Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 17, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


New York State Bans Fracking




Story/Time


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

What Do They Want? Justice

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 6, 2011
AP / Jason DeCrow

Occupy Wall Street protesters join a labor union rally in Foley Square before marching on Zuccotti Park in New York’s Financial District, Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011.

By Robert Scheer

How can anyone possessed of the faintest sense of social justice not thrill to the Occupy Wall Street movement now spreading throughout the country? One need not be religiously doctrinaire to recognize this as a “come to Jesus moment” when the money-changers stand exposed and the victims of their avarice are at long last offered succor.

Not that any of the protesters have gone so far as to overturn the tables of stockbrokers or whip them with cords in imitation of the cleansing of the temple, but the rhetoric of accountability is compelling. “I think a good deal of the bankers should be in jail,” one protester told New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin. That prospect has evidently aroused concern in an industry that has largely managed to escape judicial opprobrium. 

“Is this Occupy Wall Street thing a big deal?” the CEO of a major bank asked Sorkin. “We’re trying to figure out how much we should be worried about all this. Is this going to turn into a personal safety problem?”

It should pose a threat, not because peaceful demonstrators will suddenly morph into vigilantes fatally damaging their cause with violent action, but rather because government prosecutors should fulfill their obligation to pursue justice and incarcerate some of the obvious perps. As Sorkin conceded, in one of the rare instances of the business press attempting to understand the protesters: “the message was clear: the demonstrators are seeking accountability for Wall Street and corporate America for the financial crisis and the growing economic inequality gap.”

Sorkin ended his account with snarky comments about the protesters using ATM machines and about the ever-admirable Code Pink founder Jodie Evans having flown a commercial airline to get across the country to the demonstration. He also offered the predictable dismissal that could be made about any genuinely spontaneous movement, that “the protesters have a myriad of grievances with no particular agenda.” 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
But ignore the mass media’s nitpicking and mostly derisive coverage and wonder instead why it took so long for this grass-roots movement to emerge as an alternative to the tea party, which exonerates the thieves of Wall Street. With 25 million Americans unsuccessfully looking for full-time work, 50 million experiencing mortgage foreclosure and an all-time high of 46.2 percent living in poverty, including 22 percent of all children, isn’t it logical that the faux populism of the tea party be confronted with a progressive alternative?

The Republican narrative, which the media have treated with considerable respect, blames “big government” for our ills, not when Washington bails out the banks, or feeds the maws of the military-industrial complex, but only when it might go to the aid of the victims of the financial conglomerates. 

It was the Wall Street lobbyists, with the complicity of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, who caused the Great Recession by destroying a sensible regulatory system—one that had kept U.S. banking reliable since the Great Depression—and by legalizing the securitization of homes. But the Wall Street titans escaped being held accountable for the excesses of their greed: They got their lackeys in government to throw them a lifeline bailout while their victims among the unemployed and foreclosed were abandoned. 

“We bailed out the banks with an understanding that there would be a restoration of lending. All there was was a restoration of bonuses” is the way Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz described it in speaking to the protesters on Wall Street.

It was a thought echoed by George Soros in expressing his support for the demonstrators: “The decision not to inject capital into the banks, but to effectively relieve them of their bad assets and then allow them to earn their way out of a hole leaves the banks bumper profits and then allows them to pay bumper bonuses.”

Those bonuses are part of a practice throughout the corporate world that has far less to do with corporate performance than with the power spoils of CEOs. As The Washington Post points out, “The gap between what workers and top executives make helps explain why income inequality in the United States is reaching levels unseen since the Great Depression.” While the median pay for top corporate executives has quadrupled since the 1970s, the pay of non-supervisory workers has declined by more than 10 percent.

“Ultimately this is about power and greed, unchecked,” Jodie Evans told the Times’ Sorkin, and it is a protest that the columnist’s newspaper, along with the rest of a mainstream media that editorially enthused over the radical deregulation that unfettered Wall Street greed, should now honestly cover.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: American Government’s Indifference to Popular Protest

Next item: How (and Why) to Co-opt Those Cops on Wall Street



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 26, 2011 at 10:54 pm Link to this comment

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
—Jiddu Krishnamurti

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 26, 2011 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

You, David J. Cyr, should be more concerned with sincere displays of immorality constantly exhibited by Republicans, than misperceptions of insincere morality on the part of Democrats.

You, as I’ve mentioned before, exhibit what appears to be a bizarre form of political dyslexia. Hopefully I’ll be excused for being redundant seeing as how you repeat the same thing over and over and over again with very little modification. My diagnosis of political dyslexia is compounded by an obvious obsessive compulsive disorder exhibited by you.

This thread is dead and I have no incentive to continue this futile discourse with you. I also fear that continued discourse with you will cause you to degenerate into even greater neurosis, perhaps psychosis.

I will graciously allow you the last word. Please try and come up with something new, and hopefully that last word will not be the culmination of dialectic of lunacy. I only make this suggestion out of concern for your mental health.

My last word here will be help. You need help.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 25, 2011 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, of an anonymous inanimate thing, being a painting in many shades of (D)evious blue:

“The training at the ‘School of the Americas’ that included the worst kinds of evil was not exposed until the 80’s when Reagan was President and that evil was exposed by Liberals in the government and the media.”
__________________

The corporate party’s (D) dedicated liberal faction often exposes evil done by the corporate-state, when those in nominal control are Republicans. Their displays of insincere morality in factional disputes have been an integral part of the corporate party’s theater of deception designed to persuade people to falsely perceive (R)s and (D)s as not being the team together as one that they are… so that corporate persons will continue to govern natural persons, regardless of whether (R)s or (D)s are nominally in control.

Why didn’t the pretending to be more moral than Republicans are Democrats end that evil, when those in nominal control were Democrats?

The reason why is that the corporate party’s Democrats share the same strategic goals with their Republican partners. Their disputes are over cultural issues; over how best to get their evil done together (Republican hot-bloodedly, or Democrat cold-bloodedly)... and which faction should be more rewarded than the other while getting their evil done together.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 25, 2011 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

More of your crap; your attempt to blame Democrats for the horrors that occurred in Central and South America during Republican Administrations is just that, crap. The School of the Americas was relocated to Fort Benning Georgia in 1963 the year that Kennedy was assassinated and that transfer was nothing more than one facet of Kennedy’s misbegotten “Alliance for Progress.”

The training at the “School of the Americas” that included the worst kinds of evil was not exposed until the 80’s when Reagan was President and that evil was exposed by Liberals in the government and the media. The debate about the “School of the Americas” has been ongoing and the opposing factions in that debate are clearly identified.

Having followed that era closely and having witnessed Congressional Proceedings and committee hearings on C-SPAN I know which Political Party was opposed to such activities and which Political Party was zealously and vehemently in support of those policies. I can identify for you the Republican attack dogs and fear mongers that promoted those policies, Dick Cheney being the most vocal from that era.

Military Commanders of the “School of the Americas” and Republican defenders of the School of the Americas have used “Plausible deniability” to blunt the arguments of Liberals who have been critical of the “School of the Americas,” and those defenders of the School of the Americas have been able to claim that evil teachings have been eliminated from the curriculum. Is it your contention that all Democrats have to do is snap their fingers and “The School of the Americas” will cease to exist. “The School of the Americas” has been renamed and relocated to Quantico Virginia. Incidentally, the School of the Americas was never known as the “John F. Kennedy School of the Americas.”

You are full of crap and you tautologically excrete that crap. You have exposed yourself as being fanatical and counter productive. Do you really believe that your ravings and demagoguery serve any good purpose? Let me suggest that you “reform” your dialectic into something more worthwhile and something that has some possibility of leading to a positive outcome. Your refusal to admit that the end of the occupation in Iraq is an incremental improvement defines you perfectly.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

Prior to Kennedy, there was a small project begun in 1946 (U.S. Army Caribbean Training Center). Kennedy reformed it — made it much bigger and more aggressive. Since its exportation of terror and political repression would have far more reach (and far more victims) than the little old school it replaced, Kennedy renamed his new improved university. Kennedy chose to name it The School of the Americas, because that made it sound like a pleasant liberal arts school… a liberal arts school that disappeared democracy advocates throughout Central and South America.

If the corporate party’s Democrats are so much nicer people than their nasty Republican partners are, then why haven’t Democrats ever closed down Kennedy’s School of the Americas when they could have? Why are Democrats still supporting the state-sponsored terror that Kennedy’s School of the Americas still produces?

The regularly near unanimous majority consensus arrived at in the corporate-state’s elections routinely supports a continuum of the corporate (R) & (D) party’s fascist policies… the most people routinely achieving the least good.

The Democrats are a greater evil than their ignorant Republican partners, because it’s the clever “best and brightest” Democrats who have managed to make the corporate party’s fascism be so fucking sustainable.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

Leon Panetta is the Secretary of defense, not the “Secretary of War” or the CIA Director. My mistake i.e. ignorance in this matter is evident; would that Cyr’s ignorance would be evident to him as well, we’d all be better off.

Correcting past demagoguery; the School of the Americas was founded in 1946 and is only known as the John F. Kennedy School of the Americas to Cyr and other distorters. The overthrow of elected governments replete with horrific atrocities was facilitated by the CIA, the CIA was complicit and instrumental in horrific atrocities in Vietnam, Indonesia, South America, Central America, Africa, Southwest Asia, and nearly everywhere on the planet, such is a matter of the public record, and many CIA activities were brought to light, to a great extent, by the Church Commission, a Congressional investigation initiated by Frank Church, a Democrat.

Other expose’s of CIA perfidy have been brought to light by liberals; liberals much hated by Cyr and his ilk. Amy Goodman, for example reports news extremely critical of Democrats but she is cognizant of the difference between Republicans and Democrats, she continues to expose perfidy, but she is well aware that Republicans are more to be feared than are Democrats, and for this she becomes subject for CYR’s criticism.

“By David J. Cyr, September 22 at 6:23 am

But Amy Goodman keeps earnestly “Tea Party, Tea Party, Tea Party, Tea Party…” shepherding sheeple, again, into the corporate party’s Democrat pen.”

By David J. Cyr, September 8 at 4:45 am

“In his firm advocacy for voters to support (D) fascists, rather than to vote against fascism, Chomsky is far more responsible than most liberals are for having made fascism fashionable again, and for having ensured that elections did not provide the nonviolent means of addressing societal problems they could have and should have.”


By David J. Cyr, December 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

“The people who admire the silver-tongued deceiver Bill Moyers vote for the same shit that the people who idolize Glen Beck do. They just want different management to provide the same shit.”

Just a sampling of fanaticism, I’ve grown tired of pointing it out. Search, “David J. Cyr said this,” scroll down, fanaticism on display.

Just two of the highlights, lowlights, whatever:

“Never be afraid to be in a minority — even a minority of one — because there’s nothing more rare than a majority worthy of its perceived superiority.”

“Consensus is a means for the most people to accomplish the least good.”

Are the two above statements narcissistic? Does Cyr have a dictator complex? Does he know that democracy is all about consensus? Is he opposed to consensus i.e. democracy? It is creating a consensus with the best possible outcomes that is important in our politics. Cyr is bound and determined to destroy consensus if that consensus does not adhere to his demands.

Suggesting that people read his fanatical ravings gives me pause. I’m afraid that people will drink his Kool Aid. Kool Aid that I would call the “Green Death.” Sorry, I jest smile it’s not funny, nor is his harmful counter productive raving. It appears that his heart might be in the right place, but that his mind has been misplaced, or imploded into adamant narcissism and intolerance. He has made the perfect the enemy of the good, and the good the enemy.

Cyr writes, “A ‘reformer’ alters the Problem’s appearance, to save the system from the Solution.” Cyr is in need of reform, not to alter his appearance, but to alter his mind.

Definitions of reform (v)

re•form [ ri fáwrm ]
 
1. improve something by removing faults: to change and improve something by correcting faults, removing inconsistencies and abuses, and imposing modern methods or values

2. get rid of unacceptable habits: to adopt a more acceptable way of life and mode of behavior…

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 24, 2011 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

The blue painting (D) dedicated to fascism apparently has difficulty keeping up with the New World Order’s fascist hat rotation.

Panetta is no longer the head under the hat at the Counter-Insurgency Agency (CIA). He’s now the Secretary of War — Obama’s new heir to the “strange” McNamara legacy.

“Were those who issued the approval to use Agent Orange criminals? Were they committing a crime against humanity? Let’s look at the law. Now what kind of law do we have that says these chemicals are acceptable for use in war and these chemicals are not. We don’t have clear definitions of that kind. I never in the world would have authorized an illegal action. I’m not really sure I authorized Agent Orange. I don’t remember it, but it certainly occurred, the use of it occurred while I was Secretary.”
— Robert Strange McNamara

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 24, 2011 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

More demagoguery to serve a dialectic of demagoguery. Americans remaining in Iraq will be diplomatic personnel. Diplomats and those employed to protect diplomats.

