Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: My Gift To Occupy Wall Street

Posted 2 years ago on March 25, 2012, 12:12 p.m. EST by ForrFreedom (49)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I'm going to start revealing ØƆƆ∩ԀІӘЯ hypocrisies. I hope you are as excited as I am. :) My first post will be "Hypocrisy #1: Acts of Contradiction"

Here's a teaser.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMFdKOlo5Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhZC8XbxuYk&feature=player_embedded

Have you noticed how I wrote OCCUPIER? It has upside down and backwards letters. This represents what the movement has become. Completely against what it claims to be. When they say peace they promote war. When they say freedom they promote enslavement. When they say democracy they mean you must do as we say.

63 Comments

63 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I occupiers adhered to this there wouldn't be a problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGfUn7EZ69w&feature=endscreen&NR=1

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I am still trying to figure out how the wealthy claim to " earn " their wealth ??? it's not hypocrisy .. but surely there is a contradiction in terms .. ! A poor hard working man earns his paycheck .. the wealthy sit back , do nothing all day .. and yet have the most wealth .. how do they define " earn" ?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Have you actually done any research? How do you even know what you just said is true? You have to think WHERE you got that information from and WHY they might have told you that. Don't be a drone in a botnet. When you blindly follow a movement you throw away your freedom to think.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

haven't you ever heard the wealthy make the claim " they earned their wealth" ?

[-] -1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I've never personally heard anyone say that. If you heard someone say that I would have to ask you what it is about that statement that you have a problem with?

[-] 2 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

"I've never personally heard anyone say that." You sir, are full of bullshit given how prevalent that phrase is.

"If you heard someone say that I would have to ask you what it is about that statement that you have a problem with?" Why are you playing dumb? That statement is a perfect example of self entitlement. Yet these same self entitled individuals preach about how others are self entitled. Oh the hypocrisy.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I've only spoken to a few wealthy people and they've never brought up money. I've never seen a video or read illustrations from a wealthy person saying that. I can't say no wealthy person has every said that, I've just never experienced it.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The definition of earn must have more than one meaning.. If a man working in a factory forty years earns his living .. and a billionaire earns his wealth .. why do they have different amounts ?

[-] -1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

It's the direction that they focused their energy. Of course a factory worker can work his ever living butt off and never become wealthy because he's focusing his energy on a job where he is paid a set amount per hour he works. If he doesn't like the amount he's compensated he should focus his energy on a job that has a higher return. The reason why a factory worker can't be paid millions for his work is because he doesn't produce millions for his company because the general population isn't willing to pay millions for the product. Can you imagine paying a million dollars for a car?

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

if I was paid millions .. I can pay millions for a car ..

but another point .. focused energy .. if we agree factory workers work their butt off .. shouldn't they be equally compensated for their energy compared to any other profession .. is it not the effort that we reward ?

[-] -1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

No it's not the effort we reward. People are rewarded for the impact they have. A single factory worker makes hardly any money for the company. Why should he be rewarded more money from the company than he makes for the company? If the company pays him exactly what he makes for the company then they have no money to put back into the company to replace equipment, market their product, have health insurance, have retirement plans, maintain their property etc, etc.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BullsAndBears (-36) 2 years ago

You're a drone to everything occupy tells you

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I'm not a drone. I don't represent OWS. I represent myself. There are some aspects of OWS that I agree with, there are some that I don't. In this thread I am focusing on hypocrisies within the OWS movement.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Huh? I'm the creator of this post. I think you might have misunderstood the idea.

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Here is one of the wealthiest men in America. Warren Buffett.

Even as a child, Buffett displayed an interest in making and saving money. He went door to door selling chewing gum, Coca-Cola, or weekly magazines.

Buffett's interest in the stock market and investing also dated to his childhood, to the days he spent in the customers' lounge of a regional stock brokerage near the office of his father's own brokerage company. On a trip to New York City at the age of ten, he made a point to visit the New York Stock Exchange.

Buffett is also a notable philanthropist, having pledged to give away 99 percent of his fortune to philanthropic causes, primarily via the Gates Foundation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Warren Buffet merely chose one avenue through life. What about the young boy who invests his time by observing nature; or the girl who spends her youth admiring and emulating famous poems? The great difference between the three youths is that one, Buffet, chose an avenue that leads to wealth; yet I'm not sure why Buffet's avenue is considered more virtuous--and the two other youths are gifted with poverty as a result.

[-] 3 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

By observing nature you become rich in your connection with the earth. A girl who writes poems becomes rich with expression. A man who invests his time in the stock market becomes rich in money. It's all about how you want to be wealthy. Money isn't everything. I'm sure the two others would agree.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I agree with you to an extant. The extant I don't agree with you is the acceptance that someone who studies money as opposed to nature or art should have a greater capacity of influence over the naturalist or artist.

Warren Buffet has greater influence than Jonathan Franzen or Bill McKibben. But why? Is Buffet just a greater human being than either of the other two? Why do the things he says have a greater impact politically than the artist or environmentalist?

I agree that money isn't everything. The artist and environmentalist and teacher and monk would agree. However, in the social sphere, money has greater influence, for whatever reason, than artistic prowess or knowledge. In that sense, someone who is not a businessman is lionized over the priests, artists, teachers, to the point where even an incompetent businessman like George W. Bush or an unwise man with a lot of money like Mitt Romney can gain political favor.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I agree with you to an extent also. I disagree with your idea that money alone creates influence. If the artist wanted to lobby for a bill in congress he has the right to do so. People probably aren't going to take his political advice because that's not his area of expertise. I do agree that money creates exposure, such as T.V. commercials, air time, automated telephone calls, fliers and ad campaigns. I've had a problem with this for a long time because it's counterproductive to electing the best person for the job. The problem isn't the politicians though.The problem is that Americans allow themselves to be fooled by these campaigns. In my opinion this is because the average American isn't educated enough about the electoral process to formulate their own opinions.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I'm curious why you think the artist is incapable of being a sufficient politician? I'm not exactly sure about what the job qualifications are of politicians, but I know the primary tool of the artist is empathy, a trait I wish present in every politician.

But is a businessman a better choice than an artist for politician? Lawyer? Why? I can assure that the reason is revolved around the dealings of money and influence over people. I don't see how a businessman is any better qualified than the artist to be a politician. In fact, I believe he is less qualified, since a businessman has spent his whole life controlling people and looking to get ahead, whereas an artist has spent his life empathizing with people. Should a public servant (the politician) control people or commiserate with people?

But it seems like you admit that money is the primary tool of influencing people, since money is the bargaining chip to get the good air time, the most advanced commercials, the largest ad in periodicals, the most amount of telephone operators. Yes, it is certainly counterproductive to the democratic process. And then we must admit that Capitalism is counterproductive to Democracy.

I wouldn't blame the American people exactly. They just eat the junk food they're fed (and they are not taught how to fend for themselves). Why can't we blame the politicians who allow atrocities and inhumanities to happen--since they are our arbiters and protectors, and have failed to do so properly.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I'm not that great with philosophic ideas. I can tell you that artists probably aren't involved in politics because they probably don't care about politics. If you are saying that politicians should adopt artisan principles than I agree. Sadly you aren't allowed to force these principles on anyone. It's up to the individual to choose which influences will play the primary role in their decisions. I do blame the American people for being uneducated. Their lack of motivation has even larger negative ramifications to the success of this country than any politician could ever have in my opinion. If a politician finds a way to gain a competitive edge by exploiting the undereducated than he is just as to blame. If a politician is exploiting someone without their knowledge, within legal means, then the only intervention that is morally right is to bring the exploitation to the individuals attention. If they still choose to be exploited then that's their right.

[-] 1 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

For once, I don't disagree with you.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

beautiful comment

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

please dont cite wikipedia.

[-] -1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I'll cite what I want.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

of course you can cite what you want but wikipedia is an unreliable " source".

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Why?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

it's written by people that can say what they want , schools do not allow wikipedia as a research source for that reason.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

wikipedia is a joke. if you cite is as a backup to anything you say , YOUR credibility is worthless bacause wikipedia is worthless.

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

So you mean to say the contributions of people are worthless?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

i wouldnt trust their veracity

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

So you are against democracy?

Democracy = rule of the majority

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

democracy is mob rule. the USA is a representative republic.

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I don't see a need to change it either. I like the United States the way it is. You're right. Wikipedia isn't considered a credible source by academia. What I cited is heavily sourced so I feel comfortable presenting that information here. I'm not trying to get an A, I'm trying to expose Occupier Hypocrisies. But you do have a valid point so in the future I will try and find better sources.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

O.K.

[-] -1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

So you are against one of the core principles of OWS?

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the USA is representative republic, i see no need to change that. george soros wants to take down the republic of the USA , he's the one funding ows and other groups that have the same purpose.

[-] -2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Warren Buffet deserves every penny of his fortune , .. the men and women slaving away in factories all day have nothing on mr warren, after all he sold "chewing gum!"

[-] -1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

He was also motivated enough to utilize his talents in a way that helped him achieve his goals. The men and woman that work in factories choose to be there. They are there by choice. If they wanted to have a better future all they would have to do is motivate themselves. No one is stopping them from getting the jobs they desire. They could start their own company or get a college degree. If they don't have enough money to pay for college the government will GIVE them the money. http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

serious question -

If everyone had as much wealth as Mr Buffet , what would the world be like ?

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I'm assuming you understand that if everyone had the same amount of money it wouldn't be considered wealth.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

what would it be considered?

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Normal amount of money. Meaning not less and not more than anyone else's amount of money.

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

There would be less motivation to achieve your goals. That's why communism doesn't work. In principle it's a good idea, in practice people have less motivation to contribute to society because their actions are never met with equal rewards.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

why would there be less motivation to achieve ones goals .. does warren buffet lose motivation because of his wealth ?

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

No. Motivation and wealth aren't always related, but motivation and reward are.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I think it would still be very much like today - if every one had that kind of money it would be pretty much useless if the markets were allowed to charge what they figured that the market could bear.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

please explain-

today the markets set the price to as much as they can .. some can afford it , and others not.. if everyone had equal wealth .. than we could all afford it .. seems different to me

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If everyone had the same income. We would all still be in the same boat. We would be at the mercy of what was allowed to be charged for goods and services. If everyone made a billion dollars a year. What would it actually be worth if you were charged one hundred million for a loaf of bread? 500 million for a gallon of Gas?

Wealth is relative to cost.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

that leaves me with 400 million left ? I am willing to try it if you are !

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Just don't buy non-essentials. That 400 million is not going to go far.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

lol

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I agree with DKAtoday. Wealth is relative. That's what I was trying to explain to you. For some reason I get the feeling you still don't understand that.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

perhaps a distant relative ..very distant

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Exactly which wealthy person are you talking about? What evidence do you have to prove that wealthy people didn't earn their money? Or are you just regurgitating something you heard?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

oprah earned her money, russell simmons earned his money,sprinsteen earned his money,

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I'm sure you're right. I seriously doubt they stole it.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

people working for and earning wealth does not fit the ows template.

[-] -1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

It fits the template of reality. Communism doesn't work and never will because people are people.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

Have you noticed how I wrote OCCUPIER? It has upside down and backwards letters. This represents what the movement has become. Completely against what it claims to be. When they say peace they promote war. When they say freedom they promote enslavement. When they say democracy they mean you must do as we say. As a free thinking American it's obvious to see the err in their ways. My goal is to free the minds of the enslaved. Because I refuse to believe that they don't deserve it.

[-] 1 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

If freedom equates to someone like you who is a cum guzzler of the 1%, then I'd rather not explore your notion of 'freedom'. Nice copy paste job to get attention by the way.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 2 years ago

I'll delete it if you want me to. I wrote that comment in case someone was wondering why I wrote occupier the way I did. Afterwords, I thought if it explained something from the original post it should be in the post rather than a comment.