Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I like the fighting on here keep it up

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 16, 2012, 4:05 p.m. EST by DanielBarton (1345)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I really like all the fighting on here. It is really thrilling to see people engaging with all different types of views. Its nice to see people of all different types of opinions and backgrounds hitting the issues real hard.

90 Comments

90 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

It's more like hashing out ideals. Which is good. It's frustrating trying to talk with real issues with other people sometimes... which is why I like this forum... people come here to talk issues.

You ever try to talk with people about real issues and get this response:

"You're not supposed to talk about religion or politics... it's rude."

??

WTF. I've gotten this response at least 10 times with people.

Issues need to be discussed. Not discussing issues is how they win.

Knowledge is power.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

I know what you mean. Even my friends who agree with most of what I believe don't like to talk about politics. As for religion I've lost christian friends because I believe religion is a lie that holds us back.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I generally don't talk about religion unless it's in an area that could/would affect me... like when Rick Santorum was running for president and said he would base his policies on the bible. That was some fucked up shit and you better believe I was talking about how that was unconstitutional.

but when the topic comes up... I do enjoy a good conversation. I do not believe in any God religions throughout the world believe in... but I do enjoy a good conversation with people who can talk about it.

I know lots of great religious people... but I am fully aware there are some crazies out there ruining it for other people... like the Westboro people and the Santorums of the world that spread hate and oppression instead of love.

[-] 3 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

I actually don't see santorum and other hater's as religious. All they do is make passages fit their corrupted worldview. I usually end up getting in religious discussions when I get into discussions about things like evolution or cloning.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What they do is misuse, & abuse religion.

Just as people misused/abused religion to justify slavery, or the subjugation of women, homosexuals. etc.

Whatever problem religion have the people who misuse/abuse it is the real problem

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

As long as it doesn't affect scientific advancement there is no problem. It's when it tries to cripple research, such as the outcry against cloning, that I have a problem.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well supporting slavery and discriminating against women and gays isn't good either is it.

Some people misuse religion to justify killing also.

We can be against the as well.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

I didn't mean to imply they aren't horrific. I mentioned scientific advancement because that isn't illegal, even though people get away with discrimination all the time. Sorry if I misspoke.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

OMG! I agree with you.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Sweet!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

We agree: In religion and politics, let it all hang out. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the politics. Too many softies who have no biz messing in politics. They thought they'd donate their vote in 2008 and everything would be flowers and unicorns!

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 2 years ago

I have a hard time with the overcomplications. The whole political system actually drives me crazy. Why is it so hard for us to understand evil when it's tap dancing on the animated corpse of society. How can anybody actually disagree with equal rights when it serves to promote an abundance of good ideas, instead of only those who can buy their ideas, good or bad.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Equal rights in regards to what specifically?

[-] 3 points by bullfrogma (448) 2 years ago

That's a good question and i think we all know the answer, but words are difficult to work with when we are all under such different impressions. My own words for human equality would be like this, that just because somebody has more money than someone else, doesn't mean their ideas are worth more. It's the ideas themselves that should have the same opportunity to be considered good or bad.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

we should have no association with groups that do not practise ABSOLUTE EQUALITY. in particular christians muslims and freemasons who are controlled by misogynist patriarchal hierarchies.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 2 years ago

Some of my good friends are christain and they are some of the most loving people i know. I feel like being judgemental and stereotyping is pretty much the opposite of equality. I suppose you have the right to that belief, but they also have the right to theirs.

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

christians preach BLOOD SACRIFICE which is satanism. blood sacrifice is MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE!

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 2 years ago

I see your point, but i think a better example is all the mindless violence our kids are smoothered in by hollywood, making all sorts of bad things look cool. Not to mention how most video games are nothing but an indulgence in ego, and how most parents use video games to babysit their kids.

If you're referring to the whole jesus thing, it's just a symbol of a dude who endures with understanding the stupidity of evil people. Evil is a blindness in a process of growing up, and you can't see the acorns for the trees.

The whole world is in a state of childhood, full of evil. You've said that showing this picture of jesus is child abuse, but how about covering your childs eyes so they become entirely unprepared for the world as it actually is? You don't want to install terror, but you also want no lack of understanding.

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

the whole jesus thing is to take away our autonomy and become corporate stooges! our children must think for themselves and not believe what they are told is the gospel truth! they must see the EVIL INTENT behind all christian doctrines. we must protect them from the hysterical preaching of being "washed in the blood of the lamb"!that is SATANISM.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

If you're going to deny people freedom of association that's not "equal" - absolute yes but not equal.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

as a community, the joyful occupy community, we must wake up to the EVIL INTENT of all crucifixion merchants and muslims and freemasons! we are dumbasses not to realize all three despise our community! they do not respect us as equals. they wish to oppress us with their tyrannies! they are the enemy within!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

True that!

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 2 years ago

Cheers, and toasts to our children, the future in other words.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

ahh that's too bad but here we also dont have to deal with the repercussions of our actions as much

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

That swings both ways.

The same trolls keep turning up here under different handles, playing the same games.

There's other forums where you can say what you like, without getting booted, but they don't allow multiple user accounts.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

on any forum its easy to make multiple accounts you just need time and no life

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

LOL. You mean proxy accounts?

Yeah, it happens. I never saw the point, myself.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes it does

i can see why people would do it

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

It really depends on the time and place. Some things can get people upset and sometimes you don't want to upset people.

At our office my partner and I have a very strict policy with the assistants that there shouldn't be any discussions about sex, religion, or politics with or in front of the patients. It just too often results in either the assistants or the patients (or both) getting pissy. And that is not good for anyone.

[-] 1 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

It's mostly a waste of time. Because there just isn't enough combined intelligence here to influence a country.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Do you think you could influence the country or your community

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

Those that influence do so because they appear as rational individuals often with a new view, a novel idea, a somewhat novel thought, that people can relate to, to say, hey, you know what - that guy's right. One person is definitely capable, yes.

[-] 1 points by ArnolfoAsako (25) from Salem, NJ 2 years ago

I don't know.....it seems hurling insults, calling people degrading names, or putting down races and religions has been a strong point. I was reading this forum before Sandy came, and I expected better afterwards. It got worse.

I see derision in political views, but nothing that indicates that this forum is unified. Nor do I see anyone trying to understand the other persons point of view or being civil enough to agree to disagree with one another.

So, disagree with me, but remember, I am a human being with feelings.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

this post was made sarcastically i get what you are saying

[-] 1 points by Shule (2243) 2 years ago

Screw you.

Ahhh, that's better.

Your turn.

LoL

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

banana

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

david & charlie are thrilled that we are fighting each other in stead of unifying behind SPECIFIC action that will do them damage.
They must be having hysterics that they, thru their tea potty, could not only succeed - but that we are too stupid and self centered not to learn from their lessons.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

People who claim that bombing people is going to help end the war on terror (whatever the fuck that is) and also claiming that it was a good thing that the president signed all our rights away, and the appeled the courts to keep the power.....

These people are what I call "Too Dumb 2 Fail"

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

hahaha yeah its a weird world we live in but still its good to see the discussion of ideas

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

I don't think there's enough combined intelligence here to influence anybody and that's exactly the problem with we have with government - there's not enough combined intelligence to reach a reasonable, equitable solution. Whether you like it or not, you are them.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

You are saying there is not enough money here to influence the government, because they're already getting paid.

We aren't getting paid to f**k things up. That's a difference.

We, government, are supposed to be able to solve issues, but the lobbyists and campaign donors get in there with unlimited resources, and push there agenda.

What would you like us to do. We just have ideas. No power. Read this book. Then come back.

http://www.mindmined.com/public_library/nonfiction/david_f_feudalism_aka_capitalism.html

How The Elite Exploit The Nation

Techniques such as exporting America's manufacturing base, and importing labor willing to work for the minimum wage or less, are but the tip of the iceberg of methods used by the elite to make themselves richer while at the same time actively keeping America's bottom 90% unorganized, subservient, and basically poor. Let's begin by discussing by far the most important method used ...that of controlling the laws affecting taxation. ....

The Power of Lawmakers

Since society's laws determine the structure of society and how it operates, democracy boils down to getting control over the lawmaking process. To begin with, the rich have always known the power that accompanies the writing of the rules, and that is why they have never allowed that power to slip out of their grasp. After all, the laws determine not only who does or doesn't pay taxes, but also who benefits from the collected tax money. Thus, control of law gives control over the making and keeping of wealth. The Founding Fathers were also acutely aware of the role of legislation, so, in an attempt to prevent the economic elite from continuing to use their power to manipulate the rest of society, they wrote a Constitution that attempted to banish Feudal conditions forever. As you may have guessed,

The original constitution never intended that the top 1% should be capable of possessing more wealth than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. If it did, then the constitution was a Feudal charter right from the beginning! To have strayed so far from the original visionary concepts, old laws have had to be altered, and new ones introduced. And this is where the elected politicians enter the picture. They introduce bills that they themselves vote into law. Not surprisingly, the bills they introduce and make into law reflect to whom they have given their allegiance. This is precisely why there is a glut of very complex taxation orientated laws favoring the elite and their corporations.   Conservatism vs Liberalism

The long and short of it is that since the Founding Fathers departed, the elite have used their wealth and power to introduce countless tax laws that maintain and even enhance the Feudal wealth distribution structure. That is what "Conservatism" is all about! That is also why the elite go so far out of their way to discredit "Liberalism", which allows for changes to the status quo. "Conservatism" maintains the status quo and that in turn ensures the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. The reason we have a democratic society being run as a Feudal oligarchy lies not with a faulty constitution, but with a subversive voting system that connects the elite directly with the politicians.

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

Not at all - I'm saying there isn't enough "Intelligence" here to influence a country.

I get the impression you are not very well informed of the Founding Fathers so I'm going to give you a history lesson in the philosophy that created them, ok?

If everyone in this country, or the world, had the exact same amount of money it would be valueless - it would be like air. And yet there would always be that one person who wanted a bigger house, that humongous house - that bigger house requires more materials, more resources - let's call them wood and concrete. Well, if everybody in this country or the world possessed the exact same amount of wood or concrete in proportions large enough to build this ridiculously humongous house we would literally be buried under the shit; .we could not exist.

The Founding Fathers knew these things and for that reason they imposed few limits on capitalism.

And everyone capitalizes; even those of communist societies capitalize - they capitalize on military power - on power - to command wealth.

Limit one's ability, one's economic logic - the pursuit of happiness - and as the Founding Fathers well knew, we limit ourselves.

"Conservative" is about conserving freedom; today's liberalism is about imposing limits on virtually all behavior, including my right to say these things here.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

There wasn't national taxes initially. It was on donations.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtml

he Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781, reflected the American fear of a strong central government and so retained much of the political power in the States. The national government had few responsibilities and no nationwide tax system, relying on donations from the States for its revenue. Under the Articles, each State was a sovereign entity and could levy tax as it pleased.

When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Founding Fathers recognized that no government could function if it relied entirely on other governments for its resources, thus the Federal Government was granted the authority to raise taxes. The Constitution endowed the Congress with the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Ever on guard against the power of the central government to eclipse that of the states, the collection of the taxes was left as the responsibility of the State governments.

To pay the debts of the Revolutionary War, Congress levied excise taxes on distilled spirits, tobacco and snuff, refined sugar, carriages, property sold at auctions, and various legal documents. Even in the early days of the Republic, however, social purposes influenced what was taxed. For example, Pennsylvania imposed an excise tax on liquor sales partly "to restrain persons in low circumstances from an immoderate use thereof." Additional support for such a targeted tax came from property owners, who hoped thereby to keep their property tax rates low, providing an early example of the political tensions often underlying tax policy decisions.

Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

Well, the reality is that Federal withholding tax is unconstitutional and so is our progressive tax system. Jefferson's statement is an effort to protect those that have from those that do not; in the same way it protects the ultra rich from the demands of the poor, it also protects those of more modest means. But it has its roots in something that used to be referred to as the Protestant work ethic - it's actually a Puritan work ethic - more, it's a working class ethic as an attempt to protect the property we've worked for from the governors who would gladly relieve us of it to redistribute in any way they please. Part of the problem, honestly, is that we're encountering these difficulties later in life, when we are more concerned and less capable, than our forefathers were.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

federal withholding tax?

when country was new, power was in states. feds didn't need money. the citizens probably used their own money to finance government.

Washington sent troops to get taxes.

soldiers in revolutionary war worked for free...my ancestor in Valley Forge, there was little or no pay.

very interesting. I'm sure the government could seize assets from Brittain, Indians, take and sell land. Sounds like people back then too didn't like to pay whiskey tax.

Sorry. You may have to go to other country with less tax, if ours is too high. Mexico tax is much lower.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

With the establishment of the new nation, the citizens of the various colonies now had proper democratic representation, yet many Americans still opposed and resisted taxes they deemed unfair or improper. In 1794, a group of farmers in southwestern Pennsylvania physically opposed the tax on whiskey, forcing President Washington to send Federal troops to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, establishing the important precedent that the Federal government was determined to enforce its revenue laws. The Whiskey Rebellion also confirmed, however, that the resistance to unfair or high taxes that led to the Declaration of Independence did not evaporate with the forming of a new, representative government.

During the confrontation with France in the late 1790's, the Federal Government imposed the first direct taxes on the owners of houses, land, slaves, and estates. These taxes are called direct taxes because they are a recurring tax paid directly by the taxpayer to the government based on the value of the item that is the basis for the tax. The issue of direct taxes as opposed to indirect taxes played a crucial role in the evolution of Federal tax policy in the following years. When Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1802, direct taxes were abolished and for the next 10 years there were no internal revenue taxes other than excises.

To raise money for the War of 1812, Congress imposed additional excise taxes, raised certain customs duties, and raised money by issuing Treasury notes. In 1817 Congress repealed these taxes, and for the next 44 years the Federal Government collected no internal revenue. Instead, the Government received most of its revenue from high customs duties and through the sale of public land.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

federal witholding tax? income tax?

they gave selves power to raise taxes. and they have.it is the elites who have benefited most from the tax structure.

the founding fathers are long gone.

good luck traveling back in time to visit them.

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

I don't have to travel back - genetically we ARE them and so is much of our culture.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

communist societies? who Cuba there are none left. even they allow some capitalism

military, we have more military of the rest of the world.

conserving freedom? they take away more freedoms than they conserve. They conserve the power and wealth, which the say is freedom for all. good luck with that, breaking into there private exclusive club here in this country is harder than anywhere in the world.

liberalism imposes limits on speech? that's a new one. such as?

the conservatives and rich have all the media, the money, and they therefore controll congress, the military, police, and have all the speech.

and they say how and where and when, and with what permit and hours we can speak.

whislteblowers even get jailed, or those who refuse to speak in a grand jury can be locked up without rights in federal prison.

[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

That's envy speaking - in a free world without government interference we merely start our own exclusive club - that's what Americans do. And you have no one to blame but yourself.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

I am not envious.

I do believe in justice.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/have-you-seen-the-film-inside-job-if-not-why-not-i/

I do believe in future for my 3 kids and 3 grandkids.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-the-one-percent-seized-control/

take a look at these movies. read the book. I'll be here.

I would like a fair world. Clean air. Healthy Food. Good Job. Education.

