I've been reading a bit myself, whats the word on the commies? What u got? Elite in control?
It's been well-known in certain quarters from the beginning that OWS was a creation of Adbusters and the financial backing is coming from bank-manipulator extraordinaire George Soros. Who apparently gets a pass from the Left for almost destroying the Bank of England and also manipulating Malaysia's currency to near-worthlessness, ruining millions of lives, but making him billions of dollars. He gets a pass possibly because hundreds of millions of those billions has found its way into the bank accounts of left-wing political advocacy organizations.
All the usual suspects are there at OWS; the gatherings themselves are run by "committees" on a Marxist model, and the people in charge are Marxists, and the people behind them are well-heeled right-opportunist Marxists connected to the Soros money machine. And the Soros-connected Son of Journolist.
Yes it's true. As i'm still alive, and have a very tiny parcel of hope. That hope was that the best laid plans... would be subject to the underestimated anger, combined with some general IQ increase sponsored by awareness that might lead to critical thinking. Like I said, a very,very,very tiny parcel. Hoping they cannot hold onto the bull by it's horns, like they most assurably envisioned they could.
Your attitude is precisely what re-elected Richard Nixon in 1972.
The Black Panthers were not "behind" MLK sermons.
The Panthers and other violent or otherwise more radical black groups were harshly critical of the SCLC and Dr. King.
It was the not the threat of violence behind the civil rights protesters that got them the support of mainstream America, it was the use of violence against them by Southern white authorities and individuals.
What happened after Dr. King was murdered? Did the explosion of black rioting throughout America give good results to the black community?
No. What happened was the National Guard was called into many cities and partial martial law was declared in many of them. The civil rights movement more or less ended with those riots; the counterswing was on, evidenced by how Nixon could manipulate issues like busing and law and order to get support from the "Silent Majority."
Palestinians have never once gotten themselves closer to a state through violence. All they have done is neuter the Israeli Left to the point where on the Palestinian issue "doves" and "hawks" almost universally speak and believe in a "hawkish" line.
On October 22 2011 02:18 DeepElemBlues wrote: Half,
Your attitude is precisely what re-elected Richard Nixon in 1972.
The Black Panthers were not "behind" MLK sermons.
The Panthers and other violent or otherwise more radical black groups were harshly critical of the SCLC and Dr. King.
It was the not the threat of violence behind the civil rights protesters that got them the support of mainstream America, it was the use of violence against them by Southern white authorities and individuals.
What happened after Dr. King was murdered? Did the explosion of black rioting throughout America give good results to the black community?
No. What happened was the National Guard was called into many cities and partial martial law was declared in many of them. The civil rights movement more or less ended with those riots; the counterswing was on, evidenced by how Nixon could manipulate issues like busing and law and order to get support from the "Silent Majority."
Palestinians have never once gotten themselves closer to a state through violence. All they have done is neuter the Israeli Left to the point where on the Palestinian issue "doves" and "hawks" almost universally speak and believe in a "hawkish" line.
I never argued otherwise that often these groups work against each other towards different objectives (and may hate each other). Gandhi was assassinated by a fellow failed revolutionary after all.
This is natural. Because one group is an advocate of reform (with the reformers ingrained into the current status quo), the other, a revolution (with the revolutionaries becoming the status quo). relatively, the other party is just as alien as the establishment they seek to change/overthrow.
While they have different objectives, in terms of how there presence is interpreted by the state, they work hand in hand. They force the state into a binary choice between reform or revolution (successful or otherwise, it doesn't matter).
No, violence never will win the hearts of millions. But the hearts of millions is meaningless if there support is superficial and no more then skin-deep.
Democracy, at its essence, is a means of expediated revolution which saves lives and property. Behind the votes, there needs to be the implicit idea that if not followed, a war will actually be fought.
This is an idea that is shown repeatedly throughout American history and in your own very example.
The Whiskey rebellion, The Anarchist movement, and the riots you talk about in your own post. They represent, to the powers that be, that if the will of the people is not followed the these will result in decades of prolonged civil strife if not outright civil war.
When citizens lose the will to fight and die for what they believe in, democracy dies with it. There is no longer incentive for the state to actually listen to the people, merely keep up appearances.
---------
Palestinians have never once gotten themselves closer to a state through violence. All they have done is neuter the Israeli Left to the point where on the Palestinian issue "doves" and "hawks" almost universally speak and believe in a "hawkish" line.
Wrong. If today, the Palestinians united in non-violence and demanded reasonable things. (Mutual coexistence with israel divided along a more reasonable border in terms of land fit for agrarian usage), they would most likely get after at most a decade.
If they did the same thing in 1950, they would not. If they did the same thing without gaining a sort of respect through force, they would been ignored. Even if they had gained there own state to sate the kind of bleeding heart liberal type person, that state would be weak, ineffectual, and entirely inept at providing to the needs of its citizens.
Do you believe that people are so irrational and stupid that they purposely work against there own interests for decades at a time in violent conflicts when simply making signs and getting hosed by the police would have accomplished the same result? No, of course not.
I'll admit that OWS is far from over, but for those sitting on the sidelines trying to figure it out, sit up and take notice of the laste few posts. This situation is going to change something, even if for the worse. The Tea Party for all intensive purposes, ensured that which it fought against. This may well do the same.
Elem, any opinions on the banks trying to move all the derivitaves to publicly insured spreadsheets? Fallout, will the FDIC lose to the Fed on this one? That bailout would be unfathomable. It was BoA and Merill just for clarity
Why do you have to lie, this was a very easy fact you could look up
It could just as easily be the case that he read somewhere that there were ways to get an education there for $250, which there likely were, just as there are ways today to pay less than sticker price or whatever you want to call it for a college education.
Tell me such ways that you could get 250 bucks to go to upenn in 1950 and for his statement to be even sort of factual show me that around 25% or more of the student body was paying 250 dollars to go to upenn to show that his statement was sort of possible for an every day man. This is the context of affordable education for all not for the elite or a token student. I'm tired of nothing but conjecture for refuting statements then yall just keep on truckin acting like that was sufficient. I provided hard numbers from a reputable source on upenn now you need to provide hard numbers.
Considering that it was over 600 dollars to live on upenn i cant even see you getting off campus housing there for 250 dollars that would mean going to upenn for classes is free an all you do is pay to live close enough to go there.
I've been reading a bit myself, whats the word on the commies? What u got? Elite in control?
It's been well-known in certain quarters from the beginning that OWS was a creation of Adbusters and the financial backing is coming from bank-manipulator extraordinaire George Soros. Who apparently gets a pass from the Left for almost destroying the Bank of England and also manipulating Malaysia's currency to near-worthlessness, ruining millions of lives, but making him billions of dollars. He gets a pass possibly because hundreds of millions of those billions has found its way into the bank accounts of left-wing political advocacy organizations.
All the usual suspects are there at OWS; the gatherings themselves are run by "committees" on a Marxist model, and the people in charge are Marxists, and the people behind them are well-heeled right-opportunist Marxists connected to the Soros money machine. And the Soros-connected Son of Journolist.
I never argued otherwise that often these groups work against each other towards different objectives (and may hate each other). Gandhi was assassinated by a fellow failed revolutionary after all.
This is natural. Because one group is an advocate of reform (with the reformers ingrained into the current status quo), the other, a revolution (with the revolutionaries becoming the status quo). relatively, the other party is just as alien as the establishment they seek to change/overthrow.
While they have different objectives, in terms of how there presence is interpreted by the state, they work hand in hand. They force the state into a binary choice between reform or revolution (successful or otherwise, it doesn't matter).
No, violence never will win the hearts of millions. But the hearts of millions is meaningless if there support is superficial and no more then skin-deep.
Democracy, at its essence, is a means of expediated revolution which saves lives and property. Behind the votes, there needs to be the implicit idea that if not followed, a war will actually be fought.
This is an idea that is shown repeatedly throughout American history and in your own very example.
The Whiskey rebellion, The Anarchist movement, and the riots you talk about in your own post. They represent, to the powers that be, that if the will of the people is not followed the these will result in decades of prolonged civil strife if not outright civil war.
When citizens lose the will to fight and die for what they believe in, democracy dies with it. There is no longer incentive for the state to actually listen to the people, merely keep up appearances.
Democracy is not an expedited means of revolution. What you're saying about that works in a fanciful sense but nowhere else.
I will say that the Whiskey Rebellion fits your narrative but otherwise I think you take a rather expansive view of the force of the events you mention, to the detriment of other events that had a larger role in shaping society.
The immediate results of these radical movements was nearly uniformly, eventually, a swing in conservatism in the people in the name of law and order and the American Way or what have you.
You diminish democracy by speaking of it here in America as if it so easily subverted - and that's what you're talking about these groups doing, subverting the process for a hoped-for quicker result by violence or the threat of it - do you not remember that little civil war we had?
What has the United States done, federal and state and local governments, consistently, in the face of violent anti-goverment or anti-property ('anti-law') movements since the Civil War? Infiltrated them, smashed them up, called in the county sheriffs to deputize hundrdeds of Pinkertons, called in the state militia or the National Guard or the Army, again and again and again.
And yet, let's please be serious, the Republic did not die. The liberties of the people gradually became broader and deeper and applied to more and more of the people as a whole. The issues of the day were solved, eventually, through the power of the ballot box and by economic prosperity, and by faithful application of the ruling principles of the country by the courts, and by transformative experiences.
The Second World War had much more to do with the success of the civil rights movement than anything the Black Panthers ever did. The government actively wanting to encourage national unity in the face of international Communism had a role as well as the conviction of men like Eisenhower and Johnson to principle.
Wrong. If today, the Palestinians united in non-violence and demanded reasonable things. (Mutual coexistence with israel divided along a more reasonable border in terms of land fit for agrarian usage), they would most likely get after at most a decade.
Well if we're going to stretch it out to a decade of non-violence well of course.
But it is counterintuitive to say the least that after all the fighting that the reason a sudden switch to peace would work is that fighting itself. That works when one side or both are exhausted and the will to fight is lost.
You are not looking at a situation where either the people or the leaders are in a mood where trust is possible. Israel has not felt as existentially threatened as she does today for decades; the Palestinians are fractured and while a good number of the common people on both sides simply want peace, they are not numerous enough or strong enough or organized enough to exert their will.
If they did the same thing in 1950, they would not. If they did the same thing without gaining a sort of respect through force, they would been ignored. Even if they had gained there own state to sate the kind of bleeding heart liberal type person, that state would be weak, ineffectual, and entirely inept at providing to the needs of its citizens.
Of course not, no way Egypt was going to give up Gaza and Jordan the West Bank in 1950.
Here's the problem with what you're saying: you're applying some rote ideology to historical situations where the circumstances as they existed render what you consider relevant irrelevant. Fatah was founded in 1954 because the Arab states weren't really interested in an independent Arab Palestine (including all of Israel); Egypt and Jordan were more interested in dividing the land up between themselves.
Palestinian nationalism as something that accepts the existence of Israel as more than a practical fact and a fact to be changed is relatively new. There was absolutely no interest in a peaceful two-state solution until after Camp David. The violence has repeatedly hardened both sides into distrusting the other's capacity for peace. Less than a year after Rabin's assassination, Netanyahu was Prime Minister. He is Prime Minister again. He is possibly the most right-wing Prime Minister in terms of diplomatic relations with the Palestinians to ever be in office. There is a lot of disapproval of him in Israel right now but not for his policy towards the Palestinians.
The Palestinian side is just all kinds of messed up. The point is that these situations do not match up well with the cause-effect analysis you're trying to push. Violence has not paved the way for gains and in cases when it has, the Egypt-Israel peace treaty or the Oslo Accords, those gains have proved to be unfortunately limited and ultimately ephemeral.
