What Is The Coherent Message and Who Is Leading "Occupy Wallstreet"?!

Originally posted by ToneDeaf

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It's just Marxist class warfare whether they know it or not.

And what would you call it when the banks and oil
corporations live off the backs of the poor ?

edit on 2/10/11 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)

Well, for one thing, you sound like you are sporting for a class warfare fight against Capitalism. That is the rhetoric I have been hearing over and over again ad nauseum since the Marxist Kenyan got elected. Next point, is when the poor pay more taxes than the middle class, then I will pay attention. Next, the govt taxes the oil industry and that tax gets passed on to the customer of course. The more the govt taxes the oil companies, the more you pay at the pump.
Have you ever looked at your mobile phone bill? Notice all those fees and taxes? That's the govt working. Of course the hater of capitalism will just blame it on the telecommunications company. Then the hater of capitalism wants more regulations so they press the govt for things like "Net Neurtrality", because they think it's going to keep the Internet "free".
What the Marxists do is they try to guilt people into feeling it's teh duty of society to do things like pay for higher education and health insurance coverage.

One more think I'd like to add, is that when the govt borrows from the Fed, the Fed prints money to pay for all the social programs and when that happens, they flood the market with fiat money, and the actual value of the dollar goes down. So what happens with that? It lowers the spending power of the very poor. Now it's going to take double the food stamps to get a jar of baby food and pampers.

Just so you know, I am not for GSachs getting big bonuses and baillouts on the taxpayer dime. I might have even been for this protest were it not for the Soros connection.

reply to post by UnlimitedSky


Glad I could help.

I have no fear of any form of NWO, so no, I feel no unease at any of those sites.

reply to post by links234


So you are an American Socialist. Would you embrace the NWO? (I call a spaid a spaid, I know. So if this is to direct and personal, please excuse, and just tell me to mind my own business.)

Originally posted by PapaKrok
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

How many Americans actually own the homes they live in? Is that Marxism then???

Are you trying to argue that no one really owns their homes? Well, yes in a way the excessive taxation is part of the Marxist redistribution of wealth. Or perhaps you meant the mortgage? Are you referring to predatory lending? Thanks Clinton and Carter for making that a possibility.
The UN Agenda 21 states that apartment living with limited air conditioning is going to be the norm, so don't worry everyone will be equally miserable.

when it comes to homes its not the mortgage you have to worry about

its the property taxes failure to pay that your home is gone.

and that is due to government legislation remember now the city state owns your home you just have the "right" to live there.

reply to post by UnlimitedSky


Not too direct nor too personal, however, espousing my beliefs in global politics would probably not be the most appropriate discussion in this thread. If you'd like to take it to personal messages I'm comfortable with that.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by PapaKrok
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

How many Americans actually own the homes they live in? Is that Marxism then???

Are you trying to argue that no one really owns their homes? Well, yes in a way the excessive taxation is part of the Marxist redistribution of wealth.

So how does higher tax rates, via conservative presidents fit into the marxist redistribution?

Or perhaps you meant the mortgage? Are you referring to predatory lending? Thanks Clinton and Carter for making that a possibility.

How about blaming the banks who draft their contracts?

The message is clear.

When you no longer have food or money and you need a roof over your head.....there is only one thing left.

Eat The Rich! You know what they say....no fat...no flavor.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ToneDeaf

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It's just Marxist class warfare whether they know it or not.

And what would you call it when the banks and oil
corporations live off the backs of the poor ?

edit on 2/10/11 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)

Next, the govt taxes the oil industry and that tax gets passed on to the customer of course. The more the govt taxes the oil companies, the more you pay at the pump.

Ah yes, and when the FAA shut down a few months ago, and airlines didn't have to pay the ticket tax anymore, they immediately passed that on to the customer.
www.airlinereporter.com...
Oh... wait.
Nope. Didn't happen.
See, one of the goals of a business is to get as high a price as possible.
If you can sell your stuff for X dollars more, without selling less stuff, you don't need a tax increase to add those X dollars.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You can be thrown off your property for non payment of taxes and yes, I am saying that no one really owns property. Your papers are more than likely part of a bundle traded on the world market. Who actually has the original paperwork? OccupywallStreet is asking these questions.

BTW...who were the original land owners, and who actually gave them the deeds? Where did they get the rights to that land in the first place? Private property is like religion...someone had to make it all up at one point, then it just becomes a matter of buying into that persons opinion forever after.

I would go as far as to argue that most government law, policy and history is designed to validate, through tedious slight of hand, bugus claims to property and resources. Does it strike anyone as odd that almost all claims to land are "God Given" at their genesis?

Originally posted by PapaKrok
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

How many Americans actually own the homes they live in? Is that Marxism then???

I would really like to know just where you were going with this, because property isn't just homes, it's our paychecks too. The govt confiscates our money for it's arbitrary spending programs, whether it be zoos for some city or health insurance subsidies or abortions(since the Affordable Health Care Act has a provision for that, which is really part of the depopulation program).
The point being that in the communist manifesto, in a full implementation of communism, there is no private property. Even today you can see the droll apartments in the Ukraine. The govt tells people what profession they can be in. That is also where the healthcare program leads us, the govt telling doctors when and where they can practice. Now the Soviets are trying to move away from that model, and the reds here in the States are trying to see if they can make it happen.

Originally posted by PapaKrok
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

You can be thrown off your property for non payment of taxes and yes, I am saying that no one really owns property. Your papers are more than likely part of a bundle traded on the world market. Who actually has the original paperwork? OccupywallStreet is asking these questions.

BTW...who were the original land owners, and who actually gave them the deeds? Where did they get the rights to that land in the first place? Private property is like religion...someone had to make it all up at one point, then it just becomes a matter of buying into that persons opinion forever after.

I would go as far as to argue that most government law, policy and history is designed to validate, through tedious slight of hand, bugus claims to property and resources. Does it strike anyone as odd that almost all claims to land are "God Given" at their genesis?

edit on 3-10-2011 by PapaKrok because: (no reason given)

Yes, that is Totalitarianism, not free enterprise. Well it's an abuse of both Capitalism and Communism really. But that is what the Hegelian dialectic is.

I am against Statism altogether. The models of Statism came in the systems of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Wilson.

BTW I'm not a Marxist. I'm a devout anarchist. An advocate of radical personal responsibility and internal locus of control. read the post before you form a sentence. It has nothing to do with totalitarianism. That insinuates centralized power. I advocate completely decentralized power. true direct democracy without leaders. You are completely clouded by black and white thinking here. I am for public ownership of ALL property, not centralized ownership under a centralized government.

Originally posted by Shadowalker

The message is clear.

When you no longer have food or money and you need a roof over your head.....there is only one thing left.

Eat The Rich!

They kill you or you kill them - the rules of the game are clear

The OccupyWallStreet is becoming a movement to reclaim public spaces for public use. It is looking toward using public space to create a future society based on collective, direct, democratic participation without a centralized ruling body.

Originally posted by PapaKrok
BTW I'm not a Marxist. I'm a devout anarchist. An advocate of radical personal responsibility and internal locus of control. read the post before you form a sentence. It has nothing to do with totalitarianism. That insinuates centralized power. I advocate completely decentralized power. true direct democracy without leaders. You are completely clouded by black and white thinking here. I am for public ownership of ALL property, not centralized ownership under a centralized government.

edit on 3-10-2011 by PapaKrok because: (no reason given)

Anarchy can come on either extreme of the political spectrum.

Although anarchists share a rejection of the state, they differ about economic arrangements and possible rules that would prevail in a stateless society, ranging from no ownership, to complete common ownership, to supporters of private property and capitalist free market competition. For example, some forms of anarchism, such as that of anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism not only seek rejection of the state, but also other systems which they perceive as authoritarian, which include capitalism, capitalist markets, and title-based property ownership.

en.wikipedia.org...


Which side do you see yourself on?

Originally posted by PapaKrok
The OccupyWallStreet is becoming a movement to reclaim public spaces for public use. It is looking toward using public space to create a future society based on collective, direct, democratic participation without a centralized ruling body.

What public spaces? If it is already public why does it need to be reclaimed? See you are throwing around terms like "collective". And that has been the type of rhetoric I have seen with this protest.
And again, as with the other fella, I called the collective thing. Too many collectivists and socialists and communists running about this protest for me. That's why I will not support it. You obviously are part of Obama's groupies of people who want to fundamentally transform our society from Capitalist to collectivist.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You need to add "America" to your list of Statisms...we are the very model of Stalin's Corporate State. America has little to do with true free enterprise. It is, in fact, antagonistic to business on almost every level. That;s the real reason for the exodus to other countries for manufacturing base creation. This country is less free than most.

Free enterprise is the freedom to exchange goods and services unencumbered by outside regulation. That only exists in local and regional token based and barter systems in America. Not in American business in general.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Hmmm. I am a Mormon and a Libertarian. I own guns. I am conservative, pay taxes, have a job and a 401 K. Guess you got that wrong aye? I wonder what else your judgement might be lacking regarding? I didn't vote for Obama, I voted for Bush. I was misled into believe there was actually a difference. You need to take a closer look at what you are actually spouting. You are all over the place in your definitions..

Take a few philosophy classes at the community college and get back to us, aye?

Public spaces, by definition spaces paid for out of funds filled by compulsory taxation, are set aside for public use. The problem, my friend, is that this use comes with great limitations regarding rime and manner of use. We are trying to take them back without regulation. If, as they say, they are truly public, then we, as the public, have collective ownership of them. Ownership that includes discretionary use. Not use regulated by government. That makes them government spaces, right? More pedantic slight of hand to obscure original property right mythos.

Originally posted by PapaKrok
BTW I'm not a Marxist. I'm a devout anarchist. An advocate of radical personal responsibility and internal locus of control. read the post before you form a sentence. It has nothing to do with totalitarianism. That insinuates centralized power. I advocate completely decentralized power. true direct democracy without leaders. You are completely clouded by black and white thinking here. I am for public ownership of ALL property, not centralized ownership under a centralized government.

edit on 3-10-2011 by PapaKrok because: (no reason given)

Public ownership of ALL property IS MARXIST COMMUNISM. Please do bother trying to confuse me or other readers here with semantical arguments.