99%? Who wants to be a part of the 100%?

Originally posted by Cinaed
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I find it hardly necessary for people to call for such a thing when their demands would certainly bring it about

What?

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by neo96

 

Could this have been because republicans were federalist which forced federal government upon the confederate states?

Not saying that they went about it the right way but it's ironic that the republicans were the ones that attacked state power and now they want to be seen as its defender.

edit on 12-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

and yet another clueless history buff ... when will you folks make an effort to learn?
and even from a source i seldom quote but y'all seem to act like it's absolute soooo ... wiki

The Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain as expressed in the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank, and vehemently attacked the Jay Treaty as a sell-out of republican values to the British monarchy.

emphasis mine

in other words, when you claim the Federalists were Republicans, we all know you're clueless.
not calling you names, just making a clear observation.
please, do yourself a favor and forego the paradigm you do not understand and make an effort to get a clue.

reply to post by Indigo5


That's right!

AKA--- Direct Consequence

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

But like everything else tolerance has its limitations

if you believe these words, then who decides the "limit" of said tolerance?

ill give ya they "preach" equal opportunity, however, they DO nothing to promote it.

religion should remain as the choice of the individual.

got any links for that "changing the status quo" you claim?
remember now, that's the same status quo we've been subjected to since 1913 / creation of the FED

yes, may changes have occurred over the years, i am not disputing that ... however, since the FED is the epitome of thievery and manipulation, what has either party done to eliminate it ??

in an environment of "tolerance" where do you find hate?

and yes, grammer IS important ... no one disputes that, however ...
it becomes especially humorous when the whiner spells it incorrectly ... grammar

reply to post by Honor93


Lincoln was the first president from what is today known as the GOP aka the Republican Party.

Lincoln's federal government did not allow the confederate states to leave the union.

What don't you get?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Cinaed

 

The Fed and the government have become a creation of wall street itself. It is redundant to say "bring down the fed" and neglect all the "me too holmes, babyboomers" who took advantage of monopoly capitalism and insider information to become wealthy.

Go to the delaware state registry of corporations and you will find every single agency is incorporated. Why so sherlock? Do some real investigation and find out what state capitalism is. No one is making the democrats sound like angels they are simply the lesser of two evils.

Don't forget it was the republicans who voted to allow unlimited first amendment rights to corporations to lobby and support candidates during election time. Yet we have the same conservatives here trying to put down OWS as though they don't know what they are talking about.

I assure you they know what they are talking about and the people here who pretend not to know are putting on a mediocre hollywood act to prevent the movement from succeding.

now who's the schill ??????????
the FED controls all of it, fool.

using insider information in market transactions is ILLEGAL for all but the congress-critters.
Martha Stewart ring a bell?

there has been NO capitalism in this country since early 1900s. try again.
capitalism does NOT equal corporatism

"they", the politicians on all sides of the isle, are crooks, each and every one of them ... look around. if they are not crooks, then which label do you prefer ??

all legislation is voted on by both sides ... no piece is accepted without members of both parties voting for it.

the movement certainly doesn't need anyone here to derail it, it's doing just fine all on its own

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

Lincoln was the first president from what is today known as the GOP aka the Republican Party.

Lincoln's federal government did not allow the confederate states to leave the union.

What don't you get?

edit on 12-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

what i don't get is your arrogance regarding your own ignorance

no one is arguing with the fact that Lincoln was the first singular Republican to hold the office, but ...
you conveniently forget that 3 of the founding fathers and 4 presidents for 50yrs before Lincoln were Democratic-Republicans ... do you even know what that means?

so, regarding Lincoln, try not to forget that he was a Red Republican ... not just the republican you think you know ... he was a fan of Marx, shared direct communications with him and following his efforts to employ such socialist/communist tactics in the US, the southern secession was forced.

then, he exercised unreasonable authority by ordering the military to wage war against the citizens and should have been charged with treason but we all make mistakes, don't we?

The federal government (or any component of it) was never granted authority to wage war upon its citizens, period. what don't you get?

reply to post by Honor93


So you agree.

We went over this a couple nights ago. You need to read the post I was replying to. It was a post talking about democrats of that time having started the KKK. I said that in part it was because of the imposition of the federal government over the state.

I notice that you cherry pick words and disregard context. In this case it was the word "federalist" which was in lowercase and did not refer to the Federalist Party but to the people in the federal government at that time, regardless of what they called themselves, that believed that preserving the union trumped state sovereignty.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by mastahunta

 

I see what you're saying.

I, for one, have listed a volley of bank regulations that I believe are IMPERATIVE to the safety and soundness of our banking institutions as well as restrictions on what government can do in order to maintain bank stability.

I'm not ANTI-regulation. I'm for regulations that make sound business possible and bad business is minimized.

You can never get rid of corruption. But you CAN minimize it.

That's what OWS IS ADVOCATING!!!

Prove it.

*sigh*

...

...

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but haven't I already provided links for you to do your homework on??

Here... again, I'll give you another chance to be rational/reasonable about OWS...

Here are some common demands being debated amongst OWS:
occupywallst.org...
and
occupywallst.org...
and
occupywallst.org...


Here is the ACTUAL OWS WEBSITE with more accurate info than you'll find on MSM:
occupywallst.org...


Here is the group/description of how the organization/movement is laid out horizontally and Democratically:
nycga.cc...


You can naysay all you want, but you and everyone else here are GROSSLY SPECULATING on the movement without much education even on what its about, who's involved, or where it's heading. You're SO READY to be negative about it, SO WILLING to hate it that you will only believe what reinforces your ill-informed hunches and political prejudgment/bias. This movement will change the world and FOR THE BETTER. Either get on board with we the people, or stew bitterly in propaganda/willful ignorance and stubbornness.

Originally posted by Cinaed
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

A Progressive can be conservative or liberal....matters not...Progressive is not associated JUST with the Democractic Party.... It likes to play in both yards so the natives never get wise. Anyone clinging to my side (left or right) is good and the other side is evil is just buying into the BS....

There is only ONE Party in the US today, it is a beast with TWO heads, nothing more

Well... I agree to an extent, but a progressive is not really aligned with conservatism (or even Anarchism). Please read:
en.wikipedia.org...
and
www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...
and
en.wikipedia.org...

It even (at least originally) purports to go beyond the divisive left vs. right paradigm and into something broader/greater. Interesting, no?

Certainly the two major parties are two sides of the same coin. However, there are members on both sides who subvert that corrupt system (or try to), and there is also a lesser-evil effect. The Democrats are, quite honestly, the lesser evil in terms of taking care of the environment, the poor, minorities, the middle class, workers, women, indigenous, etc. Though... in many instances, they've proven watered down or have done a terrible job of protecting/providing for the masses. The right-wing is the greater evil with far more sporadic/occasional benefits towards the people/environment/etc. But a greater loyalty to the powerful, rich, police/military, private interests, racism, elitism, etc.

reply to post by projectvxn

Part of what pisses me off so much is that they denigrate the very system that allows them the liberty to spew their idiocy.

Screw capitalism they say?

Capitalism is not what we have here in the United States of America, didn't you know that?


Let's take a little walk around the block, shall we?

Capitalism
1. An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

So, you think that Capitalism is what we have, right?

Right?



Do you know what it takes to get into office? Political Office?

You need the media, you need LOTS of money, more than any random individual would likely have possession of.

Because while you can campaign, Huge piles of money go a long way for advertising.

And corporations slowly but surely change our laws to be more amenable to their bottom line, to our detriment through lobbying representatives morning noon and night, with little gifts, or worse.

So.... *WHO* has control of the means of production again?

Because if it's the people who are controlling the government... Then that's not capitalism at all.

That's Corporatism... Plutocracy, Oligarchy.

Originally posted by neo96
hold up seems someone doesnt know his kkk history the kkk was founded by the left and their targets originally were right wingers and african americans that good senator byrd that the democrats praised when he died was the only elected democratic senator.

not one right winger kkk member was ever elected to congress.

edit on 12-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

lol OMG, man... are you kidding me??

PROVE this.

If you read ANY RESPECTED TEXTS on the KKK, even if you READ THEIR OWN WEBSITES! They are VORACIOUSLY right-wing, anti-left, anti-communist, anti-liberal, racist, and fascist in nature. Please quit your propaganda, rewriting of history, and Glenn Beck-esque doublespeak.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


The government, even with all of it's interventionist economic policies, does not control the means of production.

What exactly are you trying to say?

reply to post by projectvxn

The government, even with all of it's interventionist economic policies, does not control the means of production.

What exactly are you trying to say?

When you say "Government" you mean the bureaucracy that you answer to... you do not mean the legions of lobbyists and corporate lawyers that draft thousands of new pages of legislation per month, and then bribed down our throats...

You are not talking about the People who ACTUALLY control our government.

Like, the reasons that we are involved in these wars being for resource acquisition?

Hence, Corporate....

Hence, Plutocracy?

Is any of this sinking in?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


You can stop with the condescending tone.

If you want to have a conversation with me I would recommend a different course of action.

reply to post by projectvxn

You cans top with the condescending tone.

If you want to have a conversation with me I would recommend a different course of action.

That was way too fast... did you star your own post or something?

My tone is not condescending... that is merely your perception.

until all pro ows start mentioning union lobbyists and special interests

i am chalking this up to stacking the deck in your favor right along with all those "demands" that wreak of left wing ideology that i have heard for the past decade.

be original for once.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I type fast and I can't star my own posts.

I reiterate my previous response.

reply to post by projectvxn

I type fast and I can't star my own posts.

I reiterate my previous response.

Fair enough.

Your "Government" is a loose grouping of individual peoples who have coalesced for the "Purpose" of administrating law, finances, and defence of the nation of "United States of America"

The nation, as you think of it, does not exist.

America is not some Abstract Concept.... America is People.

The American GOVERNMENT is just some people.

The Corporations who Purchase, Bribe, Cajole, Threaten, Blackmail, and or harass our representatives or population for their own private ends (usually monetary, but whatever) and for their own private laws, ARE the problem.

So, when you say that our "Government" is "Capitalistic" this is why you are wrong, because the People who are in CONTROL of the Government DO have the means of production and Industry....

At least, according to the Bills that they purchased into Laws.

reply to post by Honor93


After doing some in-depth reading/research, it seems what you're referring to is not Jim Crow laws (which were primarily adopted in the South in the post Civil War/Reconstruction eras) but rather Black Codes which indeed WERE instituted in the North. However, this was AFTER the official abolition of slavery in the North and at a time when racist Northern whites were afraid of the influx of enslaved "negroes" from the South. Either way, however, whether we're speaking of Jim Crow or Black Codes, the common reference is to laws (whether codified or de-facto) in the SOUTH which segregated/oppressed blacks:

en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

www.pbs.org...

The most serious offenses against blacks, however, overwhelmingly (and more lastingly/stubbornly) occurred in the South. Both the North and South are guilty of broad racist policies as well as general racism amongst whites of all states. However, it seems Jim Crow REALLY became persistent in the South at a point when the North had lessened its oppression of blacks and instituted anti-slavery, anti-segregation, right-to-vote, etc. laws and customs that the South refused to adopt. There is also something to be said about the conditions of slavery and general oppression/control/intimidation of blacks in the South during the times of slavery which were far less common in the North; it's also noteworthy that the North had a much sparser population of blacks than the South in general, at least before blacks began to flee the South in favor of the North (which is saying something about the North versus South right there).

So... you indeed HAVE brought new information to my attention, and a clarification of history that showed me that the North was not innocent of instituting some of the first Jim Crow/Black Code laws/customs. However, the general impression that the South was the most egregious and obstinate oppressor of blacks is clear from my research. What is also clear is that those times were very messy/dangerous for blacks and racism against blacks was epidemic ACROSS this country, the line dividing the North from the South was not so distinct and shifted at different times in history with the South being the last to relinquish oppression.

Some other noteworthy sources:

www.lib.niu.edu...

www.jimcrowhistory.org...