Cyr can not bear to admit the occupation of Iraq is ending, such invalidates his dialectic of demagoguery.

The Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief. The Secretary of State is not the “Field Marshal” and the head of the CIA is not the “Secretary of War.”

Policy towards Iran is abominable and would be more abominable with a Republican Commander in Chief, not to mention a wide variety of abominable policies foreign and domestic that would be implemented or advocated by a Republican Commander in Chief. A Republican Commander in Chief would have a Republican Cabinet and administration. A Republican Commander in Chief with a Republican Congress would bode ill for all, with the exception of the 1%. A Republican Commander in Chief and a Republican Congress is what the 1% desire and what they may see become a reality, with the help of Cyr and his ilk.

Demagoguery born of counter productive obstinate ignorance and fanaticism.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 24, 2011 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, of an anonymous inanimate thing, being a painting in many shades of (D)evious blue:

“Yes I do prefer Democratic fascists to Republican fascists.”
_________________

Conditions have gotten so Obamanable that the devious (D) operatives have the confidence now to occasionally be truly transparent.

We who prefer to not have fascism all got the fascism the (D) dedicated voted for.

This weekend, Obama’s Field Marshall, Clinton, and his Secretary of War, Panetta, were out in force in the corporate media, affirming that military might will be maintained in “that region” and pointedly threatening Iran… banging the war drums.

The immunity negotiations for “trainers” in Iraq are ongoing, seeking a mutual means to deceive the people of both nations. Meanwhile, private contractors will fill the need for U.S. trainers to train the Iraqi sepoys to replace the Americans being redeployed. Perhaps the final stage of transition will be to bring the Bathist officers back, and give them some remedial training in modern methods of state-sponsored domestic terror and repression at the John F. Kennedy School of the Americas.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 22, 2011 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

Good link Anarcissie, the money must be gotten out of politics, I also believe the Lobbyists are just as much a problem for abuses as well the traditional business as usual conflicts of interests.

From what I understand there are 200 plus lobbyists for each member of Congress and a large percent of them are ex congress members, this cronyism supersedes the people and overrides public interests.

Yes, we need to get the money out and people need representation not corporations.  No way in hell are corporations people too, the link article covers it well. Thanks again Anarcissie!

Get the money out, one person, one dollar, one vote!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 22, 2011 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Speaking of getting the money out, here’s a parallel development apparently inspired by OWS.  It’s a proposal for a Constitutional amendment (which I agree would be necessary) to limit political donations/bribes and deprive corporations and other collective entities of political personhood.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/how-to-regain-our-democra_b_1021067.html

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 22, 2011 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment

Quotes from a fanatical Demagogue:

“Seriously, I find no pleasure in seeing such a pathetically sad display — a spokes thing for liberals gloating over a “historic” corporate person installed (D) thing mopping up one fascist mission accomplished. The new oil contracts have been signed, so American combat troops are no longer permanent deployment required in Iraq… but, only because the new Iraqi government would not give American soldiers complete immunity from prosecution for all future crimes — evidence of (D) weakening empire. Note, however, that “trainers” will be permanently stationed “in country” in Iraq to produce proxy troops… Iraqi sepoys.”

My argument has been and continues to be that Democrats are preferable to Republicans, and that not voting for Democrats only serves the interests Republicans. Please note the leading Republican candidates currently criticizing the end of the occupation of Iraq. Cyr’s dialectic of insult and charges of perfidy demonstrate the emptiness of his argument and the vileness of his character. Would Cyr prefer that the occupation i.e. “fascist mission” continue rather than be ended? The debate about immunity only involved a small contingent desired by U.S. military leaders, and the Iraqi government, about 5,000. The 5,000 requested trainers will not be staying in Iraq. The trainers that will be remaining in Iraq consist of those who will “train” those who are assigned to protecting embassy
personnel, “trainers” that are assigned such duties in all foreign countries. The “Sepoys” will be 100% under the control if the Iraqi government and be trained by the Iraqi government. The “fascist mission” was the work of Republicans and ending the “fascist mission” is the work of Obama who has been opposed to the “fascist mission” from day one. In a speech Oct. 2, 2002 “Obama said that what he was opposed to was ‘a dumb war ... a rash war.’ He said the war was a ‘cynical attempt’ to shove ‘ideological agendas down our throats’ and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care.”

Cyr continues with his fanatical demagoguery: 

“This display of liberal depravity is unfortunately not at all surprising. The anti-draft (not antiwar) “left” posing liberals prefer to have others fight and die in their “necessary” and “humanitarian” resource wars they keep voting for — children of the working poor; conservative kids; gays and lesbians; Dream Act recruited illegal aliens; NATO — any proxy… anyone other than themselves.”

Apparently Cyr sees the end of the occupation as “liberal depravity” Cyr’s contention that the peace movement was anti-draft and not anti-war is pure demagoguery and a contention based on nothing but hatred of liberals. Cyr apparently believes that those who suffered and died, suffered and died to keep liberals out of the war and that those who suffered and died were exploited by liberals, liberals who were opposed to the war in Vietnam, and all wars, and that those exploited were not exploited by Republican/right-wing warmongers.

(More)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

More Cyr nonsense:

“Yes, (D) corporate party liberals can claim “Mission Accomplished” now, in Iraq, after 21 continuous fucking years of collective punishment of all the Iraqi people… just because one formerly favored sand thug considered valuing oil in something other than dollars.”

If the mission was ending the occupation, then yes, liberals can claim mission accomplished. Apparently, Cyr believes George H.W. Bush and the Bush crime family are/were liberals. Collective punishment of the Iraqi people began with George H. W. Bush, culminated with the Collective punishment administered by George W. Bush and his coterie of war criminals. That collective punishment will have long lasting consequences to all involved, but the worst aspects of that collective punishment have now ended thanks to the liberals Cyr hates so much.

Huh…? The following from Cyr is not only demagoguery it is a fabricated distortion of reality replete with incomprehensible gibberish.

“How do inhuman Democrat operatives justify the last ten years of state-sponsored terror unleashed upon the impoverished people of Afghanistan that Obama has increased and made more remotely controlled mechanized? Why are liberal, liberal Democrats so very eager to be all about Israeli on Afghan peasants? Could it be all the mineral deposits that side-looking airborne radar discovered before the “retaliation” for 9/11? Since Democrats consider it “necessary” to pretend that the Afghan people deserve to be punished for a successful counter-attack against the Market-State that the official story had Saudi nationals accomplishing, why aren’t Democrats invading and occupying Saudi Arabia?

Is Cyr suggesting that Democrats should invade Saudi Arabia? The contention that “Democratic operatives” are inhuman demonstrates his fanatical hatred, who is it that approves of “State sponsored terrorism”? It is right-wing lunatics who defend “State sponsored terrorism.” Obama as commander and chief, uses “remotely controlled mechanized” weapons to kill supposed Al Qaeda operatives, an activity that good liberals have condemned and classified as war crimes. Does Cyr believe that removing Liberals from governance will end the war crimes? If so, he is not just an anti-liberal fanatic he is a moron. Obama has promised the end of the Afghanistan occupation in 2014, a promise that will be become irrelevant should the Republicans take control of the presidency in 2012. My claim that Democrats are preferable to Republicans will be further validated either in 2012 or 2014. My preference for Democrats over Republicans needs no defense, and Cyr can demonize me and liberals all he wants, it only shines a light on his moronic counter productive fanaticism.

(More)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

More from Cyr:

“Democrats are to democracy what war is to peace.

Good people don’t choose between fascists, but then (D) inanimate object avatars can’t relate to that humanity. Informed that UN (that is U.S. Clinton Administration) sanctions had or would cause the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, Clinton’s Field Marshal, Madeline Albright, calmly affirmed her and the Clinton Administration’s position: “the price is worth it” with the “it” being a removal of just one (1) insubordinate U.S. sand thug. (1996)

The question is: Have all liberals, like the thing JDmysticDJ has, become non-human things, not capable of being humane?

No Peace, No Justice!”

*************************************************************

The horrific atrocities committed by Republicans, the right-wing faction of Democrats, and the United Nations Security counsel, and to a lesser extent the United Nations General Assembly, are a matter of the public record, such was horrific and unforgivable, and a reality I personally have brought to light frequently, but attributing such solely to liberals is fanatical stupidity. It was Leslie Stahl, who some would describe as a liberal who confronted Madeline Albright with the reality of U.N. i.e. U.S., United Kingdom sanctions. Cyr’s accusation that I am choosing between fascists might well have some basis in truth. Yes I do prefer Democratic fascists to Republican fascists. I would prefer Roehm’s socialist fascists to Hitler’s Nazi, industrialist sponsored, fascists every time, but I am opposed to every type of fascism; fascism exhibited by Democrats as well as fascism advocated by Republicans. When Democrats end the occupations I will moderate my accusations of Democratic fascism. Pointing out the very real dichotomy between Democrats and Republicans is of no value to fanatical counter productive morons, but Cyr does not acknowledge the dichotomy, he instead assigns the greatest perfidy to Democrats, liberals, progressives, and all (including left-wing icons,) who prefer Democrats to Republicans. To Cyr, I and those like me are “things” “inanimate objects” “non-human” and “inhumane.” Hyperbole…? A true expression of belief…? Or the ravings of a fanatical lunatic…?

Ending the madness will not come from irrational advocacies of Anarchy, or from facilitating those most fascistic, quite the contrary. If, or when, the worst nightmares come to fruition, it will be Cyr and his ilk that will share in responsibility.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 22, 2011 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

Yes all of everything again OM, all of everything!

Myopic retrospection seems your strong point, well besides the ones on your head OM!

It has been fun OM,.... but I need to go and get my toe nail trimmed!  Later Bro!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 22, 2011 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

Gebebiz on a cracker just what does it mean OM?

I guess it means you like to defame Jesus on the cross. Why are you asking me what it means though? Its your little game, not mine.

A Trojan horse(since i am the one who brought that up) means that what appears to be a peaceful gesture is in fact an attack.

Or more specifically(with the 99%) that the goal of many people in OWS is kept hidden from view.

You love Occupy Wall Street, Leefeller. Why cant you even guess what “Dont say it bro” means? Or dont you care?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 22, 2011 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

As usual, obviously OM has a rubber chicken in his hand which he thinks will support his where the sun don’t shine delusions.  Yeah, what does it mean OM, what does a Trojan horse mean OM? What does the rubber chicken stand for OM? What do you stand for OM?

Inequality must be sidetracked for OMs curiosity, his constant ossification and illusions of the flat earth society!

Obstreperous hubris proceeds and foll lows OM on every post!  All you cicada pom pom waving lefty’s. Yes, Just what does it mean OM?

Get the money out, boggles the mindless doesn’t OM?

One person, one dollar, one vote, what does it mean OM?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 22, 2011 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

As usual, obviously OM has a rubber chicken in his hand which he thinks will support his where the sun don’t shine delusions.  Yeah, what does it mean OM, what does a Trojan horse mean OM? What does the rubber chicken stand for OM? What do you stand for OM?

Inequality must be sidetracked for OMs curiosity, his constant ossification and illusions of his flat earth society proclamations!

Obstreperous hubris the foul stench consistently proceeds and follows OM on every post!  ‘All you cicada pom pom waving lefty’s.’... Yes, Just what does it mean OM?

Get the money out, boggles the mindless doesn’t OM?

One person, one dollar, one vote, Gebebiz on a cracker just what does it mean OM?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 22, 2011 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—I think all your questions have been answered except for those requiring mind-reading, which I confess are beyond my powers.  But I can’t make you read the answers.

                      -Anarcissie

Explaining pure and ‘transparent’ people’s motivations shouldnt be that hard for you. You normally do plenty of mind reading, claiming to know the goal and motivation of people quite opaque to you, people at a great ideological distance to you, such as myself, or the Tea Party, or conservatives 200 years ago.

If you really wont explain the OWS phenomenon of ‘dont say it, bro’, stop pretending that the Occupation is so pure and transparent to everyone. You cant have it both ways.

Also, dont pretend that you answered the question.I rered your posts and you havent addressed it at all. I find your avoidance and denial to be interesting, something you never did before.

“Dont say it bro”.

