-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Occupy Pt 2: Tahrir, Lafayette or In Between
Author: Raine
Date: 09/29/2011 14:03:09
Earlier this week, I wrote a blog regarding my early feeling on the protests occurring on Wall Street. It was an honest and heartfelt ponderence, and one that has provided much good debate. Debate is something I enjoy.
I still wonder about what is going to happen. I cannot stress enough that I want this movement to succeed. Please allow me to further pontificate. I read this over at DU this morning: Please forgive me for posting from another message board, but this was a first hand account from an observer. I wholeheartedly agree.
.
This is a brand new movement. It's in its infancy. And with all of the debate I have had with some very dear friends, I am left wondering who will nurture and feed this infant? I know it's cliché to, well, use a cliché but I think this is at the heart of my concern.
I have seen many people say that awareness and awakening this generation is enough, and I think in spirit it is good. Perhaps I am getting a little older, but I have walked past the White House many many times and always see this:
I'm sure you have seen it. I'm sure you have walked past it as though it were a moment in history. It always makes me a little sad. My fist time seeing it was September 24, 2005 at an anti-war march. Many of you were there; it's where we first met, or nearly met (smile). We did not end the war that day, but we brought awareness. We still kept working and eventually, we elected a man who would start the withdrawal. It's been 10 years. No it isn't over, but the tide has turned. I remember before that 2005 protest, there were factions and opinions by many people on who was to lead the charge of the protest. Was it going to be A.N.S.W.E.R or United for Peace and Justice? They came together for that historic march, but shortly after cut ties with each other: Since that time, we have seen many groups against the war, but - to the best of my knowledge - there have been no major anti-war protests since then. I was in NYC with LivingOnLI and a few friends that fall, but after that, I haven't seen the numbers we needed to keep the movement going with the ferver that was needed.
Now, I would never assume or present President Obama as an anti-war President. But it took the election of 2008 to finally start seeing the draw-down and change of attitude we wanted back in 2003, 04, 05 and beyond. The movement fractured because there was no cohesive leadership or common vision to how the movement should be approached. Once again, I stress, this is my opinion, and I welcome it to be challenged.
This brings me back once again to the Wall Street protesters. My friend Pat has been providing me with alternative articles that challenge my opinion this week. One in particular was this: To whit, I have agreed on this all along. It goes on to this paragraph: This is criticism. I am left to wonder if we, the ones who are involved with activism are allowed to be concerned and allowed to offer criticism to what is going on in NYC? Personally, I have been trying to use critical thought to this movement. As was said in the Main Street link above: Perhaps that is a bit harsh, but -- if this is to gain steam -- should we not WANT Main Street to feel attachment and identification to the idea that people "are occupying Wall St. because Wall St. is occupying DC"?
Oliver Willis was more critical, stating Yes harsh, but it was said within the prism of the civil rights movement. The proper dress was a result many time of people attending marches after church, but it was also trying to make themselves look respectable in the eyes of the people whose minds they were trying to win over. It also goes to what Osbourne said about Main Street. For a movement to grow, it must be inclusive, even in the face of bitter critique. That doesn't mean rolling over and giving up. It doesn't mean capitulating.
I believe in what they are doing on Wall Street. I want to be a part of it. I want to know that I am welcome to be a part of it, even if I have questions and criticisms. As of today, I am not feeling it. If the only response to questions is responses like this: then I have to wonder how democratic is this movement? I am FAR from the establishment, nor am I the power elite. I consider myself liberal. I am not the general age demographic of what is happening in NYC. I am older. I am not a hippie that marched against the Vietnam war. I wasn't alive when they marched to Selma. I am someone who marched against Iraq and Afghanistan and the policies of the Bush administration.
I have seen the success and failures of the protests in my day. In my life I have read of success and failure in history when it comes to social change and protests. I read, learn and understand history to allow me to make clear choices and form opinions.
I don't think I want a Tahir Square moment in this nation. That may be cowardice on my part. There is a difference between revolution and being revolutionary. That said, I know that I don't want a Lafayette Square. Right now, it's sadly, a tent in front of the White House. It's been there for over 20 years, and is barely acknowledged by people. I don't know what change it has made to the public conscience and the danger of nuclear weaponry.
Those that are criticizing Occupy Wall street are not doing it to stop the movement. I believe that -- even if they are not presenting the argument in the nicest way, are doing so to offer constructive criticism. I don't think ANYONE on the Left wants to see this movement fail. We've seen too many fail in the past for lack of cohesive ways to obtain objectives.
Our system is broken. Making that point and waking people up to this issue is critical. The question still remains for me: What happens next? Does it get fixed it or does it get torn down? I prefer the former. THAT is why I ask these questions. I think that is fair. If we are all in this together, people should be able to ask such questions and not be dismissed as outsiders, or those that are part of the problem. Not all of us are, we just have questions. Many of us have known of these problems for decades, and are happy to see Wall Street being protested. Once the sleeping giant is finally awake, how will it be taken care of?
No more Lafayette Squares.
and 
Raine
I still wonder about what is going to happen. I cannot stress enough that I want this movement to succeed. Please allow me to further pontificate. I read this over at DU this morning:
For the most part these people are the next generation of the new American Left.
They are not protesting to change the way we currently do business in this world, they are protesting to raise awareness of this cause for THEIR generation and future generations. Although they all seem very much down for a revolution right now as well.
They are trying to shape a new world-view among their peers. A world-view that will shape their future and the future generations after them.
After speaking to many of them my consensus is that their vision of society is one that would be considered further Left than many of the posters here.
Something else I noticed, many of these protesters are 17, 18, 19 yrs old. Some even 16. Some even 50+. Yet are smarter and more aware of this situation and whats at stake than 99.9% of any teabagger/conservative right-wing ignoramus and most of the general public who are still blind to Wall St. criminal acts.
Brush these protesters off at your own peril, but they are directly raising awareness to a whole new generation of voters and shaping their peers world-view into one that would benefit all citizens and possibly bring far more Progressive candidates into power in the future. These protesters MAY even be our future candidates. These protesters for the most part are further Left than just about any politician in their world-view of American society.
When I asked 'What would a victory here look like?' a 17yr old boy who chose to remain anonymous said "An awareness of being more self-sustaining individuals and less hyper-consumerism and...", then he was cut of by his girl friend (girlfriend?) who said "Less corporate rule in our Govt, less fascism in our Govt and true Democracy for all individuals!". The boy then stated "We are occupying Wall St. because Wall St. is occupying DC".
These are our people, people. These are our people.
.
This is a brand new movement. It's in its infancy. And with all of the debate I have had with some very dear friends, I am left wondering who will nurture and feed this infant? I know it's cliché to, well, use a cliché but I think this is at the heart of my concern.
I have seen many people say that awareness and awakening this generation is enough, and I think in spirit it is good. Perhaps I am getting a little older, but I have walked past the White House many many times and always see this:
I'm sure you have seen it. I'm sure you have walked past it as though it were a moment in history. It always makes me a little sad. My fist time seeing it was September 24, 2005 at an anti-war march. Many of you were there; it's where we first met, or nearly met (smile). We did not end the war that day, but we brought awareness. We still kept working and eventually, we elected a man who would start the withdrawal. It's been 10 years. No it isn't over, but the tide has turned. I remember before that 2005 protest, there were factions and opinions by many people on who was to lead the charge of the protest. Was it going to be A.N.S.W.E.R or United for Peace and Justice? They came together for that historic march, but shortly after cut ties with each other:
Although UFPJ worked with A.N.S.W.E.R. to build the September 24, 2005 Washington, D.C. rally, by December 2005 the two groups had definitively fallen out. A December 2005 statement by UFPJ says that "engagement with A.N.S.W.E.R.… [has been] …a difficult and controversial aspect of our work," and that UFPJ "has decided not to coordinate work with ANSWER again on a national level." The document discusses events surrounding the September 24 rally, charges that A.N.S.W.E.R. "violated the terms of our agreement in ways that substantially and negatively impacted September 24’s message and impact," remarks that "co-sponsorship with ANSWER on September 24 was welcomed by some in the antiwar movement but limited or prevented completely the participation of others," and explains, "We did not have consensus" about the decision not to work with A.N.S.W.E.R., but had "a more than two thirds supermajority … We make no recommendations or mandates on this issue to UFPJ member groups in local or constituency-based area…"
A.N.S.W.E.R. responded by saying that "UFPJ has publicly proclaimed its intention to split the movement," and accused UFPJ of "a false and ugly attack on the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition," and of doing so for "embarrassingly petty and astonishingly trivial" reasons. Besides giving their own version of the events surrounding September 24, A.N.S.W.E.R.'s statement indicates some less trivial differences between the groups: they criticize UFPJ for its willingness to embrace even moderate politicians, such as John Murtha and conservative politicians like Ron Paul, who are disaffected with the war, while A.N.S.W.E.R. "considers it harmful to try to tailor the message of the progressive movement to please the long-awaited but fictional support from the politicians."
Now, I would never assume or present President Obama as an anti-war President. But it took the election of 2008 to finally start seeing the draw-down and change of attitude we wanted back in 2003, 04, 05 and beyond. The movement fractured because there was no cohesive leadership or common vision to how the movement should be approached. Once again, I stress, this is my opinion, and I welcome it to be challenged.
This brings me back once again to the Wall Street protesters. My friend Pat has been providing me with alternative articles that challenge my opinion this week. One in particular was this:
Why Establishment Media & the Power Elite Loathe Occupy Wall Street (snip)
The organizers, who pride themselves in being “leaderless,” have sought to bring together a diverse crowd of various political persuasions. They have rallied behind the slogan, “We are the 99%,” to show they will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the top 1% in America. They have rallied against banks that engage in tax dodging while at the same time foreclosing on Americans’ homes and charging exorbitant interest rates on student loans putting young citizens in deep debt. They are rising up against increased unemployment and war against the poor in America. And they have used what is known as the General Assembly process to make decisions, which democratically gives all people present an opportunity to influence the continued organization of Occupy Wall Street.
Liberals have shown scorn, too, suggesting the occupation is not a “Main Street production” or that the protesters aren’t dressed properly and should wear suits cause the civil rights movement would not have won if they hadn’t worn decent clothing.
The latest show of contempt from a liberal comes from Mother Jones magazine. Lauren Ellis claims that the action, which “says it stands for the 99 percent of us,” lacks traction. She outlines why she thinks Zuccotti Park isn’t America’s Tahrir Square. She chastises them for failing to have one demand. She claims without a unified message police brutality has stolen the spotlight. She suggests the presence of members of Anonymous is holding the organizers back writing, “It’s hard to be taken seriously as accountability-seeking populists when you’re donning Guy Fawkes masks.” And, she concludes as a result of failing to get a cross-section of America to come out in the streets, this movement has been for “dreamers,” not “middle class American trying to make ends meet.”
I get the anger driving the protest — boy howdy! — but I don’t see any specific appeal to folks on Main Street yet, and I don’t see Main Street Americans responding. Anonymous, which has pushed this campaign to “occupy Wall Street,” has no clear set of goals, preferring to think the crowd will magically produce a set of demands by consensus. The “theory of change” seems to be (1) protest (2) ????? (3) change!
Oliver Willis was more critical, stating
If you dress up like a dope-smoking hobo, expect to be treated like one and not be taken seriously. Get a haircut. Wear a nice shirt. Carry a sign with a message that makes some kind of sense to an average American.
It might work.
I believe in what they are doing on Wall Street. I want to be a part of it. I want to know that I am welcome to be a part of it, even if I have questions and criticisms. As of today, I am not feeling it. If the only response to questions is responses like this:
Criticism of Occupy Wall Street is just a way for establishment media, the power elite and those who believe in their views to defend their ideology on how politics is supposed to work. It is their way of affirming their conviction that at some point the children need to leave the streets and the grown-ups must be allowed to work in peace. It is also part of the culture; expressing support for “hippies” or a “plurality of voices” preaching against capitalism will not win friends and influence people in the Beltway. And so, they will make criticisms whether there is evidence to support what is said or written.
I have seen the success and failures of the protests in my day. In my life I have read of success and failure in history when it comes to social change and protests. I read, learn and understand history to allow me to make clear choices and form opinions.
I don't think I want a Tahir Square moment in this nation. That may be cowardice on my part. There is a difference between revolution and being revolutionary. That said, I know that I don't want a Lafayette Square. Right now, it's sadly, a tent in front of the White House. It's been there for over 20 years, and is barely acknowledged by people. I don't know what change it has made to the public conscience and the danger of nuclear weaponry.
Those that are criticizing Occupy Wall street are not doing it to stop the movement. I believe that -- even if they are not presenting the argument in the nicest way, are doing so to offer constructive criticism. I don't think ANYONE on the Left wants to see this movement fail. We've seen too many fail in the past for lack of cohesive ways to obtain objectives.
Our system is broken. Making that point and waking people up to this issue is critical. The question still remains for me: What happens next? Does it get fixed it or does it get torn down? I prefer the former. THAT is why I ask these questions. I think that is fair. If we are all in this together, people should be able to ask such questions and not be dismissed as outsiders, or those that are part of the problem. Not all of us are, we just have questions. Many of us have known of these problems for decades, and are happy to see Wall Street being protested. Once the sleeping giant is finally awake, how will it be taken care of?
No more Lafayette Squares.
and Raine
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Mondobubba
Comment by 
trojanrabbit on 09/29/2011 13:19:26
trojanrabbit on 09/29/2011 13:19:26
So now the Boston Red Sox own the record for the worst collapse in baseball history.
What's even more amusing is that the team that held the record for a scant few minutes was the Atlanta Braves, who, of course, used to be the BOSTON Braves.
Couldn't happen to a better team of mostly spineless, overpaid, poorly led malingerers. And after a bit I may say how I really feel.
What's even more amusing is that the team that held the record for a scant few minutes was the Atlanta Braves, who, of course, used to be the BOSTON Braves.
Couldn't happen to a better team of mostly spineless, overpaid, poorly led malingerers. And after a bit I may say how I really feel.
Comment by 
TriSec on 09/29/2011 13:23:18
TriSec on 09/29/2011 13:23:18
Morning, comrades.
So, the Sux are back to their usual ways. Pay no mind to 04 & 07, purely an aberration. See you in the World Series in 2093.
(As I have pointed out previously, the fact that the Titanic went down and Fenway Park opened in the same week a century ago was no coincidence.)
So, the Sux are back to their usual ways. Pay no mind to 04 & 07, purely an aberration. See you in the World Series in 2093.
(As I have pointed out previously, the fact that the Titanic went down and Fenway Park opened in the same week a century ago was no coincidence.)
Comment by 
BobR on 09/29/2011 13:39:14
BobR on 09/29/2011 13:39:14
Comment by 
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 13:41:45
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 13:41:45
Morning 
A few more minutes of juggling chainsaws and kittens and I can settle into the day
A few more minutes of juggling chainsaws and kittens and I can settle into the day
Comment by 
Scoopster on 09/29/2011 13:59:09
Scoopster on 09/29/2011 13:59:09
Mornin' all..
What's all this talk about baseball? Didn't you guys hear that we've created the Rats of NIMH?!
What's all this talk about baseball? Didn't you guys hear that we've created the Rats of NIMH?!
Comment by TriSec on 09/29/2011 14:01:51
TriSec on 09/29/2011 14:01:51
Say gang, there's been a lot of diplomatic posturing between Pakistan and the US over the past 24 hours. The BBC referred to it as an "undeclared war" this morning...I trust we're all familiar with the ongoing drone campaign in North Waziristan? There are actually some on our side that think we should go manned and send in some bombers.
Which of course, would be a bad thing.
In any case, the rhetoric is fairly hot this morning.
Which of course, would be a bad thing.
In any case, the rhetoric is fairly hot this morning.
Comment by 
Raine on 09/29/2011 14:27:33
Raine on 09/29/2011 14:27:33
Blog is edited and up. Please forgive the length, but I do hope you read it.
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 14:28:00
I had a lot to say today.
Raine on 09/29/2011 14:28:00
Quote by Raine:
Blog is edited and up. Please forgive the length, but I do hope you read it.
I had a lot to say today.
Comment by wickedpam on 09/29/2011 14:56:49
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 14:56:49
You know, no matte how much an earworm that song is it still makes me smile to hear it
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 14:58:12
Raine on 09/29/2011 14:58:12
I want to add something, It was this exchange (along with my conversations with frinds on fb ) that prompted me to write this blog. this happened a few days ago on twitter. I posted the monday blog there and was greeted with this:
I responded, and this was the exchange:
I want to find the tweet regarding the vote. progressnow1 did say they voted.
This was part of why I I stated:
It's also why I believe Osbourne has a legitimate reason to wonder if Main street will be allowed to participate in this protest.
progressnow1 @raine1967 looks like you've only read a few MSM articles, get off the couch and get a clue. #occupywallstreet is not controlled by you
raine1967 @progressnow1 Don't assume anything about me.
progressnow1 @raine1967 who's assuming now? Yes and I've been to #occupywallst obviously you haven't or you wouldn't ask such foolish questions
raine1967 @progressnow1 besides are you going to disagree with Sarandon? She was saying exactly what I have been saying.
raine1967 to be really honest -- your personal attitude, @progressnow1 doesn't exactly endear me to your cause. Have you voted lately?
raine1967 @progressnow1 I assumed nothing. I asked you a question. and you have not responded. Are you going to vote? Have you voted?
(in transparency the person did tell me they voted. that tweet entry appears to have gone missing, somewhere I have it archived, as I spoke with Bob about this -- I say this to explain my next response)
raine1967 @progressnow1 My questions aside from voting (glad to hear you have) was what about Sarandon?
progressnow1 @raine1967 maybe that's why you find it hard to understand what's going on, it seems that reading is beyond you, peace troll. END
I want to find the tweet regarding the vote. progressnow1 did say they voted.
This was part of why I I stated:
This is criticism. I am left to wonder if we, the ones who are involved with activism are allowed to be concerned and allowed to offer criticism to what is going on in NYC?
It's also why I believe Osbourne has a legitimate reason to wonder if Main street will be allowed to participate in this protest.
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 14:59:36
Was this the person you mentioned a few months ago?
