Revolution is happening in the USA

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/202197.html



Basically highlighting the economic plight taking hold of the country, the protesters of the 'Occupy Wall Street' Movement are seeking to introduce the factors behind the plight.

One of the posts on the Occupy Wall Street website reads: “We are unions, students, teachers, veterans, first responders, families, the unemployed and underemployed. We are all races, sexes and creeds. We are the majority. We are the 99 percent. And we will no longer be silent.”

The protesters have targeted the Wall Street because they want “to create a national narrative and have it be known how the states are taking state revenues that are being funneled to banks and corporations and then you layer on top of that the fact that they're not obligated to pay their fair share of taxes, and so that's billions and billions of dollars that could be put toward job creation and creating solutions to the housing crisis,” Rachel Laforest, the executive director of the Right to the City Alliance has told ABC News.

It is very painful to see that the middle-class Americans who have been reduced to abject poverty should now swallow their pride and capitulate to any humiliating position as they have lost their veritable status.

More at the link --

[CurtEastPoint]

1. How the F could someone Unrec this? Assholes.

[TheWraith]

4. Because it's pure propaganda from Iranian state media? nt

[girl gone mad]

12. This type of hyperbole is unproductive.

You may disagree with the author's opinions, but to simplistically assert that his article is propaganda is not conducive to a healthy exchange of ideas. It's a well written piece and he makes many valid points.

[RZM]

17. Make no mistake

The Iranian government (PressTV) and the Russian government (RT) do not give a fuck about you or your progressive values. You are a means to an end for them. Their goal is to weaken US power and influence. They have calculated that articulating anti-establishment views from a left wing perspective in English is a cheap, easy, and effective way of doing that.

The proof is in the pudding. If those governments had any real commitment to progressive values, they wouldn't rank so low on human rights/democracy/rule of law/press freedom indices compiled by international monitoring organizations.

The sad part is that they are having some success. This was the root of Hillary Clinton's (frequently misinterpreted) comment about these types of outlets earlier this year, when she said that they were 'very instructive' and 'good at what they do.' She wasn't endorsing them . . . she was pointing out how savvy they are.

[girl gone mad]

22. Make no mistake, Iran is not a serious threat to me.

Most of the people in the world, including most Americans, would be better off if US power and influence was dramatically weakened. The neoliberal policies we've implemented over the past few decades have been incredibly harmful and destructive. Only a few at the top have reaped the benefits of endless wars, financialization, globalization, privatization, deregulation and the rest of the neoliberal agenda. Everyone else has had their quality of life diminished.

Once again, I find the type of dialogue you are engaging in to be useless. I have Iranian friends. They are good people and they genuinely share opinions similar to those of this writer. They are not propagandists or secret operatives for the Iranian government out to kill and destroy Americans. Most are secular and share progressive values. I have more in common with members of the productive class in Iran than I do with American elites.

[RZM]

25. Who said anything about 'killing' and 'destroying?'

I never implied they are a threat to you either. I said they are using the left, not threatening the left. And I have no beef with regular Iranians either. My beef is with that terrible government they have. I don't trust it one bit. This is 'psyops,' same as right wingers coming over here in disguise and criticizing Obama from left. If you agree with those criticisms, that's your business. But I'd rather not hear them from people guilty of shit that's just as bad or even worse.

[eridani]

34. You mean there are leftists in Iran?

:wow: Whodathunkit?

[RZM]

63. Plety of leftists. Just no gay people, apparently.

I wonder how man of those leftists support their theocratic government?

[eilen]

45. I guess the Soviet boogeyman is passe now. nt

[Enthusiast]

54. You are the one bringing the misinformation.

We can see right through you.

[RZM]

66. Quick, hasten thee to this thread

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2043767

And tell everyone there that they are bringing misinformation. Because the source doesn't matter . . . only the message. Right? They are only trashing Ron Paul because he's speaking out against the establishment and they can't handle it. Right?

Please. You haven't brought anything substantive to this discussion, only lame personal attacks.

[kenfrequed]

87. Feh

I could give a rip about Ron Paul. I don't vote republican or libertarian and what they do to their own while sad is irrelevant.

RT is not a tool of the russian government and is no more bias that corporate controlled media in the US. RT's stories and editorials actually cover something of the left spectrum of the media in a mass broadcasting manner that actually gets the truth to people. Most intelligent people have relied on foreign media for decades to get good information and good investigative reporting.

So are you blaming the left for listening to a medium that actually carries information that the mainstream media ignores? I don't understand what your bloody point is. Are you saying that carrying information from a left perspective automatically weakens America? Does that mean you believe the left weakens America by extension?

Are you certian you are on the right bloody board?

[RZM]

91. I don't know if it weakens the US or not

But I'm pretty sure they think it does. Or else why would they do it? They certainly don't have much of a commitment to progressive values, as demonstrated by the fact that a single party (United Russia) completely dominates the political process there. And one thing that's beyond dispute is that they don't believe in press freedom.

Most Russians get their news from television. Try finding views critical of United Russia on TV there. Go ahead. I'll wait.

[kenfrequed]

95. I don't go to Russian News for that function

I wouldn't trust many sources of news for coverage of that nations domestic or internal concerns. That is ridiculous.

Why don't you cite some solid evidence of what you are implying. A smoking gun of some kind. An example of a secret document detailing the agenda for destroying America with progressive ideas. Prove yoru Bullshit or take a walk.

And since you seem to be a Ron Paul supporter YOU already don't give a Frack about progressive vaules so YOUR Bias is quite clear.

