HOME | DD
RedTusker β Occupy Wall Street graphic
Published: 2011-11-13 23:25:09 +0000 UTC; Views: 370; Favourites: 7; Downloads: 8
Redirect to original
Description
Helping the Liberals clarify their message of violence.Obama supports civil unrest against the very government he leads? Only Liberals think that makes sense.
Elections matter.
Related content
Comments: 16
Those who attended this movement are in fact voters disillusioned with the very man they put in office, but are much too proud to admit this fact.
All who attended were 2008 Obama voters and 2012 Obama voters.
π: 0 β©: 1
Obama has not said he supports the Occupy Movement at all.
π: 0 β©: 1
Really?
Mr Obama said: βDr King would want us to challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonising those who work there.β Mr Obama had previously said the protests βexpress the frustrationβ of ordinary Americans with the financial sector.
Pretty close.
no hippies please.
π: 0 β©: 0
those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable
π: 0 β©: 1
The basic assumption being that revolution is wanted or needed. Hippies own the White House & Senate. You are "revolting" against yourselves.
Silly libs.
no hippies please.
π: 0 β©: 1
democracy itself is a system of institutionalized revolution
the theory is that if the people don t like their government
they can easily change it
without having to kill a lot of people
however when those in power use various methods to prevent such peaceful revolutions from happening
then the only thing left is violent revolution
there are many ways to hold sham elections
for example all the proposed candidates may represent only the same basic worldview with only cosmetic differences
the mass media may be owned and controlled by a small group of people thus limiting the political discource people are exposed to
there may be systemic prerequisites to getting on the ballot that nobody in power bothers to fix since it will threaten them
such as the amount of money needed to gather signatures
run campaign ads
or wealthy donors needed to be considered a so called
viable
contender
nobody wants to consider those in power as being on quote
their own
side if they believe the country is going in the wrong direction
whether they blame a liberal media or a corporate media
hippies or bribed politicians
it just shows that those in power aren t really representative of anybody
regardless of party
π: 0 β©: 0
If you know anything about about the one percent movement, it's main message is saying the banks need to confess and take responsibility for the economy. Also, the protests for the most part are peaceful, aside from a few incidents.
π: 0 β©: 2
Riiight. So you are the 1 guy who know what they are protesting? You should tell them.
π: 0 β©: 1
A lot of people know. At first, they really didn't have a message, they were just mad at losing their jobs and livelihood. But as it progressed, their message became more clear. Also, their protest are not violent. The only violence is one or two bad eggs that you will see everywhere.
π: 0 β©: 1
But of course Obama changed all of that; in other words, the protests imply that no change has taken place under Obama.
The message was "I'm not happy with Obama, but I'm too proud to admit this, so I have to blame everything and everyone else." All those people there voted for Obama and his change, but have yet to see it; so what do they do, they blame everything; from Wall-Street to my corner McDonald's.
"...they were just mad at losing their jobs and livelihood..." yes they did, under Obama.
π: 0 β©: 1
You do realize most of the job loss was at the time Bank regulations were lifted, and that under Obama, there was a slight job increase.
π: 0 β©: 0
The people need to take responsibility for the economy. After all, reckless spending with credit cards on part of America's citizens was a major factor in why our economy is messed up - it's not just the banks.
π: 0 β©: 1
think of it like this: for a long while, the banks were regulated. A person had to put up a certain amount of money if they wanted to buy a house or something. Because of this he didn't have a major crash since the great depression. Then Clinton came in and decided to sign a bill that would deregulate banks. After this, we now only had to come up with 10% of the money if we wanted to buy a house, instead of 50%. Because of this, the banks were owning houses to people who couldn't pay for them, the banks knew this, but they wanted to make a profit as any other business does. So dept just piled up until it just crashed on us. This is avoided when banks are regulated. So with that in mind, I suppose you are right that the banks aren't entirely at fault, but most of it seems to point in their direction.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the way you say it, it's the Senate's fault for coming up with that deregulation bill and Clinton's fault for signing it. Even then, blame is pointed towards the people and the government just as equally as the banks.
π: 0 β©: 1
I guess, but have you ever heard the saying "dumb asses make the world go round"? The saying basically is pointed at spenders. A smart spender uses coupons and waits for things to go on sale. A stupid spender pays full price on everything and may even refuse to but something half-off. It's people like these that keep the economy going.
π: 0 β©: 0