OWS is GIVING us an open net! [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Sematary

10-16-2011, 04:06 PM

"America's voters" are largely at home right now, particularly those voters registered GOP in closed-primary states. I know I did not, and do not, have five weeks to go march and camp out. I'm not sure that preaching to the OWS crowd is going to win over a whole lot of primary voters in general.

It is, however, a good opportunity for those that do decide to go. People aren't reluctant. This forum is FILLED with people who have posted their experiences --- mostly negative --- with various OWS or Occupy _________ protests. People are trying, but they are finding it difficult at times to get a receptive audience.

There are MORE than ample opportunities to work it online.

Sematary

10-16-2011, 07:13 PM

Not to mention - the people we want to reach aren't necessarily the marchers themselves but the people who sympathize with what they are doing and are looking for answers.

Aratus

10-16-2011, 07:15 PM

they are becoming a cultural phenomenon akin to the bonus marchers of the 1930s.

vita3

10-16-2011, 07:21 PM

Get involved cause it ain't stoppin

Sematary

10-16-2011, 07:48 PM

Get involved cause it ain't stoppin

Yup, for all of those worried about what this *might* become, if we don't get involved now then our opportunity to help steer it in a direction that can help us will be lost forever

amy31416

10-16-2011, 08:14 PM

Yup, for all of those worried about what this *might* become, if we don't get involved now then our opportunity to help steer it in a direction that can help us will be lost forever

A good number of us need to be involved if we want to participate in the "solution."

pcosmar

10-16-2011, 08:42 PM

A good number of us need to be involved if we want to participate in the "solution."

Some are, Some RP supporters and some Libertarians not identified as such.
I have even seen support from some in the militia community,, though this movement is determined to remain peaceful.
It is good to see support from them.

There are also those on both sides sowing dissent and division.
I am sure the Federal masters are pleased with that.

vita3

10-17-2011, 05:15 AM

Bumpity Bump

enoch150

10-17-2011, 07:40 AM

They got started in New Haven on Saturday and I went down there for a couple hours. They were pretty laid back and easy to talk to. Found some common ground on end the fed, end the wars, end corporate welfare, and restore civil liberties. There were a couple TEA Party guys there, with a Gadsden flag, but my impression was that they were mostly socialists. I think we can work with them on some issues, and maybe educate them on others, but I think it's unlikely they will register Republican to vote for Paul.

That being said, the short term cost of a spending a few hours with them is worth the long term reward of building lines of communication with them so that we can work together on the issues we do agree on. The R3VOLUTION is bigger than just getting Ron Paul elected. I plan on going down to talk to them again, at some point.

PaulConventionWV

10-17-2011, 09:07 AM

As in hockey, when you have an open net you take the shot. OWS is GIVING us that open net.
Sure, there are some Obama supporters there but America (and the world) is watching, and THIS is the rEvolutions opportunity to get their mans word out to the world. Ron Paul has the answers. Americas voters are asking the questions. So why are so many supporters reluctant to take the shot?

THIS IS NOT OUR MOVEMENT. You can't just walk into a rally and claim that it's about your thing. This was never about US. If you're a Christian, you don't just walk into an atheist rally and say, "Oh, gee, what a great opportunity to act like this is a Christian rally."

This is not an open net. Nobody's inviting us there or giving us anything. Some people are there because they felt the need to reach out, but this was never about ending the fed or any of that sort of thing from the beginning. You can't just hijack someone else's protest and claim that it was yours from the beginning. Not everything is just an open net waiting for us to walk in and save the day. Sorry, but life doesn't work like that. People here need to sober up and realize that this is NOT ABOUT US. If we want to do something big, let's start our own protest, not try to hop on the back of the OWS people. That's disingenuous and childish to think we can just walk in and say, "this is about our thing now." Let them have their protest. Walk in there and educate, but don't try to claim that this is a worldwide movement to end the fed. That's just stupid. Some people here are just unbelievably stupid. It may be harsh, but it's the truth.

TexMac

10-17-2011, 09:18 AM

Sematary

10-17-2011, 09:51 AM

THIS IS NOT OUR MOVEMENT. You can't just walk into a rally and claim that it's about your thing. This was never about US. If you're a Christian, you don't just walk into an atheist rally and say, "Oh, gee, what a great opportunity to act like this is a Christian rally."

This is not an open net. Nobody's inviting us there or giving us anything. Some people are there because they felt the need to reach out, but this was never about ending the fed or any of that sort of thing from the beginning. You can't just hijack someone else's protest and claim that it was yours from the beginning. Not everything is just an open net waiting for us to walk in and save the day. Sorry, but life doesn't work like that. People here need to sober up and realize that this is NOT ABOUT US. If we want to do something big, let's start our own protest, not try to hop on the back of the OWS people. That's disingenuous and childish to think we can just walk in and say, "this is about our thing now." Let them have their protest. Walk in there and educate, but don't try to claim that this is a worldwide movement to end the fed. That's just stupid. Some people here are just unbelievably stupid. It may be harsh, but it's the truth.

Nobody said it was a "worldwide movement to end the fed". It's much, much, bigger than that.

Sematary

10-17-2011, 09:52 AM

Can you get them to register Republican to vote in the primary? It's already too late in NY, they had to register by last Friday.

Why do so many have their eyes set on the short term goal? There is more to this than simply getting Ron Paul elected. He is a piece of the puzzle, sure, but even without him (which will happen some day) the goal of changing the playing field needs to occur.

TexMac

10-17-2011, 09:56 AM

Right now I'm focused on getting RP elected. There are only so many hours in the day, so that's my priority for the foreseeable future.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 10:14 AM

So would the OWS crowd go along with Ron's proposal to cut 1 trillion in spending? Somehow, I doubt it.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 10:22 AM

So would the OWS crowd go along with Ron's proposal to cut 1 trillion in spending? Somehow, I doubt it.

If it includes Ending the Federal Reserve (and the associated corruption).. Yup.

Sematary

10-17-2011, 10:23 AM

If it includes Ending the Federal Reserve (and the associated corruption).. Yup.

I believe you are correct.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 10:26 AM

If it includes Ending the Federal Reserve (and the associated corruption).. Yup.

I think you have the wrong idea if you believe OWS is composed primarily of libertarians. These people aren't part of the liberty movement. A large number of them are Obama supporters, and a large number of them don't support Obama because he's not an outright Communist like they are. There might be a small number of libertarians there who are trying to infiltrate a left wing movement, but it's a very small number of libertarians.

Sematary

10-17-2011, 10:28 AM

I think you have the wrong idea if you believe OWS is composed primarily of libertarians. These people aren't part of the liberty movement. A large number of them are Obama supporters, and a large number of them don't support Obama because he's not an outright Communist like they are. There might be a small number of libertarians there who are trying to infiltrate a left wing movement, but it's a very small number of libertarians.

There is a crossroads of political beliefs there but ALL of them know that something is ROTTEN at the core of the banking system and that IS the FED.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 10:33 AM

I think you have the wrong idea if you believe OWS is composed primarily of libertarians. .

Where did I ever say that? or even imply that?
I didn't, and never have.
But that does not stop you from making shit up.

You are as fucking stupid as the brain dead morons that blame Obama for shit that was started under Reagan, continued under Clinton, and Bush and now are enabled by republicans under Obama.
Get a fuckin' clue.

KAYA

10-17-2011, 10:48 AM

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 11:03 AM

Started under Reagan? Try Woodrow Wilson. .

I realize this.. I was only speaking of my time of personal awareness. (skipped Carter and Ford,Nixon Etc. as I was unaware at that time)

The fact is,,Both parties are equally complicit. And present "R"s just pushed through More Patriot Act and Bailouts, and are no doubt pushing more bullshit as I type.

Ron Paul is an anomaly.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 11:09 AM

Where did I ever say that? or even imply that?
I didn't, and never have.
But that does not stop you from making shit up.

You are as fucking stupid as the brain dead morons that blame Obama for shit that was started under Reagan, continued under Clinton, and Bush and now are enabled by republicans under Obama.
Get a fuckin' clue.

You've said multiple times that the OWS protestors aren't in favor of expanding government but are simply in favor of ending bailouts and the federal reserve. That simply isn't true. You're trying to turn OWS into something that it's not. Yesterday, you outed yourself as an anti capitalist leftist who opposes private banks. Why you support a small government Constitutionalist like Ron Paul is beyond me. It's also sad that you can't defend your leftist positions without using obscene language.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 11:19 AM

You've said multiple times that the OWS protestors aren't in favor of expanding government but are simply in favor of ending bailouts and the federal reserve. That simply isn't true. You're trying to turn OWS into something that it's not. Yesterday, you outed yourself as an anti capitalist leftist who opposes private banks. Why you support a small government Constitutionalist like Ron Paul is beyond me. It's also sad that you can't defend your leftist positions without using obscene language.

Not true on Multiple counts.
I see you are moving from veiled lies to blatant lies.

I have never collectivized the crowd, and said multiple times that there are all kinds of folks involved.

I have said that the original focus and purpose was Ending the federal Reserve,, and have posted Documentation.
Which you have obviously never read.

I have stated that the Marxists and other idiots an unfortunate result of the invitation to ALL.
But that is one of the side effects of free speech and freedom of assembly.

And yes I do call fucking idiots just that. Especially Fucking Lying Idiots.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 11:26 AM

Not true on Multiple counts.
I see you are moving from veiled lies to blatant lies.

I have never collectivized the crowd, and said multiple times that there are all kinds of folks involved.

I have said that the original focus and purpose was Ending the federal Reserve,, and have posted Documentation.
Which you have obviously never read.

I have stated that the Marxists and other idiots an unfortunate result of the invitation to ALL.
But that is one of the side effects of free speech and freedom of assembly.

And yes I do call fucking idiots just that. Especially Fucking Lying Idiots.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

FrankRep

10-17-2011, 11:28 AM

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 11:32 AM

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No
You are a fucking Lying. As in intentionally dishonest.
lie
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

I don't have to agree at all.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 11:33 AM

I'll need to report you for foul language and for insulting Traditional Conservative. You've attacked me several times in the past and I let it go, but you're vicious attacks are getting ridiculous.

Fuck YOU Frank.
and your divisive Bullshit too.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 11:42 AM

No
You are a fucking Lying. As in intentionally dishonest.
lie
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

I don't have to agree at all.

Thanks so much. Congrats on your 20,000th post!

dannno

10-17-2011, 11:49 AM

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Actually, I didn't see that you'd posted in this thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?322139-Wayback-Machine.-(when-did-this-start-)

You've said multiple times that the OWS protestors aren't in favor of expanding government but are simply in favor of ending bailouts and the federal reserve. That simply isn't true.

No, he actually never said that that I've seen at all. He's right, you are just lying. That's one sure fire way to piss people off, is just go around making untrue statements about people.

Yesterday, you outed yourself as an anti capitalist leftist who opposes private banks.

Sounds like another mistruth.

silentshout

10-17-2011, 11:55 AM

I went to a nearby ows protest this weekend, and there were lots of "end the fed" and even Ron Paul signs, as well as some oath keepers, gadsen flag wavers. Yes, there were also lots of far lefties, and just people upset period, but it was a good mix. I do wish people wouldn't bring signs advertising any candidates, though.

specsaregood

10-17-2011, 11:55 AM

To hell with it. I'd like to see Dr. Paul go down there and give a speech, flanked by supporters. Let him show that he is willing to go to battle for the soul of the american people against the likes of Obama.

heavenlyboy34

10-17-2011, 11:57 AM

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 11:59 AM

Thanks so much. Congrats on your 20,000th post!

I don't keep count, forum software does.

As to your sigline,,

If we KILL the Banking Industry, we may slow it down some. It is obvious the Banks will fight back.
They own both the Left and the Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqkxttD-j0Q

PaulConventionWV

10-17-2011, 11:59 AM

Nobody said it was a "worldwide movement to end the fed". It's much, much, bigger than that.

You know what I meant. I didn't mean specifically the fed. I meant this has nothing to do with the liberty movement. We were never meant to be a part of it.

PaulConventionWV

10-17-2011, 12:05 PM

Where did I ever say that? or even imply that?
I didn't, and never have.
But that does not stop you from making shit up.

You are as fucking stupid as the brain dead morons that blame Obama for shit that was started under Reagan, continued under Clinton, and Bush and now are enabled by republicans under Obama.
Get a fuckin' clue.

Overreact much? Oh, look at me! I can yell obscenities in people's faces!

You are the one that needs to get a clue. The point is that this is not our movement. This protest was not about ending the fed. That part has been noticed by us because a few people from the Ron Paul camp infiltrated it and started a couple chants. Big whoop.

Get real. This is not about ending the fed. This is not about libertarian ideals. You wanna talk to people one on one? Be my guest, but don't act like we were ever in on this protest. Nobody here even knew it was going on until it was happening. If this were even remotely related to a libertarian thing, most of us here would have been anticipating it long before it happened.

If we want to protest, we should not jump on the backs of OWS. Get your own protest.

specsaregood

10-17-2011, 12:07 PM

Nobody here even knew it was going on until it was happening. If this were even remotely related to a libertarian thing, most of us here would have been anticipating it long before it happened.

On the contrary, Pcos has been posting about it for months before it started.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 12:13 PM

On the contrary, Pcos has been posting about it for months before it started.

Thank you.
But that is only because I read.

specsaregood

10-17-2011, 12:20 PM

Thank you.
But that is only because I read.

So what do you think pcos. Should Dr. Paul go down to wall street and attempt to give stump speech? I'm for it now, let him go battle for the ideology of our future.

PaulConventionWV

10-17-2011, 12:27 PM

Fuck YOU Frank.
and your divisive Bullshit too.

Dude, you need to smoke a bowl and chill. Is it really that important?

dannno

10-17-2011, 12:33 PM

Overreact much? Oh, look at me! I can yell obscenities in people's faces!

You are the one that needs to get a clue. The point is that this is not our movement. This protest was not about ending the fed. That part has been noticed by us because a few people from the Ron Paul camp infiltrated it and started a couple chants. Big whoop.

Get real. This is not about ending the fed. This is not about libertarian ideals. You wanna talk to people one on one? Be my guest, but don't act like we were ever in on this protest. Nobody here even knew it was going on until it was happening. If this were even remotely related to a libertarian thing, most of us here would have been anticipating it long before it happened.

If we want to protest, we should not jump on the backs of OWS. Get your own protest.

First of all, you clearly don't know the history of the OWS movement:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?322139-Wayback-Machine.-(when-did-this-start-)

Secondly, as someone who has been apart of three different OWS protest groups including some of their meetings, this post doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The purpose of these protests is to get EVERYBODY on board that the banks, wall st. and government have colluded to screw over EVERYONE in favor of the <1%ers. It is to educate everybody about how both the left and the right have sold us out to large private wealth interests.

If you've been paying attention then you'd know if anything, it is the LEFTISTS and unions who have tried to hijack the protests. We aren't trying to "hijack" anything, nor can we. When you believe in freedom, you aren't hijacking anything, you are educating people about being free. That's like saying if a train got hijacked by crooks, and I went on the train and fought the crooks, you would describe me as trying to hijack something when I'm merely trying to return the train to the rightful owners.

Further, EVERY protest I've been to, anarchists and Ron Paul supporters have been welcomed with open arms. Every protest group is different, but to say that we aren't welcome there, or we are trying to hijack something, when WE have the answers to the questions about big bank bailouts and the banking system as a whole is completely ludicrous.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 12:40 PM

So what do you think pcos. Should Dr. Paul go down to wall street and attempt to give stump speech? I'm for it now, let him go battle for the ideology of our future.
Dr.Paul has enough with his campaign,, and the protests are not focused on the election.
He has already expressed his support of their right to protest, and has a long history of opposition to the Fed.

I expressed my skepticism of the protests months ago, and wondered it would accomplish of even if it would be anything. It is more than I expected,,but less than is necessary.
I am more trying to diffuse disinformation than support the protest.

In the End,, I expect that there will be a One World Government and a one world currency.
In the mean time I plan to oppose that, in any and all ways I can as long as I suck air.

dannno

10-17-2011, 12:42 PM

Dude, you need to smoke a bowl and chill. Is it really that important?

Read my sig. It is very important that people be encouraged and allowed to promote and participate in the types of activism which they feel will be most effective, where they will be most comfortable and excited about participating in.

The OWS protests are all different, some of them are almost entirely filled with leftists who don't understand the purpose of the movement to begin with. Others are filled with open minded people who understand that our country has been hijacked and they are looking for solutions.

When you have people here saying that we need to stay away and causing divisiveness when this is in fact a fantastic opportunity for many people to go educate and bring more activists into the fold

No offense, but you look like a guy who likes to get prepied up and go to Republican events. That's great, I encourage you to do so and I think that it is important we have both young and older people like you who like hanging out with Conservative Republicans. We need to take over the party and control it in case the establishment begins to bear down and actively try and prevent RP from becoming it's nominee or something along those lines.

Well, I'm sorry, but for a lot of us that just isn't our crowd. We're counting on you. But stop telling us what NOT to do..

specsaregood

10-17-2011, 12:42 PM

Dr.Paul has enough with his campaign,, and the protests are not focused on the election.
He has already expressed his support of their right to protest, and has a long history of opposition to the Fed.

Fair enough, I wasn't thinking of a traditional campaign speech; but more of a philosophical anti corporacracy speech. But he does have a lot on his plate already.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 01:08 PM

Actually, I didn't see that you'd posted in this thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?322139-Wayback-Machine.-(when-did-this-start-)

No, he actually never said that that I've seen at all. He's right, you are just lying. That's one sure fire way to piss people off, is just go around making untrue statements about people.

Sounds like another mistruth.

No, just look at my sig line if you want to know what he believes in. I have no problem at all with ending the Federal Reserve. I'm all in favor of it. But he was referring to private banks in that other thread. Just read my sig again. He was called out on it by other people as well. It wasn't just me.

Also, just look at my question and his answer to my question. He was saying that the OWS protestors would actually go along with Ron's plan to cut 1 trillion in spending and to abolish the Federal Reserve. How can somebody who supports ending the Fed and cutting 1 trillion in spending in a year be anything other than a libertarian?

"So would the OWS crowd go along with Ron's proposal to cut 1 trillion in spending? Somehow, I doubt it." Me.
"If it includes Ending the Federal Reserve (and the associated corruption).. Yup." The Angry One.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 01:17 PM

angelatc

10-17-2011, 01:23 PM

specsaregood

10-17-2011, 01:26 PM

Brett85

10-17-2011, 01:27 PM

I like what John Stossel had to say the other day. "I don't want to occupy Wall Street. I want to liberate Wall Street and allow them to thrive."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/10/14/liberate-wall-street-show-airs-saturday-10pm-1am-5am-sunday-3pm-midnight-fnc

angelatc

10-17-2011, 01:27 PM

First of all, you clearly don't know the history of the OWS movement:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?322139-Wayback-Machine.-(when-did-this-start-)

Really? Everything in the world is a conspiracy, except this. No way possible this is just the progressives generating a bunch of anit-capitalist back lash to prep us for the elections.

This can't possibly be a diversion intended to keep us from looking at what's happening with Iran, or Solyndra, or the gun running scandal...

Nope. While everything else in the whole world is controlled by the BIlderburgers / Rockefellers / Masons / Men In Black , this movement is pure.

Really?

dannno

10-17-2011, 01:28 PM

No, just look at my sig line if you want to know what he believes in. I have no problem at all with ending the Federal Reserve. I'm all in favor of it. But he was referring to private banks in that other thread. Just read my sig again. He was called out on it by other people as well. It wasn't just me.

Do you know the history of "private banks"? Can you really define any of these entities as private after what they have done?

For centuries or longer, these same large banks have colluded with kings, rulers and governments, made agreements to control their currency and have purposely started wars in order to increase their vast sums of wealth. What pcosmar is saying is that they aren't going to stop doing these things in the foreseeable future, so these (hardly) private entities are probably not going to be the friend of private enterprise in the foreseeable future. At least I wouldn't bet on it.

What I think he means is that we should stop dealing with these people who try and manipulate government and society. That is the best way to take away their power. I don't think pcosmar has anything against anybody who wants to engage in voluntary exchanges, which may include the offspring of some of the lunatics who have past controlled society. He merely seems to understand the inherent battle that man has had against these so-called "private" banks for thousands of years.

FrankRep

10-17-2011, 01:32 PM

The mind boggles. I just can't get over how the people who were apathetic and / or hostile to the TEA Party people are seemingly convinced that a large mass of socialists in motion are going to suddenly convert to conservatism (or Libertarianism, or anarchism) if we just talk to them enough.

It sends a major mixed message to Conservatives too. I've met quite a few influential people who say they like Ron Paul, but they won't vote for him because his supporters are insane/liberal (ex: for supporting OWS).

Conservatives can't trust the Ron Paul movement.
(BLOWBACK)

angelatc

10-17-2011, 01:32 PM

A fair number of us have urged trying to work with both groups.

And one of us (whose name is in the title of the forums) specifically told us to work in the GOP - something that tends to be condemned and ridiculed around here by the very people who are now in awe of the socialist revolt.

angelatc

10-17-2011, 01:34 PM

It sends a major mixed message to Conservatives too. I've met quite a few influential people who say they like Ron Paul, but they won't vote for him because his supporters are insane/liberal (ex: for supporting OWS).

Conservatives can't trust the Ron Paul movement.

(BLOWBACK)

People who say things like that are already against Ron Paul. He never supported the OWS. He said he supports free speech, but not everybody wants to hear the truth.

specsaregood

10-17-2011, 01:35 PM

dannno

10-17-2011, 01:36 PM

Really? Everything in the world is a conspiracy, except this. No way possible this is just the progressives generating a bunch of anit-capitalist back lash to prep us for the elections.

This can't possibly be a diversion intended to keep us from looking at what's happening with Iran, or Solyndra, or the gun running scandal...

Nope. While everything else in the whole world is controlled by the BIlderburgers / Rockefellers / Masons / Men In Black , this movement is pure.

Really?

I never said it was pure, but a movement that promotes the idea that both sides of our government are controlled by a very small group of very wealth bankers and that we need to wake people up to and deal with the obvious financial corruption that is occurring is at least going in the right direction. When they use that as a basis for the movement, well, that is something that is becoming a lot more obvious to a lot more people, it is a movement that has been waiting to happen. It is a movement that needs to happen. Of course the elite want to control it, they want to control everything.. but they would rather keep that stuff a secret from everybody, controlling this movement causes them effort, effort they could be using for things like stopping Ron Paul from getting elected, etc.. So the more the freedom ideology controls this movement, the more effort they will have to put into it and the more thin they will spread their resources.

angelatc

10-17-2011, 01:37 PM

So what do you think pcos. Should Dr. Paul go down to wall street and attempt to give stump speech? I'm for it now, let him go battle for the ideology of our future.

After he loses the nomination, I could care less who he talks to. But to do it now would be politically retarded. Of course, if he's running an educational campaign again please let me know and I'll stop expecting so much.

FrankRep

10-17-2011, 01:37 PM

People who say things like that are already against Ron Paul. He never supported the OWS. He said he supports free speech, but not everybody wants to hear the truth.
Not true. People are afraid Ron Paul may secretly be like his supporters, which isn't true.

dannno

10-17-2011, 01:39 PM

The mind boggles. I just can't get over how the people who were apathetic and / or hostile to the TEA Party people are seemingly convinced that a large mass of socialists in motion are going to suddenly convert to conservatism (or Libertarianism, or anarchism) if we just talk to them enough.

Have you come up with a list of people yet who were apathetic or hostile the Tea Party who are now in favor of the OWS protests?

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if there were 1 or 2 people you could find, although I still haven't seen proof of even 1 person, but you act like it's a half a dozen or so.....which is STILL only a half a dozen or so people, when it really comes down to it..

angelatc

10-17-2011, 01:39 PM

I never said it was pure, but a movement that promotes the idea that both sides of our government are controlled by a very small group of very wealth bankers and that we need to wake people up to and deal with the obvious financial corruption that is occurring is at least going in the right direction. When they use that as a basis for the movement, well, that is something that is becoming a lot more obvious to a lot more people, it is a movement that has been waiting to happen. It is a movement that needs to happen. Of course the elite want to control it, they want to control everything.. but they would rather keep that stuff a secret from everybody, controlling this movement causes them effort, effort they could be using for things like stopping Ron Paul from getting elected, etc.. So the more the freedom ideology controls this movement, the more effort they will have to put into it and the more thin they will spread their resources.

The point I was making is that it is ridiculous to crab the that TEA Party was nothing but elite astro turf while soundly asserting that this movement is real.

And believing this holds any promise for freedom is even more ridiculous.

specsaregood

10-17-2011, 01:39 PM

After he loses the nomination, I could care less who he talks to. But to do it now would be politically retarded. Of course, if he's running an educational campaign again please let me know and I'll stop expecting so much.

You are invited to my keg-party at the Ron Paul presidential swearing in celebration.

Rothbardian Girl

10-17-2011, 01:43 PM

And one of us (whose name is in the title of the forums) specifically told us to work in the GOP - something that tends to be condemned and ridiculed around here by the very people who are now in awe of the socialist revolt.
But Ron Paul did not instantly condemn OWS, either: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/05/ron-paul-calls-occupy-wall-street-a-legitimate-effort/

Also, I'd love to end the banks, too. They're not "private" and they haven't been for an extremely long time. I know it may seem scary to think about this, but the very nature of the state means not very much is truly private, even what is commonly called private property. It has entangled itself in far too many aspects of existence for far too long. Saying "I want to end the banks" shouldn't provoke all kinds of hysteria on here. I wouldn't say this to your average GOPer, but people on this forum should be used to these kinds of statements by now.

I've already stated that we should not go out of our way to associate Ron Paul with the OWS movement. There is nothing at all wrong with standing on the streets and handing out libertarian-themed literature. There are many different protests out there, with many different types of people there. The short term goal is to end the Federal Reserve. We can cross the bridge of convincing these people not to replace the Fed with anything when we get to it.

I agree with the original statement of the thread, that OWS is giving us a wide net. If we play our cards extremely carefully, we can reach people on an individual level with literature and perhaps reach a group level with some catchphrases over a bullhorn. The point is to give people something to think about. If they're smart, their mind will eventually unravel all the bullshit that's been fed to them over the years. Sure, the protests in general may not be explicitly libertarian in tone, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is the same exact thing that happened with the Tea Party. TPTB are sneaky and they know how to use the media to their advantage. Let's not let them.

angelatc

10-17-2011, 01:44 PM

Have you come up with a list of people yet who were apathetic or hostile the Tea Party who are now in favor of the OWS protests?

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if there were 1 or 2 people you could find, although I still haven't seen proof of even 1 person, but you act like it's a half a dozen or so.....which is STILL only a half a dozen or so people, when it really comes down to it..

Are you kidding? Josh and a few others went to both protests, but the TEA Party movement was largely lambasted from the start. The few people that did get involved are apparently gone now, partly because the people around here were anything but supportive.

It's a shame to see the OWS generating more excitement than Ron Paul's candidacy, especially in Ron Paul Forums. I guess their mission is going pretty well based on both that and the fawning media.

angelatc

10-17-2011, 01:49 PM

But Ron Paul did not instantly condemn OWS, either: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/05/ron-paul-calls-occupy-wall-street-a-legitimate-effort/

Also, I'd love to end the banks, too. They're not "private" and they haven't been for an extremely long time. I know it may seem scary to think about this, but the very nature of the state means not very much is truly private, even what is commonly called private property. It has entangled itself in far too many aspects of existence for far too long. Saying "I want to end the banks" shouldn't provoke all kinds of hysteria on here. I wouldn't say this to your average GOPer, but people on this forum should be used to these kinds of statements by now.

I don't want to end the banks. I want to reduce the size of government, and let the banks be regulated by the states they're doing business in. However, the people crapping in alleys on Wall Street would prefer to see the federal government become the only bank we are allowed to use.

I learned my lesson during the aftermath of the anti-war protests. These people want nothing but control - they're the antithesis of freedom.

dannno

10-17-2011, 01:56 PM

Are you kidding? Josh and a few others went to both protests, but the TEA Party movement was largely lambasted from the start. The few people that did get involved are apparently gone now, partly because the people around here were anything but supportive.

It's a shame to see the OWS generating more excitement than Ron Paul's candidacy, especially in Ron Paul Forums. I guess their mission is going pretty well based on both that and the fawning media.

I remember a lot of discussion about how the Tea Party had been taken over by Fox News and friends and how it wasn't 'our' movement anymore, but I don't remember a lot of people saying not to go down there, not to promote Ron Paul or End the Fed or ending bank bailouts, etc.. if people were saying that, I don't remember who they are, and I don't know if they are in fact the same people advocating participation in the OWS protests.

I have no idea if OWS will be effective towards our ends, but it could potentially be swung that way. The Tea Party helped get Rand elected, but it also got a bunch of statist Republicans elected and we will see how it ends up influencing 2012 elections. I have no problem admitting that if we had been able to convince enough people, the Tea Party protests could have been a lot more in our interests.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 01:59 PM

This was uploaded Oct 28 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32H_yNNg5mo

angelatc

10-17-2011, 02:01 PM

I remember a lot of discussion about how the Tea Party had been taken over by Fox News and friends and how it wasn't 'our' movement anymore, but I don't remember a lot of people saying not to go down there, not to promote Ron Paul or End the Fed or ending bank bailouts, etc.. if people were saying that, I don't remember who they are, and I don't know if they are in fact the same people advocating participation in the OWS protests.

I have no idea if OWS will be effective towards our ends, but it could potentially be swung that way. The Tea Party helped get Rand elected, but it also got a bunch of statist Republicans elected and we will see how it ends up influencing 2012 elections.

Thanks for proving my point. In about a year, I will gleefully point out how this OWS crap ended up getting a lot of socialist Democrats elected in the anti-conservative backlash that this crowd is drumming up.

It's beyond the scope of reality to believe that we couldn't associate with the TEA Party and maintain ideological purity (or whatever it is that the anarchists prattle on about), but we'll do ok bringing a bunch of socialists over to our ranks. After all, look how well that worked out for the GOP!

heavenlyboy34

10-17-2011, 02:05 PM

People who say things like that are already against Ron Paul. He never supported the OWS. He said he supports free speech, but not everybody wants to hear the truth.This^^

heavenlyboy34

10-17-2011, 02:09 PM

This was uploaded Oct 28 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32H_yNNg5moThanks for posting. How do you find this sort of thing? Do you get RT's cable channel? I personally don't have time to sort through the vids on their site for interesting stuff like this.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 02:23 PM

Thanks for posting. How do you find this sort of thing? Do you get RT's cable channel? I personally don't have time to sort through the vids on their site for interesting stuff like this.

I have been following Anonymous activities, Some I agree with, some I do not.
This is from Ampedstatus. David Degraw started it as alternative news and social networking, and is the editor.
http://ampedstatus.com/

Anonymous and Ampedstatus had teamed up for OpESR,, and operation to End the Fed earlier this year.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 03:25 PM

Not true. People are afraid Ron Paul may secretly be like his supporters, which isn't true.

I agree. If Ron was anything like his supporters such as Pcosmar, I wouldn't support him in a million years. It bothers me that Ron has so many liberal supporters. It's one of the things that gives me pause about Ron, but then I go back and see that he has such a great, Constitutional voting record.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 03:32 PM

But Ron Paul did not instantly condemn OWS, either: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/05/ron-paul-calls-occupy-wall-street-a-legitimate-effort/

Also, I'd love to end the banks, too. They're not "private" and they haven't been for an extremely long time. I know it may seem scary to think about this, but the very nature of the state means not very much is truly private, even what is commonly called private property. It has entangled itself in far too many aspects of existence for far too long. Saying "I want to end the banks" shouldn't provoke all kinds of hysteria on here. I wouldn't say this to your average GOPer, but people on this forum should be used to these kinds of statements by now.

Then you're not any kind of a libertarian or a supporter of free enterprise if you actually support abolishing private banks. The goal should be to end federal regulation/favoratism of banks and allow banks to be operated more freely. I want a much smaller government that promotes free enterprise and individual liberty, not a massive government that abolishes private banks. And why exactly should it be normal to see so called "libertarians" argue in favor of abolishing private institutions?

Sola_Fide

10-17-2011, 03:32 PM

I agree. If Ron was anything like his supporters such as Pcosmar, I wouldn't support him in a million years. It bothers me that Ron has so many liberal supporters. It's one of the things that gives me pause about Ron, but then I go back and see that he has such a great, Constitutional voting record.

Hmmm. From his posts, I wouldn't peg Pcosmar as a liberal, just a pissed off liberty lover:). I have some disagreements with OWS too, but I read all of pcosmars posts and I am willing to be swayed if the evidence arises I guess.

Sola_Fide

10-17-2011, 03:35 PM

Then you're not any kind of a libertarian or a supporter of free enterprise if you actually support abolishing private banks. The goal should be to end federal regulation/favoratism of banks and allow banks to be operated more freely. I want a much smaller government that promotes free enterprise and individual liberty, not a massive government that abolishes private banks. And why exactly should it be normal to see so called "libertarians" argue in favor of abolishing private institutions?

Yes I agree. The answer to this mess is free banking, not regulated banking.

heavenlyboy34

10-17-2011, 03:39 PM

I agree. If Ron was anything like his supporters such as Pcosmar, I wouldn't support him in a million years. It bothers me that Ron has so many liberal supporters. It's one of the things that gives me pause about Ron, but then I go back and see that he has such a great, Constitutional voting record.
You shouldn't be so bothered by it, IMO. Libertarianism has its origins mostly in radical liberalism (though it is neither "left" nor "right"). Even constitutionalism was "radical" in its time, relatively speaking. Left liberals are often eager to challenge authority, which is good-they just need libertarianism to focus their energy into moving toward liberty.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 03:40 PM

Hmmm. From his posts, I wouldn't peg Pcosmar as a liberal, just a pissed off liberty lover:). I have some disagreements with OWS too, but I read all of pcosmars posts and I am willing to be swayed if the evidence arises I guess.

Read my sig. He didn't say "kill the federal reserve." He said "kill the banking industry." He was talking about private banks, not the federal reserve. It all sounds pretty scary to me. It certainly has nothing to do with limited government and individual liberty.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 03:41 PM

Yes I agree. The answer to this mess is free banking, not regulated banking.

I would say,,honest banking.
That is something that simply does not exist with the system presently in place.

something that can not exist with fractional reserve and Fiat currency.

Cutlerzzz

10-17-2011, 03:44 PM

You are as fucking stupid
This coming from a guy that believes there is no reason for a financial sector to exist?

Sola_Fide

10-17-2011, 03:46 PM

I would say,,honest banking.
That is something that simply does not exist with the system presently in place.

Yes, true. But the kind of honesty we want only happens when the banking market is free, deposits are not insured by the government, and banks actually fail when they engage in risky lending practices. I don't want the government insuring banks with my confiscated tax dollars. That is insane.

dannno

10-17-2011, 03:49 PM

Read my sig. He didn't say "kill the federal reserve." He said "kill the banking industry." He was talking about private banks, not the federal reserve. It all sounds pretty scary to me. It certainly has nothing to do with limited government and individual liberty.

Did you read my post about the history of banking?? Please, this is very important, I believe you have completely misunderstood the entire point behind what he is trying to convey.

When he says something like 'end' or 'kill' the 'private banks' he is referring to the banks that are in power today. The reason they are in power is because they have co-opted thousands of kings, rulers and governments over the centuries and are in power for the sole reason of gaining more power over the populace.

I don't think pcosmar disagrees with the principles of a free banking industry where individuals make voluntary private transactions with a non-mandated currency, I think he sees the banks that exist TODAY as an inherent and purposeful force distinctly against the concepts of individual liberty. I don't think pcosmar is going to go down to a Wells Fargo and stop customers from banking there, I think he wants to educate people about how they have manipulated our leaders and our money so that people STOP transacting with them so THEY don't exist anymore. That doesn't mean he is throwing voluntary transactions out the window, it means he believes, as I do, that there are specific groups and individuals who work within the banking establishment to control our monetary system and they are a physical enemy who will not simply be stopped by ending the U.S. Federal Reserve. They are going to continue to fight for power. I agree that they won't have any power if we live under the system you advocate, but to pretend they don't exist just means they will probably find another way to gain power unless we are watching out for them.

I hate putting words in other people's mouth (pcosmar), feel free to correct me if I'm off-point anywhere..

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 03:51 PM

This coming from a guy that believes there is no reason for a financial sector to exist?
When did I ever say that?

Please provide the exact quote. Slander is Not appreciated.
I am rather tired of lies and those who spread them.

Cutlerzzz

10-17-2011, 03:54 PM

When did I ever say that?

Please provide the exact quote. Slander is Not appreciated.
I am rather tired of lies and those who spread them.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?320973-Question.-What-does-Wall-Street-Produce.

Reread your thread you made just days ago. Talk about lies. You sound like a child having a fit (because people are saying things you don't like on the internet).

Brett85

10-17-2011, 03:57 PM

Did you read my post about the history of banking?? Please, this is very important, I believe you have completely misunderstood the entire point behind what he is trying to convey.

When he says something like 'end' or 'kill' the 'private banks' he is referring to the banks that are in power today. The reason they are in power is because they have co-opted thousands of kings, rulers and governments over the centuries and are in power for the sole reason of gaining power over the populace.

I don't think pcosmar disagrees with the principles of a free banking industry where individuals make voluntary private transactions with a non-mandated currency, I think he sees the banks that exist TODAY as an inherent and purposeful force distinctly against the concepts of individual liberty. I don't think pcosmar is going to go down to a Wells Fargo and stop customers from banking there, I think he wants to educate people about how they have manipulated our leaders and our money so that people STOP transacting with them so THEY don't exist anymore. That doesn't mean he is throwing voluntary transactions out the window, it means he believes, as I do, that there are specific groups and individuals who work within the banking establishment to control our monetary system and they are a physical enemy who will not simply be stopped by ending the U.S. Federal Reserve. They are going to continue to fight for power. I agree that they won't have any power if we live under the system you advocate, but to pretend they don't exist just means they will probably find another way to gain power unless we are watching out for them.

I hate putting words in other people's mouth, feel free to correct me if I'm off-point anywhere..

Well, he certainly used a poor choice of words, then. I don't really feel bad about criticizing him when he's been throwing f-bombs at me and personally insulting me. I agree with AquaBuddha that the problem is the government regulation of banks, not the banks themselves. I agree that banks shouldn't be subsidized or bailed out. I believe that TARP was a mistake, and it's not something that we should ever do. I also support abolishing the Federal Reserve. But I don't believe that the criticism should be levied at the private banks. We should oppose the government's efforts to bailout banks or regulate them. We should push for less government and a more free market banking system. We should always be in favor of less government regulation of private enterprise.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 03:58 PM

I don't think pcosmar disagrees with the principles of a free banking industry where individuals make voluntary private transactions with a non-mandated currency, I think he sees the banks that exist TODAY as an inherent and purposeful force distinctly against the concepts of individual liberty.

You are correct. I mean "kill the banks" in the same way Andrew Jackson said it.
The Central banking system. Though it is much larger and more deeply ingrained today than it was then.
I also include those institutions that were involved in the creation of the Federal Reserve as they are guilty as accomplices.
That is nearly the entire banking industry, save perhaps some small banks (that have not been forced out of business) and some credit unions.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 04:01 PM

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?320973-Question.-What-does-Wall-Street-Produce.

Reread your thread you made just days ago. Talk about lies. You sound like a child having a fit (because people are saying things you don't like on the internet).

That was a valid question, and in that thread I also stated that there are some valid brokerage, but question (and still do) the artificial manipulation of commodities.

edit to add,,
I just read through that entire thread and no where at any time did I suggest that there was no need for a financial sector to exist.

I questioned the need for some of the speculation, and what value they actually had.

But your statement is patently false.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 04:03 PM

You are correct. I mean "kill the banks" in the same way Andrew Jackson said it.
The Central banking system. Though it is much larger and more deeply ingrained today than it was then.
I also include those institutions that were involved in the creation of the Federal Reserve as they are guilty as accomplices.
That is nearly the entire banking industry, save perhaps some small banks (that have not been forced out of business and some credit unions.

So you're in favor of abolishing private banks because they were somehow "accomplices" in creating the Federal Reserve? I'm not trying to misrepresent what you're saying, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

dannno

10-17-2011, 04:11 PM

Well, he certainly used a poor choice of words, then. I don't really feel bad about criticizing him when he's been throwing f-bombs at me and personally insulting me. I agree with AquaBuddha that the problem is the government regulation of banks, not the banks themselves. I agree that banks shouldn't be subsidized or bailed out. I believe that TARP was a mistake, and it's not something that we should ever do. I also support abolishing the Federal Reserve. But I don't believe that the criticism should be levied at the private banks. We should oppose the government's efforts to bailout banks or regulate them. We should push for less government and a more free market banking system. We should always be in favor of less government regulation of private enterprise.

Generally I agree to an extent that it is less effective to criticize institutions that participate and receive financial gain from the government and instead criticize the government, but at some point it becomes a closed loop and these companies are the ones financing all of the politicians that help keep them in power.

I'm convinced that companies like Halliburton and Monsanto are just as bad as government. They have employees who go from the board of directors of their company, to some lobbying firm, to some cabinet position or regulator chair. It's all the same thing at this point. Obviously the solution is to root them out at government level by stopping their subsidies and special benefits, but to pretend that if we ended the Fed and all the regulations that these same people aren't going to come back and try to gain power is kind of ignorant. Of course what is even more ignorant is the leftist view that we should use more government and give them more power to root out the corporations, I think we all know that.

Of course that is just the worst of the corporations.. The banks are the ones who made all of these things exist in the first place. They are the ones who created The Federal Reserve that caused this whole mess. They were an enemy and an internal threat before they even existed as a cornerstone within our infrastructure.. and now they are even bigger.

The point is that leftists and others like me going around calling out the banks and corporations and saying they are the enemy and why is important information for everyone to know. People need to figure out how the system works and get pissed off. Then they need to find out why and how it all happened. It's hard to get everybody on board with liberty when they think they might be more secure and have more options in life, and thus they feel they have more liberty, if they go with the collective model.. But when you have examples of how the collective model is easy to hijack and control people with, it helps to get a lot more people on board and it helps those who simply believe in individualism for moral reasons more ammunition in convincing others as well.

UWDude

10-17-2011, 04:12 PM

Get involved cause it ain't stoppin

This is the answer. everything else is just complaining.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 04:24 PM

Generally I agree to an extent that it is less effective to criticize institutions that participate and receive financial gain from the government and instead criticize the government, but at some point it becomes a closed loop and these companies are the ones financing all of the politicians that help keep them in power.

I'm convinced that companies like Halliburton and Monsanto are just as bad as government. They have employees who go from the board of directors of their company, to some lobbying firm, to some cabinet position or regulator chair. It's all the same thing at this point. Obviously the solution is to root them out at government level by stopping their subsidies and special benefits, but to pretend that if we ended the Fed and all the regulations that these same people aren't going to come back and try to gain power is kind of ignorant. Of course what is even more ignorant is the leftist view that we should use more government and give them more power to root out the corporations, I think we all know that.

Of course that is just the worst of the corporations.. The banks are the ones who made all of these things exist in the first place. They are the ones who created The Federal Reserve that caused this whole mess. They were an enemy and an internal threat before they even existed as a cornerstone within our infrastructure.. and now they are even bigger.

The point is that leftists and others like me going around calling out the banks and corporations and saying they are the enemy and why is important information for everyone to know. People need to figure out how the system works and get pissed off. Then they need to find out why and how it all happened. It's hard to get everybody on board with liberty when they think they might be more secure and have more options in life, and thus they feel they have more liberty, if they go with the collective model.. But when you have examples of how the collective model is easy to hijack and control people with, it helps to get a lot more people on board and it helps those who simply believe in individualism for moral reasons more ammunition in convincing others as well.

Well, you can certainly "criticize" private companies if you wish. That's your first amendment right. I just continue to disagree with his statement that "the banks should be killed." He hasn't stepped back from that comment at all. My problem with the attacks on banks and other private companies is that it always leads to an expansion of government. The government is the only entity that's capable of "stopping" or "killing" banks, so in order to bring down a private company, you have to expand the government. That's why you can't be anti government and anti business at the same time. If you're anti business, then you're relying on government to do something about the excesses of businesses. As a result, the government grows and takes away more of our liberties. I don't believe that a private business takes away my liberty in any way whatsoever. Nobody is forcing me to buy a product from a private business, and nobody is forcing me to work for a private business. A private business is not taking my money from me by force. The government is the enemy, not private institutions.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 04:26 PM

So you're in favor of abolishing private banks because they were somehow "accomplices" in creating the Federal Reserve? I'm not trying to misrepresent what you're saying, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Are you unable to read, or do you lack reading comprehension?

I also include those institutions that were involved in the creation of the Federal Reserve as they are guilty as accomplices.
That is nearly the entire banking industry, save perhaps some small banks (that have not been forced out of business) and some credit unions.

I though it was fairly plain English. uneducated as I may be,,,

Brett85

10-17-2011, 04:27 PM

Are you unable to read, or do you lack reading comprehension?

I though it was fairly plain English. uneducated as I may be,,,

So keep the small banks and abolish the big banks?

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 04:34 PM

So keep the small banks and abolish the big banks?

Get rid of Fiat Money., and those complicit in creating it.

Then let banks operate on an honest system and let the market decide which prosper and which do not.

Sematary

10-17-2011, 05:11 PM

Have you come up with a list of people yet who were apathetic or hostile the Tea Party who are now in favor of the OWS protests?

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if there were 1 or 2 people you could find, although I still haven't seen proof of even 1 person, but you act like it's a half a dozen or so.....which is STILL only a half a dozen or so people, when it really comes down to it..

I'll tell you what - I was with the tea party until the tea party (which was started by us) was coopted by neocons. Now I just watch in AWE as they piss off the majority of voters around the nation and thank I'm thankful that they are associated with Sarah Palin and not Ron Paul

Brett85

10-17-2011, 07:34 PM

Here's a great video for all the OWS supporters here. You just have to love these people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RvOfp-hBNM

Here's another one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b12-v2jlawQ&feature=related

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 07:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdx72CF5CDY

PaulConventionWV

10-17-2011, 08:14 PM

First of all, you clearly don't know the history of the OWS movement:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?322139-Wayback-Machine.-(when-did-this-start-)

Secondly, as someone who has been apart of three different OWS protest groups including some of their meetings, this post doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The purpose of these protests is to get EVERYBODY on board that the banks, wall st. and government have colluded to screw over EVERYONE in favor of the <1%ers. It is to educate everybody about how both the left and the right have sold us out to large private wealth interests.

If you've been paying attention then you'd know if anything, it is the LEFTISTS and unions who have tried to hijack the protests. We aren't trying to "hijack" anything, nor can we. When you believe in freedom, you aren't hijacking anything, you are educating people about being free. That's like saying if a train got hijacked by crooks, and I went on the train and fought the crooks, you would describe me as trying to hijack something when I'm merely trying to return the train to the rightful owners.

Further, EVERY protest I've been to, anarchists and Ron Paul supporters have been welcomed with open arms. Every protest group is different, but to say that we aren't welcome there, or we are trying to hijack something, when WE have the answers to the questions about big bank bailouts and the banking system as a whole is completely ludicrous.

The problem with your analogy is that you automatically assume you are right and the most morally upright of the two. I make no such assumption. I respect people's ability to believe what they want to believe, and I don't think it is morally correct to "educate" someone against their will. It is possible to believe that statism simply is the best system. Education is important, but I never try to justify forcing it on anyone by hijacking, yes, hijacking their movement.

I really think you're just in denial. It's easy to go to a protest and hang out with the people that make you feel good and pretend like that's representative of the whole thing. Your use of the term <1%ers is pretty telling. It really shouldn't matter what the distribution is. The whole "WE ARE THE 99%" thing just stinks of people thinking they are entitled to something. That's the whole reason they shout that. It's because most of them believe they are entitled to something.

PaulConventionWV

10-17-2011, 08:19 PM

Read my sig. It is very important that people be encouraged and allowed to promote and participate in the types of activism which they feel will be most effective, where they will be most comfortable and excited about participating in.

The OWS protests are all different, some of them are almost entirely filled with leftists who don't understand the purpose of the movement to begin with. Others are filled with open minded people who understand that our country has been hijacked and they are looking for solutions.

When you have people here saying that we need to stay away and causing divisiveness when this is in fact a fantastic opportunity for many people to go educate and bring more activists into the fold

No offense, but you look like a guy who likes to get prepied up and go to Republican events. That's great, I encourage you to do so and I think that it is important we have both young and older people like you who like hanging out with Conservative Republicans. We need to take over the party and control it in case the establishment begins to bear down and actively try and prevent RP from becoming it's nominee or something along those lines.

Well, I'm sorry, but for a lot of us that just isn't our crowd. We're counting on you. But stop telling us what NOT to do..

I never told you not to do anything, physicially. I have been saying it is not a good idea to try to co-opt this movement as if it is our own, but I have nothing against one-on-one civil discourse. If you want to educate, be my guest, but don't be surprised if many of them aren't very open to persuasion.

I was asking if it's really that important to argue and trade insults with someone on a message board, but apparently you took that to mean something else entirely.

UWDude

10-17-2011, 08:21 PM

If you want to educate, be my guest, but don't be surprised if many of them aren't very open to persuasion.

Don't be surprised how many of them are open to persuasion. Ending the fed is not a hard sell to anyone, once they understand it.

PaulConventionWV

10-17-2011, 08:57 PM

Are you unable to read, or do you lack reading comprehension?

I though it was fairly plain English. uneducated as I may be,,,

With all due respect, a refresher course on money and the Constitution would do you good. You are either relaying your points pretty badly, or you have some misperceptions about banking and government involvement.

pcosmar

10-17-2011, 09:03 PM

With all due respect, a refresher course on money and the Constitution would do you good. You are either relaying your points pretty badly, or you have some misperceptions about banking and government involvement.

Exactly what points are those?
The fractional reserve part? Or the foreign bankers controlling the money supply?
What part of the Constitution am I confusing?

Enlighten me.

PaulConventionWV

10-17-2011, 10:25 PM

Exactly what points are those?
The fractional reserve part? Or the foreign bankers controlling the money supply?
What part of the Constitution am I confusing?

Enlighten me.

I'm just saying, if you're for free enterprise and any bank being able to compete as long as it is not colluded with government, then you're not doing a very good job responding to CC's criticisms of your posts. You can't say "less banking" and assume we know you mean "less government involvement" in banking. The two are not the same thing. You may not like banks, but the real problem is government, not the banks. I just find it hard to understand what you are really trying to say sometimes because it seems somewhat convoluted in the idea that the movement of capital should not involve moneychangers or lenders or speculators. These are just parts that naturally arise. Government is the real problem. You may or may not agree, but I'm just saying it's hard to tell where you're coming from because the vibe I get is that you would like to see ANY big banks fail.

If you're totally for the free market and against government regulation or involvement of any sort, then that was a lot of hogwash. What I'm wondering is, why are you and CC arguing if you agree? Your language is somewhat derogatory and convoluted. Can you just make it clear what your disagreement with him is?

susano

10-17-2011, 10:33 PM

I have been posting my butt off at the OWS forum. It's a 50/50 mix, liberal/libertarian with Democrats trying hard to hijack it. My sense is most are committed to not being hijacked and they know that we have to shitcan the two party paradigm.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 11:02 PM

I'm just saying, if you're for free enterprise and any bank being able to compete as long as it is not colluded with government, then you're not doing a very good job responding to CC's criticisms of your posts. You can't say "less banking" and assume we know you mean "less government involvement" in banking. The two are not the same thing. You may not like banks, but the real problem is government, not the banks. I just find it hard to understand what you are really trying to say sometimes because it seems somewhat convoluted in the idea that the movement of capital should not involve moneychangers or lenders or speculators. These are just parts that naturally arise. Government is the real problem. You may or may not agree, but I'm just saying it's hard to tell where you're coming from because the vibe I get is that you would like to see ANY big banks fail.

If you're totally for the free market and against government regulation or involvement of any sort, then that was a lot of hogwash. What I'm wondering is, why are you and CC arguing if you agree? Your language is somewhat derogatory and convoluted. Can you just make it clear what your disagreement with him is?

I started arguing with him when he said that he wanted to "kill" the banks. He was pretty clearly referring to private banks and not the federal reserve. But it's all pretty confusing. Here is his full quote:

What was their excuse for expanding Government before Chaos?

Your statement makes no sense.

If we are peaceful and compliant,, the government expands.
If we protest,, the government expands.
If we elect Republicans the Government expands.
If we elect Democrats the Government expands.

If we KILL the Banking Industry, we may slow it down some. It is obvious the Banks will fight back.
They own both the Left and the Right.

Brett85

10-17-2011, 11:11 PM

There was also this quote:

You are correct. I mean "kill the banks" in the same way Andrew Jackson said it.
The Central banking system. Though it is much larger and more deeply ingrained today than it was then.
I also include those institutions that were involved in the creation of the Federal Reserve as they are guilty as accomplices.
That is nearly the entire banking industry, save perhaps some small banks (that have not been forced out of business) and some credit unions.

Pauls' Revere

10-17-2011, 11:17 PM

We would be shooting into our own net.

Yep, I have heard the OWS protesters described in the media as "mobs" "socialist" "communist" etc...etc...etc... The way I see it is that Dr Paul would be speaking there if it had the right message, The fact that he's not speaks volumes to me. He is probably busy with debates as well.

susano

10-17-2011, 11:26 PM

One of the founders of the OWS has said, himself the mix is half libertarian. RP supporters need to be posting on their sites and going to the protests. There is real commitment to not being hijacked like tea parties but many, many people are open to Ron's ideas or to being educated. I was 18 once and I was a Democrat. Everyone learns.

Pauls' Revere

10-17-2011, 11:39 PM

Heres what Rand thinks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279961/rand-paul-ows-paris-mob-betsy-woodruff

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) tells NRO that Occupy Wall Street reminds him of a “Paris mob,” and he blames President Obama for stirring American unrest. “I think it stems from the president promoting this idea of class warfare and emotions of envy,” he says. “I don’t think it’s helpful to the country to say rich people are not paying their fair share, particularly when it’s untrue — we have a progressive income tax in our country. The middle class, the upper middle class, and the rich pay all of the income tax.”

and Ron Paul..

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/05/ron-paul-calls-occupy-wall-street-a-legitimate-effort/

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Wednesday that the Occupy Wall Street protests were a “legitimate effort,” but he wasn’t exactly sure what they are outraged about.

“I can’t speak for the people out there because I don’t know who they are or exactly what they are demonstrating against,” Paul told the Nation Press Club. “I can argue the case for their right to express their outright frustration with what is going on. Some are liberals and some are conservatives and some are libertarians and some are strict constitutionalists. And if you read carefully over what I’ve written over the past 10 or 15 years, I talk a lot about this, that eventually we will go bankrupt.”

pcosmar

10-18-2011, 07:28 AM

Yep, I have heard the OWS protesters described in the media as "mobs" "socialist" "communist" etc...etc...etc... The way I see it is that Dr Paul would be speaking there if it had the right message, The fact that he's not speaks volumes to me. He is probably busy with debates as well.
And those Media are owned and run by the same interests,, the same ones that absolutely do not want Ron Paul in the White House.
The same ones that have been feeding you shit sandwiches for years.

Dr. Paul said he does not know what they are protesting,, but supports their right to protest.
It would be interesting if he learned that David Degraw has been speaking about the same things as Ron and this is about the Control and manipulation of money. That the original thrust (before being co-opted) was the Federal Reserve, the IMF, and the World Bank

But he has the primary to focus on.

pcosmar

10-18-2011, 07:59 AM

I started arguing with him when he said that he wanted to "kill" the banks. He was pretty clearly referring to private banks and not the federal reserve. But it's all pretty confusing. Here is his full quote:

Have you heard of G. Edward Griffin, or his book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island"?

Or have you ever seen this, (it was rather prophetic)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X-nm8SjnLqM/TpZTLAGXV5I/AAAAAAAAAIg/nYeRixJkDYI/s1600/FederalReserveOctopus1912.jpg

PaulConventionWV

10-18-2011, 08:37 AM

And those Media are owned and run by the same interests,, the same ones that absolutely do not want Ron Paul in the White House.
The same ones that have been feeding you shit sandwiches for years.

Dr. Paul said he does not know what they are protesting,, but supports their right to protest.
It would be interesting if he learned that David Degraw has been speaking about the same things as Ron and this is about the Control and manipulation of money. That the original thrust (before being co-opted) was the Federal Reserve, the IMF, and the World Bank

But he has the primary to focus on.

How do you know what the "original thrust" was? I find it hard to believe that this was about the fed and most of us, including Ron himself, barely know anything about it.

Oh, and it's SOOO easy to word it in a way that makes it sound like a libertarian thing that also fits the liberal platform that is being promoted every day on wall st. "Control and manipulation of money." Give me a break. This is about "99%" being entitled to a redistribution of wealth in their favor.

I have never seen the fed implicated except for a few rogue preachers who were obviously not the first ones there.

pcosmar

10-18-2011, 08:53 AM

Give me a break. This is about "99%" being entitled to a redistribution of wealth in their favor.

Give me a break.
I have been posting it here . I have posted the writings of the guy that ORIGINALLY came up with the 99%.

I have posted in a few treads about when and where this Started and Who started it.

I can point to them,, post links and videos. (and I have been)
But I can't make you click on a link or read it.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?322139-Wayback-Machine.-%28when-did-this-start-%29

PaulConventionWV

10-18-2011, 09:03 AM

Give me a break.
I have been posting it here . I have posted the writings of the guy that ORIGINALLY came up with the 99%.

I have posted in a few treads about when and where this Started and Who started it.

I can point to them,, post links and videos. (and I have been)
But I can't make you click on a link or read it.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?322139-Wayback-Machine.-%28when-did-this-start-%29

You have been posting threads after the fact. By all means, show me these "resources." I am simply confused by the fact that barely anyone knew about it here. Think about it. It takes a lot of energy to get people motivated to protest. If this was truly about the fed from the beginning, I have a hard time believing that people here weren't anticipating it weeks or months beforehand. Why did they choose Wall St? Think March on Washington. That was pretty big and everyone and their brother here was discussing it and showing up. Almost nobody here knew about OWS until it was happening. That tells me the main thrust wasn't from within our circles, or else it would be common knowledge that many people here would be at least partly responsible for getting people to show up and being involved in the original protest. Almost nobody here was recruiting and promoting this before it happened. Ron Paul himself doesn't know what it's about.

If you want to show me some resource that is going to miraculously prove your point, go ahead.

pcosmar

10-18-2011, 09:17 AM

You have been posting threads after the fact. By all means, show me these "resources." I am simply confused by the fact that barely anyone knew about it here. Think about it. It takes a lot of energy to get people motivated to protest. If this was truly about the fed from the beginning, I have a hard time believing that people here weren't anticipating it weeks or months beforehand. Why did they choose Wall St? Think March on Washington. That was pretty big and everyone and their brother here was discussing it and showing up. Almost nobody here knew about OWS until it was happening. That tells me the main thrust wasn't from within our circles, or else it would be common knowledge that many people here would be at least partly responsible for getting people to show up and being involved in the original protest. Almost nobody here was recruiting and promoting this before it happened. Ron Paul himself doesn't know what it's about.

If you want to show me some resource that is going to miraculously prove your point, go ahead.

How many months in advance are you looking for?

OpESR was in March of this year.
Some of that was from last year. This was from Feb,2010

It has now become evident to a critical mass that the Republican and Democratic parties, along with all three branches of our government, have been bought off by a well-organized Economic Elite who are tactically destroying our way of life. The harsh truth is that 99% of the US population no longer has political representation. The US economy, government and tax system is now blatantly rigged against us.

Current statistical societal indicators clearly demonstrate that a strategic attack has been launched and an analysis of current governmental policies prove that conditions for 99% of Americans will continue to deteriorate. The Economic Elite have engineered a financial coup and have brought war to our doorstep. . . and make no mistake, they have launched a war to eliminate the US middle class.

To those who feel I am using extreme rhetoric, I ask you to please take a few minutes of your time to hear me out and research the evidence put forth. The facts are there for the unprejudiced, rational and reasoned mind to absorb. It is the unfortunate reality of our current crisis.

Unless we all unite and organize on common ground, our very way of life and the ideals that our country was founded upon will continue to unravel.

Videos have been posted here by myself and by others throughout that last year.
You ignore them and then say, "I am simply confused by the fact that barely anyone knew about it here."

Why didn't you know, I have been following it, as were a few others. Discussions on the subject too place.
Have you even bothered to click on the link I just gave you to read it?

PaulConventionWV

10-18-2011, 09:30 AM

How many months in advance are you looking for?

OpESR was in March of this year.
Some of that was from last year. This was from Feb,2010

Videos have been posted hereby myself and by others throughout that last year.
You ignore them and then say, "I am simply confused by the fact that barely anyone knew about it here."

Why didn't you know, I have been following it, as were a few others. Discussions on the subject too place.
Have you even bothered to click on the link I just gave you to read it?

I see your 99% and raise you a George Soros.

Just because "you and a few people" here were talking about it, doesn't mean it was a tea party thing, and I mean tea party in the sense of the commonly held beliefs of those here on the forums. Do you remember the March on Washington?

I don't remember anyone here recruting for OWS and trying to pump people up. What's more the language coming from that movement is very telling. You'll brush it off and say they co-opted it, but you're obviously in denial that a protest could come from anywhere other than pure libertarian leanings.

This is the same as the liberal protests in Europe.

pcosmar

10-18-2011, 09:46 AM

I see your 99% and raise you a George Soros.

Just because "you and a few people" here were talking about it, doesn't mean it was a tea party thing, and I mean tea party in the sense of the commonly held beliefs of those here on the forums. Do you remember the March on Washington?

I don't remember anyone here recruting for OWS and trying to pump people up. What's more the language coming from that movement is very telling. You'll brush it off and say they co-opted it, but you're obviously in denial that a protest could come from anywhere other than pure libertarian leanings.

This is the same as the liberal protests in Europe.

Who said anything about it being a "Tea Party" thing?
I said it had been posted here and should be no surprise.
This from 3-13=2011
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?283345-Hacker-Group-Anonymous-Launches-Non-Violent-Resistance-Campaign-against-Federal-Reserve&highlight=Anonymous
From 6-12-2011
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298142-Anonymous-video-A99-OpESR-Communication-2-Ctrl-Alt-Bernanke&highlight=Anonymous
This is where "The Plan" was announced.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298626-Anonymous-quot-the-plan-quot-is-now-live.-Phase-1-Initiated.-War-against-the-system.&highlight=Anonymous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_9T1SPJXRI&feature=share

I believe I voiced some skepticism as well, But to say you "have never heard of such a thing" is a bit like Rudy.

And this was just before it started posted 9-11-2011, just before it started on the 17th.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?314931-Anonymous-Announces-Wall-Street-Occupation-Sept.-17&highlight=Anonymous

There are a great many more threads and discussions. To say it has never been mentioned is patently false.

PaulConventionWV

10-18-2011, 03:37 PM

Who said anything about it being a "Tea Party" thing?
I said it had been posted here and should be no surprise.
This from 3-13=2011
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?283345-Hacker-Group-Anonymous-Launches-Non-Violent-Resistance-Campaign-against-Federal-Reserve&highlight=Anonymous
From 6-12-2011
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298142-Anonymous-video-A99-OpESR-Communication-2-Ctrl-Alt-Bernanke&highlight=Anonymous
This is where "The Plan" was announced.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298626-Anonymous-quot-the-plan-quot-is-now-live.-Phase-1-Initiated.-War-against-the-system.&highlight=Anonymous

I believe I voiced some skepticism as well, But to say you "have never heard of such a thing" is a bit like Rudy.

And this was just before it started posted 9-11-2011, just before it started on the 17th.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?314931-Anonymous-Announces-Wall-Street-Occupation-Sept.-17&highlight=Anonymous

There are a great many more threads and discussions. To say it has never been mentioned is patently false.

I never said any of those things. Nonetheless, you put one of those things in quotations, implying I actually said it.

What I said is basically that it was never a big deal. If it sprang from our circles or those like us (I know, collectivism) you would expect it to be a big deal. People here have a reason for suspicion, and that doesn't go away simply because you talked about it here, there, and there or whatever. The people here weren't anticipating it to a large degree, and it came as a surprise to many. I think you can look at what's being said on Wall St. for the rest of the story. You think the media is manufacturing this idea of socialists, but this is what actual people, and many of them, are saying at the protests. The ones talking about the fed to a significant degree are mostly late-comers. Of course, it's diverse, and some people, upon learning the fed is a bank will say, "hell yeah, get rid of it!" but that was never the point as far as I can tell. This isn't our fight. Those people are speaking out for more government.

pcosmar

10-18-2011, 03:43 PM

I never said any of those things. Nonetheless, you put one of those things in quotations, implying I actually said it.

You never said this?

Just because "you and a few people" here were talking about it, doesn't mean it was a tea party thing, and I mean tea party in the sense of the commonly held beliefs of those here on the forums.

or this?

You have been posting threads after the fact. By all means, show me these "resources." I am simply confused by the fact that barely anyone knew about it here. Think about it. It takes a lot of energy to get people motivated to protest. If this was truly about the fed from the beginning, I have a hard time believing that people here weren't anticipating it weeks or months beforehand.
<snip>
If you want to show me some resource that is going to miraculously prove your point, go ahead.

And I have shown that it clearly had been discussed, spoken of here over several months prior.

Oh and also.

but you're obviously in denial that a protest could come from anywhere other than pure libertarian leanings.

I at NO TIME ever said that this was from "pure libertarian leanings". Though from reading Davids writings I suspect he is libertarian with some progressive leanings. That of course is my impression and opinion..

dannno

10-18-2011, 04:05 PM

I'm just saying, if you're for free enterprise and any bank being able to compete as long as it is not colluded with government, then you're not doing a very good job responding to CC's criticisms of your posts. You can't say "less banking" and assume we know you mean "less government involvement" in banking. The two are not the same thing. You may not like banks, but the real problem is government, not the banks. I just find it hard to understand what you are really trying to say sometimes because it seems somewhat convoluted in the idea that the movement of capital should not involve moneychangers or lenders or speculators. These are just parts that naturally arise. Government is the real problem. You may or may not agree, but I'm just saying it's hard to tell where you're coming from because the vibe I get is that you would like to see ANY big banks fail.

If you're totally for the free market and against government regulation or involvement of any sort, then that was a lot of hogwash. What I'm wondering is, why are you and CC arguing if you agree? Your language is somewhat derogatory and convoluted. Can you just make it clear what your disagreement with him is?

Pretty sure Peter Schiff has discussed how our financial sector is artificially large due to all of the government intervention into the marketplace.

I will admit that the financial sector helps to increase efficiency and capital allocation, but it is still overhead for production and distribution. The less of it there is, the better, assuming of course that we have a free market and there is not any significant amount of money left to be made....meaning we are at peak efficiency, the smaller the financial sector, the better.

UWDude

10-18-2011, 04:15 PM

You can go out and be part of the occupy movement, and talk with the people there. All of them know about the federal reserve (that I have talked to at least), you have more in common with them than you think. And don't be fooled by the MSM telling you what the "leaders"* are saying #OWS stands for. That is the old divide and conquer trick. They want you to think it is just a left wing nutjob group of fanatics. they want this to split into left right politics. their nightmare is the people rising with one voice and demanding an end to the banking cartels that run the world.

*as of now, there are no leaders, there is a general assembly, but it has no spokesman, and deals with tactics more than any kind of common ideology statement or any other such nonsense.

dannno

10-18-2011, 05:13 PM

UWDude

10-18-2011, 06:26 PM

Ya to their credit so far it seems they are being less successfully co-opted by the establishment than the Tea Party was..

It will not be if the libertarians do not join. There is so much good, common ground to be had.

dannno

10-18-2011, 07:07 PM

It will not be if the libertarians do not join. There is so much good, common ground to be had.

Yes, the key is getting anti-establishment people in there, left or right is fairly irrelevant.

PaulConventionWV

10-19-2011, 11:20 PM

You never said this?

or this?

And I have shown that it clearly had been discussed, spoken of here over several months prior.

Oh and also.

I at NO TIME ever said that this was from "pure libertarian leanings". Though from reading Davids writings I suspect he is libertarian with some progressive leanings. That of course is my impression and opinion..

No, I never said, "never heard of such a thing," which you implied I said by putting it in quotes.

And what I meant by tea party, was that, just because you had posted about it, doesn't mean that it had anything to do with ending the fed or stuff that ron paul supporters care about. It doesn't mean that it came from our circles or from those closely related. I guarantee, if it had, it would have been talked about a lot more. I think you know what I mean. I and many others didn't even know about it until it was happening, and I visit the forums every day. If this was truly, in any way connected to our movement to restore American to sound money and stop the endless deficit spending, then we would have known about it like everyone here knew about the March on Washington months in advance.

Just because you and a few others were making small talk about the goings-on of anonymous, doesn't mean the movement of OWS in any way resembles our movement. From the videos that I've seen, socialist language permeates that place. It's not something we need to jump on. You can walk in there and preach all you want, but this is not our protest, nor should we be associating it with ourselves.

PaulConventionWV

10-19-2011, 11:25 PM

Yes, the key is getting anti-establishment people in there, left or right is fairly irrelevant.

No. Bad idea. This is not our protest. Go talk and educate, but this has nothing to do with our movement. We can't just keep mixing ourselves up with socialists or else we will find ourselves blended in with them, which I might add has already happened to an extent.

Nothing suggests people here were or are connected to it from the beginning, and nothing suggests that these people actually hold our core principles. Common ground is shit. I bet I could find a bunch of common ground between just about anything if I just ignore the stark differences. It is so simplistic and frankly stupid to say we have "common ground" over the fact that we are both upset. It doesn't mean anything.