Occupy people... Don't argue with a former USSRen about socialism..

[Bliss Sage]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Sweden is TINY. You can not compare the two places. You have places in America the size of Sweden, that doesn't have filthy dumps. We are the size of many EU countries put together. Come on now. My family came to America, not because we knew we'd be taken care of. Because we knew WE would be able to take care of ourselves. That's the difference between the people who are self reliant, and those that want everything handed to them. My brothers REFUSED to get government assistance for college, and worked full time jobs and full time school, yet these occupy people want their college debt cleaned????

High standards are earned, not deserved.

Our high standards ARE earned in all the taxes we pay! And by the same token, it's NOT having stuff handed out to you. Do you know what the taxes are here?! That's what taxes are for - taking care of the people! (Not starting wars all over the world.)

And yeah, size is a factor, but it's also not - because it's socialism, not size we're talking about. Unless you are saying that socialism is good with small countries...

The size is another reason I didn't want to live in North America. After living in small countries, I don't like living in giant countries that are all disconnected and disjointed. I don't think it's good. It's really not even like a country. You have all different laws in different states and there's no sense of unity.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

There's a reason I said "perhaps"--there are special circumstances to black markets. One needs a power system to establish property-- and thus a market-- in the first place. Usually that's a government, but in black markets it's individual acts of violence and threat of being ratted out. So, there can still be rules to black markets that aren't purely capitalistic, they're just subject to any participant whim and will to enforce it, but so are the capitalistic rules.

Yes, reminds me of the good ol' days of prohibition and 'bootlegging'. Indeed, regulation at it's best.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

The size is another reason I didn't want to live in North America. After living in small countries, I don't like living in giant countries that are all disconnected and disjointed. I don't think it's good. It's really not even like a country. You have all different laws in different states and there's no sense of unity.

Good point.

Up until after the U.S. Civil War, people's home states were their "countries". The Civil War, and the subsequent exhibition of Federal Authority over states' rights fairly well eliminated that.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Sweden is TINY. You can not compare the two places. You have places in America the size of Sweden, that doesn't have filthy dumps. We are the size of many EU countries put together. Come on now. My family came to America, not because we knew we'd be taken care of. Because we knew WE would be able to take care of ourselves. That's the difference between the people who are self reliant, and those that want everything handed to them. My brothers REFUSED to get government assistance for college, and worked full time jobs and full time school, yet these occupy people want their college debt cleaned????

Lets just put it up front; I don't agree with a country being entirely socialist. I think that is unfair and won't work in the long run.

That being said, I also don't agree with a country that is entirely capitalist. I think that is unfair, and won't work in the long run.

I think as human beings we have a moral obligation to take care of eachother, and specifically those who cannot take care of themselves.
Because it is easiest done (and cheapest!) if we organize that, I have no problem with the government putting in place programs to help the mentally ill, the physically disabled and people who are down on their luck for a bit.

I do not condone people being on welfare for all eternity without them doing anything besides watching tv. If you get paid by the government, you must work for the government. Even if it is sitting in hospitals or socializing with lonely elders.

I think a healthy mix between government support and having to make your own way is best.

I disagree with people who want their collage debt erased.

I agree with people who want regulation and accountability from big companies, such as banks.

I disagree with making the banks disappear.

I agree with banks being held accountable (especially those who got money from the government)

Sweden (and many other European countries) cannot compare to the US in size. True. That doesn't mean that the ideas that are working in those places couldn't also work in the US, maybe with some adjustments to fit the scale.
Or maybe by treating each state as its own country with regards to this?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

Our high standards ARE earned in all the taxes we pay! And by the same token, it's NOT having stuff handed out to you. Do you know what the taxes are here?! That's what taxes are for - taking care of the people! (Not starting wars all over the world.)

And yeah, size is a factor, but it's also not - because it's socialism, not size we're talking about. Unless you are saying that socialism is good with small countries...

The size is another reason I didn't want to live in North America. After living in small countries, I don't like living in giant countries that are all disconnected and disjointed. I don't think it's good. It's really not even like a country. You have all different laws in different states and there's no sense of unity.

Who says it has to be like a country? You have the EU which is pretty much like different states. America is huge, and I love it, because I can go to different areas, and the laws are very similiar, and I don't need a passport. I can just drive and go to all the different areas. Snow in some, desert in another. Guns in some, no guns in another. Pot in some, no pot in another. I can start a business, and become a millionaire in any of them. I rather not pay all those taxes.

And yes, the smaller the country, the better socialism works.

Just like communes work, yet when you get to big, it no longer works.

As far as how are taxes are used. Well, yeah, protest the government! It's them using our taxes. When the government is in charge, then you rarely have a say in how all your taxes are used. The less money they have, the less they can waste. So why is everyone protesting wallstreet? .... Because they want government to spend even more. Just, on THEM, and not banks. That's called greed, which I thought is what they are against. I, don't need, or want the government to help me with anything. I must be strange to you huh?

Socialism is still a fairly new concept, so to claim any country is doing it right, is foolish. We have yet to see the results. Tho, you can see many countries that are now horrible, because governments or dictators took over. A lot of EU countries are running out of money. How does that mean it's working? Health care is going broke. Sure, they all have free health care, but once everyone elses money runs out, then no one gets anything. I've seen very few countries that are making it work, and the ones that are fairly good at it, are usually tiny. The bigger the country, the worse it will be.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

"The right to peaceably assemble".♥....is not specifical♥ly defined by the constituti♥on in terms of number of hours or days or when and where it can take place. The framers obviously left this part sufficient♥ly vague in order to provoke people into a discussion♥.

Is a permit for 10 days ample length of time to assemble the people and have a meeting specifical♥ly to redress the government for grievances♥? Maybe, then maybe not. Then again, no permit has ever been gotten.. so that point is moot. Tell me, how long can they occupy the parks?

What about the rights of the Tea Party? What if they want to protest too, but these people take up all the spots, for WEEKS at a time, when Tea Party only goes out for one day, and then goes back to work? Why are they trampling on everyone elses rights to publicly assembly in public areas?

What's with the hearts?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

What's with the hearts?

cause I'm in love with you?



lol I have no idea what made the hearts and why.

[Brutha]

How do we define corruption however? In the broadest sense I don't think we can stop it completely whilst using a monetary system of any kind. Is that what you're advocating? Or maybe your definition is a little more narrow?

Systems where stuff gets done through trading favors can be corrupt without any money being involved.

In many parts of Africa family ties are a lot more important than money. Those societies don't work well.
It's just another form of corruption.

"The right to peaceably assemble".....is not specifically defined by the constitution in terms of number of hours or days or when and where it can take place. The framers obviously left this part sufficienty vague in order to provoke people into a discussion.

There no timelimit because the frames didn't intented to have a time frame.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

"The right to peaceably assemble".....is not specifically defined by the constitution in terms of number of hours or days or when and where it can take place. The framers obviously left this part sufficienty vague in order to provoke people into a discussion.

Is a permit for 10 days ample length of time to assemble the people and have a meeting specifically to redress the government for grievances? Maybe, then maybe not. Then again, no permit has ever been gotten.. so that point is moot. Tell me, how long can they occupy the parks?

What about the rights of the Tea Party? What if they want to protest too, but these people take up all the spots, for WEEKS at a time, when Tea Party only goes out for one day, and then goes back to work? Why are they trampling on everyone elses rights to publicly assembly in public areas?

The Constitution doesn't say that we have the right to peaceably assemble with a permit. It doesn't say we have the right to peaceably assemble for a period of 10 days. It's open-ended and there are no prerequisites.

Your argument is like saying we need a permit in order to have freedom of speech. Would you support that? "Once you get a permit, you can speak freely for 2 days out of the week."

It's part of the Bill of Rights. No stipulations.

Re: the Tea Party -- I haven't seen a damn thing stopping them from assembling and petitioning. They do it a lot. They hold rallies and go to town meetings. I don't think this idea that the OWS protesters are somehow disenfranchising the Tea Party has a leg to stand on. If the Tea Party wants to, they can go stand across the street from the OWS protesters and say their piece. Who's stopping them?

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

The Constitution doesn't say that we have the right to peaceably assemble with a permit. It doesn't say we have the right to peaceably assemble for a period of 10 days. It's open-ended and there are no prerequisites.

