Occupy Wall Street

[JB3]

If it's the only way to be heard.....

Not really.

 

[JB3]

And we finally get to the truth.

You dislike "liberals," and think this is some kind of "liberal," thing.

But it isn't.

Anything that could bring Kuli and I into complete agreement can't be described by the tired old liberal/conservative crap the two party system has sold you - and you apparently don't even bother to question.

Maybe you missed the part of the CoC where you're supposed to discuss the subject at hand and not the posters.

 

[TX-Beau]

What exactly have they sold me? Seriously. All I see is a bunch of people upset with their current situation. I do not see that 99% of america supports them. I do see the same dividing lines in polling numbers supporting their ideas as the difference between typical republican and democratic voting groups... in the forty percent range.

So what do we do with the other 60% of america that doesnt agree?

Your way or the highway? Riot and protest till ya get your way?

Like I said enjoy that. Although I find it odd that a group of folks so obviously devoted to OWS isn't out there living it day to day. I have the courage of my convictions. I go do what I believe in instead of chit chatting about it.

Oh and by the way between your two post you simply seek to discuss me. You seek to define me instead of defining the issues you hold dear. You ought to get to that issue definition because the american people arent gonna change because they dont like Jhawk. Nothing in my post says I hate liberals. Just that it appears everyone who normally espouses liberal ideas in this forum is rabidly behind this movement. Well rabidly typing for the movement.

Please. Once again, not listening, just projecting out of your own mind.

Kuli is pretty damn far from being a liberal and he supports.

What they sold you was a false antagonism - and you bought it.

 

[JayHawk]

Again and again and again. I can only project out of my mind. My toes do not thinking. Although based on some of the post I would imagine there are some bung holes thinking for some folks.

False Antagonism..... so wrongly antagonizing?

SO who am I wrongly causing to become hostile?

Wait I am the reason they rioted?

HUH?

Oh and by the way Kuli is a libertarian so he is by definition the most liberal person on these boards...

 

[TX-Beau]

Dodge to the left.

 

[JayHawk]

Oh wait do you mean the people in the streets of Oakland are falsely antagonizing the rest of the people of Oakland?

 

[TX-Beau]

Dodge to the right.

 

[JayHawk]

Okay so you have no point. Check.

 

[TX-Beau]

You won't listen to me, you'll either go find your answers for yourself or you won't.

 

[JB3]

Both of you, seriously. Get a life and move on. This is tiring.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nope, it doesn't. Fleabagger dream.

Search
About 2,920,000 results (0.14 seconds)

Why do conservatives have to lie so often?

 

[Kulindahr]

While I think the overall meaning of the OWS movement is clear to anyone listening, I also think the movement should clarify and focus their demands, if nothing else than to silence the conservative brigades who dismiss them for "no clear goal".

That clear goal should be obvious: get the money out of politics. Their one, over-riding principle should be the demand for publicly funded elections with donations and lobbying banned. Whatever the OWS side-issue, this one goal will address it in some way. Corporate greed and power, environment, tax loopholes, tax fairness, income equality, health care - all of these issues are corrupted by governments who answer to money before constituents.

Get the money out of politics and you'll get a government who answers to the majority, rather than the wealthy.

What, so we can have a bevy of bureaucrats choosing our candidates instead of a constellation of corporatists?

 

[Kulindahr]

Please. Once again, not listening, just projecting out of your own mind.

Kuli is pretty damn far from being a liberal and he supports.

What they sold you was a false antagonism - and you bought it.

This may be appropriate here:

With the country at war and the economy in recession, our government leaders’ first thoughts have been of party advantage.

This is not an accident. Ours is a system focused not on collective problem-solving but on a struggle for power between two private organizations. Party activists control access to the ballot through closed party primaries and conventions; partisan leaders design congressional districts. Once elected to Congress, our representatives are divided into warring camps. Partisans decide what bills to take up, what witnesses to hear, what amendments to allow.

Many Americans assume that’s just how democracy works, that this is how it’s always been, that it’s the system the Founders created. But what we have today is a far cry from what the Founders intended. George Washington and James Madison both warned of the dangers posed by political parties. Defenders of the party system argue that parties—including Madison’s own—arose almost immediately after the nation was founded. But those were not parties in the modern sense: they were factions uniting on a few major issues, not marching in lockstep on every issue, large and small. And while some defend the party system as a necessary provider of cues to voters who otherwise might not know how to vote, the Internet and mass media now make it possible for voters to educate themselves about candidates for office.

What we have today is not a legacy of 1789 but an outdated relic of the late 1800s and early 1900s, when Progressives pushed for the adoption of primary elections.

The system not only has mutual antagonism, it thrives on it; it not only thrives, but today perhaps most Congresscritters would be lost without it. America loves vigorous, spiteful, even vicious rivalries -- just look at professional sports fans -- and in that spirit, Congress has also bee turn into a game.


At the Occupy Vancouver rally, I stood with a Tea Party sympathizer and a proud Socialist, who often rolled eyes at statements the other was making to me, but who fervently agreed on the main points of the movement.*

If two ordinary people can agree, what (to use my grandmother's phrase) in eternal damnation is wrong with Congress?





*which, since they are obvious to anyone paying attention, I will not list

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh and by the way Kuli is a libertarian so he is by definition the most liberal person on these boards...

LOL

Only in the classical sense. But also in the classical sense, it makes me the most conservative person on the board.

Which described our Founding Fathers, too: energetically liberal because they were deeply conservative.

 

[Kulindahr]

Again and again and again. I can only project out of my mind. My toes do not thinking. Although based on some of the post I would imagine there are some bung holes thinking for some folks.

False Antagonism..... so wrongly antagonizing?

I suspect he meant "false dichotomy", not antagonizing. But in this case the false dichotomy leads to a sense of antagonism in many folks, and that may, I suppose, be regarded as "false antagonism".

 

[Kulindahr]

Both of you, seriously. Get a life and move on. This is tiring.

More like back off and reconsider what you're not doing to communicate.

Although when laziness and insult combine like this:

Okay so you have no point. Check.

. . . yes, it's tiring.

 

[JB3]

More like back off and reconsider what you're not doing to communicate.

Although when laziness and insult combine like this:



. . . yes, it's tiring.

They're both at fault, and they both need to stop.

 

[chance1]

They're both at fault, and they both need to stop.

Well that's settled

OWS - feel free to visit

As a resident of the city my bet is you would ask this collection of people to figure out exactly what their message is - communicate it - and police their own - as there are far too many "members" who ruin the reality not the idea of it

 

[TX-Beau]

I suspect he meant "false dichotomy", not antagonizing. But in this case the false dichotomy leads to a sense of antagonism in many folks, and that may, I suppose, be regarded as "false antagonism".

Yes I do mean false dichotomy – but I don’t think that term goes far enough. What's going on in here, this pointless demonizing of some idiots to slander the whole movement. It's ridiculous. Our current political culture has sold us this bill of goods wherein there are two camps that must be not only diametrically opposed, but also antagonistic in an extremely belligerent fashion.

To the point where just saying “liberal” or having something perceived as “liberal,” gets a knee jerk immediate dismissal without once ever actually listening, let alone allowing that maybe there is no conflict at all – and a lot of liberals are in the same damn boat.

Forget the fact that the Dems are not liberal and the Pubs are not conservative. We all have to team up, to pick a side and disparage the other for no real reason, and never ever allow that the other side might have something useful to say. What do people actually know about liberalism anyway – usually liberals aren’t talking liberalism, they’re talking Socialism, which is fine and I don’t really have a problem with Socialism per se, but it remains that Socialism is about functional models of government whereas “Liberal,” is an ideology.

Socialism may be Liberal at a core philosophical level, but then again that’s no requirement for Socialism. AND conservatism isn’t about god or far right whackitude or immediate, unreasoned opposition to Liberalism. That’s just the bill of goods we’ve been sold. – And it’s about damn time we all stopped playing in that lunatic sandbox.

Liberalism at its core is very simple – it is the belief that all people deserve a fair shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and Conservatism at its core is about limiting the intrusions of government into people’s lives and reasonable government – and these two things are not at war with each other no matter what the yapping heads are continually shouting in our ears.

I fucking agree, all people should be equal before not only the letter of the law, but also in regards to the establishment that executes it.

I fucking agree that fiscal responsibility is extremely important, and while I may have reservations about where our money is spent – it must still be spent wisely.

I fucking agree that government should stay as much as possible out of our lives, but I also agree that sometimes recourse to government is necessary to combat entrenched institutional injustice.

OWS – is NOT about either ideology. It’s not liberal, it’s not conservative – it’s about people. People who are fed up with a government that no longer represents them – no matter your ideology, no matter your party – and if this movement ends up leaning to the left, that will simply be because the Pubs have become so extreme in prostituting themselves, in serving up lunatic radicals.

I would love to see a conservative revolution on the right, where they pull themselves back from the crazy, where they abandon knee jerk factionalism, and start talking to the rest of us again – and if that ever happens we will still have our arguments, but at least we can stop implying something is “liberal,” and therefore the spawn of evil, or “conservative” and therefore fascist.

 

[White Eagle]

Great post TX-Beau.
Now if anyone is expecting any kind of answer to whatever you think I should answer, you can forget it for awhile.
I just got back from taking my partner to the hospital with the 4th heart attack. They are keeping him overnight for the moment, we will find out tomorrow if he is expected to stay longer. i will be back sometime, just hold off on the panic.