DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Perpetual Change on September 28, 2011, 07:17:59 PM
-
Why has like nothing been in the news about these? I check the NYTimes and NPR homepage at least once per day usually, but I've seen nothing on either site about it, which is incredibly shameful since the New York times is supposed to have some kind of handle on what's going on in New York. Yet on facebook and reddit people have been writing about this stuff for days...
Apparently, a group of protesters have been outside Wall Street for like a week? And they're pretty large in number? And the cops have been picking people at random and arresting them for no reason? And it's being completely blacked out by the media?
Anyone know, or have an opinion, about what's going on with this stuff?
-
Must be that liberal bias, right?
Last I checked the Times and NPR had run fairly dismissive pieces on it. I wouldn't call it a media blackout... It's starting to become un-ignorable. Glenn Greenwald from Salon has a great article explaining it. https://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/28/protests/index.html
I'd be down there if I had the time.
-
You gotta wonder, if these were tea party members, half the place would be crawling with journalists.
-
Of course it would be. And it's not that hard to understand why.
-
Good article, Joeman.
Yeah, I had forgotten how dismissing the left is of itself when a democrat is being manipulated by goldman president.
-
I remember every time my "college democrat" friends paint me out to be this idealistic know-nothing whenever I criticize the president. It's like, can't we just elect a Republican so we can get along again? :lol
-
So are these a group of legitimate protesters or just a bunch of rich ex-suburban white kids who need to protest something in order to feel good about themselves?
-
So are these a group of legitimate protesters or just a bunch of rich ex-suburban white kids who need to protest something in order to feel good about themselves?
Well it's not the tea-party, if that's what you mean by "legitimate". It's just a group of people who've been protesting Wall Street and have been camped out there for over one week, steadily growing in number.
Regardless of snobbery that exists in the "liberal media", you'd think it at least get covered.
-
NYTimes and NPR homepage
That's why, IMO. I don't think they're explicitly "liberal". They're just pretty establishmentarian sources.
-
So are these a group of legitimate protesters or just a bunch of rich ex-suburban white kids who need to protest something in order to feel good about themselves?
What is a legitimate protester to you?
-
I was going to make a thread on this a few days ago and totally forgot to. Over 80 people were arrested on the first day.
-
So are these a group of legitimate protesters or just a bunch of rich ex-suburban white kids who need to protest something in order to feel good about themselves?
What is a legitimate protester to you?
Someone who knows holding signs with dumb slogans in large groups accomplishes nothing, at least in America. I can't think of a single recent example of that style of protesting that actually worked aside from that niche group of people being annoying for a few days.
-
I think smugly discounting the protesters in general is a lot less important than the more pressing matter that the event has been pretty much blacked out in the media and people are being arbitrarily arrested.
-
So are these a group of legitimate protesters or just a bunch of rich ex-suburban white kids who need to protest something in order to feel good about themselves?
What is a legitimate protester to you?
Someone who knows holding signs with dumb slogans in large groups accomplishes nothing, at least in America. I can't think of a single recent example of that style of protesting that actually worked aside from that niche group of people being annoying for a few days.
What should they do? Vote harder for candidates who don't give a shit? Write a letter to a Congressman who will never see it? Buy a lobbyist? Nothing?
I think the demonstrations themselves have intrinsic value.
-
What exactly are they protesting?
-
So are these a group of legitimate protesters or just a bunch of rich ex-suburban white kids who need to protest something in order to feel good about themselves?
What is a legitimate protester to you?
Someone who knows holding signs with dumb slogans in large groups accomplishes nothing, at least in America. I can't think of a single recent example of that style of protesting that actually worked aside from that niche group of people being annoying for a few days.
What should they do? Vote harder for candidates who don't give a shit? Write a letter to a Congressman who will never see it? Buy a lobbyist? Nothing?
I think the demonstrations themselves have intrinsic value.
Great point. The tea-party protests seem to have accomplished quite a bit in the make-up of the Republican party, fwiw.
-
(https://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08L94Nt34xdAI/610x.jpg)
Over 700 hundred Continental and United pilots, joined by additional pilots from other Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) carriers, demonstrate in front of Wall Street on September 27, 2011 in New York City. The pilots want to draw attention to the lack of progress on negotiations of the pilots’ joint collective bargaining agreement ahead of the one-year anniversary of the corporate merger close date of United and Continental airlines.
https://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2011/09/photos-airline-pilots-protest-on-wall-street-on-tuesday-september-27-2011/
-
Oh well thats probably why there is little media attention. Airline pilots bitching about the lack of a settlement of a contract? Given that a large number of americans are unemployed right now and/or are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck, the perception (I would assume) is that people are bitching about contract guarentees for an industy that (accrording to https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilot/airlinepayrates.html (https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilot/airlinepayrates.html) pays their first year captains (United Airlines) $293,280-$357,760.00 and second year captains (Continental) $278,720-$366,080.00 (It seems that Continental has a much lower starting first year salary that ramps up exponentially in the second year).
I am not saying they are overpayed or underpayed, its just hard to get on board with thier cause when they have salaries that size. Maybe that has something to do with the media's reporting? The media doesnt want to do a negative spin since ariline pilots ARE a skilled profession that is neccesary so that maybe the media doesnt want to come off looking stupid and insinuating the pilots are irrellevant, NOR does the media want to come off looking like they are in support of the picketing because of the high salaries and the way that would look to your average joe scrapipng by on $40k a year?
(Not taking a stance on either side of the argument, as I have friends who are airline pilots one of which I rib constantly about being an overpayed taxi driver :lol)
-
Oh well thats probably why there is little media attention. Airline pilots bitching about the lack of a settlement of a contract? Given that a large number of americans are unemployed right now and/or are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck, the perception (I would assume) is that people are bitching about contract guarentees for an industy that (accrording to https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilot/airlinepayrates.html (https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilot/airlinepayrates.html) pays their first year captains (United Airlines) $293,280-$357,760.00 and second year captains (Continental) $278,720-$366,080.00 (It seems that Continental has a much lower starting first year salary that ramps up exponentially in the second year).
I am not saying they are overpayed or underpayed, its just hard to get on board with thier cause when they have salaries that size. Maybe that has something to do with the media's reporting? The media doesnt want to do a negative spin since ariline pilots ARE a skilled profession that is neccesary so that maybe the media doesnt want to come off looking stupid and insinuating the pilots are irrellevant, NOR does the media want to come off looking like they are in support of the picketing because of the high salaries and the way that would look to your average joe scrapipng by on $40k a year?
(Not taking a stance on either side of the argument, as I have friends who are airline pilots one of which I rib constantly about being an overpayed taxi driver :lol)
You don't start off a captain. You begin as a FO, and they make shit until they get some seniority. You also don't start off working for UA or Continental. You begin your pro pilot career as an FO on a regional airline, and frequently it actually costs you money to get the gig. Since the regionals know you're still trying to accumulate hours, they know you'll take any job, so they pay nada.
I'm sure you'll love to here this, but a huge chunk of professional airline pilots actually qualify for food stamps and other handouts.
Most pilots will tell you it's a wonderful job if you love flying (and they all do), but a terrible career choice that they wouldn't recommend to their worst enemies.
-
Oh well thats probably why there is little media attention. Airline pilots bitching about the lack of a settlement of a contract? Given that a large number of americans are unemployed right now and/or are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck, the perception (I would assume) is that people are bitching about contract guarentees for an industy that (accrording to https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilot/airlinepayrates.html (https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilot/airlinepayrates.html) pays their first year captains (United Airlines) $293,280-$357,760.00 and second year captains (Continental) $278,720-$366,080.00 (It seems that Continental has a much lower starting first year salary that ramps up exponentially in the second year).
I am not saying they are overpayed or underpayed, its just hard to get on board with thier cause when they have salaries that size. Maybe that has something to do with the media's reporting? The media doesnt want to do a negative spin since ariline pilots ARE a skilled profession that is neccesary so that maybe the media doesnt want to come off looking stupid and insinuating the pilots are irrellevant, NOR does the media want to come off looking like they are in support of the picketing because of the high salaries and the way that would look to your average joe scrapipng by on $40k a year?
(Not taking a stance on either side of the argument, as I have friends who are airline pilots one of which I rib constantly about being an overpayed taxi driver :lol)
You don't start off a captain. You begin as a FO, and they make shit until they get some seniority. You also don't start off working for UA or Continental. You begin your pro pilot career as an FO on a regional airline, and frequently it actually costs you money to get the gig. Since the regionals know you're still trying to accumulate hours, they know you'll take any job, so they pay nada.
I'm sure you'll love to here this, but a huge chunk of professional airline pilots actually qualify for food stamps and other handouts.
Most pilots will tell you it's a wonderful job if you love flying (and they all do), but a terrible career choice that they wouldn't recommend to their worst enemies.
Yeah thats the take I get usually from my bud, (He's a captain for American Airlines) and makes the transatlantic flight for them chicago>London>and ultimately to Japan and then back. Makes the round trip flight I think about 5 or 6 times a month. He has been with them for about 8 or 9 years now and makes some pretty serious scratch (hence my haggling of him)
I don't disagree with your assessment though... if you look at that website I linked, the FO's get paid pretty low comparably.
-
"A Massive Union Just Voted To Side With The Wall Street Protesters"
According to Daily Kos, The New York Transit Workers Union (TWU) voted to support the Wall Street Protestors at their meeting last night.
A member of TWU Local 100 told a reporter that they would join the protest Friday at 4PM.
Here's more about them from their website:
The TWU has four main divisions: Railroad; Gaming; Airline; Transit; and Utility, University and Service. The Union has 114 autonomous locals representing over 200,000 members and retirees in 22 states around the country.
Occupy Wall Street has been picking up some decent support from unions in the past few days. Yesterday we reported that the Teamsters Union declared their support for protestors, and we also found out that the United Pilots Union had members at the protest demonstrating in uniform.
Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/a-massive-union-just-voted-to-side-with-the-wall-street-protesters-2011-9#ixzz1ZMmTFQgj
-
Sorry I don't understand whats going one here in great detail. Why are they protesting on Wall Street, and why are the NYTWU going to join in the same location? Is it just to get the message out that they are pissed, or does it actually have to do with business on Wall Street?
-
They're protesting on Wall Street because of the recession, economy and subsequent job loss though they're a good three years late. I don't think they're actually going to accomplish anything aside being a public nuisance because Wall Street is gonna go on business as usual.
-
The amount of money you have to sink into becoming a pilot is ridiculous. I would be pretty pissed if I wasn't getting a decent salary after spending £96,000 on an 18 month course and then another £20,000 on training for a specific plane.
-
The amount of money you have to sink into becoming a pilot is ridiculous. I would be pretty pissed if I wasn't getting a decent salary after spending £96,000 on an 18 month course and then another £20,000 on training for a specific plane.
The problem is that after all of that, you still need a ton of flight hours. Airlines of all sizes know that you're desperate to get those, so frequently they'll pay you nearly zero. Making $20 an hour flying right-seat in a CRJ is just another part of the investment.
Something else to consider is that airline pilots are hourly employees. They use a bidding system based on seniority to determine who gets what routes. So, some noob with Delta is going to get stuck with the 4 flights per day between Iowa and Oklahoma route, and only get paid for the 1.5 hours per leg. Really a pretty poor living for most of the younger ones. The older guys who've been around for decades get to make the big bucks flying between NYC and Nice France, with 2 or 3 days down time in France between trips. That's a damn fine living, but it took a while to get there.
This is also having a dramatic effect on airline safety, but that's a whole different discussion.
-
I asked my mom if we could stop by Wall Street when we head into NY on Saturday. She said no. :(
I dig what these dudes are doing.
-
I dig what these dudes are doing.
Yes.
They picked the right people to protest.
-
I asked my mom if we could stop by Wall Street when we head into NY on Saturday. She said no. :(
I dig what these dudes are doing.
Go anyway. Why are you going to let her tell you what to do?
-
I'm going tomorrow with my cousin. Should be interesting.
-
I asked my mom if we could stop by Wall Street when we head into NY on Saturday. She said no. :(
I dig what these dudes are doing.
Go anyway. Why are you going to let her tell you what to do?
She is kinda my ride through NY. Kinda hard to be all, "Fuck you mom! I'm going anyway...pick me up in an hour?"
I'm going tomorrow with my cousin. Should be interesting.
If I was going, I'd say you could meet little miss failure in person!
-
I have a job site near Wall Street for next week. I should pack pepper spray in my field bag.
-
So I just got back. It was interesting to see for myself what was going on. There were a TON of people and a TON of police (all of whom were very respectful in their requests to keep traffic moving on the sidewalks). It doesn't seem like it's going to be over soon.
-
So are these a group of legitimate protesters or just a bunch of rich ex-suburban white kids who need to protest something in order to feel good about themselves?
Well, if this is the mentality: https://www.benzinga.com/news/11/09/1957090/occupy-wall-street-rise-up-and-burn-this-system-to-the-ground
I would guess the latter option.
-
My biggest problem is this quote:
This is war, friends. The wealthy will not give up their ill-gotten gains without a fight. They will use the police as their attack force and they will use threats of violence and acts of retribution against you. Some will be arrested. But you cannot arrest a movement, and you cannot stop an idea whose time has come.
That is the voice of a person who has never had to work to accomplish anything in their life and is looking for something/someone to blame it on. These protesters aren't the oppressed they so desperately want to represent. These people actually have no idea who they are aside from a bunch of college students who found out they picked a shitty major that doesn't actually lead to a career.
-
That's outrageous and condescending. These people are mad that the government is spending trillions bailing out banks. Personally insult the protesters if you want, but that doesn't invalidate the problem being pointed out.
-
thank goodness someone on dtf started to pay attention to this, i was starting to think there was a dtf media blackout
-
That's outrageous and condescending. These people are mad that the government is spending trillions bailing out banks. Personally insult the protesters if you want, but that doesn't invalidate the problem being pointed out.
This. Maybe they aren't personally affected by the problem, but at least someone is saying something.
Also new food for y'alls: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/can-you-hear-them-now-3/
-
That's outrageous and condescending. These people are mad that the government is spending trillions bailing out banks. Personally insult the protesters if you want, but that doesn't invalidate the problem being pointed out.
I'm more inclined to agree with orcus on this one, at least for the tone of that article. You can't read it and tell me the person who wrote it is intelligent and mature.
-
That's outrageous and condescending. These people are mad that the government is spending trillions bailing out banks. Personally insult the protesters if you want, but that doesn't invalidate the problem being pointed out.
But what's their message? The financial state of our country is terrible and plenty of people on Wall Street probably contributed to it? Wow, what shocking new information! Like I said before the whole timing of this thing is silly since they waited, what, three entire years to gather enough bored college dropouts with no summer jobs to stand around and pretend they're gonna make a difference. The whole problem with their protest is there's nothing at stake, no changes to be made. They're not making a stand against anything that hasn't already been said or is common knowledge. They're seriously just parading around like a bunch of idiots while the world keeps spinning, completely unchanged.
-
There's no point of even having this discussion if you're just going to pretend to know everything about the protesters and sling accusations from on high.
-
They're not making a stand against anything that hasn't already been said or is common knowledge. They're seriously just parading around like a bunch of idiots while the world keeps spinning, completely unchanged.
Yeah, and bitching about the state of the world on online forums while sitting at home on our asses does a whole lot to change things. I wish more people would get up and do something about what's pissing them off, even if it is "meaningless." Maybe if americans actually cared enough to get out of their house for a cause instead of complaining under their breath we wouldn't be in this situation.
But screw that, we should all just act like good apathetic wastes and keep our mouths shut before we inconvenience someone else from their regular day of not giving a damn about anything.
-
They're not making a stand against anything that hasn't already been said or is common knowledge. They're seriously just parading around like a bunch of idiots while the world keeps spinning, completely unchanged.
Yeah, and bitching about the state of the world on online forums while sitting at home on our asses does a whole lot to change things. I wish more people would get up and do something about what's pissing them off, even if it is "meaningless." Maybe if americans actually cared enough to get out of their house for a cause instead of complaining under their breath we wouldn't be in this situation.
But screw that, we should all just act like good apathetic wastes and keep our mouths shut before we inconvenience someone else from their regular day of not giving a damn about anything.
Right, that was my point actually. Say what you want about them but at least they're being politically active. We should only be so lucky to have a large politically active youth in its early voting years.
-
There's no point of even having this discussion if you're just going to pretend to know everything about the protesters and sling accusations from on high.
They're not making a stand against anything that hasn't already been said or is common knowledge. They're seriously just parading around like a bunch of idiots while the world keeps spinning, completely unchanged.
Yeah, and bitching about the state of the world on online forums while sitting at home on our asses does a whole lot to change things. I wish more people would get up and do something about what's pissing them off, even if it is "meaningless." Maybe if americans actually cared enough to get out of their house for a cause instead of complaining under their breath we wouldn't be in this situation.
But screw that, we should all just act like good apathetic wastes and keep our mouths shut before we inconvenience someone else from their regular day of not giving a damn about anything.
Probably because we're smart enough to realize that after venting briefly online there's a whole lot more pressing personal matters to deal with so we go outside in the real world and take care of those instead.
-
So your argument is that they should just mind their own business. Well done.
-
Where the hell did you get that from?
There's no point of even having this discussion if you're just going to pretend to know everything about the protesters and sling accusations from on high.
Well answer me this: what, in your mind, are they accomplishing by standing around holding signs? What realistic end result do you see coming from this?
-
I don't know, the post where you said that smart people realize that taking care of personal matters is more important than trying to incite change in the country?
-
Orcus, if you have things going on in your personal life that are more important than protesting in favor of economic justice, cool. So do most of us, which is why we're where we are and not there. The problem I have with your post isn't that you don't want to take part, it's that you seem to be insinuating that people who do are just drop-outs without lives of their own. That's not true at all, nor is it fair. And even if they were, what they are doing would be no less valid.
That fact you keep insisting that people at the protest are unemployed lowlifes is just kinda shocking, considering not only did our own antigoon already go there but someone else posted a picture of all those pilots who were there protesting too.
-
I sort of get where orcus is coming from. I don't think a whole lot of being "politically active" just for the sake of it, notably when it involves unproductive activities like this. Not that posting on the internet, as someone brought up, is very productive, but at least there's some (ideally open-minded and reasonable) exchange of ideas.
What is the endgame of stuff like this? What is it supposed to actually accomplish? Plenty of attention has already been brought to these issues, and beyond that, I can only think that people participate in these things in order to feel like they are doing something or making some kind of difference. *shrug*
-J
-
I sort of get where orcus is coming from. I don't think a whole lot of being "politically active" just for the sake of it, notably when it involves unproductive activities like this. Not that posting on the internet, as someone brought up, is very productive, but at least there's some (ideally open-minded and reasonable) exchange of ideas.
What is the endgame of stuff like this? What is it supposed to actually accomplish? Plenty of attention has already been brought to these issues, and beyond that, I can only think that people participate in these things in order to feel like they are doing something or making some kind of difference. *shrug*
-J
What's accomplished by "plenty of attention" being given to the issues if people then go back to not caring an hour later after the news is over or they forgot half of the article they just read? What alternative do you suggest to people who are upset and want to be heard? And why does something have to lead directly to change for it to matter or make any kind of difference?
And, really, you act like the "exchange of ideas" is any more productive than these protests, but what use do any of these discussions have if the only time we ever get involved in anything related to these topics is when we argue about it here? How is this any more "productive" or beneficial than what they're doing? You ask what the protests are supposed to accomplish as if not accomplishing anything makes it pointless, yet it's openly acknowledged that 99% of the discussions here won't change anyone's opinion on the topic.
-
And what's wrong with that? The civil rights movement in the 60s exploded out of a few guys in the 50s sitting at a lunch table together to mix a segregated dining hall in Atlanta, Georgia. Big changes always come out of small ones.
-
So these guys are protesting to undo the all the government spending that happened with the bailouts? They're a few years late. I still don't see how standing around wall street is going to change anything and find myself agreeing more with Orcus on this one.
-
Also, if their problem is the bailouts, why protest on Wall Street? Washington would make more sense.
-
I don't think the protest is just about bailouts. I've seen some protesters describe it as a protest for "economic justice", which makes a lot more sense. This has been a great 20 years for the wealthy, yet the minute the government wants to step in to try and make life better for normal people they throw up their hands screaming "class warfare" and act like they're being stolen from.
This is really a protest of the way wealthy people have been acting, imo. Yeah, other issues are mixed in. But ultimately, that's what it comes down to. People are tired of staying in the same place while the wealthy just keep getting richer and richer. So taking it to Wall Street fits.
You guys might not think it's accomplishing anything, but I think it's already drawn a lot of attention to the issue. Were/are the protestors as organized as they could be? No. But the fact people are willing to go to Wall Street to begin with and stay there for two weeks is a huge sign that awareness is going to raised and people are going to start looking into why this is happening.
-
I don't think the protest is just about bailouts. I've seen some protesters describe it as a protest for "economic justice", which makes a lot more sense. This has been a great 20 years for the wealthy, yet the minute the government wants to step in to try and make life better for normal people they throw up their hands screaming "class warfare" and act like they're being stolen from.
This is really a protest of the way wealthy people have been acting, imo. Yeah, other issues are mixed in. But ultimately, that's what it comes down to. People are tired of staying in the same place while the wealthy just keep getting richer and richer. So taking it to Wall Street fits.
You guys might not think it's accomplishing anything, but I think it's already drawn a lot of attention to the issue. Were/are the protestors as organized as they could be? No. But the fact people are willing to go to Wall Street to begin with and stay there for two weeks is a huge sign that awareness is going to raised and people are going to start looking into why this is happening.
It's great because I think this little point is the silver bullet in a complex array of problems we've faced the last few years, or even the last couple decades. I'm not saying the wealthy are evil or inherently bad people or anything (I mean hell, I live pretty comfortably myself), but a little socio-political equality never hurt no one. A lack thereof as we've seen can hurt many people, and eventually it will undo everyone, no matter how invulnerable they consider themselves.
-
The hippies are still protesting?
-
Yes. Hippies are cool too.
-
The hippies are still protesting?
Just wait. Once everyone loses their life savings in the next 12 months or so, the tea party will be out there too!
-
I just came into here to say that I agree with the reasons why the people are protesting and commend them for having the balls to go out there and do something.
Whether or not these protests develop into anything greater, I don't know, but they have the right idea, and don't get why such anger is being directed to the protesters; they seem to have their hearts in the right place.
I mean, I'm more on the conservative side, in regards to social programs regarding welfare and such, but I'm definitely rooting against Wall Street. I'm pretty sure the higher-ups of those businesses would still be able to dine on steak and lobster if they were only allotted half, a quarter, even an eighth of their current net worth, but no, they just HAVE to have more, don't they?
I just hope, for the welfare of the protesters' sake that the police don't open fire on them, or anything, because, that could be the end of it, if it happens this early in the game.
-
The hippies are still protesting?
Just wait. Once everyone loses their life savings in the next 12 months or so, the tea party will be out there too!
Perhaps from hyperinflation from the print-happy Messiah in Chief, not because of stock brokers. :rollin
I bought a few more guns this month, plenty of ammo, and installed an advanced security system on my property. I'll wait it out.
-
I thought people like you only existed in liberal America's nightmares.
-
I thought people like you only existed in liberal America's nightmares.
Hence why he exists right now.
-
Perhaps from hyperinflation from the print-happy Messiah in Chief, not because of stock brokers. :rollin
You realize the Fed is one of the things being protested by a lot of people, right? I saw multiple "end the fed" signs out there. It's definitely part of the agenda.
-
I thought people like you only existed in liberal America's nightmares.
Was gonna say something like this but edited it for fear of the banhammer. I'm glad someone did though. :tup
-
Then they would be in front of the NY Federal Reserve building, not a bunch of hippies protesting the "evil" rich on Wall St (many of which, the headquarters aren't even in NYC). They're mostly leftists and/or anarchists who have mommy and daddy buy them Verizon or Apple toys while they are too lazy to get a job.
-
A liberal nightmare: the fear that someone, somewhere, can help themselves. :rollin
-
I almost feel bad for thinking the things I do about people with your views, and then I read the things you post and it makes me feel better at night.
-
A liberal nightmare: the fear that someone, somewhere, can help themselves. :rollin
More like the fear that someone, somewhere in this supposedly Enlightened nation-state there is a self-proclaimed judge and jury ready to shoot on sight at anyone of his choosing.
-
And the fear that the unbalance of wealth in the US will become so great that the middle class is effectively non-existent.
-
A liberal nightmare: the fear that someone, somewhere, can help themselves. :rollin
More like the fear that someone, somewhere in this supposedly Enlightened nation-state there is a self-proclaimed judge and jury ready to shoot on sight at anyone of his choosing.
Hearing shit like that makes me love my Second Amendment rights even more, especially because they will NEVER EVER be taken away. :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
-
You're the dude that thinks global warming is a hoax, right?
lol
-
A liberal nightmare: the fear that someone, somewhere, can help themselves. :rollin
More like the fear that someone, somewhere in this supposedly Enlightened nation-state there is a self-proclaimed judge and jury ready to shoot on sight at anyone of his choosing.
Hearing shit like that makes me love my Second Amendment rights even more, especially because they will NEVER EVER be taken away. :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
I hope that's not a threat to use said Second should we ever meet.
-
Hearing shit like that makes me love my Second Amendment rights even more, especially because they will NEVER EVER be taken away. :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
I believe in your having the right to bear arms, but that (ideally) shouldn't translate into vigilantism, except for in the absolute worst of worst case scenarios.
-
Jesus praxis you're like the poster child for neo-conservative nutcases
-
A liberal nightmare: the fear that someone, somewhere, can help themselves. :rollin
More like the fear that someone, somewhere in this supposedly Enlightened nation-state there is a self-proclaimed judge and jury ready to shoot on sight at anyone of his choosing.
Hearing shit like that makes me love my Second Amendment rights even more, especially because they will NEVER EVER be taken away. :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
I hope that's not a threat to use said Second should we ever meet.
How is that a threat? Unless you trespass on my property (i.e. break into my house) or physically attack me (self defense shot between the eyes) you have nothing to worry about. ;)
Jesus praxis you're like the poster child for neo-conservative nutcases
LOL, Libertarians are not neo-cons... otherwise I would support our foreign imperialism and centrally planning our economy.
-
you gotta love when PR conversations devolve into a wing-nut going:
:rollin
over and over again.
-
I must say Praxis, you make me laugh, and I guess that is all I could want from PR.
-
I must say Praxis, you make me laugh, and I guess that is all I could want from PR.
P/R could use a few more laughs...
-
So, I have a (relevant) question, which I'd be happy for anyone: left nut, right nut, dick, or asshole, to answer:
Do you believe these protests will have some sort of effect in the near future?
If so, what do you think these effects and their ultimate results will be ?
-
I must say Praxis, you make me laugh, and I guess that is all I could want from PR.
Laughter is a good thing. I laugh every time I see an Obama bumper sticker, especially when I no longer see those cars in my work's parking lot because the driver was laid off. I also laugh about the fact that many people are simply not "prepared" for what is to come. I see it constantly, even more-so during times such as Hurricane Irene preparations.
I also laugh at every "Che" t-shirt I see. Isn't that maggot's death anniversary coming up soon?
-
Or we could talk about the protests. (Maybe my question even gave you a little bit of a laugh? :P )
-
I must say Praxis, you make me laugh, and I guess that is all I could want from PR.
Laughter is a good thing. I laugh every time I see an Obama bumper sticker, especially when I no longer see those cars in my work's parking lot because the driver was laid off. I also laugh about the fact that many people are simply not "prepared" for what is to come. I see it constantly, even more-so during times such as Hurricane Irene preparations.
I also laugh at every "Che" t-shirt I see. Isn't that maggot's death anniversary coming up soon?
Let me guess...Ron Paul or Hermain Cain? I'm thinking Paul but Cain is a little more of a nutjob so I don't know.
-
I laugh every time I see an Obama bumper sticker, especially when I no longer see those cars in my work's parking lot because the driver was laid off.
Honestly, I laugh every time I see someone who does nothing but post at DTF and surf the web from their office job all day thinking they're better than and deserve what they have more than an unemployed person or recent college grad who hasn't found a job yet in this economy.
-
So, I have a (relevant) question, which I'd be happy for anyone: left nut, right nut, dick, or asshole, to answer:
Do you believe these protests will have some sort of effect in the near future?
If so, what do you think these effects and their ultimate results will be ?
I think the protests will bring us further into a police state (i.e. more abuses of the Patriot Act), especially with all the arrests involved, such as from the Brooklyn Bridge blockade earlier.
If you want to protest, it depends on what/where/why... think of the TEA Party... they went to demonstrate peacefully in D.C... and they cleaned up after themselves... the police weren't concerned at all, just a bunch of people against the current regime who made their voices known at the ballot box in a shellacking last November.
Compare the TEA Party protest in D.C. to that Daily-Show-inspired one... the DC mall was left with mounds of trash.. and some friends of mine who attended were constantly approached by commies and anarchists actually advertising pro-commie organizations in our country.. of course, these were all useless hippies that I absolutely refuse to ever hire.. along with those wearing baggy pants or with visible tattoos.
-
Tea Party peaceful. lol
-
Oh, and I bet Rand is his favorite author too. :lol
-
Though I disagree with you, PraXis, I thank you for answering my question.
It was enjoyable to see you express your prediction; I am quite intrigued by these current protests and their possible effects.
-
Though I disagree with you, PraXis, I thank you for answering my question.
It was enjoyable to see you express your prediction; I am quite intrigued by these current protests and their possible effects.
I appreciate it. I don't know where you are located, but if you have economic and security concerns for your family, feel free to send me a PM if you need advice about what to do. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, but we have about 18 months before it reaches that point.
-
This thread is making me lol.
Please continue.
-
I appreciate it. I don't know where you are located, but if you have economic and security concerns for your family, feel free to send me a PM if you need advice about what to do. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, but we have about 18 months before it reaches that point.
I'm going to laugh hysterically when the Republican party fails to find someone...anyone...to throw Obama out of the White House.
-
Though I disagree with you, PraXis, I thank you for answering my question.
It was enjoyable to see you express your prediction; I am quite intrigued by these current protests and their possible effects.
I appreciate it. I don't know where you are located, but if you have economic and security concerns for your family, feel free to send me a PM if you need advice about what to do. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, but we have about 18 months before it reaches that point.
I wouldn't say my family is in immediate danger. We are about upper-middle class, I guess?
The main source of income in my family ( a professor) is probably retiring soon, though, and he is sorta negligent with paying bills/is an irresponsible spender.
He often says that he'll be able to pay me through college and that he'll have a decent amount of money to let me inherit, when that happens. I take it with a grain of salt, though, because he has been acting irrationally often, the last year or so, and as said before, he's irresponsible, especially in terms of expenditures. So, I'd say my main worry would be about how things are in 2017, when I (most likely) graduate from college and (idealistically) enter the workforce.
-
I think you guys are missing the point. This isn't about bashing Ayn Rand or libertarians any more than it is about bashing hippies.
The fact is, there's some seriously liberal people at these protests, as well as more Ron Paul leaning people. Some people are protesting the Fed, some people are protesting the way the wealthy have been acting, and some people are protesting both. It's people from different ends of the political spectrum coming together toward a broader, common goal. Which is the whole way political activism works.
-
I sort of get where orcus is coming from. I don't think a whole lot of being "politically active" just for the sake of it, notably when it involves unproductive activities like this. Not that posting on the internet, as someone brought up, is very productive, but at least there's some (ideally open-minded and reasonable) exchange of ideas.
What is the endgame of stuff like this? What is it supposed to actually accomplish? Plenty of attention has already been brought to these issues, and beyond that, I can only think that people participate in these things in order to feel like they are doing something or making some kind of difference. *shrug*
-J
What's accomplished by "plenty of attention" being given to the issues if people then go back to not caring an hour later after the news is over or they forgot half of the article they just read? What alternative do you suggest to people who are upset and want to be heard? And why does something have to lead directly to change for it to matter or make any kind of difference?
I never said something has to lead directly to change to be worthwhile. But the goal these people claim to have IS to spark change in some capacity...isn't it?
And, really, you act like the "exchange of ideas" is any more productive than these protests, but what use do any of these discussions have if the only time we ever get involved in anything related to these topics is when we argue about it here? How is this any more "productive" or beneficial than what they're doing? You ask what the protests are supposed to accomplish as if not accomplishing anything makes it pointless, yet it's openly acknowledged that 99% of the discussions here won't change anyone's opinion on the topic.
Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else. But I think there are a small handful of us who DON'T just come here with the sole purpose of spouting off our beliefs, but rather actually do make an effort to learn from some of the other posters and consider their opinions, or at least try to see issues in a different light. At any rate, let me be clear: I don't think posting at DTF is a very productive activity either, but I do get a little bit out of it personally.
I post here mostly for entertainment, but it occasionally ends up being an educational experience. That makes it personally enriching to me in some small way, as I sometimes come away with a better understanding of whatever topic happens to be being discussed. That knowledge may come into play in some other capacity in my life, I don't know.
What I do know is that I would never waste weeks of my life marching around whining about an issue, no matter how passionate I felt about it. I would find some other way to address my concerns, preferably an avenue with some remote track record of recent success. Literally the only thing it can ever accomplish is raising public awareness of said issue, and in this day and age, I think these kind of demonstrations are completely archaic and obsolete for several reasons. I'd be interested to know what people who are prone to participate in such protests think they are accomplishing, other than self-satisfaction. I have yet to see someone here address this question. Anyway, I certainly don't have any contempt for them, but I also don't understand how they are so lauded by some for "fighting for justice," when the reality is that they would be better served putting their efforts almost ANYWHERE else.
tl;dr - I don't care if people want to march around holding up signs and yelling, but I think usually they are at best wasting their time, and at worst doing their cause a disservice.
-J
EDIT: To be clear, I don't disagree with the causes of a lot of these protests. I just don't think much of their chosen course of "action."
-
Tea Party peaceful. lol
When were they not peaceful at the capitol?
-
You guys might not think it's accomplishing anything, but I think it's already drawn a lot of attention to the issue. Were/are the protestors as organized as they could be? No. But the fact people are willing to go to Wall Street to begin with and stay there for two weeks is a huge sign that awareness is going to raised and people are going to start looking into why this is happening.
Unless someone has been comatose for three years there's no need for any awareness of the financial state of the country. If they're pissed at what's going on, they've already been pissed. If they're apathetic, they've already been apathetic. No one's opinion is going to suddenly change because of all of this protesting because anyone who has been directly effected by what has been going on has already been dealing with it and continues to deal with it.
-
Unless someone has been comatose for three years there's no need for any awareness of the financial state of the country.
I gotta ask, do you even follow politics? Because if you can watch the past couple debates and truly tell me any of the candidates seem "aware" of these things I'll be baffled.
-
Praxis, I have a visible tattoo. It is a Bible verse. You wouldn't hire me? That's absurd.
Also, the protests are a bunch of dirty hippies. ;D
Okay, seriously: I don't give a damn with what Wall Street does with their money. Why do you guys?
-
Because it affects the socio-economic and political fates of everyone below them.
-
Because it affects the socio-economic and political fates of everyone below them.
How so?
-
If you belong to the 1% of the population that controls over 40% of national wealth, the effects of your economic choices are bound to be magnified. And even ruling out corruption, the political influence of wealth almost invariably tends to be greater than those of lower socio-economic classes in some facet or other.
-
Okay, seriously: I don't give a damn with what Wall Street does with their money. Why do you guys?
Dude...their money??? You have no idea how the 401k system works, do you?
I'm SO glad not to mod in here anymore. And Praxis is like an alternate universe Parallax.
-
I don't remember Parallax. What was he like?
-
I'd be interested to know what people who are prone to participate in such protests think they are accomplishing, other than self-satisfaction. I have yet to see someone here address this question.
What also hasn't been addressed is what people should do as an alternative if you feel protests are so worthless. Quite a few times throughout various P/R threads people have talked about how worthless "protesting" is, but when asked what they feel a viable alternative would be for people that DO want to make any kind of difference there's never any answer.
-
Well, this thread took a turn for the worse. It's not about left vs right; liberal vs libertarian. Or...it shouldn't be anyway. Until we can learn to look past our granular beliefs we're not going to get anything productive done.
And about the whole, "waiting 3 years" thing: I think it's more that things have reached a tipping point -- The economy continues to be shitty, our president sucks, the Republican primary race is a joke, and there's no sign whatsoever that anything is going to get better any time soon. People are just fed up.
PS: Yes, there are a lot of young people there, but I saw plenty of folks in their 30s and up on Friday. It's a mischaracterization to label them all lazy college kids. Hell, I saw a contingent from the National Lawyers Guild there.
-
And didn't someone mention a bunch of commercial pilots?
-
Praxis, I have a visible tattoo. It is a Bible verse. You wouldn't hire me? That's absurd.
Also, the protests are a bunch of dirty hippies. ;D
Okay, seriously: I don't give a damn with what Wall Street does with their money. Why do you guys?
I wouldn't hire if the tattoo was visible because of the nature of the business (i.e. customer interactions in the environment). Otherwise, I couldn't care less about tats. As for Wall Street or anyone with money, I don't care about their wealth as long as they actually earned their money, as long as it's not via fraud like Madoff.
-
Perhaps from hyperinflation from the print-happy Messiah in Chief, not because of stock brokers. :rollin
You realize the Fed is one of the things being protested by a lot of people, right? I saw multiple "end the fed" signs out there. It's definitely part of the agenda.
Yeah, that's nice and all, but overall I don't see the majority of the crowd knowing what they really want. It feels in the vein of "What we want? -We don't know! But we want it now" protests.
-
And didn't someone mention a bunch of commercial pilots?
Oh yeah, I forgot. A pilots' union and the New York Transit Workers' Union.
-
You know whats hilarious? I work down on Wall St and there's very little finance/big bank going on there. Most of the I-banks are in midtown/tribecca, etc... Wall St. itself is very residential/commerical... I have my gym right there lol...
-
Perhaps from hyperinflation from the print-happy Messiah in Chief, not because of stock brokers. :rollin
You realize the Fed is one of the things being protested by a lot of people, right? I saw multiple "end the fed" signs out there. It's definitely part of the agenda.
Yeah, that's nice and all, but overall I don't see the majority of the crowd knowing what they really want. It feels in the vein of "What we want? -We don't know! But we want it now" protests.
That's not because the people are clueless, it's because everyone is there for a difference reason. Honestly, that's still more than the libertarians have done on their own. If there's every been a group that makes a big show of chest-pounding on the internet and consistently fails to materialize in the "real world" time and time again, it's the libertarians.
-
No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority.
-
No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority.
Libertarians like myself want a LIMITED federal government, not an abolishment of one. We feel that issues such as health care and education (for example) are better left to the states to deal with individually. As for the fed gov't, national defense (not offense).
-
But where do the limits stop? I mean from my history of conversing with you, it sounds like what you personally want is no federation of states at all, just a political society in which you look out for you and yours and I for me and mine, and that's it. That sounds like a state of nature (anarchy) to me.
-
No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority.
Libertarians like myself want a LIMITED federal government, not an abolishment of one. We feel that issues such as health care and education (for example) are better left to the states to deal with individually. As for the fed gov't, national defense (not offense).
How about bailing out Wall Street. Should the government have done that?
-
But where do the limits stop? I mean from my history of conversing with you, it sounds like what you personally want is no federation of states at all, just a political society in which you look out for you and yours and I for me and mine, and that's it. That sounds like a state of nature (anarchy) to me.
The limits stop at where the Constitution says. If you don't like the limits, ask your representatives to promote an amendment.
"How about bailing out Wall Street. Should the government have done that?"
Absolutely not. No bailouts.
The only reason Goldman Sachs.. err I mean AIG got bailed out (and Lehman Bros was conveniently allowed to go under) was because GS is part of the Federal Reserve. The F.R. controls this country... btw GS and Lehman are both in the carbon trading scheme as competitors... GS directly benefited from both the AIG bailout (their insurance co) and the Lehman collapse (their competitor).
Follow the money.
-
I'm baffled. You're against the Wall Street bailouts, but your against protesting it too. What point are you trying to make here?
-
I'm not against any kind of non-violent protest, but a very small percentage of protestors in NYC are actually going against the Federal Reserve. They actually think that Wall Street corporations have headquarters in NYC. :rollin
It's turned into another leftist/anarchist rally that is nothing but anti-capitalism and wealth/achievement envy.. and I'm curious.. how old are the left-leaning members on this forum... most likely still getting a free ride from mommy and daddy. Once these people actually work a few years and are in their late 20s like myself, they will see the light.
-
Federal Reserve?
If I'm correct, it's the thing that allows banks to take out as much loans as they want to give out as loans to people, though the printing of more money?
That thing does seem pretty bad to me, though I can't really say I know too much about it, aside from that, which I learned from an anti-FR cartoon on Youtube, so, please go on more about the FR, if you want; I could use the education.
-
I'm not against any kind of non-violent protest, but a very small percentage of protestors in NYC are actually going against the Federal Reserve. They actually think that Wall Street corporations have headquarters in NYC. :rollin
You don't know that and have absolutely no statistical basis to make those statements.
:rollin
-
:lol
I didn't think people became that jaded until they hit 50...at least!
Meanwhile, why exactly is the Constitution, "America's Bible?" Talk about an old, outdated document that needs a good burning...or at least a rewrite. If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Ben Franklin knew we were still using what they wrote as a means to govern the country, they'd shoot themselves.
-
Federal Reserve?
If I'm correct, it's the thing that allows banks to take out as much loans as they want to give out as loans to people, though the printing of more money?
That thing does seem pretty bad to me, though I can't really say I know too much about it, aside from that, which I learned from an anti-FR cartoon on Youtube, so, please go on more about the FR, if you want; I could use the education.
There's nothing "federal" about the F.R. other than the title and the fact that they own 99% of our representatives. The F.R. is a private, central bank that unconstitutionally became enacted in 1913 (along with the federal income tax). They print the money, establish the interest rates, and our government borrows from them, rather than the constitutional duty to take care of it.
Read "The Creature at Jekyll Island"
:lol
I didn't think people became that jaded until they hit 50...at least!
Meanwhile, why exactly is the Constitution, "America's Bible?" Talk about an old, outdated document that needs a good burning...or at least a rewrite. If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Ben Franklin new we were still using what they wrote as a means to govern the country, they'd shoot themselves.
It's the fucking LAW OF THE LAND. If you don't like it, then propose an amendment. Otherwise, it stays as-is. It's THAT simple. Good luck with getting the 2/3 support to amend it. ;)
-
I agree...it just so happens to be a shitty, outdated law of the land that just so happens to need a good kick in the arse.
-
I'm not against any kind of non-violent protest, but a very small percentage of protestors in NYC are actually going against the Federal Reserve. They actually think that Wall Street corporations have headquarters in NYC. :rollin
You really need to try harder.
-
:lol
I didn't think people became that jaded until they hit 50...at least!
Meanwhile, why exactly is the Constitution, "America's Bible?" Talk about an old, outdated document that needs a good burning...or at least a rewrite. If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Ben Franklin knew we were still using what they wrote as a means to govern the country, they'd shoot themselves.
You know, I've thought this for awhile. This "obsession with what does the text say is such an American thing. In Academia, in Christianity, and of course in law. It's like, after a certain point, people give up in deciding things for themselves and defer authority to what the textbook says.
I don't notice that kinda of attitude from Christians and lawyers elsewhere. And I'm not saying that kind of thinking is always bad-- it has its advantages. But it also can be a real drag sometimes.
-
Many firms locate their HQs in areas such as the Cayman Islands. They have offices in cities like Philly, NYC, LA, but HQ's? Hell no... not with the tax advantages provided in the islands.
Listen, I know many of you have your mouth on either Obama's or the DNC's cock... it's ok.... you're most likely teenagers or young adults with no professional experience.. it's okay.. it gets better as YOU get better.
I'm enjoying some expensive scotch and going to relax for a bit and get some rest for tomorrow where I'm going to make even more money to increase my quality of life. If you're really concerned about what to protest against or what to do to protect yourself, just follow the money!
-
Guys, don't feed the troll.
-
holy shit PraXis. You seriously must be trolling...
-
Obama's or the DNC's cock...
I'd like to think he'd get banned for this...
and then I woke up.
-
::le sigh::
Why do so many Republicans on this forum always argue in such a way that is not conducive to finding common ground for agreement between people with different ideas at all?
:\
-
Why do so many liberals (in and outside of the forum) feel entitled to other people's money?
Note: I am not a Republican. I am not religious and I love abortion (especially when the poor get them).
-
...this is the troll of the century.
-
What are you talking about? I just see a big empty grey space....
-
Note: I am not a Republican. I am not religious and I love abortion (especially when the poor get them).
Once again, if I said this, I'd get my ass banned, but so it goes.
-
:|
-
I'm somewhat interested in what PraXis does for a living, and where he went to school.
-
Holy shit. I didn't see that edit.
Note: I am not a Republican. I am not religious and I love abortion (especially when the poor get them).
Praxis, you are without a doubt the worst poster on this forum in a long, long time. Epicview and tick may have ideas about politics that seem nutty to me most of the time, but at the end of the day they seem like a good guys with good hearts. You, on the other hand, are downright reprehensible. That abortion comment truly crosses the line, and deeply offends me. From reading your posts, I've now fully deducted that you are either the greedy, gun-touting, elitist John Galt worshiping idiot with an overweening sense of privilege that I thought only existed in the left's caricatures of the right, or you are just Disappear again returned to troll us via proxy for awhile.
I really hope, for humanities' sake, it's the latter. But unfortunately that's probably not the truth and the truth is you just are a really sad person.
If I were a mod, you'd have been banned long ago. But I'm not, so me saying all this will probably get me banned for overstepping what normal members are supposed to do. Well, fuck if I care. While I generally appreciate the freedom discussions on this side are generally given in terms of exchanging ideas about controversial subjects, I can honestly say that I don't want to post at a forum that allows downright hatred toward other groups of people to go unchecked for such a long time.
Praxis, do yourself a favor and step back and ask yourself whether anyone here actually appreciates you or values your contributions to this community. The answer is almost definitely "no." I may get banned for saying so, but if asking you to ask yourself that question encourages you to leave this forum I will have done more than my share of good for this place in the long run.
-
Holy shit. I didn't see that edit.
Note: I am not a Republican. I am not religious and I love abortion (especially when the poor get them).
Praxis, you are without a doubt the worst poster on this forum in a long, long time. Epicview and tick may have ideas about politics that seem nutty to me most of the time, but at the end of the day they seem like a good guys with good hearts. You, on the other hand, are downright reprehensible. That abortion comment truly crosses the line, and deeply offends me. From reading your posts, I've now fully deducted that you are either the greedy, gun-touting, elitist John Galt worshiping idiot with an overweening sense of privilege that I thought only existed in the left's caricatures of the right, or you are just Disappear again returned to troll us via proxy for awhile.
I really hope, for humanities' sake, it's the latter. But unfortunately that's probably not the truth and the truth is you just are a really sad person.
If I were a mod, you'd have been banned long ago. But I'm not, so me saying all this will probably get me banned for overstepping what normal members are supposed to do. Well, fuck if I care. While I generally appreciate the freedom discussions on this side are generally given in terms of exchanging ideas about controversial subjects, I can honestly say that I don't want to post at a forum that allows downright hatred toward other groups of people to go unchecked for such a long time.
Praxis, do yourself a favor and step back and ask yourself whether anyone here actually appreciates you or values your contributions to this community. The answer is almost definitely "no." I may get banned for saying so, but if asking you to ask yourself that question encourages you to leave this forum I will have done more than my share of good for this place in the long run.
I am 73109 and I approve of this post.
-
Many firms locate their HQs in areas such as the Cayman Islands. They have offices in cities like Philly, NYC, LA, but HQ's? Hell no... not with the tax advantages provided in the islands.
Listen, I know many of you have your mouth on either Obama's or the DNC's cock... it's ok.... you're most likely teenagers or young adults with no professional experience.. it's okay.. it gets better as YOU get better.
I'm enjoying some expensive scotch and going to relax for a bit and get some rest for tomorrow where I'm going to make even more money to increase my quality of life. If you're really concerned about what to protest against or what to do to protect yourself, just follow the money!
I think we could have more productive conversations in this sub-forum without the sweeping generalizations and insults found in posts like this. ALL it does is provoke (warranted) responses and defenses and drives the thread off topic. I don't give a shit what you believe politically. There's no need for garbage like this -- I'd encourage everyone to just ignore it from now on.
-
Antigoon,
It's hard to ignore the fact that a Nazi posts at our forums.
-
Guys, don't feed the troll.
-
:lol
-
Holy shit. I didn't see that edit.
Note: I am not a Republican. I am not religious and I love abortion (especially when the poor get them).
Praxis, you are without a doubt the worst poster on this forum in a long, long time. Epicview and tick may have ideas about politics that seem nutty to me most of the time, but at the end of the day they seem like a good guys with good hearts. You, on the other hand, are downright reprehensible. That abortion comment truly crosses the line, and deeply offends me. From reading your posts, I've now fully deducted that you are either the greedy, gun-touting, elitist John Galt worshiping idiot with an overweening sense of privilege that I thought only existed in the left's caricatures of the right, or you are just Disappear again returned to troll us via proxy for awhile.
I really hope, for humanities' sake, it's the latter. But unfortunately that's probably not the truth and the truth is you just are a really sad person.
If I were a mod, you'd have been banned long ago. But I'm not, so me saying all this will probably get me banned for overstepping what normal members are supposed to do. Well, fuck if I care. While I generally appreciate the freedom discussions on this side are generally given in terms of exchanging ideas about controversial subjects, I can honestly say that I don't want to post at a forum that allows downright hatred toward other groups of people to go unchecked for such a long time.
Praxis, do yourself a favor and step back and ask yourself whether anyone here actually appreciates you or values your contributions to this community. The answer is almost definitely "no." I may get banned for saying so, but if asking you to ask yourself that question encourages you to leave this forum I will have done more than my share of good for this place in the long run.
:slowclap:
-
Anyway. Local media seems to be paying more attention to OWS since last night, when the NYPD arrested ~700 people.
-
Anyone here want to answer my question about the protests I asked some while back?
PraXis answered it; I'd love to see more than one person's answer.
Anyway. Local media seems to be paying more attention to OWS since last night, when the NYPD arrested ~700 people.
That's good that coverage is being given to this, even if it is just the small media, so far.
It's progress, at any rate.
-
woah that praxis is delusional beyond human thought. seb i think the protests will cause more social unrest. what will i know i'm only australian.
-
Shakeyboy, the protests will increase awareness and might get some people to jump on the backs of those at Wall Street, but they won't do much. However, I support them completely and would join them if I can.
-
I choose not to predict the future. These are turbulent times, and this could either lead to more of the same or something greater.
And high five, PC.
-
I posted a warning, and I think you guys ninja'd it :lol
praxis, KNOCK IT OFF!
this is your first and last warning. your comments were offensive and uncalled for
-
I posted a warning, and I think you guys ninja'd it :lol
praxis, KNOCK IT OFF!
this is your first and last warning. your comments were offensive and uncalled for
Must be a different thread, cause I searched for your name and this is your first post here.
Don't worry, I can see how you'd be confused. :P
-
Perpetual Change..regardless of your point of view regarding anyone elses commentary or beliefs (even if they are trolling) there are rules here that are not to be broken and lines not to be crossed. It matters not that you might have been offended by someones comment; that doesn't make it okay for you to resort to name calling. Enjoy your vacation. In the future, let a mod take care of the problems. The next time you decide to act the way you did in this thread, the ban won't be temporary.
-
Perpetual Change..regardless of your point of view regarding anyone elses commentary or beliefs (even if they are trolling) there are rules here that are not to be broken and lines not to be crossed. It matters not that you might have been offended by someones comment; that doesn't make it okay for you to resort to name calling. Enjoy your vacation. In the future, let a mod take care of the problems. The next time you decide to act the way you did in this thread, the ban won't be temporary.
Way to come into this thread and basically said "its ok to wish death upon poor people, but god help you if you name call the person that wishes that"
BC
-
Derp
-
{edited}
-
This thread is going the way of Circuit City in 2009.
-
This thread is going the way of Circuit City in 2009.
Don't say it, I would like to be able to discuss the protests at least. :facepalm:
-
Come into a thread and say you are happy when poor people die...get a warning.
Call a dude out on his shit...get banned.
Cool.
-
So, well, what do you think the probability of these getting coverage by the major news outlets?
-
Aaaaaanyway, I hear there's protests developing across the country, at least on the Eastern side of the country. There's one even close to where I work, I hear. Should be interesting to encounter walking to work tomorrow morning.
So, well, what do you think the probability of these getting coverage by the major news outlets?
It's gotten a few mentions already on New York Times, so let's just wait and see.
-
Perhaps from hyperinflation from the print-happy Messiah in Chief, not because of stock brokers. :rollin
You realize the Fed is one of the things being protested by a lot of people, right? I saw multiple "end the fed" signs out there. It's definitely part of the agenda.
Yeah, that's nice and all, but overall I don't see the majority of the crowd knowing what they really want. It feels in the vein of "What we want? -We don't know! But we want it now" protests.
That's not because the people are clueless, it's because everyone is there for a difference reason. Honestly, that's still more than the libertarians have done on their own. If there's every been a group that makes a big show of chest-pounding on the internet and consistently fails to materialize in the "real world" time and time again, it's the libertarians.
Damn it. You got yourself banned. But anyway, is your point "SOMETHING must be done? It doesn't matter what it is, SOMETHING must be done?" Because when I hear that they are protesting against Wall Street I see it in two ways, 1) Let's abolish Wall Street because it is evil and the source of our economic woes. 2) Don't let Wall Street (which it is not inherently evil) do transactions with money that are from Corporations (who basically have stolen it from the ordinary citizens because the government gave these benefits to once small/medium companies that turned into Corporations). If they were protesting in Wall Street because they want to end and Corporatism in the USA, I'm all for it. But if they want to just end Wall Street, then I don't think that what they are doing is right.
-
Aaaaaanyway, I hear there's protests developing across the country, at least on the Eastern side of the country. There's one even close to where I work, I hear. Should be interesting to encounter walking to work tomorrow morning.
That's quite interesting to see that more have sprouted up.
Could be a sign that the unrest is growing; it'd be nice if it continued to grow and possibly even resulted in the fed. taking notice, at least.
Though whether or not that happens is something to find out when it does or doesn't happen, I guess.
-
Perhaps from hyperinflation from the print-happy Messiah in Chief, not because of stock brokers. :rollin
You realize the Fed is one of the things being protested by a lot of people, right? I saw multiple "end the fed" signs out there. It's definitely part of the agenda.
Yeah, that's nice and all, but overall I don't see the majority of the crowd knowing what they really want. It feels in the vein of "What we want? -We don't know! But we want it now" protests.
That's not because the people are clueless, it's because everyone is there for a difference reason. Honestly, that's still more than the libertarians have done on their own. If there's every been a group that makes a big show of chest-pounding on the internet and consistently fails to materialize in the "real world" time and time again, it's the libertarians.
Damn it. You got yourself banned. But anyway, is your point "SOMETHING must be done? It doesn't matter what it is, SOMETHING must be done?" Because when I hear that they are protesting against Wall Street I see it in two ways, 1) Let's abolish Wall Street because it is evil and the source of our economic woes. 2) Don't let Wall Street (which it is not inherently evil) do transactions with money that are from Corporations (who basically have stolen it from the ordinary citizens because the government gave these benefits to once small/medium companies that turned into Corporations). If they were protesting in Wall Street because they want to end and Corporatism in the USA, I'm all for it. But if they want to just end Wall Street, then I don't think that what they are doing is right.
So what would you suggest we do?
-
It matters not that you might have been offended by someones comment; that doesn't make it okay for you to resort to name calling.
This is so ironic coming from you.
-
Come into a thread and say you are happy when poor people die...get a warning.
Call a dude out on his shit...get banned.
Cool.
Numbers, you are very close to walking on the edge here, so please be careful where you tread. As is outlined in the rules, if you have a problem or a question about a moderators decision on this site, PM that moderator. Do not discuss it openly in the forum.
Be that as it may, PC has been warned (and banned) numerous times already in the past. So he wasn't banned for one comment in this thread. Yeshaberto handled the issue with Praxis how he saw fit. I simply followed our basic protocol and structure, and PC was banned for his attacks. Regardless of what was said to encourage his posting of his commentary... PC broke the rules...again.
I suggest that everyone move along and continue to the discussion in a civil manner before the thread winds up closed.
-
Perpetual Change..regardless of your point of view regarding anyone elses commentary or beliefs (even if they are trolling) there are rules here that are not to be broken and lines not to be crossed. It matters not that you might have been offended by someones comment; that doesn't make it okay for you to resort to name calling. Enjoy your vacation. In the future, let a mod take care of the problems. The next time you decide to act the way you did in this thread, the ban won't be temporary.
Way to come into this thread and basically said "its ok to wish death upon poor people, but god help you if you name call the person that wishes that"
BC
The hell are you talking about? Praxis has some (in my opinion) ridiculous views, but he's entitled to those views. He's not attacking anyone, and he isn't telling anyone else how THEY should feel, merely expressing his own opinions. Granted, he's not being respectful about it, but that is why he was warned.
Whereas Joe took it upon himself to launch a direct personal attack, which is absolutely against the rules, and which may have been a warning with a clean history but considering his previous warnings and bans, was a ban. How is that in any way not logical?
And Cole, I don't know how many times I have to explain to you the difference between having bad opinions and breaking rules. Your behaviour in this thread has been just as bas as Praxis' because you're being just as narrow minded but go one step further and start telling other people what their opinions should be. If you can't debate in an intelligent way without getting worked up and angry, then you're probably better off staying out of P/R.
As for someone being a troll, maybe he is, but it's only working because people are responding. As far as I can see, there was a discussion going on in both directions. If you ignore him and he carries on, THAT is being a troll. Simply having opinions that you disagree with (no matter how strongly) does not constitute trolling.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
-
Fox News covered the protests this morning. It was on TV, and I was trying to sleep, but my puppy was walking all over me and annoying me. I couldn't really pay attention.
I do know how 401ks work. I also know that a lot of Wall St. investors make money on dividends. IE, their money. With the money that THEY EARN, what is it our business if they use it how they wish?
-
Come into a thread and say you are happy when poor people die...get a warning.
Call a dude out on his shit...get banned.
Cool.
Cole, since you've already been warned and called out by Rich about this post, I don't want to belabor the point. But I feel it necessary to point something out: Don't forgot for a moment that you have been banned in the past for, for example, making completely inappropriate comments about a moderator's minor daughter, and as such, you are within an inch of being permanently banned from the forum yourself. You have survived this long because you have mostly settled down and stayed on the right side of the rules. But don't forget: Cross that line, and you will not be coming back.
-
Fox News covered the protests this morning. It was on TV, and I was trying to sleep, but my puppy was walking all over me and annoying me. I couldn't really pay attention.
I do know how 401ks work. I also know that a lot of Wall St. investors make money on dividends. IE, their money. With the money that THEY EARN, what is it our business if they use it how they wish?
Dividends aren't the problem here. It's stuff like the government buying toxic assets off bankers that angers people.
-
No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority.
A couple minutes of research/4th grade or above thinking would rememdy that
-
I think the Wall St people dont really understand capital markets. I dont know if there has been any device that has improved the welfare of the common man more than the capital markets and the corporation.
-
No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority.
Anarchism and libertarianism aren't concepts too far from eachother. At least if you define anarchism like Murray Rothbard would, who was the first great libertarian thinker who put forth a full defense for an anarcho-capitalist society.
Centralized power is one of the worst things in a libertarian perspective, hence the hate for government and how it's in bed with Wall St.
-
Perhaps from hyperinflation from the print-happy Messiah in Chief, not because of stock brokers. :rollin
You realize the Fed is one of the things being protested by a lot of people, right? I saw multiple "end the fed" signs out there. It's definitely part of the agenda.
Yeah, that's nice and all, but overall I don't see the majority of the crowd knowing what they really want. It feels in the vein of "What we want? -We don't know! But we want it now" protests.
That's not because the people are clueless, it's because everyone is there for a difference reason. Honestly, that's still more than the libertarians have done on their own. If there's every been a group that makes a big show of chest-pounding on the internet and consistently fails to materialize in the "real world" time and time again, it's the libertarians.
Damn it. You got yourself banned. But anyway, is your point "SOMETHING must be done? It doesn't matter what it is, SOMETHING must be done?" Because when I hear that they are protesting against Wall Street I see it in two ways, 1) Let's abolish Wall Street because it is evil and the source of our economic woes. 2) Don't let Wall Street (which it is not inherently evil) do transactions with money that are from Corporations (who basically have stolen it from the ordinary citizens because the government gave these benefits to once small/medium companies that turned into Corporations). If they were protesting in Wall Street because they want to end and Corporatism in the USA, I'm all for it. But if they want to just end Wall Street, then I don't think that what they are doing is right.
So what would you suggest we do?
I think, for starters, organize themselves. Let the good ideas in and drop down the baseless ramble.
-
Fox News covered the protests this morning. It was on TV, and I was trying to sleep, but my puppy was walking all over me and annoying me. I couldn't really pay attention.
I do know how 401ks work. I also know that a lot of Wall St. investors make money on dividends. IE, their money. With the money that THEY EARN, what is it our business if they use it how they wish?
Dividends aren't the problem here. It's stuff like the government buying toxic assets off bankers that angers people.
Oh, I don't disagree with that at all.
-
Anyway. Local media seems to be paying more attention to OWS since last night, when the NYPD arrested ~700 people.
Any idea what they got arrested for? Not having a permit?
-
Anyway. Local media seems to be paying more attention to OWS since last night, when the NYPD arrested ~700 people.
Any idea what they got arrested for? Not having a permit?
Blocking everyday activities, like bridges. You know, people couldn't drive.
-
I heard from a not credible source that they were getting arrested for starting cooking fires and shit like that when it is illegal to do so. Anybody confirm this?
-
I heard from a not credible source that they were getting arrested for starting cooking fires and shit like that when it is illegal to do so. Anybody confirm this?
That much I have NOT heard. Just that they were blocking every day activities from happening, like DRIVING IN FUCKING NEW YORK CITY. :tdwn
-
Starting an open fire in a city without a permit? Hell yes that's illegal.
-
No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority.
A couple minutes of research/4th grade or above thinking would rememdy that
Okay, seriously? This is okay now?
Perhaps from hyperinflation from the print-happy Messiah in Chief, not because of stock brokers. :rollin
You realize the Fed is one of the things being protested by a lot of people, right? I saw multiple "end the fed" signs out there. It's definitely part of the agenda.
Yeah, that's nice and all, but overall I don't see the majority of the crowd knowing what they really want. It feels in the vein of "What we want? -We don't know! But we want it now" protests.
That's not because the people are clueless, it's because everyone is there for a difference reason. Honestly, that's still more than the libertarians have done on their own. If there's every been a group that makes a big show of chest-pounding on the internet and consistently fails to materialize in the "real world" time and time again, it's the libertarians.
Damn it. You got yourself banned. But anyway, is your point "SOMETHING must be done? It doesn't matter what it is, SOMETHING must be done?" Because when I hear that they are protesting against Wall Street I see it in two ways, 1) Let's abolish Wall Street because it is evil and the source of our economic woes. 2) Don't let Wall Street (which it is not inherently evil) do transactions with money that are from Corporations (who basically have stolen it from the ordinary citizens because the government gave these benefits to once small/medium companies that turned into Corporations). If they were protesting in Wall Street because they want to end and Corporatism in the USA, I'm all for it. But if they want to just end Wall Street, then I don't think that what they are doing is right.
So what would you suggest we do?
I think, for starters, organize themselves. Let the good ideas in and drop down the baseless ramble.
1. How are they not organizing themselves? From what I've heard it has really come together the last few days.
2. I think "good ideas" is based purely on opinion. What's wrong with it being baseless anyway? Isn't the whole point that the protest has brought people from both sides of the political spectrum together?
-
No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority.
A couple minutes of research/4th grade or above thinking would rememdy that
Okay, seriously? This is okay now?
no, it is not! livehard, that is not cool.
-
No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority.
A couple minutes of research/4th grade or above thinking would rememdy that
Okay, seriously? This is okay now?
no, it is not! livehard, that is not cool.
WHAT!?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING?!?!?!
Unbelievable if you think that knowing the difference between libertarianism disain for overreaching government and anarchist contempt for authority takes more than what I said you are out of this world. It is BEYOND EASY to tell the difference and I think that it takes nothing more than a couple of minutes of reasearch and the ability to know words on the 4th grade level. I NEVER insulted the poster. I simply instructed him to do research.
Here superdude, I will give you a big hint as to the difference: the libertarian respect and advocacy of the enforcement of property rights and freedom by the policing of the people by the government usually surpasses that of anyone from another party.
-
Arguably, it's fundamentally the same thing. Authority = government in this case.
So, even though we all know that they ARE different, on the surface it appears to be the same in principle.
BTW, you insult Super Dude again and I will send you back to the dark ages
-
livehard, you are not off to a good start. cut out the needless insults.
this is your final warning, otherwise prepare for a week off
-
Not to mention a seeming contradiction I noticed in your explanation:
the libertarian respect and advocacy of the enforcement of property rights and freedom by the policing of the people by the government usually surpasses that of anyone from another party.
If PraXis is to be believed, isn't the whole point of libertarianism to undo all government imposition over property rights and freedom? At least the impression I've gotten from him is that the libertarian "slogan" is "I have a natural right to my property and freedom that cannot be challenged by government or society."
-
3 in five minutes! :lol
To add to the conversation...I like the idea of anarchy, it just won't happen. In a perfect world, we'd all live in a socialist anarchy, but whatevs.
-
I simply did not insult him. There was absolutely no insult there and if someone misinterpreted that, than it is very unfortunate. I emphatically disagree that the difference is conspicous. It is CRYSTAL clear to ANYONE that has read the definition of Libertarianism and anarchism can EASILY tell the difference.
For someone who has a decent reading comprehension, a TINY amount of research easily reveals the difference. THAT IS NOT AN INSULT TO ANYONE, it is a FACT.
-
3 in five minutes! :lol
To add to the conversation...I like the idea of anarchy, it just won't happen. In a perfect world, we'd all live in a socialist anarchy, but whatevs.
If Men were but angels...
-
Dude...I actually learned that shit today! That is the 51st Federalist paper!
-
:tup
-
Hey, aren't the federalist papers, like, 200-something years old? That means they're irrelevant to SuperDude.
-
Not to mention a seeming contradiction I noticed in your explanation:
the libertarian respect and advocacy of the enforcement of property rights and freedom by the policing of the people by the government usually surpasses that of anyone from another party.
If PraXis is to be believed, isn't the whole point of libertarianism to undo all government imposition over property rights and freedom? At least the impression I've gotten from him is that the libertarian "slogan" is "I have a natural right to my property and freedom that cannot be challenged by government or society."
Edit: it can be challenged by society and it is a VERY VERY important function of government to police these rights, and to also enforce and decide penalties to enfracting against those rights. THAT is the main difference. I can sue you on the basis that you hurt me or my property, and the government needs to be there to enforce that you did not, and that if you did, that you pay for the damages. Thats the difference.
I hope that that helps clear the difference between the two as they are very important distinctions as I feel that anarchism shows an abandonment of logic and that Libertarianism is the shinning example of the usage of logic and reason.
-
Hey, aren't the federalist papers, like, 200-something years old? That means they're irrelevant to SuperDude.
Not totally irrelevant, but I won't swear by 'em. I sincerely wish someone would go and write up a new manifesto more relevant to our modern world.
-
Hey, aren't the federalist papers, like, 200-something years old? That means they're irrelevant to SuperDude.
Just because they are old, it doesn't mean that what they say is totally outdated.
Now...the Constitution...
-
Actually he's referring to the fact that I won't base my political worldview on outdated documents and theories.
-
I simply did not insult him. There was absolutely no insult there and if someone misinterpreted that, than it is very unfortunate. I emphatically disagree that the difference is conspicous. It is CRYSTAL clear to ANYONE that has read the definition of Libertarianism and anarchism can EASILY tell the difference.
For someone who has a decent reading comprehension, a TINY amount of research easily reveals the difference. THAT IS NOT AN INSULT TO ANYONE, it is a FACT.
you didn't help your case.
plus I was just informed that you were already warned today.
enjoy a week off
-
Perhaps I can eloquate the difference more clearly with an on topic example:
Anarchism: these protesters can do whatever the want, wherever they want. The detractors can do the same.
Libertarianism: The government is both necissary and desireable to stop these people from harming me or my property on my Wall St office.
-
I think the first sounds cooler.
-
Hey, aren't the federalist papers, like, 200-something years old? That means they're irrelevant to SuperDude.
Why is it okay for you to mock others' beliefs but not when anyone else does it?
-
I simply did not insult him. There was absolutely no insult there and if someone misinterpreted that, than it is very unfortunate. I emphatically disagree that the difference is conspicous. It is CRYSTAL clear to ANYONE that has read the definition of Libertarianism and anarchism can EASILY tell the difference.
For someone who has a decent reading comprehension, a TINY amount of research easily reveals the difference. THAT IS NOT AN INSULT TO ANYONE, it is a FACT.
(https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y280/bosk1/DTF/clipbant.jpg)
-
Hey, aren't the federalist papers, like, 200-something years old? That means they're irrelevant to SuperDude.
Why is it okay for you to mock others' beliefs but not when anyone else does it?
Be careful, or I may perhaps gently mock you as well.
-
It's turned into another leftist/anarchist rally that is nothing but anti-capitalism and wealth/achievement envy.. and I'm curious.. how old are the left-leaning members on this forum... most likely still getting a free ride from mommy and daddy. Once these people actually work a few years and are in their late 20s like myself, they will see the light.
You fail at caricature. I'm one of the "lefties"...I'm in my 30s, and am a very-well compensated professional with my doctorate. And I don't feel entitled to anyone's money...I just have a sense of compassion.
-
By the way...I know I'm not the law in here anymore, but I think everyone would be very well-served to read the old "READ BEFORE POSTING" sticky:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=9776.0
-
Hi all, I'm sorry I went a bit too far. I'll tone it down a bit. :smiley:
-
People are getting a little testy in here I see :lol
Anyway -- I feel that this is somewhat related, so I'll post it here:
What do you guys think of Dylan Ratigan's Get Money Out movement? I don't care if you think it'll work or not, I just want to know your thoughts on the premise. Would you support a candidate who ran with a goal like this?. The broadest shared sentiment of the Occupy Wall Street movement that EVERYONE can relate to is that we (the 99%, in their terms) do not control this country. Our politicians are bought and paid for in broad daylight. Who benefits from it? Not us.
https://www.getmoneyout.com/about
-
I think that would be great if it actually happens.
-
https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
:corn
-
So, solving America's problems would involve:
- Throwing up tariff barriers to all goods and services.
- Mandating a minimum wage that, as far as I can guess, is probably double the minimum now
- Legislating that said minimum wage is paid to everyone, regardless of whether they are employed
- Spend a trillion bucks on planting trees
- Let anyone into the country
- "Forgive" all debts
Guys, c'mon, the right are the ones who normally come up with the crackpot "demands". Leave it to them. Just concentrate on sitting around and making a slightly-more-than-negligable contribution to the society that you are denegrating.
-
So, solving America's problems would involve:
- Throwing up tariff barriers to all goods and services.
- Mandating a minimum wage that, as far as I can guess, is probably double the minimum now
- Legislating that said minimum wage is paid to everyone, regardless of whether they are employed
- Spend a trillion bucks on planting trees
- Let anyone into the country
- "Forgive" all debts
Guys, c'mon, the right are the ones who normally come up with the crackpot "demands". Leave it to them. Just concentrate on sitting around and making a slightly-more-than-negligable contribution to the society that you are denegrating.
Not sure if srs... :-S
-
I've had a bit more of a look around their website now, and it looks like these are "suggestions" from one particular user - I thought it was their final list of demands. In which case, as I hope came across in that post, they are a bunch of crack pots.
Even still, having a list of demands which would throw the US, and probably the world, back to cave man times, is not helpful. Its inflammatory. And it pissess raationalists like me off :angel:
-
What should be done:
a) Compartmentalize the system by splitting up the large banks. Only then will society at large begin to be separated from the banks' gambling speculation risks.
b) Arrest the CEOs and executives of banks that are committing fraud. This will massively reduce the rampant crime in the financial sector.
c) Stop appointing ex-Wall Street business people to positions in the Fed, Treasury and regulatory institutions. Speculative bankers don't give a shit about the economy (nor about their own banks if they're TBTF) since they can profit in both up and down markets, so keep them out of government.
-
https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
:corn
"These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy."
:rollin
Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning!
-
:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
-
I went down to these "protests" yesterday and I have to say its a complete fucking joke. They aren't protesting anything. It's a bunch of people with nothing better to do who feel like they are part of something because they are doing a sit in. They are smoking weed out in the open (no wonder why there have been arrests), dressed up in weird costumes, and are basically doing nothing.
They have no goal, they have no defined thing that they are protesting. It's a big fucking mess. You go down there and you are just going to see 100 half baked philosophies and slogans around from people who are basically there to just complain about THE MAN.
I liken it to the South Park episode where Canada goes on strike and just demands more money. Except, at least they were focused in their demand.
So basically these protests are just a big joke and there is no real movement going on. Just a bunch of kids who really don't understand the economy and how it works who want to get on TV.
-
:lol
I didn't think people became that jaded until they hit 50...at least!
Meanwhile, why exactly is the Constitution, "America's Bible?" Talk about an old, outdated document that needs a good burning...or at least a rewrite. If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Ben Franklin knew we were still using what they wrote as a means to govern the country, they'd shoot themselves.
You DO realize that the constitution is re-written all the time right? Amendments and such? I sure you have heard of them.
But to answer your question as to why the constitution is "America's Bible" is because that document is what defines our society and method of government. Additionally I am pretty sure that the founding fathers and authors of the constitution WOULD be suprised to see that they got it right and thier framework for a country has proven thus far to be one of the most successful models for how to run a country. Just a thought.
-
I went down to these "protests" yesterday and I have to say its a complete fucking joke. They aren't protesting anything. It's a bunch of people with nothing better to do who feel like they are part of something because they are doing a sit in. They are smoking weed out in the open (no wonder why there have been arrests), dressed up in weird costumes, and are basically doing nothing.
They have no goal, they have no defined thing that they are protesting. It's a big fucking mess. You go down there and you are just going to see 100 half baked philosophies and slogans around from people who are basically there to just complain about THE MAN.
I liken it to the South Park episode where Canada goes on strike and just demands more money. Except, at least they were focused in their demand.
So basically these protests are just a big joke and there is no real movement going on. Just a bunch of kids who really don't understand the economy and how it works who want to get on TV.
Hannity did a phone interview with this 18 year old chick from Jacksonville that was at the protest. OMG the complete lack of understanding of the real world was baffling. All she could spout was she was protesting the rich and that they should pay more taxes so poor kids dont live on the street. Her circular logic was quite irritating but you just couldnt turn the channel.... kind of like passing a train wreck, you know you shouldn't slow down and look but you can't help yourself.... :facepalm:
-
Additionally I am pretty sure that the founding fathers and authors of the constitution WOULD be suprised to see that they got it right and thier framework for a country has proven thus far to be one of the most successful models for how to run a country. Just a thought.
The founding fathers would be suicidally despondent over what we've become. As for being successful, I'd suggest that we've already failed. Denial just lasts longer with some than it does with others. We've got a government that doesn't work for the people, yet is so entrenched that we're stuck with it. Furthermore, we've created a race of people who's idea of solving the problem is to dress up like zombies and stand around in front of rich people. Yet all the while, most of the population chants the greatest nation on Earth mantra while insisting that they're still free.
-
I went down to these "protests" yesterday and I have to say its a complete fucking joke. They aren't protesting anything. It's a bunch of people with nothing better to do who feel like they are part of something because they are doing a sit in. They are smoking weed out in the open (no wonder why there have been arrests), dressed up in weird costumes, and are basically doing nothing.
They have no goal, they have no defined thing that they are protesting. It's a big fucking mess. You go down there and you are just going to see 100 half baked philosophies and slogans around from people who are basically there to just complain about THE MAN.
I liken it to the South Park episode where Canada goes on strike and just demands more money. Except, at least they were focused in their demand.
So basically these protests are just a big joke and there is no real movement going on. Just a bunch of kids who really don't understand the economy and how it works who want to get on TV.
Hannity did a phone interview with this 18 year old chick from Jacksonville that was at the protest. OMG the complete lack of understanding of the real world was baffling. All she could spout was she was protesting the rich and that they should pay more taxes so poor kids dont live on the street. Her circular logic was quite irritating but you just couldnt turn the channel.... kind of like passing a train wreck, you know you shouldn't slow down and look but you can't help yourself.... :facepalm:
You should kinda expect that from an 18 year-old, I think. Real political knowledge comes around college or so.
-
I think it's rather naive to assume that whatever age group you are presently in or have just recently "graduated" from is the age at which you obtain "real" knowledge of any given subject. Just sayin'.
-
El Barto, that was beautiful in the saddest of ways.
-
I think it's rather naive to assume that whatever age group you are presently in or have just recently "graduated" from is the age at which you obtain "real" knowledge of any given subject. Just sayin'.
How many high school kids have you met with real political knowledge? I believe there may actually be something to what I said, as a result of voting registration age.
-
El Barto, that was beautiful in the saddest of ways.
Yeah, I do that sometimes. :lol
-
I think it's rather naive to assume that whatever age group you are presently in or have just recently "graduated" from is the age at which you obtain "real" knowledge of any given subject. Just sayin'.
How many high school kids have you met with real political knowledge? I believe there may actually be something to what I said, as a result of voting registration age.
How many college students have you met with real political knowledge? I'm going to guess there are more college students who are clueless to politics than students who actually have a good handle on what happens in politics.
-
Hey, maybe my data is skewed because my college is especially politically active. (And it may be a stupid stipulation, but it may have something to do with going to a school in the Greater Boston Area)
-
I think you guys are both missing the point. When we go through life we always reach a level and think to ourselves, "Wow, I know a lot now, and I don't believe in all the same things I did 1, 2, or 5 years ago". And that happens constantly in our life. Sometime we go back to old beliefs and we often keep moving forward. The point being it is contradictory to the learning process and to those realizations to actually pin down a point where you think you've got it all, because you never do and never will.
-
The point is, 98% of the wall street protesters are clueless and it is not a real movement. This is why the media doesn't cover it. Because truthfully, having seen it, there is nothing going on there that is worthy of news coverage.
I hear people screaming on the web about how the media is censoring these protests and they compare them to the Egypt uprising. And after going down to see it for myself all I have to say is HOLY LOL.
-
Hey, maybe my data is skewed because my college is especially politically active. (And it may be a stupid stipulation, but it may have something to do with going to a school in the Greater Boston Area)
Being politically active in no way means a greater understanding. In fact if anything, university age students here are more idealist and naive/ignorant about how the world actually works. Most protests here in the UK suffer from the same problems that 7SB is talking about, with a total lack of focus or clarity around what is actually being protested.
-
After thinking about people I've been around in grade school, high school, college, the professional world, the fact is that 95% of people under 25 are absolutely useless. Raising the voting age to 25 would be a great thing.
-
Hey, maybe my data is skewed because my college is especially politically active. (And it may be a stupid stipulation, but it may have something to do with going to a school in the Greater Boston Area)
Being politically active in no way means a greater understanding. In fact if anything, university age students here are more idealist and naive/ignorant about how the world actually works. Most protests here in the UK suffer from the same problems that 7SB is talking about, with a total lack of focus or clarity around what is actually being protested.
Here here, well said ariich. Everyone speaks from their perspective on things which is mostly an opinion based upon their own life experiences and observations. I think it is great that university kids are idealist but they need to be tempered with a little dose of reality. They need to approach a view with the understanding that in 18 - 22 years of life they have not had enough experiences to be completely objective (I don't think that any of us really ever are to be honest no matter what the age) or even understand the ramifications of an extremist point of view on a given topic or subject.
-
After thinking about people I've been around in grade school, high school, college, the professional world, the fact is that 95% of people under 25 are absolutely useless. Raising the voting age to 25 would be a great thing.
For the most part I would have to say I agree with this statement....
on that note.... :corn
-
After thinking about people I've been around in grade school, high school, college, the professional world, the fact is that 95% of people under 25 are absolutely useless. Raising the voting age to 25 would be a great thing.
For the most part I would have to say I agree with this statement....
on that note.... :corn
I was just speaking in general, but I think kids have gotten much worse. I can only imagine what they are teaching them in our schools to account for the loose morals and lack of respect.
-
After thinking about people I've been around in grade school, high school, college, the professional world, the fact is that 95% of people under 25 are absolutely useless. Raising the voting age to 25 would be a great thing.
Praxis, you've been warned about being disrespectful so let's not go down the route of ridiculous generalisations. Plenty of over 25s are equally moronic with their opinions.
-
After thinking about people I've been around in grade school, high school, college, the professional world, the fact is that 95% of people under 25 are absolutely useless. Raising the voting age to 25 would be a great thing.
Praxis, you've been warned about being disrespectful so let's not go down the route of ridiculous generalisations. Plenty of over 25s are equally moronic with their opinions.
Ok :tup
Should I just bash hippies? :biggrin:
-
After thinking about people I've been around in grade school, high school, college, the professional world, the fact is that 95% of people under 25 are absolutely useless. Raising the voting age to 25 would be a great thing.
For the most part I would have to say I agree with this statement....
on that note.... :corn
I strongly disagree. My point above was simply that anyone in or recently just out of college smug enough to think they've got politics (or anything else, for that matter) figured out is merely too shortsighted to realize how wrong they are. The issue isn't how much they know. The issue I have a problem with is one of ignorance about how much they don't know. And, really, that applies to any age group.
But is raising the voting age the answer? No way. College kids know exponentially more about politics than high school kids, for the most part. Just like those who are out of school and have been working for a living for 5 or more years generally know exponentially more about politics than most college kids. That's just the nature of things. But one of the things that gets people to learn more about the system is allowing them to be invested in it no matter their political views, which the right to vote accomplishes.
-
But is raising the voting age the answer? No way. College kids know exponentially more about politics than high school kids, for the most part. Just like those who are out of school and have been working for a living for 5 or more years generally know exponentially more about politics than most college kids. That's just the nature of things. But one of the things that gets people to learn more about the system is allowing them to be invested in it no matter their political views, which the right to vote accomplishes.
Not sure I agree with you there, Holmes. It's not just a matter of understanding politics, but also having a grasp of common sense and the pragmatic reality of how things work. Including youngsters in the system might well encourage them to learn more about whatever party their Rents didn't support, but that's a far cry from making reasonable decisions.
That said, none of this makes a bit of difference since none of those kids vote enough to matter. The people appointing nimrods to our government are all fully grown adults in Iowa who, despite decades of life experience, still don't know shit.
-
A lot of college students also pick worthless majors.. so that contributes to the problem. By worthless I mean what the market and/or individual companies consider worthless, not my personal opinion on specific majors.
-
After thinking about people I've been around in grade school, high school, college, the professional world, the fact is that 95% of people under 25 are absolutely useless. Raising the voting age to 25 would be a great thing.
For the most part I would have to say I agree with this statement....
on that note.... :corn
I strongly disagree. My point above was simply that anyone in or recently just out of college smug enough to think they've got politics (or anything else, for that matter) figured out is merely too shortsighted to realize how wrong they are. The issue isn't how much they know. The issue I have a problem with is one of ignorance about how much they don't know. And, really, that applies to any age group.
But is raising the voting age the answer? No way. College kids know exponentially more about politics than high school kids, for the most part. Just like those who are out of school and have been working for a living for 5 or more years generally know exponentially more about politics than most college kids. That's just the nature of things. But one of the things that gets people to learn more about the system is allowing them to be invested in it no matter their political views, which the right to vote accomplishes.
Yeah but there are pro's and cons to both sides of the argument. The number of 25 may be a bit much... (maybe 22?) It used to be waaay back in the day, in order to vote you had to be a land owner, white and a male to vote. Of course I think that those restrictions are ridiculous but like you point out, at 18, how many kids have any idea of the real ramifications of their vote? How many kids (and I refer to those 18 - 22is) really have any idea what it is they are voting about? I mean THEY believe with all their hearts they know everytihng there is to know and thier opinion/cause is rightous and just but the reality is they are helping craft our nation with thier vote and it is one that is lacking in practical experience and knowledge. Now are there 18 year olds that are just as knowledgeable as you and I (and others)? sure there are but they are in the minority it has been my personal experience.
-
After thinking about people I've been around in grade school, high school, college, the professional world, the fact is that 95% of people under 25 are absolutely useless. Raising the voting age to 25 would be a great thing.
Praxis, you've been warned about being disrespectful so let's not go down the route of ridiculous generalisations. Plenty of over 25s are equally moronic with their opinions.
:lol that's true.
-
Yeah but there are pro's and cons to both sides of the argument. The number of 25 may be a bit much... (maybe 22?) It used to be waaay back in the day, in order to vote you had to be a land owner, white and a male to vote. Of course I think that those restrictions are ridiculous but like you point out, at 18, how many kids have any idea of the real ramifications of their vote? How many kids (and I refer to those 18 - 22is) really have any idea what it is they are voting about? I mean THEY believe with all their hearts they know everytihng there is to know and thier opinion/cause is rightous and just but the reality is they are helping craft our nation with thier vote and it is one that is lacking in practical experience and knowledge. Now are there 18 year olds that are just as knowledgeable as you and I (and others)? sure there are but they are in the minority it has been my personal experience.
Those are very valid concerns, and I don't disagree that the system (and the nation as a whole) would greatly benefit by addressing them. I just don't think that arbitrarily raising the voting age is necessarily the answer. But that being said, I admit that I don't know what the answer is.
-
How many kids (and I refer to those 18 - 22is) really have any idea what it is they are voting about?
Yeah but how many adults really have an idea what it's all about, beyond "IT'S MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP VOTING FOR THE SAME PARTY EVERY ELECTION WITHOUT ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT IT"?
Most adults I know vote for the same party every single election. The good thing about the slightly more idealist approach that people in their 20s have is that they are actually willing to be swayed. Both age groups have pros and cons. Taking the vote away from one group would be hugely unfair.
-
I think it's incredibly dumb that you can be old enough to serve in your country's military but not be old enough to have a drink. Moving the voting age up would be 100x worse.
-
How can we better inform the electorate?
-
I think it's incredibly dumb that you can be old enough to serve in your country's military but not be old enough to have a drink. Moving the voting age up would be 100x worse.
Not to mention the idea of raising the voting age while still forcing guys to register for the draft at 18.
-
I think it's incredibly dumb that you can be old enough to serve in your country's military but not be old enough to have a drink.
I get that. But playing devil's advocate, one could argue it this way: Using alcohol should require a sufficient amount of judgment and maturity to make sure it is used responsibly. Being a lower ranking enlisted person in the military does NOT require judgment and maturity, but merely requires the ability to understand and follow orders.
Just sayin'.
-
How many kids (and I refer to those 18 - 22is) really have any idea what it is they are voting about?
Yeah but how many adults really have an idea what it's all about, beyond "IT'S MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP VOTING FOR THE SAME PARTY EVERY ELECTION WITHOUT ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT IT"?
Most adults I know vote for the same party every single election. The good thing about the slightly more idealist approach that people in their 20s have is that they are actually willing to be swayed. Both age groups have pros and cons. Taking the vote away from one group would be hugely unfair.
That is a valid point ariich, but I have yet to find a politically active/opinionated person in their 20's that had an open mind about much of anything that differs from thier opinion/belief, but I am open to finding one and being pleasantly suprised.
Regarding the over 20ish voters that vote like cattle, they also disgust me. I often say that if you don't vote or have a dog in the fight then you have no right to have a say in how shit goes. I just feel that people in free countries that hold REAL elections just dont realize the wieght of what that means. All I am saying is that the power to change a nation should rest (IMHO) with poeple responsible enough to make educated decisions.
-
I think it's incredibly dumb that you can be old enough to serve in your country's military but not be old enough to have a drink. Moving the voting age up would be 100x worse.
Not to mention the idea of raising the voting age while still forcing guys to register for the draft at 18.
Simple solution to both problems.... raise the draft/enlistment/voting age to 22. Problem solved. :tup
-
I think it's incredibly dumb that you can be old enough to serve in your country's military but not be old enough to have a drink.
I get that. But playing devil's advocate, one could argue it this way: Using alcohol should require a sufficient amount of judgment and maturity to make sure it is used responsibly. Being a lower ranking enlisted person in the military does NOT require judgment and maturity, but merely requires the ability to understand and follow orders.
Just sayin'.
I think judgment and maturity are two rather important factors when one is in control of a weapon or weapons system.
I personally think wielding an M4 carbine is a bigger deal than wielding a beer bottle.
That voting and military service are considered less significant decisions than drinking is a totally fucked up way of looking at civic priorities. I wish Canada would lower the drinking age to 16 or 14.
-
I think it's incredibly dumb that you can be old enough to serve in your country's military but not be old enough to have a drink. Moving the voting age up would be 100x worse.
Not to mention the idea of raising the voting age while still forcing guys to register for the draft at 18.
Simple solution to both problems.... raise the draft/enlistment/voting age to 22. Problem solved. :tup
Except you've now reduced a massive portion of the armed forces. 37% of the Marines and almost 20% of the army on active duty are between 18 and 21.
-
I think it's incredibly dumb that you can be old enough to serve in your country's military but not be old enough to have a drink. Moving the voting age up would be 100x worse.
Not to mention the idea of raising the voting age while still forcing guys to register for the draft at 18.
Simple solution to both problems.... raise the draft/enlistment/voting age to 22. Problem solved. :tup
Bad idea. A functioning military needs young, athletic, energetic personnel. By raising the eligible age, you limit not only the size of your applicant pool, but also the number of years they can serve, since by a given age, there is generally a diminishing return the military gets from its personnel.
I think it's incredibly dumb that you can be old enough to serve in your country's military but not be old enough to have a drink.
I get that. But playing devil's advocate, one could argue it this way: Using alcohol should require a sufficient amount of judgment and maturity to make sure it is used responsibly. Being a lower ranking enlisted person in the military does NOT require judgment and maturity, but merely requires the ability to understand and follow orders.
Just sayin'.
I think judgment and maturity are two rather important factors when one is in control of a weapon or weapons system.
I personally think wielding an M4 carbine is a bigger deal than wielding a beer bottle.
Not really because, again, someone in the military is wielding a weapon under close supervision and under training and indoctrination that requires unfaltering obedience to orders.
-
37% of the Marines are between awesome and amazing.
Why thank you. :semperfi:
-
I like the Swiss model. They are neutral, so they don't meddle in others' affairs, and kids have to go to the military to learn some discipline. Israel has a similar model for military enlistment too.
-
This thread is as random and disorganized as those zombies on Wall St.
-
I think the answer to any zombie attack really comes down to whether or not you have a sufficient stockpile of appropriate ammunition as well as a fortified location with limited points of access and good sight lines. That's my take.
-
After thinking about people I've been around in grade school, high school, college, the professional world, the fact is that 95% of people under 25 are absolutely useless. Raising the voting age to 25 would be a great thing.
For the most part I would have to say I agree with this statement....
on that note.... :corn
I strongly disagree. My point above was simply that anyone in or recently just out of college smug enough to think they've got politics (or anything else, for that matter) figured out is merely too shortsighted to realize how wrong they are. The issue isn't how much they know. The issue I have a problem with is one of ignorance about how much they don't know. And, really, that applies to any age group.
But is raising the voting age the answer? No way. College kids know exponentially more about politics than high school kids, for the most part. Just like those who are out of school and have been working for a living for 5 or more years generally know exponentially more about politics than most college kids. That's just the nature of things. But one of the things that gets people to learn more about the system is allowing them to be invested in it no matter their political views, which the right to vote accomplishes.
I think there is a transition point though that happens in college, as those kids begin to learn more about world and local affairs and what makes them tick (:tick2:).
...I had a point with this one...problem is I can't remember what it was. :facepalm: It was something to do with the fact that college education is the beginning of education about the world, or something like that. I dunno, I'll come back to it later.
Oh, also, I wasn't trying to imply that by the college years you've "got it all figured out," but rather that my experience with my age cohort and others below me has been that in college is when kids become a little more inquisitive about political affairs and far more likely to become interested, engaged, and involved. Which goes back to what I was saying about voting age, because I'm sure that spurs it on at least partially.
-
Hey, maybe my data is skewed because my college is especially politically active. (And it may be a stupid stipulation, but it may have something to do with going to a school in the Greater Boston Area)
Being politically active in no way means a greater understanding. In fact if anything, university age students here are more idealist and naive/ignorant about how the world actually works. Most protests here in the UK suffer from the same problems that 7SB is talking about, with a total lack of focus or clarity around what is actually being protested.
And going to school in Boston, like SD, I can confirm that so many students in that city suffer the same political cluelessness as you just described. Most of the things I've witnessed there were like watching people get ideological hormones: they start to feel something but can't describe or realize it and aimlessly hump around until they've embarrassed themselves to the point where they actually begin to know better.
And then there's Lyndon LaRouche supporters.
-
Pertaining to the Constitution:
I understand the amendment process. That doesn't mean that the document is constantly being rewritten; it is merely being added to. What we need is a totally different set up of government, as this one has failed us miserably.
Pertaining to PraXis:
I asked this a while ago, but I think it probably got lost in the havoc. Where did you go to school, and now, what do you consider "worthless" majors?
-
What we need is a totally different set up of government, as this one has failed us miserably.
How so?
-
We have reached the limits of a capitalist system. The two party democracy leads to nothing getting done. We still have an electoral college for shit's sake! And, this government has caused America to become bloody thirsty raving maniacs.
-
Yeah, the electoral college system pretty much sucks.
-
We have reached the limits of a capitalist system. The two party democracy leads to nothing getting done. And, this government has caused America to become bloody thirsty raving maniacs.
