Your Founding Fathers were commies.

I think it is strange that so many people from America like to defend capitalism by telling us that capitalism is what the Founding Fathers fought for.I wonder if these 'Patriots' even know about their own history.Do you think that the current US government is any better than the British government of 1775? How many US citizens truly feel that they have their views represented in relation to taxation? You still have 'taxation without representation'. Its just that the oligarchs arent across the ocean anymore.

People like to defend the status-quo against any challenge by saying we must defend the current system because it is what the Founding Fathers fought for. Surely they would be rolling in their graves if they could see what has become of The United States. People that identify with the Tea Party seem to be the loudest in relation to defending the status quo.Yet who do they have representing them in the GOP? I cant work it out. They have no representation and have been duped. Tea Party members baffle me. They claim to be against the 'establishment' yet some of them are the loudest in denouncing a movement that is truly anti-establishment. The OWS movement

The most common criticism I hear is that OWS are a bunch of leftist communists that represent the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers envisaged for the United States. I find that OWS has far more in common with the Founding Fathers than the Democrats or Republicans do. If OWS are a bunch of commies,so were the Founding Fathers.

When the Founding Fathers freed themselves from the British government,they were freeing themselves from the banks and corporations just as much.They knew corporations had to be kept in check.Incorperation is a privilege. Initially all corporations were selected to enable activities that benifited the public.Shareholders were only enabled to profit as a means to an end.Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy and other realms of society.They had alot of other conditions imposed on them as well,like they were not allowed to make any political or charitable donations. Sounds more like OWS than Obama or Romney hey?

Right now,the US Federal Government could preempt all 'state corporate law' under the courts current expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.You could get around the Tenth Amendment and get them all out of Delaware.Corporate Personhood mocks the Bill of Rights and could also be removed.The Founding Fathers would remove it. All you Tea Party Members out there that are so hysterical about OWS should know that you are only helping Obama and the Democrats more by being a member of the Tea Party than joining an OWS protest. I dont think OWS is the answer but I think it will lead to the answer.They are on the right track at least. You Tea Party Patriots have been duped.

and if you believe your two examples are anything more than 2 sides of the SAME coin, it is you who has been duped. good luck finding common ground in either movement.

reply to post by Honor93


If you mean Obama and Romney I obviously see them as the same.Its a duopoly.That is what I mean when I say 'establishment' / 'status quo'. .

Ahhhh well, no, they weren't communists. They weren't even close to communists.

Their point for the revolution was, essentially, to become the top dogs in the hemisphere. As subjects of the crown, they had to pay their dues to the crown, and buy things from british companies, which of course meant less money for the landowner caste.

So they foment a coup. THis involves mass conscription, seizure of their fellows' property for the "war effort," and lots of misery for everyone. Don't let your schoolbooks fool you; the revolutionafries were pretty unpopular in the colonies. They had guns and they had money and they could buy the press with either, though, so there you were.

When they were done, they wrote a document that enshrined hteor own power, excluded the youth, excluded women, excluded the poor, excluded blacks and Indians, and basically created a government system that resists all change with hte utmost of its power by design.

They then put out lots of effort to crush Native societies (which practiced what might be considered communism today) and populist movements like Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Revolt.

The "founding fathers" were only "commies" if you don't know anything about communism other than what Jonah Goldberg tells you about it.

reply to post by Honor93


Or if you mean OWS vs Tea Party then that cant make sense.The Tea Party is establishment.They are complicit and willing to play the game.You cannot compare the two.Thats what I am saying.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I am not really saying they were commies ( sarcasm )but if you look at their views on incorporation then you can argue that they were about as communist as OWS. And I know all about it. The coolest thing about the war in my opinion was the number of Native Americans that fought for the british.I am also interested in the fact that so little credit is given to France,Spain and the Dutch Republic who were all instrumental in the Americans gaining victory.

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by Honor93

 

If you mean Obama and Romney I obviously see them as the same.Its a duopoly.That is what I mean when I say 'establishment' / 'status quo'. .

not sure how you perceive either Obama or Romney as a movement but i'm pretty sure i was referring to your examples ... OWS & TEA movements --> two sides of same coin.

since you are having difficulty seeing the coin flip, just trust the magician, that's always the right answer
pay no mind to the 'slight of hand' action taking place right before your very eyes

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by Honor93

 

Or if you mean OWS vs Tea Party then that cant make sense.The Tea Party is establishment.They are complicit and willing to play the game.You cannot compare the two.Thats what I am saying.

apparently, you don't understand the analogy ... here, try this ...
you compared the two, i clarified
yes, they are opposites (two sides of same coin)
and, they are similar (two sides of SAME coin)
better ??

and besides, neither group are reflective of the Founding Fathers ... not even close.

reply to post by Honor93


The Tea Party are Republicans. They are part of a political party. OWS are not. I dont see them as two sides of the coin at all. And just who is the magician ? You are confused. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. They are the ones distracting you while they use slight of hand.

reply to post by Honor93


I didnt compare the two at all. My point is that some of the most common arguments used against OWS by members of the Tea Party are invalid.

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by Honor93

 

I didnt compare the two at all. My point is that some of the most common arguments used against OWS by members of the Tea Party are invalid.

nah, this statement wouldn't allude to such a thing ...

I dont think OWS is the answer but I think it will lead to the answer.They are on the right track at least. You Tea Party Patriots have been duped.

nope, no comparison there at all

and for the record, the OWS is making movements toward creating a political party
(not just talking about it)
OWS forum

The time is more than ripe to start an OWS political party, have a national convention, and make an impact on local, state and national politics in 2012. Get in out of the cold and start organizing!

msm
Zucotti park speaker
previously discussed ATS link
now that the truth is out there, can we progress to a real conversation?
yes, the two movements are quite similar ... development, presentation, outcome ... one was a bit sloppier than the other but whatever, neither has the interests of the public at large even listed as a footnote on their agenda.

and, i cannot for the life of me figure out how you presume OWS is Anti-establishment ???
what are you reading or who are you talking to because you're being seriously misled.
OWS wants more government, not less. that is Pro-establishment

the TEA party ??? not much to comment on there either
to me, they're a bunch of sell-outs ... they started out well enough but then ... well, that's politics and their lack of concern for All Americans doesn't impress me one bit.

so, how exactly does any of this compare to the Founding Fathers or your mistaken perception that they "were communists" ?? please, expand on your ill informed opinion.

reply to post by Honor93

Text

Text

TextOriginally posted by theovermensch reply to post by Honor93 I didnt compare the two at all. My point is that some of the most common arguments used against OWS by members of the Tea Party are invalid.

nah, this statement wouldn't allude to such a thing ...

TextI dont think OWS is the answer but I think it will lead to the answer.They are on the right track at least. You Tea Party Patriots have been duped.

nope, no comparison there at all

Burn! I guess I compare them kind of but what I mean is a bunch of "sell outs" have no right to attack something that hasnt sold out yet.And when i said they are not part of a political party I meant not Dems or Reps'.I dont consider the Libertarian Party to be establishment.It is inevitable that OWS becomes a political party but they will not be 'part' like the Tea Party.I dont think the Dems or Reps represent anybody other than those that make political donations.Like I said,I dont think OWS will be the answer,but it is the best chance we have so far at breaking the rigged duopoly thats in place now.If the duopoly is broken I think it will be easier for someone like Ron Paul to emerge.There must be someone out there that is alot better than Ron Paul.There will be.I want the whole "lesser of two evils duopoly' smashed.Before OWS and before the GOP started I was actually hoping a Tea Party member would become President ( Bachman ) because things need a shake up. Since Bachman has no chance I wonder what the Tea Party faithful are clinging to and I wonder why they are so against OWS. I think it is unfair to say they want 'bigger government' If you read 'The New Common Sense' which was posted on ATS the other day it really isnt about that at all.

occupywallst.org...

reply to post by theovermensch


They may be called a lot of things. But commies? What say you this? None of the Constitution or Bill of Rights support collective ideology. It is a Republic not a democracy. The US has been changed over the years most of the 20th century it was closer to a communist democracy. The 21st century we are fast becoming a total fascists state which will soon make Hitlers Germany look like Kindergarden class. None of this can be laid at the feet of the founding fathers.

reply to post by redrose123


I agree.I think to call them commies is as absurd as calling OWS commies at this point is all.I think your opinion of the US government is spot on.It is fast becoming a total fascists state.

reply to post by theovermensch

you are welcome to your thoughts, just remember, they are pliable
it's your thoughts that keep the conversation evolving and that's a good thing

as for the New Common Sense, i was exposed to it the day it was released, thanks for the link, but i already have it bookmarked.
and, this is not the thread to dissect it so let's not go into it, k?

sorry to hear that you are still lost in the r/l paradigm, it is probably why you do not see the similarities or the end game as it unfolds before your eyes.

i'm inclined to ask how much you know about the Muslim Brotherhood ?
are you aware that OWS marched in solidarity with them recently ?
that single action is one reason i can never fully support OWS.

there is just too much evil throughout the world and i refuse to support that which supports fundamentalism. (any of 'em in any form)

some will say ... no, we marched in solidarity with the People of Egypt ... well, ok, but who do they support?
[psssst, the MB was created in Egypt by the Mutawa/religious police who were forced out of Saudi during the revolt]

this "global revolution" is not one i care to participate in and it does nothing to help the US or our people.
yes, something in the US needs to change but not this or like Egypt is doing.

when you say that you don't believe OWS are "sell-outs" yet, i say you are correct ... they have no need to sell-out, they are merely following the exact design that was implemented at its onset.

those who follow passionately yet, blindly are the ones who scare me the most.

for you to classify Tea Party as one political group goes to show just how limited your knowledge of the situation truly is. The Tea Party movement fractured long ago (before the political party emerged) and is as individualized as OWS was in the beginning. Divide & Conquer ... know it ... see it ... avoid it.

fyi ... still don't see how any of this relates to your Topic.

I dont mind responding to your off topic posts.I dont even mind that you are so condescending .I know a fair bit about the Muslim Brotherhood.I have been watching the people of Egypt reject them.I thought they would sooner.Just because they are not the solution doesnt mean everything that has happened in Egypt was for nought.Egypt now knows that if the people reject their government they can rise up together against it.

I cant see why you say that I am stuck in the right left paridigm.That would be you.Do you consider the 'collectivism' that you blindly reject to be on the left? Is that why you reject it? I dont see it as a left right thing at all. You are the one saying that OWS iand the Tea Party are two sides of the same coin. I dont think they are at all because OWS trenscends letf/right.The Tea Party does not.That is why I would argue that I am not exactly comparing the two.

And saying the Tea Party are not a political party is just fantasy. I guess you are right in a sense.They are not their own political party, they joined someone elses.They are Republicans and part of the left right paridigm.They are a lynchpin actually.To say that they fractured before they became sell outs is pretty convenient.Maybe OWS can use that argument at a later date as well?

reply to post by theovermensch

opening a post with a personal attack and you claim i'm condescending ?? interesting outlook.
if you don't like my style, try to remember, there is nothing forcing you to respond.

the people of Egypt have NOT risen up against the MB, they are embracing them
(please look closer)
i know this because i pay attention to the "chatter" and if you don't, you should.
regardless what the msm promotes, the truth is out there if you care to look.

the people learning they can revolt ??
you say that like it's a new thing ... well, i assure you ... it's not.

i never said what is happening and what has happened in Egypt is for naught ... where do you get that idea?
i will say again, what is happening there has no place here.

i'm stuck in the paradigm ?? not for about 27yrs now and counting ...
i am not the one comparing TP / OWS
i am not the one preaching Paul is some kind of savior
i am not the one following blindly down a path of the unknown ... that would be you.

i never mentioned collectivism as a government system, but if you're asking, it is not natural.
it has been tried and failed numerous times over the centuries and i don't care to repeat mistakes. need more ??
it consistently leads to failures ... see OWS, NY for current examples.

question --> do you know why tie-dye became a 'symbol' of the 60s protests?
(clue ... it was NOT a fashion statement)

see the outcome of the 60s protests to clearly anticipate this outcome.
[it wasn't pretty]

ppl mistakenly think protests ended the VN conflict.
that is a perception perpetuated by propaganda.

the truth is ... they had no soldiers to continue fighting it ... 500,000+ deserted
since there was no defined goal, there would have been no end.

i understand your confusion and i hope you soon see the light but please don't preach to me like i don't know better. cause i do.

if you cannot see the 'coin' or it's two sides, then it is you who is stuck in the paradigm, i would suggest you look haaarrrrddeeeerrr.

one does not need a system to practice collectivism.
one does not need permission to practice collectivism.
one does need cooperation and OWS is lacking quite a bit of that.

and, as the OWS becomes a political party, it is no different than the Tea Party, just different ideologies. ~~ same game/paradigm, different players.

i am merely sharing facts not fantasy.
if you do not know the history, try learning.

oh, and please, show me where i said this ...

And saying the Tea Party are not a political party is just fantasy

didn't i mention something about "sell-outs" ???????

reply to post by Honor93

Textreply to post by theovermensch opening a post with a personal attack and you claim i'm condescending ?? interesting outlook. if you don't like my style, try to remember, there is nothing forcing you to respond.

I think my opening was more 'outrageous' than 'condescending'. Maybe a little 'obnoxious'. Whether I like your style or not I value your opinion and Im interested. I think there is common ground for the majority of us somewhere. There should be more people like us that are thinking about politics because its important.

Textthe people learning they can revolt ?? you say that like it's a new thing ... well, i assure you ... it's not.

To me it feels like people in the West feel trapped between the lesser of two evils. I think they are right in a way because the duoploy is rigged that way.I think we can smash it up though.

Texti am not the one preaching Paul is some kind of savior

I like Ron Paul for alot of reasons but I dont think he is a saviour.Like I said,there will be someone better.I want a system that allows people with good sensible ideas to emerge without having to join the enemy.An independant needs a heck of alot of money to compete with the duopoly.And they have msn against them.Cant do much about msn but there are things we could do.I think Ron Paul is the candidate most likely to take a sledge hammer to things.Followed a long way back by Bachmann.I dont think either is a saviour.

Textoh, and please, show me where i said this ... And saying the Tea Party are not a political party is just fantasy didn't i mention something about "sell-outs" ???????

Im not sure what you are saying really-

Textfor you to classify Tea Party as one political group goes to show just how limited your knowledge of the situation truly is. The Tea Party movement fractured long ago (before the political party emerged) and is as individualized as OWS was in the beginning. Divide & Conquer ... know it ... see it ... avoid it.

How many political 'groups' are they then? Are you saying some of them vote democrat? Or are you saying they are individuals due to the 'fracture' If so they should get a new name because the Republicans have stolen that one.If they are not Rebublicans that part of the faction should make it clear that they are independant and unaffiliated.Are you saying current Tea Party Patriots are just conservative republicans that have jumped on board?I dont know what you mean at all.I know alot of people that supported the Tea Party at the start are Ron Paul supporters but they wouldnt call themselves Tea Party Patriots now surely.Anyway,my apologies,I know you said they were "sell outs" but the whole 'not one political group' thing has me confused.

edit on 28-11-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

I keep messing up with the reposting sections of posts to respond to.Sorry about that.I'll get the hang of it.

edit on 28-11-2011 by theovermensch because: messing the quotes up

reply to post by theovermensch

i appreciate the conversation and thank you for continuing.

regarding the TP -> they began as a movement with a right idea ... taxed enough already.
they grew, they lacked leadership, they were co-opted (sold-out) and divided into about (a numerical guess here) two dozen groups and one emerged politically [Tea Party Patriots]. (that's what i mean about not knowing how and why they got to where they are today - which has had minimal effect so far)

Many members of the TP movement, moved elsewhere when the Patriots came to the fore-front, just like what is happening with much of OWS these days.
(btw, many TP supporters still hold the same values that drew them to the movement, but the Patriots are far more extreme in their direction, hence the change of support)

i agree talking about politics is a necessary thing but i wish we were discussing more topics like which amendments need repealed (i can think of 10 of em) and how to properly pressure our Reps to get r'done.

more conversation about what would emerge IF this two-faced coin were tossed.
ppl want to talk about we need change and i'd agree but i don't think this current 'movement' is leading anywhere near the right direction.
[and, with more threats of violence, i wonder ... when will we learn to build without destroying something first?]

please don't misunderstand, in the early days, i had high hopes for the OWS but watching it evolve as many before have, it tends to leave me in greater distress.

i like RP for a lot of reasons and i dislike him for a lot of reasons but then again, that's politics.
personally, i think he's being used to guarantee Obama another term.
(us old farts have seen it done before)
if you don't understand how, please ask rather simply dismiss the idea.

i can tell you many TPers vote their conscience whichever party and candidate fits the bill.
some Democrat, some Republican and many vote Independent (again depending on the candidate).

i can also tell you that i'm personally familiar with another candidate (not recommending this person mind you) who i'd bet you've never even heard of and she's a legal candidate. have you even heard of this one?

my point is, we the ppl have become so wrapped up in the "race", no one is driving the bus.
no one is demanding the mistakes of yesterday be corrected.
no one is pushing the legislatures to do their job, instead we're begging them for one ??

this country has been on auto-pilot for far tooooo long.

look, i see both parties in the same light (and a dim one at that).
a movement of the ppl is a grand thing and more of it is needed imho, but, once that movement has been co-opted, it is absorbed into the ongoing political machine. It happened to the TP with the Republicans and it is happening to OWS with the Democrats ... so, what has really changed?

Until whomever, wherever has the success of eliminating the Fed Reserve (and the Central banking system), we are doomed to run in circles like a hamster in his wheel, going nowhere fast.

all the small stuff will continue to get bigger until the giant falls, it really is that simple.
Valiant persons have tried and failed and i'm sure we'll try again but, OWS doesn't even wanna get it done. (and i'm pretty sure their financiers wouldn't allow it anyway)

regarding noob mistakes, tips, tools and generally good advice ... here's a couple really helpful links in case no one has led you there yet ... Freshman Forum
Index of Important ATS links

reply to post by theovermensch


Ah, I got you. Yeah. Technically even today, government retains the right to revoke or grant corporate charters. Unfortunately due to the stupidest Supreme Court decision of all time (granting personhood to corporations) this power can no longer be exercised.

Basically one idiotic 19th century decision by the Supreme Court, to allow nonhumans to be covered by the 14th amendment, set the stage for the utter ruination of our nation, planting the seeds for unaccountable feudal / fascist nations to hold power within and beyond our borders.