Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
NewsMeBack
6468 Followers
johnnysoftwareJan 14, 2012
Cute photo.
Well, evidently, DC is going to evict its human protestors and keep its long-standing rat population which were hardly a secret in the city for the past couple of decades.
Yes, Virginia.
The nation's capital has long been infested with rats.
bluenose2Jan 14, 2012
And a lot of those vermin are in Congress !!
pc25Jan 15, 2012
unfortunately both houses and both sides
gkiltzJan 16, 2012
Comparable with other cities of similar density. Parts of Arlington and Alexandria have more people per square mile than midtown Manhattan!!
As many as Tokyo or Seoul. That kind of density is INVITING rats!!!
david_nivenJan 15, 2012
I think it's time that Occupy took at least one thing from the Tea Party... I know it sounds crazy as much as they would like to separate themselves from extremists... but, I think that one of the things that this country has been craving is something outside of the norm.
It's become evident already with the Wall Street corruption and even more so with the introduction of the SOPA and PIPA bills that the current parties in government have become addicted to the corporate teat.
The Tea Party tried to create a new entity but, got swallowed up by the Repubs. They the right ideas but, no follow through.
Occupy has brilliant ideas and they should take the Tea Party as an example of a new path to follow. That being, work to garner support in creating a new political party but, don't let the current parties suck you in.
If an Occupy party would form and not fall in with the existing parties, and create a truly new independent caucus, it would be a great step in maturing the message and moving on from the media spins and lame claptrap generated to smear and deprecate the movement. The original occupations and demonstrations were the first step. Now it's time to mature and do what the Tea Party failed to do and do it right for all americans not just the angry ones.
dachipzJan 15, 2012
"The Occupy Party"... it has sort of a nice ring to it.
arpadJan 15, 2012
I think the "Occupy" folks should definitely start a third party. I hear Ralph Nader's available.
particleman420Jan 15, 2012
i think ralph finally took the hint about running for president. dont get him started again!
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
LOL - I agree completely. And good job hijacking David's handle! :-D
sbuckley00Jan 16, 2012
lmao I though it was actually David.. hahahahhaha
That makes soooooooooooooo much more sense.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
Yea, so did I, but I double-checked his history first. :-D
timelessbwJan 15, 2012
Dugg you up again, third time today.
savage727Jan 15, 2012
I liked what this article had to say for the most part. He hit on the weaknesses of the Movement succinctly. If addressed, I think it will be stronger and more organized. The portion about the Media teams especially hit home. The control of information mirroring main stream media? Yeah... I've seen too much of that. And some people do try to take ownership of the movement and keep some out. That denegrates the whole point of the 99%. These are things I have observed on the ground level. So his words ring true. Does that mean that it can't be overcome? Not at all. As long as people are honest about it.
gkiltzJan 15, 2012
You don't get ahead by getting even!!
Let's get ahead!
xvash2Jan 15, 2012
Start a political party and use the legal loopholes to do battle.
skews13Jan 14, 2012
Help those disenfranchised by state legislatures of their right to vote, obtain their Democratic Peoples Republic State Identification. Then help them get to the polls in November to vote.
Ouzel7Jan 14, 2012
"Democratic Peoples Republic State Identification"
What is this?
skews13Jan 14, 2012
When the state requires you to carry a state issued ID to exercise your rights in that state, it is as close to a communist regime as you can get. Let's not mince words, and call it what it is. The DPRSI. You could actually substitute state identification with Korea, and you wouldn't be far off.
Ouzel7Jan 14, 2012
Oh, so it's the sensationalist term for photo ID. Yeah, that makes us totally like places where you have to always have your papers. Completely....mhmmmhm.....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Jan 15, 2012
you mean like a drivers license
kasha34Jan 15, 2012
Uh, you need a photo ID to drive, to fly on a plane, to cash a check, to buy a drink, to buy cigarettes. Even to buy f**king sudafed.
pc25Jan 15, 2012
just mere technicalities to the liberal mind
timelessbwJan 15, 2012
It's worse than I thought. Apparently we already are a "papers please" nation. Each time we add one more thing we need "papers" for we lose a little more of our freedom.
skews13Jan 15, 2012
All of which are priviledges, not rights. But to the rightwing mind i guess your Constitutional rights are merely priviledges. They couldn't have said it any better in Pyongyang. I'm just waiting to be forced to openly cry in public when the dear leader dies so i won't be sent to a labor camp.
pc25Jan 16, 2012
voting is a privilege that's why convicted felons lose the right to VOTE just as a chronic violator of DMV laws will lose his privilege to drive.
TGRHvWGAFJan 15, 2012
None of the above are constitutionally guaranteed rights. I love how conservatives are born-again constitutionalists until it's inconvenient. I love it when people like you come clean with your version of what America should be: a place where you need to show three forms of ID to vote (or just flash your NRA card) but you can buy a gun for cash, no questions asked.
Ouzel7Jan 15, 2012
Uhm ... BUNCHA CONSONANISTA...
We are talking about showing ID to vote.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
Doesn't stop millions of legal american citizens from not having the photo ID required to vote. This is a very old conversation, that you lost. The entire rationality for the photo ID is a microscopic incidence rate of voter fraud that will not be fixed by photo IDs. Any suppositions on your part that voter fraud is rampant and that it will be fixed by photo IDs are just that - guesses and suppositions.
Provide concrete evidence that photo IDs will catch/stop more voter fraud cases than disenfranchise voters. I await your proof.
kasha34Jan 15, 2012
"This is a very old conversation, that you lost."
Lost? Are you kidding?
"A new national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports finds that 75 percent of likely U.S. voters “believe voters should be required to show photo identification, such as a driver’s license, before being allowed to vote.”
"according to a new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll. Eighty percent of respondents said they favor a photo ID requirement, "Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
"Lost? Are you kidding? "
Nope. You can't provide any evidence or proof - therefore you lost.
Just because the majority approves something dumb does not mean that they are right. The majority of people have drivers licenses. That does not mean that huge numbers of legitimate voters would not be disenfranchised, or that this entire initiative has a point beyond removing as many potentially democratic voters as possible.
kasha34Jan 16, 2012
Having the majority doesn't mean I'm right. It does mean I won. Or my side won, to be more accurate.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
"Having the majority doesn't mean I'm right. It does mean I won. Or my side won, to be more accurate."
Hey, idiot, you lost the argument. You convinced the majority only because you were able to fool other idiots. Once upon a time the majority also agreed to slavery and persecution of black people. Jim Crow laws were also passed with a majority.
This is just another case of Jim Crow laws. Only now instead of focusing on race you are going after democratic leaning demographics. Well done, at least you've progressed from naked racism to simply political voter suppression. Congratulations. <slow sarcastic clap/>
kasha34Jan 16, 2012
Thank you for agreeing my side won the struggle for hearts-and-minds on this point.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
"Thank you for agreeing my side won the struggle for hearts-and-minds on this point."
You can keep the hearts and minds of racists. You are welcome to them. You deserve each other.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jan 16, 2012
So you're saying that 75% of the USA are racist? Really?
"A new national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports finds that 75 percent of likely U.S. voters “believe voters should be required to show photo identification, such as a driver’s license, before being allowed to vote.”Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
"So you're saying that 75% of the USA are racist? Really?"
Good point. They are not. In that case:
Congratulations on fooling some idiots some of the time and subverting the democracy of the nation. You must be very proud on bringing us one step closer to a banana republic country.
The fact that we are having this "conversation" on the MLK day makes it especially poignant.
kasha34Jan 16, 2012
You think Dr King would side with you? I don't.
I think he would expect black Americans to have driver's licenses. And they do.
I think he would expect black Americans to participate fully in American life. And they do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
"You think Dr King would side with you? I don't.
I think he would expect black Americans to have driver's licenses. And they do."
This is not about race. This is about disenfranchising voters. These laws are exactly like Jim Crow laws. I think King would see the parallel between disenfranchising poor black voters in Alabama and poor white voters in Alabama. I suspect that a very large portion of these people are indeed black, although I don't have any figures to back that up.
So again, thank you for doing your little bit to destroy democracy in our nation. <clap/>...<clap/>...<clap/>
kasha34Jan 16, 2012
Thank you for pretending that YOU speak for Dr King.
You don't.
BTW, it's the rich guys who don't need driver's licenses as they have chauffeurs. Poor voters have driver's licenses to get to work.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
"Thank you for pretending that YOU speak for Dr King.
You don't.
BTW, it's the rich guys who don't need driver's licenses as they have chauffeurs. Poor voters have driver's licenses to get to work."
Yawn. Your stupidity is getting boring. I am not even pissed at you - I am resigned. You can't even come up with interesting insults, let alone ideas and counter-arguments.
You are a hypocritical idiot who can't even string two ideas together, let alone come up with a justification for disenfranchising millions of legal citizens of the country. You pretend to like democracy, but only when it suits you.
So anyway, bored now. Out.
kasha34Jan 16, 2012
What a phony. You can't deal with my points. You put words in Dr King's mouth as if you speak for him. And then you pretend you're "bored."
If this was a middle school debate class, you'd be getting a "D".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 17, 2012
"What a phony. You can't deal with my points. You put words in Dr King's mouth as if you speak for him. And then you pretend you're "bored."
If this was a middle school debate class, you'd be getting a "D"."
zzzzzzzzz
Wha? Wassat? Oh, are you done babbling? I was asleep. You should record your insults and sell them as sleep aids.
You don't have any points, you have only weak attempts at misdirection and red herrings. This is not a debate, it's a farce, and you are the clown.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, I did not put words in King's mouth. I did not claim to speak for him, and did not pretend to quote him or even paraphrase for him. I said that I *thought* that he would agree with me, which is something distinctly different.
Man, even your reading comprehension sucks!
kasha34Jan 17, 2012
"I said that I *thought* that he would agree with me, which is something distinctly different."
A distinction without a difference.
See, I *think* MLK would agree with me that you're a dickwad.
elimgarakJan 17, 2012
"A distinction without a difference.
See, I *think* MLK would agree with me that you're a dickwad."
ROFL. Pathetic. Simply pathetic. I seriously just LOLed. Are you the result of the atrocious American education system or just really bad genetics? Nature or nurture?
kasha34Jan 17, 2012
Another leftist unable to defend the indefensible ...another leftist with a lame personal insult.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
Unfortunately the problem is that to be elected (or at least electable) most people need to be as corrupt or willing to "compromise" in favor of more money/power/future influence as those they replace.
However, point taken - that would certainly be more productive than what they are doing now. As far as I know, there have been no results from the OWS movement.
arpadJan 15, 2012
Terribly exciting, no doubt. Especially that "Democratic People's Republic State Identification" idea.
It very much looks like a substantive action while being nothing but posing.
Perfect for the "Occupy" crowd and a lot more comfortable then freezing your ass off in a tent while the dawning realization arises that no one takes the "Occupy" movement seriously.
By the way, how are the disenfranchised going to vote in November? Remember, they're disenfranchised.
Schmuck.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
readmikenowJan 15, 2012
I talked to people in the Occupy Movement and found them quite confusing. I asked how putting up a tent on private property is going to end corporate greed. Then things got really confusing. I was told by one person in the movement they're making people talk about issues. It just seems to me they're making people talk about them as the issue and not in a good way. The movment didn't seem to warm many hearts and gain much popularity with average American.
skinturtleJan 16, 2012
Well...it might be confusing to some...but at least it's making people aware that there's discontent going on. These movements make politicians and corporations really nervous. They have much potential to upset the status quo....something that keeps the money rolling in.
They don't want people questioning them...they want OBEDIENT workers and they want it to go on forever.
These are business men who if they could would live forever and keep things the way they are forever.
readmikenowJan 16, 2012
How would you change things? Business is what it is and always has been. Have you ever owned a business?
specimen7Jan 15, 2012
It's time to focus all your efforts on SOPA and it's alternatives. Your movement started on the interweb cables and it must defend it's mother.
battmannJan 16, 2012
Can't evict the truth, that we've been hustled by those giving sway and money to those that are trying to enrtap us!
skinturtleJan 16, 2012
It certainly looks like boycotting and threatening to not vote for these **** in their next elections make them stand to attention pretty quick. It works because it is taking something from them.
There have got to be ways to some how for the people to sanction their government. If people could find ways to drain or block the financial streams to either the corporations or the government...
The other thing they don't seem to like is public humiliation....which is the worst kind of fame there is.
rightfutureJan 16, 2012
The only way to keep their attention is to keep speaking loudly / with everyone you can. Then our voices resonate with others and be heard. It is the only way this works effectively.
chaenomeleJan 15, 2012
Great ideas. This is what we could accomplish if people would allow themselves to hear others truths and convictions rather than just their own. If the Occupy movement would have shown respect for the tea party movement and the Ron Paul supporters the masses would have been much larger. Instead, I personally was alienated and booted off of an OWS chat room for speaking of freedom. The movement jump started the talk of other movements and united many people online who would have otherwise never met. This is a step in the right direction and the Occupy movement helped but they will not be the ones to truly bring change because they filter through their supporter. There are bad seeds in every society and turning them to the enemy only makes you like the government we seek to change. Understanding and respecting one another is what a movement for change involves.
Graf_OrlockJan 14, 2012
move forward = go away.
specimen7Jan 15, 2012
This is the face of occupy idiots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SwKxUz7osM
He want's his tuition paid for by other because it's his opinion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dachipzJan 15, 2012
...and george w bush is the face of the republlican party. http://nonpartisanwitchhunt.blogspot.com/2009/06/george-w-bush-back-in-news-it-aint-good.html (Middle of the page)
specimen7Jan 15, 2012
And what does this have to do with the two party system? GW was a retard. Stop dodging the issue at hand.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
Wow, you are an idiot. It just struck me how dumb you are.
You don't see the connection between what dachipz said and what you said? Really? No clue? Nothing?
You don't see that just as you pointed at one idiot and said that he is the face of the OWS movement, dachipz pointed at another idiot and said that that guy is the face of your movement? You guys voted for that retard not once but a number of times (counting the governor post). He was an actual leader of your party. If anybody is the face of your movement/party, then he should be.
Now compare that with the completely leaderless OWS movement where anybody can show up and protest. Not a very efficient system (to put it mildly) but saying that one specific guy that showed up and got on YouTube represents hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people is just dumb.
specimen7Jan 15, 2012
No. I see a person not commenting on my original reply which had nothing to do with GW. Nothing. This was about an individual representing the idiocy of OWS.
And what exactly is my movement. I don't belong to any political party. I even agreed with dachipz about the retarded policies of GW.
So what is my movement. Wrap your head around this. f**k OWS, f**k GW, f**k Obama, f**k republicans, f**k democrats and f**k anarchists.
Oh no, he doesn't implicitly agree with any political party or stupid protest - what happens now?
When did I ever vote for a republican. When did I ever vote for a democrat. You assert to having the answers to these questions. Give me specific dates and names.
you are just a wound up college kid with a logic IQ of zero.
Go cry about it to your parents.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
"This was about an individual representing the idiocy of OWS."
Well, DUH! As was his, only representing the idiocy of the conservative movement. Obviously. Have you never seen analogies "A is to B as C is to D"?
"And what exactly is my movement. I don't belong to any political party."
Your positions identify you as primarily a conservative/republican/tea party member. Or at least close enough.
"When did I ever vote for a republican. When did I ever vote for a democrat."
If you didn't vote for either, does that mean that you voted for Nader?
"you are just a wound up college kid with a logic IQ of zero. Go cry about it to your parents."
ROFL! Zing! Oh wait, no, not really. Fail, try again.
rightfutureJan 16, 2012
The message is what represents everyone. The leaders are those will rise to defend it.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
OK, in that case Bush was still a leader of the Republican party. This guy does not present the right message and is definitely not a leader.
barackalypseJan 16, 2012
They could start with a coherent statement of what their aims actually are. I've heard everything from student loan forgiveness to higher taxes on the rich to more financial sector regulation.
pc25Jan 14, 2012
yep move forward, move on, and go home.
partrowJan 15, 2012
Go home, you know you're hungry for your mom's cookin.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 14, 2012
If the occupy protestors agreed to kick out everyone in their camp with socialist leanings I'd support them.
Till then
REJECTED
kasha34Jan 15, 2012
Leanings? That's being kind.
TGRHvWGAFJan 15, 2012
You get rid of all the nutjobs that lean toward a theocratic dictatorship dominated by unregulated megacorporations who make their money based on the work the rest of us (and our kids) do in sweatshops. Then we'll talk.
Ouzel7Jan 15, 2012
Herp derp
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
LOL, one of the most cogent arguments I've ever heard from you.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 15, 2012
I've been trying to do that for years, still can't get these politicians to pass a "no far right or left wing idiots allowed in this country" act.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
Your opinion is invalid.
Socialism by itself is not evil. There are plenty of countries with socialist tendencies that are very nice places to live. US is not bad either. Medicare - enormous support.
Fail.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 15, 2012
Moderate Socialist tendencies are fine, the perfect society is a balance between socialism and capitalism. However these morons are pushing too far, some of what they're asking for is the type of extreme socialism that's driven Greece and the Euro into the earth's mantle (I'd say ground but it's too much of an understatement).
What America needs is the kind of Socialism that gives places like Germany it's moderate prosperity, but nobody can figure out what the hell a moderate balance is in this country.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
"the perfect society is a balance between socialism and capitalism."
LOL - perfect society? Really? There is no such thing when it comes to societies. For a perfect society you need perfect people.
"However these morons are pushing too far, some of what they're asking for is the type of extreme socialism that's driven Greece and the Euro into the earth's mantle (I'd say ground but it's too much of an understatement)."
What has driven Greece into the ground is in large part the widespread corruption and people not paying their taxes. Tax situation in Greece is pretty bad.
Some people in OWS certainly demand unreasonable things. But I would not say that ALL of them or even the majority of them are socialists. They want greater social mobility. Most importantly they want good jobs.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 16, 2012
That's why I said "in a perfect society" because there will never be a perfect balance.
Greece is a pretty interesting situation. There are almost no jobs that are NOT under the government. They literally have no private sector, that's the basic fundamentals of socialism...and the corruption you mentioned is probably one of the main reasons socialism is like communism...beautiful on paper but s**t in life.
It's unfortunate that some of them "are" reasonable in my opinion. If they were all unreasonable we could just say "go home" and that's that. However the people who are considered "in charge" are the unreasonable ones (which is normal...look at political parties) and they're the ones shouting loudest, which means if the movement is a success their voices are the ones who'll be heard.
rightfutureJan 16, 2012
There is a ideal balance between cooperation and competition however. 'Perfect' is a good enough system that is improved to get better. The best 'Perfect' we can get is to design a system that can be improved not gamed.
We need to set up proper scientific, mathematical checks and balances that will check greed, and corruption.
If we can reduce corruption on an assembly line to a billionth of a degree then we should be able to apply that logic to the process of government. If you don't solve the equation for reducing greed and corruption; you will allow it.
Outlaw all money incentives for politicians. Make them run on a equal pool of money on the merit of their issues (not their pocketbooks).
Also make it illegal to accept money as a politician. Heck, outlaw
lobbying altogether; the only thing that should be represented is the will of the people; They are the only special interest that should get clear attention. You could also make the job less financially appealing and fair by tying politician's salaries to the average wage of their constituents (you could also tie it to the poverty level) to build in an incentive to care about it.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 16, 2012
I would love to see it so that everyone running for a political office had a set allowance they could spend on campaigning. If they ran out of money it would show irresponsibility and we obviously don't want that in our politics.