[RZM]

98. LOL. I've never been a Ron Paul suppoter

I brought him in because it serves my argument. Ron Paul is a dirty word on DU. Even though he says some things that DU agrees with, people aren't willing to look past all of the other ridiculous shit he stands for. I see a parallel here. People like what the Iranian government (through PressTV) is saying about OWS. Less so about their support for terror or anachronistic anti-gay laws. Yet very few people on this thread are holding Iran to the same standards that they hold Ron Paul to . . . and I don't understand why that is.

[kenfrequed]

99. Bullshit analogy

RT News isn't running for president and neither is this Iranian news channel. You are aware of the difference between a media source and a political leader... correct?

You can analyze a news source story by story to ascertain its accuracy by comparison and it really is just a news source. Unlike advocating a politician, people here advocate these things called 'news stories.' You can take a news story apart from other news stories if they ar covering something you think is important.

A politician is not a news story. When you support one you have to absorb at least half of their policies or at least a good amount of it. If a politician is backing less than half of what you say than its time to go shopping for another. I agree with Ron Paul only about two or three issues and on almost everything else he is diametrically opposed to my ideas and generally Kuku for cocoa puffs.

I honestly don't think you are a progressive since you seem to be:

A: Criticizing methods for getting liberal/progressive ideas out to the people.

B: Suggesting that our "enemies" think that progressive ideas are hazardous to the United States.

C: Using some ridiculous analogy whereby you suggest whe shouldn't draw from these sources because we ought to treat them as we would Ron Paul, or that we should treat Ron Paul more favorably because a lot people post RT links here.

D: You also conflate RT with the Iranian television service as some kind of smear job while ignoring the fact that few here actually post much from this Iranian channel you keep mentioning.

[RZM]

109. They aren't running for president. But they control political power in their own countries

Maybe you don't care that United Russia runs the show there and will for a long time to come. Maybe you also don't care that unelected clerics wield so much power in Iran. But I do. I find it ridiculous that these authoritarian governments are doing their best to convince the left in American that THEY are the ones who have it so bad. What about the left in their own countries? What about Russians who don't believe in a one-party monopoly? What about Iranians who believe in the separation of church and state? What about GLBT people in both places (especially Iran)?

And who gives a fuck if you think I'm a progressive or not? Does anybody besides you care? I don't know if I'm a progressive or not, but I don't believe I have to declare either way in order to hold good standing on this board. I can tell you one thing. Moscow and Tehran sure as hell aren't progressive. But who cares, right? That's neither here nor there for you. As long as they are telling you what you want to hear about OWS, it's that much easier to turn a blind eye to what they do at home. Ever stop and think for 5 seconds that this might have already occurred to them?

[kenfrequed]

113. This is a bunch of crap.

Seriously, I cannot think of a reason for you to not give your own politics here. Either you claim to be a concerned progressive and someone easily pokes holes in the lie, or you give whatever "honest" positions you are taking and people disregard you for trolling.

Also, again, conflating RT with Iran quite a lot and then accusing anyone of drawing on Russian RT news to somehow also be supporting Iran and being against gay rights. I still don't know whether your just whining on behalf of Ron Paul or your a Neocon with an axe to grind against progressives.

[RZM]

117. Get it through your head

I don't support Ron Paul. Never have and never will. I have no axe to grind with progressives, either. I do have one to grind with the highly un-progressive governments in Tehran and Moscow. Frankly I'm baffled that you would read this thread and think that I have some anti-progressive agenda. Are you drawing that conclusion because I don't approve of PressTV? Because that's really quite a leap.

Re-read my post. I'm well aware that Iran and Russia are not the same place. But RT and PressTV do have a some things in common. They both are English-language outlets funded by their respective governments. And they have taken a similar tack, too - appealing to the Western left in English. My belief is that they believe doing that furthers their own national interests - both are hostile to the US, particularly US foreign policy. Both are opposed to US meddling in what they consider their own spheres of interest. Both lack the military power and diplomatic clout to remove US threats with force or diplomatic action. But both are more than capable of using information to further their goals by appealing to people within the US who agree that the US should reduce its global footprint. Of course, progressives here usually want that because they oppose military spending and aggressive postures. Iran and Russia want it so that they can project more power themselves.

[kenfrequed]

122. Ah.. a neo con then?

Is that it? You like US force projected all over the friggin place? Well THIS POST WAS ABOUT ECONOMIC ISSUES! It was about the protests against Wallstreet and financial fraud and greed.

So YES! You did attempt to hijack this thread with your paranoid neo con fantasies about Russia and Iran.

[RZM]

123. So let's add it all up

I'm some combination of a sock puppet, a troll, a Ron Paul supporter, and a neocon. All because I oppose the Iranian government and PressTV.

Got it :thumbsup:

You have quite an active imagination, I'll give you that. If I wanted to argue that the US should project power all over the place (and no, I don't), I'd be sure to come out and say it and not leave it to be inferred.

[kenfrequed]

125. Evidence?

Do you hae evidence of your Iranian-russian conspiracy?

[RZM]

129. It's not a secret that Russia wants to limit US/NATO influence in the 'near abroad'

Or that Iran has aims to become a major regional power and views the US as an obstacle to that (save of course our removal of their chief Sunni Arab rival). If you want to hear academics arguing just that, go to Google (or JSTOR, if you have access).

My own opinion is that RT and PressTV are small parts of achieving that goal. I've already explained this. If you don't believe me, cool, that's your business. I'm not about to produce mini-research paper for your benefit, especially after your childish display on this thread.

[kenfrequed]

131. Actual evidence

We have plenty of smoking gun memos from Faux news about their intentions and strategy. I'm sure there must be some evidence, or an overt example that you can provide. It must be there... you can't possibly be paranoid, or full of crap... can you?

[Enthusiast]

133. Glad you got it because that's how I would peg you.

And you made the list.

[RZM]

141. Self delete n/t

[PETRUS]

26. Damn glad...

...to see someone pointing out that finding common ground with the citizens of a country "our" own... - wait for it - ...propaganda is intent on demonizing is a GOOD thing.

PS. While I think RZM misses the point, I suppose the linked article does meet some minimum standard of propaganda. There's a paragraph in there about war, and no doubt the author represents interests (including his own) that would benefit from the cessation of our military exploits. It's a pretty benign form of propaganda, though, because there's nothing misleading about the claims. And, like you say, less war actually aligns with the interest of most Americans - in spite of what much of our disingenuous media claims.

Recommend.

Edit for a postscript - it's on us to find common ground with our perceived political enemies here at home, too. Divide & conquer, NO! We are the 99%

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fool Count]

28. Yeah, sure, that's why we should reject any anti-establishment views

and abstain from articulating them in in English, if we don't want to pour water on the wheels of Iranian and Russian propaganda.
Now is not the time to be critical of our rulers and masters. In the face of the terrible threat emanating from the Iranian and Russian
enemies, it is every citizen's duty to get behind the establishment and work tirelessly for continuation of American military and
economic hegemony. You are either with us or against US.

[RZM]

29. Cute, but you're responding to an argument I didn't make

Did I say to reject those views? No. All I ask is that people consider the source along with the message. If you don't think the conduct and motives of the Iranian government matter here, so be it. Ron Paul says some things that DU agrees with too. Yet he doesn't get a pass for the rest of his views, does he? While I don't particularly care for Ron Paul, I do find him less insidious than the government of Iran.

[JDPriestly]

46. The sad part is that what this article says (caveat because I've only read what was posted)

is true. When our government does not defend us against the lies and fraud and cheating on Wall Street, they empower the Russians and the Iranians.

A lot of the retirement funds are invested in mortgage-backed securities. The holders of those securities are foreclosing very slowly, trickle-down fashion, so that the housing prices will not fall precipitously.

But when the companies that hold the mortgage-backed securities have to account for the real value, the market value of those securities on their books, they will show losses. Some of the investment companies, the retirement funds, will show very large losses.

Meanwhile, Morgan Stanley and Wall Street want to lower Social Security benefits. They are trying to appeal to young people to force those young people to make the big mistake that many baby boomers were pushed into making -- investing in retirement accounts that are then invested of course in Wall Street and not insured.

Try to find anything in our news media that warns young people and seniors about what is coming as housing declines still more in value. Stories exist, but they are presented as speculation, and most people will not hear them on the evening news.

So the best source for some of the truth about what is going on is these crazy news sources that none of us would have paid any heed just a few years ago -- like Iranian news sources, RTV, Al Jazeera.

It is a very sad situation when Americans have to watch or listen to the news media of rogue, allegedly terrorist states, in order to find out the truth about what is going on in the US.

Actually, RT has some good programs like Thom Hartmann and others. Don't knock it until you have tried it and decided which programs you trust and which you don't.

I am generally unfamiliar with Iranian news services, so I can't comment on them. But Pacifica Radio carries Al Jazeera, and I enjoy listening to it because it reports on international stories that don't get much attention here. Do I take Russian TV and Al Jazeera with a grain of salt. Of course, but not with quite as large a grain of salt as I take Fox News -- which requires a whole shaker full of the stuff.

That people trust Iranian and Russian news sources does not reflect badly on the Americans who cite to Russian or Iranian news sources. It reflects badly on the American media that reports dishonestly or dares not report the ugly truth about what is going on right here, right now.

Hillary's comment was very correct.

[spooked911]

55. All true. Anyone who reports the truth about the entrenched interests is a nominal ally in my book.

[RZM]

65. So it turns out that 'the enemy of my enemy' really is my friend

Who knew?

[Enthusiast]

134. You disrupted the entire thread.

That is all.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RZM]

64. Whatever the composition of my brain

It is not relevant to what monitoring organizations say about the Iranian government

[Jackpine Radical]

58. The Russians also advocate Global Warming theory.

I guess that's their way of opposing the Keystone Pipeline and thereby cripping our economy.

Only way to fight the Russians is to become GW deniers!!

[RZM]

61. Ron Paul wants to legalize pot and end the wars

I guess the only way to do that is to join with him.

[tcaudilllg]

72. along with totally deregulating the financial industry

Look at the philosophy behind the demands.

[RZM]

84. One reason of many that I'm not behind him.

The same people who put out PressTV also jail people for being gay. Can't say I'm for that either. One of many reasons I'm not behind them, either.

[ooglymoogly]

71. This idiocy paid for by...............? nwat

[RZM]

85. PressTV you mean?

They are paid for by the Iranian government. So lots of oil money there, I imagine.

[ooglymoogly]

140. Judging from previous comments, it was inevitable that this post would

get it backwards.

[RZM]

155. Just so you know

I'm aware that you were insinuating that I'm paid to post here. I tried to ignore it because the idea is stupid. But after thinking about it, I do think you should know that it's just not the case. It would be nice if I got paid to articulate what I believe on message boards (especially since I have no health insurance), but unfortunately I have to say what I believe for free.

Besides, anybody paying me to post on DU in order to damage Democrats would be wasting their money. A better tactic would be to pay people to criticize Obama from the left, because that's the type of thing that many DUers can get behind. What I say (on this thread for example) does not reflect sentiments shared by a lot of people here.

What's so ironic here is that what you are accusing me of is EXACTLY what PressTV does. They mouth left-wing sentiments not to benefit the left here, but to benefit 'outsiders.' For paid posters that's the Republican party. For PressTV it's the government of Iran.

