RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Occupy Wall Street

Respectfully, many MANY of these people interviewed say that capitalism is evil, and they want to destroy our capitalist system.
Not a few corrupt excesses within a good capitalist system. Destroy capitalism.

The youtube videos, and more slickly edited video and blogs that Pro pasted here on the first few pages of this topic are testament to that.

And like I said, most of these people clearly voted for Obama, and clearly would again.
Obama, the guy who gained his greatest 2008 presidential support from the Wall Street firms these hippie dupes are protesting.


I'm not saying there aren't some valid issues raised about offshoring jobs, declining opportunities, responsibility not shared for the mortgage collapse and resulting financial crisis.
But I am saying this is being hijacked by the Left to demonize many on the Right who aren't to blame, while whitewashing folks like Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Soros, GE, Pfizer, ACORN, SEIU and others who legislated, lobbied, intimidated, or took the bribes that led us to our current situation.

"Faux News", contrary to what you said on the opening pages of this topic about "never reporting" this, has contributed a significant portion of every hour i've watched them in the last 10 days or so to covering these rallies, and a considerable amount of that time has been given to defenders of the movement like Juan Williams, Kristen Powers, and Alan Colmes, who have passionately argued on FOX about the validity of the issues raised by the protestors, whatever their other flaws.
I daresay FOX News has been the only network to truly give equal representation to both sides of the argument.

Again:

1) you call for non-partisanship, but then leap to portray "Faux News" as evil conservative propaganda, despite that they have given extensive coverage to the protestors, and even liberal commentator opinion detailing the POV supporting the protestors.

2) to borrow a word from Lothar, this guy is clearly a shithead.
He offers no facts to support his arguments. Michael Moore-like, he starts with a tiny grain of truth, that there was a financial collapse in 2008, and weaves a factless pseudo-intellectual fantasy rant beyond that point.
The guy is just a defiant child, a perfect poster-boy for the angry Left. Not someone I'd hold up as the flag-bearer for this oh-so-non-partisan (allegedly) movement.

Amen!! I only frequent local/private-owned coffee shops. There's one here in town where the owner/barista was trained on coffee in Italy, makes everything in-store (i.e. all sauces, syrups, chocolate, caramel, etc.) and gets the coffee beans from a family-owned plantation in South America. Coffee & Crema, it's called. Damn good. What actual coffee tastes like.

I used to work with a Cuban guy who had relatives send him the real-deal Cuban coffee from the old country.

That stuff was like crack in a cup! After one cup, I was wired like no other coffee in my life. Though I'm not much of a coffee drinker to begin with.

I never understood the appeal of Starbucks, paying 8 or 9 times what any intelligent person would pay for a cup of coffee. I had co-workers a few years ago who ordered from them every day, and I often volunteered to pick up the stuff, so I became familiar with the operation without being an actual customer. I tried the coffee once or twice to see if i was missing anything, I tried some of their sandwiches, but ultimately just found everything overpriced and not worth the money.

Please post any and all clips available showing where said channel supports the protestors and movement of Occupy Wall Street. Seriously. I'd love to see that.



Why didn't they air this one, then? If they're "fair and balanced", as you and others suggest, then what did it matter if they aired this? You claim it's fantasy and all, but I think it's truth. It's a sad, painful truth that we've all been taken advantage of by our government and corrupt corporations.



And yet the guy was calm, clear, direct, well-spoken, and made some very good points. I think you feel insulted because he took FAU--...Fox News to task. And you root for Fox, get most (if not all) your information from there, and defend it whenever anyone points out just how biased it actually, truly is. So, to point, I disagree completely. If he made you so irritated, then it's probably because he was saying some truth you don't want to accept.

Don't you, as a Christian, get irritated when people claim that belief in a higher being is a "delusion"? Nevermind that 90% of the population of the entire planet believe in a higher power than can be proven. So, then not counting the fence-sitting Agnostics, that's 10% of the population that accuses the rest of the race as being the ones under a "delusion".

Now, go out and really look at FOX News, read as many diverse takes on the subject as possible, and then ask yourself: How can you be part of 90% of the world that believes in a God, and simultaneously one of the 10% of the world that believes FOX News is actually, honestly unbiased?

That doesn't correlate with me. The 10% state that FOX is "fair and balanced". But, they never seem to be able to point to anything to prove it. Whereas, I can show you this:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Not to mention the video above they didn't air.

So, I ask again...not to derail the topic of the thread....but how can you prove FOX News to be "fair and balanced"? You have videos showing as much?

I think it makes a valid point.

That the protestors' message is confused. And that they're blindly anti-corporate and anti-capitalist, even as they enjoy the luxuries that didn't exist even 20 years ago that these corporations provide.

If the protestors had a valid argument, it would be "damn the corruption."
But the message is a more sweeping "damn the capitalists, damn the rich".

Oh I would looove to drink real Cuban coffee. Or just some fresh, homegrown Columbian would be great.



Yeah, STARBUCKS is the McDonald's of coffee shops. It did what most retail food corporations do: they spend good money on quality product until they secure their customer base. Then, once they have a sales plateau, they generally cut the quality back. So, instead of using expensive coffee beans to make great coffee, they switch to subpar beans, cheaper, that make subpar coffee. They just don't tell anyone. Look at Chik-Fil-et. Their chicken was tops about three/four years ago. Then, they suddenly switched to a different brand/cut of chicken. Obviously cheaper because the once-solid Chik-Fil-et experience has taken some hits in reviews in the past years. It's a sound business move, but a crooked move nonetheless. Paramount to "tricking" the customer. Or false-advertising.

Yet, it doesn't really have a "valid" point. It's pointing out that humans....who have no other choices as to what to wear, and no choices what tech they can use...aren't allowed to protest these lack of choices. What's the alternative?

They protest naked. Yeah, that will get far.

They protest, but only in clothes they made themselves. And since most of them aren't electrical/technical engineers, they would have to use art sketches to portray an honest record as to what's happening. That's just as ludicrous, and wouldn't be taken any more seriously by anyone.

They don't protest. Big Business, the Corporate Right, and all the corrupt criminals from both sides of the aisle in DC are happy. Congrats, you just crushed a freedom movement AND assisted Obama and his corporate cronies. How do you feel now?

So, that's why I dismiss it. It's the most basic, dismissive suggestion anyone can make. It's a 5th grader's attempt at trying to discredit the movement. Thus, no surprise Rex posted it, I guess...

I have nothing against Starbucks, but I don't like the place since it makes me feel like I have to learn a bunch of stuff just so I won't look like an uncultured doofus while ordering. Some of the coffee in there have names that take longer to pronounce than to drink, and some of them have weird names that when pronounced incorrectly, will make some of the baristas roll their eyes at you before they drop the obligatory spit in your drink.

There is hope, though. Now that netbooks have become inexpensive, a large number of cheap bastards have begun frequenting Starbucks for their free Wi-Fi. Motherfuckers only order one cup of regular coffee and stay there for the whole afternoon, typing away at their portables.

Sometimes I watch fox in the mornings just to see that blond babe. Otherwise I'm more of a CNN kind of guy to see Robin Meede or Natasha Curry.

Just turn on Fox News!

Like I said, it's a fair portion of every hour I've watched the channel. And I listed some of the liberal commentators I've seen defend the movement.

The fact that you are so immune to the notion that Fox could possibly give fair coverage, or any coverage, of the protestors, speaks volumes about your own partisan biases.



I don't know why they didn't air it. They may have aired it and I just didn't see it.

But they certainly didn't avoid airing it because this guy presented any facts or persuasive argument of the protests, or the evils of conservatism, or the evils of Fox news.
He ranted a bunch of one-liners and snotty opinion, that you are only persuaded by be3cause you already agree. What exactly should Fox be afraid of. If memory serves, the guy interviewing is Griff Jenkins, and I think he normally appears on Greta Van Susteren. Possibly run during other shows.





In your opinion. Not mine.
He was unnecessarily snotty, accusing and confrontational with the guy who was holding a microphone to get his opinion.
He was a clear partisan, just getting in his factless one-liner digs at Fox and Republicans.




Fine. We agree to disagree. I see it as a guy who was rattling off snotty remarks that sound credible, but require about 100 words each to present the true facts and prove false.
For example, "Glenn Beck called the president a racist". If you were a regular Glenn Beck viewer (and that is probably the show i watched most frequently on Fox) you would have seen one day Beck presenting facts of Obama's specific actions related to social justice and black liberation theology, where he said "I'm sorry, but putting these facts together, I can only come to the conclusion that Obama is a racist". Which even in that context he said factually and respectfully, and it was clear he was presenting it as his opinion on the facts as he knew them. But the very next day on his own show, and later in the week on O'Reilly and other shows, Beck apologized and said that at that moment he saw it that way, but now Obama's motivations are clearly ideological (socialism, anti-colonialism) and not racial.
This demonstrator misrepresents Beck to hold the eternal opinion that Obama is a racist. But in truth Beck only voiced that opinion for at most a day, as he wrestled with the facts as they became known about Obama.

Similarly, each of the points raised by this shithead protestor can be disproven. He espoused a lot of highly opinionated opinion, that you obviously agree with beforehand, in the absence of any facts presented.
And you further enjoy that --your opinion-- he "PWN'D", or whatever, Fox News. All I see is a snot with no facts being a jerk.





Be serious!
You show a 20-second out of context clip from the Daily Show (a clearly liberal centerpiece of clearly liberal network that never misses an opportunity to bash Fox News, or to bash Republicans in general as ignorant backward inbred so-and-so's) and that's supposed to prove something? (Beyond your own prejudices, going to comedy central to look up clips that support your preconcieved biases?

And regarding FoX News being my primary source for news, I've made it quite clear that from 1981-forward, my news of choice has been the PBS News Hour. Although in 2008-2009, because of selective omission of facts about Obama in election coverage, nonexisstent coverage of the ACORN story on PBS, and similar distortions, I do watch Fox more now than prior to that.

But I also often post other sources, and still watch the News Hour.

An example of PBS bias from 2 days ago:
FOX NEWS: Sen McConnell on the Senate floor, answering Obama's calls for a vote on his Jobs Bill, said okay, right now, let's have a vote! But Harry Reid tabled the bill, because he knows that it not only faces opposition from Republicans, but because a majority of Democrat Senators won't vote for it either. So rather than lose, Reid tabled the bill.
PBS NEWS HOUR (Kwame Holman, same story) Sen Mitchell answered Obama's call for a vote on his Jobs Bill saying let's vote on it today. Sen Reid said elected not to vote on the Jobs Bill, because he said there was other pressing legislation that was a greater priority...


Do you see the difference? Fox gave the proper perspective of what was really at stake and that the bill did not have Democrat support. And PBS just completely glossed over and selectively omitted that important part of the story!





As I said, every time they list statistics on percentage of stories, Fox does prove to have balanced coverage. Even within their editorial programs, they have liberal commentary. I don't have to search for clips, it's right there for you to see, 24 hours a day.

I now jump on this bandwagon with the above alterations to your post and with

In your subjective liberal opinion.

For many of these corporate items you describe as irreplaceable, there ARE other brands and alternatives to the corporate ones, as others here have already described.
Local coffee vs. Starbucks.
Apple Computers vs. Dell or other PC's (I actually had a computer repair guy yell at me for buying Dell, which he says in China imprisons people and then uses them as slave labor to build computers for Dell. I have no idea how to confirm or deny that allegation)

This is the third time I have explained why these people are shitheads. Do try to pay attention this time


Got it? Now I choose to fuck off.

You tell 'em, Gerald.

No! That's the point. If you're claiming that they're "Fair & Balanced", prove it. Their site has plenty of vids, I'm sure. It shouldn't be hard for you. You watch their stuff all the time, you have to know where to look, and for what shows.



I'm "immune" to it like I am in believing aliens exist: I've never seen any proof! Show me where they are being Fair & Balanced. Not "This is where they are being fair, because the truth is the Liberal Media lies, and this is what's really happening" or anything. Simply point to a clip, and I will watch it. It's just that simple.



No, it was never aired. That's the thing that made it stand out. The Daily Show aired it from the YouTube segment that was loaded up.



Like Herman Cain, they didn't ask him for any facts. They asked his opinion, and why he was out there, and what it all meant to him. He took the opportunity to answer that, explain his opinion, and challenge Mister "Fair & Balanced" to explain the discrepancies of the organization he represents. I mean, why do people attack Olberman when they rail against the Liberal slant of MSNBC? Because he's the face. This reporter was the face. He asked questions, the guy answered, and he obviously embarrassed the management enough for them not to air it. Facts.



I understand what you are saying. He's attacking Glenn Beck for something Beck apologized for already. Got it. Here's the problem with that entire scenario, though: Glenn Beck is a public figure. He's about on level with John Stewart when it comes to being an "informed political pundit", as he's way too much of a cartoon to be taken seriously. Any man who sits there and cries on camera for ratings is, in my book, a comedian. So, Glenn Beck said Obama was a racist. Then, a day later after "much hand-wringing" apologized about it, saying he hadn't thought it all out. Okay. Let's just ignore that it's almost a transparent ratings ploy. Beck would have said "God loves Martians" if he thought it would get his show the same amount of press coverage. He apologizes so as to not have any long-term repercussions for it. Thereby, allowing him to say something shocking, and then be able to deny any accusations of misconduct by 'I said I was sorry'. Thus, negating any Leftist point to make with it. It is, honestly, brilliant. He's a master at what he does. No doubts. I even caught a few episodes of his CNN show everyone forgets about. I stopped watching because, even though he was positively restrained on boring CNN, he was still a bit too theatrical to take seriously.

All of that said, Glenn Beck said it. He's a public figure. He, you, and anyone might could easily say 'He said he was sorry'. But it doesn't change the fact that he called the President of the United States of America a racist on live television. No more than it does Hank Williams Jr calling him 'Hitler'. You can neither be surprised or claim outrage at The Left when they use it to point to what FOX allows on air. All under the banner of "Fair & Balanced".



Okay then, disprove them. I'm not going anywhere. Prove him wrong.



Oh I said he "spanked" FOX News. And he did. Jerk or not, that happened.



Re-read what I said. Your response doesn't make any sense.



What does "ratings" have to do with being "Fair & Balanced" or unbiased? If you claim is that people who hate Obama watch FOX because it's "Fair & Balanced", I am going to have to laugh at you. Come on, David. Stare at what's right in front of your face! If people who hate Obama watch FOX News....it's because FOX is slanted towards hating Obama! People that have a strong enough opinion to dislike someone aren't going to try and find a channel that disagrees with them, even "neutrally". They're going to find a channel that supports the position they have already created in their mind. "I hate Obama! Fox hates Obama! I like Fox!" That math is obvious to 90% of the planet. Think about the religious analogy I made, and you will understand how anyone gasps at you when you try and prop FOX News up as the epitome of journalistic integrity.



Again, that's recursive logic. FOX only "appears" biased because others actually are? Jeez man. Come on.



Re-watch it again. She's lambasting Rosie O'Donnell (and I don't blame her, trust me, because Rosie is an fat, ignorant cunt) who supports Occupy Wall Street, because she supports Occupy Wall Street, asking why ANYONE would listen to celebrities. "One Hour Later", on the very same show, all of a sudden they're welcoming Hank Williams, Jr. as a wonderful, great celebrity to "get his take" on the politics of the day. And we all know how that went, don't we? That right there is hypocrisy. It's not like she was creating her own opinion on the air when it came to Rosie, either. That's not how TV works. Not even in the Golden Land of Fair & Balanced. That was the company line, and she towed it. But, the moment a "celebrity" that they agree with politically comes on? Oh, that's okay. That's fair. That's balanced. Right?

Where was the patriotic outrage from FOX when HWjr did the Hitler thing? You would call someone like that a "socialist, marxist, etc." if a Liberal made such a remark about a Republican President (and you did...all the Right did...on many occasions under Bush, Jr). Like I said, hypocrisy.



I am not, and never HAVE argued that the media doesn't slant Liberal. I've said repeatedly that it's obvious to anyone that MSNBC is Hard Left, FOX is Hard Right, and CNN is just useless. The flaw in reasoning that I question in you, is that you see it: MSNBC is Hard Left, CNN is Hard Left, PBS is Hard Left, Nickelodeon is Hard Left, MTV is Hard Left, The Home Shopping Network is Hard Left, and FOX News is absolutely Fair & Balanced. How can you choose to see the hypocrisy in Liberal media, and completely ignore it in FOX?



And until someone can show me proof it's Fair & Balanced, like you champion, I will not bother in trying to watch it...

Yeah, I know! I'm glad to see Starbucks start to fall. It was ruined by corporate greed, per usual.



Wow. Such a crime against humanity. Oh no, we're inconvenienced by fellow Americans who are protesting on our behalf. Horrible. Just horrible.

No.They are shitheads.

Lothar, I take it you believe the original Tea Partiers were shitheads, as well? They didn't just disrupt traffic and business. They occupied a private entity's boat and destroyed its property by dumping it into Boston fucking Harbor!

I disagree.

At least the old time shitheads had the balls to go after the problem and raise so much hell that the government had to respond. These modern protesters just get in the way and vandalize stores. The government does not care if some hippie busts up some store or gets in Lothars way when Lothar drives to work

Protesting does not work. It's just an excuse for shitheads to be shitheads. The only way to change things is to vote and to vote educated about who you are voting for. We also need more people to get off their lazy ass and vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party Do you guys think this article is accurate about the Boston Tea Party?

You sound like Rex there. I get it. You believe that the protestors aren't worthy to protest. They cause you inconvenience and you dislike them for it. Same as Rex.

Personally, I disagree. The system is broken. You can educate people about voting, and political choices, all day long. Won't change a corrupt system owned by the 1% billionaires. I would wager 90% of the people protesting are far more educated than most of us here. And yes, there's a 10% that is a bad element. No one, and no group, is perfect. So, judging at entire movement on your inconvenience isn't very...how shall I say...open-minded?

Lothar of The Hill People User Running down a dream,Workin' on a mystery
15000+ posts 10/10/11 12:21 AM Logging out

No.They are shitheads.

Whatever Lothar. I thought you wanted to talk about it, not just troll. I'll ignore you now, thanks.

Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession
7500+ posts 4 minutes 13 seconds ago Private

WHOA! Okay, that's worrisome...

Pariah nerdy User The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts 5 seconds ago Viewing a private message

Hmmmmmm........

Lothar of The Hill People cool User Running down a dream,Workin' on a mystery
15000+ posts 10 seconds ago Private

Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession
7500+ posts 6 minutes 29 seconds ago Private


Okay...WHAT THE FUCK.

they are plotting your demise

I know, right?!

So, does that make me the JFK of the RKMBs?

Like The Doctor, must I go to my death at Silencio Lake?

Is Wonder Boy the Impossible Astronaut??

::scream::

People send me private messages, Pro, I read 'em.

Yours included, in the last few hours.
I turned on my computer, and the blinking thing stays on until I read it.

It usually says "Reading a Private Message" when someone does that. I smell shenanigans...

He never learned to read! (a private message)

Wonder Boy content User rex's personal obsession
7500+ posts 4 minutes 13 seconds ago Private

Pariah nerdy User The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts 5 seconds ago Viewing a private message

Lothar of The Hill People cool User Running down a dream,Workin' on a mystery
15000+ posts 10 seconds ago Private

Retards of the world, A-hur-den-dah...

ZZZZZZZZZTTT!

BBQ Pro on a stick.
A better deal as part of our #1 special, at Chick-Fil-A. With fries and a large Pepsi.
(Now you know what that new grade of chicken is. It's Wall Street protestors!)

You gotta tell 'em!

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!!

SPOILERS DAMNIT