#OccupyWallStreet and Fox News

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Good vid, but there are a couple things I noticed:

    First off: This guy "conveniently" glazed over the point that George "Dubbya" Bush started the war in Iraq with no dox. Granted, he did more questions than answers... and most of the questions are cold readings in order to buy his book get you to think his way.

    Secondly: Banks, not the Government, are taking homes away due to this financial fiasco. The Gov has to do its part in foreclosure just like they would if somebody stole your property. I don't like it anymore than you do, but that is the facts.

    Finally: The whole "Democrat Vs. Republican" system is a system that was originally made so that one side always had a Devil's Advocate. The idea was when a bill was being made, the other side would either agree with it or suggest improvements. Both sides would work together in order to create bills and laws that were ideal for the US... Now at days,it has become a clusterfuck of "My way or STFU & GTFO" with them stirring up their followers... Followers who may not grasp the fact that they could be against something that would ultimately be beneficial to them if both sides would work together and compromise a little.

    The biggest reason why we don't have many choices and are stuck between 2 choices is not due to any kind of control from the government. It comes down to the ultimate reason why we have this faggotry: Money. It costs money to run for any office. Now, if you are Richie Bitch Rich and can blow several million dollars without breaking a sweat, then you have a chance. However, most of these candidates don't and if they did they don't want to lose it if they don't make it. So, they depend on special interests groups and a plethora of "donations" from "groups" so that if they do lose, they aren't out so much money. However, if they do win then they have to "repay" this cash by pretty much sucking the dick of these "groups". If they don't then they pretty much won't get money from these "groups" again.... That is the problem right there.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. conatus Member

  3. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

  5. SOJOA Member

    Hey my problem with the anti Fox news issue. I hate fox news.....not only have they used every opportunity to make everything a "liberal, new world order" shit every chance they get but also have misrepresented the troops actions, their safety, our goals .....oh god the list goes on but.....

    As soon as you mention a news network in america, they are all broken down into, unfortunatley, a party partisan organization. Fox obviously being conservative/republican. Now all of our networks are like that and Fox is the worst of the worst but....if you want a message out there, you can not make it look like its a specific party bias.

    There are millions of people out there who want what we want and agree with this wall street movement but moving on a certain org just makes it look again, to the retards anyway, like its a party movement.

    I actually had my mother in law claim is a was a liberal movement and the liberals were copying the tea party and that they were all just stupid who didnt have a clue what they were talking about.

    Of course she heard that from Rush and Fox news but if they are shut down...its just gonna look worse. Appeal to everyone. Push the message to everyone and the assholes will always be assholes. (Although i do wish FoxNews was off the air)

    "Dont agrue with fools. Cause people from a distance cant tell who is who." Jay-Z
    • Like Like x 1
  6. SOJOA Member

    Agreed in full, however, I do think they would work together as an effective government if they removed lobbyists.

    I just hope that in our lifetime we see a strong solid 3rd party.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Kilia Member

    Photo from Egypt massive protest. Good on 'em!
    • Like Like x 2
  8. DeathHamster Member

    I don't think that lobbyists are automatically the scum of the Earth, but it's a good way to bet.

    As for a strong third party, the American system seems to lock into a two party race, up and down the ballot. When a successful third party comes along (rarely, and usually a splinter group), it rapidly displaces and eats one of the two existing parties. In Westminster parliamentary systems, it's not uncommon to have five different parties with members in the legislature at the same time (and an independent or two. Xenophon FTW!), so I'm not sure why this doesn't happen in the American system. There is the separation of the executive and legislative branches, such that you can have a president who doesn't have the confidence of the legislative houses (and vice-versa), but that shouldn't cause the current binary election state.

    Multiple parties would be good. It's better than trying to jam every single political position into one or the other party's tent. And if you disagree with a party position, you can shift to another slightly different party without the whole Heaven/Hell, God/Satan dichotomy. (In Soviet Russia, you could must vote for the Party. In binary America, you could vote for PartyA or PartyB, but most people don't.)

    BTW, did they ever settle what happens if no presidential candidate has a simple majority in the Electoral College? That was an issue when Ross Perot ran, but luckily it was never a problem. (Heh! He's the 99th of the 1%!) (I guess they could always go back to picking the president from the highest total, and the vice president from the second highest. Obama and McCain 2008!)

    (I learned almost everything I know about the American electoral system from Wonder Warthog and the Nurds of November. Damned accurate, and hot!)
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Anon_Jon Member

    Crony Capitalism FTL.

    Call me the devil's advocate, but FoxNews is no worse than MSNBC, they're just feeding their candy to a different audience. I don't think that the government really gives a flying fuck about OWS, just like they didn't care about the Tea Party. Eventually OWS will fizzle and we'll all go back to being sheep. I pray I'm proved wrong.

    I can't believe nobody sees the similarities between OWS and the Tea Party.... I started a thread a while back asking why everyone hated the Tea Party here and was met with ignorance and meaningless rhetoric. Well... shit, the Tea Party was right, weren't they? /scratches head

    Funny, these signs look strikingly similar to the OWS signs.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. the anti Member

    the problem is they are more for making the US a religious theocracy than just over spending. and they like to accuse everyone else of being a nazi or a socialist
    • Like Like x 1
  11. The Wrong Guy Member

    Occupy Fox News: A Message to Murdoch | The Nation

    Free Press, which called the “Occupy Fox News” protest, explained at its website that News Corp. “has accumulated toxic levels of media power—including cable channels, news networks, newspapers, television stations, movie studios and more.” News Corp. “leverages its news and entertainment empire to bully regulators, elect compliant politicians, gain regulatory favors and undermine the public interest.”

    The group also condemned Fox News for its “long history of anti-immigrant rhetoric and biased reporting on issues that are important to communities of color in the U.S.”

    Groups joining Free Press in calling the demonstration were Common Cause, OccupyLA,, Change to Win, Good Jobs LA, Brave New Foundation, the National Lawyers Guild and others.

    • Like Like x 1
  12. adhocrat Member

    And who controls the money?
  13. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    This is my observation so if I am wrong, feel free to point it out and I'll admit my error:

    There is a vast difference between OWS and the Tea Party. The most apparent is the fact the Tea Party is a recognized political party. They have members in the house and senate and have elected officials running. OWS on the other hand has no political stance and is more diverse in the political spectrum.

    Mostly the difference is their core element. The Tea Party tends to be more "Ronald Regan"ish conservative and holds deep in the right field with its ideas and reasoning. Meanwhile the OWS crowd is a hodgepodge of political stances depending on its topography. From what I gather: Most OWS hold both Dems and Repubs responsible for the mess we are in. They believe that the entire system is broke, not a political party's idea's per say. Mostly though the OWS crowd wants to see banks get punished more for the collapse of the US Economy. Meanwhile the Tea Party just blames the Democrats, Obama, and Clinton... Never mind the fact George "Dubbya" Bush was in office for 8 years between the two and did nothing to foresee or stop this mess.

    As far as Fox News and MSNBC: Fox News has their head so far up the Republican Asshole, they could help chew their breakfast. MSNBC is the same thing, only with it being the Democrats Asshole.

    As for myself, I just use this algorithm:

    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anon_Jon Member

    I'll grant you your observations about the differences between TP and OWS - however, the TP rightly predicted the circumstances that have enabled many to action in OWS. The TP, believe it or not, supports OWS:
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    I'll answer that with a question: Can the US Government, the way it is established now, run without elected officials? Also, can the Government or people wanting to run for office just go to the US Mint and say "Fill 'er up"? Can the US Government run on nobody making or passing bills?

    While you are right that the answer is "The Government controls the money", what the government can't control to any certain degree who runs for office and certainly can't control who wins. Again, without whole fucktons of money nobody can run for office because they won't be able to get their name out effectively. Oh they can try and long ago there wasn't these mass media devices. However, without sufficient resources, a person's odds of running and winning an office diminish. Hence these Special Interest groups come in and give these people who they think is the best candidate and foot some of the running bill... Of course it comes with the promise the candidate must play by the rules laid out by the Special Interest group, but it beats running your entire campaign out of your own pocket!

    Before you say "The government can do things to convince people to vote for a certain person..." Keep in mind, this society still has free will to some degree. Whether people will follow what the gov says or not is more in the laps of an individual's choice more than a government mandate. Last I checked, I could vote for who I wanted to and not what somebody tells me to. Whether they win or not is another matter in and of itself.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. adhocrat Member

    OK, so who put the rules in place? Politicians. Who benefits? Politicians.

    And yes, the politicians can say "Fill her up." But it doesn't come directly from the Fed, it comes from the rules and laws put in place by politicians for politicians. Franking privileges. Money to pay for staff. It adds up to incumbent heaven.

    By the time the ballot is mailed, the only choices I see are between two forms of evil. I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. So the two parties control pretty much all the ballots to the point when popular third party candidates are neatly marginalized without much effort.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  18. eddieVroom Member

    Bear in mind that from day one, Dubya complained that Afghanistan had "no good targets" -- that is to say, spoils of war. The only reason Bush/Cheney went into Iraq was to let the Corporation feed at the trough of Iraqi Oil Money. Remember this video of the Coporations meeting to figure out how to divide the goods?..

    They got their feeding frenzy, and are now doing their damndest to stick us with the bill.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. mojo Member

    fox to meet fawkes...i like it!
    • Like Like x 3
  20. The Wrong Guy Member

    Anonymous set to destroy Fox News — RT

    When Fox News first began coverage of Occupy Wall Street — inarguably a bit too late — their coverage was light-hearted and laughable. Fox host Megyn Kelly called a young female protester’s response to being pepper-sprayed by an unprovoked NYPD officer an “overreaction,” and as recently as October 25, an article on describes the movement, now in its second month, as being engaged by “a ‘red army’ of radicals seeking no less than to provoke a new, definitive economic crisis, with their goal being the full collapse of the U.S. financial system, with the ensuing chaos to be rebuilt into a utopian socialist vision.”

  21. The Wrong Guy Member

    Fox News Smears Mom @ Occupy Wall Street

    Fox News had absurd, harsh words for a mother who is participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks.
  22. The Wrong Guy Member

  23. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  24. naveman Member

  25. The Wrong Guy Member

  26. AWESOME^^Read it!
    • Like Like x 2
  27. adhocrat Member

    he sounds as confused as the other pundits.
  28. adhocrat Member

    I stand sit corrected
    • Like Like x 2
  29. I was actually impressed with your open-minded approach to the interpretation of marriage since in the third paragraph she refers to her husband. Either that or you only skimmed the article you dissed. ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  30. adhocrat Member

    Can't be perfect. And I sit by my opinion. The ow protests are so inchoate that there is no pont to them other than anger. I get the anger. It's the target that has me puzzled.
  31. None of us is perfect (drat). And I defend your right to your opinion.
    One of things that puzzles me is that some media can't seem to get the overarching message of: be fair, play nice, don't be greedy. If decision-makers, politicians and the corpocracy, had been acting ethically would we really be at this point? Too bad folks need to be legislated to do what they ought to have learned by kindergarten.
    • Like Like x 2
  32. Anonymous Member

    It sounds to me like u mad because the 1% is greedy... but doesn't the 99% want the 1% monies? Isn't that, uhm, greedy?
  33. I think Lithwick spoke to that point very nicely.
  34. Anonymous Member

    But the 1% aren't all bankers. Not even mostly bankers.

    I'm not even trolling. I'm just asking you the questions that those of us in the middle class have. Let's face it, your movement will fail if you can't win the middle class.

    I'm the middle class.

    And I am not impressed.
  35. It's not my movement, never been to an OWS protest, though maybe if I were closer. And funnily enough happen to come from a 4 generation banking family. (But only a lower-middle class Canadian banking family, so no growing up in houses in the Hamptons lol.)

    If the comfort of your middle class lifestyle has been or is being eroded, you may wish to determine what factors have contributed to that erosion. I think you may find that, as per my previous post, some of the folks have not been playing fair.

    Here is some information you may want to take a look at.

    For my own choices, I strive to want and need as little as possible. Gave up on the middle class over-consumerism a long time ago. If I don't buy it, I don't have to earn the money to pay for it. Very freeing.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Anonymous Member

    Exactly. I am firmly in the middle class but I save everything I can and maximize what I don't buy by being a pretty shitty consumer. I also have my own garden, buy locally and have my money "invested" in real goods with value as opposed to largely meaningless stocks, bonds, fiat and various other ways of potentially losing my money. The only thing I really "blow" my money on is charity and weed.
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Anonymous Member

    I think you middle class guys are missing the point.
    This isn't about middle class America. Or house prices, or Eurozone debt.

    This is about massive corporate fraud and the subsequent inhuman waste of economic potential, the results of which mean that even more millions will starve and suffer needlessly all across the globe, as the corporations continue raping what is left of the planet's resources and bestowing the mess to an ever increasing population that is impossible to sustain by any realistic predictions for more than 50 years or so.
    When you have nations in the south Americas starving to death, they're headed north, in numbers.
    They'll be taking resources because if they don't they die. And they won't be asking "please".
    These protests, the idea that they are just some commie idiots trying to play some kind of hippy Tea Party politics is laughable.

    This to me is the start of what we were warned might happen in 2012.
    I'm not a religious man, but there are plenty of brainwashed folk out there, and all desperate enough to believe in signs and symbols to make their truths self evident.
    Hope for the best but prepare for the worse, because nobody is safe.
    To most people on Earth, the middle classes are just as to blame as the 1% for their dire fortune at birth. Never forget that, bankers boys.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Um, no you're not. You're a person in the middle class. You might not even get to stay there. You speak for 100% of yourself.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Really? Which nations would those be? Damn, I haven't heard a good hordes from south of border scare story in ages!
    Your Millennialism is 12 years slow. Check the battery on that thing! Oh, and DIAF.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins