in detail in his book 'Raod to Serfdom" ( now note Hayek was JEWISH). ANSWER: Pre WWII Germany was very socialistic ( collectivist) and as one knows, collectivist SURRENDER THEIR RIGHTS to a CENTRAL ENTITIY! THIS..........paved the way for Hitler to centralize even more power and abuse it!

Now question nr 3 i will address..

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

1.) More specific please. What law has the company broken? What is that law if not a free-market-infringing regulation? It is operating on private property and the river is nobody's property - or is it?

2.) The question was not how Germany would not have created Hitler - not that I accept your explanation - but how a Libertarian America would have responded to the crises of the 30s and 40s including the Depression and his rise.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

1) A LEGAL FRAME WORK...is not one law! It is a SYSTEM that creates laws to hold people accountable if they infringe upon other peoples liberties. Polluting the environment is INFRINGING onto the publics liberties!!!!!!!!

2) The Federal Reserve system was the cause of the Great Depression. In order to understand how this system has brought on the Great Depression, Edward Griffin explains it in detail in his book 'The Creature from Jekull Island' a second close look at the Federal Reserve.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

1.) Decided by who? Liberty from what? Who decides what level of pollution is a crime, and whether it's not the people infringing on the company's liberties? Who does the testing and the monitoring?

2.) The Federal Reserve may or may not have caused it, it also printed the money to get us out of it. The question is, if it had been another cause, in a perfect Fed-free state, like a supervolcano, what's the appropriate response?

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

1) Who decides what level of pollution is a crime? and where its not the people infringing on the companie's liberties?

Proof of harm to health, environment......proof as it exists in a court of law today! Proof the prosecution pays for when they make their case ;)

2) In a 'perfect fed free state' and with the backing of sound money and a strong legal system, markets respond to supply and demand and constantly correct themselves, preventing from inflation..

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

1.) Proof of harm. So there are no set environmental laws, just judges sitting on benches deciding arbitrarily who was harmed and by how much? What if the national pride, or future generations, or aesthetic sensibilities, or simply nature, were the only thing harmed. for example because Yellowstone (sold because Libertarians reject commons, public property) was turned into a uranium mine, but there were no nearby residents affected?

2.) Inflation was not the issue, and is not. That's an obsession. Again, do nothing.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

1) Who ways there are no set environmental laws? You? Istn't that up to the people?

2) We have inflation today. Its why Russia introduced the goldstandard at the G20 and China is buying up goldmines right here in the U.S. Why is it Russia and China have abandoned the dollar between themselves. Interest rates are held artificially low to 'fix the problem. It doesn't work.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

1.) Because laws that "regulate" the market in any way that isn't in direct violation of the harm principal are rejected, and so, in your perfect Libertarian society, would not be allowed.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

How is someone who confuses, Reagan, Friedman, Koch brothers as Libertarians practicing free market to know when in all essence I showed you none of the above practiced anything remotely free market?

You never read Hayek. He explicitly talks about a solid legal system in his book 'Road to Serfdom'

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Because you're talking about Hayek and I'm talking about contemporary Libertarian ideology.

And I would literally stake my life that you've never even considered voting for Kucinich.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Oh and notice in the interview how Schiff portrays Alan Greenspan a 'traitor' in economics as well.

Yeh..the confusion is rampant because people have been preaching but not practicing ;)

sigh...everybody should be doing research!

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joYrVtldJKc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL5D2ECB60E91ED6A2

Dennis Kucinich interview on Peter Schiff Show

from Sept 24 2011

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Actually, i was going to vote for him in the primaries last presidential election. He withdrew.I even donated to him but since I have thorougly educated myself and as I have shown you, your interpretation of Free market capitalism is deeply flawed, and it is understandable when Reagan etc is confused with this concept. BTW Kucinich was on Peter Schiffs radio show, Schiff was RP's economic advisor during the last presidential campaign...Kucinich had the intellectual curiosity to ask Schiff about economics. Let me find it!

[-] -1 points by cheeseus (109) 8 years ago

Hitler had the backing of the majority who blamed a minority for concentrating wealth and corrupting markets. The 99% sought to confiscate the wealth of the 1% as retribution for preceived greviences. It's scary how history sometimes repeats...