[ooglymoogly]

156. Then you won't mind if I chortle in my fist. nt

[RZM]

157. Chortle till your heart's content. People can see who's making arguments and who's 'snarking' n/t

[Scuba]

77. Are these the new bogeymen? Then who? How long 'til it's the Canadians?

[rhett o rick]

78. Yes I am progressive. Are you a neocon? You are a means to an end for them.

Who do you represent? And what progressive values do you object too?

"Their goal is to weaken US power and influence. " Is that sooo bad? Are you a neocon? Whether you are or not you are a means to an end to them?

[RZM]

83. I have said nothing about objecting to any values

I object to the Iranian government. You know, the one that argues that Israel shouldn't exist. That has clerics exercising lots of power. That is beyond shitty on LGBT rights. That supports Hezbollah. You want to rail against anybody who criticizes their English-language propaganda arm, then that's your business.

[rhett o rick]

92. The OP is about the New Revolution. So you support progressive values, or not? nm

[RZM]

96. Fuck that McCarthyist bullshit. I don't have to issue a goddman loyalty oath to you or anybody else

But I'll at least give you my take:

I don't think it qualifies as a revolution. Right now it's a still a modest protest movement. It's more a reflection that people know that something is very wrong with Wall Street, though not everybody can say exactly what that is, they know that there's something terrible going on there. These protests will go away, but the sentiment will remain. Next time, they will probably be bigger. Whether protests like this will effect real change, I don't know. Probably not anytime soon, but we'll see what the future holds.

Now my turn.

Are you troubled that PressTV is funded by the theocratic Iranian government that has demonstrated many times that it is not at all committed to progressive values? Do you think that endorsing the Iranian government's POV on this or any other issue sets back the cause of of human and political rights in Iran? Do you think that people who defend PressTV are less likely to forcefully condemn human rights abuses in that country?

[kenfrequed]

100. The Irony is painful.

It is not your turn. The only thing it is your turn to do is answer questions honestly.

Discussing enemies outside of the country using special media programs to somehow attack america or weaken us and questioning people for drawing information from these sources is ACTUAL McCarthyism. Asking someone who jumps into a conversation making wildly implausible and unprovable conspiracy theories about foreign journalists isn't McCarthyim it is BS detection.

[RZM]

108. I've never told anybody not to look at stories from these outlets

That's not my business. What I do ask is that they consider the motives and conduct of those producing the stories. This isn't just a news outlet. It's the English-language information wing of the government of Iran.

What's so implausible about Iran wanting to weaken the US? They have ambitions of being the top regional power. They believe that the US and the Sunni Arab states that it supports stand in the way of that. They lack the power to remove the US presence from the region directly, so why not egg on the left wing isolationists in the US and contribute their goal that way? It's not a difficult concept to grasp. This doesn't mean that every story produced at PressTV deals with this subject directly - but just about all of them (that I've seen) reinforce beliefs that somebody who is progressive on foreign policy is likely to share . . . such as support of OWS.

I'm not telling people what to think, I'm telling them to look a little deeper. If you disagree with my theory here, so be it. But maybe we're not so different. You like the message so much that you don't care where it comes from. I'm so hostile to the messenger (and not because of their FP ambitions, either) that I don't really give a fuck what their message is.

[kenfrequed]

116. Because progressive values...

are so evil and corrupt that Iran thinks they are the perfect weapon to dissolve America from within. I mean, they might make Americans demand a more equal share of the wealth from Wallstreet and if that happens people might become more engaged with their form of government.

The message and policy ARE the story. Nothing RT covers is anything progressives weren't already aware of and their analysis is neither new nor stunning. The difference is it actually IS progressive. A major media network that has decided to hitch itself to the left and cover our stories on a global level, primarily in economics. Huge surprise! They blame the plutocrats of wallstreet who are the wealthiest they have ever been.

Rather than spinning wild stories about russian sneaky propeganda to seduce us perhaps you should speak factually and on a per-issue basis to one of RT's stories.

[rhett o rick]

136. The Irony is indeed painful. nm

[rhett o rick]

137. You imply that you are not progressive. So what are you?

Seems a fair question. YOu said: "....do not give a fuck about you or your progressive values. You are a means to an end for them." In other words, you are not progressive. So what are you? Why is that so hard to explain?

[bvar22]

93. Stop the Hand Wringing.

We have plenty of Freedom Bombs & Assassination Drones.

We'll deal with Iran after we Finish Up with Libya!



If you're not FOR a WAR in Iran,
you're WITH The Communists AlQaeda The Terrorists Saddam Qaddafi The Iranians !!!

[RZM]

94. I'm not for war with Iran. I don't think a whole lot of people in the US are

Nice try, though.

[rhett o rick]

138. So tell us what you believe in. nm

[RZM]

143. About war with Iran?

I've never taken the threats seriously at all and I doubt the Iranian leadership does either. I think it's a show. War has never been on the table IMO, so threats and sanctions are all the US has to pressure Iran. My (unprovable) theory is that the Obama is playing 'good cop/bad cop' along with the Republicans to get Iran to the table. The unspoken thing there is that Obama is implying 'now is the time to come talk, because I won't be in office forever and who knows what these Republicans would do.' But I don't believe they would initiate military action against Iran either, though they might amp up the rhett-o-rick, if you will ;)

Israel's a different story. I don't know enough about their military postures or internal debates to say what they might do. I do imagine their threshold for action is much lower than that of the US, though.

I gave my take on OWS elsewhere in this thread.

[rhett o rick]

144. No. You clearly indicate that you are a non-progressive Democrat. I would love to know

what non-progressive Democrats values are.

[RZM]

145. I did not indicate that

'You' in the context of my earlier post meant people who support PressTV.

I have no desire to genuflect in this manner. I don't owe you an explanation for shit. You've tried to keep the focus on me and not on the issue at hand and I'm not going to encourage that type of behavior, partly because it's against the spirit of the rules here, but mostly because it's a waste of my time.

Had you been respectful and tried to have a constructive conversation, I wouldn't have a problem sharing. But given your rudeness, I'd rather not.

We're done here. Goodbye.

[rhett o rick]

149. As I suspected. nm

[rhett o rick]

82. Most of what we read is some kind of propaganda. The neocons are especially sensitive

of anything coming from Iran, their new devil. This poster wouldnt have objected if the article came from the BBC or CNN.

I think it is important to challenge those of The Third Way to explain what their principles are and how they differ from their hated "left". They refuse to answer 100% in my experience.

[kenfrequed]

107. Too true

I agree.

[Maven]

27. Establishment always knows what's best.

Right, Wraith? Right, buddy?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iamthebandfanman]

39. +1

trust me, they bank on people like the original poster..



opportunity is opportunity. they know that.


the first two comments at the bottom of the piece are pretty telling ;)


while i agree with the sentiment expressed, its nothing more than fodder for people who dislike america abroad..


no offense to the iranians but its best if they keep their opinions on our matters to themselves. they wont help anything.

[JDPriestly]

47. Unfortunately, our own press is spewing even worse propaganda.

I read the French and German newspapers. They are pretty neutral about what is going on here and don't report the whole truth, but sometimes they are much more reliable than our press. Then there is the Guardian which is a pretty reliable newspaper. If you put foreign sources together, you get more honest reporting than from the American sources, although MSNBC and Current and a few radio programs including Ian Masters on Pacifica and Thom Hartmann are pretty good.

An example of the unreliability of the US press is the recent reporting of the New York Times on the kettling of the Occupy Wall Street protestors on the Brooklyn Bridge.

First the Times correctly reported that the police had directed the protestors on to the street of the bridge and then entrapped them into the kettle.

Then the Times falsely reported that the police had warned the protestors not to go onto the street portion of the bridge.

There is now a video posted on YouTube which shows the protestors proceeding on the pedestrian part of the bridge and then the police leading them, redirecting them, if you will, onto the street portion of the bridge. The video is very clear evidence of the entrapment by the police of the hundreds of protestors that they arrested.

We shall see if the New York Times corrects its story. But that is the kind of sloppy or dishonest (we shall see which it is) reporting that we get in the American press.

[Jackpine Radical]

59. It ain't sloppy reporting.

Especially after they "corrected" themselves by expunging the truth and publishing the lie within 20 minutes.

The NYT is always there to haul water for the Big Guys, whether it's publishing lies to get us into Iraq or covering up American war crimes, you can always count on them to serve the interests of the Empire.

[spooked911]

53. and you never would promote pure propaganda from the US state media?

right?

[Zorra]

70. Very astute, citizen! Actually, it's coming from KGB headquarters in

Loadakrapistan.

Soviet commies have regrouped and are sending hippie agents,trained from the cradle, to the US to poison the minds of young children and vulnerable senior citizens.

Fortunately, the Third Way has discovered the plot, and is valiantly fighting these pinko commie agents in order to save the global plutarchy and keep the world safe from democracy.

Stay vigilant! God save the kings!
:patriot:

[rhett o rick]

81. I think The Third Way is in bed with the Commies. Both aiming at global oligarchy. nm

[RZM]

86. What's truly bizarre

Is that you avatar and sig are both images associated with GLBT rights. And here you are shitting on somebody for criticizing a government that just so happens to jail people for being gay.

:shrug:

[Zorra]

103. Where'd you get that from?

"Because it's pure propaganda from Iranian state media? nt"

The poster was criticizing the article, clearly stating that, in his opinion, the article is "pure propaganda", and that is the reason for which it was unrecc'd.

It is not at all clear that the intent of the poster was to criticize the Iranian government.

IMO, the article was extremely accurate and sound from a journalistic POV, regardless of the source. As a participant in this revolution, it is my observation that the article pretty much genuinely expresses my POV also.

Would it be propaganda if I had written it? Is it fair to say the author of the article wrote the article for propaganda purposes, when it is very possible that the author genuinely believes that what he wrote is a pretty valid objective observation on the spread of democratic revolution?

If the author wrote "Most people believe that the sky is blue", would that also be propaganda simply because it is a product of state media?

I do not support Ahmadinejad or the repressive nature of the Iranian government in any way.

On a side note, it is very puzzling why some people at a site called democraticunderground.com are so vehemently against a worldwide movement promoting real democracy.

I applaud the author of the article, and hope this global democratic revolution spreads to Iran as well.

[RZM]

112. Show me where I said I was 'vehemently against' OWS

My only comment on the article's content was pointing out the amusing assertion that the Arab Spring and by extension OWS, were inspired by the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. I guess you could make the case that there are parallels, though how relevant those are is for another discussion.

I can't speak for the poster you responded to, but I do believe that 'pure propaganda' is not exactly a positive phrase.

I don't think it would be 'pure propaganda' if you had written it. And you, as far as I know, don't preside over a repressive theocratic government either. Maybe where we differ is that I think those facts matter when looking at this article and you don't. I apologize if I mistook your position. I realize that you don't support that government's policies, especially towards GLBT people. While I don't doubt your commitment to GLBT issues, my own brand of commitment to them means that I am not willing to look past the Iranian government's abhorrent policies on that front, even when the discussion is something entirely different. Had this been written by 'Firuz the Blogger,' who has no connection at all to the government, that's one thing. But it comes from the government itself - the same people that uphold and enforce those terrible laws.

[rhett o rick]

80. The Revolution is real irregardless of Iran or our detractors or even you. nm

[Vanje]

101. Which side are you on?

Which side are you on?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iAIM02kv0g

[elocs]

60. One minute after the OP was posted you use the 1st response to whine about an UnRec.

Must not really be that important to you then.