There is an avoidance of expressing something to the outside world among the OWS True Believers. I wonder why? I wonder ‘why’ more than I wonder what ‘it’ is. I wonder why ‘it’ shouldnt be expressed by the wonderfully honest and amazingly transparent people, such as yourself, Anarcissie.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 21, 2011 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, of an anonymous inanimate thing, being a painting in many shades of (D)evious blue, upon the Goldman Sachs’ owned Obama announcing yet another new date for redeployment of troops from Iraq to some other dumb war that Democrats have repackaged as being either a “necessary” or “humanitarian” war:

“I feel redeemed, without need of absolution. I feel deliverance, rescue, release, but most of all I feel validated.”
____________________

Seriously, I find no pleasure in seeing such a pathetically sad display — a spokes thing for liberals gloating over a “historic” corporate person installed (D) thing mopping up one fascist mission accomplished. The new oil contracts have been signed, so American combat troops are no longer permanent deployment required in Iraq… but, only because the new Iraqi government would not give American soldiers complete immunity from prosecution for all future crimes — evidence of (D) weakening empire. Note, however, that “trainers” will be permanently stationed “in country” in Iraq to produce proxy troops… Iraqi sepoys.

This display of liberal depravity is unfortunately not at all surprising. The anti-draft (not antiwar) “left” posing liberals prefer to have others fight and die in their “necessary” and “humanitarian” resource wars they keep voting for — children of the working poor; conservative kids; gays and lesbians; Dream Act recruited illegal aliens; NATO — any proxy… anyone other than themselves.

Yes, (D) corporate party liberals can claim “Mission Accomplished” now, in Iraq, after 21 continuous fucking years of collective punishment of all the Iraqi people… just because one formerly favored sand thug considered valuing oil in something other than dollars.

How do inhuman Democrat operatives justify the last ten years of state-sponsored terror unleashed upon the impoverished people of Afghanistan that Obama has increased and made more remotely controlled mechanized? Why are liberal, liberal Democrats so very eager to be all about Israeli on Afghan peasants? Could it be all the mineral deposits that side-looking airborne radar discovered before the “retaliation” for 9/11? Since Democrats consider it “necessary” to pretend that the Afghan people deserve to be punished for a successful counter-attack against the Market-State that the official story had Saudi nationals accomplishing, why aren’t Democrats invading and occupying Saudi Arabia?

Democrats are to democracy what war is to peace.

Good people don’t choose between fascists, but then (D) inanimate object avatars can’t relate to that humanity.

Informed that UN (that is U.S. Clinton Administration) sanctions had or would cause the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, Clinton’s Field Marshal, Madeline Albright, calmly affirmed her and the Clinton Administration’s position: “the price is worth it” with the “it” being a removal of just one (1) insubordinate U.S. sand thug. (1996)

The question is: Have all liberals, like the thing JDmysticDJ has, become non-human things, not capable of being humane?

No Peace, No Justice!

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 21, 2011 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—I think all your questions have been answered except for those requiring mind-reading, which I confess are beyond my powers.  But I can’t make you read the answers.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 21, 2011 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment

Intesting that someone insults so much that they never answer any questions.  My questions about Occupy wall Street remain unanswered.

Carrying pom-poms for a movement isnt quite the same thing as answering questions about the movement.

Speaking of the topic, Leefeller, why dont you answer the question: What did “Dont say it bro” at Occupy Wall Street mean? There are several videos like that, what the heck does it mean? Especially for a movement renowned for complete transparency! I ask, but no one explains.

Do you really want to talk about the topic instead of doing whatever-it-is that you do here? Why dont you break new ground and answer the question that Anarcissie has dodged for 3 weeks?

What was ‘bro’ about to say? And why not say it?

Report this
kulu's avatar

By kulu, October 21, 2011 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

Capitalism is broken. Why does that fact seem so hard to grasp even for the “proggies” commenting here? Would some form of socialism really be a worse option to what we have got? It hardly seems possible. By taking socialist solutions off the table or treating them as something that only radical lunatics would consider, commentators are allowing themselves to be drawn into the rigid framework that the mainstream media and governing bodies have constructed for us.

I am not a socialist myself, at least I don’t think I am, but I am 100% behind them in support of the humanitarian and environmental values they fight for. There are many splinter groups of socialist parties (at least in Australia there are) so they don’t propose one amorphous solution to the problems we face.

We should recognize that we are in uncharted waters and need therefore to take things step by step, testing possible solutions and backing off from them if they do not turn out as expected.

What really is wrong with public ownership of natural resources, the banks etc? Banks in many countries as well as insurance companies were in fact publicly owned as were water resources, utilities, rail and postal services. It is since these enterprises went the “American way” of privatization that the problems the world now face have reached this dangerous level of pending irreversible social and environmental collapse. The occupations taking place worldwide are rising up in a last ditch attempt to address the problem. 

Venezuela has privatized its oil resources and this has led to an improved outcome for its citizens who now share in the wealth. Worker run cooperative enterprises are being tried in Argentina and elsewhere and haven’t led to disaster.

Anything is better than what we have got.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 21, 2011 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

When the ossification grows beyond pathetic, one only can shake their head and wonder why and ask what a waste.

Not one issue is addressed by the pathetic one, not one bit of discussion, always some deviation from the topic at hand or discussion on to some closed minded Homie point!

Not one comment by Mr. Pathetic has addressed the topic of the discussion, the grievances, the abuses, the corruption, the social inequalities. For their is no argument available, even for a misanthropic deluded one!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 21, 2011 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

“It’s silly to accuse OWS of being a Trojan Horse when it is completely transparent.”

That is why i really need to keep writing. When you make such statements there has to be a little counterbalance, a little reality.

Speaking of transparency, what did “Dont say it bro” mean? what was ‘bro’ about to say? And why not say it?

Thats transparency?

After all this time you never answered what “Dont say it bro” signifies and that isnt too transparent of you, either.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, I for one appreciate your personal insight on Occupy Wall Street. It is nice to hear you opinions and ideas as to your perceptions. 

Occupy Wall Street is an important voice for the majority of the people who are not trying to get rid of capitalism, just crony capitalism and in my case cronyism of any kind.

Corruption is obvious, people like Elizabeth Warren addressed it, only to be shut down by the powers that be, far as I am concerned their are many issues which need addressing, hence OWS extensive large list of grievances. 

Thanks Anarcessie!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 21, 2011 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ—A reduction and eventual elimination of regular US troops from Iraq was formulated while Bush was still president.  This was reasonable, since there had never been any reason to invade Iraq in the first place.  So as far as I can see, Mr. O is simply following the plans made by Mr. B, as in so many other areas.  Actually abandoning imperialism and war as default national policy will require a sharper turn.

Ozark Michael—I would say that OWS is still in the agitprop stage.  What I observe is a wide variety of people who can perceive a set of problems in common, but may have different answers or responses to those problems.  To my perception, most of those hanging out at the Occupation are reformist liberal social democrats rather than radicals and do not plan to replace capitalism at this time or maybe any time.  I think that’s a mistake, but there it is.  Doug Shoen’s dishonestly interpreted poll (noised about on this site by somene nymmed iMax) shows that.

Obviously I have no idea what the cryptic, fragmentary remark you have repeatedly quoted meant.

It’s silly to accuse OWS of being a Trojan Horse when it is completely transparent.

Here are a couple of articles which may help your understanding.  The first is a generic account of why activists do what they do:
http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/ask-an-activist-why-should-we-demonstrate (http://tinyurl.com/3ul4qgj)

The second is by one of the supposed ‘masterminds’ of the Occupation:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/david-graeber-on-playing-by-the-rules-–-the-strange-success-of-occupy-wall-street.html (http://tinyurl.com/4382gex).  I think it’s amusing that part of the genealogy involved the subversion of a Workers’ World Party meeting, but you’d have to be more familiar with the New York City radical activism scene than you seem to be to enjoy the joke fully.  Now, Graeber may be overemphasizing his participation—many currents flow into any event—but I am pretty sure it’s veracious, because I know some of the people involved.

I’ll have to admit I’m getting kind of bored with the mudthrowing business.  It didn’t take, and I think it’s time to move on.  But—to each his own.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 21, 2011 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

RE: Anarcissie, October 21 at 8:48 am

Redemption is a difficult concept on many levels.

re•demp•tion [ ri démpsh’n ]
 
1.  improving of something: the act of saving something or somebody from a declined, dilapidated, or corrupted state and restoring it, him, or her to a better condition

2.  redeemed state: the improved state of somebody or something saved from apparently irreversible decline

3.  atonement for human sin: deliverance from the sins of humanity by the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross

Synonyms: salvation, deliverance, rescue, release, liberation, emancipation, recovery


Flash!

Barack Obama, Today, 10/20/2011

“I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” Obama said. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

Whether Obama can be absolved where Iraq is concerned is a question debatable and I would argue that he can not be absolved. Be that as it may, I feel redeemed, without need of absolution. I feel deliverance, rescue, release, but most of all I feel validated.


If any can not see that my arguments have been validated, then I believe they are beyond redemption, so to speak.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 21, 2011 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, i wonder if OWS is still in the agitprop stage that you mentioned last week. If so, when we pass beyond agitprop, when do we find out what we are supposed to replace capitalism with?

When do we find out what the “dont say it bro”-bro was about to say?

When does the Trojan Horse reveal its contents?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 21, 2011 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ—I don’t think you’re likely to convince anyone frequenting this web site that the Democrats are redeemable.  But maybe they are.  The only way any proggies are going to believe this, however, is if they see some redemption taking place.  I don’t mean new heroic statements by Mr. O—everyone knows he can can give excellent lip service to any number of progressive concerns without intending or being able to do anything about them.  I mean actions, like the firing of about 3/4 of his staff and cabinet, and some kind of effort to clean out the leadership levels of the Democratic Party.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 21, 2011 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, October 19 at 12:34 pm

What’s the point in responding to David J. Cyr’s demagoguery and confused political acuity? This thread has been relegated to the recent history of Sheer articles and very few are likely to observe this debate between he and I. Previously on this thread I have made my best arguments regarding Democrats being preferable to Republicans, and that the condemnation of Democrats only serves the interests of much, much, less preferable Republicans. Unlike David J. Cyr I try to avoid dialectic of redundancy. Making the same argument over and over again gives the appearance of dogmatism. I’ll admit to being dogmatic in my insistence that Democrats are preferable to Republicans, and my contention that condemning Democrats serves only the interests of Republicans and which can not under current political realities have any other outcome. What do I want? Justice! David J. Cyr apparently believes that condemnation of Democrats will somehow lead to Justice. I maintain that condemning Democrats will only serve the interests of the most unjust. David J. Cyr asserts that Democratic voters are the true villains and the facilitators of right-wing policies domestic and foreign, without recognition that Democratic politicians have been resistant to right-wing policies. Informed people who are aware of our political realities know that Republicans as a body march in lock step in support of right–wing policies foreign and domestic, while Democrats vary in their support of right-wing policies, the preponderance of Democrats are opposed to right-wing policies to a greater or lesser extent.

David J. Cyr writes:

“’The Corporate Persons’ money has regularly won popular vote mandates in American elections because a supermajority of voters has habitually needlessly self-restricted themselves to only voting for one of the two interchangeable part candidates that the corporate (R) & (D) party has industrially manufactured.”

The above is demagoguery. The most obvious demagoguery is the contention that the “[R] & [D]” are one and the same. The dichotomy between “[R] & [D]” is manifest and any other contention is disingenuous or ignorant.

The complexities of campaign finance and regulations are difficult to comprehend: Hard money, soft money, PACs, Super PACs, FEC regulations, etc. The dominance of [R] appointed Supreme Court Justices has created further complications due to [R] Supreme Court decisions. It is safe to say, hopefully without fear of contradiction, that the influence [R] funded lobbyists have on our elected representatives is inordinate, unjust, and a serious detriment to egalitarian democracy. The observation that Democrats have accepted campaign contributions from corporate PACs and that the daily necessity of obtaining campaign contributions in order to remain politically viable is a reality, but the contention that there is a Quid Pro Quo attached to political contributions is false, such is illegal, and political realities demonstrate that if a Quid Pro Quo was expected, those expecting a Quid Pro Quo can only be greatly disappointed with Democrats, they are, and the latest corporate funding substantiates the contention that corporate contributors are disappointed with Democrats. It is also worth pointing out that legislation to make campaign funding more egalitarian has been obstructed, filibustered, and defeated by [R] elected representatives.

(More)

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 21, 2011 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

While, in the interests of humanity, I have charitably considered that liberals might possibly be the morally redeemable half of the corporate party’s members, the anonymous corporate party operative inanimate avatar thing — a painting in several shades of (D)evious blue — is (D) dedicatedly determined to persuade liberals to not seek moral redemption… to remain deeply depraved Democrats.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 21, 2011 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

Cyr continues with his nonsense:
 
“If the millions of liberals had ever wanted to get the money out of elections all they needed to do was to stop voting for (D) heavily funded corporate party candidates. But, then they wouldn’t have been voting to get “better” and “more acceptable” evil done, so they chose not to vote for the natural person representing candidates who had refused corporate funding.”