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

He was a right wing anti-egalitarian, anti-liberal, anti-communist militarist, nationalist, elitist SOB with the full backing of Germany's (non-Jewish) oligarchy - and many of America's oligarchs too (i.e. Henry Ford).

Anyway, because a demagogue routed public anger for evil purposes means that their, and all popular grievances were/are invalid. Logical.

[-] 2 points by rmmo (262) 8 years ago

No divisions -- "we the people." This is a post-partisan issue. Let's focus on where we agree.

[-] 2 points by mancanbemore (30) 8 years ago

The left does not own the movement. this sort of warning is what i believe is a wolf in sheeps clothing, every american deservers their opinion and the occupy wall street movement is supposed to be for the 99%!! these sorts of messages are the propaganda, you need to look no further than yourself to find the faults of our modern government. dont close your ear to anyone, i am not a ron paul fan personally, but hes a gop who wants to legalize weed! and beyond that he may have interesting economic ideas. this movement should be about the spreading of knowledge. shame on you mantaseed, this is not infiltrating, these people want to help, there is a way to unify all these voices.

[-] 2 points by ThisWeWillDefend (30) 8 years ago

You have the Democrat Party, You have the Republican Party and then you have the TEA Party. T.E.A. Taxed Enough Already Don't you agree?

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

It used to be that way. The TEA party was co-opted by the Republican party years ago.

[-] 2 points by cdansereau (2) 8 years ago

Please see Glenn Greenwald's great article "Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement?" http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/11/can_ows_be_turned_into_a_democratic_party_movement/singleton/

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 8 years ago

De ja vu all over again.

Neocons hijack tea parties, neolibs hijack OWS.

Neutered and corralled, bitchez!

Pathetic.

[-] 2 points by imrational (527) 8 years ago

mantaseed, OWS is about ALL ideologies. In fact, we need more people from the Right. The more diverse we are, the more our membership resembles that of the United States, the better odds we have of succeeding.

Stop trying to push people away. If OWS becomes just a liberal group... then conservatives will fight you and you will accomplish NOTHING.

Grow up and realize we need to be inclusive, not divisive.

[-] 0 points by mantaseed (36) 8 years ago

Are you a Ron Paul supporter??

[-] 0 points by imrational (527) 8 years ago

I respect him, but I disagree with a few of his policies. So, I wouldn't call myself a supporter, but at the same time, I like him better than any of the other current Republican candidates.

[-] 0 points by RolandA (8) 8 years ago

Oh boy, /facepalm

[-] 1 points by nolimits88 (32) 8 years ago

This is a movement with a serious identity crisis.

Identify with this:

Freedom. You want it. I want it. We want it.

But freedom is the ability to choose. Without interference. Free Will.

This means having choice. Having and embracing --

Diversity.

People who think left or right. Forwards and backwards. Up and down. Always changing always growing.

There are so many choices!! So many ways we can go. If we say we want freedom for all.

And then as we share and dance together, we become a massive movement. An entire political eco-system that moves towards --

Sustainability.

Freedom that lasts forever. Not just a week. And not for a few.

And then in this free, diverse, sustainable ecosystem we --

Belong to the largest political/social/economic movement ever created.

For you. Me. WE.

And I fucking love everyone of you.

[-] 1 points by unlabeled (112) 8 years ago

If you want to understand the Ron Paul supporters, you have to go to infowars.com or listen to the Alex Jones radio show. I listen to Alex Jones on a regular basis. However, I do not support the opinions that he offers. He always pushes his listeners to be 'info-warriors' with angry rhetoric and fearful thinking. The fact that he uses emotional manipulation(like Rush Limbaugh) makes me question his so called facts. Though it is an entertaining show, my logic will always question it.

[-] 1 points by nolimits88 (32) 8 years ago

99%. We're in this together. Diversity makes us strong.

We all want the authoritarian structures and apparatuses to be dismantled. The authorities won't dismantle itself. The 99% must do this.

In that we are united.

We all want the freedom to pursue our lives with out influences of multi-national corporations and unelected supra-national organisations.

