All of those years signing tainted me... No, not a real excuse
To your point about the military, you are absolutely wrong. If you carried a 45 or 38 you had hollow point options for the pistols. Ammo choices were AP/FMJ/Tracing for combat depending on the role and weapon. You don't need specialized rounds to train with, and they cost many factors more depending on the type of ammo. The only time we ever used special rounds was nighttime training (tracers), which most people never get to do.
Nice defeatist propaganda, I wonder how many will bow down to your message of happy servitude? Not many, and not for long if they do
We have for a long time had a more "free" society, so the police state in the US is new. Obviously corruption and crimes exist due to human nature, but the fact that we grew in population, technology, etc... is enough to prove that we were not in a controlled state. Controlled humans don't produce well and don't innovate very well, which is plain and simple proven psychology.
The reason the US had a revolt in the late 1700s was because of what we have in the US today. Did they do it right? Obviously something went wrong, and we need to fix that next time. To suggest that we all roll over and be happy little slaves means that you are either a despicable person or in a deplorable state of mind.
Bullshit! Power is the purpose, money is an extension of power. Information / knowledge is also power, and you have no idea who's pulling the strings do you? There are numerous types of power, all denied to "The People" and used to control them. It's absurd to believe that it's only for the "money". At no point in history was that ever true, and there is no magic that would make it true now.
You point to it over and over, but seem to miss what is so obvious. There is no difference between Bush and Obama. To believe there is requires you to ignore facts. Obama has no agenda, he has points of propaganda that the ignorant masses swallow. His intentions are no different than Bush, and he is no different. The media treats Obama better, but that's because his platform was that of a savior instead of an ignorant hick. What he does is exactly what Bush did, which is to drive war and destroy the US Economy.
Bush and Obama are not the only ones mind you, this is a long chain of assholes working to undermine our country. The media has long covered up these assholes too, so even that is not "new" but much more extreme. I'll ask you why most people in the US don't know about the Franklin Cover up for example if you have doubts as to how long cover ups have been happening.
Gitmo does not hurt or harm their plans, which is why they don't care. It makes people on both sides of the aisle argue about bullshit and distracts them from our ruined economy, wars, and the increasing police state. I am positive that they like these things to fester because if they run out of Zimmerman stories they can bring this up and get those emotions flaring again.
I do say "_seem_" in my first sentence because maybe you are not really defending Obama or claiming he is special.
Rubbish! Just because you can't see the octopus's mouth does not mean it does not exist. The tentacles are not separate, contrary to what you state. They are in fact very well connected.
Which was the theory, and why most judges are now appointed. The supreme court does not give a rats ass about your constitutional rights, none of them. They make a game of "who's the bad guy" in court today so that people can believe that they are upholding their oaths. The same can be said of _any_ appointed judges, which is the majority in the US today.
What's the real story here isn't the size of the ammunition buy, but just how many law enforcement officers there are throughout the federal government. I gather that there's something like 200-300k law enforcement officers at this time. So you're looking at training/retaining qualification ammunition use of up to 300 million rounds of ammunition per year.
I think the 2nd point is rather mute. You normally don't train with armor piercing or hollow point rounds. They are simply too expensive for training. What was purchased is not FMJ which is fine for training. Go look at the price differences if you have doubts. In the military, we trained with FMJ rounds. Machine guns had tracers but that's because they are _only_ produced with a percentage of the rounds as tracing.
Your first point should be a concern to everyone. We have too many federal agents between all of the various 3 letter organizations.
Where I disagree is in that we don't know the full extent of US violence. Obviously we see the impact of wars that are declared, like Iraq and Afghanistan. How about the undeclared wars? You know, the CIA funded operations that cause the deaths of millions in the Middle East and Europe in revolutions for example? How about the corporate death squads that roamed (and maybe still roam) in South American and Africa?
If you believe only what they give you in propaganda, I'm with you. We are really not bad compared to Hitler.