It is the presence and influence of effective non-violent methods of exercising power that brings lasting and beneficial change to society and relations between societies, not the threat of internal violence or war, or actual violence or war. Of course examples exist on the other side but thankfully they are few, as they have proven to be struggles so destructive (the American Civil War, WW2) that even we stupid humans do try to avoid them.
Tell me such ways that you could get 250 bucks to go to upenn in 1950 and for his statement to be even sort of factual show me that around 25% or more of the student body was paying 250 dollars to go to upenn to show that his statement was sort of possible for an every day man. This is the context of affordable education for all not for the elite or a token student. I'm tired of nothing but conjecture for refuting statements then yall just keep on truckin acting like that was sufficient. I provided hard numbers from a reputable source on upenn now you need to provide hard numbers.
Considering that it was over 600 dollars to live on upenn i cant even see you getting off campus housing there for 250 dollars that would mean going to upenn for classes is free an all you do is pay to live close enough to go there.
Calm down a little bit maybe, maybe he made it up but I bet he read it somewhere is all I'm saying and I bet that it is a semi-factual number at least; I'm tired of basic statistics being bandied about as if they are some kind of comprehensive picture of the world; I'm sure that your link there is more than enough information to fully understand the financial circumstances of going to the University of Pennsylvania in 1950. As I said, grants, scholarships, and student aid existed even back then. So perhaps the $250 number would be accurate for some small number but not for all.
And, of course, this was 1950 sir. Do you not remember learning about a little thing called the GI Bill?
You act as if going to college in 1950 was some kind of Dickensian struggle for the common American proletarian or peasant of the time; of course by then, in the boom years after the war and with all the money saved by individuals during the war, and even with the new war in Korea, those workers and peasants were solidly middle class and even $1395 a year was not some monolithic obstacle to great amounts of the people.
So please, don't yell about conjecture while forgetting important facts.
Oh Senor those links are funny, nice obfuscation. OWS has finally managed to sometimes assemble some thousands of people because unions have thrown in their weight; the entire left-wing commentariat has jumped on board; everyone from MoveOn to ThinkProgress to Barack Obama himself has had a kind and encouraging word.
Soros is of course unconnected to all this. I don't care about Rush Limbaugh's conspiracy theories; I'm sure that men like Soros are more than happy to simply give their money away to the more work-oriented true believers and let them come up with what they come up with.
I don't have much interest in the kind of greedy bastard logic that might lead one to say that Soros would like the protests to rock the world's financial sector so he can make more money off a dying Euro. But that would be very left-wing conspiratorial and therefore it's rather silly.
If you think, though, that there is not coordination of communication and organization, and if you think that a good chunk of the money paying for it does not come from Soros and like-minded plutocrats, you probably think that OWS is going to change the country.
=p read his post in which he quotes mine he doesn't take into consideration the GI bill that's big government and that's after the guiled age which he claims to be the best time in American history for people, i'm arguing on what he said not what you said, he said the guiled age education was the
You could afford college education on a part time job, social mobility was at an all time high, etc.
he's talking about the guiled age yet his example in my refuting of that, is 1950 upenn because he's full of shit. That's his response to me pointing out that in 1950 only less then 10% of the populaces had a college degree, i used 1950 because i couldn't pull data any earlier then that, but the trend i made was obvious by the time of the guiled age college education was only available to the select few.
And it's not $1395 a year that is per a term at upenn which is ran semester-ally so that's 2 times a year so $2790 a year
The avg income for a family in 1950 was under $5000 a year most made around $3200 and had family of 3 to 4 kids.
It's not hard look it up in US bureau of labor and statistics If you wanted affordable education you want to look at the time period of 1965 thou 1978 roughly that was when it was the most affordable to the most people.
currently for upenn $47,520 is the low end of expenditure you have to cover for an undergrad http://www.sfs.upenn.edu/paying/undergraduate-expense-budget.htm http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 $44,410 is the mean for avg income in the US which is gotten from taking all the avg pay for hour and multiplied by 2,080 hour year which would income top earners just like the avg of sub $5000 a year is a bit optimistic this is the same, the last year avg income was included removing top top top top earners ie millionaire by the year was 2007 which was around 32k a year avg income.
