The poor are definitely oppressed, but they are more likely to latch onto any reasoning that will seemingly explain their situation. Zeitgeist, I think, is more fuel for lonely geek-types looking for some far-fetched "knowledge" to make them feel more informed and in control.

That's not oppression, it's called hard work. News flash for you, even the richest of the rich put in some long hours before they got to where they are. Bill Gates didnt invent Microsoft overnight. Oppression would be the denial of rights. They get to vote, they get to protest, use the public bathrooms, sit anywhere on the bus they want, etc. Not having lots of money is not ever, nor should it ever be equated to, the same thing as oppression. Does financial disparity suck? Sure, who wouldnt want to be rich? Am I rich? Furthest from it. I barely qualify as lower middle class.

oppressed. that's laughable.

Once again, not oppressed. Oppression is not a catch-all qualifier for someone who has a hard time paying the bills. Unfortunate, yes, oppressed? hardly.

And i'll give you the rest, a great description of those who buy into that garbage. It's as ludicrous as Loose Change, pts 1 and 2.

i would reply but pelzwick did it for me.

so everything he said.


i have tons of rich friends who believe in these conspiracies. its a crock of shit, and i would say the same if i were poor.

I never watched it, but I probably should have considering it's presumably about the New World Order.

I don't think "oppression" was the word they were looking for. I won't speak for them though.
But I think a round argument could be presented in regards to the economically "oppressed"

Some good ole proletariat vs. bourgeoisie

the lower class will never own the machines and equipment to produce and they will forever be 'sentenced' to being the producers (laborers) while the rich own and control everything....making the working classes pipe dreams of 'making it' seem like it's within reach, but forever out of.

And I'm not talking about the rich who own corporations that produce products for the public. I'm talking about the ones who control essentials such as energy, or water etc..
Someday you could find yourself in a position (if you wanted) to perhaps harness your own energy. Hell, throw a windmill in your backyard. Contact your local utility supplier and tell them you'll no longer need their service. See how far you actually get with that and then you'll think twice about trivial matters such "hey, at least I'm allowed to vote or sit where I want on a bus"
Should I hump my governments leg because only 40 years ago, black people were not allowed to sit where they wanted on a bus, but now they are? Things like this should be a non issue and should have always been. But instead, we bicker about this non sense while the ones who control all our essentials tighten their grip.
Please refute this.

Bill Gates is an anomaly not only of America, but of mankind.

To use him as an example like that is to naively believe that all people have equal opportunities.
It's been shown that it's easier to 'move up' in other countries, despite the whole American dream propaganda and obsession with democracy.
Even in Britain which is infamous for its social castes..

Not having money SHOULDN'T equate to oppression, but in this society it definitely does. It can cut off your access to power. Transportation, access to information, schools, work, healthcare. the list goes on.

Go ahead and laugh about it while the upper rich sit on their capital gains and about half of the country suffers from easily treatable problems.

exactly.
I was gonna mention something about a glass ceiling but you did it well

Anybody who chooses to bind to one side of an issue with several presentations unwaveringly is an idiot anyway. Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie is a convenient generalization to make, but it doesn't apply to the individual, and is much differently represented in modern society. People nowadays are far more able to shape what roles they take on, regardless of income. I'm not saying it's not an obstacle, but it's not the biggest one. Self-motivation is.

true, but the whole point is that motivation can only go so far.
you need resources to get there.

while the buttered up Hollywood versions of success stories tend to have, for instance, someone who's dirt poor have perfect people skills and that gets them what they want despite where they came from, but the whole being poor and being subjected to a community where you don't gain those life skills to even know which resources to look for... it's a cycle, it's oppressive, and I'd like to see someone who actually has experience with people who live in extreme poverty and lack of power up to extreme wealth and power refute that.
it's just middle class ideals back and forth is what I see.

To say that ANYONE would be capable of that type of acceleration would be silly, I agree. There are different standards of success for each person. Somebody born into extreme poverty and with little potential might be considered successful by maintaining a low paying job full-time for as long as they can work. Not everybody has immediate access, like you said, to the means to acquire certain essential skills; whether they be people skills or other fundamental physical/mental skills. I do think, however, that EVERYBODY knows what is out there; that there is more. You can't remain blind to that sort of thing.

I actually think we're on the same page here. Not everybody's life is a Will Smith movie.

- Added 7 minutes later:

Ohhh. And as far as Zeitgeist goes... lol.

