Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!
- Thread starter Anti
- Start date
- Status
T
THE PABLOS
.....Novus Ordo Seclorum
Or.... in his ordo est ordinem non servare....in this case the only ruleis is not obeying any rules..
T
THE PABLOS
...It's a tough one...though I don't think it anything...but a mockery of the human race...and not that well hidden (the mockery aspect I suppose)....that is the genius.
I feel that these protests are people getting a sense of what is in the shadows...but I don't think the masses will ever admit nor come to grasps with the age old treachery. And is it treachery? Or is it the necessary evils of men?
The Euro dollar was a giant step....the United Nations....Federal Reserve...great pillars of the process. These things are not an illusion. A few more steps...A New Order of Ages....not like it is hidden from view...it's on the currency
Sometimes I think that southpark creators are either superbrainwashed or superbrainwashers... it's either one of two. Such a dumb and funny show.
Trey Parker is a modern day genius. Of you can't hear the subtext it may be you who is brainwashed.
No it doesn't and that's not what I've implied. Our leaders are shit and it's ultimately the people's responsibility for electing and putting up with their shit. In the end each individual's freedom and circumstances rest on the choices that the individual makes and how these individual choices manifest themselves in the collective's political structure.does throwing all responsability for our current state of affairs to the "leaders" is any justification for our own shitty choices we have made?
We chose the nanny state and so we are stuck with it's consequences and it's inevitable conclusion of collapsing on itself as governments always promise more than pay. When they can't pay the always print which is the point of no return.
[youtubeif]r4jYdCaHrjQ[/youtubeif]
They showed some very isolated clips of this on the news last night. Made it look like not much was going on. When you see the whole video, you realize that something was definitely going on.
Not hundreds, or a few thousand, but MANY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE protesting in Oakland yesterday!
They showed some very isolated clips of this on the news last night. Made it look like not much was going on. When you see the whole video, you realize that something was definitely going on.
Not hundreds, or a few thousand, but MANY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE protesting in Oakland yesterday!
each generation needs a revolution to redefine their priorities and ideals,,,
this obviously has not been allowed to happen for so long and the powers that be knew full well that people would start to get pissed off now,,,
the biggest problem imo is the billions of sheeple that are so ignorant that they presume that the people running the world are equally ignorant as they are,,, this syndicate has employed the worlds greatest minds against us since its inception so what chance does most of the population have?
if you can comprehend a means of controlling/limiting and destroying life then they have it either lined up or just sat in a laboratory library waiting for a use,,
the derivatives being created on freshwater is one of their best weapons against us for the upcoming future,, if people think this is what a collapsing system looks like its got a long way down to go yet before they are quite ready to bring in a full on nwo,,,
this obviously has not been allowed to happen for so long and the powers that be knew full well that people would start to get pissed off now,,,
the biggest problem imo is the billions of sheeple that are so ignorant that they presume that the people running the world are equally ignorant as they are,,, this syndicate has employed the worlds greatest minds against us since its inception so what chance does most of the population have?
if you can comprehend a means of controlling/limiting and destroying life then they have it either lined up or just sat in a laboratory library waiting for a use,,
the derivatives being created on freshwater is one of their best weapons against us for the upcoming future,, if people think this is what a collapsing system looks like its got a long way down to go yet before they are quite ready to bring in a full on nwo,,,
Are there any left wing sugardaddies like the rightwing Koche Bros. You know provide a little money and muscle. Get the less photogenic out from in front of the cameras and away from the microphones. Nothing says credibility like a person who looks like they got attacked with a nailgun. Do like they did with the orginal teabaggers. Why wouldn't anyone in the crowd talk to a faux news reporter. Hell maybe you would come off as having some brains. Please y'll don't get me started again about the Nam protest. Gees, all the egos and bad mouthing the US that's the way to go. Turn your backs on your natural allies the Viet Nam enlisted vets. Such fools they were and many still are. Perhaps with more vets coming home to no jobs, somebody will enlist(sorry) them to the Cause. Some are already there I hear.
I
Iron_Lion
I wonder how much longer til the protestors are labeled homeland terrorists by the fed gov. and then are hunted down and wisked off to secret prison camps in the middle of the night.
I
Iron_Lion
^ probably a cia operative.
so we go back to my initial question in the thread:
what will the ows crowd do/choose to help their own country flourish?
what choices will they have to make to start painting the brighter future they imagine?
maybe if people weren't willfully ignorant, they would have realized that they had to get "their hands on almost every aspect of our daily life".
if curiosity were stronger than willfull ignorance, we would not be in the mess we are. education is not zombification, all you need to do to get an education is to actually want an education, rather than a degree/title so as to score a job.
there's really no excuse at all when it comes to ignorance; those so-called free masons you give so much credit too also need to sit down on the toilet to defecate and then also need to wash their asses clean, like everyone; and yet, somehow, magically? they are able to realize basic things that the rest are not... why? willfull ignorance, that's why.
how did that rhyme go from the 90s? "they are building space stations while you're playing play station' ? lol... always loved it, since so many people I knew smoked herb and played their little nintendo, while others left them alone to their childish shit to go smoke somewhereelse with books and build and learn mathematics.
the ones playing nintendo voted for chavez too. fucking crazy
lol, that's epic.
maybe if people weren't willfully ignorant, they would have realized that they had to get "their hands on almost every aspect of our daily life".
if curiosity were stronger than willfull ignorance, we would not be in the mess we are. education is not zombification, all you need to do to get an education is to actually want an education, rather than a degree/title so as to score a job.
there's really no excuse at all when it comes to ignorance; those so-called free masons you give so much credit too also need to sit down on the toilet to defecate and then also need to wash their asses clean, like everyone; and yet, somehow, magically? they are able to realize basic things that the rest are not... why? willfull ignorance, that's why.
how did that rhyme go from the 90s? "they are building space stations while you're playing play station' ? lol... always loved it, since so many people I knew smoked herb and played their little nintendo, while others left them alone to their childish shit to go smoke somewhereelse with books and build and learn mathematics.
the ones playing nintendo voted for chavez too. fucking crazy
I'm not sure why you're so angry with people. Imo we should really try to see best in eachother in order for it to appear.
How else are you going to turn a zombie into an exciting individual?
So when you are saying things about that "willful ignorance" I strongly disagree.
Maybe we are looking at the same word from different perspectives.
I believe that curiousity will always prevail. In my world atleast. We obviously live in different worlds.
with the part of smoking herb and studying I agree big time. Yet lately I've been tokin 24/7 and I can't study 24/7 haha
Student life is super fun time 
Bought Justice and the Supreme Court
Dylan Ratigan
Posted: 11/4/11 01:26 PM ET
The Supreme Court looms over our political landscape like a giant, immovable object. Americans have traditionally respected the court's purview, believing that it serves justice, dispassionately.
Yet the most controversial decision of the last twenty five years -- Bush v. Gore -- has profoundly shaken that sentiment. And other decisions, like the Citizens United ruling that prevented restrictions on corporation and labor outside expenditures in elections, are inviting further skepticism. Just who does the Court serve? Is this another case of Platinum Citizens getting one set of rules, and everyone else getting another set of rules? And is the Court dominated, like the rest of our government, by money? Do we have a bought Supreme Court?
This is a difficult, and troubling, question. And it doesn't have an obvious answer. One place to look is at the Citizens United decision itself. The most remarkable aspects of the court's decision-making in Citizens United is the Court's attitude towards corruption. The traditional rationale behind campaign finance restrictions is that campaign money can corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. The court found that, unless there was an explicit quid pro quo and donations were coordinated with candidates, money was not a corrupting force. If there ever were a rationale to restrict free speech in the form of campaign spending, corruption was it. But since campaign money doesn't corrupt, the Court found, the Constitution prohibits the government from regulating money in politics.
Most people believe in common sense, that if you give someone money, or spend money on someone's behalf, you will have influence over them. Excessive influence over a politician leads to corruption. Yet the Supreme Court doesn't see it this way. How did the Court come to have such odd ideas on corruption?
This goes back to the subtlety of money in our politics, and in particular, the purchase of ideas. In the 1970s, a think tank called the John Olin Foundation began promoting something called law and economics, a school of thought started at the University of Chicago that linked the incentive-based thinking of economics to legal rule-making. At the time, the ideas that led to the massive deregulatory impulses of the next three decades were first taking shape; the law and economics school was simply the legal offshoot of this well-funded pro-corporate trend. This new legal theory asserted that traditional legal concepts like equity and fairness were not as important as efficiency and incentives. And it expanded its influence quickly over law schools and courts very quickly through, well, gobs of money. According to conservative journalist John Miller, "the foundation sank more than $68 million into law and economics, and because of this it had a big impact on legal scholarship, the training of lawyers, and judicial behavior."
Over the next four decades, the Supreme Court, and the judiciary in general, became far more amenable to analyses that left out concepts like fairness. And this was not simply due to the conservatives on the courts, though they led the charge. The Supreme Court helped get rid of usury caps for credit cards, and then struck down state laws capping penalty fees. These two significant decisions -- the Marquette decision in 1978 and Smiley v. Citibank in 1996 -- were unanimous. Bankruptcy filings have naturally spiraled upwards. It wasn't just Congress, the regulators, or the President that deregulated our financial system, it was the Supreme Court as well. And if you want to know why bankers haven't been prosecuted for the financial crisis, well just before the crisis, the court upheld a ruling that investment bankers who knowingly structured sham transactions they knew would be used to falsify Enron's financial statements hadn't committed fraud. Last year, the court ruled for Enron ex-CEO Jeff Skilling.
Today, this concept is so embedded in the judiciary that imposing rules to allow shareholders power over corporate management is now being struck down on the grounds that it would prevent "efficiency, competition, and capital formation." Law schools now churn out lawyers who understand and believe in law and economics, who can be the Supreme Court clerks and legal functionaries to embed these arguments in every nook and cranny of our legal system. Questions of justice are now becoming questions of how to make the law serve the interests of corporations, rather than fundamental issues of liberty. Powerful groups like investment bankers and CEOs can commit unethical acts with no consequence, but more than one in every hundred American men is now incarcerated, most for low level petty violations.
Some people chalk up the Court's problems to a conservative influence on the judiciary. These people point to both Justice Sam Alito and Justice John Roberts, who both argued they would treasure Court precedent during their nomination hearings. It would be hard to find a more outrageous case of not following precedent than Citizens United; corporate money had been restricted for a century. Even more egregious is the case of Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife took $680,000 of money from the conservative Heritage Foundation, even as he did not disclose the money as required by law on his Federal disclosure forms. Thomas has also helped raise money for the Heritage Foundation. As businessman and ethical advocate Landon Rowland observed, the greatly admired scholar Alexis de Tocqueville distinguished America from corrupt European states by its willingness to subject "the state and its rulers to ordinary courts and the common law." This is no longer the case if a Supreme Court Justice can receive family income from a conservative ideological institution, break the law and not disclose it, and then rule on issues on which that institution has weighed in.
But I think the problem is more fundamental. The bank-friendly cases occurred before these conservatives were on the Court, and they were unanimous decisions. Moreover, just looking at how Democrats responded to these Supreme Court decisions shows that the problem is bipartisan. In response to the Lily Ledbetter decision from the Court on gender-based pay discrimination, Congress passed a statute reversing the Court's mandate. This is good as far as it goes, but where is the grand theory of bringing equity and fairness back to the judicial system? Congress can't, and indeed doesn't, respond every time the court system fails to act in pursuit of justice. The breakdown is becoming so severe that banks can commit rampant foreclosure fraud against debtors and the court system, without consequence. What good is a system of justice that protects the property rights of banks, but not the property rights of anyone else?
Fundamentally, what we need is a new legal theory for the 99%, a new way of looking at corruption. The law and economics school takes a limited approach to the question of justice, but there are seeds of new ways of thinking. Another way of modeling the problem has been pioneered by law professor Zephyr Teachout, who argues there is a structural anti-corruption principle embedded in the Constitution itself in the form of a separation-of-powers. She explores how the founders drafted the Constitution as a response to corruption, and argues that judges need to consider questions of corruption as a Constitutional principle.
