Bump, star + flag.
Why do people with money spend it? To benefit themselves somehow.
Like on Charlie Wilson's war: CW- "You spent $100 million on this war. You can't spend $1 million to build a school? reply: "Nobody give's a 5#!+
about a school in Afghanistan"
The worst part is, they're appealing to the trendy, "progressive", hipster types with statements like this:
“What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies,
Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten
the incumbents and let the people in,” wrote Thomas Friedman in July.
Progressive Rothchilds? Yep, progressive control over the planet...
It's this demographic that has made Apple $100 Billion. They generally see themselves as informed, and the norms they establish quickly become the
"politically correct" norms throughout the country. And they have a serious case of herd mentality.
A perfect example of an "informed" NPR hipster from last week:
I was talking to the young lady about politics when she mentioned she generally supports Izreel (intentional misspelling for various reasons) on most
issues, which had me showing her on her iPhone just some of the gruesome and inhumane acts perpetrated by their govt. on the native populace (see
here:The real Kony
, And here
). She had no
idea about many of these cruelties, but then responded by "but look how Muslims treat their women", to which I informed her there were many Christian
Pali's of all denominations and even a secret religion called Druze, many of whom also were hijabs or veils of some type.
She commented that the people were backward, and needed to modernize their society and culture, and we agreed to dis-agree. As she walked to her car
guess what she had for a bumper sticker? FREE TIBET!
I could have died laughing!!!!
-In case you wondered why, Tibet is a veeeery "old fashioned" country with a rich and deep religious heritage whose true supreme leader is also the
spiritual leader (one of her arguments was religious fundamentalism), who also happens to be colonized by an advanced, militaristic nuclear armed
country. The situation is so bad in both places that people have taken to public suicide, though in Tibet it's not bombings intended to strike others
it's self immolation by lighting oneself on fire (it's a cultural difference) as a form of protest
). The parallels are obvious.
By appealing to this crowd, who genuinely want reform and typically support things like occupy, they are siphoning off some of the anger and using
that energy to further consolidate their power over the masses, while letting some of the steam out of genuine progressive movements by having it
appear the candidate is "crowd sourced".
These are the same people who put the Pres. in office "hoping" for real change, and they'll be just as easily led this time around too.
edit on 4-4-2012 by twtankhamwn because: added link