Occupy Wall Street

[TX-Beau]

That's terrible, good luck.

 

[TX-Beau]

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

I've been thinking about this statement. You and I have had our knock down drag out over "conservative," as applied to the FF.

But I think I finally get where you're coming from about that, and I find agree. Neither term actually applies - at least not in context of modern usage, because they had elements of both.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

So we're talking a false dichotomy with a contrived animosity. That's incredibly true -- and it was true first in the GOP.

A bunch of fundamentalist power-hungry neo-Caesaro-papists (term means the belief that 'The Church' should wield temporal power) purposely set about to take over the GOP. They basically managed it after a period of false dichotomy and contrived animosity based on the heresy that only Christians can be trusted with political authority.

And once they got control of the GOP, they proceeded to push the dichotomy onto the national scene. It's probably the biggest sustained campaign of hate in history.

And because of the terms the battle was cast in, you're not going to see that revolution on the right: any questioning of the dominionist proposition is seen as the devil at work, and will get tromped on. The only way I see out of this is to ditch the two-party system.

I've been thinking about this statement. You and I have had our knock down drag out over "conservative," as applied to the FF.

But I think I finally get where you're coming from about that, and I find agree. Neither term actually applies - at least not in context of modern usage, because they had elements of both.

All they wanted was to preserve their traditional rights and liberties. But to do so, they had to become revolutionary.

 

[JayHawk]

Ok well today I watched the chiefs get their bass handed to them from an 0-7 team and last night I watched KSU fail to use that last second to mmake history. So I am not in a state to respond. Although it would be quite positive to what is here.

I made this as a segway to say to White eagle Please take care of your loved ones and I hope the best for you.

 

[White Eagle]

Thank you , things look ok right now. I'll find out more tomorrow. I wonder what the Cowboys are doing?
Anyway, the Texans looking good!

 

[BostonPirate]

glad to hear he is doing better!

 

[Jack Springer]

Why do conservatives have to lie so often?

The first two pages have nothing about any violence -- surely if there was it would be on the first two pages

google: occupier violence

 

[JayHawk]

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.

And additionally besides characterizing an entire movement based off of a few i still maintain that if you do not have effective crowd control it will inevitably lead to the few shit elements creating a bad image.

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.

Liberal as you point out below is the only term I have handy to refer to a socialistic ideology where the wealth is taken from those who have it and it is distributed throughout those that do not have it. So I apologize if that term bothers you.

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.

I have often explained myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And so therefore a man without a party to align my beliefs. There are a few fringe groups that will never hold a leadership position. SO i find my self picking the best of two bad choices.

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.

Agreed. Neither side of the divide actually represents what it claims. It just seems to get further and further whacked out to garner support.

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.

Of these things I could not agree more. In fact I think that among many good ideas I have seen in here would be to EXCLUDE members who are from an industry as serving the national interest in watchdog agencies. How can an oilman or a wall street exec or a pharmaceutics exec regulate what is occurring in their industry?

If you combined that with campaign finance reform and term limits for congress critters then we might get somewhere.

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.

I agree labels suck. But so does jumping to conclusions simply because you disagree with a action or point of view.

 

[TX-Beau]

And additionally besides characterizing an entire movement based off of a few i still maintain that if you do not have effective crowd control it will inevitably lead to the few shit elements creating a bad image.

See, neither of those two statements disagree with one another, and I don’t disagree. But the deliberate attempt to impugn the motivations and character of a group by deliberate misrepresentation is what was going on in here.

Liberal as you point out below is the only term I have handy to refer to a socialistic ideology where the wealth is taken from those who have it and it is distributed throughout those that do not have it. So I apologize if that term bothers you.

How about Communism or hell Populism? Most ground up political movements addresses redistribution of wealth. It’s also right there in the bible that Christ tells you to give your money to the poor and that it’s near impossible for rich men to get into heaven. You’d have to ask Kuli maybe, but If I remember correctly there was also something in there about periodic general forgiveness of debt – talk about radicals.

Liberalism is not a “Socialistic,” ideology; it was around long before Socialism was, if anything Socialism is a liberal construct – just barely.

Anyway, I apologize if it bothers you but you didn’t appear to be doing anything other than hurling vitriol at what you perceived to be the enemy.

I have often explained myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And so therefore a man without a party to align my beliefs. There are a few fringe groups that will never hold a leadership position. SO i find my self picking the best of two bad choices.

Agreed. Neither side of the divide actually represents what it claims. It just seems to get further and further whacked out to garner support.

See, you and me and Kuli and OWS are all in agreement that our political system is broken and no longer represents the interest or politics of most Americans. By allowing ourselves to be divided into armed camps we have surrendered the process to the extremes, who are not majorities and not interested in good government – we allow them to bully policy by supporting a system that gives them the loudest voice; all the while the money men are emptying the vault.

Of these things I could not agree more. In fact I think that among many good ideas I have seen in here would be to EXCLUDE members who are from an industry as serving the national interest in watchdog agencies. How can an oilman or a wall street exec or a pharmaceutics exec regulate what is occurring in their industry?

If you combined that with campaign finance reform and term limits for congress critters then we might get somewhere.

The Roman Proposition. Roman Politicians maintained that rich people were less likely to be bribed, therefore only rich men should be allowed to stand for office; if you didn’t have a huge income in Classical Rome. You couldn’t be elected – and they maintained corruption in the government would be small.

You see the problem with that don’t you. For us – who knows the Industry better than those who are in it? Therefore all our regulatory apparatus will be more effective if only people from the industry are regulating it.

Both are con jobs. See, we agree again.

I agree labels suck. But so does jumping to conclusions simply because you disagree with a action or point of view.

Which was exactly what was going on in here.

 

[JayHawk]

To the principle of not allowing industry professionals to regulate because the industries at question are too complex to be run by a mere mortal.... i respond thusly:

A completely uninfluenced appointed official with the appropriate ability to critically think can make regulatory decisions. It may be that he or she will be required to rely upon briefings from various points of view in industry as to cause and effect. It would still be open to persuasion at that point but lessened considerably. That neutral person could also be briefed by members of conservation groups and thereby make the right decision.

Do any of you think that a neutral observer with a brief that demonstrates that industry had no possibility of containing the BP gulf oil leak would side with industry on pushing through the permits?

No that happened by sheer slight of hand of an industry controlled regulatory agency.

The Wall Street Debacle...same thing

The Halliburton give away? Same issue different decade.

So I get it and I fucking hate it.

I also stand behind each and every peaceful demonstrator who wants the things we talk about in here.

The guys who show up in bandannas across their faces and easily infiltrate I do not consider patriots exercising their right to free speech.

SO bottom line is if I am critical of a OWS movement action or demonstration it does not mean I support a police state. It does not mean i hate or paint all OWS members with the same brush. It does not mean I am a legion of death or whatever the opposite side might call me.




I think the OWS movements ought to inform their camps that a thrower of rocks is to be immediately handed over to police as a thrower of rocks. THAT would be a positive self governing action. Although I suspect by the repeated videos of irate people shouting "fuck you" and "shut the fuck up" to cops that OWS would be turning over more people than you might think. But that is my opinion.

OWS will turn out more voters I surely hope.

OWS will force the way ahead for our economy into focus like it has never been before. SO the evangelical republicans can't warp the election into some stupid rant about sexuality.

But I will say it again this country isn't going to crumble because of this it will be stronger. It is darkly amusing to see voices normally found criticizing the US almost tickle with glee at the idea of rioting in the US. Yet i still maintain that those who buck the system we have will end up with nothing more than a police record and the rest of OWS will rejoin society that has not significantly changed. Just like all of the folks from the sixties who ironically are probably among the many wealthy and who are not out there rioting.

 

[White Eagle]

Well, I'm back and got my partner out of the hosp.
He is doing better, it looks like this is going to be a routine.
This makes 4 so far and he gets new medicine and is ok til the next one. Thanks for all your wishes JayHawk, TX-Beau and BostonPirate

 

[jackoroe]

Here's a video of an OWS mother who decided it was OK to park her two small children in a plastic wagon in the middle of a driveway to block people from leaving an event in DC this weekend.

She used these same children as a barricade in front of a door designed to keep people from exiting the building.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obamas-occu...mother-used-children-to-block-cars-in-street/

Mother of the year material.

 

[TX-Beau]

Oh please.

I wonder what could motivate someone to do such a thing?

WHY?

 

[TX-Beau]

Well, I'm back and got my partner out of the hosp.
He is doing better, it looks like this is going to be a routine.
This makes 4 so far and he gets new medicine and is ok til the next one. Thanks for all your wishes JayHawk, TX-Beau and BostonPirate

yeah, that's good to hear. Best wishes to both of you!

 

[jackoroe]

Oh please.

I wonder what could motivate someone to do such a thing?

WHY?

Let's see. What would motivate anyone to place their children in the path of oncoming vehicular traffic?

I've got it! Abject stupidity!

She put these kids in harm's way. Lay your own stupid ass down in traffic if you like. Don't be using your kids like speed bumps!

 

[Kulindahr]

Most ground up political movements addresses redistribution of wealth. It’s also right there in the bible that Christ tells you to give your money to the poor and that it’s near impossible for rich men to get into heaven. You’d have to ask Kuli maybe, but If I remember correctly there was also something in there about periodic general forgiveness of debt – talk about radicals.

1. It's impossible to have taxation without redistribution of wealth. The problem at the moment is that since Reagan the government has been structured to move money to the wealthy -- which is how the nation's wealth doubled since then and almost all the increase went to the top one or two percent. Given that wealth is going to be redistributed, it's far better to err on the side of moving it downward.

2. Yes, in Jubilee years all debts were canceled, all slaves went free, and all property was returned to its original owner -- at least theoretically. Unless something new has popped up, there's no real evidence that the Jubilee regulations were ever honored completely.

3. Jesus talked more about money than almost anything -- and He rarely had anything good to say about the rich. I forget which US rich dude referred to dying wealthy as a sin, but it wasn't an original thought; it was said by early Christians. So if Christians followed the teaching of those who learned from the Apostles, they wouldn't be fighting an inheritance tax, because they wouldn't be leaving anything to tax.

The Roman Proposition. Roman Politicians maintained that rich people were less likely to be bribed, therefore only rich men should be allowed to stand for office; if you didn’t have a huge income in Classical Rome. You couldn’t be elected – and they maintained corruption in the government would be small.

I remember reading that as a high school freshman, for World History class -- and busting out laughing. Some of the great early Roman leaders worked on their own farms.

Of course the biggest reason you couldn't get elected in classical Rome unless you were wealthy is that they practically bought votes.

You see the problem with that don’t you. For us – who knows the Industry better than those who are in it? Therefore all our regulatory apparatus will be more effective if only people from the industry are regulating it.

Harry Brown did a devastating critique of government regulatory agencies, showing how over and over, within two presidential terms of the establishment of a regulatory agency, the agency was not only being run by industry insiders but being run for the benefit of the dominant companies in the industry and shutting out new competition -- effectively an unconstitutional establishment of a group monopoly.

To the principle of not allowing industry professionals to regulate because the industries at question are too complex to be run by a mere mortal.... i respond thusly:

A completely uninfluenced appointed official with the appropriate ability to critically think can make regulatory decisions. It may be that he or she will be required to rely upon briefings from various points of view in industry as to cause and effect. It would still be open to persuasion at that point but lessened considerably. That neutral person could also be briefed by members of conservation groups and thereby make the right decision.

Do any of you think that a neutral observer with a brief that demonstrates that industry had no possibility of containing the BP gulf oil leak would side with industry on pushing through the permits?

No that happened by sheer slight of hand of an industry controlled regulatory agency.

A railroad professional I talked with once had his own solution: if you need industry expertise, tap the career employees, not management.

I think the OWS movements ought to inform their camps that a thrower of rocks is to be immediately handed over to police as a thrower of rocks. THAT would be a positive self governing action. Although I suspect by the repeated videos of irate people shouting "fuck you" and "shut the fuck up" to cops that OWS would be turning over more people than you might think. But that is my opinion.

I like that. It's a simple form of tribal compact: violate the precepts, and get booted.

OWS will turn out more voters I surely hope.

OWS will force the way ahead for our economy into focus like it has never been before. SO the evangelical republicans can't warp the election into some stupid rant about sexuality.

But I will say it again this country isn't going to crumble because of this it will be stronger. It is darkly amusing to see voices normally found criticizing the US almost tickle with glee at the idea of rioting in the US. Yet i still maintain that those who buck the system we have will end up with nothing more than a police record and the rest of OWS will rejoin society that has not significantly changed. Just like all of the folks from the sixties who ironically are probably among the many wealthy and who are not out there rioting.

The country will only emerge stronger if the plutocracy it broken.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let's see. What would motivate anyone to place their children in the path of oncoming vehicular traffic?

I've got it! Abject stupidity!

She put these kids in harm's way. Lay your own stupid ass down in traffic if you like. Don't be using your kids like speed bumps!

A little critical thinking would help -- interesting to see a mod jump in with an example of one of the very things discussed in the "Whither CE&P?" thread as being not conducive to civilized discussion.

Stupidity is not a motivation. It's something that affects what the motivation results in.

 

[BostonPirate]

But I will say it again this country isn't going to crumble because of this it will be stronger. It is darkly amusing to see voices normally found criticizing the US almost tickle with glee at the idea of rioting in the US. Yet i still maintain that those who buck the system we have will end up with nothing more than a police record and the rest of OWS will rejoin society that has not significantly changed. Just like all of the folks from the sixties who ironically are probably among the many wealthy and who are not out there rioting.

pfft

I have a criminal record from civil disobedience I engaged in in the eighties, to remind you of our first conversation here... and it was a doozy...lol. It has not in anyway stopped me from having some great opportunitites in life.

I know what these people are up to because I was once one of them. Like alot of activists, especially the successful ones, I have become more a part of the establishment, both through my professional work, and through being active locally in politics.

My instincts are pretty good when it comes to seeing into the heart of radical activism, and none of them want dark days for america.

These people are out there willing to risk bodily harm and injury, to protect what they see as their vision of america.

They are alot like you as a serviceman, but they differ in one big way. They are your employers.

Until the body politik, and the elected officials they put in office, learn that they work for the people, and not the billionaires, the protests will continue. As they continue they will up the ante not tone it down. Arrests are playing into their strategy. They are trying to get their issues before the courts. They want the press.

They do everything they can to keep their adversaries mindful of their presence and they are are adept at agitating the conservatives who protect the corporations.

All this will force americans who usually ignore the political stuff to start making moral choices about their vision of where america should be.

When people .... large amounts of people .. start reconsidering their options, social change occurs.

Its doing that right now.

I think thats a pretty bright vision of america, for an old activist from an era gone by

 

[TX-Beau]

Let's see. What would motivate anyone to place their children in the path of oncoming vehicular traffic?

I've got it! Abject stupidity!

She put these kids in harm's way. Lay your own stupid ass down in traffic if you like. Don't be using your kids like speed bumps!

Oh Great, OWS is not about abject stupidity - thanks for pointing out she has nothing to do with it.

 

[chance1]

Many of the 99 Percent Reject Occupy Wall Street


Rasmussen Reports has a new poll showing that 43 percent of likely voters hold an unfavorable view of the Occupy Wall Street protestors, and 44 percent say the protestors don't represent the views of mainstream Americans. These numbers handily beat those who do view the protests favorably (33%) and who think the movement represents the views of mainstream Americans (36%).

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisab...y_of_the_99_percent_reject_occupy_wall_street

43% is greater than 33%

Looks like regular people - the 99% that is - aren't digging how this going

despite the fact that the media has covered it shabbily and has unabashedly supported the protest