The Occupy Movemement Failed Miserably

[PaulConventionWV]

They never got their student debt absolved nor were the oceans ever healed.

I bleed for the oceans. Sometimes you can still hear them crying out for justice... cooooo... coooooooo... COOOOOOOOOOOO!!

 

[Cleaner44]

Here is one simple example of a few occupy people complaining about the 1% owning our government and then promoting the delusional idea that the same government will turn against their 1% owners and do the bidding of the 99%. They need to come to terms with one fact of life... government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Was that provocateurs? My point being it is hard to tell. The occupiers I talked to revered Dr. Paul. You would think most occupiers would have wanted the liberty movement on their side.

Provocateurs do their very best to divide and conquer--thus getting people here to think it was a futile attempt in civil disobedience.

Some of the more hippy-minded people in the liberty movement came rushing in later with sign handy and started yelling slogans about liberty and the federal reserve, and that's where everyone became confused about what Occupy was ever about, but just the name Occupy should really make people question its origins. It has nothing to do with liberty, and it was done solely for the purpose of taking up space in a specific location. What kind of liberty activist would ever think of such a stupid idea?

 

[Ender]

It's ironic, the tea party movement, an ostensibly anti government movement, had a political message and a political goal and has been successful in getting into the government.

The Occupy movement had no central political focus and has fallen off the map.

That's nonsense.

The tea party movement, which began with Ron Paul supporters, was also co-opted and is now your basic neocon variety.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes it failed.

It was co-opted,, and distorted. and yes,,it failed.

it started here.



It was taken over by by various socialist slanted groups,, and most folks had no idea of it's roots.

http://ampedstatus.com/the-economic-elite-vs-the-people-of-the-united-states-of-america-part-i/



I would recommend reading that article in full. It is very good,, and was the basis for the original folks that started the movement.

I like how people still pretend to know who originated the movement. Even if it was Anonymous, I still don't think anonymous is liberty-oriented. For one thing, the video mentions tax evasion as a bad thing. There's a reason it was never a big thing while still in the planning stages around here, and something that big would certainly need a lot of planning, which we would have heard about a long time before it happened just like we did with the March on Washington. Anonymous doesn't stand for liberty, that much has become clear already.

 

[AuH20]

That's nonsense.

The tea party movement, which began with Ron Paul supporters, was also co-opted and is now your basic neocon variety.

Say what you want about the Tea Party, and there has been more than a few defections in Congress seduced by the trappings of personal gain, but without the 2010 wave in the House and state legislatures, an Obama led democratic congress would be passing a series of oppressive laws, from outright 2nd amendment nullification to comprehensive amnesty to EU style tax hikes. The Tea Party has actually held the statists back for a cycle or 2 but I don't know for how much longer. The House, while even being undermined by crooked leadership, is only thing standing between us and absolute tyranny. A good share who voted for the Amash amendment were candidates carried in by the 2010 wave.

 

[Snew]

Say what you want about the Tea Party, and there has been more than a few defections in Congress seduced by the trappings of personal gain, but without the 2010 wave in the House and state legislatures, an Obama led democratic congress would be passing a series of oppressive laws, from outright 2nd amendment nullification to comprehensive amnesty. The Tea Party has actually held the statists back for a cycle or 2 but I don't know for how much longer. The House, while even being undermined by crooked leadership, is only thing standing between us and absolute tyranny. A good share who voted for the Amash amendment were candidates carried in by the 2010 wave.

The best thing about the TP is that we got Amash during the 2010 wave... but I would say the vast majority of those elected in that same wave have been just as statist as the rest of Congress, just masquerading under a quasi-libertarian label.

 

[AuH20]

The best thing about the TP is that we got Amash during the 2010 wave... but I would say the vast majority of those elected in that same wave have been just as statist as the rest of Congress, just masquerading under a quasi-libertarian label.

Like it or not, the TP bought America some time. Now we have to decide what we want to do with it.

 

[AuH20]

The Glorious Leader is still smarting that 2010 robbed him of ABSOLUTE CONTROL:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ir-2010-losses-still-haunt-94775.html?hp=t1_3

“They weren’t in the same league as us, and that’s having lasting consequences,” added Reynolds, who represented the Buffalo, N.Y. area for five terms.

It might be the greatest opportunity cost of the Obama Era in terms of sheer damage to Democrats, a gift that keeps giving to the Republicans in the form of GOP-dominated redistricting and a barrage of state actions that challenge Obama’s core agenda on health care, civil rights and abortion.

“Huge pain in the ass, yeah, every day,” is how one senior Obama aide described the GOP’s creation of safe House seats — and the subsequent assaults on Obamacare, abortion rights, gun control, voting rights and municipal unions emanating from suddenly GOP-dominated states like North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio.

 

[UWDude]

It's ironic, the tea party movement, an ostensibly anti government movement, had a political message and a political goal and has been successful in getting into the government.

The Occupy movement had no central political focus and has fallen off the map.

That's because the occupy movement was real opposition, while the Tea party was quickly co-opted and sold out to the old neo-con GOP.

The thing I found odd was seeing occupy people bitching about the banks and then suggesting that we elect more socialist Democrat politician to provide more bailouts. I don't understand how an occupy person can support Obama, Ben Bernanke's biggest supporter, and then they pretend to stand in opposition to banks and their politician puppets. If they had some coherent message it sure didn't reach me and that is their failure.

I guarantee you, in the occupy camp, there were far more "voting, yeah right", and "Republican-democrat are the same thing", than democrats. We protested Maria Cantwell for her vote of the NDAA when she was campaigning in Seattle. By then we only had a few dozen people left.

So, what did the Ron Paul movement do about, and what is the Ron Paul movement doing, about the banking bailouts... ...or is the Ron Paul movement a failure too?

Like it or not, the TP bought America some time. Now we have to decide what we want to do with it.

LoL!!

 

[AuH20]

LoL!!

You do realize who would control all 3 legislative branches of government right now passing everything imaginable? The 2nd amendment would be essentially gone. Tax rates would skyrocket. Who knows what 3 trillion dollar stimulus programs would emerge. We'd probably be in Syria as well. Gridlock is good.

 

[UWDude]

You do realize....

Umm. You do realize this is an overused cliche for forum trolls, right?

who would control all 3 legislative branches of government right now passing everything imaginable? The 2nd amendment would be essentially gone. Tax rates would skyrocket. Who knows what 3 trillion dollar stimulus programs would emerge. We'd probably be in Syria as well. Gridlock is good.

It's the old "if democrats were in control, it would be worse" argument. Both parties are EXACTLY the same, save some minor focal point re-direction issues like abortion and gay marriage. Why are you telling me gridlock is good as if that is relevant? WHAT GRIDLOCK? The vast majority of elected tea-partiers are terrifying to me, because they don't give a FLYING FUCK about civil liberties or undeclared aggressive warfare or even the bank bailouts. When it comes time for them to vote, they vote like the good little slaves of the banks, oil and defense companies, that they are. The list of names of all the politicians claiming to be tea partiers or supporting tea party goals is long and ludicrous, if labeled liberty. On the important stuff, the truly civilization risking ones, Washington DC is a streamlined anti-efficiency machine.

The situation in Syria has nothing to do with gridlock. The United States has no more options. What happened in Syria was beyond the control of US government and its crony overlords. It was Russia's counter-hegemonic chess move, with a little square neutralized in Turkey.

 

[UWDude]

I like how people still pretend to know who originated the movement. Even if it was Anonymous, I still don't think anonymous is liberty-oriented. For one thing, the video mentions tax evasion as a bad thing. There's a reason it was never a big thing while still in the planning stages around here, and something that big would certainly need a lot of planning, which we would have heard about a long time before it happened just like we did with the March on Washington. Anonymous doesn't stand for liberty, that much has become clear already.

You are doing it again. You are labeling a movement based on innuendo and press stories. Now anonymous is an enemy too? Anonymous is a clear ALLY in the battle for truth! TRUTH, first part of the American way! What gives you the right to speak for anonymous? Are you in anonymous? Who speaks for anonymous? Anonymous has a leader or funding of some sort? Or is anonymous what it claims to be... ...a completely leaderless movement. A "do it" movement, not a "other people need to be doing this" movement. So, the answers are "nothing", "no", and "B. Anonymous is what it claims to be."

 

[AuH20]

Umm. You do realize this is an overused cliche for forum trolls, right?



It's the old "if democrats were in control, it would be worse" argument. Both parties are EXACTLY the same, save some minor focal point re-direction issues like abortion and gay marriage. Why are you telling me gridlock is good? The vast majority of elected tea-partiers are terrifying to me, because they don't give a FLYING FUCK about civil liberties or undeclared aggressive warfare or even the bank bailouts. When it comes time for them to vote, they vote like the good little slaves of the banks, oil and defense companies, that they are. The list of names of all the politicians claiming to be tea partiers or supporting tea party goals is long and ludicrous, if labeled liberty.

The situation in Syria has nothing to do with gridlock. The United States has no more options. What happened in Syria was beyond the control of US government and its crony overlords. It was Russia's counter-hegemonic chess move, with a little square neutralized in Turkey.

Both parties are SAME at the leadership level and upper funding levels. Leadership assimilates new members with the lure of lucrative & prestigious committee posts. Besides this unfortunate reality of a strict top-to-bottom command structure, the parties are nothing alike.

 

[LibertyEagle]

UWDude, there is quite a bit of difference between the everyday Americans in the 2 parties. There actually are more than a few in the Republican Party who do want our politicians to adhere to the Constitution. Rand is working on unpropagandizing many in the Republican Party right now.

There are far fewer in the Democratic Party. Far few. As long as I can remember their goal has been for more government. That is what the everyday folks in the Democratic Party want. They can see nothing else as a solution.

 

[Czolgosz]

Pedal to the metal would be a helluva lot better.

 

[UWDude]

the parties are nothing alike.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[UWDude]

UWDude, there is quite a bit of difference between the everyday Americans in the 2 parties. There actually are more than a few in the Republican Party who do want our politicians to adhere to the Constitution. Rand is working on unpropagandizing many in the Republican Party right now.

There are far fewer in the Democratic Party. Far few. As long as I can remember their goal has been for more government. That is what the everyday folks in the Democratic Party want. They can see nothing else as a solution.

I remember when it was the Democratic party gave a fuck about the wars and civil liberties. It was about 2000, 2001-ish. Oh look, a Republican is president at that time! Is it coincidence?

So now, I see the republicans supposedly caring about wars and civil liberties, when I know most of them, including a vast majority of elected tea partiers, are only doing it because it is a democrat in the white house. As soon as a republican president is elected, they will all kowtow to the next great farce America will call its president.

I actually remember the 1994 rebellion and Contract with America. I remember Republicans chastising Clinton for being "the world's policeman" while cheering Bush in his new war in Iraq.

The parties are exactly the same.

 

[leverguy]

That's because the occupy movement was real opposition...

LOL!

 

[Lucille]

"Nobody cares about your fucking drum circles!"
--Doug Stanhope