What's new

Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!

Status
Not open for further replies.

onegreenday

Active member
Veteran
EDIT: So much for OWS....
EDIT2 : They KNOW we are powerless to do anything. To vote a few out
is nothing to them. It's part of politics, collateral damage....


http://wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/pers-d16.shtml

World Socialist Web Site
wsws.org
Obama, Congress back legalization of a police state
16 December 2011

The US Senate’s approval Thursday of legislation allowing the indefinite military detention of US citizens without charges or trials marks a new stage in a decade of uninterrupted assault on the most fundamental democratic and constitutional rights.

The Senate’s 86-to-13 vote in favor of the legislation followed its approval in the House of Representatives Wednesday. It also came after the announcement by the White House that President Barack Obama would not exercise his power to veto the measure, which is included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a $662 billion package to fund Washington’s war machine.

The bill mandates that anyone accused of being a terrorist be “detained without trial until the end of hostilities” in a military prison. While it requires such treatment for non-citizens, it authorizes it for citizens arrested on US soil, if the president decides they merit this extra-constitutional punishment.

This piece of legislation enshrines in law the worst of the crimes carried out under the Bush administration and provides legal sanction for an American military-police state. The sweeping bipartisan support it received in both houses of Congress has provided definitive proof that there exists no constituency for the defense of democratic rights within the American political establishment and its two big business parties.

For that matter, the passage of a law that shreds the founding principles of the American republic has raised barely a murmur of concern from the corporate-controlled mass media. They have no intention of making this a matter of public debate. For millions of American working people, however, the action is of the gravest importance.

The Senate’s vote came precisely 220 years to the day after the passage of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, on December 15, 1791.

These amendments spelled out basic democratic freedoms—including freedom of speech and of the press; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to due process; and the right of anyone accused of a crime to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. They were passed in order to codify the democratic gains of the American Revolution and to protect the people of the new republic from a return to the abuses that had been carried out against them under the colonial rule of the British monarchy. They represented a concretization of the “inherent and inalienable” rights proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

With virtually no debate, and in the name of an unending “global war on terror”, the Senate and the House have passed legislation that allows for the abrogation of all of these rights by a president endowed with police state powers that would amaze even old King George.

Indeed, despite the attempts of liberal and pseudo-left groups to promote illusions that Obama would veto the legislation because of concerns over its assault on democratic rights, the Democratic president’s only worry was that it might call into question the sweeping powers that he and his predecessor, George W. Bush, have already seized. Thus, the White House intervened directly in the debate to assure the removal of language included in an earlier draft of the legislation explicitly stating that American citizens arrested on US soil would not be subject to indefinite military detention.

Obama had already made it clear that he upholds the power of the president to throw anyone he chooses into a military prison without charges or trial. Indeed, he has gone substantial steps further than his predecessor in the White House, asserting the right to act as judge, jury and executioner in the state murder of American citizens deemed to be terrorists. He has exercised this supposed right in the extra-judicial execution of Anwar al-Awlaki and others.

Many of the Democrats who voted for the legislation voiced muted reservations about the military detention provisions. Typical was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who allowed that the bill was “not perfect”, but represented “a major accomplishment in support of our troops”. There is a definite logic to such arguments: the unending US wars of aggression abroad are inseparable from the assault on democratic rights and social conditions at home.

Both arise out of the historic crisis of US capitalism. This crisis finds its sharpest expression in the historically unprecedented social polarization that has become the defining feature of American society. The immense divide between the financial oligarchy that monopolizes wealth together with economic and political power, and the working class, the vast majority of the population, which confronts declining living standards, mass unemployment and steadily deteriorating social conditions, has never been so stark.

Based on this malignant social foundation, democratic rights and democratic forms of rule become increasingly untenable. The ruling elite is compelled to seek a new framework for defending its wealth and power, one that is decidedly at odds with the principles laid down in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The creation of this new framework has been in progress for over a decade. Following a protracted period characterized by the decay of American democracy and the growth of social inequality came the stolen election of 2000, with the right-wing majority of the US Supreme Court installing a president who had lost the popular vote.

Then the events of September 11, 2001, which have yet to be seriously investigated or explained by the American government, provided the pretext for launching two wars of aggression and enacting—with bipartisan support—a plethora of repressive legislation, from the Patriot Act to the Homeland Security Act, together with the adoption of torture, targeted assassination, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying and unlawful detention as official state policy.

