Image - The 99% of Occupy Wall Street

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


Thanks for the response but my hearing's ok and I used headphones and still can't hear a thing. Can't you give me an idea at least as to the topic you were discussing as I asked you to do before. Don't you want people to hear whatever it is you went to all the trouble making the video for?

reply to post by xEphon


This is the kind of typical, handwringing, soft, liberal who dominate the education establishment that is the cause in the dramatic rise in home schooling.

Perhaps he can hand his essay to the gent who is defacating in public as toilet tissue.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Every detail about this was precontrived.

That's the point, this professor is delivering a message to his audience and he is executing as effectively as he can. There's nothing wrong with that - it's marketing, not propaganda if your audience is accepting of the message and it aims to be truthful while interesting at the same time.

After the housing market crash, just about every middle class adult in the US knows they could be sh*t out of luck with just a few pen strokes from their banking lender.

reply to post by Jason88


Unfortunately that is correct and also something that Obama could have stopped from happening three years ago with the stroke of a pen. Instead, he actually made it easier for the banks to dump real estate loans providing an incentive to kick folks out of their homes.

reply to post by dolphinfan


I agree. Obama could have reversed Bush era policies but he did not. I think that's a core example of the one (and only) message OWS and the Tea Party share - the end to a two party system. Thanks for pointing that out.

Putting a label on someone's statement as "propaganda" is irresponsible. It is like trying to win an argument by saying in order to win, "Yeah? Well you're fat." Instead a responsible individual would analyze the picture for what it is and interpret its immediate effects on the OWS movement.

I see a serious lack of debate with the increasing amount of traffic on this site and not a whole lot of collective brainstorming. Didn't we learn this in grade school? Throwing labels around is the art of politics and look how well that seems to work...Politics have no part in serious scientific inquiry which is what will help sort the facts out, it is why this site was created in the first place.

reply to post by Jason88


Not the Bush policies. These policies have been on the books for decades with respect to marking real estate loans against actual property values via the "Mark to Market" rules. Any community banker will tell you that what that does is force the banks to classify a loan as a bad debt when there is a slump in the housing market, despite the fact that the holder of the loan is a good customer, there is a high probability that they will pay the loan off and that the value of the house will rebound.

This has happened everytime there has been a slump in housing prices, its just worse this time. Had the government, any government simply eliminated the market to market rules (which could be done via Executive Order) for real estate loans, this would not happen. A bank, at least a community bank would much rather simply restructure a loan to keep someone in their house, thus keeping the loan as an asset on their books, which it is and working with the home owner to get through the tough time. Credit rules make that impossible. The current rules force the bank to foreclose on the home to get the "bad debt" off of their books. How is a $300K loan against a house that is now worth $250K a bad debt if the guy is still paying and has been paying consistently for 10 years? Its not, but the law says it is.

The same thing happens with securities with investment banks.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
That's from I am the 53%. You or where you got it from should link to it.

I brought in $500,000 last year as an SP and employ 6 people, all supporting their own households. After taxes and expenses my Wife and I took home only $70,000 last year in a city where you must earn $80,000+ to live a Middle Class lifestyle. I'm one of the Obama Victims. I am one of the 53% and my Wife and I put in a combined 100+ hours a week doing actual work so I can pay Obama and his shills. I pay my own medical, dental and retirement and have never asked for or received a dime of aid from the government. For that the insane Progressives hate me. They don't own me and cannot control me. My income has dropped by a third since Obama.

I feel what everyone is saying here, some agree with the OWS some disagree, but please do not lay this all off on Obama. The war on the middle class began when the US went off the gold standard and started using fractional banking. The banks print money our of thin air and then make us use real money to pay it back. WE CAN NEVER PAY IT BACK! There is not enough money in the world to pay it back. They make a million dollars from $100.00 real dollars and we have to pay interest on the fake ass $999,990.00. That is not Obama's fault, he is not faultless in this sham, but there is enough blame to go around. As part of the 99% I have to accept part of the blame. It was not until I became an adult and educated myself as to how money really works that I started to see the inequity of it all. Do you educate your children how money is debt and is a trap or have you convinced then to get college loans and come out of school in so much debt that they have to move back in with their parents? I feel so badly for us, those on the forum who are not yet homeless or unemployed, those of us who still have a retirement plan, those of us who have not yet lost everything, I feel badly for us because some of us lack empathy for those who have lost it all. We are our brothers keeper, it's not socialism, it's HUMAN. You do not have to protest in the streets everyday, but do the little things you can. If you have money in the big banks- move it. If you see someone hungry-feed them. If someone needs a shoulder to lean on-be that shoulder. We are all in this together.

peace, love and unity

Originally posted by Blaine91555
That's from I am the 53%. You or where you got it from should link to it.

I brought in $500,000 last year as an SP and employ 6 people, all supporting their own households. After taxes and expenses my Wife and I took home only $70,000 last year in a city where you must earn $80,000+ to live a Middle Class lifestyle. I'm one of the Obama Victims. I am one of the 53% and my Wife and I put in a combined 100+ hours a week doing actual work so I can pay Obama and his shills. I pay my own medical, dental and retirement and have never asked for or received a dime of aid from the government. For that the insane Progressives hate me. They don't own me and cannot control me. My income has dropped by a third since Obama.

Blaine91555, I have always respected your posts, and know you come at this from your heart and from your experience as an employer. I respect that. But, I have a gut feeling you're playing Monday Night Football with this response. Meaning, you want your "team" (political party) to win so you shift blame to the current administration. I make no apologies for Obama, but I think you are too focused on your attack and need to look around you at all the policies that got us here from all administrations on both sides of aisle. **At this rate, no matter who takes office next, left or right, things will not be getting better.

reply to post by dolphinfan


Thanks for explanation. It sounds as though an appealing presidential candidate should end the "mark to market" rules to help fix this crisis. I always learn something on ATS.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


You should probably wash that off before it festers.

You are a guy on the internet with a "sheeple" avatar, who uses the word "communist" incorrectly, over and over again. What does that make you, I wonder?

Words have meanings. They aren't just talking points delivered to your desk at 8:15 every morning. The word "communist" for example has a meaning which has nothing to do with a guy who is worried that he might lose everything, due to sickness or lay-off. It certainly has nothing to do with people who are empathetic towards those who already have lost everything due to sickness or layoff.

I am sympathetic to anyone's plight during this nightmare we now find ourselves within. The letter (image) posted uses some very real and well thought out observations and deserves to be reprinted and repeated. My only regret is that the individual in the picture (assuming he even wrote it) is using these words to support a group...and a website. My high hopes while reading the document were trampled when I read that final line.

If this had simply been an individual, speaking for other individuals...I would have remained impressed and impassioned. But instead, I find myself regretting how much power the words loose, when mated with a group. We need to be people fighting for people. The "groups" have different agendas...and most are not mine. I believe this holds true for most people, fed up with government. With any luck...we are the 98%.

Originally posted by Epirus

Lol where do you think the protests are happening? They are happening in many major cities in almost every state. Is Oakland the only other one you think is going on outside of Wallstreet because that's all you've heard about? Just a little FYI for you, just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Yes, some of the cities being protested in might happen to be state capitals, but what are they "occupying?" Banks and business. And while corrupt in their own right, they aren't the source of the problem. Wall street can't change the laws that allow them to behave in dishonest and unethical ways. And now, apparently, they've decided to occupy foreclosures and charities like the Gates foundation.

I'd rather my results be qualitative, not quantitative.

Wow read and learn more then get back to me, pathetic.

Mind your manners, child.

Originally posted by popsmayhem
This is obviously a faked paper.

Can anyone of you prove this guys story>?
Why not, because it is not real?

It is more OWS propaganda being thrown around
trying to incite more hatred and class warfare
and the people are just eating it up..

Image - The 99% of OWS fudging papers now and posting
false information.

Funny... that's how I feel about most of your posts.

reply to post by xEphon


That guy is spot on!! You'd have to be a moron (or part of the top 1%) to be against OWS...

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Is that Lennin's reincarnated twin peeking out from behind that commie manifesto?

Hahahaha, they been outed in the news for pretending to be down and outers in the streets with the $10/hr ACORN employed homeless people of the cities, so they are trying to spin it to anything other than it really is.

I'm sorry but I had to respond to this.

I know that this thread has been going since yesterday, but I just have to say something to make myself feel better. I'm sure that other's have read the statement that you wrote and responded with the same things that I am about to say.

What are you talking about? Maybe it's the cookies, but it sounds like you're saying that ACORN is paying people to act like they're homeless.

Originally posted by AncientAstronaut
Putting a label on someone's statement as "propaganda" is irresponsible. It is like trying to win an argument by saying in order to win, "Yeah? Well you're fat." Instead a responsible individual would analyze the picture for what it is and interpret its immediate effects on the OWS movement.

I see a serious lack of debate with the increasing amount of traffic on this site and not a whole lot of collective brainstorming. Didn't we learn this in grade school? Throwing labels around is the art of politics and look how well that seems to work...Politics have no part in serious scientific inquiry which is what will help sort the facts out, it is why this site was created in the first place.

Propaganda as defined by www.merriam-webster.com... is actually correct regarding the pic in the OP.

2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

So YES, it is propaganda.

The reason he has no debt and owns his house outright is because of the overpriced salary he is receiving as a result of those raised tuitions which require his poor students to crank up the debt. He is either naive or a hypocrite and in either case is a fool.

reply to post by WillHal1000


Marketing as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of MARKETING
1
a : the act or process of selling or purchasing in a market b : the process or technique of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or service
2
: an aggregate of functions involved in moving goods from producer to consumer

In your context, and as per the dictionary, any time its an idea that is promoted it is propaganda. In the above example, simply change "product or service" and replace with "idea" and I think you have a better idea of what this gentleman is promoting.

Propaganda has such negative connotations that I believe marketing is best term to use in this instance. Unless, that is of course, you wish to support the negative connotation for the spreading of ideas you disagree with?

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by WillHal1000

 

Marketing as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of MARKETING
1
a : the act or process of selling or purchasing in a market b : the process or technique of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or service
2
: an aggregate of functions involved in moving goods from producer to consumer

In your context, and as per the dictionary, any time its an idea that is promoted it is propaganda. In the above example, simply change "product or service" and replace with "idea" and I think you have a better idea of what this gentleman is promoting.

Propaganda has such negative connotations that I believe marketing is best term to use in this instance. Unless, that is of course, you wish to support the negative connotation for the spreading of ideas you disagree with?

If changing the definition by replacing certain words makes you feel better about a cause you support than you are free to do so.

reply to post by Jason88

Propaganda has such negative connotations that I believe marketing is best term to use in this instance. Unless, that is of course, you wish to support the negative connotation for the spreading of ideas you disagree with?

Playing games of semantics with the word propaganda does not diminish the propaganda. Marketing is propaganda.

Propaganda Techniques

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

Bandwagon:

Bandwagon is one of the most common techniques in both wartime and peacetime and plays an important part in modern advertising. Bandwagon is also one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is meant to believe that since so many people have joined, that victory is inevitable and defeat impossible. Since the average person always wants to be on the winning side, he or she is compelled to join in. However, in modern propaganda, bandwagon has taken a new twist. The subject is to be convinced by the propaganda that since everyone else is doing it, they will be left out if they do not. This is, effectively, the opposite of the other type of bandwagon, but usually provokes the same results. Subjects of bandwagon are compelled to join in because everyone else is doing so as well. When confronted with bandwagon propaganda, we should weigh the pros and cons of joining in independently from the amount of people who have already joined, and, as with most types of propaganda, we should seek more information.

The list of propaganda techniques linked goes on, and is well worth reading. Call this college professors letter marketing if you like, it remains propaganda.

That said, I have no issue with marketing per se. If "OWS" wants to market their cause, more power to them, but let's not pretend their marketing is something more noble than propaganda.