Something Has Started......
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Something Has Started": Michael Moore on the Occupy Wall St. Protests That Could Spark a Movement

http://www.democracynow.o...l_moore_on

[This message has been edited by Cheryl Pieters (9/29/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Wall Street has been jerking this nations string for a long while...not surprised that the protests are beginning...Glenn Greenwald has chimed in with his opinion of these protests..Great reading...
http://www.salon.com/news...index.html

[This message has been edited by howdy (9/29/2011)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
.....these people, who as we have seen in the videos, had been non-violently and peacefully expressing their opinions. The day America is a country which punishes its citizens with violence for peacefully expressing their opinions is a terrible day for America.

Peaceful Female Protestors Being Penned in the Street and Maced

http://www.youtube.com/wa...oD2JnGTToA

Moore: It's one thing if you've got a rogue cop behaving violently, but when you have management, when have the white shirts there of the NYPD doing this, that's not rogue, that's policy. That's coming from somewhere else. They've been told ...by those in charge to corral this thing, end this thing, stop this thing. Somebody should inform them that everybody is a filmmaker now. Everybody has a camera. You cannot just treat people like this and get away with it, and I hope they don't get away with it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
He's got a new book to promote.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
That's not a rebuttal Levi...
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
Didn't mean it as one. Just explaining why mike's in the news when we haven't heard from him in a while. The board thinks I'm somewhere more exotic than usual today.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
There is a Media Blackout over this protest, and the Police are Pepper Spraying, Tazering, Beating Up and Arresting the peaceful protestors (many of the arrests are of people who are filming it). Michael Moore is one of the few people who aren't too afraid to report it, given the threats and violence by the Police who are being given their orders by the actual Government. Still, it is picking up steam.




I just wanted to make you aware that even with the media blackout, there are people who are fed up with the way the Banksters stole all of the money from the U.S. People and are speaking up. If it grows, you won't be in the dark about where it began.
Top
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
Umm... PTI, but is Levi at a foreign Octoberfest???
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
If only...I could really go for some beer and sausages about now. I would say it would be someplace to go to get away from the imminent collapse of the US but I think Europe may beat us to it.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Several big unions have joined the protest and now Marines are joining up to protect the protesters against the police...this is great!!
http://www.facebook.com/h...4010877362
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+760) 9 years ago
It will be interesting to see how big these protests get when unemployment goes over 50%. They'll have to hire cops shipped in from China.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Per The Confluence aka Riverdaughter blog: this is what the occupy wall street groups agenda is all about:

Jobs for Everyone

Tax the Rich

Medicare for All

End the Wars

Lather, rinse, repeat.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1902) 9 years ago
You've been reading too much NewsMax, Denton.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+354) 9 years ago
Another liberal site!
Top
supporter
Posted by M T Zook (+513) 9 years ago
One note for the sake of perspective, the pilots in that picture were there to make heard their complaints about management's unfair practices. Publicly traded companies are mainly controlled by large scale hedge fund managers on Wall Street. The pilots wanted the real people in charge to know how fed up they are with the upper echelon of airline management. Disgruntled pilots = potential for poor profits. The interesting thing is, it wasn't just pilots from one union, there were a few represented, as well as some foreign and non-unionized pilots.

The march only lasted a few hours and was not an ongoing Woodstock type event.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
Publicly traded companies are mainly controlled by large scale hedge fund managers on Wall Street.


I don't think the average person has any idea how much nearly every aspect of our economy is being controlled by hedge funds. Peabody Energy for example is managed largely at the mercy of Goldman Sachs. There are many other situations like this. Everything becomes about shareholder ROI.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
which is why I totally support the protesters and hope they last long enough to get someones attention in congress...enough is enough IMO...By the way, if you live far away or cannot support the protestors any other way, there are links you can send money to, for buying food etc for their use...
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Copied from my friend:

Please do not fall for divide and conquer tactics! This is not about partisan politics, this is about class solidarity among the 99%. Tea Party members are part of the 99%. If we reject each other based on political affiliation, we will fail. We need to focus on what we have in common as 99% of the world population who is suffering at the hands of the 1%. Find one demand that we can all embrace. It is there. Find it. Turn no one away. Explain to the racists why race is not the problem, explain to liberals why the Tea Party is not the problem, explain to conservatives why Obama is not the problem. Tell everyone, the 1% is the problem. We are the 99%.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
"We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we're working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent."

http://wearethe99percent....com/page/2
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
The Wall Street Protest that is "NOT" happening according to the media. ...nothing to see here, move along now.


Maybe you aren't a billionaire, and you are one of the 99%.

https://occupywallst.org/

Check in-order a pizza to be sent over to the people who are organizing this, complain to the to NYPD cops about the arrests of 700 protestors after they led them onto the Brooklyn Bridge, corraled them, and hauled them away in police vans that were already lined up and ready to haul 700 people away!!.....




Maybe just wonder what the world is coming to when a bank "donates" money to a police force, and the police force seems to be doing everything they can to beat up, pepper spray, tazer, intimidate and arrest protestors (for such things as wearing masks or carrying a video camera):

JPMorgan Chase, one of the giant banks that Occupy Wall Street is protesting against, gave $4.6 million to the NYPD to fund new laptops in patrol cars and security monitoring software. I'm sure the NYPD would love the money, but really guys, why now? When you're already being accused of pandering to the big banks and enforcing justice for the rich rather than the poor, you probably don't want to be grabbing a big pile of cash from one of Wall Street's largets firms. This couldn't have looked worse if you took the donation in a manilla envelope with "BRIBE" written on the front of it.

http://ology.com/politics...s-protests

The are also tons of protests spread out across the country in most major cities, including Kansas City, Chicago, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc.

[This message has been edited by Cheryl Pieters (10/2/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
Too bad all these people are going to line up and vote democrat next fall and all the Tea Party people will line up and vote Republican and most of them will have no idea that they're protesting the same thing and voting for more of what they're protesting.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Thanks Bridgier for the link



[This message has been edited by howdy (10/3/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
Howdy: is the picture above this post from the protest on Wall St?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Don't really know and doubt it...Probably a tea party protest group...I was just trying to point out how silly it is to say "no taxes" when everywhere we go we use "public facilities" paid for by taxes...
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+760) 9 years ago
Sometimes people get fed up and don't know what to do. So they get together and raise hell. I think this happened before once, a few hundred years ago.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
Or even a few decades ago.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
I think in France the lady said "let em eat cake..." Much to her surprise, she lost her head (literally)...Never take these protests too lightly IMO...People are fed up...Read your history...People that don't know history are doomed to repeat it...

Before anyone tries to correct me, the following is said about that phrase being said whether true or not and its origin...


The phrase "Let them eat cake" is often attributed to Marie Antoinette. However, there is no evidence to support that she ever uttered this phrase, and it is now generally regarded as a "journalistic cliché".[115] It originally appeared in Book VI of the first part (finished in 1767, published in 1782) of Rousseau's putative autobiographical work, Les Confessions.


Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse à qui l'on disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit : Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.


Finally I recalled the stopgap solution of a great princess who was told that the peasants had no bread, and who responded: "Let them eat brioche."

Apart from the fact that Rousseau ascribes these words to an unknown princess - vaguely referred to as a 'great princess', there is some level of thought that he invented it altogether, seeing as Confessions was, on the whole, a rather inaccurate autobiography.[116]

In America, expressions of gratitude to France for its help in the American Revolution included the naming of the city of Marietta, Ohio, founded in 1788. The Ohio Company of Associates chose the name Marietta after an affectionate nickname for Marie Antoinette.[117]

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/3/2011)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Wake Up! Take a Side! If no one does anything now, it will be too late. This is a tipping point.....

Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Think Fox News will share this interview ??? I doubt it...

Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Many Americans say that they are sick of the benefits, financial breaks, and social power being handed over to our country's elite, wealthy oligarchy. If we believe this rhetoric, our own rhetoric, then we need to believe in the spirit of this protest. And if we believe in the spirit of this protest, it's time that we, the people, ask ourselves if we truly believe that a fundamental shift of power from the hands of the few into the hands of the many is even possible in our media-saturated world of cynicism, learned helplessness, corporate politics, and grotesque, puppet media.

The questions now arise: do you really think it is possible to wrestle away the disproportionate amount of government influence currently held by corporations that care nothing for the individual worker upon which they rely? Do you think it is possible to sever the connection between our elected leaders and corporate financiers? Do you truly think change is possible? Because if you do, then you share something very strong and very special with those who are currently involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement; you share something that cannot be boiled down to an easily digestible sound byte that will be scrolled along a CNN ticker. You share a common belief in a complex philosophy and a noble direction for the future of the United States of America.

This protest may fizzle out tomorrow, it may gain more traction, it could turn into a riot with a harsh media, political, and police backlash. However, if this protest can garner attention and foment the type of change that would dissolve the undeniably repugnant bond between our financial industry and our government; the average American citizen (all 300 million of them) would emerge victorious, regardless of race, creed, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or political affiliation.

Such an overhaul would be the biggest, most ambitious, social reform of any financial system in our nation's history. It would also be one of the most amazing accomplishments led by a living, unified, and citizen-driven democracy in the history of mankind.

Honestly, I wouldn't expect anything less from the United States of America.



http://www.huffingtonpost...88341.html
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Noone says the truth quite like George Carlin....

Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
maybe this will help some understand??

Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 9 years ago
Since we're posting videos about the American Dream...

http://www.theonion.com/v...giv,19846/
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1594) 9 years ago
Levi, how right you are.
"Too bad all these people are going to line up and vote democrat next fall and all the Tea Party people will line up and vote Republican and most of them will have no idea that they're protesting the same thing and voting for more of what they're protesting."

but... nonetheless

Cherl- Keep up the good work. This is what I have been calling for for 10 years.

Someone should build a working guillotine and see how long it takes to get someones attention.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
This is not a Partisian issue. Both Democrat and Republican Politicians are working for the Corporations. This should not be "us" vs. "them"-it's that sort of divisive talk that has been distracting the American People while their rights, jobs and homes have been swept out from under their bickering feet.

I voted for Obama, and I do not see HIM anywhere near this protest. He is complicit with the violations by his silence. It is getting the attention of a LOT of the protestors. This is what the Demonstrators have to say about this:

....the reason these activists are focusing on Wall Street, rather than Washington, is because they say you have to follow the money and begin where the largest campaign contributions, donations and lobby groups are coming from.

"We have corporate presidencies. We were told Obama was for change, and we got four more years of Bush again. Before that - his father, the Bush dynasty," activist Phil Budenick explains. "Corporate greed goes all the way up to the president and this is where the artery, the main pulse of it starts - on Wall Street."

http://rt.com/news/occupy...obama-887/

Not the The Republican Party is going anywhere near this. They are also complicit by their silence. You can read about their party line in a former topic on Milescity.com titled "Most Insightful Article Ever", the one Lofgren wrote for Truth Out, published with this headline: "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult."

To be sure, this Republican aide is not at all a fan of Democrats. But he also believes "nothing . quite matches the modern GOP."

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics.. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy. [.]

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.

Let's just note, again, that this isn't the assessment of some wild-eyed lefty. The author is a long-time Republican aide, respected by those who've worked with him, who's worked for nearly three decades with GOP policymakers.



The only politician that isn't ignoring it and hoping it will go away so far is Ron Paul, and he said he is retiring from politics after he said these same things and the Republican spin doctors went to work to portray him as "crazy". If you ever listened to him, he did not sound crazy, but somehow the media turned the voice of sense into the illusion of "crazy.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) offered support for some of the Occupy Wall Street protests that have built up in lower Manhattan over the weekend in an interview Friday with Reason magazine, where he also denounced the "militarization of our police forces."

"If they were demonstrating peacefully, and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed - I would say, good!" Paul said following a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire.

Paul has long been an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve, which he says manipulates American currency and is excessively secretive.

Paul was asked by Reason about a report from last weekend in which an NYPD officer was caught on camera pepper-spraying protesters.

"I hadn't heard that, since I have to admit I didn't keep up on all the details of it," Paul said. "I didn't read the stories about it. But that means government doesn't like to be receiving any criticism at all. And my argument is, government should be in the open - the people's privacy ought to be protected. So I don't like it."

During the town hall, Paul denounced the "militarization" of police forces, specifically reports that the NYPD had obtained a weapon that would allow them to shoot down an airplane involved in a terrorist attack.

"Yeah, I have concern about that," Paul said. "That's not exactly your friendly policeman on the block to go to when you're in trouble. The militarization of our police force - the SWAT teams and all - I think it's a bad sign."

Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
OK-I watched the whole thing above finally and maybe Ron Paul is not retiring from politics. Whatever-it showed that he has been aware of a lot of these problems we have now for a long time and was not afraid to talk about them. I still don't understand how the Repulican Party could choose John McCain, who wiped out little old ladie's savings account in the Arizona Savings and Loan scandal, over Ron Paul who actually makes sense. A travesty. Now we are paying for it.

More Food for thought (let the partisian bickering begin, to drown out any voice of reason.....)

Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Don't vote for Ron Paul-just watch the above to see a politician actually making sense for the American people.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
At first when I heard "Something has Started" and then "Micheal Moore" I thought, probably just Gas. Nothing to worry about.

I think the truth is even better.

http://www.nydailynews.co...ohead.html

The British rock band's rumored appearance at the downtown protest - later branded a "hoax" by organizers - swelled the ranks at the Zuccotti Park base to several thousand.

"I actually think it's kind of ridiculous," said a dreadlocked 20-year-old who identified himself as Pigpen. "The only reason 500 people are here is because they think Radiohead is going to be here."

Organizers were red-faced.

"I got hoaxed," said Patrick Bruner, who has been e-mailing on behalf of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. "Radiohead was never confirmed. Completely our fault. Apologies.


Heh. That's not even astroturf. More like they stole the sod off their neighbor's lawn.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
Too bad all these people are going to line up and vote democrat next fall and all the Tea Party people will line up and vote Republican and most of them will have no idea that they're protesting the same thing and voting for more of what they're protesting.


I think Levi is dead on here.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
TEABagger/NEABagger fusionism. There might be something to that. When you talk to a member of either/or you get the feeling they have more in common than they think.

Unfortunately their prescriptions would probably be a little too different for it to work out. Would be fun while it lasted though.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
I think so too, Richard!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Hey, I see on that Occupy Wall Street site that Cheryl posted they've put up a list of demands.

http://occupywallst.org/f...st-moveme/

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.


My personal favorite is number 3. Once you guys get that instituted, I'm going to become a watercolor artist. It'll be kind of like those art school kids who don't have much (any) talent, so they decide to work in 'abstract' art. Except mine will be much uglier. I'm really that terrible. But hey, it'll pay a 'living wage', so why not?
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Zombies!

Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+760) 9 years ago
In other words it just can't be agreed as to HOW to solve the problem we all agree has to be solved.
I'm not sure there's enough brainpower to do this through any political machine. It's too late, the problems are that huge.
We knew all along that our democratic society was doomed, by studying history we thought we could prevent its demise. So how close is it to failure? Studying history again, I'm guessing that once the citizens begin massive protest, they are close to an actual revolution. I wonder what kind of revolution we want, anything like what we've studied in history? Any guesses?

[This message has been edited by Jeff Denton (10/4/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
Can we add 72 virgins to that list of demands.

I'd settle for single payer healthcare. The rest of it isn't realistic at all. Here is a list that is much more attainable:

FDR's Economic Bill of Rights

-The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

-The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

-The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

-The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

-The right of every family to a decent home;

-The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

-The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

-The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (10/4/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17121) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+760) 9 years ago
I keep thinking back to some discussion at a "Buy Local" meeting a few years ago. It was described how the average American consumer has the power to actually change the economy and put money back in the pockets of working class folk.
Yup, we can "BUY LOCAL" which keeps our money circulating through our own town, between friends and neighbors, a little longer before going into Chinese accounts. See, WE can't change where it ends up, but we can control who benefits from it FIRST.
I've been convinced that it really is step one to an economic recovery, and again, it's something EACH of us can actually DO to help it.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17121) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement. (self.occupywallstreet)

submitted 2 days ago by vaslittlecrow

I don't expect you to believe me. I want you to read this, take it with a grain of salt, and do the research yourself. You may not believe me, but I want your movement to succeed. From a former tea partier to you, young new rebels, there's some advice to prevent what happened to our now broken movement from happening to you. I don't agree with everything your movement does, but I sympathize with your cause and agree on our common enemy. You guys are very intelligent and I trust that you will take this in the spirit it is intended.

I wish I could believe this Occupy Wall Street was still about (r)Evolution, but so far, all I am seeing is a painful rehash of how the corporate-funded government turned the pre-Presidential election tea party movement into the joke it is now. We were anarchists and ultra-libertarians, but above all we were peaceful. So, the media tried painting us as racists. But when that didn't work they tried to goad us into violence. When that failed, they killed our movement with money and false kindness from the theocratic arm of the Republican party. That killed our popular support.

I am sharing these observations, so you guys know what's going on and can prevent the media from succeeding in painting you as violent slacker hippies rebelling without a cause, or from having the movement be hijacked by a bunch of corporatists seeking to twist the movement's original intentions. If you think this can't happen, it happened to the Independence Party and the tea party movement. Don't let it happen to your movement as well.

Here's how they turned our movement into a bunch of pro-corporate Republican party rebranding astroturf, and this is how I predict they are turning your movement into a bunch of pro-corporate Democratic party rebranding astroturf. I believe many of these things are already happening, so take note.

1- The media will initially and purposely avoid covering your dissenting movement to cause confusion about what your movement is about within mainstream audiences. This is to enrage you and make you appear unreasonable, and perhaps even invisible.

2- While the obsfuscation is happening, stooges will infiltrate and give superficial support, focus and financial backing to the targetted movement. In the tea party movement's case, it was the religious Republicans and Koch Brothers. In this case, it's the Public Sector Unions (the organizations as quasi-human entities, not the members themselves) and Ultra Rich liberals who pretend to care, but frankly do not serve liberators and freedom seekers but rather the interests of those who run the Public Sector Unions and the Democratic Party. Democrat, Republican, these parties are all part of the same corporate ruling system. Case in point:
http://www.debates.org/

3-The media will cover the movement only after this infiltration succeeds. Once the infiltration is completed the MSM will manufacture public media antipathy towards the movement by using selective focus on the movement's most repulsive elements or infiltrators on the corporate Conservative media side, while the corporate Liberal media will create a more sympathetic tragic hero image -- this is the flip side of the tea party, but same media manipulation tactics. I go into greater detail on this tactic:
http://vaslittlecrow.com/...r-beliefs/

4- Someone in the Democratic Party will feign sympathy for the movement and falsely "non-partisan" entities provide tons of funding and unwanted organization, just as was done with the tea party movement by Republicans. Once people assume that the pro-corporate government operatives are their friends, they will hijack the movement and the threat of your movement will be neutralized.

If this new Occupy Wall Street movement is to survive, here's what needs to be done.

1- Loudly denounce violence and disavow the violent rabblerousers of the movement. They do not help the cause.

2- Be image conscious. Present your best face and call out those who act like fools within the movement. People are more likely to pay attention to you in your Sunday dress and bringing homemade food, than when you are drinking a bottle of Snapple and chomping on Big Macs while you are looking like a slacker rich hipster/unwashed hippie stereotype.

3- Accept that you've already been infiltrated by the corporate-funded government, and work hard to say, and state what your movement is and is not about. "No, this isn't about unions or Liberals, conservatives or bored spoiled brats. This is about 99% of our population being exploited and manipulated for the sake of profit." "No we will not resort to violence." "Yes, all we want is for for the end of government collusion with corporate entities that are illegitimately recognized as people." And, so forth...

4- Don't forget who you are as the illusions are thrown at you. Corporatists are masters of illusions. That's the most powerful weapon they have. That's how they sell products you don't need and convince you to justify accepting atrocities for the sake of products Don't fall for it. Otherwise, your cause will be lost. Be wary of large donations from special interest groups or non-profit corporations that were not involved this movement from the inception. Special interests groups are not your allies. Non-profit corporations are still corporations, and unfortunately, too many of them care more about donations than doing the right thing. Killing a movement with kindness is easy.

5- Remain independent and focused. If you can, pick a face to represent your movement. Rosa Parks wasn't just a random lady in a bus. http://l3d.cs.colorado.ed...s-boycott/ -- She was chosen. You too can use the power of illusion against those who oppose you.

I wish your movement better luck than we had with the tea party movement before it got hijacked by the theocrats and corporatists. We used to be non-partisan too. We were the older version of you. But, I believe that as the media apparatchik and infiltrators start to twist your cause, you will understand the frustration us early adopter tea partiers felt and that we were not your enemy after all. A fascist oligarchy on the verge of winning is our common enemy. This should be your focus. Don't be dazzled by the illusion as we were. For the sake of our future, know who you are.

Thank you for reading. I would love to read your ideas on the subject. Correct me where I am wrong. Explain what is going right. This is ultimately your fight.

EDIT: To understand how movements get hijacked, check out this fantastic video that JamesCarlin shared: http://vimeo.com/20355767

If my essay seems too conspiratorial or tl;dr for your tastes, try Hibernator's excellent and much less paranoid sounding summary below:

"Someone starts a movement. It starts small, and there's a lot going on in the world, so the mainstream media gives it minimal coverage. Today's mainstream media is also understaffed, so they don't investigate and they wait for someone else to slap a label on it.

Eventually a sound byte X pops up above the noise and the mainstream media uses this to engage viewers and define the movement. This defining characteristic X spreads like a meme.

People in power now notice what's going on, and think to themselves "Hmm, this new movement is defined by X, and that's almost in line with my goals, so maybe I can use them to further my ends."

But people in power are all labelled as Democrats or Republicans, so now the media applies the polarizing filter of American politics to associate movement X with one of the parties.

The original movement has now been labelled X, and associated with a political party, and none of this happened because of any 'government conspiracy.' It just happened because that's what you get as output when you plug something new into the American political system."

EDIT: Thanks to Whiskey With My Coffee and all the other redditors who have been sharing my message around the Web. I am so grateful to you.

EDIT: I am disabled and I am very adverse to crowds where the environment isn't tightly controlled. While I appreciate speaking and event invitations, I must respectfully decline them all.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
I'm not anti-Democratic. I voted Democratic and if I have to (the usual horrible Robber Barons show up on the GOP side, for one thing) I'd do it again. I just want to point out how the WHOLE system is broken, on both sides. Maybe the 2 party system has gasped its last gasp.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Here is a great idea...
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
What exactly are you referring to as stupid?
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17121) 9 years ago
What exactly is stupid? Go back and look at the list of demands Rick K. posted.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
That is a very well written letter and supports my impressions of the Tea Party movement. I wonder if it's real.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
The reason I posted the (well written, believable and rational) note from the Tea Party guy was to try to wake people up to the way the American Public is being played by corporate media. All of the mainstream media companies in the U.S. are owned by 6 corporations. Some of them are not even owned by Americans. It is in their best interests to play Americans against each other either for higher ratings or at the bidding of something higher up(or more likely, try to distract them with non-news: Isn't it shocking that Ashton cheated on Demi? Isn't it more shocking that the stock market is plunging right now into a dangerous territory, and all of the headlines are still about Ashton and Demi's possible breakup?)

I have seen plenty of threads on here where Right Wing Nut and Leftie were hurled around in threads until people got so angry they would not speak to each other if they saw each other on the street or lived in the same house. What a great way to distract and split up the American people while you railroad over their rights, break their unions and send their jobs overseas! I see a thread on homosexuality on here every other week, where people go on and on, never listening to the other person, stating their same cases over and over without budging an inch. Does this really matter, or do you think it could be some sort of a smokescreen to keep people squabbling over non-issues while your lifestyles disappear? Does gay marriage affect your ability to put food on your table? Does it affect your job that is being outsourced to India? Does it matter to the unions that are being broken up by the Government right now so that no one is going to make over minimum wage unless they have the foresight to start their own company (and 9 out of 10 companies fail in the first year anyway). I just see people here name calling, fighting and disowning each other over non-issues and this is only a snapshot of the bigger world. That's why I am trying to keep this discussion non partisian, although I am sure most of you are so entrenched in the fake war against each other set up by the media that I am just wasting my time and you are going to try to spin this "Left" or "Right" and we will decline further into a Civil War against EACH OTHER, our friends and family members with different opinions-while the American dream goes further down the drain.
Anyway, earlier when someone tried to call me stupid, I just wanted to know if there was a real issue, or if it was just because I am getting fed up with the party line as manipulated by the mainstream media.
When the boot of government is on your neck, it doesn't matter if it's left or right.

Here is an Intersting article I posted elsewhere, so you may have already seen it, but I think it is relevant to this thread:
************************************************************************
Mainstream media: Watchdog or Corporate Lap Dancer?

http://rt.com/usa/news/ma...rican-731/
To paraphrase:
The mainstream media - watchdog days are over, and slave to power days are here. U.S.-centric stories and stories presenting government-touted evil take over America's TV screens, while the country's own skeletons are shoved deeper into the closet.
"We've seen a financial crisis that the media missed. We've seen a deep economic distress in this country that no one predicted. We've seen two wars go on despite suggestions that they were about to be ended. And we see a basic characteristic that I call AAU - all about us", said media critic Danny Schechter.

The positions of outraged Americans at home are largely ignored too. Routinely marginalized, they are presented as fringe groups.
"The mainstream media often likes to ridicule and downplay true American protests. They like to think, this is just a very narrow group of people that, say, were in the streets in the last couple of weeks in the Wall street protests", said Tim Shorrock.
This, while echoing the official stance of the American Government by applauding the Arab Spring uprising.
"Many reporters, many editors and producers really want nothing more than to have access to Government. They think of government as a source of news. They think press conferences are the place where news is generated", said editorial columnist and author Ted Rall.
Wanting to keep their jobs, journalists play it safe.
"I couldn't even begin to count how many times someone has told me - I can't risk pissing off my source, I don't want to be cut out, otherwise I won't be able to work", said Rall.
Afraid of being blocked from the circle of insiders, the mainstream media has traded integrity for access. This cozy relationship lets politicians play havoc with policies and laws while the media, whether its aware or not, does the government's bidding.
*********************************************************************

Ok, go back to your pointless bickering....and for your information, I am a bleeding heart Liberal, not a Right Wing Nut, in case you want to waste some more time calling names. What's that sucking sound? It's the sound of the American Dream being pulled out from under your feet while you bicker about abortion, homosexuals, and which celebrity is more sexy......
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+760) 9 years ago
So true! That's why I sidetracked a little into what people who think, and care, can actually get off their butts and DO to make things better. It's all we can do. It's just being smart, as an option to be stupid. Why work so hard at making the sucking sound louder?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
This thread is turning me into a Cheryl Pieters fan.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Me too, Levi...Cheers, Cheryl
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17121) 9 years ago
People bicker on this website?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 9 years ago
Hey Gunnar: STFU
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
I see a thread on homosexuality on here every other week, where people go on and on, never listening to the other person, stating their same cases over and over without budging an inch.


I guess this is hyperbole?

There hasn't been such a thread for some time. I know this because I have yet to comment this subject with my new point of view on the matter.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (10/5/2011)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Now I want you to be each other's fans, instead of just being nice to the ones that agree with you.

"We find comfort among those who agree with us -- growth among those who don't." (of course if someone is calling someone else a name instead of presenting a rational argument, I am not sure how much growth actually occurs).

I also want to say that I am a Richard Bonine fan. I think you used to be plugged into the Murdoch Spin Machine (Fox) and although you seemed well read and well educated, it seemed to be all to that one side as I could take many of your arguments, google them and get 10,000 hits (from all of the other people that were quoting Rush or Hannity or Beck's latest soundbite). At some point a year ago or so it seems as though you turned off the TV and started to read and think for yourself. I went from being totally annoyed that you were so bamboozled to thinking "Hey, let's see what this guy has to say-I think he really knows what he's talking about and has thought it out very carefully-he doesn't sound like a ditto head any more". I didn't always agree with you, but I did always admire the way you presented your argument. I wish more people would follow your lead. I think it's OK to have your own opinions, and strong moral convictions. I just get really annoyed when someone doesn't really think for themselves.

There were others of you I have been fans of all along, BTW. I think it's kind of that "comfort among those who agree with me" thing though ;o) Actually, part of it is that you have always seemed well read, rational, and the name calling was more in jest than serious.


Seriously-the Mainstream Media does not have our best interests at heart any more and no one should buy into it lock, stock and barrel. Look where we are now. Big Pharm has killed cancer cures, Alternative energy inventions have been bought out and locked away, miners have been buried in mine explosions whose companies had over 600 violations that were overlooked because of lobbyists and payoffs, small farms have been over regulated and even raided at gunpoint by the government to the point that only factory farms can turn a profit, our seed supply has been hijacked by GMO's that don't produce seeds so all new seed has to be bought from the company every year......if you start reading about the government's hand in this, you start getting really mad about all the lives lost and all of the small buisinesses and farms that have been railroaded out of business while the media distracted everyone with these "us" vs. "them" distractions.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 9 years ago
Somebody needs to investigate the possibility that Richard Bonine, Jr.'s account has been hacked.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Oof. Cheryl should've quit while she was ahead.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
I never quit while I'm ahead (LOL)! I don't get over here that much, but I have seen a few discussions where he seemed pretty rational, so while I don't read every thread, I've seen some that steered me that way....

Back to the Occupy Wall Street thing, there is now a site called "Occupytogether.org" because the movement is growing so fast and many other cities are becoming involved.


Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz showed up at "Occupy Wall Street" this week to show his support for the protest and clearly outline what he sees as the worst crimes of the American financial sector.



Nobel-winning economist supports `Occupy Wall Street'


In a brief speech amplified by an "echo chamber" of protesters (who shouted Stiglitz's own words as a group because they're banned from using megaphones), the Colombia University professor said that Wall Street had become wealthy by "socializing losses and privatizing gain," calling it a scheme that's "not capitalism."

"After the bubble broke, they continued in their way of disobeying the law, in a sense. Throwing people out of their houses, even in some cases when they didn't owe money.

"We bailed out the banks with an understanding that there would be a restoration of lending. All there was was a restoration of bonuses. Unless we deal with the anti-competitive practices with the reckless vending and speculative behavior, with the anti-competitive practices, unless we restore demand to the function it should serve, we won't have a robust recovery."

Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 9 years ago
Cheryl, you seem rational, so forgive me. Rick, seriously, what the procreate is wrong with you? You have contributed zero to the conversation for the last three years. We're solving the world's problems and you're still eating boogers and giving noogies. Go away.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
I think Rick K. is still plugged into the Fox News "Pretty Little Hate Machine". It doesn't take long to figure that out, and as a result nothing he says really bothers me, but thanks!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Sorry, Buck. Just not seeing it. The last post went from "Grow from the people you disagree with" to "The people I disagree with are just bamboozled faux newsers!"

And then onto that last paragraph. I don't know what that was. But it's right up there with chemtrails and the forensic examination of Hawaiian birth certificates.

Here's the truth about these groups... this group and the tea party groups as well. They are marginalized because they are at the margins. The "selling out" they hate to see is just the natural consequence of seeing their message diluted to sell to a wider audience.

The ideological paint they bought only covers about 20% of the population, tops. Then when they try to spread it out enough to get the 51% they need to govern, they get mad because the end result looks terrible... nothing like what they had imagined.

So they blame the painter (the media, the organizers, their congressmen, etc) instead of the fact that their bucket of paint isn't big enough to do the job.

And I would argue that the more issues you federalize, and bring into the realm of all 300 million people, the harder time you'll have creating a halfway coherent ideology that can grab and hold a majority. So instead we end up handing everything over to the professional vote-getters who really know nothing useful other than how best to straddle this ideological fence.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (10/5/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 9 years ago
The part about the seeds? Tell us about it Farmer Rick.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Mayor Michael Bloomberg is threatening to shut down democracy on Wall Street.

You might expect that from a man who is the fourth-wealthiest person in America, with $19.5 billion dollars in his pocket. Moreover, Bloomberg made a lot of money as a Wall Street financier, but he catapulted into the multibillionaire category by revolutionizing financial market information and selling a specialized terminal and access services to the financial industry (followed by Bloomberg media services).

In short, his fortune is directly integrated into the Wall Street status quo.

That may be why he told a New York City radio show host last week that "New Yorkers need 'to help the banks.'" The Village Voice headlined its story on the plutocratic pronouncements of Bloomberg, "Mayor Bloomberg: 'We'll See' If The City Will Let Occupy Wall Street Continue."

Bloomberg seemed in a baronial haze, claiming, "The protesters are protesting against people who make $40-50,000 a year and are struggling to make ends meet. That's the bottom line." Is the mayor mainlining Fox "news" as his source of information? He royally added, "so anything we can do that's responsible to help the banks ... that is what we need."

Yesterday, BuzzFlash at Truthout wrote that there is little doubt that law enforcement officials - at the behest of corporate-backed politicians - are infiltrating and planning ways to discredit the Wall Street autumn of democracy.

In his plutocratic cloud of personal financial interest and self-serving disdain for the right of assembly, Bloomberg resembles a monarchist, not a mayor.

If the Occupy Wall Street movement spreads and grows, you can count on Mayor Bloomberg to pull the curtains down on this exercise in America's basic right of redress.

As Thom Hartmann noted in a book excerpted on Truthout, Thomas Jefferson warned that "the artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy."

Bloomberg is just waiting to snap the mouse trap shut on democracy.



(Video of the Cops beating up and pepper spraying the peaceful protestors tonight at around 8:45 after erecting a barrier. Apparently they aren't marginalizing this)

Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
This is what a Police State looks like.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
... don't forget about the buried cancer cures and the big-oil suppressed thousand-megawatt potato-clock power plants that would otherwise bring energy independence

It's all so, so...

yeah, this explains it best

http://www.southparkstudi...ll-hippies
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
thanks Brian for the picture...this seems appropriate for this protest...

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
You've really got to stay on point with Rick... otherwise he'll find something irrelevant to your thesis and want to turn that into the topic of discussion.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
I'm not sure what the point is, other than dissent for its own sake. They put out a list of 'demands' but nobody seems to want to talk about those.

Show of hands... who's on board with demand #11 (aka apocalypse now)

Anyone?

Another thing I'd point out, and I think most of the people here feel this way about it... none of this is personal. It's just politics. I'm glad Cheryl got the point across that it shouldn't be personal. That's a good point to make.

But I know quite a few of the people who've been a part of these conversations, and I don't think it's ever spilled over to the point where we couldn't get along in person.

Maybe internet forums aren't the best way to have this conversations. For some reason we definitely get more out-of-hand than face to face conversation ever does. But I'd still have a beer with just about anyone on here. And judging from the ones I've talked to, most feel the same way.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (10/5/2011)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Here is your official list of demands (not that thing you dug up somewhere the other day)

Occupy Wall Street - Official Demands
Written by Anonymous

The Sovereign People's Movement, represented nationally through the people occupying the various Liberty Square locations across this great country, have laid out and democratically submitted and are currently voting on the list of following Demands to then be distilled into one Unified Common demand of the people.

Participate in Democracy and Vote Here to Have Your Voice Heard


LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

1.CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007-2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act#Repeal .
¦Vote Here #1
2.USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

¦Vote Here #23.CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.

¦ Vote Here #34.CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.

¦Vote Here #45.CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

¦Vote Here #56.CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

¦Vote Here #67.CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.

¦Vote Here #78.ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.

http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
If you consider Fox News an unbiased, accurate source of information, consider the Rupurt Murdoch's most succesful publishing ventures before he went into broadcasting were Tabloid magazines that rivaled the complete unbelievability of the Enquirer and then kicked it up a notch. He is no stranger to twisting the truth as evidenced in News of the World tabloid, The Star in the U.S. and The Sun in England....just in case you missed that recent scandal (since I doubt it was ever televised on your beloved Fox News)here are interesting links

http://www.csmonitor.com/...tions-grow

http://www.reuters.com/ar...SA20110718

In seven national newspapers Saturday, Murdoch apologized to the British public for the unethical and possibly illegal activities his now-defunct Sunday tabloid News of the World carried out in the name of journalism - including charges of phone hacking and bribery of police officials.

Yeah-I think my criticism of Faux News is more than just a Partisian ploy.....

[This message has been edited by Cheryl Pieters (10/5/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Huh. Some different website and posted by 'anonymous'

Doesn't seem all that official. Although to be fair it's kind of a trap that gets set up where a grassroots group can't win. There will probably be 40 different sets of 'official' demands over the next few weeks, none of which are really official. So it's true, I could pick and choose the worst to make any point I wanted (even if I got this one off the website you yourself posted)

Anyway, it's no different than what was done to the Tea Partiers. Where every sign held up in public was analyzed and extrapolated to the movement as a whole. But in this case turnabout probably isn't fair-play. It wasn't fair then and probably isn't fair now.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Heh. I'm not nearly organized enough to micromanage, Cheryl. Ask my wife.

Outside of that, I don't think we'll ever quite see eye to eye on what's relevant and what isn't. We can leave it at that.
Top
Posted by Heather Schmidt (+19) 9 years ago
Huh. Some different website and posted by 'anonymous'

Doesn't seem all that official.


Actually, Rick, what Cheryl posted is about as official as it can get. Take a closer look at the page she linked. (http://coupmedia.org/occu...mands-2009)This list of demands is a living document determined by majority vote, and represents the agreed upon consensus of the movement.

The one you linked to was a list written by one guy, and posted to the occupywallst.org forum. It carries about the same amount of clout as I would if I created a new thread here stating,
"Miles City demands that the US government spend one trillion dollars to buy every six year old in the world a puppy. This will end the economic crisis once and for all with 100% certainty!"


Your right, nothing's going to stop naysayers from twisting the message by trying to pass this off as the demands of the entire group, but there is a tiny glint of hope...
If you look at the comments posted in response to the 'official' demands you posted, every third comment or so is a link to the page Cheryl just shared.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
http://www.washingtonpost..._blog.html

Yeah, even Ezra's not sure what they want or who speaks for them. There's already talk of rival groups having different demands. But that's natural, and unavoidable.

I didn't see "release the cancer cure" on any of the lists though, so thats good. Or maybe bad depending on your outlook
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost...97423.html

What is surprisingly unique about the Occupy Wall Street demonstration, and supporting actions across the country, is the broad immediate support without an immediately stated objective. With so little coverage and a yet unspecified goal, major unions lent their support, supportive occupations cropped up nationwide, and the numbers in Liberty Park are growing despite NYPD crackdowns.


Unlike anti-war marches, Tea Party gatherings, or other well-worn modes of protest, the notion of an in-person response to Wall Street's unchecked looting of the economy apparently did not need much explaining. That is because many Americans have been living with painful awareness that their hardships in recent years are related in a myriad of ways to reckless trading, predatory loans, and manifold illegal banking practices, all perpetrated by the same executives still receiving multi-million dollar bonuses whose guilt is trumped by the notion that their companies are Too Big To Fail.

None of these many abuses by financial institutions collectively referred to as Wall Street are new information. It's not like people just flooded the streets upon hearing that Bank of America is trying to tack on another surcharge, just after laying off over 30,000 employees, just after widespread manipulation of their loan business was deemed not criminal, by their own accord. (No, that move by B of A was just easy pickings for Democrats trying to remember their purpose.)

It's not like Americans did not wait while the federal government negotiated good-faith interest-free loans to keep huge banks and firms afloat, at the price to taxpayers, many of whom were struggling to stay afloat themselves under variable interest or inflated mortgages foisted upon them by said financial giants. It's not like financial regulations weren't proposed to Congress, with larger reforms left by the wayside, and in the final decision by the Federal Reserve on the Durbin Amendment of the Dodd-Frank Finanical Act, credit card companies somehow get to charge more for debit swipes than they had even hoped. Bank lobbyists paid off, in more than one sense.

And, it's not like President Obama hasn't trotted out some fine rhetoric of late, angling the ongoing Republican obstructionism to fuel his re-election campaign as it gears up. Yes, it's math, not class warfare. But, if this were a metaphor of head to head competition between classes -- namely, the top 1% Super Rich that owns 40% of the wealth versus the 99% rest of Americans -- then Obama would be like a goalie, constantly swarmed by the offensive John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Darrell Issa, bank lobbyists, and Goldman Sachs alumni in his own ranks. The Super Rich Team will continue to score point after point on Obama, because despite his considerable skill set, it's like he's playing at the company picnic, and really, you just don't make your bosses look bad when they underwrite your existence.

Obama is looking for $1 billion to fund his re-election campaign. That may seem extraordinary, but after the disastrous Supreme Court decision Citizens United vs. FEC, it is a given that there will be even more spent against him in anonymous corporate money. Karl Rove's American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS have announced plans to raise and spend record amounts, over $300 million in outside ads running across the country in the 2012 races.

Obama is not going to get one billion dollars from $5 donations, no matter how many email blasts. Obama and his team have been currying favor like a schoolboy with Wall Street throughout this administration because they are waiting for the pay-off in their campaign coffers. The slap on the wrist following the financial meltdown was more drying their hands like a bathroom attendant so they can get back to work making important deals without consequence.

While the financial meltdown and ensuing bailouts came before Obama, the lack of reform or accountability does not win him any gratitude from either side, it only serves as precedent that selling bundled crap mortgages to old people goes unpunished. In fact, it is richly rewarded. Obama's deference and endless capital to the banking industry has long made it clear where his priorities are. His jobs plan is well-intentioned, but probably a drop in the bucket and a few years late. For all the bitter clamor over health care reform, it's quite likely that it will be deemed impermissible by the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas can't wait to sit silently through the arguments before he punts our healthcare system back to the wolves that employ his wife, Ginni.

As the crowds grow, this will become Obama's next oil spill. How long will he let Occupy Wall Street go on before addressing it as more than just a policy point to support his agenda? Many loyalists will defend the intentions and constraints on Obama, but this much is painfully clear: The President must act now. Because if he does not get in front of this parade, it's about to surpass him.

If Obama really does aspire to be like President Lincoln, then he must recognize that his country is rent apart and it requires a true leader to keep our union from collapsing under debt and looted public services.

Because when people show up at the gates of their oppressor, the response is not: "What do you want? Can you bullet-point it for me?" You know what this is about. Our country has been decimated over the past three years, with continual revelations of financial impropriety, concerted fraud, and executive compensation the amount of a small nation's GDP. This might be the one protest where, if asked why you were there, you could reply, "Are you procreateing kidding me?" and that would actually be understood.

To dispel media misconceptions, here's what Occupy Wall Street is not: it's not another Tea Party, a corporate PAC-backed stab at populism consisting of right wing extremists. It's not just young people in attendance, even though younger generations have more to lose anyway, and many are already crippled with student debt and no job possibilities. (Admittedly, younger people are better suited to sleep in inconvenient places and be fine with that. The kids call this "crashing," which should not be interpreted as a roughhousing sort of thing.)

Occupy Wall Street is not anti-capitalism. We don't live in capitalism. Capitalism is supposed to be merit based and left to the market -- consumers -- to decide where innovation and service is found. What has been foisted on us again and again is not a fair and open market. Massive companies spend huge sums to avoid paying taxes altogether. They then spend money to back politicians that will be friendly to them, in terms of regulations and tax breaks or pressure on rivals. This is a system of massive corporate welfare, where the biggest corporations pay the least to the country that allows them to prosper, while they spend their excess money in hopes of making more money through lower taxes, government jobs, or loosened environmental restrictions. Election cycles ensure ongoing opportunities for candidates to be wooed with money or threatened with ads. The more they spend on the race, the more indebted candidates become to their backers. Those that become elected repay their backers with loose oversight, no-bid contracts, and even accept their donors' legislation pre-written. We don't live in capitalism -- that's favoritism.

And most importantly, Occupy Wall Street is not one political party or part of a spectrum. This grassroots movement is fundamentally removed from both parties, because both parties accept vast fortunes from Wall Street to not rain on their parade. The reason abuses have thrived is because of the cost of running for office. Most people's political persuasion or identity is based on their own sense of what's just and fair. The nuance of foreign policy or civil liberties is lost when people are losing their homes due to manipulative mortgages from banks that have faced no discipline or reform and have been given federal money to loan to people which they still sit on.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
and Rick, since you want to focus, once again, on what is probably the most irrelevent part of this discussion, here ya go:

http://articles.mercola.c...movie.aspx

In the 1970's, Dr. Burzynski made a remarkable discovery that threatened to change the face of cancer treatment forever. His non-toxic gene-targeted cancer medicine could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades had his discovery not been criminally suppressed by the US government, as his therapy, called "antineoplastons," have been shown to effectively help cure some of the most "incurable" forms of terminal cancer.
This finding eventually led him to create a medical treatment referred to as antineoplastons. The drug contains a mixture of peptides and derivatives of amino acids. These were known to act as molecular switches, but as genome research blossomed and science progressed, Dr. Burzynski discovered they also work as genetic switches, and that is why antineoplastons work so well. They're actually able to turn on cancer suppressing genes, while simultaneously turning oncogenes (cancer genes) off.
As explained in the film:
"Our bodies contain two categories of genes that allow cancer to flourish: oncogenes, and tumor suppressor genes. When someone has cancer, they have a higher level of oncogenes switched on, with a higher level tumor suppressor genes switched off.
The goal is to tell the body to both switch back on the tumor suppressor genes, and turn off as many oncogenes as possible."
While other gene targeting cancer drugs now exist, they're only capable of targeting a small number of specific cancer genes. Antineoplastons, on the other hand, targets a wide spectrum of cancer genes-about 100 of them at once. In a very simplistic way, antineoplastons are to cancer what a broad-spectrum antibiotic is to infectious disease.
Success Rates of Chemo and Radiation versus Antineoplastons
The film features several remarkable case stories of people who were successfully cured of cancer, but it's when the clinical trial data of conventional therapies versus antineoplastons are stacked against each other that the benefits of antineoplastons become really obvious:

Radiation or Chemotherapy Only Antineoplastons Only
5 of 54 patients (9 percent)
were cancer free at the end of treatment 5 of 20 (25 percent)
were cancer free at the end of treatment
Toxic side effects No toxic side effects
Tackling Childhood Brain Tumors
Dr. Burzynski was so confident in his antineoplastons that he even accepted the most difficult and "hopeless" cases, such as childhood brain tumors. Conventional medicine has little or nothing to offer in these cases, and the side effects can be as horrific as the disease itself, if not more. Furthermore, the best outcome conventional treatment can offer is to slow down the growth of the tumor.
Using antineoplastons, however, Dr. Burzynski has been able to successfully cure many of these otherwise hopeless cases, such as Jessica Ressel.
She was 11 years old when she was diagnosed with brainstem glioma-an incurable brain tumor. After learning that she would die no matter what toxic drugs and radiation treatments she underwent, the family decided to not put her through it. When they found Dr. Burzynski, they literally had nothing to lose...
Twelve months later-after having initially been told she had but a few months to live, and given no chance of survival at all-MRI's confirmed she was cancer-free. Her brain tumor was completely resolved. Today, Jessica is a healthy 24-year old woman, pregnant with her second child.
When comparing FDA-supervised studies of treatments for lethal childhood brainstem gliomas, antineoplastons again comes out as a clear winner:

Chemotherapy Only Antineoplastons Only
1 of 107 patients (0.9 percent)
were cancer free at end of treatment 11 of 40 patients (27.5 percent)
were cancer free at end of treatment
0 of 107 patients (0 percent)
survived past five years 11 of 40 patients (27.5 percent)
survived past five years
Even more interesting, while some of Dr. Burzynski's patients did eventually die after the five-year mark, most who did NOT undergo chemotherapy prior to getting antineoplastons have gone on to live normal, healthy lives-yet another indication that in many cases, the conventional treatments are more lethal than the disease itself.

Dr. Burzynski had tried to get the FDA to review and approve antineoplastons since 1977, to no avail. To make sure he would not get into trouble for using the experimental therapy in his practice, his legal team reviewed federal and Texas state laws, confirming that he was acting within the laws and could use antineoplastons in his own practice "to meet the immediate needs of patients," since he was a licensed physician. Particularly if no other alternatives were available to the patient. He could not engage in interstate commerce, however, so he had to restrict the use of the drug to his home state of Texas.
But word spread, and patients started traveling to his office from out of state.
Suddenly, in 1984, he found out that agents from the Texas board of medical examiners were traveling to patients across the country trying to convince them to file charges against him.
What followed next truly challenges the rational mind.
Texas Board of Medical Examiners Try to Strip Away his Medical License
In 1988, despite not breaking any laws, and having produced more evidence than was required to show that his treatment was effective and that no harm was coming to his patients from it, the Texas medical board charged him with breaking a law that didn't exist, claiming it was grounds for revoking his medical license.
They didn't have a case, but kept the charges going by continuing to file slightly amended complaints, until finally, in 1993, the case went to trial. By then, 60 of Dr. Burzynski's patients had filed a petition for the medical board to stop harassing their doctor-a petition that the board successfully eliminated from the trial by filing a motion to strike it from the record.
Testifying on Dr. Burzynski's behalf, however, was a leading expert from none other than the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Dr. Nicholas Patronas, MD, a board certified radiologist since 1973, and the founder and chief of Neurology at the NCI. Even he recognized the absurdity of the board's case, and put his own career on the line to testify.
The judge ruled in Dr. Burzynski's favor, confirming that no laws had been broken.
You'd think that would be the end of it. But not so in this case. Instead of accepting defeat, the Texas medical board filed charges against Dr. Burzynski with the Texas Supreme Court.
The Method Behind the FDA's Madness
It eventually came to light that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had pressured the Texas medical board to revoke Dr. Burzynski's medical license-despite the fact that no laws were broken, and his treatment was proven safe and effective.
But WHY?
It's been stated many times that a crime can be solved simply by following the money, and this case is no exception. The FDA and the pharmaceutical industry had realized that if Dr. Burzynski's discovery-which he owned the patent for-received a fair review, chemotherapy and radiation would rapidly dwindle into obscurity, effectively crippling the industry. Not only that, but if antineoplastons were approved, billions of dollars of cancer research funds would get funneled over to one single scientist who had exclusive patent rights...
Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, once wrote in a 1982 newsletter:
"I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances."
It became clear that ever since 1977, when Dr. Burzynski first tried to get antineoplastons approved, the FDA had begun scheming to eliminate the threat he and his discovery posed to the entire cancer industry...
The Harassment Continues Unabated
The FDA, under the direction of Commissioner Dr. David Kessler, called no fewer than FOUR different grand jury investigations into Dr. Burzynski's practice, despite the fact that none of the grand juries ever found him to be at fault, and no indictment ever came from any of the investigations.
But the FDA did not let up.
Finally, in 1995, just days after the final grand jury investigation, which also had found no fault, Dr. Burzynski was inexplicably indicted on charges of fraud, and 75 counts of violating federal law. If found guilty, he now faced 290 years in federal prison, and $18.5 million in fines.
A year later, in a bizarre twist brought about by congressional and public pressure, the FDA agreed to accept all of Dr. Burzynski's patients into a series of 72 FDA-supervised phase 2 clinical trials.
A 1996 article in The Washington Post noted:
"The prosecution marks the first time the FDA has tried to jail a scientist for using a drug on which he is conducting FDA authorized clinical trials."
Federal Government Spent $60 Million Trying to Bury Dr. Burzynski
This second trial cost American tax payers a whopping $60 million just in legal fees alone-that's not counting the cost of continually harassing him (including several raids on his office) and his patients over the preceding 11 years. Dr. Burzynski spent $2.2 million on his own defense, $700,000 of which was raised by Dr. Julian Whitaker through requests for donations in his newsletter Health & Healing.
On March 4, 1997, the judge declared it a mistrial, due to a deadlocked jury. However, after stating the government had not presented sufficient evidence in its case, he ordered that Dr. Burzynski be acquitted of 42 of the 75 counts.
But the FDA wasn't done yet. They took him to court AGAIN!
Third Time's the Charm...
At this point, many were becoming increasingly aware that something very bizarre and unusual was going on. Jurors from the first trial even joined patients in protests outside the court house. One clear-headed juror from the previous trial stated:
"Please don't waste my money abusing the system to make sure that you maintain your power!"
On May 28, 1997, after three hours of deliberation, the jury came back with their final verdict: Not Guilty.
By now you're probably thinking that this victory surely must mark the end of the wrongful harassment of Dr. Burzynski.
But no. It gets worse.
Secret Dealings Hide True Intents
While this ongoing drama unfolded over the course of more than a decade, something even more sinister was taking place behind the scenes, unbeknownst to Dr. Burzynski and his legal counsel.
In 1989, Dr. Burzynski had retained Dr. Dvorit Samid as a research consultant, and she did a lot of work with the antineoplaston ingredients. At the time, Dr. Samid worked at the Uniformed Services Medical School in Baltimore. She later transferred to the National Cancer Institute.
By 1990-while the Texas medical board kept filing one amended complaint after the other against Dr. Burzynski, in an effort to revoke his license-he had decided that the easiest way to keep the government from putting him out of business or in prison, was to partner with a pharmaceutical company. As luck would have it, he'd treated the sister-in-law of the Chairman and CEO of Élan Pharmaceuticals, and Élan eagerly drafted a letter of intent stating they would aggressively pursue the filing of the necessary protocols with the FDA for approval and marketing of antineoplastons.
Dr. Samid began working closely with Élan on the project. But once the financing, licensing agreements and royalties had been negotiated and agreed upon, Élan suddenly changed its tune, stating they had significant doubt as to whether the active substances could be patented, which would render an agreement meaningless.
As it turns out, Élan had instead partnered with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where Dr. Samid got the position of section chief. They then co-sponsored laboratory research and clinical trials on just one of the antineoplastons' ingredients-an ingredient that Dr. Burzynski had NOT been able to patent due to the fact that it was already known. However, he had also already determined it to be very limited in terms of effectiveness on its own, over a decade ago.
Élan and the NCI spent tens of millions of dollars testing this single ingredient... Not surprisingly, it failed. Dr. Burzynski had already established that the ingredients must be used in combination in order to be effective. After realizing they could not duplicate the effectiveness of Dr. Burzynski's antineoplastons, the NCI finally agreed to conduct his clinical trials under the direction of Dr. Michael Friedman.
Sabotaging Trials-Par the Course for the National Cancer Institute
How do you sabotage a clinical trial?
It's actually easier than you might think. You'll have to watch the film to get all the details, but in summary, the trials were closed prior to completion, and were written off with the statement that "no conclusion can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons." But it was clear, based on the study data, that seven of the nine patients enrolled received NO antineoplastons whatsoever! The others received dosages that were far lower than recommended.
Adding insult to injury, in 1999, about a year after Dr. Burzynski had been acquitted a third and final time, the NCI published these invalid trials in the medical literature, citing antineoplastons as a complete failure. So sure, Dr. Burzynski was a free man; cleared of all charges and free to practice medicine, but now the National Cancer Institute had effectively undermined the credibility and commercial viability of his medical discovery...
After the National Cancer Institute intentionally violated all protocols of their own antineoplaston trials, and after all state and federal agencies had failed in their 14-year campaign to remove Burzynski from society-after all of the dust settled-a profound truth began to emerge.
Theft and Patent Infringement-All in a Day's Work
In October 1991-while the Texas medical board kept filing amended complaints against him in an effort to revoke his license, due to pressure from the FDA-the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had conducted a site visit to Dr. Burzynski's clinic, and verified that "anti-tumor activity was documented by the use of antineoplastons."
As it turns out, a mere 17 days after this visit, the United States of America as represented by "The Department of Health and Human Services," filed a patent for antineoplastons AS2-1... one of the two antineoplastons Dr. Burzynski had already patented.
The inventor listed?
"Dr. Dvorit Samid," Dr. Burzynski's former research consultant. The patent states:
"The invention described herein may be manufactured, used and licensed by or for the government, for governmental purposes, without the payment to us of any royalties thereon."
Over the next four years, while the witch hunt to put Dr. Burzynski behind bars was in full swing, the US Government filed 10 more patents antineoplastons.
By the summer of 1995, around the time that Burzynski was indicted for fraud and 75 counts of violating federal law, Dr. Michael Friedman-who sabotaged the NCI antineoplastons trials-had left the NCI and become Deputy Commissioner of Operations for the FDA, working directly under FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler-the man responsible for dragging Dr. Burzynski in front of no less than four different grand juries a few years earlier.
In November of 1995, a month into Dr. Burzynski's trial, where he faced 290 years in prison, the US Patent office approved the first US Government patent for antineoplastons. Between 1995 and 2000, the US Patent office approved all 11 copycat patents on antineoplastons AS2-1....
Who Pays for Their Crimes?
By now your head is probably spinning, so let's recap.
Dr. Burzynski developed a cancer treatment that surpassed all other treatments on the market, and the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and the National Cancer Institute all knew it. They also knew he was the sole owner of the patents for this therapy, and these two facts combined, threatened the entire paradigm of the cancer industry.
The cancer paradigm is based on very expensive machines and toxic drugs. There's an enormous amount of money to be made in this paradigm, and Dr. Burzynski single-handedly threatened to overturn it.
So they tried to copy his invention using a single non-patented ingredient. It failed. The next step was to steal the whole thing right from under him. There was just one problem. They knew they couldn't use the stolen patents as long as Dr. Burzynski walked free and had the ability to defend his rights to them... So they concocted 75 fraudulent charges to tuck him away in jail for the rest of his life.
Fortunately for us, they failed in that too.
Dr. Whitaker sums it up nicely when he says:
"How can the US Patent office be corrupted to the point they issue patents for a medical treatment that's already been patented and issue them to someone who had nothing to do with their discovery or use? And how can the Patent office then assign these fraudulent patents to some of the most powerful institutions in the American government? And, imagine, all of this was done while these same agencies were spending millions of taxpayer dollars trying to put Dr. Burzynski in jail, so he could not fight the criminal theft of his discovery!"
As I said in the beginning, the facts of this case challenge the mind of any sane and rational person, but make no mistake about it: These things did happen, and Dr. Burzynski has all the documentation to back it up.
The US Government did harass and intimidate, and they did try to falsely imprison a brilliant scientist, simply because he'd discovered an effective cancer therapy, while simultaneously engaging in patent infringement.
Now, while this was an enormous personal hardship for Dr. Burzynski, the US Government also, through their enormous greed, in a very direct way prevented millions of cancer patients to receive a non-toxic therapy that could have saved their life. Remember, Dr. Burzynski has been trying to get antineoplastons reviewed and approved since 1977, to no avail. It's absolutely heartbreaking to consider the cost of this criminal behavior in terms of human life, including young children.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17121) 9 years ago
Cheryl, when you are debating Rick, its best to keep this fellow in mind.....

Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
I quit reading or arguing with Rick after I got so dizzy going in circles...what a waste of time and energy...now when I see Rick posted, I just skip it completely...
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Ownership Chart: The Big Six

The U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases, these giant companies are vertically integrated, controlling everything from initial production to final distribution. In the interactive charts below we reveal who owns what.

[URL]http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main[/URL]
*********************************************************


Fox "News" has been dismissive of the Occupy Wall Street protests springing up across the nation. This seems odd, considering how much free publicity the unfair and balanced network gave to the astro-turfed Teabagger protests. Contrast that with Occupy Wall Street, which appears totally organic: A few weeks ago most people knew nothing of it and it has been growing daily, despite getting very little coverage in the MSM. This has obviously spooked the Fox "News" Channel because it has yet to accurately report on the protests. Instead the so-called news channel has employed the spin and ridicule for which it's known when something disturbs The Force. Since the sharpest observer of today's political scene remains a cable comedy show, Jon Stewart couldn't help but point out the Fox News hypocrisy on OWS, with special shout outs to Sean Hannity and Steve Doocy. Watch:

[URL]BAD URL (FIXED BY WEBMASTER BELOW)[/URL]

http://mcty.co/m

Meanwhile, at nearly the same time Jon Stewart was taping his show, intrepid reporters from My Fox New York, the local Fox "News" affiliate on channel 5, ventured into the crowd. No doubt they were hoping to capture some more embarrassing clips of protestors. Certainly, they weren't expecting to be maced and beaten along with the protestors. The article is here, but the reporter tells the story much better. Watch:

Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
Wow... this thread went full screen.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
See, this is what I'm talking about. I just don't understand what it is with people on both the left and right extremes and their love for crazy conspiracy theories.

What's more believable?

That one thinly-credentialed, non-peer-reviewed doctor is selling snake oil.

Or that Big Pharma, the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and even a team of Canadian researchers are all in Cahoots... To Suppress the Cure for Cancer. I mean really? Really?

http://www.cancer.org/Tre...on-therapy

The plain fact of the matter is there's no clinical evidence that it works. That doesn't keep desperate people from trying it. It's sad when you think about it.

But I just don't understand.

And then you surf on over to the new 'Official' list I was provided of Occupy Wall Street demands, and you go down the list and find a "Reinvestigate the Attacks of September 11th" demand, that apparently is splitting votes 80/20 in favor. Then there's this helpful link with it for "more information"

http://coupmedia.org/inte...-1982-2509

If the attack on the Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon was not random it is reasonable to assume that the planes that hit the World Trade Centre, band the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6, 7, the basement of the Towers, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Centre were also deliberately targeted. Why? What was it that linked these targets? The destruction of the contents of the basement of the World Trade Centre - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities? In addition why were specific brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers eliminated? To create chaos in the government securities market? To create a situation wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically "cleared" without anyone asking questions? Which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its "emergency powers" that afternoon.


Trutherism? Really?

I think one of the biggest threats Americans face in this day and age is this kind of conspiracy thinking.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
IMO, it went "full screen" due to the URL being in Caps and not small letters in a prior post...before Ricks post...Cheryls last post, I believe...

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/6/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 9 years ago
This is Rick playing "reasonable" straw man. He has a collection of them, they are his Barbies.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
I don't think I can bear to read any more of your posts either, Rick. When you went off on that World Trade Center rant, you veered off the path again into irrelavence......

Do some research of your own before proclaiming this Dr. a "Snake Oil Salesman". Why not look at the scientific data to see if he is providing "hope" or "questionable medicine"? You do not have to be a professional journalist or doctor to simply read the English language printed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. http://www.burzynskiclini...tions.html

Have you ever had a friend or family member go through cancer treatment? Maybe even pass away? Doesn't it bother you that perhaps this cure was supressed because the drugs used in Chemotherapy patented by Big Pharm are too big of money makers to allow a cure for cancer to be allowed?

For those of you looking for information without having already made up your mind, there is a movie with all of the documentation (you don't have to read all the big paragraphs to look for loopholes to ridicule, like Rick K. seems to relish.

http://www.burzynskimovie...Itemid=999
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
You don't have to read my post. Read the American Cancer Society article I linked. As far as the 'documentary' goes...

http://www.villagevoice.c...burzynski/

QUACK-QUACK Goes Burzynski

Eric Merola, a former art director of commercials, is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement, or has an undisclosed relationship with the subject of his allegedly nonfiction first film. Consciously or not, Merola is shilling madly for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a Polish-born physician who has run afoul of federal authorities and shown up on several quackometers for his claim to have cured scores of patients of a lethal brain cancer with a treatment derived from human urine.
...
Narrated in a weirdly robotic voiceover, Burzynski violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking: Merola interviews only Burzynski's supporters, produces no patient records other than the doctor's own, and offers no credible proof of the drug's success and no data about its side effects, even as he slams chemotherapy and radiation. Who's the bigger charlatan-Burzynski or Merola-and why is this conspiratorial rubbish being released into theaters?
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
Interesting...


Confronting the Malefactors
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 6, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/20...f=politics

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.

It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate - and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you've forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst - but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers' sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support - and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts - behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?

Now, it's true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don't have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.

A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I'll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I'd suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment - not more tax cuts - to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.

And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today's Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed "malefactors of great wealth." Mitt Romney, for example - who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans - was quick to condemn the protests as "class warfare."

But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama's party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
The rally organizers sent out an email that says:

People young and old are taking to the streets to let our government and corporations know that we are a democracy that's not for sale. ... The Occupy Wall Street protest is a full bore international indictment against corporate greed and dysfunctional government."
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
For too long, the wealthy and corporations have had all the breaks. And those breaks have caused such an imbalance in our economy that it now threatens our democracy and way of life. Take for example this information.

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955..27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955...4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%
Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955...58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Turn off your TVs and check out the livestream to see what is really going on, instead of getting the Media Spin.

http://www.livestream.com...revolution


...and Stop to think about this. TV is basically paid for by advertising revenue, even taking cable companies into consideration, which means the people to run it will not get rich unless the advertising works and you buy lots of products. Do happy, satisfied people NEED lots of products, such as weight loss programs, anti-depression meds, or ridiculously expensive Coach Purses to make themselves "feel" happy? Do you think that it is in the best interests of the Television Executives to foster happiness, acceptance and "warm feelings" with it's programming when unhappy people will buy many more products?

The suicide rate in the United States is at an all-time high. It is unheard of on remote islands where people have never even heard of Television. If you are unhappy and suicidal, or even mildly depressed, maybe it would behoove you to turn off this constant brainwashing voice in your home that you aren't good enough.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1270) 9 years ago
All the protesting is great and represents the ideals being touted, but my question is HOW does the problem get fixed. It seems to me that is always the problem. Everyone is pissed, they march, but what really trips the trigger that makes change? A demonstration does not change a policy. And it certainly doesn't make the people responsible for "voting" change (ie: politicians) enact change.

The tea party was supposed to be the idea of change coming. Electing people 'of the people', but that has not turned out any better than what we had before. Just a little more whacky.

So what will actually make the change occur? Some Middle Eastern country type overthrow where only force makes it happen? Can "Peaceful" movements enact real change fast enough to save our country?

Even looking back at movements like African Americans... King marched, and here we are 40+ years later, and there are still problems. Far less, but still problems. Can America wait 40 years for things to improve? Or will we have long collapsed and the destruction of the best example of democracy disappeared?

Can Americans really follow the constitution and make the change or will any attempt at real, major overhaul be swatted down by the very government the people are trying to change?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
How does the problem get fixed? We pass laws and enforce them.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Fixing them is easy once you get the attention of those that can do so...and not only getting their attention but convincing them that that is the only way...
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Fixing them is easy once you get the attention of those that can do so.


Howdy, have you ever read I, Pencil?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
I quit reading or arguing with Rick after I got so dizzy going in circles...what a waste of time and energy...now when I see Rick posted, I just skip it completely...
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Ok, then. Have fun in the echo chamber.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 9 years ago
wtf?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
How does the problem get fixed? We pass laws and enforce them.


LOL, good one.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
American Spectator editor brags of infiltrating the occupiers in D.C. to mock and undermine them. He provoked the incident at the National Air and Space Museum.

http://spectator.org/arch...doff-in-dc
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
the uniqueness of the Wall Street protests, is these are really fed up folks that aren't particularly organized just pissed off, unemployed people that used to be the middle class of our nation...
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
Well goddamn it Levi, how else does "change" happen? Did everyone decide that it was cool for black people to drink at the white person's water fountain simply because it was the right thing to do? When a woman finds out that her male counterparts are getting paid more and advanced faster where does she appeal for redress? Her bosses sense of decency or the law?

Yes, I understand that there has been a vast amount of lawlessness in our country over the last decade or so. That's what this OWS thing is all about - a demand to return oversight and accountability to our nation's financial sector.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
Everyone in Congress wasn't employed by the Ku Klux Klan.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
The KKK was just as unjust and mean to the black citizens as a lot of corporations are now to all citizens..."a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...and if you say they don't kill, yes they do, just look at the violations of OSHA etc, etc...they might come all dressed up in ties and suits but the bottom line is still the same...
Top
Posted by tax payer (+354) 9 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-wall-street-dough-044804642.html;_ylt=Av_Xtc_B.eThvsDMbR7KM1oKewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTRpdTQ2MnRnBGNjb2RlA2dtcHJhd3RvcDIwMHB
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
WTF does that mean Levi?

Lynching came to an end when... the federal government decided to pass laws and enforce them.

THERE IS NO OTHER MECHANISM IN OUR SYSTEM FOR "CHANGE".

Pass laws. Enforce them. How procreating hard is that?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
When the political system is corrupt and you want to do something that's not in the interest of the oligarchy? Impossible. Congress isn't going to pass anything substantive that Wall Street is strongly against. It's as simple as that.

The other mechanism for change is the ballot box, but as long as people continue to think that the only viable choices are the 2 bought-out charlatans with the R and D next to them, that is neutered as well.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (10/10/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Perhaps if you removed the donations from public elections, politicians would no longer be allowed to sell out so easily...just make every election same amount for each party and publically funded only...that would take the dough out of donations...Just my answer IMO...
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1270) 9 years ago
Bridger and Levi are arguing the exact thing that I was asking about above. The problem with passing the laws is that the people who are supposed to do that are too influenced by the 1% to make the right decision.

Voting them out is a great idea if every R or D that came in didn't end up another cog in the political wheel. Freshmen are always bright eyed and ready to take on the world... Seniors are always hardened and get what they want, usually by taking it.

I was under the impression in the beginning the Tea Party was working toward not being R or D and to bring about change, but they turned out to only want specifically what they want. Which makes them no better than core R or D's.

So how does it change in real time? Yes the procedure is there... vote new people in and vote for new laws and enforce them. But that's not going to work. The founders didn't expect someone to actually "become" Washington, only serve there.

Can anything except a teardown and rebild of the current government actually clean house?

What would it take to make it happen?

The Occupy demos are a start, but they are about to be smacked down by the very government they are protesting. I know here in Denver, they have been told there is no camping allowed in the park they are in. They've been patted on the head like good little kids by the cops right now, but I think that's about to change. What will become when force is used to move people out? By looking at history we can see this is where overthrow starts.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1270) 9 years ago
Unfortunately Howdy, that's the nasty circle. The people that can make that change are the people who benifit from the system being the way it is. They aren't going to do it. In a system where it takes $1 Billion to run for President, the money isn't going to run dry by the law makers' own hands anytime soon.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Being an eternal optimist, never say never...
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but only a little. The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together. There are currently two sizable coalitions of angry citizens that are almost on the same page about that, and they're too busy insulting each other to notice
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Agree with you Cheryl...good analysis...
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Power corrupts. There's nothing anyone can do about it. That's why our system was ultimately designed to keep power both very limited and separated into different institutions.

The more power we want in government, and the more we tear down those institutional separations, the more we can expect special interests to spend whatever it takes to make their voices heard.

Trying to legislate this truth out of existence is futile. You might as well make it illegal to like money.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
Unfortunately Howdy, that's the nasty circle. The people that can make that change are the people who benifit from the system being the way it is. They aren't going to do it. In a system where it takes $1 Billion to run for President, the money isn't going to run dry by the law makers' own hands anytime soon.