You have sources for that?
-
Yes...America.
-
Pertaining to the Constitution:
I understand the amendment process. That doesn't mean that the document is constantly being rewritten; it is merely being added to. What we need is a totally different set up of government, as this one has failed us miserably.
Pertaining to PraXis:
I asked this a while ago, but I think it probably got lost in the havoc. Where did you go to school, and now, what do you consider "worthless" majors?
I went to a technical/engineering university and my degree was sort of a techy version of a Communication degree. Communication can be bullshit unless you focus in something like PR or some kind of IT.
As for "useless" I feel you can major in whatever you want as long as you don't complain about not being able to find a job after getting that degree which the industries consider useless. When it comes to the private sector (and even the public sector unless you ignore education), useless majors are programs like art history, women's studies, african american studies, any other [insert race/culture] studies, sociology... pretty much all the fields that are only found in academics and not in a typical corporation.
https://www.collegecrunch.org/advice/the-10-most-expensive-but-useless-degrees-in-americ/
Don't get me wrong.. if I majored in art and actually knew how to paint and could sell multiple $10,000+ projects a year, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
-
Whelp, I plan on majoring in one of those so...yay on me!
-
We have reached the limits of a capitalist system.
What does this mean?
The two party democracy leads to nothing getting done.
Yes and no. The system we have was deliberately meant to make sure change was slow and deliberate. And to an extent, that is a really good thing because, while it stymies extreme short-term changes, it encourages systematic deliberate change. Granted, however, that the two political parties and the system of having two parties that has developed through time has bogged down and hopelessly mired the system. But how could that be averted in your opinion?
We still have an electoral college for shit's sake!
And the problem with that is what? You do understand the purpose of the electoral college, right?
And, this government has caused America to become bloody thirsty raving maniacs.
What does this mean?
And by the way, my questions are not meant to brush off your views. I'm just not sure what you mean by certain statements or what your arguments are, so I'm trying to get clarification.
-
Whelp, I plan on majoring in one of those so...yay on me!
It's a risk, but if you really like it then go for it.. just be aware of the risks. It's even tough in fields like elec/comp/mech engineering because lots of companies outsource the entry-level work and the American jobs are usually VERY specialized and require lots of experience. I should have doubled down and gone for an MBA and then Wall Street.. I do very well now, but I'd rather earn more. :D
-
Yes...America.
Eh, that's hardly a scholarly answer for such a bold claim.
-
Bosk.
1. Capitalism is what is causing the massive rich/poor gap in America. It allocates most of the country's wealth to the upper few percent, leaving the lower percent to suffer miserably.
2. Well, the problem is, we have gone so deep, it will be very difficult to get out of. The only way change can happen is if a majority of one party is in Congress at any point in time.
3. I understand the point of an electoral college. The issue is that it is outdated and useless in today's society, and if it is ever used, there would be a massive uproar and everyone would go crazy.
4. Nothing in America has ever been solved through non-violence. We have fought a war about every 20 years. We are a country with blood constantly on our hands and experiencing that causes people to think that violence is the only way to solve things. Not to take shot, but if we decided on diplomacy worked, as opposed to diplomacy coming out of the barrell of a shot gun, do you really think there would be so many PraXis...es? I think not.
-
Bosk.
1. Capitalism is what is causing the massive rich/poor gap in America. It allocates most of the country's wealth to the upper few percent, leaving the lower percent to suffer miserably.
2. Well, the problem is, we have gone so deep, it will be very difficult to get out of. The only way change can happen is if a majority of one party is in Congress at any point in time.
4. Nothing in America has ever been solved through non-violence. We have fought a war about every 20 years. We are a country with blood constantly on our hands and experiencing that causes people to think that violence is the only way to solve things. Not to take shot, but if we decided on diplomacy worked, as opposed to diplomacy coming out of the barrell of a shot gun, do you really think there would be so many PraXis...es? I think not.
1. Suffer miserably? You do know that there are programs like food stamps/Welfare/Social Security?
2. It's been that way since day #1. The John Adams mini-series from HBO covers this slightly, but there are tons of great books (that I'l have to back to you on. I have to find them in my library).
3. I omitted it because everyone knows the EC is a joke.
4. Walk softly and carry a big stick is the best diplomacy. I don't know about you, but I don't take the People's Republic of the Congo seriously at the negotiating table. I do, however, take China and Russia seriously.
-
That's my point though. Why do you take them seriously? Because there is a distinct possibility of getting your ass kicked. We need to get out of that mentality.
-
@Cole: Thanks for the response. One thing I notice (and again, this isn't mean as taking a shot at you) is that you view your opinions as obvious absolute truths that everyone should know and agree with. And while I hesitate to make a sweeping generalization about you when I don't even know you in real life, I strongly suspect that part of that stems from the fact that you aren't overly exposed to opposing views from any source that you would consider reasonable. By that, I mean that in your age group, your political philosophy is the majority view and you aren't regularly exposed to others in your peer group who can rationally explain an opposing viewpoint. Or, to be more blunt (and to unfortunately come across more condescending than I intend this to be), it is a naive set of views in that it doesn't take into account the fact that there are a LOT of people who rationally disagree. Anyhow...
1. Strongly disagree with this on many levels. First, I do not believe that capitalism is a cause at all. It is merely one of MANY systems that allow such a disparity--a disparity I must point out that exists in literally every single political system on earth that has ever existed. Second, I disagree that the "lower percent suffer miserably." Not that there aren't some how do. But if you believe the poor in this country are worse off, or even comparable, to the poor in other countries, you are mistaken. But it's hard to know and appreciate that fact if you haven't experienced poverty first hand, including poverty in other places.
2. Maybe. I think I partly agree. But again, I'm not 100% sure I understand exactly what you are arguing.
3. I'm not sure it's outdated. Maybe it is, but I'm not sure. And it is "used," but I think you mean if it is used to elect someone that does not reflect the "popular vote," that there would be massive uproar. Yeah, there would be. And that is one of the important checks and balances against the electoral college acting arbitrarily.
4. Not true at all. The vast majority of domestic political issues have been solved through nonviolence. And as far as foreign affairs, it's a mixed bag. There is plenty of diplomacy. And there is plenty of...what you would refer to as "diplomacy at the barrel of a gun." But, as with the poverty issue, that is something that is present in almost every society. And those that are exceptions to the general rule function in a way that is so different from how the U.S. functions that I don't believe those nations can serve as viable models for how this country could run. You may disagree with the extent of it, but that's different than arguing that we are simply a bloodthirsty nation of conquerors. Really, I personally don't believe that is the case. But the bottom line is that while we can disagree over the specifics, even in general, you can't say we don't use diplomacy to solve problems. You are focusing on the conflicts vs. the vast majority of issues that are solved without conflict.
And give PraXis a break. His views may be out there, but he helped persuade me to look into buying firearms. He's not all bad. :lol
-
That's my point though. Why do you take them seriously? Because there is a distinct possibility of getting your ass kicked. We need to get out of that mentality.
I agree that it would be great if we could get out of that mentality. But as awesome as that dream is, it simply isn't reality. There have always been and will always be those in the world who want to do others harm. You can't change that. To take an extreme example on an individual level: Take the example of a hardened, uneducated gangster who is 100% invested in the violent gangster lifestyle and literally does not care whether anyone, himself included, lives or dies, and lives his life to just to bang, to watch his gang-brothers' backs, and to have fun for a few years until he is either locked up for life or gets gunned down by a rival gang, and who does not under any circumstances intend on changing his lifestyle. Which is the smarter approach? To give him a key to my house, invite him inside, and naively hope he will see how cool it is to live a peaceful lifestyle and adopt my way? Or to acknowledge that people exist who think the way he does, understand that if given access, he would harm me and my family without a second thought, and to take the necessary precautions against harm, such as keeping the doors locked and making sure I can protect myself if he creates a danger for me and my family? The former appears on the surface to be advocating peace and harmony, but is in reality naive and self-destructive. The latter is wise and prudent. Now extrapolate that example out on a national level.
I'm not arguing that all U.S. policy has been good or that this analogy applies to every conflict we have ever directly or indirectly been a part of as a nation. But it is one that I think applies despite its oversimplicity.
-
Pertaining to the Constitution:
I understand the amendment process. That doesn't mean that the document is constantly being rewritten; it is merely being added to. What we need is a totally different set up of government, as this one has failed us miserably.
Pertaining to PraXis:
I asked this a while ago, but I think it probably got lost in the havoc. Where did you go to school, and now, what do you consider "worthless" majors?
I went to a technical/engineering university and my degree was sort of a techy version of a Communication degree. Communication can be bullshit unless you focus in something like PR or some kind of IT.
As for "useless" I feel you can major in whatever you want as long as you don't complain about not being able to find a job after getting that degree which the industries consider useless. When it comes to the private sector (and even the public sector unless you ignore education), useless majors are programs like art history, women's studies, african american studies, any other [insert race/culture] studies, sociology... pretty much all the fields that are only found in academics and not in a typical corporation.
https://www.collegecrunch.org/advice/the-10-most-expensive-but-useless-degrees-in-americ/
Don't get me wrong.. if I majored in art and actually knew how to paint and could sell multiple $10,000+ projects a year, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
That entire article looks about as well-researched as your typical Cracked daily.
-
And other flaming the person who posted the article, what purpose does your post serve? Why does an article like that even need to be "well-researched?" It isn't a scholarly article. It's more or less an editorial.
-
@Cole: Thanks for the response. One thing I notice (and again, this isn't mean as taking a shot at you) is that you view your opinions as obvious absolute truths that everyone should know and agree with. And while I hesitate to make a sweeping generalization about you when I don't even know you in real life, I strongly suspect that part of that stems from the fact that you aren't overly exposed to opposing views from any source that you would consider reasonable. By that, I mean that in your age group, your political philosophy is the majority view and you aren't regularly exposed to others in your peer group who can rationally explain an opposing viewpoint. Or, to be more blunt (and to unfortunately come across more condescending than I intend this to be), it is a naive set of views in that it doesn't take into account the fact that there are a LOT of people who rationally disagree. Anyhow...
I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with this. No, I don't feel that my views express universal truth any more than you think yours do. The thing is, they are my views, so I am obviously incredibly biased toward them. I understand the opposing view; I just happen to disagree with it. Naturally, I think my views are "best" while others are...not as good. :lol This isn't meant to sound mean or anything, but if this weren't the case, they wouldn't be my views. I also understand your view that at this point in my life, I am a sheep who is following the herd that is my generation (*wicked bass solo*.) I would agree that my views are similar to many of my age who have somewhat of a decent where with all when it comes to thinking in this vain, however, many of my views differ from the norm. I understand there are a lot of people that disagree, but that doesn't make my views any less..."right?" in the sense that I feel they would work. I appreciaite the well articulated opinion though and reading it helps me interact with those who don't see my view.
1. Strongly disagree with this on many levels. First, I do not believe that capitalism is a cause at all. It is merely one of MANY systems that allow such a disparity--a disparity I must point out that exists in literally every single political system on earth that has ever existed. Second, I disagree that the "lower percent suffer miserably." Not that there aren't some how do. But if you believe the poor in this country are worse off, or even comparable, to the poor in other countries, you are mistaken. But it's hard to know and appreciate that fact if you haven't experienced poverty first hand, including poverty in other places.
I agree there is a rich/poor gap in every country in the world. I just so happen to believe that in a capitalistic system, the odds of the gap being bigger are much greater. My problem with free market capitalism is that is goes against many of my moral codes. In a complete free market capitalistic society, those who can't do for whatever reason are left to suffer because of it. I'm not that naive to know that those with higher IQs will most likely make more of themselves with lower IQs but that does not mean that we should brush off the people who aren't as gifted in ability. Another thing that bothers me is the idea of the "American Dream" when it comes to capitalism. As much as right wing libratarians want to say that anyone can achieve anything with hard work, it is a fallacy. There are many mitigating factors and we can't sum up a system with "work hard and you'll do fine." Personally, I like Lenin's NEP. He had the government take control of big bussiness and industry, yet let free market capitalism reign with small stores like smoke shops, resturants, etc.
2. Maybe. I think I partly agree. But again, I'm not 100% sure I understand exactly what you are arguing.
I'm not really making an argument here. I'm merely stating that this is a way the government has failed. Making it hard to do something is one thing. Making it impossible is another. Here, we have to deal with the innate selfishness of man. If people cared about their country, they would pass the bills they think would make their country better. There are democrats out there who are pro-life. There are republicans out there who are pro-gay marriage. The issue is, they won't vote the way they feel so they can continue being reelected and continue receiving lobbies and the like.
3. I'm not sure it's outdated. Maybe it is, but I'm not sure. And it is "used," but I think you mean if it is used to elect someone that does not reflect the "popular vote," that there would be massive uproar. Yeah, there would be. And that is one of the important checks and balances against the electoral college acting arbitrarily.
You and I both agree that if the electoral college elected someone who did not win the popular (well...you get what I mean) votes, there would be chaos. You then say that our checks and balance system against them would prevent that from happening. If that's the case, what's the point?
4. Not true at all. The vast majority of domestic political issues have been solved through nonviolence. And as far as foreign affairs, it's a mixed bag. There is plenty of diplomacy. And there is plenty of...what you would refer to as "diplomacy at the barrel of a gun." But, as with the poverty issue, that is something that is present in almost every society. And those that are exceptions to the general rule function in a way that is so different from how the U.S. functions that I don't believe those nations can serve as viable models for how this country could run. You may disagree with the extent of it, but that's different than arguing that we are simply a bloodthirsty nation of conquerors. Really, I personally don't believe that is the case. But the bottom line is that while we can disagree over the specifics, even in general, you can't say we don't use diplomacy to solve problems. You are focusing on the conflicts vs. the vast majority of issues that are solved without conflict.
Explain to me that if we did not have this violent nature (you could even call it a MIC, tying it back to a capitalistic system) why is it that we have been around as a country for less than 240 years, yet we have participated in as many wars as we have? Maybe it's just the people I'm around, but I've become increasingly cynical and jaded over the "We need to fight for democracy" people. I constantly talk to a friend of mine who is of the opinion that "If men did not have the courage to fight a war, we wouldn't be here today." This...is true. Why I think it's true and why he thinks it's true are completely different, however. To me, if there was no war, well...I don't know what it would be like. It wouldn't be this. Now, I'm not saying that this is all bad, but I'm saying something needs to be done. Since the cavemen, we have settled our problems using violence, and because of the amazing thing called Darwinian evolution, that has been injected into our genes. I am not so naive to think I can change human nature. All I want, is to try to get people to understand that their impulses might not be the best thing to follow. If we start thinking non-violently, down the road, we will become non-violent.
It is nice to have a real conversation with you by the way.
-
My fiancée is an art therapy major :lol
-
About the article, it was obviously not meant to be for real. It was a tad insulting of the philosophy majors though, so that wasn't cool.
-
I was really surprised the music theory wasn't on that list. All you can do with that is...teach music theory. And the only way you'll get hired to do that is if you have a doctorate.
-
My girlfriend is also an art therapy major, already has a job lined up for her after graduation.
-
Lucky. What exactly does one do with that major?
-
Oddly enough, something that has everything to do with art, very little to do with therapy. :P She's looking at a possible entry-level in the "Art Direction" department of some company. I'm sorta scant on the details, but in my imagination it means being like Creative on Mad Men. :metal
-
And I'm the one, according to The Simpsons, that chose poorly: Literature Major... Yay me!!! Better finish that Walter Benjamin book because it sure is going to bring me food in the future. Tomorrow I have my Masters interview (I'm really nervous, though I'm positive of the outcome). And in December there will be an exam to see if my Uni will pay me my Masters AND hires me to teach at Uni (paying me for that as well).
So basically, it all depends on how you plan your future.
-
So, I really want to teach music at a high school level, but I know it could easily be really hard to find an opening for that.
Would it be safe enough to be willing to teach a normal person subject, as a backup plan?
-
I wouldn't suggest being a teacher of anything nowadays. Shy away from education, sir.
-
I want to be a college professor. I am uber fucked.
-
So, getting back into the discussion re: protests (I always miss out on the good stuff), has it become apparent that these protesters aren't actually protesting anything? That's the impression that I got from having a sniff around their website, the group appears to be some kind of rabble without a cause.
You* can blame capitalism for your woes all you like, but remember all of the good stuff that its bought you over the years.
And, realistically, whats the alternative? Every other system: imperialism, dictatorships, communism, autocracy; has been shown to provide short bursts of upside before the same ills that are affecting America's capitalist model right now tear it all down. The best part about American capitalism is that there are checks and balances in place - there's always "an out", for lack of a better word.
Socialism, I hear you cry! Yes, socialism works well, as well as capitalism IMO. But, to be a socialist society you need to accept bigger governments, bigger tax burdens and ease up a bit on the individualism - all of which, from what I've read, Americans don't want.
So lets be a bit more pragmatic. Do things need to change? Yes.
- Banks can't be allowed to do what they like, using mum-and-dads money to speculate.
- Ratings agencies have far too much pull (bordering on religious, for mine).
- In the US, at least, lobbyists appear to have too much pull.
- Politicians are out of touch, but thats because joe average doesn't understand the issues.
But is there a need to flip the system on its head, just because you aren't 100% happy 100% of the time with what your policy makers dish up? Please.
Democracy is slow, but as has been said its intended to be slow, so you get the right change at the end of the road. You want quick decisions, hand all power to a single entity and let them make all of the rules. Howd that work out last time?
Hopefully thats give this thread a bit of a kick along, not that I don't like discussing pointless degrees (I'm glad noones mentioned economics yet).
*I don't mean you as in you guys ITT, I mean you as in those protesting.
-
This threads been Riceball'd
:sadpanda:
-
Good post Riceball. I fully agree with everything you said.
-
1. Capitalism is what is causing the massive rich/poor gap in America. It allocates most of the country's wealth to the upper few percent, leaving the lower percent to suffer miserably.
I know this has been said repeatedly...Corporatism =/= capitalism. There are a million other factors that go into why things are the way they are.
-
I'm assuming you did not read my response to bosk when he commented and basically said the same thing you did.
-
This thread might as well be "The Political and Whatever Else You Can Think of Thread."
-
I wouldn't suggest being a teacher of anything nowadays. Shy away from education, sir.
Well, at least in the US.
-
So lets be a bit more pragmatic. Do things need to change? Yes.
- Banks can't be allowed to do what they like, using mum-and-dads money to speculate.
- Ratings agencies have far too much pull (bordering on religious, for mine).
- In the US, at least, lobbyists appear to have too much pull.
- Politicians are out of touch, but thats because joe average doesn't understand the issues.
Agree with all of these. Add the prosecuting, fining and imprisoning of criminal bankers.
-
So, I really want to teach music at a high school level, but I know it could easily be really hard to find an opening for that.
Would it be safe enough to be willing to teach a normal person subject, as a backup plan?
Teaching is fine if you know what state to move to (i.e where there's demand in good neighborhoods). I would recommend regular, all-around subject teaching and enhance that with music.. you can always make cash on the side teaching an instrument.. if you want to be a professor than it's very difficult and will require $ and a PhD.
-
Proof that this movement is a complete joke.
https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
From their own website. Their list of demands. Have fun with the LOLs
-
Isn't that the list of one guy's opinions? I remember seeing that and how ridiculous some of those demands were.
-
hmm yeah I guess it might just be one guy's opinion. Still freaking lolzworthy.
-
There is a small group of these 'protesters' by my bus stop. It looks like a homeless camp. A bunch of tents spread out, people in shabby clothing milling around. There were only a couple signs, and they were all unrelated HEALTH CARE FOR ALL; END THE FED; DOWN WITH WALL STREET. There appeared to be no organization, no unified message, nothing to make anyone take them seriously.
The cops threatened to arrest them, not sure on what cause. They might not have a permit to camp out in a public park for days on end. I despise any protest that interupts me getting to/from work, but these guys don't. I walk by them every day and they don't impede me in any way.
-
Proof that this movement is a complete joke.
https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
From their own website. Their list of demands. Have fun with the LOLs
Yeah that's the same thing I posted a few pages back.
-
David Harsanyi puts bitches in place. https://reason.com/archives/2011/10/05/occupy-wall-street-a-manifesto
My favorite line:
First, we are imbued with as many inalienable rights as a few thousand college kids and a gaggle of borderline celebrities can concoct, among them a guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment and immediate across-the-board debt forgiveness—even if that debt was acquired taking on a mortgage with a 4.1 percent interest rate and no money down, which, we admit, is a pretty sweet deal in historical context...
...but down with the modern gilded age!
-
The next two are pretty great as well:
We demand that a Master of Fine Arts in musical theater writing, with a minor in German, become an immutable human right, because education is crucial and rich people can afford to fund unemployment checks until we find jobs or in perpetuity, whichever comes first.
We demand a minimum wage of $10, no ... make it $20. We earned it. And we demand the end of "profiteering," because there is no better way to end joblessness than stopping the growth of capital. We also demand a maximum wage law, because selfish American dreams need a firm ceiling.
The first one represents exactly the type of people I envision actually attending these things.
In fact this whole protest reminds me of the very end of the Walmart episode of South Park where the mob burns down the Walmart, proclaims their allegiance to the mom and pop store, and when the mom and pop store becomes too big they burn that down too.
-
Jon Stewart had a great opening segment last night on Fox News and how they have portrayed these protests and how they portray the Tea Party.
https://www.thedailyshow.com/
Segment is called Parks and Demonstration.
-
Fuckin' A. Jon Stewart knows where it's at.
Edit: I see there's a map in that video: New York, Boston, Chicago, Columbus, LA...shit, this thing is spreading like wildfire (I think someone in the video might've said that, actually :lol).
-
it's laughable how hard people are trying to delegitimize and dismiss this by creating ridiculous, sweeping caricatures of the protesters (and their goals) that in no way reflect the actual make-up of people there.
-
it's laughable how hard people are trying to delegitimize and dismiss this by creating ridiculous, sweeping caricatures of the protesters (and their goals) that in no way reflect the actual make-up of people there.
Their demands do that better than anybody at Fox could hope to. $20 minimum wage? For serious?
-
"Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands."
-
:lol Seriously, I thought it was established the day that 'list' came up that it was just some tard on the internet, nothing official or organized.
-
(https://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/308959_845395269185_24405492_38952991_1714045883_n.jpg)
-
cute.
-
it's laughable how hard people are trying to delegitimize and dismiss this by creating ridiculous, sweeping caricatures of the protesters (and their goals) that in no way reflect the actual make-up of people there.
Enlighten me then.
-
Arguably, it's fundamentally the same thing. Authority = government in this case.
So, even though we all know that they ARE different, on the surface it appears to be the same in principle.
BTW, you insult Super Dude again and I will send you back to the dark ages
But it's ok the other way around (not this one case but others)?
I didnt read it as an insult, simply an opinion.
-
It's an opinion to say I have the IQ of a 4th grader? Well this should be interesting.
-
It's an opinion to say I have the IQ of a 4th grader? Well this should be interesting.
Much like it was an opinion to say "No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority."
So, unless you DO in fact have a 4th grade I.Q. (which none of us believe to be true I don't think... I find your arguments aggravating at times but you are certainly very intelligent) then yes it is an opinion.
Insofar as your statement about not understanding the differences (so you say), I tend to think your statement more indented to be inflammatory or at least a jab to get a rise out of libertarians and he responded in like kind. He did not say "SUPER-DUDE, you have the intelligence of a 4th grader" he said that (And I quote) "A couple minutes of research/4th grade or above thinking would rememdy that" nowhere in there do I see him saying you have the IQ of a fourth grader.
What I DO see is a suggestion that on the particular topic at hand, you are taking a very juvenilistic approach to your statement. I tend to agree, believing that you could have put more effort and eloquence into it, but thats just me ;)
-
Proof that this movement is a complete joke.
https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/ (https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/)
From their own website. Their list of demands. Have fun with the LOLs
Er, from that very web page:
"Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/05/occupy-wall-street-has-their-list-demands-lets-hear-iyouri-demands/) and Mises.org (https://mises.org/daily/5746/Occupy-Wall-Street-A-Story-without-Heroes). This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands."
-
Yeah I think we got the memo on that list of demands already.
-
If they plan on getting anything done they have to have a clear message about what they want. So far they've yet to do that.
-
It's an opinion to say I have the IQ of a 4th grader? Well this should be interesting.
Much like it was an opinion to say "No offense to the libertarians on board, but I can't tell the difference between libertarian disdain for government and anarchist disdain for authority."
So, unless you DO in fact have a 4th grade I.Q. (which none of us believe to be true I don't think... I find your arguments aggravating at times but you are certainly very intelligent) then yes it is an opinion.
Insofar as your statement about not understanding the differences (so you say), I tend to think your statement more indented to be inflammatory or at least a jab to get a rise out of libertarians and he responded in like kind. He did not say "SUPER-DUDE, you have the intelligence of a 4th grader" he said that (And I quote) "A couple minutes of research/4th grade or above thinking would rememdy that" nowhere in there do I see him saying you have the IQ of a fourth grader.
What I DO see is a suggestion that on the particular topic at hand, you are taking a very juvenilistic approach to your statement. I tend to agree, believing that you could have put more effort and eloquence into it, but thats just me ;)
Uh yeah about that: I actually did not know the difference. Both, from what I understood prior to my post, advocated for reduction in government in such degree that I personally find extreme. Therefore, I wanted someone who actually considers themselves a libertarian, someone who would be adequately informed about the ideology, to clarify. I'm not sure what I did wrong but if the only thing you're interested in is implicating me and insulting me, then I'll just stop asking questions and stick to my incomplete understandings of libertarianism and anything else I might be curious about.
I innocently asked what the difference was; I'm very sorry I did.
-
Friday morning brainwave: what does 'down with the Fed' actually mean? Is it an assault against the notion of a central bank, or is it more like durp we h8 banks so lets bring down the biggest*?
*note I'm not saying the Fed is the biggest bank, I'm a tad more informed than that...
-
Friday morning brainwave: what does 'down with the Fed' actually mean? Is it an assault against the notion of a central bank, or is it more like durp we h8 banks so lets bring down the biggest*?
*note I'm not saying the Fed is the biggest bank, I'm a tad more informed than that...
It's an assault on our particular central bank. Many think it causes more problems than it solves, and that it's highly corrupt.
-
While it should have more regulation than it does (yes, I'm very conservative and want more regulation for the Fed), I think the Fed is needed.
-
But that's kind of what I'm trying to say, whats wrong with the Fed? Its a central bank, like all other central banks globally. I don't think, given what they are tasked to do, that the US Fed could have really done anything more than it has done to save the US economy.
Arguably, they kept interest rates too low for too long following the tech-wreck, which fuelled asset price bubbles (which would have probably developed anyway - given the emergence of hyper finance before the wreck), but beyond that they have done their job and done it admirably. At the end of the day, a central bank exists for two main purposes:
- To provide the architecture for banks to lend to/borrow from eachother.
- Keep inflation in check.
The Fed doesn't have a role to play in regulatory oversight, doesn't have a role to play in directly creating jobs, doesn't have a role to play politically. These protestors don't seem to understand that, probably because its never been communicated to them - which is probably as much the fault of the Fed as it is the political class/media.
And lets not forget, a central bank is just one of those things that an economy needs - Zimbabwe has a central bank (a shitty one, but it still has one).
Ignorance really pisses me off.
-
If they plan on getting anything done they have to have a clear message about what they want. So far they've yet to do that.
Well the main problem is there's no central voice coupled with the fact that the longer this goes on the more this is turning into Woodstock for the financially uninformed/irresponsible.
-
Interesting article I came across:
https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I don't feel like copying, pasting, and cutting the quote to fit, so just click the freakin' link.
-
But that's kind of what I'm trying to say, whats wrong with the Fed? Its a central bank, like all other central banks globally. I don't think, given what they are tasked to do, that the US Fed could have really done anything more than it has done to save the US economy.
Arguably, they kept interest rates too low for too long following the tech-wreck, which fuelled asset price bubbles (which would have probably developed anyway - given the emergence of hyper finance before the wreck), but beyond that they have done their job and done it admirably. At the end of the day, a central bank exists for two main purposes:
- To provide the architecture for banks to lend to/borrow from eachother.
- Keep inflation in check.
The Fed doesn't have a role to play in regulatory oversight, doesn't have a role to play in directly creating jobs, doesn't have a role to play politically. These protestors don't seem to understand that, probably because its never been communicated to them - which is probably as much the fault of the Fed as it is the political class/media.
And lets not forget, a central bank is just one of those things that an economy needs - Zimbabwe has a central bank (a shitty one, but it still has one).
Ignorance really pisses me off.
Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the Austrian School's objections to the Federal Reserve, whether you agree with them or not (you clearly don't).
-
I actually didn't know anyone objected to the notion of a central bank lol. What don't they like about it?
From my perspective, its a cornerstone of any economy.
-
Sorry for the temporary thread diversion, folks.
Note: I am not a Republican. I am not religious and I love abortion (especially when the poor get them).
I was not part of the discussion when that was posted and Tempus dealt with the subsequent banning of PC, so I stayed out of it. But PraXis, after going back and taking a look and thinking long and hard about this, posts like that need to be dealt with. Whether you are joking or serious, I don't know. At best, the post was in poor taste. At worst, you are advocating exterminating the poor. I suspect the intent lies somewhere in the middle. Exactly where, I don't know or really care. And while in and of itself, it may be a very borderline post, and while I have also defended your (and others') right to post unorthodox and/or unpopular views, if you know or should know that the only real value your post has is to shock or anger someone to the point where they want to fight with you and get themselves banned, that's classic baiting. Your borderline posts that bait others into reacting need to stop. I hope I make myself clear on that. This is your warning. Hopefully, you are smart enough that there will be no need for another.
-
I actually didn't know anyone objected to the notion of a central bank lol. What don't they like about it?
From my perspective, its a cornerstone of any economy.
Just to name a couple things, the Fed's actions unfairly redistribute wealth, lead to malinvestment, and create bubbles. The Austrians believe that the Fed's actions had a very large role in our current economic troubles (most also believe that the Fed delayed/worsened economic recovery during the Great Depression, as opposed to Bernanke's view that the Fed didn't do enough).
I'm trying to find a concise article/essay that summarizes their objections for you. I'm sure William Wallace can help me out here, if he happens to read this.
-
You've piqued my interest. If you can, do you know of three strong arguments for and against either reducing the power of the Fed or abolishing it entirely?
-
Oooooooooooo! Pick me! Pick me! PICK ME!!!! *waves hands frantically*
-
Um...bosk?
-
I'll take the against reducing the power of the Fed; I'll need a little bit of time for research though.
And I think we're being trolled :loser:
-
Um...bosk?
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, answer: It smells funny.
-
How correct or incorrect is the video explaining the FR and how it's apparently the prime source of bad things?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU)
-
Eh, that video seems to be more of a conspiratorial view of things (at least later on in the video); I think people here are seeking more practical/policy-centric arguments as to why the Fed is or isn't beneficial for the economy.
I can just easily see that video being used to smear all anti-Fed people as conspiracy cooks.
-
Eh, that video seems to be more of a conspiratorial view of things (at least later on in the video); I think people here are seeking more practical/policy-centric arguments as to why the Fed is or isn't beneficial for the economy.
I can just easily see that video being used to smear all anti-Fed people as conspiracy cooks.
I scanned through it quickly. This seems fitting.
-
Ugh. This girl I know who moved to Seattle went to a 99% protest there. She posted a status talking about how they were gathered together to advocate a higher state of consciousness or whatever, then the police came and broke them up. Because I was curious, I clicked the video. I made it through about three seconds of the protestors incoherently and annoyingly yelling while the police officers stood there before I turned it off. Look, I don't like everything cops do. I think our political and financial systems are becoming more and more screwed up more and more quickly. But these protests aren't the answer.
-
Y'know, I'm finding this situation oddly familiar: here we have an executive leader who can't control a deadlocked and bickering Senate, yet who is conferred by said Senate increasing emergency powers to deal with the crisis at hand...hmm... :justjen
I can't put my finger on it, what about you guys?
(https://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7B808166EA-5A43-4F52-8B7D-7473402BB5A9%7D/movie_review_sith_image1.jpg)
-
The police didn't break up the protests in Seattle, they just didn't want them to camp there indefinitely. So they pulled up their tents, but are still out there.
Ironically, they seem more like protesters now; holding signs, trying to get passers-by involved. But in a polite, unobtrusive way. I walk by them every day and they don't bother me at all.
-
Y'know, I'm finding this situation oddly familiar: here we have an executive leader who can't control a deadlocked and bickering Senate, yet who is conferred by said Senate increasing emergency powers to deal with the crisis at hand...hmm... :justjen
(https://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7B808166EA-5A43-4F52-8B7D-7473402BB5A9%7D/movie_review_sith_image1.jpg)
This is the only answer.
-
Awwwwww yeah Death Star time.
-
Let President Reagan lead the way. :neverusethis:
-
Is that a satire of neoconservatism?
-
You've never heard of his "Star Wars" project?
-
Yes, I have.
I missed the reference, though, as I know him more as as a former Republican president that some people view as a deity or something.
-
Friggin' sharks, with friggin' laser beams.
-
Out of curiosity, if these same silly people were protesting in front of the Capital building, or the Whitehouse, bemoaning the unbelievably fucked up state that this country is in, would they still be catching all the flack that they are now? It appears to me that their biggest problem is that by picking Wall St., they're suggesting a higher purpose than the generalized discontent that they're trying to express, and quite frankly, that every person should be expressing.
-
sup
(https://i.imgur.com/zQLlK.png)
-
Out of curiosity, if these same silly people were protesting in front of the Capital building, or the Whitehouse, bemoaning the unbelievably fucked up state that this country is in, would they still be catching all the flack that they are now? It appears to me that their biggest problem is that by picking Wall St., they're suggesting a higher purpose than the generalized discontent that they're trying to express, and quite frankly, that every person should be expressing.
Maybe, I doubt it, but still this.
If they plan on getting anything done they have to have a clear message about what they want. So far they've yet to do that.
Until they have that clear message they're just loitering.
-
sup
(https://i.imgur.com/zQLlK.png)
I've seen this a few times and I still don't get what it's trying to prove. Does it imply that the NYPD is being rough on protesters because they've been "bought out by banks" or something?
-
I think the point is actually that statement backwards: JP Morgan is trying to cover their own ass and so they're buying out police. I know my rephrasal probably doesn't make much difference but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
-
People insinuating that Chase bank is the mob now. Haha fucking A. When will it end? If you didn't know there are 100s of chase banks in Manhattan. So them donating to the NYPD to help keep the city safe is in their interest. It's also giving back to the community here in NY where they do a lot of business.
Oh right, but everything is a god damn conspiracy when money is involved ::)
-
People insinuating that Chase bank is the mob now. Haha fucking A. When will it end? If you didn't know there are 100s of chase banks in Manhattan. So them donating to the NYPD to help keep the city safe is in their interest. It's also giving back to the community here in NY where they do a lot of business.
Oh right, but everything is a god damn conspiracy when money is involved ::)
Some people should back to smoking weed and producing nothing for society like they usually do; they'd enjoy yourself more than getting worked up over things they have no chance at understanding (not you 7string, but the people you directed your post towards). Or maybe they should wait until they're older than 16. Or until you spend thousands of hours working in or studying the banking industry (or any corporate sector) before reading leftist websites and becoming an anarchist on the fly.
Things are more dirty than the official story in politics or on wall street, but a lot people are way too far from occam's razor and into laughable conspiracy theory.
-
What are you on about?
-
Some people should back to smoking weed and producing nothing for society like they usually do; .
A really good friend of mine (hes 21) smoke weed a good 6+ times a day. He has interned at NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He's now full time at Space X making 82,000 a year.... Just say'n
-
How the fuck did he pass a drug test to work at nasa?
-
I think the point is actually that statement backwards: JP Morgan is trying to cover their own ass and so they're buying out police. I know my rephrasal probably doesn't make much difference but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
Don't you think that maybe they donated that money before all this started?
-
edit: nevermind
-
I think the point is actually that statement backwards: JP Morgan is trying to cover their own ass and so they're buying out police. I know my rephrasal probably doesn't make much difference but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
Don't you think that maybe they donated that money before all this started?
How should I know? What does recently mean anyway? The last month? The last few weeks?
-
By the way, the taxpayers are going to be feeling these protests. That's right. The very people protesting are just causing more economic problems. Over 2 million dollars in overtime salary for the cops to watch over these kids has been paid out so far.
I would normally not have a problem with this, but there is little legitimacy to these protests. If they could get their shit together and actually do something worthwhile it would be fine to spend some money to watch over these protests. But as it is now, the police are just being glorified babysitters.
-
I would normally not have a problem with this, but there is little legitimacy to these protests. If they could get their shit together and actually do something worthwhile it would be fine to spend some money to watch over these protests. But as it is now, the police are just being glorified babysitters.
Right I understand, if they were Tea Partiers you might even be out there with them.
-
I would normally not have a problem with this, but there is little legitimacy to these protests. If they could get their shit together and actually do something worthwhile it would be fine to spend some money to watch over these protests. But as it is now, the police are just being glorified babysitters.
Right I understand, if they were Tea Partiers you might even be out there with them.
hahahahaha NO. You couldn't have gotten me any more wrong there buddy. But go ahead and keep assuming you know people.
-
Prove me wrong.
-
I agree with 7StringedBeast. If they're gonna "protest" then make it clear what they're protesting and what they want so they're not just wasting time and money. The Tea Party has made it clear what they wanted when they've protested in the past. These people are just sitting in the public try to change to something but they're not saying what they want it changed too in a unified voice. If they have made a clear message, I'd like to know what it is.
-
I think the message is pretty clear: get money out of politics. What, are they supposed to draft up a complete policy solution for the White House to enact? That's the government's job, not ours.
-
I think the message is pretty clear: get money out of politics. What, are they supposed to draft up a complete policy solution for the White House to enact? That's the government's job, not ours.
Is that really their aim? I don't know about you but I physically went down there myself. I saw for myself what is going on. Like I already stated there are too many messages floating around there. Everyone is there for a different reason. There is no unity in message. So it looks like everyone is just bitching about everything.
Also, I'm not a conservative. I don't like the Tea Party. I'm not a liberal either. I don't just stick with any one way of viewing things. I know that our system is fucked up and needs some changing. But the people down in Wall Street are not identifying with the way I look at stuff.
All I can say is go there and see it for yourself. It's a mess and a joke. It's more of a woodstock hang out than a protest of any significance.
-
I think the message is pretty clear: get money out of politics. What, are they supposed to draft up a complete policy solution for the White House to enact? That's the government's job, not ours.
Is that really their aim? I don't know about you but I physically went down there myself. I saw for myself what is going on. Like I already stated there are too many messages floating around there. Everyone is there for a different reason. There is no unity in message. So it looks like everyone is just bitching about everything.
Also, I'm not a conservative. I don't like the Tea Party. I'm not a liberal either. I don't just stick with any one way of viewing things. I know that our system is fucked up and needs some changing. But the people down in Wall Street are not identifying with the way I look at stuff.
All I can say is go there and see it for yourself. It's a mess and a joke. It's more of a woodstock hang out than a protest of any significance.
I haven't been but I'm down with that. Why should there be one message? Isn't the problem with the country today that there are so many issues to address and no one is doing anything about them?
-
Organization is everything when trying to get something accomplished. Right now they just look like a bunch of hippy kids bitching about everything and that the world isn't fair. The impression you get by going down there is that these kids are pissed that their Art majors aren't making them big bucks, like they never heard the term "starving artist" before. On top of that there are just too many philosophies and no unified voice going on.
They aren't doing anything but being annoying to the people of New York at the moment. Costing the city millions now. They still have not accomplished anything.
Also, last I checked Obama is trying to pass Wall Street reformations. So people are trying to get something done.
It's not the big banks fault. It's not the top 1% fault. It's our policy makers in Washington's fault and the fact that people spent more money than they had. There are a lot of people to blame for the mess we are in. Shouting about how the top 1% are really rich isn't going to solve anything. Most of the people in that top 1% earned their money somehow.
-
lol
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/wall-street-protest-functions-like-a-city-within-the-city-what-democracy-really-looks-like/2011/10/07/gIQA2O9dTL_story.html
But the owner of Zuccotti Park, developer Brookfield Office Properties, is unhappy with the occupation that began Sept. 17.
“Sanitation is a growing concern,” Brookfield said in a statement Thursday. “Normally, the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight. This process includes power washing, litter removal, landscaping and other maintenance as required. Because many of the protesters refuse to cooperate by adhering to the rules, the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16, and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”
So much for the jobs of those people who clean the park every weeknight.
-
Some people should back to smoking weed and producing nothing for society like they usually do
Way ahead of you, buddy.
-
There were a few people protesting in Blacksburg yesterday.
-
There were a few people protesting in Blacksburg yesterday.
You live in Blacksburg VA? I was just there a month ago. I got family and a friend down there.
-
Yeah, I'm a student.
How the fuck did he pass a drug test to work at nasa?
Pretty sure NASA doesn't require drug tests. I interned there two summers ago.
-
Also, last I checked Obama is trying to pass Wall Street reformations. So people are trying to get something done.
It's not the big banks fault. It's not the top 1% fault. It's our policy makers in Washington's fault and the fact that people spent more money than they had. There are a lot of people to blame for the mess we are in. Shouting about how the top 1% are really rich isn't going to solve anything. Most of the people in that top 1% earned their money somehow.
See here you're contradicting yourself. Are policymakers and Washington getting things done or not?
The problem is income and economic inequality, and even if it's not their fault, the effect has been political inequality. You may have seen more with your own eyes than me, but that doesn't mean you understand them or their movement that well. Remember how you were accusing me of being presumptuous?
Anyway: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall-street.html
-
How exactly am I contradicting myself? I never said I didn't want things to change. I also haven't been presumptuous. I don't understand you're complete faith in this movement and why you think "Wall Street" is so evil. If anything for this gap in pay between the very rich and middle class, it has more to do with companies policies on how they pay their employees. Corporate greed does not = Wall Street. A CEO chooses not to give raises to his workers but takes a huge bonus check for himself. That really doesn't have anything to do with Wall Street.
I mean, why doesn't anyone complain about sports stars making millions of dollars? Why do we only complain about bankers or wall street traders and CEOs. All of them are making their money legitimately. Why complain about one and not the other? They never take pay decreases either despite rising ticket prices and falling attendance. There are other people working for sports franchises that I'm sure could use a raise and probably haven't been getting one.
I don't think Wall Street is really the problem. I think its our government being too influenced by any corporation that can lobby for a cause with money. So really the protest should be in Washington. When you just flat out start complaining about how the rich are too rich, it just sounds whiny and lazy. It starts to come across as jealousy. They are rich and I am not and now I'm going to be pissed about it.
I have not given up on the idea of individual drive and making things happen for yourself. I don't rely on the government for my own personal issues. If I need to find a job, I'm going to work my fucking ass off to find one. That's how I have my job today. If more people thought like that, they might not be as disillusioned. Can't expect government to come in and fix all the problems. But hopefully they can help.
See, I get the movement and what they are trying to do, but they aren't doing a good job. Everyone just kinda acknowledges that yeah these people are upset, but nothing is really going to come of this, but its good to see they are voicing an opinion. And where does that get anyone? The protest should be in Washington, not just a hippy camp out in NYC.
-
There is a protest in Washington. And in plenty of other cities, too.
-
No shit. But they should focus it in Washington and drop the whole "Occupy Wall Street" bull. It's not getting anyone anywhere. They aren't focused enough to make a real point beyond "We are frustrated".
Wall Street is not the reason these dudes can't find jobs. It's not the reason for us being in a War we can't back out of.
It's also dubious that the protestors are pretty much 20 year old white kids. Does anyone else find that strange at all?
-
If you've been reading any of the recent coverage from not Fox, you'd see that a large number of much older folks who are now unemployed, or who can't find relief in their current jobs, have joined up as well.
And I do think sports wages are ridiculous. But a famous sports player's wages tend not to have an appreciable effect on legislative outcomes in this country.
-
It'd be awesome if you'd formulate an argument without throwing in a condescending comment at a person. You seem so convinced that anyone not supporting this is automatically a FOX loving hardcore conservative and its getting pretty annoying to read.
-
Organization is everything when trying to get something accomplished. Right now they just look like a bunch of hippy kids bitching about everything and that the world isn't fair. The impression you get by going down there is that these kids are pissed that their Art majors aren't making them big bucks, like they never heard the term "starving artist" before. On top of that there are just too many philosophies and no unified voice going on.
Yeah okay, I'll stop being condescending.
And to those who were condescending to me because I should apparently have known the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian, note the bottom section of the following image:
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif)
-
There is a difference between his classifying of the protesters and you throwing implications directly at him. C'mon son.
-
For the record I don't read watch or even pay attention to Fox News. Are you going to make any more assumptions about people you don't know? Get off your high horse, you are acting like you are the all knowing PR person. How many more things are you going to get wrong about me? You can't form any opinion without trying to take jabs at my character or where I get my information? Like I said before. At least I went down there to see this shit going on for myself on top of keeping up with it on Cnn.com.
-
I also went there a number of times, including last night. I saw something different than your description of a stereotypical hippie gathering. Why do you have so much animosity toward these people?
-
I'm assuming it's because he feels that the people protesting should stop actually fighting for what they feel is right, and should just get a business degree and bend over for big business.
-
Meanwhile...I've thought of something.
You guys all notice that we have an 11 page thread on the subject with 380 posts and almost 3,000 views. That is on a board of a bunch of prog nerds where our numbers are low. Imagine bigger boards with more people and more views...if their goal was to spread a message and have people pay attention to them, they just won.
How does it feel to spoon feed the enemy exactly what it wants?
-
Meanwhile...I've thought of something.
You guys all notice that we have an 11 page thread on the subject with 380 posts and almost 3,000 views. That is on a board of a bunch of prog nerds where our numbers are low. Imagine bigger boards with more people and more views...if their goal was to spread a message and have people pay attention to them, they just won.
How does it feel to spoon feed the enemy exactly what it wants?
And boom goes the dynamite. ;)
-
Holy logical fallacy Numbers. Try again.
-
if their goal was to spread a message and have people pay attention to them, they just won.
That might mean something if they had a message to spread.
-
How the fuck did he pass a drug test to work at nasa?
He started as an intern which they didn't test him for. He got offered a full time job and no one ever bothered to test him.
-
if their goal was to spread a message and have people pay attention to them, they just won.
That might mean something if they had a message to spread.
I could go through all 11 pages of text and copy and paste the numerous quotes found about the different messages these people were trying to get through, but that would be too much work.
Holy logical fallacy Numbers. Try again.
Premises:
A. "Occupy Wall Street" is happening
B. Occupy Wall Street is a protest
C. The point of a protest is to show fault in a system
D. The more people that listen to you and recognize the problem, the better
E. If C and D are true, those occupying wall street would want publicity, and if you give them publicity, you are helping their cause by giving them notice
F. This thread gives us knowledge of the protests
G. Knowledge of the protests is publicity
Conclusion:
H. Those who look at this thread are helping those occupying Wall Street
I mean, my knowledge of formal logic is not much, but that seems somewhat sound...I think.
