00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Jmurr12 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Occupy wall street media black out

32,790 Views | 508 Replies

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-01 16:45:10


At 12/1/11 04:14 PM, akmeteor wrote: Not stupid, just that Freedom of Assembly might work differently. Where as long as you're protesting you can't be arrested kind of different.

meh, don't know if its different, someones gonna have to go do the comparison.

(lolz; tumult)

Canadian law also allows you to go all vigilante on rioters (or those suspected of trying causing a tumult).


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM

Heathenry; it's not for you

"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-01 20:33:22


Except they knew what they wanted, equal rights. the OWS crowd doesn't have a clue on WHAT they want done.

oh look, this worn out argument again. I'll tell you its about ending corporate welfare and lobbying and no more sending our tax dollars to fix other peoples mistakes who are already rolling in money as it is, and the same argument will be made again, then the same answer will be given.

or alternatively you could try to justify the bailouts because heaven forbid they go bankrupt for losing all of OUR money. The only solution has GOT to be for us to give them MORE of OUR money so they can fix the problem they created and then give themselves massive bonuses with the left overs.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-01 20:45:18


At 12/1/11 08:33 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:
oh look, this worn out argument again. I'll tell you its about ending corporate welfare and lobbying and no more sending our tax dollars to fix other peoples mistakes who are already rolling in money as it is, and the same argument will be made again, then the same answer will be given.

or alternatively you could try to justify the bailouts because heaven forbid they go bankrupt for losing all of OUR money. The only solution has GOT to be for us to give them MORE of OUR money so they can fix the problem they created and then give themselves massive bonuses with the left overs.

I have an idea. If they want their voice heard, and probably ignored anyway, they should bring up their own ideas on how to fix it. Right now they're just illegally camping in parks. That's not even remotely productive.


Well.

Shit.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-03 15:26:42


i'll answer your riddle with another one, how will not bringing attention to the subject be better?


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-03 16:42:46


i think a few points might help bring us out of our circle-jerk; i doubt everyone here disagrees with the need for change (accountability, a "fairer" system, etc...), but it seems there is a considerable disconnect between these people and the protesters (which could be for any number of reasons such as method, message [or the jumble of messages from a non-centralized movement] or the 1% vs 99%, etc...).
how to overcome it? well we've seen the attempt to draw links between OWS and the Civil Rights movement suggesting they identify with them, yet how OWS is proceeding is very different and i think that's the problem; the Civil Rights movement was an intensely organized and issue based movement intent on achieving small, specific goals intent on undermining the systems of laws and governance that supported segregation, as opposed to changing the entire system in one go.
they used marches/protests (like the OWS), sit-ins (like the OWS), legal action (unlike the OWS [insofar as i've heard], which is the pity because they are claiming it is a legal issue), boycotts (unlike the OWS; again missing a very relevant means of action), etc... but the most important difference, in my opinion, is what they expected from civil disobedience (the non-violent breaking of laws), mainly physical action from police, but there was little in the way of the continuous charge of police brutality or unjust arrest as the whole point of their movement was to show the nation the laws were stupid not that police procedure was flawed (and this was old-timey Southern police [but that's excluding the times the police did go old-timey pointy hood brutality on them]) or infringing their rights to free speech.
as for those arrested there's also their jail no bail non-resistant protest which would be dandy for the OWS because that too hits the man in his purse.

of course if the feeling is that the man is in control of the media and is taking away all your power, they can always buck up and take examples from the South African Anti-Apartheid movement (important note: they had 0 rights); but that too requires getting organized, using financial action (or is not buying stuff too terrible for us?) and taking a beating without losing sight of the goals you came for.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM

Heathenry; it's not for you

"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-03 19:57:01


Impact of OWS on politicians.

When you say OWS is useless and they bring no solution, think again.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-03 22:11:15


At 12/3/11 08:07 PM, Korriken wrote:
At 12/3/11 07:57 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Impact of OWS on politicians.
present by the young turks
Fail. find a source that isn't more biased than Josef Stalin's opinion of communism and try again.

It's an opiniated show I linked, true, however what he is talking about is true and in the dexcription of the video. You should actually watch and analyze the content instead of dismissing it just because it goes against what your erroneous view of reality.

Here is what people using the "ipod" argument need to watch.

What OWS is about.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-03 23:17:38


At 12/3/11 07:57 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Impact of OWS on politicians.

When you say OWS is useless and they bring no solution, think again.

but it just sounds like they're trying to learn how to put on a prettier face rather than do things differently.

also, what about the liberals, i thought this was a bipartisan anti-corruption smack-down?
...or an example of small steps?

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM

Heathenry; it's not for you

"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-04 00:15:14


Oh and Youtube is rarely a competent source for anything but incompetence...

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-04 02:14:05


At 12/4/11 12:15 AM, Korriken wrote:
I tried, but that guy's voice irritates the shit out of me.

I happen to think his voice is awesome.

So i went and found a better article without the smug fucker talking

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/repub licans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-str eet-133707949.html

Funny how it's the exact article they linked in the video description.

Also, this is really nothing new, the left also does this. Something comes up with unpopular, they change the language, that's why we have terms like "pro-choice" over "abortion" and "Assisted Living" over "Welfare"

it's not a new tactic, but it's still a dramatic change over what republicans said before and it is undeniable evidence of Occupy Wall Street's influence.

It's really nothing more than changing a few words around. nice try though.

Nice try downplaying this and shrugging it off like it's nothing.

more young turks... don't kill your credibility,

How does posting TYT kills one's credibility? Spoiler alert: It does not.

go find better links to work with, it took me all of 15 seconds to find the yahoo article.

Which I read already because it was in the video description of the video I just linked.

Also GOOD JOB IGNORING THE ARGUMENTS IN THE VIDEO ONCE AGAIN.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-04 21:10:24


At 12/4/11 08:59 AM, Korriken wrote:
At 12/4/11 02:14 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:
exactly, just without all the hooping and hollering about the republicans being in full retreat.

Well, thans Cenk for ya, he loves to exagerate a bit, but he's still right.

not really. It all means the same thing. politicians change strategies and change words all the time.

They do it just like that you know, because they feel like it, not because not doing it will get in trouble, and this change cannot be attributed to OWS at all of course make sperfect sense.

Nice try downplaying this and shrugging it off like it's nothing.
because it is.

It is not, saying otherwise and repeating it like a 5 years old will not change this fact.

Once you've been here a while you'll realize that posting heavily biased news sites and videos will drag down your credibility and make people think you're just some mindless zombie drone that goes around repeating what they want you to say instead of making your own opinion.

I do make my own opinion, also the young turks is opinionated but it is not biased, they do comment the news and yes it os arguabely some form of bias, but they still report the actual news, unlike a real biased media like fox.

do a better job and I might take you seriously.

Once again you prove your own incompetence by not even looking at the argument and shrugging it off like it somehow makes you win the argument. This makes me start to think you are not arguing in good faith.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 01:05:22


multi billion dollar corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America.

Occupy wall street media black out


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 10:52:41


At 12/5/11 01:05 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: multi billion dollar corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America.

All I really see is an overly biased comic. Especially since the banks already paid for most of their bailout money.

Also, we shouldn't have given them that bailout money because it messes with Capitalism.

Just like how what OWS is asking for wrecks Capitalism.


Well.

Shit.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 11:23:00


At 12/5/11 10:52 AM, akmeteor wrote:
At 12/5/11 01:05 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: multi billion dollar corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America.
All I really see is an overly biased comic. Especially since the banks already paid for most of their bailout money.

You of course have proof to back that up.

Also, why defend capitalism? The bailout was 100% socialist.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 11:32:21


At 12/5/11 11:23 AM, DickBuns wrote:
At 12/5/11 10:52 AM, akmeteor wrote:
At 12/5/11 01:05 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: multi billion dollar corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America.
All I really see is an overly biased comic. Especially since the banks already paid for most of their bailout money.
You of course have proof to back that up.

Also, why defend capitalism? The bailout was 100% socialist.

I did say that if you read the entire post.

The OWS is also socialist. What the banks and corporations do in Congress is actually a part of Capitalism.

Unless of course you are asking to stem completely away from Capitalism to Socialism.


Well.

Shit.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 11:39:27


At 12/5/11 11:32 AM, akmeteor wrote:
At 12/5/11 11:23 AM, DickBuns wrote:
You of course have proof to back that up.

Also, why defend capitalism? The bailout was 100% socialist.
I did say that if you read the entire post.

The OWS is also socialist. What the banks and corporations do in Congress is actually a part of Capitalism.

Unless of course you are asking to stem completely away from Capitalism to Socialism.

Back to the reason why you were banned.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 11:41:20


At 12/5/11 11:39 AM, DickBuns wrote:
Back to the reason why you were banned.

Not related to the conversation at all. Nice try getting me mad though.


Well.

Shit.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 11:44:36


At 12/5/11 11:41 AM, akmeteor wrote:
At 12/5/11 11:39 AM, DickBuns wrote:
Back to the reason why you were banned.
Not related to the conversation at all. Nice try getting me mad though.

Not trying to get you mad. Just trying to convince you to actually address the discussion, and not skirt around it with irrelevant drivel.

So again. Do you have proof that the banks paid back most of their bailouts? And what about the issues that the comic brings up? Do you have some sort of retort for that? Or are you simply going to dismiss it because of some sort of irrelevant "It's overused" dodge?

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 11:47:32


At 12/5/11 11:44 AM, DickBuns wrote:
Not trying to get you mad. Just trying to convince you to actually address the discussion, and not skirt around it with irrelevant drivel.

So again. Do you have proof that the banks paid back most of their bailouts? And what about the issues that the comic brings up? Do you have some sort of retort for that? Or are you simply going to dismiss it because of some sort of irrelevant "It's overused" dodge?

How about the fact that the post I made was to say that while I think it is extremely biased, it does have meaning.

Bailouts = Socialist

OWS = Even More Socialist than the goddamn bailouts.

If you call any of that skirting around the issue, you need to figure out how to use reading comprehension.


Well.

Shit.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 11:52:02


At 12/5/11 11:47 AM, akmeteor wrote:
At 12/5/11 11:44 AM, DickBuns wrote:
Not trying to get you mad. Just trying to convince you to actually address the discussion, and not skirt around it with irrelevant drivel.

So again. Do you have proof that the banks paid back most of their bailouts? And what about the issues that the comic brings up? Do you have some sort of retort for that? Or are you simply going to dismiss it because of some sort of irrelevant "It's overused" dodge?
How about the fact that the post I made was to say that while I think it is extremely biased, it does have meaning.

The only part that you actually posted was the bit about it being biased. You did not address anything else regarding the comic. I would apologize for not being psychic and deriving whatever sort of vague meaning that you have behind "it does have meaning" but no. There's no reason to. I shouldn't be expected to be psychic. If you think I have a problem with my reading comprehension because of my lack of ESP, well, I suggest you learn what reading comprehension actually means.

So, in a nutshell, you have no retort to that comic other than the fact that it is biased. So the point made by the comic stands until refuted by someone who will put forth the effort to do so.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 11:58:24


At 12/5/11 11:52 AM, DickBuns wrote:
So, in a nutshell, you have no retort to that comic other than the fact that it is biased. So the point made by the comic stands until refuted by someone who will put forth the effort to do so.

You only read the first sentence then. I stated that I thought that the Bailouts were socialist, then said that OWS is even more so.

Which does actually pertain to the comic stating "Get a job I need Bailout money!" under Capitalist Socialist.


Well.

Shit.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 12:13:33


At 12/5/11 11:58 AM, akmeteor wrote:
You only read the first sentence then. I stated that I thought that the Bailouts were socialist, then said that OWS is even more so.

Which does actually pertain to the comic stating "Get a job I need Bailout money!" under Capitalist Socialist.

That doesn't really pertain to the comic as the comic does not mention OWS at all.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-05 12:21:16


At 12/5/11 12:13 PM, DickBuns wrote:
That doesn't really pertain to the comic as the comic does not mention OWS at all.

Because it is going to skip over the fact that OWS is the worse of the two Capitalism/Socialist ideas, or it was made before OWS was even around. I added the fact in, that if it were made before OWS, it would then be relevant to OWS.

Here's what you're saying.

"This textbook from 1930 doesn't mention the Holocaust! Therefore it isn't relevant to history, because this book was written before it."

OR

"This textbook from Japan doesn't mention World War II! That must mean Japan wasn't involved in a bad light!"


Well.

Shit.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-06 12:43:49


At 12/4/11 09:26 PM, Korriken wrote: and still biased.

Please indicate how so.

Obviously they change jargon based on their perception of current public opinion.

Public opinion which was changed by OWS.

It is indeed nothing, its as much of nothing as calling Welfare "assisted living" same thing, just another word for it.

There is a political reason why these people do it, and for OWS to force the reps to change theirs when you see how they treated them before, it's a huge step and you can downplay it as much as you want it does not change this fact.

That's perception for ya, great way to cloud judgement. your argument falls as flat as saying "Well, Glenn Beck may be opinionated, but he's not biased, he DOES speak of real new articles afterall."
Obviously you wouldn't agree with that statement because Glenn Beck isn't opinionated in the way you WANT him to be.

See, I knew you would ay that. And no, there is a difference with Beck and Ugyur, and it's not only their position, Fox has a huge history of spinning stories in their favor see this guy's channel. He's got over 100 examples of fox news bias.

Now I know Cenk exagerates sometimes he's a character, however if don,t think you will ever find him maliciously or ideologically hiding facts or reporting anything incorrectly, and if you somehow do I would love to see you post it here.

I argue in fine faith. I just see things for what they are. I'm not underplaying it, you're overplaying it. It's easy to grab a news article like that and take off running with it to see how far you can blow it out of proportion. Here's an example.. not a great example, but it still makes the point!

Bob the Builder turns down a contract to build a black guy's house, explaining he doesn't have the time or manpower to build the house in the time the man wants his house built in.

Tom: Bob the Builder is obviously racist for not wanting to build a house for a BLACK MAN! I can't believe racists like this still exist in the world! They should take his contractor's license away from him for being a bigoted idiot!

Reality: Bob the Builder has too much work on his hands as is and doesn't have the manpower to build another house in the amount of time the man wants it built. simple.

I don't think this happens, like ever. Or if somebody in that case would point to rascism he would not be taken seriously... and I am the one overplaying it now?

Obama makes a reference to there being 52 states.
Left: he misspoke, he's tired.
right: he's a moron! does he know even know how many states are in our nation? this man doesn't deserve to be our president!

Palin makes a reference to skinning a moose
Left: she's a MORON for talking about skinning a moose, he's not sophisticated enough to be vice president!
Right: so she skinned a moose, big deal.

If you want to look at an incompetent republican and a moron just look at Herman Cain. Now of course people tend to be biased for the party they like the most. I don't like the dems either, and certainly not obama. And I always try to not be biased.

Also I think we are straying away from the main subject of this thread.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-10 01:42:46


At 12/6/11 04:35 PM, Korriken wrote:
There is little difference. both have an agenda and both spin things to help their agenda. you're just too blind to see it.

Once again you just say stuff out of your ass with no evidence to back it up, like I said, find a fucking tyt article that reported facts wrong or tried to hide facts.

Let's see... um nope, I can't find a single positive video on the tea party by them. according to your precious "non biased" cenk, the tea party is full of racists who want nothing more than to put Obama out of office and enslave the black people.

Exept where he says they have been fighting for similar things than OWS even tough they do not go after corporations themselves.

*facepalm* the point is its a matter of perception. anything can be spun, anything can be twisted to suit your needs/desires. the young turks does just that. you just refuse to see it for what it is. you ever hear anything good about the republicans? no. you ever see em slamming obama? minor, but nothing major. point is he's a leftist hack that the zombies on the left listen to, much like Glenn Beck is a right wing hack that the zombies on the right listen to.

Exept not, and Cenk blames both the left AND the right AND Obama when they do stuff that are wrong and will say when both do good things, I have heard examples of all of these. Like i said, he IS giving his opinion but he is not biased, not in the sense that he will hide facts or lie to get his agenda trough, like some other fox news people.

If you want to look at an incompetent republican and a moron just look at Herman Cain. Now of course people tend to be biased for the party they like the most. I don't like the dems either, and certainly not obama. And I always try to not be biased.
nice. sidestep the point and try to stick it to someone you don't like. I think I'm done here. I made my point, make what you will of it.

What point was there that I hadn't already adressed before? You gave an overexagerrated example of bias. I am not saying bias doesn't exist here.

Also you're done? Great, not like anything could have made you change your mind anyways.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-10 02:05:57


Banks make money by borrowing and spending other peoples money. This money is invested into the stock market, wich can result in gain or loss.

The banks lost, but they didn't lose their own money, they lost their customer's money. In response, they appealed to the government to bail them out, in order to save us from losing our money. The government responded by giving the banks more of our money, in fact they gave enough of it so that the banks could get a nice kick ass bonus for all of their executives.

The banks payed that money back over time, with more of our money (remember how they make their money?), and the government was happy to take that money and give it back to the population, by building more bombs and sending them over seas to blow up brown people and secure the oil fields for the oil companies, who still to this day charge us an arm and a leg plus a blowjob as a tip for their so called "still plentiful" goods.

Did I meantion that banks charge you to use your money?


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-10 13:02:45


At 12/10/11 01:42 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Once again you just say stuff out of your ass with no evidence to back it up, like I said, find a fucking tyt article that reported facts wrong or tried to hide facts.

VK, don't get sucked into the lore and sexiness of 'facts'. The mere existence of a fact doesn't mean anything. Facts are merely facts. They do nothing but indiciate a single bland piece of information. It's the story that counts. Facts are fungible.

Korriken is not saying the facts of the Young Turks are wrong. he's saying their story is biased and one sided. His point that TYT has been salivating over OWS like Zoidberg when someone mentions food. They haven't reported much, if at all, on a similar bottom up grass roots (though at least partially astroturfed) Tea party movement.

So when it comes down to it, regardless of whether the facts that TYT puts forth are 100% true or not, they are extremely biased. They choose the facts they out forward and the story they craft is done so through the lenses of their beliefs, and they make little effort to hide that fact.

In conclusion, fatcs aren't gospel. They are merely tools through which people craft stories.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-10 15:51:58


At 12/10/11 02:43 PM, Korriken wrote: Tea party wants fewer taxes and more economical freedom... well most of em anyway, some are nuttier than others.

OWS wants more regulation and to end corporate bailouts.. well, most of em anyway, some are nuttier than others.

You at least have to admit that they both want to end corporate welfare (i.e. the bailouts and TARP and stuff).

Their methods for doing this, however, diverge significantly.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-10 15:57:11


At 12/10/11 01:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
VK, don't get sucked into the lore and sexiness of 'facts'. The mere existence of a fact doesn't mean anything. Facts are merely facts. They do nothing but indiciate a single bland piece of information. It's the story that counts. Facts are fungible.
Korriken is not saying the facts of the Young Turks are wrong. he's saying their story is biased and one sided. His point that TYT has been salivating over OWS like Zoidberg when someone mentions food. They haven't reported much, if at all, on a similar bottom up grass roots (though at least partially astroturfed) Tea party movement.

I guess I see your point here, and I would agree about that, thanks for explaining that.

So when it comes down to it, regardless of whether the facts that TYT puts forth are 100% true or not, they are extremely biased. They choose the facts they out forward and the story they craft is done so through the lenses of their beliefs, and they make little effort to hide that fact.

By that definition everyone is biased (And everybody is). I was speaking in terms of massive bias or outright lying, or hiding critical information from the viewer, which unlike fox news I am not aware of the people from TYT doing.

In conclusion, fatcs aren't gospel. They are merely tools through which people craft stories.

A fact, evidence is by definition true, if it is altered then it becomes untrue, and therefore is not a fact anymore.

Response to Occupy wall street media black out 2011-12-10 15:59:17


At 12/10/11 03:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 12/10/11 02:43 PM, Korriken wrote: Tea party wants fewer taxes and more economical freedom... well most of em anyway, some are nuttier than others.

OWS wants more regulation and to end corporate bailouts.. well, most of em anyway, some are nuttier than others.
You at least have to admit that they both want to end corporate welfare (i.e. the bailouts and TARP and stuff).

Their methods for doing this, however, diverge significantly.

I believe they could be strong allies, the thing is that corporations that tend to be greedy don't want regulations so it's easier to not play by the rules. So I would agree some regulation is definitely important, especially health regulations.