"Occupy" Superthread

There is no alliance of 'corporations.' News outlets stand to gain nothing by not reporting on a major event like cops murdering protesters.

The thing is, it was censored at first. Remember how it took weeks before it got any attention, and how the media only began to take it seriously after the occupation of the Brooklyn bridge, and 50'000 people marching on Wall street? Think of how many things weren't reported, or were underplayed in the media lately - 100'000 joining a general strike, or those 650'000 people who terminated their bank accounts and joined credit unions, or even Anonymous and the Occupy movement claiming that they will occupy, and stop the 2012 election.

At your last point - The Internet, and independent media sources.

The first part of your post was a cheap shot, which I assumed was meant to try and destroy my credibility, while enforcing the stereotype that all Left-wingers are hippies, and talk like that. Don't do it again.

@ Kali - It would make no sense for them to report on the issue. To recycle my last example, it would be like a pedophile walking down the street wearing a shirt that says 'I rape children'. (Wasn't calling you a pedophile the first time, editing on the example)

Edit: If you're so sure that Corporations aren't the bad guys, why don't you prove it? Shouldn't be too hard, considering your confidence on the issue.

At no point was it ever censored.

National news doesn't report on things unless they're national news. But all the major outlets were covering this haberdashery from day one. Just because it isn't on TV or the headline of the NYT doesn't mean it's censored.

I sincerely doubt this ever happened.

When the shoe fits.

http://rt.com/usa/news/bank-transfer-credit-country-747/

Care to elaborate on what you mean there chap?

If you're so sure that Corporations aren't the bad guys, why don't you prove it? Shouldn't be too hard, considering your confidence on the issue.

First, RT. Find a real news source.

Second, corporations is not a proper noun. It is thus not supposed to be capitalized unless it comes at the beginning of a sentence.

Making the same baseless claims as hippies do (the CORPORATIONS MAAAAN) is exactly what you're doing here.

This isn't even a reasonable question. It doesn't even make rational sense that corporations are "the bad guys," and that idea is so preposterously vague and rhetorical that it's simply impossible to respond to.

Every media corporation has a bias. It just happens that RT's bias is more toward the left.

I like how you changed what your position from insulting the left, to making fun of me. Could have almost been mistaken for hate speech, and we wouldn't want that now, would we?

And I think this is relevant, considering your religious beliefs -
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

In the eyes of your god, wealth is immoral, and the rich are going to hell. Unless you can find a way to fit a camel through the eye of a needle, in which case I will have nothing but praise for you.

Edit: My point being that Capitalism + Christianity is Hypocrisy. And if your bible is correct, you'll have a lot of explaining to do to the big man.

RT is an anti-American outlet, not a leftist one.

I didn't do either of those things. You are reading into something that isn't there.

No, it certainly couldn't have been mistaken for hate speech. You just tend to label anything that remotely offends you as hate speech for some reason.

Why on Earth are my religious beliefs relevant?

Kali: I guess he's using the religious quote as an example. However, Ler, you obviously didn't read around the quote. A young man came up and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus said that he had to follow the Commandments and be good. The young man asks if he needs to do anything else, and Jesus says he should sell his possessions, but the man, being rich doesn't want to. The idea is that the rich are surrounded by material wealth, making it harder for them to do what they should for the next life. Don't pull quotes out of your ass.

RT isn't the most trustworthy source I have to agree. Giving respect to conspiracy theories makes it particularly questionable.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Worl...p-related-bank/story?id=14897356#.Trp-J3JIWUk

That's the news Ler was referring to.

I used to get most of my information from RT news source, but i will have to admit it is a little untrustworthy at times, however though it isn't an unreliable source to go to, (well that's more Kali likes to point out) but i just generally do believe it does sprout out anti-American rhetoric at times. Its not really a left-wing source judging by the fact it has this negative opinion on the former Soviet Union and communism in a whole.

lol. I could go all religious major on you, but I know you aren't legitimately dumb enough to believe this. There's a difference between having wealth, and the immoral use of wealth.

I like how, whenever you start to slip in a debate, you bring up religion, or other concepts exterior to the debate, to mask your ineptitude. Or, you scream "HATE SPEECH" because your skin isn't thick enough to deal with political criticism, or joking attacks on communism as a whole. Also, Kali actually has a point, your whole view on corporations is very... hippy-esque, as in that you insist on spouting the same nonsensical rhetoric that people who don't understand the international business scene have for years.

Anyway, Kali seems to have the overall debate covered, but these were just a few things that I picked up on.

It's true that Christians that follow the scripture (is there any other kind?) should be left-wing social democrats. And there would be a good argument to make that Jesus would hate the current situation and be on the side of Occupy Wall Street.

RT is worse than Fox. It's like what Fox would be if it spent all day drinking vodka.

And according to the ABC article that D3VIL posted, the transfer was not due to OWS, but was due to the incredibly unpopular decision by Bank of America to add a $5 charge for the use of debit cards.

That's nice, but unless you can prove that Christianity is true then it's quite worthless as an argument and is in any case quite irrelevant.

The sign of a truly weak argument is when attacks are made against the character of your opponent (in this case, my religious beliefs) and not the actual issues.

I thought it was common knowledge that Jesus was for helping the poor, social justice and was against the money changers (finance). The status quo in the US is individualism, neo-liberalism, welfare cuts, fending for yourself, exorbitant healthcare costs. Doesn't really smack of social justice.

P.S. The "is there any other kind" bit was an accident, I forgot that you didn't follow scripture.

That argument doesn't mean anything or hold any weight unless you can verify the accuracy of Christianity. And even if you did, it is not relevant to the discussion that Ler and I were having.

Take a look at virtually any story they run, particularly any that have been posted here. RT is one of the worst news outlets available; I'd trust Xinhua and Fox before I trust them. It isn't just biased, it presents factually invalid points of view as truth.

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_capitalism#Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Christianity

Blessed are the poor seems contradictory to neoliberalism.

I'm not saying that Christianity isn't in favor of social democracy. I'm saying that it doesn't mean anything if it is unless you can prove that Christianity is truth.