-
No, looking at this thread is in no way helping the protest. There is nothing that directly connects our discussion to any results that might spring up out of this. Anyone who is reading this thread is already aware of the protests so there is no new publicity.
-
That is not true. I was not aware of these protests until this thread was brought to my attention. Now, I follow what is going on and am an active member of "the cause."
-
Publicity means nothing if no one has any idea what the fuck you're talking about. Sure, there's all kinds of messages and goals being thrown around, but without any kind of central message it just makes them look disorganized and directionless.
-
I read an interesting op-ed that proposed that the point isn't a beginning, an end, or even a point, because the point is sustainability. In other words, the movement's gradual growth and length of continuation from there over time is the point.
And haven't I and a few other people already insisted over and over again that the central message of Occupy Wall Street is to get the government to act towards greater social, economic, and especially political equality?
-
And haven't I and a few other people already insisted over and over again that the central message of Occupy Wall Street is to get the government to act towards greater social, economic, and especially political equality?
And that means what exactly? You ask a hundred people how you "get the government to act towards greater social, economic, and especially political equality" and you'll get a hundred different answers.
-
Firstly, I agree with Superdude & Numbers regarding these protests.
Secondly, considering the great deal of distaste in the US towards the inequality of income and resultig inequality of representation, I'm bit surprised to see such lukewarm reception to a protest movement against it.
-
there's all kinds of messages and goals being thrown around
Bingo, and the fact that there is no central goal can be said to be beneficial because those without any strong political agenda can latch on to one thing that irks them. At one protest you can have one dude that is preaching socialized medicine and another that is preaching the end of the war in the middle east. While they are two separate issues, both result in an influx of new "members" if you will because if the central message was ending the war, many of the socialize medicine folk won't be there, and vice versa. The many political agendas that are coming together are the thriving points of this entire movement.
-
All that does is weaken the entire movement. Everyone gets a voice and no one gets heard.
-
Isn't that also at the heart of democracy? Plurality rather than supremacy?
-
Sure, but we're not talking about democracy, we're talking about political protests, which can't be a fuckfest of political messages and still be effective.
-
Also to sorta back up Cole on his argument, I also wouldn't have known about the protest if not for this thread.
-
I think the protests are sending a very strong message. The fact that there is no clear cut message is what makes it great. It's not just one group bitching about one problem. It's many peoples all bitching about many problems. The message is that there are many people willing to protest along side people protesting something completely different. In reality everyone is there for the same problem... the lack of faith in our government to make any kind of honest and moral decission.
People think at these protests will accomplish nothing. I'm sure the same was thought when the original 22 people started protesting in Egypt. Politicians want to get reelected. If hundreds of thousands of people begin to protest (threaten their reelection), changes will be made.
-
I agree with Sigz. They need a specific unified message. In Egypt they had one, they wanted to get rid of Mubarak. During the civil rights movement the protesters wanted to be treated equally. Here the people are saying all kinds of things with no unified support for something specific.
-
You know what, as much as it irks me that those protesting don't really seem to know what they are protesting (as a collective, anyway); I'm becoming more and more hopeful that it will achieve something.
Mind you, I'm in Australia, so it doesn't directly matter to me very much. But indirectly, if the protests push US politicians in the 'right' direction (right being subjective), I guess they are making a positive contribution to discourse.
Although, I'll agree with those who earlier said Wall Street seems a peculiar place to stage the demonstrations - it doesn't send the right message IMO. Campaign outside political offices or in Washington; those on Wall Street will just go into their workplace and carry on with their day as far as I can see. I mean, I work for my state's chamber of commerce (chambers often get critisised for their role in bad political systems), and if people protested outside I wouldn't really care. I'd probably stand at the window and watch, but thats about it. Politicans, by their nature and role, have to react to this kind of ground roots movement - joe average investment banker sees the protest and thinks what can I buy or sell to leverage off this.
-
I agree with Sigz. They need a specific unified message. In Egypt they had one, they wanted to get rid of Mubarak. During the civil rights movement the protesters wanted to be treated equally. Here the people are saying all kinds of things with no unified support for something specific.
Those issues were much simpler though. There's so much that needs fixing right now that it's a lot harder to name a specific goal for the movement.
-
You know what, as much as it irks me that those protesting don't really seem to know what they are protesting (as a collective, anyway); I'm becoming more and more hopeful that it will achieve something.
Mind you, I'm in Australia, so it doesn't directly matter to me very much. But indirectly, if the protests push US politicians in the 'right' direction (right being subjective), I guess they are making a positive contribution to discourse.
Although, I'll agree with those who earlier said Wall Street seems a peculiar place to stage the demonstrations - it doesn't send the right message IMO. Campaign outside political offices or in Washington; those on Wall Street will just go into their workplace and carry on with their day as far as I can see. I mean, I work for my state's chamber of commerce (chambers often get critisised for their role in bad political systems), and if people protested outside I wouldn't really care. I'd probably stand at the window and watch, but thats about it. Politicans, by their nature and role, have to react to this kind of ground roots movement - joe average investment banker sees the protest and thinks what can I buy or sell to leverage off this.
I mean as far as I can see, the fact that it started at Wall Street doesn't matter anymore, what with Occupy Milwaukee and Occupy Oregon and all those other random protests that are now popping up across the country.
-
Occupy Oregon.....?
Indeed.
I suppose you are right there, they've ended up being the catalyst for a broader-based protest movement across the country.
-
Well, this thread has certainly gotten interesting in the past week. :biggrin:
This is kinda off-topic, but I just wanted to apologize for being a dick here a couple pages back. Sure, what Praxis said really pissed me off. But it wasn't helpful to lash out at him publicly like that at all, especially if I was going to make it personal. I thank everyone who had my back through that episode, but I hope you guys realize that I was being a dumbass so please don't try and follow suit.
So, with that said, sorry everyone... including and especially Praxis (if he himself hasn't gotten whacked by now too-- I really don't know :P).
-
Whatever the case he stopped posting a while ago, so idk. Anyway, now that you're back, any new thoughts on how the protest movement's developed in your absence?
-
I've haven't been looking at it too much, but if the whole point (in general) was to get a discussion on economic justice going, the the protest has definitely been successful. After being ignored for the first week or so the protesters have managed to get the coverage they were clamoring for* and this issue will be one of national discussion now. I'm very interested to see how this plays out in the subsequent debates and elections.
Other than that, I don't really have much to add. I notice people complaining that the protests aren't organized or ideologically clear enough, which I honestly don't get. When has a protest ever been that way?
*I'm not sure how much coverage that is in the US, but I will say that China Central Television has been eating this stuff up. I still have trouble understanding the news, but they've spent a lot of time covering this and most of it has been of the "America's such a horrible place! Look at how pissed people are!" variety :P
-
Firstly, I agree with Superdude & Numbers regarding these protests.
Secondly, considering the great deal of distaste in the US towards the inequality of income and resultig inequality of representation, I'm bit surprised to see such lukewarm reception to a protest movement against it.
You have to remember, though, that this is the United States of America. In this country, during each election cycle, millions and millions of citizens go to the polls and vote for candidates who take economic positions that are 100% directly opposite of what is in their own financial best interests.
It's something I've always found absolutely astonishing, but, well, there it is.
-
Firstly, I agree with Superdude & Numbers regarding these protests.
Secondly, considering the great deal of distaste in the US towards the inequality of income and resultig inequality of representation, I'm bit surprised to see such lukewarm reception to a protest movement against it.
You have to remember, though, that this is the United States of America. In this country, during each election cycle, millions and millions of citizens go to the polls and vote for candidates who take economic positions that are 100% directly opposite of what is in their own financial best interests.
It's something I've always found absolutely astonishing, but, well, there it is.
1. Candidates can lie in their campaigns
2. That's actually not always true (that candidates take positions opposite of mine, I mean)
3. Even if it is, if that's all there is to offer, do we have any other choice?
I've haven't been looking at it too much, but if the whole point (in general) was to get a discussion on economic justice going, the the protest has definitely been successful. After being ignored for the first week or so the protesters have managed to get the coverage they were clamoring for* and this issue will be one of national discussion now. I'm very interested to see how this plays out in the subsequent debates and elections.
Other than that, I don't really have much to add. I notice people complaining that the protests aren't organized or ideologically clear enough, which I honestly don't get. When has a protest ever been that way?
*I'm not sure how much coverage that is in the US, but I will say that China Central Television has been eating this stuff up. I still have trouble understanding the news, but they've spent a lot of time covering this and most of it has been of the "America's such a horrible place! Look at how pissed people are!" variety :P
PC, where are you from? Are you an American, Chinese, Chinese American? I've always wondered.
-
I'm an American, but I've been in Hong Kong for the past year.
-
I see. What brought you to Hong Kong?
Anywho, just found this flyer which is apparently being passed around the Wall Street protest: https://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Bankster-Flyer.pdf
I'm all for these guys and their being mad as hell, but if that's what they're after I'll start to have some doubts. I don't see what's wrong with allowing the government to monopolize the creation and dispersion of currency. Or maybe it's just that the theory espoused in the flyer just sounds plain crazy; if anything, if the public is given the monopoly on the production and distribution of money, it's more likely we'll counterfeit and the entire economic system will go to hell in a handbasket.
-
If that's the federal reserve they're talking about in that flyer, that's actually a private company, though I could be totally misinformed.
Still, though I hear some people blaming it on everything they dislike in the U.S., I can't see how it's causing more harm than would be done by Letting any ole' Joe have the means to creating currency.
-
I see. What brought you to Hong Kong?
Anywho, just found this flyer which is apparently being passed around the Wall Street protest: https://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Bankster-Flyer.pdf
I'm all for these guys and their being mad as hell, but if that's what they're after I'll start to have some doubts. I don't see what's wrong with allowing the government to monopolize the creation and dispersion of currency. Or maybe it's just that the theory espoused in the flyer just sounds plain crazy; if anything, if the public is given the monopoly on the production and distribution of money, it's more likely we'll counterfeit and the entire economic system will go to hell in a handbasket.
Yeah. I mean, ideologically, there seems to be a bunch of separate groups trying to control the discussion. But they discussion is being raised, which, again, is what I think is the big accomplishment of the protests.
-
Yeah, so that's good. I'm just hoping the discussion might possibly be tempered to regulate the Fed or severely limit the Fed, rather than ending it altogether. I still have no idea what's actually wrong with allowing governments to monopolize the creation and distribution of money; I can only imagine a publicly-run system would run into far more fraud for rather obvious reasons.
-
Yeah, the Fed isn't going anywhere. But I actually see that flyer as a good thing -- shows the Paul libertarian types and the far left are coming together (at least, in a purely physical sense :lol )
-
I see. What brought you to Hong Kong?
Anywho, just found this flyer which is apparently being passed around the Wall Street protest: https://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Bankster-Flyer.pdf
I'm all for these guys and their being mad as hell, but if that's what they're after I'll start to have some doubts. I don't see what's wrong with allowing the government to monopolize the creation and dispersion of currency. Or maybe it's just that the theory espoused in the flyer just sounds plain crazy; if anything, if the public is given the monopoly on the production and distribution of money, it's more likely we'll counterfeit and the entire economic system will go to hell in a handbasket.
What an amazing flyer. Thanks for sharing it.
Getting mad is good, knowing why you are mad is great, doing something about that is excellent.
-
None of these people are employable:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047168/Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters-make-love-class-war-sex-drugs-tap.html :lol
-
Dailymail
-
Dailymail
What about them? They have pictures from the protest in NYC.
-
I remember the time the Daily Mail was a good news source.
Good one, right?
-
I remember the time the Daily Mail was a good news source.
Good one, right?
What kind of paper are they? The only UK sites I see links to (i.e. google news and other forums) are Daily Mail and the Guardian.
-
Dailymail
What about them? They have pictures from the protest in NYC.
I know what you mean but that's a terribly unreliable source of news. I do happen to agree that they don't look like the type of people who make very good life decisions but never met any so can't really judge.
-
I remember the time the Daily Mail was a good news source.
Good one, right?
What kind of paper are they? The only UK sites I see links to (i.e. google news and other forums) are Daily Mail and the Guardian.
Not a very good one. The UK doesn't have very many good newspapers though.
The BBC website is probably one of the best sources of news, in my opinion. They have some photos from the protest:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15160346
-
Richard Roeper sums my thoughts up:
https://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/8135629-452/how-exactly-will-occupy-wall-street-protesters-succeed.html
I'm particularly fascinated by the student loans thing because I myself am working on paying mine off. Sure I didn't start off with a job I got in a degree in but by the time I needed to start paying the loans off I went out and got something just to tide me over while I looked for a real job. I made $10 an hour, only working anywhere between 20-25 hours a week but I got my bills paid by the end of the month. Sure I didn't like it but I did it and I know these types of jobs are out there. Sure you can get pissed that entry level job in whatever degree you got isn't available yet but it wouldn't hurt to actually better yourself and at least attempt to get yourself out of whatever hole you're in. Some issues they bring up make some sense but as far as personal debt goes that's your responsibility. Don't act like you didn't know how much stuff like higher education was going to cost before you decided on it, you did. Own up to it.
-
Sure enjoying that free higher education right now.
Yeah, it's pretty much the only good thing about Scotland. I didn't take out any student loans either so the only debt I have is about £700 in my overdraft.
-
Must be nice. And don't get me wrong, I feel the price of a college education is outrageous but in the end it was my choice to go to a private university (which is essentially a business when you think about it). State schools are a bit much still even though they are on the cheaper end of the spectrum. Feeling entitled to completely eliminating tens of thousands of dollars in debt when you knew it was coming all along just seems a bit silly to me.
-
I'm paying $30,000 a year for a public school... Out of state prices are ridiculous.
-
Let me just be up front and honest: is there anything wrong with joining the protest just because you believe in economic and political justice? Must there be some personal grievance to address for the protest to be legitimate? Not everyone who participated in the civil rights movement of the 60s was a victim of segregation or racial discrimination.
-
Must be nice. And don't get me wrong, I feel the price of a college education is outrageous but in the end it was my choice to go to a private university (which is essentially a business when you think about it). State schools are a bit much still even though they are on the cheaper end of the spectrum. Feeling entitled to completely eliminating tens of thousands of dollars in debt when you knew it was coming all along just seems a bit silly to me.
Yeah. I get where your coming from here more than on the "shoulda picked a different major thing". This is kinda reflective of the clout of the protesters and college kids in general today. Kids think they can major in whatever they want, and the be immediately entitled to an entry level job in their field. That's just not how it works. It might be easier to find a cubicle somewhere with a major in computers or business these days, but most of the time people with college educations have to make themselves versatile and sellable and even work at things not completely related to their major for awhile and it's always been that way. I don't doubt at all that right now there's a few future novelists out there who simply aren't willing to take that unpaid internship writing for a newspaper or minimum wage job editing an online magazine because the perfect they haven't gotten paid to write the next "Twilight" yet.
That said, it remains to be annoying how everyone keeps assuming everyone at the protest is unemployed and doesn't want to be employed.
-
That said, it remains to be annoying how everyone keeps assuming everyone at the protest is unemployed and doesn't want to be employed.
Well if they were employed, they've probably been fired by now for not coming to work for a week or so. So, yeah. :p
-
I'm paying $30,000 a year for a public school... Out of state prices are ridiculous.
I've known a few people who live near me who have housed people just to let them get in-state tuition. I think in Michigan it's six-months. The price is almost triple for out of state at MSU/UM I believe.
I think college prices are ridiculous, but I agree 100% with orcus' post.
-
That said, it remains to be annoying how everyone keeps assuming everyone at the protest is unemployed and doesn't want to be employed.
Well if they were employed, they've probably been fired by now for not coming to work for a week or so. So, yeah. :p
Maybe the people camping out and stuff, but I was under the impression that the protests are more like a revolving door. People seem to be coming and going. I have a friend who's been heading over to protest after work and on days off. He works in a managerial position, too. I'd try and see if a network has managed to catch a photo of him but I doubt it, because he looks way to much like a normal guy.
-
I'm paying $30,000 a year for a public school... Out of state prices are ridiculous.
I've known a few people who live near me who have housed people just to let them get in-state tuition. I think in Michigan it's six-months. The price is almost triple for out of state at MSU/UM I believe.
I think college prices are ridiculous, but I agree 100% with orcus' post.
You should report them for defrauding the taxpayers of your state.
-
I'm paying $30,000 a year for a public school... Out of state prices are ridiculous.
I've known a few people who live near me who have housed people just to let them get in-state tuition. I think in Michigan it's six-months. The price is almost triple for out of state at MSU/UM I believe.
I think college prices are ridiculous, but I agree 100% with orcus' post.
You should report them for defrauding the taxpayers of your state.
Why? They need a place to stay for 6 months to become legal citizens of the state of Michigan. Not being charged rent doesn't mean they're evading taxes. They're not evading taxes.
-
Yeah, they're not defrauding anyone if they actually are living in the state for the required amount of time. 6 months seems really low though, here in CA it's three years.
-
I think it's a year here in Virginia. I just got my own apartment this year, so hopefully I'll be paying instate tuition next year. It's like 50% less I think.
Anyway, I didn't mean to take this thread off topic.
-
I think it's a year here in Virginia. I just got my own apartment this year, so hopefully I'll be paying instate tuition next year. It's like 50% less I think.
Anyway, I didn't mean to take this thread off topic.
It's all relevant.
-
Looks like a riot squads just circled and arrested a bunch of veterans in Boston. Apparently, HUNDREDS of riot police are out there and circling the protesters. Hope this doesn't get too serious. St. Louis seems to be having an easier time, even though they're just doing the same thing.
-
Interesting. Boston's always been really strict/wary about large crowds ever since some people got killed at the Red Sox riots back in 2004. Surprised it took them this long.
-
This stuff is starting to go beyond "protest". I mean, it's not "white-collar white dude protesting on the mall", it's more like, "protest you'd expect a nation with a 10+ percent (?) unemployment rate and ridiculous gap in wealth distribution to have."
-
Apparently the Seattle, Atlanta and San Francisco protests were also simultaneously hit last night.
-
If we're forced to go back to BAU this early into the protest movement, I'll have lost all hope for political efficacy.
-
If we're forced to go back to BAU this early into the protest movement, I'll have lost all hope for political efficacy.
BAU?
-
Protesters are now going to go protest outside of rich people's homes in upper Manhattan. https://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_protest/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
Really?
-
I don't support that behavior at all but, again, I think this is the reality the US faces with a broken economy, huge gap between the poor and wealthy, high unemployment rate, and political system that's not willing to meet the issues on people's minds head-on. Frankly, the more I think about it the more I think it's a miracle protests have been so tame this far and I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner.
-
If we're forced to go back to BAU this early into the protest movement, I'll have lost all hope for political efficacy.
BAU?
Business-As-Usual. The abbreviation itself is used more in discussions of carbon emissions but what the hell.
Also an interesting little thing from Paul Krugman (I know all of like two people on the forum actually like him but whatever:) https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=1
-
I'm all for causing chaos in the cities, but stay away from people houses. Thats just going to lead to someone eventually damaging property. Someone is going to to something stupid like throw a moltav cocktail through someone's living room window, then all hell will break loose.
-
The protest should move to Washington and be focused there. They should drop the I'm jealous of the people who makes lots of money BS too. They should be protesting for getting money out of government decisions. Get corporate money out of politics. Reform campaigning making it illegal for candidates to accept donations from corporations... and to end lobbying supported by loads of cash.
Those are the real problems with where we are at. The fact is, these people earned their money. Certain people become rich while others do not. That is life. If we all started back at 0 dollars for everyone, the same certain people would rise to the top again and make money, because that's what they do. They are that type of person.
If anything, the protestors should be asking for CEO's / the uber rich, to pay their employees more if they can afford to.
-
The protest should move to Washington and be focused there. They should drop the I'm jealous of the people who makes lots of money BS too. They should be protesting for getting money out of government decisions. Get corporate money out of politics. Reform campaigning making it illegal for candidates to accept donations from corporations... and to end lobbying supported by loads of cash.
Those are the real problems with where we are at. The fact is, these people earned their money. Certain people become rich while others do not. That is life. If we all started back at 0 dollars for everyone, the same certain people would rise to the top again and make money, because that's what they do. They are that type of person.
If anything, the protestors should be asking for CEO's / the uber rich, to pay their employees more if they can afford to.
Well no, see I thought the whole point was that they're protesting socio-economic inequality because it leads to all of those things. And I see no problem with staying on Wall Street as long as there's also a protest in Washington. Spread them across the country, that old chestnut.
And actually I don't think it's anything inherent in the 1% that made them wealthy, unless you mean their propensity to turn money into more money from speculation and the like. And I'm not saying I'm some class warrior or anything; my family's modestly wealthy and we worked hard for that. But there are plenty of people in a much higher economic bracket that do get their money in unfair or not entirely great ways, such as stock market manipulation and stuff. And I'm not saying everyone in that 1% did that, but those who did should be getting their just desserts.
-
So basically they just want socialism? They just feel they deserve more money now? That is total crap. Why does my generation feel so entitled to having everything given to them?
Are these people asking for the rich to write them all checks? I mean this is absurd. If their motivation isn't political, then they are just whining and bitching. All the while tweeting and facebooking from their damn iPhones.
There just seems to be a huge disconnect here.
-
The protest should move to Washington and be focused there. They should drop the I'm jealous of the people who makes lots of money BS too. They should be protesting for getting money out of government decisions. Get corporate money out of politics. Reform campaigning making it illegal for candidates to accept donations from corporations... and to end lobbying supported by loads of cash.
Those are the real problems with where we are at. The fact is, these people earned their money. Certain people become rich while others do not. That is life. If we all started back at 0 dollars for everyone, the same certain people would rise to the top again and make money, because that's what they do. They are that type of person.
If anything, the protestors should be asking for CEO's / the uber rich, to pay their employees more if they can afford to.
There's nothing wrong at all with your objections to the protests. The protesters shouldn't do those things.
But the fact that they're willing to means quite a bit for where this country stands right now, and where it could be going. I think everyone should consider that for a little bit.
-
However these protests are a really small minority of our country actually out there protesting. Just because they are screaming the loudest does not mean they actually represent 99% of the people out there.
-
So basically they just want socialism? They just feel they deserve more money now? That is total crap. Why does my generation feel so entitled to having everything given to them?
BINGO. And this is why I think there are serious character flaws in those in the democratic party. I believe they are inheritely spoiled. My great grandfather came over when he was a little boy, alone, uneducated, and made himself a great life- the definition of the american dream. He would be sickened by the liberal's philosophy of "I deserve this" or "look what someone else has". He didn't worry about what was missing, or what the other guy was getting paid, he simply said "times are tough, Im going to work hard" and thats what he did.
These modern liberals are spoiled in my opinion. The simply want things that aren't theirs. Go out and make your own life. Its gonna take a shitload of work, and its going to be tough. Thats just the way it is.
-
Your grandfather's hardwork probably didn't get funneled into two pointless wars and two equally expensive unfair bailouts.
-
Your grandfather's hardwork probably didn't get funneled into two pointless wars and two equally expensive unfair bailouts.
This. I hate to play this card, but my grandfather came to this country under the same circumstances but as a Holocaust survivor. He has voted Democrat in every single election since Ike (or JFK, I'm not sure when he got his citizenship). He believes in hard work too, but he will be the first to tell you this country's gone to shit, and why. And it's not because of people complaining about entitlements.
-
Your grandfather's hardwork probably didn't get funneled into two pointless wars and two equally expensive unfair bailouts.
NO! because we were living in a free market! :)
March on DC people! :smiley:
-
No we weren't. Remember the Great Deal?
-
You mean the new deal?
Well I dunno bout your ancestors, but I was referring to mine who came pre-new deal circa 1900
-
So basically they just want socialism? They just feel they deserve more money now? That is total crap. Why does my generation feel so entitled to having everything given to them?
BINGO. And this is why I think there are serious character flaws in those in the democratic party. I believe they are inheritely spoiled. My great grandfather came over when he was a little boy, alone, uneducated, and made himself a great life- the definition of the american dream. He would be sickened by the liberal's philosophy of "I deserve this" or "look what someone else has". He didn't worry about what was missing, or what the other guy was getting paid, he simply said "times are tough, Im going to work hard" and thats what he did.
These modern liberals are spoiled in my opinion. The simply want things that aren't theirs. Go out and make your own life. Its gonna take a shitload of work, and its going to be tough. Thats just the way it is.
Times are different than when your grandfather came here. I am sure he'd be bitching just as much as everyone else had he come over in today's day and age.
-
So basically they just want socialism? They just feel they deserve more money now? That is total crap. Why does my generation feel so entitled to having everything given to them?
BINGO. And this is why I think there are serious character flaws in those in the democratic party. I believe they are inheritely spoiled. My great grandfather came over when he was a little boy, alone, uneducated, and made himself a great life- the definition of the american dream. He would be sickened by the liberal's philosophy of "I deserve this" or "look what someone else has". He didn't worry about what was missing, or what the other guy was getting paid, he simply said "times are tough, Im going to work hard" and thats what he did.
These modern liberals are spoiled in my opinion. The simply want things that aren't theirs. Go out and make your own life. Its gonna take a shitload of work, and its going to be tough. Thats just the way it is.
Times are different than when your grandfather came here. I am sure he'd be bitching just as much as everyone else had he come over in today's day and age.
I doubt that whatsoever. Working was MUCH more tougher, there was a lot of hatred towards the Irish. We have it infinitely more easy nowadays... There is NO way he would...
-
Not everyone is capable of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. In fact the larger the rich-poor divide becomes the harder it becomes for most people already living in poverty.
Also the democratic party has members broadly spread across all economic and social demographics, so your sterotyping doesn't work in that sense. I come from a reasonably well-off family and would most likely be worse off under the socialist policy I support. Shockingly, some of us just believe it is the right thing to do.
-
So basically they just want socialism? They just feel they deserve more money now? That is total crap. Why does my generation feel so entitled to having everything given to them?
BINGO. And this is why I think there are serious character flaws in those in the democratic party. I believe they are inheritely spoiled. My great grandfather came over when he was a little boy, alone, uneducated, and made himself a great life- the definition of the american dream. He would be sickened by the liberal's philosophy of "I deserve this" or "look what someone else has". He didn't worry about what was missing, or what the other guy was getting paid, he simply said "times are tough, Im going to work hard" and thats what he did.
These modern liberals are spoiled in my opinion. The simply want things that aren't theirs. Go out and make your own life. Its gonna take a shitload of work, and its going to be tough. Thats just the way it is.
Times are different than when your grandfather came here. I am sure he'd be bitching just as much as everyone else had he come over in today's day and age.
I doubt that whatsoever. Working was MUCH more tougher, there was a lot of hatred towards the Irish. We have it infinitely more easy nowadays... There is NO way he would...
I don't want to say it was easier, because I am sure it wasn't. I understand the American dream, an I give credit to those who had to work their asses off to get somewhere. However, your grandfather as well as millions of other people, all started with nothing. People have bills to pay and families to take care of. What we are seeing today are Americans that had their lives already established and are beginning to see them fall apart (which is causing panic everywhere). I'm not saying people shouldn't just suck it up. In reality that is what we have to do in regards to a lot of things. There are many problems right now that are going to need a decade plus to fix, that's if they can be fixed at all. I don't think a lot of people can grasp that fact.
I don't think many people are looking for hand outs in every area of their life. Most are looking to have an even playing field. I understand that it is the job of a business to increase it's EPS for stock holders. But moving companies out of the country, not getting taxed on their earnings, and screwing folks out of a job is what is pissing people off. People aren't looking to have everything handed to them. They want a broken system to be fixed so they can go back to the way things were before this whole mess happened. If there is a family with children in college, and the mother and father both lost their jobs. What are they suppose to do? Even if they are able to find low paying jobs, that will barely cover education costs let alone the other costs of living.
I'm not saying I know what the answer is to this whole mess. But I really don't think you can compare the way people used to take on life 60+ years ago and life of today. There are far more variables, far more expenses, and an cost of living that is no where near equivalent to what it used to be. America is still in the infant stages of being a country when compared to others. It's pretty obvious just looking at the size of families. My grandmother was the youngest of 11. While that may have been a bigger than usual family, it wasn't uncommon to see 6 or 7 children in a household. We are still learning from mistakes and successes. With times changing at such a fast rate, there will without a doubt be hiccups along the way. The way the government is dealing with these hiccups is what is pissing people off.
-
Not everyone is capable of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. In fact the larger the rich-poor divide becomes the harder it becomes for most people already living in poverty.
Also the democratic party has members broadly spread across all economic and social demographics, so your sterotyping doesn't work in that sense. I come from a reasonably well-off family and would most likely be worse off under the socialist policy I support. Shockingly, some of us just believe it is the right thing to do.
All of this, basically.
-
Not everyone is capable of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. In fact the larger the rich-poor divide becomes the harder it becomes for most people already living in poverty.
Also the democratic party has members broadly spread across all economic and social demographics, so your sterotyping doesn't work in that sense. I come from a reasonably well-off family and would most likely be worse off under the socialist policy I support. Shockingly, some of us just believe it is the right thing to do.
All of this, basically.
Yes, almost all of them can. They don't believe they can, because they have had their dependence cultivated by govenrment subsidies.
People in poverty in the US, have never had it easier. The majority have a cellphone, TV, Cable, etc...
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern-poverty-includes-ac-and-xbox-ken-mcintyre
People in the early 1900s didn't have that. Moreover, mobility from the bottom income brackets has never been more rapid (as of a few years ago I hear). But of course, its not what you have, its what you dont have. They don't have the yacht, they dont get bottles at the club, so they bitch. The poor have never had it better.
-
I hear slaves in the 1800s had it better than they did in their native africa as well.
-
What are you talking about? I dont understand your point.
-
You are saying that the poor shouldnt complain because they have never had it better. I reject that statement because:
1) I don't believe you should be judging the standards of equality in a civilisation by what it was it was like 100 years ago for the respective groups.
2) I don't believe a few material possessions you can quite easily be given or even find in a charity shop (xbox/TV) or be bought for less than the cost of a good steak (dvd player, cell phone) are the best measure of poverty, compared to things like quality and access to education, good quality nutition and healthcare. (Oh and btw, on that "article" you posted, I'm not sure how they make the leap from 30% of households to "The average household". It also ignores the possibility that they bought such items before becoming poor.)
Civilisation in itself ensures a reasonable amount of technical process so all families will experience that to a degree. You need to look at relative rates of growth in the different groups and in every measurable way the rich are vastly outpacing the poor in overall quality of life improvement. To post an extreme example, on the international scale, the 3 richest people in the world have more wealth than the bottom 10% of the population of the world. Now forgive me if that makes me a filthy socialist, but I think there's somthing very wrong with that figure.
-
I think that it is very relevant to look at 100 years ago. People have it easier, way easier. Just because the richer are richer doesn't give anyone the right to whine. Our ancestors, generally, worried about themselves and what they could do to work on improving their life. They didn't whine nearly as much, and they didn't expect anyone to hand them anything. The fact is that those that whine about what the government owes them have a severe character flaw. If you indeed are buying an xbox, tv, or cable, instead of the necessities of life, than you do not need charity. I am not here to suppliment someone's entertainment with what society precives as "necessary goods".
-
I think that it is very relevant to look at 100 years ago. People have it easier, way easier. Just because the richer are richer doesn't give anyone the right to whine. Our ancestors, generally, worried about themselves and what they could do to work on improving their life. They didn't whine nearly as much, and they didn't expect anyone to hand them anything. The fact is that those that whine about what the government owes them have a severe character flaw. If you indeed are buying an xbox, tv, or cable, instead of the necessities of life, than you do not need charity. I am not here to suppliment someone's entertainment with what society precives as "necessary goods".
That there's golden age thinking. Also to springboard off of XJ's post but with a different angle, more stuff doesn't mean a better life, so you can't really measure the poor's average quality of life off their Xboxes.
-
Socialism?
The Democratic party is about as 'socialist' as the Canadian conservative party.
Or in other words, not.
-
Wrong thread?
-
The "taxing the rich" number crunching (links to another article) is pretty damning:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opinion/the-milquetoast-radicals.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
-
The "taxing the rich" number crunching (links to another article) is pretty damning:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opinion/the-milquetoast-radicals.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Yeah. Reason (I think) had a pretty good article about it awhile ago.
The only way to balance the budget and start eliminating the debt in a way that isn't completely draconian or radical would be to raise taxes and cut spending. I don't get how anyone still thinks otherwise.
-
The "taxing the rich" number crunching (links to another article) is pretty damning:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opinion/the-milquetoast-radicals.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Yeah. Reason (I think) had a pretty good article about it awhile ago.
The only way to balance the budget and start eliminating the debt in a way that isn't completely draconian or radical would be to raise taxes and cut spending. I don't get how anyone still thinks otherwise.
I don't see why the people saying we should tax the rich are saying that's the only thing we should be doing.
-
Clearly when you are both (in terms of relative to the economy):
The lowest taxing developed world government
The highest spending non-socialist developed world government
You have fiscal issues. And the only way to solve the fiscal issue is to reconcile the gap - by raising taxes or cutting spending, or a combination of both. Clearly, it should be easiest to take option three, but the ideological opposition to "government theft" kind of puts you in between something and a hard something.
-
I think that it is very relevant to look at 100 years ago. People have it easier, way easier. Just because the richer are richer doesn't give anyone the right to whine. Our ancestors, generally, worried about themselves and what they could do to work on improving their life. They didn't whine nearly as much, and they didn't expect anyone to hand them anything. The fact is that those that whine about what the government owes them have a severe character flaw. If you indeed are buying an xbox, tv, or cable, instead of the necessities of life, than you do not need charity. I am not here to suppliment someone's entertainment with what society precives as "necessary goods".
That there's golden age thinking. Also to springboard off of XJ's post but with a different angle, more stuff doesn't mean a better life, so you can't really measure the poor's average quality of life off their Xboxes.
What? You can most definitely measure their quality of life. You dont think that having refirgorator, xbox, tv is an indication that you had a higher quality of life than those that do not? Thats craaazy.
-
I think that it is very relevant to look at 100 years ago. People have it easier, way easier. Just because the richer are richer doesn't give anyone the right to whine. Our ancestors, generally, worried about themselves and what they could do to work on improving their life. They didn't whine nearly as much, and they didn't expect anyone to hand them anything. The fact is that those that whine about what the government owes them have a severe character flaw. If you indeed are buying an xbox, tv, or cable, instead of the necessities of life, than you do not need charity. I am not here to suppliment someone's entertainment with what society precives as "necessary goods".
That there's golden age thinking. Also to springboard off of XJ's post but with a different angle, more stuff doesn't mean a better life, so you can't really measure the poor's average quality of life off their Xboxes.
What? You can most definitely measure their quality of life. You dont think that having refirgorator, xbox, tv is an indication that you had a higher quality of life than those that do not? Thats craaazy.
Then here's a question for you:
Why do European socialist countries have higher qualities of life than America?
-
I think that it is very relevant to look at 100 years ago. People have it easier, way easier. Just because the richer are richer doesn't give anyone the right to whine. Our ancestors, generally, worried about themselves and what they could do to work on improving their life. They didn't whine nearly as much, and they didn't expect anyone to hand them anything. The fact is that those that whine about what the government owes them have a severe character flaw. If you indeed are buying an xbox, tv, or cable, instead of the necessities of life, than you do not need charity. I am not here to suppliment someone's entertainment with what society precives as "necessary goods".
That there's golden age thinking. Also to springboard off of XJ's post but with a different angle, more stuff doesn't mean a better life, so you can't really measure the poor's average quality of life off their Xboxes.
What? You can most definitely measure their quality of life. You dont think that having refirgorator, xbox, tv is an indication that you had a higher quality of life than those that do not? Thats craaazy.
Then here's a question for you:
Why do European socialist countries have higher qualities of life than America?
This. And the numbers to prove it are easily accessible.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
-
Why thank you, Yeoman Cole. :D
-
Don't mean to the fan the flames here or anything (no, I really don't), but I thought this article gives a pretty straightforward explanation about what the protests are all shouting at:
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
Edit: You have no idea how long it took to spell all that correctly. :lol
-
Outstanding article; probably the best I've read in quite a while. And not just because it had lots of charts...
-
:lol
I was too lazy to check if they're already provided, but I'd like to know the sources for these data (the Gini coefficient excluded).
Also, from another forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&feature=player_embedded
-
:lol
I was too lazy to check if they're already provided, but I'd like to know the sources for these data (the Gini coefficient excluded).
Also, from another forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&feature=player_embedded
That was pretty funny.
-
https://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/technology/occupy_wall_street_demands/index.htm
(https://NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A lot of lip service has been paid to the idea that Occupy Wall Street lacks focus. The critics ask: What's the goal of these protests? Everyone wants something different.
Which is exactly the point.
It's easy to trivialize Occupy Wall Street -- even as it inspires similar protests around the country -- by saying the movement lacks an end game. The group is trying to crowdsource its list of goals, which all but guarantees that no major ones will be set.
A demand list of sorts has appeared on the official Occupy Wall Street page, serving as an ever-changing document on which people can comment with their own suggestions. It has also served as fodder for critics like Fox News, which posted a version of the list and suggested that readers "try not to laugh."
But no list has been endorsed by the "general assembly" at Occupy Wall Street, says press team member Mark Bray, who added that "making a list of three or four demands would have ended the conversation before it started."
Occupy Wall Street has already achieved what it set out to do.
Like the "Arab Spring" uprisings that inspired its tactics, the word-of-mouth demonstration has tapped into a collective anger. Some protesters are upset about taxation; for others, the big issue is the high unemployment rate. Or corporate greed. Or the distribution of wealth.)
-
I think that it is very relevant to look at 100 years ago. People have it easier, way easier. Just because the richer are richer doesn't give anyone the right to whine. Our ancestors, generally, worried about themselves and what they could do to work on improving their life. They didn't whine nearly as much, and they didn't expect anyone to hand them anything. The fact is that those that whine about what the government owes them have a severe character flaw. If you indeed are buying an xbox, tv, or cable, instead of the necessities of life, than you do not need charity. I am not here to suppliment someone's entertainment with what society precives as "necessary goods".
That there's golden age thinking. Also to springboard off of XJ's post but with a different angle, more stuff doesn't mean a better life, so you can't really measure the poor's average quality of life off their Xboxes.
What? You can most definitely measure their quality of life. You dont think that having refirgorator, xbox, tv is an indication that you had a higher quality of life than those that do not? Thats craaazy.
Then here's a question for you:
Why do European socialist countries have higher qualities of life than America?
This. And the numbers to prove it are easily accessible.
They take into account crime, happiness, etc... things that really are outside of the scope of trade.
-
You cant argue that times now are better versus 1900s. What was the average lifespan then? 45? A lot of them didn't have plumbing. I think 50% of my families babies survived birth. This is the point. There is no comparison of who had it better. So the poor should stop their bitching (which very little of them actually do, its usually whinny college kids getting mommy and daddy's money to pay tuition), pull themselves up and work hard. Why? Because we as mankind has never had it better, and except for some laws which unjustifiably hinder the poor (minimum wage law for example), there's never been a better chance to make a life for yourself.
-
There's a sliver of truth to what you say (it's better to be poor today than poor 100 years ago), but rather than actually attacking a myriad of government faults that have lead us here (minimum wage is hardly the worst culprit), you're basically implying that the status quo is actually manageable and that we should just deal with it, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and that it really isn't that bad.
I mean, I think people are plenty justified in whining. I just also think most protesters' frustrations are vague, aimless, and somewhat misdirected.
-
Don't mean to the fan the flames here or anything (no, I really don't), but I thought this article gives a pretty straightforward explanation about what the protests are all shouting at:
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
Edit: You have no idea how long it took to spell all that correctly. :lol
This is an excellent article.
-
Now that I've gone off on a Mel Brooks morning, I just thought I'd bring this into the mix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU&feature=related :biggrin:
-
Now that I've gone off on a Mel Brooks morning, I just thought I'd bring this into the mix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU&feature=related :biggrin:
:lol
I don't know anything about Alan Grayson, but I saw him on Maher last night with my mom and he sums it up pretty well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhrwmJcsfT0&feature=player_embedded
-
Ya Wall St wrecked the economy. Pathetic... that doens't even mean anything. How come nobody goes after Barney or Dodd. This populist attitude is pathetic. I personally KNOW the people that created the MBS's on wall st. They were punished to the highest extent possible in a free market. They were kicked out on their ass. Those that weren't were higher ups who mismangaged their organization, but was allowed to keep it due to the anti-competitive policies of Washington.
-
Ya Wall St wrecked the economy. Pathetic... that doens't even mean anything.
Please, enlighten us.
-
The founding of the capital/money markets, and the ability for the common man to invest has done more than any activist, or liberal loon in washington sq park, or bill that some politician has put together to "help the poor"
There, enlightened.
-
So the founding of the capital/money markets absolves bankers of any and all wrongdoing since then, and we should just be grateful while we take it up the ass?
-
Y'know livehard, for all your idealization of the market and how it serves the common man, you don't bother to hide your disdain for the common man.
-
I am the common man. I wish I wasn't but trust me I am. I work on Wall St and trust me, if you think its people driving around in ferraris with models and bottles you're sorely mistaken.
-
Nobody is upset with the rank and file Wall Street employees.
So the founding of the capital/money markets absolves bankers of any and all wrongdoing since then?
There, I removed the snark from my question. Can you answer it now?
-
Nobody is upset with the rank and file Wall Street employees.
So the founding of the capital/money markets absolves bankers of any and all wrongdoing since then?
There, I removed the snark from my question. Can you answer it now?
No, but I think there is a knee jerk reaction to eat the rich instead of figuring out what exactly happened and who is to blame. They are blaming Wall St and the rich. Thats a huge generaliation. Wall St. isn't what people think it is.
-
Again, the problem is not with "the rich." Being rich is fine. I'm thrilled that this country allows folks to make a ton of money. What I'm not okay with is the rich using their disproportionate power to game the system in their favor.
-
Agreed with goon. And it also doesn't help to first say "stop blaming the rich, they aren't at fault everything wrong with the country," and then turn around and say it's the poor's fault or everyone but the rich or something. Same game, different faces sort of thing.
-
Again, the problem is not with "the rich." Being rich is fine. I'm thrilled that this country allows folks to make a ton of money. What I'm not okay with is the rich using their disproportionate power to game the system in their favor.
Then march on washington. The only people that are allowing them to do it is the non-free marketers. Otherwise they would just be people that are trading goods and services with willing participants.
-
Again, the problem is not with "the rich." Being rich is fine. I'm thrilled that this country allows folks to make a ton of money. What I'm not okay with is the rich using their disproportionate power to game the system in their favor.
Then march on washington. The only people that are allowing them to do it is the non-free marketers. Otherwise they would just be people that are trading goods and services with willing participants.
Ya know, the wallstreeters re anti-free marketers. Why? They've corrupted the government to serve their own needs.
Marching on Washington wouldn't do much so long as Wallstreet still holds the purse strings for Washington.
-
This is pretty shocking IMO.
https://money.cnn.com/2011/10/13/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_money/index.htm?iid=HP_LN
NEW YORK (CNN) -- After 26 days of protests in New York's financial center, the Occupy Wall Street movement has raised over $150,000 in donations, according to Pete Dutro, a member of the protest's financial arm.
This massive fundraising was made through donations via mail, two websites -- occupywallst.org and nycga.cc -- and in person to members of what the movement calls its "Finance Working Group."
Separately, four days ago, "Occupy Wall Street Media" successfully raised over $75,000 worth of donation pledges to be used toward the protest's official publication, The Occupy Wall Street Journal, according to the online funding platform Kickstarter.
In addition to overseeing fundraising, members of the Finance Working Group, distinguishable by their gold dollar sign armbands, are also charged with disbursing funds to the other groups within the movement. These groups, which range from more permanent teams like Security and Media, to temporary teams assigned to isolated tasks, become eligible for funding upon approval by the general assembly.
-
So in educating myself on taxes I'd like to ask a question of Praxis, if he's even around. I noticed "I am the 53%" thing and the message seems to be that those people think they're part of people who pay all the taxes. Surely that's not mistaken for this:
https://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm
It seems to me that that 45-47% number of people who "don't pay taxes" that gets bandied about is, in reality, people that don't owe taxes at the end of the year because, well, taxes have already been taken out. I've never owed a single dollar come tax season ever, does that make me not one of these exclusive 53% even though I get taxes a good $400 every paycheck?
-
*waits for a response about how the unnecessary controlling of the free market is to blame for the statistics*
-
So in educating myself on taxes I'd like to ask a question of Praxis, if he's even around. I noticed "I am the 53%" thing and the message seems to be that those people think they're part of people who pay all the taxes. Surely that's not mistaken for this:
https://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm
It seems to me that that 45-47% number of people who "don't pay taxes" that gets bandied about is, in reality, people that don't owe taxes at the end of the year because, well, taxes have already been taken out. I've never owed a single dollar come tax season ever, does that make me not one of these exclusive 53% even though I get taxes a good $400 every paycheck?
If it is... :facepalm: for him lol.
-
The 53% thing is an absolute joke.
-
(https://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/317212_1506691347115_1229220760_31280761_1069958821_n.jpg)
found this on facebook.
-
So in educating myself on taxes I'd like to ask a question of Praxis, if he's even around. I noticed "I am the 53%" thing and the message seems to be that those people think they're part of people who pay all the taxes. Surely that's not mistaken for this:
https://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm
It seems to me that that 45-47% number of people who "don't pay taxes" that gets bandied about is, in reality, people that don't owe taxes at the end of the year because, well, taxes have already been taken out. I've never owed a single dollar come tax season ever, does that make me not one of these exclusive 53% even though I get taxes a good $400 every paycheck?
If it is... :facepalm: for him lol.
Why wouldn't it be?
The entire libertarian platform seems to be based on getting you to believe that you're not entitled to the "entitlement programs" you've actually been paying into your whole life.
-
I don't understand the question.
-
So in educating myself on taxes I'd like to ask a question of Praxis, if he's even around. I noticed "I am the 53%" thing and the message seems to be that those people think they're part of people who pay all the taxes. Surely that's not mistaken for this:
https://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm
It seems to me that that 45-47% number of people who "don't pay taxes" that gets bandied about is, in reality, people that don't owe taxes at the end of the year because, well, taxes have already been taken out. I've never owed a single dollar come tax season ever, does that make me not one of these exclusive 53% even though I get taxes a good $400 every paycheck?
No, it means that 53% of people don't pay any federal income tax. anything taken out would be state tax, SS&medicare tax (at a lower proportion than the rich), etc. obviously everybody pays sales tax. The figure is solely regarding federal income tax.
-
SS&medicare tax (at a lower proportion than the rich), etc.
Actually, payroll taxes that go towards SS and Medicare stop at 106k, meaning after your first 106k, you don't pay them.
Those programs are also the major gripes by people, so it's nice to keep in mind that the poor people are paying for their "entitlement" programs.
