Wake Up, America

uscitizen said:
Much of that 50% is in 401K's that no owners vote.
And the republicans want to put even more in that type of thing with their SS plan.
Click to expand...
Much, but not enough to make the difference if people simply began to get it.

*sigh*

It's all good. It is an actual solution. For some reason when you bring them up people have about a million excuses for why it won't work. And as long as they are making excuses, then they are right.

I don't know who said it first, but whoever it was they were right.


If you think you will fail, you are right.
 
I have seen people have to delay their retirement because of stock market dips...One delayed an died before retirement....
 
I do , not to play shuffle board all days and that kind of stuff, have plenty of stuff outside of making money to keep me busy.
 
Damocles said:
I guess I'll repeat it again, (I wish I could say it slowly... But what I'll do is just ask you to read, then repeat...)



Rinse and repeat...

So, don't attempt to call something that people already own a "buyout"....

Again, repeat that last sentence.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, your "solution" relies on stock ownership as a precondition of effectiveness. Stock has to be bought, through the process of buying, either in the past or in the future. This discussion isn't about which verb conjugation is appropriate. That's a redherring.



Because 50% of people own some stock doesn't mean they could "automatically win" any corporate vote-off to determine policy.

Plus, I seriously doubt any real opposition to policy would even make it to the voting stage.

Like you neocons like to say, "It is not the burden of corporations to improve society, they're there to make money." And that's as it should be. The problem is when businesses also control government and corrupt all policy in their favor. Citizens deserve their legal protecttions. That means the border WILL keep labor prices from bottoming out. That has always been one of the benefits of border and immigration policy enforcement.

Now you new world order dweebs want to come along and say that no westerner even deserves the basic protections implicit in the national sovereignty for which previous generations died.

I wonder if all the people who died in our previous wars would have bothered to fight if they had been told they were fighting not for their own people, but to preserve the power of a military industrial complex which seeks to consolidate all markets and regions into a unified mass, regardless of the actual effects on their descendants.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Nevertheless, your "solution" relies on stock ownership as a precondition of effectiveness. Stock has to be bought, through the process of buying, either in the past or in the future. This discussion isn't about which verb conjugation is appropriate. That's a redherring.



Because 50% of people own some stock doesn't mean they could "automatically win" any corporate vote-off to determine policy.

Plus, I seriously doubt any real opposition to policy would even make it to the voting stage.

Like you neocons like to say, "It is not the burden of corporations to improve society, they're there to make money." And that's as it should be. The problem is when businesses also control government and corrupt all policy in their favor. Citizens deserve their legal protecttions. That means the border WILL keep labor prices from bottoming out. That has always been one of the benefits of border and immigration policy enforcement.

Now you new world order dweebs want to come along and say that no westerner even deserves the basic protections implicit in the national sovereignty for which previous generations died.

I wonder if all the people who died in our previous wars would have bothered to fight if they had been told they were fighting not for their own people, but to preserve the power of a military industrial complex which seeks to consolidate all markets and regions into a unified mass, regardless of the actual effects on their descendants.
Click to expand...
It relies on a circumstance that already exists.

Instead of working to "inform" people that 5 people are taking over the world, working to get people to actively take away their power would be more successful. Attacking at the root cause will always be more successful than the Chicken Little approach.
 
Damocles said:
It relies on a circumstance that already exists.

Instead of working to "inform" people that 5 people are taking over the world, working to get people to actively take away their power would be more successful. Attacking at the root cause will always be more successful than the Chicken Little approach.
Click to expand...

You're not attacking a root cause. You're proposing an unworkable plan, a plan that has as it's own premise the very premise that is the problem: the premise that corporate boardrooms are the only place where impactful decision can be made, and that there is no authority higher than corporate authority.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed to people voting their shares, i just doubt it will have much effect regarding the issues I'm concerned about. It's a good idea, just not sufficient.

Why not have a multi pronged front on this issue:Let's encourage share voting, spread information, expose lies, etc. Why can't you join this battle fullheartedly?
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
You're not attacking a root cause. You're proposing an unworkable plan, a plan that has as it's own premise the very premise that is the problem: the premise that corporate boardrooms are the only place where impactful decision can be made, and that there is no authority higher than corporate authority.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed to people voting their shares, i just doubt it will have much effect regarding the issues I'm concerned about. It's a good idea, just not sufficient.

Why not have a multi pronged front on this issue:Let's encourage share voting, spread information, expose lies, etc. Why can't you join this battle fullheartedly?
Click to expand...
I haven't "joined" any battle. I am making it clear that the "spreading of information" is much better served by a different tactic than the Chicken Little approach. If you want people to listen, then you must speak as if you do. If all you do is attempt to belittle people and sound like you are in panic then people won't just turn away, they'll point and laugh first.
 
Damocles said:
I haven't "joined" any battle.
Click to expand...
That's my point. You haven't, and freedom is under assault.
I am making it clear that the "spreading of information" is much better served by a different tactic than the Chicken Little approach.
Click to expand...
All i've seen you do is propagate the absurd notion that internationalist fascism can only be fought in the boardrooms of the fascists themselves.
If you want people to listen, then you must speak as if you do. If all you do is attempt to belittle people and sound like you are in panic then people won't just turn away, they'll point and laugh first.
Click to expand...

I feel my communication skills are fine and my tactics are superb, but thanks for you input. I will ignore it, however. I fucked your shit up quite nicely. I sha'n't change.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's my point. You haven't, and freedom is under assault.

All i've seen you do is propagate the absurd notion that internationalist fascism can only be fought in the boardrooms of the fascists themselves.


I feel my communication skills are fine and my tactics are superb, but thanks for you input. I will ignore it, however. I fucked your shit up quite nicely. I sha'n't change.
Click to expand...
A vote of shareholders is not the boardroom. You have now proven again that you are being deliberately obtuse.

However it can remove from the boardroom those you wish to remove. Your significant misunderstanding is only astounding in its insistence even in the face of reality. If you want to change the factors that create their power, you must find the causality and take it from them.

And the only poo poo you have had sexual intercourse with was removed from your own toilet.
 
Damocles said:
A vote of shareholders is not the boardroom. You have now proven again that you are being deliberately obtuse.

However it can remove from the boardroom those you wish to remove. Your significant misunderstanding is only astounding in its insistence even in the face of reality. If you want to change the factors that create their power, you must find the causality and take it from them.
Click to expand...


You win. You're the most nit-picky. Was that the contest?:clink:
 
Freedom is apparently a lost cause, it is just a myth compared to the freedom we used to have.
I am getting somewhat old, it will do for the rest of my life, but you youngsters ought to be pretty concerned.
 
Damocles will be affectionately known from this point forward as "The Man".
The Man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man


"The Man" is a moniker phrase used to describe higher authority. This "Man" does not usually refer to a specific individual as such, but instead to the government, leaders of large corporations, and other authority figures in general, such as the police. The Man is colloquially defined as the figurative person who controls our world. The Man is also often used as a symbol of racial oppression.

The phrase "the Man is keeping me down" is commonly used to describe perceived oppression, but in modern times it is most often used facetiously in an ironically resigned fashion. The phrase "stick it to the Man" encourages resistance to authority, and essentially means "fight back" or "resist"; however, this is also used facetiously sometimes.
Click to expand...
 
the premise that corporate boardrooms are the only place where impactful decision can be made, and that there is no authority higher than corporate authority.

This has been an actual US political doctrine for many years.

The theory behind it is that, by defering to consumer power, you create an atmosphere of negative liberty that is impervious to the totalitarian eventuality of positive liberty. Essentially, if you remove politics from the equation, market forces deliver to the individual what they truely want, working on the assumption that humans always work rationally for their own interests.

As AHZ points out, absoluteness in negative liberty does result in a consolidation of power amongst those controlling comsumer culture. This is an issue I have been attempting to articulate for a few years now. With the maximum soveriegnty invested in consumerism (in the belief that this provides the greatest negative liberty), you remove any direct control over the direction of society by its members through the elimination of political control and the democratic levers that control it. The notion is, that we then exercise control by what we purchase.

A major downfall in this is that it gives those with the greatest purchasing power a disproportionate percentage of control, resulting in an oligarchy, and even creates the paradox that this 'investment' in negative liberty restricts the negative liberty of many.

We should be very suspicious of industry, even though it wears the coat of providing 'liberty'. It is a wolf in a sheep's skin.
 
Freedom is apparently a lost cause, it is just a myth compared to the freedom we used to have.

The first question anyone must ask when discussing freedom, is what do we mean by freedom....
 
When those of a Libertarian persuasion refer to freedom, they generally mean negative liberty, the freedom to do as one pleases without coercion, provided it doesn't interfere with the liberty of others.

This brings up obvious paradoxes.

The other definition of freedom is positive liberty, the freedom and opportunity to reach one's full potential or to act in one's best interests, and this is often adopted by the Left.

The paradox thrown up by this definition is that it can be said to a form of totalitarianism, in as much as what is in the best interest needs to be defined and thus acted upon, to the point of coercion if needed.

When Bushites, and others of his ilk talk of liberty, they are really combining the two. They state they believe in negative liberty, but agree with the notion that this should be exported, forcibly if needed. This forces them into a hypocritical position, in as much as they aspouse negative liberty, yet believe it is in the 'best interest' to coerce people into adopting it, and thus exercise positive liberty.

People in the US government bandy the term 'freedom' about like it is confetti, but freedom is infinitely more complex than that.....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Freedom is apparently a lost cause, it is just a myth compared to the freedom we used to have.

The first question anyone must ask when discussing freedom, is what do we mean by freedom....
Click to expand...

Freedom to me is the ability to do as one chooses without harming others by our actions. I realize that is a limited freedom, but it is I feel the type of freedom we should have.
But then there is the fact that virtually everything we do has some impact on others....
Guess I had betteer leave this discussion to my more edumicated friends.
 
"People in the US government bandy the term 'freedom' about like it is confetti, but freedom is infinitely more complex than that....."

I very clearly realize that, but cannot clearly discuss it without the proper learned reference points.
 
Freedom to me is the ability to do as one chooses without harming others by our actions.

This is what is described as 'negative liberty' and is the predominant idea of freedom in the western world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

US, you shouldn't put yourself down about such things. I have had many informed discussions with you and by saying leave it to the edumacated, you sell yourself short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top