Millions of liberals not voting for [D] would not remove the money from politics; not voting for [D] would only remove [D] from politics, which would allow the [R] to take control of politics. Cyr’s contention is absurd. How about this? Instead of focusing on eliminating money from politics let’s eliminate politics, or better yet let’s eliminate government: No government = no politics, no government = no money in government, no government = no law, no law = no crime, no crime = no need for criminal justice, no criminal justice = no jails, prisons, police, etc. just think of the savings that would accrue, but wait, no government = no taxes. Why didn’t someone think of this before, its brilliant, sheer genius. If only [D] would come to their senses. We’re talking about an entirely new paradigm of problem solving here. If teens would only stop having sex there would be no teen pregnancy. If only people would get married before they have sex there would be no unwed mothers, stop having divorces = no more divorces, stop having sex = no abortions, it’s brilliant, stop voting for [D] = no more [D]. No [D] = no war, d’yuh think? Also, stop being sarcastic = no more sarcasm; the possibilities are endless.

The fact that [R] [D] and the American People were complicit in Vietnam atrocities most horrific is a fact of history and the contention that [R] [D] and the American People have been complicit with all the many atrocities most horrific that have occurred since Vietnam is also substantiated by the facts. Then, as now, and all the years intervening the options available to those opposed to the madness are/were limited. Short of insurrection, changing public opinion and making the best choices has been the only option available to those opposed to the madness. It should go without saying that insurrection is an option that holds no potential for a positive outcome. Hotspots of insurrection during those years only served to drive the American people away from those opposed to the madness. George McGovern the [D] peace candidate suffered the worst loss in presidential election history in 1972. Many of those aware of the facts of complicity appear to be oblivious to the facts of non-complicity and to who it was that were not complicit.

Then as now, the only option that was then available, or is now available, is/was best choices and the attempt to guide public opinion and our political leaders away from the madness. The fact that the [D] are more inclined to end the madness than are the [R] is a matter of the public record. Withdrawing political support for the [D] will only turn our government over to the [R], and any contention to the contrary can only be wishful thinking. Allowing the [R] to take over our government will escalate the foreign policy madness and bring with it a resurgence of domestic policy madness.

Report this

By fuzzydbear, October 20, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BOTH parties are non-existent! We have occupiers in
OUR offices and buildings, using OUR tax dollars and
anything else they can rob, steal, sale or borrow,
mine, blow up, drill, destroy etc. for their
corporate betrayer bosses and the bankster robbers.
The banksters proudly admit they want to crash the
US dollar, and our country and our lives, for their
“Global” domination, enslavement agendas!
They helped ( tax credits) to outsource jobs, they
want OUR safety net tax dollars to go for MORE of
their military policing oil/gold/uranium/ economic
enslavement/ labor slavery etc.
We already give oil subsidies,  tax exemptions and
pay OUR military to police for them, while their
employees occupying OUR offices and buildings are
dismantling our civil liberties and freedoms. The CIA
has a opium empire we PAY our military to police for
to ensure it gets to the cartels and into our country
and all of the crime, disease that comes with it and
we don’t see a cent of it!
OUR police we pay to protect us enforce revenue
grubbing, draconian laws to help prisons make profit
off of OUR tax dollars for each inmate, then the
prisons make profit off of the slave labor also?
OUR government has turned into a cesspool of
criminals and their arrogant, greedy, UN-American,
anti freedom, sick, demented thieving, betrayer
bosses.
I don’t know about you, but these representatives do
NOT represnt the lifetime tax paying American
families! and I am disgusted!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 20, 2011 at 4:37 am Link to this comment

kulu—I think it’s a procedure that’s evolving—that has to be relearned, after thousands of years of slavery, authoritarianism, and great leaders.

Report this
kulu's avatar

By kulu, October 20, 2011 at 4:22 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie,

OWS is taking 2 hrs to decide on what demonstration they will engage in that day for a lot of reasons I can think of:-
1) They’ve got all day to kill, 2) they get a buzz out of the process, 3) they are trying to keep it democratic in the true sense, 4) there are lots of opinions. I’m sure there are many more reasons.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 19, 2011 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

The Corporate Persons’ money has regularly won popular vote mandates in American elections because a supermajority of voters has habitually needlessly self-restricted themselves to only voting for one of the two interchangeable part candidates that the corporate (R) & (D) party has industrially manufactured.

If the millions of liberals had ever wanted to get the money out of elections all they needed to do was to stop voting for (D) heavily funded corporate party candidates. But, then they wouldn’t have been voting to get “better” and “more acceptable” evil done, so they chose not to vote for the natural person representing candidates who had refused corporate funding.

As for Johnson war crimes apologists, who embrace the state’s stated defense (Presidents don’t commit war crimes, faulty chemical weapons do): It’s interesting how liberals consider Republicans to be fully responsible for war crimes when Republicans are nominally in charge, but liability for the liberal voters’ war crimes belongs to product manufacturers, or whatever, when Democrats are the heinous perpetrators in charge. What was absolutely clearly observable was that the massive amount of chemicals dumped upon Vietnam did exactly what they were deployed to do — to completely destroy vast areas of ecosystem, killing near all plants and creatures it was dumped upon, to create permanent deprivation of livelihood and massive famine. LBJ’s sociopathic “Great Society” traveled across the globe to industrial scale murder millions and collectively punish millions more — millions of poor peasants who posed no threat to us — for nothing other than military industry profit. Some “Great Society” that was!

International law considers the aggressor in an aggressor war to effectively be responsible for all the crimes that result from that war.

Every vote for a corporate party candidate is a war crime and a crime against humanity, whether honestly cast for a hot-blooded corporate party Republican or dishonestly cast for a cold-blooded corporate party Democrat.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 19, 2011 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

Leefeller—I don’t have much advice about electoral politics.  Up until now, people have tended to vote for candidates because of they have a lot of money to spend, because of their image, because of their ethnicity or professed religion, or because they think they recognize the candidate’s name.  Only about five or ten percent of the electorate vote on issues or the characters and records of the candidates.  It’s not surprising that this sort of behavior has poor results, yet it doesn’t seem likely that it will change any time soon.  But who knows?

Anyway, I’ll suggest voting for whichever candidate you actually like.  At least you’ll get a little emotional payoff.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 19, 2011 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, what about independents? I could support independents who were not beholding to special interests, people like Bernie Sanders? Of course I am selecting the left leaning liberal, which taints the whole OWS thing.

Politics about people instead of divisive bullet points used to keep two parties in power. It seems everything is against a third party, especially the money, it is always the money.

The world has its dullards, cronies and morons, unfortunately many of them seem to be in political office.

‘If you don’t have a job, its your own fault! from presidential candidate followed by applause!

‘Corporations are people too, my friend’ from presidential candidate.

‘Social Security is a Ponzie scheme.’  yet another presidental candidate!

Every one of these above comments seems divisive to me, but what the hell do I know, I am a liberal, pinko, Commie who believes in social Justice, equality integrity and something I have never seen, called peace!

So get the money out of politics, one person, one dollar and one vote!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 19, 2011 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—I’ll try to explain this once more, and then I’m giving up.

I think events like the Occupation and the Tea Party, while different, draw energy from a common source, widespread fear and anger in the general population.  The fear and anger is caused by a belief that their desires and interests are not being processed or even recognized by the political system.  The disconnection between the ruling class and the people reminds me of the situation in France before the Revolution of 1789.
Hence ‘Bastille’.

Now, focusing just on the Occupation—different subject!—JDmysticDJ was apparently suggesting that the Occupiers should return to the Democratic fold regardless of what the Democratic Party is or does, because it is not as bad as the Republican Party, and make its demands, if any, within the Democratic Party rather than outside and against it.  But it seems to me that its demands are unlikely to be taken seriously unless they are accompanied by some sort of threat to do things the Democratic Party leadership doesn’t like, such as support another party, not support any party, demonstrate against Obama and other leading Democrats, and so on.  Doesn’t this make sense?

I really don’t know why these two simple ideas, and the difference between them, are so difficult to grasp.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 19, 2011 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

Ossification by grabbing talking points out of ones anal cavity has become obvious. If one listens to a presidential candidate for the Republicans, compared to the Democrats, I find the Democrats a bit more palatable.

When I see posts which cite, incite and have absolutely no sources provided, I can assume it is opinion, which is what seems mostly done here.

When I read some posters who sound like Republicans in drag, the apparent theme gets quite stale. David J. Cyr
do you have anything different to say which may provide some incentive for discussion besides dissing other peoples comments and ignoring the topic at hand?

After a time these threads go the way of those lost socks, but maybe some people can stick those lost socks in their pie hole where the sun don’t shine!

Occupy Wall Street is not right or left, Republican or Democrat, (for now) so why not go with the flow of right from wrong! How about getting the money out?

One person, one dollar, one vote!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 19, 2011 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

Quotations from of a fanatical hate filled demagogue.

“So, Johnson’s Operation Ranch Hand chemical warfare begun in ‘61 was an acceptable alternative?”

The above is a perfect example of the demagoguery tautologically uttered by a hateful mind. Cyr’s attempt to attribute Agent Orange deaths, illnesses, and birth defects to Democrats is a distortion that should be evident to any person with a rational mind and who is aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange. Agent Orange was authorized by Navy Admiral Zumwalt not by Democrats. The makers of defoliants, Dow Chemical, Montsanto et al concealed the potentially lethal affects of Dioxin from the military and the government. The affects of dioxin on human beings were not well known and the affects of dioxin were not exposed until after the war was over. Yes the use of chemicals was perceived at the time they were used, to be a more” acceptable alternative” to nuclear weapons, the affects of which were well known.

There is no comparison between Democrat Johnson and Republican Nixon. Johnson resigned from office because of the Vietnam War; Nixon carried the War on with extreme prejudice for 6 years after Johnson chose not to seek re-election. It was nihilistic radical morons such as David J. Cyr that alienated the [R] and [D] from the peace movement, prolonging U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

“The 99% supermajority of American voters deserve to get done unto to them what they keep corporate party voting to do unto others.”

The above comment by David J. Cyr is vague, what is it that the “supermajority of American voters” deserve? David J. Cyr does not shame [D] voters with his simple minded demagoguery; he shames himself, and exposes himself as being a deranged counter productive fanatical lunatic, but such is no revelation he has been exposing himself to be a counter productive fanatical lunatic all along with each and every moronically fanatical demagoguery laden comment.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 18, 2011 at 10:46 pm Link to this comment

O[B]Zerk Michael

Do you want to explain your reference to “Red Dawn.” At best your reference to “Red Dawn” is an off-hand comment no different than an off-hand reference to Storming the Bastille. At worst your referencing “Red Dawn” indicates you harbor fantasies about wreaking violence upon the “evil Left.”

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 18, 2011 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, of a hopelessly (D) addicted avatar, being a painting in many (D)evious shades of blue:

“Republican Barry Goldwater said in a television interview during his 1964 presidential campaign that he would be willing to use Nuclear weapons in Vietnam, hence the famous daisy petal counting political add during the 1964 presidential campaign. I was something of an activist during the civil rights movement, which was supported by Lynden Johnson”
____________________

So, Johnson’s Operation Ranch Hand chemical warfare begun in ‘61 was an acceptable alternative?

Here’s the ongoing result of just one of your “better” Democrat’s war crimes…

The Effects of Agent Orange in Vietnamese Children:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a84_1291100180

The limp minded liberals’ addiction to the corporate party’s toxic Democrats is more difficult to kick than heroin or crack cocaine.

The function of retrograde Republican candidates is to GOTV for the corporate party’s deeply depraved Democrats.

The 99% supermajority of American voters deserve to get done unto to them what they keep corporate party voting to do unto others.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 18, 2011 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

I previously explained that my use of the Bastille metaphor did not apply to the activities of OWS

The Bastille is not an ‘activity’ at OWS, but that was never what we were talking about. Bastille was a concern. Of yours. Or you wouldnt have mentioned it. It wasnt a prescription by you, it was a description. Lets read the quote that got this started.

And beyond that, I think people in general across the political spectrum are really, really fed up.  It’s not a good time to be standing on guard at the Bastille.

There are questions unasked and unanswered here. Just last night you asked this question on this very thread:

A demand has to be accompanied by a threat.  What’s the threat?

So we ought to talk about this. It is in relation to our present situation with Occupy Wall Street and we havent figured it out.

So…

How does OWS obtain any change it wants? OWS has no plans to vote in the election. OWS will not write letters to congressmen. How then? You are asking important questions and I am pointing out that your own words suggest the answer.

And beyond that, I think people in general across the political spectrum are really, really fed up. It’s not a good time to be standing on guard at the Bastille.

At the very least you meant this: ‘OWS, if it fails, could lead to “Storm the Bastille”. At the very least. And believe me Truthdig supports OWS too and they are going much further than that. However, it is your meaning that i am interested in. What exactly were you ‘describing’ when you brought Bastille up?

Whatever it was, at the very least that implied threat of Bastille (by whomever) is what gives OWS leverage.