When you look at the Bush family funding Hitler, Carnegie, Melon and Rockefeller providing all the eugenics scientists to Hitler and funding them things start to look much worse. I won't even touch those same families funding Mao and Stalin mind you, which would indirectly implicate the US as responsible for a whole lot more deaths than anyone in history. The Bush connection is well documented, so don't bother crying "conspiracy theory". The rest I agree is theory, but there is enough documentation that we should at least investigate.
It look a lot of rich people having their cash cows threatened to actually have one, and today the rich are just doing too well.
Me thinks you should read history before making such unsubstantiated claims. It takes very few people with wealth to decide enough is enough. It does take about 15-20% of the population to be absolutely fed up and see no other choice. That number seems to turn the rest of the masses against propaganda engines and those holding power. We are very close to the right numbers now.
Contrary to what you claim "There are lots of new problems due to technology" there is really nothing new. The rich will abuse society to get more, the poor will mostly whine about how bad things are, the middle class will be split between those that ignore reality, those that deny reality, and those that speak out against the abuses.
The easiest way for the rich to get more is to entertain the masses with gladiators and heresy/witch trials.
The first well known philosophical writings we have document this very thing in the life of Socrates and his Philosophy. Socrates tells you that the cycle has been happening for some time, and offers a solution in educating all members of society. Those in power have ensured that the poor know nothing about this masterful work. Look upon the Government control over education systems and be amazed.
It should be painfully obvious in the allegory provided that profits are problem but you refuse to see, acknowledge, or read anything that hurts your belief. If Socrates was not of the belief that profits were a detriment beyond an obvious point why would he state that the Republic needed to regulate them? I realize that many people today have difficulty with critical thinking, but the Allegory of the Artisan makes the point very obvious. If you are having difficulty because Socrates does not use the specific term "profit" you are linguistically challenged.
The reason I brought up Friedman was is because you stated patents are good for society. Friedman was against monopolization which you argue for by advocating the patenting of ideas. He was also of the opinion that patents were by nature dubious and worked against the consumers, harmed entrepreneurs, hindered progress, and hurt innovation. He was not _for_ patents, but accepted that a minimalist approach was potentially beneficial.
No, it's not hard to prove that "idea" patents are bad for society. You claim it's hard because it harms your belief. No, I'm not surprised because you continue a very easy to spot trend.
The trend is that you continue arguing fantasy to support your belief. No, I won't quote all of Friedman's work any more than I will quote all of Socrates work simply because you are lazy. Go read what they wrote for yourself. You will learn a whole lot if you do, way beyond the bounds of what I could possibly try to do in the/. forums. To add to your list, go read historical arguments from court records regarding patents. Nothing we can argue today is different than any other point in history. The rich people continue to to try and trick people into believing that they should own everything and you should be a servant. Ignorant people that can't spot a fallacy that pokes them in the eye continue to rally to their call as good little servants.
No, I'm not going to quote over 900 pages of text because you don't want to visit the Library. It's a nonsense request so that you can maintain your delusional opinion. I own 3 separate translations of each of his works, and most can be found on Amazon for a nominal $30.00USD price tag.
Your Pharma comment continues to show you are devoid of any research at all and simply wish to back your opinion using fantasy. In fact I'll go further and point out that you fail to consider extremely recent history in your delusional question. The obvious answer is that medicines were developed and sold just fine without a patent for the majority of history (including the history of the USA).
Your life is does not benefit because of a patent and neither does mine. You "believe" that it does because of your ignorance (willful or otherwise). The patent debates go back over 400 years, and there have been numerous papers written by exceptional scholars explaining why patent's are a detriment to society more often than a benefit. That is with basic patents on machine parts too, not ideas which historically have been illegal because they are absolutely detrimental to society.
Please don't bother replying with more irrational assumptions and fantasy stories to back your delusion. You have not read Adam Smith, you have not read Plato/Socrates, not read Milton Friedman, or any other works that would help you see things in a light other than your current belief. If you had, you would be able to give rational and factual basis for your belief.
Finally just from a philosophy of science perspective they have no underlying theory to predict a certain relationship between climate change and human activity.
This is not a new phenomenon with this paper, but perhaps it's more obvious. 99% of the Climate papers that make it to the public fail to deal with the underlying cause (Pollution). The argument in the 70s was exactly pollution (see CFC bans, CO2 scrubbing, etc..), and in the 90s the argument was renamed to ensure maximum profits for polluters. In addition, regulations put in place in the 70s were dismantled and government oversight started slipping away.
If you bothered to read instead of spewing your opinion you would find that Socrates does state that profits are bad. He states, very clearly, numerous reasons for profits being bad. The summary in the Allegory of the Artisan is a logical conclusion of a much longer discussion claiming the need for purposeful control of profits by the Republic.
I'm sure you won't let a little fact get into the way of your fantasy, but I'll recommend that you not speculate on verifiable history in the future. If your argument is based on false information, the argument is invalid. If your beliefs are based on false information you end up living in a delusional world full of cognitive dissonance and being a very unhappy person.
There are companies that make money hand over fist because they innovate and you pay for their goods what you think they're worth -- think Apple right now.
That statement there shows an extremely shallow amount of thought, intellect, or perhaps intentional omission. Go read the founder of Capitalism's (Adam Smith) book and re-think your position afterward. Patents allow false shortages and monopolization which increases price much more than "demand" ever would.
Because an idea is not an invention, it is an idea. The implementation of an idea is not an invention either, it is however literary in coding and protected by copyright.
Yeah, Socrates was just an idiot and nobody should ever study that guy right?
Sarcasm aside, the logic is given. If you choose not to read or comprehend the logic, that is not something I can not possibly repair. That also does not reflect on your ability to comprehend data and desire to use ad hominem to attack his words.
To put those thoughts to real practical use, why do we have the Sherman Act to prevent monopolies? It is an extension of profits which allows monopolies to occur, not someone trying to benefit society.
If you claim that profits are the same as being secure in your person (The same as having a savings account, property to hand down to your children, or anything other than "profits") then you fail at basic reading comprehension tasks and should reconsider your position after reading a dictionary.
Profits are money that comes after ensuring that basic needs are accounted for.
Note that I also stated that the view of Socrates was utopian, and even Socrates knew that Utopia was impossible (though the term was not used) which is why he stated that the people of the Republic needed to regulate.
I'm sorry, but you are willfully being ignorant. While I would agree that there are a couple really honest and well intentioned people holding political offices, the Democrat and Republican players have become invalid. When someone claims they will do something, and does the opposite, we call them a liar. The majority of people in office spouting Democrat themes or Republican themes are acting, and liars. Look at _facts_ regarding what they do, not what they say.
And no, it's not a one ticket issue. This is everything from maintenance and upholding the Constitution, to foreign policy. The Republicans and Democrats both denounced and bashed (illegally) Snowden, they both want war with Syria, they both want to spy on us, they both back DHS and TSA expansion even when their parties say that they should not.
Facts do not back what you believe, but you are happy living in an illusion. Goody for you!
Profits are bad, because profits are not the point of society nor a benefit to society. Society is a benefit to society, not profits.
Understanding that the ideal just expressed is utopian and unrealistic at this point in time does not change the fact that profits are bad.
Consider Socrates and the Allegory of the Artisan. The duty of the Republic is to ensure that a good artisan remains a good artisan. Pay him too much, and he will no longer produce works. He will not only stop producing, but spend his time and money meddling in other peoples affairs. The Republic has given him an opportunity to harm others as well as no longer be productive for society. If the Republic does not pay the Artisan enough, he will no longer produce. The artisan will be worried about the welfare of his children and home, and seek opportunities other than being an artisan to ensure survival.