These methods have been continued and intensified by Obama, who won his 2008 election victory in no small part due to popular revulsion for the actions of his predecessor. That they have now been openly enshrined in law by the Democratic-controlled Senate demonstrates that they were not merely the excesses of a single president or the product of a specific right-wing ideology.

Rather, they are the outcome of the class contradictions within American society and the historic crisis of US capitalism. With the financial meltdown of 2008 and the continuous deepening of the most severe crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the slide towards the methods of police state dictatorship has only accelerated.

While supporters of the measures passed by the Senate Thursday invoked the supposedly ubiquitous threat of terrorism, their insistence that the United States itself be defined as a “battlefield” has a more far-reaching significance.

The explosive development of the Occupy Wall Street protests and the nationally coordinated campaign of police repression used to disperse them are only a precursor of far greater social struggles to come. Masses of working people are being pushed into class struggle by increasingly intolerable conditions of life.

The ruling oligarchy knows that its policies of making the working class pay for the crisis of the profit system must give rise to revolutionary social opposition and it is preparing accordingly. The working class must do likewise, mobilizing its independent political power in struggle against the threats of police state dictatorship and the capitalist profit system from which they arise.

Bill Van Auken

Copyright © 1998-2011 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved
 

bombadil.360

Andinismo Hierbatero
Veteran
wow, the partisan non-sense still flying strong, along with walls of socialist propaganda; what a great combo to kill any intelligent debate.

conclusion: ows movement has not accomplished a thing yet; have not organized yet; do not even have any sort of sensible list of demands yet.

the cops still acting like cave-men.

same old, same old.

nothing new under the sun.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
wow, the partisan non-sense still flying strong, along with walls of socialist propaganda;

This thread has more than it's share of personal exchange and fear-mongering but there's also lots of historic facts and data - i.e. math. Math doesn't choose ideology.

what a great combo to kill any intelligent debate.
IMO, the personal exchange and fear-mongering are reaches by those who prefer ideology vs math and/or a demographic vs the whole. There's no data to support supply side sustaining the macro. 30+ years of data prove supply-side shrinks the macro.

You might actually have relevant argument in favor of supply side but that relevance would be limited to:

holding out hope that supply-side might someday work

and/or

demographic preference

conclusion: ows movement has not accomplished a thing yet;

The Civil Rights Act didn't happen without the civil rights movement. Civil rights protesters didn't ratify the Civil Rights Act, they demanded it.

OWS protesters are accomplishing focus of attention on peaceful protest while being jeered by a plurality of folks who apparently root for the top, against their own economic interests.

Eliot Spitzer: Occupy Wall Street Has Already Won

How the movement has already shaken up American politics, and where it should go from here.

By Eliot Spitzer|

Occupy Wall Street has already won, perhaps not the victory most of its participants want, but a momentous victory nonetheless. It has already altered our political debate, changed the agenda, shifted the discussion in newspapers, on cable TV, and even around the water cooler. And that is wonderful.

Suddenly, the issues of equity, fairness, justice, income distribution, and accountability for the economic cataclysm–issues all but ignored for a generation—are front and center. We have moved beyond the one-dimensional conversation about how much and where to cut the deficit. Questions more central to the social fabric of our nation have returned to the heart of the political debate. By forcing this new discussion, OWS has made most of the other participants in our politics—who either didn’t want to have this conversation or weren’t able to make it happen—look pretty small.

Surely, you might say, other factors have contributed: A convergence of horrifying economic data has crystallized the public’s underlying anxiety. Data show that median family income declined by 6.7 percent over the past two years, the unemployment rate is stuck at 9.1 percent in the October report (16.5 percent if you look at the more meaningful U6 number), and 46.2 million Americans are living in poverty—the most in more than 50 years. Certainly, those data help make Occupy Wall Street’s case.

But until these protests, no political figure or movement had made Americans pay attention to these facts in a meaningful way. Indeed, over the long hot summer, as poverty rose and unemployment stagnated, the entire discussion was about cutting our deficit.

And then OWS showed up. They brought something that had been in short supply: passion—the necessary ingredient that powers citizen activism. The tempered, carefully modulated, and finely nuanced statements of Beltway politicians and policy wonks do not alter the debate.

Of course, the visceral emotions that accompany citizen activism generate not only an energy that can change politics but an incoherence that is easily mocked. OWS is not a Brookings Institution report with five carefully researched policy points and an appendix of data. It is a leaderless movement, and it can often be painfully simplistic in its economic critique, lacking in subtlety in its political strategies, and marred by fringe elements whose presence distracts and demeans. Yet, the point of OWS is not to be subtle, parsed, or nuanced. Its role is to drag politics to a different place, to provide the exuberance and energy upon which reform can take place.

The major social movements that have transformed our country since its founding all began as passionate grassroots activism that then radiated out. Only later do traditional politicians get involved. The history of the civil rights movement, women’s rights movement, labor movement, peace movement, environmental movement, gay rights movement, and, yes, even the Tea Party, follow this model. In every instance, visceral emotions about justice, right, and wrong ignited a movement. Precise demands and strategies followed later. So the critique of OWS as unformed and sometimes shallow is irrelevant.
:wave:

(Slate) Just as importantly, most of those who are so critical of OWS have failed to recognize inflection points in our politics. They fail to recognize that the public is responding to OWS because it is desperate for somebody to speak with the passion, and even anger, that has filled the public since the inequities and failures of our economy have become so apparent.

Will the influence of OWS continue? Will it continue to capture the imagination of the public? Will it morph into a more concrete movement with sufficiently precise objectives that it can craft a strategy with real goals and strategies for attaining them? These are impossible questions to answer right now.

Could it launch a citizen petition demanding that a Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, or Paul Volcker be brought into government as a counterweight to or replacement for the establishment voice of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner? Maybe. Could OWS demand meetings with top—government officials? Could it demand answers to tough questions—from the specific (explain the government’s conflicting statements about the AIG-Goldman bailout) to the more theoretical (why “moral hazard” is a reason to limit government aid only cited when the beneficiaries would be everyday citizens)?

There is much ground to cover before real reform, but as a voice challenging a self-satisfied, well-protected status quo, OWS is already powerful and successful.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...tory_it_has_shaken_up_american_politics_.html
have not organized yet;
OWS 'organization' features 79 working groups
In the six weeks since the group first gathered in lower Manhattan, it has become increasingly better organized. Its "working groups" have multiplied from a handful to 79, including those tasked with organizing the movement's public demands and handling the movement's media, alternative banking and sustainability needs, among many others.
But the Comfort Working Group is likely to play a particularly important role as Occupy prepares for winter. Since Week 1, the Comfort Working Group has been accepting donations of hats, gloves and blankets. It has been endeavoring to keep those who sleep in the park warm at night. On Saturday, many protesters remained in their tents, out of the harsh weather, but true to their promise, they didn't leave.
Occupy has remained stalwart throughout the last month and a half, vowing to endure indefinitely. On Oct. 10, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that he didn't know when the protests might end, but added, "I think part of it has probably to do with the weather." The protesters seem determined to prove Hizzhonor wrong.
do not even have any sort of sensible list of demands yet.

the cops still acting like cave-men.

same old, same old.

nothing new under the sun.
Ah, the absolute argument.
 

bombadil.360

Andinismo Hierbatero
Veteran
so now the ows is comparable to the civil rights movement... yeah, ok.

but I can see my comments piss you off enough so that you go chase after me in other unrelated threads though.

there's one thing for sure, the ows have no idea what to do to make their own country a better place, they can just point fingers at people with money and blame them for all bad things; just like chaviztas do.

another fact, no one in the thread has addressed real solution to the problems, outside the realm of modern-day politricks.

you can try to paint the ows as something valuable that is some sort of catalyst for true change; but only time will tell; specially when the ows discourse has been proven again and again to bring more harm than good in all areas of life.

and your math was proven wrong; but you dogded and said you don't understand spanish; but when does math depend on language?
 

bombadil.360

Andinismo Hierbatero
Veteran
Your post is an example of their accomplishment.

Mj


hey, I had high hopes for the ows movement when I first heard of it; specially since I like the U.S and view it as the breeding ground of many good things that have came to be.

but as time passed and I saw their real discourse; having had tons of real-world experience with such kind of idiotic discourse and knowing the actual consequences it carries; all hope was lost and they became a joke to me.

out of all places, the U.S has probably the highest potential to conjure up a movement full of fresh new ideas; but what did the ows bring? washed-up leftie crap.

shame on them.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
so now the ows is comparable to the civil rights movement... yeah, ok.