This is freedom. Freedom to be left leaning or right leaning. Whatever.

People that want to argue that this is only a left movement are the REAL hijackers. And If this is just becomes a left wing thing it won't survive.

I saw that happen as part of the Anti-free trade events. It failed.

[-] 1 points by nolimits88 (32) 8 years ago

99%. We're in this together. Diversity makes us strong.

We all want the authoritarian structures and apparatuses to be dismantled. The authorities won't dismantle itself. The 99% must do this.

In that we are united.

We all want the freedom to pursue our lives with out influences of multi-national corporations and unelected supra-national organisations.

This is freedom. Freedom to be left leaning or right leaning. Whatever.

People that want to argue that this is only a left movement are the REAL hijackers. And If this is just becomes a left wing thing it won't survive.

I saw that happen as part of the Anti-free trade events. It failed.

[-] 1 points by Esposito (173) 8 years ago

Maybe they just wanted to eat some 'supper'?

And I'll definitely be on the watch for Nad Thoer. What does he look like?

[-] 1 points by TheGrayRace (25) from Philadelphia, PA 8 years ago

united we stand... divided we fall... the 1% would love for us to once again divide into Left and Right so we turn on each other and forget about them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[-] 1 points by mikeband (20) from Klamath Falls, OR 8 years ago

Ron Paul is dangerous but he's the only choice right now who supports getting corporations out of politics and government. If the 99% move in that direction the others will change their tune. Flipping back and forth between D's and R's every election when they're both corporatists solves nothing and the corporations always win.

[-] 1 points by GoldmanNutSachs (33) 8 years ago

Well when you create a non-exclusive movement that revolves around Wallstreet excess and corporate greed destroying our economy and political system then there are obviously going to be people from the left and right involved.

I don't think Ron Paul Revolutionist are going to "mislead" people towards libertarianism. They are on this forum and in the street to express their opinions on the general message of this protest/movement. The problems created by Wallstreet and corporate influence in politics are sadly widespread enough to anger all shades of the political spectrum.

Left wing, right wing, chicken wing. I hope more people of varying opinions "infiltrate" the movement.

[-] 1 points by FObama (470) 8 years ago

Fucking A right. Those bastard have no purpose here. We need to get Obama to donate his 1Billion dollars of corporate campaign funds.

[-] 1 points by IndenturedNation (118) 8 years ago

We need the fed, we just need the fed to do it's job. The Libertarians, Tea Partiers, right winders, left wingers, and really whoever else says they want to end the fed is merely announcing their idiotic extremism by saying so. This is a rational movement, please don't let the nut-jobs take it over. People who are commenting on what they think the Fed should do are having a rational discussion, not to be confused with people who are attempting to rationalize having a discussion about whether or not the fed should exist.

[-] 1 points by LincolnCA (160) 8 years ago

Ron Paul is also the Enemy, PERIOD!

[-] 1 points by mantaseed (36) 8 years ago

Thank you

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 8 years ago

Just to clarify the "end the fed' message in the original post is referring to the Federal Reserve Bank who keeps Wall Street profitable at the expense of US citizens.

That is the linkage of why Paul supporters are here; they have a common enemy with OWS in not liking wall street banks.

The Federal Reserve's official website has a decentish explanation of their business and the effects of inflation written for children (I'm not using a pejorative, but this is easily consumable) here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/kids/

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake

[-] 1 points by Triton777 (41) 8 years ago

Fucking idiots, you don't think the fed has something to do with our problems? The more you make this a left right issue the faster youmwill fall back under the control of our two party plutocracy. I have been going over these forums and, to my dissapointment, I have found that the vast majority of the people here don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about. It's called critical thinking, folks, dontbrattle off talking points you heard from others before you even understand the issues. The more you make it us vs them the more you play into THEIR game, the faster you kill your movement.

[-] 1 points by iden (4) 8 years ago

full democracy is inclusive democracy. we need all voices to be represented.

[-] 1 points by ArgaApan (2) 8 years ago

I don't get it? As I understand it american tax payers are sick of bailing out bankers for doing bad buisness right? Then Ron Paul should be your number one choice. He stands for liberty. Obama is the puppet of wall street blood suckers. /Henrik from Stockholm, Sweden

[-] 1 points by Fight4futurefreedom4ever (6) from Peachtree City, GA 8 years ago

I vote to remove & replace everyone in office right now, with the exception of who the Tea Party put in office. A lot of those politicians aren't practiced or from a legacy (Bush, Clinton, etc). I don't agree with their ultra conservative base, but that is part of the 99%. We then need to create at least two other parties. Maybe somewhere along the lines of Moderate Conservative and Moderate Liberal. Or, just one Moderate party.

By the slogan of this movement "We are the 99%" that means we will all be very diverse. We will have some extremes, but everyone gets a voice. Because the problem with Washington now, is they are not afraid of the general public. Look at them now... our President doesn't even take a second look at us. Oh, I'm sure he's watching behind the curtains. But, he is more concerned with being re-elected. Which is such a disappointment to me. I really believed in him in 2008. But, now I believe in the people. So, don't let them allow you to fight within the movement. They will try to tear it apart that way. True democracy means we won't always agree... but we will always listen because EVERYONE DESERVES A VOICE. And, if you don't support this movement, that is okay. We will continue to fight for your freedom and your children's future.

"Corporations have been enthroned An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people . . until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the Republic is destroyed." -- Abraham Lincoln

[-] 1 points by mantaseed (36) 8 years ago

Tea party backed candidates are puppets of the corporations.

[-] 1 points by Fight4futurefreedom4ever (6) from Peachtree City, GA 8 years ago

I agree whole heartedly. But, the Tea Party started as a grassroots movement. To attack the Tea Party will be used against this movement and I've watched it happen here in the conservative south. We need to bring truth back to the Tea Party so that we can unite and put the people back in the politics.

[-] 1 points by mantaseed (36) 8 years ago

No you are mistakes the Tea Party was started by the Koch brothers ans was never a grass roots organization.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 8 years ago

@Manstaseed - so now you're declaring this a partisan movement? I never thought I'd see this movement so easily co-opted by any party.

You're fools for doing so. This movement should be about UNITING the American populous for a common, collective good.

Fix the system. We can all agree that it's broken and needs reform. Then squabble over how best to run the country. Until the system is fixed - discussing left vs right issues does nothing except divide us.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 8 years ago

Agents-provocateurs are definitely around, like in the Washington D.C. Air and Space Museum arrests. The core group had no intention of starting a violent confrontation. This has been true in every movement of the past, as N.Y. City "Red Squad", and F.B.I. undercover agents, have infiltrated various groups. It was believed that , at times, there were more federal agents than not, at many meetings of American communists and socialists. So, while they media spreads fear, like with Glenn Beck, undercover agents slip in to advocate and perpetrate violence or over-the-top behavior.

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 8 years ago

Each one has a right to their opinion, but I think OWSNY is listening to all ideas, and one point seems to generate from all, that we must take our government back, make it work for the people, us the 99% that get no representation. They are an inspiration fo the democratic process, and one person, Ron Paul, will not deter the movement. There are too many of us.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

That sure is a lot of logical fallacy for one sentence.

[-] 1 points by moonspun (8) 8 years ago

I heard Ron Paul saying we should not provide universal health care because some church somewhere will do it (completely fallacious), which I found morally repugnant. Why should people have to live like beggars looking for charity?Human health and dignity is a universal right. Support human health, not corporate wealth.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

So instead we should force people at gunpoint to give up their property to support human health. Yes that is MUCH better.

[-] 1 points by ThinMan2 (46) 8 years ago

apital One Home> Personal Banking> Savings & Money Market Accounts> InterestPlus Online Savings

InterestPlus Online Savings Account

Print
Contact Us

Click to Chat With an Online Representative

Features
How It Works
FAQ & Demo
Disclosures

Get Paid. Twice

Earn 0.85% APY* with a balance of $1,000 or more
We offer one of the highest rates among top national banks
Receive a 10% bonus on your interest earned
Get quarterly bonus based on your interest earned with an average balance over $10,000, or an active Capital One credit card
No Fees
There are no fees associated with your InterestPlus Online Savings account
[-] 1 points by ThinMan2 (46) 8 years ago

BankAmericard Cash Rewards™ Visa Signature® Card

Earn 1% cash back on every purchase, 2% on groceries, and 3% on gas (Quarterly maximum applies to bonus rewards on grocery and gas purchases). Plus earn a 10% customer bonus when you redeem into a Bank of America® checking or savings account§ Introductory 0%† APR for your first 12 billing cycles only for Purchases and for any Balance Transfers* made within 60 days of opening your account.

After the Intro APR ends, a rate between 12.99% and 20.99% Variable APR, based on your creditworthiness, will apply to Purchases and Balance Transfers. (Balance Transfers are subject to a 4% transaction fee, no less than $10. Minimum payments are applied to lowest APR balances first and additional payments are applied to highest APR balances first.) Get a $50 cash rewards bonus after you make at least $100 in purchases within 60 days of account opening§

[-] 1 points by LOVEPEACE (199) 8 years ago

People. JUST END THE WARS! Why are you fighting?

END WAR. Freedom and PEACE will come of it! You cannot be afraid of FREEDOM.

Your ruthless, murderous masters have you believing that if you the people have freedom you will start killing each other in the streets?! HELLO!! WORLD'S LARGEST MILITARY! 5 ACTIVE WARS RIGHT NOW! WWIII ON THE HORIZON! The US is FULL of GOOD NORMAL PEOPLE. Calling themselves ALL kinds of things. But focus on the GOOD. Do not be afraid of your neighbor! He is not a terrorist despite what our Masters programming. WE ARE ALL GOOD PEOPLE! Exercise your moral authority by demanding an end to ALL WAR! Freedom is FREEDOM. It is not scary. Good people want freedom. Good people want an end to all wars. If we are all inherently evil then you should love your Masters control. He is keeping you safe from yourself. But if you KNOW we are all inherently good then demand Peace and Freedom now. Knowing that our strength is in our goodness. Not our ability to violently dominate each other.

[-] 1 points by Skillip (19) 8 years ago

Denise Kucinich on ending the fed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IdPyYRnOY0

[-] 1 points by publicus1 (125) 8 years ago

Resist them! Elect 870 delegates (one man and one woman from each of the 435 congressional districts) to a National General Assembly to meet on July 4, 2012. Here is how:

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 1 points by ThinMan2 (46) 8 years ago

Or maybe that's what the tea party wants you to think

[-] 1 points by Meeky (186) from Los Angeles, CA 8 years ago

Eh, what's the worst they could do?

All they can do is start a stupid game of hide and seek.

[-] 1 points by PierpontLuv (38) 8 years ago

nice democracy. you people are so enlightened

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

The BIPARTISAN BILL by Alan Grayson and Ron Paul which was diluted by Bernie Sanders....

HERE are the results!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-pav_yPFkI&feature=channel_video_title I dare you. FBI?

[-] 1 points by sundog (14) from Essex Fells, NJ 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

Welcome to the site Mr. Obama

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 8 years ago

That's actually a hopeful sign.

I'd rather be infiltrated than ignored and rejected by people with another philosophy, since we're all in this together against the robbers on Wall Street.

Just my opinion.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 8 years ago

Both parties are illegitimate. What we need is a comprehensive strategy, and related candidate, that implements all our demands at the same time, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – such as myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.

[-] 2 points by capitalist (15) 8 years ago

nah. he's just an asshole

[-] 1 points by Lork (285) 8 years ago

OWS was infiltrated waaay before this is not news. Take for example how most people here supported the Flat Tax Scam. Ha!

For more explanation

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-flat-tax-is-unfair/

Here is my response -

"If the Flat Tax rate were ever instituted it would be horrid. It would actually lead to LOWER taxes on the rich!

Example Country -

Suppose the Flat Tax did get implemented. Everybody pays 35% of their income. With the addition of living expenses, sales taxes, etc. and the stagnant or declining wages of the poor and middle class, the new 35% flat tax takes their toll on the middle class and the poor get shafted worse. The rich - untouched.

