Before you Occupy

reply to post by FugitiveSoul

Nice analogy..But instead of everyone getting aggrevated and mad at morrgan for abuseing the rule..wouldnt it been wiser to avoid the confusion and anger and gone to the teacher and said "hey this jerk is abuseing the rules, we dont like it..do something" Teach would of had a choice...fix it or deal with the parents( the legal system).

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


Except the teacher is owned by Morgan's father (in this scenario the teacher being the government, and Morgan's father being the [one of five] richest people on earth)
The teacher, knowing Morgan's father has more pull than these children, their parents, or even the Principle (ie POTUS), is more likely going to enforce the "share" loophole Morgan exploited rather than risk her job via upsetting the brat otherwise known as Wall Street.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


LOL! I plan on getting that checkmate..but its wise to know where to move on the board. There in is my objective here. A C.Y.A(Cover your A$$) guide to protesting and getting it done

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


Some cover their hindsides, others willingly hold their hand to the cross and wait for it to be nailed. Which message would you likely remember? I have a son, and I will be damned if he is forced to endure the world I grew up with. If I must tear this system down brick by golden brick, then that is what must be done.

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


Wall Street is simply a place where people invest their own money in companies that the investor seeks the greatest return.

The OWS movement seeks to level the playing field by changing the way that business is done, as in equality for everyone or wealth redistribution. It is simply taking the monetary system and modifying it into something that is completely controlled by the government.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul




"Except the teacher is owned by Morgan's father (in this scenario the teacher being the government, and Morgan's father being the [one of five] richest people on earth)
The teacher, knowing Morgan's father has more pull than these children, their parents, or even the Principle (ie POTUS), is more likely going to enforce the "share" loophole Morgan exploited rather than risk her job via upsetting the brat otherwise known as Wall Street."

So for the sake of it all lets break this down and come to a reasonable solution.
Morgan(wall street/big biz) is swindlening. The other kids(The citizens) are suffering for his greed. The teacher(Government) and the prinicipal(POTUS) are afraid to do their job because of morgans father. Now hypotheticaly speaking Morgans father would have to be the elite or money. And that is where the change should be.
The teacher would still be a teacher and a principal a principal unless you change them to something else(such as they had another purpose) and morgan does not know better he is doing what he is taught. So its up the children to use the parents(Law/Justice) to get Morgans father to reform. If that dosent work expel the kid and find another way to get they money or blow the school(system/U.S.) up. You dont want to do the last because there are other innocent people involved and even some of the actors involved are not fully the problem.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul

I have a son, and I will be damned if he is forced to endure the world I grew up with.

I can relate to you there, but completely destroying something that works (all be it, not perfect) is not the solution. Why not fix it instead?

One of the better comments so far..

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
reply to post by thehoneycomb

 

There is no double standard. We are merely returning what was stolen.
Playground rules:

An elementary school teacher has instructed her class during recess to have fun, do whatever they wish during playtime, but to “share.”
Sounds reasonable. Everyone is doing as they wish; Sally is playing dodgeball, Jack is tossing a football, Clark is playing basketball, all is well. Morgan, the son of the school’s number one contributor, who also put the word in to hire the class teacher is sitting in the sandbox, bored. Sally and her sister are happily enjoying their game of dodge when here comes Morgan. He decides he wants to play with the dodgeball, so he takes Sally’s ball away. She protests, but Morgan replies “Share. Remember?” Sally realizes the teacher’s rule, and so she stops her protest. Morgan then decides he wants a basketball to go along with his kickball so he runs over to Clark and takes his ball as well. Clark is about to snatch the ball back when Morgan points to the teacher. Clark remembers the share rule and halts. Morgan is on a roll now and decides he wants a football. He obtains this ball as well, protected by the law of the land. He then spots another kid on the playground.
Tom is quietly sitting alone, tossing a baseball into the air and catching it. The ball is dirty, old, unremarkable, but carries sentimental value. This ball has been in Tom’s family for 60 years, and was handed down to him by his late father, but wouldn’t you know it, here comes Morgan, and he’s got his eye on Tom’s heirloom. In two shakes of a lamb’s tail Morgan has swiped Tom’s ball is making his way to the sandbox to stash his “earnings.” He’s fumbling along, so many balls he can barely walk straight.
Understandably, Tom is p!$$ed. He and Clark decide they’ve had enough of the system, Teacher’s rule or not, and so they walk over to the sandbox and begin to protest verbally. “Give me my ball back.” – “You have plenty.” Yada yada yada…. All of that (supposed) socialist talk that everyone seems to despise, but people forget where Morgan got all of those balls, but I digress. Tom and Clark, realizing that their words are having no affect, decide they out number Morgan, and so they merely push him over and take back the balls, "sharing" them with the rest of the class.

Do you see my point? You can’t actually steal what was stolen from you. You can either demand it back or take it by force. The point is, it belongs to you. And if the law of the land is designed to protect the thief, or if the thief owns the people who make the rules, then the rules no longer carry any weight. Maybe my choice of words were poor when I said “steal back”, but then again… I didn’t think I’d need to illustrate the obvious.

It's getting bigger and bigger... Global revolution - we are first taking the streets and parks, next is the toys... (Trolls and disclaimers this is no country for old men)
And to add some inspiration from scroobius:

something new pdf

status of bill

Happy reading!

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


These innocent actors aren’t so innocent. They’ve chosen to sell their souls to the system that is built on a foundation of corruption. There’s a saying about people who aren’t part of the solution.
There are a number of ways these “children” might resolve this issue, and going to their parents (the legal system) isn’t the way to go about it. Ask any kid who’s ever been bullied. Initially things would appear better as the parents approached Morgan and his father for a little reform. The Principle may even be involved for the sake of making things appear official. Things may, at least on the surface, appear “fixed”, but very soon Morgan is going to get a little p!$$ed about the situation and is going to be looking for a little pay back, and Morgan’s father, having his ego tested is likely going to feed Morgan’s aggression. I.E. Morgan is going to start taking more than balls. He’s going to start taking property in the style of lunchroom seats, class chairs, monopolizing playground equipment, etc. Meanwhile, Morgan’s dad has a meeting with the school, reminding them of where they get their funding.
There are ways to help these children, but they require switching schools and using new balls outside the realm of said school. Take that how you will.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

 

I can relate to you there, but completely destroying something that works (all be it, not perfect) is not the solution. Why not fix it instead?

And your method of fixing the system, which is “working” (by your standards), would be?
America was founded on and exists by entrepreneurship. This is our lifeblood. We are inventors, private businesses, local merchants, and patent filers. The ten largest banking firms in the world only focus on 18% of their efforts towards entrepreneurship. The rest of their efforts are focused on spreading the reach of global corps and self-financing, two areas that need no help, and two areas that are focused on taking money from these entrepreneurs and their livelihood. The system doesn’t work. The engine is sucking fuel with giving any energy back. The engine, this system needs to be replaced. Good luck getting anyone who is making ungodly amounts of money from giving that up. We do have a few weapons on our side; guys like Warren Buffett who understand the system is broken and want to do their part. Recently 400 of the wealthiest people in America were asked if they agreed with Warren’s idea that the rich needed to take responsibility for their actions and roles in the current economic downturn. Of these 400, eight** agreed that they were responsible, but only 1 of these 8 said he would pay more taxes as Buffett wishes to do. The remaining seven said they would do more to promote and strengthen the economy if their taxes were reduced further, or if regulations on their businesses were further removed.
If the people controlling the system, if the men who puppet our politicians and law makers won’t fix this issue, then we will have to take that responsibility from them.




**The remaining 392 wealthy people questioned stated there was no problem with the way things were working, that their businesses were fine, and that reformations to business law could be made, but only if they slackened regulations, not penalizing them for outsourcing.

reply to post by Cyberboiraves

legalities(is that a word?)

Indeed, it is.

That being said, I have decided to make a thread dedicated to the potential legal downfall of these protests.Please note I have limited knowledge of the law...

That's as far as I got...

The OP had this beauty of a line in his opening post.....

Most of you know your rights given by the Constitution

Please note Op that the constitution does not give you rights, you are BORN WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

The Constitution simply lists some of the rights you were born with!

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


Thats the problem with current law, in one breathe it says you have the right, then in another breathe it exclaims those rights are only applicable in the following circumstances...
The world has been made a place where anything can be conceived as lawful and anything can be conceived as unlawful with some hard work and dedication.

It's a joke if you ask me.

Thanks for the replies. Seems like the opinion is a bit split on useing the law to change the law. I understand the constitution does not give one rights but merely states what all people should be/are born with the right to do.It is an affirmation of "freedom".(Bill of Rights is where your rights come from..right?) IMO its a slap in the face.Just an illusion that you are free.The whole system is kind of jacked if you think about it. As long as you have rules enforced by a governing force,be it written or verbal, you are not free. We have laws suppressing laws, rights supressing rights...what's the pont? That being said I guess I have killed the original intentions of this thread. Feel free to add any anyway..gives me something to read.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Simple you restore a free market back to what a free market is supposed to do. Let the market be determined by demand. Not determine demand, by manipulating the market. That is what the government is trying to do. They are trying to push electric cars and other technology that people don't want. Im all for alternative energy, but if it doesn't work then don't try to force people to buy into it. When it works there might be demand for it, but until then, people still want what works.

That is called socialism by definition.
en.wikipedia.org...

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[2][3]
Socialist economies are based upon production for use and the direct allocation of economic inputs to satisfy economic demands and human needs (use value); accounting is based on physical quantities of resources, some physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.[4][5] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.[6]

Which seems to be your grievance here.

America was founded on and exists by entrepreneurship. This is our lifeblood. We are inventors, private businesses, local merchants, and patent filers. The ten largest banking firms in the world only focus on 18% of their efforts towards entrepreneurship. The rest of their efforts are focused on spreading the reach of global corps and self-financing, two areas that need no help, and two areas that are focused on taking money from these entrepreneurs and their livelihood. The system doesn’t work.

Second we must restore this country back to the way it was intended to be. Restore the constitution first. Pave in the cracks second. The wealth in this country is what creates jobs, but this movement is class warfare plain and simple and it will get us nowhere that we need to go.

reply to post by loveguy

Thank you for the link. Intresting proposal.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Is not the destruction of the Middle Class warfare as well? The problem stems from the fact that the rich are "obligated to create jobs", yet spend their time vying with one another on methods of creating more wealth for themselves, buying politicians in order to push the legislation they need to perpetuate their own classist war, bullying people into taking out morgages and loans they know their clients can't afford, then have the gall to boast record profits after threatening DC into pushing unacceptable bailouts.

Many are correct when they argue that things will never change, bearing the argument that as soon as we out the corruption in Washington, Wall Street, the Fed, and the Ruling class, they will soon be replaced by new people carrying the same agenda. This is true, as it has always been true. That doesn't mean we sit back and allow it to happen.

I understand what you mean when you say we should repair and restore the Constitution, but the forgotten truth is; the Founding Fathers wanted the Constitution to change. They understood that times would change, world markets would change, people would change, and as such the Constitution should change. The problem isn't the Constitution is broken per se, the problem is it is obsolete.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Well then I challenge you to point out which parts of the original final draft are obsolete?

Originally posted by Cyberboiraves
reply to post by loveguy

 

Thank you for the link. Intresting proposal.

I have yet to read the whole thing myself...

I don't know how to reiterate to people about the fact remains; DC is a CORPORATION;

PDF



We should be ousting this corporation that

Act of 1871

The United States Isn't a Country; It's a Corporation! In preparation for stealing America, the puppets of Britain's banking cabal had already created a second government, a Shadow Government designed to manage what the common herd believed was a democracy, but what really was an incorporated UNITED STATES. Together this chimera, this two-headed monster, disallowed the common herd all rights of sui juris [a natural person possessing full civil rights -- you, in your sovereignty].

Congress, with no authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten-mile square parcel of land. WHY and HOW did they do so? First, the Civil War was, in fact, little more than a calculated front with fancy footwork by backroom players. It was also a strategic maneuver by British and European interests (international bankers) intent on gaining a stranglehold on the coffers of America. And, because Congress knew our country was in dire financial straits, certain members of Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) . . .

There you have the WHY, why members of Congress permitted the international bankers to gain further control of America . . .

Then, by passing the Act of 1871, Congress formed a corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, shoved the organic version of the Constitution aside by changing the word 'for' to 'of' in the title. Let me explain: the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers read: 'The Constitution for the united states of America.' [note that neither the words 'united' nor 'states' began with capital letters] But the 'CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' is a corporate constitution, which is absolutely NOT the same document you think it is. First of all, it ended all our rights of sovereignty [sui juris]. So you now have the HOW, how the international bankers got their hands on THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

To fully understand how our rights of sovereignty were ended, you must know the full meaning of sovereign: "Chief or highest, supreme power, superior in position to all others; independent of and unlimited by others; possessing or entitled to; original and independent authority or jurisdiction." (Webster).

In short, our government, which was created by and for us as sovereigns -- free citizens deemed to have the highest authority in the land – was stolen from us, along with our rights. Keep in mind that, according to the original Constitution, only We the People are sovereign. Government is not sovereign. The Declaration of Independence says, "…government is subject to the consent of the governed." That's us -- the sovereigns. When did you last feel like a sovereign?

So what's next? Either push the proposed bill/or return to 1871 Constitution by people elected into office using Beezers technique;

Mission Statement

Or; what?
I just know that I have alot of reading to catch-up on before I 'hop-the-train'...

Good luck to everybody who wants a smooth transition.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


There's nothing to challenge. I'm not saying the Constitution didn't work. What I'm saying is that new rights, or better yet, "reclassified" rights need to be written in to it to insure that it continues to work. Loopholes are being exploited to strip away the original rights and people need to be better protected from the increasing control of the "Powers That Be."

An example:

"...to be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures."

Yet everyday people's computers, cellphones, and online information are hacked and processed, searched and seized not only unreasonably, but most times without the person's knowledge. Not knowing something is happening doesn't make legal.

"...having the tools needed for one's livelihood."

Tools like food, water, a promotion of good health, and an occupation are all necessities yet Corporately proposed laws are being entertained that limit home gardens due to their "potential to increase insect/rodent populations." Once Oil Tycoons have turned their attentions towards controlling water sources, which includes draining underground lakes and storing it, drying up farms and personal wells for entire regions in the process. Good health. I won't even delve into those murky waters and the toxins that are allowed to be placed in food and drugs, while denying people affordable/fair healthcare. And lastly, the outsourcing of jobs, the corporations that move into towns, destroy all local businesses, then replace their own workers with automated machines, reducing entire communities into ghost towns. Corporations that steal patents, then destroy anyone who dares claim the idea in courts that they control. The Constitution can no longer blanket the needs of the masses, and the criminal few have learned to use it as a weapon, like so many religious fundamentalists have learned to use their scriptures as weapons of war.