Kasz216 said:
fordy said:
Wow, the amount of ignorance in this thread is absolutely staggering. First they say "We don't know what the movement is about", and then you state "it's had more than enough news coverage". Then you state that it's nothing but a bunch of whiners who do not want to work. That, my friends, is called prejudice.
For those lazy people who do not do their research and instead decide to assume, the occupy movement relates to government persuasion and favouritism by funds from the private sector, effectively turning the country into a plutocracy. Plus, investing in a congressman can be considered one of the best investments a wealthy investor or corporation can make, with average calculations of return at 17,000% of the original investment via subsidies etc. Somebody tell me then, if a politician mostly is under the influence of corporate "donations", which side would he stand if a conflict arose between the people and said corporations? |
The people. Because at the end of the day people are the ones who keep you in power.
You can have all the corporate money in the world... it's not going to do jack if you piss off the people.
|
Enough for what's needed. Besides, there's always the cushy job as a lobbyist that said corporations will offer if you happen to please them enough. The cycle then continues...
