Jump to content

Big money controlling news in USA

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

I have not seen any proof from you... Merely conjecture with no support.

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post
I have not seen any proof from you... Merely conjecture with no support.

 

Repeat:

East India. In INDIA. Eventually resolved by Gandhi, do we remember him for violence?

Hudson's Bay - In CANADA. Eventually resolved peacefully via economic and legal challenges, and eventually Canadian Independence.

Until now, there's no other solution to greed and prejudice but civics, arts, and academic education. Peaceful and long-term solutions are the mark of a modern, mature, and civilized society.
I bet the people of the Soviet Union thought "we'd better overthrow the party", and they did. Peacefully. It took them about 50 years , but they did it.

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, culture can be an influence and sometimes a motivating factor. But then, remember that there are some people who play politics with cunning.

 

For culture:

1) Philippines: Highly Catholic-oriented due to colonial history, but politics are usually tied with popularity. See Joseph Estrada. Even so, knowing that the country is still far from First World, the awareness of "Pork Barrel" led to protests which led to a court ruling against it. Culturally, they know what are the moral codes, but ironically they make the wrong political decisions thanks to lack of education and the herd psychology.

 

2) Hong Kong: Highly "democratic & independent" due to the 1996 Independence from UK, and whenever there's some scandal/corruption case exposed, people can organize protests. (I don't like the way they work however. It's friggin' messy and pushy.) You can say that the Hong Kong democratic culture is... take it to the streets, carry your megaphones, banners, and crates of eggs.

 

Non-culture:

1) Canada: Independence stems from politics and aboriginal rebellions. My viewpoint is that the Canadian Independence is more of a very big economic decision. Eventual peaceful resolution? Perhaps... but culturally... not so much as a participating role.

 

2) USSR/Russia: Again, out of economic concerns. Gorbachev first pushed for reforms & liberalization from within the communist government. However, the eventual political influence (plus riots) led to the independence of many states. After the 1991 coup, the CSPU had little influence over the power structures and Gorbachev ordered a dissolution. So, those "50 years" weren't very peaceful.

Sign in Tip-Top Variety store window reads, 'Bitch-Slapped-By-The-Invisible-Hand-Of-The-Marketplace Sale'.

Share this post


Link to post
To be fair, culture can be an influence and sometimes a motivating factor. But then, remember that there are some people who play politics with cunning.

 

For culture:

1) Philippines: Highly Catholic-oriented due to colonial history, but politics are usually tied with popularity. See Joseph Estrada. Even so, knowing that the country is still far from First World, the awareness of "Pork Barrel" led to protests which led to a court ruling against it. Culturally, they know what are the moral codes, but ironically they make the wrong political decisions thanks to lack of education and the herd psychology.

 

2) Hong Kong: Highly "democratic & independent" due to the 1996 Independence from UK, and whenever there's some scandal/corruption case exposed, people can organize protests. (I don't like the way they work however. It's friggin' messy and pushy.) You can say that the Hong Kong democratic culture is... take it to the streets, carry your megaphones, banners, and crates of eggs.

 

Non-culture:

1) Canada: Independence stems from politics and aboriginal rebellions. My viewpoint is that the Canadian Independence is more of a very big economic decision. Eventual peaceful resolution? Perhaps... but culturally... not so much as a participating role.

 

2) USSR/Russia: Again, out of economic concerns. Gorbachev first pushed for reforms & liberalization from within the communist government. However, the eventual political influence (plus riots) led to the independence of many states. After the 1991 coup, the CSPU had little influence over the power structures and Gorbachev ordered a dissolution. So, those "50 years" weren't very peaceful.

 

Well, the USSR didn't end from a bloody revolution/civil war, so that's peaceful enough. Also thank you for proving me correct again. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Who said bloody was required? Violence or the threat of violence is usually enough, and that doesn't require deaths.

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

I'd hate to disappoint you, but I'm not here to prove who's right or wrong. But you're welcome nonetheless. As long as humans remain as the most complex social creatures on Earth, the answer is elusive. You see, we're susceptible to tons of environmental factors that will influence our mindsets.

 

Say, iirc back during the 60s or so, the typical American family held traditional values which are fairly conservative but family-oriented and thrift, not because of religion, but socioeconomic factors. Today, USA is very divided. Don't forget we are now living in a post-consumerism society led by the baby-boomers. We have the conservatives (probably consists of evangelists, I don't know), "republicans", "democrats", the rising independents (who still have little power) etc etc. The spread of information isn't uniform throughout the States, so we get people of diverse (and possibly backwards... we still have flatearthers??) backgrounds. How they see politicians, the wealthy, and the corrupt can be very different. The demographics of the Occupy Wall St. movement is very interesting. (last accessed 26 May 2014)

 

But survival and rights to oneself are independent of such factors. What do cannibals and us have in common? We want shelter, food, water... all the basic necessities. Now if a leader (say, a bastard senator or mayor) takes one away for himself, damn well we'd protest and deem him as corrupt. It's natural. Of course, today the issue is mainly surrounding how poorly the country's economy is managed. (ref.) We have economists and politicians allow strictly uneconomical decisions to pass, which would lower the standard of living and ultimately the quality of life of the low-middle classes. Basic instinct of the average citizen? Getting upset.

 

Violence or the threat of violence is usually enough, and that doesn't require deaths.

Hang on. Check out the number of casualties during the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution. Official figures stand at 106 deaths & 1811 injuries (16 April).

 

It is highly likely that violence and threats DO come with deaths. Even the protest marches in Thailand have rogue frag grenades tossed into the crowd.

Edited by Guest (see edit history)

Sign in Tip-Top Variety store window reads, 'Bitch-Slapped-By-The-Invisible-Hand-Of-The-Marketplace Sale'.

Share this post


Link to post
Who said bloody was required?

 

First, you're moving the goalposts.

Second, this is what you said on violent revolutions:

I'm actually hoping it will come to that*, since I have plenty of history to back me up on my reasons... The corrupted will never give up unless they are killed, and they will never be killed in anything short of a full scale civil war.

*"That" being a civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
It is highly likely that violence and threats DO come with deaths. Even the protest marches in Thailand have rogue frag grenades tossed into the crowd.

Yes, it is very likely that deaths will occur, but that happens anyways... http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death

 

I have yet to see any serious corruption respond without violence towards any method of removing them that doesn't involve the threat of extreme violence.

 

Who said bloody was required?

 

First, you're moving the goalposts.

Second, this is what you said on violent revolutions:

I'm actually hoping it will come to that*, since I have plenty of history to back me up on my reasons... The corrupted will never give up unless they are killed, and they will never be killed in anything short of a full scale civil war.

*"That" being a civil war.

Bloody typically means more than just a few deaths, it usually means that large percentages of the combatants are killed/seriously injured. (look back at what battles of WWII were considered "bloody" for reference)

 

The seriously corrupted won't give up without being killed, but they can usually be removed without bloodshed if there is the threat of a significant amount of violence to ensure their removal. I personally see no way to succeed in this country short of killing some of them.

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

The seriously corrupted won't give up without being killed, but they can usually be removed without bloodshed if there is the threat of a significant amount of violence to ensure their removal. I personally see no way to succeed in this country short of killing some of them.

 

What is your fixation on killing these people? They are elected officials in a free country! They can be voted out of power the next round of elections occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
They can be voted out of power the next round of elections occurs.

LOOK AT THAILAND. That is an example of failure of citizen responsibility. If this occurs in the USA, it's anarchy. Look at the losses, economically and socially. IF education doesn't work because it's too been gutted (to quote Ross), then the educators have the responsibility to teach their students well.

 

Like I said before, if you want to follow the Swiss, learn from the Swiss. I won't bother to repeat myself again.

Sign in Tip-Top Variety store window reads, 'Bitch-Slapped-By-The-Invisible-Hand-Of-The-Marketplace Sale'.

Share this post


Link to post
They can be voted out of power the next round of elections occurs.

LOOK AT THAILAND. That is an example of failure of citizen responsibility. If this occurs in the USA, it's anarchy.

 

If it occurs in the US. Hopefully it won't.

Share this post


Link to post

I has been for some time now. Look at how Obama won the presidency despite the fact that he flat out lied about what he voted for and against before the campaign, and everyone who did even basic research knew he would try and ruin the country. Politics is about making idiots vote for you, because there are way more idiots than there are smart people.

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post
Look at how Obama won the presidency despite the fact that he flat out lied about what he voted for and against before the campaign, and everyone who did even basic research knew he would try and ruin the country.

 

Try to ruin the country? Lied about what he voted for? I need evidence, proof! Oh, and you're politicizing the topic again!

Share this post


Link to post

When a president takes office, he or she swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution gives the president the following foreign policy responsibilities:

 

Making treaties with other countries, with Senate approval

Receiving foreign heads of state

Commanding the U.S. armed forces, as well as any state militias under federal control

 

Domestically, the president is responsible for:

 

Making sure that the U.S. laws are enforced

Appointing public officers, such as Supreme Court judges

Issuing criminal pardons

Proposing bills to Congress

Presenting a State of the Union

 

In addition, the president can convene or adjourn Congress as necessary. He or she also has the power of veto over Congress' decisions.

 

...

 

The president's inauguration speech outlines his or her vision for the nation, and the president spends much of his or her time in office working to bring this vision to fruition. He or she does so by proposing legislative action and by convincing Congress and the general public to support the presidential agenda. If Congress doesn't support the president's aims, he or she may need to negotiate, compromise or offer additional funding (also called "pork") in order to compensate members of Congress for their votes. The president can also appeal to the voters, asking them to pressure their representatives to vote in favor of his or her propositions. The president is assisted in formulating and presenting policy by the Cabinet and by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, as well as his or her personal staff.

 

You see, the President doesn't have all the power. Let's say, hypothetically Mr. Obama is a good man and wish for a better USA, but Congress doesn't let him sail smoothly. It's sort of democratic because there is voting within Congress, but... perhaps the decisions are simply for-profit and not truly beneficial for the country?

Even if Obama is "trying to ruin the country", and if he did, it means the majority of Senate and Congress backed him up as well.

 

I figure US governance & politics can go a lot complex than this.

Sign in Tip-Top Variety store window reads, 'Bitch-Slapped-By-The-Invisible-Hand-Of-The-Marketplace Sale'.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Okay, where to begin? Some of these concerns are legitimate (increasing wiretapping, extending the PATRIOT Act, funding illegal military campaigns, covering up a few of his scandals, etc), others are blatant lies (sending money to corrupt executives under the pretext of "green energy", supporting murderers, forcing companies to shut down for varied reasons, human experimentation, support of racism, raised taxes on the poor and middle class, Caused deaths at the Benghazi attack, using the IRS to persecute conservatives, lied about Obamacare, etc) while others display blatant use of having criticism has double standards (criticizing him over not shutting down GITMO, when nobody wants to take its prisoners, over supporting a dictatorship in Egypt while said dictatorship fights the Muslim Brotherhood, with known al-Qaeda affiliation, his accepting of corporate money while EVERYONE does the same, etc). Also, one of your links is to politifact, which states that out of 500 promises, 239 have been kept (although 115 were broken). Also, some of his "spending of taxpayer money recklessly" and "employing criminals/tax evaders/corrupt assholes" is exaggerated greatly.

 

I recommend this becomes a whole new topic, as it distracts this topic to varying degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Do you have any proof to support your claims?

 

Let's make this into a separate thread first. Don't need to derail this topic more than it already is.

Share this post


Link to post
Go right ahead.

 

Why do I have to create a separate thread? You have a subject, and a statement. I have a counter-statement, therefore you would be better suited to create a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.