Your argument is like saying we need a permit in order to have freedom of speech. Would you support that? "Once you get a permit, you can speak freely for 2 days out of the week."

It's part of the Bill of Rights. No stipulations.

Re: the Tea Party -- I haven't seen a damn thing stopping them from assembling and petitioning. They do it a lot. They hold rallies and go to town meetings. I don't think this idea that the OWS protesters are somehow disenfranchising the Tea Party has a leg to stand on. If the Tea Party wants to, they can go stand across the street from the OWS protesters and say their piece. Who's stopping them?

Exactly. Fantastic post--I'd rep you if I could.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

The Constitution doesn't say that we have the right to peaceably assemble with a permit. It doesn't say we have the right to peaceably assemble for a period of 10 days. It's open-ended and there are no prerequisites.

Your argument is like saying we need a permit in order to have freedom of speech. Would you support that? "Once you get a permit, you can speak freely for 2 days out of the week."

It's part of the Bill of Rights. No stipulations.

Re: the Tea Party -- I haven't seen a damn thing stopping them from assembling and petitioning. They do it a lot. They hold rallies and go to town meetings. I don't think this idea that the OWS protesters are somehow disenfranchising the Tea Party has a leg to stand on. If the Tea Party wants to, they can go stand across the street from the OWS protesters and say their piece. Who's stopping them?

What's stopping them, is that they'd be drowned out entirely by the OWS protestors, for starters. The ones that don't allow anyone to have a voice, but them. No one would get anything accomplished.

As far as the Bill of Rights. What does it say about disturbing the peace? Wanting government assistance while you protest? Being allowed to be in PRIVATE parks? Remember, just because the bill of rights says you can protest, doesn't mean you can do anything you damn well please, where ever you damn well please. I don't know where you got that idea. Marching and holding rallies is one thing. This, is completely different. They are creating little communes, and turning it into a business that makes money by begging.

As far as permits. Well, should these protestors be allowed to make camp outside my house? Would you allow them to do it outside of your house? How about if you own a business, and they destroy it, because they want to camp out in front of your business? No prerequisites right? What laws are there for them to camp out on the side walk in front of business' and completely ruin them all, and is there any difference between that, and camping out in parks, and taking away parks from everyone else, while creating havoc for the neighboring community? This is the reason permits are necessary. Because permits allow for peaceful assembly, as well as preparation for police and other utilities to make it peaceful for everyone, not just the protestors. It allows for insurance liability, so that if someone gets hurt, or property is damage, someone is held liable. Who foots the bill for the destroyed parks? The protestors? Doubt it. It's a mob and it's a riot. We are in 2011! Things are not like they were 100's of years ago. We are supposed to be all smart and civilized. We are supposed to be adults, yet we are all acting like spoiled little children! The founders would be ashamed of the people of today.

Everyone in here seems to want regulation in a whole bunch of aspects of our lives.... Oh, but no, not when it comes to protesting!!! For shame! How dare they think they have the right to make us get permits!!! What the hell kind of hypocrisy is that? Who gets to pick and choose, where regulation gets put?

But, while we are at it. All this talk about constitution and bill of rights. Any one want to show me, where in the bill of rights, they said anything about free health care? Free college? Paying off debts? Welfare, and food stamps, and any social program for that matter? Can't have it both ways.

I think I'll get everyone to camp out in front of my neighbor HOA presidents house. After all, it's my 1st amendment right, right? There is a right way, and a bad way to do something. Making everyone despise you, especially your own community, is not the way.

Anti anything, never work. They want to get rid of things, and they want to take away. They aren't focused on a goal of what to actually do. They just don't like that rich people are rich, and they are not.

Anyone remember the protest outside of the Bush ranch for 8 months? vaguely? Exactly.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

As far as the Bill of Rights. What does it say about disturbing the peace? Wanting government assistance while you protest? Being allowed to be in PRIVATE parks? Remember, just because the bill of rights says you can protest, doesn't mean you can do anything you damn well please, where ever you damn well please.

With all respect, rr, the first amendment doesn't really address any of that, so one could argue either way. As long as no law is broken, "seeking a redress of grievances" is pretty vague.

As far as permits go--when I was younger, a group I protested with sought a permit to protest a U.N. meeting in L.A. The permit was denied. We demonstrated, anyway, and since it was peaceful, and since there were only about 30 of us, it all went off without a hitch. Since then, I consider permits a technicality--rather an excuse for government to use its force wherever and whenever it pleases.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

What's stopping them, is that they'd be drowned out entirely by the OWS protestors, for starters. The ones that don't allow anyone to have a voice, but them. No one would get anything accomplished.

Your free speech is not limited when someone else speaks. It's not limited when people listen to the other person instead. It's not limited when someone disagrees with you, and tells everyone why.

It is limited when the government takes action to stop you from speaking--not when other citizens are speaking louder.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

With all respect, rr, the first amendment doesn't really address any of that, so one could argue either way. As long as no law is broken, "seeking a redress of grievances" is pretty vague.

As far as permits go--when I was younger, a group I protested with sought a permit to protest a U.N. meeting in L.A. The permit was denied. We demonstrated, anyway, and since it was peaceful, and since there were only about 30 of us, it all went off without a hitch. Since then, I consider permits a technicality--rather an excuse for government to use its force wherever and whenever it pleases.

Laws are being broken, and the government for the most part is allowing it.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Your free speech is not limited when someone else speaks. It's not limited when people listen to the other person instead. It's not limited when someone disagrees with you, and tells everyone why.

It is limited when the government takes action to stop you from speaking--not when other citizens are speaking louder.

If someone blows an air horn non stop while you are trying to speak, they ARE limiting your free speech. When they never allow you to get a word in edge wise, they are limiting your free speech. How could you even deny that. It's different, say in a business, or someones home, or forum. You can deny their free speech. But this is in public property, and if you are denied speech, then you are denied free speech, even if it's not government doing it. Government IS the people, for the people, so why is it that people can't limit your speaking?

[russianrocket]

Yeah, peaceful.

Report: Fights erupt among Occupy Wall Street protesters

And just to restate the point, they are in a non government owned park where the PRIVATE owner has asked Bloomberg to get them off HIS property, and they are being allowed to stay anyways, and ruin his property.

You mark my words. The government won't do it. The CITY and it's residents will kick these people out.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

What's stopping them, is that they'd be drowned out entirely by the OWS protestors, for starters. The ones that don't allow anyone to have a voice, but them. No one would get anything accomplished.

They could use megaphones.

Oh right, that's illegal.

As far as the Bill of Rights. What does it say about disturbing the peace? Wanting government assistance while you protest? Being allowed to be in PRIVATE parks? Remember, just because the bill of rights says you can protest, doesn't mean you can do anything you damn well please, where ever you damn well please. I don't know where you got that idea. Marching and holding rallies is one thing. This, is completely different. They are creating little communes, and turning it into a business that makes money by begging.

Nothing. Because the peace is allowed to be disturbed in the event of a grievance that needs redress. That's the point.

As far as permits. Well, should these protestors be allowed to make camp outside my house? Would you allow them to do it outside of your house? How about if you own a business, and they destroy it, because they want to camp out in front of your business? No prerequisites right? What laws are there for them to camp out on the side walk in front of business' and completely ruin them all, and is there any difference between that, and camping out in parks, and taking away parks from everyone else, while creating havoc for the neighboring community?

Anyone can assemble on public property. If there was a park in front of my house, and people wanted to assemble in it, I would not be within my rights to try and stop them.

This is the reason permits are necessary. Because permits allow for peaceful assembly, as well as preparation for police and other utilities to make it peaceful for everyone, not just the protestors. It allows for insurance liability, so that if someone gets hurt, or property is damage, someone is held liable. Who foots the bill for the destroyed parks? The protestors? Doubt it. It's a mob and it's a riot. We are in 2011! Things are not like they were 100's of years ago. We are supposed to be all smart and civilized. We are supposed to be adults, yet we are all acting like spoiled little children! The founders would be ashamed of the people of today

This is total hyperbole. It's not a mob and a riot. It's a peaceful protest. Of course it's having an impact on the community -- if it didn't, there would be no point in protesting.

It's interesting how when Middle Easterners flood the streets, we don't say a word about how they're "not working" and "destroying public property" -- it's all about how wonderful that they're standing up for democracy. And then, when WE stand up for democracy -- a country in which two of the three branches of government are held hostage by massively wealthy corporate interests, i.e. you have to have ridiculous amounts of campaign funding to even have a chance at getting elected, is "democratic" in name only -- suddenly we are socialists and whiners and peace-disturbers. Okay.

