Occupy Wall St
polycounter lvl 15
I think this is the epitome of the Media black out that there is in this country of ours. This movement hasn't gotten any coverage... but hopefully people start waking up a bit.
Occupy Wall St
[ame]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwWInp75ua0[/ame]
Occupy Wall St
[ame]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwWInp75ua0[/ame]This discussion has been closed.
Replies
outside of the super rich using loopholes to avoid taxes altogether..
oh, and influencing the government.
steal 5 billion dollars + ruin the economy? keep your job AND get a 40% raise next year.
spill oil into the ocean? make record profits & have taxpayers pay to clean it up.
good times!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/24/occupy-wall-street-protes_n_979367.html?icid=maing-grid7
This is your country. Rome is burning.
The biggest problem with America today is that too much money (and thus power) is concentrated to a handful of people who buy the laws which exploit us and serve them. It needs to be spread out. Those with the most should be responsible for those that have the least. They use the same public resources that we use and use them to make their masses of money, so it's fair to say that they should be required to reinvest in us if they want to continue making a profit from the exploitation of what belongs to us all.
If you're making $250K or more per year, you have a responsibility to reinvest a proportionate amount of that money back into the people and public resources that enabled you to gain that money. Nobody gets rich all on their own, they leverage others to elevate them to higher levels of gain. Let's face facts, the bottom 90% works their asses off while the other 10% profits from it without putting in much labor, if any, of their own.
(this thread is on a fast train to closed-ville)
[ame]
Liberals, "lets talk about this issue," conservatives respond with, "it doesn't exist." That just isn't a healthy discussion for a country, I wish intelligent debate still had a place.
Really? People support Ron Paul because he's "pro weed" "antiwar" and not against anything in the news, he's not against anything because he believes they are all state issues. He wants to pretty much end all federal programs, from planned parenthood, to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. He's against gay marriage, doesn't believe in evolution, and is strongly pro-life. He's really a conservative christian just like the other republican presidential candidates.
It doesn't matter what his personal views are on gay marriage, he stated that it's a religious ceremony and that the state should not be involved.
[ame]
What do the majority of people care about when they watch the news? Oh that's right, barely anybody watches the news these days except for the brainwashing Fox News channel and MTV. And who would that be? The rest of the candidates represent the status quo. Might as well pick your poison.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free."
But were no different here in the uk nor am i on the streets protesting. I've seen what happens to protesters one too many times.
Of course America was founded on states rights, and to follow the founding father's ideals, we'd have to give up a lot of the federal power. Its not a bad idea, but ending decent federal programs that work just because they should be ran at the state level is stupid and too radical of a change to happen at once, I don't believe the issue of state and federal power is the causing the problems being experienced in the USA. Smaller government and reducing regulations is not the answer.
Jon Huntsman is my favorite conservative candidate, I'd really prefer Hilary Clinton in office though
This is the issue tho, the lack of understanding in this country, people rather argue over parties than the country as whole.
The electoral system is a hoax.
since when should you need 5million+ dollars to run for president? i thought the constitution was based on ALL MAN ARE CREATED EQUAL?! the government should fund all candidates and establish a fair and balanced playing field. there's so much rot in this government, and you guys are arguing over who is less rotted.... pls.
On the whole occupy wall st...
It just scares me that there's no mention of it in the news.... a complete black out.
The News Media in this country is close to something Orwellian. CNN, FOX, MSNBC... they argue over parties and not the people! it's all about well which party is better? continually dividing the people, distracting them from the real issue.
nothing but good ol' Divide and Conquer!
eh, ABC news is covering. As far as TV news, you mean the stuff your parents watch? TV became irrelevant a while ago, that's why they switched formats to op-ed and reality tv entertainment rather than actual news.
Anyways, there's political forums to argue about this stuff. The types of politics that are appropriate for GD would be the new changes to the child protection law and how it applies to our industry - or the revamp of the patent system to match up with the shittier international version (protecting the guy that filed the patent rather than the inventor)
Not any more relevant than to everyone else in every other industry. General political threads do not last long, because they are rarely relevant and always end in petty bickering, flaming, name calling etc.
Not to mention they are generally just a waste of everyone's time. I mean really, is this your first time on a message board? When was the last time you saw:
Liberal: "Oh hey mr. Conservative, you're totally right, I never though of it that way!"
I mean, its just not going to happen. Petty political arguments with people who have completely entrenched ideologies are never productive, and that is ALWAYS what these threads are/become.
So consider this a warning(to everyone), be civil or face the inevitable thread closure.
rich controlling the media controlling information controlling the people
CONSPIRACYS !?!11
The fact that you can even joke about it just sums up how retarded western society has become.
To give a stupid example (which doesn't reflect my views by the way) is the moon landing.