So the middle and poor class demand lower taxes. So taxes go down to 10%. Now the government LOSES money because -gasp- the rich are paying only 10% of their income! With the revenue from taxes lost, the country is forced to turn to "austerity" and the government has no money to operate their regulatory agencies and provide basic social services that conservatives love to take for granted. The government is "starved" and the condom breaks.

So it's either

A. Kill the middle class and make it just Rich and Poor.

or

B. Kill the government and turn into a full blown corporatocracy of Rich and Poor.

Either way - the rich win. The government is a condom (albeit a thin and permeable at times condom) to protect the middle and poor classes in -some- way. So they hate the government because the rich are the STD. The middle class -can- be used, but you take too much from the middle and the middle will scream to the government. Plus - damn those dirty social climbers! How dare they!? So the rich don't necessarily hate the middle class but they hate the "audacity" that the middle even exists. And the poor? Well not even the middle class gives a shit about the poor what with their "big dream to be rich someday!" so the poor are completely "harmless".

It's a great scam they're running here.

And btw - no it is not -spoiled- to demand higher rate of taxes from someone who makes $10 mil a month let alone a year. Especially since they are the same people who stole our jobs after buying our government for round after round after round of Rape Trade Agreements. Yeah that's right - RAPE TRADE!"

[-] 2 points by capitalist (15) 8 years ago

the rich always win. the hope is that with capitalism and democracy, the ones with good ideas , who come up with stuff people want ( goods, medicine, ideas, arts, entertainment, whatever ) , end up as the rich. wealth by virtue is not a sin. and some of us have succeeded without shitting on everyone else, thank you

[-] 0 points by Lork (285) 8 years ago

I can hardly believe that. If you were actually as honest as you seem to suggest then you would have been crushed by the greedy and short-sighted customers who buy China made crap. If you were a right to work employer your hands are not clean as you like to say it is.

And you must remember - if the people did not buy from you then you would be just another "failed business" and would be wallowing in self pity right now.

But yes you are right - the rich -do- always win. And they aren't the clean kind...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-trade-bills-pass-congress/

RIP - Bay Area electronics jobs...

RIP - US Tech Industry...

All that for the ability to sell South Koreans beef and pork thereby displacing -their- farmers...

Are we turning into the next South American pisspot or what?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Remember they get to see us up close. A cynic is best healed by an optimist who is getting things done.

[-] 0 points by TruePatriots (274) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

Ron Paul is joke. Again and again he shows his true colors to allow the rich to be rich and poor to be poor. He doesn't give a shit about the poor or the middle class.

[-] 0 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 8 years ago

Did you see that youtube? There's this youtube going around. A "wall street banker" and he starts talking to the protesters. And he gets into this exchange with a protester about how they could work out a multi billion dollar loan to finance his enterprises. LOL

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

cool... tell him to give me the loan... ;)

[-] -1 points by MJMorrow (419) 8 years ago

More disturbing than Right wingers is that Occupy Wall Street has Marxist and Socialists requesting that we reconsider Socialism, as a means of rethinking economics. The fact is that the Nazis were very successful in matters of economics and I am sure that there were Nazis supportive of including Jews and others into the party, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Nazis were mass murders and we should never give the Nazis another crack at Government. The Socialists murdered between 85 million and 100 million people, they spread slavery and totalitarianism. They promised to bring democracy to Russia and they brought only death and misery.

If you think Ron Paul is bad, wait till you get a load of Joe Stalin. We should not have men and women advocating the resurrection of a movement that spread so much evil through our World. We have a sick, but functioning Republic and we need to work within our Republic, our laws and our economic system, to restore the greatness of our country. We do not need Socialists and we never will need apologists for genocide. Give the Marxist Socialist a chance? No more than I would give the Nazis a chance.

When someone says, keep an open mind about Marxism, just remember that the Soviet Socialists, legitimate supporters of democracy, in Russia, were killed by Communists claiming they would bring democracy to Russia and that the Communists that killed them, actually pretended to be Soviet Socialist supporters of democracy. They went so far as to claim that they created a Soviet Union, when in fact they created a nightmare, just like Nazi Germany.