OCCUPY WALL STREET

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by persiphone

i was just saying....imagine if NO ONE voted. just try to picture it.

edited after looking into write-ins.....what if EVERYONE wrote in a person not on the ballot. better?

YES!!!!!

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

YES!!!!!

bows dramatically* ty ty...i'll be here all week.

[kannon]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

I am against the idea that voting for the lesser of two evils is the best choice. As long as people always choose the lesser of two evils, the two evils are the only two choices there will be. But I plan to vote for the Green party candidate next year. Even if she doesn't get enough votes to get on the ballot in all 50 states, I will write in her name. At least that way I still have a voice and my feelings are known. If there weren't any power at the polls, then all the political ads wouldn't be on the air and in print.

Isn't this related to the act of NOT voting?

[kannon]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I think it is not so much about what will aid the OWS Movement as it is about what will aid the poor and the middle class. The movement is a resource, a means to an end, not an end in itself. In that spirit, the spirit of what is best for the 99%, legalizing drugs would eliminate the excuse to continue with the kind of duplicity our government and its friends engage in, as well as the excuse to lock up unprecedented amounts of U.S. citizens. It would free up amazing amounts of money and it would put a cramp in the continued militarization of the police, at least until they found another excuse in the form of another inanimate object or ideology to declare war on. In this particular instance, the war on drugs, race is important because it is our sisters and brothers of color who pay the heaviest price. Actually, it is always our sisters and brothers of color who pay the heaviest price. So in my opinion you cannot over emphasize racism. I don't think you can over emphasize any ism. They are all connected. An intricately woven tapestry of control and subjugation. Our freedom is irrevocably bound up in each other and our recognition of this tapestry, our connectiveness, and how we must make use of the strength we have together. Alone we are powerless but together our power would be awe inspiring.

If we can't legalize, at least decriminalize.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by persiphone

the actual ins and outs of voting laws in each state is near mind boggling. it's a huge source of discouragement for many.

I understand this, but can't accept that it can not be changed- and I can see OWS as a vehicle to this change- not entirely, but a big part of what needs to happen. I honestly do feel this way. I know that the obsticles are many and so many of us are so damn frustrated too. I have been in this space many times before- but I also can look back at some very critical change factors following social movements that I have lived through. The ending of the Vietnam War is one example as well as the end to a military draft. Roe v. Wade is another. I was a kid for brown v. Board of Education and did not live in the South, but I remember changes even here in CA due to it. Also, civil rights legislation actually brought many people in states that are usually viewed as non-racist out of denial about the fact that racism is everywhere in the US. We may not have had signs posted about where and when POC could go- but it sure was implied behaviorally.

The only way a democracy can work is for people to participate even when we feel frustrated and angry. It has taken a hell of a lot of injustice, especially for younger people to say that is enough, but they are doing so and participating more and more. More and more older folks will join in too as they see that OWS isn't going away. POC unable to trust that this is their movement too will change that and participate in larger numbers. I have to have hope and the only way I can keep hope alive is to do whatever I can as an individual to participate and support this movement. No way am I going to sleep in a tent in winter- those days are gone for me and my older bones, but I will march, vote, reamin involved in local politics and sit with the old fart Republican poll workers during elections and watch every damn move they make!

[ruffryder]

.. and this is what you get for wearing a tent apparently. looks like sexual harrasment to me as they leave her nearly naked.


“This is not consensual,” the lady getting the tent ripped off said. “Don’t take my clothes off!”

The woman yelled as officers ripped and tore the tent dress until she was left in only her bra and panties. As she sat on the ground trying to cover herself, the police quickly turned and exited the park, neglecting to see if she was hurt.

“The Ethical Standards Department has subsequently received a physical assault complaint in relation to this incident and is investigating,” Victoria Police said in a statement.

“As this investigation is ongoing we will not be commenting further.”

Tal Slome, a spokeswoman for Occupy Melbourne, explained that the action was a “completely unnecessary form of brutality” because police knew she was only wearing underwear beneath the tent.