Other young scholars are remaking our intellectual landscape- telecommunications and cyberdefense specialist Marvin Ammori argues that the First Amendment is a design principle. Public space, he says, is essential for the First Amendment to operate, and judges need to consider that concept. As we see protesters camped out around the country and tussling with public officials over how they can showcase grievances, this seems far more important than more mundane First Amendment questions that typically deal with questions of flag-burning.
The question of money and the courts is not a simple one. Money does corrupt, but in the case of the courts, it isn't illegal to fund intellectual research, nor should it be. What are needed are new ideas and new legal theories to counter the ones that failed. As we watch the torrents of money pour into our politics, it's becoming increasingly impossible to believe that our national institutions are designed to do anything but protect the interest of a very narrow slice of the population. The Supreme Court's power rests on a tradition of integrity and a belief that it will be just in its use of its power to interpret the law. It's based on a belief that the Court's interests are aligned with the rest of us, that we get the choice of pursuing justice when harmed. As this frays, the Court's power will fray as well. This is in no one's interest. We need a system of justice, but a system of justice that serves all of us.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-...b_1076518.html
Dylan Ratigan
Posted: 11/4/11 01:26 PM ET
The Supreme Court looms over our political landscape like a giant, immovable object. Americans have traditionally respected the court's purview, believing that it serves justice, dispassionately.
Yet the most controversial decision of the last twenty five years -- Bush v. Gore -- has profoundly shaken that sentiment. And other decisions, like the Citizens United ruling that prevented restrictions on corporation and labor outside expenditures in elections, are inviting further skepticism. Just who does the Court serve? Is this another case of Platinum Citizens getting one set of rules, and everyone else getting another set of rules? And is the Court dominated, like the rest of our government, by money? Do we have a bought Supreme Court?
This is a difficult, and troubling, question. And it doesn't have an obvious answer. One place to look is at the Citizens United decision itself. The most remarkable aspects of the court's decision-making in Citizens United is the Court's attitude towards corruption. The traditional rationale behind campaign finance restrictions is that campaign money can corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. The court found that, unless there was an explicit quid pro quo and donations were coordinated with candidates, money was not a corrupting force. If there ever were a rationale to restrict free speech in the form of campaign spending, corruption was it. But since campaign money doesn't corrupt, the Court found, the Constitution prohibits the government from regulating money in politics.
Most people believe in common sense, that if you give someone money, or spend money on someone's behalf, you will have influence over them. Excessive influence over a politician leads to corruption. Yet the Supreme Court doesn't see it this way. How did the Court come to have such odd ideas on corruption?
This goes back to the subtlety of money in our politics, and in particular, the purchase of ideas. In the 1970s, a think tank called the John Olin Foundation began promoting something called law and economics, a school of thought started at the University of Chicago that linked the incentive-based thinking of economics to legal rule-making. At the time, the ideas that led to the massive deregulatory impulses of the next three decades were first taking shape; the law and economics school was simply the legal offshoot of this well-funded pro-corporate trend. This new legal theory asserted that traditional legal concepts like equity and fairness were not as important as efficiency and incentives. And it expanded its influence quickly over law schools and courts very quickly through, well, gobs of money. According to conservative journalist John Miller, "the foundation sank more than $68 million into law and economics, and because of this it had a big impact on legal scholarship, the training of lawyers, and judicial behavior."
Over the next four decades, the Supreme Court, and the judiciary in general, became far more amenable to analyses that left out concepts like fairness. And this was not simply due to the conservatives on the courts, though they led the charge. The Supreme Court helped get rid of usury caps for credit cards, and then struck down state laws capping penalty fees. These two significant decisions -- the Marquette decision in 1978 and Smiley v. Citibank in 1996 -- were unanimous. Bankruptcy filings have naturally spiraled upwards. It wasn't just Congress, the regulators, or the President that deregulated our financial system, it was the Supreme Court as well. And if you want to know why bankers haven't been prosecuted for the financial crisis, well just before the crisis, the court upheld a ruling that investment bankers who knowingly structured sham transactions they knew would be used to falsify Enron's financial statements hadn't committed fraud. Last year, the court ruled for Enron ex-CEO Jeff Skilling.
Today, this concept is so embedded in the judiciary that imposing rules to allow shareholders power over corporate management is now being struck down on the grounds that it would prevent "efficiency, competition, and capital formation." Law schools now churn out lawyers who understand and believe in law and economics, who can be the Supreme Court clerks and legal functionaries to embed these arguments in every nook and cranny of our legal system. Questions of justice are now becoming questions of how to make the law serve the interests of corporations, rather than fundamental issues of liberty. Powerful groups like investment bankers and CEOs can commit unethical acts with no consequence, but more than one in every hundred American men is now incarcerated, most for low level petty violations.
Some people chalk up the Court's problems to a conservative influence on the judiciary. These people point to both Justice Sam Alito and Justice John Roberts, who both argued they would treasure Court precedent during their nomination hearings. It would be hard to find a more outrageous case of not following precedent than Citizens United; corporate money had been restricted for a century. Even more egregious is the case of Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife took $680,000 of money from the conservative Heritage Foundation, even as he did not disclose the money as required by law on his Federal disclosure forms. Thomas has also helped raise money for the Heritage Foundation. As businessman and ethical advocate Landon Rowland observed, the greatly admired scholar Alexis de Tocqueville distinguished America from corrupt European states by its willingness to subject "the state and its rulers to ordinary courts and the common law." This is no longer the case if a Supreme Court Justice can receive family income from a conservative ideological institution, break the law and not disclose it, and then rule on issues on which that institution has weighed in.
But I think the problem is more fundamental. The bank-friendly cases occurred before these conservatives were on the Court, and they were unanimous decisions. Moreover, just looking at how Democrats responded to these Supreme Court decisions shows that the problem is bipartisan. In response to the Lily Ledbetter decision from the Court on gender-based pay discrimination, Congress passed a statute reversing the Court's mandate. This is good as far as it goes, but where is the grand theory of bringing equity and fairness back to the judicial system? Congress can't, and indeed doesn't, respond every time the court system fails to act in pursuit of justice. The breakdown is becoming so severe that banks can commit rampant foreclosure fraud against debtors and the court system, without consequence. What good is a system of justice that protects the property rights of banks, but not the property rights of anyone else?
Fundamentally, what we need is a new legal theory for the 99%, a new way of looking at corruption. The law and economics school takes a limited approach to the question of justice, but there are seeds of new ways of thinking. Another way of modeling the problem has been pioneered by law professor Zephyr Teachout, who argues there is a structural anti-corruption principle embedded in the Constitution itself in the form of a separation-of-powers. She explores how the founders drafted the Constitution as a response to corruption, and argues that judges need to consider questions of corruption as a Constitutional principle.
Other young scholars are remaking our intellectual landscape- telecommunications and cyberdefense specialist Marvin Ammori argues that the First Amendment is a design principle. Public space, he says, is essential for the First Amendment to operate, and judges need to consider that concept. As we see protesters camped out around the country and tussling with public officials over how they can showcase grievances, this seems far more important than more mundane First Amendment questions that typically deal with questions of flag-burning.
The question of money and the courts is not a simple one. Money does corrupt, but in the case of the courts, it isn't illegal to fund intellectual research, nor should it be. What are needed are new ideas and new legal theories to counter the ones that failed. As we watch the torrents of money pour into our politics, it's becoming increasingly impossible to believe that our national institutions are designed to do anything but protect the interest of a very narrow slice of the population. The Supreme Court's power rests on a tradition of integrity and a belief that it will be just in its use of its power to interpret the law. It's based on a belief that the Court's interests are aligned with the rest of us, that we get the choice of pursuing justice when harmed. As this frays, the Court's power will fray as well. This is in no one's interest. We need a system of justice, but a system of justice that serves all of us.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-...b_1076518.html
- Status
