Is anyone else plain tired of the feeble attempts of Trade Unions, politicians, corporations and political parties to co-opt a movement which defiantly stands against everything these money-driven, corrupt entities represent? Show me your spirit fingers, occupiers! Chris Hedges phrased it perfectly in his Truthdig column on October 17th: “The faux liberal reformers, whose abject failure to stand up for the rights of the poor and the working class, have signed on to this movement because they fear becoming irrelevant.” Occupy LA, in solidarity with all Occupy movements, refuses to align itself with political parties nor existing political and social organizations. We do not seek political office, nor endorse our own candidate, never mind that of anyone else’s party. We are not a brand, a commodity, a soundbite, a marketing slogan. For this reason, the Occupy Movement is greater in number than both the Republican and Democratic parties combined. A recent poll showed it had 57% support of the American public, with 72% of those same people believing the rich should be taxed more. By the time this article comes to press, those numbers will have increased enormously. It is a global movement of people resisting existing corrupt corporate systems of power through peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience.
The Occupy Movement is a politician and corporation’s wet dream.
From Ron Paul’s attempts to hijack the movement, to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, we are witnessing not an articulation of support for the movement, but the demise in the need and relevance of existing political and corporate structures, and their desperate attempts to piggyback onto something which might revive their own drooping stems. Why else would MoveOn send out an email which invites its member to support Occupy Wall St, not by joining an Occupy movement, but by attending one of their events?! “How is this connected to Occupy Wall Street?” the email asks, without ever responding to its own question. If MoveOn wanted to be in solidarity with the movement, they’d be sending people to the Occupy movement, not co-opting its supporters for their own separate events, nor soliciting campaign donations for their own organization by shamelessly using Occupy Wall St in emails such as this, sent out to its members on October 18th:
“In addition to providing all the support we can to #OccupyWallStreet, at MoveOn we're scrambling to launch a huge campaign to make Wall Street pay. We're organizing mass meetings in hundreds of cities. We've hired filmmakers to tell the stories that the mainstream media are ignoring. We're turning up the heat on the banks by helping people move their money. And we're helping organize two major national days of protest in November.Together, we can make sure this momentum keeps building. But this all takes money—for materials, coordination, tech, and supporting thousands of volunteers. This is the moment. Can you chip in $5?”
How about suggesting individuals spend five dollars on purchasing organic vegetables from a local farmer, turn it into a stew, and feed it to cold, hungry protestors, under police attack in Zucotti Park? That might actually be “helping” the movement. I fail to see how my five dollars, sent to your bureaucratic faux-liberal bullshit non-profit, will help anyone but those in your pay collecting a salary every month. Hearing rumors that MoveOn owned the domain name OccupyTogether.org, I emailed Occupy Together to verify the truth of this. They vehemently denied this was the case, and explained that “The only place we've even mentioned MoveOn was in an update about why we were choosing to go with MeetUp. We quickly realized that even though we were only trying to illustrate how much attention occupytogether.org received, we shouldn't have pointed out specific organizations or public figures that had mentioned us. We've tried our best to stay as neutral as possible as an information resource.” Unfortunately, Occupy Together’s attempts to stay neutral did not prevent them from aligning themselves with Meetup, whom they describe as “good souls”, shortly before expounding upon the brilliance of their online tools and technical support, which they have integrated into their site. If Meetup were truly “good souls”, Occupy Together, they would have provided you with the resources to implement your own tools. Instead they created a reliance upon their online resources, successfully piggybacking onto the movement and gaining themselves extra press. “Good souls” give without expecting anything in return, certainly not a massive plug nor free advertising space.
But the most shameless act of piggy-backing so far has come from Act Blue, a political committee which enables online Democratic Party candidate fundraising. They have released ‘Occupy Wall Street’ bumper stickers, t-shirts and yard signs on their website. They are supposedly “free” - though Act Blue, of course, asks for a donation, with the insidiously worded message that: “your contribution today will help offset the costs and support our continued involvement, spreading the message, and supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement.”
Act Blue's efforts to make money from the movement is rank hypocrisy, greed and opportunism. The Occupy Movement is independent of existing corrupt political parties and the financial structures they operate within. We do not engage in corporate activity of any kind, nor condone organizations which use the name of any Occupy Movement for economic or political advantage.
But it seems like no one out there seems to quite get it. If you know of any other piggybackers out there the public should avoid, please leave them in the comments section of this blog.
On a side note, on Tuesday 25th October at 7.30 pm, we will have a special General Assembly to discuss an important proposal regarding Occupy LA’s position re: political parties. I urge you all to attend. If anyone has the precise wording of the proposal, might be an idea to send it to the web team so they can post it online prior to the GA, or leave it here in the comments section.
125 Comments
thats a response, not an answer.
Submitted by Supersean on
the question is simple, what are the 'ends' advocated for in the mission statement?
...and to whom are you referring in the last part of your response?
Supersean returns service with
Submitted by alhs06 on
Supersean returns service with, "the question is simple, what are the 'ends' advocated for in the mission statement?"
alhs06 continues volley with, "Dude are you messing with me? LMFAO, if not I copied & pasted my response, part of which is the answer to the question you posted above ...twice. To help recognize the answer in the response, I have applied a bold font.
My, The Occupy, The 99% answer is
By no longer tolerating the greed & corruption of the 1%, it would clearly imply putting a stop to it, correct. (supersean, that was, is & will remain my answer to your simple question) So it's impertinent to ask the question if the answer is unclear or unavailable, but I don't believe it to be the case. That is if I, you & the rest of us are perceiving the true understanding of why we answered "The call to Arms". If my perception is incorrect, then my apologies, & I will remove myself from the movement, as I would think I was helping to promote division through my ignorance.
This is honestly how I'm viewing your query, sincerely:
Supersean - "simple question, is water wet?"
alhs06 - "based on my experience, and my understanding of the word wet, yes it is"
Supersean - "Thats a response not an answer, answer my simple question, so is water wet?"
My simple question to you supersean, What the hell am I not understanding, please base your answer on the redundancy of my responses(?), or as I like to refer to them ...answer's?
So I again I Re-Reiterate
(no offence intended)
Submitted by emwoccupyla on
your insult is not intended to be offensive, I guess it must be defensive then! You never did actually answer how the ends would be met, while it was not spelled out I think sean was asking how. stating that you are pissed and having a campout will not accomplish anything, specific action might but I do not think marching in support of whatever labor union that comes asking to use you will. What specific actions will get something done, I have yet to seee or hear any concrete ideas.
no offence intended ...continued
Submitted by alhs06 on
Supersean question, "the question is simple, what are the 'ends' advocated for in the mission statement?" Answer; To end the greed & corruption of the 1%
Now emwoccupyla, yours would be considered a "Follow up" question. You would have a better understanding in the concept of comprehending what your attempting to participate in if done in a sober manner, I'm not accusing you, I'm just saying ...(no offense pretended) LMFAO ;D
emwoccupyla question, "What specific actions will get something done, I have yet to see or hear any concrete ideas." Answer; Attend a GA or Read the OWS & OLA GA Minutes, then argue with them ;D
But for me personally, my action's are limited to: participation on this form which you can follow by entering alhs06 in the site search box, defending our movement in several site forums, spreading the 99% word & explaining it similar to my 100+ post's via phone/email/face to face, researching to the best of my ability the legislature passed in the last 20 plus years leading to our current state of economic opportunity imbalance. All this, if you are willing to take the time, I have posted here in this forum, just as several other's have.
My first move would be repealing the 1999 Bank Modernization Act, which was a repeal of a 1933 act. This act was bought & paid for by BofA, Chase ...etc & pushed through by 3 republican's & signed into law by a Democrat, bipartisanship @ it's most greedy. Now you can argue all you want, but Google the act before you do.
Thats my opinion.
My reply was sober, you insulted sean in your post.
Submitted by emwoccupyla on
I have attended in person bout a dozen GA's and committe meetings and watched many on livestream when not able to attend in person. And if you search me you would see that I have been advocating support of HR 1489 The Return To Prudent Banking Act of 2011 and did so in 2009 and 2010 before this Occupy movement started. If you are not familliar Marcy Kaptur has introduced this legislation for three years running, it is designed to restore Glass-Steagall.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112Ymqwzl::
emwoccupyla I reiterate but nice tap dance mate ;D
Submitted by alhs06 on
emwoccupyla I reiterate
I want to know if I answered your Follow up question to your satisfaction. But you seem to show some promise in Agreeing with me, maybe it's your way of acknowledging my answer, as brilliant as it was.
BTW
I love supersean
I never met him but I'm sure he's a sharp dressing good looking Bro
If I were a girl I'd want to have his baby
If I were gay I'd want to be his main squeeze
If I were Robin I'd want him as my Batman
Supersean is the best thing since sliced bread & hot pockets.
Sorry dude forgive me ...please ;P lmfao ...again!
I'm not playing dialectical games here.
Submitted by Supersean on
if the end is not tolerating the greed and corruption of the 1%, I'm just wondering what we plan to do about it. Voicing our disdain for the status quo is fine, but it amounts to nothing if nothing changes.
I'm here, and I'll respond to you but please leave me out of any imaginary conversations and save the F-bombs for someone else.
Supersean apologies mate
Submitted by alhs06 on
Supersean apologies mate, this f bombs are not aimed @ you, unless you are a part of the following, which I never intended to accuse you of.
But I'm still confused @ what answer you would recognize & not consider it as just a response? Maybe my previous post satisfied your query?
its cool man.
Submitted by Supersean on
I'm just frustrated with the lack of effectiveness I see in OWS. Keeping the movement amorphous was a genius idea, it kept it from being pigeonholed. But, as is often the case, your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness.
I'm just saying let's pick an end. All the issues we have are valid. All the issues are also huge and will take a massive effort to get change accomplished. Let's just pick one and start doing it. I just don't think its realistic to want to end the fed, end racism, stop the wars, get the money out of politics, reform marijuana laws, address student loan debt, stop home foreclosures, address income and wealth disparity and whatever else is out there and do it all while practicing a cumbersome direct democracy.
I'm a real dude, a smart one too. Smart enough to know my own limitations. Is the Occupy movement smart enough to know its limitations? If not, I got better things to do.
RESEARCH FACTS FOR YOURSELF
Submitted by raywzup on
There are so many made up falsehoods and straight-up lies that I can't even address all of them without wasting at least 3 hours of my time to provide videos and articles that refute everything this MR BURNS has said. So I will simply repeat the one thing that I will agree with Mr. Burns - GOOGLE RON PAUL, YOU TUBE RON PAUL. Read and watch his philosophy, policies, and public statements for the last 35 years. You will find a very principles and consistent man who's goal is to restore the Constitution and put an end to this Corporatism/Cronyism system that has hurt the people for too long. Again, don't take my word for it. Research the facts for yourself.
Yes, don't even waste your
Submitted by Mahayana on
Yes, don't even waste your time! Mr. Burns is full of it and I think that will be apparent to anyone with half a brain.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe
Hear hear. I'm in agreement
Submitted by nobody on
Hear hear. I'm in agreement with Tom, not only because we share some ideological positions, but also because he's logical and explicit about the differences in ideologies. Fex, alhs, helper, you all don't make sense. You all want inclusivity, but to acheive it, you need to suppress ideas. You're reducing the occupation down to discontent and membership in the 99% statistical group
Also, there are a few problems with some of the alleged points of consensus that centrists and libertarians seem to espouse. Not everyone agrees about ending the Fed, and there is definite disagreement about what to do afterward. Not everyone agrees that it's greed and corruption that are the problem: some think there are systemic problems with capitalism that enable or encourage greed, and desire revolutionary changes.
There's also disagreement about economics. The Austrian school is just one, and it's not considered that serious a school. It's "alternative" at best. The mainstream is monetarist. It used to be Keynesian. Both monetarist and Keynesian schools are represented in the big colleges. Before these two schools, the neoclassical economists held sway. There are a lot of alternatives, not just the Austrians. Within the Occupy movement, there are many who align with Marx - celeb philosopher Zizek is one. And a book I'm reading by NYCGA activist David Graeber seems to indicate he's a Chartalist. I'm sure there are some Geoists around too - Michael Hudson is getting popular and he's a Georgist. There may even be some marginalists - but probably not.
These disagreements matter a lot, because they determine what remedies we'll demand to fix the economy: more government spending on jobs or remove the backstops that are propping up the banks? More government intervention into banking, or less? More progressive taxes, or a flat tax? Should we fight foreclosures, or not? Do we support a general strike, or not?
Ron Paul wants Big Money to have more power
Submitted by VictorSpoils on
It's as simple as that.
Ron Paul may have a different theoretical concept of capitalism, divorced from that of most economists and experts, but it doesn't make him an ally of Occupy.
Ron Paul wants big money to have more power. He thinks civil society should let people die from starvation and lack of healthcare. He wants what Wall Street wants, the survival of the richest, only more extreme. His supporters may yet learn from involvement with Occupy why he does not have their best interests at heart.
As for the rest of Occupy, we should be civil when demonstrators for non-Occupy causes, such as the anti-regulation, pro-wealth Ron Paul groups, want to share space. But we shouldn't confuse them for allies.
Who's Confused?
Submitted by raywzup on
Divorced from most economists and experts? You mean those "experts" working within the government who are part of the special interest lobbying groups? I do not recall F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman (both nobel prize winning economists) being "divorced" from Ron Paul's concept. Ron Paul wants big money to have more power? That's complete opposite of the truth. Ron Paul wants to end corporatism/cronyism that allowed the "big money" to have more power.
Ron Paul thinks people should die from starvation and lack of healthcare? Do you really think the readers of this forum are stupid or something? Ron Paul's idea of health care reform is to tackle the issue of cost - which is a result of overutilization - and he believes the culprit is the govt programs that are currently going broke. His economic solution is to end the crony relationships between the special interests and the government so we can bring cost down so people can afford their own health care.
Ron Paul want what Wall ST wants? Are you aware that Ron Paul voted against the Wall St bailouts? I am not confusing you for allies, but you are confusing the facts.
"Ron Paul wants big money to
Submitted by Mahayana on
"Ron Paul wants big money to have more power. He thinks civil society should let people die from starvation and lack of healthcare. He wants what Wall Street wants, the survival of the richest, only more extreme."
Those are some pretty hefty claims that you make there. Are you arriving at the conclusion that Ron Paul wants people to die because he does not support Universal healthcare? If so, your logic is fallacious. There are other options besides Universal Healthcare and letting people who can't afford treatment die on the streets. If you are going to make such accusations, can you please at least link or cite his policies which made you come to that conclusion?
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe
No Worries!
Submitted by emwoccupyla on
No need to ask forgiveness just happy that we have this forum to discuss issues. That is what I have liked most about Occupy, the free exchange of ideas and the fact that we can have a civilized debate on our differences. I must admit that I have met a few wingnut types (my opinion) that I totally disagree with or think are just looney, but I always try to respect what they are saying and let them speak their mind. I do not think that responding to what someone says, or questioning their position is disrespectful if done correctly. I was raised to give people Unconditional Positive Regard whenever possible, that does not mean that when having philosophical discussions we cannot disagree but we should maintain respect for each others positions regardless. This is what is generally missing from most political discourse. I will even defend peoples positions I disagree with if I believe they are being unfairly marginalized and later state my position when things are sorted out and orderly discussion ensues.
To Econ-libertarians, and their child like logic.
Submitted by Weekend Warrior on
I hear comments that might as well have been written by Herman Cain under a nom de plume. Christmas is lovely at the Burns house, thank you. That's because we don't think Scrooge was the misunderstood good guy in the story like you do.
The problem with you libertarian "individualist" is that you all think exactly alike, from your faith-based economics, to your religious denial of sociology. You can have a leaderless movement and still have a common group feeling and message. OWS proves that and proves what democracy can do. That message can create a thesis strong enought to oppose an antithesis. You, my libertarian friends, are the antithesis. You are just too intellectually dishonest to admit it. End the Fed Network guys have indeed been out there since the beginning of OWSLA as a well-financed counter movement disguised as fellow travellers and ready to hajack OWS like they did the tea party. I've talked to some of your most ardent acolytes, and they had no idea what should happen after the evil fed went away. "Are you for a publically owned banking system in its place?", I asked one of your people who was screaming louder then the rest. He said he didn't know. He offered to go check with one of his superiors. Perhaps if you could got Ron Paul and the Cato Institute to pay these guys more than the minimum wage, they might be more articulate. His attendance at one of your corporation financed little Ludwig Von Mises schools did not seem to have done the trick.
I do not intend to turn this forum into a debate on the merits of laissez-faire capitalism v. altruistic government because that is not what it is for. I took it for granted that this debate was pretty much settled amongst us. This forum is to discuss ways to promote the common message, and I'm saying that one way is out counter-revolutionaries in sheep's clothing like the "End the Fed Network." Even your right-wing bretheren on Fox News have the common sense to recognize this an anti-plutocratic, left-leaning movement. Some even have called us communist and socialist. You know what plutocrats are, don't you? You call them "Job Creators."
The VERY EVIL Koch brothers are libertarians for God's sake. David Koch, for one, was the vice-presidential nominee for the Libertarian party in 1980. I would not be surprised if a little of the Koch brother's money found its way to the End the Fed Network. Look at your End the Fed Network website: its full the usual far right-wing bullshit and blather that has been polluting the political landscape for years. Sure, Dennis Kucinich may agree on auditing the Fed and so do I, but I'm sure, like me, he doesn't want to totally de-tax and deregulate the greedy banksters like you guys want to do. See, you can never admit that you are just selling the same far right Republican agenda that the Reaganites have been selling for years. You hide behind your very slight agreement with a far leftist. You try to act like some how you're cooler than contract-law totalitarians you really are. Why is it you can lump Obama in with the socialist, but you get pissed off if someone lumps you in with the GOP? I think our general complaint about unequal wealth distribution in the USA (you know, that 99% thing) voices a common complaint that Obama and the Demos arn't socialist enough.
We're about: "Fuck those bankster assholes. Fuck that Koch Brother money. We don't get health care, pensions, and education so those bastards can get bigger tax breaks and can get even richer?" You're about: "Well, don't be envious of these misunderstood captains of industry. They're just victims like John Galt and his friends. The only reason they are rich is because they they are smarter, more proficient, and work harder than you pleblian losers. Don't blame the unregulated Banks and Wall Street, blame the meagre government regulations that do exist already. We should make the poor Job Creators even more comfortabale so they'll drop you losers a few crumbs of the big pie that they made all by themselves." Can't you see the difficulty here in our all being on the same side or even sitting at the same table? There is no side, if that's the case. There's only undirected, ignorant anger. Please. Please. Find comfort with your own people at a Sara Palin rally and leave us alone. You're fucking up the solidarity. You're harshing my buzz, man.
Here's the reality. Your thinking is the thinking that has been dominating and fucking up this country since Reagan. It is the high financed message that's been able to silence everything the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, and the Kings have taught us. Now OWS's message of "99%" has finally started kicking your ass and you won't have it. Your people did not need a revolution because you were already running the show before we came along and finally called you on your bullshit. If this movement took your way of thinking, its best move would be just to go away and die. Then you and the Koch brothers resume your course of destroying all progress toward a true democracy. In other words, this movement has no reason to exist if it does not oppose your destructive econ-libertarian meme--if it doesn't call it out as nothing but a convoluted philosophy contrived to allow the greedy assholes of the one percent to feel good about themselves while they rip us off. (I'm sure you the term "rip us off" is particularly galling to you since believe that the great god of the free market, the invisible hand, is the only legitimate source of property.).
Just admit it, You, Ayn Rand, the Koch Brothers, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Ronald Reagan, Bill Christie, and all these other Laissez-faire wankers are all part of the same "cult of the invisible hand." You are here not to march in the direction we have been clearly going, but to convince us to back up. But we've come to bury the one per cent, not to praise them like you.
I must admit that you may have something in common with the Leninist, however. They believe that we should go ahead an free the capitalist to be their greedy selves to the max so as to hasten the destruction of capitalism and bring about the proletarian revolution sooner than later. Maybe you can work with them.
By the way, JOHN GALT CAN KISS MY WORKING CLASS ASS.
Tom Burns, raroof3@gmail.com
A view from someone who considers themselves center left
Submitted by Fex on
I consider myself center left if I must have a label. I am however against a centralized bank, and the core reason why is boils down to simply separation of power. I'm for regulation, preferrably smart regulation and regulation that is not written or heavily influenced by banks or big business but rather representative of what we the people actually want. Note not the regulation *I* want, but what we all vote for and however it plays out in a system that's not bought out by a few at the top.
Even a government run centralized bank I think would be better than the Federal Reserve system currently in place.
As for what to replace the Fed with should it be removed, there's another post where I wrote on this and will link it instead of re-typing it all: http://www.occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/622
The short version is no centralized banking with private banks (this does not mean no regulation, banks still would have to abide by law of course and new regulations can be created for such a system, and sure allow people to set up publicly owned banks too should they wish but they would not be done by the gov), or a government owned and run central bank. Those are the two solutions I brought up in above link, there's other solutions out there as well.
Simply saying "that's a Ron Paul idea" and writing it off as such is a poor discussion. I do not consider myself a Libertarian, though there may be some Libertarian ideas I agree with. There's Democrat ideas I agree with. There's Republican ideas I agree with. I don't buy into the whole package of any political party thus far. I am not a part of the End the Fed Network group, nor been yelling about it on-site. I do not label Obama supporters as socialists and write them off. I am capitalist, sure (and do not think our current system is all that capitalist, it's too rigged for personal gain of a few) and I definitely do not buy into that right-wing "large corps are the job creators" way of thinking- heh instead of bailing out the banks and large business it would have been far better to bail out the populace, we would've used the money in commerce and much of it would have ended up with the banks anyway and other large businesses while helping us all out instead of simply giving the top the cash (I support more of a trickle up style of thought, not trickle down).
I have pushed my personal view to have decentralized banking in the post I linked, but I do recognize that there are other alternatives and in an attempt to facilitate wider discussion have also pointed out Kucinich's view for removing the Fed yet keeping a centralized system. Hell as far as I'm aware I've never once quoted Ron Paul either in arguing for disbanding the Fed, I know doing so tends to make many people simply turn a deaf ear (and no I am not a supporter of RP, his platform as a whole is not for me personally, last person running for office I was truly for was Mike Gravel in '07-'08). I do think there should be discussion on whether the Fed is a problem or not and what it's ties are to the top 1%. Considering that banks OWS have demonstrated against are member banks of the Fed, talking about the Fed is very valid in my view.
Copying myself from the above link rather than rewrite: "I for one cannot see how we can discuss our bank failure and bank greed and Wall Street corporate practices and how that all ties in with money in our politics without bringing into serious discussion the Federal Reserve- it's integral to both our economy and government- and to me it's the main link, it's the institution enabled by law by our government to allow the banks to do what they do and what they've done, members of the Fed walk back and forth between Fed positions and Gov positions and it's not necessarily a conspiracy theory, it's simply what happens given how the system is set up. That's why I bring it up for discussion: if we talk about our banks and politics then the Federal Reserve is a huge part of that and is an immensely powerful institution stradling the line between both the banks and the government. I don't have anywhere near all the answers and I hope I don't come across that I pretend to have all the answers. I got ideas, sure. I know full well they are probably not the best ideas, that's what discussing with everyone else is all about."
"Rather than deciding on one solution, the discussion as I see is "Should we be talking about the Federal Reserve? Is it abused by the 1% and if so, how? Does the existence of the Fed noteiceably affect our elections, policy, and divert our politicians from representing the people? Does it serve it's purpose well or should we demand it be changed? If we demand it be changed, then how- should it be kept basically as is and regulated more, or disbanded, does it have too much power that should be divided or not?"
So, rather than decide an idea has a certain political leaning and automatically dismiss it- address the idea itself. This way we can have discussion on the pros and cons of the Federal Reserve, instead of dividing automatically along various partisan lines which does not address whether or not the Fed is a problem that Occupy wishes to tackle- and if so, then how.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Like
Submitted by Seth Spinolla on
Humbly and well expressed.
None Dare Call it Conspiracy: The plan of the international bankers to create a world socialist super-state
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=NoneDare
Without free speech no search for the truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful. Better a thousandfold abuse of speech than denial. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.
You know, I still haven't heard a good reason NOT to
Submitted by Fex on
You know, I still haven't heard a good reason NOT to end the Fed, or almost any real reason at all. People against doing so always seem to walk off without actually addressing the topic or if they do at all say something partisan like "oh Libertarian idea whatever" - which is still avoiding the topic completely. A couple are rightly curious in asking "ok what would replace it?" yet when give solutions to that there's no further talk. Yet many of the same people will talk up and down about the member banks (ALL national banks are members of the Fed, it's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#Member_banks ), economy, politics without ever mentioning/ignoring existing relations these have to the Fed. Weird to me.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
I may know the reason.
Submitted by Supersean on
Quite simply, nobody cares. Or more succinctly, not enough people care. I'd wager that a large majority of Americans don't know enough about the issue to have a real opinion. So it ain't changin' anytime soon.
RESEARCH FACTS FOR YOURSELF
Submitted by raywzup on
There are so many made up falsehoods and straight-up lies that I can't even address all of them without wasting at least 3 hours of my time to provide videos and articles that refute everything this MR BURNS has said. So I will simply repeat the one thing that I will agree with Mr. Burns - GOOGLE RON PAUL, YOU TUBE RON PAUL. Read and watch his philosophy, policies, and public statements for the last 35 years. You will find a very principles and consistent man who's goal is to restore the Constitution and put an end to this Corporatism/Cronyism system that has hurt the people for too long. Again, don't take my word for it. Research the facts for yourself.
The Secret of Oz
Submitted by Seth Spinolla on
The world economy is doomed to spiral downwards until we do 2 things: outlaw government borrowing; 2. outlaw fractional reserve lending. Banks should only be allowed to lend out money they actually have and nations do not have to run up a "National Debt"/ Remember: It's not what backs the money, it's who controls the money, it's who control's it's quantity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=swkq2E8mswI
Without free speech no search for the truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful. Better a thousandfold abuse of speech than denial. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.
Applies to personal credit too
Submitted by Fex on
Aye, if they can only lend out money that they have this prevents them from creating more money and debt as well when lending out "credit." When a person accepts a credit card, the money for that card is simply made out of thin air, and it's debt money, so banks simply create more debt that's made up and not backed by anything except belief, and transferring that debt to others.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Listen To FDR:
Submitted by Weekend Warrior on
"An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for." -Franklin Roosevelt, 1936
Tom Burns, raroof3@gmail.com
Pages