There are as many arguments that we landed on the moon, as we didn't land, both with compelling arguments, but you're more willing to side with the 'proper' idea that we landed, because, and sorry to say this, the people who say we didn't land on it, are a bunch of ravenous wolves, who have too much spare time on their hands for the smallest of things.
Not too long ago, NASA released some photo's, which they took with their satellites, and some people, with too much time on their hands, found that certain parts of said photo's were altered. Long story short, it was a camera issue which needed to be fixed digitally, and even after releasing said statements, people still were snarky in claiming it to be a lie.
In the end, NASA released the full, HD, unedited images to silence said shouters once and for all.
The sad part? The artist, was threatened during all this, some people went as far to say "We'll fuck the truth out of you", and considering said artist is a lady, I would have to say, it's extremely hedonistic, and very harming, not to mention, extremely disgusting and vile.
Sorry for the long post, but we have to face facts, no one is to be trusted, until people can't act civil enough to bring arguments to a close, without skull fucking each other with a bat.
I love it when you talk dirty! :poly121:
2010 Lobbyists spent $3.51 Billion dollars to gain votes and tractions. Is it fair that the wants of a very tiny percent control the needs of the majority? that's why I am in favor of these protests.
I don't quite understand what part of what I said was a joke. Was it the conspiracies part? because some people believe none of this shit happens, and most people don't do anything about it even when it does.
If you cant do new york, there are other places they are meeting up.
What about the bankers?
Not to derail, but that's a bit of an overgeneralisation. Most people say 'two light sources lol' and then get on with their rather active lives. I'd be in that camp, but I still like NASA etc and wish they'd be given the money they need (however impossible that presently is). I think you are describing a very small but loud group of basement dwellers ot politicians with an agenda (that I've never heard of).
hhahahaha no wonder that dood is angry!
This
My own opinion is that democracy as a system is flawed, governments policy planning is too short term because its all based on the electoral cycle and this can be harmful.
Edit
To expand on it a bit, if you look at the countries suffering from big pubic sector borrowing deficits, this debt needs long term planning and the resolve to stick to them, so they are reigned in.
agreed
On one side when things are going well and the economy is strong the corporations print money and hire lots of people, everyone eats and no one questions that the model might be flawed.
When its bad people lose their jobs because the corporations aggressively cut back to protect shareholder interest and these are the times of unrest and reflection that things are flawed.
I think the next recession will hit everyone super hard and this cycle will repeat.
But i wonder how they'll paint it on the news... ?
It's all a big joke isn't it?
I don't think it's so much that we fell asleep, but that in this age of easy access to information and ubiquitous communications, we're just become more aware of it. The blind are finally beginning to see.
http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/55479/occupy-wall-street-fights-corporate-greed/
Wait, if the corporations aren't covering it.. Isn't Comcast/NBC a corporation??
Socialism rules.
isn't that just replacing the flaws of 1 extreme system with the flaws of a other extreme system.
the issue with politics is that people like to label them-selfs as being liberal, Conservative, right wing, left wing and they wont listen to or even consider what the other side has too say. Wouldn't it be better if peoples views were "There Own" and people actually listed to and considers different views, so they can make educated decisions, and not just having a argument that goes no where due to entrenched ideology's.
I've always been of the opinion that government should legislate for the benefit of the many rather than to elevate the few. If that's an entrenched ideology, then I don't want to know what the "open-minded" stance is. The problem is, we have a lot of policy that only serves to benefit a few, whom don't need it at the expense of people who do need help. The pundits chant the same mantra over and over that "we need more jobs", but they don't change their method of addressing the issue.
The core ideology of conservatives has been that we should have a weak central government and almost no taxes, especially for the wealthiest citizens so they can "create more jobs". We all know that they don't create more jobs, they just pocket the money or invest it to get more money while failing to do anything to improve the economy. The thing is, we've already tried the weak central government model and it failed (Articles of Confederation). That's why we have the three branches with checks and balances so we can have a stronger, more effective government without it getting too powerful and out of control.
Meanwhile, the liberals want to throw money at every problem instead of researching a cost-effective and realistic solutions to social problems. All of this is assuming that government operates without corruption, which we know isn't true. The government is very corrupted, because we allow the very rich to buy votes in congress and offer them cushy post-congressional positions giving them incentive to exactly the opposite of what I idealize an effective government. One side wants to cut everybody off to save money and create jobs with wealthier entrepreneurs that don't invest in the people. The other side wants to blow money left and right at symptoms without really addressing the underlying problems. All of them are acting under pressure from their campaign patrons to support the special interests so that they can get ahead in their political careers or just simply maintain the power and wealth they've achieved.
Yeah, only they are (finally):
[ame="
I'm actually surprised by their straight-forwardness. Was fully expecting the media to just dismiss the whole thing.