So please, don't yell about conjecture while forgetting important facts. yes please dont.
Deepelem, I do take a rather expansive view on the role of violence in influencing social change. Obviously no historical event can be easily and casually related to any specific factor. Each event would be the product of many different factors, as well as the social structure in which they occurred.
The Civil rights movement had many precedents, but I don't need to argue that the violent force the primary factor, just a single factor that creates the greater whole. Look at what you wrote.
The government actively wanting to encourage national unity in the face of international Communism had a role as well as the conviction of men like Eisenhower and Johnson to principle.
And why exactly would they want greater national unity if disunity had no consequences? It is precisely because violence was a consequence of disunity that they chose to unify over to maintain the current status quo.
I am not pushing a cause-effect analysis, I'm pushing a logical structural analysis in which violence most certainly has a very specific place in the social structure, in a place that works hand in hand with peaceful means to push change. It is not at all the only initiator of change, but it is most certainly a necessary one.
I simply ask you this, in what circumstance has meaningful change to the status quo arisen in which a oppositional party had no signifcant display of force. Negotiation between the people and the state is only possible when two parties negotiate as equals.
It is the presence and influence of effective non-violent methods of exercising power that brings lasting and beneficial change to society and relations between societies, not the threat of internal violence or war, or actual violence or war. Of course examples exist on the other side but thankfully they are few, as they have proven to be struggles so destructive (the American Civil War, WW2) that even we stupid humans do try to avoid them.
What does this even mean? How is that even logically possible? Your argument is that a society will changes despite having no meaningful consequences of not changing? Under what circumstances in the entirety of the history of the human race has this proven true?
I'm not pushing an idealogy, I feel as if you're the one being unrealistically idealistic. My thesis is simple. That America will not change unless the current status quo and the financial and political elite are forced to change to maintain power. How could you possibly deny that basic political fact?
I had not seen that particular clip, so thank you. I believe Judge Nap over at Fox has a similar clip echoing the sentiments. Imagine that. Identify the problem. Ron Paul and audit the fed have come a long long way from obscurity on this issue, though could have easily been the guy being interviewed.
This is the most important contribution to this thread in a while. Everyone should watch it.
Sure its a conflict of interest. Its hardly the most important thing in the thread-- the report is still highly politicized.
Fact is, these conflicts of interest are possible because of the entire system. Covering it is throwing the public a bone and hoping they shut up.
The issues are much much much deeper, much more systemic, and we all know it.
The powers that be want to create a scapegoat so people say 'YEAH!!! we ARE mad at THAT, lets all be angry at THAT THING', hoping we shut up about everything else. They don't want to discuss radical systemic changes that upset the apple cart.
don't get me wrong, its great that this kind of discussion is happening on MSNBC-- and we all need to REALIZE-- these conversations, are what the occupation is creating through its simple existence--- but we shouldn't think that this is all there is to it.
We are here as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which in a few short weeks has become a global movement in hundreds of cities around the world. We are part of the 99 percent not only in this country but the world.
I have been reading the mainstream, corporate media. I have been listening to the pundits, the power brokers, the politicians. They criticize our movement, saying we don't really know why we are here. They claim that we are simply angry; that all we are is an "emotional outcry." House majority leader Eric Cantor calls us "a growing mob."
Wall Street bankers interviewed by the New York Times say that we are "fringe groups"; that we will "thin out" and disperse when the weather gets colder.
A New York Times article reported yesterday that we were confused "liberal activists" fed up with partisan politics but with no real ideas of your own. An editorial in the same paper said we were just protestors, with no clear demands. We are well meaning, they conceded, but it is the politicians, not the people in the street, who have the job -- so they say -- of determining the future course of things, not us, not the 99%.
Foreign Affairs magazine, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes that Occupy Wall Street is critical of Wall Street, but not of capitalism; they say that we do not question the system itself.
They are wrong. We are part of the growing army of the Occupy Wall Street movement worldwide. And we know why we are here.