Yes. Excluding any comparisons that don't apply, of course. Maybe you overlooked the Slate article but relevant protest movements were referenced, including the civil rights movement and yes, the Tea Party movement.

but I can see my comments piss you off enough so that you go chase after me in other unrelated threads though.
Resist the delusions of grandeur already. I previously subscribed to the thread last week and could easily suggest you're trolling the OP for being anti-Semitic when all appearances suggest the opposite. But I won't go there.

there's one thing for sure, the ows have no idea what to do to make their own country a better place, they can just point fingers at people with money and blame them for all bad things; just like chaviztas do.
You're welcome to your opinion.

another fact, no one in the thread has addressed real solution to the problems, outside the realm of modern-day politricks.
I'll bet you every dollar to your name you didn't reference the thread to qualify that statement. Occupy DC is an element of the Occupy movement, not to mention that both sides of the ICMAG argument have weighed in on policy (and) whether and/or what reforms might be necessary.

That aside, the Occupy movement sees the 1% as the onus toward economic and upward mobility disparity of the 99%.


HEY BOMBADIL :wave:

- the top shows historic record gains

- the bottom shows historic record losses

- how much more disparity does the working class have to suffer before you recognize the fact that supply side only inflates the top?

Save us the trouble of exchange - admit that supply side never intended to expand the working class and there will be no argument.:)

you can try to paint the ows as something valuable that is some sort of catalyst for true change; but only time will tell;
Less the Occupy movement, your comment wouldn't appear defeatist. IMO, OWS won't necessarily go away because a particular point of view isn't represented. IMO, there's room for all points of view. Maybe with the exception of supply-siders. But they're welcome to reconsider their argument.

specially when the ows discourse has been proven again and again to bring more harm than good in all areas of life.
I recall holding my first conk shell to ear.

and your math was proven wrong; but you dogded and said you don't understand spanish;
I pointed out the change in language, nothing else. Even poked a little fun in the process.

but when does math depend on language?

:laughing: only when you try to make a point?

Happy Holidays to all.
 
Last edited:

bombadil.360

Andinismo Hierbatero
Veteran
disco, you need to increase your reading comprehension skills.

I acussed a poster on that thread of being anti-semite, not the OP.

one more time your lack of acuracy in understanding leads you to mis-represent things.

mary, what about the whole rich vs. poor discourse? the basis of their whole "movement", 99% vs. 1%, etc...

or put simply: olygarcs vs. the people

they even wear che guevara t-shirts and all...

it is more a tragic-comedy than a movement at this point.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
hey, I had high hopes for the ows movement when I first heard of it; specially since I like the U.S and view it as the breeding ground of many good things that have came to be.

The 'good' things that have came to be...

Imagine squeezing a stress ball where the bulge is about to pop while the rest is squeezed by the hand.

It'll be 'good things' when the hand lets go. The top won't pop as often, the bottom won't bottom-out as often.

but as time passed and I saw their real discourse; having had tons of real-world experience with such kind of idiotic discourse and knowing the actual consequences it carries; all hope was lost and they became a joke to me.

where's that conk shell?

out of all places, the U.S has probably the highest potential to conjure up a movement full of fresh new ideas; but what did the ows bring? washed-up leftie crap.

shame on them.

:tumbleweed:
 

maryj315

Member
mary, what about the whole rich vs. poor discourse? the basis of their whole "movement", 99% vs. 1%, etc...

The 1% obtain a good majority of the power and money who do you suggest they go after.

Poor people and the middle class are you suggesting their anger should be exspressed toward those goups?

Mj
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Get ya a set of pom-poms, maryj315. Working class opportunity is supposed to diminish and we're supposed to like it and cheer for the top to suck even more from us.

Okay, bad jokes aside.
 

bombadil.360

Andinismo Hierbatero
Veteran
The 1% obtain a good majority of the power and money who do you suggest they go after.

Poor people and the middle class are you suggesting their anger should be exspressed toward those goups?

Mj


why would a social movement that claims to be seeking positive social change have to channel their anger towards any of the social stratus?

to begin with, if the so-called social movement was moved by anger, it would only bring about bad things.

what about channeling their efforts at creating goods and services that will result in wealth for themselves and anyone willing to put in wholesome work?

think about it.

think to what have come all the countries where the wealthy have been targetted as the cause of all social ills; what kind of good has this mentality brought to these countries?

those are the facts, not some conjured up fear-mongering, but what has actually happened in those countries.

corruption, povery and misery became the 'great-equalizer'; which is not the kind of social change anyone looking towards to a wholesome lifestyle is seeking, no doubt.
 

dagnabit

Game Bred
Veteran
DB likes to troll out the same lines again and again...

You just have to ignore him when he goes back to the well that's been proven dry.

His whole "top down has proven a failure" rhetoric makes for great sound bytes but has been complete hokum from the start...


Just ask him if tax breaks for companies. That go green will create jobs and watch him squirm.

Point out Clinton and the messiah support tax cuts on job creators and see the cheerleader get all weepy and personal.

Everyone but the most polar morons realize some parts of supply side are undeniably successful at growing the economy.
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
Ron Paul on Jay Leno

really worth a watch awesome response from the crowd, this vid is cut up to only show parts with or about paul.

website is ronpaulflix.com

Ron on Leno
 

maryj315

Member
why would a social movement that claims to be seeking positive social change have to channel their anger towards any of the social stratus?

to begin with, if the so-called social movement was moved by anger, it would only bring about bad things.

what about channeling their efforts at creating goods and services that will result in wealth for themselves and anyone willing to put in wholesome work?

think about it.

think to what have come all the countries where the wealthy have been targetted as the cause of all social ills; what kind of good has this mentality brought to these countries?

those are the facts, not some conjured up fear-mongering, but what has actually happened in those countries.

corruption, povery and misery became the 'great-equalizer'; which is not the kind of social change anyone looking towards to a wholesome lifestyle is seeking, no doubt.

Once again who should their anger be exspressed toward that would result in change they seek?

Giving me a regurgettated small government speach is not a answer.

Mj
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
disco, you need to increase your reading comprehension skills.

I acussed a poster on that thread of being anti-semite, not the OP.

one more time your lack of acuracy in understanding leads you to mis-represent things.

OP - original poster - i.e. Hubbleman - i.e. one-in-the same.

My god man, you're murdering yourself.

However, since you chose to elaborate :bigeye:

Why you associate the advocacy of kabbalah as anti-Semitic? It just boggles the mind.


mary, what about the whole rich vs. poor discourse? the basis of their whole "movement", 99% vs. 1%, etc...

or put simply: olygarcs vs. the people

they even wear che guevara t-shirts and all...

it is more a tragic-comedy than a movement at this point.
IMO, maryj315 doesn't need any help with expression.

That said, we don't need no revolution to return to macro economics.

The longest sustained, post-WWII working class economy on the planet > Enter supply-side i.e. starve-the-beast and gains that sustained the working class for almost 70 years were depleted to record income disparity in just over 30.

But you can keep up the foreign country rebellions, heroes - whatever. We'll go on recognizing that we don't have to rebel, we only have to protest. Sooner than later, politicians will realize that all the money in the world doesn't pull the voter lever. We still have the power. It's just a matter of how long it takes to channel our power in the voting booth.

Having to wait for enough support isn't fun (but like everything else worth having) it pays dividends. The longer we have to wait and theoretically suffer more, the longer reforms will last before the top manages to pry it from our grasp yet again.

We have satisfactory comprehension skills, bombadil. You happen to have a difference of opinion that lacks the math to back it. It's little wonder that no-math challenges rhetoric, it's all you got.
 

bombadil.360

Andinismo Hierbatero
Veteran
OP - original poster - i.e. Hubbleman - i.e. one-in-the same.

My god man, you're murdering yourself.

However, since you chose to elaborate :bigeye:

Why you associate the advocacy of kabbalah as anti-Semitic? It just boggles the mind.


wow Disco, you actually amaze me; I never considered you as someone who trolled those with whom you disagree.

not only that, but twist my words so much that you paint me as saying that "advocacy of kabbalah as anti-semitic".

I called a poster on hubbleman's thread anti-semitic because said poster claim that jews practice kabbalah as some sort of devil worship thing.

anyway, how far you have gone into this word-twisting and trolling thing has shown me there is no use in further exchanges when it comes down to these sort of topics.

peace
 

maryj315

Member
.

think to what have come all the countries where the wealthy have been targetted as the cause of all social ills; what kind of good has this mentality brought to these countries?

those are the facts, not some conjured up fear-mongering, but what has actually happened in those countries.

No those are not the facts the wealth gap between the rich and poor is not just a problem here in America.

Mj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top