The duty of the Republic is to ensure that people are rewarded for producing in society, but never so much that they become unproductive. This does not just go for the artisan, but also the farmer and cobbler and baker and every other job we have deemed critical to societies purpose and function.
Now if you consider that among Americans if you ask people "How much money is too much money?", you know damn well that the answer will be "no such thing". This is a socially deficient teaching which is not beneficial to society. People have been duped.
**and now I step down from my philanthropic soap box.**
I was actually going to write that too, but recanted for what should be obvious reasons. Something like `they said "yeah"` may not execute properly and result in more Google scripting search answers...
Whether you call it "The Business Party" or follow some interesting conspiracy theories and call it "The Lucifer Party" makes no difference. The end result becomes the same and is what we must be focused on. With bad people in power, the true motives for what they are doing will never become available until they are gone. The end result is a lost society and potentially much more.
Labeling or trying to guess at the motives at this point is a grievous mistake. It gives the people in power enough ammunition to focus on a possibly incorrect point and distract from the problem. To an extent, they don't even need it (see the countless media circus shows betraying OWS as simply a bunch of freeloading pot-heads) but there is no benefit in helping them with a distraction.
The truth about where we are and where we are going is what we currently need, in addition to warning people about the use of agent provocateurs by the administration and a corrupt propaganda system in broadcast media. Hence, we all need to look out for people trying to get the truth out and report all suspicions and wrong doing by the Government and Media.
Some people are foolish enough to believe that Rush Limbaugh, Piers Morgan, and their ilk, are working for them instead of the corrupt people in power. Boycott! Which means not just to stop watching yourself but grass roots get others to follow your lead. If the issue is simply money, the problem will sort itself out economically.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you are correct. s/mute/moot/g
All of those years signing tainted me... No, not a real excuse
To your point about the military, you are absolutely wrong. If you carried a 45 or 38 you had hollow point options for the pistols. Ammo choices were AP/FMJ/Tracing for combat depending on the role and weapon. You don't need specialized rounds to train with, and they cost many factors more depending on the type of ammo. The only time we ever used special rounds was nighttime training (tracers), which most people never get to do.
Nice defeatist propaganda, I wonder how many will bow down to your message of happy servitude? Not many, and not for long if they do
We have for a long time had a more "free" society, so the police state in the US is new. Obviously corruption and crimes exist due to human nature, but the fact that we grew in population, technology, etc... is enough to prove that we were not in a controlled state. Controlled humans don't produce well and don't innovate very well, which is plain and simple proven psychology.
The reason the US had a revolt in the late 1700s was because of what we have in the US today. Did they do it right? Obviously something went wrong, and we need to fix that next time. To suggest that we all roll over and be happy little slaves means that you are either a despicable person or in a deplorable state of mind.
Bullshit! Power is the purpose, money is an extension of power. Information / knowledge is also power, and you have no idea who's pulling the strings do you? There are numerous types of power, all denied to "The People" and used to control them. It's absurd to believe that it's only for the "money". At no point in history was that ever true, and there is no magic that would make it true now.
You point to it over and over, but seem to miss what is so obvious. There is no difference between Bush and Obama. To believe there is requires you to ignore facts. Obama has no agenda, he has points of propaganda that the ignorant masses swallow. His intentions are no different than Bush, and he is no different. The media treats Obama better, but that's because his platform was that of a savior instead of an ignorant hick. What he does is exactly what Bush did, which is to drive war and destroy the US Economy.
Bush and Obama are not the only ones mind you, this is a long chain of assholes working to undermine our country. The media has long covered up these assholes too, so even that is not "new" but much more extreme. I'll ask you why most people in the US don't know about the Franklin Cover up for example if you have doubts as to how long cover ups have been happening.
Gitmo does not hurt or harm their plans, which is why they don't care. It makes people on both sides of the aisle argue about bullshit and distracts them from our ruined economy, wars, and the increasing police state. I am positive that they like these things to fester because if they run out of Zimmerman stories they can bring this up and get those emotions flaring again.
I do say "_seem_" in my first sentence because maybe you are not really defending Obama or claiming he is special.
Rubbish! Just because you can't see the octopus's mouth does not mean it does not exist. The tentacles are not separate, contrary to what you state. They are in fact very well connected.
gah ... ratthemout@nsa.gov.. could have been funny... :(
Send an email to "ranthemout@nsa.gov"?
Which was the theory, and why most judges are now appointed. The supreme court does not give a rats ass about your constitutional rights, none of them. They make a game of "who's the bad guy" in court today so that people can believe that they are upholding their oaths. The same can be said of _any_ appointed judges, which is the majority in the US today.
Show up reading anything but a magazine or comic book and you will be dismissed. Prosecutors hate intellectual people as a rule.
What's the real story here isn't the size of the ammunition buy, but just how many law enforcement officers there are throughout the federal government. I gather that there's something like 200-300k law enforcement officers at this time. So you're looking at training/retaining qualification ammunition use of up to 300 million rounds of ammunition per year.
I think the 2nd point is rather mute. You normally don't train with armor piercing or hollow point rounds. They are simply too expensive for training. What was purchased is not FMJ which is fine for training. Go look at the price differences if you have doubts. In the military, we trained with FMJ rounds. Machine guns had tracers but that's because they are _only_ produced with a percentage of the rounds as tracing.
Your first point should be a concern to everyone. We have too many federal agents between all of the various 3 letter organizations.
Where I disagree is in that we don't know the full extent of US violence. Obviously we see the impact of wars that are declared, like Iraq and Afghanistan. How about the undeclared wars? You know, the CIA funded operations that cause the deaths of millions in the Middle East and Europe in revolutions for example? How about the corporate death squads that roamed (and maybe still roam) in South American and Africa?
If you believe only what they give you in propaganda, I'm with you. We are really not bad compared to Hitler.
When you look at the Bush family funding Hitler, Carnegie, Melon and Rockefeller providing all the eugenics scientists to Hitler and funding them things start to look much worse. I won't even touch those same families funding Mao and Stalin mind you, which would indirectly implicate the US as responsible for a whole lot more deaths than anyone in history. The Bush connection is well documented, so don't bother crying "conspiracy theory". The rest I agree is theory, but there is enough documentation that we should at least investigate.
It's a box that may sicken us when it's opened.
It look a lot of rich people having their cash cows threatened to actually have one, and today the rich are just doing too well.
Me thinks you should read history before making such unsubstantiated claims. It takes very few people with wealth to decide enough is enough. It does take about 15-20% of the population to be absolutely fed up and see no other choice. That number seems to turn the rest of the masses against propaganda engines and those holding power. We are very close to the right numbers now.
Contrary to what you claim "There are lots of new problems due to technology" there is really nothing new. The rich will abuse society to get more, the poor will mostly whine about how bad things are, the middle class will be split between those that ignore reality, those that deny reality, and those that speak out against the abuses.
The easiest way for the rich to get more is to entertain the masses with gladiators and heresy/witch trials.
The first well known philosophical writings we have document this very thing in the life of Socrates and his Philosophy. Socrates tells you that the cycle has been happening for some time, and offers a solution in educating all members of society. Those in power have ensured that the poor know nothing about this masterful work. Look upon the Government control over education systems and be amazed.
It should be painfully obvious in the allegory provided that profits are problem but you refuse to see, acknowledge, or read anything that hurts your belief. If Socrates was not of the belief that profits were a detriment beyond an obvious point why would he state that the Republic needed to regulate them? I realize that many people today have difficulty with critical thinking, but the Allegory of the Artisan makes the point very obvious. If you are having difficulty because Socrates does not use the specific term "profit" you are linguistically challenged.
