Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 3 Questions: What do you think of GREEN PARTY? How about MOVE TO AMEND's effort to overturn CUnited & end corporate personhood?&

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 10, 2013, 1:57 a.m. EST by therising (6643)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I'm very interested in people's opinions on:

  • MOVE TO AMEND

  • THE GREEN PARTY

  • SHORT VIDEO ON ICELAND BELOW

Basic statements from homepages and basic links provided below for first 2 items for your convenience.

I have not formed an opinion yet either way on the 1st two and I'm very interested in your thoughts on ALL THREE QUESTIONS:


A. Move to Amend

Statement on homepage:

"We the People, Not We the Corporations

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule."

Main site: https://movetoamend.org/

Wiki entry Move to Amend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_to_Amend


B. The Green Party

The Green Party is a recognized party in the United States and is organized in about 90 countries around the world.

The Ten Key Values of the Green Party

  1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

  2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

  3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature.  We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

  4. NON-VIOLENCE It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments.  We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

  5. DECENTRALIZATION Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

  6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.

    Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

  7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

  8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.

    We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

  9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

  10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

Ten core values link: http://www.gp.org/tenkey.php

Green Party main site: http://www.gp.org/index.php

wiki entry for Green Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States


C. What do you think of the short video at this link showing how the PEOPLE of Iceland reclaimed their country and turned around their economy?:

http://sue-adams.hubpages.com/hub/iceland-shows-how-to-solve-economic-crisis


I need to study all this more. Just trying to think through what gets us to the end of corporate personhood and overturning of Citizens United the fastest. . . If I read correctly, the NYCGA (link at top of this page have resolved that corporate personhood should be ended. I'm not sure if they specifically endorsed Move to Amend organization I doubt they did), but I believe they did resolve to support a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.

At any rate, my point is that, if you look at all 3 topics listed here (green party, move to amend, Iceland) plus the NYCGA support of ending corporate personhood, it seems that we have some unity here we can build upon (while still respecting a diversity of nonviolent tactics). We could hit this nonviolently from the inside politically and from the outside with nonviolent direct action of all kinds (example: http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-could-do-this-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way/ ) and create a pressure cooker of healthy nonviolent tension.

We should not be afraid of the word TENSION. King explained the use of active non-violent resistance as follows in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. . . The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”

237 Comments

237 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Yes I can endorse all these actions,. they all are steps in the directions we need to go. I do however hold little hope for this system changing itself voluntarily. That is, there are so many people and systems in place to stop all of these actions that any of it coming to pass seem rather unlikely.

I have worked for years to make changes to the entrenched power structures through public education and protest, only to find so little change. The 1% has UNLIMITED money and resources, they built a monetary system that gives them a cut of all activity in the money supply,. endless interest, usury,. it is very difficult to go against endless money, in a money based system!

Perhaps I am just too old and jaded now, but I rather focus my efforts on building what does work, with people who want to move forward, than to squander my time, fighting against those entrenched in this corrupted system, that want to drive humanity into the ground for short term personal gain.

While I support these efforts,. I will continue my focus on side-stepping the system when ever possible, and building new systems of community, peace, and change, that exist in spite of the dominate system.

The move to amend effort should be able to get some attention, and could happen. And while I like the green party platform it aims its efforts at the old system and tries to get IN to that power structure. I just do not see this happening it the de facto two-party system. If the electoral collage was gone, and some form of proportional representation was in place perhaps,. but not in this broken corrupted mess. Anyway, all effort in the direction of life is supported and the hate and greed opposed,. The Iceland story is encouraging when people really are pushed to the edge they do sometimes fight back, and win. Problem here is the powers that be just do not put it to a vote! They just give the endless new debt to 1% and tell the people you now have to pay it back to the people we just gave it to,. they get the money then they get payed for having taken all the money,. what a racket!

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

That's a very wise assessment. I need to chew on that. "Perhaps I am just too old and jaded now, but I rather focus my efforts on building what does work, with people who want to move forward, than to squander my time, fighting against those entrenched in this corrupted system, that want to drive humanity into the ground for short term personal gain."

If I'm hearing you right, you personally would cheer on those who would push directly back at 1% via green party or similar -- and there's even a chance you'd admire them instead of calling them suckers -- it's just that you personally choose to spend your time on this earth building the new instead of fighting the old. It's entirely possible that we need both, that the greens and others like them will waken people enough that they go even further to your position / set of tasks. I consider your position / tasks to be wisely chosen by the way. Just wondering what you honestly think of green supporters who choose to fight the bastards on their own turf. I have no dog in this hunt by the way. I am not a member of the green party.

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

I do admire the greens (they have done much all over Europe!),. I agree with much of their stated platform,. . I just have learned through experience, that this system simply does not let these sorts of ideas in un-changed. They will be changed by the act of conforming to the 'representative' system, that in the end, even if they get any power, they will no longer be able to act as they once wanted.

This system is perfect in it's ability to absorb all threats, and mutate them into non-threats. You really do have to step back in awe of the levels of control that have been built up,. The way I see it, as soon as you start working to fix the broken system, the system already has you,. and your fix will only serve to make it stronger. They may let a man of African heritage be president, just so long as the banks get to continue running their usury system unabated,. sht like that. Anyway, I will cheer on all well intentioned folks TRYING to make good changes,. I just have to put my own energy where I see the most results,. and I tend to speak my mind about loosing strategies,. as I see them anyway.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I think you've explained it really well and, at least from my perspective, this is the closest I've seen someone get on this forum to giving their honest assessment of what they think of the routes in question. I think you've laid it out beautifully and I hope others will be as honest.

[-] 0 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

Yep.A prime example of what you said would be what has happend to our unions.At first outside the system,then absorbed into it,now on life support.

[-] 0 points by cseeman (0) 1 year ago

The Green Party has hundreds of local Green candidates and many do get elected. In NY alone we have three Green mayors.

The problem is that it seems that most people don't understand ballot access. In many states the threshold to getting a state/local ballot line REQUIRES a PRESIDENTIAL (or statewide) CANDIDATE to GET OVER A CERTAIN THRESHOLD of VOTES OR PERCENTAGE THEREOF.

In other words if you want to have a partisan City Council or State Legislative candidate you may need to have a Presidential Candidate get 1% of the vote in your state.

Jill Stein (2012 Presidential Candidate) had previously been elected to Lexington MA Town Representative (Elected Twice). She has also run for Congress, Secretary of Commonwealth (Secretary of State) and Gov. of MA as well.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] 3 points by uncledragon (3) 1 year ago

The Democratic Party keeps moving further and further to the right. Unless we end end two-party domination, in another decade we'll hear progressives arguing "We have to vote for the moderate fascist Democrat, to stop the extreme fascist Republican from winning!" That's why I joined the Green Party.

The Spoiler Panic accusation ("Ralph Nader helped Bush win in Florida") has been used over and over as propaganda to discredit the Green Party and other alternative parties. But the accusation falls apart if you look at what happened in 2000:

-- Florida Republican officials worked with ChoicePoint to invalidate the voting rights of thousands of Floridians, most of them black (far more than the few hundred votes for Nader that allegedly gave Bush his Florida victory).

-- Al Gore and Democratic leaders called for a recount in only three counties and discouraged people from outside from coming to Florida to help investigate election irregularities.

-- A politically biased Supreme Court handed the White House to Bush.

-- Not one Democratic Senator stood up to challenge Bush's "victory" when the election results were confirmed in Congress in January 2001.

-- The number of Democratic voters who voted for Bush was FOUR TIMES the number of Dem voters who voted for Nader.

-- When election manipulation & voter obstruction by Republicans were repeated in 2004 in Ohio and possibly other states, Democratic Party leaders sat on their hands... while Green presidential nominee David Cobb and Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik launched investigations in Ohio and raised money for legal challenges. A few weeks later Rep. John Conyers joined the investigation and eventually held hearings. Two Republican operatives were later convicted in Cuyahoga County.

In order to blame Nader & the Green Party, you have to believe that it's OK for a major party to obstruct voters and steal elections, but it's not OK for a small party to participate fair & square in elections.

Would Gore have won if Nader hadn't entered the race? This is impossible to say, because alternative party candidates don't just "siphon" votes from one party, they change the whole dynamic of an election.

If you're really concerned about the spoiler factor, you should push for reforms like Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation, to replace our anti-democratic winner-take-all at-large voting system. Greens have been demanding such reforms for years... but few Dems are interested.

Spoiler Panic is a ruse to make people believe that alternatives like the Green Party aren't legitimate. It's meant to fool people into believing that rule by two pro-war corporate-money parties is natural & inevitable and must never be challenged.

More about the Green Party: http://www.gp.org

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

nice post.

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

MTA's amendment has been introduced into the house as HJR29
It is THE ANSWER
it, unlike most of the proposed amendments last year covers both key areas
end corporate personhood
overturn the SCOTUS Citizens United decision


This is the ONLY way to disconnect the corps & the rich & the 1% from
the PEOPLE's DEMOCRACY


keep in mind that these two issues ( CP & CU ) legalize most forms of bribery & then pick YOUR key issue and imagine what YOU could do if the corps & the rich & the1% could not oppose YOUR GOALS


our OWS site details:
http:/corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Move to Amend = pretty much what people are talking about when they speak of an article v convention. Move to Amend is a legal process by which the public can call for a specified change.

Iceland basically went forward in unity in calling for change - legal change - much in the same regard that move to amend is calling for change - legal change.

MTA and the actions of the people of Iceland = related in intent. The peoples will.

Green Party? They have good things that they are looking to get government to recognize = The will of the people - when you get down to it. But all Parties have similar platforms. What makes the difference is - The People - The Population - getting involved and staying involved pushing issues - Issues - like Move to Amend. Using the legal processes in place.

This is the fundamental necessity for change for a healthier world/society for ALL - The Involvement of The People uniting to drive Issues.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Very wise words. Very important and very wise. Even the best system will fall prey to corruption if the people aren't engaged, unified and inspired by a clear vision of the future.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And so we have the birth of OWS/Occupy = Leaderless - to point out the ills of society that ALL People Need To Unite In correcting. All groups are welcome to join their efforts. Main thing being the addressing of concrete issues.

[-] 1 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

George Carlin did a bit on the ten commandments.He broke it down logicaly to where there were only two.We could also break down the majority of all oue woes to one or two.Greed and more Greed.And than what would the solution be?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Mental Health care.

[-] 1 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

Why would you think that mental health care be a solution to a system built to protect greed?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Greed is a mental illness - you asked for a cure.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I would suggest electroshock. Lots and lots of electroshock.

Followed by a full frontal lobotomy.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

But "starting" with the top insane greedy - not the little wanabes.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Oh absolutely. Rehab for the little guys would be perfectly acceptable.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Perhaps they would not be too far gone to be amenable to treatment.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

It would have to be a case by case basis. ;-)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Absolutely. Monitored for life if let out into the normal population.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yes, lifelong probation would be mandatory.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Certain sensitive types of work ( access to money or financial transactions etc ) - OUT OF THE QUESTION.

[-] 1 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

I did at that.I never thought or looked at it as a mental health issue.That brings up more questions in my mind concerning treatment etc.I would think similar to substance abuse.You could be wealthy and not suffer from greed,on the other hand be poor and have a terrible problem.I do belive Mr.G Gecko was wrong.Never considered him sick.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Do you support existing background checks for gun purchasers?

