Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Occupy Wall Street, London and Evereywhere Else
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 91 of 208 (643436)
12-06-2011 10:24 PM


Occupy Wall Street Goes Home
Around the Houses - 101 Essential Things for Your House
Also see Occupy goes home
quote:
The NYC foreclosure tour and home re-occupation is part of a big national day of action on Dec. 6 that will focus on the foreclosure crisis and protest fraudulent lending practices, corrupt securitization, and illegal evictions by banks. The Occupy movement actions, including eviction defense at foreclosed properties, takeovers of vacant properties by homeless families, and foreclosure action disruptions, will take place in more than 25 cities across the country.
Millions of Americans have lost their homes in the Wall Street recession and one in four homeowners are currently underwater on their mortgages. The 99% is bearing the brunt of a crisis caused by Wall Street and big banks.
That's why, all across the country, Americans have begun standing up to the banks that are trying to evict them. It's already happened in Atlanta, Miami, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and cities and towns across the country. Now, it's happening in Brooklyn. Soon, it will be happening everywhere.
Wall Street and the big banks are making record profits while most Americans are struggling to stay in their homes. They break the law with impunity, but millions of us get served with eviction. They make trillions and get bailouts, while we face record unemployment and record debt.
No more! Our system has been serving Wall Street, big banks, and the one percent.
We are the 99%. We are reclaiming our democracy.
And we are reclaiming our homes.

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 92 of 208 (643450)
12-07-2011 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Modulous
12-06-2011 5:17 PM


Re: Obama Supporters?
I'm not sure the OWS guys support for instance, eradicating Federal spending on education
But his argument on why is sound, and should be, if it's not already, a focus for the OWS people. He is against the No Child Left Behind policy that was federally funded.
As he said in April 2011:
quote:
Not too many years ago, however, the Republican Party platform argued for getting rid of the Department of Education. This pretense was removed with the election of George W. Bush in the year 2000. With both Democratic and Republican support, he massively increased the Department of Education with the disastrous No Child Left Behind program. Now national control of all public schools is firmly a bipartisan effort. It doesn't seem to matter that students, parents, administrators, and teachers generally disapprove of No Child Left Behind. Once an institution is hooked on federal financing, it's virtually impossible to stop the bureaucratic regulations and mandates that routinely follow subsidies.
Furthermore, he has social policies that are generally abhorent to the liberals and independents such as 'Life begins at conception' which not only would seek to outlaw abortion but also if taken literally, would outlaw the pill.
That's a fair point. But he has also stated that it's not the job of the federal government to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
So I don't see how his personal views on abortion could become an issue.
Yea: AZ McCain, John [R]
That was in Oct of 2008. But the article in linked to Straggler was him talking in MARCH of 2008 - NY Times - Mc Cain against the Bailout
Here's what he said then:
quote:
Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy,
His vote of the bailout, when he did finally vote for it, also came with a clause:
quote:
Mc Cain on why he voted Yea
First, there must be greater accountability included in the bill. I have suggested a bipartisan board to provide oversight for the rescue. We will not solve a problem caused by poor oversight with a plan that has no oversight. Never before in the history of our nation has so much power and money been concentrated in the hands of one person, and there must be protections and oversight in place. Second, as a part of that oversight, there must be a path for taxpayers to recover the money that is put into this fund. One trillion dollars is an unprecedented sum. We are talking about ten thousand dollars per household, and that money cannot simply go into a black hole of bad debt with no means of recovering any of the funds. Third, there must be complete transparency in the review of this legislation and in the implementation of any legislation. This cannot be cobbled together behind closed doors. The American people have the right to know which businesses will be helped, what that selection will be based on and how much that help will cost. All the details should all be made available online and elsewhere for open public scrutiny. Fourth, no Wall Street executives should profit from taxpayer dollars. It is wrong to ask teachers and farmers and small business owners to fill the gas tanks of the helicopters of Wall Street tycoons. The senior leaders of any firm that is bailed out should not be making more than the highest paid government official. Fifth and finally, it is completely unacceptable for any kind of earmarks to be included in this bill. It would be outrageous for legislators and lobbyists to pack this rescue plan with taxpayer money for favored companies. This simply cannot happen. Let me restate that inaction is not an option. The American people are watching. History will be our judge, and it will judge us harshly if we do not put our country first in this crisis.
As you can see, what I highlighted was never done. Had he known, as many law makers have now stated, the way the bill would play out, he along with many others, would not have voted for it.
So it's not fair to point out that he voted yes, when he specifically laid out the condition for it. He, along with the American public, was lied to. Same thing that happened with the invasion of Iraq. In an effort for bipartisanship he voted Yea, but it was conditional.
1. Campaign reform.
It's hard to get a politician to support this.
2. Strictly enforced regulations of the financial sector to help prevent the public being held as financial hostages in the future.
That's precisely what Mc Cain wanted to do - see quote.
3. Reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy.
Mc Cain cut taxes during the Regan Admin.
quote:
When I first came to Congress, we were in the middle of the Reagan revolution, and I was proud to be a foot soldier in that revolution. And we cut taxes. But we cut spending. And Ronald Reagan insisted that we cut spending, because he knew that it was vital, if we were going to keep the deficit down and not have the fiscal difficulties we have today, we had to cut spending. I’m proud to have supported those tax cuts. And I believe that if we had done what I wanted to do--cut taxes and, at the same time, cut spending--we’d be talking about more tax cuts today. But we let spending get out of control. Unfortunately, we betrayed one of the principles of the Republican Party. I’m in favor of tax cuts. We’ll do them. But we’ll cut spending when I’m president.
4. In case of crisis, bailout the people, not the banks. If banks must be bailed out, they become the property of the people.
That is presicely what Mc Cain wanted - see quote.
The OWS people should have supported Mc Cain in hindsight.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2011 5:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 12-07-2011 5:58 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2011 9:31 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 95 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2011 9:37 AM onifre has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 208 (643453)
12-07-2011 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by onifre
12-07-2011 1:18 AM


Re: Obama Supporters?
Onifre, I'm sure you have great reasons to support Ron Paul, but your analysis seems a bit off when you attempt to predict how others should vote.
That's a fair point. But he has also stated that it's not the job of the federal government to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
So I don't see how his personal views on abortion could become an issue.
Given that a fair number of states would immediately ban abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and that only the federal courts stand in the way of this, I think your argument is a bit simplistic. Ron Paul wants to remove jurisdiction over the issue completely from the federal courts.
RP feels the same way about separation of state and church issues and he felt the same way about the civil rights act of 1964 even while states were actively practicing discrimination. Look at the way Texas and Virginia fool around with history textbooks and imagine that same kind of Monkey business going on with kid's science text books. That's life as Ron Paul would have it.
So yes, Ron Paul's opinion on abortion ought to matter.
He is against the No Child Left Behind policy that was federally funded.
Does No Child Left Behind seem to you to be a major OWS issue? Wouldn't OWS members be a bit more concerned about what would happen to school loans and other college funding programs under RP?
Removing the EPA so we can burn more coal? A right to work policy in which the only important action is union busting? OWS ought to like that, eh?
How might OWS guys feel about health care?
Seriously, Onifire. You cannot think of a single legitimate reason why an OWS participant might think Ron Paul is a bad choice?
Had he known, as many law makers have now stated, the way the bill would play out, he along with many others, would not have voted for it.
Sure Onifre. And what party is it that has opposed every attempt to add any new regulations to the banking industry? Would McCain have been a stronger advocate for regulating the banking industry than the people we did elect? McCain was about the last person on earth to even acknowledge that there was any kind of economic crisis. His Iraq plan was to stay the course indefinitely. Who knows what kind of president McCain would have made?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by onifre, posted 12-07-2011 1:18 AM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 208 (643469)
12-07-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by onifre
12-07-2011 1:18 AM


