Maher right about Occupy

  • Added:  5 years ago
  • Many in the Occupy movement feel they will not vote in the 2012 election let alone do anything to help Democrats win. I hear many of these liberals feel they do not want to vote for the lesser of two bad choices.
    The Occupy new rule is very important and need to be made into its own video to share with all Occupy sites! I made one but it may get removed. Please make one and post, thank you! A waste of occupiers time to do all this and then not vote because they think Dems and Republicans are all the same. They need a history lesson. They are right that also Democrats get bought out by the 1%, but if Republicans win the 2012 election we are never gonna fix anything for many years.
  • Runtime: 5:10
  • Tags for this video:  obama  occupy  romney  99%  percent  wall  street  election  news  tactics  maher  protester  protesting  camping  encampment  scott  walker  voter  voting  ballot  campaign  bill  real  time  hbo  new  rule  

Comments: 328

  • Ajay Pasricha
    Ajay Pasricha 3 months ago

    I honestly think Bill Maher watches videos of Chomsky speaking and then makes his monologues based on that. I'm not even kidding

  • Ry
    Ry 3 months ago

    Say what you want about the Tea Party, but they won. Republicans have a majority in state governments, congress, they have the white house, and once again the supreme court. And you know why? Because they vote! You can protest until you're blue in the face, but if you can't be bothered to get your ass to the voting booth none of it matters.

  • mtb416
    mtb416 5 months ago

    Did Maher just try and pull a Dennis Miller rant?

    Valiant effort, but needs work.

  • Purple and Gold
    Purple and Gold 7 months ago

    Occupy is an embarrassment to the original purpose.

  • Chris McWilliams
    Chris McWilliams 9 months ago

    Seems to be Occupy in a nutshell. They may have a good message but they have no clue how to move it forward. Disorganization and without a singular voice or leadership.

  • Ajay Pasricha
    Ajay Pasricha 9 months ago

    I swear to God Bill Maher and Chomsky have been saying the same shit for so many years and in the same way too. I wonder who was copying who

  • sixstanger00
    sixstanger00 9 months ago +1

    Well, it's 2016....we tried it your way - participating in the election process. Wow, would you look at that? As soon as we tried to fix the corrupt system using the corrupt system, it immediately rejected our efforts and pushed the new establishment puppet right over our heads....

    Talk shit about them all you want, Maher - but they know more than you do apparently - they understand that the system is broken and a broken system can never be fixed from within.

    If your TV is broken, you don't remedy the problem by using your broken TV. Because if you do, there's a 99.99999999% chance you're going to end up guessed it.....a broken TV.

    • sixstanger00
      sixstanger00 7 months ago

      +Jud Mudd

      *_while making assumptions about wealthier people that do choose to buy sports cars and yachts._*

      Do you know what a stereotype is?

      Probably not...

      *_Your second mistake was denying that Occupy, an organization established on bringing down Wall St. and destroying capitalism and the concept of private property, is anti-capitalist because....I give no reasons to back up my claim because I'm an idiot."_*

      No sir.

      Wall Street acted like a bag of dicks and ushered in a Great Recession back in 2008, and you don't think anyone has any reason to be pissed off at them?

      Wall Street buys politicians by the dozen to get laws passed in their favor at the expense of the middle class, you don't think anyone has any reason to be pissed off at them?

      Wall Street repeatedly commits fraudulent behavior that has devastating effects on the economy, and yet no one answers for it, and you don't think anyone should be pissed off?

      What planet do you fucking live on?

      Being anti-Wall Street doesn't mean you're anti-capitalism. So let's drop the false equivalencies, OK?

      *_The first mistake was your mom letting your dad pump and dump her slit full of a hot load instead of making him pull out so she could suck and swallow you down instead of bringing you into this world. Then you could have actually been shit, instead of being not shit right now._*

      Conservative maturity, at it's finest.

    • Jud Mudd
      Jud Mudd 7 months ago

      The first mistake was your mom letting your dad pump and dump her slit full of a hot load instead of making him pull out so she could suck and swallow you down instead of bringing you into this world. Then you could have actually been shit, instead of being not shit right now.

    • Jud Mudd
      Jud Mudd 7 months ago

      This is my impression of you....ready? "Your first mistake was assuming. Let me give you a mini-bio of my life and all my stuff while making assumptions about wealthier people that do choose to buy sports cars and yachts. Your second mistake was denying that Occupy, an organization established on bringing down Wall St. and destroying capitalism and the concept of private property, is anti-capitalist because....I give no reasons to back up my claim because I'm an idiot."

    • sixstanger00
      sixstanger00 7 months ago

      +Jud Mudd

      *_I just assumed you were young or poor because those are the only two demographics I see this appealing to._*

      This is your first mistake.

      You do not understand enough about economics to know that being a small business owner doesn't magically elevate you the status of "upper class."

      There are thousands, if not millions of small business owners who earn middle class incomes. Myself included. I'm not doing this to become a rich, heartless piece of shit. I do it because I like the flexibility it offers and it suits me better than a 9 to 5. (And I make better money at it). As long as my income is within a range of $30k to $70k annually, I'm content. Any more would be more money than I could spend. Money not spent is money no being put back into circulation to stimulate the economy. What I earn is more than enough to pay my bills, support my family and buy all the toys I want - my mini truck I'm building, my Mustang for autocrossing, my mountain bike, etc.

      I don't want an exotic sports car or a yacht. And personally, I think anyone who believes they DO need such vices to make themselves feel successful has severe insecurity issues.

      *_You are a self-employed small business owner and you support Occupy...that wants to bring down capitalism and destroy your business. Are you stupid?_*

      This is your second mistake.

      You clearly have no idea what Occupy is protesting.

      No one said anything about bringing down capitalism or destroying business.

      If your point of view is based solely on ill-informed view of the situation, then we have nothing else to discuss.

    • Jud Mudd
      Jud Mudd 7 months ago

      You're seemingly supporting Occupy...which is a shit movement, with a shit cause. I just assumed you were young or poor because those are the only two demographics I see this appealing to. You are a self-employed small business owner and you support Occupy...that wants to bring down capitalism and destroy your business. Are you stupid?

  • Jon Davidson
    Jon Davidson 11 months ago

    Well, it finally happened, but it took Bernie Sanders to force things to the left.  Speaking of the Left, which I am increasingly embarrassed to be associated with, they could have taken back Congress in the last midterms; but the voters, for all their grumbling and kvetching over their grande soy lattes, couldn't be bothered to go vote.  Look at the stats; enough of them didn't vote that it kept the Republicans in power.  So, sorry; no-one wants to hear you whine now over the crazy right; not when you're too lazy to be bothered to vote one afternoon....

  • PCBacklash _
    PCBacklash _ 1 year ago +3

    Sorry, but Occupy Wall Street fell victim to the SJW virus, which is often fatal to social or political movements.  Thanks to infiltration by "Social Justice Warriors," what began as a reaction to the criminal avarice of Wall Street deteriorated into "safe spaces," "rape-free zones" and the "progressive stack" (where one's right to be heard depends upon one's presumed level of oppression or privilege).

    The Regressive Left -- personified by SJWs -- turns everything it touches to shit.  Universities.  Occupy Wall Street.  Games.  Comics.  Films.  And now, even atheism.  These shitlords -- these total wastes of space -- took over the leadership of the "Reason Rally" and it went from 30,000 attendees (in pouring rain!) in 2012 to three or four thousand in 2016.

    Many of us on the Left are so disgusted with the insanity of these assclowns that we find ourselves being driven toward the Center (and in some cases, even to the Right, as we find more and more common ground with those on the Right).  Some of us are even contemplating voting for a Republican -- Donald Trump -- for the first time in our lives!

    • Chris Nilsson
      Chris Nilsson 2 months ago

      SJW's are parasites. They've infected the left and must be flushed out.

    • Jud Mudd
      Jud Mudd 7 months ago

      You are more correct than you could possibly know. As far as SJWs, they are very influential (social media backlashes cause multi-billion dollar companies to fold) and it is just getting started. The worst is yet to come. Wait until censorship, sensitivity training, and thought police.

    • Marissa Perez
      Marissa Perez 11 months ago

      +PCBacklash _ Then you're correct that it's logical to vote for Trump if that's some people's priorities, and it's not smart to rely on him like gambling. Reminding the world the unfortunate situation the public has been drawn into of voting for either Hillary or Trump to make sure the other party isn't in office.

    • PCBacklash _
      PCBacklash _ 11 months ago

      But that's the tragedy of the situation -- we're NOT convinced that Trump can solve these problems.  We simply find ourselves being pushed toward a very distasteful option because it's clear we'll find NO remedy from any of our political kindred on the Left.

      It literally seems like the lousy choice of doing nothing and watching things get progressively worse, or rolling the dice on some loud-mouthed loose cannon who (like a broken clock) at least seems to be right twice a day, and may actually stem the tide.

    • Marissa Perez
      Marissa Perez 11 months ago

      +PCBacklash _ These seem like events that aren't even on the radar of the general public and their concerns this election, so to have leanings towards a presidential candidate that can't silence hoards of SJWs or tell universities how to operate brings me back to what I think is odd about your first comment regarding voters having thoughts that Trump's campaign will solve those problems. People assumed Obama was going to solve their social problems, so it's all foolish. I'll concede people have plenty of shallow reasons to vote for whoever they choose.

  • Mickey Scraps
    Mickey Scraps 1 year ago

    you do know that the slave masters the slave overseers where leftist the people who implemented Jim crow segregation laws where leftist the people who created the kkk and then ran it for 100 years where leftist the people who assassinated the civil rights bill in the 1950's where leftist the people who assassinated Dr. king in the 60's where leftist. and all the famous monsters from the 20th century Hitler,,, stalin,,, mao,,, musallini,,, castro,,, che,,, combined are responsible for more than 30 million murders and what do they all have in common,,,,,, what a surprise they where all leftist. educate yourself and you will be people instead of sheeple

  • K 13
    K 13 1 year ago +1

    Occupy fail to become more that a protest group.

    They did not want to involve in government or compromise to bring change they were more worry about their purity as a group that making any real change.

  • JabberCT
    JabberCT 1 year ago

    The problem with liberals, and I consider myself one, is that we lose at everything. There is no one representing us, we make no effort to organize anything that is efficient, and we let conservatives walk all over us. Yes, there is Bernie Sanders. But again.... loser. Not his ideology. But simply the fact that he lost to a right wing girl disguised as a democrat. If you cannot beat that, then I think its time to throw in the towel. Liberalism and progressives are living in a fantasy land. We will never get anything done when the citizens who represent us are groups like BLM who only attack people already on their side, and sissy ass college kids who need safe spaces to keep out new ideas. We need to stop being whiny bitches and start fighting for a better America. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

  • Baigandine L
    Baigandine L 1 year ago +3

    Occupy helped lead to the rise of Sanders.

    • faolan1686
      faolan1686 11 months ago

      Ok. say that he had won, what good would be able to do if there is no one like him in Congress?

    • JabberCT
      JabberCT 1 year ago

      +Mickey Scraps
      Nice try.

    • Mickey Scraps
      Mickey Scraps 1 year ago

      +JabberCT hillary is left wing thru and thru,,,as everyone knows hatred bigotry and oppression all stem from liberal principles

    • JabberCT
      JabberCT 1 year ago

      Who lost to a right wing woman disguised as a democrat. So bleh.

  • Stefan Lindbom
    Stefan Lindbom 1 year ago

    doesn't this fuck have Moore money than the rest of us .god I hate hypocrites

    • Jud Mudd
      Jud Mudd 7 months ago

      People aren't given money, except by government. We have to voluntarily give them our money through free exchange. What is so hard to understand about that?

    • Hearsay
      Hearsay 1 year ago

      Someone's not allowed to be well-off and realize not all the money in the country should go to rich people like themselves?

  • Rob Elkton
    Rob Elkton 1 year ago

    How about Occupy 2016?

  • theuglykwan
    theuglykwan 1 year ago

    Even dumber was Hong Kongers copying a failed movement...

  • claronium 780
    claronium 780 1 year ago

    actually, protests in the 1960's changed a lot BIll !

  • Nige GSX14
    Nige GSX14 1 year ago

    ROFL yet again very funny Mr Maher 👍😀

  • Sage Freke
    Sage Freke 1 year ago +2

    Kinda funny how wrong he was about Facebook stock, in retrospect

  • Levi Brown
    Levi Brown 1 year ago

    Anonymous gay sex is a lot of fun in parks. Never have I received a better blowjob in the woods from a truck driver. That was a good weekend.

  • NYKnicks125
    NYKnicks125 1 year ago +3

    i hate how many pauses for claps he always does

  • Linear Prime
    Linear Prime 1 year ago +1

    I was part of occupy.. till the fucking liberal cry babies took it over with their.. "I have tits and am female but I go by they" bullshit
    Oh.. cant protest or disrupt business... people might get upset at us.
    Fucking pussies.. want a revolution.. grow some fucking balls.

  • Cloud Colonel
    Cloud Colonel 1 year ago

    Activate version plz

  • My name is Joe
    My name is Joe 1 year ago


  • contactkeithstack
    contactkeithstack 1 year ago

    Asheville deadhead s, I like the sound of that.

  • Harrison11106
    Harrison11106 1 year ago

    Occupy had such a great message. Maher is right though, what it should have done, it didn't.

  • TheClassicalSauce
    TheClassicalSauce 1 year ago +36

    Bernie Sanders is the Occupy candidate.

    • Tony Boy
      Tony Boy 1 month ago

      Hey Greg, how are all these Sanders endorsed candidates doing? How many races have they won?

    • robert postman
      robert postman 3 months ago

      naisi I agree. I live in NYC. I went to one occupy March and watched others, but truthfully, I was and still am not sure what their concrete policy objectives were. Also, I don't know of any active steps they took to fund and support candidates.

    • naisi
      naisi 3 months ago

      That's something lazy Occupy-people tell to themselves to satisfy themselves that someone else is taking action so they themselves do not need to. Saying Bernie is the Occupy candidate is just a statement of activist bankruptcy.

  • zanzeh teh hero
    zanzeh teh hero 1 year ago +4

    The occupy movement was occupied (see what I did there) by hateful feminists and mentally retarded SJW and was not allowed to change unto anything else but a vehicle of these voices... The occupy mandate was anger with Wall-Street and the corrupt methods of modern day capitalism, but instead, the anger was hijacked and redirected towards "the patriarchy" and "institutionalized racism." At least, this is the impression I was left with.

  • RottingintheMidwest
    RottingintheMidwest 1 year ago +3

    so, if the occupy movement were to do something constructive they would have to sell out and buy in to one of the political parties already owned by wall street?

    • Matthew
      Matthew 1 year ago

      +RottingintheMidwest No. No need to sell out. Sanders didn't. He's not owned by Wall St. If more people with his ideology (that is, that of Occupy) did what he's doing, then that would be constructive without selling out or being owned.

  • Tommy Kelly
    Tommy Kelly 1 year ago

    This is an old segment, yet there is a lot of truth to what he is saying.

  • Stimulator7
    Stimulator7 1 year ago +1

    drum"ming" circle? hehe, very odd to not call it a "drum" circle.

  • joe de
    joe de 1 year ago

    While you were sitting on your ass these people put themselves on the line and made many in this country realize the oligarchy they are living under. people talked , people were made aware and asked questions. they also did many things like feed the homeless and prevent foreclosures and evictions. what the hell did you do?

    • Matthew
      Matthew 1 year ago

      +joe de But if they want further, real, tangible results, they need to do more. That would be a good thing.

  • Emanuel Goldstein
    Emanuel Goldstein 1 year ago

    The occupy movement camped out at wall street.   When in reality, they should have been at the Federal Reserve!  Wall Street gets their money from the Fed.  Interest rates, paper and coin currency, bailout money and even lobbyists adhere to this corrupt system.

  • Slick O
    Slick O 2 years ago +2

    The look he gave John Waters @1:54 was hilarious!

  • fuckuall1000times
    fuckuall1000times 2 years ago +7

    Votes don't count, money counts.

    • Matthew
      Matthew 1 year ago

      +fuckuall1000times *"I went back and corrected my misspelling of gard (obviously *hard) it shows you are obviously backed into a factual and philosophical corner in which you have no rebuttal and have nothing better to do than correct a typo, good for you."*

      Actually, that was a post-script, an afterthought, an edit. My main points were presented well before that. I found it relevant for two reasons. One, because you brought up the importance of reading, and the more one reads the more likely one would be able to spell. The fact that you would spell "nobody's" as "no bodies" indicates a lack of reading, which as you say is important. Secondly, you criticised me for not being able to "intelligently express myself," so if you found that a worthy criticism then I see no reason it shouldn't be levelled at you (please note that it is not one simply typo; you posts are littered with this kind of thing, with 'waiste' and 'no bodies' being the most egregious).

      Nevertheless, it was an afterthought: my point in the body of my post was that you should reference things. *"Why would the true globalist elite even care about lower taxes for themselves. They own all the money and its future creation and prospects."* Yeah, alright, the Illuminati and JFK; if that's where you're going, we've stopped having a serious conversation about the pollution of money in politics (a very real and serious issue, but one that ultimately can and should be fixed through the power of the vote), and have entered tin-foil land. 

      I only label it tin-foil land because of a lack of evidence. Provide good evidence (rather than proclamations), and it'll become serious again. No tin-foil hat stuff, please.

    • fuckuall1000times
      fuckuall1000times 1 year ago

      +Matthew George I went back and corrected my misspelling of gard (obviously *hard) it shows you are obviously backed into a factual and philosophical corner in which you have no rebuttal and have nothing better to do than correct a typo, good for you. Your fucking pathetic. You can't seem to tell the difference between a  typical millionaire in your own country and a globalist elite who runs world banks and the U.N.  Why would the true globalist elite even care about lower taxes for themselves. They own all the money and its future creation and prospects. It is only to start class warfare in America between the wealthy (people you consider rich or the 1%) and the poor, to destroy the country by divide and conquer. The globalist elite (not your countries typical wealthy 1% but the .0000001%) own the world bank, they own the fed, They own the IMF. Governments pay them interest just to have currency in circulation. It is a debt that can never be paid back. There is intrest on every dollar any country prints, spends or borrows, there is  never enough dollars in circulation to pay the debt back, Ie there is less currency in circulation than the amount of a countries debt. It seems like you don't understand simple banking and how global finance works. America does not print its own interest free currency, The last president to suggest and begin to try and do it was JFK and we all saw what happened to him. Your not getting it. The global elite is above governments and if you piss them off they fund your countries enemies like terrorist or Russia and get rid of you. What is sanders gonna do about it, Kiss their ass and hope they don't kill him and nuke America by Russian proxy. The cure for them is beyond political party, beyond countries, it is a war of global understanding and unity and we all need to do it. Again your responses show your ignorance and lack of education in global interactions as well as a lack of understanding of who the global elite is and why they truly have power. Read a fucking book or two and shut the fuck up. The problem is bigger than the race for American presidency and your vote for your favorite TV character does not matter. 

    • Matthew
      Matthew 1 year ago

      +fuckuall1000times I've already said I know that big money intends to consolidate and increase their power. Don't give me quotes for that because I agree on that. But let's look at what they want. For one, they want lower taxes, so that they get more money. Yes they've been successful this regard. But suppose we elect someone like Sanders to increase their taxes, and to spread that money around the poorer and less fortunate. Why would this government be stopped? What is the process by which it would be stopped and what is your evidence for this?

      It's true that there hasn't been a viable candidate in the past who would stick to their principles, but even you agree that you're not putting forth an argument that Sanders is not that viable candidate: *"I am not even saying that anyone who gets elected will be corrupted necessarily, or the elite will be over represented in the political forum."*

      And if you don't like Sanders, Maher's point is to mobilise and put forth someone who does represent your view (although, I think for Occupy, that would be Sanders).

      *"I'm saying it does not matter, that politics are ceremonial, for entertainment value only, merely for display."*

      I know you're saying that; but I'm not interested in what you merely say, I'm interested in what's right. Again, don't go giving me quotes about other things that I agree with you on (although when did you actually give me a quote from Kissinger, Soros Brzezinski? Can you repost them, because I must have missed them).

      As for WWII, give me a break, seriously? Because I don't agree with your crazy shtick I've never read a book on WWII? Again, my friend, speculation is your biggest, baddest enemy.

      *"It is gard to talk to someone who has no grasp of what the term globalist or global elite really means."*

      Not as *gard* as it is for me to talk to you, mate. If *no bodie* can understand you, it's a *waiste* of time. Talk about an 'inability to intelligently express oneself...' 

    • fuckuall1000times
      fuckuall1000times 1 year ago

      +Matthew George Do you have ADHD?  Idiot, I said it does not matter who we elect, that the global elite are immune to law (any countries law) and already have their ways to ignore and circumvent it. I am not even saying that anyone who gets elected will be corrupted necessarily (as the main problem), or that the elite will be over represented in the (American) political forum, I'm saying it does not matter, that politics are ceremonial, for entertainment value only, merely for display. Like a roman Caesar putting a lot of money into a coliseum performance.  The power structure is what it is, no matter how content or distracted you are. Are you a fucking retard or what? I directly quoted global elite and cited their books in which they confirm that what I have said is the plan. That's right I sighted direct sources gave specific names, meaning its not a platitude you fucking moron. My comments are cited fact. Do you even know who Henry Kissinger, George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Mayer Amschel Rothschild is?  Its not about investing money in politics as it is ignoring politics and doing what they want because they are un touchable. Sure they do invest in politics. But that is like .000000000000001 % of their investments. Politics is merely for show, a show to entertain gulable idiots like you. Like the roman coliseum had very elaborate and expensive shows to distract un educated peasants. These global elites don't need Americas political support, They fund all countries, all sides of every conflict, Countries and people are like toys to them. That's why they are untouchable. Who ever thinks of messing with them will soon see their enemy, like Russia or china better funded. They are globalist, Not pro American or any other country. They have enough money and resources to not care what team they play for or who does their bidding. You need to read some fucking books man. You are as dense as uranium. It is hard to talk to someone who has no grasp of what the term globalist or global elite really means. Its as if you have not even picked up a history book or studied world war two. Fucking moron.

  • Tsemnar D Lloyd
    Tsemnar D Lloyd 2 years ago

    haha that sacred herb in the drum circle.

  • Lex Dunn
    Lex Dunn 2 years ago

    So many shallow arguments. I agree the Occupy Movement has to grow up. But getting involved in the "American political process" seems rather pointless when the 1% OWNS the process lock, stock and barrel. And comparing Occupy to the Tea Part is also an erroneous premise. The 1% WANTS the Tea Party because they espouse the principles that makes the 1% richer. And they are so far to th right, they make the 1% look reasonable in comparison. I am disappointed that Bill didn't think this through very well.

    • Nathaniel Bixby
      Nathaniel Bixby 1 year ago

      +Lex Dunn Really? Because the Tea Party has succeeded beyond all reasonable expectations and is now scaring the 1%; yet they can't get rid of them.

  • Bredah Jake
    Bredah Jake 2 years ago +29

    Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right.

    • Mark Marcus
      Mark Marcus 1 year ago

      +Breda Jake And here i am, stuck in the middle with you. that song will be in my head all day. Thanks a lot asshole.

    • Bredah Jake
      Bredah Jake 1 year ago

      +Babak Breaking windows, setting police cars on fire and whining in public about people who are richer than me is not my style. Like my hero Bill Maher, I donate money and vote. How about you?

    • Babak G
      Babak G 1 year ago

      +Breda Jake what are you doing in protest? commenting on youtube?

  • Looncan
    Looncan 2 years ago +19

    Here's a crazy idea, why don't they go into the wall-street buildings instead?

    • gavi deem
      gavi deem 6 months ago

      looncan wall street that's not a good idea there find out our uk secret...