Do you support keeping guns away from criminals & mentally ill?

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Time to unite and rise.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

This is pretty far out there in space.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Do you support keeping guns away from criminals & the mentally ill?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I really like the Green Party platform. I think we are long overdue for a constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform. The Green Party is one of the few political organizations that takes Climate Change seriously.

8 Great Ideas that can be Accomplished Now While Fake Politicians Act Like a Constitutional Amendment is Next to Impossible - http://occupywallst.org/forum/8-great-ideas-that-can-be-accomplished-now-while-f/

[-] 4 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Cool. Thanks for the link and the comment. Much appreciated. I need to study all this more. Just trying to think through what gets us to the end of corporate personhood and overturning of Citizens United the fastest. . . If I read correctly, the NYCGA (link at top of this page have resolved that corporate personhood should be ended. I'm not sure if they specifically endorsed Move to Amend organization I doubt they did), but I believe they did resolve to support a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.

Anyway, if you look at all 3 topics listed here (green party, move to amend, Iceland) plus the NYCGA support of ending corporate personhood, it seems that we have some unity here we can build upon (while still respecting a diversity of nonviolent tactics). We could hit this from the inside politically and from the outside with nonviolent direct action of all kinds and create a pressure cooker of healthy tension.

We should not be afraid of the word TENSION. King explained the use of active non-violent resistance as follows in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. . . The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”

[-] 0 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

I am new here.but have read many post.And this is an Issue of import.I think that there are mulitiple problems that need attention.Would not a one size fits most problems be a better solution?We could spend a lifetime trying to fix all the many problems caused by a few.Are resourses being fragmented upon issue after issue.Maybe a few small victories.But the few will continue to cause more and more Citizens united type problems for us.My uncle Ralfy used to say a change is as good as a break!

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

"one size fits most"? What does that mean? Do you support repealing CU or not?

[-] 0 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

I support most anti corporate measures.So in a word yes.I just think that the number of issues we /our children have to deal with is very fragmentary.A solution should be found that addresses most problems and unites all people.CU is a major problem that if ever solved could take years to correct.And during the interm it's creators will have given us five more similar situations.

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

So then you are offering reasons for NOT addressing cu. We should wait until we find some other solution that "addresses most problems and unites all people"

You do not offer this magical solution so I suppose we'll just have to put off action until we can come up with a solution that address most problems and unites all people.

How long do you think that will take?

[-] 1 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

I do not belive in the Occult.That is "magical".I never said put off.I said it is fragmentary.I also said yes it is of importance.So are a number of problems with a system based upon greed.I think we are now at a place where we are playing whack a mole.I have never been married to my current thoughts.I may change in a day year,decade.It is not my nature to offer instructions.If I had a solution I would offer it.Never put off action.He who hesitates is lostHappy trails.

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

Great. "Yes, we're playing wack a mole, it's fragmentary" A ringing endorsement without a doubt.

Glad to have your support.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Move To Amend is about petitioning corporate bought public officials to do something for the People. Not the way to go. There's no power in petitioning as it does not ensure getting what you want. You may get what you want or you won't. You can't determine it because you have no power to do so and must rely upon someone else to grant your request. People have to exercise power, not plead for rights. If they can unite in pleading, they can unite in exercising power. If they don't have the will to exercise their own power, they won't have the will to go beyond petitioning when the issue of the petition is either denied or ignored. What to support is not the issue. How to support is.

Voter public control through the application of Free Democracy Affidavits http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ or FreeDA can be the solution to bringing about political accountability under conditions in which ballot initiatives, referendums, and recalls, are not an option. For the People to be free, politicians must be legally bound to serving the specific interests of the People rather than the interests of the corporations. By refusing to vote for any candidate who doesn't sign an affidavit legally committing that candidate to supporting the Free Democracy Amendments, voters will be able to exercise their democratic power to hold the candidates who do sign and are elected, legally accountable. However, VOTERS MUST REMAIN UNITED ACROSS PARTY LINES IN THEIR AGREEMENT ON THE AFFIDAVITS AND IN THEIR REFUSAL TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO WON'T SIGN THE AFFIDAVITS. This non-partisan unity is essential to the success of bringing about permanent political reform, taking freedom into our own hands. The greatest support shall come from the participation of those who already don't vote for lack of political accountability. If, initially, no candidates are willing to sign in the election that the affidavits are first presented, it will only be a matter of time before willing candidates from each of the parties emerge from among the FreeDA supporters in subsequent elections. In accordance with amendments 6, 7, 8, and 9, of the Liberty Bill, the FreeDA signers would also be signing on to affirmations of not accepting campaign contributions from corporations and non-profits, not accepting gifts from special interests once in office, making all communication with lobbyists open to the press and the public, and not having an account with a private bank. In support of such candidates, a FreeDA 501(c)4 PAC would receive contributions to fund ads for all of the FreeDA signers collectively.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/

The Green Party is a party with a lot of good ideas that the vast majority of American voters obviously don't support politically. The Green Party also doesn't seem to have the sense to work its way up the political ladder by running people for governor and the senate before running for the presidency. If people aren't willing to vote for a party locally, why the hell would they take a chance on voting for it nationally??? But like above, it's not about what or who you support but how you support it. Parties have limited appeal. People have to come together on the issues that they can agree upon across party lines and exercise their power to enforce those issues no matter who is elected.

I didn't think much of the Iceland video. Iceland is not the US or any other country for that matter. What happened there could not happen in the US since 1. the US never faced the same crisis in NOT being able to bail out its banks, 2. the US doesn't have the same parlimentary form of government that Iceland has in making political change, and 3. the US is not a tiny island with a population under a third of a million. The situation of Iceland is irrelevant for the people of the United States and probably other countries as well. What is relevant from that video is the ability of people to come together for a common cause to bring about change be it in Iceland or anywhere else in the world.

[-] 1 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

Thanks,Bingo!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks for your thorough and thoughtful response. Much appreciated.

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 1 year ago

"healthy nonviolent tension" = law. Since that has not been well used by the people it is supposed to serve, and they've been mislead to try other forms, more social tension may be needed, but beware, it may be termed unlawful.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Sure - It may be termed unlawful. But we can hold the power structure to its own rules (that's one of the "rules for radicals".

[-] 2 points by childseyes (85) 1 year ago

Why not optimize the strategy? I mean ows has a zillion meetings. They should have sussed out a winning strategy by now to create some serious lawful complaint and find process to see it addressed?

[-] 2 points by childseyes (85) 1 year ago

I saw that thread and noticed what rayo was doing there.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-could-do-this-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way/#comment-917123

Do you see how the experts have to comment on something as beautiful and logical as preparatory amendment? Particularly the ending the abridging of free speech. The frigg'n acid test. Natural law demonstrated.

[-] 1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Green Party...hmmph!!

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

What does that mean?

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

The parts of the platform that I don't support far outweight the parts that I do support.
The Green Party operates on the fringe. Perhaps some of the points such as long-term sustainability and decentralization can be incorporated in a platform that has more of a chance of passing.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Which #'d points on the platform do you disagree with? They're all pretty innocuous.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Move to Amend?

Corporate funding within a democratic process is an oxymoron a child can understand. Why not the voters?...What's next?....Corporate Feudalism?..... "No thanks, I voted at the office"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy ...Even worse?.......Discrimination until every employee has identical political and religious beliefs...

Green Party?

Ten Key Values? If #3 were #1, the other nine become inherent. 90 countries proves humankind cannot continue to shit where it eats. The irony would be, no Green Party. “In the dictionary under redundant it says see redundant.” Robin Williams

Iceland?

An online petition to their president produced results. Of course it did. A population of 320,000 people on an island. America has a president? America has 315,091,000 people.

[-] 1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

I really only have 2c on Citizens United.

If you have the time and resources and you want to attack Citizens United, attack it on the premise of "money = speech", because if money = speech and corporations pay no taxes, then you should sue for your paid taxes back under your 14th amendment rights to equal protection under the law. The government can not treat your political speech differently than the corporation that paid 0% in taxes.

[Removed]

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

My first move in OWS – in October 2011 - was to establish a MOVE TO AMEND type working group. I felt that getting rid of corporate personhood ( as stated by OWS ) and overturning SCOTUS citizens united was the foundation of EVERYTHING we want. Our group originally had many roadblocks – disruptive anarchists, the GA, the apolitical nature of OWS, our poor ability to persuade people with other priorities that the amendment needed be first.
1
We discovered Move To Amend and started evaluating their amendment and the others already in congress.
2
We researched everything we could get on CU & CP & the amendment process & an article V convention.
3
We created our site – with 45+ documents & 75+ videos to disseminate what we learned. It is a great resouce to learn about the issue:


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


4
We realized that there are so many amendment bills, that for us to endorse one – would not be the most productive. We decided that educating voters to the four key issues was very important.

Corporations are not people
Money is not speech
Disclosure
Freedom of the press

and to encourage them to write their congress people & senators
5
Finally, we saw the republiclan obstructionists in the House & Senate as the main obstacle to this most important action and came to the obvious conclusion – this obstacle must be removed at the ballot box. We successfully worked to encourage OSI work on this.
2014 is a lot closer than you think.
6
Narrowing our message to a small number of
ATTAINABLE, POPULAR GOALS
such as this one, will naturally attract “average Americans” to support OWS’s
ATTAINABLE, POPULAR GOALS
because they are America’s
ATTAINABLE, POPULAR GOALS.


GREEN
1 grassroots – sounds good, but I don’t want grassroots majorities teaching creationism, banning abortions, allowing segregation. The problem is not representative democracy or the representatives
It is the MONEY –
disconnect capitalism from democracy { see our site }
2 equality – obvious
3 ecology –
It is the MONEY –
disconnect capitalism from democracy { see our site }
4 non-violence –
It is the MONEY –
disconnect capitalism from democracy { see our site } 5 decentralizing
It is the MONEY –
disconnect capitalism from democracy { see our site }
6 community
It is the MONEY –
disconnect capitalism from democracy { see our site }
7 human equality – obvious
8 diversity – obvious
9 responsibility – obvious
10 sustainability – obvious

Although I agree with most of the “Green” positions, I am a pragmatist. The “Green” concepts are very valuable and should be used to pressure candidates to support these ideas – AFTER we get rid of CU & CP. Needless to say getting rid of CU & CP – disconnecting capitalism from democracy will make Green goals far more easy to attain.


And we MUST acknowledge the truth of Ralph Nader
No matter how much YOU like a third party candidate – here is the math
This is not about bush or Gore or Nader or why Gore lost or
chads or recounts or scoutus
This is ALL about the 2000 Florida math.

bush = 2912790
Gore = 2912253
Nader.. = 97488

So bush “won” by 537 votes


it would be reasonable to surmise that at least 80% of third party Nader votes would have gone to Gore – giving him a clear victory.
BUT
Lets be much less generous to Gore and give him a tiny 1% edge in splitting up the third party Nader votes:

Give bush 49.5% = 48257
Give Gore 50.5% = 49231

So

bush = 2912790 + 48257 = 2961047
Gore = 2912253 + 49231 = 2961484

A 437 vote victory for Gore

who would have
read his PDBs &
avoided 911 &
not lied about wmds &
not invaded Iraq


The issue here is – for all of the 2000 third party voters who were
SO PROUD of themselves - to vote for Nader -
can they now admit that they may have been very happy to vote for
third party Nader –
even though it led to
the worst disaster in America since the Civil War?


ICELAND – interesting in a small monolithic society
Not practical in America

[-] 0 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I agree with much of what you said here. However, some people (not me necessarily but some people) would argue back that it is the two party monopoly that gave rise to the disaster you speak of, allowed the conditions wherein George Bush and co. could do their thing. And as long as that fertile ground of the duopoly of r's and d's exists, corporations and their evil deeds will grow through any number of bad actors (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Cheney, Romney, etc.). Just playing devils advocate here to help move the dialogue along on this forum, not necessarily between you and I.

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

THANK YOU
I do understand their point
my political orientation is obvious, but ultimately, I am pragmatic
Many Ds ( including BHO ) did many things I did not like
But my pragmatism - that would like Bernie or Elizabeth for president -
directs me from wishful thinking to the reality of what can be done in the real world


just four pragmatic examples-

we can strive and push for goals that most Americans want
or we can continue to strive and push for goals that OWS wants

we can tax cap gains as income
we cannot oulaw greed

we can "tax" gun ownership to reduce it
we cannot take away everone's guns

we can foster OWS leaders [ like Ghandi & MLK & Wellstone] and grow
or we can continue to shrink


pragmatism may not be as glorious as martyrdom but
it is far more likely to get the job done

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

You make a compelling case. But so does Jph. (see below). Maybe you're both right and the activities of each will benefit the other.

[-] 1 points by jph (2535) 5 hours ago Yes I can endorse all these actions,. they all are steps in the directions we need to go. I do however hold little hope for this system changing itself voluntarily. That is, there are so many people and systems in place to stop all of these actions that any of it coming to pass seem rather unlikely. I have worked for years to make changes to the entrenched power structures through public education and protest, only to find so little change. The 1% has UNLIMITED money and resources, they built a monetary system that gives them a cut of all activity in the money supply,. endless interest, usury,. it is very difficult to go against endless money, in a money based system! Perhaps I am just too old and jaded now, but I rather focus my efforts on building what does work, with people who want to move forward, than to squander my time, fighting against those entrenched in this corrupted system, that want to drive humanity into the ground for short term personal gain. While I support these efforts,. I will continue my focus on side-stepping the system when ever possible, and building new systems of community, peace, and change, that exist in spite of the dominate system. The move to amend effort should be able to get some attention, and could happen. And while I like the green party platform it aims its efforts at the old system and tries to get IN to that power structure. I just do not see this happening it the de facto two-party system. If the electoral collage was gone, and some form of proportional representation was in place perhaps,. but not in this broken corrupted mess. Anyway, all effort in the direction of life is supported and the hate and greed opposed,. The Iceland story is encouraging when people really are pushed to the edge they do sometimes fight back, and win. Problem here is the powers that be just do not put it to a vote! They just give the endless new debt to 1% and tell the people you now have to pay it back to the people we just gave it to,. they get the money then they get payed for having taken all the money,. what a racket!

Here was my response to Jph:
"[-] 1 points by therising (6810) 1 hour ago That's a very wise assessment. I need to chew on that. "Perhaps I am just too old and jaded now, but I rather focus my efforts on building what does work, with people who want to move forward, than to squander my time, fighting against those entrenched in this corrupted system, that want to drive humanity into the ground for short term personal gain." If I'm hearing you right, you personally would cheer on those who would push directly back at 1% via green party or similar -- and there's even a chance you'd admire them instead of calling them suckers -- it's just that you personally choose to spend your time on this earth building the new instead of fighting the old. It's entirely possible that we need both, that the greens and others like them will waken people enough that they go even further to your position / set of tasks. I consider your position / tasks to be wisely chosen by the way. Just wondering what you honestly think of green supporters who choose to fight the bastards on their own turf. I have no dog in this hunt by the way. I am not a member of the green party."

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

I respect that opinion, but we are closer to an amendment this year than we were last year.
We have until 2014 to get voters to put in pro-amendment people. With strong D majorities in the House & Senate & State Legislatures, and amendment will be done!
Bye Bye citizens united & corporate personhood

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

A major victory for people/society/world/environment. And a key to getting other needed changes made in the course that this country must take to have a future - let alone a healthy and prosperous future for ALL.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

It would be great to end corporate personhood and reverse citizens united. I guess the next question is: assume for a moment that works, where would that leave us? How would things be different for the average American family. Trying to get an on the ground assessment since you've worked so admirably hard at this and are very close to it.

In other words, what's the vision here -- the place we end up if we take these positive action steps? Is it motivating enough to the average citizen? Will the vision move them to act? I'm not doubting it will. Just curious as to the how?

[-] 2 points by childseyes (85) 1 year ago

I've seen this asked, but never found an answer.

Does the movetoamend petition have a precedent that requires recognition and response? I mean are they just asking congress to do it, or is there a reason congress must consider the issue of the petition?

OWS having no leadership and media not sharing truth etc. makes this political activism a real challenge in determining what might work and what won't.

I'm tired of backing bogus movements and signing petitions online that do nothing.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

This is not a bogus petition because it is followed up by nonviolent direct action with 800,000 people.

[-] 2 points by childseyes (85) 1 year ago

I guess the more popular bogus petitions without precedent invoking duty are more effective at wasting peoples time than other methods using actual historical law and precedent. So naturally they are well funded and supported.

Just my opinion.

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

terrific question
getting rid of CU & CP just opens the door to progress
Imagine ANY issue - jobs,
environment, military,
privatization,
election law,
lobbying,
tax structure,
corporate laws, medical care
etc etc
and what could be legislatively done if the 1% could not own our democracy by bribing our government? Fundamentally- we will be able to elect progressive 99% supporters who are not drowned by the corporate special interest 1% money

[-] 4 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Good point. There needs to be a way to crystallize what you just said into something that every small business owner, every doctor, every homemaker, every factory worker, every senior, every student, every waiter, every flight attendant can relate to. We need on website an elevator speech version (30 seconds), a short version (2 minutes), a medium version (4 minutes) and a long version (10 minutes). If your website had those clickable on the home page and they were written with audience above in mind (people in those positions who don't know about citizens united or corporate personhood), then I think this could spread like wildfire.

Maybe there would also be 5th version which, when printed on both sides becomes a trifold brochure. There ought to be a second web address of something even shorter and more memorable that gets you to a page on the site with those four options. Something memorable enough that someone in passing could mention it and it would be memorable enough to the layperson that they would type in the site the next day when they had downtime -- assuming the elevator speech wa good enough to peak their interest. :). www.letsfixthis.com or www.brandnewcountry.com or some such thing. Not suggesting you change your existing web address. Just that you would offer a second way in.

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

I am a novice at this
I am trying to add wordprss to the site
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
Two of our documents #8 & #9 might be useful
Also #28 & #2

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I understand completely. I have no idea how to do the tech part of setting up a web page. Do you know anyone with those skills? Design and functionality are very important. Your home page should be much cleaner and simpler. Then people can drill down from there. Home page needs to have construction worker, nurse, garbage man, teacher, student and seniors in mind as audience. Your core message and materials are excellent and your cause of overturning citizens united and eliminating corporate personhood is excellent. But the design and presentation needs improvement if you want your message to go viral. I think it will go viral if you clean up the site and get a web DESIGN person to make it visually pleasing and better laid out.

Home page needs buttons for elevator speech, short version, long version. Gotta go at this as though visitor is novice to politics and has never heard of citizens united or corporate personhood. Need to make it so they can easily read and share elevator 30 sec version. Short 2 minute version and long 5 min version. Maybe an extra long ten min version too.

2 or 3 million people could end up seeing your site if you got a top notch web designer to help you because your core message is strong. Someone in the business of web design needs tomgonthrough this with you line by line, page by page. Check pages of sites you admire and write down what you like about them. Save some screen shots or links to those pages and show to your web person.

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

No o ne in our group known more than I do on the site design
I am using templates ( pre-designed pieces of code )
so my flexability is limitted
specifically, how could I make the home page simpler?

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

The wording isn't bad. It's the visuals. It just needs to be made easier to read and digest. And I think there ought to be the 4 buttons described above. Just my opinion of course. Others could certainly disagree. Your core message and language is great. Just need to have site cleaned up and made more visually pleasing in my view. In just suggesting this because that long with the buttons suggested (elevator speech, short version (2 minutes), long version (10 min) would make it easier for people to digest and share. I think your site could go big but it would help if you had a second web address, a second way in that was easier to remember if you're walking along in casual conversation. The webuda part is what throws the average person in your current address. Need a second address taking you to same place that's catchier in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Multi-speak geared towards everyone's understanding on one level or more. Simple concept to expanded thought.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Everything he said about Nader is establishment hack bullshit.

The blame Nader theory is an assault on real liberal organizations, and a demonization of the man who created OSHA, the EPA, and helped create the FOIA and has done so much more.

Again it's an attack on real liberal institutions to ensure the 2 factions of the corporate state remain in power. Manufacturing Consent at it's finest.

They never talk about the 10 million registered democrats that voted for Bush, they dismiss the Bush corruption and the roll of the supreme court and just Blame Nader and only focus on the few thousand people that voted for Nader in Florida.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Your first move was to flood the forum with democrat establishment propaganda actually.

I can link you all the posts if you want.

Even your bullshit about Nader is bullshit. You talk about a few thousand people that voted for Nader in Florida but you never once talk about the 10 million registered democrats that voted for Bush.

The assault on Nader is the product of the 2 factions of the corporate state. Why do you think he left the democratic party in the first place?

But go ahead and demonize the people who supported the guy who created OSHA and the EPA and brought about the FOIA and has done so much to scare the shit out of the elite capitalist pigs. Tell them they should support the guy who also was saying Iraq had WMD's and supported NAFTA which stole jobs from America. BREAKING NEWS the establishment works for Wall Street and Capitalism.

The 2 parties are the 2 factions of the corporate state - NOAM CHOMSKY

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

I respect Chomsky - I do not worship him.
I never demonized anyone - I gave you the numbers -
anyone capable of doing the math, will come to the same conclusion -
If Nader was not running in Florida, Gore would have won IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT ?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Your statement is bullshit spin propaganda.

If 10 million registered democrats didn't vote for Bush wouldn't Gore have won?

If Bush decided to snort cocaine off a strippers tits in a photo op in Florida and shoot a man in public to steal his wallet a month before the election wouldn't he have been put in jail and not allowed to run?

I'll say this again -

The "blame Nader theory" is an attack on real liberal institutions to ensure the 2 factions of the corporate state remain in power. Manufacturing Consent at it's finest.

The assault on Nader, that you are apart of, is the product of the 2 factions of the corporate state. Why do you think he left the democratic party in the first place?

But go ahead and demonize the people who supported the guy who created OSHA and the EPA and brought about the FOIA and has done so much to scare the shit out of the elite capitalist pigs. Tell them they should support the guy who also was saying Iraq had WMD's and supported NAFTA which stole jobs from America. BREAKING NEWS the establishment works for Wall Street and Capitalism.

The 2 parties are the 2 factions of the corporate state - NOAM CHOMSKY

YOU ARE PUSHING SPIN PROPAGANDA DESIGNED TO TAKE DOWN REAL LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS

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

so you are afraid to answer the question?
or it is not simple enough for you?

I'll try to make it simpler:
If the election was ONLY between Gore & bush, Gore would have won Florida
IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT ?

[+] -5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

It is bullshit spin propaganda to take down REAL liberals and real liberal institutions to instead only favor the 2 factions of the corporate state.

Bush won because of corruption, corporate rule, and more corruption. He did not win because of Nader. Saying Bush won because of Nader is ignorant to truth.

YOU ARE PUSHING SPIN PROPAGANDA DESIGNED TO TAKE DOWN REAL LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS

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

You really are scared of the truth?

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You are scared of truth. The corporations and banks have captured control of our government.

You are pushing spin propaganda designed to take down real liberal institutions for the sake of promoting the 2 factions of the corporate state.

Bush won because of corporate dominance, propaganda, and loads of corruption. Blaming Nader is absolute bullshit. And against it is

  • Spin propaganda designed to take down real liberal institutions for the sake of promoting the 2 factions of the corporate state.
[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"You are scared of truth. The corporations and banks have captured control of our government."
SERIOUSLY????
you believe I disagree with that????
SERIOUSLY????
Have you read any of my posts????????
SERIOUSLY????


"You are pushing spin propaganda"
since when are accurate numbers spin?
come on - confess - you are bill orielly - right? or is it shawn hannity?
or God help you - rush

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Petition against the next SCOTUS attack on the 99% representation CU II

http://represent.us/citizens-united-2/

[+] -4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You are truly ignorant if you think Bush won because of Nader. Why are you constantly pushing the establishment on this forum? That's what you're doing right now. You constantly blame liberal institutions and liberals running for office for the problem that is republicans. You've done it all over 3rd party forums posts. Blame Nader for Bush? Seriously? Blame the corporate take over, don't blame the liberal fighting the corporate takeover.

Again - Bush won because of corporate dominance, propaganda, and loads of corruption. Why don't you blame the 10 million democrats that voted for Bush? Why don't you blame the republicans? Why don't you blame the propaganda and the money in politics. Blaming Nader is absolute bullshit. And again it is

  • Spin propaganda designed to take down real liberal institutions for the sake of promoting the 2 factions of the corporate state.

I'm just repeating myself and it's starting to get heated. Let's just end this conversation. Respond if you want. I'm done with this conversation though. If you do respond, just read the bit next to the dot in this comment.

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

I give up, I cannot rephrase the question for a simpler mind.
And I will not stoop to your level bye bye

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Wow...

Some of us vote for those who accept corporate money. Some of us dont. Clinton bombed Iraq 3 TIMES during his stint, on top of all the other missle strikes in countires. Whoever was elected was going into Iraq after 9/11 regardless. Lets not act like Dem presidents dont start wars.

On a side note, you may want to try to combine the current amendments out there that have already gotten thousands of pledges to merge into one. That could be powerful.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

this never happened - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc

the republicans are warmongers, they always get a little help from democrats too. Just look at the vote record on the AUMF. Look at how far back the WMD threat lie goes. Look at the sanctions and bombs that killed hundreds of thousands in the 90's.... depriving people of a necessary economy, medical care, and basic nutrition. Now look at Libya. Look at the drone strikes. Sanctions destroying a civilian economy in Iran over a fake WMD threat lie. Afghanistan is a war of imperialism, and we're still there. New talks to stay after 2014 too.

2 factions of the corporate state. Jack Lew welcome to the treasury.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I think the Green party helped Bush beat Gore, and we lost the climate change battle as well as the budget battle, no matter what you think of Gore he would not have passed that tax cut and now we have 16 trillion in debt. I have no doubt there are some who support the Greens that could actually help make things better, but the party as a whole supports itself over the country so for that reason I hate the Greens even more than the GOP as least they are honest more or less, they support the wealthy and don't give a damn about anybody else, the Greens pretend to support better government then work to elect Republicans.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I'm hearing what you're saying. But what is your prescription for fundamental change then? Electing Dems? Not saying that's wrong, just trying to get clarification.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Beware of the people pushing propaganda designed to take down liberal organizations.

The user above "HATES" the green party more than the right wing extremists.

This user blames a few thousand voters in one state, fails to acknowledge the 10 million democrats that voted for Bush. Fails to acknowledge how money in politics corrupts the system and the role it played. Fails to acknowledge voter fraud. Fails to acknowledge the role of the supreme court. Fail to acknowledge the propaganda. Instead this user solely blames Ralph Nader, a champion for workers rights, creator of OSHA, the EPA, and helped bring about the Freedom of Information Act. Then takes it a step further and says this man and liberal organizations of the like are really just front groups for republicans. It's absolute bullshit.

The elite HATES Ralph Nader and the Green Party too. That's why they work so hard to keep them out of DC.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks for writing this comment. This is a fascinating discussion to me -- I'm really learning from it and would like to continue it in a healthy way between the three of us and bensdad. We should sort this out in a calm rational way. I think I hear where everyone is coming from and think that we're getting closer to sort this out. Would like to hear factsrfun's genuine response to what you just said in this comment. . . .

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Why have you left the discussion?

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I haven't. I just had a good friend pass away and that has occupied my time.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sorry for your loss tr.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks very much

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I thought something might be wrong - you've been pretty quiet.

Take care of your self remember the GR8 times together.

I'm off to bed - G-Night.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Cheers :)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

sorry to hear that, at least there are still the ripples in time, they will last forever....

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Quite true :)

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

They won't address any of the facts I listed. Instead factsrfun just goes on to accuse me, the Green Party, and Nader, to be fronts for republicans. In one comment the user mentioned says "i don't have any facts to back this up... but...." and then pushes out a conspiracy theory.

They use defamation and fear as a response. Classic propaganda.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I don't fail to acknowledge anything even that if Nader had not put his name on the ballot in New Hampshire then Bush would have never been President we would have never gone to war in the first place hell there might not even be drones, but that's something you can never acknowledge, I acknowledge all that you said and it does not change the fact that with Nader's support Gore would have certainly beat Bush, something you fail to acknowledge.

I have been wary of you since the day I met you, you were pushing this propaganda, that there is no difference, something you don't actually say, just imply a trait of propaganda everywhere.

The elites loved Nader in 2000, hated Gore, remember all that "he's stiff" stuff?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Remove the GOP from office, in most cases that means electing Ds once the GOP has been reduce to where it no longer poses any threat the Ds will break apart our system is going to always have two major parties, it's the way the constitution is written with winner take all geographical selection of reps. I have no fear of "one party rule" if that were possible we would have it by now, I think the Ds will split apart and that's when we will get a people's party. Any attempt to form such a party while the GOP still lives simply gives seats to the GOP, given the current state of the country and the GOP I really do believe we can kill it if we concentrate and work our asses off and I think it's probably the only chance we have. Given how evil the GOP is, if we can't show that to the American people well we aren't likely to convince enough to create some new party.

On a personnel note I think I understand the attraction of a third, smaller party where you will be acknowledged and your ideals more likely to be implemented, but the true enemy is the ego, one must conquer that to do good.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

OK - so even if I agree with green candidate's platform and that candidate is excellent, I still should not vote for him or her? Even if it matches my viewpoint exactly. Maybe there is a silent majority out there who would nearly all support greens if they realized how many others do. . . Isn't voting for who we really want the only way to find out?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Voting is not speech, voting is an action; people are responsible for their actions.

Nate Silver was right on 50 of 50 states in 2012, 49 of 50 in 2008, if there’s a movement out there it will be seen by election day you know who has a chance and who doesn’t, putting the country’s future at risk to make a statement is reckless, that’s how Bush got into office in the first place, two wars and 16 trillion in debt vs. no wars and no debt, most likely. Everyday is the time to make a statement, speak truth and expose those that lie but when it comes time to vote suck it and do something for your country, remember it’s not about you, the ego is the enemy.

[-] 4 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I hear what you're saying. I understand the rationale behind it. I agree with some of it. But I'm left with this question: Does that mean that no one should RUN as a green party candidate under the 10 values above?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Putting your name on the ballot is usually an act of ego, it has nothing to do with getting a "message" out, no matter your platform if you don't win, if you put your name on the ballot instead of working to elect whoever has the best chance of beating the Republican that's a luxury I no longer believe we can afford. Of course there are many who will do what we have always done and work their butts off to get the petitions signed to get on the ballot and feel that's a victory, people "on the ballot" don't write the rules the winners do, there's two things going when a Green runs, first of course there's the votes that might have gone to a useful purpose like defeating a Republican, and there'e the lost of support because whoever is working to get the Greens on the ballot or votes for the Greens is people that could be spending their time defeating the Republican and making America a better place.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

But aren't the Dems owned by corporations too?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Yes, of course they are. And, this forum should start focusing on more meaningful change than this constant bickering about Dems vs. Reps and gun control b.s. We need to get back to the core issues of Occupy as a cohesive group or we aren't going to make the change we seek to make.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and you consider your statement that of course the Dems are owned by corporations to be "unifying"? or are only people willing to agree that the Ds are scum welcome?

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Prove it, factsrfun. Prove it that the Dems are not owned by corporations. Please. I'd love for that to be true.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I care about policy, not your race or sexual orientation or your sex or who you get your money from. Why don't you stop being so prejudice?

I don't hold it against OWS that it took money from any who gave it when helping Sandy victims.

You prove that if Nader had not ran that Gore would not have won, that we would never had the Two Wars the sixteen trillion in debt that threatens all of our retirements, if you're all into proving things.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You sent me this comment why?


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (9312) from Phoenix, AZ 1 minute ago

I responded to this comment,

"1 points by beautifulworld (12152) 11 hours ago You are simple. It's all Dem vs. Rep for you. Sad. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink"

in kind with this:

"1 points by factsrfun (9312) from Phoenix, AZ 11 hours ago it's all about hating Dems for you, that's what sad, i want to change things by removing from public office those most responsible for the wealth inequality, hard to say what you want to do, maybe you're here to build your own political party I don't know, but I'm not here to feed your ego."

there wasn't room if you still think there's no reason that's your right to think so, ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Factsrfun, I care about policy too. Yes, Obama is a bit better for the nation for the short term, but he's no savior for the long term, and neither are the Democrats. They're weak, the left in this country is weak, and that is why we've been overrun by gun nutters, Tea Party lunatics, warmongers and most importantly, greedy corporations. That is why the environment continues to be ravaged, the number of poor people continue to swell, wages decline, household debt increases, etc etc.

Blaming Nader is ridiculous. You can't re-write history. And, besides, what happened under Clinton? He cut welfare, enacted NAFTA, expanded the war on drugs, all damaging the well being of Americans. Without the groundwork that Nader laid down we'd probably be leaning toward fascism....

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Unpleasant - Harsh? - definitely Honest - And - TRUE

The Rino's are not the only problem in government.

There be Dino's as well.

Track em all - and kick em to the curb.

Move To Amend - People this is a good step forward to getting Bullshit and Bullshit-ers out of government.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Exactly, DKA. Thanks. Harsh, maybe, but not complicated.

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Party affiliation is less important than acknowledging that the idoelogy of conservatism has been at the center of ALL our problems.

trickle down, trade deals, neocon war mongering, weak fin/eco regs.

Whatever failures some dems are guilty of in caving in to support conservative policies they HAVE fought against the worst policies & they have been the only party to challenge the 1% corp oligarchs.

Finally the progressive caucus (which includes no repubs) is our best hope to implement pro 99% policies.

We must replace pro 1% conservatives (of both parties) w/ pro 99% progressives.

Movetoamend.org we can agree on. And we should agree that some pols support movetoamend others don't.

We can start separating the good from the bad there.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nope not complicated - not really harsh either ( depending on one's perception's ) - just a fact. {:-])


[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (12174) 12 minutes ago

Exactly, DKA. Thanks. Harsh, maybe, but not complicated. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I responded to this comment,

"1 points by beautifulworld (12152) 11 hours ago You are simple. It's all Dem vs. Rep for you. Sad. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink"

in kind with this:

"1 points by factsrfun (9312) from Phoenix, AZ 11 hours ago it's all about hating Dems for you, that's what sad, i want to change things by removing from public office those most responsible for the wealth inequality, hard to say what you want to do, maybe you're here to build your own political party I don't know, but I'm not here to feed your ego."

there wasn't room if you still think there's no reason that's your right to think so,

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Interesting how you find the Dems responsible for all those things you list and yet find no fault with the GOP you talk as if we had already killed the GOP, maybe if you did not expect the reward before you've done the work, things would be better.

What is ridiculous is pretending that Gore would not have won if he had gotten Nader's full support.

Under Clinton we balanced the budget and raised real wages for the first time in decades, Gore was the second act, Nader killed that.

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

You are simple. It's all Dem vs. Rep for you. Sad.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

it's all about hating Dems for you, that's what sad, i want to change things by removing from public office those most responsible for the wealth inequality, hard to say what you want to do, maybe you're here to build your own political party I don't know, but I'm not here to feed your ego.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Me thinkest thou attackest BW for No Reason.

Truth - Harsh? maybe - definitely Honest - And - TRUE nonetheless =

The Rino's are not the only problem in government.

There be Dino's as well.

Track em all - and kick em to the curb.

Move To Amend - People this is a good step forward to getting Bullshit and Bullshit-ers out of government.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

perhaps the left is weak because they are under attack from both sides, instead of turning our energy towards those doing harm and wish to do more, you save your ire for those are trying, just not very well, to do good yeah I can how you're not part of the problem NOT

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

OSHA, the EPA, FOIA and so much more.

But these guys don't want to talk about the 10 million registered democrats that voted for Bush, they don't want to talk about how money in politics bought that election, they don't want to talk about the voter fraud in many states, and they don't want to acknowledge the fact that third party voters vote third party because they feel disenfranchised by the 2 party system. No Nader and they vote for a different liberal. But these party hacks would rather demonize Nader. factsrfun has accused him of working for the republicans as well as suggesting the green party is really just a front group for republicans - of course without providing fact and failing to see that the 1% is actually funding the 2 factions of the corporate state, the D's and R's. Citi Banks gave how much to the Obama campaign and now Lew is the treasury nominee? Reminds me of Goldman Sachs giving money to Bush and then Henry Paulson became the Treasury Secretary.

Do you know who wouldn't have put Wall Street in their administration? Green Party or any other liberal organization.

Instead in their preferred world, factsrfun, the 2 factions of the corporate state would be the only options to vote for, which is further suppressing the little democracy we have in this corporate federal republic.

You've questioned the Blame Nader Theory, a theory designed to stop and dismantle support for real liberal organizations.

Questioning this propaganda will get you trolled from those who constantly push the 2 party system.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

I voted for Jill Stein and am proud of it and will vote Green in the next election. I'm done with the Dem/Rep thing. We've had the Dem/Rep thing for how long now? Decades. Where has it gotten us? Nowhere, as you point out in your excellent comment. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket and the writing is on the wall that we need bigger change.

Thanks for all you do here, Trevor. Never give up. Occupy Wall Street!!!

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I'd like to see us sort this out, put it behind us and unify too. I agree with you. Thanks for making this comment. It wouldn't hurt for Trevor, bensdad, factsrfun, you and I and others to try to at least come to an understanding on this so we can move on to the more important stuff. Just a thought. Even agreeing calmly to disagree and work together on what we agree on would be good. In fact it might be the key to moving forward on the important stuff.

Would love to hear what you, bensdad, factsrfun, trevor and others think about my paragraph above. . .

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

A quick review of the comments that follow will revel the issues, it seems that certain people require that you agree with them that the Ds are no good, to play with tervor or beautiful world one must agree that the Ds are owned whatever that means, if you bring forth logic such that the D would be better than the R they say you're in bed with the devil. Odd how BW one of the most stringent of these Dem haters talks of "unity" that's like a Republican talking about bi-partisan, in both cases compromise to them is agreeing completely with them.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I really wish we could figure this out. What would you say to beautiful world, trevor and bensdad if they were your brother or sister in each case? Please go one by one. I'm very interested in your response.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

did you think I adjusted my responses according to who makes the statement? you can read at length how I respond to them, truth is a tough thing it doesn't change one simply has to decide if you want to distorted it or hold true to it, as I have replied earlier those that say they both take money are there are huge differences in their policies, well that would be the truth I got no problem with people who spread the truth, regardless of my relationship with them, the problem I have with the people you mention is they all are truth deniers. (except bensdad)

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

This seems very divisive.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If the truth divides you then you're better off without the liar.

Why do so many on this site find it impossible to answer that one question do you or do you not believe there are big differences?

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

I think that is exactly one of the most important things we need to do. I see a lot of bickering here, bickering that frankly I just don't understand. No one is going to agree 100%. I've only met one person in my entire life that I agree with pretty much all the time. So, if we don't unite this forum, which, frankly represents this movement in a big way on the internet, we fail the masses who are counting on us (whether they know it or not).

We agree on so much surely we can all put our egos aside and stop getting stuck on little points and discuss the issues as they need to be addressed and at least have conversations here that are productive and not mere finger pointing and anger filled. That would be my wish. So, yes, therising, I agree with you. I am not speaking about anyone in particular, because this bickering thing has been rampant. It has driven good people away and that is a huge problem. Also, people need to focus on supporting good comments and threads. This is critical !

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Twinkle - good comment - but the normal bickering aside - there are also forum attackers who live for the divisiveness and actively promote it.

Solidarity - People.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

I agree, there are those scoundrels and cowards that vote but never post. Gee, I wonder who they work for? Solidarity is of the utmost importance right now! Solidarity, DKA! Never give up!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Keep-on Keeping-on BW.

Peace Health Prosperity fellowship - For ALL.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Right on. Your comment above is one of the most important I've seen in over a year on this forum ****. Once we begin to realize that we have more in common than we have dividing us, we will be able to make decisions fr a position of unified strength rather than demands from a position of divided weakness.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Thanks. It is critical to our success.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

So true. So true.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You mean bickering like you prove it!?

If you want to see the problem look into a mirror.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Yes, I mean puerile bickering. I don't need to prove it. It is all over this forum. And, your little statement about me looking in the mirror to see "the problem" is just as childish. Speaks of you, not me.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You are being reveled with every comment.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nice - Glad you think so.

reveled past participle, past tense of rev·el (Verb) Verb

  • Engage in lively and noisy festivities, esp. those that involve drinking and dancing.

  • Get great pleasure from.

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Ditto let us make progress out of sight that is w/o cite and or links.Let us build up what we are here for and speak of positive changes, if you can!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

OWS is about telling the truth, once you begin to understand that, you too can become a useful part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

err did Pakistan move to Iraq?

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Quit the condescending tone. You are the one who does not understand this movement.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You came talking about unity while demanding that all agree that the Dems are owned or prove otherwise, you are a hypocrite. You are the reason there is division because you insist on spreading the implied lie there there is no difference between the two parties, with words like "marginal" I guess if you think going to War in Iraq or not is marginal, remember the Iraq War ended over a year ago, where/when do you acknowledge that success? It brings to question your true purpose here.

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

And calling that or any war success speaks loud and clear I am not so sure about your attempts here. Just to let you know I know all about you get up off me people I AM...

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Occupy Wall Street is not a movement for the Democratic Party. Get that through your thick head.

And:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html

Who's the hypocrite? You do a lot of projection.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here's something I don't say often and I have no proof, but I think Nader and the Greens acted as agents of the 1% to keep Gore from being elected because we were so close to paying off the debt and the 1% need the debt to keep the 99% from thinking we actually could have a better life. Getting that close to paying off the debt scared the hell out of them and they bought the Greens and Nader to siphon votes and keep Gore from the White House. (They either bought them or played them.)

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Please see my comment with beautiful world above and please reply to that comment thread above if you are so inclined: Would love to see us discuss on same thread:

"I'd like to see us sort this out, put it behind us and unify too. I agree with you. Thanks for making this comment. It wouldn't hurt for Trevor, bensdad, factsrfun, you and I and others to try to at least come to an understanding on this so we can move on to the more important stuff. Just a thought. Even agreeing calmly to disagree and work together on what we agree on would be good. In fact it might be the key to moving forward on the important stuff.

Would love to hear what you, bensdad, factsrfun, trevor and others think about my paragraph above. . ."

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I will gladly unify with any that hold to truth.

When you say they both take money from corporations and there are huge differences in their policies toward the 99%, then you are my friend no doubt, but who will say that?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Not sure if I understand: Are you saying "Dems aren't perfect and it sucks that they take corporate money and in the long run, if all we got was more Dems it still wouldn't be enough.. . But that you're willing to admit that Dems are the lesser of 2 evils in the short term and that it helps to have them rather than republicans if we're trying to, in the short term, overturn citizens united and end corporate personhood. You would agree though that a post dem/republican dichotomy mentality must eventually be ushered in where politicians are doing the people's business first instead of tending first to the needs of corporations."

Is that essentially what you're saying?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It does seem you don't see the differences between the policies I do, your chief concern seems to be of complaining, I'm not so interested in that, so no I don't think I do agree, i said what meant, do you agree with that statement? or do you think there is not huge differences or do you think they don't both take money?

You can see how hard it is even to get past the simple truths, I think you find your answer to your unity question there.

As far as posting here I think the sort of things you are saying leads to support of third parties, and that leads to 2000 and another Bush, so I oppose that strongly, I hated Bush as a President, I think he did a crap job.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Your answer has confused me. I'm honestly not quite sure where you stand. Can you make it more clear for me by answering a few questions? You do understand that I despised the policies under bush too, right? And you also understand that I worked on Capitol Hill a number of years ago, right? What do you also understand my frustration, the frustration of millions of Americans, that both the Democratic and Republican parties are beholden to corporations? How do you feel about citizens United and how do you feel about corporate personhood?

Do you think that people who support occupy can unify under the banner of ending corporate personhood and overturning citizens United? I'm not suggesting that that be the only thing occupy would do, just suggesting that some feel that that is one thing that people who support occupy could do if they unified

Unless I read wrong, you seem to indicate that I mostly complain. That makes me think that maybe your response was one you cut and pasted from someone else. You have been on here a while and I'm pretty sure you've read a few of my posts and comments. Do you really stand by the statement that I spend a lot of time complaining? You said you're not interested in complaining. And you seem to imply that I am? Just seem like an odd thing to say

I am not asking these questions to be confrontational. I am simply trying to understand your position because I honestly am not sure where you stand.

Are you disappointed with Pres. Obama's environmental record? Are you disappointed that the richest 1% keep getting richer and the 99% keep getting poor? Do you think Democrats have been part of the problem there too?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I guess I'm still trying to figure out if you think there is very much difference between the parties or not, that one question is really hanging us up I think.

But let's see I'll take a crack at a few of yours I do hope that in your next response you will address my one question, do you believe there is a large difference in the policies of the two parties or not?

I'd like to see CU overturned or an amendment passed, I don't think it had the affect in 2012 some had hoped it would and to me it is secondary to addressing the wealth inequality issue. i came to the site after i saw someone on MSNBC taking about OWS and wealth inequality, they were of course accused of "class warfare" then something magical happen they kept taking, about wealth inequality like it didn't even faze them, so after almost thirty years i saw hope for America, so that's my number one.

I don't think you personally complain a lot but it seems especially before the election complaining about Obama seemed more important to many than keeping Romney out of the White House.

As far as the rest of your questions i'm still trying to find out the answer to that one, you know about how much difference do you see?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

twinkle = comment

Yes there seems to be more then a little confusion.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Below you asked me if I thought there was any real difference between republicans and democrats.

I responded as follows: "I think the difference between republicans and democrats is big enough to make a difference for people on the ground somewhat but small enough that the triumph of the Dems in white house, house and senate would NOT make ENOUGH of a difference to people on the ground to change the overall situation both for them as individuals and for us as a nation. If I am adrift in a life raft 200 miles from shore and a republican picked me up in a boat and drove me 5 miles closer to shore and then dumped me off again in the water I'd be pissed. When the democratic boat picks me up, drives me 20 miles towards shore and then dumps me back in the water and leaves, I have a hard time being happier with them than I am the republicans. I'm still stuck 180 miles from shore. Doing something isn't doing enough. This does not mean we should not elect Dems this year or next to get us that extra 15 miles closer to shore -- we should. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that this solves our problem."

Then you said:

"So supporting raising minimum wage and opposing raising minimum wage is pretty close to the same thing for you, those that support forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds not that much different than opposing them? hmmm I am beginning to wonder about your vision, if you really see how we got here what the sources of our economic problems. I see you are laying sort of long term plans a year or two, I have been thinking more like a decade or two, after all elections are only every two years, at least the big ones, removing the GOP from power is by far the most pressing need, predicting what the Dems will look like in 15 or 20 years, if we work really hard and concentrate all of our energy on defeating Republicans we might be close by then, is rather beyond even my ego. and this whole thing about people carrying you to the shore does sound a little like complaining."

Here is my response:

If you read what I wrote again carefully, you'll see that my clear point was this: sure we can elect Dems and yes that will help a little bit. But if you take that strategy to its logical conclusion, it only gets us 10% of the way to where we want to be even under the best case scenario with Dems in white house and controlling both houses of congress. Even in that situation, though SOME things might get better on the ground (some suffering ameliorated), we are at your goal of Dems being totally in control and we still have not even come close to solving the fundamental problems, one of the biggest of which is the fact that Dems are owned by corporations just as much as republicans are owned by corporations.

Notice the post at this link. http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-could-do-this-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way/ It doesn't suggest petitioning just republicans and then later engaging in nonviolent direct action against republicans. It doesn't say we should just surround the offices of republican members of congress. It says we should petition ALL members of congress, both parties, and then engage in nonviolent direct action by blocking entrances (see link for more info) so that all congress people can't enter -- not just republicans).

Of course we should do things in the interim to put bandaids on and ameliorate suffering where we can. But those band aids only get us 10% of the way to where we want to be.

Also, read the post carefully http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-could-do-this-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way/ . It makes it clear that this is not an end all be all. You seem to claim above that I'm only working on short term solutions and you're working on long term solutions. If you read carefully, you'll see it's actually the other way around.

You just replied below and said: [-] 1 points by factsrfun (9316) from Phoenix, AZ 1 hour ago "This does not mean we should not elect Dems this year or next"

I don't understand your point. Why are you pulling one sentence out from an entire comment? Are you implying that I should be cheering for the democrats? Please reread what I said above. We're still 180 miles from shore even if we get a bunch of Dems into office. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem of corporations owning our politicians.

We need to do way more than pull a lever every few years. We need to do things like this: http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-could-do-this-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way/

And this: http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/are-you-as-pissed-off-as-i-am-tired-of-the-stagnat/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

"This does not mean we should not elect Dems this year or next"

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I think the difference between republicans and democrats is big enough to make a difference for people on the ground somewhat but small enough that the triumph of the Dems in white house, house and senate would NOT make ENOUGH of a difference to people on the ground to change the overall situation both for them as individuals and for us as a nation.

If I am adrift in a life raft 200 miles from shore and a republican picked me up in a boat and drove me 5 miles closer to shore and then dumped me off again in the water I'd be pissed. When the democratic boat picks me up, drives me 20 miles towards shore and then dumps me back in the water and leaves, I have a hard time being happier with them than I am the republicans. I'm still stuck 180 miles from shore.

Doing something isn't doing enough. This does not mean we should not elect Dems this year or next to get us that extra 15 miles closer to shore -- we should. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that this solves our problem.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

So supporting raising minimum wage and opposing raising minimum wage is pretty close to the same thing for you, those that support forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds not that much different than opposing them? hmmm I am beginning to wonder about your vision, if you really see how we got here what the sources of our economic problems. I see you are laying sort of long term plans a year or two, I have been thinking more like a decade or two, after all elections are only every two years, at least the big ones, removing the GOP from power is by far the most pressing need, predicting what the Dems will look like in 15 or 20 years, if we work really hard and concentrate all of our energy on defeating Republicans we might be close by then, is rather beyond even my ego.

and this whole thing about people carrying you to the shore does sound a little like complaining

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I hear what you're saying. And I'm not trying to be confrontational at all. Just trying to understand where you're coming from. And I just want to get your real thoughts on this question: aren't the Dems owned by the corporations too? And isn't corporate power in politics the real problem?

I am very interested in your answer to that question -- not because I'm trying to "win" some argument (couldn't care less about such things) but because Inreally want to know what you think?

I'm hoping you'll give me your honest answer that you're wrestling with this dilemma too. I don't think there's any pure answer that "wins".

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and I'm trying to see where you're coming from are you saying there is little or no difference between the parties?

Look I don’t deny that, like OWS, the Ds take money from those that give it, what I would like to know is if you think that fact alone makes “good” impossible?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Many Dems profoundly disappoint and fail when they cave in & support conservative corp policies.

The Dems (& the country) HAVE moved right in the last 30 years. BUT, repubs proudly push the conservative policies that corps support, And Dems (progressive caucus (which include no repubs) especially) are the only ones challenging the conservative policies that corps favor.

So we must (as we have) agitate for all pols (dems especially) to strengthen their resolve in challenging those conservative corp policies.

To deny the real differences between the 2 parties serves the corps who mostly attack the Dems efforts at challenging them. Corps are certainly NOT attacking repubs. That is a pretty good measure as well.

Agitate all pols. Pressure dems to find their inner progressive, Lift them up, give the strength through support and we WILL drag them back from the right and force them to serve the 99%.

Repubs are too far gone.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

1st) party affiliation is not really an issue -

2nd) left or right is not really an issue.

In both case what is the issue - IS - Issues. Support for good issues like move to amend and noting all who do not support this issue.

Same consideration to all other issues. Who supports - Who Opposes.

Individuals all claiming affiliation to one party or another - claiming leanings of on sort or another. IT IS WHAT THEY ALL DO THAT MEANS ANYTHING - GOOD OR BAD


[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16636) 3 minutes ago

Party affiliation is less important than acknowledging that the idoelogy of conservatism has been at the center of ALL our problems.

trickle down, trade deals, neocon war mongering, weak fin/eco regs.

Whatever failures some dems are guilty of in caving in to support conservative policies they HAVE fought against the worst policies & they have been the only party to challenge the 1% corp oligarchs.

Finally the progressive caucus (which includes no repubs) is our best hope to implement pro 99% policies.

We must replace pro 1% conservatives (of both parties) w/ pro 99% progressives.

Movetoamend.org we can agree on. And we should agree that some pols support movetoamend others don't.

We can start separating the good from the bad there. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so party isn't the problem left right not the problem, tell me which Republicans have introduced bills that you feel address our issues? who on the right? if making friends is our aim then I understand your position but creating radical change while being afraid to "take sides"? I don't see how that is possible I think becoming very party active to point that OWS can threaten to "primary" Dems that support the 1%.

One concern I have is that the Green Party will try to use OWS as a launching pad to reignite their party and we set ourselves up for another 2000, I see that as the biggest threat to everything OWS stands for.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I think if you want to push party over issues - then you would be best to be pushing getting back to and supporting Party Ideals = Democracy/Republic/listening to the people.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (9348) from Phoenix, AZ 0 minutes ago

I would say that has been the prevailing view for at least 40 years, almost always those wanting real change move toward third parties or sometimes they try to make friends with everyone and sometimes that works if you want to clean up a river I think you can get support from all over, or at least you once could, but if you are serious about addressing the wealth issue there are no friends among the GOP and failure to recognize that will be fatal to the effort i believe. Sop that brings back to the third party relief valves for the 1%, I have no interest in creating those. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Like I said your view of focusing on issues is the one that's been done for decades and is very popular and sometime works.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

dino = democrat in name only.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (9348) from Phoenix, AZ 5 hours ago

I'd rather have a rino than a Republican, myself,haven't heard this dino term much I assume you mean people that aren't liberal enough, but the way to deal with that is to "primary" their asses, and the only way to do that is to get off the fence and get deep into party politics. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I got to ask, did you really think I needed it spelled out?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Look - I am not trying to say that there are no rino's - corpoRATist by another name - what I am saying is that they are not alone - there be dino's too.

What I am saying is that all of the Bullshit politicians in office - state and federal - need to go - and they will be spotted by their support and opposition of Issues.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

let me explain a bit about where I'm coming from, I think things are bad, really bad, I think that everything wrong with our public policy can be traced the the GOP and the right, I believe if people who understand there is too much wealth inequality, that Wall Street has too much power cannot see how bad the GOP is and what they have done, if we can't show them that, then like the "Greens" in 2000 when they didn't endorse Gore we are blinded by our egos and all is lost.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I do not believe it would be useful for OWS to attempt to "primary" Republicans but I do think we could do so to Dems, so this the direction I think we should go, on another note, how long since you have heard anything on the TV about wealth inequality, it's been awhile for me

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I'd rather have a rino than a Republican, myself,haven't heard this dino term much I assume you mean people that aren't liberal enough, but the way to deal with that is to "primary" their asses, and the only way to do that is to get off the fence and get deep into party politics.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Looking at your last line? = "and the only way to do that is to get off the fence and get deep into party politics."

ummm yeah kinda - party politics? - involvement there? - um I think we need to get past that noise and deal with issues.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (9348) from Phoenix, AZ 0 minutes ago

I got to ask, did you really think I needed it spelled out? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I would say that has been the prevailing view for at least 40 years, almost always those wanting real change move toward third parties or sometimes they try to make friends with everyone and sometimes that works if you want to clean up a river I think you can get support from all over, or at least you once could, but if you are serious about addressing the wealth issue there are no friends among the GOP and failure to recognize that will be fatal to the effort i believe. So that brings us back to the third party relief valves for the 1%, I have no interest in creating those. Nader and the Greens were a relief valve for the 1% in 2000 taking away just enough of the pressure to squeeze Bush in.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well in this case the issue appears to be "who is owned by the 1% corp oligarchs". I have to say both parties are bought and paid for.

The difference is:

Some dems (NO REPUBS) challenged those 1% wall st oligarchs by passing fin reform (weak as it is). The repubs dutifully watered it down and provided only 1 or 2 votes.

That is an issue.

Dems (progressive caucus specifically) are committed to implementing that reform (repubs have delayed that) over the objections of the 1% corp oli's.

Dems are on record to pass additional stronger fin reform, Repubs are on record to repeal the weak regs that dems already passed.

This last election cycle repubs got 70% of the wall st contributions.

These are real illustrations of who is fighting for the 99% and who is fighting for the 1% oli's.

1 party succeeded at raising taxes on the 1% corp oligarchs for the 1st time in 20 years.

! party has fought against that.

That is more evidence on this one issue. Dems accept wall st contributions but they are still challenging the 1% corp oligarchs and supporting laws that the Oli's object to.

Forget the party affiliation if it bothers you.

Decide on the issues. That's how I do it.

We must replace pro 1% conservatives (of BOTH parties!) w/ pro 99% progressives.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Keep working on it - that last comment was better but still has plenty of room for growth.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16648) 0 minutes ago

Thanks for the honest criticism. I'm gonna put that aside a moment since it seems more like a distraction from the "issue".

I didn't say "all" 1% are bad or evil. That would be another straw man you've setup to knock down.

But we need policies that are pro 99%, not pro 1%.

So back to the issue.

replace pro 1% conservative (of both parties) w/ pro 99% progressives (like Grayson, Kucinich)

(not all conservatives should be replace, only those that are pro 1%. Not all 1% are evil, but we need pro 99% policies. OK?) ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

In fact my comments are all just fine thank you very much. My replace comment hasn't changed)

Your criticism were clearly not based in fact ("all conservative"? didn't say it!, "all 1% evil"? never suggested it!)

Perhaps you need to do some work on figuring out why exactly you are unable to agree with me. It appears to be personal.

I think my obvious fearlessness in assigning blame to the most guilty (repubs) might be part of your animosity towards me. (Just as a head start for you.)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Please - it is how you operate - you ( in your opinion do no wrong ) deny it when facts of your attacks are pointed out to you - as you make your attacks.

Query? Do you still up-vote yourself? I wonder as you did so in the past - and you do not seem to be popular here ( the forum ) and yet you keep piling up points. How is that when I see all of the down voting that you receive on a regular basis?


[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16627) 0 minutes ago

I reject your accusation that I treat those who disagree "as an attacker" How have I done that?

I am simply offering an honest alternate view to your honest criticism.

What blanket statement are you referring to? Perhaps there has been a miscommunication? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Again - No Animosity

Again - Honest criticism

Again - you have a tendency to make blanket statements

Again - just an observation

Again - the observation points out the reason you are unable to have an open back and forth conversation. Where people have differing points of view. Not even entirely different - just perhaps slightly different than one you state - you can not see your black and white stance and the fact that you treat anyone who does not wholly agree with you as an attacker. Hence you defensive replies to my observations.


[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16648) 4 minutes ago

In fact my comments are all just fine thank you very much. My replace comment hasn't changed)

Your criticism were clearly not based in fact ("all conservative"? didn't say it!, "all 1% evil"? never suggested it!)

Perhaps you need to do some work on figuring out why exactly you are unable to agree with me. It appears to be personal.

I think my obvious fearlessness in assigning blame to the most guilty (repubs) might be part of your animosity towards me. (Just as a head start for you.) ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I reject your accusation that I treat those who disagree "as an attacker" How have I done that?

I am simply offering an honest alternate view to your honest criticism.

What blanket statement are you referring to? Perhaps there has been a miscommunication?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There you go again - do you think there are no bad in the 1% that are considered progressive in their views?

BTW - not all of the 1% have been proven evil -anti-society.

Look at your comment and think about it ( for awhile ) you are very exclusive ( black and white in your comments/views ) .

This has the tendency to put you in conflict with others - when there is no conflict. This is why you have little ability to carry on an open two way conversation.

No hostility intended - just an observation - and honest criticism.

BTW - criticism is not a bad thing - it is an offering of what is seen.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16648) 1 minute ago

I didn't say "all". When people do that we call it "setting up a straw man, to then knock down"

Ok. I agree. All conservatives are not bad. & all progressives are not good. but since I didn't say All" this is just a distraction.

But pro 1% conservatives (of both parties) are bad. Right?

And pro 99% progressives (like Grayson, Kucinich) are good. Right? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Thanks for the honest criticism. I'm gonna put that aside a moment since it seems more like a distraction from the "issue".

I didn't say "all" 1% are bad or evil. That would be another straw man you've setup to knock down.

But we need policies that are pro 99%, not pro 1%.

So back to the issue.

replace pro 1% conservative (of both parties) w/ pro 99% progressives (like Grayson, Kucinich)

(not all conservatives should be replace, only those that are pro 1%. Not all 1% are evil, but we need pro 99% policies. OK?)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No hostility was presented - it is funny that you see hostility in conversations/comments when none is offered. Defensive much?


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16648) 0 minutes ago

No need for the hostility.

I agree with BW "we should come together without the bickering and nastiness"

Why are you avoiding these important questions designed to bring us together?

I support Grayson, & Kucinich. They ARE pro 99% progressives. I've seen you praise them, let's agree we need more pro 99% progressives LIKE them! ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Still avoiding the issue. ("what's the matter with you?", "defensive much" these comments are distractions, a bit personal, let's stick to discussing the issues in a respectful way)

Why are you avoiding these important questions designed to bring us together?

I support Grayson, & Kucinich. They ARE pro 99% progressives. I've seen you praise them, let's agree we need more pro 99% progressives LIKE them!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

What is the matter with you? Can't take my comment - reply to your comment at face value as a positive thing?

BTW - can you not see the exclusive/inclusive nature of your comment?


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16636) 0 minutes ago

That's what I said. You can't find it in yourself to say you agree?

I agree with BW "we should put ego aside".

Do you support pro 99% progressives? I've seen you praise Grayson. & Kucinich. Is too difficult because it's comin from me? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No need for the hostility.

I agree with BW "we should come together without the bickering and nastiness"

Why are you avoiding these important questions designed to bring us together?

I support Grayson, & Kucinich. They ARE pro 99% progressives. I've seen you praise them, let's agree we need more pro 99% progressives LIKE them!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I am not avoiding the issue - I am pointing out that you have the absolute ( very apparent ) need to limit. Not all conservative people are bad - not all progressive people are good - there is no black and white there.

Look at the root conserve - where in that root is the bad?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I didn't say "all". When people do that we call it "setting up a straw man, to then knock down"

Ok. I agree. All conservatives are not bad. & all progressives are not good. but since I didn't say All" this is just a distraction.

But pro 1% conservatives (of both parties) are bad. Right?

And pro 99% progressives (like Grayson, Kucinich) are good. Right?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

We must replace bad politicians with good representatives of the PEOPLE.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

That's what I said. You can't find it in yourself to say you agree?

I agree with BW "we should put ego aside".

Do you support pro 99% progressives? I've seen you praise Grayson. & Kucinich. Is too difficult because it's comin from me?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I don't wrestle at all with the absolute need to remove the GOP from public office, sorry if you were looking for a more conflicted answer, that would of been me thirty years ago.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

wow so now you don't only disrespect logic in regards to the 2000 election, but you make up entire bullshit conspiracy theories?

"i don't have any proof" - you say. Where have I heard that bullshit before. Herman Cain - "I don't have any facts to back this up... but...."

Maybe you should just stop talking for a while.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

How else do you explain why the main stream media suddenly fell in love with Nader and the Greens in 2000? Nader was on every TV show. The 1% have played the third party saps for decades.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the 1% funds the 2 factions of the corporate state.

They did not fund Nader or the Green Party.

Again you blame liberal organizations and say they are funded by the 1%, and then you try to call me the right winger?

You are an absolute joke.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Please see my comment to beautifulworld above and please reply to that comment thread above if you are so inclined: Would love to see us discuss on same thread:

"I'd like to see us sort this out, put it behind us and unify too. I agree with you. Thanks for making this comment. It wouldn't hurt for Trevor, bensdad, factsrfun, you and I and others to try to at least come to an understanding on this so we can move on to the more important stuff. Just a thought. Even agreeing calmly to disagree and work together on what we agree on would be good. In fact it might be the key to moving forward on the important stuff.

Would love to hear what you, bensdad, factsrfun, trevor and others think about my paragraph above. . ."

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You must understand there is high likelihood that trevor is simply a GOP troll. It is the simplest explanation as to why he is so good at attacking Obama and weak at presenting anything to do with wealth inequality, this is the chief characteristic of trolls (here) but I presume too much to tell you this I think you understand these things, don’t you?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I'm the guy supporting liberals fighting for a living wage and you call me and those liberals like Ralph Nader GOP goons. You are a fucking hack.

Also OWS does not support Obama. Does that mean OWS is really just a GOP front organization? You have no respect for logic and you obviously don't use facts to back anything you say. OWS knows the government is corrupt, and yes that includes democrats and republicans.

See you never actually read any of my posts and then you make up lies about me.

recent posts by me - Stop the Keystone XL

Defense Spending to be 60% of federal discretionary spending

Jack Lew to head the treasury (banks corrupting the government)

Hedges discusses OWS and Black Bloc

Corporate Control: Becoming A Third World America

War is corporate control at it's deadliest and most destructive

My Nation Will Stop the Pipeline

Unemployment is a National Emergency

John Brennan soon to head the CIA

Chris Hedges discuss OCCUPY and the FBI files

Vast new spy program - ACLU speaks out

8 great ideas to prevent corporate control of government - from Alan Grayson

Permanent Bailout State - by Matt Taibbi

The Kochs in Iran

Top 5 moments in OWS history

And one you'd enjoy for sure - Boehner's terror alert skin set back to orange.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

like I said you're good at hating Obama....

I don't see shit about wealth inequality on your list BTW, not that you actually give a shit about the things on your list because if you did you would want to do something about them instead of just using the voting booth as a speech platform.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

you're right. I do not like president. I think he is a warmonger Wall Street fraud like the last few presidents. Comparable to Bush and Clinton and Bush Sr

Wake Up! The government is corrupt. As a whole they are not serving our best interests.

You blame liberal organizations say they are republicans front groups and blame Nader instead of the frauds. Then you try to call me the hack? What a joke.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

what's your point? you saying there's "not enough difference?" then you either don't know how bad the GOP is or you don't care, do I need to go into the huge differences between the parties?

Didn't OWS take money from whoever gave it when asking for Sandy relief?

[-] 1 points by LoveChild (18) 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

what is your point?

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

You said that so much more diplomatically than I did.


If Green agreed to become and "advocacy" group - with no candidates - fighting for goals rather than candidates who cant win, I would vote to merge OWS & Green

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Please see my comment to beautifulworld above and please reply to that comment thread above if you are so inclined: Would love to see us discuss on same thread: "I'd like to see us sort this out, put it behind us and unify too. I agree with you. Thanks for making this comment. It wouldn't hurt for Trevor, bensdad, factsrfun, you and I and others to try to at least come to an understanding on this so we can move on to the more important stuff. Just a thought. Even agreeing calmly to disagree and work together on what we agree on would be good. In fact it might be the key to moving forward on the important stuff. Would love to hear what you, bensdad, factsrfun, trevor and others think about my paragraph above. . ."

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Please see my question put to factrfun above: can you help me out on this question too? I'm asking it in a genuine way:

"I hear what you're saying. And I'm not trying to be confrontational at all. Just trying to understand where you're coming from. And I just want to get your real thoughts on this question: aren't the Dems owned by the corporations too? And isn't corporate power in politics the real problem? I am very interested in your answer to that question -- not because I'm trying to "win" some argument (couldn't care less about such things) but because Inreally want to know what you think? I'm hoping you'll give me your honest answer that you're wrestling with this dilemma too. I don't think there's any pure answer that "wins"."

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

If your engine is "knocking" do you throw it out?
OR do you fix it If your employee is coming in late every day, do you fire him?
OR do you try to find out what the problem is & resolve it?


I believe [ unlike most here ] the problem is not capitalism { chuck it }
I believe [ unlike most here ] the problem is not democracy { get rid of the representatives }


I believe the problem is the connection between the two - that can and should be severed

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

That would be a viable plan, before 2000 I often spoke highly of the Greens (and Nader), with the strong push by the GOP to limit voting I no longer feel we can hope for "some day" we need to take effective action now.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You blame liberal organizations like the green party for Bush, which makes zero logical sense, and again that style of propaganda was designed to take momentum away from liberal organizations that don't want to serve the banks and want wage increases for workers, and you try to FEAR people into only supporting the 2 factions of the corporate state.

You are misinformed and you have allowed your allegiance to a party to blind you from the truth that both parties fully serve capitalism, the banks, wars of imperialism, massive incarceration of non-violent citizens exercising their right to choose what they put in their bodies, and you do it all in the name of FEAR.

Ultimately I think one day you will realize this. Maybe 8 years of war under Obama will help you realize this truth. Choosing Jack Lew for treasury, or approving the Keystone XL. Or maybe one day after you read a book about the horrors of the Afghanistan war and the rule of the big banks.

You do know the elite are scared shitless of Ralph Nader right? It's why they've worked so hard to destroy him. And when you push spin propaganda to take down Nader and other liberal organizations, you are helping the elite.

You constantly blame liberal institutions and liberals running for office for the problem that is republicans. You've done it all over 3rd party forums posts. Blame Nader for Bush? Seriously? Blame the corporate take over, don't blame the liberal fighting the corporate takeover.

Again - Bush won because of corporate dominance, propaganda, and loads of corruption. Why don't you blame the 10 million democrats that voted for Bush? Why don't you blame the republicans? Why don't you blame the propaganda and the money in politics? Blaming Nader is absolute bullshit. And again it is Spin propaganda designed to take down real liberal organizations for the sake of promoting the 2 factions of the corporate state.

Guess what, if Nader wasn't running, those people wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway. There's a reason people vote third party and it's because they're disenfranchised by the corruption of democrats and republicans.

But go ahead and help the elite and chase Nader out of town and fight against those supporting liberal organizations. You're only fighting yourself.

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

None of the rich pay that rate regardless. It was mainly a middle class cut, and their taxes all just went up 2%. Raising or lowering taxes in a racket with 75k pages of rich people loopholes is insanity.

"I hate the greens"

You're a fuckin sell out. The goal is radical change here, not more of the same. Why is that so hard for you older posters to grasp?

You should freakin love the libertarians and Gary Johnson then? They help keep Dems in power, right?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Kill the GOP and you will see change.

Supporting third parties is same old shit that's always been done.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The right likes to say the Greens are weak, which is just utterly stupid. As far as I can see, they one of only a few groups willing to tackle the big stuff.

Jill rocks, Cheri is great, and if the people werent so god damned brainwashed we could have gotten a few people like this in there this time to raise some holy hell.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So all 3rd parties (including Green) got less than 2% ofthe vote in Nov & you don't think that equals weakness?

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

Here is the really tough question for any Green -
Would you rather have a Green president with no power to achieve Green goals
OR
Would you rather have Geen goals persued by a non-Green president


personally, I believe a Green will never be president, and you can kvetch about my position - but pragmatism & history show the truth.
With no Nader in Florida, we would not have had bush.


can you imagine what willard would do for his koch masters?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I agree we will never see a Green Pres.

[+] -4 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

It shows a population that over half didnt vote, many werent allowed to (felons) and the ones that did decided we should do what we have been doing the last 100 years.

The people are weak on self governance. The TV runs this show. Its a fear based system.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Almost 60% of eligible voters voted. So we definitely have work to do their.

As "a leader" (aaaaaaahha ha ha ha) I'm sure you support fighting the many efforts to suppress votes, (except you play it down and claim "it ain't really happening")

MSM IS a problem, but not as bad as people who gloss over voter suppression. You're state was found to have prevented more than 100 thousand votes. Maybe they would have gone 3rd party.

In any event you gotta pretty ignorant if you think 4rd party has any strength in America.

At least we got rid of a few extremist (West in your state) and added more progressive (Allen Grayson also Fla)

Don't be a nattering nabob of negatism, be the leader you think you are! replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

That data is bullshit. I worked on it. 100k votes? Really? You really think thats whats going on? And you also think that it was record numbers too?

Listen, the jobs data is all bullshit. The stock market is all bullshit. The UE rate is all bullshit. And this "Record Voting!!" nonsense is all bullshit too. All part of keeping the illusion going as long as possible, without people realizing they are living in a corporate shithole.

I have to listren to the left saying that requiring ID was the worst thing ever, even though I need one to buy a fuckin beer- and can serve but cant drink until 21- and the right claiming that all these dead people voted.

Neither party has the ability to fix shit, so they do this stupid bullshit to keep the people distracted, keep em arguing while they pillage the entire country.

So why did you vote for them if you feel they are so weak? You realize Bensdad and Facts and WSmith think you are a traitor now?

I

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

FYI- I dont use labels like "traitors" and generalized labels like "bs" and other vulgarities. I use facts & numbers.
And I ( try to ) NEVER lie
"I have to listen to the left saying that requiring ID was the worst thing ever"
If you have the guts - site the source


"Neither party has the ability to fix s___"
guess which party got us out of the Korean war?
guess which party saved the Union?
guess which party built the interstate highway system?
guess which party built the intercontinental railroad?


and frankly - I dont understand how VQkag2 has the patience to deal with you.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Stop, the hysteria over the ID thing was mind boggling, from both sides.

If we are going to bring up Korea, lets bring up Vietnam too.

If we are going to claim saving unions, lets talk about free trade deals.

If we are gonig to talk about interstate highway system- well, I believe that was started under Eisenhower- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

And then the railroad shit, that wasnt really a gov thing...unless you are under the pretense that I am that JP morgan ran the gov.

For every bad thing you can say about Dems or Reps, I can another worse one on each one. Fuck em all.

And no, you just compare young people, many occupiers, working on 3rd party campaigns because they are passionate, as the same as voting for Romney. Very narrow. And not very inclusive.

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

I work in at least two OWS working groups with Greens. How about you?
FYI- I pointed to things that the Rs fixed
You must know how I am a shill for the Rs


ANd - in case you did not understand - Nader cost Gore the election

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Ya, Ive heard that idiotic take on how people trying to create somthing better led us back to the establishment, that we never left to begin with.

If you dont like Nader, you dont like democracy, you hate the chance to be better, and with a campaign like that, you have absolutely no respect for trying to create a better world with little money compartively. Young people realizing this system is fucked and trying to do somthing on their own is what OWS is.

Working with registered greens in a couple work groups is not the same as blaming them for what is wrong in this country. do you tell them they are to blame? Do you tell them to never think about doing that again?

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

Do you get off on posting what I dont say ??????????????????


If you dont like Nader, you dont like democracy, you hate the chance to be better, and with a campaign like that, you have absolutely no respect for trying to create a better world with little money compartively. Young people realizing this system is fucked and trying to do somthing on their own is what OWS is.

Working with registered greens in a couple work groups is not the same as blaming them for what is wrong in this country. do you tell them they are to blame? Do you tell them to never think about doing that again?


Actually, many of these Greens work Green & vote D

[+] -4 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

And we all realize you use your WSmith handle for the real hardcore bashing, and keep the bensdad one for the more appropriate stuff, seems how you have your site you keep pimping on here.

Which is fine, but lets not act like you are the lone person here who doesnt act like an asshole sometimes.

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

Thanks for the compliment


fyi- "I" do not have a site - my OWS working group has a site
Do you support getting rid of corporate personhood?
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I find it hard to believe that you couldnt find, in OWS full of techies, someone to set that up better than that.

You cant really protest the bailouts, and the corporate money in politics, and then vote for Ds and Rs that are openly still stealing the money (85 billion a month in plain view) and openly accepting the corporate money.

They heard what we had to say. They didnt make a stand, they didnt provide resources, they didnt stop the evictions, they didnt do a god damn thing except sign three new free trade deals and make a few nice comments in the media.

We were heard. They just dont give a fuck. Im sorry you cant see that.

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

I do not bunch all D together or all R
I vote for the best electable candidate.

Here is a question for you: Imagine you are 11 years old and your parents are divorcing
The judge says you can decide who to live with-
your prostitute mother
or your violent drunk father
or you can go live in an orphanage

who do you vote for?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Still defending Gov. Scott I see, oh yeah that's right he's a Republican can't speak ill of him, just like gun control has nothing to do with guns it's about the fed, you're so transparent you could work nights as a window.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

God youre obnoxious. Go "pick" another wife.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I never said there was "record voting" that's you blatantly lying and twisting the facts because you can't argue that facts honestly.

Jobs data, UE, Stock market IS bullshit but that's you attempting distractions. More dishonest distractions. Indicative of desperation, & empty positions.

The Left is not keeping anyone from voting. The right is! Your partisanship shows when you gloss over therepub efforts to suppress votes.

My votes did get counted with 3rd parties because I wanted to make my disatisfaction with the duopoly known. but I assure you my 3rd party vote most definitely helped the Dem candidates.

I did vote for Pres Obama. And while I wouldn't accept anything you say as truthfull you certainly do not speak for those excellent posters.

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

So I guess the "I voted for 3rd party down the ticket" was a just a bold faced lie?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No sir. I don't need to lie. I DID vote 3rd PARTY down the ballot. Do you know how many dem candidates appear under the Green party line? Not President this cycle (other cycles though) but certainly lesser offices.

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

I am not against 3rd parties.
They put forth many good ideas. Chris Matthews stated my opinion perfectly before the election- If you are in a solidly red state (AL) or blue state (NY) -
vote for anyone 1st 2nd 3rd

BUT if your state MIGHT go R (1%) - vote D (99%)

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Perfect.