[Renew Deal]

90. Probably because it came from Iran.

And people here always make a stink about that.

[Vanje]

97. Yep.

Assholes.

[DJ13]

2. K&R (now +1)

[RZM]

3. Good ol' PressTV. Who knew the Iranian government loved the Western left so much?

I did enjoy this gem though:

'Under the influence of the popular uprisings in the Islamic world better known as 'Arab Spring' inspired by Iran's Islamic revolution back in 1979, the American community has begun to wake up and has decided to carve out their own fate instead of feeling their way in the dark.'

[Abin Sur]

5. No it's not.

A few thousand people protesting and blocking a bridge isn't a revolution.

[steelmania75]

7. Yes, but now they're rapidly starting "Occupation" areas in major cities all across the country

Pretty soon everyone will have a chance to get together and protest at or very close to their own respective city.

[Abin Sur]

10. Here's "Occupy Denver" (in my neck of the woods). There must be at least two dozen protesters.

http://www.9news.com/news/local/article/222412/346/Occupy-Denver-speaks-out-against-Wall-Street-

Wow. That's quite the revolution...:rofl:

[Turn CO Blue]

31. There were 500 there for the march the first day. eom

[Abin Sur]

32. It's not much of an "occupation"

when 95% of your troops aren't there after day 1...

[Turn CO Blue]

36. What's your motivation here? The NYC numbers have grown

they did not start off with the numbers they have now or will have in the future.

[Abin Sur]

37. Realism.

As for NYC, their numbers have indeed grown...and at some point in the near future they will trickle down to virtually nothing.

This too shall pass.

[Turn CO Blue]

42. That's pessimism, not realism.

A pessimist always, always expects the worst to happen and expresses that. He or she sees only the negative possibilities.

A realist is aware of both the negative and positive possibilities that could happen and if one is more likely than the other, they accept that, but do not always favor negative predictions over positive ones. He/she will often describe BOTH the positive and negative possible outcomes for each situation.

[Abin Sur]

43. Not when one result is far more likely than the other.

Assigning equal probabilities is, in this case, absurd.

[JDPriestly]

49. And the Occupy Wall Street movement will change into something

that is yet more effective.

This movement is just the beginning. The American union movement started with just a few people. That is how things start here. Just wait. This movement will grow because many, many people have legiThtimate grievances that this movement is addressing. They won't always be demonstrating this same way, but until the problems are dealt with on the political and economic levels, the movement will continue and grow.

It's the TeaBaggers that have fizzled. That is because they pretended to be something they were not. They are simply a corporate front. People have recognized that and are just bored with them.

This Occupy Wall Street movement is small and less organized but it represents authentic grievances and problems -- joblessness, foreclosures, greedy banks and investors and seniors and young people with no hope for the future. Until those problems are resolved, this movement will continue in one manifestation or another.

[Abin Sur]

68. Just because you want something to happen

doesn't mean that it *will* happen.

We'll see.

[JDPriestly]

121. Today Randi Rhodes announced the names of the many, many

groups that are supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement.

You don't seem to realize how very deep the anger against the financial sector is in our country.

People were just seething already in 2008 right before the election. I campaigned for Obama and, at house after house, people were worried about Social Security, about their pension and other retirement investments and about jobs. That was before things really cracked open. And nothing has improved.

So, this will probably become a huge movement into which people put a lot of pent-up steam and energy. The anger is there. This or some similar movement will allow it to be organized and focused. It is just beginning.

I don't know who you are or what you do for a living, but I am rather surprised that you don't know what is going on and how ready our country is for better government without the corporate bribes and corruption.

[Abin Sur]

139. Will this get at least somewhat bigger? Seems likely, sure.

But I would point out that there were protests of upwards of a million people against the Iraq War in 2003. How did that work out? Right now this is a bunch of young kids having fun by being "edgy" and, as of this morning, dressing up as zombies. In the next couple of months the weather will turn cold and they'll go home...the vast majority, at least.

As for getting a government without bribes and corruption...yeah, good luck with that.

[kenfrequed]

104. This is a highly hijacked thread

I think this is part of a deliberate attack.

We have kuku mccrazy pants squeeling about how since RT news is covering it and that the Iranian television has an english station that uses some of RT News' stories that somehow there is a Russian/Iranian plot to use news stories to promote progressive ideas in order to destroy America (and he has a sock puppet introducing his discussion too). Massive thread hijack.

And then we have the person you are responding to that is dismissing any possibility of the movement growing despite the fact that it is much larger and more solid a movement than any of the early town hall tea party bullshit fests.

[RZM]

118. Maybe you hijacked the thread. Ever think of that?

Can't speak for other posters, but I introduced legitimate concerns and kept the focus on what I was concerned with. You introduced personal attacks and horseshit allegations.

It's all a vast fucking conspiracy, right? Full of 'deliberate attacks,' and 'sock puppets,' and 'trolling.' Because nobody could ever disagree with you on principle, right?

[kenfrequed]

119. Not vast...

It doesn't take much at all. You hire a room full of guys to spam post BS on threads mentioning 'x.' Really isn't hard at all and most PR groups now either have inhouse or contracted cyberspammers.

Either that or you are ideologically motivated which is sort of an odd angle on a progressive board. You threw in your monkey wrench. Oddly I didn't use the term 'sock puppet' but hey, if the shoe fits you may as well go to the ball.

[RZM]

120. LOL. You didn't use the term 'sock puppet?'

You might want to reread post #104. And no editing to remove the evidence.

[kenfrequed]

124. Feh

Your whole post series is without evidence. I demanded proof on at least one thread. Solid actual evidence or at least a bloody example of this. you provided nothing but fear and suspicion. In the grand scheme of things forgetting that I suggested an obvious introduction to your neo-conjob as a sock puppet is slightly less problematic than providing NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.

[RZM]

130. You seem to enjoy claims without evidence yourself

Take the blinders off and start viewing the world through shoes other than your own and you might get there. You could start by asking this question. Why would Tehran and Moscow, who are so hostile to progressive values at home, be encouraging them so much in the US?

Then see where it takes you.

[kenfrequed]

132. I'm sorry

I don't have to prove a negative. I am not required to prove that there is not a russo-iranian conspiracy to convince us to floridate our water or whatever other nonsense you can imagine.

I mean you already all but admitted that giving out progressive news must be akin to weakening America. I don't think you have anything else to sell here.

[JDPriestly]

48. It will grow. The majority of Americans of all ages are furious at

what has happened on Wall Street and in the banking industry.

And the "reforms" have not really changed much. The greed goes on.

The recent report on the Tarp (released last Friday) shows that we may have bigger problems in our banking and investment sector than we have been led to believe.

If you are a senior, the banks have pretty likely invested a lot of your savings in mortgage-backed securities which are not valued at market value.

And of course Wall Street wants to cut Social Security. They are greedy pigs. That's all they are -- greedy pigs.

It was very obvious that the housing market was going to crash. Housing prices had risen to great heights even in middle class areas, but wages were stagnant.

How could anyone with any common sense miss that obvious contradiction.

Wall Street and the banks are very unpopular right now and with good reason.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abin Sur]

20. Replace "dismissive" with "realistic" and you'll be closer to the mark.

[kayakjohnny]

21. ...yet.

[Abin Sur]

23. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

Frankly, I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

[Occulus]

74. #OWS is a rip-roaring success so far,

given there's no one "leader" and a broad range of topics.

The fact is that the people who are participating in this are very well-aware that their idea has indeed "gone national", even if the numbers could be higher. In two weeks, one idea swept the nation; it's been a bare few months brought from conception to execution. Again, this was done with no particular leader, even as a figurehead, and mostly online-only organization.

This didn't fizzle from the start, as some believed- rather the reverse. Their efforts have been a wild success, even if you consider this only a trial run. Now imagine what would happen if the same were done for a general strike. Or a banking strike (remove all money and stop all payments, nationwide).


And this is not the end.

Expect us.

[Abin Sur]

150. A "wild success"? What has it accomplished?

As for the prospects of a general strike or a banking strike in the US...to call it laughable would be generous.

[kelly1mm]

6. Doesn't revolution entail replacing the government? Who is to replace Obama? nt

[Modern_Matthew]

8. Van Jones would be a good start. nt

[steelmania75]

9. Or Alan Grayson/Bernie Sanders.

[tama]

11. Leaderless movement

it does not have to be somebody else, it can be something else. There is wide sentiment that the representative system is inherently corrupt broken beyond repair and we need participatory democracy. But we'll see.

[kelly1mm]

14. Participatory democracy? Does that equal direct democracy? If so, no thanks. nt

[tama]

41. No, it does not equal.

Though direct democracy can be and often is part of direct democracy. Many US states have direct democracy, citizens initiatives and referendums. Participatory democracy can be many other things besides voting (representation or dictatorship of majority), consensus decision making, dialogue methods in planning etc.

[JDPriestly]

50. Actually, I have heard that participatory democracy was the dream

of the Silicon Valley people who made the internet so popular.

The internet may yet change our political system. It permits a lot more citizen involvement. Direct democracy may be quite impossible, but a lot more citizen feedback to elected representatives is the way of the future.

In fact, my Congressional representative holds town halls over the phone in which we are invited to express our opinions by responding to questions through clicking on the numbers on our touch-tone phones. It works quite well.

[Matariki]

13. This revolution entails curbing the unlimited ability of the 1% to do whatever they want

and to TAKE BACK our government and our democracy - which they have turned into a sham.

[kelly1mm]

16. As a technical matter, I think that is reform, not revolution. Maybe just semantics. nt

[Matariki]

19. Overthrowing the people who have *really* been ruling everything

and using democracy as a puppet show to hide behind. It might be semantics or it might be revolution.

We'll see.

[JDPriestly]

51. Reform is more accurate, but it would revolutionize our political

system if we could eliminate corporate interference in the election process altogether.

We don't allow churches to keep their nonprofit status and influence voters about elections.

We should not allow corporations to keep their corporate status if they try to influence voters or elections.

[Pacifist Patriot]

57. No, revolution does not have to entail replacing government.

Theoretically it should be entirely possible to radically change the reins of power in this country without altering a single word of the U.S. Constitution. I think we'd be looking at an economic and social (and moral?) revolution more so than a governmental one. This is about economic power, which of course heavily influences political power. Who wields the power in the U.S. does not require overthrow of government necessarily. In that respect, I think it would be a much harder revolution to pull off, but not impossible.

Now, completely going against my very first sentence. I think one major component of any successful revolution in this country would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment explicitly denying corporate personhood. :-)

[socialist_n_TN]

110. This will have to be replacing the system

The government is secondary. That's what even the OWS people are eventually going to have to realize.

[CanSocDem]

18. Another one...???

Or is this still the one we started in the 60's? If so, I'm really impressed with our numbers. We used to be the "1%".....and it felt like 99% of the world was against us. The new numbers suggest we may have been wrong about that.

What happened??? It's not as if I haven't been paying attention. The first 'revolution' I joined was after reading "The Greening of America" in the mid 60's. That one was about challenging the 'culture'. Over the years, we challenged the institutions of family, church, education and militarism and had notable success. We're still working on sexism, racism and other forms of corporate sponsored oppression.