The reason I brought up Friedman was is because you stated patents are good for society. Friedman was against monopolization which you argue for by advocating the patenting of ideas. He was also of the opinion that patents were by nature dubious and worked against the consumers, harmed entrepreneurs, hindered progress, and hurt innovation. He was not _for_ patents, but accepted that a minimalist approach was potentially beneficial.
No, it's not hard to prove that "idea" patents are bad for society. You claim it's hard because it harms your belief. No, I'm not surprised because you continue a very easy to spot trend.
The trend is that you continue arguing fantasy to support your belief. No, I won't quote all of Friedman's work any more than I will quote all of Socrates work simply because you are lazy. Go read what they wrote for yourself. You will learn a whole lot if you do, way beyond the bounds of what I could possibly try to do in the /. forums. To add to your list, go read historical arguments from court records regarding patents. Nothing we can argue today is different than any other point in history. The rich people continue to to try and trick people into believing that they should own everything and you should be a servant. Ignorant people that can't spot a fallacy that pokes them in the eye continue to rally to their call as good little servants.
No, I'm not going to quote over 900 pages of text because you don't want to visit the Library. It's a nonsense request so that you can maintain your delusional opinion. I own 3 separate translations of each of his works, and most can be found on Amazon for a nominal $30.00USD price tag.
Your Pharma comment continues to show you are devoid of any research at all and simply wish to back your opinion using fantasy. In fact I'll go further and point out that you fail to consider extremely recent history in your delusional question. The obvious answer is that medicines were developed and sold just fine without a patent for the majority of history (including the history of the USA).
Your life is does not benefit because of a patent and neither does mine. You "believe" that it does because of your ignorance (willful or otherwise). The patent debates go back over 400 years, and there have been numerous papers written by exceptional scholars explaining why patent's are a detriment to society more often than a benefit. That is with basic patents on machine parts too, not ideas which historically have been illegal because they are absolutely detrimental to society.
Please don't bother replying with more irrational assumptions and fantasy stories to back your delusion. You have not read Adam Smith, you have not read Plato/Socrates, not read Milton Friedman, or any other works that would help you see things in a light other than your current belief. If you had, you would be able to give rational and factual basis for your belief.
Finally just from a philosophy of science perspective they have no underlying theory to predict a certain relationship between climate change and human activity.
This is not a new phenomenon with this paper, but perhaps it's more obvious. 99% of the Climate papers that make it to the public fail to deal with the underlying cause (Pollution). The argument in the 70s was exactly pollution (see CFC bans, CO2 scrubbing, etc..), and in the 90s the argument was renamed to ensure maximum profits for polluters. In addition, regulations put in place in the 70s were dismantled and government oversight started slipping away.
If you bothered to read instead of spewing your opinion you would find that Socrates does state that profits are bad. He states, very clearly, numerous reasons for profits being bad. The summary in the Allegory of the Artisan is a logical conclusion of a much longer discussion claiming the need for purposeful control of profits by the Republic.
I'm sure you won't let a little fact get into the way of your fantasy, but I'll recommend that you not speculate on verifiable history in the future. If your argument is based on false information, the argument is invalid. If your beliefs are based on false information you end up living in a delusional world full of cognitive dissonance and being a very unhappy person.
There are companies that make money hand over fist because they innovate and you pay for their goods what you think they're worth -- think Apple right now.
That statement there shows an extremely shallow amount of thought, intellect, or perhaps intentional omission. Go read the founder of Capitalism's (Adam Smith) book and re-think your position afterward. Patents allow false shortages and monopolization which increases price much more than "demand" ever would.
Because an idea is not an invention, it is an idea. The implementation of an idea is not an invention either, it is however literary in coding and protected by copyright.
Exactly! Them nerds was spending too much time discussing liburghty!
s/reflect/reflect\ well/
Yeah, Socrates was just an idiot and nobody should ever study that guy right?
Sarcasm aside, the logic is given. If you choose not to read or comprehend the logic, that is not something I can not possibly repair. That also does not reflect on your ability to comprehend data and desire to use ad hominem to attack his words.
To put those thoughts to real practical use, why do we have the Sherman Act to prevent monopolies? It is an extension of profits which allows monopolies to occur, not someone trying to benefit society.
If you claim that profits are the same as being secure in your person (The same as having a savings account, property to hand down to your children, or anything other than "profits") then you fail at basic reading comprehension tasks and should reconsider your position after reading a dictionary.
Profits are money that comes after ensuring that basic needs are accounted for.
Note that I also stated that the view of Socrates was utopian, and even Socrates knew that Utopia was impossible (though the term was not used) which is why he stated that the people of the Republic needed to regulate.
I'm sorry, but you are willfully being ignorant. While I would agree that there are a couple really honest and well intentioned people holding political offices, the Democrat and Republican players have become invalid. When someone claims they will do something, and does the opposite, we call them a liar. The majority of people in office spouting Democrat themes or Republican themes are acting, and liars. Look at _facts_ regarding what they do, not what they say.
And no, it's not a one ticket issue. This is everything from maintenance and upholding the Constitution, to foreign policy. The Republicans and Democrats both denounced and bashed (illegally) Snowden, they both want war with Syria, they both want to spy on us, they both back DHS and TSA expansion even when their parties say that they should not.
Facts do not back what you believe, but you are happy living in an illusion. Goody for you!
Profits are bad, because profits are not the point of society nor a benefit to society. Society is a benefit to society, not profits.
Understanding that the ideal just expressed is utopian and unrealistic at this point in time does not change the fact that profits are bad.
Consider Socrates and the Allegory of the Artisan. The duty of the Republic is to ensure that a good artisan remains a good artisan. Pay him too much, and he will no longer produce works. He will not only stop producing, but spend his time and money meddling in other peoples affairs. The Republic has given him an opportunity to harm others as well as no longer be productive for society. If the Republic does not pay the Artisan enough, he will no longer produce. The artisan will be worried about the welfare of his children and home, and seek opportunities other than being an artisan to ensure survival.
The duty of the Republic is to ensure that people are rewarded for producing in society, but never so much that they become unproductive. This does not just go for the artisan, but also the farmer and cobbler and baker and every other job we have deemed critical to societies purpose and function.
Now if you consider that among Americans if you ask people "How much money is too much money?", you know damn well that the answer will be "no such thing". This is a socially deficient teaching which is not beneficial to society. People have been duped.
**and now I step down from my philanthropic soap box.**
I was actually going to write that too, but recanted for what should be obvious reasons. Something like `they said "yeah"` may not execute properly and result in more Google scripting search answers...
Whether you call it "The Business Party" or follow some interesting conspiracy theories and call it "The Lucifer Party" makes no difference. The end result becomes the same and is what we must be focused on. With bad people in power, the true motives for what they are doing will never become available until they are gone. The end result is a lost society and potentially much more.
Labeling or trying to guess at the motives at this point is a grievous mistake. It gives the people in power enough ammunition to focus on a possibly incorrect point and distract from the problem. To an extent, they don't even need it (see the countless media circus shows betraying OWS as simply a bunch of freeloading pot-heads) but there is no benefit in helping them with a distraction.
The truth about where we are and where we are going is what we currently need, in addition to warning people about the use of agent provocateurs by the administration and a corrupt propaganda system in broadcast media. Hence, we all need to look out for people trying to get the truth out and report all suspicions and wrong doing by the Government and Media.
Some people are foolish enough to believe that Rush Limbaugh, Piers Morgan, and their ilk, are working for them instead of the corrupt people in power. Boycott! Which means not just to stop watching yourself but grass roots get others to follow your lead. If the issue is simply money, the problem will sort itself out economically.