    • poodtang1
      poodtang1 11 months ago

      +Kenneth Renzey

      Hypocrisy is a very human quality.

    • Kenneth Renzey
      Kenneth Renzey 11 months ago

      They have been. Look at where the shootings happen, and who is doing them. It's never the guy the left has been praying for. The shooting at Pulse had liberals confused as fuck. And they can't say shit without their racist propaganda coming back to haunt them.

    • Polydynamix
      Polydynamix 1 year ago

      +Brad Bennett
      yes.  they are a hyper conservative gay rights group.

    • Brad Bennett
      Brad Bennett 1 year ago

      +Tracie Amber Wilkinson wtf is tea party, sounds super gay, is it a gay rights group

  • dirtcom7
    dirtcom7 2 years ago

    They should really listen to this

    • Polydynamix
      Polydynamix 2 years ago

      +dirtcom7 Hurry, make a time machine, go back to 2012 and tell them before it's too late!

  • TheStewieOne
    TheStewieOne 2 years ago

    What we need is another revolution.

  • Rumpel Felt
    Rumpel Felt 2 years ago +25

    Having accidentally stumbled upon Occupy at Zuccoti park (or whatever its called) I have to agree with Maher.

    It was just a lame, pointless hippie movement....without any of the epicness of the 60's. The hypocrisy is at an all time sky-high as well. Let's bash big corporations.....'oh hey buddy, let's selfie with my iPhone and upload to Facebook  so everyone can see how bad ass I am.'

    It was sad. There was no direction. No actual plan. No account for things like reality ----> nature. It gets pretty damn cold come fall/winter so why start in September. And at the original Wall St. location, the suits being 'protested' against just came down and ate hotdogs whilst having a chuckle at all the aimless hippies.  

    • Rumpel Felt
      Rumpel Felt 1 year ago

      +Babak Golshahi It had the impact "the 1%" wanted: just another event to consume their products and to buy into it. If you're more concerned about getting that perfect selfie and that's what really matters to you, they win.

      Same with the government spy thing. It's outrageous but who's really going to do anything? The first guy that did had to run away.

      They have guns and bombs and "the telescreen" to watch you and the more we get ourselves infront of cameras for what we want, the more they can do. It would take a big actual movement if we wanted to stop this.

      But just like the sixties, selfie generation is our usual hippie who lays around and does nothing but drugs. They get more credit because they were all more united for NOT having a phone in every hand. They had to at least make the physical effort.

      If enough people used their phones to actually organize then their wouldn't be enough people at the authorities to do anything even if just watching. They'd watch themselves be outnumbered and then the people could have their say with their message because they are the majority and have a real means to counter authority; or at least demand what it does and doesn't do in the name of freedom.

      *I've already been kidnapped and tortured before clicking post btw*  

    • Babak G
      Babak G 1 year ago

      +Rumpel Felt well it had a very powerful impact on a lot of people. It may not have been a perfect protest but instead of blaming the protestors perhaps you should recognize that its not the 60's Rumpel.. this country has been bought and sold since then and people are apathetic.. in the 60s people weren't... and if we had facebook and iphones in the 60s they would have used them then too -- if youre complaining about narcissism you should realize that the people who protested in the 60s were the same socio economic group and people who protested then.. except back then there were more people because it was trendier..people are terrified to protest now because they dont want the NSA and the police state ruining their lives. Very easy to mock occupy its harder to understadnt eh movement

    • Rumpel Felt
      Rumpel Felt 1 year ago

      +jxsilicon9 Who would even know where to begin?

      Hell my one night there ended up with me going to some mysterious underground - highly illegal - rave at 4am on Wall St. with every drug you could imagine with the very millionaires and billionaires the hippies were sleeping on the sidewalk to protest.

    • jxsilicon9
      jxsilicon9 1 year ago

      yeah was pretty weak at least set some Wall Street douches on fire or something.

  • catguy00
    catguy00 2 years ago +4

    Social Justice Warriors fucked it up too

  • 37Dionysos
    37Dionysos 2 years ago

    Occupy seriously changed the conversation, and that's more than Bill can say.

    • Bredah Jake
      Bredah Jake 2 years ago

      +37Dionysos "Occupy" succeeded only in proving that the extreme left and the extreme right are very much the same, like a bag of mixed nuts.

    • MAnnaconduit1
      MAnnaconduit1 2 years ago

      oh i got the point, mine was that like occupy it was pointless and had no effect on me, maybe a movement that you know actually does somehting will save me, till then i will turn the channel cause nothing's on, FAREwelll...

    • 37Dionysos
      37Dionysos 2 years ago

      +MAnnaconduit1 How brilliantly you miss the point entirely! Maybe an entertaining movement called "Cartoon Characters For Justice" will come along and save you. Bye now! 

    • MAnnaconduit1
      MAnnaconduit1 2 years ago

      what a coincidence you use a poet who for his lifetime was basically an unknown nobody (sums up the occupy movement quite well) but even then, even for what Blake is known for now, the ocupy movement will never come close to being as influential, as creative or as famed as Blake becasue again, his obscurity was not from a lack of trying and Occupy's is.

    • 37Dionysos
      37Dionysos 2 years ago

      +MAnnaconduit1 As William Blake said it, thinking of you, "Expect poison from standing water."  

  • BuddyNovinski
    BuddyNovinski 2 years ago +8

    Occupy sat home in 2014. The plutocracy took over Congress. It's time for a French revolution in 2016 to end the privilege of the nobles.

    • BuddyNovinski
      BuddyNovinski 1 year ago

      +shalom4301997 Hast thou shown enough arrogance? No one meant Robespierre. Even when Louis XVIII became king, he was well aware that the privileges of the nobility were gone. Bernie Sanders comes close to what I meant.

    • shalom4301997
      shalom4301997 1 year ago

      Ever heard of Robespierre, asshat? I don't think he should be a role model.

    • Babak G
      Babak G 1 year ago

      +BuddyNovinski well now we've got bernie sanders because people don't want sell outs to wall street

    • catbuffalo
      catbuffalo 2 years ago

      See, this guy's advocating action. What's the problem? It doesn't just consist of being part of the democratic party?

  • Tom Ulcak
    Tom Ulcak 2 years ago

    so, protests are bad.  Occupy changed the conversation and showed everyone they are not alone in with the pain that corporations inflict (remember wallstreet 2008).  the occupy movement has made concrete changes and has taken action.  action in the form of getting banks to stop foreclosing on homeowners.  unfortunately, like any movement, it is ineffective on a national level because the corporations ARE the American government (just Apple has a larger annual budget than the U.S. government.  so, what does that mean?
    Maher is espousing the status quo.  hey, don't protest, it's an inconvenience to the smooth operation of out of control capitalism.

  • Aryan-Persian
    Aryan-Persian 2 years ago

    maher eat shit

  • failtolawl
    failtolawl 2 years ago

    it's those stupid fucking libertarian Ron Paul jerk-offs

  • Carlos Paz Despierta
    Carlos Paz Despierta 2 years ago +7

    Man has a solid point. Yes, I don't like he supports Obama, I don't like he supports Israel. But has a point.

    • randomflashbacks
      randomflashbacks 2 years ago

      +Chris Hutton He has his own opinions, and thinks for himself. That's a good thing.

    • randomflashbacks
      randomflashbacks 2 years ago

      Yeah Bill Maher's kind of all over the place. 

  • GabrielSparkletits
    GabrielSparkletits 3 years ago

    You have to wonder if Occupy has been taken over by similar people that took over the Tea party. Well you don't have to, but maybe you should.

    • Ethan Davidson
      Ethan Davidson 2 years ago

      +Syndicalism421 You are, of course, correct. The diversity within Occupy was at first a strength, but it was in the long run unstainable. Another problem is that when they did, in fact, move out of the parks, most folks stopped noticing them. It was out of sight, out of mind.

    • GabrielSparkletits
      GabrielSparkletits 2 years ago

      +Syndicalism421 Oh kids these days. No appreciation for dry wit.

    • GabrielSparkletits
      GabrielSparkletits 2 years ago

      +Syndicalism421 Oh come on now. There are no just people.

    DOPEDOGTOPDOG 3 years ago

    If Maher wasn't a Zionist operative , he would have said that Occupy was founded and funded by Soros ( who is actually the manager of the Rotschild's fortune ), they are as fake as Pro-Wrestling , Occupy  is controlled opposition, to let off the pressure but propose no solutions, especially not questionning who owns the Federal Reserve and all the big real questions. Occupy is the U.S equivalent of the "coloured revolutions" scam , also brought to you by Soros. using the same time-tested Trotskists methods

    • A Casual German
      A Casual German 2 years ago

      Are you mentally ill?

    • Noneofyourbusiness Same
      Noneofyourbusiness Same 2 years ago

      Oh don't be such a twit.

    • Ethan Davidson
      Ethan Davidson 2 years ago

      They talked about the federal reserve all the time. In san Francisco, they camped in front of it for ages. Your anti-semetism is distorting your grip on reality.

    RAKDOS A 3 years ago +3

    These hippie kids should have just have brought assualt weapons to their peaceful protests ., because NO ONE has ever thought of bringing riot cops to a NRA gun demonstration ....

  • SennaFan
    SennaFan 3 years ago +5

    Anarchists are mental, I talk to them like i talk to religious folks.... not very seriously haha. 

  • ajs1031
    ajs1031 3 years ago

    Occupy Wallstreet was the perfect example of why a Democracy can never work. To many people, too many ideas, no clear leadership, and no clear direction.
    When the Tea party first started out it had good ideas, a good message, and then it got bought mind body and soul by the Koch Brothers...and, well, that was the end of that.
    Unfortunately, as an extremely conservative liberal, the U.S. Federal government stopped representing me about 25 years ago.

  • GuyCanadian
    GuyCanadian 3 years ago +1

    Form a party, run a candidate, and potentially win - is what Maher is getting at. If the Occupy movement is as strong as its leaders would have us believe, then they should have no problem in getting elected and thus changing the process to their liking. But they will never do that because 1) that would be considered work, and you know, work is hard and stuff. 2) they don't have as many followers as they would like us to believe and would not risk having their low turnout exposed. And, 3) they criticize the current system, yet don't have a replacement plan. 

    Take a good look at the crowds that makeup the Occupy Movement: people who CHOOSE not to work because they're "the children of the universe" or some drug-addled response like that; people who are barely past puberty and who couldn't spell the word "foreclosure" if Webster's dictionary was right in front of them; people who got the day off; anarchists, Marxist-Leninist-wannabees, hippies, trend-seekers, and the list goes on. 

    With that being said, I believe that the heads of this movement (whom had a good idea to begin with) realized what their supporters looked like and came to the conclusion that taking part in the process to reverse the process would be too difficult for their followers to understand. SO, by all means, pitch your tents, smoke your ganj, play your acoustics. It would make a fuck of difference. 

    • GuyCanadian
      GuyCanadian 3 years ago

      In addition; if you'd like to replace the big two parties, then grow some balls. Say what you want about the Tea Party, but they did that part right in being recognized. And they did it by utilizing the process to their advantage. Follow that formula if you expect to get anywhere. Otherwise, spare me you're "We're the 99%" crap. 

  • bizbite2
    bizbite2 3 years ago

    Tea Party had the support of WALLSTREET LOBBYISTS !!! 

  • bizbite2
    bizbite2 3 years ago +3

    America needs to do what Ukrainians are doing, taking over government buildings. 

  • Archduke Franz Ferdinand
    Archduke Franz Ferdinand 3 years ago +1

    why the fuck are there texts in the middle of the screen ?! Fuck this video!!

  • Czolgosz, Workin' Man
    Czolgosz, Workin' Man 3 years ago +4

    I vote just as a hobby. Usually for the most radical, non-mainstream, conventional wisdom-defying candidate, even if I don't agree with him or her. We need more radical voices in government.

    • 2liveis2fly
      2liveis2fly 3 years ago

      I don't know how to break it to you Einstein, those aren't "more radical voices in government" that you're voting into office. What you're doing is electing more greedy a-holes that take what they can get away with (usually) from people like you. You aren't very smart, are you? Where ya all frum TEXjoy86?  And let me guess, 86 is the year you were born? Figures, just a kid.

    • Iron/Pacifist
      Iron/Pacifist 3 years ago

      in my next provincial election i'm voting green mostly cause i dislike the woman currently in the seat i saw her in a debate in my last year of high school and she rolled her eyes the entire time
      no reason for it either she wasn't exactly debating ken ham
      so to heck with her

  • schackmountain
    schackmountain 3 years ago

    voting, ok... FOR WHOOOMM? :(

  • jacob
    jacob 3 years ago

    I don't get how he can talk all that shit on the corrupt banks and business that control most of this country's money and how they control politics....then he says the way to fix all these problems it is go in vote!

  • killingfloor70
    killingfloor70 3 years ago

    I used to think the same thing about voting: It's pointless, the system is corrupt and there is no real choice. George Carlin (RIP) once called it "the illusion of choice". However, I've come to realize that this is really a bad way to look at it and it's pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you tell people that they shouldn't vote to implement change, then guess who won't run for office? People who actually care about change. 

    I just don't get the liberal fringe sometimes.

    And yes, if you feel that the top strata of society has too much economic, financial and political power that it justifies mobilizing a popular movement to get government involved to correct this, you are a LIBERAL movement. I don't wanna hear "Its not about liberal or conservative....", Yes. It sometimes is, Occupy was one of those times. 

  • natalie morton
    natalie morton 3 years ago

    sadly voting democrat can only do so much. We might take power away from big business and banks. However it wont stop them from passing laws that censor the internet and and imprisoning Americans without trial. many of both parties are down with that police state bs including the president. is it any wonderr these occupy peopel dont have faith in their party 

  • natalie morton
    natalie morton 3 years ago

    so naturally voting dem wouldnt be supporting corporate greed and pointless war.

  • natalie morton
    natalie morton 3 years ago

    big business owns the right not the left.

    • Ethan Davidson
      Ethan Davidson 2 years ago

      +natalie morton The sad thing is that they own both. The reason being: you can't get into office beyond the local level (If that) without lots of money. Buisnesses and their lobbiest supply that, and then they are owed. Whose fault is that? The voters who vote for whoever has the most commericals. If people reflexivly voted AGAINST whoever and whatever had the most commercials, things would start to change.

    • natalie morton
      natalie morton 3 years ago

      if big business owned the left the left wouldn't be trying to regulate them all the time. that's not to say that the dems dont take "donations" from other lobbyists though.

    • Tetzukai
      Tetzukai 3 years ago

      They own both, actually.

  • Michal Pszyk
    Michal Pszyk 3 years ago

    To be taken seriously as a political commentator, Bill Maher has to stop pretending he's a political left-radical, while banging out his continuous support for the state of Israel and the war against evil Muslims who "do not share our values" (that's rich coming from someone who calls tolerance towards Muslims "liberal bullshit).  Face it Bill, the perfect role for you is that of a supporting comedian for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, throwing in an occasional joke about current affairs and never letting go of your pussy ass right-liberal slant.  Leave political punditing to people who actually know what they are talking about (what up Glenn Greenwald).  

    • Nathaniel Bixby
      Nathaniel Bixby 1 year ago

      +Michal Pszyk Well real liberals are anti-Islam so...

    • Michal Pszyk
      Michal Pszyk 3 years ago

      +natalie morton nothing, i didn´t say anything to that effect.  peace x

    • natalie morton
      natalie morton 3 years ago

      what does hatign israel and loving muslims have to do with being liberal? 

  • ninjabonez86
    ninjabonez86 3 years ago +1

    ppl think of freedom is synonymous with democracy. but in truth the only freedom that the majority can't vote away is the freedom to vote. don't u find it weird that every election is always close to 50/50? powers that be keep its masses bickering among themselves about which of the two headed monster is better. I wanna see atheists and scientists running in politics

  • Scott Abbott
    Scott Abbott 3 years ago

    Thats fucking awesome. I cant wait till this November when all these stupid tea baggers are voted out.

  • Slave2PaperWithInkOn
    Slave2PaperWithInkOn 3 years ago

    The 4min11 "RISE UP - [Official Video]."

  • navylaks2
    navylaks2 3 years ago +1

    The Tea Party was created by bankers,  besides why doesn't bill have any Green Party members on his show?

  • Hanzo
    Hanzo 3 years ago

    Bill Maher is such a cynical fuckwad elitest hypocrite. Did he ever leave his gated community in the Hamptons to support OWS groups financially? I doubt it.

    • MAnnaconduit1
      MAnnaconduit1 2 years ago

      +Nicole Baresi
      he donated 1m to Obama because Obama was competing with Mitt Romney and he did not want the Massachusetts version of the T1000 to win----Obama at least had a plan and or policies one could get behind (at the time of the election) the OWS group had no such thing, still don't and have no drive that has accomplished jack all.

    • Ethan Davidson
      Ethan Davidson 2 years ago

      +Duston McCreary Food, sleeping bags, stuff like that.

    • Ruben Ramalho
      Ruben Ramalho 3 years ago

      What would Maher's financial support of the OWS  accomplish anyways,a few more songs played?Maybe a week or two extension of them sitting their bums down in a park?Again,what does that accomplish?Somebody said doing the same thing over and over and expect different results is the definition of insanity,I tend to agree   

    • Nicole Baresi
      Nicole Baresi 3 years ago

      He donates $1m to Obama, now yes it turned out that Obama is basically a republican (which isn't a surprise, since there is no difference between the Republican party and the Democrats) and a corporate hack.

      But he's proven that he has done more than most people done to change things.

    • Duston McCreary
      Duston McCreary 3 years ago

      And that money would go to doing what?

  • Ethan Davidson
    Ethan Davidson 3 years ago

    A movement like the tea party to move the Democrats to the left is not a bad idea.  But Occupy folks were not the ones to do it.  They were the ones to draw attention to the nature of the problem, and at that they suceeded.  It is up to another group, which could include some Occupy veterans, to form a movement of the sort Maher describes.  It's a good idea, IMHO.  But it was/is not Occupies project. 

  • DeMat
    DeMat 3 years ago +1

    Gandhi sat down as protest because he was prohibited to sit down, and that prohibition was unfair. The Occupy movement didn't think any of this through and just... Sat down.

    They should have found the unfairness and protest against that in a way that stops it, hurting the creators of unfairness, but noone else... But someone does need to end up hurt, and I don't mean physically, I mean in their interests, some way or another. You don't change things with a "guitarmy". Anyone claiming to do that is just looking for excuses to do something that doesn't involve actual effort, such as, say, work. And maybe trying to get laid.

  • daarkside
    daarkside 3 years ago +1

    0:13 Vote for whom? Bill, you are a part of the problem. Yeah you can act like you are so smart and poilically mature, but at the end you arent more then a jester. You are the "games" part in the "bred and games" rule method.

    For whom should they have had voted? All this go vote or go and be politician yourself is SOOOOOO fucking arrogant. The gap betweend rich and poor is growind in almost all industrialized countrys since decades, the majority votes for political parties that are agains them... But now, i am 18 and can vote, now i will fix it, because prior to my generation they were just too dumb/lazy to vote RIGHT, right?
    And just imagine i enter the politics myself, god jesus allah christ, we will have world peace in no time, because prior to me, no good ppl ever tried to do it, right?
    If the issues are onviously inherent to the system, we need to fix the system(which we would need an society wide debate for, we arent even allowed to have by the media, because there CANT be an alternative system!!!! yeah, right) and cant solve the problems by focusing on symptoms and single persons(what you Bill, as an jester, ofc do).

    • daarkside
      daarkside 3 years ago

      +Daniel Cofour
      Did occupy brought the facts of current welath distribution into the heads of the masses or didnt it? So, there is an achievment.
      How can you realy want and expect massive systemical change without major shifts in thinking? The dont happen over night, not in societys that witnessed massive anti communism propaganda since decades. Not in society where every mention of redistribution of wealth(which is immanent to the system, from bottom to top, however), just plain and simple, scares the shit out of people.

      Democracy is ofc also separation, because the goverment is now the people and the big money is not.
      And, besides, take a look around the world, many countries make it much harder for their political partys to get bribed by the capital... and still, the politician represent their interessents and govern agains the interests of the majority of voters.
      And, besides#2, you then still have the not so free media and the "jobs", stock exchange, outsorcing arguments to keep the representives in line.

      The problem is not the abuse of big money, it is the big money itself. Once obtained the abuse is certain because it is human nature. The ways of abuse will change, ofc, as they always did. The main problem however will roughly remain the same. Authoritarian systems and unfair wealth distribution.

      So, democracy on the state level AND at workplace = fragmentation of power = less/no abuse of power.

      Democracy is the scaries word for our current rulers. You in the US do not have the luxury to live near a democracy and do not have the luxury speak the same laguage as this democracy, we here in germany have it, we have switzerland. On regular basis our representetives and their free media react, speak and wirte homogeneous agains the vote of the swiss people, try to degrade it, picture horror stories of the outcome of the vote, atack it in any way possible.

      Democracy right now is pep-talk, yes, because they redifined this term and made it synonymously with the so called representative democracy. We should call it so called representaitve democracy if we mean the so called representetive democracy and democracy if we mean democracy. Easy as that. Our language, we speak, they obey.

    • Daniel Cofour
      Daniel Cofour 3 years ago

      +daarkside I seriously need to know what you are smoking, cause I want some. 

      And I don't mean that as a quip, I mean that's something I'd say when I'm high. But that's it. Everything you said was meaningless. It was the kind of talk you hear on the very talk show that Bill here is hosting. A whole bunch of empty rhetoric. "My solution is democracy".. okay.. good for you.. but that's as a meaningless political pep-talk as it can get. 

      I asked what is your solution, not because I don't already know what it is, but to see whether people will keep defending camping out in the street as actually accomplishing something. And you have. I know what the solution is: separation of big money and government.. (and a bunch of other good practical ideas that have been around for ages).. but that won't happen by playing folk songs in a "guit-army"

    • daarkside
      daarkside 3 years ago

      +Nicole Baresi
      Tea party had support because it is supporting the current system. It had support from the capital, it had support from the media. Left wing occupy candidates would not have that support. Theiy would start at a severe disadvantage. And, as i said above, good people long before occupy tried to change the system from the inside for the better, they all got sorted out, marginalized or corrupted in the process. How high is the voter participation in the US? How high is it in other idustrialized so called representetive democracys? Which direction is it heading? People who once voted and belived in this system are loosing their faith and THAT is the point where every system failed in the past. A system dont break down beacuse of its flaws, it ultimatly breaks down at the point people stop beliving in it.
      From this point on we either head towards an radical authoritarian system(NSA, hello) or towards an violent/non violent revolution.
      Playing in the current systems sandbox wont substantialy change it.

    • daarkside
      daarkside 3 years ago

      +Daniel Cofour "So I ask again.. what is your solution?"

      Base to this question is always "there is no alternative" thinking, and because their isnt, we live in the best possible system. That approach is meant to make the people apathic .

      First an foremost we - as a society, as a civilization - need to recognize the full problem, then outline the desired goal and then work an a solution, make mistakes, tune the solution, make more mistakes, tune the solution again.

      Occupy was playing a part in rocognizing the problem, part of it, the fact of 99% and 1% wealth distribution. Thats it, that was their role. Other movements might point out the lack of democracy, might show the financial dependencys of our free and independent media.

      We flew to the moon, we built thousands of mini suns and made them shine(for few nano seconds), we explore the space and find planets similar to earth, we have risen the life expectancy by few decades, we hover or slide over water, we fly thru the sky - and we WILL find a better system then the current one, because we did so since thousands of years! 1000 years ago, 1000 years ago the current system was unimmaginable for the vast majority of people... but did the other, the few stop? No they continued, thank god they did.

      How good or bad MY solution might be does not matter, the fact that we either find a better one or destroy our species by continuing with the current one does.

