Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:35 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror" 
Author Message
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
In the United States, 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth. 10% of the population controls over 90% of the wealth. The bottom 50% controls less than 2% of the entire nation's wealth. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those top 10% are going to get what they want from our government, the rest of us be damned.


I've heard this said several times, the same rounded figures, but I've no idea where it actually comes from or how accurate it is. Anyone care to shed some light?

In the UK, you can 'spoil' your ballot, which means you are down as having voted but you don't actually place a cross by any party. Alternatively, it's often been said that the Liberal Democrat Party was another way of saying 'None of the above'. In some parts of the UK, people are even using BNP as the same thing, possibly as an over reaction to the paranoia and madness put about by the Blair government's social engineering obsession.


Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:39 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1713
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Dragonbeard wrote:
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
In the United States, 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth. 10% of the population controls over 90% of the wealth. The bottom 50% controls less than 2% of the entire nation's wealth. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those top 10% are going to get what they want from our government, the rest of us be damned.


I've heard this said several times, the same rounded figures, but I've no idea where it actually comes from or how accurate it is. Anyone care to shed some light?


I read something words to this effect in a New York Times article several weeks ago. Alas, I can't remember who wrote the article or what it was called.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:42 pm
Profile
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Alexdi wrote:
In fact, let's go a step further: you're probably in the top percentile of intelligence in this country. What does it say if you choose not to vote? Is it any surprise that we end up with the dregs when the elite excuse themselves from the voting process?


Hate to burst your bubble here, but the idiots outnumber the intelligent people by a pretty ridiculously huge margin in this country. Even if everyone above the 90th percentile (of whatever imagined intelligence measuring-system we've decided to created for the purposes of the argument) of intelligence voted, their demographic as a whole wouldn't hold much flame to the massive, unwieldy sea of retarded consumer-zombies who vote based on ideologies and politico-theater rather than actual policies.

Also, this ReelThought was also a South Park episode.

I think I have a solution to the problem (or i'm naive and pretentious). Instead of not having any limit on how much money politicians have to campaign, why don't we have a system where tax-payer dollars give each candidate an equal amount of funding for media exposure? Additionally, we can make it illegal for politicians to except any donations from lobbyists and other outside sources. This would, in theory, eliminate the influence of corporations and military groups who are setting up political shills to do their dirty work. This way politicians wouldn't be creating policies based on what the people who gave them campaign money want. It would also give a chance to some of the less wealthy but equally or more qualified lesser known candidates who often get completely ignored because they don't have the 100 million dollars to spend on advertisements. But, in the end, I think if I presented this idea I'd be labeled a socialist and get mauled by a bunch've southerners dressed in star-spangles, who would bludgeon me with King James' Bibles. They'd have to raise taxes, AND give everybody a fair chance...sounds too much like communism...

Society has to change first, before the government gets better.


Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:43 pm
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Dragonbeard wrote:
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
In the United States, 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth. 10% of the population controls over 90% of the wealth. The bottom 50% controls less than 2% of the entire nation's wealth. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those top 10% are going to get what they want from our government, the rest of us be damned.


I've heard this said several times, the same rounded figures, but I've no idea where it actually comes from or how accurate it is. Anyone care to shed some light?

In the UK, you can 'spoil' your ballot, which means you are down as having voted but you don't actually place a cross by any party. Alternatively, it's often been said that the Liberal Democrat Party was another way of saying 'None of the above'. In some parts of the UK, people are even using BNP as the same thing, possibly as an over reaction to the paranoia and madness put about by the Blair government's social engineering obsession.



Hi Dragonbeard

Check out the recent NYTimes article on this topic that will give yo all the numbers.

Rob


Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:45 pm
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Alexdi wrote:
In fact, let's go a step further: you're probably in the top percentile of intelligence in this country. What does it say if you choose not to vote? Is it any surprise that we end up with the dregs when the elite excuse themselves from the voting process?


Hate to burst your bubble here, but the idiots outnumber the intelligent people by a pretty ridiculously huge margin in this country.


So true. At least based on my daily interaction with the indigenous population.
Rob


Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:49 pm
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:32 pm
Posts: 9
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Even if everyone above the 90th percentile ... voted, their demographic as a whole wouldn't hold much flame ...

I see. Do you always give up? Or only when you can justify your nonperformance with elitism?

This is basic civics. You can't lament the state of things while refusing to take advantage of the system to change them. Glenn Beck goes on ad infinitum about what it means to be an American. I say, this is the linchpin: basic participation in the most fundamental feature of our democratic system. Abstaining doesn't make you better than everyone else; it makes you self-righteous, lazy, cynical, or selfish, in part or in combination. I can't believe someone said that he was proud not to vote. Disgusting.


Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:54 am
Profile
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Alexdi wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Even if everyone above the 90th percentile ... voted, their demographic as a whole wouldn't hold much flame ...

I see. Do you always give up? Or only when you can justify your nonperformance with elitism?

This is basic civics. You can't lament the state of things while refusing to take advantage of the system to change them. Glenn Beck goes on ad infinitum about what it means to be an American. I say, this is the linchpin: basic participation in the most fundamental feature of our democratic system. Abstaining doesn't make you better than everyone else; it makes you self-righteous, lazy, cynical, or selfish, in part or in combination. I can't believe someone said that he was proud not to vote. Disgusting.


Which TV channel, website etc does Glan Beck write film reviews for? Sorry that I have not heard of him. Sounds unusual.
Rob


Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:16 am
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Robert Holloway wrote:
Which TV channel, website etc does Glan Beck write film reviews for? Sorry that I have not heard of him. Sounds unusual.
Rob


That quote is so spectacular that I very nearly spit coffee all over the keyboard. I haven't had coffee for weeks, even.

Glenn Beck: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magaz ... eck-t.html

In short: he's an extremely pessimistic, undereducated bitch that has an extremely effective bullhorn.


Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:30 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1713
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Robert Holloway wrote:
Which TV channel, website etc does Glan Beck write film reviews for? Sorry that I have not heard of him. Sounds unusual.
Rob


You really haven't heard of Glenn Beck?

Beck's a guy who gets on TV for an hour every day and rants about how Obama is destroying America. And people watch him.

Here's Beck. Yes, this is for real.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:33 am
Profile
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
majoraphasia wrote:
Robert Holloway wrote:
Which TV channel, website etc does Glan Beck write film reviews for? Sorry that I have not heard of him. Sounds unusual.
Rob


That quote is so spectacular that I very nearly spit coffee all over the keyboard. I haven't had coffee for weeks, even.

Glenn Beck: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magaz ... eck-t.html

In short: he's an extremely pessimistic, undereducated bitch that has an extremely effective bullhorn.



I just scanned the article - what does he have to do with Orson Welles? Your description makes him sound like a totally crap actor. What films has he been in? I can't find him on IMDB

Rob


Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:36 am
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Alexdi wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Even if everyone above the 90th percentile ... voted, their demographic as a whole wouldn't hold much flame ...

I see. Do you always give up? Or only when you can justify your nonperformance with elitism?

This is basic civics. You can't lament the state of things while refusing to take advantage of the system to change them. Glenn Beck goes on ad infinitum about what it means to be an American. I say, this is the linchpin: basic participation in the most fundamental feature of our democratic system. Abstaining doesn't make you better than everyone else; it makes you self-righteous, lazy, cynical, or selfish, in part or in combination. I can't believe someone said that he was proud not to vote. Disgusting.


You, my friend, are in need of a pencil sharpener, because your missing the point.

If the grim reaper showed up at your door and said, "You can choose between having your skin slowly flayed off until you bleed out, or be quartered by four horses. It's your pick," would you honestly want to choose one? It's the same packaged quietus, just with a slight variation. In the end, you still get fucked over. Kind've like how the political system works now.

I'm not sure which candy-coated fairy tale you've been living in, but when the harsh realities of the world reveal themselves to you, your heart will be hardened, but you'll be able to understand where J.B. is coming from.


Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:03 am
Gaffer

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:28 pm
Posts: 8
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
All I can say is that nothing enables corruption quite like apathy.


Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:19 am
Profile
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Personally, I think that people who chose not to vote cannot legitimately complain about their government.

This reelthoughts isn’t very well-argued. It is simplistic to blame the faults of the system or of current politics on the influence of an ill-defined “military industrial complex”. Also, the “razorblades in candy” story is pretty much an urban myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_candy_scare).


Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:01 am
Director

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:28 pm
Posts: 1537
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Jonathon9 wrote:
Sexual Chocolate--I completely agree with you. It is remarkable how much Pres. Obama has been able to accomplish, considering that 60 votes is needed to pass anything in the Senate. Before Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, Obama had 60 votes, and so in order to get anything passed he had to ensure that not a single Democrat broke ranks. And then following the election of Scott Brown, he only had 59 votes, and so he needed at least one Republican to cross the aisle in order to secure passage of any legislation.

This is why it's so frustrating to me when people, including those on the left, attack Obama for not doing enough. Either these people don't understand that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate, or they don't know how to count to 60. Some people seem to believe that since Obama is president, he can simply wave a wand and magicially conjure up 60 votes. It doesn't work that way. When a single Democrat broke ranks on legislation before the election of Scott Brown, then that legislation could not be passed (like the public option in the health care bill). Similarily, when not a single Republican agreed to cross the aisle and support a piece of legislation after the election of Scott Brown, then that legislation had no chance of passing (like what happened to energy legislation, or the attempted repeal of DADT).


When the left is criticizing Obama it's what's in the bill that matters, not the broad idea of it. We elected him to change the way Washington works, not to suck up to the right and the corporations. Why else is the health care bill is waek?


Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:13 am
Profile YIM
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3145
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Robert Holloway wrote:
Wow James. What inspired you two write this?
Or was it the knock on effect of baseball?
Rob


I have gotten a lot of complaints lately that recent ReelThoughts have merely been rehashes of previous ones, so I decided to write something completely off-center. I started writing something about Halloween but got bored, so I switched the basic thesis.

I was also trying something else that I'll talk about at a later time.


Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:52 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
I've been following your commentary and reviews for over a decade, and am, for the most part, content to enjoy them as a reader. You've an excellent voice for communicating, and an expression of insight I find lacking in many of the journals and blogs I follow.

As a military officer, it is easy to criticize at best, and condemn at worst, the apathy you seem to express for the freedom of voting. That's a position many of my contemporaries take, and I find that unnecessary.

I advocate absolute freedom on the subject of voting, including abstaining from voting for a particular candidate. However, I do ask in respect for that freedom that those who do not vote still go to the polls if only to indicate in the "other" box "no candidate". That balances respect for the price paid for our freedoms while still refraining from supporting any of the candidates. I've been combat deployed for a total of three years and believe that is the best way to "thank" or "support" the troops.

Fred


Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:53 am
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
I'm all for other people not voting. Makes mine "worth" (marginably) more.


Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:41 pm
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Jonathon9 wrote:
The mere threat of a filibuster (a.k.a. "ghost filibusters") to block all important legislation, has gotten out of hand.


I am reminded of a passage in one of Bernard Goldberg's books about how the New York Times editorial board in one decade (when the Republicans were in the minority) blasted the filibuster as an abuse of power which was never imagined in the constitution, and in the next decade (when the Democrats were in the minority) praised the filibuster as a cherished tool against the tyranny of the majority.

<<Whistles away at the hypocrisy.>>


Last edited by johnny larue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:58 pm
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Is this NY times accessible online?

There is a reason why they call it the RIGHT to vote. It means you are free to make a decision either way. Who can blame a person for showing apathy when the candidates in an election are merely front-men for behind the scenes corruption? Who here can tell what they are REALLY voting for?


Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:01 pm
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Sad but true.
Republicans are corrupt
Democrats are incompetent
Independents are unelectable

The only way we are going to see true change is if people start sending the establishment a message. We need to get organized and remind our politicians that they are public servants. Organizing groups to abstain from voting or writing in "none of the above" will get their attention. I think some of the negative campaigns are designed to keep people away from the voting booth. It is a lot easier to keep an opposing candidate's voters away then to get your voters to show up. Lets get organized people!!!

From the depth of need and despair, people can work together, can organize themselves to solve their own problems and fill their own needs with dignity and strength.
- Cesar Chavez


Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:29 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr