• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

Look, it is plain as day that conservatives spend virtually all of their time excoriating government and blaming government for everything under the sun. To deny that is simply to deny reality.


Well, then that brings me back to asking you to show it in the constitution. You never took that on, instead diverting to this meme...Now why would that be?


j-mac
 
Now that is a jobs bill we can believe in. That is the real hope and change.

Hahah well your gonna need a lot of "real hope" with those republican candidates on stage... Real solid group you guys got... :lamo
 
Hahah well your gonna need a lot of "real hope" with those republican candidates on stage... Real solid group you guys got... :lamo

Love it when a Democrat/Socialist makes claims of how bad the choices are within the Republican Party after watching the current occupant in the WH for the last three years. You really have no room to talk.
 
Why do you support OWS and what purpose does it serve protesting at locations that have nothing to do with making the laws that Wall Street didn't break?

I support the OWS because I support economic justice. They are not interested in lobbying Washington politicians, they are about increasing pubic debate on the concentration of wealth, income and power at the top. What better place to do that than from Wall Street?
 
Look, it is plain as day that conservatives spend virtually all of their time excoriating government and blaming government for everything under the sun. To deny that is simply to deny reality.

Do you have a link to support that statement or do we start accepting hyperbole as fact?
 
Good enough to beat the empty suit in office now.

j-mac


He must not be an "empty suite" when he has gotten so many of you guys's panties in a bunch. I mean jeeeshh you guys were soo desperate to make up **** about the health care bill, remember the death panels? Or how it is gov ran? Or how about that Marxist, muslim, communist, socialist, Nazi, fascist, liberal, maoist, democrat? I mean if someone has that much **** made up about him he must not be an "empty suit"...
 
I support the OWS because I support economic justice. They are not interested in lobbying Washington politicians, they are about increasing pubic debate on the concentration of wealth, income and power at the top. What better place to do that than from Wall Street?

Do you realize how foolish that sounds, increasing public debate means taking weeks and months protesting and not having a coherent message? How does protesting at Wall Street, shutting down businesses in the area, creating civil unrest, clashing with the police promote your claims? A better place to do that is at the ballotbox and through the electoral process and if that doesn't work in D.C. where the laws are made. what laws did Wall Street break that created this anger?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/11/16/support-for-occupy-wall-street-drops-in-poll/
 
Last edited:
Love it when a Democrat/Socialist makes claims of how bad the choices are within the Republican Party after watching the current occupant in the WH for the last three years. You really have no room to talk.

Im not defending the guy im just not a blind republican partisan like you are.... I mean in all honesty you guys are gonna need a lot of help with that current group of "go getters" the republicans have up there on stage...
 
I support the OWS because I support economic justice. They are not interested in lobbying Washington politicians, they are about increasing pubic debate on the concentration of wealth, income and power at the top. What better place to do that than from Wall Street?


The signature of modern leftist rhetoric is the deployment of terminology that simply cannot fail to command assent. As Orwell himself recognized, even slavery could be sold if labeled "freedom." In this vein, who could ever conscientiously oppose the pursuit of "social justice," -- i.e., a just society?

To understand "social justice," we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived -- one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of "justice" that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel.

This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism -- not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism -- that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of "social justice," (which has become a kind of "new and improved" substitute for a storeful of other terms -- Marxism, socialism, collectivism -- that, in the wake of Communism's history and collapse, are now unsellable).

"The history of all existing society," he and Engels declared, "is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf ... oppressor and oppressed, stood in sharp opposition to each other." They were quite right to note the political castes and resulting clashes of the pre-liberal era. The expositors of liberalism (Spencer, Maine) saw their ethic, by establishing the political equality of all (e.g., the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and inequality of rights), as moving mankind from a "society of status" to a "society of contract." Alas, Marx the Prophet could not accept that the classless millenium had arrived before he did. Thus, he revealed to a benighted humanity that liberalism was in fact merely another stage of History's class struggle -- "capitalism" -- with its own combatants: the "proletariat" and the "bourgeoisie." The former were manual laborers, the latter professionals and business owners. Marx's "classes" were not political castes but occupations.

Today the terms have broadened to mean essentially income brackets. If Smith can make a nice living from his writing, he's a bourgeois; if Jones is reciting poetry for coins in a subway terminal, he's a proletarian. But the freedoms of speech and enterprise that they share equally are "nothing but lies and falsehoods so long as" their differences in affluence and influence persist (Luxemburg). The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of "social justice" -- a "classless" society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and "power."

Social Justice: Code for Communism

So you support Marxism.


j-mac
 
Love it when a Democrat/Socialist makes claims of how bad the choices are within the Republican Party after watching the current occupant in the WH for the last three years. You really have no room to talk.

Daffy Duck could be the R candidate and you would support him simply because of the R.
 
Im not defending the guy im just not a blind republican partisan like you are.... I mean in all honesty you guys are gonna need a lot of help with that current group of "go getters" the republicans have up there on stage...

As I have posted before, I'll bet I have voted for more Democrats than you have Republicans. I respond to facts not opinions and certainly not the empty rhetoric from this Administration. You see, results matter, not rhetoric. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results.
 
Daffy Duck could be the R candidate and you would support him simply because of the R.

After the results of this President, you are probably right. Why would you give this empty suit 4 more years?
 
So you support Marxism.

As defined by the far-right and held constitutional by the rule of law and both political parties for half a century in this country? Yes.
 
As defined by the far-right and held constitutional by the rule of law and both political parties for half a century in this country? Yes.


Just because Progressivism has infiltrated both political parties is really of no concern to the meaning of your code speak.


j-mac
 
I support the OWS because I support economic justice. They are not interested in lobbying Washington politicians, they are about increasing pubic debate on the concentration of wealth, income and power at the top. What better place to do that than from Wall Street?

The better place WOULD be Washington. The 'bankers' on Wall Street have no personal interest in addressing the 'concentration of wealth, income and power at the top' except of course in INCREASING IT. Legislation power in Washington could be used to address this but even more powerful would be the power of the purse of every American. Consider the effect if all went back to a cash basis economy, no checks or debit cards. If we deprived Wall Street of their 'fuel' they may yield to the desires of the public...but I doubt it.
 
As I have posted before, I'll bet I have voted for more Democrats than you have Republicans.
Good for you... :applaud
Ive only been old enough to vote for only a state election and congressional election...

I respond to facts not opinions and certainly not the empty rhetoric from this Administration. You see, results matter, not rhetoric. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results.
I'm buying the rhetoric?
Really?
Are you saying i support this president 100%?
 
Ohhh this guy.... :lamo
This is pathetic...
If you support economic justice you support Marxist communism!

Yes, apparently the far right thinks our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were all Marxists for supporting tax rates far more progressive than anything proposed by the Democrats today.
 
You see, results matter, not rhetoric. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results.
:doh
You just used rhetoric to try to make a point

"Why would you give this empty suit 4 more years?"
 
I support the OWS because I support economic justice. They are not interested in lobbying Washington politicians, they are about increasing pubic debate on the concentration of wealth, income and power at the top. What better place to do that than from Wall Street?

You support economic justice? How wonderful! Mankind has been searching for it for thousands of years and the OWS crowd has finally found such a thing!

Would you kindly share this formula with us?

On the other hand there's a Democrat mayor of New York, A Democrat governor of New York State, A Democrat President Wall Street has given more money and support to Barrack Obama than to any other Presidential Candidate in history, and the last Wall Street Reform was carried out by the Democrats.

Perhaps the Tea Party would be a better place to start.
 
A bird of a different feather is still a bird.


j-mac

So let me get this straight... If you speak of social justice or economic justice you are a Marxist?
I mean ****!
There are a **** ton of Marxists out there! Man oh man!

Your knowledge never fails you does it McCarthy?
I mean, going of your great knowledge of course, then we must of been a Marxist country back in the 40's, 50's, and the 60's then! More redistribution of wealth, more and higher progressive tax, our gov was building industry and infrastructure, i mean that must be MARXIST right!? :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom