Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (674279)	9/18/2012 6:45:53 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584304

47 percent

To: Alighieri who wrote (674279)	9/18/2012 7:22:17 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584304

>> >Why would something that is not true be attractive to conservatives and independents? I would argue, and I think I posted it here at the time, that it was a brutal statement of the truth. Totally factual, and what many of us have been saying for a very long time. There are all kinds of ways of parsing his comments, but the essential concept is absolutely factual -- that at some point, you get so many people on the public dole that you can no longer have free and fair elections. This is what Franklin was referring to with his famous "vote themselves money" quote. We are very close to that tipping point; he didn't say it, but the fact is those who aren't "technically" on the dole (e.g., SS & Medicare) are subject to extensive demagoguery from the left. So, while the 47% figure may include people who aren't exactly on the dole, the point holds: the other people, just as those who ARE on the dole, have a conflict of interests when it comes to their votes. Do they vote for their own (real or perceived) interests, or do they vote for the good of the country? Truth can be elusive. Certainly, Obama has taken political lies to a new level. But Romney's statement was as true as anything I've ever heard a politician say, and my guess is most independents will see it positively as a result. The liberal media has distorted it badly, and they may, instead, respond to the media rather than what was said, which is the reason I'm uncertain about it.

To: Alighieri who wrote (674279)	9/18/2012 7:59:38 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1584304

The 10 Richest Celebrities Supporting Occupy Wall Street Celebrity Net Worth ^ \| 09-16-2012 \| Brian Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:30:34 PM by bronxville September 17th marks the one year anniversary of Occupy Wall Street. Last year when the protests broke out, we were slightly confused when a barrage of insanely rich celebrities had hypocritically thrown their support behind the movement. Occupy Wall Street’s slogan “We are the 99%” is derived from the idea that the protesters represent the difference in wealth that separates the top 1% of society from every other American citizen. Occupy has defined the top 1% of Americans as anyone who with an annual household income greater than $593,000. So why are multi-millionaire celebrities announcing their support to grab headlines? And why is Occupy Wall Street allowing rich celebrities to co-op their message? For the record, here is a list of the 10 richest celebrities hypocritically supporting Occupy Wall Street. Oh and by the way, these celebrities have a combined net worth of $1.255 billion… Yoko Ono Net Worth - $500 million. In several interviews Yoko Ono has stated “I love Occupy Wall Street! John is sending his smile to Occupy Wall Street. I am sending my love to Occupy Wall Street. We are all working together.” Interesting words for a woman who has essentially done nothing of merit for 30 years except inherit a fortune from one of the most famous singers in music history. Russell Simmons Net Worth - $325 million It should be noted that on top of being a hip-hop mogul, Russell Simmons happens to be the founder of a high fee credit card company called UniRush Financial Services. That doesn’t seem like something Occupy protesters would be happy about. Roseanne Barr Net Worth - $80 million Last year Roseanne Barr famously went on Russian Television and said that she thinks anyone who has more than $100 million should be beheaded. Interesting that her net worth is $80 million. I guess she doesnt make “the cut”. Deepak Chopra Net Worth - $80 million Deepak Chopra stated that #OWS is “turning anger into awareness”. The fortune Chopra has made off his fluff filled books just turns me to anger. Kanye West Net Worth - $70 million Last year when Kanye West showed up to support Occupy Wall Street, he arrived wearing hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of jewelry and clothing. I think Kanye didn’t quite understand the message. Alec Baldwin Net Worth - $65 million I actually love Alec Baldwin, I think he’s great on 30 Rock where he earns $300,000 per episode. But he must understand the irony of making so much money from NBC which is owned jointly by two massive corporate conglomerates, GE and Comcast. Not to mention the fact that Baldwins earns millions each year endorsing a credit card company owned by a Fortune 500 financial services corporation. Susan Sarandon Net Worth - $50 million Michael Moore Net Worth - $50 million Tim Robbins Net Worth - $50 million Nancy Pelosi Net Worth - $35.5 million