You know, this is always the issue. People vote based on who benefits THEM without seeing the bigger picture and then they cry when 4 years later THOSE get elected.
Of course. The problem we see today is that there is very little difference between the two parties. In 2008, when people thought they were voting for change, they actually got more of the same. Oh sure, Obama is more focused on Big Government solutions than Bush was, but not by much. Between Obama and McCain, there was actually very little difference IMO. Obama's handling of the Wars has actually been more aggressive than Bush's, not less, though he is a foreign policy appologist, which only serves to make him look weak. On crony capitalism, Bush gave the TARP money to the banks, Obama gave the TARP money to the Auto Industry, and too big to fail got bigger and more prone to failure. Most special interests make large donations to both parties. When both parties offer pretty much the same thing, you end up with a third party that ends up replacing one of the other two, and right now I'd say the party at risk is the Republicans.
I would have voted for McCain before Obama anyday, but what good would it have done? McCain was elevated to fail so to speak. Just like Mr. "War Hero" John Kerry and before him "global warming specialist" Al Gore. Not a chance in hell to win, but helping the "chosen ones" to win an election in a little more credible manner. Correction: Gore was doing well regardless of turning his back on his mentor based on a stupid little "scandal". It never hurts being the vice to a successful President, no matter what kind of douchey "agenda" you yourself may be bringing to the table.
They do have an agenda, but they also report true news here and there which the west won't cover for a reason.
I have a better one - Jimmy Kimmel on the beaches of California getting plenty of men and women to sign a petition to "End Woman's Suffrage"!!!
Yeah and as soon as he had the Democratic nomination, the truth came out. Great chance to beat GWB out of the Presidency the world predicted he could never regain
I subscribe to TeaParty.org, and just got a message from them strongly denouncing the Wall Street protesters. The letter ends with
Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are both infiltrated by the pawns from the same channels. What matters is the spirit behind the protesters. Not those who want to misinterpret their intention and claim through the media that they present them.
That wasn't an endorsement of the Tea Party, just something I thought was interesting and wanted to add to the mix. With Occupy Wall Street, unlike the Tea Party, I'm not really sure what they stand for. With the idea of a demonstration of Wall Street, it seems like it would just be the idea about getting corporations out of politics. However, it's much more than that. It does appear many of them would like a more socialist type of system. I've just read some things that make me take pause, and back up. Further, I don't know what the "spirit behind the protesters" is, as each protester would have to be considered individually, since they don't even seem to be on the same page.
Good find Rebecca. It would seem both groups need some help with message control, a bit of "professionalization" as the kid in Blogmaster's RT clip puts it. I got a chuckle out of Frank Luntz's analysis of what went wrong for Rick Perry in the last debate. Luntz claimed Perry's issue was not that he proudly used taxpayer dollars to put illegal immigrants through college, but rather that he called anyone who didn't think that was a good idea "Heartless". Now personally, I would disagree and say that anyone who uses taxpayer dollars to put illegal immigrants through college is a fatally flawed candidate from a tea party perspective, but Luntz has a point. Had Perry simply moderated his response(like Romney does) to something like, 'I would never advocate this at a national level, but it was the right solution for Texas", he would have instantly garnered the support of a lot of the less intelligent 'States Rights" folks, and avoided the precipitous drop in support. So, in the spirit of propaganda, lets look at this mess. Are there a good number of the OWS protesters in favor of dismantling capitalism? Probably. Would they want to replace it with Socialism or Communism? Probably. Are there some regular every day folks out there who just lost their job and can't figure out why their government hasn't bailed them out and/or hasn't fixed the economy? Probably. Are the majority of the people now joining these Occupy marches acting on behalf of Unions and Pro-Obama 'Get out the vote' organizations? Probably. So, in consideration of who and what these people are, and what they(if they can be described as 'they' monolithicly) want, a few of the wrong words they could say, and a few of better ones. Bad list 1) End capitalism 2) End corporations 3) Don't cut state handouts 4) Don't force government workers to accept market wages 5) Don't shrink the government 6) Take from the rich and give to the poor 7) Reelect Barack Obama 8) Vote Democrat Better List 1) End Corporate Greed 2) Reduce social inequality 3) Get money out of politics For the tea party, the same story. The entire page blasts away at OWS, and while it's accusations are more than likely spot on, it just comes across as a grumpy aging man complaining about those meddling kids. There is also a risk that an overtly anti-OWS message could be used against you as being "Pro-Wall St. Greed" or "Pro-Corporate/Government corruption". IMO, a better approach would be to have a little fun with them while they remain disorganized, asking for specifics to the solutions they would offer. Put specifics and hypotheticals at them and catch their answers on camera. The OWS protesters are already off of the "Bad List" and onto the "Better list" on how the MSM is portraying them, so drill in. What does "End corporate greed" mean to you? Is corporate greed any different than human greed? Do you think its possible to eliminate greed as a motivator for humans, and if so how? How would you "Reduce social inequality"? If by transfer of wealth, do you see dependency on hand outs as a bad thing? Should the government be in the business of legislating and mandating charity? Should an able bodied youth be required to work to receive a charitable donation, or should such a donation be granted even if they sit around in a public space playing the drum all day? How would you get "money out of politics"? Are you familiar with the McCain Feingold legislation that tried to do exactly that? If you are, how successful would you say it was? You then take the output of those videos, which is sure to be highly entertaining, and post them on your tea party website, delegitimizing OWS, and providing laughter for the rest of us. This would normally be Jon Stewart's job, but he seems to be asleep at the switch. I wonder why. There is a little risk in this approach as well, since making fun of someone can motivate them to educate themselves, sharpen their message, and come back even stronger. On the upside, a more defined message will also be more polarizing, garnering less support. My preference would be marginalize and ignore, though the lefty MSM is never going to let that happen. Voters will have to decide whether social justice and ending greed is a reasonable and achievable goal and the solution to our problems, or a smaller government that is less able to move wealth into the hands of special interests by means of the tax code. It would be interesting to get OWS responses to the question, "Whose tax plan do you think will help America more, Obama's 450billion dollar jobs bill, or Herman Cain's 9-9-9?"
OK. Sorry for assuming you were pro Tea Party or against it or whatever. Occupy Wall Street started on Facebook and I know a few of the organizers personally and don't trust them one bit. They have more or less promoted within various grass root groups and used a few people who have gained recognition after a couple of years to unite for their cause. It all looks fishy to me to say the least, but what they have been doing was tell people what they want to hear. End the Fed slogans usually serve them well. But reform is what the smarter ones seem to seek. Revisiting Reagans Grace Commission, the purpose of the IRS, the fact that none of the taxes go to the public sectors but are used to pay interest on loans from the federal reserve etc. Most of all educating people about how our money is being spent. Occupy and We Are Change are working hard on trying to create rage, the group Anonymous is also a huge part of this infiltration. What most of my friends there want is raise and keep raising awareness.
So far it looks like a combination of guys that miss Woodstock and guys that are sorry they didn't get to go. They seem sure making a lot of noise and milling around in a huge group carrying signs will make history and change the world. Doesn't matter if they wear long hair, love beads and Birkenstocks and chant about free love... or khakis and a pinpoint oxford buttondown to chant about free college... Hippies are always good for a little tv footage, but little more. All IMO, your mileage may vary.
The OccupyWallStreet forum is kind of interesting. It seems like almost every time I refresh the page, there is a new thread. People are frustrated. I think they should try and focus on finalized goals that may have wider appeal across the political spectrum. Otherwise, they are going to lose a lot more support. They probably couldn't realistically say, "End Corporate Greed." We will never end that. I'm greedy too. But, a few ideas, for example, ending Corporate lobbyist and corporations helping to create legislation. Ending the tax loopholes, and the Bush tax cuts that mainly benefit the rich. As you mention below, look at changing the way in which we pay taxes. Corporations needn't be funding elections, or any special interest "group." They could even limit contributions to individuals, even then, possible having a cap. Politicians shouldn't be receiving gifts that could in any form or fashion be considered a conflict of interest. On social equality, financially, the anger certain individuals have for the rich is misplaced (unless they got rich by cheating everyone, lol.). But the income and wealth disparity does seem kind of alarming, at least to me, it just seems like something is out of whack. You're right, at least the questions are thought provoking. And, it leaves room for discussion. I'm not really up on it, but I read a few negative threads on the Ron Paul forum about Occupy Wall Street. Although, as far as I'm aware, Ron Paul has not said anything negative. However, he did send a message basically saying, here's four things we can cooperate on: 1. Bring our troops home now 2. Repeal the Patriot Act 3. Stop deficit spending 4. Audit the Federal reserve [video=youtube;QLdcB0ln9t8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLdcB0ln9t8[/video] I think Anonymous just loves attention...