*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, December 2nd, 2011 2:52pm PST - doublepromote requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

A truly telling development. This doesn't even need a spin, it's clear that Americans are more aware of the Rape-ublican agenda than their strategists thought. Not that Democrats are innocent of profiteering from lobby groups, but of the two parties it's clear who's the worse culprit. I'm glad Occupy brought this to light.

It was not Republicans pushing the Community Reinvestment Act, it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Even W warned that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in danger of insolvency.

Also no one in gov't has anything to do with the cost of higher education, which has been a sore point for the '99%'. You can blame your multi-million dollar university presidents for that boondoggle.

These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.

BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.

Wikipedia is your friend.

----->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_university_system<----->> ^lantern53:

Also no one in gov't has anything to do with the cost of higher education, which has been a sore point for the '99%'. You can blame your multi-million dollar university presidents for that boondoggle.

Thanks!!>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

quality doublepromote

>> ^quantumushroom:

These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.


They don't need to know (but I'm sure many of them have as good idea as anyone else)


Fact is there protest is legitimate , wealth is not spread proportional to social impact of work , the super rich are not taxed fairly and Reaganomics don't work and have been catagoricaly proven not to work.


Even though the protesting will likely not achieve many direct results and allot of the protesters will be clueless what it has done is to get middle america to pay attention to the economical exploitation and wealth inequality that exist , where as before the protests there wouldn't even be a conversation.

father more The protests have made transparent to many people that america is accentually 90% Corporatocracy and 10% democracy.

"omics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep. "

If things progress for the better how is progressivism bad ?

How can progressivism lead people to be reactionary sheep more than any other idoiligy . The only thing that's creating sheep In USA is mindless media like fox news , the pore quality of education , some aspects of religoin and a total lack of critical thinking + scepticisum.

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.

Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.

Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:

These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.

>> ^messenger:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.



I think what fox news/the people the own that media have done is change the language so conservatives and allot of people Think of things in a binary way , so when some one says the system is fucked tax the rich conservatives think that its a case of dirty liberal socalist commies V traditoinal amercan values.

when in reality I think the vast majority of liberals are totally fine with capitlisum so long as its as fair as it can be , and directed towards activites of social and scientific benefit ( as well as rewarding individuals for hard work and allowing for diversity in projects and businesses)

@westy

Yup. It's binary thinking like QM's that fail to understand a good message, which is that any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.

Language changes to muddle the issue, so you would generally agree with what they say if it were your friend or relatives saying those same words. That way if you repeat what a politician says to someone else, it sounds completely reasonable. The true intent is not among the soundbytes and quotes, they are there for mass appeal.

The purposefully try to muddle the conversation so there's so much redefinition of the words that you can't even begin to argue with them...because no one knows what the hell the other side means when they say each word.

If your point was in the best interest of the people you represent (IE not corporations) there would be no need for all this. And this is why I don't understand when plain spoken people who don't mince words aren't more popular. At least then it isn't like the guy is speaking a foreign language that sounds a lot like the one everyone else uses.

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.

That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.

Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.

But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.

Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.

If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.

The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have cost cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?

Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).

Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.











>> ^messenger:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.
If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.
The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have costs cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?
Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).
Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.





>> ^messenger:
There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.





You are aware that deregulation of the market is what cussed the current economic climet ?

@quantumushroom

When you look over American history, at all the great social changes from the ending of slavery, to women's suffrage, to the New Deal, to labor rights, to civil rights, to gay rights, conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history. Pro slavery, anti suffrage, anti labor, anti civil rights, anti gay.

If you could travel back in time, would you join hands with the conservatives of the past to defend these various forms of oppression, or would you have the courage to stand up to the crowd and rebel against these injustices?

Now, at the dawn of the next big step towards social justice, you sit in the bleachers of our mutual oppressors in a revealing skirt, waving a pair of pompoms like so many generations of conservatives before you.

When the schoolchildren of the twenty-fifth century study our era, do you really want your legacy to be one of unquestioned fealty to global corporate empire?

It's never too late to join the rebel alliance.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I believe that a number of the occupy protesters have some lack of economic knowledge, and I fear that they might not know the true sources of their grievances or how hard they would be to address.

I don't think that four more years of an Obama presidency is going to help anything, given that he has largely only continued the policies that were in place before he was elected and Congress refuses to work with him. I also believe that he takes too much time off when he should be working.
That was very even-handed of you, QM, and I agree with a lot of what you have to say.

*****************
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2010/04/american-wage-stagnationposner.html

Between 1997 and 2008, median U.S. household income fell by 4 percent after adjustment for inflation. It presumably did not rise in 2009, and may not in 2010 either. A median is not an average; average income rose because the incomes of high earners rose, and so the effect was to increase the inequality of the income distribution.
*****************

Never mind losing their job, or their house. It's hard to live the American dream when you're unemployed and facing being homeless...

You can understand why the working class are getting pissed and the republicans are scared shitless about it. And holdouts like QM, with his quaint little almost racial slurs and real bad ass insults (occupoopers... lol, what are you, 6? Or is that your IQ?), are just a pebble before the avalanche. Europe goes under and the US slides back in to recession, you may well see a decent reenactment of the French revolution on Wall St.

Why does the set of TYT look like some rape dungeon with tvs?

At some point, we need to realize that somewhere around 80% of the population doesn't really think. They act on EMOTION.
That's all Luntz does - the psychology of emotion.

we keep arguing facts and logic.

>> ^westy:

You are aware that deregulation of the market is what cussed the current economic climete ?

To a point yes, but not in the way you think. What caused the problem was throwing loans to people who should never have gotten them via forced regulation of the mortgage system. A lovely harkening to the days of Clinton, Carter and others. While various democrats in power screamed "racist" whenever reforms were sought to tighten the controls back up. It's pretty damn obvious to anyone who's lived outside the US. You don't allow high risk loans to risky people, but the government not only said it was okay to do it(freddie and fanny), but forced the banks to do it otherwise they'd loose their secured depositor status.


It doesn't help that 100 years of Keynesian economic policies(aka lets throw money at it), didn't help either. Keynesian solutions sow their own doom in the future, either by steering a sector of the market, or by trying to fully steer various markets.





>> ^Asmo:


http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2010/04/american-wage-stagnatio
nposner.html

Never mind losing their job, or their house. It's hard to live the American dream when you're unemployed and facing being homeless...
You can understand why the working class are getting pissed and the republicans are scared shitless about it. And holdouts like QM, with his quaint little almost racial slurs and real bad ass insults (occupoopers... lol, what are you, 6? Or is that your IQ?), are just a pebble before the avalanche. Europe goes under and the US slides back in to recession, you may well see a decent reenactment of the French revolution on Wall St.


Wait, you think it's the republicans that the public are pissed at? Do you even look at the polling data and methodology? They're tired of the new "hope and change" which equaled broke, and I'm out of a job. Hell if you run the correction numbers since Obama and the dem's took office, the unemployment rate would be up around 11%. The "occupiers" are a subset of a subset of people, who don't even come close to reflecting the mainstreet. Republican's aren't scared of that, though the Dem's who supported them sure seem to be. Since the occupiers poison touch sure has tanked many dem's numbers who 'supported' them.

Uh - no offense - but Frank Luntz is about as 'insider' as you can get. He is not a conservative. He is a GOP wonk. Putting it simply - he's one of those RINOs that real conservatives can't stand and who sells true conservatism down the river every chance he gets.

The GOP insiders want Romney. They want Romney because he is the person they have polled as being the most 'normal'. Above all else, the GOP insiders want someone bland, flavorless, and easy to swallow. They don't want the Sarah Palins, or the Herman Cains, or Ron Paul, or anyone else. They want vanilla, plain-jane, smart sounding, pretty for the camera, non-controversial candidates.

Romney would probably lose to Obama though. So why does the GOP want him? Quite simply, the GOP (as a political party) wants to keep the House, and win the Senate. And they think that Romney is the guy that would give them the best chance to do that. He is so inoffensive, that he would not really 'damage' the critical House/Senate races they want to win in 2012. And if the GOP keeps the House and wins the Senate then the GOP gets to head up all those committee chairmanships, get charge of all the appropriations, and basically run the show. They wouldn't care whether Obama was still President as long as they got to run the town. That is the perspective that Luntz is coming from. Any candidate that risks the GOP 'master plan' is seen as someone to beat down and toss off the overpass rolled up in a flaming carpet.

The normal voters don't give a flying handshake about OWS. OWS is a bunch of freaks, losers, and radicals who will have absolutely no impact on the presidential election whatsoever. But they have a remote chance of messing up a few House & Senate races... That's the only thing our dear Frank cares about.