Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Senate vote yesterday was good news for OWS

Posted 1 year ago on April 18, 2013, 7:29 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It is the roadmap to the Senators who
stand with the crapitalists & the liars & the 1% & the special interests
&
stand against democracy & the 99%

For the most part, these are the same people who are in the pocket of

Wall Street
The banks
The arms companies
The prison companies
The oil companies
alec
koch brothers

In the next election cycles, OWS & Bloomberg & Gabby Giffords & Newtown
will be fighting against these betrayers of our democracy & the 99% -
will you join us ?
will you remember ?


Nays (46)
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark.
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.
Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.
Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev.
Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.


……………………………….will you stand with the 99% ?
………………………….……….will you join us ?
………………………………..…….will you remember ?
....…………………………………..….will you vote ?

40 Comments

40 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Just say NO to the Max Baucus DINOs!!

Can't believe we haven't culled these Cons in Dem's clothing yet!

Why must we prove Will Rogers right, over and over again?

[-] 3 points by shooz (18066) 1 year ago

I like how they had to do a background check on the victims in attendance.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/18/1886801/gun-violence-victims-detained-put-through-background-check-for-yelling-shame-on-you-at-senators/

You just can't trust those gun violence victims you know, they are capable of some serious dirty looks.

[-] 2 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 1 year ago

Punish the Dems. by voting them out. Then the next time they have the majority they will appreciate if more and do the right thing.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Or bash your teeth out, and next time you try to eat you will appreciate brushing and flossing!

Say: I-DI-OT!

[-] -2 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 1 year ago

Say "Vee Que"

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Seeing me everywhere like your friend Bldr?

I guess I own your mind to. Aaaaaaaaaaaah ha ha ha. You don't know how much pleasure it gives me to see you and your extremist anti Occupy people obsess over me (VQkag2!)

This is the only ID I use now. All the other good posters being accused of being me are great on their own.

I got nothin to do with it.

LMFAO. I'm livin in your head man. And damn is it spacious! Shouldn't there be some kinda brain in here.? LOL

[-] -2 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 1 year ago

You're right. Looking at the two of you side by side (or up to down in this case) there is no similarity whatsoever in the way you post. None. Cannot imagine why I ever thought that

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Whatever. Similar or not we are different individuals! There are many of us who support progressive solutions to benefit the 99%.

That is why we come to this forum, and why we protest on the street!.

You resort to silly false accusations in a desperate attempt to distract from the weakness of your position in this competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Who you are debating/discussing is less important then the facts, positions you put forward.

Stick to honest factual debate, and know that the immature unfounded personal attacks are an inappropriate use of this forum, and only betrays the emptiness of your argument.

Y'know?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

The failure to pass this pathetic watered-down attempt to apply some form of regulation to our out of control gun hobby delusions, is a prime example of Citizens United Money trumping the will of the American people!

Big Money always shows up and, unless we do the same, they will always get their way!!

Democracy requires informed participation!!

[-] 2 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

I will, and for the last 40 (+or-) elections, I've brought on an average of about 30 others with me. Had a real dip during the delusional Bush-Cheney years!!

With Clinton I was in the hundreds.

For people who think there is a perfection in anything as well as politics, there is not. There is only better or worse. This includes YOU!!!

It's a Class War and we're losing because we are oblivious!

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

well done!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Herding Cats is so repetitious!!!!

[-] -2 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

I tend to agree that gun control is a class war issue. The 1%'ers,,

Bloomberg,Feinstein, Pelosi, Soros, Clintons, Obamas, Hollywood Libs, Michael Moore, wealthy state media whores all want to eliminate the guns in the hands of the 99%, They can afford personal security who are exempted from the new mag bans and semi auto bans. Pretty scary, if you ask me.

In the aftermath of Boston, police in military garb, carrying full auto military weapons. Huh? Were they expecting a platoon of well armed terrorists? Or just indoctrinating the sheep to accept the police state they are building with your help?

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Not sure what that has to do with my previous post that you are supposedly responding to? Guess you must agree that the 1%ers are pushing to disarm the 99%.and you are one of their lackeys?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

They (the 1%) are arming us, why should they get dirty or shot when we are more than willing to do it ourselves. We must be a great source of laughter for them.

More: http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-insurmountable-burden-is-gun-control-compared/

[-] 1 points by libman (3) 1 year ago

You people are not smart enough to own guns. Only the government is. No private gun ownership should be allowed.

[-] 0 points by libman (3) 1 year ago

You are right we must get rid of the 1st,2nd, 4th and 5th amendments. We must do this now to save amerika.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

██████░████.░░.█████.░░█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ ████░░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░.█░░█░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█.░.█████ ░░█████░ █████


Do you have a TROLL problem?

here are some of its “tells” ►
attacking the poster - not the post
"re-interpreting" the post rather than quoting it ( ala faux noose )
using a gross generalization to “prove” a specific
lying [ often obviously ]
changing the subject
using mccarthyite accusations
afraid to answer questions


you could buy a mongoose or a roach motel, but here is a better way: ……………………………………….TROLL solution ►
……………………………………….IGNORE ANY POSTS FROM THE TROLL


[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Good God. The site admins must have to have an entire server dedicated to your bloviating.

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

There are millions of us. THE NRA is what GRASSROOTS LOOK LIKE

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Aaaaaaaaah Ha ha ha ha. They have barely 2 million members!!! 75% support backgroundchecks & other reasonable gun safety measures

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/nra-membership-numbers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/what-the-nra-doesnt-want_b_2981542.html

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Please. It's a tiny org, most members support reasonable gun safety measures.

It's only the profit hungry leaders colluding with gun mfgs to fear monger gun sales up.

So that's what Astro turf looks like.

LOL

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Margey (-33) 1 year ago

I stand with the Constitution, which means you get 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures to change the Constitution or you don't change it. You don't try changing things through back door games.

"Shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment is there for a reason.

BTW, these changes they were voting on would turn a lot of people into felons. These proposals are not as benign as they would seem, but you have to dig into the details and not just follow the 10,000 foot sound bites that you hear in the media.

Turning people into felons:

  1. Uncle George owns a farm, where he has taught his nephew Abraham shooting skills and gun safety over a number of years. On Abraham’s 18th birthday, Uncle George gives Abraham a 20-gauge shotgun once owned by Abraham’s grandfather.

  2. Abraham lends the shotgun to his long time hunting buddy and best friend, who uses it on a hunting trip and returns it to Abraham ten days later.

  3. Uncle George and his friends have an informal hunting club, which leases “hunting rights” from a rural landowner. The “club” holds shooting competitions on an open field on the landowner’s property. At one of these “shoots,” George allows another “club” member to use a pistol George inherited from his father.

  4. George’s friend asks about purchasing the pistol. He visits George’s farm to discuss a possible purchase and examine the pistol carefully. George and his friend walk to a hillside well away from George’s house, where the friend shoots the pistol at targets on a dirt embankment.

  5. George agrees to sell the pistol to his friend. Before doing so he calls a licensed gun dealer he knows, asking the dealer to run a background check on the prospective purchaser, just in case. The dealer agrees, and tells George by telephone that the purchaser checks out. After hearing this, George sells his friend the pistol.

  6. George takes his family on a month-long vacation to Europe. Concerned about a break-in during his absence, he leaves his firearms and other valuables with a trusted neighbor for safekeeping while he is away.

  7. Nephew Abraham’s apartment is burglarized. Thieves steal his prized 20-gauge shotgun. The day after the burglary he calls the local police. They come to his apartment, interview him, and tell him they’ll make some inquiries and get back in touch. Abraham takes no further action, waiting to hear back from the police.

Under the Schumer bill, George or Abraham, or both, can be prosecuted for federal felonies in each and every one of the situations described above. As a bonus, the licensed dealer who ran the background check can also be charged for failure to examine the firearm sold and include data on it in federally required records.

I'll vote for people who don't trample the Constitution vice constantly touting the "99%". If you trample the Constitution for convenience, you are not the 99% no matter what you believe.

[-] 3 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

Background checks ALREADY EXIST and no one has brought that to SCOTUS

[-] -2 points by Margey (-33) 1 year ago

Isn't she busy falling down some stairs or something?

[-] -2 points by Margey (-33) 1 year ago

It's been reviewed MANY times by SCOTUS in the last thirty years. Suggest you educate yourself.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

can you cite the case & the SCOTUS decision that ruled background checks were unconstitutional?

[-] 0 points by Margey (-33) 1 year ago

I didn't say they weren't. Can you cite the case basis by which "Enhanced Background Checks" would not be unconstitutional? I expect not considering a few hours ago, you didn't even know background checks had been brought up to SCOTUS to begin with.

[-] 0 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

Enhanced background checks primarily involve a background check for sales NOT in stores - no different from the background checks used today IN every gun store.
This bill is supported by an overwhelming number of police chiefs - but what do they know?

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Real universal background checks (even family/friends xfer) is the only effective way to reduce criminal access to guns.

And of course, registration, licensing, and so forth.

None of this is unconstitutional, and honest law abiding citizens do not oppose it.

Only criminals and defenders of criminals oppose these reasonable effective gun safety measures.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'to change the Constitution' - who's talking about changing the Constitution?

'You don't try changing things through back door games' - I thought the Constitution gave Congress the power to enact legislation?

"A well regulated militia" - in the 2nd Amendment is there for a reason.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Good to see you kicking ass and taking names. You gotta love these Constitutionalists who can only site the Bill of Rights but fail in their understanding of the broader document.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Whoa there sparky!

Before you go yakking about changing and trampling the Constitution, you'd better take the time to understand it FIRST:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/02/12/a-grammar-lesson-for-gun-nuts-second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-gun-rights/33796/

Now if you NRA Lobbyists and Big Weapon$ Industry dupes want to observe and obey the Constitution (specifically the 2nd amendment) Let's Gitter Done!!!

Here's a word from your HERO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRQzTP8H1o&feature=youtu.be

Ooops, here's your HERO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG4V_6pCLVo

No guns, no American school, theater and mall slaughters! Regulate Guns!

[+] -4 points by Margey (-33) 1 year ago

What Mark Moe fails to understand is the definition of a MILITIA.

It isn't the National Guard.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Did you talk to the National Guard yet? So what did they say when you told them that you've figured out that the Constitutional charter they operate under is wrong?

Perhaps they are confused about USC Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13 sec 311?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8

Is the National Guard confused about the US Code? Perhaps you should 'dig into the details'.

btw - was S 374, the Schumer bill voted on? I must have missed that.

I though it was the Manchin Toomey Amend 715, S 649 that was voted on? Family member transfers are exempt. Tell me where, in this bill, it says that your George and Abraham characters, from above, would be deemed felons?

http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=dbbfa08b-f624-47fe-8520-a0bac3e7708e&SK=C45995AE8DDAC8783E80F5D7BEE4F7AF

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

Even the Schumer bill section 202 exempts family gifting and temporary transfers.

Me thinks you don't know what you're talking about.

[-] 0 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Oh really. This would come as shocking news to the National Guard. Who base their charter and operations on Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Powers of Congress - Article 1 Sec. 8

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Make sure you notify the National Guard right away and let them know that they fucked up and you've got it all figured out.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Compare that list, with this list on the Monsanto free for all.

It doesnt leave anyone else,

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00044#position