Forum Post: Just another Mom "Gunned Down" by Her Two-Year-Old son with no Good Guy with a Gun to Protect her!
Posted 9 years ago on Dec. 31, 2014, 10:46 a.m. EST by WSmith
(2698)
from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Guns Don't Kill People, TODDLERS Do!
Just another Mom "GUNNED DOWN" by Her Two-Year-Old son with no Good Guy with a Gun to Protect her!
Frontline: Gunned Down: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
The inside story of how an Idaho toddler shot his mom at Wal-Mart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/
Idaho toddler shoots and kills his mother inside Walmart
County sheriff said the 29-year-old woman, named as Veronica Rutledge, had a concealed weapons permit http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/30/idaho-toddler-shoots-kills-mother-walmart
And just name ONE other Right or Privilege or Product that does not get pulled or postponed or cancelled when it DISRUPTS, THREATS, or KILLS People like guns do?? Name ONE? Just ONE?
Oh lord here we go...
Nothing better than those that vote for war criminals and then complain about guns.
Oh reality here we go...
Nothing better than those who pose as disgruntled liberals in order to give conservatives an edge on voting day.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
By the way, mom screwed up the moment she put a loaded gun within easy access of a child. Now she is dead and her two year old son is scarred forever. If the surviving parent isn't damn careful, that son will grow up to be yet another heavily armed gun fanatic with a bloody score to settle on society.
Another one that endorses war criminals chiming in.
The shit the people you vote for do, overseas, on a daily basis, makes this look like a walk in the park.
But its outta sight outta mind for the typical dumb American voter.
Enjoy your comfort.
If you're against war, this list might interest you. All of the following members of Congress voted AGAINST the Iraq war.
UNITED STATES SENATE
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) Barbara Boxer (D-California) Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island) Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey) Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota) Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) Bob Graham (D-Florida) Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont) Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) Carl Levin (D-Michigan) Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) Patty Murray (D-Washington) Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) Xavier Becerra (D-California) Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office) Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania) Corinne Brown (D-Florida) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Lois Capps (D-California) Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) Julia Carson (D-Indiana) William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri) Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office) James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office) John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office) Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) Susan Davis (D-California) Danny Davis (D-Illinois) Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) John Dingell (D-Michigan) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee) Anna Eshoo (D-California) Lane Evans (D-Illinois) Sam Farr (D-California) Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania) Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) Alice Hastings (D-Florida) Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office) Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas) Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) Mike Honda (D-California) Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)
Then again TurboPoser, we both know it's not about war with you. It's about ripping on Democrats in particular. It's about finding any excuse or opportunity to do so while pretending to be a disgruntled liberal. The idea is to discourage non-conservative voters thereby giving conservatives an edge.
So what's your spin this time? How can you sit there and pretend that no difference exists between the major political parties when the list above proves otherwise?
A one. A two. A one, two three.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
And like Ive said, they all voted to fund it though, and they all voted for Afghanistan, and they've all rolled over like a bunch of (insert expletive) in regards to:
Pakistan Yemen Syria Iraq - YES AGAIN. LETS SEE THE VOTE ON THIS LATEST ATTACK?
Lybia- There's another Bush-like beauty. Sudan Pakistan
Did I forget any?
So if you feel all rosy like the useful idtiot you are on one of their 8 wars, then thanks for playing your role.
And yes, it is about war. Its just too bad its not with you. Another chickenhawk opens its mouth.
This is me feeding you stats and reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8wAXNLmL1Q
And like I've said, 9/11 was far too significant to pass off as just another lame excuse for war. Iraq was a different story. There has been nothing to compare to Iraq since then. Nothing on the scale, cost, or blundering idiocy of the Iraq war. Not even close.
This is what makes the list above so damn relevant. Democrats have always been less prone to war, less prone to juggernaut military expenditures and less prone to support the military industrial complex. If you have the nerve to sit there and deny it, then post a full voter list within a particular context like I did.
No?
That's what I thought.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
Less prone?
Personally, I think they are both so bad its not even worth debating, to hell with em all.
But FYI check out Dems and the Vietnam War, Dems and Korea and then of course the grand dad of them all, Dems and nuking two cities.
Of course we could go even further back, but then we get into the KKK stuff and all that, better to forget about that time for the party.
Anyone with that shit on their record gets a big FUCK YOU in my world.
You D/R supporters seem to get more loyal the more your numbers shrink. Is that typical with humans?
don't forget the GOP & the birchers !! they ALL fucked !!!
back to center or back to extremes ... it's all the same !!!
only the Independents have Integrity !!!
I put them all in one group.
The loyalists.
we need an Integrity Jubilee !!
aka the Groupies !!!
Ha, now that is something I like
Truth ... from the VietNam movement .... media didn't like that ...and tried to change the meaning ... the only difference now... is the internet !!
Produce a voter list and we'll do the math to see which party is more prone to war.
Produce a list.
Produce a list.
Produce a list.
Produce a list.
Produce a list.
Update: I looked it up myself. Wayne Morse and Earnest Gruening were the only two congressman to vote against the Vietnam war. Both Democrats.
Another update: The 1991 Gulf War was sponsored and supported primarily and overwhelmingly by Republicans. Opposed primarily and overwhelmingly by Democrats.
Yet another update: Only one member of Congress voted against invading Afghanistan. That member was Barbara Jean Lee. That's right. Another Democrat.
You're losin bad turbo. However, the offer remains on the table. Produce your voter list and we'll do the math to see which party is more prone to war.
No? That's what I thought.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
Wow, two out of 535 gets you to buy in, hook line and sinker.
See how easy that is folks? Even when that carrot is just a tiny bit left, the rest has been chewed off by the machine, its just a little bit there, the useful idiots will keep chasing it.
Here is my list based off of your stats.
533 voted for Vietnam- ALL THE SAME
534 voted for Afghanistan- ALL THE SAME
(These percentages are 99% in favor. How ironic. Talk about solidarity!!)
And they all stand around like weaklings as the other 7 wars we are in continue to rage on, no votes needed at this point for the gutless punks.
You are blinded by your loyalty.
Are you a gutless punk too?
well done turbo - nader has four issues that unite the grassroots right and left - all are avoided by the two main capitalist parties. they are 1. the empire - 1000 bases around the world 2. out sourcing of jobs 3. the bail out of mainstreet not wall street and 4. the attack on civil liberties. it is doubtful that any of these issues will be discussed in the presidential debates. i have tried to discuss this with smc but as you might guess he cannot deal. seems to me then that the only rational course of action is for you to continue your beatdowns!
Nader huh? So he's one of the good guys? Well, I have some bad news for you.
Nader sees it my way. To be more specific, he believes that one major party in particular is clearly more evil than the other:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ralph-nader-gop-congress-112308.html
Now dance.
A one. A two. A one, two three.
Come on now. Most of us here agree that the GOP is the greater evil. We simply think that the dems are too evil to vote for - in most cases. We had hoped that Obama would give us "change we could believe in." Instead we got..... Well you know what we got and what the real ows movement thinks about that change. So why the obvious nonsense with the straw man etc? Do you think anyone is paying attention to you. Other than marking you down. You seem to be a bit too aware of that. No?
In the name of gun insanity in this country now, who the fuck cares if turbocharger and flip are really SSS &/or BW? Who cares? Yes, it might be interesting if they weren't trolling a self-castrated site that MS and Alt -Media has dismissed, to be kind, and is more or less irrelevant. But they're here trolling on OWS nevertheless. OK, the RWers troll every goddamn thing, they are propagandists. They learned all their tactics from Nazi Germany's Third Reich. I have asked this for decades: Does any LWer troll RW sites? The answer is always NO. But no harm, no foul.
Guns & Ammo should be banned until they devise a way to own them which does not endanger Mothers, CongressWomen, and Policemen. This is a no brainer, innocent people getting KILLED negates any/all dangerous hobbies!!! This falls into the category of DUH FACTOR! And let's make it happen!!
I'd be thrilled with mandatory background checks (no exceptions), mandatory registrations, assault weapon and accessory bans and personal arsenal limits.
Of course, any attempt by the government to enforce any of it would immediately provoke more gun fanatics all across the country. Hundreds would die. An outright ban on guns and ammo would cause a civil war.
Gun fanatics are EXTREMELY sensitive and EXTREMELY dangerous.
Twinkle twinkle
Yes, obviouslyn put limits on ammo, guns, like speed limits, insurance mandatory,license with fees commensurate to risk.
Freedom isn't a free for all
Where is the rationality In usa
Now - no doubt ( with your comment ) - you should be expecting a lot of BS from the Ayn Randians who seem to like to infest this site.
Fuck THEM!!!
Cancerous, pestilential, scourge!
Give them gun clubs and parks where the guns don't leave.
Rewards for public guns.
End this insanity NOW!!!
They feign inability to comprehend, when they have nothing. Who does that work for?
should i do the same stupid shit and copy my response to your same comment - think of something else to say or don't say anything
Awe, a reply tab. No guns!
How is it you have zero info on your home base? When you've been trolling here almost from the start of this site? Hmmm?
So pro-Nader? Do you know that he was hated by the RW, which he also hated?
So anti-two Parties? Do you promote thirds and ways to elect them? Haven't seen it from you, SSS or BW. Sorry!
So anti-military actions? Do you vote against RepubliCons?? They are the harbingers of military solutions.
You get confused when Dems are in power and can't stop 200+ years of Military Industrial Complex entrenchment, in just one year.
You're stupid! So what? Join the 3/4s who forfeited their hard-won rights to fucking Vote! I think you're confused, dishonest, and brainwashed, also.
You shouldn't have guns, and neither should the dumbshits who can't handle them properly.
are you off your meds or are you always this disoriented and confused. ok, so you like the dems and think they are our salvation. i do not and history shows very little to back up your argument. look back through it - do you see the dems ever coming up with a policy of peace. nope just a continuation of the same policy of the one business party with two wings - world domination. here at ows we need to change that - go play in the middle of the mainstream if you want to think like that. as for my home base?? what does that have to do with anything?
Spare us your insipid and obvious diversionary tactics.
Of course Dems come up with policies of peace, but are you completely unaware of a Benghazi RepubliCon opposition? Or just a big orgasmic fan of it!?
You can't, just can't, see the MASSIVE Con obstruction and blackmail, exacerbated by a blatantly 1%-owned & GOP-biased MSM, not to mention Fox Lies??
I just love, LOVE IT, when obvious RW insurgents claim ownership of Occupy Wall Street!!!
This is how 3/4 of our electorate GOT PLAYED!!!
this is pretty nonsensical no. "Of course Dems come up with policies of peace, but are you completely unaware of a Benghazi RepubliCon opposition? Or just a big orgasmic fan of it!?" - you claim the dems "come up with policies of peace" - then you point out one of the (many) disgusting attacks on another country (libya in case you weren't sure) by your peaceful dems. are you that stupid - sure you point out the gop right wing nut job attack on that policy but seem to miss the big picture - the destruction of another country by your noble peace prize winning president! wow - why am i surprised?
This is funny, you will like it.
So my girlfriend is up in DC working on a project, staying with her Aunt and Uncle. Needless to say, they are big Fox news honks.
She's been stuck watching this nonstop barrage of stupidity for a while, and she finally asked them "Is this channel like doing a special on Islamic militants?"
I laughed when she told me that. I was like, nope, they been going nuts on the fear mongering since 911 and havent looked back since.
Poor girl, I'd go nuts in a house like that. Her parents on the other hand, are the type with MSNBC on all the time. Equally annoying, but in a different manner.
MURICA!!! FUCK YA!!!
Apparently sense is incomprehensible to you. I suspect, deliberately: Hello, people, flip is another infiltrator, poser, agent provocateur, RIGHTY!!! Just ask: Do you have a better solution? And the answer is always "Dems are the problem." Never the former political party that has devolved into a religious cult whose Charlie Manson is the 1%: RepubliCONS! WE are supposed to believe Both Parties are the Same! In IDIOCRASY!!!
Damn Turbo! Another bruttal Beatdown of the paid political shills here.
You have been bitchslapping the hell out of these war criminal cheerleaders.
Slapping the corrupt is the my favorite hobby haha.
If you're against war, this list might interest you. All of the following members of Congress voted AGAINST the Iraq war.
UNITED STATES SENATE
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) Barbara Boxer (D-California) Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island) Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey) Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota) Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) Bob Graham (D-Florida) Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont) Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) Carl Levin (D-Michigan) Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) Patty Murray (D-Washington) Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) Xavier Becerra (D-California) Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office) Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania) Corinne Brown (D-Florida) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Lois Capps (D-California) Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) Julia Carson (D-Indiana) William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri) Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office) James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office) John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office) Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) Susan Davis (D-California) Danny Davis (D-Illinois) Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) John Dingell (D-Michigan) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee) Anna Eshoo (D-California) Lane Evans (D-Illinois) Sam Farr (D-California) Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania) Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) Alice Hastings (D-Florida) Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office) Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas) Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) Mike Honda (D-California) Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)
Then again TurboPoser, we both know it's not about war with you. It's about ripping on Democrats in particular. It's about finding any excuse or opportunity to do so while pretending to be a disgruntled liberal. The idea is to discourage non-conservative voters thereby giving conservatives an edge.
So what's your spin this time? How can you sit there and pretend that no difference exists between the major political parties when the list above proves otherwise?
A one. A two. A one, two three.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
Theres no spin on that. You found a needle of good in the haystack of corruption.
Congrats.
Now go ahead and endorse the entire haystack like a useful idiot.
PS- still waiting for that vote on Obama's war on Iraq. Unless you are the "hate us for our freedum" type and think unilateral attacks are ok, as long as its not here.
If you consider the Iraq war a 'needle', there is something seriously wrong with you. It's only the 2nd greatest military blunder in American history.
The scope of it is large, yes. Keep in mind they all voted to fund it afterwards. Our politicians would refer that as "funding terrorist operations" if the shoe was on the other foot.
And like I previously stated, their silence since taking power in DC shows how much that vote was simply a pr spectacle, meant to pander to the media believers like yourself, keep you believing.
I mean, who votes against a war and then votes to fund it with our money afterwards? And then sits by silently as multiple other wars break out, and voting to fund all of them too?
Only in fiction do these things make rational sense when attempting to figure out people's motives.
I find it interesting that that lone vote gets you to endorse all of the other wars, deaths, murders, rapes and other tragedies that happen during war, along with the direct funding of them all with your very money that you have worked hard for.
Believe it or not, I am not your enemy.
There was a context involved with the ongoing funding. There was no chance to end the Iraq war at that time. Every expert worth their weight in crap agreed that a sudden pullout would be disasterous. Therefore, aside from the MIC corruption involved with every military effort and expendature, the votes to fund were votes to keep our troops supplied.
Going in with a stupid plan has been disastrous.
what has happen by staying in is disastrous
Because clearly 12 years of ongoing war isn't disastrous, right?
Once again all it takes is some CIA sponsored press releases put out via Reuters and the AP, and the minions of the general public hear it and gobble it up.
Clapping like seals as their government wrecks everything it touches.
Where's the good guy shooting the toddler, LORD??
Unicorn chasers and both-samers might fall for that insipid shit, BUT NO ONE WITH A BRAIN even reads your comments. Luckily, I have sacrificed my brain to deal with you fools. So go ahead, guns are obsolete!
BRAIN not BRIAN, and ahead is one word.
Stop sacrificing your brain, it is destroying your ability to debate.
You say guns are obsolete, yet endorse the police state and perpetual war every chance you get. Seems to me something is not lining up with your beliefs and then your actions?
Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA FRONTLINE investigates the NRA's political evolution and influence, and how it has consistently succeeded in defeating new gun control legislation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
FRONTLINE Answers Your Questions About the NRA
January 6, 2015, 1:11 pm ET by Patrice Taddonio
In recent years, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has dominated gun politics in America.
But it wasn’t always that way.
In Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA, premiering on air and online tonight, FRONTLINE reveals how the NRA reinvented itself from a group of gun enthusiasts and sportsmen with minimal political focus, to a powerful lobbying force that has consistently succeeded in defeating new gun control legislation.
For more #AskFRONTLINE videos, subscribe to FRONTLINE on YouTube.
In the run-up to tonight’s premiere, we asked you for your questions about the NRA.
Filmmaker Michael Kirk responded in the videos below:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/gunned-down/frontline-answers-your-questions-about-the-nra/
I applaud Frontline and PBS for this tiny bit of public truth about the 9000 LB Gun Insanity in the room!
"Gunned Down" can be seen on line and will repeat on a PBS station later in the week.
Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA FRONTLINE investigates the NRA's political evolution and influence, and how it has consistently succeeded in defeating new gun control legislation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
So you support the militarized "police state," and their lack of accountability while simultaneously wanting us to vote for war mongers? Don't you think your line of thinking is a bit screwy?
So you support the GOP why do you think they will be better? If it weren't for fools like you there would never have been an Iraq War there wouldn't have been an attack in France yesterday, if it weren't for fools like you we could fix this shit.
You mean, if we getta Democrat in the White House, things will be different??
here is something your friends the GOP are looking to do with the healthcare it will cut about a million from employers paid healthcare and move them to the government subsidized plan costing about 53 billion dollars a year and millions more may lose hours at work so the employer won't have to buy insurance for them now to someone like myself with my head out of my ass and all i can see that is a difference, but i suppose for folks like you it may be tough to see what with your head up your ass and all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/08/house-republicans-are-about-to-pass-a-really-bad-idea-re-obamacare/
Now, who are you, really?
But, YES! in a free media world, things would be different, because the people would be outraged by GOP and CU obstruction, blackmail, and usurpation of our government!!! But we don't, so 1%-Cons get away with sabotage!
You seriously have NOT noticed it?
They won't be as bad as they will if we end up with a conservative in the White House.
we already have a conservative in the white house - and hillary will be even more so what do you think - or do you just repeat mindlessly without thinking?
Amazing. All seven of the current top rated comments here on OWS were posted for no reason whatsoever but to complain about those of us who still believe in voting.
Meanwhile, those of us who do believe in voting continue to get our comments marked down regardless of the view. What a pathetic and infested excuse this site has become for legitimate protest. It's all about the 'non vote' and user ratings thanks to a few users who post and rate using multiple IDs.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
i think once again you have it wrong. all the comments do not complain about voting but about voting for a war mongering, wall street sycophant, type democrat. give it a rest - your taken over post is nonsense - look up ows on wiki and maybe you will get why this happens to you
No poser. Your pattern is too distinct to pass for anything but a strategy to give conservatives an edge. The markdown campaign which you have taken part in is also too distinct to pass for anything but a strategy to intmidate me and prevent others from taking me entries seriously.
By the way, I have yet another prediction to make. The majority of 'top rated' comments from now until November of 2016 will be those posted to discourage non-conservative voters UNLESS they support a non-conservative with no chance of winning like Elizabeth Warren.
I stand by my prediction made several weeks ago. The one you thought was way off.
It WILL come down to Clinton and Romney.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
i am predicting that the sun will come up tomorrow
Nice prediction flip. I think you're going to be "dead on balls accurate" with that one.
Here's my 2015 predictions:
There will be a large tornado in the midwest.
The state of California will experience an earthquake.
Amazingly, idiots in 2015 will still support the same corrupt duopoly, left/right wing Uniparty that got us into this mess.
Amazingly, idiots in 2015 will boast about voting for evil and try to get smart people to follow their convoluted reasoning.
Amazingly, an establishment bootlicking idiot will come on this forum and call true occupiers "posers". This same idiot will not comprehend that occupy was created to oppose the establishment he advocates for.
Amazingly, an idiot will condemn celebrities who advocate for the 99%, because these celebrities are rich. Yet this same idiot will campaign for far richer politicians who support and legislate as corrupt proxies for MegaRich sociopathic Overlords.
No idiot. I can't name a politician or even a candidate at the Federal level that I like. But I do intend to vote for the lesser evil.
By the way, I challenge you to give me a straight answer so I can throw it in your face every time you repeat that idiotic crap over the next 21 months.
Do you understand the concept of voting for a lesser evil in order to keep the greater evil out of office?
Please include a 'yes' or 'no' somewhere in your elusive answer.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
Amazing! How do you do it?
I agree, if someone likes "war mongering, wall street sycophant, type democrat[s]" as SMC does, they should not be surprised if they feel persecuted on an Occupy forum.
No idiot. I can't name a politician or even a candidate at the Federal level that I like. But I do intend to vote for the lesser evil.
By the way, I challenge you to give me a straight answer so I can throw it in your face every time you repeat that idiotic crap over the next 21 months.
Do you understand the concept of voting for a lesser evil in order to keep the greater evil out of office?
Please give a 'yes' or 'no' somewhere in your elusive answer.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
I understand it perfectly well, its not a hard concept to grasp. Choose one pile of shit because its not quite as bad as the other.
Basically just a pathetic way to govern yourself, but hey, you are hardly alone.
Elites have been using it for a very long time, the majority of the people are just too dumb or lazy to do anything else.
Which is why we all say a THANK GOD FOR OWS
I'm all for protest. But nothing we've done has reduced the corrupt influence of big money on political candidates. You can cry 'duopoly' from here to eternity. The fact remains that once a politician makes the radar, the corrupt influence makes it's way in. So unless you know of a supernatural force working for US, this is the way it will be every single time.
A choice between greater and lesser evil.
Then the entire system needs to go.
As long as there are people to run the system and the concept of extreme personal wealth to intoxicate them, the system will be subject to corruption.
Truth - But - not just "the" system - ANY system.
So these idiots who charge around saying throw the system out and replace it - have no idea what the fuck they are talking about - AS - they are just advocating to be corrupt in a replacement system.
YO idiots - you will not get rid of crime and corruption just by changing systems.
1st things 1st - you can not opt out and walk away and expect things to just magically get better. That is just insane!!!
Sure plenty know my wife has an id. As to proven into a corner - well you may be observant (highly debatable by the way) but you could use help with the language. You do realize that putting up that stupid link hundreds of times does not make it better or more effective. I have to go now. Oh wait I should mark down your posts before I go.
Where have you admitted having (at least) two IDs in your household? Show me the page. I've already got a bunch saved so careful with those edits. I may end up catching you red handed again.
sure thing - that is just what i wanted to do with my day. search old ows posts to prove to some small minded idiot (sorry that is redundant but accurate) that i have claimed my wife has an id here. boy you are dumber than i thought. i just noticed how few points you have - wonder why - oh yes a few "posers" here are after you. can you think of another possibility? can you predict how many you will have next month?
Damn right it's you posers. I lost another 50 points just within the last 24 hours. That's not a sign of legitimate disagreement. That's evidence of a mark down campaign. In fact, my OWS stalkers have even been hitting the archives marking down my older comments. Your two IDs (at least) are certainly involved.
I wrote "theism like racism is used to dehumanize people" under this video
It does not show when I am logged out
I wrote 3900+ US airstrikes since august beneath this video on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzEROSj11Q&t=185
can you see my comment ?
Now how would you know who is marking you down. Oh I forgot. You have the vision! And you know nothing of legitimate disagreement
Right. Seems to me that he is being treated very well here. He is the more aggressive one and the one who is not capable of rational discourse. He would not be able to last more than a few minutes in the park
I was on the cause long before either of you pretended to be.
Http://OprahAngelinaBradBonoBill.Blogspot.com
really? and how would you know what i have been doing for the last 40 years? oh, i forgot - you have "the vision" - silly rabbit
This is very simple.
Post a link.
No?
That's what I thought.
Next.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
It would be safe to say; 'The reason that Occupy resonated with so many people, and why other altruistic groups grew from it was because, people knew that systemic change was impossible working within what has become a corrupt system.' That does not apply to political hacks, of course.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
The question of the day is; 'Who is the real "poser" here?'
Is it the person who thinks that both parties have sold us down the drain, and refuses to vote for a "war monger?"
OR is it the person who goes around here accusing everyone of being a "poser" who refuses to vote for a Democrat, "war monger"? Hmm...?
You're not still thinking, are you?
No OWS user that I know of fits into either of your imaginary groups.
Get real if you want a straight answer.
In the meantime,
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
didn't you see the big lebowski - tom wrote the second draft - the watered down version. i know it is hard to believe but i have one id - my wife has another. no that is not hard to believe - what is for you anyway is that you are not liked by many here. many many many here - not just me. now stop and think why that might be. go to wiki and read about ows. let me know what you find there and maybe i can help you figure it out,
Too late poser. You've been caught red handed.
We've been through this:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
Have you ever admitted having two IDs within your household prior to this occasion after being all but proven into a corner?
Careful now. I'm very observant.
Well for starters i wrote the port Huron statement. Then fought against the war in Vietnam. I predicted the end of the way to the day. Then -oh the hell with it - you are not worth the time. You are no fun
Our exchange for the record. To be cited many times over the next 22 months. The entries posted by johannus are included for relevance.
Without further adieu:
[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (354) 23 hours ago Amazing. All seven of the current top rated comments here on OWS were posted for no reason whatsoever but to complain about those of us who still believe in voting. Meanwhile, those of us who do believe in voting continue to get our comments marked down regardless of the view. What a pathetic and infested excuse this site has become for legitimate protest. It's all about the 'non vote' and user ratings thanks to a few users who post and rate using multiple IDs.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/ ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 21 hours ago i think once again you have it wrong. all the comments do not complain about voting but about voting for a war mongering, wall street sycophant, type democrat. give it a rest - your taken over post is nonsense - look up ows on wiki and maybe you will get why this happens to you ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by johannus (224) from Newburgh, NY 19 hours ago I agree, if someone likes "war mongering, wall street sycophant, type democrat[s]" as SMC does, they should not be surprised if they feel persecuted on an Occupy forum. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 18 hours ago Right. Seems to me that he is being treated very well here. He is the more aggressive one and the one who is not capable of rational discourse. He would not be able to last more than a few minutes in the park ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (354) 18 hours ago I was on the cause long before either of you pretended to be.
Http://OprahAngelinaBradBonoBill.Blogspot.com ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 17 hours ago really? and how would you know what i have been doing for the last 40 years? oh, i forgot - you have "the vision" - silly rabbit ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (354) 13 hours ago This is very simple.
Post a link.
No?
That's what I thought.
Next.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/ ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 hours ago Well for starters i wrote the port Huron statement. Then fought against the war in Vietnam. I predicted the end of the way to the day. Then -oh the hell with it - you are not worth the time. You are no fun ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (354) 6 minutes ago 40 years huh? Well, the Port Huron statement was completed 52 1/2 years ago. It was written primarily by Tom Hayden.
Flip, you are a liar and a poser using multiple IDs to mark your own comments up and mine down. Now, you have the gall to claim the identity of Tom Hayden, an anti-war DEMOCRAT activist and former Senator, now 75, in a desperate attempt to compete with and discredit me.
You have reached a new low. It will be held against you and cited as often as I see fit.
6 years in. 5% increase in Capital Gains tax, universal healthcare, drastically reduced scale of military intervention, and still no Keystone pipeline.
Like I've said many times poser.
Lesser evil.
Next.
People who do not advocate for Republicans or Democrats are not, "poser[s]." You do not need a degree to understand who the real "poser" is, on this Occupy forum, do you "po..."?
This has been addressed in significant detail:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
[ edit ] You advocate = nothing.
You propose nothing.
You bitch and complain.
But you offer nothing to make change.
GFYS
edit -> Scuse sorry - I got carried away.
You do offer something = opt out = roll over and play dead while the world goes down the shitter.
So.
GFYS
you really shouldn't bring up health care - check with steven brill and the stock prices of the health care companies to see who cui bono! yes - increase in capital gains and that is what you can hang your hat one - good thing your hat size is so small. as for your military intervention - well that depends on when we start the count right? you got nothing pal - give me a number for goldman and citigroup in his admin - you should be able to do it without looking to google no- you can see the future and you say so on call in talk shows - what a sad little owser you two are. you would have been run out of the park - no that is not true. it was a kind place - but for sure they would have made you peddle on those stationary bikes to generate power and shut you up!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
oh dear - a well thought out response - again.
Buying into the duopoly might be good enough for you, but not for me.
Buying into the absurd fantasy land pipe dream that anything will improve if you don't vote and encourage others not to vote thereby giving your conservative buddies another edge in 2016 might be ok with you but not with me.
By the way, it appears that my guess was a damn good one in spite of your ridicule. That's right. Romney has announced a serious consideration to run after all. Just like I predicted. My prediction stands. It will come down to the ultra conservative multi-hundred-millionaire job scrapping Romney and Clinton.
Damn right I'll vote for Clinton. Not because I like her one little bit but because she is certainly the lesser evil compared to Romney.
In the meantime, I'll be addressing your ongoing fake disgruntled liberal poser campaign to turn as many potential voters as possible against the lesser evil.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
Be my guest. Vote for any war monger that you like...not me though.
You must be satisfied with the new GOP huge win, seeing how you wouldn't want to change it or anything, well I guess you got what you wanted even if the rest of us are screwed. I wouldn't want you to smudge all that is the wonderful perfect you just to keep the GOP from running stuff, you care more about your precious pride than the country, it is the ego of idiots like you that keep the 1% in power.
Did you notice the difference when your guy W Bush took over for Clinton or when Obama took over for Bush? I did but then I pay attention I suspect you have your head up your ass and don't see much difference same problem Nader had that's how W Bush was elected in the first place, people so stupid they can't see the difference.
For instance now that your friends the GOP are running the House they have changed the rules already to make cutting taxes easier, you do know that the GOP like to cut taxes on the rich more so than the Dems, or is that too much thinking for you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/business/house-republicans-change-rules-on-calculating-economic-impact-of-bills.html?_r=0
You have 'congratulated' many people here for having gotten rid of a lot of the Dems. Not me though. It's OK, 'cause I know that it was just an oversight. Now can we work together at dumping the Republicans, and the remainder of the Democrats as well?
Then maybe we could think about joining a group that rejects the duopoly candidates, and wants systemic change. Does that sound like a 'plan' to you?
you being so new and all, sorry about that but you are hard at work electing the GOP next time which will come sooner than you think,
But congrats to you as well on your great victory defeating the evil Dems, I don't join groups that elects the GOP sorry, you guys are doing a great job of that on your own, systemic change can only occur if the people working for it are willing to try something different, this "pox on both their houses" stuff is what has been done for decades, it only elects the GOP as it did this past election, congrats to you on your huge win there, electing more GOP than had been done in over 80 years!, The two parties form a ladder the only way to bring about systemic change is to bring down one of the legs of the ladder and make it unstable, then the system will fall, i choose to bring down the GOP leg, but you keep whacking away at the Dem leg so the power source stays balanced, I suppose if you had your way the GOP would win all the seats, but i think the GOP winning is a bad thing and they do bad things, the GOP you elect are evil and they are in power because of fools like you.
I don't recall WS ever campaigning for the GOP.
There are two war parties, not one.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the stats are what they are.
sorry to burst yours but your work puts one of those war parties into power the GOP which has just enjoyed a huge win on the back of your work congrats on getting your preferred war party to their biggest win in 87 years, sorry to burst your bubble but people win elections and then pass laws thanks to idiots like you and Nader the people writing those laws will be Republican, but you want that you love that you love the GOP
False-flag, agent-provocateurs, like SSS & BW (shad66, beautifulworld) or TC could be another of her handles. They all say the same crap/unproductive things. They all just want to sabotage effective debate and organization. Offering ZERO alternatives! Their unfortunate MO!
they are infected with The Disease of Conceit
You are an IDIOT!!
Where do you think you got that from?
End the GUN NUT insanity!
End the 1% Militarized Roid-Raging Police Forces!
Stop voting for it then.
Perhaps I was too harsh, maybe I just need to hear you out. Please elaborate so that I and others can understand what you are saying, why you are saying it, and to what end you are reaching for.
NO WAR
Thank you for clarifying that for him Matt.
Clarifying what?
bullshit, motor skill and access to the gun at walmart seems exaggerated
This is fascinating. The toddler must have belonged to a hate group or the GOP to warrant the twisting of an unfortunate event to political arguments that bend the mind into Rubik squares. Where are your heads? A woman tried to have protection for herself and her child; like it or not, most women can't beat guys, guys are hormonally predispensed to strength, and still perpetrate he majority of violent crimes. She did not secure her weapon. She felt safer for the item, the baby had no comprehension of the consequences of his actions. HHEEE---LLLOOOO!?! The responses I see here do not allow for human error and bad luck, only an excuse to go on a political bender and tearing each other a new one. An the dork who said the baby will be a psycho perp, go look in a mirror and ask where you get your shitty superiority complex, are you a white guy getting his freak off by PROFILING A BABY???? Gf urslf. We'll be protesting YOU any minute, wise ass.
I'm not profiling the baby. I'm profiling the circumstances thus far.
1. Exposure to guns, violence and the related politics.
2. The experience of taking the life of his own mother.
3. The loss of his mother at a very young age.
4. The refusal of the surviving parent to attribute any fault whatsoever.
It's a bad mix.
If these circumstances are not carefully addressed, that baby could grow up to be quite disturbed. If the surviving parent happens to be a gun fanatic, or worse, a die-hard partisan FOX loving gun fanatic, then the baby could grow up to be another heavily armed psycho with a score to settle.
I don't profile babies. I profile circumstances.
Update: Another immediate markdown. Gee what a shock.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
Well, if I profile you by attitude and screwy predilections you'd be in a funny farm. Remember your obsession with Kaci? Hopefully you can allow some grace to a small baby to grow up without stigma. His life was his mother's priority. If he is cared for properly, the continuity of love, propriety of instruction, discipline and responsibility will give him an advantage over being PROFILED. You're just getting creepy, dude.
Whatever your real beef is with me, address that instead of manufacturing some BS about me stigmatizing a baby. You know damn well it's not true. After all, any psychologist would share my concerns. They have many times. It is well known that children traumatized at a young age are at much greater risk for mental illness. It is well known that children raised by only one parent are more likely to develop social and emotional problems.
You think I'm creepy? Try having an exchange with a gun fanatic. In general, they are die-hard partisan 'low information' liberal bashers who have extreme contempt for all non-conservatives. Not just on the issue of gun control but on virtually every political issue.
Based on several reports, my suspicion is that the deceased was a gun fanatic and the surviving parent is a gun fanatic. In all likelihood, die-hard conservative as well.
If you want to accuse me of profiling anyone, then accuse me of profiling the parents. Not the baby. At least then, you would be in the ballpark. So far, you're just blowing smoke.
By the way, my Ebola predictions which I've been swearing on for over 90 days are well on their way to proving dead on balls accurate. My record of making accurate predictions stands at well over 90%.
This entry was posted by a responsible gun owner who believes in strong regulation of all firearms. One who believes that a two year old should have no access whatsoever.
Mom screwed up. Dad may have as well.
Another thing: The author of this page is trying to make a point by mocking a very common and fatally flawed argument. The notion that we don't need more gun control. We only need more 'good guys' with guns to make America a safer place.
Only in the mind of a die-hard conservative gun fanatic could it ever be anywhere near that simple.
Mark mark mark!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/
If your wife was shot-dead accidentally by your toddler would you reconsider our current gun laws?
If not
If your parents were killed by a kid who raided his parents gun collection and went on a drug induced shooting spree would you reconsider our current gun laws?
If not
When? When you get shot and are paralyzed for life?
We are not in the wild west, we don't sling guns for protection, and Daniel Boone is long gone!
The American public's right to NOT BE SHOT trumps your irresponsible weapon hobby!!
One day soon we will look back at this American GUN INSANITY, as the rest of the world already does, and say "How could we have been so fucking stupid!!!"
Gun deaths in America projected to soon top car fatalities
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-in-america-projected-to-soon-top-car-fatalities-8426644.html