Re: Obama Supporters?
McCain's position on the bailouts is highly foresightful and as quoted does indeed chime with the OWS movement. But even taking that into account anyone advocating a progressive tax system, public investment in education health and infrastructure, a reduction in corporate influence and a liberal stance on various social issues is going to struggle to find a reason to ever vote Republican aren't they?
Because historically and currently the predominant Republican philosophy is that of ideological pro-corporate free-marketeering and the belief that government acts as a barrier to, rather than a facilitator of, an environment in which wealth is generated for all in society. Republicans essentially believe in an unrestrained entrepreneurial elite and some form of trickle down economics.
I don’t see how that, no matter what any Republican candidate says on any specific issue, is ever going to resonate with the things the Occupy movement are advocating.
Oni writes:
Ron Paul
I looked this guy up and in terms of the above he seems pretty typically Republican. He even opposed the civil rights act on the basis of it interfering with the free-market in labor.
Wiki writes:
Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations.
Then there are the various more crackpot stances he takes on isolationism and religion etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by onifre, posted 12-07-2011 1:18 AM onifre has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 95 of 208 (643470)
12-07-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by onifre
12-07-2011 1:18 AM


Re: Obama Supporters?
That's a fair point. But he has also stated that it's not the job of the federal government to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
Then he's a hypocrite. If life begins at conception, as he claims to believe, then abortion is murder and it fucking well should be up to the federal government to criminalize.
But he's not a hypocrite. He knows it is unlikely he'll get abortion banned federally. But he can achieve the next best thing: Allowing states to ban it. Which many will. And women will die.
I think the average OWS might have something to say about policies that kill women. Even well intentioned ones that have good sounding political theory behind them.
That was in Oct of 2008. But the article in linked to Straggler was him talking in MARCH of 2008 - NY Times - Mc Cain against the Bailout
So he talked against it, but later voted for it. Is this really the person OWS should be giving their vote to?
His vote of the bailout, when he did finally vote for it, also came with a clause
The only clauses that actually count are the ones in the bill. He voted for a bill that did not have the clauses in it (AFAIK), so no matter how much political spin he tried to weave to make it look like he wasn't a sell out, he still voted for the clauseless bailout.
As you can see, what I highlighted was never done.
Probably because it wasn't voted for. The bailout was though. And McCain voted for it. You said he didn't support it, but he did the most fundamental thing to support it that a politician can. He voted for it.
Had he known, as many law makers have now stated, the way the bill would play out, he along with many others, would not have voted for it.
So he's financially short sighted? So he didn't anticipate people would effectively embezzle that money? Is that the vice we should accept in our OWS representative? Actually, I think he's smarter than that. I think he knew the money would go towards more than bailing the banks out, but that it would also go into the back pockets of execs. To avoid looking like a shill, he said some things against it, said his vote had clauses attached. But that's just talk.
So it's not fair to point out that he voted yes, when he specifically laid out the condition for it.
His yes vote was actually unconditional. If it was conditional, and his conditions were not met, he would have voted no or abstained. He voted yes. This means he was happy enough with the conditions as they stood.
Same thing that happened with the invasion of Iraq. In an effort for bipartisanship he voted Yea, but it was conditional.
I'm not sure it was bipartisanship if he voted yes for a policy that was put through by his party's leader, the then President.
2. Strictly enforced regulations of the financial sector to help prevent the public being held as financial hostages in the future.
That's precisely what Mc Cain wanted to do - see quote.
It's what he said he wanted to do, but it is not what he actually did - see vote.*
3. Reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy.
Mc Cain cut taxes during the Regan Admin.
I have on idea on what planet cutting taxes can be seen as being the reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy.
The OWS people should have supported Mc Cain in hindsight.
Why? Because he said some stuff that was in line with their politics? Obama said a crap load of stuff that was in line with their politics too!
By your own argument OWS should have voted for Obama. Screw his voting record, he said some things that they agreed with: transparency, anti-corruption, accountability, end of war in Iraq etc. So they should have voted for him!

* really I said that because vote and quote rhyme. It seemed like a good rhetorical flourish. Maybe McCain sponsored a bill that would mean there was strictly enforced financial regulations. I've not heard of it, but I'm not an expert on American politics so I might have missed this.
McCain's real reason for supporting the bill, incidentally, was the same reason just about everybody else gave: Inaction is worse than action. He knew that it was likely to fill the tanks of the helicopters of the elite. But he had no choice. He was just as much held for ransom as the rest of us. Only he has probably got more of that money back from those that profited over the years in 'contributions' than the rest of the US ever will.

Furthermore, I do have some respect McCain, though it might not sound like it. I gained respect, then lost it almost at the same time when he ran for President. He never struck me as being the champion of the little people, it's just that if we are going by what was said - then Obama is just as much a valid choice for the proto-OWSers, if not moreso, than McCain.

abe:
Here's Obama saying some things in line with OWS views with an interview and some editorializing.
The question becomes, will he follow through? Would Ron Paul do those things which you say are in the OWS philosophy? Would McCain? Should the OWSers trust any of these guys? Or are they all about saying one thing, and doing the other, as it benefits them? Should the OWS seek to create a Third Party to challenge this?
I would have thought the key thing next would be to try and build bipartisanship over the big issues. Maybe create a Party that is conservative on social issues (as in, does not seek to make significant changes to social things such as gay marriage, abortion rights etc, this avoids the Ron Paul problem discussed above: The Party's position won't alienate people on one side of the political spectrum), pro-capitalist, but radical on financial reform.

Edited by Modulous, : added footnote
Edited by Modulous, : added video and small rant trying to make sure the thread focus keeps on OWS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by onifre, posted 12-07-2011 1:18 AM onifre has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 208 (643475)
12-07-2011 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Straggler
12-06-2011 6:00 PM


Rightly or wrongly that is exactly what many of those who acted to bailout the banks around the world did think was about to happen. The entire global banking system was believed to be on the verge of collapse. Large banks "too big to fail" going under and taking others down with them in a domino effect. A panic of confidence where savers all start withdrawing their funds simultaneously because they don't believe their money is safe in any bank at all. Etc. Complete paralysis of the financial system. That is exactly what we are talking about.
So we cannot consider letting some banks fail without considering making every bank fail? What kind of flimsy house-of-cards are we talking about?
I don't see how letting, say, Bank of America fail would mean that my Local Building & Loan would fail as well. Why would everyone pull their money out of their local bank because a corporate one failed?
How about this scenario: Joe the Banker opens up a new local bank for people that have left the big corporate ones. Couldn't that work?
Which you just take down to the bank to cash. Oh.....
If there were other banks, tho, then it wouldn't be the problem you're making it to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 6:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2011 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 208 (643476)
12-07-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
12-06-2011 5:49 PM


A check drawn on what account, though?
I dunno, where'd the last one come out of? I think I have a copy of the check at home that I could look at...
But couldn't they just print up the money instead of using an account
Seriously, CS, you should look up how the FDIC closes banks. I don't say that to criticize you;
No offense taken, but honestly (and maybe this means that I shouldn't participate in these topics) I think I'd rather go read Twilight.
I say that because I think you'd really enjoy it, it's seriously some super-spy shit because it has to be a big secret or else the presence of the FDIC causes a run on the bank and embezzlement by the top execs.
I bet. I guess I can take a look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2011 5:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 208 (643477)
12-07-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Phat
12-06-2011 6:26 PM


Re: Cracked Nest Egg
FDIC insurance does not cover trust accounts nor many other types of securities. My families entire nest egg...retirement future...everything!
You should know not to put all your eggs in one basket.
...Is at Wells Fargo and if anyone had let Wells Fargo fail and we lost everything, I'd be out there with a gun aiming at the politicians responsible!
What kind of gun do you have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 12-06-2011 6:26 PM Phat has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 99 of 208 (643479)
12-07-2011 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2011 10:29 AM


CS writes:
So we cannot consider letting some banks fail without considering making every bank fail?
I guess it depends which banks we are talking about. "Too big to fail" is the phrase generally used here.
CS writes:
What kind of flimsy house-of-cards are we talking about?
One that needs radical and deepseated reform. That one of the Occupy movements demands.
CS writes:
I don't see how letting, say, Bank of America fail would mean that my Local Building & Loan would fail as well. Why would everyone pull their money out of their local bank because a corporate one failed?
As I understand it the problem is one of complexity related to derivatives and the fact that no one really knows how much exposure one financial institution has to any given other.
Very few banks were actually left to fail and we still ended up with a credit crunch and recession. What would have occurred if all banks that would have collapsed had just been left to do so? That is the question.
CS writes:
How about this scenario: Joe the Banker opens up a new local bank for people that have left the big corporate ones. Couldn't that work?
Why don't you be "Joe the banker" and let me know what obstacles stand in your way. Starting capital would seem an obvious hurdle.
CS writes:
If there were other banks, tho, then it wouldn't be the problem you're making it to be.
Christ CS I of all people am not advocating bailing out banks for the sake of it or to save the asses of fuckwitted bankers!! I'm saying that if there really is a possibility of complete financial paralysis, extreme almost overnight economic contraction leading to depression and the complete collapse of the economic system as a whole - Then bailing out banks is a less worse option.
If a given bank can definitely fail without causing even greater adverse consequences then - absolutely - let it go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 100 of 208 (643490)
12-07-2011 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by hooah212002
12-05-2011 7:02 PM


If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one
Hi hooah212002
Just a note:
... Why are conservatives REALLY anti-OWS (aside from Fox news telling them to be against it)? What is the real reason? What does the OWS movement stand for (facts please) that has the conservative base so upset? ...
I have met conservatives, independents and libertarians at the Occupy Providence protest, so this is really more than a liberal and socialist movement.
It isn't being reported that way, because the news media do have an agenda - especially Fox - to protect the big corporations and rich.
Fox tries to make it an : us vs them : liberal vs conservative : because it suits their agenda.
News also tends to focus on the confrontations and violence, just as they did for the civil rights protests -- it makes "news" to show on the half hour broadcasts. Showing people peacefully protesting does not make news, people in rational debate does not make news.
If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one ... who knows, you may end up learning something or (gasp) staying ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by hooah212002, posted 12-05-2011 7:02 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2011 2:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 101 of 208 (643491)
12-07-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Son
12-06-2011 11:44 AM


Glass-Steagall
Hi Son,
... you could create a public bank with the money you didn't use on the bailouts making sure the benefits from this new bank gets directly to the taxpayer(this bank would have only been for lending/depositing avoiding the mess in the markets).
Restore the Glass-Steagall act and this become a regulation on all banks.
Glass—Steagall legislation - Wikipedia
quote:
Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm—Leach—Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).[2][3]
The repeal of provisions of the Glass—Steagall Act by the Gramm—Leach—Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. This repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007—2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in the commercial banks[4][5][6][7][8][9]
This act was put in place after the first bank fiasco, commonly known as the Great Depression.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Son, posted 12-06-2011 11:44 AM Son has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 102 of 208 (643504)
12-07-2011 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
12-07-2011 1:10 PM


Re: If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one
It isn't being reported that way, because the news media do have an agenda - especially Fox - to protect the big corporations and rich.
Fox tries to make it an : us vs them : liberal vs conservative : because it suits their agenda.
I am well aware of that fact and that wasn't my question, nor does it answer my question. Just look at our local conservatives: they are all 3 very anti-OWS. My question was directed at them....which is why I asked Artie... There is no doubt about the bias that plagues US media, let alone Faux "news".
If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one ... who knows, you may end up learning something or (gasp) staying ...
I would love to. However, I don't get paid to take time off of work and the nearest protest is milwaukee and that only lasted for 6 hours a few weeks ago.
{abe}
Oops. Did I say a few weeks ago? ROFL it was early October. Time flies when you do nothing......
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2011 1:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Theodoric, posted 12-07-2011 2:56 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 3:10 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 103 of 208 (643505)
12-07-2011 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by hooah212002
12-07-2011 2:43 PM


Re: If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one
Have you signed the Walker recall petition?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2011 2:43 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 208 (643510)
12-07-2011 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by hooah212002
12-07-2011 2:43 PM


Re: If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one
Just look at our local conservatives: they are all 3 very anti-OWS.
Are you counting me? I'm not anti-OWS at all, let alone "very"...
I asked a lot of questions. And they got answered.
Er, wait, is this one of those 'if you're not with us you're against us' sorta things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2011 2:43 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2011 3:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 106 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2011 3:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2011 6:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 105 of 208 (643511)
12-07-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2011 3:10 PM


Re: If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one
Are you counting me? I'm not anti-OWS at all, let alone "very"...
I asked a lot of questions. And they got answered.
Er, wait, is this one of those 'if you're not with us you're against us' sorta things?
Im not sure, but I'd put the "three" down as:
Buz
Artemis
Coyote
But I think we have others, don't we? I don't remember if I've ever seen a political opinion from ICANT...

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2011 3:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024