We know that U.S. society has become fundamentally unequal. We know, though we may not all know the exact numbers, that the top 1 percent of income recipients receives almost 25 percent of all income in the society (including capital gains), and the top 10 percent receives almost 50 percent.
We know, though we might not be able to quote the figures precisely, that, between 1950 and 1970, for every additional dollar made by those in the bottom 90 percent of income earners, those in the top one hundredth of one percent received $162 dollars. But that was back when things were more equal! Between 1990 and 2002, for every added dollar made by those in the bottom 90 percent of the population, those in the top one hundredth of one percent made an additional$18,000.
We know about the Forbes 400. That in the United States 400 individuals (a number far less than those here today) own as much wealth as the bottom half of the U.S. population, some 150 million people.
We know that when it comes to financial wealth (which excludes houses) the top 1 percent of the population in the United States owns four times as much wealth as the bottom 80 percent of the population.
We know, though we may not know the precise details, that according to an audit by the U.S. General Accounting Office, the Federal Reserve Board provided more than $16 trillion in financial assistance in the latest financial crisis to the largest corporations in the United States and the world. The rich were bailed out while the majority of the population was made to pay the cost! And you are still paying!
We know that there is over 9 percent official unemployment in the United States, while the real number of people who want full-time employment and don't have it is around twice that.
We know that official unemployment for adolescents is 25%; for blacks16 percent; for Hispanics 11%. And if you double these numbers you are closer to reality.
We know that poverty is growing and being "feminized." We know that many people in this country are unfairly branded as "illegal immigrants."
We know, though we may not realize its full extent, that there are 2.4 billion people globally who, according to the International Labor Organization, are unemployed, underemployed, economically inactive, or engaged in subsistence labor. That 39 percent of the world's workers live on less than $2 a day.
We know that multinational corporations exploit the differences in wages between countries, taking advantage of the enormous global reserve army of the unemployed, to generate humongous profits, and to hold down wages worldwide.
We know that there is no real economic recovery; that we are in a period of economic stagnation, where only the rich are prospering. That economic growth in the United States has been slowing down in each successive decade since the 1960s and is now virtually stagnant. That the rich are getting bigger slices of a non-growing pie while the slices for almost everyone else are less.
We know that the planet is being destroyed. That the future of all species and of humanity itself is being cut off. That, as James Hansen, the world's leading climatologist puts it, this is "our last chance to save humanity." And that none of the governments in the rich economies are doing anything at all about it! That oil companies and coal companies are more important to those in power than the planet itself.
We know that the United States and its allies have been engaged recently in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. That an intervention is being planned for Iran, and possibly Venezuela. That U.S. military bases dot the entire globe and are increasing in numbers. We know that the United States spends around half a billion dollars officially on the military each year, and in reality a trillion dollars a year.
We know that we live in a plutocracy rather than a democracy, where money outvotes public opinion at every point in the political process.
We know that unions are in the defensive in this country. That they have been smashed by unfair legislation. That they are struggling to find a way to fight back.
We know that our elementary and secondary educations system in the United States is being privatized and destroyed.
We know that we have by far the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
We know that all of this is related to the system of economic power, to a society that believes in the Wall Street principle, "greed is good," the signature of capitalism.
We know that we are the necessary, the last defense of humanity. That you are the world's 99%. That we will not "thin out" when the weather gets bad. That we are not a mob. That we are the earth, we are democracy, we are the future. The world has been occupied too long by a tiny minority. It is time for the people to reoccupy it. To take it back.
In 2009, I participated in a discussion about the global financial crisis onDemocracy Now! I said then that we were in a period of long-term economic stagnation (of which the financial crisis was simply a symptom). The closest historical precedent was the Great Depression. I pointed out that it took about four years after the 1929 stock market crash before there was a revolt in the United States in the 1930s -- what we know as the Great Revolt from Below -- which resulted in the industrial union movement, the rise of the CIO, and the second New Deal. The revolt didn't come in earnest until a year or more after the economic recovery had started in 1933, when people suddenly realized that the recovery was false.