The point is, there are more federal taxes than just the "income" tax, which Americans pay. The oft-used number that many people don't pay federal income tax is misleading, as that article thoroughly demonstrates. People who don't have money can't pay taxes on that money, and that's the simple truth of it.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/312660_10150323868848935_36496893934_7991663_931317460_n.jpg)
-
"I recieved 2 scholarships which cover 90% of my tuition."
Not everyone that attends a university can get scholarships. For me, I applied for dozens of scholarships and got NOTHING to help pay for tuition.
EDIT: Also that guy actually is the 99% lol.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/312660_10150323868848935_36496893934_7991663_931317460_n.jpg)
what an idiot.
good for you, you're employed and have no debt, that must mean that the system is not broken and everyone else is a whiny layabout.
jesus christ.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/312660_10150323868848935_36496893934_7991663_931317460_n.jpg)
I hope this guy faces a medical emergency soon, lives, then realizes how the real world works and finds himself in debt and enslaved to a system he doesn't have a say in.
-
I hope this guy faces a medical emergency soon, lives, then realizes how the real world works and finds himself in debt and enslaved to a system he doesn't have a say in.
Thank you.
-
So in educating myself on taxes I'd like to ask a question of Praxis, if he's even around. I noticed "I am the 53%" thing and the message seems to be that those people think they're part of people who pay all the taxes. Surely that's not mistaken for this:
https://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm
It seems to me that that 45-47% number of people who "don't pay taxes" that gets bandied about is, in reality, people that don't owe taxes at the end of the year because, well, taxes have already been taken out. I've never owed a single dollar come tax season ever, does that make me not one of these exclusive 53% even though I get taxes a good $400 every paycheck?
No, it means that 53% of people don't pay any federal income tax. anything taken out would be state tax, SS&medicare tax (at a lower proportion than the rich), etc. obviously everybody pays sales tax. The figure is solely regarding federal income tax.
I don't think you understand. The 53% are boasting that they pay the federal income tax for the other 47% who "do not". What they're referring to is the percentage of people who don't owe federal income tax come tax time. The fact that you owe or don't owe money come tax time doesn't come down to being a freeloader or anything it comes down to how wisely/lawful you've been spending your income. Most everyone pays income tax so that 53% is much, much higher and hovering in the 90s somewhere.
-
I hope this guy faces a medical emergency soon, lives, then realizes how the real world works and finds himself in debt and enslaved to a system he doesn't have a say in.
At least he knows financially responsibility, something I firmly believe I can not say for most of the people slumming it down around Wall Street. Plus that doesn't sound like something that wouldn't have a good grip on health insurance.
-
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/OWSvsTP.jpg)
The wackos on both sides need to realize this and come together under this common goal. I know politicians and the media want us to think otherwise, but we're not that different.
-
I think the way the Tea Party people are reacting goes to show that they're clearly more about their image than their message.
-
I hope this guy faces a medical emergency soon, lives, then realizes how the real world works and finds himself in debt and enslaved to a system he doesn't have a say in.
At least he knows financially responsibility, something I firmly believe I can not say for most of the people slumming it down around Wall Street. Plus that doesn't sound like something that wouldn't have a good grip on health insurance.
Financial responsibility is meaningless if you can't find a job, aren't healthy and can't afford to get healthy, and a host of other problems .
Plus, even having health insurance doesn't protect you. He could have a "great" plan, then find he still owes thousands, if not more. Maybe he can't afford the new premiums for his coverage, maybe his insurance company will find a way to drop him, screwing him in the process.
-
No, financial responsibility means that before you get into a particular situation you're fully aware of what it will cost and when it will need to be paid (student loans, credit cards) you have a means to pay them off. Can't find a job? That's utter bullshit because while I didn't get the engineering job I spent 5 years earning a degree for I spent 8 months moving tables and chairs in a banquet hall with bosses who looked down on me earning and saving enough to pay back my minimums on all my loans. Those types of jobs are available, it's just that most people are holding out for that dream job they went to school for and shun everything else before they get into trouble and realize that maybe they should've been doing something to get money before going completely broke.
-
I guess the thing that is getting a bit worrying for me is that this whole Occupy Wall St phenomenon is starting to look a lot like class warfare - its all words at the moment, but if left unchecked I can see it stepping up a bit. Which, given the shittiness of politics in the US right now, is probably not a great thing.
Students of history! Is this what happened in Germany in the 20s/30s? I've done German history at high school level, but I don't remember exactly what the pre-conditions were for Hitler's rise. I'm not saying anything that extreme will happen in 21st century USA, but this kind of social environment could be quite easily classified as a pre-condition for historical change.
Feel free to disregard, I'm just trying to avoid writing my thesis ;D
-
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/OWSvsTP.jpg)
The wackos on both sides need to realize this and come together under this common goal. I know politicians and the media want us to think otherwise, but we're not that different.
Maybe it's my partisan views talking, but I have to disagree with the first part of that. I honestly have no problem with big government, at all, really.
-
No, financial responsibility means that before you get into a particular situation you're fully aware of what it will cost and when it will need to be paid (student loans, credit cards) you have a means to pay them off. Can't find a job? That's utter bullshit because while I didn't get the engineering job I spent 5 years earning a degree for I spent 8 months moving tables and chairs in a banquet hall with bosses who looked down on me earning and saving enough to pay back my minimums on all my loans. Those types of jobs are available, it's just that most people are holding out for that dream job they went to school for and shun everything else before they get into trouble and realize that maybe they should've been doing something to get money before going completely broke.
Shit jobs are available, but shit jobs don't feed, cloth and house a family very well. On top of that, there are not an unlimited amount of banquet jobs.
Not all situations you get into are chosen, and responsibility gets you only so far. Like I said, catch a virus, get a hospital bill, find yourself fucked, health insurance or not. What are you supposed to do there that is responsible?
Students of history! Is this what happened in Germany in the 20s/30s? I've done German history at high school level, but I don't remember exactly what the pre-conditions were for Hitler's rise. I'm not saying anything that extreme will happen in 21st century USA, but this kind of social environment could be quite easily classified as a pre-condition for historical change.
Wait, what? So every time there's unrest, we have to think it's going to turn into Nazi Germany? What about the American Revolution of 1776? Seems like that went rather well. Seeing as how most liberals aren't proposing anything draconian, or violent, and thus the frustration with Wall street is not something radical (in many ways, it's conservative, and a return to how things were), I don't see how this is at all a current possibility.
Occupy Wall Street = left wing, and most communism, but most likely some form of socialism. Fascism, Hitler = right wing. It's a little harder, given the liberal mentality, for them to be swept up by a Hitler like figure.
-
Because, you know, everyone who get's "decent" grades in high school gets 90% of their tuition paid for. Christ, I was in the top 10 of my high school class and if I even had 45% of my tuition paid for my life would be significantly better. What fucking bullshit.
-
Another problem is kids who just graduating from college feel like it's so wrong that they can't afford to live away from home.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with just working whatever job you can find while living at home and looking for a better job after you graduate. But kids are just so unwilling to do that these days it seems. And everyone has the same "dude you don't know my parents" excuse.
-
I'm certainly not saying anything as extreme as facism will appear out of this, but the emergence of pretty clear class lines, real or perceived, is a pretty significant pre-condition for change.
-
@PC, While there are shit home lives I do agree. I'm staying at home now paying half rent (contributing towards utilities and their mortgage) until I can save up enough to get a decent place.
-
Not all situations you get into are chosen, and responsibility gets you only so far. Like I said, catch a virus, get a hospital bill, find yourself fucked, health insurance or not. What are you supposed to do there that is responsible?
You keep harping on this but this is an entirely separate argument.
-
Another problem is kids who just graduating from college feel like it's so wrong that they can't afford to live away from home.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with just working whatever job you can find while living at home and looking for a better job after you graduate. But kids are just so unwilling to do that these days it seems. And everyone has the same "dude you don't know my parents" excuse.
You kidding? In my case, it's my parents who can't wait to get rid of me! :lol
-
This is from 1912.
(https://i.imgur.com/uyF5l.jpg)
-
So apparently, there's growing concern that the whole "occupy" movement is being hijacked by other groups, like the Ron Paul crowd. That's pretty similar to what happened with the tea-party, only then it was the Republicans hijacking the Ron Paul people.
I gotta say, though, I find it bizarre how hard people are pushing the "End the Fed" thing on the internet. The unemployed out there on the ground don't want to hear about a far-off, highly abstract and unlikely solutions that, if (keyword: if) the ideology is correct, will make the job market better. They want a candidate who is going to be resolute about creating jobs and making sure people who don't have them don't have their safety net taken away.
-
I think, so far, the protesters have done a good job resisting co-opting by establishment groups. Honestly, I don't see any danger in it being hijacked by Ron Paul types. It's too much of a fringe thing. I'm more concerned about the Democrats, who are already trying to align themselves with OWS.
-
No they have not. My friend's dad spends a lot of time down there selling buttons and has confirmed that the place is swarming with Truthers and vegans holding up pictures of skinned animals and shit. My friend did have a point that they need inclusion now to get numbers and then in order to become a more solidified force weed out most if not all of everyone who is just trying to leech off their popularity.
-
What's wrong with Democrats trying to become buddy-buddy with OWS?
-
What's wrong with Democrats trying to become buddy-buddy with OWS?
It's not a partisan movement. Both parties share blame.
edit: Also, it's a completely phony move.
-
...Or maybe the Democrats could be the vehicle through which those demands are met. Not to say Democrats are faultless, but with OWS support they could go far in the next election cycle.
-
With what power?
-
Symbiosis, dude.
-
Not all situations you get into are chosen, and responsibility gets you only so far. Like I said, catch a virus, get a hospital bill, find yourself fucked, health insurance or not. What are you supposed to do there that is responsible?
You keep harping on this but this is an entirely separate argument.
No it's not. Health programs are under threat because we have to cut spending everywhere and on everything, instead of asking the top 1% to start contributing a little bit more, when they've been getting more out of us and paying us less, for a long time now. This unrest is about big business and it's corruption of the government, and health care is a very good example of big business, and it most certainly corrupts government legislation on health care.
I like how all the libertarians are basically implying that there can be full employment, which is fallacious. There are not jobs for everyone out there,
-
Did you even look at that article I posted awhile back? Sponging more money from the 1% won't recoup nearly the cost most people assume it will. Like it or not, the middle class and the rest are the real cash cows. Asking for a few dollars more per paycheck from those people will help out a lot more than demanding more taxes on the super rich.
-
Did you even look at that article I posted awhile back? Sponging more money from the 1% won't recoup nearly the cost most people assume it will. Like it or not, the middle class and the rest are the real cash cows. Asking for a few dollars more per paycheck from those people will help out a lot more than demanding more taxes on the super rich.
Do the top 1 percent even pay taxes? I was under the impression that they didn't.
-
I just read that similar movements are actually appearing in other countries. A few days ago I was barely aware this even exists, and now... I'm starting to think this can grow into something really big. Personally I think they have really good reasons and as long as it remains reasonable (i.e. not extreme or worse, in any way violent), I can say I definitely support their ideas.
Also, I wonder if something similar may appear here in Poland sometime in the future. While we were impacted far less by the crisis than the vast majority of other European countries (not to mention the US), most issues are similar: pretty large differences between the rich and the poor (although here the reasons are different), serious problems with employment among young people (including employers who have mastered abusing different types of job contracts to the extreme in order to pay less) and the government doing basically nothing about this.
And I have to admit, until reading the last few pages and some of the articles linked, I hadn't realised the situation in the US post-crisis is this bad. I knew the crisis had a significant impact, but didn't realise it's gone this far.
-
Haha what timing:
OccupySydney ftw!
"Occupy Sydney is the dream of a few men and women who have come together at this time because they are sick and tired of the way they are being shafted and stabbed in the back at almost every level of Government."
lol way to be on message bros. They've got a video up on their blog that asserts the RBA is owned by the British Government, who is owned by the ancestors of some 16th century banker. This is getting ridiculous now...
Apparently there was an Occupy Perth (my capital city) too. We've got unemployment at 4%, eduation and training if you want it, a stable and representative government who announced billions of dollars in spending on community care and social services this financial year, streets are clean and trouble free, no congestion, no air pollution, take-your-fucking-pick of amenity. I guess haters gonna hate, eh.
-
Haha what timing:
OccupySydney ftw!
"Occupy Sydney is the dream of a few men and women who have come together at this time because they are sick and tired of the way they are being shafted and stabbed in the back at almost every level of Government."
lol way to be on message bros. They've got a video up on their blog that asserts the RBA is owned by the British Government, who is owned by the ancestors of some 16th century banker. This is getting ridiculous now...
Apparently there was an Occupy Perth (my capital city) too. We've got unemployment at 4%, eduation and training if you want it, a stable and representative government who announced billions of dollars in spending on community care and social services this financial year, streets are clean and trouble free, no congestion, no air pollution, take-your-fucking-pick of amenity. I guess haters gonna hate, eh.
Alright, see that I can understand people saying it's getting out of hand. Honestly what you described in terms of local political and economic situation sounds really good for the times we're living in. Not to say I know enough about Australia to judge, but that's quite different from the US's situation.
Unless there's a good deal of inequality in Australia too, but hey, I dunno.
-
I think (this is going from memory) that our gini coefficient (as much as I think they are overly simplified) is among the lowest/highest in the world - whichever corresponds with low inequality.
The only real "inequity" in Australia is those who work in the mining industry who get paid probably double average wages. But I went up to where they work a couple of weeks ago for a day to check out the ports in Port Hedland - they deserve every cent they are paid for working 80 hour weeks in 50+ degree temperatures. Other than that, there's very little inequality.
I feel like going down there and raging lol. Maybe thats because I'm (still) trying to avoid writing my thesis...
-
Did you even look at that article I posted awhile back? Sponging more money from the 1% won't recoup nearly the cost most people assume it will. Like it or not, the middle class and the rest are the real cash cows. Asking for a few dollars more per paycheck from those people will help out a lot more than demanding more taxes on the super rich.
Taxing the top 1% 3.6% more is equivalent to taking 50% of everything the bottom 49% make. There are 400 people who are as wealthy as 150 million Americans combined. Wealth in our country is insanely concentrated.
I'm not asking to just tax the rich, nor do I think taxing the rich will, alone, make up the budget gap. That's a straw man argument, because I haven't seen anyone ever propose we just tax the rich.
We do need to expand the tax base, but we do that by improving the economy so that the base exists to tax. As it stands, a lot of people are too poor, too in debt, etc, to be able to handle a tax increase. What you propose would be harmful to the economy, the middle class would have less money, which means less demand in the market place, which means fewer jobs, and a vicious cycle. In the end, you'd have more poor people who can't pay taxes.
-
Did you even look at that article I posted awhile back? Sponging more money from the 1% won't recoup nearly the cost most people assume it will. Like it or not, the middle class and the rest are the real cash cows. Asking for a few dollars more per paycheck from those people will help out a lot more than demanding more taxes on the super rich.
Do the top 1 percent even pay taxes? I was under the impression that they didn't.
Look, I know you're a smart guy but you have got to be fucking kidding me.
What you propose would be harmful to the economy, the middle class would have less money, which means less demand in the market place, which means fewer jobs, and a vicious cycle. In the end, you'd have more poor people who can't pay taxes.
A few extra dollars a paycheck would definitely cause all that chaos. Yep. Sure would.
-
I'm not kidding, orcus. I don't know.
Sorry that my intelligence doesn't live up to your expectations.
-
I'm not kidding, orcus. I don't know.
Sorry that my intelligence doesn't live up to your expectations.
I find that hard believe you didn't know that, PC. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but I thought that was pretty much common knowledge regarding taxes.
-
No. It's not.
Can't wait for someone to enlighten me.
-
I'm not kidding, orcus. I don't know.
Sorry that my intelligence doesn't live up to your expectations.
Hey don't try to make me look like the bad guy. The 1% that people are ragging on do end up paying for a significant portion of the total income taxes in this country, at least relative to monetary value. Did you seriously believe that these guys were sitting there evading the law or something?
-
Seriously, I didn't know.
EDIT: I was under the impression that the affluent were paying a lot (white-collar upper class or middle upper class people) while the mega-rich Warren Buffet level people basically weren't required to pay that much for a number of reasons. I guess that's wrong.
-
No, they supply a lot of money and while their rates aren't as high, someone that makes say, $1 million a year, that pays, I dunno, 25% income tax ends up paying about 5 times the amount as the total salary of a lot of entry level people just on that tax alone. Individually they're paying their share but it's probably more the actual corporation tax breaks that are getting people all in a fuss.
-
Why would taxing the middle class be more effective than simply taxing the rich? The math is quite simple:
I lost the original statistics, let's say, the top 10%, who control 60% of the wealth, pay 70% of the taxes.
Then there's the the bottom 90%, who pay the remaining 30%.
Now, if you increase the taxes for the top 10% by, say, 10%, you, as a country, get 7% more money. If you do the same to the bottom 90%, obviously, you only get 3%.
Enlighten me, where did I go wrong?
-
I just wish talks of actually cutting spending (by ending the wars and cutting the bloated defense budget) would come into play before we talked about raising taxes on ANYONE.
-
I agree with you, PC.
However, I cannot see that happening soon, unfortunately. Those military contractors have to make money somehow. :facepalm:
-
I just wish talks of actually cutting spending (by ending the wars and cutting the bloated defense budget) would come into play before we talked about raising taxes on ANYONE.
I think just the opposite, but hey.
-
Why not...both...at the same time :O
-
I realize that both is better than either or, and would rather have both.
However, if only one had to be done, I'd vouch for cutting spending.
-
Why would taxing the middle class be more effective than simply taxing the rich? The math is quite simple:
I lost the original statistics, let's say, the top 10%, who control 60% of the wealth, pay 70% of the taxes.
Then there's the the bottom 90%, who pay the remaining 30%.
Now, if you increase the taxes for the top 10% by, say, 10%, you, as a country, get 7% more money. If you do the same to the bottom 90%, obviously, you only get 3%.
Enlighten me, where did I go wrong?
It's fun playing with numbers when they work in your favor.
-
I realize that both is better than either or, and would rather have both.
However, if only one had to be done, I'd vouch for cutting spending.
And I'd say the same, leaning towards taxes.
-
What you propose would be harmful to the economy, the middle class would have less money, which means less demand in the market place, which means fewer jobs, and a vicious cycle. In the end, you'd have more poor people who can't pay taxes.
A few extra dollars a paycheck would definitely cause all that chaos. Yep. Sure would.
A few extra dollars each paycheck would do nothing to help eliminate our national debt, and it would mean less money being spent my consumers. In a normal functioning economy, I wouldn't say this is a much of a problem - but if you take even $800 dollars a year ($8 a paycheck), away from someone who makes $15,000 a year, that person is going to cut back on some basic necessities.
Seriously man, learn macroeconomics before you mock me.
-
Wait, did you just pull $15,000 out of your ass to make your number crunching work in your favor?
-
Why would taxing the middle class be more effective than simply taxing the rich? The math is quite simple:
I lost the original statistics, let's say, the top 10%, who control 60% of the wealth, pay 70% of the taxes.
Then there's the the bottom 90%, who pay the remaining 30%.
Now, if you increase the taxes for the top 10% by, say, 10%, you, as a country, get 7% more money. If you do the same to the bottom 90%, obviously, you only get 3%.
Enlighten me, where did I go wrong?
It's fun playing with numbers when they work in your favor.
Right. I would love to see your calculation, then.
-
Listen, you could be right, I just don't take any numbers seriously until there's some actual backup.
-
It was posted a few pages ago:
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
(https://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4e94607369bedd5941000027-547/as-the-nations-richest-people-often-point-out-they-do-pay-the-lions-share-of-taxes-in-the-country-the-richest-20-pay-64-of-the-total-taxes-lower-bar-of-course-thats-because-they-also-make-most-of-the-money-top-bar.jpg)
OK, it's actually the top 20%, paying about 60%, (I had previously applied numbers from some article that was probably talking about net worth, not income), but they still get the majority of the money.
-
Wait, did you just pull $15,000 out of your ass to make your number crunching work in your favor?
I'm making a general point, so ya I pulled that number out of my ass, but it hardly matters. Rich people stockpile money, they can afford to wait out turbulant times until times are better for investing; the middle class and the poor can't, they spend their money, which goes into the economy, and allows it to function. Taxing the middle class more at at time like this would mean less economic activity, because of less demand, which means lower employment.
I'm not kidding, orcus. I don't know.
Sorry that my intelligence doesn't live up to your expectations.
Hey don't try to make me look like the bad guy. The 1% that people are ragging on do end up paying for a significant portion of the total income taxes in this country, at least relative to monetary value. Did you seriously believe that these guys were sitting there evading the law or something?
There are people in the upper echelons who end up paying zero in taxes; also, they pay a significant total of the income tax because they make a significant portion of the income.
-
Timely.
https://www.watoday.com.au/business/brave-economist-blows-whistle-on-bosses-pay-20111016-1lrif.html?rand=1318773879682
I think I might hunt this book down, sounds like a good read.
And see, not all economists are bad :angel:
-
the emergence of pretty clear class lines, real or perceived
As an economist what would you say is the difference between real and perceived class lines?
-
I was waiting for that, economists should just stick to economics, eh? :)
I would classify a real class line as, I dont know, definitive divisions of income across all groups: so you have your super rich, your rich, your mids, your lower mids and your poor. In addition to that, you have very little to no mobility between each group (not just to the super rich). And finally, conciousness of the above, which leads to social and behavioural change that makes these groups defineable by more than how much money they have.
Clearly in the US there is a gap between super rich and rich that fits this description; not sure about the rest. and yet these protests are a microcosm of all kinds of people and so I don't think it quite fills the definition of real class lines. Happy to be wrong though, as you point out I'm not really well versed in broader sociology/anthropology.
-
Saw this on Reddit. Very glad it's starting to happen.
Tea Party Co-Founder Expresses Support for Occupy Wall Street (https://occupywallstreet.thoughts.com/mnicholson2/tea-party-co-founder-expresses-support-for-occupy-wall-street)
One of the original founders of the Tea Party movement has told RT.com that he believes Occupy Wall Street is not only comparable to the earliest states of the movement he helped launch but can learn from its mistakes.
“The problem with protests and the political process is that it is very easy, no matter how big the protest is, for the politicians to simply wait until the people go home,” financial blogger Karl Denninger observed. “And then they can ignore you.”
“Well, Occupy Wall Street was a little different,” he continued. “And back in 2008, I wrote that when we will actually see change is when the people come, they set up camp, and they refuse to go home. That appears to be happening now.”
Denninger has been complaining for some time that the Tea Party was hijacked by the Republican establishment and used to protect the very prople it had originally opposed. A year ago, he wrote, “Tea Party my ass. This was nothing other than the Republican Party stealing the anger of a population that was fed up with the Republican Party’s own theft of their tax money at gunpoint to bail out the robbers of Wall Street and fraudulently redirecting it back toward electing the very people who stole all the ****ing money!”
Now he advises Occupy Wall Street, “Don’t let it happen.”
“One of the things that the Occupy movement seems to have going for it is it has not turned around and issued a set of formal demands,” he explains. “This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Everyone is looking for a set of demands. The problem is that as soon as you pipe up with a list of four or five things — and you’ve got to keep it simple and short — then somebody’s going to say, ‘Well, we gave you 70 percent of it, now go home.’ And the fact is, that’s exactly the sort of thing that happened with the Tea Party.”
“Stay on message, which is that the corruption is not a singular event,” Denninger urged. “You can’t focus in one place. You have to get the money out of politics, which is very difficult to do, but at the same time you can’t silence people’s voice.”
-
https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/politics/occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/politics/occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
This is too funny. Now even the 1% want to come in and protest.
-
haha those silly protesters oh man what a bunch of smelly hippies
-
You don't think its a little bit silly to have someone in the 1% show up and start protesting along with them? Considering Baldwin has a nice endorsement deal with Capital One, one of the evil banks the protesters have been so upset about?
-
Yes, I do, but I don't think it discounts the movement.
-
One of the 1% protesting with them? Not really a problem to me, it's a problem anyone can recognize.
Someone who endorses what's being protested against? That's a problem.
-
That's what I was thinking.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/politics/occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/politics/occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
This is too funny. Now even the 1% want to come in and protest.
I don't see the Koch brothers joining the protest...
-
(https://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/310928_10150319144946765_72947896764_8318800_1022156635_n.jpg)
-
@ goon's article: I was totally with the guy until he got off on the whole "tax theft at gunpoint" bit. I almost feel like that's going to be the irreconcilable point of division into the country's political future, like way in the long term. I hope I'm wrong.
@ juice: :lol
-
Oh this is still going on? Sure.
-
@ goon's article: I was totally with the guy until he got off on the whole "tax theft at gunpoint" bit. I almost feel like that's going to be the irreconcilable point of division into the country's political future, like way in the long term. I hope I'm wrong.
Well that's not the point. The point is that if an establishment party co-ops this movement it is DONE. I think the protesters are smart enough to realize that the Democrats and organizations like MoveOn and such should be treated like poison.
-
Alright, but so where do we go from here? Is this unification of the OWS and Tea Party movements supposed to result in a new, third party, in an opening of the system, what? I mean, what are the political consequences that we seek to achieve? And I do distinguish between that and political goals (end the Fed, take money out of politics, etc.).
Also I'm not arguing a point with these questions, I would like to know everyone's opinion on this.
-
Alright, but so where do we go from here? Is this unification of the OWS and Tea Party movements supposed to result in a new, third party, in an opening of the system, what? I mean, what are the political consequences that we seek to achieve? And I do distinguish between that and political goals (end the Fed, take money out of politics, etc.).
Also I'm not arguing a point with these questions, I would like to know everyone's opinion on this.
Well, I think they're going to start losing people if/when they start officially advocating policy positions. The point is to cast a wide net so the thing reaches critical mass -- it needs to keep growing. Ending our corrupt, crony capitalist system seems like a goal every sane person can get behind.
Fix the root issue first, then worry about policy.
-
Ending our corrupt, crony capitalist system seems like a goal every sane person can get behind.
Fix the root issue first, then worry about policy.
But how do you do that without policy?
-
I guess that was pretty unclear. By policy I mean things like tax rates and healthcare plans.
-
Right, but seriously, how do you do that without? What other possible avenue for response is there?
-
I don't follow. How does eradicating the avenues for corruption have anything to do with specific legislation about healthcare, jobs, tax, etc?
-
In other words, how specifically do we eradicate elements of corruption?
-
Right, but seriously, how do you do that without? What other possible avenue for response is there?
I think what he's saying is that until we do with the corruption that exists, we actually won't deal with the other problems we need to get addressed, because anything passed will be corrupt. You won't get a fair tax code passed becuase corporate lobbyists don't want them closed.
-
Yes, but I don't think anyone is challenging that claim. My question at least was how, other than through the enactment of policy, do we do away with corruption?
-
Right, but seriously, how do you do that without? What other possible avenue for response is there?
I think what he's saying is that until we do with the corruption that exists, we actually won't deal with the other problems we need to get addressed, because anything passed will be corrupt. You won't get a fair tax code passed becuase corporate lobbyists don't want them closed.
Exactly. I was also referring to the movement losing support by, let's say, advocating a single payer healthcare system. It attracts more people by keeping its goals broad and largely nondescript.
Yes, but I don't think anyone is challenging that claim. My question at least was how, other than through the enactment of policy, do we do away with corruption?
I clarified what I originally meant by policy in my initial post up the page. I misspoke. But I think the most logical (and difficult) way to do it is via some sort of Constitutional amendment. And yes, I'm aware the idea of that in this day and age sounds more than a bit pie in the sky, by how else is it supposed to get done?
-
Ah yes, it's the age old problem. Who watches the Watchmen? There are many problems both simple and complex. Everyone assumes the government should just take control of the situation, but disagreements occur as to both the degree and kind of oversight. When some overseer does take over, the ever present specter of corruption rears its ugly head. Who is protecting us from the bias and agenda of the regulator? Have they been bought off? It's a fatal problem and one that cannot be easily solved, at least not in our current paradigm.
-
Corruption is a never ending possibility, but I'd rather have a shitty watchman than no watchman at all (hmm... better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all; better to have government go corrupt, than to never have a government at all). When the watchmen does it's job, and we get something we wouldn't have otherwise had. When the watchmen doesn't do it's job, we would get what we would've had without the watchmen anyways, so to blame the watchmen for that is silly.
-
but I'd rather have a shitty watchman than no watchman at all (hmm... better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all; better to have government go corrupt, than to never have a government at all)
It was said best by Robert LeFevre. "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
When the watchmen doesn't do it's job, we would get what we would've had without the watchmen anyways, so to blame the watchmen for that is silly.
Strawman, the presence of the watchman necessarily changes what would have happened in his absence. Also, if a watchman is doing a "Shitty" job, that doesn't mean he is necessarily doing nothing. It could very well be they are doing things very badly and causing more harm than had he never been there at all. Which is usually the case.
-
When the watchmen doesn't do it's job, we would get what we would've had without the watchmen anyways, so to blame the watchmen for that is silly.
Strawman, the presence of the watchman necessarily changes what would have happened in his absence. Also, if a watchman is doing a "Shitty" job, that doesn't mean he is necessarily doing nothing. It could very well be they are doing things very badly and causing more harm than had he never been there at all. Which is usually the case.
I both agree and disagree with that. I see what you're saying but if I'm reading Scheavo's post right, he is correct to point out that in the absence of government, imposition of the strong over the weak would happen anyway, just without being in any form that can be called formal or legitimated (legitimated through concensus, not through justice).
Or it could be almost 2 AM and I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. But in any case, if the watchmen disappeared the strong and corrupt would still be there, taking advantage of the system and those who can't fight back; only difference would be not having to go through the formalities of giving off an appearance of legitimacy.
-
Sorry for breaking up the discussion.
Occupy Melbourne (the crackpot breakaway group from Occupt Wall Street) was forceably removed from their protest place today, because they were in contravention of a number of local laws. They were advised early this morning that they had a few hours to pack up their stuff and leave, which they didn't do once these few hours were up and so the coppers moved in and shifted them.
Does this help or hurt their cause?
My view is they would have been much better off saying, 'OK, we've had a good run, lets leave peacefully and set up shop somewhere else' rather than blindly staying the course and being physically removed. It just makes them look like every other rabbling protest group ever.
-
I both agree and disagree with that. I see what you're saying but if I'm reading Scheavo's post right, he is correct to point out that in the absence of government, imposition of the strong over the weak would happen anyway, just without being in any form that can be called formal or legitimated (legitimated through concensus, not through justice).
Without writing or quoting a book on the subject. Just because there is no Watchmen does not mean there is no law or law enforcement.
Occupy Melbourne (the crackpot breakaway group from Occupt Wall Street) was forceably removed from their protest place today, because they were in contravention of a number of local laws. They were advised early this morning that they had a few hours to pack up their stuff and leave, which they didn't do once these few hours were up and so the coppers moved in and shifted them.
Does this help or hurt their cause?
I guess it depends on your perspective of what the end goal is of their cause. If it is to highlight the loss of liberties and general dismissal of their cause by those in power, this most certainly validates their ends.
-
but I'd rather have a shitty watchman than no watchman at all (hmm... better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all; better to have government go corrupt, than to never have a government at all)
It was said best by Robert LeFevre. "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
False dichotomy. Men are neither good nor evil, they are both good and evil. Individuals are good, individuals are evil. The government is the good bandying up against the bad.
When the watchmen doesn't do it's job, we would get what we would've had without the watchmen anyways, so to blame the watchmen for that is silly.
Strawman, the presence of the watchman necessarily changes what would have happened in his absence. Also, if a watchman is doing a "Shitty" job, that doesn't mean he is necessarily doing nothing. It could very well be they are doing things very badly and causing more harm than had he never been there at all. Which is usually the case.
Super Dude did a good job catching my point. Look at what bad / corrupt regulators do: they don't enforce the regulations, and let companies get away with what they want to get away with. There's nothing in the world that mandates consumers buy said companies products, so obviously there would still be the same market demand - why then, should I assume that if the government didn't have some safety regulations, that companies would follow the regulations, when historically they haven't, and currently they demonstrate a desire not to?
Explain to me how a food inspector, checking restaurants, or food-processing plants, etc, can possibly make things worse? Either he catches problems, and corrects them, or he doesn't. How does he make the food quality worse? How does not permitting companies from using horribly toxic, dangerous chemicals, possibly make the situation regarding horribly toxic chemicals worse?
-
I both agree and disagree with that. I see what you're saying but if I'm reading Scheavo's post right, he is correct to point out that in the absence of government, imposition of the strong over the weak would happen anyway, just without being in any form that can be called formal or legitimated (legitimated through concensus, not through justice).
Without writing or quoting a book on the subject. Just because there is no Watchmen does not mean there is no law or law enforcement.
Well, I...wait, what? I'm pretty sure the basic definition of a state of nature is that law does not exist because in a truly anarchic society morality doesn't exist. It's a state of nature; dogs and apes do not create and observe laws, and they sure as hell don't enforce 'em.
-
I was listening to Outcry yesterday (like every good DT fan should be) and although they wrote it about all the demonstrations in the Middle East, a thought crossed my mind, does it now apply to the West ?
-
Well, I...wait, what? I'm pretty sure the basic definition of a state of nature is that law does not exist because in a truly anarchic society morality doesn't exist. It's a state of nature; dogs and apes do not create and observe laws, and they sure as hell don't enforce 'em.
Like I said, it would take a pretty long discussion to thoroughly address these points and would completely derail this thread. I'd be more than happy to PM with you.
The government is the good bandying up against the bad.
LMFAO. The "bad" are always seeking political power to use in their favor. They always pursue government roles. The "good" may or may not pursue government.
Explain to me how a food inspector, checking restaurants, or food-processing plants, etc, can possibly make things worse? Either he catches problems, and corrects them, or he doesn't. How does he make the food quality worse? How does not permitting companies from using horribly toxic, dangerous chemicals, possibly make the situation regarding horribly toxic chemicals worse?
I think we already talked about this until we were blue in the face, do we really need a repeat? In short. By having a regulator, it is assumed by all that they are "doing their job" so many people presume that they are safe or protected from the actions of others. If the regulator is not doing a good job, then that is why companies can get away with so much crap. In the absence of a regulator, no such pretense exists. People will then employ means to protect themselves, do their homework and establish a good reputation. In a free market, your reputation is your lifeblood.
-
The government is the good bandying up against the bad.
LMFAO. The "bad" are always seeking political power to use in their favor. They always pursue government roles. The "good" may or may not pursue government.
The bad are always seeking power, whether that's political, or private. In a democracy, everyone, meaning the majority of us who are good, get to kick the bad ones out, and make sure they don't get to power.
What you would want us to do is take away the only safeguard we have against the bad, however corruptible it might be.
Explain to me how a food inspector, checking restaurants, or food-processing plants, etc, can possibly make things worse? Either he catches problems, and corrects them, or he doesn't. How does he make the food quality worse? How does not permitting companies from using horribly toxic, dangerous chemicals, possibly make the situation regarding horribly toxic chemicals worse?
By having a regulator, it is assumed by all that they are "doing their job" so many people presume that they are safe or protected from the actions of others. If the regulator is not doing a good job, then that is why companies can get away with so much crap. In the absence of a regulator, no such pretense exists. People will then employ means to protect themselves, do their homework and establish a good reputation. In a free market, your reputation is your lifeblood.
Again, its better to have a watchmen do a bad job than have no watchmen at all. You seem to think people are fully capable of freely keeping track of every possible thing that effects their daily lives, nor what kind of economic and productivity consequences there would be if people had to keep track of every single one of those conditions. Your free market "solution" would be problematic in just the same way. If people paid a company to keep track of a companies safety, to negotiate environmental issues, etc., they'll "presume that they are safe or protected from the actions of others."
Your reputation does not correspond with your quality or your competitiveness. Say there's a free-market monopoly (by which I mean a company owning say 85%+ of the market), and a competitor starts up. They'll slander the new people into oblivion, and tarnish their reputation.
I also don't assume my government is doing it's job. I'm suspicious of my government, as all good citizens should be.
-
By the way, on a separate issue, is there anyone who can defend the idea that protestors need permits to protest? Isn't it in the first amendment that there shall be no laws abridging our ability to "peacefully assemble"?
-
By the way, on a separate issue, is there anyone who can defend the idea that protestors need permits to protest? Isn't it in the first amendment that there shall be no laws abridging our ability to "peacefully assemble"?
I wondered about this. In Seattle they were prohibiting from them from setting up camps in Westlake Park, which I agree with, as I don’t think anyone should just be able to camp out in a public park indefinitely, even if it is the name of ‘assembly.’ Otherwise I believe organized protests here require permits if they plan on doing something like marching down public streets, (which I don’t agree with granting permits for).
I guess maybe it has more to do with the location in which the assembling is happening, more than the actual protesting itself(?)
-
I guess maybe it has more to do with the location in which the assembling is happening, more than the actual protesting itself(?)
Ya, it's happening in too public of a place, so that people are hearing about the protestors. There is no harm being caused by any of these protestors, except perhaps some damage to some public land, and congestion in an area not otherwise congested. If protestors were blocking access to, say, a hospital, that'd be different. Anything else is just authoritative bullshit to keep protestors in line, and status quo the way it is.
-
Matt Taibbi (who has been covering the financial fiasco since its inception) has a good article on Rolling Stone (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-occupy-wall-street-is-bigger-than-left-vs-right-20111017) about the dangers/possibility of the protests getting stuck in a left vs. right paradigm.
From the end of the piece:
What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.
Take, for instance, the matter of the Too-Big-To-Fail banks, which people like me and Barry Ritholz have focused on as something that could be a key issue for OWS. These gigantic institutions have put millions of ordinary people out of their homes thanks to a massive fraud scheme for which they were not punished, owing to their enormous influence with government and their capture of the regulators.
This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power -- but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast.
Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.
The banks know this. They know they have no "natural" constituency among voters, which is why they spend such fantastic amounts of energy courting the mainstream press and such huge sums lobbying politicians on both sides of the aisle.
The only way the Goldmans and Citis and Bank of Americas can survive is if they can suck up popular political support indirectly, either by latching onto such vague right-populist concepts as "limited government" and "free-market capitalism" (ironic, because none of them would survive ten minutes without the federal government's bailouts and other protections) or, alternatively, by presenting themselves as society's bulwark against communism, lefty extremism, Noam Chomsky, etc.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying one thing: beware of provocateurs on both sides of the aisle. This movement is going to attract many Breitbarts, of both the left and right variety. They're going to try to identify fake leaders, draw phony battle lines, and then herd everybody back into the same left-right cage matches of old. Whenever that happens, we just have to remember not to fall for the trap. When someone says this or that person speaks for OWS, don't believe it. This thing is bigger than one or two or a few people, and it isn't part of the same old story.
-
Again, its better to have a watchmen do a bad job than have no watchmen at all. You seem to think people are fully capable of freely keeping track of every possible thing that effects their daily lives, nor what kind of economic and productivity consequences there would be if people had to keep track of every single one of those conditions. Your free market "solution" would be problematic in just the same way. If people paid a company to keep track of a companies safety, to negotiate environmental issues, etc., they'll "presume that they are safe or protected from the actions of others."
When I'm referring to watchmen, I am referring to a final authority. I do not mean to imply that there is no oversight. There is one huge difference in our examples. The incentive structure is ass backwards from public regulation and private "regulation" (I'm not sure what the best word would be, but it is different.) A public regulator is typically appointed, and not elected, but even if they are, their incentive structure is broken. If a public regulator is tasked with keeping a particular industry under control, then they will be given a budget and some power in order to operate. First, what incentive does this person have to do a "good job"... Nothing really, if things go well, he just gets the same money and power on the next budget cycle. If things do not go well, and the industry goes wild, then rarely will they face any serious consequences. It is more likely that the public outcry will force the government to give the regulator more money and more power to control the industry. Public regulators work under the Fuck Up, Move Up system of advancement. If the government actually solved problem's, there would be no need for them over time. So it is in their best interest to keep problem's going for job security.
With a private regulatory service, you voluntarily choose them as your protector. Sure, they may screw up and leave you hanging if the don't do their job, but then they go out of business as customers move to a competitor. The most successful companies are those that do a good job. A private system incentive structure ties the success of doing a good job with the desired outcome of consumers.
Your reputation does not correspond with your quality or your competitiveness. Say there's a free-market monopoly (by which I mean a company owning say 85%+ of the market), and a competitor starts up. They'll slander the new people into oblivion, and tarnish their reputation.
LOL, slander, really? So if a mom & pops shop sets up across the street from Walmart, and Walmart came out and said they were a bunch of dumb fuck's who can't tie their shoe laces. Everyone would believe it?
-
Ya know, many regulations only need to be laws on a book, so that someone can sue of their own accord, to keep a practice from occurring. There isn't some one mythical regulator that has unlimited power to control an industry, which you seem to imply. They aren't given an industry to "keep under control."* They enforce laws passed by a democratic congress, by the will of the people (or at least ideally). Also, it may be true of you and a lot of people, but money is not the only motivator. There are people out there, believe it or not, who have an actual interest in helping keep other people safe, and money is an afterthought, a necessity in a money-economy.
LOL, slander, really? So if a mom & pops shop sets up across the street from Walmart, and Walmart came out and said they were a bunch of dumb fuck's who can't tie their shoe laces. Everyone would believe it?
Have you like never watched TV and a commercial advertisement before? They're full of shit and a bunch of stuff that is designed to manipulate you. If a trusted company came out saying their product was better than a competitors, and came up with a bunhc of bull shit reasons for it, a LOT of people would buy it, and never question it. Have you never met an Apple of Microsoft fan boy who is just completely ignorant of the other product, and completely obsessed with the superiority of their product?
And no, Walmart wouldn't need to slander a mom and pops store - they would simply undersell them for like 6 months, drive them out of business, and not have a competitor. Really, from everything we know, do you honestly think mom and op stores can actually compete with Walmart? It's not even worthy to talk of them as competitors.
-
Ya know, many regulations only need to be laws on a book, so that someone can sue of their own accord, to keep a practice from occurring. There isn't some one mythical regulator that has unlimited power to control an industry, which you seem to imply. They aren't given an industry to "keep under control."
That's only half right, the laws are just legislation representing what they would like to see with regards to restricting certain types of actions. A regulatory agency must enforce those laws. No company in the US operates outside the jurisdiction of at least 1 regulatory body to enforce those laws. Each regulatory agency is specialized in a particular kind of regulation like the FDA, FCC, EPA, FTC, SEC, DOJ etc... There are real people in the government behind of all of this, not a mythical regulator. Also, I never said anything about unlimited power. They have a specific level of power, but as they fail at their jobs, the public outcry forces the government to expand that power. It just grows and grows.
Have you like never watched TV and a commercial advertisement before? They're full of shit and a bunch of stuff that is deigned to manipulate you. If a trusted company came out saying their product was better than a competitors, and came up with a bunhc of bull shit reasons for it, a LOT of people would buy it, and never question it. Have you never met an Apple of Microsoft fan boy who is just completely ignorant of the other product, and completely obsessed with the superiority of their product?
And no, Walmart wouldn't need to slander a mom and pops store - they would simply undersell them for like 6 months, drive them out of business, and not have a competitor. Really, from everything we know, do you honestly think mom and op stores can actually compete with Walmart? It's not even worthy to talk of them as competitors.
Fanboys will always exist, regulating advertisements aren't going to do anything to persuade them... what's your point? Sure, companies will embellish their product descriptions or try to cast them in a better light than others, but that's why we have consumer reviews. It's easier than ever to rate companies and products and get a census of its true worth. If people are too careless to research, that's their perogative and they pay a premium for inferior products. If a company deliberately misleads, then we have a case of fraud to be dealt with legally. I'm not seeing the problem.
If Walmart can undersell someone, how is that bad for consumers. Why should a regulator force Walmart to sell a product at a higher price to keep a less efficient company in business? How is setting higher prices good for consumers? It's funny, If Walmart set prices higher they would be accused of gouging. If the set them too low, they are dumping/undercutting. If they set them the same as the competition they are accused of collusion or price fixing. No matter what they do, they are wrong. Unless the regulator approves, right? :huh:
-
People will then employ means to protect themselves
The most immediate of which is to demand the government to enforce regulations.
-
Fanboys will always exist, regulating advertisements aren't going to do anything to persuade them... what's your point? Sure, companies will embellish their product descriptions or try to cast them in a better light than others, but that's why we have consumer reviews. It's easier than ever to rate companies and products and get a census of its true worth. If people are too careless to research, that's their perogative and they pay a premium for inferior products. If a company deliberately misleads, then we have a case of fraud to be dealt with legally. I'm not seeing the problem.
Because the best, most sane way to deal with it legally is to have a "government" involved. You seem to have a problem with the idea of have laws on the books, so that companies are open to legal case regarding instances of environmental harm, fraud, unsafe labor practices, etc - but at the same time, you want to deal with the problem legally. I really don't get it, it's like you don't realize that what you want would lead to where we're at now.
Also, regulations started having a problem in this country about the time we started to say regulations were a problem, and started to put people in the position who had no interest of regulating. There are prime examples of working regulation in this country, which has gone on to benefit many people.
If Walmart can undersell someone, how is that bad for consumers. Why should a regulator force Walmart to sell a product at a higher price to keep a less efficient company in business? How is setting higher prices good for consumers? It's funny, If Walmart set prices higher they would be accused of gouging. If the set them too low, they are dumping/undercutting. If they set them the same as the competition they are accused of collusion or price fixing. No matter what they do, they are wrong. Unless the regulator approves, right? :huh:
I never said regulators should be involved in Wal-mart's pricing, now did I? You brought up the example. Also, if you looked into Wal-mart, you'd find that they have a rather horrible track record with their employee's, lawsuits filed against them, etc. Monopolies are able to do things like this becuase they have the power to do so. If Wal-mart drives out the competition, than workers don't have an alternative company to go to which treats them better, and are easily replaceable, so it doesn't matter if they raise a fuss.
Because, basically, there are other factors involved in a product than simply it's immediate cost at the cash register, but thanks to a poor populace and economic necessity, the immediate price is the one that drives the free-market. It's nearsighted.
-
I would just like to point out that this discussion is simultaneously going on in three threads right now :lol
-
Yeah, it's getting hard to keep up :lol
-
I would just like to point out that this discussion is simultaneously going on in three threads right now :lol
Wait, this forum isn't about debating the free-market? Whaaat?
-
Because the best, most sane way to deal with it legally is to have a "government" involved. You seem to have a problem with the idea of have laws on the books, so that companies are open to legal case regarding instances of environmental harm, fraud, unsafe labor practices, etc - but at the same time, you want to deal with the problem legally. I really don't get it, it's like you don't realize that what you want would lead to where we're at now.
I have no problem with the "idea of laws on the books", I may, however, have a problem with how they are created or enforced. My whole argument is to demonstrate that the use of government or regulations will lead to more environmental harm, fraud and unsafe labor practices. The exact opposite of what they aim to prevent.
I never said regulators should be involved in Wal-mart's pricing, now did I? You brought up the example. Also, if you looked into Wal-mart, you'd find that they have a rather horrible track record with their employee's, lawsuits filed against them, etc. Monopolies are able to do things like this becuase they have the power to do so. If Wal-mart drives out the competition, than workers don't have an alternative company to go to which treats them better, and are easily replaceable, so it doesn't matter if they raise a fuss.
You didn't say it exactly, but it's precisely what is implied from your argument. You said that Walmart (or anyone) underselling a competitor to put them out of business is a problem. What kind of regulation would be proposed to stop this from occuring other than something that ultimately limits the price at which they sale their goods? Also, why do you bring up Wal-marts employee track record, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I'm certainly willing to discuss it, but you keep changing the topic.
I would just like to point out that this discussion is simultaneously going on in three threads right now :lol
I count 2, and they have some cross-over in their scope...
-
Because the best, most sane way to deal with it legally is to have a "government" involved. You seem to have a problem with the idea of have laws on the books, so that companies are open to legal case regarding instances of environmental harm, fraud, unsafe labor practices, etc - but at the same time, you want to deal with the problem legally. I really don't get it, it's like you don't realize that what you want would lead to where we're at now.
I have no problem with the "idea of laws on the books", I may, however, have a problem with how they are created or enforced. My whole argument is to demonstrate that the use of government or regulations will lead to more environmental harm, fraud and unsafe labor practices. The exact opposite of what they aim to prevent.
This may be true for some, but it is demonstrably false for many others. Air quality, water quality, etc, have gotten better just about everywhere in the US since the creation of the EPA. My home town uses oxygenated fuel in the winter, by mandate, because it pollutes less - the air quality has gone from not being able to see more than two blocks in the winter, to me never have known this was a problem becuase I've only been born after it took effect.
So if that's your argument, it's not true. There are definitely corrupt regulations on the books, and regulations which do more harm than good, but that does not say that all regulations, by virtue of their genesis, are bad and do more harm than good.
I never said regulators should be involved in Wal-mart's pricing, now did I? You brought up the example. Also, if you looked into Wal-mart, you'd find that they have a rather horrible track record with their employee's, lawsuits filed against them, etc. Monopolies are able to do things like this becuase they have the power to do so. If Wal-mart drives out the competition, than workers don't have an alternative company to go to which treats them better, and are easily replaceable, so it doesn't matter if they raise a fuss.
You didn't say it exactly, but it's precisely what is implied from your argument. You said that Walmart (or anyone) underselling a competitor to put them out of business is a problem. What kind of regulation would be proposed to stop this from occuring other than something that ultimately limits the price at which they sale their goods? Also, why do you bring up Wal-marts employee track record, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I'm certainly willing to discuss it, but you keep changing the topic.
My argument is to point to real world example, examples we have when the market has some regulations enforced upon it, to show you the inclination and desire some big companies have, and how that desire wouldn't go away without the government. I bring up employee practices because this is an area where are there are labor laws and regulations on the books, which certainly effects a companies bottom line. Having regulations in place regarding these issues is beneficial to employees, and disliked by employers. We see that in Walmart, we see that in numerous other companies, we see that historically in a massive level. You would have these done away with, because you argue that the free-market would do better - when in fact, the free-market would probably create worse conditions for workers and employees.
I'm bringing up examples to show how you're theory is inadequate. By showing how a company can create a monopoly in a market ("free" or not), what kind of forces they would use, forces which are not accounted for in your theory of quality and customer safety, I am not at the same time proposing that we solve this problem with the government. That's a huge leap and assumption on your part.
-
I just saw a photo on a high school friend's Facebook page of this soldier who had just come back from Iraq, who went to Oakland, Michigan for the Occupy protest there. He got shot in the head by the Oakland PD.
-
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/report-iraq-vet-fractured-skull-police-projectile-occupy-203808915.html
Not quite "shot in the head," but ya... this could be a huge turning point for some people. Personally, I've been horribly disturbed of all the police actions surrounding the protests, and an Iraqi veteran getting killed, or even just seriously injured, due to police tactics just doesn't sit well. None of the protests have been violent, none of them have been destructive.
-
Oh, I just heard about it from Facebook. Thanks for the link, I will check that out.
Edit: Interesting. In all likelihood, despite what the news coverage says, it'll probably circulate through popular thought as being "shot in the head," I'm almost certain. Good ammo against cops, you know.
-
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/report-iraq-vet-fractured-skull-police-projectile-occupy-203808915.html
Not quite "shot in the head," but ya... this could be a huge turning point for some people. Personally, I've been horribly disturbed of all the police actions surrounding the protests, and an Iraqi veteran getting killed, or even just seriously injured, due to police tactics just doesn't sit well. None of the protests have been violent, none of them have been destructive.
Actually I'm pretty sure that particular one there were many reports of violence and sexual assaults for the police came in, though the story conveniently leaves that part out to fuel this make believe that we're actually living in a real police state. I find it difficult to fathom that people actually believe that nothing wrong is going on at these protest camps and the police are always the aggressors. You get hundreds and thousands of people with different viewpoints, mix them up for a month and you expect everything to be A-OK? I'm shocked there's not more violence and other kinds of assaults happening.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqNOPZLw03Q&feature=youtu.be
Guy's unconscious in the middle of the street and some people run over to try and help him? Better flashbang them.
-
Hundreds of thousands of people are not mixing in person. If that were to happen, it would a massive protest movement, more massive than it is now.
Also, if there are reports of violence within the camp, it is protestor against protestor, it is not the protest movement itself getting violent, and you know, rioting. If the police are there, they should be doing something about those claims being made, because it's still their job to investigate those things, and to protect citizens against their fellow citizens.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqNOPZLw03Q&feature=youtu.be
Guy's unconscious in the middle of the street and some people run over to try and help him? Better flashbang them.
If we weren't ourselves, that footage would be shown to show how repressive the police force of a country is being.
-
Whatever the case, I hope I'm wrong but things might start getting ugly from here.
Also, I know people are sick of this discussion, but here's a great response to that "I am not the 99%" picture that's floating around the Internet: (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/302997_10150430734175225_714315224_10699874_211956695_n.jpg)
-
:clap:
-
lol at "hard working"
-
Oh, so as long as you get 90% of your college tuition paid for you and work 30 hours along with 20-40+ hours a week in university you'll be able to scrape along.
Great system we have going here.
-
Stop being so lazy.
-
lol at "hard working"
Stop being so lazy.
Please tell me both of you are joking.
-
They're joking.
I agree with them. But orcus is right about one thing. Redditors need to stop pretending they work hard :lol
-
Wait, where did the Redditors bit come from? I found that response on Facebook.
-
Yes. A joke. Anyway, what happened in Oakland is deplorable. Hopefully it gets more people out there.
-
(https://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/309764_827518309997_48610646_37617271_357469386_n.jpg)
-
lol.
-
lol at "hard working"
Stop being so lazy.
Please tell me both of you are joking.
Kindly inform me as to what this has all accomplished. Media exposure? Ok, but aside from soapboxing I've seen zero momentum. It really has just turned into a political Woodstock.
-
I for one am happy to hear some actually progressive ideas come back into the discourse. We have the person who has potential to be our most progressive president in office ever so far, and yet he's acting like a neo-con.
-
happy wealthy
But yea, I would not be happy if Obama got reelected. He's been indoctrinated or something. I wouldn't mind a candidate from the Democratic side who has a Ron Paul type attitude.
-
Didn't we try that with Kucinich?
-
He's kind of short and lacks charisma.
-
Ron Paul has charisma?
He's comes across like an off-the-wall academic. Maybe 4 years ago he had a little bit. But these days, he's got nothing.
-
lol at "hard working"
Stop being so lazy.
Please tell me both of you are joking.
Kindly inform me as to what this has all accomplished. Media exposure? Ok, but aside from soapboxing I've seen zero momentum. It really has just turned into a political Woodstock.
It has made many Americans aware of corruption within the system instead of falling victim to the learned ignorance that this government has educated us with.
-
what got me was when they wouldn't let that civil rights protester speak. Which i found to be a dumb move. This whole thing doesnt make sense.
-
Ron Paul has charisma?
He's comes across like an off-the-wall academic. Maybe 4 years ago he had a little bit. But these days, he's got nothing.
RP isn't really that charismatic either but he has a thing of making his positions sound more legitimate by drawing from the founding fathers, older traditions and whatnot.
-
Peter Schiff teaches some protesters economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UGL-Ex1CD1c#!
-
Schiff describes himself as "sympathetic" to the plight of the OWS protesters, but thinks their anger is misdirected at legitimate business interests and should be better at the White House, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the crony capitalists they've bailed out.
I'm pretty sure that's where the anger is directed.
-
Is this movement still actually going? Like how many people are still in NYC every day for this? It's been quite a while since it started...
-
"Socialism is wrong... If the government minded its own business, then nobody can get a student loan... If it wasn't for the government, college would be cheap."
Not very convincing Mr. Schiff... nowhere are universities more affordable than in socialist countries.
-
"Socialism is wrong... If the government minded its own business, then nobody can get a student loan... If it wasn't for the government, college would be cheap."
Not very convincing Mr. Schiff... nowhere are universities more affordable than in socialist countries.
No, he's correct. School in this country is prohibitively expensive because almost anybody can get guaranteed students loans and go to college. That increases demand, which, as I'm sure you know, also increases tuition prices.
-
"Socialism is wrong... If the government minded its own business, then nobody can get a student loan... If it wasn't for the government, college would be cheap."
Not very convincing Mr. Schiff... nowhere are universities more affordable than in socialist countries.
No, he's correct. School in this country is prohibitively expensive because almost anybody can get guaranteed students loans and go to college. That increases demand, which, as I'm sure you know, also increases tuition prices.
Because our schools are allowed to basically be private, for-profit industries. Look at other countries, where that isn't the case, and you see the difference. I think you make a good case that simply giving students more loans in our environment causes the problem, so instead of giving out loans to students to go to college, we should just publicly finance the education completely. Require stricter entrance requirements, require smaller athletic departments, and put a cap on executives, administrators, and their salaries.
The problem with American politics is we privatized public functions, which are more expensive. Whenever the government "privatizes" something, it's just a guise for corruption, and it costs us, the taxpayers, more money. Don't be fooled by the "the market does it cheaper" becuase, as you say, the government is not a market. Seeing as how we have the government in area's we don't want the market corrupting the process, it's just self-defeating, stupid, and harmful. The government does it's own job cheaper than private contractors, there's actually a CBO about it.
lol at "hard working"
Stop being so lazy.
Please tell me both of you are joking.
Kindly inform me as to what this has all accomplished. Media exposure? Ok, but aside from soapboxing I've seen zero momentum. It really has just turned into a political Woodstock.
I guess I'm confused between you attacking the movement, or you saying something about what the movement stands for. Cause if your calling poor people lazy, then I have huge problems. If you're calling some of these protestors lazy, I'm sure some of them are.
As for what it's accomplished, don't think for a second that all this media coverage isn't changing the political scene in America. Look up the Bonus Army Hooverville incident.
-
"Socialism is wrong... If the government minded its own business, then nobody can get a student loan... If it wasn't for the government, college would be cheap."
Not very convincing Mr. Schiff... nowhere are universities more affordable than in socialist countries.
No, he's correct. School in this country is prohibitively expensive because almost anybody can get guaranteed students loans and go to college. That increases demand, which, as I'm sure you know, also increases tuition prices.
Tuitions would drop somewhat if loans became harder to get but it also would disrupt equal opportunity for education, and the number of people who actually attend college would fall. The socialist countries aren't the one's that are having problems with student loans.
-
"Socialism is wrong... If the government minded its own business, then nobody can get a student loan... If it wasn't for the government, college would be cheap."
Not very convincing Mr. Schiff... nowhere are universities more affordable than in socialist countries.
No, he's correct. School in this country is prohibitively expensive because almost anybody can get guaranteed students loans and go to college. That increases demand, which, as I'm sure you know, also increases tuition prices.
Tuitions would drop somewhat if loans became harder to get but it also would disrupt equal opportunity for education, and the number of people who actually attend college would fall. The socialist countries aren't the one's that are having problems with student loans.
You're right about that, for the reasons scheavo brought up. We have a sort of public-private education system in America, and it has created all kinds of odd incentives for everybody involved and that needs to be fixed.
Now I don't intend to sound mean, but a degree is not a right, and the fact that we have artificially lowered the cost of an education doesn't mean it has to stay there if we're going to fix the problem. If we would simply make people responsible for the loans they take out for school (no guaranteed loans), there would be a positive shift in everybody's behavior. The schools wouldn't be enriched no matter the student's outcome, people would finance their educations more responsibly and there would be that much less of a burden on the public.
-
It has made many Americans aware of corruption within the system instead of falling victim to the learned ignorance that this government has educated us with.
I'm pretty sure that was common knowledge akin to how people think reminding smokers that smoking is bad in this day and age is suddenly going to make them go "Wait, what?!".
I guess I'm confused between you attacking the movement, or you saying something about what the movement stands for. Cause if your calling poor people lazy, then I have huge problems. If you're calling some of these protestors lazy, I'm sure some of them are.
As for what it's accomplished, don't think for a second that all this media coverage isn't changing the political scene in America. Look up the Bonus Army Hooverville incident.
I think you're being a little overzealous in thinking the political scene has changed all that much. Something might've happened already but I can't think of one major development or transition in progress that has stemmed out of all of this. "Awareness" just doesn't cut the mustard when it comes time to get things done because like I answered Chino above it's not like OWS exposed some huge secret or anything. The only thing it goes to prove is that when all those people who actually talk the talk decide to walk the walk they discover that even in a large group they have zero power.
-
To be realistic, we will not know the actual results/consequences of these protests until we look back at it years later.
-
It has made many Americans aware of corruption within the system instead of falling victim to the learned ignorance that this government has educated us with.
I'm pretty sure that was common knowledge akin to how people think reminding smokers that smoking is bad in this day and age is suddenly going to make them go "Wait, what?!".
I guess I'm confused between you attacking the movement, or you saying something about what the movement stands for. Cause if your calling poor people lazy, then I have huge problems. If you're calling some of these protestors lazy, I'm sure some of them are.
As for what it's accomplished, don't think for a second that all this media coverage isn't changing the political scene in America. Look up the Bonus Army Hooverville incident.
I think you're being a little overzealous in thinking the political scene has changed all that much. Something might've happened already but I can't think of one major development or transition in progress that has stemmed out of all of this. "Awareness" just doesn't cut the mustard when it comes time to get things done because like I answered Chino above it's not like OWS exposed some huge secret or anything. The only thing it goes to prove is that when all those people who actually talk the talk decide to walk the walk they discover that even in a large group they have zero power.
By that logic, no one, ever, should protest. In order for people to protest, the information has to be common knowledge. What changes is how people react to the knowledge they have, what they think should be done about it, if they think anything can be done about it.
It's like saying the protests in Egypt didn't accomplish anything cause they didn't expose anything, bring any new information, etc.
-
They also had way bigger numbers and, in some respects, the balls to actually go through with it. They violently overthrew a government with excessive force. We've just got a bunch of people in sleeping bags holding up signs and decrying businesses that couldn't care less. How would I go about? I honestly haven't thought about it but I until someone in power decides to make some radical changes I can't really chalk this up as anything more than a fascinating display of helplessness.
-
Though I do not necessarily agree 100% with the protestors' approach to this, I'd imagine that if, say, a movement akin to that in Egypt or Lybia took place, neither you, nor I would want to be around for the results of that.
-
Kindly inform me as to what this has all accomplished.
It hasn't accomplished anything major yet. What would you expect? It's a deeply corrupt system that they're protesting against. It's not like you can make a few changes here and there and everything is all better.
-
They also had way bigger numbers and, in some respects, the balls to actually go through with it. They violently overthrew a government with excessive force. We've just got a bunch of people in sleeping bags holding up signs and decrying businesses that couldn't care less. How would I go about? I honestly haven't thought about it but I until someone in power decides to make some radical changes I can't really chalk this up as anything more than a fascinating display of helplessness.
Well, I can imagine you don't want people to overthrow the government... violently... but this kind of statement, especially enduring, changes how people look at an event, and thus how they could vote. If voting doesn't work, it's a sign that enough people are fed up with the way thing are going, that maybe something actually a kin to Egypt would happen. I'd say the bigger difference between Egypt and the United States is our government; imagine if the government tried to completely stamp out these protests, and what kind of effect that would have on people.
-
I'm guessing that the U.S. gov would be quick to make use of large displays of force, should something like Egypt happen, hence why I doubt anything like that would happen.
-
I'm guessing that the U.S. gov would be quick to make use of large displays of force, should something like Egypt happen, hence why I doubt anything like that would happen.
I think that, in part for there to be such a large amount of people protesting, you have to have a display of force.
-
They also had way bigger numbers and, in some respects, the balls to actually go through with it. They violently overthrew a government with excessive force. We've just got a bunch of people in sleeping bags holding up signs and decrying businesses that couldn't care less. How would I go about? I honestly haven't thought about it but I until someone in power decides to make some radical changes I can't really chalk this up as anything more than a fascinating display of helplessness.
So the only effective form of popular protest is violent?
-
No, but that is a form of protest that has proven to work.
-
No, but that is a form of protest that has proven to work.
I forgot... protests against not letting 18 year olds vote got no where. Protests to let women vote got nowhere. Protests for civil rights got no where.
-
Oh, so as long as you get 90% of your college tuition paid for you and work 30 hours along with 20-40+ hours a week in university you'll be able to scrape along.
Great system we have going here.
Both my fiancee and I work 40 hours a week and take 16 credit hours a semester. We have plenty of time with each other (don't live together) and to do things we want. I'm not saying everyone can, but I am an awful student and I can.
-
No, but that is a form of protest that has proven to work.
I forgot... protests against not letting 18 year olds vote got no where. Protests to let women vote got nowhere. Protests for civil rights got no where.
Well aren't you the little sensationalist. I said a form not the only form. Seriously, though explain exactly what sitting in one spot on a soapbox with a few hundred of your closest kindred spirits supposed to accomplish? They're not marching by the thousands with conviction, they're not actually preventing anything from being done, they're not strongly pushing any good ideas how to achieve true economic equality, they're literally just a few hundred/thousand people loafing around in a park with all the compassion in the world to make a difference but none of the capabilities to do so. I'll admit they started off strong but since two weeks ago they're pretty much a stalled engine. Someone's gotta turn the key if they wanna get going again.
-
No, but that is a form of protest that has proven to work.
I forgot... protests against not letting 18 year olds vote got no where. Protests to let women vote got nowhere. Protests for civil rights got no where.
Well aren't you the little sensationalist. I said a form not the only form. Seriously, though explain exactly what sitting in one spot on a soapbox with a few hundred of your closest kindred spirits supposed to accomplish? They're not marching by the thousands with conviction, they're not actually preventing anything from being done, they're not strongly pushing any good ideas how to achieve true economic equality, they're literally just a few hundred/thousand people loafing around in a park with all the compassion in the world to make a difference but none of the capabilities to do so. I'll admit they started off strong but since two weeks ago they're pretty much a stalled engine. Someone's gotta turn the key if they wanna get going again.
And you comparing the beginning of a movement to the end of a movement. It could very well turn into nothing, but it does mean something for people to be out in numbers, protesting a common enemy. Give it some time before you criticize it, the protests are organizing with each other, figuring out how to do what you're describing. What, you expect a bunch of amateurs to just come together and instantly have a plan?
Being resolute itself sends a message. When you don't go home, it says you have more invested in the protest. If everyone just went home, it would send a message that it's nto that urgent, that things are not that important.
-
I dunno, orcus. There's "protests" and then there's "civil disobedience". What becomes what depends on what's going on with the group. No-one at a Tea Party protest really feels like their livelihood or future is immediately threatened, so those things turn into rich white folks circle-jerking about the Founders and writing checks out to candidates pretty quickly and everyone's going home as soon as it gets dark anyway. Civil disobedience is much different than that, though. Civil disobedience is being willing to not comply with the law because you feel the cause is so pressing that you need to draw attention to it. That's what these protests are. Hopefully, they won't turn into riots. When people at these things start shooting cops or lighting themselves on fire, you know America's fucked.
Like it or not, it's real. And, agree with the protestoers or not, the fact something has been going on in this fashion for so long now is pretty sad reflection of where the United States is at this stage in the game-- increasing gap between wealthy and poor, increasing unemployment rates, broken political system, increasing amount of dough spent overseas and on defense, and now near riots in the streets of most major cities. Yup.
-
Kudos to Peter Schiff on actually going to OWS and stimulating debate. However the majority of the 1% are crony capitalists rather than lolertarians so I don't think he really represents his class.
-
https://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/marines-storm-reddit-after-occupy-oakland-shooting-of-scott-olson_b43369
Marines have been flocking to the social networking/aggregator site Reddit to voice their anger at the life-threatening injury inflicted on 24-year-old Iraqi war veteran Scott Olsen by Oakland police during the recent Occupy protests. Video showed Olsen go down after taking a tear gas canister to the head. As fellow protesters tried to assist him, police lobbed a flash grenade into their midst–right next to Olsen’s already fractured skull......
If online reaction is any indication, it’s not a stretch to think Olsen’s injury could be the start of something very big. We have a lot of military combat veterans in this country who haven’t been treated very well since they left the service. No job prospects. Inadequate medical coverage. If they take their anger offline and into the streets, the OWS movement will become an extremely potent, and WELL TRAINED force.
-
For me this starts to look like a classic case of the government vastly underestimating a movement.
-
The only reason it's a big deal is because he just happened to be a vet. The amount of anger that's being portrayed is the type of anger you'd see if someone was actually targeted. Sure you could try to spin it as the cops going after a poor vet but it could've happened to anyone. It's very peculiar to see this as some kind of new catalyst and hailing some guy in the wrong place at the wrong time as a martyr but it really only shows the shortsightedness of the mob mentality.
-
After reading your posts in this thread, I'm getting the impression you seem to be borderline obsessed with trying to prove the protests are dumb and meaningless.
-
Ron Paul has charisma?
He's comes across like an off-the-wall academic. Maybe 4 years ago he had a little bit. But these days, he's got nothing.
RP isn't really that charismatic either but he has a thing of making his positions sound more legitimate by drawing from the founding fathers, older traditions and whatnot.
You should see some Ron Paul vids from his 1988 campain. He had a massive flamethrower and wasn't afraid to use it.
If he only had that fire today.
-
Ron Paul has charisma?
He's comes across like an off-the-wall academic. Maybe 4 years ago he had a little bit. But these days, he's got nothing.
RP isn't really that charismatic either but he has a thing of making his positions sound more legitimate by drawing from the founding fathers, older traditions and whatnot.
You should see some Ron Paul vids from his 1988 campain. He had a massive flamethrower and wasn't afraid to use it.
If he only had that fire today.
He's lost a lot of it today, but the message is still on point and a lot of people are coming around to the argument. He's arguably had a greater impact on converting people to Liberty than any other person in history.
-
After reading your posts in this thread, I'm getting the impression you seem to be borderline obsessed with trying to prove the protests are dumb and meaningless.
Darkes, I'd have a lot more posts in this thread if I was obsessed. I'm merely taking the opposite side most of the time because most actions that are happening in the protest go against what I perceive as logical.
-
He's arguably had a greater impact on converting people to Liberty than any other person in history.
Ron Paul hasn't converted anyone to liberty, he's just shown people how they're giving it up, where they've given it up, etc. Locke, Roussea, Kant, Madison, Jefferson, Paine... now those people converted other people to liberty.
-
After reading your posts in this thread, I'm getting the impression you seem to be borderline obsessed with trying to prove the protests are dumb and meaningless.
Darkes, I'd have a lot more posts in this thread if I was obsessed. I'm merely taking the opposite side most of the time because most actions that are happening in the protest go against what I perceive as logical.
Who?
Except two things are a fact:
1) I'd say it's gone far beyond a "typical protest". They don't last this long. And I wouldn't be interested in something that's happening 10000 km away from me or so if it seemed to be completely meaningless - but while not much may be happening, how long it lasts and how many people are involved makes me think it is something significant.
2) Unlike a lot of such movements, they do not focus on some small, specialised group - the "target area" is really massive (well, potentially it's... 99% of the US), and if it seems additional, particular groups of people - like now it seems to be Iraq veterans - are finding things in common, it's also quite important. It means it has the potential to grow even bigger, and that's something that really should not be discarded as unimportant.
Even if you disagree with their ideas or whatever, I'd say these two basic issues mean that seeing it as completely unimportant doesn't really make much sense.
-
Because Americans are habitually bitchy people anyways. There's always been various types of people who are all bark, no bite types that like to pretend they're rebellious but only know how to get so far. Getting them together in large groups with no ideas on how to move forward doesn't really seem all that big a deal.
-
Except what do you mean by "move forward"? Create a political party? Take over the White House? Bake the greatest cake in the history of America?
-
Implement the change they desire.
-
What method would you use, if you were in their position, to do so?
(I agree with you on a good deal in regards to the protests and how they're being conduced; I'm just curious as to what your gameplan would be.)
-
I do not see any better way to do something about this particular problem than people gathering in large masses and showing they are pissed off, and showing it in a rather clever way. The only other solution that comes to my mind that might lead to changes is violence, but I think everyone with a sane mind agrees that's NOT a good solution.
-
I do not see any better way to do something about this particular problem than people gathering in large masses and showing they are pissed off, and showing it in a rather clever way. The only other solution that comes to my mind that might lead to changes is violence, but I think everyone with a sane mind agrees that's NOT a good solution.
It's almost getting to the point where that's the only option. What else can they do?
-
Has our system become so broken that that's the only solution that matters?
-
Has our system become so broken that that's the only solution that matters?
Well, the US would have to prove an exception to the rule... modern countries can have coups, but they're usually not of the overtly bloody type. The military plays a moderating force, keeping order in place. The military is a key factor.
-
I was actually speaking rhetorically, but that was a good explanation, thanks.
-
I do not see any better way to do something about this particular problem than people gathering in large masses and showing they are pissed off, and showing it in a rather clever way. The only other solution that comes to my mind that might lead to changes is violence, but I think everyone with a sane mind agrees that's NOT a good solution.
It's almost getting to the point where that's the only option. What else can they do?
It's growing slowly but constantly, right? Give it time.
-
its not going anywhere... their message is incoherent, and their education concerning the economy is severely lacking
-
As far as I can tell, it is dead in Seattle. Guess they didn't want to deal with being out in the increasingly cold weather.
-
It's still going strong in Wall Street.
-
As far as I can tell, it is dead in Seattle. Guess they didn't want to deal with being out in the increasingly cold weather.
Seattletonians (?) are really wimps with the weather. If it's not like 70 exactly, it's either too cold or too warm.
-
As far as I can tell, it is dead in Seattle. Guess they didn't want to deal with being out in the increasingly cold weather.
Seattletonians (?) are really wimps with the weather. If it's not like 70 exactly, it's either too cold or too warm.
Seattleites ;)
I wouldn't say we are wimps, especially those of us who have lived here forever. We know around this time to take out the winter coats, scarves, gloves, etc... I just think we are just not as active in the 'progressive' (?) activist community/movements that we think we are.
Otherwise you are correct. It gets above 80, stores sell out of fans. It snows, cars play bumper cars, streets totally shut down, and the city has no idea how to handle it.
-
Well, when your weather doesn't change TOO much, it should be expected. Anyone living there would get used to that.
-
Because Americans are habitually bitchy people anyways. There's always been various types of people who are all bark, no bite types that like to pretend they're rebellious but only know how to get so far. Getting them together in large groups with no ideas on how to move forward doesn't really seem all that big a deal.
https://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/how_ows_has_transformed_public_opinion/singleton/
OWS has transformed public opinion
Even more startling is the change in public opinion. Not since the 1930s has a majority of Americans called for redistribution of income or wealth. But according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, an astounding 66 percent of Americans said the nation’s wealth should be more evenly distributed.
-
Opinion does not mean action.
Also lol:
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/01/milk-street-cafe-owner-sacks-21-employees-as-consequence-of-occupy-wall-street-demonstration/
-
But opinion translates into action.
-
If you're being optimistic. In order to convert those opinions into action you'd need to convince the few hundred people that actually make big decisions for this country and frankly I don't see them seeing these OWS types as much more than a nuisance.
-
you'd need to convince the few hundred people that actually make big decisions for this country
I don't think OWS is trying to convince the people with the power of this or that. It's dismissing this process as a whole as it doesn't consider it democratic.
-
As far as I can tell, it is dead in Seattle. Guess they didn't want to deal with being out in the increasingly cold weather.
Um... I spoke too soon.
https://today.seattletimes.com/2011/11/occupy-seattle-protesting-chase-ceo-visit/
One woman told the crowd they need to “demand our money” back from Chase. Another speaker said they don’t need money, because “it’s only paper.”
What the hell lady, just transfer to another bank or credit union. I did, as have millions more. And I wonder how long Ms Prissypants will go on not needing money.
-
Social unrest in the US is inevitable but hopefully it won't break loose with these protests...
-
Ok, overstepping the line?
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/us-port-shut-down-by-occupy-protesters/story-e6frg12u-1226184701676
It's primarily an export port, not an import port, so ummm yeah nice going guys.
-
Opinion does not mean action.
When you vote, it sure does. The same article mentions how people overwhelmingly agree that Republican policies help the rich (81% if I remember correctly), if and 66% or so think that wealth is already too concentrated, that's going to mean less people voting for Republicans.
Also lol:
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/01/milk-street-cafe-owner-sacks-21-employees-as-consequence-of-occupy-wall-street-demonstration/
If you carefully read the story, you'll notice it wasn't because of the protestors themselves, but the police response to the protests.
-
Which was caused by the protesters. They are the sole reason why that area has been turned into an undesirable location for pedestrians. I've been listening to the news all day as well, lots of small businesses in that area have noticed a sharp decline in business because no one wants to head down that section of New York in the last couple months.
-
Ok, overstepping the line?
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/us-port-shut-down-by-occupy-protesters/story-e6frg12u-1226184701676
It's primarily an export port, not an import port, so ummm yeah nice going guys.
:facepalm: @ protesters
-
It's getting harder and harder to sympathize with these guys.
-
Which was caused by the protesters.
This is like blaming a woman for dressing slutty in a rape case.
-
Which was caused by the protesters.
This is like blaming a woman for dressing slutty in a rape case.
I'd say it's more like blaming drug related violence on drugs... when it's because of prohibition.
-
Better! Imo the barricades really don't need to be there. Their purpose may just to create an atmosphere of a siege.
-
It's getting harder and harder to sympathize with these guys.
Really? I'm surprised, you were rooting for them stronger than anyone at first.
-
Yeah, because at first they were centered around an unclear but commendable message, and had a genuine reason to feel slighted by a media that refused to cover them. Now they've got all the media attention they want, but their message is no clearer and it seems like the entire thing has just become an exercise in pushing their constitutional rights to the extreme by seeing what they can get away with. Leave that kind of nonsense to the libertarians, please. It'd be one thing if they'd actually been showing any kind of effort to organize and transform the protest into an actual political movement, but instead they've just become more and more of a mob. That they'd become a riot instead of a protest is a concern I voiced early on, too, despite my support. Frankly, I see them moving in that direction.
-
...they've just become more and more of a mob. That they'd become a riot instead of a protest is a concern I voiced early on, too, despite my support. Frankly, I see them moving in that direction.
This echoes my concerns too. I mean, sitting in at Wall Street is one thing, disrupting commerce for no apparent gain is another.
inb4 the gain is media coverage, which as has been said seems to be the least of their concerns right now.
-
...they've just become more and more of a mob. That they'd become a riot instead of a protest is a concern I voiced early on, too, despite my support. Frankly, I see them moving in that direction.
This echoes my concerns too. I mean, sitting in at Wall Street is one thing, disrupting commerce for no apparent gain is another.
The protests haven't gotten violent. What you're seeing is them trying to send a message to the top 1% that they aren't going to take the shit that's going on anymore. Closing down a port will affect the workers, yes, but it will affect the millionaires and billionaires who depend upon that port more in terms of percentages. It's sending an economic message concerning their economic concerns. The general strikes are a part of that, and it's what ended up closing down that port.
This isn't simply, "lets go close down that port," which is an implication you're giving.
-
That wasn't what I was trying to imply at all; in no way have they been violent. a) if they did get violent I'm pretty sure they would be stopped pretty quickly and b) the group doesn't strike me as having violent tendencies.
I suppose what at least I'm getting at is that there is a big difference between having a sit-in at Wall Street and running around getting in the way and disrupting people/industry. My point is, you are doing a pretty successful job at capturing the hearts and minds of people by doing what you are already doing, why knock it up a notch when its not necessary and will only put those who aren't on your side further in that direction? It just seems like, as PC said, they are getting a bit of a mob mentality.
-
Well, what, in all honesty, would you have them do? What would be the action your looking for?
-
The protests haven't gotten violent. What you're seeing is them trying to send a message to the top 1% that they aren't going to take the shit that's going on anymore. Closing down a port will affect the workers, yes, but it will affect the millionaires and billionaires who depend upon that port more in terms of percentages. It's sending an economic message concerning their economic concerns. The general strikes are a part of that, and it's what ended up closing down that port.
This isn't simply, "lets go close down that port," which is an implication you're giving.
Either way, it's obnoxious, and if that's all they can do to get their message across (which they still haven't clarified after almost two months) then they truly are more of a mob than a political movement.
I mean, this does just not affect billionares. This affects everyone, and it's stupid:
(https://i.imgur.com/MIpjI.jpg)
-
Tbh, I'd rather this chaos than have them go home.
-
Tbh, I'd rather this chaos than have them go home.
(https://i.imgur.com/XJyGY.gif)
-
Fuckin' A. :hat
-
yeaaa mannnnn...lets stick it to the man! its just like the 60s dude, change is coming, were gonna change the world mannn..
-
Goldman Sachs on trial in OWS.... tune in if you're bored
https://www.wbai.org/
-
read link
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/reuters-on-occupy-oakland-mob-violence-a-day-of-mostly-peaceful-rallies-against-economic-inequality/
more.. its endless really...Im tired of reading total nonsese by others saying " they are pacifists and non violent"
find out who is funding this!!!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/occupy-oakland-are-you-a-pacifist-flier-calls-for-violence/
-
liberal media
-
(https://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/oakland-mob-fire.jpg)
Such productive members of society. California needs that 10.0.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/hundreds-of-occupy-oakland-goons-smash-bank-windows-roam-streets-with-sticks-video/
Just like the Tea Party?.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/flower-child-berated-by-skull-crackers-for-promoting-non-violence-at-occupyoakland-rally-video/
-
Tbh, I'd rather this chaos than have them go home.
?
-
Tbh, I'd rather this chaos than have them go home.
Then let them post up on your personal property
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/occupy-portland-protester-pushes-police-sergeant-into-a-moving-bus-during-march-against-police-violence/
just like the Tea Party... so similar...LOL LOL
-
...they've just become more and more of a mob. That they'd become a riot instead of a protest is a concern I voiced early on, too, despite my support. Frankly, I see them moving in that direction.
This echoes my concerns too. I mean, sitting in at Wall Street is one thing, disrupting commerce for no apparent gain is another.
The protests haven't gotten violent. What you're seeing is them trying to send a message to the top 1% that they aren't going to take the shit that's going on anymore. Closing down a port will affect the workers, yes, but it will affect the millionaires and billionaires who depend upon that port more in terms of percentages. It's sending an economic message concerning their economic concerns. The general strikes are a part of that, and it's what ended up closing down that port.
This isn't simply, "lets go close down that port," which is an implication you're giving.
cough... ummmm.. really? Facts seem to once again be the darndest things...
-
Violence begets violence. It's a shame that a small group felt the need to provide detractors with the very images that they have been starving for since the movement started.
There are reports that Oakland PD officers are covering up their badges with tape to prevent identification. Pretty sure that's, uh, illegal.
-
California needs that 10.0.
Classy.
-
(https://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/oakland-mob-fire.jpg)
Such productive members of society. California needs that 10.0.
can you please explain what you mean?
-
(https://mishunderstanding.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/earthquake_richter_scale.jpg)
-
(https://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/oakland-mob-fire.jpg)
Such productive members of society. California needs that 10.0.
can you please explain what you mean?
Sure. The people in the picture are thugs participating in a violent protest. They have no productive value.
-
:facepalm:
-
that would be a subjective point of view, PraXis
-
I call it objective
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/occupy-oakland-are-you-a-pacifist-flier-calls-for-violence/
-
Objective that they have nothing to contribute to society? Okay sure.
-
I'm more interested in what the "10.0" stands for.
-
Don't know who the fuck the Oakland Liberation Front is.
-
I'm more interested in what the "10.0" stands for.
10.0 = earthquake.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/awful-woman-raped-at-occupybaltimore-says-no-one-helped-her-video/
just like the Tea Party.. cough... lol
-
Objective that they have nothing to contribute to society? Okay sure.
exactly..
-
just like the Tea Party.. cough... lol
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_581/1297278609l6lQ3p.jpg)
there ya go, buddy
-
wishing death upon people isn't cool. knock it off.
time to move on to the original discussion
-
Just like the Tea Party?.
just like the Tea Party... so similar...LOL LOL
just like the Tea Party.. cough... lol
Yeah, we got it the first time.
-
This thread goes like this.. 3-4 pages of great discussion, then epicview and praxis show up, yesh tells everyone to knock it off, rinse and repeat.
-
Also, yes, Epic View is right. The far end of the left is ugly and violent. So is the far end of the right. Us moderates and liberals have to deal with the fact that sometimes the Democratic party also draws supporters who have views that are more radical or socialistic, Reverend Wright types. Moderate Republicans and conservatives have to deal with the fact that skinheads and Neo-Nazi's, for the most part, find Republicans to be the more accommodating of the two parties. Pointing out the extreme of either side doesn't really say anything about the normal subscribers to the party in general.
-
There are reports that Oakland PD officers are covering up their badges with tape to prevent identification. Pretty sure that's, uh, illegal.
Anyway, has anyone else heard about this? There are no photos or news stories yet, just posts from people on the ground. Hoping something turns up.
-
Pointing out the extreme of either side doesn't really say anything about the normal subscribers to the party in general.
...or the rest of the entire OWS movement. Thank you Joe.
-
Also, OWS has nothing to do with Democratic party support.
-
I'm sorry but this is nothing, NOTHING like the Tea Party!! :o
-
This thread goes like this.. 3-4 pages of great discussion, then epicview and praxis show up, yesh tells everyone to knock it off, rinse and repeat.
:lol
I blame it on my short memory
-
Also, yes, Epic View is right. The far end of the left is ugly and violent. So is the far end of the right. Us moderates and liberals have to deal with the fact that sometimes the Democratic party also draws supporters who have views that are more radical or socialistic, Reverend Wright types. Moderate Republicans and conservatives have to deal with the fact that skinheads and Neo-Nazi's, for the most part, find Republicans to be the more accommodating of the two parties. Pointing out the extreme of either side doesn't really say anything about the normal subscribers to the party in general.
show me the tea party or far right has done violence.. it doesnt exist..the Tea Party even cleans up after a gathering so our tax dollars are not used.
PS: the Nazis have endorsed the OWS , and have always been a off shoot of the Dem party ( look it up.. its a fact)
https://www.newser.com/story/131217/nazi-party-endorses-occupy-wall-street.html
-
I'm just trying to compare OWS with the Tea Party, for example. Epic's pointed out that Tea Party protests were relatively non-violent, which is true, and I myself am concerned by the growing mob mentality of OWS. But to say that the Tea Party didn't have it's share of radicals is just not true. We've all seen the pick of the President with a bullet through his head and the worst of the birthers, a large portion of whom seemed racially motivated. Even my grandpa, who I love to death, told me that he hopes "they take Obama out like they did Kennedy." And, having been around conservatives most of my life, I refuse to believe a Republican who tells me they've never heard their share of hate speech from other republicans. To suggest that the Republican Party, or the Tea Party, does not have it's share of militants and racists and it's only OWLS and liberal movements that are like that is completely ridiculous.
Also, Epic, Nazism is fascism, which is the far end of the right wing. It is the diametric opposite of Communism, which is the far end of the left. If the Nazis really supported OWS, it probably has more to do with those wild conspiracies they have about Jewish bankers controlling the entire world from secret bunkers beneath the Earth's surface.
Scratch that. Epic, you are wrong. The biggest Nazi organization has certainly NOT supported OWS. Quite the opposite, actually. I won't name or link to their site here because it is probably against the rules, but their website is full of editorials against it.
-
I'm just trying to compare OWS with the Tea Party, for example. Epic's pointed out that Tea Party protests were relatively non-violent, which is true, and I myself am concerned by the growing mob mentality of OWS. But to say that the Tea Party didn't have it's share of radicals is just not true. We've all seen the pick of the President with a bullet through his head and the worst of the birthers, a large portion of whom seemed racially motivated. Even my grandpa, who I love to death, told me that he hopes "they take Obama out like they did Kennedy." And, having been around conservatives most of my life, I refuse to believe a Republican who tells me they've never heard their share of hate speech from other republicans. To suggest that the Republican Party, or the Tea Party, does not have it's share of militants and racists and it's only OWLS and liberal movements that are like that is completely ridiculous.
Also, Epic, Nazism is fascism, which is the far end of the right wing. It is the diametric opposite of Communism, which is the far end of the left. If the Nazis really supported OWS, it probably has more to do with those wild conspiracies they have about Jewish bankers controlling the entire world from secret bunkers beneath the Earth's surface.
Scratch that. Epic, you are wrong. The biggest Nazi organization has certainly NOT supported OWS. Quite the opposite, actually. I won't name or link to their site here because it is probably against the rules, but their website is full of editorials against it.
again.. where is the violence, rapes and wilding by the Tea Party??.. dont give me a few signs that the masses made the .0001% take down immediatly..and PS: those people were plants by the left.. well proven..they were not even part of the Tea Party.. but crashers
You do know the left made a FILM depicting the killing of GWB.. nobody cared..a FILM!!!!
-
Never mind.
-
This is not productive discussion.
-
I'm curious to see the results of Bank Transfer Day (https://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/11/03/can-credit-unions-make-a-success-of-bank-transfer-day/) on Saturday.
-
Ya as the name suggests I think its pretty clear the Tea Party was a little more classy than these losers. You should see the park here in Downtown NYC, its a cesspool.
-
Ya as the name suggests I think its pretty clear the Tea Party was a little more classy than these losers. You should see the park here in Downtown NYC, its a cesspool.
I saw it... makes me want to vomit.. Bloomberg better find his balls and stop the poltical pandering and do his job....
and where is their permit???
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the OWS protestors made a point of cleaning up their mess in the past month or two?
As for the port being closed down, this is the kind of economic ignorance that I saw in plenty of these protesters from day 1. Shutting down an export port makes the workers there lose money, makes corporations using it lose money, makes the owner of the port lose money, and makes all the countries that depend on those goods save money...which they'll spend on something else and cause more people in corporations to lose jobs. Not to mention causing downturns for smaller businesses where they congregate, only adding to one of the problems they're so pissed about. :facepalm:
Also, EPICVIEW, I think you missed the point of PC's excellent post. There are wackos on both sides of the spectrum, and they do not and should not define each side. Neonazis and people who want Obama dead do not represent the all Republicans or even the Tea Party, and communists and people who made a film about GWB's death do not represent the views of Democrats. And in response to your claim about left-wing Tea Party crashers, those who use OWS as an excuse for violence are just like that, except not affiliated with either party or OWS, just thugs looking to cause trouble.
-
I wouldn't even call OWS such a unitary entity; should the people at Occupy Grand Rapids be blamed for the blocking of that port?
-
wow...this is so shocking Obama's ACORN funding the OWS movement.... like saying "water is wet"...who knew?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053967/Is-ACORN-secretly-running-Occupy-Wall-Street.html
Im glad to be the 1%..
-
Also, OWS has nothing to do with Democratic party support.
I dont agree and can prove otherwise..oh wait I just did in my above post..snap..^^.
-
wow...this is so shocking Obama's ACORN funding the OWS movement.... like saying "water is wet"...who knew?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053967/Is-ACORN-secretly-running-Occupy-Wall-Street.html
Im glad to be the 1%..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
:biggrin:
-
I seem to recall the tea party being quite keen on a guy who crashed his piper cub into an IRS building.
While I find it offensive (as usual), I can get the position of Livehard and Praxis. What I'm having trouble getting is EV. For one thing, their target seems to be the status quo, rather than capitalism in general. Obama is the status quo. I don't think you'd find any of these people are fans of his anymore. Personally, I'd surmise that it's disillusionment in his sorry ass that's created these people in the first place. Not sure why the hostility towards them, except that as usual, you're misinterpreting Obama's significance.
And by the way EV, you're going off on tangents again. ACORN is not Obama's organization, despite what the British tabloids would convince you.
-
wow...this is so shocking Obama's ACORN funding the OWS movement.... like saying "water is wet"...who knew?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053967/Is-ACORN-secretly-running-Occupy-Wall-Street.html
Im glad to be the 1%..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
:biggrin:
:clap:
-
Also, the Tea Party is funded by the Koch brothers. Talk about being in big business's wallet.
-
wow...this is so shocking Obama's ACORN funding the OWS movement.... like saying "water is wet"...who knew?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053967/Is-ACORN-secretly-running-Occupy-Wall-Street.html
Im glad to be the 1%..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
:biggrin:
Glad someone watched it :P
-
Yeah, I sent it to a FB friend too. :P
-
I seem to recall the tea party being quite keen on a guy who crashed his piper cub into an IRS building.
While I find it offensive (as usual), I can get the position of Livehard and Praxis. What I'm having trouble getting is EV. For one thing, their target seems to be the status quo, rather than capitalism in general. Obama is the status quo. I don't think you'd find any of these people are fans of his anymore. Personally, I'd surmise that it's disillusionment in his sorry ass that's created these people in the first place. Not sure why the hostility towards them, except that as usual, you're misinterpreting Obama's significance.
And by the way EV, you're going off on tangents again. ACORN is not Obama's organization, despite what the British tabloids would convince you.
Obama worked for Acorn. he was a major player at ACORN...
is anyone really believing this movement is any part of the GOP??? Id betless then 5% are GOP..
I saw it.. it is 98% liberals and radicals.. period.. my eyes dont lie, they support Obama, its part of his class warfare arm, period.. can you really not see that?? Obama even said 'he supports OWS"
Here EB
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11acorn.html
and EB..show me this IRS, piper plane and Tea Party article and connection??
-
Also, the Tea Party is funded by the Koch brothers. Talk about being in big business's wallet.
yea..good luck with that.. any facts? any?....good grief
The Tea Party is NOT funded period..
-
Also, the Tea Party is funded by the Koch brothers. Talk about being in big business's wallet.
yea..good luck with that.. any facts? any?....good grief
The Tea Party is NOT funded period..
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/
https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
https://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/01/141767/david-charles-koch-jobs/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
https://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/10/24/koch-brothers-fund-tea-party/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch
Take your time and look around, I can wait.
-
Great article by Matt Taibbi (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025#ixzz1cfaIS6kO) responding to claims that OWS is entitled and jealous. There's more before and after what I quoted.
