Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!
- Thread starter Anti
- Start date
- Status
please distinquish interest and profit(which can also be loss u kno)
the funny thing is: those millions u are talking about are barely making a dime out of their so called "well diversified portfolios". those are the 99% remember?
99% controlling only 10% of general so called wealth. and 1% controlling the rest.
sorry it was a quote from one of those vids dag posted.
Ron Paul is the most googled and youtubed politician today. He outgoogles obama. 3 percent? think again
fair enough
That's one of the most erroneous statements you've made.
Been watching Ron since 1988. Nothing's changed.
refreshing aint it...
[YOUTUBEIF]88REf0tjZHo[/YOUTUBEIF]
[YOUTUBEIF]vcbfobiHTCE[/YOUTUBEIF]
if you dont watch another vid watch this one below..
one man has been the fucking nostradamus!!
[YOUTUBEIF]evYwPJUY_cc[/YOUTUBEIF]
Here's the one I like.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/gop-debate-ii/1362551
Watch it, it's really funny. Especially the ending with Ron Paul at 6:40. Paul Brittain looks just like him.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/gop-debate-ii/1362551
Watch it, it's really funny. Especially the ending with Ron Paul at 6:40. Paul Brittain looks just like him.
saw that one..
but i liked this one better..
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/gop-debate-cold-opening/1358180
ron paul burns puppies!!!
Romney:
"next to herman cain (whispers)im white"
LMFAO!
but i liked this one better..
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/gop-debate-cold-opening/1358180
ron paul burns puppies!!!
Romney:
"next to herman cain (whispers)im white"
LMFAO!
Saw that one too, thanks for the link. I'll give this to Ron Paul - if he makes it to the big dance, Paul Brittain will be a household name.
hey guys here's a qik stream from up in oakland, it was live when i was watching a minute ago:
http://qik.com/video/45352163
http://qik.com/video/45352163
See guys even dagnabit is against the corporate bribery of politicians!
This is the true issue for the 99%! Bridging all politics...
dagnabit the Supreme Court came up with some BS backing the pseudoconstitutionality of corporate personhood leading to the flood of money corrupting politics even worse than before.
dagnabit would do you support a Constituional amendment that says simply "A corporation is not a person", in the furthurance of ending an official system of bribery?
This is the true issue for the 99%! Bridging all politics...
dagnabit the Supreme Court came up with some BS backing the pseudoconstitutionality of corporate personhood leading to the flood of money corrupting politics even worse than before.
dagnabit would do you support a Constituional amendment that says simply "A corporation is not a person", in the furthurance of ending an official system of bribery?
No.
For further explanation:
The design of the constitution (especially the subsequent amendments) is to restrict government. Once in our history was the amendment process used to limit the freedoms of people.
To a certain extent corporations ARE people.
This court ruling gets a lot of attention because "corporations are people" makes for catchy slogans.
I am incorporated. By incorporating do I abdicate my human rights?
No, of course not as that interpretation would be contrary to the rest of the document, thats just a hyperbolic question.
Is Bank Of America a person?
Should they therefore be allowed to dictate finance regulation/investigations through campaign donations?
The Supreme Court already made their split-decision on the issue, so there are not many ways to end this system of bribery besides a Constitutional amendment.
The only other way I can think of off-hand is switching to publicly financed elections. Which is actually way cheaper than our current system, paid for on the backs of taxpayers and consumers because of the ROI-approach to putting money into politics.
Do you support public financing of elections?
Got another solution in mind? By all means, throw it in the pot!
I am not very well educated in politics, but to me this sounds wrong.
It's like putting a market upon politicians. I think that government and economy should be divided in that sense.
It just feels wrong to have a politician only because he had an access to a bigger capital.
It also feels wrong to get any ROI from investing in such campaings. By ROI here many will consider rivalry privileges that only the investors get.
Otherwise what's the point in financing a campaign of a certain politician?
I
In~Plain~Site
all 5 of them?
- Status
