FOX idiots: Occupy Wall Street is anti-capitalist, socialist, Marxist, communist

[Drosophila]

3fcooDAxnz4


Here is the list of "demands" made by Occupy Wall Street:

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal .
Vote Here #1

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.
Vote Here #2

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.
Vote Here #3

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.
Vote Here #4

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.
Vote Here #5

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.
Vote Here #6

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.
Vote Here #7

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.



Do you see anything on there that demands the abolition of private property, common ownership of the means of production, or even universal health care? You can't demand that Congress do something. It runs on a system that makes decisions based on who is in the majority (even then nothing significant can pass). You can't just demand that things be done in our kind of government.

[JFB.anon]

I like these demands... They're nothing great, but they're good. I mean, you know, they could have tried to, eh, do something about that economic injustice thingy - but ending corporate personhood is good, too. Good on them!

[Paulappaul]

Welfare Capitalism FUCK YES!

[Misanthrope]

From the video:

"It seems like there is at least some parent supervision down there.."

Why the hell are leftists still being looked upon as children? The common view of radicals is that they're teens filled with angst. The right shows no respect for our ideology. Not even enough to seriously debate it; just throw insults and slander our way.

They continually just saw it's "Marxist", "Communist", "Anti-capitalist" but they do not go into the reasons why these ideologies are bad. They never have any argument, they just play into cold war hysteria.

[JFB.anon]

From the video:

"It seems like there is at least some parent supervision down there.."

Why the hell are leftists still being looked upon as children? The common view of radicals is that they're teens filled with angst. The right shows no respect for our ideology. Not even enough to seriously debate it; just throw insults and slander our way.

They continually just saw it's "Marxist", "Communist", "Anti-capitalist" but they do not go into the reasons why these ideologies are bad. They never have any argument, they just play into cold war hysteria.
They've done a good job a thoroughly vilifying anyone who doesn't want to wrap their mouth around a corporation's todger. The other day, Cornel West (social democrat) was debating Bill O'Reilly on his "news program:laugh:" and Bill was calling another social program or something he didn't like socialist. Despite that Cornel could have easily enlightened him with a sentence as to what socialism actually is and send his multitude of ignorant viewers to actually rethink what they've been indoctrinated with, he resorted to "U SUPPORT CORPORATE WELFARE THAT'S SOCILBILISM!".

While it made Bill look like a fucking idiot (his entire show is based around either circle-jerking or getting intellectually superior opponents to wail on his nutsack - I doubt this has any real value anymore), Cornel just resorted to incendiary rhetoric to cause Bill's loyal fans and label him a "dirtah stinkin liberul."

I doubt anyone who's ever had the fortune to be guests for Fox News have ever even attempted to educate its stupid, dumb audience.:(

[GatesofLenin]

US style propaganda, it's the 1920's all over again. J Edgar Hoover would be pleased!

[Bud Struggle]

Everybody knows it's Fox News. That's just how those people are. And speaking of the 20's, I'm sure the Daily Worker had it's share of slanted stories, too.

(Actually they have back editions in the NYPL and all the stories where Stalin changed his mind on things were cut out. Further, the letters to the editor from workers were the most brilliant part of the paper. Really great writing from the rank and file--actually much better analysis of the news than the paper itself.)

[RedGrunt]

Demand #1: Off with the heads of the aristocrats.

[RedZezz]

I think I am done with Fox. This is my reaction to every single thing that comes from that station:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0ZRnirp_1fQ/TUbHNPR7V9I/AAAAAAAAEGc/154Op1CoFBI/s1600/Socialist%2B%252B%2BFacepalm.png

[#FF0000]

Really great writing from the rank and file--actually much better analysis of the news than the paper itself.

That's generally what you can expect from these things.

[Zostrianos]

Fox News is to news, what creationism is to science.

And it's very easy to refute right wing capitalist arguments that welfare and socialism will destroy society. Simply compare life in socialist (or left leaning) countries to life in the good old USA.

America is ravaged by crime, poverty, homelessness, pollution and social injustice. In most big US cities you can't go out at night in most places because you might get beaten up, robbed, or shot. Many cities (e.g L.A.) are infested by gangs; a colleague of mine went to LA a couple of years ago to visit some friends, and he said most of the city is off limits gang territory, and dangerous even during daytime.

Leftist or left leaning countries (e.g. Cuba, northern European countries) have no crime, almost no poverty, and a good standard of living for almost everyone.

So suck on that Faux News.

[Ocean Seal]

Communists, communists, everywhere. http://filesmelt.com/dl/CommunistsVectorSmall1.png

[Zostrianos]

Other US right wingers are also trying to associate Occupy Wall Street with Nazism:

qVyZeHKu6dg

[Judicator]

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS....


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Le Socialiste]

Everybody knows it's Fox News. That's just how those people are. And speaking of the 20's, I'm sure the Daily Worker had it's share of slanted stories, too.

Never thought I'd agree with Bud, but he's right (at least in how people perceive Fox). Anyone who doesn't watch Fox on a regular basis (or believes the nonsense they deem 'news') knows that anything remotely anti-corporate with a sizable liberal presence is going to draw out the usual claims of "commie youths with anti-semitic tendencies". It really is the only way for Fox to have the chance to devolve further into its already dismal state of "Red Scare" hysterics.

[RGacky3]

Welfare Capitalism FUCK YES!
¨

Read it again, theres no welfare there.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Communists, communists, everywhere

Libery Prime would be the ideal Fox News anchor...:lol:

[RGacky3]

Problem is this stuff does'nt work anymore, most people now did'nt grow up in the cold war and arn't afraid of commie boogie men.

[RGacky3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/john-stossel-occupy-wall-street-heckled_n_1019826.html

John Stossel (douche of the universe) admits that most Americans are leftists.

O'Reilly is the king of making points and never backing them up.

[Drosophila]

I'm just curious as to how these kinds of assholes will respond to an actual far-left movement (if that ever happens).

[RedZezz]

Libery Prime would be the ideal Fox News anchor...:lol:
This would be the ideal Fox News anchor:

ju3h7yk4Hcg

[ВАЛТЕР]

I'm just curious as to how these kinds of assholes will respond to an actual far-left movement (if that ever happens).

Piss themselves...followed by mass suicide.

[trivas7]

Here is the list of "demands" made by Occupy Wall Street:

What is your source that these are the demands of #OWS? I have no demands. The process is the message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IOLmCdI5ziI

[ВАЛТЕР]

Just watched the video that OP posted...That Mathew Boyle Character sounds like the stereotypical frat-boy douche who came from a petty-bourgeoisie family which payed for all his studies and a new car.

Also, I can only hope and pray that what these anchors are saying is the truth.

[Drosophila]

What is your source that these are the demands of #OWS? I have no demands. The process is the message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IOLmCdI5ziI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IOLmCdI5ziI)

http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009

[trivas7]

http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009
These are proposed demands. You left out:


First of all. There are no Official Demands of the Occupy Movement. that being said, multiple factions of the movement have been assembling to discuss and vote on the output and message for the movement. Below is a LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS" proposed by the website (occupywallstreet.org) which does not entirely represent the Occupy Wall Street General Assembly. Below this list is a list of grievance that citizens have provided nationally and have voted on in solidarity of the movement.

I personally like the declaration that Keith Olbermann read coming out of #OWS-NY: http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/special-comment-keith-reads-first-collective-statement-of-occupy-wall-street

[graffic]

I think they are right to keep the message simplistic. It makes it more accessible and anyone can go along. I personally think it should be a non-violent protest against bankers, politicians and in-equality from a mature social democratic perspective. The politicians are not taxing the rich enough and reforming banking properly so the last resort is to occupy a space. Thats not even a particularly "political" point or anything radical, its simply common sense that bankers cannot get bonuses when the majority are seeing living standards drop. Anyway, I don't actually give a shit about it that much. Capitalism will always win. Its virtually impossible to live without a bank account and too expensive not to go to chain stores. The "people" are completely dis-organised and cannot agree on anything anyway

[Bud Struggle]

http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009

I agree to all of this execpt for 8.

[trivas7]

I agree to all of this execpt for 8.
"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." -- sign @ OccupyXX

[Drosophila]

I agree to all of this execpt for 8.

Which #8? The corporate person-hood one or the capital punishment?

[Revolution starts with U]

I absolutely disagree that corporations can be people.. that's absurd. But let them have their corporate personhood, and then if they own other companies, they are slave holders.

[RGacky3]

I agree to all of this execpt for 8.

How could you defend corporate personhood.

[RGacky3]

With Fox news, ever notice that every token liberal is ideologically weak and unnattractive, whereas the conservatives are attractive and ideologically strong. Roger watches Fox with the sound off, because he thinks that visuals are the most important, and you'll see that.

[SHORAS]

For God sake, think of the children!! :D

[Bud Struggle]

How could you defend corporate personhood.

It is a very useful business tool. It lets you isolate different segments of your business against problems or issues.

[RGacky3]

It is a very useful business tool. It lets you isolate different segments of your business against problems or issues.

Yeah, its good for buisiness ... Not for the economy, not for the country not for society. You know what else is good for buisiness? Monopolies.

.. Are you talking about encorporation or corporate personhood? I.e. that the corporation is a person under the law.

[Mitja]

Ha fucking capitalist idiots.
off topic: Would not be cool that America would become socialist!

[GatesofLenin]

Ha fucking capitalist idiots.
off topic: Would not be cool that America would become socialist!

Almost did in the 1920's. Shortly after the October 1917 revolution, socialism was seen as the next great thing and many americans took to it, reading marx, attending open demonstrations, etc... The US govt at that time didn't like this and appointed a new police agent, J Edgar Hoover, to run the newly made FBI to strike down the "Red Menace".

[Robert]

Almost did in the 1920's. Shortly after the October 1917 revolution, socialism was seen as the next great thing and many americans took to it, reading marx, attending open demonstrations, etc... The US govt at that time didn't like this and appointed a new police agent, J Edgar Hoover, to run the newly made FBI to strike down the "Red Menace". __________________

I doubt that's the only reason it failed to catch on, but thank god either way.

Otherwise, one of you Junior Lenins would have formed a vanguard to "consolidate the revolution and show the way forward" or some such homicidal nonsense. People like me would have resisted, you'd have answered with "temporary security measures," civil war would have ensued, and then ... look out below.

Get the military on your side and you may have a chance. But far more individual Americans have firearms and ammo at home than did the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans and Cubans when the despots took over their poor countries.

[RGacky3]

I doubt that's the only reason it failed to catch on, but thank god either way.

Read your history, it was catching on, extreme state violence stopped it.

[Robert]

Otherwise, one of you Junior Lenins

Oh yes, we'll establish democratic "cooperatives". Or else. :lol:

[SHORAS]

Read your history, it was catching on, extreme state violence stopped it.

What history in particular, any authors, recommendations etc?

Thanks.

[Mitja]

This would be the ideal Fox News anchor:

ju3h7yk4Hcg
Ha you just need to love monty python but the best one is (for me )
Self-Defense Against Fruit

[RGacky3]

What history in particular, any authors, recommendations etc?

Thanks.

Start with a peoples history of the United States by Howard Zinn.

[Revolution starts with U]

With Fox news, ever notice that every token liberal is ideologically weak and unnattractive, whereas the conservatives are attractive and ideologically strong. Roger watches Fox with the sound off, because he thinks that visuals are the most important, and you'll see that.

I was watching Oreilly the other day and he said "when we come back we'll get the liberal side of the story" and I said "ya, some democrat nobody has ever heard of." Guess what? It was some democrat nobody ever heard of. :lol:

[efficiency]

Here is the list of "demands" made by Occupy Wall Street:

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" govtrack. us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal .
Vote Here #1

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.
Vote Here #2

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.
Vote Here #3

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.
Vote Here #4

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.
Vote Here #5

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.
Vote Here #6

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.
Vote Here #7

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". youtube. com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.



Do you see anything on there that demands the abolition of private property, common ownership of the means of production, or even universal health care? You can't demand that Congress do something. It runs on a system that makes decisions based on who is in the majority (even then nothing significant can pass). You can't just demand that things be done in our kind of government.

I am new here. Maybe that is an advantage in some ways as I can offer a fresh perspective. For one thing, I have been reading Engles' FAQ on the Learning Forum thread. On question 18 he starts out with this ...


18. What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

Engels thus begins the revolution with progressive taxation and only gradual expropriation, and included private industry in competition with state industry, the former being compensated by the latter through bonds.

I'm not that patient. I'd like to see an instant change, but Engels seems to have wanted to work with existing systems and circumstances, assumably to avoid bloodshed, as would I.