Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: New TV show 'Empire' to flaunt excess wealth, promote consumption, further corrupt society and PLUG COMMERCIAL HEALTHCARE.

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 14, 2015, 10:19 a.m. EST by StillModestCapitalist (343)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It's a given that the new TV show 'Empire' will flaunt excess wealth, materialism, corporatism, consumption and vanity. As usual, they will do so with no regard for the wake of destruction left behind. In particular, the already obscene and oppressive concentration of wealth and resources. This is the very nature of the music industry and most of it's popular representatives regardless of genre. You name the well known performer. They epitomize all of it.

Of course, like every other TV show, each segment will be written, directed and broadcast not only to entertain but also to plug commercial affiliates and corporate partners. One of which in particular should never be promoted to a mass audience.

I'll cut to the chase.

Aside from utterly predictable plugs for electronic gadgets, travel destinations and high fashion, each and every episode of Empire, or at the VERY least three out of every four, will plug the more profitable elements of commercial healthcare intervention. In particular, pharmaceuticals, medical testing, pregnancy and surgery. High end dental work may be plugged as well. With each plug, there will be a commercial brainwash plot intended to dumb down, scare or insult those who don't believe in frequent or excessive healthcare intervention. These plots have become more and more calculated in recent years.

I fully expect 'Empire' to push the hypochondriac 'drug and doctor' envelope a little further thereby driving the already obscene cost of healthcare even higher and the share of GDP, already at a staggering 17%, even greater.

The producers of these shows will not be happy until the masses are too stupid to do anything but watch, breathe, buy product and run to the nearest hospital or pharmacy.

I suggest that we resist their corrupt influence and send a strong anti-commercial message to the sponsors of 'Empire'.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

What about it?

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

I nrrd to kick start to my own game or get wizards of the cost to print it

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

the odd thing about media is just that

it's odd

the general public doesn't watch in the numbers it once did

should i be upset about the message

or just change the channel ?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

I have no problem with odd. But calculated is a different story. Virtually all 'for profit' media is corrupt to some degree but the broadcast/cable/satellite TV industries really stand out. They are calculated almost beyond belief. They really won't be happy until the masses are too stupid to do anything but breathe, watch, buy product and run to the hospital or pharmacy.


[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

I only watch you tube. Its much more entertaining than any network.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

I just watched a promotional video for the show.

Gee what a shock:


[-] 1 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

I'm sure your link was good, but I avoid viewing your links because of your confusion in thinking that Occupy is about voting for more Democrats. BTW, why would you want us to vote for people who are big recipients of big pharma's money? That does not seem helpful to me.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

I never said that Occupy was about voting for Democrats. What I've said repeatedly is that on the issue of politics, Democrats are the lesser of two evils. One of which we have no choce but to elect for President in 2016. Also that you only give conservatives an edge when you encourage users here to not vote at all. Based on your entries, my belief is that like a few others, you do so intentionally and for that very purpose. To give conservatives an edge.


[-] 2 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

When you choose your friends, do you waste your time on the "lesser evil"? I dont.

We have put considerable time and energy into electing people who we thought would make a positive difference. They haven't. Barack Obama is conclusive proof of that.

Possibly slowing our degression might be good enough for you, but not for me.

We have long passed the point where we can expect to achieve systemic change by voting for anyone in the duopoly. Once again Obama is proof of that.

By trying to make us think otherwise....you want us to continue to play the game that they have set up for us. I won't, but it's your life so you can feel free to continue to wallow.

One really good thing that this forum, and the rest of Occupy have in common is; As time goes on, we are becoming more and more hack-proof.

That undoubtedly is a testament to the knowledge that we have gained, including our ability to readily snuff out a person who is trying to homogenize OWS into the corrupt system.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

It's a bad analogy. You aren't forced to chose your friends from a group of vandals and child molestors. Your choices don't come down to a select few every two-four years.

But America WILL elect Congressmen and Presidents for you. There is RARELY an independent with any chance of winning a seat in Congress and NEVER an independent with any chance of winning the Presidency. Even if there were, they would still be subject to the same influence from the rich, their corporations, other special interest groups, and affiliates.

However, the people do have some influence as long as they have the right to vote. To elect and to re-elect. The politicians themselves also have remnants of the core beliefs they once held dear before selling out.

There is always a lesser evil.

So this 'duopoly' crap is a mute point.


[-] -1 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

"It's a bad analogy, [mine?] You aren't forced to choose your friends from a group of vandals and child molestors." I don't like them dudes in the duopoly either! But even I wouldn't characterize them as sexual deviants. But I am glad that you finally seem to agree with me that, voting for them is out of the question. That is what you are saying, right? ;-)

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

I'm typing what I've been typing from day one.

Voting for the lesser evil should be part of any strategy to effect positive change.

Discouraging liberal and free thinking voters only gives conservatives an edge. Hence their big win in November.

[-] 3 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

Yes, I will give you that; 'You are a consistent, die-hard, duopo-lic, co-opting Democrat who feels that we should settle for more of the same crap!'

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

The GOP’s scramble to court Wall Street

By Harold Meyerson

“If it were done,” says Macbeth as he contemplates killing Duncan — his kinsman, his house­guest, his king — “ . . . ’twere well it were done quickly.” A similar judgment seems to inform the newly empowered congressional Republicans’ rush to roll back the modest regulations that the Dodd-Frank Act imposed on Wall Street banks. Deregulating Wall Street is distasteful stuff that can claim no real public support or economic merit, but for reasons both political and financial, the Republicans have decided it’s best done quickly.

Scarcely had the Republicans taken their oaths last week when they sought to enact, under an urgency provision that required a two-thirds vote for passage, a delay of one Dodd-Frank provision — the Volcker Rule — that prohibits publicly insured banks from making bets with their own (that is, taxpayer-insured) funds on risky collateralized loan obligations. Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010; the Securities and Exchange Commission has given the banks till 2017 to divest themselves of these positions; the Republicans, apparently believing that seven years didn’t give the banks enough time to dispose of this profitable paper, wanted to extend that to 2019. Since the bill required a two-thirds super-majority, Democrats were able to defeat it, but on Wednesday, Republicans again brought it to a vote, this time requiring just a simple majority for passage — and it passed.

But why the urgency? Why the rush to let the banks run amok, even before Republicans turn their attention to authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, repealing Obamacare and reversing the president’s executive orders on immigration? Those are all causes, however, that Republicans want to highlight, for which their base is clamoring. Deregulating Wall Street, by contrast, isn’t high on the tea party’s to-do list, if it’s on it at all. By scurrying to give the banks what they want, Republicans can get it out of the way and hope that any public memory of this unseemly spectacle is eclipsed by the epic, more popular battles to come.

By pushing mega-bank welfare to the head of the line, Republicans also sent a clear signal to Wall Street that they’ll do whatever it takes to further feather the bankers’ nests. In return, they doubtless anticipate that the financial sector’s support for the GOP will continue to soar, even as its support for Democrats has slumped. In the early ’90s, Wall Street split its donations to the two parties’ candidates almost evenly, but in recent years it has favored the GOP. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2012, 68 percent of the contributions from the financial, insurance and real estate industries went to Republicans; in 2014, it was 62 percent. And since the financial sector is the largest donor to federal campaigns — it has invested a tidy $3.8 billion in candidates since 1990, $1.4 billion more than any other industry — the GOP’s scramble to court Wall Street is rooted in cold financial logic.

For their part, the Democrats are beginning to move — did someone say “at last”? — in a distinctly anti-Wall Street direction. Arguing that the nation’s financial policymaking should no longer be entrusted to Wall Street’s leaders, Senate Democrats, led by Massachusetts’s Elizabeth Warren, compelled one such banker to withdraw his name for consideration as the No. 3 official at Treasury this week. With the backing of Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, introduced legislation that would significantly cut taxes on the middle class, to be offset by a tax on financial transactions. Van Hollen’s proposal would take a bite out of the profits of flash traders, who have substituted an electronic version of slapjack for what used to be the process of considered investment in productive enterprises. (This is what passes for innovation on Wall Street.)

With legislation like Van Hollen’s, the Democrats — at least, the party’s growing Warren wing — are calculating that their proposals to help the struggling middle class will eclipse Republicans’ efforts precisely because the resources to bolster Americans’ incomes aren’t there unless the mega-rich are compelled to give back what they’ve taken from their countrymen. To that end, the Warren Democrats are proposing tax policies that help the 99 percent at the expense of the 1 percent and that favor corporations that reward their workers, not just their chief executives, with productivity bonuses — while penalizing those that don’t.



[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Rep. Grimm pleads guilty to tax evasion.

Story highlights New York Rep. Michael Grimm pled guilty to tax evasion but said he would remain in Congress Prosecutors asked a judge to give the lawmaker between 24 and 30 months of jail time There is no rule against felons serving in Congress, but little precedent for it either After pleading guilty to a judge Tuesday on a felony tax evasion charge, New York Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican, pledged to reporters he would also stay in Congress.

Grimm pled guilty in court to one count of tax evasion and was set to submit to a "statement of facts" that admits to all the conduct alleged in the 20-count federal indictment.

A statement from federal prosecutors in New York released on Tuesday after Grimm's court appearance noted that in addition to the tax evasion plea, Grimm also publicly admitted to hiring undocumented workers, lying under oath while serving in Congress, obstructing federal and state officials, and cheating employees out of employment insurance claims.

Do scandals matter anymore in elections? 02:36 PLAY VIDEO

Reporter threatened by Rep. Grimm reacts 05:33 PLAY VIDEO

How not to ruin your first year in Congress 00:51 PLAY VIDEO FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Venizelos stated, "The public expects their elected officials at all levels of government to behave honorably, or at a minimum, lawfully. As his guilty plea demonstrates, Grimm put self-interest above public service."

Grimm apologized for his actions and took responsibility, but said the unpaid taxes from a New York restaurant he once owned were all a big mistake.

"As long as I'm able to serve I'm going to serve," Grimm said. Reelected in November, he was is set to be sworn in to a new term in January.

Prosecutors asked a judge to sentence Grimm on June 8th to 24 to 36 months of jail time. His defense team suggested 12 - 18 months.

Can a Congressman serve from behind bars? If recent history is any guide it's unlikely that Grimm will serve out his third term that starts in January even though there is nothing in the Constitution or House Rules against felons serving in Congress.

There isn't much historical precedent for it either, although one Congressman in the 1990s, Republican Jay Kim, shuffled around Capitol Hill wearing an ankle bracelet after he was convicted of 10 misdemeanors.

Grimm's felony plea is a more serious matter.

While Grimm said Tuesday he has talked to House leadership about his situation, he has not yet spoken with House Speaker John Boehner and Boehner has not publicly weighed in on whether Grimm should step down. But Boehner has made it clear during his time in leadership that he has little patience for those members admitting to any wrongdoing.

"We won't have any announcements until the Speaker discusses the matter with Mr. Grimm," said Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel.

Calls for Grimm to resign are sure to mount and GOP leaders would prefer not to deal with questions about a felon remaining in the Republican conference when they open up the new session in 2015.

In previous cases where House Republicans admitted to ethical lapses -- criminal or personal -- Boehner has worked privately to encourage scandal plagued members to step aside on their own.

Former Florida GOP Rep. Trey Radel, who pled guilty to cocaine possession last year, initially sought treatment for drug addiction, but resigned two months later. When half naked pictures surfaced online of Rep. Chris Lee of New York soliciting an encounter with a woman on Craigslist he quickly stepped down. Indiana Republican Mark Souder resigned his seat one day after admitting he had an affair with an aide.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called Tuesday on Boehner "to insist that Congressman Grimm resign immediately."

Democrats were frustrated they were unable to defeat Grimm in November's midterm election, even with the 20-count federal indictment hanging over him. He also grabbed national headlines last January for threatening to toss a reporter over a balcony on Capitol Hill after being asked about the allegations.

If Grimm does eventually decide to resign, Democrats have a good chance to pick up that seat in a special election. A spokesman for the House Democrats' campaign arm is already accusing Boehner of covering up for Grimm.

"After Speaker Boehner abetted Grimm's lies to voters about his guilt in this past election, he owes it to the constituents and the Congress to make sure Michael Grimm doesn't serve in this next Congress," Josh Scherwin, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

But a senior House Republican leadership aide points out that Pelosi has not forced out those Democrats who faced ethics investigations.

"After standing behind Reps. Bill Jefferson, Charlie Rangel, Jack Murtha, and many others, Rep. Pelosi has zero credibility of these issues," the aide told CNN.

Jefferson's trial drug out on Capitol Hill and for a time pitted House leaders from both parties against the Justice Department, which wanted to raid his office after they found $100,000 found in his home freezer. It took some time before Pelosi and Democrats stripped Jefferson of his powerful post on the tax writing committee. He ultimately lost a bid for reelection and is serving a 13-year sentence for bribery. While Murtha and Rangel faced ethics inquiries, neither was indicted for criminal wrongdoing. Rangel was censured by his colleagues in the House for ethics violations, including failing to pay taxes, but continues to serve in Congress. Murtha, who was a top Pelosi soldier, died in 2010 while still in office.

If Grimm wants to remain in Congress he'll likely face some type of punishment handed down from the House Ethics Committee, a process that could drag out for months.

The panel deferred its review at the request of the Department of Justice, and under its rules will have to vote to renew its investigation when the next session begins in January.

The committee declined to comment to CNN on the Grimm case.

Grimm has already given up his seat on the House Financial Services Committee, but depending on his sentence he could be forced under House ethics rules to also refrain from voting on the House floor.

If the Ethics committee votes that Rep Grimm's actions broke House rules he could face punishments ranging from reprimand - the mildest public condemnation -to censure or expulsion. The last time the House voted to expel a member was in 2002, after Democratic Rep Jim Traficant was convicted of bribery and tax evasion charges.

The House has only expelled five members in its entire history. Three of those were during the Civil War era for disloyalty. Another, Rep. Michael (Ozzy) Myers of Pennsylvania was expelled in 1980 after a bribery conviction.



[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

So now I'm a co-opting Democrat? Well then, explain this:


Pay special attention to my rips on The Clintons and Obamas near the end.

I am not a Democrat but I do feel that in general, they are the lesser evil.

I will repeat this as many times as necessary.


[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

You do know that your support of the GOP, that your stupidity in electing the GOP causes great harm you do know that don't you? Do you think your precious purity is more important than preventing the harm the GOP will do when holding office? You are an egotistical fool and you and those like you are 100% at fault for all the GOP do.

You are an idiot doing what has been done for decades and in so doing you keep the 1% in power.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Johannus, As usual, you fail to explain what you hope to accomplish by giving conservatives an edge.

[-] 1 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

And "as usual" another assinine comment from you in your quest of trying to meld Occupy into the corrupt duopoly. We all know why you are here.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

you who think OWS can "change the system" yet you fear the Dems will swallow you up you are a lying shithead, you only want to build your own political party because you are nothing but a power seeking hack.

You and your kind are even worst than the GOP you are the scum of the earth.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Tell you what slick (Johannus). Name for me ANY site with a more conservative user base where you have complained about Republicans being part of the 'duopoly'.

I hereby make my most certain prediction yet. I'd bet my life on it a thousand times over.

You will not. You can not. Your purpose is right here discouraging potentially liberal voters thereby giving your conservative heroes an edge.

By the way, I predicted far in advance that Barack Obama would sell out to the rich. It's toward the end. One of the '09' updates. January as I recall. I also ripped heavily on Michelle Obama.


[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

Name for me ANY site with a more conservative user base where you have complained about Republicans being part of the 'duopoly'.

http://www.infowars.com/ ?

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Direct me to the comment.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

But I don't see it as a duopoly. I've made this clear many times. I see it as a choice between greater and lesser evil. With Republicans being the greater evil.

Now direct me to the comment.