I said that a similar Great Revolt from Below was likely in the United States today, given a deep and lasting economic stagnation. But that we might have to wait three or four years, just as in the Great Depression, for it to get off the ground, and for the people to ignite. That, just as in the Great Depression, the revolt would not materialize until people had learned that the promise of economic recovery was false, that they had been lied to and systematically robbed. Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Eugene, Occupy the United States is the Great Revolt from Below in our time.
But what we are witnessing this time is the growth of something much larger still. In a matter of a few weeks we have watched the emergence of an Occupy the World movement. Everywhere people are uniting in struggle. When I was in Australia at the beginning of October, when this all was getting started, radical activists were absolutely glued to the events in Occupy Wall Street -- even before it was being reported by the mainstream media in this country. Why? Australia is on the other side of the globe. Why should they care about a resistance movement in New York?
The reason is that we in the United States live in "Fortress America," the heart of a world empire. Revolts are not supposed to happen here! If a break in the wall appears, if massive protests occur, here, "Inside the Monster," as José Marti called it, the whole world is suddenly uplifted and encouraged to resist. Because then they know that the empire is crumbling. Our struggles here are opening up space for resistance for all the people of the world.
What does occupy mean? Why is an occupation so important? Why is this movement so different? It is because it means we are not going away. We will not disperse. We will remain. We will win. The world requires it.
This is the most important contribution to this thread in a while. Everyone should watch it.
Sure its a conflict of interest. Its hardly the most important thing in the thread-- the report is still highly politicized.
Fact is, these conflicts of interest are possible because of the entire system. Covering it is throwing the public a bone and hoping they shut up.
The issues are much much much deeper, much more systemic, and we all know it.
The powers that be want to create a scapegoat so people say 'YEAH!!! we ARE mad at THAT, lets all be angry at THAT THING', hoping we shut up about everything else. They don't want to discuss radical systemic changes that upset the apple cart.
don't get me wrong, its great that this kind of discussion is happening on MSNBC-- and we all need to REALIZE-- these conversations, are what the occupation is creating through its simple existence--- but we shouldn't think that this is all there is to it.
I have to agree with this. The problem is, from my understanding of it, not just in the federal reserve but in almost every single agency that regulates the big corperations. I have seen many broadcasts saying that the US Congress extremly corrupt, and will never pass a law hurting and big corperations. I have to agree with that, since the evidence is starting to come to light that the tax breaks that these corperations are getting in the interest of creating jobs are, infact, not going towards creating jobs, even though the Republican's current platform is stating that Tax breaks= Jobs.
This is the most important contribution to this thread in a while. Everyone should watch it.
Sure its a conflict of interest. Its hardly the most important thing in the thread-- the report is still highly politicized.
Fact is, these conflicts of interest are possible because of the entire system. Covering it is throwing the public a bone and hoping they shut up.
The issues are much much much deeper, much more systemic, and we all know it.
The powers that be want to create a scapegoat so people say 'YEAH!!! we ARE mad at THAT, lets all be angry at THAT THING', hoping we shut up about everything else. They don't want to discuss radical systemic changes that upset the apple cart.
don't get me wrong, its great that this kind of discussion is happening on MSNBC-- and we all need to REALIZE-- these conversations, are what the occupation is creating through its simple existence--- but we shouldn't think that this is all there is to it.
I have to agree with this. The problem is, from my understanding of it, not just in the federal reserve but in almost every single agency that regulates the big corperations. I have seen many broadcasts saying that the US Congress extremly corrupt, and will never pass a law hurting and big corperations. I have to agree with that, since the evidence is starting to come to light that the tax breaks that these corperations are getting in the interest of creating jobs are, infact, not going towards creating jobs, even though the Republican's current platform is stating that Tax breaks= Jobs.
Well, they are creating jobs... just not in America. Of course, voodoo economics for the most part is a lie. Extra profit is usually reinvested into nonproductive financial institutions, which is ultimately better for more profit than actually producing goods and services. When it is reinvested into the job market, it's done overseas, where labor is cheap.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tin-foil-hat.jpg)