Envy: I don't need to envy rich: as my daughter believes "money equals corruption".

She chooses to live simple life in Mexico with no money. She enjoys freedom. But I will help her out a bit, and I will help people who ask. Maybe I'm a sucker. That's why I don't have a business. I'd be like my father in law and give stuff out on credit. My grandpa did same, my dad says.

I think we need both, all kinds of people to make world spin. Wealthy can probably teach us something. We can teach them something, but this place has the biggest gap in incomes and more people in jail than anywhere.

What do I want. Policies of this guy: www.voterocky.org

Nice discussing with you. Maybe talk to you later.

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

My grandfather was also a self employed businessman; back in the day extending a helping hand is what people of community did.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

you are dependent on government. my friend. you enjoy much of it's benefits.

it is symbiosis. without government, someone would probably rob you on the highway.

without government, the tap water would make you sick.

without government, some wild speeder would run over your car.

Actually, I agree with some of what you are saying. Government can get too big.

Too intrusive. Are we there?

close.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

free world?

My first child was born in free world Mexico. only cost 1300 for 6 days in hospital and C section.

Don't know what would cost here but it would not be free. Nothings free. the water you drink, someone pays for it.

Sounds like you have your own club for the rich, and it is my fault for not being rich or I might wish I was rich.

No.

I want to be able to work. long enough to pay off my house. just got to keep going. had to just refinance for 4th time, and there was no government help, but I wanted to pay some personal debts and some incrued mostly by my reckless teenager and some by wife.

should have just walked cause they were credit card, (haha just joking. I'm responsible) but no, paying them never bankrupt.

[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

Nope, I'm a poor man. And I like being a poor man. And I have been through many of the same things you have, probably almost to a 'T'. The difference is that I do not envy and I do not blame others for my failure in a world of virtually unlimited opportunity.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

There is no free world. We all start out unequal. Especially here.

Envy? Yes the world doesn't have the same opportunities as in past. So I am envious where public education doesn't cost more than 4-8,000 dollars a year (that's what it was when I went to college, but it has inflated much more than middle class salaries)

The exclusive club is kept, by the tax system of this country only.

How much is in the Cayman islands. 47 trillion sitting there.

doing nothing.

Statistics taken from the Historical Tables of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1986, table 2.1 indicate that the proportion of Federal Income tax derived from Corporate income tax declined steadily from 32% in 1952; to 23% in 1960; to 17% in 1970; to a low of 9% in 1985.{B47}

It should come as no great surprise then that George Bush has openly voiced his intention to continue adding to corporate welfare legislation by reducing the capital gains tax by more than 50%. The Joint Committee on Taxation said that the capital gains tax proposal passed by the House on Sept 28 1989 would cost $35 billion dollars in lost revenue over the next 10 years. This largesse would go almost exclusively to the richest 10%. {B48}

Both the graph and the previous statement ought to give you a chilling appreciation for the continuing success of the super rich, in their drive toward total immunity from taxation.

On General Motors' 1987 Income Statement, a footnote indicated that the federal tax for 1987 was minus $1.3 billion, thus intimating that the automobile giant may have received a tax rebate for that amount. Citizens for Tax Justice had figured that GM would end up getting a tax rebate for $742 million. In any case, it should be a little clearer just where the money comes from that enables car manufacturers to offer such huge cash rebate incentives for new car buyers. {B49}

Citizens for Tax Justice (a group backed by Ralph Nader, which monitors tax abuses and lobbies the government for fairer taxation) pointed out that the average reader paid more tax last year than AT&T, Du Pont, Boeing, Merrill Lynch, Dow Chemical, and Walt Disney paid collectively from 1982 through 1985!!

Do yourself a favor and reread the above paragraph.

In fact, of the 250 companies that they were monitoring, 108 of them had an average tax rate of 1.6%. {B50}

[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

Taxes paid - envy - are you at war with the corporations that have failed to pay or with the unrelenting government that continues to spend and tax? There would be no need to tax you or the corporations if we could delimit the power of the people over government spending - everyone - everyone - in this country has their hands in the 'till.

[-] 3 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

the bottom 80 percent own just 7 percent of nation's wealth.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/?mobile=nc

look at the graph. Its only fair the rich should pay their share, they derive much benefit from their tax: the military and police protect them, they get lots of deductions and loopholes, cayman islands, etc.

the top 5 percent hold 70 percent of nation's wealth.

they should pay a bit higher tax, till deficit is reduced. They wanted and profited from all the wars.

[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

Everyone should pay taxes and that includes the poor who also sap revenue.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

the founding fathers were not perfect. they compromised.

they allowed for slavery. they didn't give women vote. said you needed property, etc.

I am sure they had a lot of taxes, tarriffs as well, to pay for all the wars of liberation and conquest.

They killed all the native population and took their lands.

Good role models, if you ignore the injustice.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

I didn't say I'm against capitalism. It has value.

But there could be some controls, because like you point out, there will be greedy and evil ignorant and just plain cruel people, and this is understood, psychos, and there are not only a few of them, who will want more, and get more than there share, even if they kill, to do so.

You want unbridled capitalism, go live in Mexico or columbia with drug cartels, and enjoy your capitalism.

[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

It's not "with cartels" - Mexico and Columbia are cartels. In both cases - Mexico and the US - we want to limit the power of government.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

sure. I like to limit government too.

but sometimes is a necessity.

I don't think government should be all over world with military bases. So maybe I'm conservative.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I don't think government should be all over world with military bases. So maybe I'm conservative. No I am thinking - more along the lines of - sane.

[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

Well I think that depends on how much you value the countries we trade with - without our military presence, greatly expanded since WWII, they cease to exist as trading partners. At this point, I'd have to say that many of them are dependent on us economically, to varying degrees.

But you're right - no one can support a Halliburton and no one can support Obama's Libya or Syria, either - war should not be political.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

didn't bush sell the war in iraq saying they would be happy we freed them from Saddam, and Iraq would cover expense with oil revenues.

He misjudged that one.

as far as libya, syria, Iran, all the other places we could go, why? if they haven't hurt us. that's unjust.

should we preemptively bomb. no. that's unjust too.

its in the geneva convention.

a lot of rich people made a lot of money from the war: military equipment manufacture, advisors, rebuilding, etc.

but they don't want to spend money building in america?

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

Bush cannot justify the privatization of military supply lines. Or Halliburton.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

Well, we're spread out geographically, doing this more for leisure or hobby, we're an older group here, maybe more stable economically, with computer, etc.

Us liberals, kind of doing ok, is it our fight?

The young will soon learn what is going on, and when they get off their tails, and realize things can improve, then we'll see.

Tea party has it easier. They just have to say no. We have to say what next.

Plus, media is all controlled by elites... Oops my source is http://www.mindmined.com/public_library/nonfiction/david_f_feudalism_aka_capitalism.html

Freedom of the press has always passed itself off as one of America's most sacred cows. In reality, it has faithfully served and is still serving as another of the elite's Trojan Horses. Those who consider America's media to be the freest in the world are perhaps overlooking one important consideration. Virtually all the means of communication from orbiting satellites, to the television networks, to the individual TV stations, to the newspaper chains and the major book publishing houses are owned by the economic elite!

Consolidating Ownership of the Media

The important thing to realize is not just that the elite own virtually all the Western media, but that it is now owned by a very small handful of media moguls. The shocking truth is that the ownership of newspapers and TV stations has already been consolidated to such a staggering degree that unmanipulated news coverage has practically ceased to exist. Only one man and his media holdings need be mentioned to provide some tip of the iceberg proof to substantiate that perspective. His name is Rupert Murdoch, and he is an American billionaire. His media holdings are registered as The News Corporation Ltd. in Australia "for accounting advantages", but his holdings span four continents.

The areas over which he has the ability to exercise a simultaneous coordinated control include the editorial content and direction of newspapers such as the Boston Herald American, the Chicago Sun Times, and the Sun and the Times of London, to name but a few, and he holds interests in many others including The Financial Times, the Economist, and Reuters, {B140} the European Wire service. He owns 5 magazines in Britain, approximately 20 magazines in the U.S., and more than 100 newspapers in Australia. {B141}

His American based Metromedia TV station network alone cost about 2 billion dollars, and he has a 4 channel satellite television network called Sky Television in Britain.{B142}

Some of his other media holdings include the 20th Century Fox Film Studio (remember that Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford have been its past directors), the Harper & Row publishing house, the Star, New York magazine, the San Antonio Express, New Woman, Elle, In Fashion, Automobile, European travel & Life, Premiere, etc. etc. Recently Rupert Murdoch agreed to pay 3 billion dollars for 4 publications: TV Guide, Good Food, the Daily Racing Form, and Seventeen.

With wealth of this magnitude involved, it is not difficult to establish first of all that the bottom 90 percent of society are virtually excluded from media ownership. He himself has referred to newspapers as a series of "capital intensive" "local monopolies". {B143}

The Newhouse family of New York, the 5th richest family on the planet, owns Advance Publications and Newhouse Broadcasting outright. Besides being the ninth largest cable TV operator in the U.S., they own 22 daily newspapers, Random House publishing company, and a host of magazines such as the New Yorker, Vogue, Vanity Fair, Glamour, and Parade.{B144}

Billionaire Randolph Hearst and family, own 14 daily newspapers, 6 TV stations, 7 radio stations, and some book publishing companies. {B145} Should we look for a better reason to explain why his daughter Patty was released into his custody, without punishment, after she had been photographed holding a gun in a bank stick-up, to earn money for a group of anti-government activists. The American media chorus justified her release by claiming that she had been kidnapped and brainwashed, and since brainwashing is their forte, opposition to the argument was conspicuous by its absence.

Kenneth Irving and family of Canada, the world's 8th richest billionaire has virtually monopolized ownership of all English speaking newspapers in his province. {B146}The Thompson family of Toronto, Canada (the 10th richest billionaire family) now owns even more newspapers than anyone in the States. In Britain, Robert Maxwell, another billionaire is busy consolidating the media there.{B147}

The owner of the largest media conglomerate in the world is Reinhard Mohn, yet another of the world's billionaires. {B148}

Each of these media magnates probably echoes the wishes of Rupert Murdoch who has been quoted as saying that his objective is a "global communications company". Each newspaper, magazine, and TV station reaches a specific section of the population; collectively they form a woven grid of influence that few active members of society can elude.

It would perhaps be worth pointing out that for all intents and purposes, media ownership within each of Western society's Feudal empires, Britain, Australia, Canada, America, Germany, etc., has already been consolidated into the control of a small handful of media moguls. Will it be necessary to have these moguls unite under one corporation name before the term "Big Brother" gets seriously discussed? Media owners can, and do, install TV network directors and newspaper and magazine editors whom they are assured will broadcast and print exactly what the elite want the American public to see, hear, and read. Whether they are openly united under one corporate "Big Brother" logo or not, is irrelevant. Covertly they are part of the elite team. Their coordination and control is best exemplified by considering how well they all work together to elect the team's political functionaries into public office.  

Using the Media to Rig Elections

The media's role in undermining the function of true democracy, and especially at election time, cannot be overstated. The elite are not satisfied with infiltrating the nation's highest political offices, nor are they satisfied with negating the effects of democracy with special interest lobbying. No, that's not quite enough. Before the bottom 90% of society are even allowed to approach the polling booth, the elite take the opportunity to subject the entire population to no less than six full months of intense political conditioning in which individuals and policies that pose a threat to their wealth and power, are systematically discredited. By praising their sympathizers and discrediting and smearing their opponents, the elite have consistently and successfully used the media, to elect enough political candidates to the White House and Congress to ensure success with their future lobbying.

Needless to say, most of the politicians running for election or reelection are doing so with funds contributed by the elite in one way or another, and of course election support translates into either payoffs for past favors, or for favors due and as yet unpaid.

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

That's pretty interesting but their ability to influence is overstated - they are not in the business of influencing world; they are in the business of selling media - if all said that exact same thing at the exact same time, who would buy; what would they sell? It also ignores the ability of individuals to do their own investigative reporting.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2740) 2 years ago

they don't want to influence the world????

did you see how upset they got when Obama tried to end Bush'es tax cuts for biillionaires. They claimed they were like battered wives.

they don' t want to pay 39.6 percent. they are already only paying 15 percent tops on capital gains, before deductions.

Mitt 13.9 percent, and he wants to look good, in 2 years released.

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

I think the media has expressed your side as well. No matter, 39% of one's income to corrupt government is ridiculous; why should anyone give 40% to government?

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

I think the media has expressed your side as well. No matter, 39% of one's income to corrupt government is ridiculous; why should anyone give 40% to government?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

OK?

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

Well, have you listened to yourselves lately? There is nothing good that will come of this unless you discredit and drive out radicals and introduce some rationalism and some intelligence. This is exactly the way government under the two party system faces issues and as you can see, they're generally incapable of achieving anything worthwhile.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Radicals are a key component of any well functioning team.

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 2 years ago

No they're not; the radicals explore new avenues - they are generally but sacrificial lambs - it's the evolutionary way.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i know this that is my goal to bring everyone closer together and more realistic ideas

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Fighting? Fighting??? Sir, you wound us all, to a man -- or a woman, as the case may be. It's merely spirited discourse amongst friends and colleagues.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

not with all, hate runs through a few veins here

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

first we must get rid of christianity, the corporate stooges. putting an image of a MAN NAILED TO A CROSS into children's minds is CHILD ABUSE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8viuSB9J5aA

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

trying to change someone else's religion is futile
just dont let them take your children

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

i am not trying to change anyone's religion. i am trying to protect our children's minds from violent images and our community from predatory crucifixion merchants who look down on us as "sinners"! the gospel is a money shark scam!

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

.....really

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

yes christians are corporate stooges "speaking with authority" just like TSA bullies to groom and grope our children. their doctrine of "original sin" is INTENDED to break up our community just like they have broken up our families and native tribes in order to spread their fascist empire. the head of the church of england is a german fascist. she is the whore of babylon. the head of the church of rome is a german fascist. christianity is a HORROR STORY invented by the romans to frighten the children and slaves into submission!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

you do not know religion at all

The Romans killed Christians for sport they threw into arenas and watch as lions attacked them. they did the same thing to Jews.

The fact you dont know basic facts of this makes me be,ive that anything you spout is uninformed

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

i know religion and scripture very well indeed! marijuana is the tree of life of revelation 22 v 2 growing in the midst of the street (inside the houses) and on either side of the river (on both sides of the tracks, in all classes of society)! marijuana is the plant of renown of ezekiel 34 v 29 which predicts the end of its prohibition! daniel 2 the stone cut out without hands is the SILICON CHIP which grows into a great mountain that fills the whole earth: the INTERNET! the romans crucified jesus, king of the jews, for leading an insurrection. then they blamed the jews! then they invented christianity saying the crucifixion was god's plan, a sacrifice for the sins of the world! total BS LMFAO

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

alright keep smoking that pipe troll

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

the gospel is a money shark scam! you have been fooled again!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

ive paid no money into it so doesnt bother me

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

it is the scapegoat teaching of the blood sacrifice that i know is OBJECTIONABLE. blood sacrifice is satanism. blood sacrifice is MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE. the hysterical whipping up of the dupes being "washed in the blood of the lamb" by these predatory crucifixion merchants preaching christ crucified!