99%? Who wants to be a part of the 100%?

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

Never said it was that same but the main idea was that people are free to be individuals. In that respect Indians as well as citizens of other countries are free to be individuals.

I suppose that was to repeal the long-standing caste system which said that if you were born an Untouchable, you STAY an Untouchable. Oh yah, and Gautama Buddha also protested that system. (400 + BC)

reply to post by daskakik


wow where was the confession that the SUV driver was a Tea Partier or going to a Tea Party activity? Did I miss the confession?

I don't condone this behavior at all to be sure, but the Obama supporters and SEIU were out in droves attempting to paint the Tea Party as vicious and violent, yet now we see OWS supporters openly recommending violence and violent revolutions. I don't understand how people can be so hypocritical?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


India's constitution doesn't do away with the caste system but it makes it illegal to descriminate based on it. I guess it's one way to do it without really going head on with a deep rooted tradition.

That vid was one of many on youtube. I'm sure tea partiers are a more mature group but it doesn't mean that they won't react in similar fashion as the OWS crowd if the right buttons are pressed.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by beezzer
Something I've noticed.
As these groups evolve, and their message evolves, one thing I see is missing.

And that is individuality. The "you're with us or against us" hive mentality.

There is a tendancy to lump all individuals into a specific group. Be it by others or themselves. Self-proclaimed socialists, communists, anarchists, what have you; are moving away from the individual.
Individuality is being replaced by the concept of "what is good for the group".

No they're not. Have you forgotten the General Assemblies where EVERY VOICE IS HEARD?? Have you been to any of these protests where ANYONE CAN SPEAK OUT TO THE GROUP?? The collective is MADE UP OF individuals and the group highly values the individuals. In fact, the group ISN'T rigidly controlled, therefore individualism is fire hot in OWS.

So they'd listen to any individual voice. When Stossel went to visit, they boo'd him out. They only listen to those that conform to their own group-think.

Are you kidding me? Do you know who John Stossel is??

Let's be real here, Fox News isn't in the business of giving OWS a fair shake, those involved with OWS know this. Booing Stossel out is hardly a dent in their record, in fact, I applaud it. Fox News needs to hear these kinds of sentiments more... and in case you didn't realize, it belongs to the establishment that OWS is more/less protesting.

reply to post by Honor93


Yes Adbusters is admirable. Try reading the actual magazine. I happen to agree with them.

As for Soros and Tides... that's hardly damning. It's not like Soros has control over Adbusters, Tides just funds random left-wing organizations, and let's not assume Soros' intentions with funding Adbusters, nor should we assume that somehow that makes Soros evil and therefore Adbusters is evil and Commie and that there's some conspiracy blah blah blah. Fact is, I've been aware of Adbusters for years, I was a reader for a time, and there's hardly a conspiracy by the elites behind it, trust me.

Mooneyham is not CIA though... while his connections may be questionable, it seems more likely that he's kind of showing off and/or telling his very interesting life story/experiences while sharing his viewpoints/knowledge via his website. I link his website (namely the How to Get Rich In America link) because it contains referenced truths that cannot be denied concerning the lie that "ANYONE CAN MAKE IT BIG IN AMERICA!" As George Carlin said... they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Then how is it that 80% of all the millionaires in the USA are self made, they started poor or middle class and became millionaires....Only 20% were born to the money....

reply to post by Cinaed


A million isn't really all that much. There's over 3 million millionaires in the US but only 40,000 with over 30 million. I would say anyone worth 1-10 million is upper middle class (adjusted for inflation).

U.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires

Originally posted by Cinaed
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Then how is it that 80% of all the millionaires in the USA are self made, they started poor or middle class and became millionaires....Only 20% were born to the money....

That may or may not be true (depending upon the precise wealth bracket you're referring to). However, you're looking at the wrong reality... the more accurate reality to examine would be the GLARING underclass and their collective inability to move upward in wealth. Sure... some people might go from rags to riches, but for every rags to riches story there is a rags to still rags story, and not because of a lack of hard work/intelligence/persistence/etc. Remember, not EVERYONE can make it rich, most people never can/will make it rich. Our system thrives off the masses being poor and subservient to the system and to higher-ups. Simple as that. Studies show that the income bracket people are born into is the one most people are extremely likely to die within. The wealth gap has also increased DRASTICALLY between the rich/poor in recent years.

Here's an interesting study that examines millionaires/billionaires and their perceptions of being self-made, or rather... their perceptions that there are no self-made millionaires, they all depend upon the help of society to push them upwards:


I Didn’t Do It Alone: Society’s Contribution to Individual Wealth and Success

Since 2000, Responsible Wealth has been involved in efforts to reform and preserve the federal estate tax, which is paid by less than two percent of the nation’s wealthiest people. In the process, we have enlisted over 1,700 millionaires and billionaires to sign our petition against abolition – all of whom will owe estate taxes. Some would argue that this “billionaire backlash,” as Newsweek called it, is rooted in unselfishness or class betrayal. 1 But for many of the individuals who signed, it is a matter of simple accounting: they believe that they owe something back to the society that created opportunities for them.

The notion that wealthy individuals might have an obligation to pay something back to society is a radical departure from today’s individualistic, anti-government ethos. Many successful people view government and society as irrelevant to their good fortune, or worse, a hindrance. They attribute their success to their own character, values and performance. We call this the “great man” theory of wealth creation. This myth is so popular that there is surprise when an individual breaks the mold and attributes his or her success to broader forces.

Some, however, recognize that in addition to their own moxie, creativity and hard work, other factors such as societal investment, privilege, historical timing and luck had a role in their success. For example, one of the leaders of the movement to preserve the estate tax is New York-based software entrepreneur Martin Rothenberg. He shared his story to underscore his support for reform, rather than repeal of the estate tax...

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Cinaed

 

A million isn't really all that much. There's over 3 million millionaires in the US but only 40,000 with over 30 million. I would say anyone worth 1-10 million is upper middle class (adjusted for inflation).

U.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires

hmmmm, since the US does have a "record number of inhabitants" ... i would say your article is a good thing rather bad.
and while i'm not choosing a numerical ceiling ... it does seem your perception and that of OWS are on opposite ends of the spectrum ... so, how would you resolve such inequity and imbalance in perceptions ???
250,000 is a far cry from 10 million.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Cinaed

 

A million isn't really all that much. There's over 3 million millionaires in the US but only 40,000 with over 30 million. I would say anyone worth 1-10 million is upper middle class (adjusted for inflation).

U.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires

hmmmm, since the US does have a "record number of inhabitants" ... i would say your article is a good thing rather bad.
and while i'm not choosing a numerical ceiling ... it does seem your perception and that of OWS are on opposite ends of the spectrum ... so, how would you resolve such inequity and imbalance in perceptions ???
250,000 is a far cry from 10 million.

I wouldn't say opposite ends of the spectrum.

I didn't post the article as a bad thing. It was to show that the upper middle class has shifted into the millions because of the decreasing value of the dollar so that being a millionaire is not as hard as it was 50 years ago.

I don't care what the OWS crowd sees as the dividing line between the haves and the have nots. If they accomplish anything and it effects the new upper middle class of less than $10 million millionaires then they're gonna have to speak up and resolve the inequity and imbalance in perception.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


I have spent quite a lot of time working with and dealing with this *under class* of people you referred to and my experience is that of such people most are choosing this way of life! I have watched parents teaching children not to make *too much money* as it screws up their government hand outs. It's pretty pathetic if you ask me.

I have had many jobs in my 50 yrs on the planet and none of my experiences have contradicted that observation. MANY MANY of this *under class* feel entitled to a free ride and a free lunch, and grow angry with anyone or anything interfering with their achievement of getting something for nothing. I feel sorriest for the children raised by such people that have several strikes against them as they reach adulthood and carry such a warped view of reality.

I will always strive to help the down trodden and anyone striving to better themselves. I am completely OVER the group screaming NO FAIR and poverty when all the while defrauding and working the system to CHEAT...I don't care if they are rich or impoverished.

reply to post by daskakik


I would disagree! I think many defenders of the Constitution have assorted and often opposing views of how to improve areas of society. The ONE thing we have in common is we believe the Constitution is the foundation of our country's rise to greatness, and the loss and straying from it to be the downfall and doom.

I am a mixture of conservative, liberal and libertarian views and while I mostly disagree with the Liberal answer to woes I will would defend their right to strive for their solutions WITHIN the Constitution!

I don't see this kind of respect with the OWS movement and other anti capitalist, socialistic, communistic views...

reply to post by Cinaed


Valid point but it doesn't keep it from being collectivism. I just think that that the word is being used negatively without taking into consideration that all societies are collective but that doesn't mean that all but the US try to stifle individualism.

I remember seeing a video of Billy Joel in russia taped back in 1987 and at the end there is a clip where a russian kid dressed in typical 80's clothes comes up to him and starts telling him he's a huge fan. How was this possible when the soviet government controlled every aspect of those poor peoples lives and turned them into souless drones? Or maybe it was propaganda.

OK so the OWS are a group who are gathered to protest Wall Street. They don't want to listen to other opinions because that is not what they are there for.

Not much different than a group gathered for sunday service at a local church. I'm sure if I walk into a church picket sign in hand, chanting "god is bad and the devil is good", I'm going to meet resistance and maybe get roughed up. They are not gathered to debate religion. There are alot of groups who are not there to listen to the other side.

reply to post by daskakik


You are probably right about going into a Church with a protest sign, that doesn't make it right! One of the reason I am against organized religion is my belief is were you to do so, IF this congregation were following the teachings of Christ, they would welcome you and listen....then they would explain to you what they believe and where and why they disagree with you.

I believe in live and let live. I am not a Satanist, however I do not care if you are a Satanist as long as you don't tread on me. What I want to know is, can we get along?

reply to post by Cinaed


The point wasn't about religion. It was about a group of people gathered under a common idea and how they are not up to listen to other ideas. No one really sees a problem with it in that situation but they point it out as one of the problems with OWS. Then they start talking about hive mentality as if the same label couldn't be slapped on anyone who shares his opinions on a certain topic with others.

reply to post by daskakik


The point isn't about religion, it is simply the example I used to keep with your analogy. I think arguing semantics is pretty much a waste of time.

The big picture problem as I see it is that far too many *groups* have this *hive mentality* and are not willing to look at the common ground between groups they oppose.

I am not for many things but I do understand there comes a time to compromise, just as there comes a time to be UNcompromising.

The wisdom to know the difference is the crux of the matter

reply to post by daskakik

I have to agree with your comments about the Tea Party reacting in a similar fashion if the right buttons are pushed. My fear is that OWS is going to be the one pushing those buttons and that would be the WORST possible outcome

Originally posted by Cinaed
reply to post by daskakik

 

The big picture problem as I see it is that far too many *groups* have this *hive mentality* and are not willing to look at the common ground between groups they oppose.

I think all groups are the same. That's the reason groups exist. Some members may be open to different ideas and this could cause them to stop agreeing with the group. When this happens they usually find themselves distancing themselves. The groups usually change very little.

The Pro and Anti abortion groups would be a good example. People may change sides or just stop participating but those two sides have remained the same for a long time.

I agree 100% is better than 99%.

Originally posted by Cinaed
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

I have spent quite a lot of time working with and dealing with this *under class* of people you referred to and my experience is that of such people most are choosing this way of life! I have watched parents teaching children not to make *too much money* as it screws up their government hand outs. It's pretty pathetic if you ask me.

I have had many jobs in my 50 yrs on the planet and none of my experiences have contradicted that observation. MANY MANY of this *under class* feel entitled to a free ride and a free lunch, and grow angry with anyone or anything interfering with their achievement of getting something for nothing. I feel sorriest for the children raised by such people that have several strikes against them as they reach adulthood and carry such a warped view of reality.

I will always strive to help the down trodden and anyone striving to better themselves. I am completely OVER the group screaming NO FAIR and poverty when all the while defrauding and working the system to CHEAT...I don't care if they are rich or impoverished.

Anyone got a tally going on how many times someone finds a way to blame the poor/disenfranchised for being poor/disenfranchised?

Yeah... ADD ANOTHER TALLY!!