posted February 08, 2012 05:53 PM            

------------------
“Perfect love casts out fear. Where there is love there are no demands, no expectations, no dependency. I do not demand that you make me happy; my happiness does not lie in you. If you were to leave me, I will not feel sorry for myself; I enjoy your company immensely, but I do not cling.” -Anthony de Mello

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

posted February 08, 2012 06:40 PM            

Here's a link to the actually OWS website, if you want to know about what they believe or are calling for look there.

posted February 08, 2012 07:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by amelia28:
I completely agree that originally occupy movement did not endorse NWO but a while ago it become infiltrated and since then has just been spiraling out of control.

---

But who exactly is making those claims? Who are your sources? Where are you getting your information? The news media? blogs? Stating that they've become "infiltrated" is making an unsubstantiated claim. If you could please share your sources? The movement isn't spiraling out of control and it has not been infiltrated. Like I mentioned many outside groups and people have attempted to align themselves with the movement, however they are not in any way shape or form connected to or a reflection of OWS. At the moment the movement is on a temporary hiatus until the Spring, however regardless of news media misrepresentation the philosophies of the movement haven't changed. Those that attempt to discredit or misrepresent the movement by tagging it with political biases or lies are not connected to the movement. That's once again just propaganda and deceptive misinformation meant to skew the message of those participating in the movement.

posted February 08, 2012 08:16 PM            

Is common for movements to get infiltrated by cops and other sources and plain ignorant people unfortunately.

posted February 08, 2012 09:08 PM            

"Media reports say Los Angeles police used nearly a dozen undercover detectives to infiltrate the Occupy LA encampment in the weeks before Wednesday's raid to gather information on protesters' intentions...LAPD Officer Cleon Joseph declined an Associated Press request for comment on the reports. The story was first reported by City News Service" http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-03/police-occupy-LA/51606342/1

posted February 08, 2012 11:28 PM            

They're the very same screeching, howling, shrieking mob of Marxist Socialist Progressive Anarchists they showed themselves to be from the beginning.

Further, they're running a stealth reelect O'Bomber campaign, even to using the same shopwarn O'Bomber Marxist class warfare rhetoric about the 1% vs the 99%.

posted February 09, 2012 01:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NativelyJoan:
No problem and thanks for sharing those links. The only credible source you gave is USAToday, and that article explains that other "media" sources claim that the police had gone undercover within the LA Occupy encampment. They are citing other media sources which means that their claims are ungrounded, they have no credible sources. Once again this is the case of the news media spreading unsubstantiated stories in other words lies.

"[b]Media reports say Los Angeles police used nearly a dozen undercover detectives to infiltrate the Occupy LA encampment in the weeks before Wednesday's raid to gather information on protesters' intentions...LAPD Officer Cleon Joseph declined an Associated Press request for comment on the reports. The story was first reported by City News Service" http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-03/police-occupy-LA/51606342/1

These sources don't prove that the movement has been infiltrated, they only postulate that the cops might have gone undercover at this particular encampment site. Remember this movement is about the philosophies and the message not the encampment's in the parks. I can't say this enough, don't trust the news! Talk show hosts, news media organizations, they all have agenda's and will go to extreme lengths to distort the news in order to make a profit. [/B]

---

On one hand you say you don't trust the news and on another you say USA today is the only credible source I showed you. I respect your opinion and input but I don't trust mainstream media and I am grateful for RT, naturalnews, adam versus the man, and alex jones...The agenda of these people I just mention is to get our freedoms back. They are fighting so our constitution is actually practiced by our government like it should as our constitution is designed to protect our freedoms and divine rights as human beings.

Mainstream media is owned by 6 big corporations so I trust medias run by middle class people more. I dont think all news source have bad agendas but if our tv channels/media is owned by 6 big corporations this is a huge red flag. http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

I consider Alex Jones a reliable source bc the guy has predicted a lot of things politically and economically world wide and he has a lot of credible guests in his show but the bottom line is the info he presents. He begs everyone daily to do their own research. He has people who call into show in disagreement go straight to the head of the line to debate on any & every "out there" issue he reports on. He's got really credible sources that speak in total agreement w/ most if not all of his views. And again, it's rarely ever "his views" or opinions on issues -he prides it on being provable fact easily available. That's why I trust him. He happens to be Christian, which I'm not and honestly not 100% supportive of, but whatever.. I just love his news shows 'cus their hard hitting, raw, real & passionate as hell. He's got a true heart. He proves it everyday live on air. I know a bullsh*t artist when I see one just like I know a fraud. Judge him by his suicidally brave actions of putting the wildest, shocking and most of important news that affects us all. He risks his life by giving us unbiased news everyday.

Some of his guests: Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente......for a full list click here please: http://wp.alexjonespodcasts.com/guests

He predicted 911 and that it would be blamed on Bin Laden and he warned America about it and asked everyone to call the white house.

Some of the things he has predicted can be found in a video link I attached in this thread: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/004432.html

As for Adam Kokesh...he also has is own TV program called Adam versus the Man. He is an extremely bright passionate freedom lover who is also fighting like Alex Jones to raise awareness and he has been a guest in many shows bc his opinion is valued.

What is a credible resource is up for debate.

For example FDA (food and drug administration) has approved a bunch of things that later end up been proven to be extremely harmful for humans and have rejected medicine backed up by findings that have proven to cure cancer (antineoplastins). The FDA is something a lot of people think is very credible. I will post a documentary of antineoplastins when I get a chance.

posted February 09, 2012 10:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by amelia28:
On one hand you say you don't trust the news and on another you say USA today is the only credible source I showed you.

---

I don't trust the news media organizations however I'm able to decipher which organizations provide a bit more credible news information. My level of trust has nothing to do with their credibility.

USA Today is a national news organization that has a bit more credibility than radical news talk show hosts. Any major news organization knows that they have to establish some sort of credibility or their news won't sell. I enjoy John Stewart and Stephen Colbert however when it comes to getting international news I turn to more credible news sources such as BBC because even though I don't fully trust them I need to stay somewhat informed somehow. Trust me if I could I'd physically visit places like Afghanistan, Tibet and Syria to get an accurate portrayal of what's happening in those countries. Instead of relying on the news media.

posted February 10, 2012 02:37 AM            

I dont go by what mainstream media tells me is credible. Knowledge and truth is power and if you think mainstream media will be the first to willingly give you the truth then you are naive along with many other people.

posted February 10, 2012 09:53 AM            

Meaning facts stated within news stories are verified by credible and certified sources who are relevant to the actual event being reported. News media organizations such as USA Today, The NY Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, BBC News etc., aren't credible because they tell the truth, they are credible because their stories are verified and validated by credible sources. That's what makes a news media organization credible.

I've already stated many times I don't trust nor do I believe the lies many news media organizations spew, however I am able to recognize which ones present news stories with a bit more credibility such as BBC News. The truth is relative therefore it's not the intention of news organizations to tell the truth, but to share news worthy information that's credible.

posted February 10, 2012 11:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NativelyJoan:
I'm not personally measuring credibility, I'm speaking of credibility measured within the news media by those that have established themselves as credible. Credibility has nothing to do with truth.

---

posted February 11, 2012 06:44 PM            

The truth is relative because nothing in this world can be validated or finitely known outside of our individual human perceptions. Humans are subjective beings and everything is based on individual perceptions meaning NOTHING is finite or certain, it's all relative. Everything we know or perceive in existence is relative because we have only ourselves to validate the things that we'd consider the truth. Therefore the truth is relative to our subjective understanding of existence. Even my answer is relative because this is strictly my understanding of what defines the truth, which is relative.

posted February 13, 2012 07:33 PM            

There are some truths that are absolute and this is dependent on an absolute reality.
For example: Our body will decompose once our body dies, however this could change I suppose if science gets advance enough but for now this is independent of perception or circumstances, your body decomposes after it dies and it starts to smell.

Another example of objective truth is that diabetes is a sickness that effects your quality of life negatively.

How gravity works on earth is an absolute truth so if you throw yourself of a tall building unless somebody or something catches you before you land, you will die.

but like I said I should have probably used accuracy instead of truth earlier in the thread.

It was fun debating with you .

posted February 14, 2012 01:01 AM            

All scientific evidence is based on experimentation. However these experiments are incapable of measuring infinite patterns. Meaning it is a fact that gravity allows objects to stay on the ground and we can measure this through scientific experimentation, it's the law of gravity. Yet, this is not a truth because we can't verify all possible outcomes of this fact because we don't know them, we only know what we've measured. And the world, the universe can change, results can change. That's why science is always changing, growing and evolving. What we knew of the world 2000 years ago is completely different from what we know of the world today. We've discovered more, our capabilities for understanding more have evolved and expanded. What was considered truth may no longer be considered truth.

We can't measure or qualify the truth, because the truth accounts for what's infinite. Its why anything postulated in science is known as a theory not a truth. Anything we attempt to measure through scientific experimentation is only relative to the knowledge we know of the universe which is finite. Even what we know of earth is limited therefore nothing can be proven as a truth because our limited understanding of this world makes it impossible to verify all possible outcomes or the infinite.