“Who decides what constitutes clothing in our society?” she asked.

http://www.rawstory.com

[ruffryder]

I ran across this video of the UC Davis Pepper Spraying. The maker of this video says,

"This video shows the events leading up to the use of pepper spray by UC Davis police officers. I made this from video I and a friend I was visiting shot. This video shows in chronological order events leading up to the use of pepper spray. I created the video from about an hour of footage, and much of what I cut was when people were standing around and chanting. There were cameras everywhere (on both sides of me and behind me), so I'm sure if you do a search you will be able to find video of the events from different angles. I encourage people to do their own research... the comments in the video are only opinions."

[Toughy]

The vote and running for political office are the only ways citizens can effect a change in or keep our legislators on a city/county/state/federal level. Term limits are entirely up to citizens.

I have said over and over and over again that a Constitutional Convention should be forced by the individual state legislators. Yes, I know it opens a big ole can o worms around a woman's control of her own body, however it is necessary to change our political system.

1. Speech is not money at all ever. Corporations are not people...ever.
2. Public financing of all (I will settle for federal elections...the house, the senate and the president) elections. No private money can be used for political ads ever never again. No more lies in campaigns. The individual running for office is the only one allowed to put up a political ad. No more 'swift boat' crap.
3. Every citizen of this country (over age 18) has a right to vote,. You don't lose voting rights because of felonies, lack of documentation for an ID card or any other bullshit that might get thrown at you. In case you did not know....there is not a 'right to vote' clause in the Constitution. That is why poll taxes could exist until Congress overturned poll taxes.

Way back when I was a Republican (yes I was), I believed that real power is in local government and the federal government should be small....ya know....that state's right crap.... I am no longer a Republican, not because I no longer believe power is most effectively used at the city/county/state level, but because Republicans lost sight of individual rights and became enamored with corporate rights and money. They also lost sight of what a government is actually for....the people (ok my brain just went to the people united will never be divided) is what government is about.

I vehemently oppose ANY movement that suggests citizens abdicate our right to vote. I would suggest that part of the Constitutional Convention also contain an amendment granting the right to vote to every fucking citizen over the age of 18 (yes Perry it is 18) in this country. No losing your voting rights for felony convictions. No losing your voting rights because you cannot produce proof of citizenship (not the same as ID cards). Citizen gets to vote period.

This is what the Occupy movement is about. Fair play, economic and social justice for all....

[ruffryder]

December 6 - OWS calls for Occupy Homes. Occupy Homes, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, will protest in foreclosed and vacant properties in around 25 U.S. cities on Tuesday's "Day of Action," promoting what organizers call the "basic human right of housing."

This targets the banks and institutions offering incredible and outrageous loans to homebuyers and no help with foreclosure. It encourages Americans to transform their relationship with land and owning homes. People will be protesting foreclosures and auctions that will go on. In the coming months there are plans of more of this kind of protesting on foreclosures. Full story here > http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2618...ures-dec-6.htm

[ruffryder]

Originally Posted by Toughy

3. Every citizen of this country (over age 18) has a right to vote,. You don't lose voting rights because of felonies, lack of documentation for an ID card or any other bullshit that might get thrown at you. In case you did not know....there is not a 'right to vote' clause in the Constitution. That is why poll taxes could exist until Congress overturned poll taxes.

........

I vehemently oppose ANY movement that suggests citizens abdicate our right to vote. I would suggest that part of the Constitutional Convention also contain an amendment granting the right to vote to every fucking citizen over the age of 18 (yes Perry it is 18) in this country. No losing your voting rights for felony convictions. No losing your voting rights because you cannot produce proof of citizenship (not the same as ID cards). Citizen gets to vote period.

This is what the Occupy movement is about. Fair play, economic and social justice for all....