I'd also love the outlawing of lobbyists, make businesses have a number of votes equal to the weight of 12 or 16 normal humans...not the 4 billion dollars they're willing to spend.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
"Greece is a pretty interesting situation. There are almost no jobs that are NOT under the government. They literally have no private sector, that's the basic fundamentals of socialism..."
Wrong. While their public sector is relatively speaking huge, private sector accounts for 60% of the country's GDP. And the numbers are very similar when comparing US and Greece:
US Greece
General Government 22,249,000 705,645
Wider Public Sector 574,000 175,000
Total Public Sector Employment 22,823,000 880,645
Total Labour Force 153,560,000 4,967,200
Total Population 312,257,855 11,257,290
Public Sector Employment as:
% Total Population 7% 8%
% Total Labour Force 15% 18%
Population per Public Employee 14 13
So they are pretty close to US in the number of jobs. 18% of total labor force vs. 15% in US.
Here is what OECD has to say about this - the discrepancy seems to come from the difference of what the OECD considers to be the general government.
"Greece has one of the lowest rates of public employment among OECD countries, with general government employing just 7.9% of the total labour force in 2008. This is a slight increase from 2000, when the rate was 6.8%. Across the OECD area, the share of government employment ranges from 6.7% to 29.3%, with an average of 15%. The Greek government has plans to further decrease this share, by replacing only 20% of staff leaving on retirement. Public employment is also highly centralised in Greece, with over 80% of staff working at the central government level."
"However the people who are considered "in charge" are the unreasonable ones (which is normal...look at political parties) and they're the ones shouting loudest, which means if the movement is a success their voices are the ones who'll be heard."
Who exactly is in charge of OWS? Do they have somebody in charge? If so, I think they would be very surprised to hear that.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 16, 2012
Greece is interesting (as I said), it may have a "private" sector...or something termed that but...it's complicated. According to one of my friends who got out of their as soon as he could (and came to Texas to study!) the government doesn't really "regulate" like you'd think of it in America, but it has laws and ordinances in place that restrict businesses. In Greece regulation involves making businesses follow the government's model for them, and the owners are allowed to act within that model...and we all know how that worked out.
The OWS and Occupy movement doesn't have an "official" leader but come on. Who's the one yelling "Who are we" in the group? Who's the one shouting the most? People are tribal by nature, if you have a group that group has a leader in one form or another. And the leader is going to be the one who's getting heard, not the majority that just aren't speaking up as much. Unless those with reasonable demands are the ones shouting and making noise the movement's simply being controlled by the crazies.
elimgarakJan 16, 2012
"In Greece regulation involves making businesses follow the government's model for them, and the owners are allowed to act within that model...and we all know how that worked out."
Well, it may work OK, depending on the actual regulations. In a centralized economy the problem is that the government can't react quickly enough to opportunities, and that individuals don't see a reason to advance in a homogenized system. If you are not going to get more money if you work better, then what's the point?
It looks like Greece is different. At the very least the private owners can create incentives that are just not available in a pure socialist system.
Overall "socialism" is a very generic term. You can have socialism with market economy just like you can have one with a completely centralized and planned market system.
"Unless those with reasonable demands are the ones shouting and making noise the movement's simply being controlled by the crazies."
I haven't heard any specific voices within the movement. Nothing concrete or centralized. No single message or even set of messages. It all seems to be very generic and decentralized. Too decentralized to get anywhere, in fact. It sounds like you are focusing on one set of loud voices, where there are hundreds of them, each shouting their own thing.
eninen525Jan 16, 2012
don't worry, it's already being organized by the 1% of the 99%. MUHAHAHAH !!!
ky2ohio53Jan 16, 2012
we have had rats in office since the first president who held office, they all are liars and most cheat on there wives, we have scum who represent our white house...they all stink, if u want my opinion...broken promises lets screw the poor at there expense, list is endless.. i dont believe a politician at all, all scumbags just want attention to be noticed and to be the gatekeeper to ruin america!!
Closed AccountJan 15, 2012
A Message to Occupy From Their Parents: It's Time to Move Out. We Want Our Basement Back.