Just the same, it's not as easy anymore to join the fight. Having seen this coming for a long time I have been preoccupied making preparations for my own resigned solitude. Which is why I probably missed this sudden, apparently universal epiphany, that greed is NOT good.

"There is yet another crisis which is dipping the country into more poverty: that is, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US military costs exceed $3.7 trillion and can reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project “Costs of War” by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (http://www.costsofwar.org). In a radical move, “Costs of War” brought together over 20 academics to reveal the expense of war in lives and dollars in order to unveil the ugly face of the US lies. The war expenditures have been imposed on the US citizens' taxes which could have been used for the welfare of the people.


I'm concerned that some of the old battles are being re-fought.

.

[Blue_In_AK]

158. Same old battles.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. :(

[readmoreoften]

24. No it's not. The end of 30 years of political reaction is happening.

This is not a revolution. This is the first general act of dignity by the US masses since the mid 1970s. If we can keep this up and accelerate it THEN we might be in a revolutionary situation--which I wholeheartedly desire with all my being.

[TBF]

33. Agree 100% - we are just starting. Much to do. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

111. Agree with you both comrades!

And you're both right. There's still a LOT left to do even with the OWS movement. The list of grievences is fine, but the action program sux. MUCH more is needed there. And the unions have to come out more militantly in support until we can even THINK about a real change.

[DeSwiss]

30. K&R n/t

[EVDebs]

38. I'm Spartacus ! nt

[iamthebandfanman]

40. iranian propaganda...

just what we need on DU!

who the flying fuck cares what iran thinks? they should keep their opinions themselves, as it doesnt help our cause a bit.

they are just taking advantage of a situation to make america look weak... someone else already pointed out some of the wording in the piece ... like saying the 1979 revolution in iran was the inspiration for americans now...

dont post garbage like this.

so many other sources to post positive things about this protest from (mostly not american haha) , why pick a bunch of lying douche bags with an agenda?

[Nostradammit]

44. News Flash! Iranian TV reports sky is blue - iamthebandfanman: "Rubbish!"

[spooked911]

56. exactly... people get way too bent out of shape about where artcles come from

rather than looking at what they say.

[tcaudilllg]

75. Wings of the international right serve each others' causes.

They may fight to kill each other, but the end result is national reflex action and right-wing ascendency.

[kctim]

67. 99% of Americans are not poor

and far far less support the opinions of the protesters and Iranians.

[TBF]

115. Define "not poor". nt

[kctim]

126. Not earning enough for basic survival

[mdmc]

127. earning enough for basic survival is the new middle class

:toast:

[TBF]

128. No kidding. nt

[kctim]

147. Not even close

[Abin Sur]

151. I consider myself middle class

55k a year income (plus another 35k in benefits), nice home in the mountains, nice cars, net worth of around a quarter million, no debts.

Not that unusual.

[mdmc]

153. rock on my friend

you sound like you have it goin on!

[tcaudilllg]

69. But will increased federal spending get us out of the crisis?

[bdamomma]

73. finally we are protesting the right establishments

damn they have gotten off for so many years. yes, this is how it begins. Rich vs Poor.

[slackmaster]

76. Member of the unrepresented "Chronically Sub-Rich" checking in and UNreccing

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to clean up to go to WORK this morning.

:nuke:

[fascisthunter]

79. Yes it is happening it this is bringing out folks true colors

very hard to hide one's agenda when acting indifferent to this populist uprising in America.

[Avalux]

88. Reading that gave me goosebumps!!! It's happening.....

and no amount of arrests and brush-offs from the press will stop the movement that's underway in this country.

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH.

Yes, I realize this comes from Iran, but aren't we all human beings living on this planet nonetheless? That fact doesn't make me disagree with it.

[ProSense]

89. Labor support

is growing.

[leftstreet]

102. Fascinating n/t

[earthbone]

105. Earthbone Rebels are also the 99%.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52743481@N08/6207937165/

[benld74]

106. Because there's SOMETHING IN THE AIR!

[former9thward]

114. If you have to tell people it is a revolution then it isn't.

[fascisthunter]

135. ok

[Marrah_G]

142. I am part of the 99% and the detractors on this thread will not stop us

You will not kill the resolve of a growing movement. Your mockery falls on deaf ears.

[shanti]

146. I am the 99

solidarity

[blindpig]

148. This ain't revolution.

This ain't the precursor of revolution.

But it might be the precursor of the precursor of revolution.

When the masses are organized, when asking the system to be nice changes to demands for fundamental changes in society, then you're getting there.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[socialist_n_TN]

154. Yep. Still a long ways to go, but

as Lenin said (paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact quote), sometimes years go by without much happening and sometimes years go by in months.

Years going by in months is what I'm shooting for.

[blindpig]

159. That is spot on.

While such might be the nature of human affairs I think the effect might be amplified by modern communications and the increasing rate of crisis in capitalism. There is less 'breathing space' between each crisis, less chances to forget, too hard to ignore.

[socialist_n_TN]

160. Oh I don't think that there's any doubt that

modern communications have played a part. And yes the historical imperative of capitalist crises occuring more and more frequently as the system breaks down is a definite factor too. As you said, the less breathing space, the less chance to forget. They combine to keep us reminded not only about the crises, but also show us the international nature OF these crises. We know about the Greek crises of capitalism and the Greeks know about ours.

A good basis IMO for an international working class movement and a WORLDWIDE system change. It would be SO much easier now than in Lenin and Trotsky's days, simply because of the communications improvements.

[blindpig]

161. otoh....

It is becoming more apparent the the capitalist entities which control these means of communications are exercising censorship. Also being open communications there have been opportunities for the opposition to engage in distractions, subversions and false flag scams. Best to not put too much faith in these things. The historical process is however unavoidable.