      My solution is fairly simple, democracy. Once democracy is approaching, our scool system will change, will help to breed critical and free thinking individuals instead of obidient workers. Once democracy is approaching, the elites will see the dangers of non educated voters and they will see their own demise if they dont help(or stop to prevent) educate the voters. Our media will change(need democratic and not private capital/ad industry control anyway).

      Democracy on the workplace, cooperatives.

    • Nicole Baresi
      Nicole Baresi 3 years ago

      Vote for the Democrats and then change it into an actual left-wing party, instead of little-more-left-than-the-Republican-party-but-still-actually-right-wing like it is now, in the same way the Tea Party made the Republican party do a sharp right.

  • Asheville Deadheads
    Asheville Deadheads 3 years ago +6

    Funny and very on point. Just remember occupy not demarcates Also
    Occupy is a movement and not a party. Maybe the Green Party can get more active.

    • Mike Lopez
      Mike Lopez 11 months ago

      +Ceman Tell me again how the mainstream media is liberal....they were the ones beating the dead horse about Occupy being full of upper middle class  liberal white kids shitting on street corners and burning down cop cars, thugs looting and people on welfare. The funny part is the message occupy had resonated with the majority of the world, the tea party message on the other hand was mocked because of how ridiculous, ignorant, prejudiced and arrogant it was. Difference between Occupy and the tea party is that the thugs/anarchists and rioters of Occupy weren't the majority, these people did shit on their own and mostly did it to further their ridiculous fringe anarchist utopia that the majority of Occupy supporters don't back. The tea party on the other hand all had one form of bigotry or another, their rhetoric since the get go was homogenous and violent in nature, they didn't have general anxiety of the climate of the economy in a rational sense, they blamed the economy on a president who was sitting in office literally for a month and a half to two months, oh and did I forget the bigoted irrational birther movement intrenched in the tea party?

    • Mike Lopez
      Mike Lopez 1 year ago

      If you watched something other than Fox you'd see how the Tea Partiers disrupt townhalls and during the government shutdown were making threats towards Obama.

    • Mike Lopez
      Mike Lopez 1 year ago, and its funny that you're against the mainstream media when the Tea Party gets painted as lunatics which they are, yet when they demonized Occupy it was okay and the media wasn't biased liberally anymore.+Ceman

    • Matthew
      Matthew 1 year ago


      *"and i don't punctuate or go crazy with spellcheck typing on a phone"*

      Not on point, but do you really need to use spellcheck to spell correctly? This isn't a criticism of you in particular, but I do find it disheartening if true.

  • Scorpionsnerd
    Scorpionsnerd 3 years ago +1

    with what was this created again? I forgot...

  • Jared Blackburn
    Jared Blackburn 3 years ago

    They'd have to find entirely new candidates from within -- career Democrats are just as much owned by the same people as career Republicans are (note, the tea party just got more extreme career Republicans from the fringes elected).

  • umcarainteressante
    umcarainteressante 3 years ago +31

    Lol, pathetic. "Participate by voting". You must be kidding. Representative democracy is shit.

    • Ethan Davidson
      Ethan Davidson 2 years ago

      +Jak Jackie Yea but the last part, the dismantling of the state, the final move to true Communism, never happens under Leninism. It becomes like waiting for the Mesia. He is always arriving, he never arrives.

    • DarthAlphaTheGreat
      DarthAlphaTheGreat 3 years ago

      Occupy is not working regardless. It was ok, until they become corrupted by some extremists, some crazies and some people who have no idea what's going on.

    • Tetzukai
      Tetzukai 3 years ago

      +themaxwellnator Where did I say I was an intellectual? Don't psychoanalyze me, please.

      I am yet to see a smart anarchist and not turn into a nuance like what happened to communism. Look at anarcho-capitalism for instance and you'll see what I mean and what do you mean by inherit? Because that doesn't make any sense.

      "it's simply a question of where power ultimately lies in society."

      Well, it doesn't matter to the subject because class is class.

      "For example, say me and my buddy's are planning to go to the beach;"

      We're talking about laws, ownership of property and the power of your choice, not nescessarily whether you choose to affiliate or not and other likely 3rd parties. What if you and or your friends don't own or really have no say for the beach or vice versa and the methods of getting there to put frankly and what if you have to compromise given your choices that are likely going to be limited for whatever reason?

      "Free association means that an Anarchist society would at any point be able to defer to a heirarchical system if it wanted to."

      I know and another aspect of it is your freedom of association is limited and tied to consequences. I'm sure 3rd worlders have a choice to be rich as if they can just do that at the snap of their fingers in general, right?... Nothing isn't really free, you're talking about better and bigger options which is not true for many and can get smaller if possible and regardless of your association, you all going to have to get along or die miserablely and unescessarily. No point in that substantially if for instance you have no choice but to either work and share with someone you dislike or starve to death or live a more meager life in general and giving incestive to stab each other in the back someday. Let alone fighting over who deserve what like oil reserves, water, farmland, and so forth and end up losing for absurd reasons.
      "Have you never heard of mutual aid?"

      This vivid mutualism again. Where is it because it's rare frankly. What makes you think I as any random person could just take it from you, sir? It's all relative in that case since we don't need hierarchies and legislation, let alone individualism where we have tonnes of diversity that conflicts and incompatible to one another and our bias... I could just claim my individualism is more valid than yours as an excuse.... Individualism like collectivism is important but diversity (at least the retarded wants and needs of people) sucks for a valid reason besides idiotic racism.

      "I think you'll find the anarcho-syndicalist societies managed quite fine under, a perhaps imperfect, anarchist/ socialist society."

      Yes and they created merchantilism, "fascists", and competing feudalist systems and guilds or "confederations" we have now. Let alone corrupt unions and other capitalist systems. As I've implied, socialism is a type of classism and that just going to be nuanced just like Marxism and communism making your point on "the Republic" empty. You do know you can have capitalism based on the private ownership of workers instead of entities on sole ownership, right? Just wait until supply and demand kicks in that might be detrimental in general - obviously that kicked the shit out of many unions and certain socialists that failed in general. Especially when we globalized.

      "it's impossible not to be and you are too."

      Relative to what? You think I love this kind of system we live in or think I ass kiss any of those pop-cultural jackasses? Clearly I don't - I'm just saying yours isn't any different in the end. I'm pretty much the "outcast" to whatever this civilization invests in and when it comes down to it, I'm probably more "anarchist" to the cliche cultural shit that goes on than anyone in a manner of speaking.

    • themaxwellnator
      themaxwellnator 3 years ago

      You're rambling. What do you mean anarchist societies could be perceived as another state or empire? If there are no inherit hierarchical structures in a society then it is not a hierarchical state, these two thing are just totally different. The only way you can confuse one with the other is if you're stupid, which I take it you believe most Anarchists are.

      As for the difference between bottom up and top up it's simply a question of where power ultimately lies in society. In ours it inherently lies with those at the top, hence "top down".

      How does organisation intrinsically involve hierarchy. For example, say me and my buddy's are planning to go to the beach; we can all democratically decide among ourselves  whether we go by bus or car and come to a consensus, or one of us can take charge and coerce everyone into doing what he wants. Both are organisation. I'm sure an intellect such as yersel could pick that example apart bit by bit if you wanted to but I think my general point is clear. and the beauty of it? Free association means that an Anarchist society would at any point be able to defer to a heirarchical system if it wanted to. I highly doubt this though because  nothing gives you a taste of freedom like freedom itself.     

      Have you never heard of mutual aid? This is the principle that you don't need hierarchical legislation handed down from some clown  when you live in a society where the betterment of all is the condition for the betterment of the individual. Granted though this might be the greatest weakness of anarchism e.g. how to bring it about.

      I think you'll find the anarcho-syndicalist societies managed quite fine under, a perhaps imperfect, anarchist/ socialist society. Of course this was until the combined force of the Republic, the communists and the fascist's crushed them. Something which remains basically unknown in our liberal democracy, really calls into question who the "lying shitbags are"

      Of course I am biased, it's impossible not to be and you are too. It's just you've adopted a more mainstream socially accepted bias. I can't believe you're lowering me to this level.

    • Tetzukai
      Tetzukai 3 years ago

      +themaxwellnator Just like your anarchy, apparently? Look at all of the pro-anarchists opinions that came out of the "toilet".

      This coming from a pompous asshole out of no where who clearly wants to get involved I didn't asked you to get involved  and it was between me and him so you "chill the fuck out", hypocrite. I obviously struck a nerve in your anarchist bullshit for you to randomly squawk at me like that so be honest about it and not make this ambiguous ad homenims of attacking me personally on a irrelevence. But you can point out what's not "well writen, concise, and considered" text and I could likely point out you're lying and you have a bias towards people like myself in a manner of speaking. If you want to get involved, at least point out my flaws, please besides "saying" I am wrong somehow because for someone who criticze people of grammical errors, you certainly don't know how to initialize an argument.

      "which doesn't ram it's opinion down my throat."

      Good, take your anarchist shit out of the 1st world since you don't like people ramming it down other people's throats just as I don't like some 3rd worlder telling me what a good society looks like.

      ""Anarchy is Order without the state"."

      I already explained this shit.....

      Enforced by..... An order legislated by.... nothing? How pointless. Yes, things like pro-government, pro-infrastructure, and pro-civilization is pro-hierarchy which is completely the opposite of anarchy in principle. You can't have those without hierarchies and order, especially a "state" based on "representative democracy". What's close to that is the fake right-wing anarchy from anarcho-capitsalists and libertarians of the right that I've pointed out. That isn't real anarchy or else complaining about hierarchies is stupid, a waste of time and hypocritical.

      Again, no rules and authority or lack of but the fact is it's overall anti-government and authority and you may as well go all the way with it; because whatever "anarchist society" that the typical anarchist would create other anarchists would just call it another hierarchy or "empire" and be against it also making the entire thing redundant and meaningless. Anarchy has nothing to do with organization because organization has everything to do with authority and hierarchy and you talk about me as if I'm ignorant and stupid so you "read", bubba.... Someone is either "lying" or just another cliche anarcho-capitalist right-wing libertarian bag of shit using a very far left-wing term in order to create the "new bullshit system" that I've implied.

      "just not a society organised from the top down."

      Speaking of anarcho-capitalist right-wing libertarians, anarcho-cpitalism for the poor? Cool, instead of rich assholes, poor assholes would "dictate" to us and we call this pure anarchy... hypocrite. Anarchy has nothing to do with classes which are outright hierachies and switching hierarchies is not anarchy. You're basically preaching ownership of the poor class there instead of anarchy. Socialism has nothing to do with anarchy, if you're thinking about that subject about the essential poor. What's the point whether it's the top down or the down up? Classism either way. That means nothing.

  • bademoxy
    bademoxy 3 years ago +1

    man, these die hard political partisans like asheville just don't get it. BOTH major parties are totally owned by the corporatists.
    there is absolutely nothing that obama has done to correct the fatal flaws in the monetary system which banksters are using to destroy us.
    it's nice to think about a health care for everyone, but all we'll need are about 60 million body bags and massive labor camps for even more, if we go into societal the soviet system.
    jesse ventura is right-not this comedian-vote independent,ANY independent.

  • neuemage
    neuemage 3 years ago

    blah blah blah there is no Democracy. Sorry if you disagree but this is fact.

  • federico amadeo
    federico amadeo 3 years ago

    obviously that's better than remaining feudal, but it's still comparatively marginal. the name of the game remains concentration of power, even if it's somewhat watered down in gov't porgrams. it's still very far off the mark from genuine autonomous and egalitarian values examplified in, for instance, the zapatistas or the recovered factories in argentina and chile.

  • TheYopogo
    TheYopogo 3 years ago

    I disagree, representative democracies have achieved large scale change from within their own system many times all over the world. Think about it. The UK hasn't had a change in political system accepting changes in suffrage laws, since the glorious revolution of the early 1700s any yet its gone from a still primarily feudal society to a modern, developed state with one of the highest development indexes in the world, gay marriage, socialised medicine, extensive welfare and so on.

  • Ramon Martensen
    Ramon Martensen 3 years ago

    Even if this is true, you can find democratic ways to block legislation that is initiated by big coprorations. Occupy has the numbers to gain political influence and no matter how much the current parties are paid, they still have to obey the democratic process, and occupy can be an influence in that. See how much the Tea baggers frustrated any law passing. Occupy can do the same! I am in full support of their values and I think it would be a waste to see it wasted!

  • spawnofnaamah
    spawnofnaamah 3 years ago

    All occupy ever did is mess up the lawn. And after the weekend the employed people were gone, off making money to support themselves and their family.

  • DrLove279
    DrLove279 4 years ago

    You people should stop looking at republican moral values as entangled with the free market concept. Republican values when it comes to religion, foreign policy, drugs and sometimes race are absurd and i will concede that these aspects cause rejection on the part of the people. However I hope you don't forget that inequality and large financial crises are a product of government. However it is a necessary entity which enforces the Rule of Law, designed to preserve certain fundamental principles.

  • Bram D.
    Bram D. 4 years ago

    personally i hope the democrats will always be chosen and that once, for the sake of america & the world, they won't need the republicans to vote laws & bills & whatnot, because they are the reason why things go so slow & obama can't do everything he wants to do (which are all good things for humanity & the american people). I wouldn't want my country being led by people who still think it's the 1800s

  • matthew seils
    matthew seils 4 years ago

    I agree with what Bill says, but what is there to vote for. Should everyone write in "Occupy" or something to that effect?

  • Connor O'Brien
    Connor O'Brien 4 years ago

    yeah, hes kinda cold and a little mean, but a lot of what he says is right. and he is funny. most people who say otherwise either disagree and are offended, which I understand, or just dont get the jokes because they dont follow current events beyond snookie and the real housewives of this-is-not-what-most-housewives-are-like. ( not one sandwich)

  • David Oh
    David Oh 4 years ago


  • chisince80
    chisince80 4 years ago

    Somehow I feel I was dead on.

  • David Oh
    David Oh 4 years ago

    Wow, you idiots are so predictable. You don't like Bill you are a loser and you like lame people and shows. You also don't get sex either. Man, can you be original at least. I don't mind insults but to post a no brain, text book comment is just lame. If you show some more talent and post something funny or even insulting, I may take you on but right now, you bore me.

  • chisince80
    chisince80 4 years ago

    That's because you're lame, your favorite tv show is probably "Friends", and you probably were never invited into any social circle that had a pop and hip hop cultural influence.

    You probably don't get pussy either.

  • David Oh
    David Oh 4 years ago

    This guy is just not funny.

  • gdb5444
    gdb5444 4 years ago

    If you believe there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats your're just deluding yourself. They are both bought and paid for by the big corporations. The general public will end up getting fucked over regardless of who is in office.

  • Tron's Travels
    Tron's Travels 4 years ago

    When it comes to debt, our murderous foreign empire, the enlarging police state here and fucking everyone with agricultural/environmental policy, what difference is there between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?

  • Asheville Deadheads
    Asheville Deadheads 5 years ago

    Obama is your last hope of saving the world as we know it. the Republican agenda can actually end our way of life forever. Our planet could likely kill off life within 100 years. I hope we can end our Political system and replace it with true freedom. That time, sadly to say, not today. If we as practical people can not find a way to stop the Republicans within 4 months and get past why we need to go vote for real Democrats, then we as a planet are toast. Sorry if you disagree but this is fact.

  • cromlek
    cromlek 5 years ago

    this guy is a dick

  • xkristianx
    xkristianx 5 years ago

    The Occupy Movement isn't for the Democrats. It isn't about moving things to the Left or to the Right. Maher is off track here.

  • zzphotonzz
    zzphotonzz 5 years ago

    The current situation is one of government by economic power (plutocracy). The Constitution outlined a government relatively independent of economic power, based in individual rights to the greatest degree possible. People can gain economic prosperity in a Constitution-based system... but, once attained, should not have special influence on the governmental process or the ability of others to attain prosperity of their own

  • federico amadeo
    federico amadeo 5 years ago

    i think i agree with you, but that last sentence of yours threw me off track.

Analyse website