OWS a Controlled Movement for the Re-election of Barak Obama and Progressive Democrats.

Originally posted by Cuervo
... oh God I wish I could think for myself..."

You actually think for yourself?...

Here I thought you were an automated machine, since apparently
EVERYONE who is a "progressive" or "part of the left" was made from the same cast, and you all think and believe the exact same things, or so walkingfox seems to imply.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Wait, there are letters after C?

You might have just blown someone's mind, Cuervo.

If God had intended for there to be letters after C, he wouldn't have named it "Knowing your ABC's" now would he?

My gosh, that's it!!! that's all the evidence you need to back your argument...

And here I thought you had no intelligent argument to back nothing but rethoric, ad hominem attacks and lies.

Anyway, obviously certain members just want to derail the thread. I guess it must have hit right on target.
Let's see if we can bring the thread back on topic, and let's hope the "truth denialists" leave.

But of course is more probable that they will only come back with more rethoric, ad hominem attacks, exagerations and lies, like they always do. It is what they do best.

Whatever your theory is about how it started, if they succeed at rooting out the corruption that infects our political process, won't we ALL benefit from that??

Why in the Hell wouldn't you want that?

It seems to me that all the people complaining about OWS should try and keep that in mind.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Good. I hope it is exactly what you fear, and I hope they succeed. Obama has not proven quite capable to adequately overcome the focused, bigot-driven hate campaign being waged against him based on lies and distortions, but this country would be orders of magnitude worse off than we are now if the GOP had free rein.

As bad as it may be now, it would be worse otherwise.

Originally posted by ReluctantBlossom
Whatever your theory is about how it started, if they succeed at rooting out the corruption that infects our political process, won't we ALL benefit from that??

Why in the Hell wouldn't you want that?

It seems to me that all the people complaining about OWS should try and keep that in mind.

Because they would only supplant the corruption that infects our political process with a worse one, which has always proved to be worse as has been the case in every country where socialist/progressive policies have been implemented.

Not to mention the fact that it was these very same people who put the corruption in place in our government.

Do you forget that it was a "progressive democrat" President who signed the Federal Reserve Act, what people know as the Feds? And that same President implemented the IRS as it exists now?

Perhaps you, and others like you should have that in mind.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Good. I hope it is exactly what you fear, and I hope they succeed. Obama has not proven quite capable to adequately overcome the focused, bigot-driven hate campaign being waged against him based on lies and distortions, but this country would be orders of magnitude worse off than we are now if the GOP had free rein.

As bad as it may be now, it would be worse otherwise.

Really?... First of all, it is in great part thanks to democrats, liberals and progressives, which is another word for new socialists, in power that the government of the U.S. is so corrupt.

The neocons, which the left love to bash but obviously have no idea of who they are talking about, for the most part have also been democrats, and or liberals, but claimed to change sides to infiltrate the party which was the only true Party of the People for most of the existance of these United States.

Even wikipedia, known to be extremely biased to the left in politics and other topics like AGW/Global Warming has to say the following about a word used by the left to deride conservatives without knowing what it truly means.

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American conservatism. Since 2001, neoconservatism has been associated with democracy promotion, that is with assisting movements for democracy, in some cases by economic sanctions or military action.

In contemporary usage, the term "neoconservative" was used in 1973 to criticize American liberals and social democrats who had criticized the ambitions and outcomes of the Great Society's welfare programs.[citation needed] Although neoconservatives favor free-market policies in economics, they accept a role for the national government in fighting poverty and promoting the public good, like traditional conservatives in Europe and Canada and unlike most American conservatives, influenced by libertarian and states' rights traditions.[1][2] During the 1970s, "neoconservative" was applied to Democrats who had favored a negotiated settlement rather than an immediate withdrawal to end the Vietnam War and who criticized the foreign policy of President Jimmy Carter,[citation needed] particularly his support of detente and criticism of anticommunism. Several[who?] neoconservatives were approached by the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan, which criticized the detente of the Carter Administration; a few neoconservatives like Jeanne Kirkpatrick served in the Reagan Administration. During the late 1970s through 1983, neoconservatives like Kirkpatrick criticized Carter's human rights policies, arguing that they had facilitated the rise of the Sandistas in Nicaragua and risked helping other Marxist-Leninist movements come to power. Neoconservatives were initially skeptical about the AFL-CIO's support of the Polish labor-union Solidarity, but came to support the National Endowment for Democracy's aid to movements for liberalization and democratization in the former Soviet Union. After the fall of Soviet communism, American politics featured less discussion of neoconservativism in the 1990s. Most neoconservatives supported a military response against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and many supported liberating Iraq from Sadam Hussein, although some[who?] have made criticisms of the scope and conduct of both wars.

en.wikipedia.org...

Most people in the left, including Democrats love to bash Republicans, even Presidents like Reagan yet they forget that Reagan was a lifelong Democrat, who saw corruption within the party and changed sides. But you really think that he stopped believing everything he believed in as a democrat?

And don't worry, I also have a few things to say about corpocrats, or those Senators, CEOs, policymakers, and activists who have sold their soul and this country over money.

The corpocrats who call themselves Republicans are only RINO (Republican In Name Only) and they don't really
embrace the idea of Republicanism and what it means to be a true Republican.

You want to know what a real Republican is? one who embraces the Republic of the United States as the founding fathers decided it should be.

Want to know what sort of government the founding fathers all decided was best for the REpublic and for the people?

U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 4

Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

www.usconstitution.net...

A REPUBLICAN form of government. Not a democrat, not a liberal, and not a socialist/communist merged type of government.

BTW, I think Ronald Reagan was a good President, and yes he made some mistakes but they were honest mistakes.

BTW, you actually think Obama has done good to the country? How many times people have to be reminded of Obama's own words?...

You think it is a good idea for "indefinite/prolonged detention"?...

Even SOME liberals know this is a bad idea, among the many he has made and signed into law.



But I guess even "Rachel Maddow" is a Republican/conservative now?... or she is some fantasy made up by Republicans/conservatives?...

What about FORCED Community Sevice that Obama signed into law through Bill H.R. 1388?

Although it hasn't been implemented yet it is already a law which down the road they will implement. They just can't do it now because there are still a few million Americans armed and tptb know they will lose if they tried to implement laws like H.R. 1388 right at this moment.

And who is to forget what Janet Napolitano and the DHS under Obama have done?

Thompson added, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.”

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

* Opposes restrictions on firearms

* Opposes lax immigration

* Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs

* Opposes continuation of free trade agreements

* Opposes same-sex marriage

* Has paranoia of foreign regimes

* Fear of Communist regimes

* Opposes one world government

* Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.

* Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

* . . . and the list goes on

The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.
...

my.auburnjournal.com...

All i see is a bunch of Isms, ists, and other political garbage. When you try to associate ows with some sort of political backing, it loses all credibility, becuase thats not the point.

And these organizers you speak of, are not leaders in the least. They dont tell ANYONE what to do. People do things based on consensus at a general assembly held twice a day. If they wanna march, its voted on by everyone who wants to vote. There is no man in the background going "Lets do this now" or "lets do that".

And as for your statements saying that the movement has no direction and does not target anything in particular, let me direct you to this link here, which has the list of OWS demands. I can not seem to disagree with what they want.

And the occupymovement has spread to over 900 different cities accross the glove, so they're all in support of obama i guess?

Here is another good link for you Source

reply to post by AzureSky


Well, First of all, all that political garbage is exactly what a majority of the groups in Occupy Wall Street are a part of.

Second of all, these groups are so wrong, that you people keep calling the United States a democracy when it is a Constitutional Republic...

This is part of the problem, most of the people in these groups are not even aware, and are completely ignorant on U.S. history and even on the Constitution of these United States.

You become a problem when you are ignorant on facts, and only become part of the problem.

Not to mention that we had in another thread another list of demands from the OWS, and it clearly read like a socialist type of manifesto.

So again, how do you solve problems when the majority of these people don't even know what type of government the United States is, and are completely ignorant, or they just want to ignore the United States Constitution?...

Actually a Canadian magazine called Adbusters has been planning this for months as a global movement. The term "Wall Street" was used because it is most representative of the financial system, where the meltdown started and the highest concentration of wealth in the world.

Again this was planned as a GLOBAL movement by Canadians and protests are happening all over the world. So the Dems most certainly had nothing to do with the original idea, but since maybe trying to co-opt it in the US.

Originally posted by Connector
...
Again this was planned as a GLOBAL movement by Canadians and protests are happening all over the world. So the Dems most certainly had nothing to do with the original idea, but since maybe trying to co-opt it in the US.

Of course it is, it is part of the Global socialist agenda the ORGANIZERS of these events worldwide want, and the mayority of people in their ignorance are believing this will be "for the good of everyone", except that you all are falling for the same old rethoric, exagerations and lies which have been used in the past to transform nations into socialist dictatorships. But this time it is a global event.

People worlwide are so eager for some new change, that they accept anything and everything these organizers claim they will do.

Where do you think all the money for making these worldwide "protests" come from?...

Are you people really that naive?...

The organizers are clearly controlled opposition.

The protesters are not. You have people out there right now that might punch Obama in his face if they had the chance.

Lets be honest here. I do not like the alleged backers of OWS but I am in lockstep with any American who wants an end to this corrupt system.

reply to post by illuminatislave


But the problem is that people are eagerly following these protests believing the protests are exactly about what they want, but it is not so.

I am not saying every person who is a protester is in this conspiracy, but the organizers are part of a larger scheme to implement the globalist socialist NWO. BTW, ALWAYS socialists have had to use the help of corpocrats, and corpocrats are neither Republican, nor real capitalists who want a free market. They want to control the market and will be able to do so through the socialist global agenda/NWO.

Why do you think it is possible for these worldwide protests to occur? For these to happen there has to be a massive amount of money to back these worldwide protest, and to make the protesters believe they are fighting against the system the police is also being used to target some of the protesters.

A majority of police officers are good people, and a majority of the people protesting are not really bad, althought they all have different ideas of what changes should occur. But you actually think those are the changes which will be implemented? Really?... Whose changes? the anarchists? the socialists? the "progressive democrats"?

This is a global conspiracy, and it goes deeper than most people think.

These events don't happen worldwide out of luck, some large group/s had to organize the worldwide events.

Recently a member posted a graph showing how most banks are in fact owned by 4 central banks. These organizations worldwide are the same thing. They are being controlled by a few, and people are being led to believe that the "changes" they will implement are for the good of all, when it just gives more power to a global government.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Connector
...
Again this was planned as a GLOBAL movement by Canadians and protests are happening all over the world. So the Dems most certainly had nothing to do with the original idea, but since maybe trying to co-opt it in the US.

Of course it is, it is part of the Global socialist agenda the ORGANIZERS of these events worldwide want, and the mayority of people in their ignorance are believing this will be "for the good of everyone", except that you all are falling for the same old rethoric, exagerations and lies which have been used in the past to transform nations into socialist dictatorships. But this time it is a global event.

People worlwide are so eager for some new change, that they accept anything and everything these organizers claim they will do.

Where do you think all the money for making these worldwide "protests" come from?...

Are you people really that naive?...

I mulled giving a detailed response, but thought better of it.

I simply provided facts to refute your thread title...

OWS a Controlled Movement for the Re-election of Barak Obama and Progressive Democrats

The movement was started by people from around the globe, with no connection to Obama or even the US? Stay on your own topic.

Are you people really that naive?...

What does "you people" mean? What group are you conveniently inserting me in? Are the commies coming?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


See, the partisan stuff is where you lose me, although again I am wary of the organizers and their financial ties. This is not about Democrats/Republicans, both go to bat for the same team and my friend it is not us.

# both political parties, they are all corporatist barbarians that are living high off of it right now.

As much as I disagree with conservatives on what seem to be petty issues in light of the fact that this country's government is a rogue entity, we need to come to agreement that the lawmakers are owned by crony crapitalist money and it needs to stop RIGHT NOW.

Get the money out of government, healthcare, housing, etc

Abolish the Fed.

Burn K Street.

Jail any politician that has voted in their own self interest or in the interest of one of the elite factions that have destroyed our country.

Get Americans back to work.

Originally posted by Connector
I mulled giving a detailed response, but thought better of it.

I simply provided facts to refute your thread title...

For crying out loud I gave direct evidence, videos, of interviews from organizers of these events, yet you want to claim you refuted that evidence with your opinion?...

Originally posted by Connector
The movement was started by people from around the globe, with no connection to Obama or even the US? Stay on your own topic.

It was not... The movement in the U.S. started as a response to the tea party. The OWS (Occupy WALL STREET) is a leftwing event which was/is organized by leftwing groups which have existed for a long time and are part of a much larger global group.

Then the organizers of similar groups in other countries were called into action. You think all protesters thought at once, "let's do this"? Or is it more probable that organizers of leftist groups were the ones who called for these events and people responded?...

Originally posted by Connector
What does "you people" mean? What group are you conveniently inserting me in? Are the commies coming?

Those people who like you think these events are just "people with no real agenda but for the good of all"...

BTW, you think your little sarcasm about "the commies are coming" denies anything?...

For your information I was born, lived and experienced communism in one of those countries people like you claim "were never a problem"...

reply to post by illuminatislave


Meanwhile I agree partly with what you are saying, you are not seeing the bigger picture. Not all groups are in part of the conspiracy, like not all people are part of the conspiracy. They don't have to be, but they are falling right on the trap.

It is true that both parties are very corrupted, and only a few people, like Ron Paul, are the true representatives of what Republicans really are.

But are you not aware that entities like the UN, and governments like the UK, the Obama administration, and many others have called for global socialist governance? Which is exactly what many of these groups are calling for?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

The neocons, which the left love to bash but obviously have no idea of who they are talking about, for the most part have also been democrats, and or liberals, but claimed to change sides to infiltrate the party

Yes! Thank you very much! People need to hear the real definition of Neocon. I think liberals just see the "Con" part and read something into it

Many of the failed policies of the Bush admin came out of those who switched parties, such as Wolfowitz and Perle, or maybe they didn't exactly even switch, but they were instrumental under a Repub President.

Electric, everything you have presented in this thread makes sense, and I have found the same materials in my research as well. I agree with the premise of your OP and other posts. Democratic operatives had to have been behind that list of demands, as they mostly represent the Democrat Party Platform of the Obama admin. Pelosi herself and Obama have given their approval of these protesters, which they did not give the Tea Party, so it should be quite evident the partisan nature of the protest.