Can you imagine if we did this in the US?

I am sorry sir, 12 times pay of your lowest paid worker is not enough for you? Justify that.

Corporate 'fat cats' in Switzerland are pouring in money to sway the result of an upcoming referendum that could turn the tide on income inequality in the country.

Up for a nation-wide vote next Monday, the "1:12 Initiative for Fair Play" would legally limit the monthly income of high earning CEOs to no more than what a company's lowest-paid employee earns in 12 months. In other words, no top executive could make more in a month than what the company’s lowest-paid workers make in a year.

The initiative, introduced by the youth wing of Switzerland's Socialist Party (JUSO) and backed by the Social Democrat and Green parties and unions across the country, gained support and momentum very quickly, with a successful petition drive of over 130,000 signatures to get it on the ballot.

Rising income inequality in the county has fueled the support. As JUSO's campaign has pointed out, the average salary among Swiss CEOs compared to the average wage has risen from six to one in 1984 to 43 to one in 2011.

But as voting time has drawn closer, the super rich have turned up the heat against the campaign to protect their profits, Sam Pizzigati at Inequality.org reports, with donations to the 'no' vote camp now likely well into the millions and up to 50 times the amount donated to the 'yes' campaign.

The spending seems to be taking its toll. A recent poll taken by the Swiss market research institute gfs.bern showed 36 percent of those questioned were in favor of the 1:12 initiative, down from 44 percent in October when the polls were split.

As Pizzigati writes, the messages coming from Swiss corporations such as Nestle and Novartis, as well as many corporate friendly lawmakers, have painted the picture that the initiative is “a frontal attack on freedom” — and “prosperity,” as declared by SwissHoldings, a federation of Swiss-based multinationals.

In another sampling of the rhetoric coming from the no campaign, Swiss lawmaker Ruedi Noser said the 1:12 proposition would turn Switzerland into the “North Korea of Europe."

The fear-inducing tactics seem to be working, if the polls are any indication.

Meanwhile, "No major Swiss newspaper is supporting the 1:12 initiative,” said JUSO activist Mattea Meyer.

However, the game is far too early to call, Pizzigati notes. In a very similar showdown earlier this year, "Swiss corporate execs unleashed a similar political blitz," he reports, "when corporate gadfly Thomas Minder, a successful entrepreneur, led a campaign to give shareholders more say over top executive pay — and ban executive new-hire and 'golden parachute' bonuses." That initiative passed with an overwhelming 67.9 percent voting against the "fat cats" in favor of the regulations.

"I'm optimistic," said JUSO's David Roth in an interview last week. "We have our chance. We're up against the big companies who spend millions. I can tell you that our opponents are nervous."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/18-5

Did you not find her way of articulating to be moronic? You did a much better job describing what she was trying to explain. You could probably run for Governor of Alaska and win!

Sarah Palin has revealed that she is skeptical of the 'liberal' agenda that is being promoted by the new Pope, saying that she feels it is being influenced by the mainstream media.

'I'm kinda trying to follow what his agenda is. You know he came out with a couple of things in the media but again I'm not one to trust the media's interpretation of somebody's message but having read through media outlets,' the former Governor of Alaska said.

'He's had some statements that to me sound kind of liberal, has taken me aback, has kind of surprised me. There again, unless I really dig deep into what his messaging is, and do my own homework, I’m not going to just trust what I hear in the media,' she said during an interview with CNN

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2504991/Sarah-Palin-says-taken-aback-Pope-Francis-liberal-agenda.html#ixzz2kkYzxFKO

Yes it appears Palin thinks the Pope is just a little christian.

Go look for yourself. Facts are facts.

Follow the arduous journey through cyberspace to this link http://www.worldbank.org/ not propaganda just the facts.


Next

Meanwhile, the poverty rate dropped by 20% in Venezuela last year – almost certainly the largest decline in poverty in the Americas for 2012, and one of the largest – if not the largest – in the world. The numbers are available on the website of the World Bank, but almost no journalists have made the arduous journey through cyberspace to find and report them. Ask them why they missed it.
© 2013 Guardian News and Media
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/07-8

It is somewhat like watching a lumberjack chop a tree down and predicting how and when it is going to fall.







Really?

Using your analogy that the towers are being seen as trees.

Have you ever seen a tall tree topped? That lumberjack is sure of one thing...that tree can go any direction and there are many dead lumberjacks to prove this.

The towers were basically "topped" by the jets.

At no time has a topped tree "pancaked"the healthy structure beneath it.





Your so right and if those buildings had been made of wood and not high grade construction steel they would not have fallen like that.

No way ever beam and every strut failed at exactly the same time all across the building, not just one time or two but three times? It is absurd.

But you know what they say about we americans these days.

A nation of sheep.
Ruled by wolves.
Owned by pigs.

Well said sir, When they cannot respond in a logical adult manner they photo dump. You win

I would welcome this evidence please present it.

"You sound like a conspiracy theorist."
RESPONSE: "Conspiracy Theorist? Now tell me the truth, where did you hear that term...on TV? (Laugh.) ...So let me get this straight. Are you saying that men in high positions of power are not capable of criminal activity and telling lies to the general public? Are you really that naive?" (Laugh as you say this.)
.
"I'm not saying that governments don't lie, but a conspiracy like that would have to involve 100's of people. You can't hide something like that."
RESPONSE: "You're absolutely right. I agree with you 100%. It is impossible to totally cover up a conspiracy so massive. That's why I know about it! What you must understand is that they don't have to cover it up totally. Even a bucket that has a few leaks can still do the job of carrying water from here to there! They only need to fool 80% of the public, which isn't hard to do when you control the major networks and newspapers. The 10-20% that do figure it out (and the fewer still who will dare to speak their minds about it) can be very easily marginalized with the propaganda label "conspiracy theorist." The 80% + never take us critical thinkers seriously because they want to be part of the majority. This is known as groupthink. (*Note: When saying "conspiracy theorist", always hold your two hands up as you make sarcastic quote marks with your fingers.)
.
(The Ridicule Trick) "That's ridiculous (as he rolls his eyes). Do you really believe that nonsense?"
RESPONSE: "Can I ask you an honest question?" (Wait for "yes") Do you consider yourself an open minded, critical thinking person - yes or no? (Wait for "yes") Then how can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven't even done 10 minutes of research into the matter? That's kind of ignorant don't you think?" (Wait for response.)
. "Not
"Not everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy!"
RESPONSE: "Not everything is a conspiracy, but nor is NOTHING a conspiracy either. Wouldn't you agree that we should evaluate each case independently and with an open mind?" (Wait for response.)
.R
"Governments are so incompetant that they can't even deliver the mail on time or balance a budget. They couldn't conspire their way out of a paper bag!".
RESPONSE: "Don't confuse your incompetant, dim witted Congressman or Senator with the shadow government. The dark covert elements who stage these events are very skilled at carrying out, and concealing, their plots. Take for example the Manhattan Project. Hundreds of the world's top scientists were holed up in a desert for months as they worked on the Atomic Bomb. More than 100,000 people, each sworn to silence, worked on the project in 3 secret cities. A test bomb was even detonated in the the desert and not one word was said about it! This conspiracy was so secretive, that when FDR died and Vice President Truman became President, FDR's advisors had to inform him of the Project's existence! So you see, the shadowy intelligence element of the government is VERY capable!"
.
(The Unresolved Detail Trick) "If this is a conspiracy then explain to me how they managed to do x, y, and z?"
RESPONSE: "I don't have every missing piece of this puzzle. But I have enough pieces to KNOW that the government-media version is false! Imagine if I gave you a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle, and told you that the image is of a beach in Hawaii. But after snapping 30 pieces together, you notice polar bears, snow capped mountains, and men covered in furs. Although there are still 70 missing pieces, you already have enough to KNOW that the image is NOT that of a beach in Hawaii. It's the same with solving conspiracies. I may not have all of the details, but I have laid out enough pieces to know that the official story is a lie. Does that make sense to you? (Wait for response.)
..
"So what? just because "x" happened, or "y" said this, it doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. You're taking a few coincidences and making a conspiracy out of it. "
RESPONSE: "If it were just one or two coincidences, I would agree with you. But when you have a series of 10,15, 20 different anomolies, the law of statistics PROVES that they can't all be just "coincidence". For example, if we're playing dice, and I roll a "7" to win. That doesn't mean that my dice are rigged. It's just a 1 in 6 coincidence. But if I roll a "7", eight times in a row, then that's a 1 in 150,000 "coincidence". You would have to be a fool not to question the integrity of those dice! You do understand probabilities don't you? (Wait for response.)
..
(The Isolated Piece of Evidence Trick) "Other than citing some historical events, you still haven't shown me one piece of evidence that this was a conspiracy. Tell me just one thing that most proves a conspiracy."
RESPONSE: "That's a trick question! If I tell you "just one thing", you'll just climb on your high horse and dismiss it as a "coincidence". What I want to show you is TWENTY THINGS! But you're too closed minded to consider the case in its totality! You won't even watch a You Tube video let alone read the case! I sure hope you never get selected to serve on a jury! You want everything boiled down to a simplistic media sound byte. Unless you will commit to a few hours of study, I'm wasting my time with you. Why are you so afraid to study this? (Wait for a response.)
.
"If this were true, the media would be all over it! It would be on the front page of every newspaper in America."
RESPONSE: "The media, the government, the International bankers, Hollywood, and academia are all part of the same incestuous complex. The media is part of the conspiracy, so why would you expect them to tell you the truth?" (Wait for response.)
.
"You wouldn't be able to corrupt so many people. Every reporter and politician would have to be "in on it" in order to cover it up."
RESPONSE: "The corruption doesn't come from the outside-in. It comes from the top-down. If the ownership of a major media organization decides that a certain story is to be spiked, or if another story is to be hyped, then the rest of the organization follows. If a low level reporter decides to defy his bosses, he will lose his job and be blacklisted. Remember Helen Thomas? After 50 years as a White House Correspondent, she was dumped like a hot potato for publicly criticizing Israel. The same fearful top-down control works in government and academia as well.
.
"This is crazy. I don't believe in conspiracy theories."
RESPONSE: "You don't believe it? Or You don't WANT to believe it? There's a big difference between the two. The human mind is filled with complexes, one of which is the desire to shield itself from unpleasant truths. You're afraid that if you look into this, you might see that it's true. And you're especially afraid that if you come to agree with me, you too will then become marginalized as a "conspiracy theorist." It is FEAR that is causing you to close your mind and act like a sheep. Grow a pair and stop being so closed minded!"
.
"Conspiracy theories appeal to uneducated people because they provide simplistic answers to complex events."
RESPONSE: "Exactly the OPPOSITE is true! The evaluation of conspiracy theories not only requires much time and study, but also applied logic and critical thinking. Did you know that Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and Bobby Fischer all believed in the "one-world conspiracy theory"? Were those men stupid? No, it is intellectually lazy people like you who choose to swallow and parrot whatever simplistic narrative that the TV feeds you. Do you ever question anything that the TV feeds you?" (Wait for response.)
.
"Conspiracy theories appeal to people because they are comforting."
RESPONSE: "Exactly the OPPOSITE is true. It is far more comforting to believe that certain tragic events happen exactly as the TV says, than to believe in monstrous internal plots beyond our control. Do you actually think that I enjoy believing that such evil exists? You think I like being ridiculed by simple minded family members and friends? Take it from me, the life of a "conspiracy theorist" can actually be quite stressful at times!"
.
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
RESPONSE: "I don't believe everything that's on the Internet. But apparently you believe everything that's on the Idiot Box! I only believe those things which are verifiable, and consistent with my own sense of reasoning and logic. The beauty of the Internet is that, unlike the TV that you worship so much, all sides of an issue are presented on the Internet. It allows a critical thinker to figure out what the true story is. The TV doesn't give you that option. Do you really believe that the media presents the whole story? Are you that naive? (laugh) Remember the fairy tale of the 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq? The media shoved that lie down our throats. So why do you trust the media so blindly and not the Internet?"
(Wait for response.)
.
"Some conspiracy theorists still believe Elvis is still alive."
RESPONSE: "So, according to your twisted logic, because some theories are false, therefore ALL theories are false? I'm astonished that you could make such a stupid and offensive anology! Is that the best you got?" (Wait for response.)
.
"You don't have any respect or compassion for the family members of the dead."
RESPONSE: "I am honoring the dead by pursuing the truth as to who killed them! If someone in your family was killed, wouldn't you want to know who the true culprit was?" (Wait for response.)

http://www.tomatobubble.com/id196.html

The evidence is of course classified.

I fear its far to late.........It would take a massive passive resistance movement along the lines of Gandhi in India.

n order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.

You only have to know two things.

One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.
http://paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/

The evidence that we were lied to about 9/11 is straightforward and blatant. It has been researched, verified, and laid on the table for all to see. It is really not hard to convince most honest, open minded people who are not in denial, if you focus on the evidence. But where can they go from there? They can sign a petition, sure, but that is not enough.

The other side of the coin is another big question: what do we have to do to "win" on 9/11? Is it a matter of convincing a large number of people, or certain key people, or winning court battles, or politically maneuvering to bring pressure on the government to open a new investigation? All of these are worthy goals, but how likely is it, really, that a new investigation would not be just another whitewash, or that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will ever go to prison or flee to Paraguay? The larger question is, would such a victory really bring resolution to 9/11? I don't think so.

9/11 did not just happen. 9/11 was a premeditated shock and awe event that was instrumental in a larger plan. It allowed the administration to immobilize the population through fear and manipulate their outrage displaced toward the designated enemy. 9/11 provided cover for a protracted attack on our democratic values and an orgy of outrageous national behavior that defined the entire Bush administration, much of which continues today. 9/11 brought us the fiction of "preemptive" wars as a fig leaf for naked military aggression, the fiction of "illegal enemy combatants," to pretend the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and the fiction of "enhanced interrogation" as though that were any different from torture pure and simple. It brought us routine drone assassinations, the expansion of secrecy, the unleashing of the NSA to conduct universal surveillance, the destruction of nearly every one of our civil liberties, attacks on journalism and the murder of journalists, paranoid fear of immigrants in general and Arabs in particular, and the demonization of Islam as a uniquely violent religion. This list is far from complete.

The 9/11 Truth Movement has uncovered overwhelming evidence that the destruction of the World Trade Center was a crime that required long-term inside access to the buildings, access to military-grade demolition materials, and the ability to coordinate the demolitions with the hijacker scenario, the elaborately staged fumbling of what should have been routine interceptions, and a massive cover-up that began on the day of 9/11. Uncovering the evidence for all this has been a remarkable achievement of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but to address 9/11 fully, we must look beyond the mere fact of government involvement and look at the crimes against democracy that were begun on that day.

This brings us back to the original question. Once people become conscious of the fact that 9/11 was a lie, how can they channel their response? Their essential response must be to demand our democracy back. This can take a thousand forms. We must call for an end to the war on terror, which is in reality an endless reign of terror. We must call for the end of drone assassinations. We must work to end the death-grip of the military industrial complex on our society. We must work to end the dominance of the fossil fuel industry over our government. We must work to end economic polarization of the nation and the influence of money on politics. All of these, and many more areas of potential activism, are responses to the larger crimes against democracy that were launched on 9/11. All of these can be energized by people who have become conscious of the truth of 9/11. Consciousness of the truth, is empowering. It changes who we are and how we understand and interact with the world. As we raise consciousness of the truth we incrementally change the social and political landscape. That is why we must continue to speak out.

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-10-30/911-so-what

George Washington would be rolling over in his grave if he knew what President Obama was up to.

Right now, the president is preparing push through what has the potential to be the largest trade deal in human history: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or as it's more commonly known as, the "TPP."

If approved, the TPP would create a whole new set of rules regulating the economies of twelve countries in four different continents bordering the Pacific Ocean. These rules cover everything from pharmaceuticals to digital copyright law and could permanently change the way every day Americans and people all over the world interact with the global economy.

So, you'd think Obama administration would want to keep the public as up-to-date as possible on such a big trade deal, right?

Wrong.

The United States has negotiated the TPP almost entirely in secret and most of what we know about it actually comes from leaked documents.

And those documents paint a pretty scary picture. According to Public Citizen's Trade Watch, TPP would allow private foreign corporations to sue countries that try to pass regulations they don't like, reward companies that send jobs overseas, and gut regulations that keep big banks in check.

That's why the TPP is way more dangerous than normal trade deals like NAFTA. As Dean Baker wrote in a recent piece for the Huffington Post, "[Free trade] is not what the TPP is about. The TPP is about crafting rules that will favor big business at the expense of the rest of the population in both the United States and in other countries."

So why is the TPP so friendly to big corporations?

Easy – they wrote it.

While the Bush and Obama administrations have kept the public in the dark about what's in the TPP, they have let big corporations to look at draft versions of the treaty and even let those corporations make changes to them.

It shouldn't be any surprise, then, that President Obama doesn't even want Congress to look at the TPP.

To push the U.S. the onto the proposed treaty as soon as possible, he's proposing a special legislative trick called "fast-tracking" that would prevent lawmakers from making any amendments to the TPP. Instead, the treaty would be sent right to the floor where it would only have to pass a simple majority vote.

Given what we know about the TPP and what we know about how the President wants to push it through Congress without debate or amendment, the stakes couldn't be higher.

For over 200 years, since the founding of the Republic, our economy was built on a system of tariffs, which are small taxes on importing goods. These tariffs made American goods cheaper in the United States, thus protecting American manufacturing, and made our country a global superpower.

American businesses and American workers didn't have to compete with cheap products or cheap labor from abroad, and so the economy flourished.

Everything worked fine until the 1980s when President Ronald Reagan abandoned the system of tariffs that had worked so well for centuries and ushered in the era of so-called "free-trade."

Every President since, including Democrats like Bill Clinton and Republicans like George W. Bush, has followed Reagan's lead, signing us on to free-trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA. These deals were supposed to grow the economy, but instead they decimated its industrial base, its most productive source of wealth.

As a result, the United States is now what Economy in Crisis has called a "service (or servant) economy." In most parts of the country factory jobs have been replaced by non-union service-sector jobs.

There's nothing wrong with working at some place like McDonald's or Walmart, but the fact of the matter is that Walmart jobs don't pay nearly as well as a good union factory job does. As Adam Smith pointed out in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, the only way to create real wealth is to make things. Economies are built from the ground up and when an economy doesn't have a strong base of well-paying manufacturing jobs, it doesn't produce enough wealth to stay healthy.

Thirty years of tariff-busting and so-called free-trade have already changed our country's economy for the worse. If President Obama gets his way and pushes the TPP through Congress, it could put the middle-class on death watch.

There's still a lot we don't know about the TPP, but what we do know– the giveaways to Big Pharma and the bankster class, the privileges for job-killing outsourcers, and the courts that let corporations fight regulations – would put the final nail in the coffin of the economic system our Founders created.

The TPP would complete the transformation of our economy from one that produces wealth to one that bleeds wealth. The only people who would benefit from it would be the same class of people who have benefited from every trade teal and anti-tariff bill since the Reagan administration: the banksters, corporate lawyers, and CEOs who have spent the past three decades fleecing the American people.

In a perfect world, President Obama would reject the TPP outright. But we're not in a perfect world, so at the very least he should let the American people – and our Congress – see what's in the treaty.
_______http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/52428/america-was-once-a-superpower-now-its-not

IS Maddow on TV in Switzerland? just wondering.

The demographic of who watches the servile, subservient corporate media is pretty much dullards and shut ins. Fox news to no thinking persons surprise is #1.

Its hard to get the conversation above the level of a 5th grader isnt it? I have to wonder sometimes why people just crap on these threads without any thought at all.

I do not know many people at all who buy into the 911 fable. It is pure propaganda.