Raine on 09/29/2011 14:59:36
Quote by TriSec:
"The other Warren" drops out of Mass Senate race
Comment by wickedpam on 09/29/2011 15:08:54
Sounds like an ass
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 15:08:54
Quote by Raine:
I want to add something, It was this exchange (along with my conversations with frinds on fb ) that prompted me to write this blog. this happened a few days ago on twitter. I posted the monday blog there and was greeted with this:I responded, and this was the exchange:progressnow1 @raine1967 looks like you've only read a few MSM articles, get off the couch and get a clue. #occupywallstreet is not controlled by youraine1967 @progressnow1 Don't assume anything about me.
progressnow1 @raine1967 who's assuming now? Yes and I've been to #occupywallst obviously you haven't or you wouldn't ask such foolish questions
raine1967 @progressnow1 besides are you going to disagree with Sarandon? She was saying exactly what I have been saying.
raine1967 to be really honest -- your personal attitude, @progressnow1 doesn't exactly endear me to your cause. Have you voted lately?
raine1967 @progressnow1 I assumed nothing. I asked you a question. and you have not responded. Are you going to vote? Have you voted?
(in transparency the person did tell me they voted. that tweet entry appears to have gone missing, somewhere I have it archived, as I spoke with Bob about this -- I say this to explain my next response)
raine1967 @progressnow1 My questions aside from voting (glad to hear you have) was what about Sarandon?
progressnow1 @raine1967 maybe that's why you find it hard to understand what's going on, it seems that reading is beyond you, peace troll. END
I want to find the tweet regarding the vote. progressnow1 did say they voted.
This was part of why I I stated:This is criticism. I am left to wonder if we, the ones who are involved with activism are allowed to be concerned and allowed to offer criticism to what is going on in NYC?
It's also why I believe Osbourne has a legitimate reason to wonder if Main street will be allowed to participate in this protest.
Sounds like an ass
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 15:15:57
I am reluctant to say that. But this person goes to what I stated in the blog. I don't mind heated debate, I don't like assumptions.
if this movement is to succeed it MUST give main street a reason to participate. I have a friend who made some VERY pointed remarks on FB after I posted the link on my page. Highly critical, but thought provoking:
I responded:
Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm just missing something.
Maybe I've become that person who yells at clouds. I just want to know what the game plan is --
Raine on 09/29/2011 15:15:57
Quote by wickedpam:
Sounds like an ass
if this movement is to succeed it MUST give main street a reason to participate. I have a friend who made some VERY pointed remarks on FB after I posted the link on my page. Highly critical, but thought provoking:
Come see me in a month.
1) they aren't changing anyone's minds. They are occupying friendly territory (NYC) and Wall Street, which does not legislate.
Abolitionists, Civil Rights, Prohibitionists were to UNFRIENDLY territory to occupy and change the minds of the people opposed to them
‎2) The people who WORK on Wall Street make money for folks like the Kochs who do not LIVE or work on Wall Street. The Kochs could care less.
33 minutes ago · Like
The Wall Street protests assume some sort of conspiracy theory about the US being controlled by banks.
Investors DO influence the country, but they do it the way protesters SHOULD - by speaking to the public, and bankrolling Faux News. Change the constituency, you change the Law.
I responded:
I cannot say I disagree with any of this.
This was why I questioned things on Monday. For myself, I want (as I have stated) this to succeed, and perhaps these points should be acknowledged in order to effect change.
It's why on Monday I mentioned Abolitionists, Civil Rights activists, Suffragettes and those within the Temperance movement.
I did not, however, take the conspiracy aspect into account. I am not sure if I do. I think there is a general distrust, anger being a result but it's one that is based in valid points.
It's been pointed out to me that this is a new movement. and I mentioned that in the post. Yes, we should give it time. But, as with any infant, it needs care.
Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm just missing something.
Maybe I've become that person who yells at clouds. I just want to know what the game plan is --
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 15:21:51
Raine on 09/29/2011 15:21:51
BTW, after I was called a troll. I couldn't shut my trap up. Rapid fire tweeting:
@progressnow1 Actually, I've been on more streets protesting than you seem to realize. once again, not endearing. #hurtingyourcausebadly
@progressnow1 You might want to try to not alienate people sympathetic to the movement. Maybe start by not calling ppl trolls.
@progressnow1 Let me ask you this, would you think me more valid if I came back to NYC? Serious question. (continued)
@progressnow1 You want change, yet you alienate those that would support you. IE: calling ppl trolls.
Comment by wickedpam on 09/29/2011 15:22:43
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 15:22:43
Yelling at clouds can be fun 
anyway - I agreed with you, for it to survive as a movement, much like the Arab Spring they compare it to, it has to have someone at the helm. Boats don't steer themselves, if they do they just go in circles or its a ghost ship
anyway - I agreed with you, for it to survive as a movement, much like the Arab Spring they compare it to, it has to have someone at the helm. Boats don't steer themselves, if they do they just go in circles or its a ghost ship
Comment by TriSec on 09/29/2011 15:22:46
Yes...back at the beginning, his campaign had generated the most interest. But then he cratered spectacularly on local talk show host Dan Rea's show (WBZ) and never seemed to recover after that.
TriSec on 09/29/2011 15:22:46
Quote by Raine:
Was this the person you mentioned a few months ago?
Yes...back at the beginning, his campaign had generated the most interest. But then he cratered spectacularly on local talk show host Dan Rea's show (WBZ) and never seemed to recover after that.
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 15:24:28
Raine on 09/29/2011 15:24:28
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 15:26:04
Well it appears that you have a very good and valid candidate to challenge Brown. I know I'm not in your state, but Ms. Warren looks to be a formidable opponent.
Raine on 09/29/2011 15:26:04
Quote by TriSec:Quote by Raine:
Was this the person you mentioned a few months ago?
Yes...back at the beginning, his campaign had generated the most interest. But then he cratered spectacularly on local talk show host Dan Rea's show (WBZ) and never seemed to recover after that.
Comment by TriSec on 09/29/2011 15:27:13
TriSec on 09/29/2011 15:27:13
Indeed. I might have to get on a phone bank or two.
Comment by BobR on 09/29/2011 15:28:04
Beyond that, if they don't know exactly what they are trying to achieve, how can they create a plan to get there, and know how successful they are? I know that sounds like corporatese, but it's basic Project Management 101.
After occupying Wall St. for a month, I fear the young people will become disillusioned if they don't see anything tangible coming from their efforts.
BobR on 09/29/2011 15:28:04
Quote by wickedpam:
Yelling at clouds can be fun
anyway - I agreed with you, for it to survive as a movement, much like the Arab Spring they compare it to, it has to have someone at the helm. Boats don't steer themselves, if they do they just go in circles or its a ghost ship
Beyond that, if they don't know exactly what they are trying to achieve, how can they create a plan to get there, and know how successful they are? I know that sounds like corporatese, but it's basic Project Management 101.
After occupying Wall St. for a month, I fear the young people will become disillusioned if they don't see anything tangible coming from their efforts.
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 15:37:33
Maybe this is a generational thing.
I know that I prefer results.
Maybe this group of protesters just want attention to be paid to their concerns? Is this a generation thing? I ask this honestly, because I am really trying to understand this idea of not wanting leadership but still wanting to effect change. These protests seem like an Idea that wants controlled chaos to bring change. (is that an unfair way to present a question?)
Raine on 09/29/2011 15:37:33
Quote by BobR:Quote by wickedpam:
Yelling at clouds can be fun
anyway - I agreed with you, for it to survive as a movement, much like the Arab Spring they compare it to, it has to have someone at the helm. Boats don't steer themselves, if they do they just go in circles or its a ghost ship
Beyond that, if they don't know exactly what they are trying to achieve, how can they create a plan to get there, and know how successful they are? I know that sounds like corporatese, but it's basic Project Management 101.
After occupying Wall St. for a month, I fear the young people will become disillusioned if they don't see anything tangible coming from their efforts.
Maybe this is a generational thing.
I know that I prefer results.
Maybe this group of protesters just want attention to be paid to their concerns? Is this a generation thing? I ask this honestly, because I am really trying to understand this idea of not wanting leadership but still wanting to effect change. These protests seem like an Idea that wants controlled chaos to bring change. (is that an unfair way to present a question?)
Comment by Scoopster on 09/29/2011 15:38:37
Yeah, I think that about gives 'em all the reason they need.
Scoopster on 09/29/2011 15:38:37
The boy then stated "We are occupying Wall St. because Wall St. is occupying DC".
Yeah, I think that about gives 'em all the reason they need.
Comment by 
livingonli on 09/29/2011 15:44:34
livingonli on 09/29/2011 15:44:34
Good day everyone. Last night, I was flipping between Countdown and Lawrence O'Donnell since he had Michael Moore on and he did put out a lot of the points which hopefully the movement can make on what the capitalist system is doing. When I look at the cost of college now and realize that most kids are graduating with six-figure debts from the start and if you can't get a decent job right out of school, then you are screwed. Considering the number of countries that have free or a lot cheaper university educations this is not the way to go.
Comment by wickedpam on 09/29/2011 16:01:00
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 16:01:00
Well the crazy facist finally quit the board with a letter saying he's such a victim
Comment by Scoopster on 09/29/2011 16:02:12
I just remembered something I read in A People's History.. it was a quote from Malcolm X about the 1963 civil rights' march on Washington:
I truly think this is what Occupy Wall Street is desperately trying to avoid, which hadn't been avoided in other recent protests - The co-opting of the movement by the establishment.
Scoopster on 09/29/2011 16:02:12
- It's been extremely organized, with legacy religious and labor groups and the Democratic Party leading the way and newer organizations such as ANSWER, UFPJ, and Code Pink helping to organize.
I just remembered something I read in A People's History.. it was a quote from Malcolm X about the 1963 civil rights' march on Washington:
The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington.... That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.
It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D.C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in ... these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off," Kennedy said. "Look you all are letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it because I didn't start it." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it."
This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it... became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to he angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. . .
No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. ... They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown....
I truly think this is what Occupy Wall Street is desperately trying to avoid, which hadn't been avoided in other recent protests - The co-opting of the movement by the establishment.
Comment by livingonli on 09/29/2011 16:14:10
Should I get him a tiny violin?
livingonli on 09/29/2011 16:14:10
Quote by wickedpam:
Well the crazy facist finally quit the board with a letter saying he's such a victim
Should I get him a tiny violin?
Comment by wickedpam on 09/29/2011 16:17:56
I wouldn't give him a hand up if he tripped, he'd probably say I pushed him if I did
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 16:17:56
Quote by livingonli:Quote by wickedpam:
Well the crazy facist finally quit the board with a letter saying he's such a victim
Should I get him a tiny violin?
I wouldn't give him a hand up if he tripped, he'd probably say I pushed him if I did
Comment by livingonli on 09/29/2011 16:28:21
Sounds like another klassy with a K teabagger.
livingonli on 09/29/2011 16:28:21
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by livingonli:Quote by wickedpam:
Well the crazy facist finally quit the board with a letter saying he's such a victim
Should I get him a tiny violin?
I wouldn't give him a hand up if he tripped, he'd probably say I pushed him if I did
Sounds like another klassy with a K teabagger.
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 16:32:29
Scoop, I can't tell you how many times I have typed and then deleted this:
I swear, I have been waiting for you to chime in. I so appreciate it.
So that being said, after reading this, What do you think will happen, and is it fair to ask about the future?
I have alluded to my concerns. I think I have done my very best to communicate it. I don;t want a revolution in the very specific terms of a revolution. (like I said, revolution is not the same as revolutionary)
I could be playing it safe. I like this, when you say:
Where is this going? I was disappointed in the One Nation aftermath, as I was after the Anti-War protests. (and the One NAtion thing, well you heard me argue with Stan about that...
)
I've been having good discussions with friends who are working with the Van Jones Rebuilding the Dream. They are still there, but want more movement -- faster.
I wish we had more follow up from people like Ed Shultz after the One Nation Rally -- we still seem to have had no cohesion to build that movement. Everyone scattered back to their corners. Shultz was behind getting alot of people together, and seems to have walked away. It's part of the reason why I distrust media and social movements. (I still love Stewart and Colbert -- but they have dirty hands as well.)
So I ask this with all honestly, Scoop -- you are my friend, and I am not some anonymous person on the internet. (seriously, I wish we were hanging around together in a living room and shooting the shit!)
How is this going to work when we can't even get the semi-organized to come together? Is it lack of patience? Is it pride?
and let me go a step further... (this is about the only place I would ever ask this question because I trust you all) Is this the beginning of anarchy? is this what this movement is ultimately about?
I alluded to it today, I was -- and still am -- reluctant to talk about it. That said, if it should be discussed, then I say discuss, My question:
Does this movement want resolution or revolution?
Raine on 09/29/2011 16:32:29
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:Maybe this is a generational thing.
I know that I prefer results.
Maybe this group of protesters just want attention to be paid to their concerns? Is this a generation thing? I ask this honestly, because I am really trying to understand this idea of not wanting leadership but still wanting to effect change. These protests seem like an Idea that wants controlled chaos to bring change. (is that an unfair way to present a question?)
I think it's more of a consequences-be-damned attitude. I mean if you look at the left-wing popular protest movement, especially the past 5-10 years where we've all been an active part of it, you can see several patterns.
- It's been extremely organized, with legacy religious and labor groups and the Democratic Party leading the way and newer organizations such as ANSWER, UFPJ, and Code Pink helping to organize.
- It's been extremely popular among politically active citizens and unpopular with most politicians, rich people and corporate interests.
- At least since 2000, it's been spectacularly ineffective at breaking through to achieve its goals.
That last point took a lot of hard soul-searching to type. In all the protests we've attended, how many of them have even come close to breaking through to make the needed change? You could possibly say that we're just now seeing the end of the Iraq War, but of course Afghanistan rages on. The 2004 RNC protest? - It had no immediate effect. One Nation & Stewart Colbert last October? - Rebuked with the largest wave of fascists this country and many of its states has EVER SEEN. We only kept the Senate because 2004 was a Repub wave year and not many Dems were up to lose in 2010.
This movement we see today on Wall Street is the result. Those folks are sick of the organized, party-sanctioned, fenced-in & "proper" protest movement. And frankly so am I, because it's not working and we MUST do things different if we're going to get anywhere. The Arab Spring provided them with that different mold.
Scoop: what do you think?
I swear, I have been waiting for you to chime in. I so appreciate it.
So that being said, after reading this, What do you think will happen, and is it fair to ask about the future?
I have alluded to my concerns. I think I have done my very best to communicate it. I don;t want a revolution in the very specific terms of a revolution. (like I said, revolution is not the same as revolutionary)
I could be playing it safe. I like this, when you say:
This movement we see today on Wall Street is the result. Those folks are sick of the organized, fenced-in proper protest movement. And frankly so am I, because it's not working and we MUST do things different if we're going to get anywhere. The Arab Spring provided them with that different mold.
Where is this going? I was disappointed in the One Nation aftermath, as I was after the Anti-War protests. (and the One NAtion thing, well you heard me argue with Stan about that...
) I've been having good discussions with friends who are working with the Van Jones Rebuilding the Dream. They are still there, but want more movement -- faster.
I wish we had more follow up from people like Ed Shultz after the One Nation Rally -- we still seem to have had no cohesion to build that movement. Everyone scattered back to their corners. Shultz was behind getting alot of people together, and seems to have walked away. It's part of the reason why I distrust media and social movements. (I still love Stewart and Colbert -- but they have dirty hands as well.)
So I ask this with all honestly, Scoop -- you are my friend, and I am not some anonymous person on the internet. (seriously, I wish we were hanging around together in a living room and shooting the shit!)
How is this going to work when we can't even get the semi-organized to come together? Is it lack of patience? Is it pride?
and let me go a step further... (this is about the only place I would ever ask this question because I trust you all) Is this the beginning of anarchy? is this what this movement is ultimately about?
I alluded to it today, I was -- and still am -- reluctant to talk about it. That said, if it should be discussed, then I say discuss, My question:
Does this movement want resolution or revolution?
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 16:33:42
Hmmm...
Sometimes sticking it out is worth it, huh?
Raine on 09/29/2011 16:33:42
Quote by wickedpam:
Well the crazy facist finally quit the board with a letter saying he's such a victim
Hmmm...
Sometimes sticking it out is worth it, huh?
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 16:37:52
I think you answered the question I was typing while I posted my last post.
Raine on 09/29/2011 16:37:52
Quote by Scoopster:- It's been extremely organized, with legacy religious and labor groups and the Democratic Party leading the way and newer organizations such as ANSWER, UFPJ, and Code Pink helping to organize.
I just remembered something I read in A People's History.. it was a quote from Malcolm X about the 1963 civil rights' march on Washington:The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington.... That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.
It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D.C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in ... these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off," Kennedy said. "Look you all are letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it because I didn't start it." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it."
This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it... became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to he angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. . .
No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. ... They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown....
I truly think this is what Occupy Wall Street is desperately trying to avoid, which hadn't been avoided in other recent protests - The co-opting of the movement by the establishment.
I think you answered the question I was typing while I posted my last post.
Comment by wickedpam on 09/29/2011 16:45:35
Sometimes. as always I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop. He says he's voting no confidience in the board that we haven't done anything, that we aren't reporting our meetings and blah, blah, blah - I forwarded you the email if you want to read.
I suspect they are going to try the same thing they did last year. I'm just tired of them. It doesn't help that the spy is still on the board and still reporting back to the other bugs
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 16:45:35
Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
Well the crazy facist finally quit the board with a letter saying he's such a victim
Hmmm...
Sometimes sticking it out is worth it, huh?
Sometimes. as always I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop. He says he's voting no confidience in the board that we haven't done anything, that we aren't reporting our meetings and blah, blah, blah - I forwarded you the email if you want to read.
I suspect they are going to try the same thing they did last year. I'm just tired of them. It doesn't help that the spy is still on the board and still reporting back to the other bugs
Comment by Scoopster on 09/29/2011 17:12:50
I'm fairly sure the short answer is nothing short of a peaceful revolution, which really is what this country needs. I'm not sure if it would work tho, and as things continue to get worse it could lead eventually to a more violent tone.
What is this movement about? That's much easier to answer - it's the continuing struggle throughout history of the poor against the rich, and how the nominal progress that had been made from the 30s to the 60s was erased.
The problem of motivation, which I've experienced personally for a very long time, is that we citizens are so wrapped up struggling in our day-to-day lives that we can't afford to miss a beat. It's difficult to organize a popular protest movement when the people you need can't take more than a day or two to attend a protest - and that's even more true when the companies they work for are the object of the protest, and those companies have realized that they can shut down a protest against them by simply cutting payroll. People are afraid to speak out, because they don't want the rope that their livelihood hangs on to be yanked away and given to one of the millions of others who are jockeying for position when that same rope gets dangled down again.
How do you get around that? You have to make the people with nothing to lose realize that there's better things to do than wait around, and make the people with something to lose realize that the little something they get from the rich is a pittance and a bribe. That's no easy thing to do, but we know the basics already because we do them every day.
Another big part of it is the media, which we all know is run by the corporate masters and is used to either misinform or distract the masses. As people can no longer afford to watch television, that influence will wane.
Scoopster on 09/29/2011 17:12:50
Quote by Raine:
Scoop, I can't tell you how many times I have typed and then deleted this:Scoop: what do you think?
I swear, I have been waiting for you to chime in. I so appreciate it.
So that being said, after reading this, What do you think will happen, and is it fair to ask about the future?
I have alluded to my concerns. I think I have done my very best to communicate it. I don;t want a revolution in the very specific terms of a revolution. (like I said, revolution is not the same as revolutionary)
I could be playing it safe. I like this, when you say:This movement we see today on Wall Street is the result. Those folks are sick of the organized, fenced-in proper protest movement. And frankly so am I, because it's not working and we MUST do things different if we're going to get anywhere. The Arab Spring provided them with that different mold.
Where is this going? I was disappointed in the One Nation aftermath, as I was after the Anti-War protests. (and the One Nation thing, well you heard me argue with Stan about that...
I've been having good discussions with friends who are working with the Van Jones Rebuilding the Dream. They are still there, but want more movement -- faster.
I wish we had more follow up from people like Ed Schultz after the One Nation Rally -- we still seem to have had no cohesion to build that movement. Everyone scattered back to their corners. Schultz was behind getting a lot of people together, and seems to have walked away. It's part of the reason why I distrust media and social movements. (I still love Stewart and Colbert -- but they have dirty hands as well.)
So I ask this with all honestly, Scoop -- you are my friend, and I am not some anonymous person on the internet. (seriously, I wish we were hanging around together in a living room and shooting the shit!)
How is this going to work when we can't even get the semi-organized to come together? Is it lack of patience? Is it pride?
and let me go a step further... (this is about the only place I would ever ask this question because I trust you all) Is this the beginning of anarchy? is this what this movement is ultimately about?
I alluded to it today, I was -- and still am -- reluctant to talk about it. That said, if it should be discussed, then I say discuss, My question:
Does this movement want resolution or revolution?
I'm fairly sure the short answer is nothing short of a peaceful revolution, which really is what this country needs. I'm not sure if it would work tho, and as things continue to get worse it could lead eventually to a more violent tone.
What is this movement about? That's much easier to answer - it's the continuing struggle throughout history of the poor against the rich, and how the nominal progress that had been made from the 30s to the 60s was erased.
The problem of motivation, which I've experienced personally for a very long time, is that we citizens are so wrapped up struggling in our day-to-day lives that we can't afford to miss a beat. It's difficult to organize a popular protest movement when the people you need can't take more than a day or two to attend a protest - and that's even more true when the companies they work for are the object of the protest, and those companies have realized that they can shut down a protest against them by simply cutting payroll. People are afraid to speak out, because they don't want the rope that their livelihood hangs on to be yanked away and given to one of the millions of others who are jockeying for position when that same rope gets dangled down again.
How do you get around that? You have to make the people with nothing to lose realize that there's better things to do than wait around, and make the people with something to lose realize that the little something they get from the rich is a pittance and a bribe. That's no easy thing to do, but we know the basics already because we do them every day.
Another big part of it is the media, which we all know is run by the corporate masters and is used to either misinform or distract the masses. As people can no longer afford to watch television, that influence will wane.
Comment by Scoopster on 09/29/2011 17:21:43
Scoopster on 09/29/2011 17:21:43
Now that I think about it, the cost of traveling to a mass protest also probably has something to do with it as well, which is why all the localized companion protests are being organized.
That, and they realized that Wall Street isn't the only place where the wealth of the people has been consolidated into a few greedy hands.
That, and they realized that Wall Street isn't the only place where the wealth of the people has been consolidated into a few greedy hands.
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 17:27:08
Raine on 09/29/2011 17:27:08
I have another question: what is the establishment? A friend alluded to this: She said:
She may have a point; Malcolm and MLK needed each other.
I don;t think tho, that MLK and his part of the civil rights movement should be considered establishment. Not at the time.
MAybe I am misunderstanding this, I know I am because I simply am missing something here.
I am not trying to propel an opinion, I am trying to get it. I want to know where this is going.
I guess that is it, in the end. I find it difficult to participate in something with out a desired result. That might be me.
I have always been a huge proponent of multi-pronged approaches to effecting fundamental change. We need both the radical and the "safe". I support and encourage what Van Jones is attempting with the Rebuild model. But that alone won't be enough. "Safe" has never been enough to engender success throughout the history of successful movements. The safety of the MLK arm of the civil rights movement would not have achieved all it's eventual goals without the radical arm of Malcolm X, and vice versa. Holding meetings in living rooms attended by people who already know we are in crisis and voting on platform planks is great. But not enough. Without attaining a critical mass of the population's attention and interest, it is doomed to failure. One need only look to the number of attempts which have proceeded Rebuild. Remember One Nation? Where us that now?
She may have a point; Malcolm and MLK needed each other.
I don;t think tho, that MLK and his part of the civil rights movement should be considered establishment. Not at the time.
MAybe I am misunderstanding this, I know I am because I simply am missing something here.
I am not trying to propel an opinion, I am trying to get it. I want to know where this is going.
I guess that is it, in the end. I find it difficult to participate in something with out a desired result. That might be me.
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 17:31:52
Thanks, Scoop.
This helps me understand better the answers to the questions I am asking.
Raine on 09/29/2011 17:31:52
Quote by Scoopster:
I'm fairly sure the short answer is nothing short of a peaceful revolution, which really is what this country needs. I'm not sure if it would work tho, and as things continue to get worse it could lead eventually to a more violent tone.
What is this movement about? That's much easier to answer - it's the continuing struggle throughout history of the poor against the rich, and how the nominal progress that had been made from the 30s to the 60s was erased.
The problem of motivation, which I've experienced personally for a very long time, is that we citizens are so wrapped up struggling in our day-to-day lives that we can't afford to miss a beat. It's difficult to organize a popular protest movement when the people you need can't take more than a day or two to attend a protest - and that's even more true when the companies they work for are the object of the protest, and those companies have realized that they can shut down a protest against them by simply cutting payroll. People are afraid to speak out, because they don't want the rope that their livelihood hangs on to be yanked away and given to one of the millions of others who are jockeying for position when that same rope gets dangled down again.
How do you get around that? You have to make the people with nothing to lose realize that there's better things to do than wait around, and make the people with something to lose realize that the little something they get from the rich is a pittance and a bribe. That's no easy thing to do, but we know the basics already because we do them every day.
Another big part of it is the media, which we all know is run by the corporate masters and is used to either misinform or distract the masses. As people can no longer afford to watch television, that influence will wane.
This helps me understand better the answers to the questions I am asking.
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 17:36:24
Just getting to it -- but I wanted to wonder:
Pro Fide, Lege et in Dux Spero ?? really? This?
Raine on 09/29/2011 17:36:24
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
Well the crazy facist finally quit the board with a letter saying he's such a victim
Hmmm...
Sometimes sticking it out is worth it, huh?
Sometimes. as always I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop. He says he's voting no confidience in the board that we haven't done anything, that we aren't reporting our meetings and blah, blah, blah - I forwarded you the email if you want to read.
I suspect they are going to try the same thing they did last year. I'm just tired of them. It doesn't help that the spy is still on the board and still reporting back to the other bugs
Pro Fide, Lege et in Dux Spero ?? really? This?
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 17:37:28
Raine on 09/29/2011 17:37:28
Mala -- is not very adept in writing letters.
Comment by wickedpam on 09/29/2011 17:52:31
yeah, I have no idea, he's Italian and Catholic its how he always signs his nasty emails
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 17:52:31
Quote by Raine:Just getting to it -- but I wanted to wonder:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
Well the crazy facist finally quit the board with a letter saying he's such a victim
Hmmm...
Sometimes sticking it out is worth it, huh?
Sometimes. as always I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop. He says he's voting no confidience in the board that we haven't done anything, that we aren't reporting our meetings and blah, blah, blah - I forwarded you the email if you want to read.
I suspect they are going to try the same thing they did last year. I'm just tired of them. It doesn't help that the spy is still on the board and still reporting back to the other bugs
Pro Fide, Lege et in Dux Spero ?? really? This?
yeah, I have no idea, he's Italian and Catholic its how he always signs his nasty emails
Comment by wickedpam on 09/29/2011 17:54:47
was that the first time I'd forward one of his email's? English not his first language but he always versed he is in many languages.
That was just the tip of the iceberg we've been dealing with
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 17:54:47
Quote by Raine:
Mala -- is not very adept in writing letters.
was that the first time I'd forward one of his email's? English not his first language but he always versed he is in many languages.
That was just the tip of the iceberg we've been dealing with
Comment by livingonli on 09/29/2011 18:16:19
livingonli on 09/29/2011 18:16:19
Sounds like he's in the same Catholic sect as Mel Gibson with the Latin use and he probably dislikes Vatican II because he felt it made the church too liberal.
Comment by TriSec on 09/29/2011 18:21:24
TriSec on 09/29/2011 18:21:24
Hey now, I'm Sicilian and formerly Catholic (close enough), and I always sign my letters "Sincerely". 
(Except Scout stuff...that gets a "Yours in Scouting", 'YIS' to the executive committee.)
(Except Scout stuff...that gets a "Yours in Scouting", 'YIS' to the executive committee.)
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 18:25:39
That phrase is predominantly polish.
interesting.
Raine on 09/29/2011 18:25:39
Quote by wickedpam:
yeah, I have no idea, he's Italian and Catholic its how he always signs his nasty emails
interesting.
Pro Fide, Lege et Rege (Latin: For Faith, Law and King) was an 18th century motto of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and then of Poland. It superseded the earlier Si Deus Nobiscum quis contra nos (Latin: If God is with us, then who is against us) and was featured on a variety of buildings, military decorations and equipment. It remains the motto of the Order of the White Eagle. The slogan of the order was that of the king's pro fide lege et grege (Latin: For Faith, Justice, and the Nation). The device of the cavaliers was pro fide et rege
Comment by TriSec on 09/29/2011 18:27:07
TriSec on 09/29/2011 18:27:07
And I took a moment to google "Latin Translator". I think there is a vast potential there.
Tantum stultus suffragium pro Romney!
Tantum stultus suffragium pro Romney!
Comment by Raine on 09/29/2011 18:31:34
NAw, I think it is something else.
That phrase is Polish in nature. see my post before.
Then there is this. Order of the White Eagle
Raine on 09/29/2011 18:31:34
Quote by livingonli:
Sounds like he's in the same Catholic sect as Mel Gibson with the Latin use and he probably dislikes Vatican II because he felt it made the church too liberal.
That phrase is Polish in nature. see my post before.
Then there is this. Order of the White Eagle
Comment by wickedpam on 09/29/2011 18:31:44
I really couldn't tell ya, he's all over the map
One thing I do know he hates his neighbors who are muslim, esp the girls who just get in his face. Did I tell you he took a weed wacker and destroyed some beautiful zinnia's that were growing next to his fence but on their property? He's a horrible little troll
wickedpam on 09/29/2011 18:31:44
Quote by Raine:That phrase is predominantly polish.Quote by wickedpam:
yeah, I have no idea, he's Italian and Catholic its how he always signs his nasty emails
interesting.Pro Fide, Lege et Rege (Latin: For Faith, Law and King) was an 18th century motto of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and then of Poland. It superseded the earlier Si Deus Nobiscum quis contra nos (Latin: If God is with us, then who is against us) and was featured on a variety of buildings, military decorations and equipment. It remains the motto of the Order of the White Eagle. The slogan of the order was that of the king's pro fide lege et grege (Latin: For Faith, Justice, and the Nation). The device of the cavaliers was pro fide et rege
I really couldn't tell ya, he's all over the map
One thing I do know he hates his neighbors who are muslim, esp the girls who just get in his face. Did I tell you he took a weed wacker and destroyed some beautiful zinnia's that were growing next to his fence but on their property? He's a horrible little troll