Bastille doesnt do anything for the Tea Party, so please dont smoke screen me with that. Bastille is the threat from the Left if it doesnt get what it wants from ordinary political means.

Remember that OWS does not have any ordinary means for change. As you said, their action involves revolutionary methods since the regular ones dont work.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 18, 2011 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, October 18 at 3:40 pm:

‘Anarcissie said:

  “I don’t think OWS can credibly make a Bastille-type threat.  That’s why the Spectator writer was so contemptuous of it.

If it isnt credible, why did you bring it up? ...”

I previously explained that my use of the Bastille metaphor did not apply to the activities of OWS.  I thought I used fairly clear language.  In any case, if you didn’t understand what I wrote the first time, the prospects for the success of repetition on my part are dim.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 18, 2011 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, October 18 at 10:02 am Link to this comment


“I mean if Occupy Wall Street is going to modify the behavior of the Democratic Party leadership, it have to threaten them with something they don’t like, like losing elections or contributions.”
 
“If they’re already in the Democratic pocket, they’ll be ignored and treated with contempt, just like the proggies, the peace groups, and Black and Hispanic Democrats are now.”

****************************************************************

I knew exactly what you meant. Your contention is the behavior of Democrats will not be modified unless Democrats are threatened with losing elections. I must once again remind you of what the Democrats losing elections means; that, to me, is the most serious threat, and that was the reason I did not deal with your demand for the necessity of a threat to Democrats. Yours and David J. Cyr’s contention is that Democrats are not concerned with reforming Wall Street, which is a patent falsehood born of ignorance or the result of demagoguery, one’s own, or demagoguery acquired from other sources. Those who assert such are ignorant, grossly uninformed, disingenuous, or duped by the ignorant, uninformed, or disingenuous. Demagoguery is an evil, and even seemingly creditable people resort to demagoguery in order to reinforce their dialectic or to vent their anger. It is this demagoguery that sends people over the deep end and results in falsehoods being perceived as truth. Yes Democrats, as a body, were and are concerned with reforming Wall Street and they are also concerned with insuring that reforms already legislated are not rolled back by Republicans; Republicans who are bound and determined to do so; that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Democrats are so far more contentious among themselves than are Republicans that there is no comparison. Republicans march in lock step, only having contentions when they are vying for individual power during intra-party power struggles and primary elections, Democrats, it’s been correctly said, are prone to forming circular firing squads over issues and its been correctly said that its easier to herd cats than it is to herd Democrats. Claiming that, “Proggies,” peace groups, Blacks and Hispanics, or Occupy Wall Street future politicians are/will be in the Democratic pocket is an absurd contention directly contradicted by the fact that peace groups, proggies, and others are now severely criticizing the Democratic Party. Have you ever read my opinion that Obama is a war criminal? He is, and that is an existential tragedy that can not be stated often enough or be overstated, but the sad fact is that Obama is, and will be, a lesser war criminal than the inevitable alternative.  It is easily argued that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their coterie of criminals are greater war criminals than is Obama. Obama wound down the war in Iraq and transferred forces to Afghanistan, Just as he said he would do, Obama has focused on Al Qaeda wherever he believes it to be just as he said he would do, Obama has pledged to withdraw forces from Iraq at the end of this year, Obama has promised to remove forces from Afghanistan by 2014, Obama insisted, after initial hostilities, that NATO take the lead in air strikes against the forces of Moamar Khadafi, Obama has approached the Israeli Palestinian conflict in a more even handed way, Obama has not attacked Iran per se. None of these shades of difference absolve Obama from war crimes in my mind, I believe he is a war criminal and I stand by that belief. (Cont. below)

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 18, 2011 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie said:

I don’t think OWS can credibly make a Bastille-type threat.  That’s why the Spectator writer was so contemptuous of it.

If it isnt credible, why did you bring it up? Just like Amy Goodman did, and she got ahead on the Occupy Wall Street story and won Truthdigger of the Week for her good work.

Shall I fetch her quote to refresh your memory? Or just yours? If Bastille isnt credible why were you ‘worried’ it might happen?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 18, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

Conversely, the leading Republican candidates for President in 2012 are opposed to withdrawing forces from Iraq, the leading Republican candidates for president have criticized Obama for not prosecuting the war in Afghanistan strong enough, Obama has been criticized by Republicans because he did not engage in Libya fast enough and because the U.S. did not take a leading role in bombing Khadafi’s forces. The leading Republican candidates for President have accused Obama of not supporting Israel, and right-wing lunatics have criticized Obama’s policies regarding Iran, calling for an attack on Iran. Defending Obama’s national security and foreign policies is not possible by my appraisal, and I have not attempted to do so, but I do point out the shades of difference between Democrats and the inevitable alternative to Democrats. If a viable left-wing alternative to Obama and the Democrats should come into being I will support that viable alternative but until such a time I will give my support to Obama and the Democrats. Once again I’ll relate my opposition to the War in Vietnam and my opposition to Lynden Johnson in this respect, but I supported Lynden Johnson’s: civil rights policies, his war on poverty policies, and his support for Medicaid. Republican Barry Goldwater said in a television interview during his 1964 presidential campaign that he would be willing to use Nuclear weapons in Vietnam, hence the famous daisy petal counting political add during the 1964 presidential campaign. I was something of an activist during the civil rights movement, which was supported by Lynden Johnson, and I went to jail protesting the Vietnam War prosecuted by Lynden Johnson. I am proud of my support for civil rights, I am proud that I went to jail opposing the Vietnam War, and I am not ashamed of my preference for Lynden Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and George McGovern over the likes of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, nor am I ashamed of my preference for Obama over the inevitable alternative. You may accuse me of perfidy, portray me as foolish, or as a villain, and try to shame me with demagoguery but I will not be ashamed, nor will I desist from advocating for Democrats over Republicans, yes our political reality is tragic, but it is what it is, and I will continue to advocate for the best choices even if those best choices are not good, only better choices. The inevitable alternative to Obama and the Democrats is far more dangerous than are Obama and the Democrats. The animus held by Republicans against Obama and the Left has driven them right out of their minds, radicalized them to the extreme, and caused them to continue to endorse failed policies, and caused them to function only as obstructionists opposed to solutions, not based on the merit of proposed solutions but based on the source of proposed solutions. Their ideological rejections will only further aggravate the difficulties they are responsible for.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 18, 2011 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think OWS can credibly make a Bastille-type threat.  That’s why the Spectator writer was so contemptuous of it.

But if you think they can, why don’t you tell us how, and what you think ought to be done about it?  We have to transition from a few hundred people in a park taking two hours to decide on the day’s demonstration, to a mighty army capable of overcoming the 101st Airborne and toppling the government.  Doesn’t seem too likely.

I might add that I am somewhat curious about your concern with violence emanating from a group of people who have never done anything, even under direct physical provocation, to say nothing of the torrent of abuse, lies and threats being heaped on them in the mass media, in the wider context where violence is such a norm, such as the several wars presently being waged by the United States, plus all the saber-rattling about Iran, applauded by most of the leadership of both major parties.  Can you explain that?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 18, 2011 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie said: “OWS can’t remain true to its professed and thus far enacted principles and ‘storm the Bastille’”

Oh but the threat of “Storm the Bastille” is what you and Amy Goodman were talking about before.

On the subject of threats, I am only reminding you of one you seem to have forgotten. Descriptive or prescriptive… the threat hovers. The threats that OWS could make towards the Democratic Party in order to force the change OWS wants is what you were listing. You left one out.

“Storm the Bastille” is actually the main and most effective OWS threat as it demands change. I find it odd that you cant remember that one since you mentioned it yourself.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie,s comments do not seem obscure to me even in disagreement.

The Mass Media has ignored the inequities and abuses for years now, simply because they are part of the problem. Occupy Wall Street forces the issues in front of everyones noses, making them listen, through Mass Media (not all) seem to like to obscure things to their convenience, like many of the cronies out there and a few here, those who seem to live in never never land.

Barny Frank on TV last evening seems about out of touch as the Republicans when it comes to Occupy Wall Street. Lets face it Occupy Wall Street is seen as a threat to some of those in power. In all fairness he did say they were two years to late?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 18, 2011 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

OWS can’t remain true to its professed and thus far enacted principles and ‘storm the Bastille’. 

We could get a much more severe political breakdown (which was what I was referring to by ‘Bastille’, not OWS) but then considerations of party politics would probably become academic.  As I said, OWS, like the Tea Party, are symptoms of a larger field of fear and anger, inspired by the incompetence and arrogance of the ruling class.  The social energy in that field may discharge itself in yet other ways, far less pleasant than a tea party or a bunch of hippie intellectuals camping in a park.

But that’s just a problem which no one knows how to solve.  In my demand-threat connection, I was speaking to JDmysticDJ’s conviction that OWS should attach itself to the Democratic Party under its present leadership, in short, make a ‘demand’ with nothing to back it up.

Is my writing really all that obscure?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 18, 2011 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie said:

I mean if Occupy Wall Street is going to modify the behavior of the Democratic Party leadership, it have to threaten them with something they don’t like, like losing elections or contributions.

Or the Bastille. Dont forget “Storming the Bastille.”

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 18, 2011 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

Only the liberals who voted for (D) Clinton Regime’s Rubinomics that removed the wall between banking and limitless financial theft — the same liberals who then voted for (D) Obama Regime’s protection of banksters from prosecution and reward for their crimes — would claim that the corporate party’s Democrats are an existing political force within government opposed to the abuses of Wall Street.

Democrats took prosecution for war crimes off the table, because Democrats were as guilty as their corporate party partner Republicans were, and are more guilty of war crimes now than Republicans are.

Democrats took provision of real healthcare off the table, because Democrats were as opposed to Single-Payer as their corporate party partner Republicans were.

Democrats are always taking sane and sensible political policies off the table, because Democrats are joined as one with their corporate party partner Republicans — same corporate person strategic goals served, with different fools to fool.

It’s the job of the devious and duplicitous Democrat operatives to discourage dissidents from even thinking of creating a political alternative to the corporate person owned (R) & (D) party that liberals and conservatives serve the corporate-state’s interests within together.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 18, 2011 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

I mean if Occupy Wall Street is going to modify the behavior of the Democratic Party leadership, it have to threaten them with something they don’t like, like losing elections or contributions. 

If they’re already in the Democratic pocket, they’ll be ignored and treated with contempt, just like the proggies, the peace groups, and Black and Hispanic Democrats are now.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 18, 2011 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, October 17 at 7:42 pm

“A demand has to be accompanied by a threat.  What’s the threat?”


Demand? Threat? Semantics come into play here. I have my opinion regarding the primary threat that confronts us. Some apparently don’t agree with my perception of what is the primary “threat.”

Demands take the form of being unconditional or of being open to negotiation. For example, Union demands are accompanied by the threat of action of some sort e.g. work stoppage, slowdown, or strike. Employers also issue demands to Unions e.g. reduced benefits, lower wages etc. with the threat of layoffs or lockout. Saddam Hussein issued demands to Kuwait, Bush I issued demands to Saddam Hussein, The Clinton Administration and Bush II also issued demands to Saddam Hussein, and Bush II issued a demand to the Taliban. I’ll proffer that the issuing of demands can be a form of diplomacy, or the issuing of demands can be a dictate. I’ll also submit that the issuing of demands has consequences. Union demands which can not be negotiated sometimes result in strikes, employer demands not negotiable also sometimes result in strikes, or other actions that lead to lost incomes, reduced profits, etc. and sometimes demands have far reaching consequences. Union/Employer demands when not negotiable sometimes have far reaching economic consequences, while non-negotiable demands issued by States to other States , accompanied by a threat, sometimes have the consequences of death, destruction, the squandering of resources, and miseries of many varieties. The point being that demands have consequences, and that threats sometimes move from becoming a threat to becoming a reality with manifest consequences.

I’ll ask what is/are the threat[s] that Occupy Wall Street activists present and what will be the consequence of that/those threat[s] coming to fruition? If the Occupy Wall Street threat is concerned with highlighting or further exposing the abuses of Wall Street then I will argue that threat has already come to fruition, but if the threat of Occupy Wall Street has to do with demands non-negotiable, for whatever reason, I’ll proffer that Occupy Wall Street activists present no viable threat to Wall Street in respect to demands. Occupy Wall Street activists lack the political power to achieve demands. I’ll suggest that Occupy Wall Street activist’s demands, should they voice demands, are not accompanied by a tangible viable threat to Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street is a threat to Wall Street’s already tarnished image and a threat to further tarnish Wall Street’s image, but in terms of achieving demands, Occupy Wall Street presents no threat to Wall Street or only a miniscule threat to Wall Street. Does anyone suppose that Wall Street will initiate sweeping reforms because of the threat presented by Occupy Wall Street? Wall Street remains unmoved by the huge majority of Americans who have a negative opinion of Wall Street. Wall Street’s ability to ignore public opinion is facilitated by public opinion equally opposed to government; government being the only viable entity that presents a tangible threat to Wall Street.

If Occupy Wall Street wants to become a viable threat to Wall Street in terms of achieving demands, occupy Wall Street will have to become a political power within government, either by, in and of itself becoming an overriding political force within government, or by aligning itself with existing political forces within government opposed to the abuses of Wall Street and seeking Wall Street reform. There is an existing political force within government that seeks to reform Wall Street, and there is an existing political force within government that is opposed to reforming Wall Street.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 18, 2011 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

RE: Anarcissie, October 17 at 7:42 pm (Cont.)


Presently the political force existing within government that seeks to reform Wall Street lacks the political power to achieve its objective of reforming Wall Street. My conclusion is that Occupy Wall Street in order to become a viable political force within government with the possibility of achieving demands must align itself with the existing political force within government that seeks reform of Wall Street, but Occupy Wall Street activists appear to be loathe to do so. It is my belief that Occupy Wall Street has great potential for being a powerful force within government, and that Occupy Wall Street might hold the balance of power in our politics. Occupy Wall Street has the potential to serve the forces within government that seek Wall Street Reform, as well as other reforms, or to - because of faulty political acuity -  perform a counter productive service to those who oppose reforms.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 18, 2011 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

The Money that has the Power to own all of the corporate (R) & (D) party voters’ servile loyalty won’t be embarrassed into concessions.

Power won’t even provide some crumbs if there’s no tangible threat that those with the Power of Money will possibly loose whole loaves.

If 99% of the “99%” remain sheeple, who keep faith-based devotedly voting together for a continuum of the (R) & (D) corporate person party’s policies, then there’s no need for Power to fear any demonstrations… no need to even provide the smallest of crumbs.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 17, 2011 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

Occupy Wall Street has brought focus on long over due abuses, inequities and failing policies. I suggest politicians may be listening, the moneyed interests are listening and the people watching are listening.

This is a hell of an improvement on what the Mass Media was focusing on, and what Koch Brothers bought and paid for. This is sort of like when Mike Gravel brought attention to the MIC and wasted money in front of the other Democrats during the first Democrat debate, not one of them knew how to respond, of course the ending did not go so well with Mike Gravel getting the boot!

Demands are not what this is about, I see Occupy Wall Street as calling attention to what has been purposelessly ignored,... criminal actions of Wall Street, .... hell this has caught attention world wide, even the bought and paid for MSM would have trouble doing the same!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2011 at 7:42 pm Link to this comment

A demand has to be accompanied by a threat.  What’s the threat?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 17, 2011 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

RE: Anarcissie, October 17 at 7:20 am

“It would be great to have some sympathetic global entity that one could help along and be helped by, but clearly that entity is not the Democratic Party.”

The sympathetic global entity that exists is Liberal and Progressive, The refusal to recognize incremental “Accomplishments,” accomplishes nothing and is a detriment to accomplishing anything, the demonizing of Liberals and Progressives serves the agents of regress, not the agents of progress. Demonizing Liberals and Progressives is also a service to the nihilistic that see destruction as creation. Destruction creates nothing but destruction. A pathway towards creation and away from destruction is most logical if one seeks to avoid destruction. Creating a more responsive Democratic Party will not be achieved by destroying the Democratic Party. Destroying the Democratic Party will open the pathway to destruction to the most destructive.

Local activism is only affective when it has an eye to national politics. All politics is not local. Local politics is dominated by national and global politics. Refraining from participating in national politics yields national and global politics to those willing to participate in national politics. Explain to me how unaffiliated local politics will present an obstacle to those who seek a global empire and have been given unchallenged control of national government.

Thinking specifically about Wall Street:

Matt Taibbi Lists The 5 Things The Occupy Wall Street Protesters Should Demand


1. Break up the monopolies. He’s talking about the 20 or so “too big to fail” companies in our country that could single-handedly take down our economy.
2. Pay for your own bailouts. “A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about…”
3. No public money for private lobbying. Pretty self-explanatory.
4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. Right now, because of the carried-interest tax break, they’re only paying about 15%.
5. Change the way bankers get paid. Bonuses shouldn’t be paid up-front. They should be contingent upon performance.

If one considers Taibbi’s demands worthy of implementation, how are these demands to be implemented without government action? Is the contention that these demands will be voluntarily implemented by Wall Street? National politics are important; important in many ways, ways that exceed these 5 demands suggested by Matt Taibbi. Incidentally, in regard to demand #5, I wonder how banker’s performance is to be measured. Will that performance be measured by how well bankers benefit banks and stock holders, or will that performance be measured on how well the bankers benefit “We the People.” Be that as it may, and considering the magnitude of change deemed to be beneficial to “We the People” and the people of the world, I can’t help but believe that getting involved in national politics and supporting those most inclined to serve “We the People” and by such action, the people of the world, is imperative, and of the utmost importance.


Increments; increments away from something and towards something else are our only hope of achieving positive change. If we had a divinely inspired benevolent dictator all would be well and good, but we don’t, and such a dictator would be decapitated before first decree. Making the best choices is the only choice that is available, or will be available, to “We the People,” and those best choices are limited to the best choices.


(Amy Goodman documents Herman Cain’s connection to the Koch brothers; perhaps y’all would like to have a Koch Cain government as a result of your nihilistic foolishness.)

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 17, 2011 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

If the “Art of the Possible” incrementalism of corporate party Democrat operatives — designed to ensure the least possible change — could produce a better world, then we would have a better world now than we have.

Our children don’t have a half-century to waste, nor even a year to waste upon corporate party Democrats who don’t do the good they could when they can, because corporate owned Democrats have no intention to.

“Politics is not the art of the possible.
True politics is the art of the impossible.”
— Slavoj Zizek

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2011 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, October 17 at 6:57 am:

‘... I continue to believe that a rational, incremental, strategy of changing current realities is our only hope of achieving positive change, and that: emotional, counter productive, condemnations of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats will only result in political dominance for the worst in our society from both extremes of political and social perspective. ...’

I don’t know why you think someone condemning liberals, progressives and Democrats on a blog will result in anything beyond supplying others with some reading material for a dull moment.  However, suppose it did: given their performance over the last several decades, don’t liberals, progressives and Democrats, at least those pretending to leadership, deserve to be condemned by rational persons?  I mean, look at their accomplishments, or I should say, non-accomplishments.  It seems to me a rational person would observe the ineffectiveness of supporting mainstream liberal, progressive and Democratic organizing and turn her efforts to rational, incremental local organizing that may actually accomplish something concrete and visible, at least in someone’s actual neighborhood.

It would be great to have some sympathetic global entity that one could help along and be helped by, but clearly that entity is not the Democratic Party.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 17, 2011 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, October 16 at 4:25 am

QUOTE, of an avatar being a painting in many (D)evious shades of blue:

“If the Democratic Party had been perceived as evil as David J. Cyr and his ilk maintain then we would have seen a splintering of the Left and Center… The condemnation of Liberals and Democrats is ordinarily the purview of those most fascistic, so David J. Cyr and his ilk affectively/effectively align themselves with those most fascistic”
___________________

According to my appraisal, David J. Cyr is absolutely correct in his analysis of current military realities, but absolutely wrong in his strategy, or non-strategy, to end current military realities. David J. Cyr’s condemnation of Liberals and Democrats does serve the interests of those who are the strongest proponents of current military realities, the contention that the traditional opponents of Liberals and Democrats are the strongest proponents of current military realities is validated by the facts, facts that David J. Cyr and his ilk choose to ignore, apparently seeing those facts as being irrelevant, but those facts are not irrelevant, facts are always relevant, and seeing facts as being irrelevant is in no way logical.

Democrats and Liberals are engaged in a strategy of incremental withdrawal from current military realities, while the traditional opponents of Liberals and democrats are all in favor of prolonging or escalating those military realities. Those are the facts and those facts can not   logically be ignored. An immediate cessation of participating in current military realities is what I advocate, but immediate cessation of current military realities has no political potential for becoming a reality; a sad and tragic fact of reality, but another fact of reality that can not be ignored.

The U.S. Government under the leadership of the Obama administration, based on the guidance its advisors, military and humanitarian, is inserting 100 military advisors into Central Africa, a reality that is condemned in a knee jerk fashion by some, without consideration for what it is that those military advisors are intended to help prevent.

The saddest reality is that the Bell Curve is heavily weighted towards decadence and perversity. Note the most popular situation comedies, the focus on violence and vengeance upon imaginary villains in our popular dramas, and the dominance of corporate media in all aspects of our society. Aspirations for Americans living a virtuous and prosperous life are being subverted daily and in a magnitude over which we have no control. We seem to have no serious inclinations towards combating that decadence and perversion. Futility of futility, as if demonizing Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats will somehow eliminate the decadence and perversion.

I continue to believe that a rational, incremental, strategy of changing current realities is our only hope of achieving positive change, and that: emotional, counter productive, condemnations of Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats will only result in political dominance for the worst in our society from both extremes of political and social perspective.

Futility of futility, my dialectic appears to be an exorcize in futility here at truthdig, and elsewhere, but don’t expect me to embrace the most futile and counter productive, such is folly that will have consequences most dire.

Report this

By j sharp, October 16, 2011 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

saw cartoon with 2 prison cells side by side-1 cell
full of wall street protesters. the other was empty-
no wall street banker crooks jailed. suggest buying billboard space on wall street updating daily jail
counts of each.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 16, 2011 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

Actually there is a melody that my poem is meant to be sung to. 

Leefeller, you are now allowing that your opposition isnt just 1%. Thats a step in the right direction.

In honor of you granting your opponents a little more humanity, i wont produce a cd and launch the Poem into the charts where it would probably end up at #1 on the hit parade.

See, thats how it works from now on. You deny my humaity, i deny yours. You allow me some space, I allow you some space.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 16, 2011 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

Money is not people too, so say the 99 percent.

One person, one dollar, one vote!

Ozark Mike, if this was a poem I cannot wait to hear you sing, especially if you write your own learics!

Report this
kulu's avatar

By kulu, October 16, 2011 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

All this argument over what a liberal is. I think we each have our own idea of what the word really means. If it means someone who votes for or supports the Democrats as I think David Cyr means then they are indeed part of the pro corporate, pro war gang. Either that or they are naive or haven’t really thought it through with some knowledge of the history of what the Party does as opposed to what it says.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 16, 2011 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

A Poem dedicated to Rage Boy

I call it “Its Been Done Before and It Didnt Work Out”

but Leftists prefer to call “Dont Think Twice its Alright” or “Even if I am white, its racism to call me Rage Boy”


Rage on Leefeller,
Rage on you Leftist Tool.
Rage on like a New River,
Rage on though you are
  merely a Stagnant Pool.

Rage on like the Robespierre,
  like the Lenin of our Age
Rage on words on Truthdig Page.
Rage on Rage.
On Rage rage on

Rage on, Rage Boy.
Rage on and dont think twice.
Rage on for you are told,
    that your Rage is nice

Rage on until you get your Terror,
Rage on until you get your Gulag.
Rage on Rage.
On Rage rage on
Rage on, Rage Boy
  until the Red Dawn.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 16, 2011 at 4:25 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, of an avatar being a painting in many (D)evious shades of blue:

“If the Democratic Party had been perceived as evil as David J. Cyr and his ilk maintain then we would have seen a splintering of the Left and Center… The condemnation of Liberals and Democrats is ordinarily the purview of those most fascistic, so David J. Cyr and his ilk affectively/effectively align themselves with those most fascistic”
___________________

Because the Democrat faction of the corporate party **IS** evil, what we have seen is (D) voting liberals regularly partner up with corporate party Republican faction conservatives to MoveOn America ever further to the Right, and leave less left of the Left with every election.

99% of those who participated in the 2008 POTUS election corporate party compliantly (R) & (D) voted to either (R) just dumbly continue “Bush’s” war, or to (D) smartly relabel “dumb” war to be “necessary” to quickly as possible finish “Bush’s” war so they could MoveOn to redeploy in force to Afghanistan and on into Pakistan, on their way to Iran.

AFRICOM was activated on October 1, 2008, just before the big dupe, Michael Moore, began publicly praying for Obama to not keep any of his campaign promises. There’s nothing coincidental about the simultaneous timing of Obama’s “historic” installation with the activation of AFRICOM. The Democrats’ “humanitarian” bombing of oil rich Libya backed “rebels” organized by international bankers. Now Obama is “humanitarian” militarily MovingOn down into the rare resources rich jungles of deepest darkest Africa, deploying “advisors” there… like JFK did in Vietnam. But liberals have nothing to worry about; they won’t be drafted; their robotic weapons will get the killing done for them with the same callous carelessness with which liberals vote.

My “ilk” is the 1% who voted against war and for demilitarization; the 1% who voted for Single-Payer medicare-for-all; the 1% who voted for the serious climate change mitigation response needed soon for future generations to have any future.

Nothing does more ill to logic than the corporate party’s (D) dedicated liberals do.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, October 15, 2011 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

why only justice, why not regime change

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 15, 2011 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment

Boy!...Rage Boy! Hey OM last time I heard the racy announcement of boy was when I was in Memphis at good ol boy Confederate Park!

Lets see now, cicada, waving pom poms, all you lefteys, straw men, probaly a few I have forgotten and now Boy!  Since I speak for the 99 percent, I suppose your premonitions and self proclaimed way of placing words in other peoples writing is not hypocritical it is a blatant ability showing lack of comprehension obviously for the convenience of it.

Grabbing stuff out of ones asp does show one trait for the OM, consistency!

I speak for the 99 percent!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 15, 2011 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller claimed to speak for 99% of us, when I never claimed so much.

I have never told so many people what they think in my whole life. You have been doing it every day. At least have the honesty to admit that, “Day of Rage Boy”.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 15, 2011 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Is right, I do not know the particularites of David J. Cyr, nor do I know his procilvities, as for both it would be safe to say he sounds like a Repulican with bells on supported by delusions of his own reality,

The problem seems to be the system and and the programed polizations, not right or left, conservitive or liberal, though steriotypes and most of all I beleive Micorsoft sucks!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 15, 2011 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

Reduntdent OM says:

“Maybe you Leefeller, will apologize for attacking me for saying that the “99%” are wrong to presume they know what to think and how to speak for not just liberals, but pretty much everyone.”

No just 54 perceint of the populis compared to the Teabags who represent 27 percent of the populus, seeminingly the most ignornat part of the populis boutght and sold by the Koch Brothers, Fox New and others.

“Oh the amount of hypocrisy is incredible, even for you, Leefeller. Nobody claims to know and speak for more people than yourself.”

My hypocrisy is dwarfed by your OM, simply because I know the difference between left and right, even more importantly, the difference between right and wrong!

Yeah, Poor Bernie Sanders!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 15, 2011 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

By David J. Cyr, October 13 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, of a Leefeller:

“As in all liberals stand for supporting the Democratic Party, I cannot speak for all liberals nor would I attempt to speak for all people. Nor do I believe in what all liberals do not stand for, evidently you David J. Cyr know what all liberals believe and do not stand for, support for the Democratic party, I happen to know some liberals who support other parties and one liberal who is an independent. Bernie Sanders!”
_________________

Leefeller’s comment is cogent, but apparently Leefeller is unfamiliar with David J. Cyr’s political peculiarities, if Leefeller had been more familiar with David J. Cyr’s political peculiarities he would have realized that the example of Bernie Sanders is of no significance to David J. Cyr, after all Bernie Sanders was “Kidnapped” by the Democratic Party. I suppose that David J. Cyr using the term “Kidnapped” is kind of radical shorthand meaning Bernie Sanders is more attuned to the politics of Democrats than to Republicans, which is an unforgivable crime to David J. Cyr and his ilk. Only a total rejection of Democrats is acceptable to David J. Cyr and his ilk. David J. Cyr’s conjecture regarding our government being socialist if only ALL Democrats would have abandoned the Democratic Party strikes me as being fantasy devoid of any political acuity. Granted, if ALL Democrats had withdrawn their support for Democrats and given their support to a socialist political Party we might very well be living under socialist governance today; but the chances of such a phenomena ever having occurred is less than nil according to my conjecture. If the Democratic Party had been perceived as evil as David J. Cyr and his ilk maintain then we would have seen a splintering of the Left and Center. Many Democrats disagreeing with the perceived perfidy of the Democratic Party would remain loyal to the Democratic Party, while others would be unwilling to give their support to an avowedly Socialist Party, and such would give their support elsewhere, or become apathetic and apolitical which would have been a boon to virulent anti-Socialists according to my conjecture. Real political acuity reveals that virulent anti-Socialists are fascistic in philosophy. So, the destruction of cohesive opposition to those most fascistic would be a gift to those most fascistic. The condemnation of Liberals and Democrats is ordinarily the purview of those most fascistic, so David J. Cyr and his ilk affectively/effectively align themselves with those most fascistic, strange bedfellows indeed.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, of a Leefeller:

“As in all liberals stand for supporting the Democratic Party, I cannot speak for all liberals nor would I attempt to speak for all people. Nor do I believe in what all liberals do not stand for, evidently you David J. Cyr know what all liberals believe and do not stand for, support for the Democratic party, I happen to know some liberals who support other parties and one liberal who is an independent. Bernie Sanders!”
_________________

Poor Bernie. He stood for election as an “Independent” and the corporate party’s Democrats kidnaped him and hold him hostage (his Senate seat was corruptly secured by two of the gangster capo Democrats, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid). Sanders caucuses with the corporate party’s Democrats, and for committee memberships he’s considered a corporate party Democrat (otherwise, no committee seating for Bernie). Think on this: If liberals were even a small fraction as good as their advertising is the Congress would be clear majority controlled by socialists.

Liberals desperately seek decent appearing exceptional individuals to claim them to be representative of themselves, to obscure the pervasive depravity of the totality of liberals, who can’t as a group provide any appearance of decency because their voting records officially demonstrate that they have no decency — that their “principles” are putrid.

Who claimed that votes for antiwar candidates were “wasted” votes, not worthy of their support? Liberals did!

Who claimed that votes for Single-Payer advocating candidates were “wasted” votes, not worthy of their support? Liberals did!

Who claimed that votes for candidates opposing neoliberal economic policies were “wasted” votes, not worthy of their support? Liberals did!

Who claimed that votes for candidates advocating for demilitarization, with redeployment of money, resources and people into a serious response mitigation of climate change were “wasted” votes, not worthy of their support? Liberals did!

In a SUNY sponsored 2008 POTUS proxy debate, I predicted that Obama would make fascism fashionable again. He did, with the eager assistance of nearly 70 million liberal maniacs.

A good person can’t be a liberal because liberals habitually choose between corporate person evils — hoping to have (D) fascist control that favors their cultural preferences — rather than support good policies for people and Nature.

If the too many tens of millions of liberals had ever been willing to electorally deliver on their false advertising there’d be no need for an Occupy movement now… incongruously claiming to represent 99% of the people, although 99% of the voters affirmatively (R) & (D) voted **FOR** all the sociopathic shit the corporate party provided.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 13, 2011 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

Maybe you Leefeller, will apologize for attacking me for saying that the “99%” are wrong to presume they know what to think and how to speak for not just liberals, but pretty much everyone.

Oh the amount of hypocrisy is incredible, even for you, Leefeller. Nobody claims to know and speak for more people than yourself.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 13, 2011 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

As in all liberals stand for supporting the Democratic Party, I cannot speak for all liberals nor would I attempt to speak for all people. Nor do I believe in what all liberals do not stand for, evidently you David J. Cyr know what all liberals believe and do not stand for, support for the Democratic party, I happen to know some liberals who support other parties and one liberal who is an independent. Bernie Sanders!

Blanket sacraments such as yours seem so Repulsion, because Republicans speak for all the American people, because they keep telling me so as you speak for liberals like right the wing posters I mentioned in the previous thread, who constantly speak for all liberals.

Maybe like Ozark Michael you David J. Cyr, can tell me what all liberals think, what they believe, since they only stand for one thing,...this should be easy!

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 13, 2011 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

Liberals don’t stand for anything they say they believe in. If they did, then they wouldn’t be corporate party Democrats.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 13, 2011 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

David J. Cyr,

You should tether your opinions with the Ozark Michael and the new right wringer Jayman, and the now missing Go Right Young Man.

Yes, all liberals are the problem! Stereotyping all of everyone seems so myopic and deluded.

Yes, those who speak for other groups of people seem so damn bigoted they reek of ignorance. The KKK has opinions on what other people mean to them and what they believe in.

For some reason as a liberal,  I find all liberals do not believe in what you say they stand for,  nor do I as a Liberals understand what David J. Cyr stands for except he is opposed to all liberals?

All us liberals are socialists, communists, pinkos and believe in the exact opposite of what you believe David J. Cyr believe (whatever that is) because you know what liberals believe, think and stand for, just like the people listed above constantly know liberal thoughts.  Next, we discuss what all progressives believe, think and stand for! Stereotypical myopic thinking must be so damn exhilarating!  Wow, this is exciting now I am doing it!

Report this
Gabriel's avatar

By Gabriel, October 12, 2011 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

Thank you JD mystic

.. for proving just how ignorance works. It also shows your level of education. As most average US citizens you didn’t pass 4th, maybe 5th, grade of other more developed cultures.
It’s too late, eh? What a shame.

If you are not savvy enough to use the tools in front of your face to verify what I say, it’s your loss.


From the negative comments plastered all over this thread and rest of TD it is clearly evident what transplanted European barbaric Culture has done and continues to do.

Those who don’t learn, and adapt as well, will be left behind.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 12, 2011 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

Uh oh! I think my weak mind screwed things up. The mystics that the Jewish merchants killed off were they the Biblical Prophets, is that who you’re talking about? Sorry, I find myself bewildered by you; I guess the bar isn’t necessary after all. BTW, could you teleport me a beer?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 12, 2011 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

RE: Gabriel, October 12 at 12:04 pm

re: JD

Wow! Where to begin? “European control system,” “My mundane world” “Jewish Merchants killing off mystics” “The destruction of every piece of literature, record, stone and reference” Occult practices in the background” “Metaphysical scientific knowledge” Self honor [martial arts]” “Student of Occult hidden knowledge” “Infinitely more” “You’ve done the industrial military complex” “Not hard to influence weak minds at a bar” “Fully documented remote viewing has been accomplished many times. We are on the verge of teleportation ... and it’s well recorded in History as fact.” “Nassim Harameim” “Cannabis Herbs legal but unlawful” ” Start learning man, don’t be a slave, before it’s too late.”

Sorry, it’s too late. I don’t presume to know anything about the metaphysical, nor do I presume to know what in the hell you’re writing about here. Empiracal science is empirical, theoretical science is theoretical. Noetic Science is controversial and theoretical, Metaphysical science is not science at all, nor can it be.

Perhaps if we were to meet in a bar, after your hard day at the industrial military complex, you could influence my weak mind, but I doubt that. I am skeptical about science in general, so metaphysical science, theoretical science, the paranormal, Bigfoot, ghosts, teleportation, Roswell New Mexico, and such would annoy me no end. It might become necessary for you to turn your martial arts on me. I suspect that lawful/illegal Cannabis combined with the alcohol and talk of the occult might prove to be a toxic mix.

Sorry, if you wish to influence my weak mind you’ll have to teleport me to a bar but be forwarned. Now I did have an out of body experience once, but I suspect if you teleported me to a bar with the intention of influencing my weak mind I would become quite irate.

Of interest is the Jewish Merchants killing off all the mystics. If you have some documented evidence of such it would be of great interest to me. I suspect that the illegal/lawful Cannabis has had a detrimental affect upon you, and I know of which I speak. After recording the greatest music ever known to man on my high-tech/low-tech recording equiment I discovered that in reality that greatest music ever recorded sucked considerably. I had better luck recording free from delusional delirium.

Back to the Jewish Merchants, I’m in the dark here, are you referring to Christian Mystics, are they the mystics the Jewish Merchants killed off? My weak mind has been influenced to believe that the Romans killed off some of the Christian Mystics, and the Christian Mystics killed off the Jewish Merchants, apparently they missed the Rothchilds, but that’s neither here nor there.

Anyway it’s too late; I prefer to revel in my ignorance. Teleporting me… don’t even think about it, there will be hell to pay, martial arts or not.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, of an avatar being a painting in many (D)evious shades of blue:

“One step, is that it?”
________________

There’s no need to give a liberal more than that one — the first one — the one they won’t take… to stop free-will collaborating with the corporate-state, as a willing accomplice in all of its crimes.

Liberals waste no opportunity to ensure that an election will serve no good purpose. It’s their job to ensure that all the foreign and domestic violence of America’s fascism regularly receives popular vote mandates.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 12, 2011 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie said: “I’m not sure what you’re looking for, though.  At this time, we are in an agitprop stage.”

Sometimes your honesty is disarming.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ—Actually, I have given plans and specific courses of action, some of which are operational at present in a manner of speaking.  I’m not sure what you’re looking for, though.  At this time, we are in an agitprop stage.  Once people are actually interested in doing something about the agitprop, then concrete ideas about actions and institutions can be discussed and acted upon.  Occupy Wall Street has excited considerably more resonance than I would have expected, but all it has inspired the Democrats to do is try to appropriate its message for their use in next year’s election, just as they appropriated the anti-war movement to get Mr. O elected.  They’re still fooling around* and there is no suggestion that they’re going to clean house, which may be impossible for them anyway.  So I’m not sure what concrete actions we’re up to yet.

If you think you can affect the world through big-party power politics, I’d say go to it, but in my experience the results have been poor, going back to voting for Lyndon Johnson because Barry Goldwater might get us into a stupid war in Vietnam.

* I just now saw a brief video clip of Clinton talking about how the ‘middle’ (working) class had been trashed over the last 30 years, during eight of which he was president of the United States and led the trashing.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

Shadey Green

One step, is that it? Here I’ve been waiting anxiously and you only give me one step. I am profoundly disappointed. You give me just one step leading nowhere; what a let down. Will you be doling out additional steps with a destination sometime in the future? Never mind, I fear the suspense will kill me.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

RE: Anarcissie, October 12 at 12:28 pm

“It’s up to those who believe in and actually work in traditional liberal party politics to formulate believable plans and produce concrete results, if you want support from the rest of the people.  I don’t know what you can do with the mess you’ve got.  Hence my preference for small-scale local organizing and agitprop.”

**************************************************************

That’s not fair, I asked you first. Just kidding Ha Ha, I amuse myself.

Tax the rich use the money to create jobs, is the plan advocated by Liberal Democrats. The concrete results derived from the first stimulus have been quantified by economists and claimed by Republicans. Health Insurance for those who once could not afford it, or who were denied etc. I suspect that the concrete results you want are a miraculous recovery from our economic difficulties, and nothing less, but heaven forbid any government action to stimulate recovery. Am I correct? Ha Ha, you amuse me.

Agitprop? Are you withholding it? Will we be seeing examples of your agitprop soon? I suspect that your agitprop consists of commenting about other people’s agitprop.

Small-scale is… What, small-scale? I have a preference for large scale government action. Large-scale government action that is blocked by Republicans.

Do you follow the news, do you have any idea of what occurred in the Senate yesterday, or were you to busy following other peoples agitprop. Saturday is my day to participate in the local protests in support of Occupy Wall Street, what day is yours? Just curious.

You offer nothing, no plan, and no strategy, no anything. An existentialist would tell you, “You are nothing.” But I would not concur with such an assessment, from my perspective you are a large-scale cynic, a tautological naysayer, a bitcher, and a complainer, and a small-scale thinker, which is something, Ha Ha, I amuse myself. More appropriate would be a haw! haw! Coming from the Simpsons Nelson or the likes of you. Haw! haw! I like you and I wish you the best, but you have demonstrated your propensity for rejecting the better.

Voltaire pisses me off, but seeing as I have no credibility with you, perhaps you’ll give some credence to Voltaire. “The perfect is the enemy of the good” I’m perfect, your just good, ha ha, I amuse myself. I suppose that Voltaire’s quotation is subject to different interpretations. In the sense that I’m using it, demanding nothing less than the perfect is the enemy of the good, but the good is sometimes defined as bad by those who demand the perfect. I’ve tarried here too long, I have other futile efforts to engage in, but I remain. Hopefully Yours, JDmysticDJ. Ha ha, and so on…

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 12, 2011 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

It’s up to those who believe in and actually work in traditional liberal party politics to formulate believable plans and produce concrete results, if you want support from the rest of the people.  I don’t know what you can do with the mess you’ve got.  Hence my preference for small-scale local organizing and agitprop.

Report this
Gabriel's avatar

By Gabriel, October 12, 2011 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

re: JD

That’s a nice long attempt at convincing yourself there’s nothing else outside of your mundane world. It’s exactly how European Control System teaches and programs children and rest of population.

You might want to keep in mind why Jewish Merchants of 2,000 yrs ago went after and killed off every leader of so called mysticism, why RC Church did same wherever they went. That’s 3 Inquisitions that killed Millions in Europe alone .. aprox. 50 Million men women and children. Another 250 to 500 Million in Americas and countless across the planet in the last 2,000 yrs.

They didn’t stop there, they burned and destroyed every piece of literature, record, stone and reference to any and all Truth they could find. Anyone who found something relevant was shut-up, tortured, ridiculed and or shunned. It still continues today as religion, mainstream science, disinformation, lies, redirection etc.

Look at any powerful society, group or cult and you will see Occult practices in the background. It is this mystical metaphysical scientific knowledge that’s being used against the general population of Earth.

As a Historian for many decades, practitioner of Self Honor [martial arts], student of occult [hidden] knowledge, sciences and Universal Laws I can definitely and certainly tell you and everyone that there’s infinitely more than what is being told by governing bodies.

Much of it I’ve seen and experienced and even done due to what you’d call industrial military complex.
Minor example: It’s not hard to bend or influence weak minds of patrons in a bar, restaurant or almost any gathering.

I can safely say about 80% of people who message here are under the influence of shills or shill type programming of some sort. This is totally unacceptable in this information age.

You yourself must know that you can only see and sense a small part of EM spectrum. You need tools to see more small fractions.

Yet, it’s been fully demonstrated that a hypnotist can tell a subject to see through another subject to see an object held by a 3rd subject. They will be right 100% of the time.
Fully documented remote viewing has been accomplished many times.
We are on the verge of teleportation ... and it’s well recorded in History as fact.

All one has to do is look up Nassim Haramein and study his literature and videos on basics of Universal Laws. Free on youtube.
In addition, why do you think Cannabis and like herbs are illegal but not unlawful?

Start learning man, don’t be a slave, before it’s too late.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 12, 2011 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, of an avatar being a painting in many (D)evious shades of blue:

“O.K, O.K., I’ll concede that Liberal Democrats fall far short of what we would wish them to be. I’m hoping and praying that one of you two geniuses will put forth a political strategy that will provide a semblance of hope for achieving positive goals, and not be counter productive.”
______________________

A good start would be to stop expecting all hope for good to come from evil — to stop counterproductively persuading people that achieving positive goals for natural persons requires them to provide popular vote mandates for Democrats who deliver the corporate persons’ goals.

The first step is to stop collaborating with the corporate-state’s corporate party.

If it were easy, any liberal could do it.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 12, 2011 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie/Shadey Green

O.K, O.K., I’ll concede that Liberal Democrats fall far short of what we would wish them to be. I’m hoping and praying that one of you two geniuses will put forth a political strategy that will provide a semblance of hope for achieving positive goals, and not be counter productive. Lay it on me, I’m anxiously awaiting your wisdom.

Report this

By elisalouisa, October 12, 2011 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

Thank you JDmysticDJ for a post that at best will have mixed reviews on Truthdig. Along those lines I would like to add a few words. I have heard it asked concerning the illness of cancer, why would a living cell be so formed as to have as its ultimate goal the destruction of its host? Afte some thought I have surmised that there a larger host at which we all feast. Through our reckless lifestyle, chemicals, improper nourishment, weapons that reek havoc, pollution, etc. we are endangering the balance of the universe where our ultimate host is contained.  A theory as you say not supported by any scientific evidence, only conjecture.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 12, 2011 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

‘Votes for Liberal Democrats are votes for progress’ does not seem to comport with history.  Indeed, the Democrats have not only not progressed, they have failed to conserve, to defend what they were supposed to defend.

Are they going to change now?  I see no evidence of this either.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 12, 2011 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, of an avatar being a painting in many (D)evious shades of blue:

“let us endeavor to make the best possible choices… Votes for Liberal Democrats are votes for progress”
_________________

Liberals have spent their lives persuading people that the “best possible choices” are choices self-restricted between either the evil of retrograde (R)s or the “progressive” evil of depraved (D)s.

Only a liberal could consider making evil be sustainable to be the “best” of possible choices.

“Politics is not the art of the possible.
True politics is the art of the impossible.”
— Slavoj Zizek

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, October 12, 2011 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

RE: Gabriel, October 11 at 3:56 pm

“The Universe is watching.”

“The Universe watching” is a concept metaphysical, but not a thought I reject. Intuitively, and with very little, if any, scientific evidence, I’m open to the idea that the Universe might be watching. I will proffer that the problems that confront the people of this world are universal and affect us all universally. I recently suggested on another thread that we are not Gods, but that we might have the responsibility of a God or Gods. I’ve learned that even the vaguest of references to Gods or watcher[s] whatever, invites angry criticism, ridicule, and accusations of extreme ignorance from some. The argument that contemplating something greater than we humans, without any scientific evidence of such is superstition and ignorance is well made, and the concept being metaphysical the argument is futile from any and all perspectives. The truth is that we can not know any truth beyond our ability to comprehend or beyond our ability to prove empirically. Theories not supported by any scientific evidence can only be conjecture, but I will take the risk of delving into this concept metaphysical in order to support my dialectic which I believe is rational and free from metaphysical thinking.

Supposing that the Universe is watching with an eye for benevolence, and supposing that we humans are blessed, or cursed, with a free will, a benevolent Universe would be watching us like a cheer leader or a critic taking notes listing our deficiencies for future excoriation. Suppose that the Universe is watching with disgust shaking its head, or whatever, thinking, “what a bunch of lame brains.” I’ll suppose that a watching Universe would approve of us making rational choices and appreciate our problem solving skills where we are able to avoid counter productive emotionalism and avoid making choices that aggravate problems rather than solve them. Thinking metaphysically, let us suppose that the watching Universe is also watching the Earth with a critical eye, wondering how long our not so hospitable host will tolerate our destructive behavior. One might argue from a purely metaphysical sense that the Earth frequently erupts with anger inflicting corporal punishment upon us without mercy. Again metaphysically thinking, there may come a time when the Earth will become so fed up with our bad behavior that the Earth will banish us forever. Thinking metaphysically, could it be that the Universe is much too busy to watch us all the time and only watches for entertainment, dimming the lights, relaxing, consuming candy, popcorn, sodas, or some such substances, laughing and crying where appropriate, watching a pre-scripted drama wondering if there will be a surprise ending, while laughing uproariously at any suggestion of a free will.

Such conjectures, hopefully, can only be perceived absurd, and strictly from my perspective mildly amusing smile Let us assume that we lowly humans have a free will and let us endeavor to make the best possible choices. The problems that confront humanity are far from being amusing and any hoped for extrication from the tragic difficulties that confront us will be dependent on the choices we make, some of the utmost importance and others seemingly insignificant, inconsequential, and of little real value, but better choices are always preferable to choices less so, from my perspective. Observing history, I’ll proffer that progress has always been achieved incrementally. Children participating in the torture of captives is no longer a part of the human paradigm. Even Social Revolutions of all kinds have been beset with setbacks, complexities, and unforeseen negative consequences.

I’m running out of truthdig characters, only 4000 are allowed before additional redundant posting is allowed. I’m through pontificating. Votes for Liberal Democrats are votes for progress, be it ever so humble, anything else will serve the agents of regress.

Report this
Gabriel's avatar

By Gabriel, October 12, 2011 at 2:40 am Link to this comment

re: kulu & blogdog

The script has already been written 2,000 yrs ago by the Jewish Merchants who crucified a rightful King of 2 tribes, and ruling class is following it to the letter. It’s called the Bible, which was compiled at the council Nicaea.
A little know fact: Any Rabbi that didn’t agree had their head chopped off.

Additions of their master plan are: the Illuminati card game, Georgia Guide Stones, Freemasons, Templars, RC Church, Evangelists, ALL Central Banks, a Queen of German lineage in England, most Monarchies on Earth, most presidents of USofA, Admiralty Law system / Law of Commerce and the list goes on and on. They are all tied together by lineage/genetics/family trees.

The only way out of this corrupt system is to boycott it and stop participating in it’s demise. Use “Laws of the Land” [not of the sea and commerce] to regain your Rights and assert these Rights at every turn. Learn your Universal Rights ... a healthy intense learning proposition as they are mostly hidden in occult [hidden] writings.

A man who explains Usury in USofA and some solutions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmPWcLQ1Mk

How to get out of debt: http://projectarise.com/debtelimprocesses.php

Also look up Permaculture, Free energy, magnet motor, geet & pantone, Tesla patents and his censored ideas, helical wind turbines, cannabis oil = the cure for 95% of your ills by eating a drop per meal, all that hemp provides to replace oil, rope, clothing, plastics, etc.
Algae to replace oil and other products. etc.

We have the tech. and the means to replace the whole corrupt system as it crashes and even before it crashes. All that’s needed now is the education and the power of We The People.

Learn the tools that are all around you for a sustainable future. Then pass them on to everyone you know. smile

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, October 12, 2011 at 1:20 am Link to this comment

...A bang such as never seen before. This time it will take the rest of this
planet it with it…

if you lived in the Middle East you’d say it was already at hand, especially if you’re
one of those NATO is bombing

but, guess the comment refers to America’s under classes - actually that will likely
slide quietly into the backwater swamps of the philistine capitalists’ paradise,
dying of organ failure at an average weight of 300lbs while lounging in front of
Best of the Stuper Bowl highlighs, one hand in the chips bowl the other clutching
a Bud

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook