http://sfideawar.tumblr.com/post/20642301462/declaration-from-occupy-san-francisco-general-assembly

As a dude who lives in a pro dominant state of Oregon. We have laws that make it a state right for more respect to protestors then any other state in the U.S.A .

OWS started off here as a massive camp out if you guys remember on CNN of that Push out they did around November.

I was in the city of Portland and saw how it grew into this massive camp at the local park in front of the community court and at first it actually wasn't bad. The motives were right and the goals they had were actually just. Portland at the time was dealing with local political issues and bad budget also Sam Adams turned out to be some pedophile mayor and all that but thats a whole other story..


OWS created these massive tent cities and at first they were not bad. The people were friendly you could walk right through it no issue at all and free food and housing for all!

Problem with that though is Portland is also very infamous for being Welfare capital of the USA. And a lot of homeless people started to abuse the housing situations (mostly young homeless people as the older homeless dudes are tough bastards and don't like groups or they have their own homeless cities they run and or Homeless shelters full of with them) But during the later part of the summer we started to get massive drugs into the tents and this caused up many drug traffickers to use the tent cities as a mean of not only cheap transport but also people using the tent cities as a means to use drugs in them and thus they went into OWS not because of the message but because of the free drugs.


I know this because I would remember through times seeing deals happen in these tent cities and wondered what they were up to. Anyway as OWS picked up steam naive College students in our city started to take part because Hipsters up the ass here and they think being part of a protest is "Hip and cool but better get home soon before the next episode of Big Bang Theory comes on XD".

This post is long. Click here to read the full post.

>>3755
Don't make me be rags. Why did you post that?

>>3756
When I get home I think I'd like to ask you about that. Thanks for posting that

>>3756
Thanks for posting that.

I do stand behind the basic idea of OWS. There's corruption running rampant in the financial industry, and one of the biggest problems seems to be the top trying to keep anyone else from getting up there, i.e. 'the less people at our level, the more money there is to go around.'

As I see the issue, the biggest asset to OWS is also their biggest fault: no official, centralized leadership. It's an asset because some Democrats were trying to co-opt them, to do what the Republicans did for the Tea Party, pull them into the fold and say, "Yes, you're with us and we're with you."

It's also a problem in that there's no official leadership to make absolutely certain that the protest camps don't fill up with problem people. Hold a sign for a while, pick some pockets. Chat up the guys on matters political, crash there and leave your trash there. Stand up and be supportive, then sneak off to shoot up. All people have to do is present some tiny face of "I'm just another protester," and there's no one making sure they're not just using it as a cover.

>>3613

AFter thinking about it I suppose we shouldn't worry TOO much about side-tracking this thread.

After all this was copy-pastad on at least one other imageboard (lulz.net) so I don't expect the op to be back to actually defend any of the points they made.

>>3612

>It now has to tie abortion to women's health and contraception.

Abortion wasn't already tied to those things?

>Planned parenthood will fall if Republicans get their way and take away federal funding for abortions

Planned Parenthood uses none of its federal funding to pay for abortion services. Republicans who oppose PP and the majority of the "pro-life" crowd want PP shut down because it provides abortion services, even when they know of the harsh effects shutting down PP would have on women's health (as PP provides or helps pay for numerous women's health services), especially in poorer areas of the country.

The issue with the Republican Party is it has been hijacked from actual conservative values of limited government, promotion of capitalist ventures, and what is an actual conservative form of Government, and replaced by the fucking dredges who, in short, feel the world is changing in a way that doesn't agree with them, and wants the government to be altered in a way that helps lock America legally in this one type of mind-set, that tries to prevent the world from ever changing.

And it's never going to do anything but drag the process down because change is what people want and it's fucking inevitable.

Yes the Democrats are doing the same thing for the opposite results, using the government to push change faster, but the reason they get general successes while the Republicans keep grinding on their own gears is social and economic change can fucking happen, while stagnation rarely ever works. We see it with the transition of power from manufacturing/farming to S.T.E.M. business, and how nearly every damn civil rights movement gains steam and then can't stop. We're not the same country we were 50 years ago, and we certainly aren't the same country we were when the "Founding Fathers" were around.

But no, this group of individuals in this country who miss the 'good old days' where there weren't no gays, or the factory was running, or whatever stick they have up their ass this week, and won't get over the concept of the landscape changing, are blocking out any actual governmental policies that could be considered conservative governmental policies. You only see Republicans using their power to keep things stuck in place because they're bloody obsessed with it. And it's toxic to them and the country.

You can get your governmental downsizing, you can get your lower taxes and your private sector expansions. LOTS of people would like to see that.
But until this 'cultural nostalgia' about homosexuality, and contraception (NO GODDAMNIT NOT ABOUT THE RECENT INSURANCE SUBSIDIES, I MEAN OUTRIGHT HATING AND LYING ABOUT IT TO PRETEND THAT KIDS WON'T HAVE SEX), or evolution or freaking LIGHTBULBS comes to a stop.
And you stop letting dick-cheeses like this guy get this far in this day and age despite the crap he's said and pulled, then NO ONE is going to take the Republicans seriously besides themselves.
Not this country, not this voting public, not the world.

Seriously that's your fucking problem right there. The lightbulb hysteria enough should make it clear.

>>3616
That's one of my issues: the traditional Conservative ideals have a lot of merit, and the voters still believe in them, and the candidates still mentionb them, but the actual elected officials don't follow or support them much, it seems. Smaller government? Bush's government was HUGE. Lower spending? Bush spent huge amounts and dropped us into a big deficit. That's not to say Obama is doing any better. But the Conservative values haven't, in my opinion, been really run with.

And of course there's the issue of the Tea Party, who seem too often to center their entire push around, "We need to get things back to the way they used you be. You know, back in the good old days. Whenever those were." A general idea that things used to be better, without really specifying when or how (I imagine some of the older Tea Party supporters grew up in smaller towns and are remembering an "everybody knew everybody" time).

To me, it seems both the Democrats and Republicans have a lot of issues to fix. But the Republicans' first goal should be to get their ducks in a row and present a unified front. And maybe get a candidate who didn't grow up in the upper middle class or above, who knows what it's like to struggle to find a job or not know where their next meal is coming from.

...come to think of it, I wish every politician had that kind of background. And I don't include ones who started at the bottom, but became wealthy back when "just pull yourself up by the bootstraps" and "anyone can start at the bottom and make it to the top with a bit of diligence" were still relatively possible (which, as far as I can see, they're not - those at the top have long since realized that, the fewer people make it there, the more those at the top have - not to mention the even bigger fact that business ladders today seem to be very different than they were ages ago.)

>>3578

They can arrest hackers, but that doesn't really solve their problem. It only gets rid of the ones who made themselves vulnerable.

My question is, how far can they push the actions of hackers to their advantage before everyone gets sick of the usurpers gatekeepers?

I miss the days where the headlines that plagued the news were about kids cutting themselves.

>>3579
I don't know but I hope it happens soon, if only so politicians learn to leave the internet alone. But then the hackers need to get caught because give them an inch and they'll take a mile

http://torrentfreak.com/judge-bittorrent-downloads-are-protected-anonymous-speech-120321/

This is amazing news. you guys should check it out

>>3599
Yeah I read that section too, It was disheartening to read but I still remain hopeful

>>3544
Not every, or even most, Republican candidates are after war, in my opinion. That's bullshit.

The ONLY candidate or officeholder I could say that about was Bush, who talked about the War on Terror as an "endless war" and, in my opinion, dropped hints that this was referring to invasion-bombing-attack-occupation type war, as in "non-stop military actions for the forseeable future."

I think it'll be really interesting to see who the Republican official nomination goes to. Gingritch and Santorum don't seem to even be hiding their asshole-ness, though I think they think their voter base likes that; I don't necessarily think it's who they really are. Romney is the only candidate who has a chance, in my opinion, and I think he could have a good chance - problem is, it seems almost like the Repubs kinda-sorta don't want him JUST because he's LOL Mormon. I don't see many other claimed or cited reasons for the dislike; I think the fear is that the Christian voters won't vote for him because "LOL Mormons are cultists" or some such crap. I don't get it. There's also that slim chance that they could exercise their right to go, "We don't like any of these guys, so we choose ____."

>>3586
>>JUST because he's LOL Mormon
No, it's because he's a moderate who would say anything to get elected.

>>3587
So...he's the Republican Obama?

>>3587
I have a strong impression that just about every Presidential candidate in the running will say whatever they think their constituents and/or party want them to say if it'll aid them in getting elected. I no longer have much faith in candidates saying much of anything they actually personally mean, though I do think Gingritch and Santorum would actually do some of the things they claim *shudder*

In my opinion, Obama did get some of the things done that he promised to do, but honestly, if I put my opinions on that here, I'd be afraid of being accused of trolling, too. Besides, some of them are opinions, not necessarily cases in which I crunched all the numbers.

>>3480

I originally started a few different replies to this, but decided they sounded more petulant than they should. Some of what was in them I still think is accurate but I'll address that later. I guess I'll just say I was thinking the numbers were different than they were and that's that.

>>3489

And you're just trolling.

>>3498
>using numbers and logic to counter an argument = trolling

>>3542
Now you are borderline trolling. Watch it.

>>3489
Don't think it's exactly trolling to say, "The numbers say you're wrong." Well, it is and it isn't. The post was obviously intended to make Sechs mad, but the numbers are still correct - sort of. The majority number-wise who voted for the bill were Republicans. Yet it doesn't change the fact that nearly all Democrats voted for it.

>>3477
Haven't seen any "Romney is Hitler" signs yet. I do see Lyndon LaRouche devotees standing on street corners downtown with signs depicting Obama with a Hitler moustache (I asked one once, "Is Obama really comparable to Hitler?" and he went off on a rant about how he will be when he completes an African genocide he's planning). I mean, really. I'd say this is an issue, but... LOL LaRouche. No one who matters gives a shit about Lyndon LaRouche.

So, are there any charitable organizations left that haven't been outed as scams?

>>3561

Red Cross. Maybe. *shrug*

>>3551
...are we sure the Shauna girl is even white?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/jason-russell-san-diego-invisible-children-kony-2012-142970255.html

Welp.

>>3571
>People were still reeling from 9/11 and blinded with fear/patriotism/bloodlust, so all he had to do was make the effort to paint any middle eastern country a la McCarthy style and we'd have immediately jumped on them with little to no questions.

Except that's not what happened at all. It still astounds me that people try to revise history in regards to the lead up to the Iraq war.

There were 9 legal justifications for the war presented to the UN, and only one of them had anything to do with WMD, and all the rest (like long range missiles, and Oil for Food/Oil for Medicine fraud) were verified and none of them had anything to do with 9/11 (it was merely a rallying cry leftists tards tried to use in order to say that Bush lied, people died, etc, etc, etc).

>Firing on Coalition Aircraft enforcing the "No Fly Zones"

>Interfering with Weapons Inspectors

>Funding Hamas RE payments to the families of suicide bombers

>Importation/Smuggling of banned/sanctioned war material

This post is long. Click here to read the full post.

>>3572
All of the justifications listed are fine and dandy for the UN and NATO to get involved, but it still stands that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat to the US. Thus, Bush sought approval from Congress.

What I'm saying is that Bush was able to springboard off 9/11 in terms of getting support for finishing Daddy's War. Without that event, Bush would've faced more skepticism about invading Iraq, just like Obama faced with Libya and now Syria.

>>3573
I hope you realize that the US is part of the UN and as such is "fine and dandy to get involved". Also, Bush still needed to ask Congress to go to war. The UN merely said that war was viable. Not denying that he overplayed the WMDs and used them to get Congress' approval easier. Merely that everybody else said that they were fair game.

>>3575

Oh I'm aware that the US is part of the UN, but it doesn't make it any less wrong for us to meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations' problems unless there's a general consensus by the people that it's worth meddling. Hence the heartburn in Congress with our current president.

I like to think that the average Iranian citizen looks at his/her government and wonders what he has done in a past life to deserve to live in such a Fundamentalist basket-case of a nationstate.

>>3310
Yeah, the US is totally a fundamentalist state alright.

Totally.

>>3378
It isn't that way YET, but if you don't keep the repukes out of office it will damn well look that way.
America has reduced itself to only two possible paths to the future, it all depends on whether you prefer your policestate with or without theocracy behind it.

(Someone still using AOL in 2012 is a moron, what a shock!.)

>>3418
Stupid poster for being so vitrolic, but they do seem to have a point in that American politics has seemingly been reduced to two polar opposite "sides," and people from both seem to look at anything anywhere between them as a dead gray-area wasteland full of idiots, fools and enemies.

AKA "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos," AKA "C'mon, c'mon, pick a side, pick a side! With us or against us! Pick a side!"

Sic Semper Macfags.

>>3475
Biggest irony is now if he survives his rumoured 126 year jail term, he'll get a cushy job with a big fat paycheck.

>>3481

What?

>>3490
His crimes have apparently been calculated to about 126 years worth of jail time.
You do know FBI caught hackers tend to become suits because the feds have this whole "if you can't beat them, assimilate them" mentality.