Drugs, Voting, Citizenship may be a whole other thread in it's entirety. I'm still trying to grasp how this all comes together with the OWS movement and maybe that's why some people, including myself are confused with what people want to accomplish with Occupying. I do appreciate all the feedback here on my questions and trying to understand some of your points, so thank you all for the feedback and clarifying your thoughts.

I do not feel someone that is a criminal should have the same rights as a law abiding citizen. Voting should be a privilege to citizens who love their country and follow the basic rules. I am not okay with a sexual child predator voting on perhaps a bill about these types of criminals getting out of prison early for good behavior or being able to live in a neighborhood where there is a school. I also don't feel I would be comfortable with serial killers having a vote and say on anything. I am for the death penalty and feel if you want to save money on taxes on people in jail then use that for those that deserve it.

Why wouldn't a citizen be able to produce a document or ID that shows his/her citizenship status? Are you saying a foreigner should be able to vote in the U.S. elections and on U.S. and state bills just because they happen to be in the U.S. but have not received citizenship for whatever reason? What would be reasons for this and why is that okay?

Thank you.

[ruffryder]

December 5, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/

Pepper Spray, Tasers, and LRADs — What's Behind the Explosion of 'Less Lethal' Weapons for Crowd Control?

From the battlefield of Afghanistan to your local Occupation, the government has invested big bucks in weapons that don't cause permanent damage.


Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in the research and development of more "media-friendly" weapons for everyday policing and crowd control, and as uprisings around the world spread, the demand for nonlethal weapons is increasing.

According to an October report by the Homeland Security Research Corporation, the global market for "less lethal" weapons is predicted to triple by 2020, with more than half of the current market devoted to crowd dispersal weapons like those being used against protesters at Occupy Wall Street.

Americans have a rich history of taking to the streets to demand social justice. From the labor strikes of the progressive era to the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 60s and 70s, the reaction by the powers-that-be has been the same: send in the riot police. As the Occupy Wall Street movement advances this tradition, the powerful have again reacted with overwhelming force. But the riot police of yesterday were armed much differently than they are today.

Today’s arsenal includes a broad array of weapons that are meant, not to kill, but to force compliance by inflicting pain without leaving permanent injury. The Pentagon's approved term for these weapons is "non-lethal" or "less-lethal" and they are designed to disperse crowds, empty streets, and incapacitate defiant individuals.

As rapid advancements in media and telecommunications technologies allowed people to record and publicize images and video of undue force more than ever before, a 1997 joint report from the Pentagon and the Justice Department hinted at the purpose of nonlethal weapons:


A further consideration that affects how the military and law enforcement apply force is the greater presence of members of the media or other civilians who are observing, if not recording, the situation. Even the lawful application of force can be misrepresented to or misunderstood by the public. More than ever, the police and the military must be highly discreet when applying force.

As journalist Ando Arike wrote in a 2010 article in Harpers Magazine, "The result is what appears to be the first arms race in which the opponent is the general population.”

The Whole World Is Watching

The demand for non-lethal weapons is rooted in the rise of television, a medium that, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, let everyday Americans witness the violent tactics used to suppress the civil rights and anti-war movements of the era. This new dynamic popularized the slogan, “the whole world is watching”, chanted by antiwar protesters outside the Democratic National Convention in 1968 as TV cameras captured a police riot against peaceful demonstrators.

When Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) used nonviolent direct action to challenge segregation in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, they captured unprecedented media attention as a thousand high school students took to the streets in defiance of a court injunction. On orders from Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, officers attacked demonstrators with high-pressure fire hoses and police dogs. Scenes of the ensuing mayhem caused an international outcry, leading to federal intervention by the Kennedy administration.

Years later, King and the SCLC employed similar tactics in Selma, Alabama, where the police violently repressed civil rights activists. In what became known as “Bloody Sunday."

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by ruffryder

Drugs, Voting, Citizenship may be a whole other thread in it's entirety. I'm still trying to grasp how this all comes together with the OWS movement and maybe that's why some people, including myself are confused with what people want to accomplish with Occupying. I do appreciate all the feedback here on my questions and trying to understand some of your points, so thank you all for the feedback and clarifying your thoughts.

I do not feel someone that is a criminal should have the same rights as a law abiding citizen. Voting should be a privilege to citizens who love their country and follow the basic rules. I am not okay with a sexual child predator voting on perhaps a bill about these types of criminals getting out of prison early for good behavior or being able to live in a neighborhood where there is a school. I also don't feel I would be comfortable with serial killers having a vote and say on anything. I am for the death penalty and feel if you want to save money on taxes on people in jail then use that for those that deserve it.

Why wouldn't a citizen be able to produce a document or ID that shows his/her citizenship status? Are you saying a foreigner should be able to vote in the U.S. elections and on U.S. and state bills just because they happen to be in the U.S. but have not received citizenship for whatever reason? What would be reasons for this and why is that okay?

Thank you.

Ruff, voting is a right of every citizen, I would go so far as to say a duty, it however is not a privilege, that's driving. If a convicted criminal has served their time, and are not under any further parole, then they have done their time and should be considered a full citizen. The Constitution made no proof of citizenship to vote, states have usurped the federal voting rights law, and are now enacting their own set of rules. Until someone steps up and challenges them they will get away with voter suppression.

[Toughy]

I'm gonna do this point by point because it is necessary and in this color.

Originally Posted by ruffryder

Drugs, Voting, Citizenship may be a whole other thread in it's entirety. I'm still trying to grasp how this all comes together with the OWS movement and maybe that's why some people, including myself are confused with what people want to accomplish with Occupying. I do appreciate all the feedback here on my questions and trying to understand some of your points, so thank you all for the feedback and clarifying your thoughts.

The Occupy movement (across the world...not just the US) is about fair play and social economic justice. Corporations are NOT people. Government exists to protect the people....the people IS you, me and every other homo sapien on this planet

I do not feel someone that is a criminal should have the same rights as a law abiding citizen. Who decides who is a criminal? I smoke dope and have for years and yet according to CA law, it's legal as a medicine, however I go to jail (a felony depending on quantify and lose the vote) if you are talking about Federal Law. Am I a criminal who should not be able to vote?

Voting should be a privilege to citizens who love their country and follow the basic rules.

Voting IS NOT a privilege. It is a right in a democracy and many democracys around the world assert that as fact. In case you did not know......the US is not the only democracy in the world. I lived in a democracy that gave me far more rights and privileges than I receive today as a US citizen. I lived in New Zealand.

I am not okay with a sexual child predator voting on perhaps a bill about these types of criminals getting out of prison early for good behavior or being able to live in a neighborhood where there is a school. I also don't feel I would be comfortable with serial killers having a vote and say on anything. I am for the death penalty and feel if you want to save money on taxes on people in jail then use that for those that deserve it.

So the sexual predator who is 19 years old and committed the act of having consensual sex with a 17 year old, which is pedophilia in many states, should not get to vote? Where should this person live? I don't believe in the death penalty so should I not be allowed to vote? I would rather 100 guilty men go free than have the STATE execute an innocent man. The death penalty is racist in this country. You want to save taxes by killing innocent people? A brave new world eating soma comes to my mind.

Why wouldn't a citizen be able to produce a document or ID that shows his/her citizenship status?

My grandmother had no birth certificate. She was born in 1898 in what is now know as Texas. When she was 3 years old she and her family came to southeast NM by covered wagon. THere is NO record of her birth. You think she should not have been able to vote? She could not proof she was born in the US. She could not prove she was a citizen. FFS.........get out of your white privilege and open eyes.

Are you saying a foreigner should be able to vote in the U.S. elections and on U.S. and state bills just because they happen to be in the U.S. but have not received citizenship for whatever reason? What would be reasons for this and why is that okay?

Why put words in my mouth. I used the word citizen in ALL my comments.

I won't even go to what I really think about what citizenship means.......let's just use the current definition of born in this country or naturalized.

Personally I think an uneducated, unthinking person born in this country citizen is a far greater threat to our Constitution than someone busted for possession of a Schedule I drug or an undocumented family living here and paying taxes could ever be.

Thank you.

Pay attention

[ruffryder]

Thanks for the responses.

I said a "CHILD" sexual predator nothing about sexual consent. Whether a consent of sex or a rape being questioned is consented to is a matter of she said, he said. A child is totally different than what you are refering to and what I said.

As for a what constitutes a criminal, you tell me? You are the one that stated no voting rights should be lost to those that have felonies. Are you saying any one that has felonies, no matter what they are or how many they have should be ok to vote on any thing if they are serving a sentence even if it refers to justice and them being held accountable for their criminal acts?

I also did not say those that do not believe in the death penalty should not vote? I said I believe in the death penalty and I believe in it if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and if someone said, "oh yeah I killed those 100 people." I do not think the death penalty should be given to innocent people. Yes, there have been cases where it was administered and there were questions if it should have been and if it was justified. We may not be able to pick and choose but there is a case if we make amendments to include evidence and without a reasonable doubt that someone that is a criminal may be able to vote for to allow this if we look at the way you would like criminals to be able to vote. In regards to the OWS movement I stated I believe in the death penalty as a way to lower taxes and diminish the prison population.

As for not having a birth certificate or no record of it, I think the laws have changed for that over the years and people started receiving birth certificates at one point. I know refugees currently coming over from Africa and they had no clue when they were born and were given resident cards based on what they thought was correct. Oh I'm sure some may have been older or younger than what they thought. So, I'm sure nowadays there is no question to determine if someone is a citizen or not. People come from other countries all the time and gain citizenship status. For your definition of citizenship as born here or naturalized there should be no reason now why their wouldn't be a record of it.

[GeorgiaMa'am]

Originally Posted by guihong

2. I read a terrifying little book in high school called Animal Farm, which should be required reading. It is Orwell's satire of the Russian Revolution, and I know some would say we're already there in our own country. I know OWS is run apparently without leaders, all are equal, and majority votes and all that. How would the movement, if it grows, handle the human nature to divide up into classes, as the animals do? The novel starts with good intentions and a utopian idea but goes haywire. If you do elect leaders, are they not more powerful themselves by definition?

I can see we'll never agree, but I'm trying to see your side.

An egalitarian utopia is an extreme ideal. A democratic free market is also an extreme ideal.

However, human beings don't thrive within extreme idealism. It's impossible to come up with a system of government that treats everyone fairly in all circumstances. So humans swing back and forth between ideals - conservatism and liberalism, communism and fascism, fanaticism and atheism, etc. - and I HOPE (and in my more Disney moments I think most people hope) that we continually work toward some kind of moderation and balance.
Unfortunately, sometimes the momentum of a swing in one direction is too much. Then we become entrenched in some extreme and it's harder to get back to the middle.

I'm sure you can think of lots of examples when a group went too far in one direction: Nazi Germany, Jonestown, the Salem Witch Trials. When a movement goes too far in one direction, it loses touch with its source of critical inquiry, and therefore loses its integrity and focus on its original goals. In other words, it becomes a mob.

And since I'm on my soapbox, I'll say I think the U.S. has gotten disturbingly far away from its original goals. What were those? Why, they were written down and called the Bill of Rights. They were limitations on the government to protect personal freedom.

Let's review:

1. Freedom of speech, the press and assembly. OWS, police raids - exactly what we've been discussing here. (I used to work in journalism - the oldest joke in the business was that freedom of the press only belongs to the publisher - in other words, whoever owns the press.)

2. The right to keep and bear arms. Threatened constantly by liberals and conservatives, each in their own way. Easily obtained weapons cause problems. But still - if only one side has all the weapons, the other doesn't stand a chance.

3. Protection from quartering of troops. Well, we do spend a lot of money, and give up a lot of personal freedom, to maintain police forces and the military. But they aren't living in my spare bedroom and eating at my kitchen table - yet.

4. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Did you read those articles just a few posts up explaining how the police don't bother with getting warrants any more? They just send in militarized SWAT units to overwhelm with force. (And anything they seize, as in, "We found half a 20-year-old joint in your scrapbook so we're going to take your house and everything you own and send you to jail and we don't care if it leaves your family homeless," goes to finance their own operations - see #3.)

This is too depressing. Somebody else pick up here, if you wish. I'm getting down off my soapbox - I'm dizzy. If you stuck with me this long, thanks - you went above and beyond the call.

[GeorgiaMa'am]

Ruffryder - Corkey - Toughy!

Before you continue, as you like, may I please just use this as an example:

This is how the power of good, thoughtful, concerned people - which you ALL seem to be - gets sucked out of doing anything good and making any progress.

I wish people wouldn't give their power away by wasting it on matters that can't be solved immediately and which deserve further discussion and deeper reflection to reach a resolution. I wish they would just go to the bar and start a fight over a pool game or something else inconsequential, if what they really want is a fight. Or that they wouldn't go for the easy kill just to get some satisfaction during a discussion about decidedly frustrating matters.

Why wouldn't people who are trying to express themselves give others the benefit of the doubt? Why wouldn't they acknowledge that, although people may sometimes mis-speak, that doesn't discredit the entirety of what they say? Why can't they acknowledge that although others haven't explored some issues, it doesn't make their other beliefs invalid?

These are the only other people in the Entire World who are willing and able to engage with you at This Moment about something that is obviously important to you. I encourage you to appreciate each other, not tear each other down. Save your energy for the real fight.

Now please return to your regularly scheduled lives, and tear me apart as you wish. Or, don't.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaMa'am

Ruffryder - Corkey - Toughy!

Before you continue, as you like, may I please just use this as an example:

This is how the power of good, thoughtful, concerned people - which you ALL seem to be - gets sucked out of doing anything good and making any progress.

I wish people wouldn't give their power away by wasting it on matters that can't be solved immediately and which deserve further discussion and deeper reflection to reach a resolution. I wish they would just go to the bar and start a fight over a pool game or something else inconsequential, if what they really want is a fight. Or that they wouldn't go for the easy kill just to get some satisfaction during a discussion about decidedly frustrating matters.

Why wouldn't people who are trying to express themselves give others the benefit of the doubt? Why wouldn't they acknowledge that, although people may sometimes mis-speak, that doesn't discredit the entirety of what they say? Why can't they acknowledge that although others haven't explored some issues, it doesn't make their other beliefs invalid?

These are the only other people in the Entire World who are willing and able to engage with you at This Moment about something that is obviously important to you. I encourage you to appreciate each other, not tear each other down. Save your energy for the real fight.

Now please return to your regularly scheduled lives, and tear me apart as you wish. Or, don't.

Excuse me, I was answering Ruff, whom I know and not having a discussion with you. I encourage you to take this as good hearted as I answered Ruff. Sometimes it isn't in the delivery but in the readers mind.

[Toughy]

[Cagain me in this colorOLOR="DarkOliveGreen"][/COLOR]

Originally Posted by ruffryder

Thanks for the responses.

I said a "CHILD" sexual predator nothing about sexual consent. Whether a consent of sex or a rape being questioned is consented to is a matter of she said, he said. A child is totally different than what you are refering to and what I said.

Who defines 'child'? I know more than one person in the state of New Mexico who is forever doomed to registering as a pedophile because they had consensual sex defined by the laws of NM as pedophilia. The 'pedophile' must register and are subject to all kinds of horrors because a priest abused them when they were a 'child' and that pedophile is simply acting out an innocent sexual activity with a peer? At what age can consent be given. If you are talking about clinical drug trials, a 12 yr old can give consent to participating in a clinical trial. What is consent? When can consent be given? Does age and type of consent for different activities make a difference?

Why is a 12 year old 'child' consenting to sex with a 19 year old different from a 12 year old consenting to take an experimental drug that could render them _________ different from sex consent. WHAT IS the aqe of consent? States differ unimaginably on this issue.

Truth is it does not matter. Why does being a less than member of society deny you the right to vote for representation?

As for a what constitutes a criminal, you tell me? You are the one that stated no voting rights should be lost to those that have felonies. Are you saying any one that has felonies, no matter what they are or how many they have should be ok to vote on any thing if they are serving a sentence even if it refers to justice and them being held accountable for their criminal acts?

EVERY CITIZEN (above age 18) HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE. I cannot make it more clear

I also did not say those that do not believe in the death penalty should not vote? I said I believe in the death penalty and I believe in it if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and if someone said, "oh yeah I killed those 100 people." I do not think the death penalty should be given to innocent people. Yes, there have been cases where it was administered and there were questions if it should have been and if it was justified. We may not be able to pick and choose but there is a case if we make amendments to include evidence and without a reasonable doubt that someone that is a criminal may be able to vote for to allow this if we look at the way you would like criminals to be able to vote. In regards to the OWS movement I stated I believe in the death penalty as a way to lower taxes and diminish the prison population.

[BYou believe as you have stated twice that.......the death penalty is a way to lower taxes and diminish prison populations............

actually I'm gonna stop here.........I will no longer engage any human being who believes taxes and money are more important than people........][/B]


As for not having a birth certificate or no record of it, I think the laws have changed for that over the years and people started receiving birth certificates at one point. I know refugees currently coming over from Africa and they had no clue when they were born and were given resident cards based on what they thought was correct. Oh I'm sure some may have been older or younger than what they thought. So, I'm sure nowadays there is no question to determine if someone is a citizen or not. People come from other countries all the time and gain citizenship status. For your definition of citizenship as born here or naturalized there should be no reason now why their wouldn't be a record of it.

you are a fucking idiot who should be denied the right to be a citizen of this country (which as a matter of ethics I would never do). In 1972, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of this country. You....are an abomination to what I swore to uphold. Jesse Ventura...a navy seal.....called on ALL veterans to remember the oath we took........that oath was to 'uphold the Constitution'...........

I ask every single veteran who did swear to uphold the Constitution to re-affirm that oath and Occupy the Constitution.............


I am so fuckin done with this stupid crap...............

[SoNotHer]

I think Toughy and RR are having a good if heated discussion, but I appreciate GeogiaMa'am's post and had to laugh a little. It would be ideal to have this discussion over a pool table and drinks. And yes, Corkey is answering question with a response that I agree with. If America is truly a democracy, then voting is a right. My most recent NAACP letter addresses this.

Of Animal Farm and its messages, it's probably good to keep a few things in context. The book offers a satirical look at early communism. Orwell himself was a critic of Stalin and Stalinist policies, had difficulty finding a publisher for the book because of this, and identified more as a socialist democrat. Through a glass darkly, the book explores the idea of common wealth and equality in a realistic and dystopic vision that ultimately leads to the realization that "some animals are more equal than others."

Of course Orwell gave us another vision in 1984 - that of three super powers, Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia, in a perpetual state of war with the all-knowing and seeing ministries of truth, peace, plenty and love guiding individual actions, and thoughts ultimately toward a collective resignation of any other love before the love of Big Brother and love itself as an act of dissent. Scary stuff, or at least it is to me, and it feels like we're getting a little too close to this vision in our own realities.

[Toughy]

let us not get into literary derails.......I am currently reading the unabridged version of Stranger in a Strange Land. I grok in the fullness of time......when I don't...

Idiocy around the Constitution makes me unreasonable. I doubt anyone who has never taken an 'oath to uphold the Constitution'.......understands what that mean.

All y'all.............would you willingly take an

'oath to uphold the Constutution against all enemies foriegn and domestic' seriously...........

think about it............that means I will work to overthrow a government that subverts the Constitution ..........and I will do it in spite of orders from my superiors.........mutiny if required to uphold that oath..................