Everyone in here seems to want regulation in a whole bunch of aspects of our lives.... Oh, but no, not when it comes to protesting!!! For shame! How dare they think they have the right to make us get permits!!! What the hell kind of hypocrisy is that? Who gets to pick and choose, where regulation gets put?

We the people.

But, while we are at it. All this talk about constitution and bill of rights. Any one want to show me, where in the bill of rights, they said anything about free health care? Free college? Paying off debts? Welfare, and food stamps, and any social program for that matter? Can't have it both ways.

This is not related.

I think I'll get everyone to camp out in front of my neighbor HOA presidents house. After all, it's my 1st amendment right, right? There is a right way, and a bad way to do something. Making everyone despise you, especially your own community, is not the way.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Anti anything, never work. They want to get rid of things, and they want to take away. They aren't focused on a goal of what to actually do. They just don't like that rich people are rich, and they are not.

Did you go to school in the US? I'm sincerely wondering. Because I want to know what you thought the abolitionist movement was about, or the civil rights movement. Anti-slavery. Anti-Jim Crow. Anti-discrimination.

There is always a positive. Abolitionists and civil rights wanted racial equality. The Wall Street protesters want equal economic opportunity. Is that positive enough?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Laws are being broken, and the government for the most part is allowing it.

If that's the case, then, indeed, it's likely because the government will do all it can to co-opt them.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

And just to restate the point, they are in a non government owned park where the PRIVATE owner has asked Bloomberg to get them off HIS property, and they are being allowed to stay anyways, and ruin his property.

You mark my words. The government won't do it. The CITY and it's residents will kick these people out.

You mean the city government?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

You mean the city government?

No, not the actual government government. The business' and the residents and anyone else around there who is having their lives disturbed by this. People, like the ones being yelled at and heckled, as they walk to work. And the business owners that are losing money, in an already tight economy. I'm sure the park owner will get in on it too, because the government doesn't seem to wanna do crap for him.

Who knows, maybe chamber of commerce, and fire fighters and some small parts of the city government too. But, I'm not trying to mean that the city government will do it.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

There is always a positive. Abolitionists and civil rights wanted racial equality. The Wall Street protesters want equal economic opportunity. Is that positive enough?

Look, Criseyde, I wrote about this very topic--the idea of support a single idea--in my blog. Are you saying here that this is the single idea--Equal Economic Opportunity?

Because if that's the case, then that's what they should adopt, rally behind that, and stick to that, at all costs. That's the only way anything, and I mean anything is going to get accomplished.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Look, Criseyde, I wrote about this very topic--the idea of support a single idea--in my blog. Are you saying here that this is the single idea--Equal Economic Opportunity?

Because if that's the case, then that's what they should adopt, rally behind that, and stick to that, at all costs. That's the only way anything, and I mean anything is going to get accomplished.

If that was the case, I'd probably actually support them. But it's not the case. And, I don't really agree with economic opportunity not being equal. This is about the only country, where literally almost anyone, even immigrants and non citizens, can make a fortune. I can't think of a single thing stopping us.

But, again, they are protesting wallstreet, and wallstreet doesn't make laws or polices, so even if they had a single idea, they are still barking up the wrong tree. But, as I said, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them ( same with tea party), they just want to make a stink so that at least someone hears them, even if the people hearing them, aren't the people that should be hearing them.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

If that was the case, I'd probably actually support them. But it's not the case. And, I don't really agree with economic opportunity not being equal. This is about the only country, where literally almost anyone, even immigrants and non citizens, can make a fortune. I can't think of a single thing stopping us.

I can--corporate/government collusion, often leading to complete monopolization.

But, again, they are protesting wallstreet, and wallstreet doesn't make laws or polices, so even if they had a single idea, they are still barking up the wrong tree. But, as I said, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them ( same with tea party), they just want to make a stink so that at least someone hears them, even if the people hearing them, aren't the people that should be hearing them.

True, Wall Street doesn't make the laws--but they sure can buy them, can't they?

I can understand protesting Wall Street, but to fail in holding government just as accountable signifies a blindness to the real problem.

[Mariana Trench]

Blatant example of government and corporate collusion in Nikki Haley:

Gov Haley Calls Herself an “Employee” of a Major Pharmaceutical Company|Occupy Columbia
Open Letter to Gov Haley from #OccupyColumbia|Occupy Columbia

And the "Occupy" movement standing against it.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Look, Criseyde, I wrote about this very topic--the idea of support a single idea--in my blog. Are you saying here that this is the single idea--Equal Economic Opportunity?

Because if that's the case, then that's what they should adopt, rally behind that, and stick to that, at all costs. That's the only way anything, and I mean anything is going to get accomplished.

From what I've seen, I believe that is the central idea.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Blatant example of government and corporate collusion in Nikki Haley:

Gov Haley Calls Herself an “Employee” of a Major Pharmaceutical Company|Occupy Columbia
Open Letter to Gov Haley from #OccupyColumbia|Occupy Columbia

And the "Occupy" movement standing against it.

We get it, and we know. Government and corporate colludes. But guess what, the people elected her. If they don't like it, they won't elect her again. People who are against the Occupy, are not diluted into thinking that collusion doesn't exist. We just want to fix it from the source, not protesting and making the lives of people who have nothing to do with it, difficult. If they really cared, they'd be in front of every single government building, not banks.

This is one occupy, and one website, making notice of one Mayor. I'm glad they finally pointed the finger at government. There are dozens and dozens of occupies across the country. All with different messages. There are fighting even in individual occupies, let alone between all of them.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I can--corporate/government collusion, often leading to complete monopolization.
True, Wall Street doesn't make the laws--but they sure can buy them, can't they?

I can understand protesting Wall Street, but to fail in holding government just as accountable signifies a blindness to the real problem.

Depends on which industry. It, does not keep people from becoming rich. It might keep people from creating huge corporations to compete with other established corporations. Again, I don't disagree that we need to disconnect business from government. Everyone seems to want more regulation tho.

Wall street might have paid to get things done, but government is the MOST accountable. So to not even try to hold government accountable, really is, as you said, true blindness. They will not accomplish anything, but pissing people off, and creating civil unrest.

[Cado]

RR, what I see you doing is complaining that they're disrupting the status quo. That's the point-nothing gets done if you don't disrupt the status quo, and if you need permits or the like to do that then you'll never be able to succeed. A "designated protest area" is doublespeak for "this is where we put you so we can ignore you."

There's a lot of emotion here without a whole lot of facts on your end. This story is so big and complicated with so many different kinds of people involved, and the mainstream media has a vested interest in protecting big business and government so we're not going to get clear, undiluted truth from them.

The most important thing with these protests is that we communicate that we won't take corruption lying down. That's all it will take to be effective. If specific demands are made-and people have made some-then that's icing on the cake.

Our government is corrupt and corporations pay off our politicians. You can't attack one without attacking the other, and focusing on the corporate end of things will likely prove as effective as a march on washington, perhaps more so. It shows that we can't be scapegoated away from the practices of the corrupt who work through our system without accepting any of the consequences for their actions.

They want us angry at the government. It's evident by the tactical choices they've made. And it needs a lot of reform-our elected officials need to be held accountable-but let's restore democracy first by refusing to let the top 1% buy our system through rigged elections. They don't miscount the votes or prevent us from accessing information on third party candidates but they work the media in such a way that 90% of the time we end up making the choices they want us to make. We can't let that fly anymore. Part of that requires personal responsibility but that in no way lets them off the hook for what's already been done.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Cado

let's restore democracy first by refusing to let the top 1% buy our system through rigged elections.

Is there anyone proposing how this can be done, without also holding responsible the politicians who took the money to get elected?

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Is there anyone proposing how this can be done, without also holding responsible the politicians who took the money to get elected?

My thinking is that we need to hit all fronts before this is over. That's going to take time, which is why I think it's absurd to criticize this movement because it's only focusing on Wall Street. If they were to pick one thing and stick with that and only that to the end then then both choices would be wrong.

It may not expand but it does provide an opportunity to do so and I want to see that happen and play a part in making it so as opposed to criticizing them for what they're not doing right now.