This is our fundamental problem. You don't get elected in this country by having better ideas or by fulfilling campaign promises or by doing the will of the people. You get elected by spending money and lots of it. The only way to get that money is from the people who will expect a return on their investment. You can't really get to work on any other issues until you solve the corrupt campaign finance system. I am convinced that that issue will never be solved as long as the Republicans and Democrats remain the only choice. Of course the Catch-22 continues there because the people who have the most to lose from campaign finance reform are the entrenched Republicans and Democrats and they are the only people with the power to change the system. They built the system for their own benefit and they will be the last to want to change it.
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+168) 9 years ago
There is a simple first step for some of that Levi. Change the electoral college from a winner-take-all to a proportional system. And that can be done at the state level, which should be easier to accomplish without the vested powers having too much influence. Third-party candidates have never had much of a shot because of the set-up for the electoral college.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 9 years ago
And we'd call that a parliament and finally admit Bob Kelleher was right.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
Jon, you're wasting your time on this. I've explained the realities of the electoral college to Levi any number of times, but he seems to be of the opinion that the process and structure of politics is irrelevant, and that if enough people ask santa for a magical third party pony this christmas, all will be well in the republic.

We COULD start by demanding an end to lawlessness and try to elect candidates who demand accountability, but that might be a little too much like taking sides, and that doesn't fit well with some people's "both sides do it" sensibilities. And it would be mean or something.

Procreate it. We're a nation of torturers, war criminals and tax cheats. You get the government that you deserve.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
I wish I had your faith that if the Republicans would just go away everything would be great. That would be a much smaller problem than what I see. I don't see the evidence for it though, and plenty against it. Did you read the Grenwald piece linked earlier in this thread? Democrats were among the first to publicly mock the occupy wall street protests.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
I've never said anything of the sort Levi - I don't want Republicans to go away, I want BAD republicans to go away: just as I've always been upfront about the fact that I think most of the Democrats suck horribly.

But you have to pick a side (and I don't care which) and then try to make that side better. Quit enabling cynics who put party before country, expect good governance to be the default instead of throwing your hands up into the air and saying "politicians, what are you gonna do, amirite?"

Reform the system to reduce the amount of veto points and allow majority parties to govern effectively, etc, etc, etc.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
So you picked a side and are trying to "make them get better"? What exactly are you doing? It's not voting for anyone but Democrats, and I don't think they're reading MC.com or your facebook page. What do you do if they don't get better? As long as you won't vote for anyone else, what do they care what you think? I can't think of anything less influential than someone who is loyal to their party.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (10/11/2011)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
WOW, thats a powerful video...makes ya think...and the sign said "second time I have fought for my country, at least the first time I knew the enemy."....
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
I can't think of anything less influential than someone who is loyal to their party.


Unless it's someone who says: "I think I'm going to vote third party"
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
I don't think so. Politicians pander to their base, but the voters that they really need are independents. Voting for the guy who wins might make you feel good, but if that person doesn't represent what you want, you haven't accomplished anything.

If you'll indulge me a brief analogy, let's say you had a mid-life crisis and decided that you wanted to make your life-long dream of living in a remote cabin in Alaska a reality. Of those that you intend to take with you, your wife and your dog, who do you need to convince that it's a good idea? The wife of course, because even though the dog may not prefer life in Alaska, he's with you no matter what, so his opinion is irrelevant to your decision. Your wife on the other hand, might say "sorry sucker" and hit the road. If you're not willing to vote for anyone outside your own party then you're the dog and nobody really cares what you think. All they have to do is keep you believing that the other guys are worse and they can do anything that they want.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Lame, pat, pre-packaged putdowns of Occupy Wall Street: We all deal with 'em, whether we're arguing with a neighbor, appearing on Fox, or answering the jeers of relatives who've just received a chain email that "really puts the protesters in their place."

Here are a few easy comebacks for your next argument. They cover everything from the supposed "hypocrisy" of demonstrators who buy cardboard (really!) to snarky comments about scruffy-looking anticapitalists with beards.

1. They say "Oh, look. The demonstrators buy stuff from corporations!" You say "Whaddya expect? Corporate lackeys in government have forced everybody else out of business!"

I don't know who came up with this lame picture, but it's making the rounds on Wall Street - and with all the other Americans co-opted by its propaganda:



Hey, bankers! Is that the best you've got? Really? Because this picture is so lame that it actually gave us several of our talking points. We'll start with this one:

Corporations get generous tax breaks for not hiring people and shipping jobs overseas instead. They make money from those free trade agreements pushed through by their functionaries in the government. And Wall Street's making billions for not lending to smaller businesses that might compete with some of those mega-corporations.

Now you're calling the demonstrators hypocrites for buying stuff from corporations. Who else are they going to buy it from? Everyone else was driven out of business!

In a very real sense, that's why they're protesting.

2. They say "They hate businesses!" You say "No, they hate parasitical businesses."

Want to know something ironic? If the demonstrators had their way, most businesses in this country would actually do better. Why? Because the banks aren't lending to anybody but the mega-corporations who are already sitting on a ton of cash.

If the system was reformed, banks would lend to those smaller and medium-sized businesses that actually hire people. What's more, debt relief for the American consumer would unleash a buying wave that would spur widespread economic growth.

These "anti-business" protesters would be great for businesses -- all, that is, except for the dishonest and socially useless ones. You know, like the ones that underwrite politicians, think tanks, and television networks - who then proceed to make fun of demonstrations, as they're paid to do.

And you wonder why they're protesting?

3. They say "But it's hypocritical to buy corporate products and then protest corporations!" You say "You sound like a Communist."

That's right -- like a Communist. I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe as protests very much like these were overthrowing the Soviet empire. You know what the old-timers in those countries said back then? They said "These people are protesting the State, but they're wearing clothes made at state-run factories and waving signs made with state resources! What hypocrites!"

(Well, they said it in Hungarian, or Czech, or Polish. But the meaning was the same.)

Tell your debate opponents they sound just like old Commies as they defend the uncompetitive, inflexible, and totalitarian system the corporations now run. Don't blame the demonstrators. They can't operate within the new system until we've reformed the old one.

That's why they're protesting.

4. They say "Did you know they paid all the TARP money back? They weren't bailed out." You say "Fine! Give every consumer in the country an interest-free loan!"

This is one of the inept moves that CNN's Erin Burnett tried on a protester. She, and everybody else using this line, must be either confused or financially illiterate.

Here's how the real world works: If you (we, actually) lend the banks a trillion dollars at 3% below the usual rates, that's the same as giving them a cash gift of $30 billion -- even if they pay all the money back!

And when you count the Federal Reserve's actions, like purchasing the banks' toxic assets through the "Maiden Lane" dummy corporation, the bankers have gotten billions more in additional bailout money. The demonstrators are right: A few mega-banks destroyed the economy, and we bailed them out.

This argument's as hollow as a mega-bank's promise. And that's why they're protesting.

5. They say "But still, they buy corporate stuff!" You say "They're called Occupy Wall Street, not Occupy Main Street. Anybody in that picture using an ATM?"

They keep coming back to this one, for some reason. That's why the picture says things like "hat by J. Crew." Oh, snap! Oh, wait -- what's your point again?

They're protesting banks, for crying out loud, not hat companies!

As we were saying: Lame.

6. They say "These protesters don't understand the free market." You say "What free market?"

Economic theory says that one of the basic elements of a free market is transparency. Yet as of this writing Wall Street's fighting tooth and nail against a process that would allow more transparency in the derivatives market. They don't want transparency - and that means they don't want a free market.

We haven't had a free market for decades. We've had a lootocracy that makes money through deception, confusion, and obfuscation.

People should conduct their business in the light of day -- and gambling with other people's money should be illegal. The words "free market" and the phrase "Wall Street" don't belong in the same paragraph, much less the same sentence.

That's why they're protesting.

7. They say "Ha ha! Look at that bearded guy in the sandals!" You say "Hmmm ... A bearded guy in sandals protesting the moneylenders. Where have we seen that before?"

They love making fun of the demonstrators' looks, but it's pretty difficult to step outside the system and live outdoors without looking a little rough in the eyes of the moneyed classes. Jesus and his disciples probably looked pretty rough to some people, too. I'm sure the rich people looked down their noses at Him after He overturned those tables. That's not done in polite company.

Think about it: A guy rides into town on a donkey. Then he says the moneyed interests are exerting too much influence on the government -- and on some of the religious elite, too. And what was that about the wealthy? Oh, yeah -- "It's easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven."

3,000 years of moral law condemns people who make excess profits from money without contributing to society. Every single prophet to make those arguments - which is to say, all of them -- was condemned by the plutocracy of the day.

No matter what you believe or don't believe spiritually, it's clear that oligarchic wealth has corrupted our politics, polluted our culture, and debased our basic sense of morality.

And that's why they're we're protesting. I've been to New York's demonstration, and Washington's. Next stop is LA. But they're all over the country.

If you haven't been to one yet, why not stop by? 'm not an organizer, just an admirer, but consider this an official invitation: Your presence is requested as democracy -- and history -- unfold before us.

If you're part of the 99%, come as your are. (Sandals optional.)
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 9 years ago
I just timed it and it took 53 seconds for this thread to load from the time I clicked the topic on the mc.com main page until I could actually scroll/"end" to the most recent post at the bottom. Painful. Same for others?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
yes really really slow...
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
and on another note for those of you that still buy into the whole Fox News thing even though it's run by an Australian Multi-Billionaire who specializes in Tabloid news:

Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canadian regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right-wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage, including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the US airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish the anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non-partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right-wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North."

Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush-like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.

Harper's attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television are a stark admission that right-wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public. In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons, have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News' notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin's protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided.

http://www.topix.com/foru...C1C6LOEQKI
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
wow, that's great...we could try to get a bill passed like that and all our networks would have to clean it up particularly Fox!! another thing to demand for the 99% ers...
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
I moved my comment to the "An Idea for Public Funded Campaigns" thread so as to not change the subject on Cheryl.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (10/11/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
The 99% Movement Scaring the Elite

October 10, 2011
By Justin Jones


There's an old quote that states "it's only class warfare when we fight back". That quote couldn't ring anymore true than it does today. Since September 17th, thousands upon thousands of peaceful protesters have lined up on Wall Street to protest corporate greed, predatory banking practices, and a political structure that provides cover for white-collar criminals. The protesters have endured needless police brutality, thousands of senseless arrests, and being mocked in the corporate-owned mainstream news media.

Some Democratic lawmakers and liberal activists such as Michael Moore have endorsed the protests. However, the corporate establishment are currently fighting tooth and nail to make sure this civil unrest among the populists dies down as quickly as it possibly can.

The mainstream news media at first ignored the protests. While it was the top story making the rounds on the internet in mid-September, you couldn't find it on television. Not CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, or ABC spoke a word about the mass uprising of the American populists; even while arrests were being made, and the NYPD were abusing the law with their brutality being unleashed on peaceful citizens. Then as the protests grew, the media had no choice. They were forced to acknowledge the presence of the mass uprising, but only ran short, one-minute clips labeling the protesters as "confused" and claiming they "had no clear demands". Now the time for dismissal of these protests is over. The mainstream media has resorted to a new tactic. Rather than ignoring the 99% movement, they've decided to demean and mock it. CNN anchor Erin Burnett mocked the "Occupy Wall Street" protest during the "Seriously!?" segment of her show on October 3rd.

"What are they protesting?" she asked of the demonstration. "Nobody seems to know."

This smug dismissal of the protesters as confused and unsure of what they're protesting is not only false, but a pathetic excuse to deligitemize the frustration of working-class Americans.

Several big-name Republican lawmakers such as Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Peter King of New York have appeared on television claiming the OWS movement is "dangerous" and made of "ragtag mobs". Rep. King stated that he fears the movement could shape the political debate and cause policy changes in the U.S. if the mainstream media gives the movement too much coverage.




The Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, Eric Cantor of Virginia called the protesters "angry mobs" and said he is "deeply concerned" about the movement growing. Mr. Cantor should be concerned, because the movement is growing rapidly. There have been reports that the "Occupy" movement has spread all across the United States in up to 1,600 different towns and cities.

None of these protests anywhere have shown any signs of violent revolt. As a matter of fact, one of the main preconditions of the "Occupy" movement is nonviolent, civil disobedience. Yet, videos have surfaced on the intenet showing police brutality as they pepperspray, mace, and viciously attack non-violent protesters. Not a word has been said about this brutality by the mainstream news media, or any Republican or Democratic lawmaker. In fact, they continue to falsely label the innocent protesters as violent. Yet we saw just a little over two years ago, Tea Party activists show up at town-hall meetings for health care reform, strapped with guns. No arrests were made, no Republican called out the crowd as a "violent mob", and the mainstream news media painted this movement as the American populace.

The ruling class is now in a panic, and must do everything it can to try shaking this movement at its core. This is why they've given their marching orders to the mainstream media and Republican lawmakers to convince average Americans that the OWS movement is not, in fact, made of working-class Americans, but made of violent radicals who are jealous of other citizen's wealth, and promote class warfare.

Make no mistake about it, the capitalist ruling class on Wall Street knows exactly why the protesters are there. They know exactly what is happening, and they know their days are numbered. For too long now, working-class Americans have been distracted by the media and fooled by the two-party system that serves only the financial oligarchs who have devoured the American economy through capitalism. Through corporations they've racked up record profits while sending American jobs overseas and dodging taxes. Through the banks they've handed out predatory loans that leave students in debt they can never pay back, and practiced illegal, shady foreclosure practices. And through the Military Industrial Complex, they've waged for-profit wars that last for up to 10 years and cost trillions of dollars.

The system is coming down. Americans are awakening. The elite are scared out of their minds. The house of cards is about to fall.and it will.

We are the 99%.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17121) 9 years ago
Damn. As one of the elites, this is starting to scare me.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Great Article Howdy! I think that sums it up nicely, and shows how the Right-wingers will do anything to put it down, including trying to plant provocateurs in an attempt to stigmatize the Occupy Wall Street movement with violence -- to make it look frightening. I can see the Tabloid writers and mouthpieces of Fox news cranking up the hype at the request of the G.O.P. elite already (I think when we look at history 10 years from now, Fox News will be seen as either the thing that broke the American Dream or tried to break up America as it brainwashed millions of gullible Americans. Why do people even start watching FOX News with all its hate and vitriol and misinformation? My uncle claims he started watching it because Jillian Barberie looked really good in a mini skirt as she "reported" the weather. What about the rest of you? I know, you will never admit it. So what is a "good" reason for you to ingest the Tabloid Brainwashing station 24/7?)

If the Movement continues with the kind of single-minded purpose and commitment that we have seen so far, the Occupy Wall Street movement may very well make history. It has already become an enormous progressive asset as America approaches the critical crossroad election that could determine whether the next American generation experiences the American Dream or simply reads about it in their history books.

http://www.huffingtonpost...06601.html

Sorry to infringe on your multi-billions worth of corporations, Gunnar, with a little plea for some equity for us "little people"
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17121) 9 years ago
Sorry to infringe on your multi-billions worth of corporations, Gunnar, with a little plea for some equity for us "little people"


I'm not one of the billionaire elites, Cheryl. I'm one of those liberal elites, that you hear about on FOX News. Elites are elites, correct?

The "little people", to me, would be Aaron Bruce...and I don't feel the need for a little equity for the likes of him.
Top
Posted by Brandon Loomis (+105) 9 years ago
Wow, Moore a legitimate news source? He has skewed the truth in everything else he's done why would anything change now. He's become rich and famous by taking advantage of the worst tragedies in America. The mention of his name should make people sick.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
you are a little people too Gunnar, we aren't speaking of losers like Aaron Bruce, who considers himself fairly elite as well I think...we are talking about equity for the 99% of us that have to deal with the big corporations and banking and wall street strangle hold on this country...we aren't talking about just standing on a corner and giving money to the poor, that would be taking a lemon and eating it..solves nothing...we are talking about making lemonade by getting rid of the stranglehold to bring back good jobs and good health care and get insurance companies out of it entirely etc etc...that is lemonade to me at least...also pass that campaign reform act thing we mentioned earlier as well as the law they have in Canada about truth in media...that would fix us entirely IMO...that, in my mind, is our lemonade for the 99%
Top
Posted by Mathew Schmitz (+281) 9 years ago
I do watch fox news at times, but strictly for the entertainment value. There is rarely anything newsworthy broadcast, but it's really funny to watch the talking heads pretend that all of it is breaking news. I especially enjoy the reports about some right wing moran being ATTACKED by the media. Look up the definition. Our troops are attacked by enemy forces. The little kid down the street was attacked by a dog. The dude in Yellowstone Park was attacked by a grizzly. When someone calls Sarah Palin an idiot, it is in no way shape or form an attack. When Dick Cheney writes a book full of innuendo and outright lies, and gets called out by the media, he has not been attacked. When the girls on the View mention something Bill O'Reilly said, and mention it with disdain, they did not attack him. On the other hand, when sean hannity opens his mouth, he should be attacked, by a grizzly or the neighbors dog. Whoever can get to him first. It's disturbing that anyone watches that drivel, and thinks they are watching real news coverage. It's the National Enquirer of the television airwaves.

Disclaimer: The above post was in no way intended to denigrate the National Enquirer by comparing them to fox news.
Disclaimer #2: The above post was in no way intended to denigrate the usually loving and cuddly nature of grizzly bears.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
funny in a sad sorta way...
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
The whole 99% vs 1% thing is nothing more than just another sad conspiracy theory.

Even the poorest person posting on this board is insanely wealthy by world standards. And yet still we play the victim.

If we're headed the wrong direction, we're doing so as a nation, not as a 1% or 99% or however you want to point the finger. The truth is we're coasting on the hard work of our grandparents.

Other people are working triple-overtime to catch up to us, doing "Jobs Americans Won't Do". When they do catch up, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
as well as the law they have in Canada about truth in media


Interesting idea... a panel of politicians charged with making sure we're never lied to. Foolproof!
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
The whole 99% vs 1% thing is nothing more than just another sad conspiracy theory.

Even the poorest person posting on this board is insanely wealthy by world standards. And yet still we play the victim.

Because if there's someone poorer elsewhere, we should just shut up and accept our lot.

Please don't take this the wrong way rick, but that's pretty procreating stupid. I'm going to suggest you eat a bag of salted dicks now, it would distress me to no end if you should choke, so I hope you remember to chew before swallowing.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
all of the republicans in the senate and two democrats (Testor was one of them) just voted no on the jobs bill http://www.addictinginfo....jobs-bill/
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
Oh, they didn't vote no on the jobs bill... and it wasn't even a cloture vote to end debate... it was a vote to end debate upon whether or not to begin debate upon the jobs bill.

This is why our nation is ungovernable, and, credit where credit is due, reinforces Levi's contention that voting R or D is for suckers, as real Tester voted the same as a hypothetical Rehburg or Burns. I don't know how it's possible to hold red state D's accountable in this situation, where the best you can say is that he'll vote the way you want slightly more often then the other guy.

Grumble grumble.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Sorry Bridgier, I thought it was and obviously was the victim of bad information...I had already emailed Testor begging him to vote yes on the bill, as it is better than nothing...thanks for the correction...
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 9 years ago
Well, that's what I'm getting at - the bill is dead, so it was essentially a no vote, but it wasn't even brought up for debate.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
so sad, as so many folks were holding out hope for a job because of it...:-(
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
?48 Republicans voted against even DEBATING the Jobs Bill. Share this if you remember when the GOP ran their campaigns on how much they'd do to restore jobs! Any senator who voted no should have to look you in the eye and tell you what exactly they're opposed to.

Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
TRUTH-It's the new Hate Speech.

During times of universal deceipt
telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.

-George Orwell

Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Funny. All you need to do to pass a bill nowadays is put the word "Jobs" on it somewhere.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Thanks Brian for finding this quote:

"G.E. doesn't pay any taxes and we are asking college kids to take on even more debt to get an education, and asking seniors to get by on less. These aren't just economic questions. These are moral questions." - Elizabeth Warren
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4460) 9 years ago
Because if there's someone poorer elsewhere, we should just shut up and accept our lot.


vs

As long as there's someone richer somewhere, we'll put guns to their heads until we get ours.

Straw on Straw

But seriously, if you look around your neighborhood and find that everyone you know is in the top 10% of the world in terms of income, one might start to think to themselves "Wow, this system really works. Am I lucky or what."

Others, however, while already near the top, say "I'm gonna tear down the 1% until I'm in the 1% too!" Unfortunately, without the system we've been blessed with, none of us would likely be near the top in the first place. We destroy our system at our own peril.

Perspective
http://www.globalrichlist.com/

None of this is to say there's nothing that shouldn't be adjusted or fixed. People who can't find decent work have every reason to be frustrated. But at the end of the day if the end goal of your 'fixing' is income equality, you're doing far more harm than good.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3709) 9 years ago
This is why our nation is ungovernable, and, credit where credit is due, reinforces Levi's contention that voting R or D is for suckers,


I might have expected this to have a positive feeling to it but instead hearing someone else say it makes me feel a little sick.

Looking like OWS is going to get co-opted by the unions and by extension the Democratic party. Next thing you know the story will be that these protests are about Obama's jobs bill.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
these protests are about everything wrong with the middle class destruction process...so many things involved, you can't just narrow it down to the jobs bill...

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/14/2011)]
Top
Posted by Georgina Phipps (+30) 9 years ago
You are wrong they are a bunch of socialist college kids and trustfund kids that have never had to work for a liveing and do not want to start. Ben Phipps
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
LARAMIE - Former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev offered both sympathy and caution to the protest movement against poverty, corporate greed and injustice that has sprung up in the United States and elsewhere.

"Had I been there, at Wall Street, I would be with them," Gorbachev said in a speech to about 6,000 people at the University of Wyoming on Friday. "And let me tell you that we share the same message of protest in Russia as well."

Still, the Nobel Peace Prize winner warned against extremists who incite violence.
"Let us not allow that protest to be exploited by extremist elements," Gorbachev said. He did not elaborate.

He also noted that there are social and economic problems in other parts of the world that are much more severe than conditions in the United States.
Gorbachev, 80, is popular in the West for the role he played in ending the Cold War but is disliked by many in Russia for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the years of social and economic turmoil that followed.

Much of Gorbachev's speech Friday dealt with his experiences as a leader of the Soviet Union and his interactions with former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Wearing a gray suit, light blue shirt and blue striped tie, he participated in a question and answer session with former Wyoming U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson, who said "this guy took more risks and changed the world." The two also entertained the audience with some banter.

When one student asked Gorbachev what he would do if he were elected president of Russia next year, Gorbachev responded that it wasn't a realistic question because "this question comes too late."
Simpson noted the student was the first to "stump the president'" this year.
"I answered it; it didn't stump me," Gorbachev shot back through his interpreter.

But Gorbachev gave a nod when Simpson remarked "you can't hate politicians and love democracy."
Gorbachev said Russia was about half-way in its transition toward democracy, and he advised youths to read more.

Gov. Matt Mead presented Gorbachev with a brown cowboy hat that Gorbachev donned and posed with on stage, craning his neck slightly. He took it off after stepping down.

UW spokesman Jim Kearns said Gorbachev was paid $125,000 for the appearance. The University of Wyoming Foundation is covering the cost with money from private donations.



Read more: http://billingsgazette.co...z1aom423Gd
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
I've seen a couple of you name calling instead of using a rational argument, so I imagine you get all of your "information" from Fox news.


14 Propaganda Techniques Fox 'News' Uses to Brainwash Americans

The good news is that the more conscious you are of these techniques, the less likely they are to work on you.

http://www.alternet.org/n...ns/?page=1

There is nothing more sacred to the maintenance of democracy than a free press. Access to comprehensive, accurate and quality information is essential to the manifestation of Socratic citizenship - the society characterized by a civically engaged, well-informed and socially invested populace. Thus, to the degree that access to quality information is willfully or unintentionally obstructed, democracy itself is degraded.


It is ironic that in the era of 24-hour cable news networks and "reality" programming, the news-to-fluff ratio and overall veracity of information has declined precipitously. Take the fact Americans now spend on average about 50 hours a week using various forms of media, while at the same time cultural literacy levels hover just above the gutter. Not only does mainstream media now tolerate gross misrepresentations of fact and history by public figures (highlighted most recently by Sarah Palin's ludicrous depiction of Paul Revere's ride), but many media actually legitimize these displays. Pause for a moment and ask yourself what it means that the world's largest, most profitable and most popular news channel passes off as fact every whim, impulse and outrageously incompetent analysis of its so-called reporters. How did we get here? Take the enormous amount of misinformation that is taken for truth by Fox audiences: the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was in on 9/11, the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made, the belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States, the insistence that all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job. All of these claims are demonstrably false, yet Fox News viewers will maintain their veracity with incredible zeal. Why? Is it simply that we have lost our respect for knowledge?


My curiosity about this question compelled me to sit down and document the most oft-used methods by which willful ignorance has been turned into dogma by Fox News and other propagandists disguised as media. The techniques I identify here also help to explain the simultaneously powerful identification the Fox media audience has with the network, as well as their ardent, reflexive defenses of it.


The good news is that the more conscious you are of these techniques, the less likely they are to work on you. The bad news is that those reading this article are probably the least in need in of it.


1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu
to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.


2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.


4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.


5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.


6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.


7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."


8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.


10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.


11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."


12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.


13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.


14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.

In debating some of these tactics with colleagues and friends, I have also noticed that the Fox viewership seems to be marked by a sort of collective personality disorder whereby the viewer feels almost as though they've been let into a secret society. Something about their affiliation with the network makes them feel privileged and this affinity is likely what drives the viewers to defend the network so vehemently. They seem to identify with it at a core level, because it tells them they are special and privy to something the rest of us don't have. It's akin to the loyalty one feels by being let into a private club or a gang. That effect is also likely to make the propaganda more powerful, because it goes mostly unquestioned.


In considering these tactics and their possible effects on American public discourse, it is important to note that historically, those who've genuinely accessed truth have never berated those who did not. You don't get honored by history when you beat up your opponent: look at Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln. These men did not find the need to engage in othering, ad homeinum attacks, guilt by association or bullying. This is because when a person has accessed a truth, they are not threatened by the opposing views of others. This reality reveals the righteous indignation of people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as a symptom of untruth. These individuals are hostile and angry precisely because they don't feel confident in their own veracity. And in general, the more someone is losing their temper in a debate and the more intolerant they are of listening to others, the more you can be certain they do not know what they're talking about.

One final observation. Fox audiences, birthers and Tea Partiers often defend their arguments by pointing to the fact that a lot of people share the same perceptions. This is a reasonable point to the extent that Murdoch's News Corporation reaches a far larger audience than any other single media outlet. But, the fact that a lot of people believe something is not necessarily a sign that it's true; it's just a sign that it's been effectively marketed.


As honest, fair and truly intellectual debate degrades before the eyes of the global media audience, the quality of American democracy degrades along with it.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by bigsky (+80) 9 years ago
well i guess 2 thessalonians 3:10 is my rebuttal to that one and maybe all you DRD4 tards should read the eleventh verse also.

cheryl, this eat the rich scheme is the same tactic that put cuba in the hands of castro. their anti jew sentiment is what delivered the jews into the hands of hitler. some of these people are anti federal reserve, and that is a good thing but blame the rich, that thought is sophomoric at best. this countries problems stem from corrupt politicians. period..for every halliburton there is a solyndra, for every contra scandal there is a fast and furious scandle...people need to MAKE government their servent, not be the servent of the government....otherwise, we just choose to be red and blue surfs.

[This message has been edited by bigsky (10/15/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 9 years ago
well i guess 2 thessalonians 3:10 is my rebuttal to that one and maybe all you DRD4 tards should read the eleventh verse also.


I guess you don't understand the concept of context


6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14 Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.


With the unwillingness of the fat-cat CEO's to take some of that corporate profit and invest it in the economy to create some jobs where are these people supposed to turn? We all need to eat. The point of the protest is people who want to work but can't find jobs. That is very different from the people Paul is addressing who are unwilling to work.

What is odd is the apparent conflict between this passage and most of what Jesus taught. But that is its own 200 post thread.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
"Now it is time for all of us to join in a global non violent protest. The ruling powers work for the benefit of just a few, ignoring the will of the vast majority and the human and environmental price we all have to pay. This intolerable situation must end."

http://today.msnbc.msn.co...pmbr5xSn6A

Day of global Occupy protests gets under way

Some 100,000 protesters were expected a day after Premier Silvio Berlusconi barely survived a confidence vote. Italy, with a national debt ratio second only to Greece in the 17-nation eurozone, is rapidly becoming a focus of concern in Europe's debt crisis.
"People of Europe: Rise Up!" read a banner in Rome. Some peaceful demonstrators turned against the violent group and tried to stop them, hurling bottles at them, Sky and the ANSA news agency reported. Others fled, scared by the violence.

A day of worldwide protests inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States began Saturday with the hundreds of people gathering in cities from Japan and South Korea to Australia.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
It's not MY protest, guys. Don't kill the messenger. Millions of people around the world are protesting.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Cheryl, you are doing a great job of keeping the spirit alive...don't let one or two out of many others sour you on your mission...I applaud your efforts and am trying to help in any way I can...I notice there are many posters on here that are agreeing with the OWS efforts...if a man wants to work and can't find a job, that is a problem...I have a friend that is a PHD that was laid off from big Pharma, and cannot find a job and she is in her 50's, so now here she is beyond middle aged and over educated for most jobs..what is she and many like her to do...she has joined the protest in NYC...
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think
By Brian Montopoli Topics Economy .



The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream.


The polls don't back that up.


A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it.


The findings suggest that the right's portrait of the movement as a collection of lazy hippies who need to stop whining - to "take a shower and get a job" (Bill O'Reilly) - isn't resonating with most Americans.


That's because while the protesters' aims are vague - Bill Clinton said Wednesday that they need to start advocating specific political goals - their frustrations are easily identifiable and widely shared. The Occupy movement may be a big tent (one with room for opposition to fracking, calls for campaign finance reform, and a host of other positions), but nearly everyone involved says they are angry that a small group of wealthy Americans have grown increasingly rich while "the other 99 percent" have been left behind.


That's a belief that seems to be shared by Americans across the political spectrum. In 2010, as CBSNews.com reported in a story on the income and wealth divide last month, researchers and Harvard and Duke asked Americans how they thought wealth is spread among income groups, as well as how they thought it should be spread. Overwhelmingly, Americans said they wanted a more equitable distribution of wealth; they also underestimated just how large the wealth divide has grown. (See chart below.)










As the study's authors noted, "All groups - even the wealthiest respondents - desired a more equal distribution of wealth than what they estimated the current United States level to be." Republicans, Democrats, independents, as well as rich, middle class and poor all said that wealth shouldn't be so concentrated among the highest earners.



That goes a long way toward explaining the Occupy movement's potential staying power and cultural resonance. While most Americans wouldn't camp out in the freewheeling quasi-society that has sprung up in Lower Manhattan, the vast majority seem to share the protesters' sense that the economic deck is stacked. They've seen the government bail out the banks that helped create the economic crisis, seen corporate profits hit all-time high after all-time high, seen CEO pay balloon to 350 times that of the average worker. They've seen average hourly earnings (adjusted for inflation) stagnate for half a century while CEO pay increased 300 percent since 1990. They've seen social mobility decline and friends and neighbors join the ranks of the long-term unemployed while the wealthiest Americans have had their tax burden reduced and have increased their share of the nation's wealth. (For the details behind these statistics, see the extraordinary valuable graphics put together by Business Insider.)



There's no denying that some of the protesters fit critics' characterization of them - many, though certainly not all, of the most committed demonstrators are the sort of outspoken young leftists that O'Reilly seems to disdain. And there's no question there is a wide variety of opinions about how to move forward - both within the movement and the public at large. But the polls and the data suggest that the protesters' underlying concerns resonate widely. Occupy Wall Street may have an uncertain future - demonstrators in New York may be de facto evicted Friday morning - but it clearly seems to have tapped into a widespread sense that the economic system is out of whack. And that makes it far more difficult for critics to blithely dismiss the protesters as outside the American mainstream.

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/15/2011)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Thousands gather in Times Square, NYC as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The estimate is 50,000+. And the numbers continue to rise...

Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Occupy Wall Street more popular than Obama

http://rt.com/usa/news/oc...obama-869/

While politicians and the mainstream media waited weeks to acknowledge Occupy Wall Street, it looks as though the public hasn't ignored the movement. A new poll shows that more Americans favor the protests than they do President Obama.

A new poll released on Thursday from Time assessed Americans' opinions of all things current events, only to reveal that the general public's favor of the continuing Occupy Wall Street movements exceed that of their own commander-in-chief. Approaching its fifth week now, the ongoing protests that originated out of New York's Zuccotti Park that have since spread internationally have managed to garner more support than Barack Obama himself, with 54 percent of those polled favoring the demonstrations to the president's measly 44 percent.

And although conservative critics have largely shunned the Occupy Wall Street protests as being an disorganized and chaotic attempt to recapitalize on the Tea Party's success from yesteryear, the same poll from Time shows that the approval rating of the populist-geared GOP gang is only half that of Occupy Wall Street.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Ann Coulter and Kim Silver (and probably a ton of dittohead Wingnuts) Circulate 2007 Anti-War Photo to Smear Occupy Wall Street


Here's something interesting: I noticed referrals coming from Reddit, from a discussion of a new anti-Occupy Wall Street smear circulating on Facebook, a photograph of some anarchists with a sign that says, "Procreate the Troops."

http://littlegreenfootbal...all_Street

But it's almost 5 years old; it was posted in March 2007 at Little Green Footballs. And it was nowhere near Wall Street; it was an anti-war demonstration in Oregon.

So when you see this photo start showing up at right wing blogs, now you'll know where it really came from.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Words Cannot even express how amazing this video shot in Madrid, Spain during "Occupy the World" yesterday. Beethoven's 9th Ode to Joy played live in Madrid. The crowd raised their empty palms chanting "these are our weapons," a sign of their peaceful resistance.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
thanks to Hal for this link to this wonderful article...

http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1635
Top
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Bill O'Reilly Admits That Fox News Is Waging A War Against Occupy Wall Street

By trying to defend the Fox News smear campaign against Occupy Wall Street as self-defense, Bill O'Reilly accidentally admitted that Fox is waging war on the 99%. The most interesting thing about O'Reilly's remarks is that he indirectly admitted that Fox News is engaged in a smear campaign against Occupy Wall Street. This is all part of the Fox News campaign to destroy Occupy Wall Street.

Fox News is at war with Occupy Wall Street. They consider this a battle.
Fox News isn't just smearing the left when they attack Occupy Wall Street. They are insulting the left, right, and middle. In their fantasy, Occupy Wall Street is only a movement of the left, but the reality is that there are people of all shapes, sizes, colors, backgrounds, ages, and political beliefs taking part in these protests, and Fox News has declared them all to be the enemy.

Occupy Wall Street is not only a threat to Wall Street. It is also a threat to media giants who make their money by feeding the American people an anesthetic of misinformation and fear. News Corp. owned by the Billionaire Australian Rupert Murdoch is the most powerful media company in the world.

http://www.politicususa.c...ly-fox-ows
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1270) 9 years ago
You know.. Out of all the problems that are going on now... Occupy marches, good govt, bad govt, bad media, good media....

The one thing that is the most easy for one individual to fix is not being done. If you don't like the message being sent QUIT WATCHING THE TV!! People watch what the want to watch. They find those who are sending THEIR message.

Media has the power because we have allowed the power. Shut the damn TV off and quit listening to the bull. But that won't happen because people seek out what they believe.

So the next problem develops. Changing what people believe.

We may not be able to unseat the politicians immediately. We may not be able to get the budget balanced right now. But we can have an impact on the message by not feeding the media monster.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17121) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 9 years ago
I understand what that man means Gunnar, but I am against the bank bailouts while the middle class pays for it...there are very few jobs out there now for anyone IMO...I have a friend that is a PHD that got laid off after many years with big pharma...she thinks her age was against her(in her 50's) but I have no idea...now she is jobless and living off her 401K...surely something can be done to help this class of people that have never asked for a handout in their lives...
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Not put to fine a point on it, but unless this guy is a more extreme version of Mark Zuckerberg he is most certainly part of the 99%. As for the notion that all it takes to be part of the top 1% is a little elbow grease, it is so patently absurd it is not worth discussing. Yes talent and hard work matter. However, neither is a guarantee of success. There are a whole host of factors at play. There are plenty of talented hard working poor people and I am not talking just about self righteous people who like to brag about their skillss and who were born two decades too late to ridicule grandpa for losing his farm and home in the great depression .

*******************************************************************
The Middle Class in America Is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it (From The Business Insider)

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the la...rgest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.

The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.

http://finance.yahoo.com/...CXRT%2CDIA


(Don't read this part Levi):


The globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.

The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker ten times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.

What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.

So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.

What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about 6 unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.

Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.

But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.

The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.
***********************************************************
22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America

This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.

More than 40% of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.

61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.

A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.

In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.

For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.

In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.

n 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.

The top 1% of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.

83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.

http://www.businessinside...010-7?op=1

[This message has been edited by Cheryl Pieters (10/26/2011)]
Top
Posted by tax payer (+354) 9 years ago
Protesting should be to get rid of free trade. Then maybe our jobs will come home. Check out the economy of North Dakota, lots of jobs, economy is great. But in my opinion people are too used to getting cheap clothes and etc. that are made by the cheap labor.

[This message has been edited by tax payer (10/26/2011)]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Scott Olsen, a protester who's done two tours of duty in Iraq and is now involved in Veterans For Peace, was critically wounded during an Oakland police raid by police projectiles. When people tried to help him, an officer lobbed a flash bang grenade right into their group. Olsen is currently hospitalized with serious injuries and is reported to be in critical condition.



What happened to our constitutional right to assemble and protest? Is that another thing that has gone down the toilet along with jobs, homes and infrastructure?
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Do we have the fortitude to step up and prevent the economic polarization of our nation?? The people still have the power but it is being diluted each day that goes by. Haven't you had enough, or are you content with watching as the middle class slowly fades into financial obscurity?





Police State
Top
Posted by tax payer (+354) 9 years ago
Yes, they have a right to protest, but they are costing the small business money that are in the area. No one wants to shop where they are protesting. They are costing the tax payers money for police, clean up and other services. They sit and chant like the old hippies, many have no idea what they are protesting to begin with. They need to vote and vote in people they feel will change what ever they are protesting. Wonder who is paying for all these protesters?
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
10 Signs That You're Fully Awake

Isn't it obvious that there is a significant global awakening happening? Just as the Mayans predicted so many years ago, the apocalypse would become apparent in 2012. But many misinterpret the apocalypse to be the end of the world, when in fact it actually means an "un-covering, a revelation of something hidden."

As many continue to argue the accuracy of the Maya
n calendar, it can no longer be argued that a great many people are finally becoming aware of what has been hidden from them for so long. Of course this awakening is not an overnight process. It takes time to peel away the many layers of lies to get to the core of the ultimate truths
It would be beyond pretentious for us to claim to know all of the secrets of the universe. We don't. Everyday we are humbled by what we don't yet know.

However, it is becoming clearer by the day what isn't true. And by that measure alone, it is possible to determine if you're one of the people beginning to wake up.

Here are ten signs you may be fully awake:

1. You know there's no meaningful difference between major political parties (Democrats and Republicans): It's so easy to get caught up the left-right debate and believe there's a difference between the two major political parties. However, debate is one thing, while actions are another. By their deeds you shall know them, and it is indisputable that there is no significant difference between political parties when it comes to action on the most important issues. Even hardened ideologues like John Cusack are beginning to wake up.

2. You understand that the Federal Reserve, or international central banking more broadly, is the engine of our economic problems: Debt slavery is the totalitarian force that threatens all of humanity, not some temporary political puppet or some greedy Wall Street trader. When a small group of people have the ability to create wealth out of nothing and charge interest on it, they have the ability to enslave the planet to their ownership despite what type of government a country claims to have.
3. You know that preemptive war is never necessary: When we realize that self-defense is the only acceptable form of violence, then we become awakened human beings. To suggest war because someone is different from you, or they may pose a threat in the future is simply ludicrous. And when did the idea of bombing civilians become humanitarian? No one wants war except for the immoral creeps that benefit from it.
4. You know that you're being systematically poisoned, how, by whom, and why: Admittedly, there's a lot to learn in terms of how we are secretly being poisoned. But the fact remains that we are being systematically poisoned, and it is likely for the deliberate purpose of dumbing us down and, ultimately, culling the population. Who could believe anyone is so evil to do that to innocent people, you may ask. Well, once you begin to seek the answer to that question, you're one step closer to enlightenment.
5. You understand that government can never legislate morality, nor should they: When you realize the role of government is only to protect your liberty and work for the well being of the citizens, you're awakened. There should be one simple law regulating morality: Do no harm. Thus, it's impossible for the government to enforce morality with guns, cages, and taxes because those clearly cause severe harm to your liberty and our well-being.
6. You know that the mainstream media is wholly owned and manipulated by the ruling elite: A dwindling number of people still actually believe what they hear coming from the establishment media as if it's gospel, even when they already accept that they are bought and paid for by the elite controllers. Yet, recognizing that they are nothing more than a propaganda machine and a form of mind control are the first steps in being able to critically think beyond the scientific messaging they broadcast.
7. You know that your neighbors are not your enemy even if you have fierce ideological disagreements: This is perhaps the most difficult thing to overcome in the awakening process. But it's vital to understand that your neighbors have been indoctrinated and hypnotized like the rest of the us, until someone helps shine a light on inconsistencies in our thoughts and beliefs. Most of their ideas are not their own. They are suffering just like the rest of us. It's okay to condemn their actions if they're harmful, but those who are awake will not give up on spreading information that can enlighten those who might still be in the dark. None of us were born "awake" and all of us can learn even more.
8. You know that the endgame is one-world control of planet Earth: Once you understand that the endgame for the ruling elite is to have complete control of all vital facets of society through a global government, one-world currency, international armed forces, and so on, it is simple to see through the lies and propaganda surrounding even the most confusing world events. You will never go back to sleep when you fully accept this reality.
9. You recognize that there are esoteric powers manipulating our physical world: Whether you're a religious or spiritual person, scientific or just plain curious, there are many theories about an invisible force at play in all of this. Obviously it's impossible to prove exactly what it is. You may not want to believe it, but the ruling elite takes their occult rituals deadly serious. And they likely know something we don't. Just by keeping an open mind about this possibility, you'll forever keep an open mind about the things we can actually see, hear, taste and touch. Current science has shown that we can only "see" what the visible light spectrum reveals, which amounts to the tiniest fraction of all that can theoretically be seen within the full spectrum of energy. Part of any awakening is realizing that there is much more that is possible than impossible.
10. The power to change the world rests with you and you alone: For too long people have believed themselves to be weak, or relied on others to change the world for them. You'll know that you're fully awake when you realize that you have infinite power to change the world by simply living the change you want to see. First, you have to identify the principles that you believe in and then go out and live by them. If just a small minority took steps to do this, it would shake the establishment to its core.

What kind of world do you want to live in?
http://www.activistpost.c...awake.html
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 9 years ago
One year Anniversary!


Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17121) 9 years ago
Think I'll watch football instead.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 9 years ago
Maybe throw in some hot wings and imagine the scent is pepper spray.
Top