Forum Post: Country Music responds to Occupy Wall Street
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 6, 2011, 9:14 p.m. EST by fows
(111)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 weeks ago by grapes
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
2 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
6 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 4 months ago by gsw
7 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 6 months ago by grapes
2 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
I feel that the majority of the people opinionating in this site are only here to tear down the movement It has been well stated by them that the OWS has not declared what they want (the opposition just knows it opposes, not why?) My question to them is what are you afraid of? I have seen all kinds of imaginary (non -existent) villains be spoken against. I have seen the imaginary overthrow of our government spoken against. (yet nobody advocates any of the scenarios that are spoken against) There is now talk about people defending themselves against OWS, yet there have been no threats to anybody from OWS
The bottom line Not stating what the OWS wants is their biggest organizing tool. It is the fuel that is building the movement. It is revealing an opposition that will “make up things to be against”. The collective opposition (some do know what it is about) is saying far more about their own imagined fear of the eventual success of OWS than anything else
It drives them batty. Apparently you can't spin what doesn't exist. Well you can, they just make it up. Obviously the people are too wise to that though.
Sometimes I am tempted to engage with these people, but I would be on the computer 24/7 like many of them seem to be.
It’s amusing to see people trying to talk sense to these “operatives” (paid for or not). These people are just here to disrupt any way they can.
The fact that so many are here 24/7 just goes to show that this movement is scaring the shit of the 1%. The more they try to tear it down, the more they serve as the reason it to exist.
Ok I'm that sucker, guilty on both counts. I should be typing a paper right now, but this is my new addiction. I can't be there in body, but in ideology! Also... I have engaged the paid trolls. I was studying for a test, and on my computer for 18 straight hours (snurfing here of course) and there were several accounts that posted continuously the entire time.
I did it because there is this OWS video which shows this lady being cool with this cop, trying to convert him. You can tell from the expression on his face that he totally gets it and is torn. I figured it was at least worth a shot. :)
There does seem to be some that are honestly trying to figure it out. I have spent way too much time on here myself. It is addictive.
Even if that is true, which it isn't, it just goes to show how off and misguided the movement's motives are. I think it's time to admit that the left has always been envious of the right's ability to mobilize and execute. The Tea Party was the real source of fear, and the left vowed vengeance.
It has failed, and the only thing scaring the non followers is the amount of people we have in this nation that have no clue how the Country operates.
I am willing to bet the protest is comprised of the same Wisconsin liberals who would die for their gravy train union + the young bandwaggoners.
Now you have every radical under the sun trying to sneak in through OWS's hole in the fence. It's nothing more than a giant carnival from the counter culture.
So many words, So much bullshit.
You need to hang out with thinkers a little bit. Those parrots you hang with are just messing your head up
Do you even know the feeling of an original thought?
It's not bullshit. It's what everyone else sees. I have thought past what you can see. You are stuck in the void. Break through.
That's funny!
Look in the mirror and repeat that as if I am saying it, it will feel right. Trust me.
All that energy trying to be witty could have been spent coming up with something to prove what I wrote is bullshit.
This is the orignal post. Now what was your point ? What were you trying to turn this into when you didn't address it?
Reply to this and we can have a mature conversation!
I feel that the majority of the people opinionating in this site are only here to tear down the movement
It has been well stated by them that the OWS has not declared what they want (the opposition just knows it opposes, not why?)
My question to them is what are you afraid of? I have seen all kinds of imaginary (non -existent) villains be spoken against. I have seen the imaginary overthrow of our government spoken against. (yet nobody advocates any of the scenarios that are spoken against)
There is now talk about people defending themselves against OWS, yet there have been no threats to anybody from OWS
The bottom line
Not stating what the OWS wants is their biggest organizing tool. It is the fuel that is building the movement. It is revealing an opposition that will “make up things to be against”.
The collective opposition (some do know what it is about) is saying far more about their own imagined fear of the eventual success of OWS than anything else
Movement to what? How can people be scared when nothing is happening or about to happen? They only way you can facilitate any kind of change is to influence Washington. Instead you are messing around with misfits called Ketchup in front of Wall Street.
Why are you on this site? What is your message?
The ugly truth about the housing market, Countrywide, predatory lending, and the endorsements of Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. Ch'Ching!
The first subprime loans were issued in 1994. It was a gimmick to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, sell more homes at higher profits, foreclose on those who could not pay when the ARM rates readjusted, take their homes leaving them with nothing to show for their payments, resell the homes at a higher profit and so on. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes and artificially inflate the market. Those loans were incredibly profitable for well over a decade before the house of cards finally collapsed. In the meantime, bankers got richer along with the richest one percent who made off with higher dividends. It was a sham.
The biggest player in the game was Countrywide. Endorsed by Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. If you have their shows from '04' to '06' on tape, watch them again. All three were paid millions specifically to endorse Countrywide by name. The biggest subprime player in the game. They issued more ARM loans than anyone else. Foreclosing on those who could not make their monthy payments when the rates suddenly went through the roof. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, foreclose, and resell for a higher profit. The sham worked like a charm for 12 years before the house of cards finally fell in.
At this approximate time the worthless paper was sold to unsuspecting investors.
Oprah, Ellen, and Dr Phil were paid millions for their endorsements. Ch'Ching!
You know nothing about the history of the subprime mortgage market.
Read "Family Properties" by Beryl Satter.
Yes, please elaborate. I was there, left just before the meltdown as it was apparent in it's coming. This post is more or less accurate. Where are your 2 cents? The currency of exchange here are ideas and debate.
I don't think 'ourtimes' will respond with any real details to prove one word wrong. I think he/she is either another poser, a book plugger, or an Oprah/Ellen/Phil fan.
Agreed. And I can't say I have ever purchased a book because of a vague insult preempting a sales pitch. Hey, desperate times...
I see that you're following me around and posting this vague response without giving one single detail. Therefore, I will issue the same challenge again.
Instead of using this forum to plug a book or discredit me in some vague way, just get real and get specific. Which of my points do you disagree with?
The first subprime loans in '94' (well documented)? The profits made for over 12 years (well documented)? The nature of ARM loans (well documented)? The place of Countrywide in the subprime market (well documented)? The endorsements of Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil (well documented)? The artificial increases and foreclosures (well documented)? The profit motive (well documented)? The housing collapse after more than 12 years of subprime (duh, well documented)?
Tell me. Don't be a vague little coward and don't use this forum to plug a book. You say that I "know nothing about the history of the subprime mortgage market". Surely you feel confident to make a smug statement like that. Either that or you are another poser. So tell me. That's right. I challenge you. Tell me which of these points do you intend to prove wrong? I'm waiting. Tick tock tick tock.
By the way, I just dare you to bring up that government strong arm crap. I just dare you. I will shatter that myth like a hammer on fine china.
Bring it on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=truv0UvQSyw&feature=feedu
The rich and famous do not want to be seen as 'pigs' or go down in history as 'villains'. They want to be seen as 'heros' and go down in history as 'humanitarians'. The market for their product has become global. The fan base has become global. Therefore, the 'humanitarian' effort and 'good will' PR machine has gone global. These 'humanitarian' efforts and 'good deeds' are not chosen to address the greatest need or injustice. They are chosen almost exclusively to appeal to the largest demographic for their respective commercial products. The largest fan base. Efficiency or effect is of little or no concern. Its all about PR, marketing, image, and fame.
This is why the rich and famous have all taken up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' around the world. This is why so many have 'schools' or 'foundations' in their name. This is why so many play golf or appear on a TV game show for 'charity'. This is why so many sign motorcycles, other merchandise, or auction off their own 'personal effects' for 'charity'. This is why so many have TV shows with a 'charitable' gimmick. This is why so many arrange photo ops with wounded veterans, firefighters, or sick children. This is why so many have adopted children from around the world (Which they always pay others to care for full time. The hired professionals are sworn by legal contract to confidentiality. Not allowed to discuss or appear in public with the children they care for. Those 'photo' and 'interview' opportunities are reserved exclusively for the rich and famous 'adoptive' parents.). This is why every 'humanitarian' effort and 'good deed' is plastered all over the media worldwide. Its not about 'humanity' or 'good will'. Its all about marketing, image, fame, and PROFIT. This is why we are so often reminded of their respective 'good deeds' or 'humanitarian' efforts shortly before or after the release of their latest commercial product.
Charitywatch.org and Charitynavigator.org are both non-profit charity watchdogs. Of all the well rated charities (about 1500) only three are closely affiliated with celebrities. Michael J Fox (not the primary donor), Tiger Woods (not the primary donor), and Bill Clinton (not the primary donor). That's three well rated celebrity foundations out of 1500. In general, celebrity foundations run like crap because they blow half the money on private jet rides, five star accommodations, and PR crews.
The fans have been terribly misled. For example:
Virtually every penny 'donated' by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to date has come from repeated sales of baby photos. With each sale, the baby money goes to the 'Jolie-Pitt' foundation. A foundation which has never done anything but shelter funds. The 'donation' is immediately publicized worldwide.
When Jolie or Pitt have a new movie to promote, a portion is then donated from their own 'foundation' to a legitimate charity. This leaves their ignorant fans under the impression that 'another' donation has been made. When in fact, its the same baby money being transferred again and again. Another portion is blown on private jet rides, super-exclusive accommodations, photo ops, and PR crap. This saves Jolie and Pitt millions in travel/stay expenses and their respective studios tens of millions in advertising. It's all very calculated.
Of course, Jolie and Pitt could simply endorse any of the 1500 most efficient and effective charities. Of course, the baby money would go much further and do far more good if it were donated to such charities to begin with.
But that would be too boring.
The 'Make it Right' Foundation took in over $12,000,000 the first year alone. Tens of millions overall. Brad Pitt has never been the primary donor, planner, or designer. He is a figurehead and salesman with a position on the board of advisors. Nothing more. Still, he has been showered with glorious praise by fellow celebrities and media outlets around the world. Again, the fans have been terribly misled.
In order to move into a 'green' home, the innocent victims of Katrina are required to provide a property deed, meet a number of financial requirements, and pay an average of $150,000 UP FRONT. The difference is offered in cheap loans or on occasion (according to the website) forgiven. To date, only a few dozen former home owners have qualified.
The 'Make it Right' foundation was never intended to help the lower income residents of New Orleans reclaim anything lost in Katrina. In fact, 'Make it Right' is part of a calculated effort to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward without them. Part of a calculated effort to raise property values in the area by displacing the poor. They are by design, excluded. Unable to qualify. Of course, Brad Pitt could have simply endorsed 'Habitat For Humanity'. A well known, proven, and efficient home building operation. Of course, the tens of millions in funding would have gone MUCH further.
But that would be too boring. Big name celebrities have no desire to make the world a better place.
Their primary goal is to appear as if they do.
It's a sham. Good will has become big business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=truv0UvQSyw&feature=feedu
That video is hilarious! I nearly wet myself due to laughter!