Occupy My Heart

reply to post by Leftist


You cannot find a single post in this thread where I "jumped down your throat for being a Marxist and a Maoist". Indeed, instead what I did was post a link to a short story I wrote in this site that takes that "bunch of spineless borgiouse wimps" to task for being...well, in my own words "those clowns who hang Sheperd Fairey Obama Hope posters on their wall and wear Che Guevera T-shirts as if this some how makes them a revolutionary. As if Che Guevera was some sort of New York bohemian who lived in a Brownstone apartment building with hip exposed brick underneath mauve dry wall, sipping cappuccino's below his Laurence Bradshaw portrait of Karl Marx, wearing a Trotsky T-shirt."

I then took you to task for assuming I'm a "rightie", of which you chose to argue with me and insist I am one. Those are the facts, but thanks for derailing this thread.

reply to post by Leftist


No need to apologize Leftist. No one asked you to.


Then again,NO one brought up Communism/Maoism,as a saving grace,to all of earths peoples.......



I remember actually saying this....and it stands true,even now.

Change doesn't need to come,if we are going to go down the road of Comparable genocide,in the names of some ism.

Tyranny is the problem.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I have always held high expectations of humanity, both as a collective and for any individual. Because of this, I refuse to back off of my own official, and un-waveringly so, position. Because of this, there are members in this site who've become profoundly disappointed in me, thinking I've somehow betrayed their heart because I've defended the rights of this so called "1%". Conversely, there are people on the other side of the spectrum who are disappointed in me because I've defended the rights of those who claim to be a part of the "99%", and as it is often with betrayal - a two way street - I feel just as betrayed.

:-)

about those high expectations...

everyone thinks they're a moderate - even Ted Nugent

like being a moderate is something to be proud of

there's the 1%, the 99%...and there is a group that's almost invisible - yet very nearly hated. Some people are crazy enough to defend the rights of everyone - even those they disagree with

who do you party with anyhow Jean Paul - the ACLU? :-)

abandon your principles and make some real friends why dontcha?

but, of course - I jest...

(I also seriously miss the glory days of Prince)

:-)

Originally posted by Kali74
I just think there's something wrong with a system that depends on keeping people down.

How are people being kept down? How are you being kept down?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by XPLodER

 

The Stand Your Ground Legislations are closely related to Castle Doctrine, which in terms of the common law the United States relies so heavily upon can be better understood by checking out William Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England. What that has to do with corporations as you imply is not clear.

stand your ground is one of ALECs hand written legislative efforts,
i was simply pointing out that some groups like ALEC are deciding to push legislation that effects the population

In terms of the Glass - Steagall Act, this act established the FDIC, however, I keep insisting that you don't need to do any business with banks at all. Indeed, the sooner people come to understand this, the sooner we can return to an age where banking institutions do not have such a stronghold on economies they have no business controlling!

there was a move your money initiative but from one bank to a local or credit union

You seem to want to trust government to write up legislation that would protect you from evil, including the evils of banking, but this is pure folly. Why is doing business with banks so important to you?

because there was lessons learned from the great depression,
and glass stegal acted like a firewall to seperate savings from the casino like behaviour the banks favour,
this firewall was removed with the obvious crash that followed,
because others do business with banks, they use their money to drive comodity prices higher and higher,
this effects everyone who eats or drives

Finally, you asked me if I thought individuals could compete with corporations. My answer was clear enough. Individuals should not have to compete with corporations. Corporations should be regulated as much as necessary. Individuals should be regulated as little as possible. When you have individuals who can own and operate their own businesses without the monstrous intrusions of regulatory schemes and the bureaucracy's that implement and enforce them, this gives them an advantage over corporations...of course, this last time out you changed your position somewhat and now are insisting that individuals cannot compete with corporate profits.

i agree with you generally, in that the population needs some protection from a system of profit at all costs, that favours corps like GM who pay no taxes, over an individual
i too beleive that govenmnet needs to get out of the way of the ;little guy and stop making it harder to start small business.
this too is because large corperate sponcers keep pushing legislation that strangles small business in favour of big business

The profits of one market from the other are irrelevant. You can place your focus on the free and open market where you are not in any direct competition with corporations and strive to flourish and prosper. If it is corporate profits you desire, then form a corporation and live with the regulations that come with this.

originally,
corperate profits were heavily taxed and corperate charters were for set periods of time or for select purposes like infrastructure projects like bridges hospitals ect, and they would be "wound up" at the end of their usefulness.

how can a real fleash and blood person compete with an artifical person who does not die,
can write legislation to aviod taxes,
and can lobby congress with massive sums of money to protect their interests?

how can individuals flourish when an imortal heartless ruthless corperate "person"
has more sway over your elected officals that decide how you live and by what rules you must use to earn your living,
so that you pay taxes and file endless paper work,
while they get tax brakes and refunds ?

these large corps are trying to stak the deck in thier favour,
i do see how the little start ups can flourish when the intreanched are writting the rules

xploder

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Oh dear Lord, could you imagine me partying with lawyers from the ACLU? What a brawl that would turn out to be. If I could find anyone of those clowns willing to put up their dukes, that is. When I get rich I am going to fund the American Unalienable Rights Committee to counterbalance all the damage the ACLU has done...in fairness they've done some good too...I'm just saying, that's all.

I miss Prince and the Revolution, couldn't understand that whole The Artist Formerly Known as Prince thing until a few years ago (after the release of Musicology) I saw him in an interview with Tavis Smiley. Smiley confronted him about that period and Prince calmly, without a hint of bitterness explained how he was having contract issues with his label and he wanted out, or wanted to switch labels, I forget the details now, but the crux was his label said he could leave but where ever he went they owned his name and could demand a price for any music put under that name, so he become symbol guy. That impressed me. Quite the warrior poet for such a dandy.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Oh dear Lord, could you imagine me partying with lawyers from the ACLU?

I can - I would almost pay to see it for real

this will no doubt rub you a very wrong way - but they are such the yin to your yang that I almost fail to see the difference. And anyway - they have similar popularity issues

...in fairness they've done some good too...I'm just saying, that's all.

Exactly. I'm just sayin' :-)

That impressed me. Quite the warrior poet for such a dandy.

it impressed me too - such an artistic way to give someone the finger

pretty fearless actually

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


While I certainly agree the ACLU is the Yin to my Yang, allow me to explain the difference. The American Civil Liberties Union fights for legal rights. Legal rights, in stark contrast to unalienable rights, are those rights granted by government. What can legally granted can be legally taken away. Thus, regardless of the good they do, their entire foundation undermines the only just reason to have government to begin with, and that would be to protect and defend unalienable rights. Further, their insistence, even in spite of recent Supreme Court rulings, that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective" right and not an individual right is an assertion than should give any individual great concern. It matters not whether you believe you have the individual right to keep and bear arms or not, this notion that a "collective" could have a right any individual cannot have is a threat to every individual on the planet.

Prince has always been fearless, but his strategy of changing names in order to beat a contract revealed a genius outside of artistic. His business acumen is one clue as to why he survives while poor Micheal is dead.

I'm glad someone has finally stood up and reminded everyone, that the Egyptian uprising ultimately accomplished a big fat zero. The military eventually got sick of it and beat the crap out of everyone involved, and the guy running the place now, is the same man who Mubarrak had already named as his successor anywayz.

As Jean Paul said, the Middle East is a collection of perpetual tin pot, semi (at best) Third World dictatorships. They have been since WW2. Before that, they were ruled by the British Empire, and before that, by the Ottoman Empire.

The Arabs as an entire ethnicity, in other words, have never experienced freedom. They therefore cannot, by definition, have any real concept of it, and Islam as a religion is opposed to it.

Mubarrak was completely correct when he said that the uprising against him was the product of foreign elements. The documentary which revealed the existence of the April 4th movement, (who were the core organisers of the Egyptian uprising) admitted as much. They were inspired by another group from Poland.

Domestic Egyptians, therefore, on a day to day basis, are going to have an expectation of dictatorship. It cannot be otherwise, because such is all they have ever known.

That brings up the point, where in general terms, I'm getting tired of Occupy and the overall Left, engaging in unrealistic overestimation of the usefulness of virtually everything they do. The Arab Spring has ultimately been an almost completely unproductive exercise. The old dictators either have been or will be replaced with new ones, and life will continue on as usual in those countries.

Reform does not work. Civil disobedience/hunger strikes, the effectiveness of which require the insane assumption that the enemy has a conscience, does not work. Even revolution within pre-defined parameters does not work.

There is one thing, and one thing only, that is going to work, and that is abandoning the system entirely. I'm also sick of hearing people who are still into Occupy, rejecting boycotts or total abandonment of the current system as unrealistic. Watch Ungrip, in my sig. That film describes what we need to do. Nothing else is going to be effective, because nothing else forces the system to care.

reply to post by petrus4



wizbangblog.com... /2012/05/06/bridge-bombers-name-appears-on-occupy-cleveland-bldg-lease-occupiers-mad-at-fbi-instead/

Text
Bridge Bomber’s Name Appears on Occupy Cleveland Bldg. Lease, Occupiers Mad at FBI Instead

May 6, 2012 | Filed under #Occupy,Barack Obama,corruption,Culture Of Corruption,Democrats,Douchebag Of The Day,Economics,Justice,Liberals,Media,Occupy Protest,Society | Posted by Warner Todd Huston

In another story that should surprise no one, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reveals that the name of one of the Ohio bridge bombers nabbed by the FBI is so closely involved with Occupy Cleveland that his name appears on the lease of the rented warehouse they use for a headquarters. Instead of being ashamed, though, the Occupiers are mad at the FBI, apparently.

When stories about the late April arrest of five Ohio men who had formed a plot to bomb some key bridges in Ohio first surfaced, the Old Media called them merely “anarchists.”

It wasn’t long, though, before the New Media began to find out that they weren’t just any amorphous “anarchists,” but members of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Cleveland (Occupy Cleveland). No Old Media outlets reported this in the beginning despite how easy it was to find the facts.

OWSers initially denied this claim saying it was just a smear job on them but now the newspaper in Cleveland finds that one of the accused, Anthony Hayne, 35, signed the lease of the building the Occupiers use for an HQ.

No denying it now, eh OWSers?

The reaction of the OWSers, though, needs to be examined. The CPD notes that instead of being furious at their own member for his desire to kill people and indulge wanton destruction they were mad at the FBI and more worried about bad publicity.

Apparently having murderous bomber wannabes in their midst wasn’t that big a deal.

The paper notes that in a video of an OWS meeting one OWSer says, “We have a person facing terrorism charges on the lease of our warehouse. If this gets into the media, it would be a disaster.”

I guess having the terrorist among you isn’t as bad as the bad publicity when people find out? Notice no condemnation of the terrorist, there.

Another OWSer notes that they are trying send it all down the memory hole and have the landlord erase the accused’s name from the lease.

Another seems to think it is important that even though Hayne’s name is on the lease he never had the rent money in his possession. Why this makes any difference or absolves them from his membership is beyond me.

But the most telling part of the video was this…


During the general assembly meeting, one leader asked the group, “Is it just me? Aren’t you uncomfortable living in a warehouse where a guy has been arrested for terrorism? I don’t want to live in a place and have the FBI show up.”

If this isn’t hilarious! Instead of being ashamed that a would-be killer was one of their central members, they are disgusted that the FBI had once come to their warehouse HQ! They are more comfortable with a domestic terrorist being among them than they are with having the FBI around!

That’s pretty telling about what sort of people make up the Occupy movement.

reply to post by redneck13


Ungrip doesn't advocate violence. It advocates the exact opposite.

It is disturbing to me that the term "domestic terrorist," is used, as though it is a name for something definite and objective, rather than simply being an emotive, subjective abstraction cooked up by the DHS and similar parties.

If Occupy want to associate with the black bloc, however, they will eventually learn what the end result of that is. I honestly believe that the single main reason why a lot of anarchists want violence, is simply because it's easier. It is a lot easier to destroy than to create. It's easier to blow up buildings, and stand on street corners and scream at police about how they are victims, than to try and implement real solutions to problems.

I also believe, however, that it genuinely is true that the FBI can and do plant provocateurs within Occupy and other such groups, and that the main purpose of said provocateurs is to encourage the group they are in, to engage in violent acts which will destroy the group's reputation with the public.

It is naive to think that the FBI would not be utilising every possible form of COINTELPRO or psych ops in the book against Occupy, just as hard as they can go. Of course they would be. Espionage, sabotage, attempts at provocation; the works. Take into account the fact that the sorts of people who are attracted to hard Leftist groups like Occupy, usually tend to have extreme emotional instability problems to begin with, (the archetypical Scorpionic personality, essentially) and you're looking at a potentially extremely dangerous cocktail.

The FBI also won't care what gets blown up, or who dies, as long as Occupy get discredited. OWS should get any violent elements out of the group as soon as they are identified, and should not tolerate violent members. If they do, it just gives the government a foothold.

As a reply to Leftist, I'm currently re-reading Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy. It's a description of a collectivist, Utopian society utilising a late 19th century level of technology, and contains a lot of elements which I'm sure she would approve of. While I claim a fairly strong level of adherence to the Libertarian viewpoint, there is much in Leftist's perspective which I am normally able to relate to, and agree with.

With that said, however, I will admit that I do find Leftist's expressions of admiration for Mao in particular, to be deeply disturbing. I have never read any information about that man, which suggested to me, that he was anything other than a complete and unrestrained psychopath. If Leftist is able to provide information which can refute that perception, I would be genuinely interested in viewing it.

reply to post by petrus4


Someone blowing up a bridge, killing the people on is not a terrorist? I am not sure that the definition of terrorist changes if one is talking about a bridge or an airplane. I guess the FBI is currently engaged in PSY-ops against the American public by planting criminal elements in OWS crowd then arresting and charging their own agents. Since you claim that is “genuinely true that the FBI plants provocateurs” can you pull up some substantiated evidence to that effect? I wouldn’t doubt the FBI uses surveillance when they deem necessary as they should, that is their job but to say the FBI doesn’t care who is blown up or dies as long as OWS is discredited is a sick statement. Most of the people in the FBI are dedicated life long law enforcement personnel who joined to protect the public. To try to glorify OWS and domestic terrorist and vilify a federal law enforcement agency is typical of the problem permeating the current state of affairs.