Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is behind this, we knew this from the beginning

Yeah, he's behind everything bad happening. Including the little men who paint the skid marks in your underwear.

How's that Summer of Recovery coming along?

 

[Liability]

Obama is behind this, we knew this from the beginning

Yeah, he's behind everything bad happening. Including the little men who paint the skid marks in your underwear.

How's that Summer of Recovery coming along?

Psst. Mr. President.

It's Autumn.

The leaves are starting to fall. Employment rates keep falling. Your poll numbers.

Yep.

It's fall.

We'll all recover when you are out of work.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Even if that's true, it still includes a lot more people than the combined membership of every union in the country.

I posted Rasmussen, Obama is in the shitter.

Perhaps we don't speak for your opinion. We certainly do, however, speak for your interests.

No you don't - you work against my interests. Your desire for free houses destroys the concept of private property and fucks under every legitimate home owner who has worked hard and paid their mortgage. You demand that the result be the same for those who scrimped and saved to pay for the house they bought and bought a house they could afford to pay for, and for those who partied it up while buying a McMansion they had no ability nor intention of paying for. You want to fuck under those who got an education and paid back student loans by handing out what we worked so hard for.

Part of the effort is in getting you to see where your interest lie.

You don't give a fuck about anyone's interests but your own. Selfish and greedy, the message of the OWS is simply "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."

 

[Uncensored2008]

OWS is also in favor of the Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a paranoid delusion.

She means the United States Constitution. Your support of the North Korean constitution isn't germane to the discussion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Progressive DO see a problem with overthrowing the Constitution, however. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

Dragon, I detailed several days ago where your demands and agenda violate the constitution, you ran rather than respond.

In other words, I already proved it. Yours is the "End the Constitution" movement.

 

[Preius]

It is my prediction that the Tea Party, and OWS (Occupy Wall Street) could come together before the 2012 election. In Wisconsin we saw moderate Republicans who were union members wiping the dust off their collective bargaining rights. These moderates were teachers, firemen, police, and other State employees. I believe there is an easy overlap between the Tea Party and OWS, and they are moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats.

If the OWS is truly the "99%," and we are hearing about groups like "Patriotic Millionaires" who want the Bush tax cuts to expire, [Go to "patriotic-millionaires-petition-obama-bush-era-tax-cuts" I am too new to post links yet] Only the truly greedy value their money more than their country. So, we have part of the 1% backing the 99%. Amazing, only in America! With the favorability rating of the U. S. Congress less than 12% I think a grass roots movement could grow. If in 2012 we cleaned house in Congress TOTALLY in both parties, all the new guys would know that CITIZENS have a gun to their head. No political ideology, just instruction to Washington to make things work now.

Let's face it other than the 1% who is going to stand up for the 1%?

 

[percysunshine]

My four year old brought me his Christmas wish list today. He wanted everything on it and said he was going to mail it to Santa Claus at the North Pole. He looked at me funny when I told him to mail it to Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Stephanie]

It is my prediction that the Tea Party, and OWS (Occupy Wall Street) could come together before the 2012 election. In Wisconsin we saw moderate Republicans who were union members wiping the dust off their collective bargaining rights. These moderates were teachers, firemen, police, and other State employees. I believe there is an easy overlap between the Tea Party and OWS, and they are moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats.

If the OWS is truly the "99%," and we are hearing about groups like "Patriotic Millionaires" who want the Bush tax cuts to expire, [Go to "patriotic-millionaires-petition-obama-bush-era-tax-cuts" I am too new to post links yet] Only the truly greedy value their money more than their country. So, we have part of the 1% backing the 99%. Amazing, only in America! With the favorability rating of the U. S. Congress less than 12% I think a grass roots movement could grow. If in 2012 we cleaned house in Congress TOTALLY in both parties, all the new guys would know that CITIZENS have a gun to their head. No political ideology, just instruction to Washington to make things work now.

Let's face it other than the 1% who is going to stand up for the 1%?

you can predict all you want. I don't SEE the Tea Party will have ANYTHING to do with this rag tag bunch of idiots. The Tea Party sees and does things a little more rationally AND WITHIN THE LAW., this bunch are just whiny agitators being paid and USED by the Unions, Marxist, Commies, Progressives and THE DEMOCRATS.

 

[EriktheRed]

My four year old brought me his Christmas wish list today. He wanted everything on it and said he was going to mail it to Santa Claus at the North Pole. He looked at me funny when I told him to mail it to Nancy Pelosi.

If you're this obsessed with political figures you hate you'd bring it into your relations with your own young kids, that's pretty sad.

 

[Dot Com]

My four year old brought me his Christmas wish list today. He wanted everything on it and said he was going to mail it to Santa Claus at the North Pole. He looked at me funny when I told him to mail it to Nancy Pelosi.

If you're this obsessed with political figures you hate you'd bring it into your relations with your own young kids, that's pretty sad.

That is pretty sad to talk politics to a 4 yr old

 

[Intense]

My four year old brought me his Christmas wish list today. He wanted everything on it and said he was going to mail it to Santa Claus at the North Pole. He looked at me funny when I told him to mail it to Nancy Pelosi.

If you're this obsessed with political figures you hate you'd bring it into your relations with your own young kids, that's pretty sad.

That is pretty sad to talk politics to a 4 yr old

Yes. I feel the same way about the State Indoctrinating them.

 

[mudwhistle]

99 percent of Americans continue to struggle daily since the recession began while the richest 1 percent of the country prospers.

I'm not in the richest 1% and I have done just fine the past 5 years.

So you see OWS does not never has and never will represent 99% it's more like 9%

My situation was looking up but took a dramatic downturn 2 1/2 years ago. We planned on selling some investment property in 5 years but now we can't. The value of property went into the shitter and people want you to give it to them. So I have to wait until the economy turns around, which most likely won't happen for several years....longer if Obama is re-elected.

 

[Skull Pilot]

OWS is also in favor of the Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a paranoid delusion.

LIAR.
Progressives see no problem with lying if it can FURTHER their agenda.

says the conservative sheeple. ZZZzzz

Those slackers in OWS are the sheep.

Most of them can't even articulate why they are there. They are sheep just waiting to be led.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, I have a cow when folks promote unconstitutional ideals, as does the OWS. It's just the way I roll.

It's not an unconstitutional idea. I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding this; you're intelligent enough to get it.

"To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support" -- the "direct democracy" that's being talked about here is OBVIOUSLY being engaged in by those "communities that take action and form groups." And there is nothing unconstitutional about that.

As I said above, we have "direct democracy" here in California, in that we have a process whereby the voters can directly pass laws, without going through the legislature. Does that threaten the U.S. Constitution? If not, why would you think a non-governmental protest group or action group organizing itself according to principles of direct democracy would threaten the Constitution?

The only way that the words "direct democracy" could ever be constituted as a threat to the Constitution is if they occurred in a sentence something like this: "We propose that the current government of the United States be overthrown and replaced with a direct democracy." If you can find OWS saying something like that, you'll have grounds for concern. Until then, you're just being paranoid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OWS = Lunatic fringe

 

[Dragon]

I posted Rasmussen, Obama is in the shitter.

Obama is doing better than any of his opponents with the possible exception of Romney, and anyway Rasmussen only becomes reliable a couple of weeks before the election; before that he deliberately skews polls to the right.

In any case, your original statement wasn't "Obama's approval ratings are low," it was "Obama isn't supported by anyone except unions." Even Rasmussen's poll proves that's not true, since there aren't enough union members to make up 40+% of the population.

No you don't - you work against my interests.

That's true if you're a big bankster or make over a million dollars a year. Otherwise, it's not true. You may think it is, but if so, you have been deceived.

 

[Oldstyle]

LIAR.
Progressives see no problem with lying if it can FURTHER their agenda.

says the conservative sheeple. ZZZzzz

Those slackers in OWS are the sheep.

Most of them can't even articulate why they are there. They are sheep just waiting to be led.

They actually "could" articulate it, Skull but it would be an embarrassing admission. They're there for the party. Free food, lots of drugs, internet hookup...what more could a twenty something unemployed slacker possibly desire?

 

[Si modo]

Yes, I have a cow when folks promote unconstitutional ideals, as does the OWS. It's just the way I roll.

It's not an unconstitutional idea. I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding this; you're intelligent enough to get it.

"To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support" -- the "direct democracy" that's being talked about here is OBVIOUSLY being engaged in by those "communities that take action and form groups." And there is nothing unconstitutional about that.

As I said above, we have "direct democracy" here in California, in that we have a process whereby the voters can directly pass laws, without going through the legislature. Does that threaten the U.S. Constitution? If not, why would you think a non-governmental protest group or action group organizing itself according to principles of direct democracy would threaten the Constitution?

The only way that the words "direct democracy" could ever be constituted as a threat to the Constitution is if they occurred in a sentence something like this: "We propose that the current government of the United States be overthrown and replaced with a direct democracy." If you can find OWS saying something like that, you'll have grounds for concern. Until then, you're just being paranoid.

Of course states can adopt legislative processes that are taken from direct democracies, however that does not make a state a direct democracy. So, no, CA is not a direct democracy.

Secondly, I'll accept your claim that the quoted is supposed to apply to the protestors.

However, in the second paragraph, they explicitly state that they are striving for a true democracy: "... and that no true democracy is attainable. ...." The Constitution does not describe a true democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Period.

Finally, the complaints indicate a clear desire to unlawfully [search and] seize. Nope, that is also unconstitutional.

And, I'm not even considering the other peripheral information about this group and those who back it (and pay for it).

If the OWS supports smaller and more efficient government, individual liberties and freedoms, less government intrusion, less authoritarian desires, more personal accountability, then I would be with them. It's clear they don't.

And, you have to admit that the fact that the OWS vehemently guards and denies leaks of their wishes and has yet to be definitive about much of anything raises the needle on the stink-o-meter.

That's why I say they need to get back into that weed-filled room and come up with something of substance that doesn't look so unconstitutional on its face. If they think attracting the TP is desirable, that is. Unfortunately for the OWS, the TP has a good nose for political bullshit.

The OWS so far has epitomized political bullshit - leak, deny, leak, deny, make amorphous statements, and spin.

Nope, can't pass the stink-o-meter so far, at least with the TP.

So, liberate yourselves and tell all of us what you really want and how you really want to do it. I look forward to it. No need to stress any longer about the next spin; your slip is already showing.

 

[Dragon]

Of course states can adopt legislative processes that are taken from direct democracies, however that does not make a state a direct democracy. So, no, CA is not a direct democracy.

If California were to abolish its legislature and do everything by initiative, would that threaten the U.S. Constitution?

However, in the second paragraph, they explicitly state that they are striving for a true democracy: "... and that no true democracy is attainable. ...." The Constitution does not describe a true democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Period.

The Constitution doesn't describe a true democracy, but it has become more and more democratic over the years. Initially, only the House was directly elected, and only white male property owners could vote. Democracy is one of the values that Americans cherish, and to go from people saying that they wish to promote the attainment of "true democracy" to saying they want to overthrow the Constitution is, as I said above, paranoid.

Finally, the complaints indicate a clear desire to unlawfully [search and] seize.

Nonsense. The government has engaged in income redistributive measures many times in the past (in both directions), and they do not violagte the Fourth Amendment. Again, you're being paranoid.

And, I'm not even considering the other peripheral information about this group and those who back it (and pay for it).

Good, then I don't have to accuse you of being an irrational conspiracy-theorist as well as paranoid.

If the OWS supports smaller and more efficient government, individual liberties and freedoms, less government intrusion, less authoritarian desires, more personal accountability, then I would be with them. It's clear they don't.

Fine, in the code-speak sense that I know you are using those phrases. You are saying that this is a left-wing movement and not a right-wing one. That is true. But there is a difference between "I don't support this movement," and "this movement threatens to overthrow the Constitution." The first is a statement I would expect from you. The second is balderdash.

And, you have to admit that the fact that the OWS vehemently guards and denies leaks of their wishes and has yet to be definitive about much of anything raises the needle on the stink-o-meter.

No, I don't have to admit that. First of all, there have been no "leaks." Are you perhaps referring to the list of "demands" that were circulated all over the place SOLELY by right-wing opponents of OWS? If so, that was not a "leak," that was one person's opinion posted on an open forum. (That the forum was open is evidence that the movement supports freedom of speech. This is another basic American value. You may perhaps be familiar with the concept.)

The movement has been definitive about quite a few things. There is a manifesto of the movement that lists grievances most participants in it agree with. You've probably seen it. That is the reason why the movement even exists. That it has not come out with a full-fledged legislative program is not a reasonable complaint; this is not a political party, nor is it a fascist movement organized from the top down.

That's why I say they need to get back into that weed-filled room and come up with something of substance that doesn't look so unconstitutional on its face. If they think attracting the TP is desirable, that is. Unfortunately for the OWS, the TP has a good nose for political bullshit.

OWS is already attracting TP members. Attracting a majority of the TP is probably not possible nor desirable. The insurgency on the left, most of which is not visible to anyone who isn't a participant in the left-wing Internet scene, is several times the size of the TP anyway -- it doesn't really need the TP, although anyone in agreement with the movement's basic principles (I mean its real principles, not your own paranoid demonized version) is certainly welcome.

By the way, you and others here might be interested in an article I recently published on OWS, called "Occupy Wall Street Is a Mushroom." You can find it here: Occupy Wall Street is a Mushroom | Socyberty

 

[Si modo]

Of course states can adopt legislative processes that are taken from direct democracies, however that does not make a state a direct democracy. So, no, CA is not a direct democracy.

If California were to abolish its legislature and do everything by initiative, would that threaten the U.S. Constitution? ....

You and I both know that the US Constitution is the highest law in the USA.

However, in the second paragraph, they explicitly state that they are striving for a true democracy: "... and that no true democracy is attainable. ...." The Constitution does not describe a true democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Period.

The Constitution doesn't describe a true democracy, but it has become more and more democratic over the years. Initially, only the House was directly elected, and only white male property owners could vote. Democracy is one of the values that Americans cherish, and to go from people saying that they wish to promote the attainment of "true democracy" to saying they want to overthrow the Constitution is, as I said above, paranoid.

....

Not paranoid at all. I know, and history supports it, that pure/true democracies have a bad record of success. They facilitate the oppression of minorities. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to recognize this fact, thus our constitutional republic.

.... Nonsense. The government has engaged in income redistributive measures many times in the past (in both directions), and they do not violagte the Fourth Amendment. Again, you're being paranoid.
....

When the government allows mobs to fraudulently obtain others' property and forces the owners to surrender their property to the thieves, it sure as hell does.

If the OWS supports smaller and more efficient government, individual liberties and freedoms, less government intrusion, less authoritarian desires, more personal accountability, then I would be with them. It's clear they don't.

Fine, in the code-speak sense that I know you are using those phrases. You are saying that this is a left-wing movement and not a right-wing one. That is true. But there is a difference between "I don't support this movement," and "this movement threatens to overthrow the Constitution." The first is a statement I would expect from you. The second is balderdash.

YOU cannot say with any certainty that the amorphous and ever-moving and ever-shifting 'views' of the OWS add up to much of anything. I can tell you what my impression is of them, as can you. But, the OWS has no substance as of yet. At all.

I, however, CAN say that the TP stands for smaller and efficient government, less government intrusion, less authoritarian government, more personal accountability, protection of individual liberties and freedoms because those views have been explicitly and repeatedly stated at the protests.

I like standing for something concrete. I can't stand for a moving target because neither I nor you really do know what it is. And, it's a moving target by design. As I said, that epitomizes political bullshit.

.... By the way, you and others here might be interested in an article I recently published on OWS, called "Occupy Wall Street Is a Mushroom." You can find it here: Occupy Wall Street is a Mushroom | Socyberty

Thank you. I will look at it.