You are confusing equal opportunites with equal results. Which many people do. Many people had the same opportunity Bill Gates did, they just didn't have the equal talent. People given equal opportunity will not necessarily get equal results. Because they arent equal in talent. To get the same results from different people, you have to treat them differently. And that is discrimination. All people should be treated equally. The government doesn't owe the poor or the stupid anymore than it does the rich and smart. The government should be indifferent.

The American dream is still the best one going. Great talent can and will continue to rise. The US is still the best meritocracy.

"The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." - Ben Franklin

true. but you can't say everyone knows. even if they did, do you think they'd really believe they have that power? the people 'down there' are pretty aware of where they stand and that it'd basically require some sort of 'escape' maneuver to change it.. seeing themselves in positions of power means street rep, $, an apt in a certain neighborhood, etc.
Any of us here are lucky to realize that education=success.
it's just a completely different mindset to others, and it's what they're surrounded by. it's not like they're being completely ignorant of the facts, it's that they're challenged by the environment-- and not in a good way

coupling stupid and poor, rich and smart is a fallacy

and YES the gov't owes them, its job is the public's welfare.. if a family is on firm footing then let them do their thing and take some taxes from the well-off to help others get on their feet.
but from the corporates mostly, that top 5 or 10 percent that seems to control everything
it's not evil or backhanded, I am so sick of people bitching about it. it's what the country needs after Bush created this ridiculous disparity of wealth.
yes we need jobs but why do company CEOs make like 30 million yearly and their employees are starving to death. if you want to call it spreading the wealth, then whatever. but it's good sense, and for the good of the people.

I coupled smart and rich together because they tend to need the government less, just as the poor and dumb need the government more. Being rich doesn't make you smart or vice vera. I was just pointing out the variation of needs of each group.

lol at Bush creating this disparity of wealth.

Ask and you shall receive.

The "economically oppressed" as you call them is a term youve more or less coined for the sake of your own argument. You say make it sound as if this were a black or white issue, i.e. being less fortunate means you are forever predisposed to the role of proletariat. Simply not true. So let's read into your statement....

Because someone owns the means to get my energy or my water, I'm forever predisposed to always be grasping for that glimmer of hope of making myself a success? Far be it for me to fail in seeing the correlation here, but I believe there are many people, who built their own fortunes, who do not own nor control any major stake in these enterprises. If I somehow missed the point there, please shine some light.

As for these peoples "grip" on our lives, well, we control that grip far more than anyone cars to notice. Take for example the sudden, quite dramatic, decrease in gas prices. Simple significant loss of demand and the market rules in the peoples favor. Yes, this wasnt exactly by our choice, it has more to do with the economic climate, but what if we the people decided a year ago to cut back this much on our own? What this whole debate boils down to is personal decision and self motivation.

You have to want something bad enough to make it happen. If it is reasonable enough, there is no reason it cant become so. Gates had no special insight into computers, he simply logged 10,000 hours playing with one after getting permission from his school. He wanted it.

Logical fallacy. You guys you both sentencing people to a future that does not have to be. It's the single most negative idea one can push in this sort of debate. Perhaps this is the line separating the haves and have-nots. People generally do not like to predispose themselves to failure, ask around.

Hardly an anomally. He does not possess some sort of rosetta stone or cheat sheet on software development. Simple ingenuity and hard work. He logged a lot of time with computers in his youth, found a market for it, learned some slick corporate techniques and paved his way. He didnt get hand outs.

No body is saying everyone has equal opportunities. Do you think he just got handed a company and off he went? The lesson here is if you have a talent and you have the want to explore and exploit that talent, go for the gold. Fail? Well you tried, get up and try again if you like, if not, that's cool too. Dont compare us to other countries, we arent other countries. Competition is far greater in the U.S. Our market is significantly more open than others. The chance for success is far greater in the U.S. than any other country as well.

The UK huh? Well if we are playing that game, maybe we should cry over not having a royal family as well. Like I said, we are not other countries. I cannot stress this enough, that is NOT oppression. Not one of those things are a fundemental right, it's something most take for granted. power, government assistance can step in. transportation: bikes, buses and good old fashioned feet, information: last time I checked the library wasnt charging me anything, work? that may be why your having money problems to begin with - most city's have programs to assist with this anyways, healthcare: community hospitals must treat regardless of whether you have insurance or not. Does that help?

Hell, I have a reasonably well paying job for a single guy and even with the insurance I cant afford some dental work I need, but I'm not blaming the man for it. I take it squarely at myself for not being able to save my money appropriately for big ticket expenditures like this. But maybe that's just me being responsible.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer

oh, lord...

I have real schoolwork to do, I'll argue this later