All weekend I was thinking about this “jealousy” question, and I just kept coming back to all the different ways the game is rigged. People aren't jealous and they don’t want privileges. They just want a level playing field, and they want Wall Street to give up its cheat codes, things like:
FREE MONEY. Ordinary people have to borrow their money at market rates. Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon get billions of dollars for free, from the Federal Reserve. They borrow at zero and lend the same money back to the government at two or three percent, a valuable public service otherwise known as "standing in the middle and taking a gigantic cut when the government decides to lend money to itself."
Or the banks borrow billions at zero and lend mortgages to us at four percent, or credit cards at twenty or twenty-five percent. This is essentially an official government license to be rich, handed out at the expense of prudent ordinary citizens, who now no longer receive much interest on their CDs or other saved income. It is virtually impossible to not make money in banking when you have unlimited access to free money, especially when the government keeps buying its own cash back from you at market rates.
Your average chimpanzee couldn't fuck up that business plan, which makes it all the more incredible that most of the too-big-to-fail banks are nonetheless still functionally insolvent, and dependent upon bailouts and phony accounting to stay above water. Where do the protesters go to sign up for their interest-free billion-dollar loans?
CREDIT AMNESTY. If you or I miss a $7 payment on a Gap card or, heaven forbid, a mortgage payment, you can forget about the great computer in the sky ever overlooking your mistake. But serial financial fuckups like Citigroup and Bank of America overextended themselves by the hundreds of billions and pumped trillions of dollars of deadly leverage into the system -- and got rewarded with things like the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, an FDIC plan that allowed irresponsible banks to borrow against the government's credit rating.
This is equivalent to a trust fund teenager who trashes six consecutive off-campus apartments and gets rewarded by having Daddy co-sign his next lease. The banks needed programs like TLGP because without them, the market rightly would have started charging more to lend to these idiots. Apparently, though, we can’t trust the free market when it comes to Bank of America, Goldman, Sachs, Citigroup, etc.
In a larger sense, the TBTF banks all have the implicit guarantee of the federal government, so investors know it's relatively safe to lend to them -- which means it's now cheaper for them to borrow money than it is for, say, a responsible regional bank that didn't jack its debt-to-equity levels above 35-1 before the crash and didn't dabble in toxic mortgages. In other words, the TBTF banks got better credit for being less responsible. Click on freecreditscore.com to see if you got the same deal.
STUPIDITY INSURANCE. Defenders of the banks like to talk a lot about how we shouldn't feel sorry for people who've been foreclosed upon, because it's their own fault for borrowing more than they can pay back, buying more house than they can afford, etc. And critics of OWS have assailed protesters for complaining about things like foreclosure by claiming these folks want “something for nothing.”
This is ironic because, as one of the Rolling Stone editors put it last week, “something for nothing is Wall Street’s official policy." In fact, getting bailed out for bad investment decisions has been de rigeur on Wall Street not just since 2008, but for decades.
Time after time, when big banks screw up and make irresponsible bets that blow up in their faces, they've scored bailouts. It doesn't matter whether it was the Mexican currency bailout of 1994 (when the state bailed out speculators who gambled on the peso) or the IMF/World Bank bailout of Russia in 1998 (a bailout of speculators in the "emerging markets") or the Long-Term Capital Management Bailout of the same year (in which the rescue of investors in a harebrained hedge-fund trading scheme was deemed a matter of international urgency by the Federal Reserve), Wall Street has long grown accustomed to getting bailed out for its mistakes.
The 2008 crash, of course, birthed a whole generation of new bailout schemes. Banks placed billions in bets with AIG and should have lost their shirts when the firm went under -- AIG went under, after all, in large part because of all the huge mortgage bets the banks laid with the firm -- but instead got the state to pony up $180 billion or so to rescue the banks from their own bad decisions.
This sort of thing seems to happen every time the banks do something dumb with their money. Just recently, the French and Belgian authorities cooked up a massive bailout of the French bank Dexia, whose biggest trading partners included, surprise, surprise, Goldman, Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Here's how the New York Times explained the bailout:
To limit damage from Dexia’s collapse, the bailout fashioned by the French and Belgian governments may make these banks and other creditors whole — that is, paid in full for potentially tens of billions of euros they are owed. This would enable Dexia’s creditors and trading partners to avoid losses they might otherwise suffer...
When was the last time the government stepped into help you "avoid losses you might otherwise suffer?" But that's the reality we live in. When Joe Homeowner bought too much house, essentially betting that home prices would go up, and losing his bet when they dropped, he was an irresponsible putz who shouldn’t whine about being put on the street.
But when banks bet billions on a firm like AIG that was heavily invested in mortgages, they were making the same bet that Joe Homeowner made, leaving themselves hugely exposed to a sudden drop in home prices. But instead of being asked to "suck it in and cope" when that bet failed, the banks instead went straight to Washington for a bailout -- and got it.
-
Also, the Tea Party is funded by the Koch brothers. Talk about being in big business's wallet.
yea..good luck with that.. any facts? any?....good grief
The Tea Party is NOT funded period..
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/
https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
https://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/01/141767/david-charles-koch-jobs/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
https://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/10/24/koch-brothers-fund-tea-party/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch
Take your time and look around, I can wait.
Total nonsense.. now you show me in those articles where they funded anything Tea party.. all puff pieces and nonsense..The uS news was the best.. had it in title but not one fact...LOL
take your time..
-
Also, the Tea Party is funded by the Koch brothers. Talk about being in big business's wallet.
yea..good luck with that.. any facts? any?....good grief
The Tea Party is NOT funded period..
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/
https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
https://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/01/141767/david-charles-koch-jobs/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
https://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/10/24/koch-brothers-fund-tea-party/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch
Take your time and look around, I can wait.
Total nonsense.. now you show me in those articles where they funded anything Tea party.. all puff pieces and nonsense..The uS news was the best.. had it in title but not one fact...LOL
take your time..
Wow man, you pull up ONE british tabloid, and he gives you plenty of LEGITIMATE articles, and you're calling his basis nonsense. :loser:
-
Joe was right, there is no point in talking to you EV.
-
Wow man, you pull up ONE british tabloid, and he gives you plenty of LEGITIMATE articles, and you're calling his basis nonsense. :loser:
One of the worst ones as well.
-
Joe was right, there is no point in talking to you EV.
Oh no... so sad..sorry im not with the cool crowd..LOL
now show me the facts..show me in those articles, the amounts and the funds they transfered to the Tea party..cut and paste it..show me
simple hit pieces..
and Praxis was right also.. gee wize..lol
-
Well PraXis talks about euthanizing the poor on a regular basis so I don't take much stock in that either.
-
Dark Castle.. google "Obama Acorn".. its endless and accurate
-
For the love of God can we PLEASE not turn this thread into a ridiculous sideshow? Please?
-
Reading this thread makes me angry.
-
For the love of God can we PLEASE not turn this thread into a ridiculous sideshow? Please?
Im spot on subject.. sorry it dont jive with the fairy tale of OWS that you want to believe..like how its not a Dem movement funded by Soros and other far left whackos..even the Mullahs in Iran support OWS..
This is the real point!!! sorry if it doesnt dovetail with what you want the thread to go like
-
It would be nice if you can come up with one single decent source to back that up while you continue to ignore the 9845749 link that Super Dude posted.
-
For the love of God can we PLEASE not turn this thread into a ridiculous sideshow? Please?
Im spot on subject.. sorry it dont jive with the fairy tale of OWS that you want to believe..like how its not a Dem movement funded by Soros and other far left whackos..even the Mullahs in Iran support OWS..
This is the real point!!! sorry if it doesnt dovetail with what you want the thread to go like
Funny you mention it, 'cause...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
-
For the love of God can we PLEASE not turn this thread into a ridiculous sideshow? Please?
Im spot on subject.. sorry it dont jive with the fairy tale of OWS that you want to believe..like how its not a Dem movement funded by Soros and other far left whackos..even the Mullahs in Iran support OWS..
This is the real point!!! sorry if it doesnt dovetail with what you want the thread to go like
Funny you mention it, 'cause...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
stay on subject! again show me the Koch brother fund the Tea Party again.?? I asked you to show in the article you posted to show me..even tho thats not the subject..
You do know Obamas Imelt is rich from Iran.. we can talk baout that in another thread..
-
Also, the Tea Party is funded by the Koch brothers. Talk about being in big business's wallet.
yea..good luck with that.. any facts? any?....good grief
The Tea Party is NOT funded period..
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/
https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
https://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/01/141767/david-charles-koch-jobs/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
https://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/10/24/koch-brothers-fund-tea-party/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch
Take your time and look around, I can wait.
Total nonsense.. now you show me in those articles where they funded anything Tea party.. all puff pieces and nonsense..The uS news was the best.. had it in title but not one fact...LOL
take your time..
Wow man, you pull up ONE british tabloid, and he gives you plenty of LEGITIMATE articles, and you're calling his basis nonsense. :loser:
for Dark Castle
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ex_acorn_operatives_playing_role_s3zSPpX4NnFRoMpEGIxUBK
-
Reading this thread makes me angry.
why? debating and talking about todays news is always fun..
-
All I got from that article was accusation after accusation.
Their only source it seemed was "Sources Say"
-
Can we all just agree to ignore EV becuase there's absolutely no point in discussing facts with him? If Democrats said the sky was blue, he'd find an article saying how the sky is ACTUALLY more of a purple, and that it's all just some conspiracy to make you think it's blue, so that they get rich... or something.
As for any violence... get enough people together, especially young people, and you're going to see violence, one some scale. That's just the facts. Should large concerts be talked about in the same breath? I'm sure more than a fair share of people getting molested, some raped, and a lot hurt at concerts.
And when you have a large movement like this, you're going to have people take advantage of that to do some good ol fact of being lost in the crowd.
None of that says anything about what the movement stands for, and it's quite clear what the basics of the movement are, even if they haven't set out a "platform," or something. And the fact that they haven't set out a platform, to me, shows just how organic this movement is. If the movement was top-down, like the Tea Party, we'd have a platform, with clear political ends, because it was planned in advance. That is not the case here; with OWS we have a bunch of disparate people, with differing opinions, all coming together around one simple fact: the rich are getting richer, they're doing it by corrupting and influencing the government in their favor, and the rest of us are getting hung out to dry, and having our life savings slowly pilfered. As vague as the complaints are, we all know what it is they're complaining about.
-
Can we all just agree to ignore EV becuase there's absolutely no point in discussing facts with him? If Democrats said the sky was blue, he'd find an article saying how the sky is ACTUALLY more of a purple, and that it's all just some conspiracy to make you think it's blue, so that they get rich... or something.
As for any violence... get enough people together, especially young people, and you're going to see violence, one some scale. That's just the facts. Should large concerts be talked about in the same breath? I'm sure more than a fair share of people getting molested, some raped, and a lot hurt at concerts.
And when you have a large movement like this, you're going to have people take advantage of that to do some good ol fact of being lost in the crowd.
None of that says anything about what the movement stands for, and it's quite clear what the basics of the movement are, even if they haven't set out a "platform," or something. And the fact that they haven't set out a platform, to me, shows just how organic this movement is. If the movement was top-down, like the Tea Party, we'd have a platform, with clear political ends, because it was planned in advance. That is not the case here; with OWS we have a bunch of disparate people, with differing opinions, all coming together around one simple fact: the rich are getting richer, they're doing it by corrupting and influencing the government in their favor, and the rest of us are getting hung out to dry, and having our life savings slowly pilfered. As vague as the complaints are, we all know what it is they're complaining about.
Thank you. This stuff ain't that complicated.
-
Yeah, great post Scheavo.
-
Can we all just agree to ignore EV becuase there's absolutely no point in discussing facts with him? If Democrats said the sky was blue, he'd find an article saying how the sky is ACTUALLY more of a purple, and that it's all just some conspiracy to make you think it's blue, so that they get rich... or something.
As for any violence... get enough people together, especially young people, and you're going to see violence, one some scale. That's just the facts. Should large concerts be talked about in the same breath? I'm sure more than a fair share of people getting molested, some raped, and a lot hurt at concerts.
And when you have a large movement like this, you're going to have people take advantage of that to do some good ol fact of being lost in the crowd.
None of that says anything about what the movement stands for, and it's quite clear what the basics of the movement are, even if they haven't set out a "platform," or something. And the fact that they haven't set out a platform, to me, shows just how organic this movement is. If the movement was top-down, like the Tea Party, we'd have a platform, with clear political ends, because it was planned in advance. That is not the case here; with OWS we have a bunch of disparate people, with differing opinions, all coming together around one simple fact: the rich are getting richer, they're doing it by corrupting and influencing the government in their favor, and the rest of us are getting hung out to dry, and having our life savings slowly pilfered. As vague as the complaints are, we all know what it is they're complaining about.
You mean we should go by your facts of "there is no violence at OWS"...??? and thats total BS that "young people make violence'????
its not an "organic"movement.. at all..period.. this is Alinsky 101.. this is simple Obama class warfare.. its all Obama does..
Im giving facts.. your posts will have merit when you use facts... period..
I went there.. who else has been there??..then give me the facts...
-
get back on topic
-
All I got from that article was accusation after accusation.
Their only source it seemed was "Sources Say"
again.. do an objective study of Obama and his relationship with ACORN... its all there..pick the article you like and you deam objecive..
again ACORN is a funder and organizer along with the Unions..especially Obamas teacher Unions its part of the CRUX of this OWS movement.. so its on topic
-
https://news.yahoo.com/occupy-oakland-protesters-tear-gased-police-101824932.html
Dozens of police in riot gear advanced on protesters who had pushed together several large metal and plastic trash bins to start a fire that reached 15 feet in the air, according to The Associated Press. Police reportedly warned protesters to clear out before firing several rounds of tear gas and “flash bang” grenades.
Wednesday’s march through Oakland was largely peaceful according to Oakland’s interim police chief Howard Jordan.
Conflict among protesters arose as some scrubbed graffiti from a branch of Wells Fargo bank and a group of protesters attempted to stop another from vandalizing a Whole Foods, KGO reported. A police spokesperson said that five businesses were vandalized throughout the day.
“Literally thousands of people have demonstrated today in Oakland primarily peacefully. We are disappointed that a small group created some vandalism,” she said. “It looks like this was a good day for demonstrators and for the 99 percent movement.”
-
https://news.yahoo.com/occupy-oakland-protesters-tear-gased-police-101824932.html
Dozens of police in riot gear advanced on protesters who had pushed together several large metal and plastic trash bins to start a fire that reached 15 feet in the air, according to The Associated Press. Police reportedly warned protesters to clear out before firing several rounds of tear gas and “flash bang” grenades.
Wednesday’s march through Oakland was largely peaceful according to Oakland’s interim police chief Howard Jordan.
Conflict among protesters arose as some scrubbed graffiti from a branch of Wells Fargo bank and a group of protesters attempted to stop another from vandalizing a Whole Foods, KGO reported. A police spokesperson said that five businesses were vandalized throughout the day.
“Literally thousands of people have demonstrated today in Oakland primarily peacefully. We are disappointed that a small group created some vandalism,” she said. “It looks like this was a good day for demonstrators and for the 99 percent movement.”
Great...then invite them to where you live and work and let the "largely peaceful" group squat on your property with no permits .. Im done with them...enjoy!!
if they hate Obama.. then why are they not in DC??? interesting ... anyplace but DC for some reason
-
I'll just leave this here
https://occupydc.org/
-
I'll just leave this here
https://occupydc.org/
total wastes, not contributing a thing to society..and what a shocker, all they are targeting is Repubs and the Koch brothers....LOL..
why not target Soros and Imelt?,,,, to quote YOU..this is NOT COMPLICATED!!!
-
Great...then invite them to where you live and work and let the "largely peaceful" group squat on your property with no permits .. Im done with them...enjoy!!
if they hate Obama.. then why are they not in DC??? interesting ... anyplace but DC for some reason
Sometimes you actually make reasonable points. Unfortunately, it tends to get lost in all of the paranoid anti-Obama conspiracy bullshit. It's a real shame you don't: A. pick one point and stick with it, and B. consider that not every single thing that happens in this country is part of Obama's grand scheme to enslave us all. It really makes it impossible to have meaningful discussions with you even when you do have a valid point to make. Quite disappointing, honestly.
-
This is rather off-topic, but I'd just like to say the other 'news source' EV posted has an article about a 20-something who, and I quote, "reveals steamy details of 'sex' with Bieber." :lol
-
EV joins a thread and swiftly turns it into an Obamaisthedevil thread, and shows, yet again, that he is unwilling to have any type of two way conversations or meaningful exchanges of views. He is always right, you are always wrong. Your proof is all lies and propaganda, and his proof is 100% fact, verifiable, and obvious.
It is painfully clear that EV is an extremely disruptive person in PR. It matters not how nice he is, or how many times he says it is all in good fun. It is trolling pure and simple, intentional or not.
I will not engage in any threads that he participates in, as they degrade into disasters so fast it is silly.
I encourage Moderators to put him on a short leash, as he can derail a thread into the same Obama crap faster than anything I have ever seen.
Good Day.
I said Good Day.
Eric
-
Great...then invite them to where you live and work and let the "largely peaceful" group squat on your property with no permits .. Im done with them...enjoy!!
if they hate Obama.. then why are they not in DC??? interesting ... anyplace but DC for some reason
Sometimes you actually make reasonable points. Unfortunately, it tends to get lost in all of the paranoid anti-Obama conspiracy bullshit. It's a real shame you don't: A. pick one point and stick with it, and B. consider that not every single thing that happens in this country is part of Obama's grand scheme to enslave us all. It really makes it impossible to have meaningful discussions with you even when you do have a valid point to make. Quite disappointing, honestly.
I agree...what I see is disappointing.. This is orchestrated by Obamas proxies.. anyone with any objectivity can clearly see that..
I agree im disapointed..
people can't arguue with facts and it ruins their fairy tale of OWS... it has nothing to do with me, but I am the person showing the facts of what this movement is..
I went there....its a sesspool of radicals and the lost and confused and even criminals.. they are there for Obama...period.. and there is a lot of hatred of others there.. its disgusting and people who give thema voice are culpable when it explodes and it has and it will..and thats what they want..they want "incidents" they are provocative , noithing good going on there..
Look at AGs link..its a pure liberal Dem movement of hatred of the GOP..thats the agenda posted
-
I'm kind of confused as to what the 'occupy' part is supposed to be. I understand it when it's Wall Street or DC or whatever, but some of these other locations don't make much sense. Like I saw a flier for "Occupy Isla Vista", which is the town I live in. It's literally just a town of 20,000 students packed into like 1.2 square miles, what exactly is the point? We're supposed to get outside and protest in the streets of the unincorporated shithole we live in?
-
I'm kind of confused as to what the 'occupy' part is supposed to be. I understand it when it's Wall Street or DC or whatever, but some of these other locations don't make much sense. Like I saw a flier for "Occupy Isla Vista", which is the town I live in. It's literally just a town of 20,000 students packed into like 1.2 square miles, what exactly is the point? We're supposed to get outside and protest in the streets of the unincorporated shithole we live in?
I think the point is that you don't leave to prove how urgent your cause is.
-
Great...then invite them to where you live and work and let the "largely peaceful" group squat on your property with no permits .. Im done with them...enjoy!!
if they hate Obama.. then why are they not in DC??? interesting ... anyplace but DC for some reason
Sometimes you actually make reasonable points. Unfortunately, it tends to get lost in all of the paranoid anti-Obama conspiracy bullshit. It's a real shame you don't: A. pick one point and stick with it, and B. consider that not every single thing that happens in this country is part of Obama's grand scheme to enslave us all. It really makes it impossible to have meaningful discussions with you even when you do have a valid point to make. Quite disappointing, honestly.
I agree...what I see is disappointing.. This is orchestrated by Obamas proxies.. anyone with any objectivity can clearly see that..
I agree im disapointed..
people can't arguue with facts and it ruins their fairy tale of OWS... it has nothing to do with me, but I am the person showing the facts of what this movement is..
I went there....its a sesspool of radicals and the lost and confused and even criminals.. they are there for Obama...period.. and there is a lot of hatred of others there.. its disgusting and people who give thema voice are culpable when it explodes and it has and it will..and thats what they want..they want "incidents" they are provocative , noithing good going on there..
Look at AGs link..its a pure liberal Dem movement of hatred of the GOP..thats the agenda posted
I weep for humanity...
-
I'm kind of confused as to what the 'occupy' part is supposed to be. I understand it when it's Wall Street or DC or whatever, but some of these other locations don't make much sense. Like I saw a flier for "Occupy Isla Vista", which is the town I live in. It's literally just a town of 20,000 students packed into like 1.2 square miles, what exactly is the point? We're supposed to get outside and protest in the streets of the unincorporated shithole we live in?
I think the point is that you don't leave to prove how urgent your cause is.
:huh: But you're not accomplishing anything by doing it here. There's literally no one who would even be aware of it outside the town. Why not take the hour and a half and drive down to LA where there's at least some proximity to policy makers and media?
-
I'm kind of confused as to what the 'occupy' part is supposed to be. I understand it when it's Wall Street or DC or whatever, but some of these other locations don't make much sense. Like I saw a flier for "Occupy Isla Vista", which is the town I live in. It's literally just a town of 20,000 students packed into like 1.2 square miles, what exactly is the point? We're supposed to get outside and protest in the streets of the unincorporated shithole we live in?
great question.. it begs a good answer.. lets see if we can figure out why..why do you think Sigz?
-
I'm kind of confused as to what the 'occupy' part is supposed to be. I understand it when it's Wall Street or DC or whatever, but some of these other locations don't make much sense. Like I saw a flier for "Occupy Isla Vista", which is the town I live in. It's literally just a town of 20,000 students packed into like 1.2 square miles, what exactly is the point? We're supposed to get outside and protest in the streets of the unincorporated shithole we live in?
I think the point is that you don't leave to prove how urgent your cause is.
:huh: But you're not accomplishing anything by doing it here. There's literally no one who would even be aware of it outside the town. Why not take the hour and a half and drive down to LA where there's at least some proximity to policy makers and media?
Oh, I see what you mean. I dunno.
-
Great...then invite them to where you live and work and let the "largely peaceful" group squat on your property with no permits .. Im done with them...enjoy!!
if they hate Obama.. then why are they not in DC??? interesting ... anyplace but DC for some reason
Sometimes you actually make reasonable points. Unfortunately, it tends to get lost in all of the paranoid anti-Obama conspiracy bullshit. It's a real shame you don't: A. pick one point and stick with it, and B. consider that not every single thing that happens in this country is part of Obama's grand scheme to enslave us all. It really makes it impossible to have meaningful discussions with you even when you do have a valid point to make. Quite disappointing, honestly.
I agree...what I see is disappointing.. This is orchestrated by Obamas proxies.. anyone with any objectivity can clearly see that..
I agree im disapointed..
people can't arguue with facts and it ruins their fairy tale of OWS... it has nothing to do with me, but I am the person showing the facts of what this movement is..
I went there....its a sesspool of radicals and the lost and confused and even criminals.. they are there for Obama...period.. and there is a lot of hatred of others there.. its disgusting and people who give thema voice are culpable when it explodes and it has and it will..and thats what they want..they want "incidents" they are provocative , noithing good going on there..
Look at AGs link..its a pure liberal Dem movement of hatred of the GOP..thats the agenda posted
I weep for humanity...
I hear ya bro.. I do.. its a mess.. we should all be concerned how it will end with OWS..
-
they are there for Obama...period..
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/occupy-wall-street-protesters-anti-obama-plan-skip-2012-election-fordham-poll-finds-article-1.970614?localLinksEnabled=false
More than half of the Zuccotti Park protestors voted for President Obama in 2008. But 73% now disapprove of the commander- in- chief and 25% plan to skip the 2012 election, according to a survey by Fordham University.
I've been down to Liberty Square three times and there is no atmosphere of really supporting Obama... and definitely not his policies.
-
Good Day.
I said Good Day.
Eric
:tup
'I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained,' et cetera, et cetera... 'Fax mentis incendium gloria culpa m,' et cetera, et cetera...'Memo bis punitor della cattum!' It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You LOSE!
-
There was an Occupy Blacksburg for a while. Not sure if they're still around though :lol
I hear ya bro.. I do.. its a mess.. we should all be concerned how it will end with OWS..
That was directed at you.
-
There was an Occupy Blacksburg for a while. Not sure if they're still around though :lol
I hear ya bro.. I do.. its a mess.. we should all be concerned how it will end with OWS..
That was directed at you.
well then thats not very nice.. Im talking on subject..
-
There was an Occupy Blacksburg for a while. Not sure if they're still around though :lol
I hear ya bro.. I do.. its a mess.. we should all be concerned how it will end with OWS..
That was directed at you.
well then thats not very nice.. Im talking on subject..
No you're not. You're parading the idea that Obama is a devilish fiend behind violence and the "cesspool" of humanity.
-
How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
-
EpicView is currently banned from P/R for a posting style I've warned him about in the past and I know others have as well.
EV joins a thread and swiftly turns it into an Obamaisthedevil thread, and shows, yet again, that he is unwilling to have any type of two way conversations or meaningful exchanges of views. He is always right, you are always wrong. Your proof is all lies and propaganda, and his proof is 100% fact, verifiable, and obvious.
It is painfully clear that EV is an extremely disruptive person in PR. It matters not how nice he is, or how many times he says it is all in good fun. It is trolling pure and simple, intentional or not.
I will not engage in any threads that he participates in, as they degrade into disasters so fast it is silly.
I encourage Moderators to put him on a short leash, as he can derail a thread into the same Obama crap faster than anything I have ever seen.
Good Day.
I said Good Day.
Eric
While I generally agree with what you said, it is not proper to put that here and wish you refrain from such actions in the further. You can write all that while reporting a post, and I suggest that is the course of action for the future.
-
This thread makes me incredibly happy and incredibly pissed at the same time. It's like watching a bully get his ass kicked yet you always have his douche friend talking about how the other kid really didn't hurt his friend all that badly.
-
EpicView is currently banned from P/R for a posting style I've warned him about in the past and I know others have as well. EV joins a thread and swiftly turns it into an Obamaisthedevil thread, and shows, yet again, that he is unwilling to have any type of two way conversations or meaningful exchanges of views. He is always right, you are always wrong. Your proof is all lies and propaganda, and his proof is 100% fact, verifiable, and obvious.
It is painfully clear that EV is an extremely disruptive person in PR. It matters not how nice he is, or how many times he says it is all in good fun. It is trolling pure and simple, intentional or not.
I will not engage in any threads that he participates in, as they degrade into disasters so fast it is silly.
I encourage Moderators to put him on a short leash, as he can derail a thread into the same Obama crap faster than anything I have ever seen.
Good Day.
I said Good Day.
Eric
While I generally agree with what you said, it is not proper to put that here and wish you refrain from such actions in the further. You can write all that while reporting a post, and I suggest that is the course of action for the future.
I will post as PM in the future.
Also, I grew up playing hockey with John LeClair.
Brown-nosing complete.
-
I'm curious to see the results of Bank Transfer Day (https://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/11/03/can-credit-unions-make-a-success-of-bank-transfer-day/) on Saturday.
Probably minuscule results, at least compared the supposed number of committed. The type of people that claim to want to participate in these things are the same types that seem to get lax when it comes to actually doing something. I fully support the move to a credit union (just did it myself) but I dunno if this is going to fly/have a big impact.
-
I'm sure I'll do it eventually, probably not on bank transfer day. It'll probably get annoying though cuz people will say "OMFG YOU DIDNT DO IT ON BANK TRANSFER DAY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM!?"
-
I'm curious to see the results of Bank Transfer Day (https://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/11/03/can-credit-unions-make-a-success-of-bank-transfer-day/) on Saturday.
Probably minuscule results, at least compared the supposed number of committed. The type of people that claim to want to participate in these things are the same types that seem to get lax when it comes to actually doing something. I fully support the move to a credit union (just did it myself) but I dunno if this is going to fly/have a big impact.
Many local credit unions are already reporting a 25-50% increase in their membership, since the beginning of OWS.
The big problem is the little guys don't have money, and the rich are still going to keep their money in... their banks. 50% of the country moving away form the big banks would only mean like... 20% of the wealth not being in the big banks.
I mean, I'm going to do it... but I doubt Wells Fargo is going to miss my like $150 all that much.
-
Even Stewart is having his doubts now:
https://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-november-3-2011-brad-paisley
-
Should everyone just go home because a small percentage of people got rowdy?
-
At this point, it'd probably be more productive to the cause.
-
Oh come on. It's over if everyone goes home. How is that productive to anything?
Guy asks a cop why he has tape over his name badge.
https://vimeo.com/31568216
-
Honestly, unless they straighten up I feel like it's going to be worse than it'd be if it was just "over." They should be moving toward order and solidarity, not chaos. But they have to go either way, or else go home. And right now, it's looking like they find chaos a lot more attractive.
-
What happened yesterday in Oakland is not reflective on the hundreds of other occupations.
edit: hundreds? prob not
-
Maybe. But are you not also a little disappointed that none of this energy has been funneled into actually saying something and getting something done? 6 weeks ago, You, Superdude, myself, and others defended this protest together from lots of people who weren't even giving the protesters a chance, but I can't help feeling like it's not going anywhere productive anymore.
-
Maybe. But are you not also a little disappointed that none of this energy has been funneled into actually saying something and getting something done? 6 weeks ago, You, Superdude, myself, and others defended this protest together from lots of people who weren't even giving the protesters a chance, but I can't help feeling like it's not going anywhere productive anymore.
Bam.
-
Maybe. But are you not also a little disappointed that none of this energy has been funneled into actually saying something and getting something done? 6 weeks ago, You, Superdude, myself, and others defended this protest together from lots of people who weren't even giving the protesters a chance, but I can't help feeling like it's not going anywhere productive anymore.
Bam.
I'll ask you guys again:
What do you want them do? What would be "productive" in your eyes?
Honestly, unless they straighten up I feel like it's going to be worse than it'd be if it was just "over." They should be moving toward order and solidarity, not chaos. But they have to go either way, or else go home. And right now, it's looking like they find chaos a lot more attractive.
How exactly do you expect them to keep everyone in line? If a very small percentage move towards chaos, and the rest move towards order (as in, how many helped clean up after the events, and many others have condemned), why then judge the small percentage for people they are not, and do not control? Since it is such a small percentage, how do we know they aren't being intentionally riled up, in some cases? Or that they actually represent the OWS movement?
-
But are you not also a little disappointed that none of this energy has been funneled into actually saying something and getting something done?
I gotta be honest, anybody saying something or getting something done is sorta on hold until after elections. Once Romney gets the big chair or Obama is put back in, then the one of them will either put down the protests violently/denounce them publicly or respond to their plight.
-
Or these people can start organizing, and thinking how they can have a positive impact on the election your talking about! It is not too late for that. Why not?
-
I'm not saying that's how it should be, that's just how it's gonna happen.
-
Maybe. But are you not also a little disappointed that none of this energy has been funneled into actually saying something and getting something done? 6 weeks ago, You, Superdude, myself, and others defended this protest together from lots of people who weren't even giving the protesters a chance, but I can't help feeling like it's not going anywhere productive anymore.
No, I'm not. 6 weeks isn't a terribly long time for a movement that started from nothing. It's already shifted debate and discourse; I'm happy about that alone.
-
Actually on that note, didn't it take something on the order of four years for the SDS to make a mark on Democratic political discourse?
-
Or these people can start organizing, and thinking how they can have a positive impact on the election your talking about! It is not too late for that. Why not?
Speaking for the protests at Wall Street, a good chunk of the movement is very organized. Check out this list of events for example. There are all kinds of lectures, working groups and programs to keep the movement sustainable, run by some very committed people.
https://www.nycga.net/events/
So it's definitely more than just protesting. At the same time, since it's an open movement, it can attract people who are just hobos, are uneducated or just want to use drugs, so how to deal with all of that is also one of the things organizing folk continually discuss.
-
Poll: Most Americans Support Occupy Wall Street (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/poll-most-americans-support-occupy-wall-street/246963/)
At a time when protests have erupted across the country over a growing inequality of wealth and Congress is considering measures to impose a surtax on those earning more than $1 million annually, the public seems to be in a populist mood--one that's tempered by skepticism about Washington's ability to do anything about the grim economy.
A new survey shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the self-styled Occupy Wall Street protests that not only have disrupted life in Lower Manhattan but also in Washington and cities and towns across the U.S. and in other nations. Some 59 percent of adults either completely agree or mostly agree with the protesters, while 31 percent mostly disagree or completely disagree; 10 percent of those surveyed didn't know or refused to answer.
What's more, many people are paying attention to the rallies. Almost two-thirds of respondents--65 percent--said they've heard "a lot" or "some" about the rallies, while 35 percent have said they've heard or seen "not too much" or "nothing at all" about the demonstrations.
The results appear in the latest edition of the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll.
When it comes to the question of how to pay for the Democratic jobs bill, most respondents were more than willing to place a special burden on the wealthy. Those surveyed were asked about a possible 5 percent surtax on those earning more than $1 million annually. The idea got considerable discussion earlier this fall when Congress considered President Obama's jobs package. Senate Republicans united against the bill and were joined by some Democrats, making it impossible for the measure to pass in a chamber where 60-vote majorities have become the norm because of filibustering. Still, a whopping 68 percent of adults support the Democratic surtax to pay for the cost of their jobs plan. Only 27 percent opposed the tax, while 5 percent didn't know. Men and women split almost identically on the issue, and black non-Hispanics were more supportive of the surtax than white non-Hispanics, with 84 percent supporting the idea.
-
Interesting find, my only hesitance being from the research methods (only two questions, sampling by phone which can be iffy [although it's good they hit both landlane and cell, etc.)
-
You make a good point; I never really know how much weight to put behind any specific poll.
on another note:
(https://media.salon.com/2011/11/Post-e1320423417562-460x307.jpg)
(https://media.salon.com/2011/11/Post-Thurs.jpg)
(https://media.salon.com/2011/11/Post-Wed.jpg)
Murdoch's Post strikes again! :lol
-
Interesting find, my only hesitance being from the research methods (only two questions, sampling by phone which can be iffy [although it's good they hit both landlane and cell, etc.)
I don't think they can call cell numbers. I could be wrong, but I've never got a solicitation on my cell phone, but got plenty on my land line when I had that.
-
Interesting find, my only hesitance being from the research methods (only two questions, sampling by phone which can be iffy [although it's good they hit both landlane and cell, etc.)
I don't think they can call cell numbers. I could be wrong, but I've never got a solicitation on my cell phone, but got plenty on my land line when I had that.
It said that they did in the article. :P
The reason they tend not to should be obvious enough though; I mean look at me, using a Michigan area code in Massachusetts. That'll throw data off some for sure.
-
Or these people can start organizing, and thinking how they can have a positive impact on the election your talking about! It is not too late for that. Why not?
They are impacting the national dialogue which is impacting the presidential race. What, do you want them to form an impotent third party? Simply team up with the Democrats to achieve next to nothing? They're putting pressures on both parties, not just one, right now; and they're having a HUGE affect on our national dialogue.
An article I linked to a while ago mentioned how the CBO's report on income inequality made it to the front page of most newspapers, the first time that's ever happened. People are paying more attention to this issue, they're caring more, so everything you want is happening.
-
You make a good point; I never really know how much weight to put behind any specific poll.
on another note:
(https://media.salon.com/2011/11/Post-e1320423417562-460x307.jpg)
(https://media.salon.com/2011/11/Post-Thurs.jpg)
(https://media.salon.com/2011/11/Post-Wed.jpg)
Murdoch's Post strikes again! :lol
The Post is awesome but in ways it shouldn't be. My favorite was when they allowed a Hasidic Jew onto the police force which prompted the tabloid-esque title of "NYPD Jew".
-
Ya they do write some good headlines. I liked the one they issued after gadafi was killed- it was a picture of a kid with gadafi's golden gun, sporting a yankee hat. It said "Guy who killed Gadafi is a yankees fan"
-
Ya they do write some good headlines. I liked the one they issued after gadafi was killed- it was a picture of a kid with gadafi's golden gun, sporting a yankee hat. It said "Guy who killed Gadafi is a yankees fan"
The executive chef of our hotel has that on his office wall. He is a hardcore yankee fan BTW.
-
Ya they do write some good headlines. I liked the one they issued after gadafi was killed- it was a picture of a kid with gadafi's golden gun, sporting a yankee hat. It said "Guy who killed Gadafi is a yankees fan"
:rollin
-
Anyone see this? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home
Not sure if this is a group trying to co-opt the movement or a legitimate formation.
-
No idea what that is, but the legitimate (approved by the New York General Assembly) declaration of Occupy Wall Street can be found here https://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/
-
I feel as though some of the bullet points are a little sensationalist or misinformed (and a couple I think might actually be just plain made up), but overall I'm still with 'em.
-
This is a tad disconcerting, unfortunately. I like that they have a unified voice, but the tone of these points and the fact that its been "ratified" (whatever that means...) points to a growing risk of aggressive behaviour. A lot of it is just a formalising a whole bunch of conspiracy theories about corporatism, too, which doesn't help.
So what is this New York City General Assembly? Is it just Occupy Wall Street with a more professional (I almost cheekily wrote corporate) image?
NB: I don't mean aggressive as in violent, I mean it as more assertive and forceful, which given their position and the politically supercharged discourse could end badly for them.
EDIT: Heh, after a bit more digging, it looks like its an attempt to get a system of governance in place. Too bad it looks very much like how the politics they are trying to bring down operates, complete with donations! Guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
-
So wait... you're concerned now that they may actually get something done? They're really damned if they do, damned if they don't, for you.
The "The99PercentDeclaration" seems a bit more rational to me than the one approved by New York. There's only a few things I would disagree with, or area's I think are a little off, and few things I'm not sure would pass.. but hey, they all don't need to pass.
I really like the call for basically a Constitutional Convention, though. That's what this country needs.
-
Anyone see this? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home
Not sure if this is a group trying to co-opt the movement or a legitimate formation.
I love how Debt Reduction is right above something suggesting reinstating huge public works programs.
-
Anyone see this? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home
Not sure if this is a group trying to co-opt the movement or a legitimate formation.
I love how Debt Reduction is right above something suggesting reinstating huge public works programs.
Public works gets the economy back on track, so that tax revenues increase, allowing you to pay off debt. A shrinking economy means less revenues, which means a worse debt situation.
-
Anyone see this? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home
Not sure if this is a group trying to co-opt the movement or a legitimate formation.
I love how Debt Reduction is right above something suggesting reinstating huge public works programs.
Public works gets the economy back on track, so that tax revenues increase, allowing you to pay off debt. A shrinking economy means less revenues, which means a worse debt situation.
This. I mean just look at Europe's austerity measures, and how well that's helped them.
Edit: I actually favor the 99% Declaration less. I mean no lobbies? Maybe no lobbies for corporate entities or something, but there shouldn't be a complete abolition of lobbying. How the hell would anyone advocate for anything en masse?
Edit 2: Upon a review of the New York document (and particularly its comments section), I've come to a fascinating realization: they're all unqualified to offer a better alternative. Tea Party, Occupy movement, doesn't matter. All of them composed by people with very little real political education and with a penchant for conspiracy theories. I mean ffs, ending the Fed is a bad thing. Eliminating the ability to lobby is a bad thing. Not all wars are for "blood money," and sometimes national security really is under threat.
Why can't the moderates start protesting? :p
-
I actually favor the 99% Declaration less. I mean no lobbies?
Where does it say this?
-
I actually favor the 99% Declaration less. I mean no lobbies?
Where does it say this?
Unless I'm somehow misreading it:
1. Elimination of the Corporate State
This ban shall extend to all individuals, corporations, "political action committees," "super political action committees," lobbyists, unions
I realize they're talking about contributions of money or things of value by these entities, but campaign and other gifts are pretty much part of the lobbyist's job description. I'm not sure there's any other way a lobby can do its job.
-
If lobbyists want to influence the opinions of politicians they can simply present their arguments. Allowing them to use money to influence the actions of politicians is a clear mark of kleptocracy in a nation where the gap between the rich and the poor is already so wide, imo. Of course you may never be able to stop this completely but you can at least try to prevent it with the law.
-
Anyone see this? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home
Not sure if this is a group trying to co-opt the movement or a legitimate formation.
I love how Debt Reduction is right above something suggesting reinstating huge public works programs.
Public works gets the economy back on track, so that tax revenues increase, allowing you to pay off debt. A shrinking economy means less revenues, which means a worse debt situation.
But where is the funding coming from? Reallocation of the current budget would be the best solution I think because I don't disagree with your outcome I can just see this turn into additional spending which adds more debt.
-
Anyone see this? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home
Not sure if this is a group trying to co-opt the movement or a legitimate formation.
I love how Debt Reduction is right above something suggesting reinstating huge public works programs.
Public works gets the economy back on track, so that tax revenues increase, allowing you to pay off debt. A shrinking economy means less revenues, which means a worse debt situation.
This. I mean just look at Europe's austerity measures, and how well that's helped them.
Edit: I actually favor the 99% Declaration less. I mean no lobbies? Maybe no lobbies for corporate entities or something, but there shouldn't be a complete abolition of lobbying. How the hell would anyone advocate for anything en masse?
Edit 2: Upon a review of the New York document (and particularly its comments section), I've come to a fascinating realization: they're all unqualified to offer a better alternative. Tea Party, Occupy movement, doesn't matter. All of them composed by people with very little real political education and with a penchant for conspiracy theories. I mean ffs, ending the Fed is a bad thing. Eliminating the ability to lobby is a bad thing. Not all wars are for "blood money," and sometimes national security really is under threat.
Why can't the moderates start protesting? :p
Moderates are by-and-large the least informed members of the electorate, that's why! Anyway, I don't put too much stock into that declaration.
-
https://www.globalrichlist.com/
I am the 0.66%! :metal
These protests are getting out of hand. Crime in the Portland area of the protests is up 18%, and there is still no definable message.
-
Goon: I'm moderate left. If anything, I think people on the extremes of either end of the spectrum most out of touch with political realities.
-
Goon: I'm moderate left. If anything, I think people on the extremes of either end of the spectrum most out of touch with political realities.
Agreed
-
https://www.globalrichlist.com/
I am the 0.66%! :metal
These protests are getting out of hand. Crime in the Portland area of the protests is up 18%, and there is still no definable message.
.01% here.
It was a crime when they dumped the tea into the harbor too. I am OK with it.
Its OK for thousands to be killed or maimed and tortured (foriegners and Americans) in foriegn countries because of vague, undefined, or even outright invalid reasons....but higher levels of mostly petty crimes in small pockets to protest for real positive change is not acceptable.
OK. :\
-
https://www.globalrichlist.com/
I am the 0.66%! :metal
These protests are getting out of hand. Crime in the Portland area of the protests is up 18%, and there is still no definable message.
0.4% here.
-
Interesting find, my only hesitance being from the research methods (only two questions, sampling by phone which can be iffy [although it's good they hit both landlane and cell, etc.)
I don't think they can call cell numbers. I could be wrong, but I've never got a solicitation on my cell phone, but got plenty on my land line when I had that.
I get political calls on my cell phone all the time, most likely because I do not have a land line.
Also, that site says I'm 3.31%, surprises me.
-
Goon: I'm moderate left. If anything, I think people on the extremes of either end of the spectrum most out of touch with political realities.
I'm not talking about people like you. Obviously, you and the other moderates that visit this subforum are informed. I can't find the book I'm looking for that had the studies in it, but it goes against the conventional wisdom you're purporting. The ends of the spectrum are most politically active and therefore most informed, whereas most of the middle is unactive and uninformed.
I'll update the post if I find what I'm looking for. G'damn college books all disappearing on me.
-
Edit: I actually favor the 99% Declaration less. I mean no lobbies? Maybe no lobbies for corporate entities or something, but there shouldn't be a complete abolition of lobbying. How the hell would anyone advocate for anything en masse?
Present your case to the media; if your issue is of actual merit, it'll make it's way to the floor of congress on it's own accord. Have a protest, do other things, but lobbying is basically corruption, and that is unacceptable. The only way to get things done should not be by throwing money at congress.
Edit 2: Upon a review of the New York document (and particularly its comments section), I've come to a fascinating realization: they're all unqualified to offer a better alternative. Tea Party, Occupy movement, doesn't matter. All of them composed by people with very little real political education and with a penchant for conspiracy theories. I mean ffs, ending the Fed is a bad thing. Eliminating the ability to lobby is a bad thing. Not all wars are for "blood money," and sometimes national security really is under threat.
Actually, I'm all for ending the Fed - considering they didn't end many of the function of the Fed, they're just giving it back to the Government, i.e the Treasury Department. I agree that getting rid of a national bank is a horrible idea, but the Fed is completely fucking corrupt. Do you know that it gives out 16 TRILLION in secret bail outs to Wall Street and foreign banks?
-
I'd like to bring Greenspan back from the dead just so I could shoot him in the face.
-
Interesting find, my only hesitance being from the research methods (only two questions, sampling by phone which can be iffy [although it's good they hit both landlane and cell, etc.)
I don't think they can call cell numbers. I could be wrong, but I've never got a solicitation on my cell phone, but got plenty on my land line when I had that.
I get political calls on my cell phone all the time, most likely because I do not have a land line.
Also, that site says I'm 3.31%, surprises me.
It really puts into perspective how much better off we are in this country than in many other parts of the world.
-
Interesting find, my only hesitance being from the research methods (only two questions, sampling by phone which can be iffy [although it's good they hit both landlane and cell, etc.)
I don't think they can call cell numbers. I could be wrong, but I've never got a solicitation on my cell phone, but got plenty on my land line when I had that.
I get political calls on my cell phone all the time, most likely because I do not have a land line.
Also, that site says I'm 3.31%, surprises me.
It really puts into perspective how much better off we are in this country than in many other parts of the world.
Ya, it's only a shame that things like food and housing still take up such a large chunk of most peoples budgets.
-
Goon: I'm moderate left. If anything, I think people on the extremes of either end of the spectrum most out of touch with political realities.
I'm not talking about people like you. Obviously, you and the other moderates that visit this subforum are informed. I can't find the book I'm looking for that had the studies in it, but it goes against the conventional wisdom you're purporting. The ends of the spectrum are most politically active and therefore most informed, whereas most of the middle is unactive and uninformed.
I'll update the post if I find what I'm looking for. G'damn college books all disappearing on me.
I believe you, maybe it's just the most uninformed are the loudest, as with the Tea Party.
Perhaps I should rephrase my complaint and say I wish there was a movement with moderate aims, i.e. nothing so radical as abolishing lobbying or the concept of a national bank.
-
Fair enough. I don't think most people there really favor that, though.
-
Also fair. I dunno, maybe they should just not write up any terms, for the sake of universality and non-partisanship.
-
nothing so radical as abolishing lobbying or the concept of a national bank.
1) Lobbying is corruption, so unless you want a corrupt government, you're gonna be "radical"
2) They're not advocating to get rid of the concept of a national bank, only the national bank currently in existence.
-
Then you want to remove all the say of even non-profit organizations? Then unions should have NO say in the political process with contributions. Consumer advocate groups shouldn't either. That's lobbying, so you have to remove their influences too if you're going to be consistent.
Painting with a broad brush like that can be hurtful. Though it might be a net benefit, subsidies to certain groups would end fairly quickly, and congressmen will be held accountable easily at the next elections meaning that people have a "lobbying" power after all.
-
I am the 11.16%
I wish it told me what percent of the USA I am.
-
nothing so radical as abolishing lobbying or the concept of a national bank.
1) Lobbying is corruption, so unless you want a corrupt government, you're gonna be "radical"
2) They're not advocating to get rid of the concept of a national bank, only the national bank currently in existence.
By definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) "Lobbying" is most certainly not corruption. It can certainly be used in ways that are corrupt, but the act itself is perfectly legal.
-
nothing so radical as abolishing lobbying or the concept of a national bank.
1) Lobbying is corruption, so unless you want a corrupt government, you're gonna be "radical"
2) They're not advocating to get rid of the concept of a national bank, only the national bank currently in existence.
By definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) "Lobbying" is most certainly not corruption. It can certainly be used in ways that are corrupt, but the act itself is perfectly legal.
Oh I know it's legal, and protected by the first amendment (which is why the fix is a constitutional one). So are the corporate tax loop holes, and all the other stuff which is corruption. Corruption, at it's worse, is legal. Corruption is the use of public power to private ends, at least in a democratic government.
Then you want to remove all the say of even non-profit organizations? Then unions should have NO say in the political process with contributions. Consumer advocate groups shouldn't either. That's lobbying, so you have to remove their influences too if you're going to be consistent.
I like how you get to assume things about my position, then say I'm not being consistent. It would really help if you pay attention to my position, and my argument.
Lobby the media, lobby the public. Lobbying congressional members is basically bypassing the public measures we put in place to ensure that the government serves the public good, and not private desires. I mean, for crying out loud, we're having this discussion right now on how to fix our government, and it's not being done by lobbying the government in Washington, DC. There are obviously other ways to address the government, and problems associated with the government, and there's no real way to allow lobbying, and screen out the corrupting influences. There are other ways communicating the message without throwing money at the system.
-
And how does one ensure they'll listen? Words are nice but in the end, money talks.
-
And how does one ensure they'll listen? Words are nice but in the end, money talks.
How do you ensure this under our current system? What if you don't have money? Under this system, you're giving those with the most money the most influence - which is exactly what the problem is!
Money talking is exactly the fucking problem in government. Money and politics do not mix, they lead to corruption. I would much, much rather have a non-corrupt government that has a hearing problem than a corrupt government who only has an ear for the powerful. We have social media today, and the "they" you talk about is all of us.
-
I completely agree. Money and politics shouldn't mix at all. Campaign finance reform should be 100% considered in the US.
-
Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.
-
Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.
Rape will happen, even with a police force and rape prevention measures; and I'd be stunned if you think rape should be legal.
We'd be able to elect politicians who aren't so easily corruptible, and the over all amount of corruption would be less.
-
the over all amount of corruption would be less.
-
Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.
Rape will happen, even with a police force and rape prevention measures; and I'd be stunned if you think rape should be legal.
We'd be able to elect politicians who aren't so easily corruptible, and the over all amount of corruption would be less.
I think that's an unfair comparison, but if I must address that case, no I would not. To jump back to a discussion we were having with Orthogonal about a week ago regarding murder, not to say we should *wait* to have a better solution, but why not come up with a better solution now? We shouldn't just take the first thing that works and say, "Okay, let's do that." We should springboard to better alternatives from there, especially because there is no quick fix and any solution to money in politics will inevitably have to account for under-the-table money and whatnot.
As to the second bit: demagoguery. It's one of the most glancing flaws of democratic politics.
-
So wait... you're concerned now that they may actually get something done? They're really damned if they do, damned if they don't, for you.
I'm not concerned that they might get something done, in fact I'm all for that (I hope I'm not coming across like that...). My concern is that a lot of what they say has no base, its just conspiracy theories (as outlined by Super Dude previously). The fact that they have also decided to set up caucusus, branches and an executive seems a bit rich when they are rallying against that kind of system.
I also think that big money and politics can't mix, whether these theories of corporate donation winning favourable treatment are true or not (I'm not saying they are, and I'm not saying they aren't - how do you measure that kind of thing?)
Oh and I am the 0.84 per cent. I feel bad now.
-
Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.
Rape will happen, even with a police force and rape prevention measures; and I'd be stunned if you think rape should be legal.
We'd be able to elect politicians who aren't so easily corruptible, and the over all amount of corruption would be less.
I think that's an unfair comparison, but if I must address that case, no I would not. To jump back to a discussion we were having with Orthogonal about a week ago regarding murder, not to say we should *wait* to have a better solution, but why not come up with a better solution now? We shouldn't just take the first thing that works and say, "Okay, let's do that." We should springboard to better alternatives from there, especially because there is no quick fix and any solution to money in politics will inevitably have to account for under-the-table money and whatnot.
I think it's a perfectly apt comparison, because in both cases, the problem involved can't be gotten rid of completely. To say that getting rid of the very overt and open corruption of our political system, through private financing and corporate lobbying, is wrong because there'd still be corruption is a horrible argument to make.
We're presenting a better solution, and you complain that a better solution isn't be come up with. So I'm very confused as to how you're saying that.
The only way "to account for under-the-table money and whatnot," is to try and make it so the politicians in office don't take the under-the-table money, and have a more open and fair process, so that when corruption does happen, it's easier to spot. Like my analogy, there will always be corruption, and under the table money, as there will always be rape; you can't hold impossibly high expectation, and think a solution is bad becuase it's not perfect. What count is it's better than what we have now.
So wait... you're concerned now that they may actually get something done? They're really damned if they do, damned if they don't, for you.
I'm not concerned that they might get something done, in fact I'm all for that (I hope I'm not coming across like that...). My concern is that a lot of what they say has no base, its just conspiracy theories (as outlined by Super Dude previously). The fact that they have also decided to set up caucusus, branches and an executive seems a bit rich when they are rallying against that kind of system.
They aren't against government, and it's institutionalization, they're against corrupt government and big corporations. They're not rallying against caucus, branches, or executives... I'm not even sure where you're getting that idea from?
I also think that big money and politics can't mix, whether these theories of corporate donation winning favourable treatment are true or not (I'm not saying they are, and I'm not saying they aren't - how do you measure that kind of thing?)
I think its' quite obvious that they're winning favorable treatment. You don't need to measure it per say, but when every candidate has to be filtered through the corporate money process, before anyone can actually vote on them, it's quite obvious. Jon Boehner actually handed out checks from the tobacco industry to fellow Republicans house members right before a vote regarding the tobacco industry, on the floor of the House.
-
So wait... you're concerned now that they may actually get something done? They're really damned if they do, damned if they don't, for you.
I'm not concerned that they might get something done, in fact I'm all for that (I hope I'm not coming across like that...). My concern is that a lot of what they say has no base, its just conspiracy theories (as outlined by Super Dude previously). The fact that they have also decided to set up caucusus, branches and an executive seems a bit rich when they are rallying against that kind of system.
They aren't against government, and it's institutionalization, they're against corrupt government and big corporations. They're not rallying against caucus, branches, or executives... I'm not even sure where you're getting that idea from?
I also think that big money and politics can't mix, whether these theories of corporate donation winning favourable treatment are true or not (I'm not saying they are, and I'm not saying they aren't - how do you measure that kind of thing?)
I think its' quite obvious that they're winning favorable treatment. You don't need to measure it per say, but when every candidate has to be filtered through the corporate money process, before anyone can actually vote on them, it's quite obvious. Jon Boehner actually handed out checks from the tobacco industry to fellow Republicans house members right before a vote regarding the tobacco industry, on the floor of the House.
Ok, maybe not directly, but they are expressing frustration with the way the political system functions and by extension the institutions that come with it. I guess the structure of their organisation isn't really the issue though, its more about their agenda and how it has/will form.
Ok again, thats pretty fucked up. Quite clearly, the US political system is broken, and groups like the Occupy movement help to give the issue attention. I'm still skeptical, even with their funky new exterior, whether they can achieve anything meaningful without buy-in from someone on the "inside" for lack of a better term.
-
Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.
Rape will happen, even with a police force and rape prevention measures; and I'd be stunned if you think rape should be legal.
We'd be able to elect politicians who aren't so easily corruptible, and the over all amount of corruption would be less.
I think that's an unfair comparison, but if I must address that case, no I would not. To jump back to a discussion we were having with Orthogonal about a week ago regarding murder, not to say we should *wait* to have a better solution, but why not come up with a better solution now? We shouldn't just take the first thing that works and say, "Okay, let's do that." We should springboard to better alternatives from there, especially because there is no quick fix and any solution to money in politics will inevitably have to account for under-the-table money and whatnot.
I think it's a perfectly apt comparison, because in both cases, the problem involved can't be gotten rid of completely. To say that getting rid of the very overt and open corruption of our political system, through private financing and corporate lobbying, is wrong because there'd still be corruption is a horrible argument to make.
We're presenting a better solution, and you complain that a better solution isn't be come up with. So I'm very confused as to how you're saying that.
The only way "to account for under-the-table money and whatnot," is to try and make it so the politicians in office don't take the under-the-table money, and have a more open and fair process, so that when corruption does happen, it's easier to spot. Like my analogy, there will always be corruption, and under the table money, as there will always be rape; you can't hold impossibly high expectation, and think a solution is bad becuase it's not perfect. What count is it's better than what we have now.
My fear is that in spite of all that, it will not only not be better but be no different. In other words, the only thing that'll change is how the corrupt go about hiding their misdeedery.
I mean I hate to say it, but we're talking about power and privilege here. People who are intent on breaking the rules won't care about new rules being set in place, they'll only learn how to get around them or how to appear as if they're playing along.
Edit: Also maybe I missed it but I didn't see the better solution you proposed.
Edit 2: If by a better solution you meant being able to elect politicians who aren't easily corruptible, how do you check for that? And even if you could, someone can always lie, or as I said, learn how to hide their misdeeds.
-
Publicly finance elections. Get rid of the lobbying in Washington, where votes are basically bought with money, gifts, and other necessities. I mean, we're debating the proposal to get rid of lobbying, that's the better solution being offered up. I'm very confused as to how that's getting overlooked?
Demagoguery is always a problem, corrupt politicians are always a problem, and I'm not saying we can get rid of them. I'm saying we shouldn't have a system where corrupt politicians are the norm, and the not the exception.
Also, term limits can help; as can getting rid of the special privileges congress members have (they can legally perform insider trader).
My fear is that in spite of all that, it will not only not be better but be no different. In other words, the only thing that'll change is how the corrupt go about hiding their misdeedery.
If it's no different, it's no worse. Since we're pretty much at rock bottom in terms of corruption, the only possibilities are up. Why not give it a chance, and if it doesn't work, what did we lose? Nothing. We'd be where we'd be if we didn't do anything.
Ok again, thats pretty fucked up. Quite clearly, the US political system is broken, and groups like the Occupy movement help to give the issue attention. I'm still skeptical, even with their funky new exterior, whether they can achieve anything meaningful without buy-in from someone on the "inside" for lack of a better term.
I actually think the course of events say that this isn't happening as of yet, too much. I mean, you have some people supporting this movement who have always fought for these kinds of issues (as EV would claim, "ACORN" is involved), but surveys of the protesters have consistently found that these protests are not along party lines, even if they're along ideological lines.
I mean, I have my doubts too, but I don't think we've seen enough yet to draw a conclusion. It hasn't sold out as of yet, and at least that "99percentdeclaration" is seeking to fix the problem by bypassing the current political system, and calling for a new constitutional convention.
-
We are not at rock bottom. An American society that's truly gone to rock bottom would look like Late Antiquity Rome (if Cole were still here he'd vouch for me on that one).
-
In terms of corruption, I'd say we're at rock bottom. Look at what's going on in congress right now; nothing is getting done, even though the public needs it, because a rather small minority of people are being obstructionist, and abusing the system to fit their private wants. The system is completely broken.
I'm not entirely pessimistic about or society, as of yet, so socially speaking, I don't even think we're really in too much trouble. It's politically, the very make-up of our country... what used to be called it's constitution... that I think is rotten, and I don't know how it could really get much more broken and in trouble.
-
If there's anyone out there who still doesn't really get how the whole corruption thing works or how pervasive it is, Archlobbyist douchebag Jack Abramoff lays it out pretty well in this 60 Minutes segment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10#t=1m28s
-
police aggression clip of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buovLQ9qyWQ#!
-
Damn :omg: What the hell was that for? Let's poke these kids with our batons...um...because...um....we can?
-
I guess that's the new way to deal with protesters; ram them strait in their genetilia.
-
I guess that's the new way to deal with protesters; ram them strait in their genetilia.
And start with the small Asian female.
That video was disgusting. I'm glad they all stood there instead of running away.
-
And start with the small Asian female.
That's what I noticed first and thought damn this guy must really hate Asians or something, but then it turns out that they're following orders :|
-
If there's anyone out there who still doesn't really get how the whole corruption thing works or how pervasive it is, Archlobbyist douchebag Jack Abramoff lays it out pretty well in this 60 Minutes segment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10#t=1m28s
Great find. This guy should use his skills to lobby for lobby reforms.
-
police aggression clip of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buovLQ9qyWQ#!
I think one of the most important aspects that I saw, is that's no one fought back. Best way to fight the police is let them beat you up, get it on video (like this), and then use the obvious fact that you're not being violent to shove it right back up the police's asses.
-
police aggression clip of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buovLQ9qyWQ#!
I think one of the most important aspects that I saw, is that's no one fought back. Best way to fight the police is let them beat you up, get it on video (like this), and then use the obvious fact that you're not being violent to shove it right back up the police's asses.
Some students looked like they were trying to take their batons, but it may have just been them trying not to get hit.
-
police aggression clip of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buovLQ9qyWQ#!
I think one of the most important aspects that I saw, is that's no one fought back. Best way to fight the police is let them beat you up, get it on video (like this), and then use the obvious fact that you're not being violent to shove it right back up the police's asses.
Some students looked like they were trying to take their batons, but it may have just been them trying not to get hit.
Ya, I'd still consider that defense.
-
:|
-
I need to see more of what happened before the police went swing happy. Probably won't change my mind, but it may point to why the cops did what they did.
-
A-yep. Wouldn't be surprised if a little verbal or physical provocation was the cause. The extremity of their reaction might be a result of a lot of pent up boredom/frustration.
-
The wall st protesters aren't the most upstanding citizens in the word. I would give the police the benifit of the doubt before them. They are really just lousy smelly people.
-
The wall st protesters aren't the most upstanding citizens in the word. I would give the police the benifit of the doubt before them. They are really just lousy smelly people.
Did you see the video? Granted, we don't know anything that might have built up to that but nothing in the video led me to believe that those students were violent even after being clubbed. As to your sweeping generalization, what is being reported in the news (at least what I've seen) is only a snapshot of the movement, and not representative of the entire population. The media is trying to label them as one thing or another to fit into the mold of right vs. left and pointing to the extremists makes it really easy to do.
-
A-yep. Wouldn't be surprised if a little verbal or physical provocation was the cause. The extremity of their reaction might be a result of a lot of pent up boredom/frustration.
Yea I mean a lot of those officers are like probably going through really hard times in their lives are probably like really stressed out and stuff we really need to give them a break. And which is better, our taxes going towards bombing brown people which isn't even like benefiting our liberties, or towards beating lousy smelly people in the nuts?
-
The wall st protesters aren't the most upstanding citizens in the word. I would give the police the benifit of the doubt before them. They are really just lousy smelly people.
Did you see the video? Granted, we don't know anything that might have built up to that but nothing in the video led me to believe that those students were violent even after being clubbed. As to your sweeping generalization, what is being reported in the news (at least what I've seen) is only a snapshot of the movement, and not representative of the entire population. The media is trying to label them as one thing or another to fit into the mold of right vs. left and pointing to the extremists makes it really easy to do.
ya I saw it. the police have to set an example, they're outnumbered 100 to 1. Ive see the wall st group in ziller park everyday. They are almost all dirty smelly people
-
Did it ever occur to you that they're "dirty and smelly" precisely because they've taken up residence in a park to protest?
-
Ive see the wall st group in ziller park everyday. They are almost all dirty smelly people
Dirty smelly people deserve to be beaten.
-
yes.
Also apparently there are TB outbreaks, dead bodies, murders. Not cool people...
-
Ive see the wall st group in ziller park everyday. They are almost all dirty smelly people
Dirty smelly people deserve to be beaten.
yes.
Also apparently there are TB outbreaks, dead bodies, murders. Not cool people...
So, just to clarify, you are saying that "dirty smelly people deserve to be beaten" ?
-
in and around the face
-
yes.
Also apparently there are TB outbreaks, dead bodies, murders.
Yes, becuase those things never happen, they only happen during this OWS protest movement, and so those things are fully and only becuase of these protesters.
You've generally come off as libertarian to me, but I guess that's only in regards to economics?
-
A-yep. Wouldn't be surprised if a little verbal or physical provocation was the cause. The extremity of their reaction might be a result of a lot of pent up boredom/frustration.
Yea I mean a lot of those officers are like probably going through really hard times in their lives are probably like really stressed out and stuff we really need to give them a break. And which is better, our taxes going towards bombing brown people which isn't even like benefiting our liberties, or towards beating lousy smelly people in the nuts?
Cut the sarcasm, dude, I was trying to offer what I think could be a legitimate reason for their overreaction. What they're doing isn't good at all but it reminds me of a more subdued version of why police absolutely pummel people after high speed chases, because they've got this pent up aggression towards whoever their target is. I just personally cannot make a judgement until there's some evidence of what might've provoked this.
-
Cut the sarcasm, dude, I was trying to offer what I think could be a legitimate reason for their overreaction.
Something may have caused it, but it's not a legitimate reason if it's an overreaction.
-
The protesters have been evicted. The park is being vacated as we speak.
EDIT: It has been cleared out and sanitation workers have begun cleaning it up.
-
So the protest is over or what?
-
Many people have left. Some people have gone to other parks. Others are planning on coming back. The police have said they will be allowed back after sanitation is finished, but they won't be allowed to camp their anymore.
-
Wow, I'm not really sure how to take this. I didn't agree with a lot that the OWS protesters said, but it was good that people were angry and getting a lot of the country involved.
-
They mayor said that the protestors are free to return after the clean up has been completed. The amount of garbage that built up over the last two months was a health and fire hazard.
edit*
Just say Occupy Oakland was demolished as well.
-
Yeah I dunno, I'm getting a bad feeling about that. I'm feeling the restrictions on their protest will become a lot more stringent, and it'll allow local mayors and whatnot to really crack down and quell them quickly.
-
Who knows, maybe this will fuel the fire even more.
-
Is that a good thing, though? I'm all for expressing free speech, but disrupting the stock-exchange is not "speech."
-
UPDATE: A New York state judge this morning temporarily enjoined the city from keeping the protesters out of Zuccotti Park, but Mayor Bloomberg is simply ignoring the Order and deliberately breaking the law by refusing to allow them back in. Put another way, Bloomberg this morning has broken more laws than the hundreds of protesters who were arrested. But as we know, the law does not apply to the Michael Bloombergs of the nation; the law, instead, has simply been exploited into a weapon used by the politically and financially powerful to prevent challenges to their standing.
Could #OWS have scripted a more apt antagonist than this living, breathing personification of oligarchy: a Wall Street billionaire who so brazenly purchased his political office, engineered the overturning of a term-limits referendum and then spent more than $100 million of his person fortune to stay in power, and now resides well above the law?
https://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/a_police_raid_suffused_with_symbolism/singleton/
NYC Judge Says Occupy Protesters Can Come Back And Bring Their Tents
https://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-protesters-can-come-back-with-tents-2011-11
-
Is that a good thing, though? I'm all for expressing free speech, but disrupting the stock-exchange is not "speech."
Had we disrupted the stock exchange 8-10 years ago, we probably wouldn't be covered in as much shit as we are today.
-
Should they stick the SEIU with the bill for all the NYPD overtime and cleanup?
-
UPDATE: A New York state judge this morning temporarily enjoined the city from keeping the protesters out of Zuccotti Park, but Mayor Bloomberg is simply ignoring the Order and deliberately breaking the law by refusing to allow them back in. Put another way, Bloomberg this morning has broken more laws than the hundreds of protesters who were arrested. But as we know, the law does not apply to the Michael Bloombergs of the nation; the law, instead, has simply been exploited into a weapon used by the politically and financially powerful to prevent challenges to their standing.
Could #OWS have scripted a more apt antagonist than this living, breathing personification of oligarchy: a Wall Street billionaire who so brazenly purchased his political office, engineered the overturning of a term-limits referendum and then spent more than $100 million of his person fortune to stay in power, and now resides well above the law?
https://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/a_police_raid_suffused_with_symbolism/singleton/
NYC Judge Says Occupy Protesters Can Come Back And Bring Their Tents
https://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-protesters-can-come-back-with-tents-2011-11
Umm Zucotti park is privately owned. The owner has stated that he said they can come back but cannot camp out. Bloomberg has not broken any laws by clearing the place out.
-
It's a "privately owned public space" which is supposed to afford 24 hour access to everybody. Brookfield created it decades ago in exchange for (I think) some zoning leeway. As far as I know the "no camping" thing was applied ex post facto after the protests started.
Secondly, did you not see the part about the court order?
-
edit,
nevermind just saw it on CNN.
-
This is pretty terrible and totally unnecessary. Each time I visited, the park was cleaner and more organized.
-
Those sources are a little dubious to me and are contrary to what I read on Cnn earlier today. They seem pretty biased.
The park has a private owner and the park is supposed to close at night like a lot of park in NYC. It's overdue that the people let the owner clean the place up as its fucking filthy.
They should find a more public place to protest.
Also, that court order sounds like BS to me.
I'm not making this stuff up.
Operational Standards
Hours of access / nighttime closing
By default, all privately owned public plazas are open to the public day and night, 24 hours. Nighttime closing of public plazas is permitted via City Planning Commission authorization.
www.nyc.gov
The temporary court order (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/266582-order-re-liberty-park/)
A judge was supposed to rule again at 3:00pm on the Mayor's challenge.
-
Who knows, maybe this will fuel the fire even more.
This is probably what it's going to do. Every time they've been cleared out of a place, they've come back bigger. Oakland has been broken up numerous times, and they come back. There's some old adage I'm forgetting right now, but basically, I'm willing to bet this just makes it worse.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Well there we have it.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Well there we have it.
What happens if the park gets re-occupied to the level it was before? It can't be in the budget to have one of these clean ups every few weeks.
-
They aren't going to be allowed to camp out anymore.
-
Others said officers took thousands of books from the camp's makeshift library and tossed them in Dumpsters.
Holy shit, I hope this isn't true. OWS had a really good library and system... I still haven't returned one book...
-
Should they stick the SEIU with the bill for all the NYPD overtime and cleanup?
Is there a number on the amount of layoffs for next year due to all the overtime the NYPD had to pay? If their budget was strained to begin with I can't imagine what it looks like now.
-
Hey, if it means more unemployed, p
disgruntled folks to join the protest... :P
(Jk, in case that wasn't clear)
-
Should they stick the SEIU with the bill for all the NYPD overtime and cleanup?
Is there a number on the amount of layoffs for next year due to all the overtime the NYPD had to pay? If their budget was strained to begin with I can't imagine what it looks like now.
Goes to show you how stupid the response to these protests are being. It's a battle you're not going to win.
By the way, everyone talks about free speech, but there is the constitutional right to peacefully assemble as well. If this continues, we could be looking at a Supreme Court decision.
They aren't going to be allowed to camp out anymore.
Assuming you can enforce that rule.
-
You're correct in that people have a right to assemble peacefully but if you think leaving several hundred people in an uproar unattended in a massive city like New York is going to stay peaceful then I'd think you're a little crazy. Sure the majority of people will behave to an extent but these types of gatherings attract dregs from other reaches of the area with much different agendas and it only takes a few of those assholes to really get something nasty going. It'd be asinine for police not to be there at least making sure nothing gets too out of hand. So this is not a stupid response but more common sense, especially considering the area of the city they're in.
-
I'm fine with there being a police presence, but the extent to which most of them has gone is just not necessary. They were treated from the beginning as if they were all going to start rioting and destroying anything they could, not for being peaceful protestors. The response to there being trouble makers in the crowd, that are not associated with the crowd, than it is when you treat the entire crowd as trouble makers.
Given time, the protestors would address those safety concerns as well. The vast majority of them aren't there to be troublemakers, and it's human nature to eventually start forming security related issues. The camp had a kitchen, and a library for crying out loud, and I'm sure they did have some sort of 'police force.'
In the end, freedom isn't always the prettiest thing, and the thing about a democracy is we're supposed to be tolerant of other people protesting and assembling. The people who would be in danger are freely choosing to assemble in those area's, and if it was ever a big enough problem, people would stop showing up. We shouldn't be living in an authoritarian state where you get to tell other people what they can and cannot do because it is unsafe for them. Why the fuck does anyone need "attending"? Children need attending. Prisoner's need attending. Grown adults who are making a free decision, abiding by the law, and excerising their rights, do not need attending. I find that sentiment rather disturbing, in all honesty.
No one outside of the protest is in danger, in fact, you could argue since the "dregs" are concentrated, they're actually safer.
-
You're correct in that people have a right to assemble peacefully but if you think leaving several hundred people in an uproar unattended in a massive city like New York is going to stay peaceful then I'd think you're a little crazy.
If your concern is the protest going violent then you wouldn't be supporting the eviction. People are now a lot more pissed at the cops and the city than before. They got their tents demolished, kitchen equipment thrown out, trash bins removed, library destroyed... it's almost like they're deliberately steering a protest towards an expression of pure social unrest.
-
If this whole thing boils over because some people are getting a little pissy that the city, God forbid, exercises it's right to clean up the two months of unsanitary conditions in the spot that was gifted to them to squat on, then something is seriously wrong. They have no right to get pissed at the cops or the city, this was a long time coming.
-
If this whole thing boils over because some people are getting a little pissy that the city, God forbid, exercises it's right to clean up the two months of unsanitary conditions in the spot that was gifted to them to squat on, then something is seriously wrong. They have no right to get pissed at the cops or the city, this was a long time coming.
Ding ding ding.
-
If this whole thing boils over because some people are getting a little pissy that the city, God forbid, exercises it's right to clean up the two months of unsanitary conditions in the spot that was gifted to them to squat on, then something is seriously wrong. They have no right to get pissed at the cops or the city, this was a long time coming.
No, they're going to get pissy becuase their right to peacefully protest are getting ignored, and becuase they're there to begin with becuase they're upset with how the system is working. History has shown that if you try and quell a protest movement that is as big as this, you're just going to create a bigger protest movement. Our own American Revolution shows the same thing, the 60's show the same thing, the Hooverville's in the 1920's show the same thing, and so far, every time any of the Occupy movements have been kicked out, they've reorganized, and come back stronger. Who was that unsanitary park hurting? The people who choose to go there to protest. It wasn't a problem for other people, so it doesn't violate the conception of liberty that this country is founded upon.
So really, I guess, thank you for being undemocratic. You're actually helping the movement I believe in grow stronger by trying to trample their rights. If you wanted this movement to go away, you should have ignored them, not given them credence and the spotlight be supporting unconstitutional measures, and frankly, things which are unAmerican.
-
I guess I just don't understand the vitriol directed towards the movement (both in this thread and in life). I mentioned to a classmate this evening, a really warm and kind person, that Zucotti Park was cleared by police, who, in the middle of the night, refused to let any journalists near the place. Her response? "Good. Those fucking hippies should just go home and get over it; I'm sick of them."
Like, what's the deal? What are they doing that is just so offensive to you, so disgusting that they deserve this kind of treatment? We have far more in common with the people in Zucotti Park than we do with the ruling class, who uses its power to screw all of us over.
-
If this whole thing boils over because some people are getting a little pissy that the city, God forbid, exercises it's right to clean up the two months of unsanitary conditions in the spot that was gifted to them to squat on, then something is seriously wrong. They have no right to get pissed at the cops or the city, this was a long time coming.
People donated money for the protesters to have tents to sleep in. People donated books to the communal library. People set up kitchens to feed the people there. All these got thrown into the dump with a midnight raid. People are very much in the right for being pissed at the cops for tearing down their self-organized community the way they did. "Unsanitary" was not the reason for the eviction. And unsanitary isn't the reason for that grin on your face as you watch the protest suffer a blow.
-
Well forgive me for not shedding any tears over a group of idealists that have basically had no forward progress after what looked like a strong start. Be real, it really has turned into "a bunch of people camped in one spot" after two months. You can cry rights and crap all you want but if you're willing to park your ass in the middle of a heavily traveled section of one of the world's biggest city for two months demanding change you better have some bite to back up that bark. Face it, no one is taking these people seriously any more.
-
I disagree with the no forward progress comment, Orcus. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans have woken up and now realize that our government as well our financial system are completely fucked up.
Side thought*
I don't understand why this raid was called in. As said before, all it is going to do is piss people off even more. Winter is like 3 weeks away, New York should have just waited until people couldn't stand the single degree temperatures and freezing winds that rip throuh NYC.
-
They should have let it be. Winter is coming.
-
Reading this thread, the statement from Martin Niemöller came to mind.......
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-
Oh puh-lease. It is NOT appropriate for one group to take over an entire park for 2 months, to the point where it is not usable at all for the general public. How would you like it if, instead of OWS, it was Herman Cain's campaign that decided they were gonna "raise some Cain" there and camp out for two months to the point where the park was trashed an no-one could even go there to use it?
Honestly, the city made a mistake by letting camping over there go on at all. There is absolutely no reason why you need to camp at a public park. I don't care if it's OWLs or something else, I don't see why it should be allowed.
-
Oh puh-lease. It is NOT appropriate for one group to take over an entire park for 2 months, to the point where it is not usable at all for the general public. How would you like it if, instead of OWS, it was Herman Cain's campaign that decided they were gonna "raise some Cain" there and camp out for two months to the point where the park was trashed an no-one could even go there to use it?
Honestly, the city made a mistake by letting camping there go-one at all. There is absolutely no reason why you need to camp at a public park. I don't care if it's OWLs or something else, I don't see why it should be allowed.
Exactly. It's not like there is any symbolism to that park. It's still a few blocks away from Wall St. And no one is taking away anyone's rights to protest. They can be there during the day, just not camp out. So the whining about rights should be thrown right out there.
Also, these protests have caused businesses near the park to shut down because no regular people are going through that way anymore. Not to mention, the people who were serving food for everyone stopped doing so and switched to only serving rice because the homeless started to show up for food, and they basically told them to go away.
This whole movement is getting media attention, but no political attention. The whole movement is still misguided and splintered. If they want something to happen, take it to Washington DC. The people who work on Wall St. are not the one's causing the problems for our country. They are part of the "99%" in most cases. Do you think these super rich bank CEO's that they are all pissed off at even spend any time on Wall St? Get real.
-
Oh puh-lease. It is NOT appropriate for one group to take over an entire park for 2 months, to the point where it is not usable at all for the general public. How would you like it if, instead of OWS, it was Herman Cain's campaign that decided they were gonna "raise some Cain" there and camp out for two months to the point where the park was trashed an no-one could even go there to use it?
Honestly, the city made a mistake by letting camping over there go on at all. There is absolutely no reason why you need to camp at a public park. I don't care if it's OWLs or something else, I don't see why it should be allowed.
I wouldn't mind that at all. Who uses Zucotti Park, anyway? People on their lunch breaks. THOSE POOR PEOPLE.
-
It doesn't matter who used it or not and for what reason. The fact is, the park is there for anyone to use. That means it should be kept in a state of usefulness, not filled up with tarps and filth so no one outside of the movement can use it. No one group should be able to come in and just take up the entire park. Like I said before, the park has no significance to the movement. It's a really really arbitrary spot.
-
Well forgive me for not shedding any tears over a group of idealists that have basically had no forward progress after what looked like a strong start. Be real, it really has turned into "a bunch of people camped in one spot" after two months.
OWS started with the occupiers gathering in the park. This then attracted others who had concerns about America's economic situation and whatnot, people who didn't necessarily hand out in the park all the time. This is the part of OWS that's not being reported on the news (or that's what I'm guessing from the impression you have; I don't really watch much of American news). The "occupiers" are only part of the story. Also, do you mind explaining "idealists"? What's this common ideal that you see among the protesters. I thought the criticism was more that they didn't have a clear unified goal.
-
I'll explain a little more when I get home. I mean idealist in that romanticized "change the world" manner more than anything specific. Their idea of getting something going is crucial but they're clearly not the right people to get it done. Sadly the MLK type leader is necessary in my mind.
-
Exactly. It's not like there is any symbolism to that park. It's still a few blocks away from Wall St. And no one is taking away anyone's rights to protest. They can be there during the day, just not camp out. So the whining about rights should be thrown right out there.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging...right of the people peaceably to assemble."
I'm sorry, but that doesn't say, "unless other people want to use that space." The only times we accept any infringement upon these rights is when those rights directly harm and impede other people's liberties (not indirectly, as in taking up the same space); we can yell fire in a crowded theater because that's obvious dangerous. The occupy aspect of the movement is intentional, as it sends a much more powerful message. It's part of their message, part of how they are choosing to express themselves, and just becuase you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid. The thing about living in a democracy, is that other people are going to get in your way, because they're pursing their ideals.
-
Exactly. It's not like there is any symbolism to that park. It's still a few blocks away from Wall St. And no one is taking away anyone's rights to protest. They can be there during the day, just not camp out. So the whining about rights should be thrown right out there.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging...right of the people peaceably to assemble."
I'm sorry, but that doesn't say, "unless other people want to use that space." The only times we accept any infringement upon these rights is when those rights directly harm and impede other people's liberties (not indirectly, as in taking up the same space); we can yell fire in a crowded theater because that's obvious dangerous. The occupy aspect of the movement is intentional, as it sends a much more powerful message. It's part of their message, part of how they are choosing to express themselves, and just becuase you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid. The thing about living in a democracy, is that other people are going to get in your way, because they're pursing their ideals.
So drum circles at 2 am keeping people who actually live in that area is perfectly protected freedom of speech. Bullshit. There has been no law made saying these people cannot assemble. They can, they just can't sleep in the park. Jesus this is like saying you can yell and scream in a movie theater because its protected by free speech.
-
Exactly. It's not like there is any symbolism to that park. It's still a few blocks away from Wall St. And no one is taking away anyone's rights to protest. They can be there during the day, just not camp out. So the whining about rights should be thrown right out there.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging...right of the people peaceably to assemble."
I'm sorry, but that doesn't say, "unless other people want to use that space." The only times we accept any infringement upon these rights is when those rights directly harm and impede other people's liberties (not indirectly, as in taking up the same space); we can yell fire in a crowded theater because that's obvious dangerous. The occupy aspect of the movement is intentional, as it sends a much more powerful message. It's part of their message, part of how they are choosing to express themselves, and just becuase you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid. The thing about living in a democracy, is that other people are going to get in your way, because they're pursing their ideals.
So drum circles at 2 am keeping people who actually live in that area is perfectly protected freedom of speech. Bullshit. There has been no law made saying these people cannot assemble. They can, they just can't sleep in the park. Jesus this is like saying you can yell and scream in a movie theater because its protected by free speech.
Woops, I just noticed I missed the "t" in can't. I meant we can't yell in a crowded theater.
Those drums circles should be shut down like any noise complaint. Yelling fire in a move theater harms other people (someone's gonna get trampled), protestors sleeping in a park harm no one but themselves. I've addressed this problem numerous times. You have to explain to me how people camping out directly harms other people's well-being, and not be able to go to the park isn't a strong enough reason.
-
The park is privately owned. It is for the public use. The park has rules stating no tents/sleeping bags are allowed in the park. No camping is permitted. They can stay there and protest all they want. They just can't set up a shanty town and just making the place completely filthy.
Not to mention the problems they have brought to the downtown businesses and people who live down there. The point is, sleeping there has nothing to do with free speech. Sleeping there does not further their cause. They can gather there all day and night as long as they aren't camping out or causing any kind of trouble to the downtown area.
When you have 100s of people living out in the open without running water, problems are going to start occurring. In a city with a high population density, disease could start to spread pretty quickly from there.
The fact is, sleeping there has nothing to do with free speech at all.
-
The park is privately owned. It is for the public use. The park has rules stating no tents/sleeping bags are allowed in the park. No camping is permitted. They can stay there and protest all they want. They just can't set up a shanty town and just making the place completely filthy.
The park is public access however, and the rules regarding no tents/sleeping bags was put in place after OWS started. Also, this is a red herring becuase other protest movements around the country are getting broken up which are not on privately owned public parks. If the park was publicly owned, you'd be making the same argument.
Not to mention the problems they have brought to the downtown businesses and people who live down there. The point is, sleeping there has nothing to do with free speech. Sleeping there does not further their cause. They can gather there all day and night as long as they aren't camping out or causing any kind of trouble to the downtown area.
That is an indirect consequence, and those consequences can be achieved in a variety of ways which are not inclusive to the OWS movement. My life is constantly influenced and directed due to the movement of other people, and this is no different.
When you have 100s of people living out in the open without running water, problems are going to start occurring. In a city with a high population density, disease could start to spread pretty quickly from there.
Every time there's a large concert, that helps the spread of diseases, attracts crime, and brings about social problems. Should we ban concerts? The premises of your argument allow for a whole bunch of authoritarian bullshit, and means we have to start doing something about the issues. Hell, you could argue, using the same logic, that having a city with such a large population is inherently a health hazard, and that government should step in and dismantle large cities.
Please stop with the Red Herring about free speech; this isn't about free speech, you keep making it an issue of free speech, but it's an issue of the constitutionally protected right to peacefully assemble. Sleeping there furthers their case, as it demonstrates the seriousness of the concerns of the people protesting.
-
They have the right to assemble. they don't have the right to sleep there. AND NO the rules for the park were not put in place after the OWS movement. I don't know where you got that idea from.
A concert doesn't last 2 months and have public bathrooms.
Do you just take everything to the extreme? Your arguments don't even make sense. There is a huge difference between a 3 day concert and a 2 month camp out in the middle of a city.
Also, a city is a health hazard, but thanks to modern technology the health risks are being mitigated all the time. However, when you just get a group camping out in the middle of a park like homeless people, problems tend to arise. They do NOT have the right to cause health problems in the city via their assembly. Like I said, they can assemble as much as they want without sleeping there.
-
Like I said, they can assemble as much as they want without sleeping there.
And allowing that will cause many of the problems you're having a problem with. So your solution doesn't solve arguably the best argument against this: public health concerns. When those thousands of people show up, they'd still need someplace to go to the bathroom, they'd still be in contact with thousands of other people, etc. Clearly, if millions of people can live in new york city in a healthy way, it's possible for thousands of people to occupy a park in a healthy way.
AND NO the rules for the park were not put in place after the OWS movement. I don't know where you got that idea from.
The rules have been changing, I've read about it in numerous news articles on the issue.
https://www.observer.com/2011/10/can-brookfield-change-the-rules-at-zuccotti-park/
-
"They have the right to assemble. they don't have the right to sleep there."
I don't see the difference. Isn't overnighting part of the assembly? If the protestors left every night, their message would be nowhere near as powerful. They go from a group of people who are 100% dedicated to a cause, to a group that just has nothing better to do during the day.
-
I disagree with the no forward progress comment, Orcus. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans have woken up and now realize that our government as well our financial system are completely fucked up.
I'm pretty sure three years of recovery from a recession brought that to light, not OWS. OWS doesn't seem to be about the realization that things are fucked up but rather that the people most affected can actually try and do something about it.
"They have the right to assemble. they don't have the right to sleep there."
I don't see the difference. Isn't overnighting part of the assembly? I
Depends on the location. If there is a curfew I'm fairly certain that law supersedes the right to assemble.
-
Like I said, they can assemble as much as they want without sleeping there.
And allowing that will cause many of the problems you're having a problem with. So your solution doesn't solve arguably the best argument against this: public health concerns. When those thousands of people show up, they'd still need someplace to go to the bathroom, they'd still be in contact with thousands of other people, etc. Clearly, if millions of people can live in new york city in a healthy way, it's possible for thousands of people to occupy a park in a healthy way.
AND NO the rules for the park were not put in place after the OWS movement. I don't know where you got that idea from.
The rules have been changing, I've read about it in numerous news articles on the issue.
https://www.observer.com/2011/10/can-brookfield-change-the-rules-at-zuccotti-park/
Big difference between going there during the day, and then going home compared to living there non-stop for 2 months? Surely you can even tell that there is a difference.
-
Ya, there is a difference and one that doesn't send as powerful of a message, and one that infringes upon your right to assemble.
Let's put it this way, the city could have done things a lot differently to do away with the major problems. The police response was their response, and as time moved on, the OWS movement set up it's own security team, cooperating with police. The city could have also helped out in acquiring portapoties to deal with the waste issue, again in cooperation with the protestors. The protesters had doctors, doctor tents, food tents, libraries, etc; it was a developing society, and the problems you poin to are problems societies are going to address in this day and age. I'd be willing to bet that cooperating with the movement would be less costly for New York, so it would be good for the city in a whole variety of ways. Instead, it was from the moment it started treated like an opposition, and that's largely why we see the problems that do exist.
Depends on the location. If there is a curfew I'm fairly certain that law supersedes the right to assemble.
Actually, the right to assemble is a constitutional right, backed by the Supremacy Clause. If curfews supersede the right to assemble, then something is seriously wrong.
-
Something tells me you don't really know how to interpret the constitution. No one's right to assembly has been impaired. They are free to assemble still. What part of that don't you understand? They just can't sleep in the park. No law has been passed barring them from assembling. No injustice has been served.
It's like saying that being rejected for a gun license is against the second amendment if you don't qualify for owning a gun license under federal or state laws.
-
It doesn't matter who used it or not and for what reason. The fact is, the park is there for anyone to use. That means it should be kept in a state of usefulness, not filled up with tarps and filth so no one outside of the movement can use it. No one group should be able to come in and just take up the entire park. Like I said before, the park has no significance to the movement. It's a really really arbitrary spot.
Y'know I hate to sound patronizing here, but I think that's why they call it the "Occupy" movement.
I'll explain a little more when I get home. I mean idealist in that romanticized "change the world" manner more than anything specific. Their idea of getting something going is crucial but they're clearly not the right people to get it done. Sadly the MLK type leader is necessary in my mind.
And I hate to say it, but I think you're picking and choosing there. Unless you just mean the movement should have a leader or a poster boy, so to speak. But how was MLK's platform and movement not itself idealistic in that "change the world" kinda way? And on top of that, isn't that proof that sometimes idealism like that pays off?
-
It doesn't matter who used it or not and for what reason. The fact is, the park is there for anyone to use. That means it should be kept in a state of usefulness, not filled up with tarps and filth so no one outside of the movement can use it. No one group should be able to come in and just take up the entire park. Like I said before, the park has no significance to the movement. It's a really really arbitrary spot.
Y'know I hate to sound patronizing here, but I think that's why they call it the "Occupy" movement.
I'll explain a little more when I get home. I mean idealist in that romanticized "change the world" manner more than anything specific. Their idea of getting something going is crucial but they're clearly not the right people to get it done. Sadly the MLK type leader is necessary in my mind.
And I hate to say it, but I think you're picking and choosing there. Unless you just mean the movement should have a leader or a poster boy, so to speak. But how was MLK's platform and movement not itself idealistic in that "change the world" kinda way? And on top of that, isn't that proof that sometimes idealism like that pays off?
Last time I checked it wasn't called "Occupy a park a few blocks away from where Wall St. Actually is" movement. Sorry not trying to be patronizing. The fact is, they weren't occupying wall street at all. So yeah my point still makes a lot of sense.
-
Something tells me you don't really know how to interpret the constitution. No one's right to assembly has been impaired. They are free to assemble still. What part of that don't you understand? They just can't sleep in the park. No law has been passed barring them from assembling. No injustice has been served.
Then it's not really a right to assemble peacefully, now is it? It's like, the alien and sedition laws during Adam's administration; the law tried to outlaw certain forms of free speech, it didn't outlaw all forms, but it was unconstitutional because it tried to outlaw opposition to the President. Your argument would basically be that the alien and sedition laws were fully constitutional becuase it only prevented certain kinds of free speech, and that is a horrible argument to make.
Their right to assemble has most certainly been impaired, as they're not being allowed to assemble and protest in the manner they see appropriate to get their message across.
It's like saying that being rejected for a gun license is against the second amendment if you don't qualify for owning a gun license under federal or state laws.
You're completely overlooking the fact that, say, a mentally insane poses a direct threat to other people if he has a gun, which too easily violates the definition of liberty this country is founded upon. As I've said time and time again, our rights stop at the direct harm of other people. If protestors tried to occupy a hospital, surgery rooms, etc, I'd say that is no longer in their right. When some protestors basically penned people in a building in DC, I'd say that also crosses the line. I have never once said that you have an unmitigated, full out right to assemble wherever, and however you want; I've said that OWS does not violate those principles, as it does not, and therefor it is unconstitutional to abridge their right to assemble.
And just fyi, I think in terms of pure constitutional law, gun licenses and the like border on unconstitutionality. The problem is that since the second amendment was written, gun and warfare technology have drastically changed. This isn't really applicable to the first amendment; free speech is still the same, so are religions, so are protests and assemblies to protest the government. The second amendment has become outdated due to technology, the first amendment has not. I think the second amendment needs to be drastically updated and modified to fit the reality we currently live in. If you ask me my opinion, I more or less think there should be more gun control; if you ask me what is currently legal to do, under the constitution, I'd say it's unconstitutional and it needs to change. Those are different questions with different answers.
-
Last time I checked it wasn't called "Occupy a park a few blocks away from where Wall St. Actually is" movement. Sorry not trying to be patronizing. The fact is, they weren't occupying wall street at all. So yeah my point still makes a lot of sense.
Maybe becuase they realized actually occupying wall street would be too much of an obstacle for most people, and would actually run into the problems I've described as crossing the line?
Oh, and here's what closing Zuccoti Park gets you:
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/city_braces_for_tens_march_thousands_7UVPq9xNvwwl85gXSbqy5M
The protesters are calling for a massive event aimed at disrupting major parts of the city,” Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson told reporters this afternoon.
....
We will shut down Wall Street,” a post on the movement’s Facebook page said. “We will ring the People’s Bell, and initiate a street carnival in which we rebuild and celebrate the neighborhoods that the Wall Street economy has destroyed.”
...
Other events scheduled for the day include “Occupy the Subways” in all five boroughs at 3 p.m., a takeover of Foley Square at 5 p.m. and another march across the Brooklyn Bridge.
I guess we'll see how big and successful it is tomorrow, but I'd say this kind of protest is actually going to get in people's way more than occupying a park. They were more or less out of the lanes of traffic by setting up in a park, but now they're just going to be forced to protest in the streets, congesting traffic, and causing problems that wouldn't exist if they would've just let them be.
Am I the only one in this country who remembers the lady who swallowed the fly?
-
Now that is illegal.
-
I'm not sure about that..l. Occupy Oakland did a similar thing, remember when they shut down a port basically? No one was arrested for that, and it was fully legal. It's called a protest, and it's a legally protected right in this country.
I just think it's interesting that the movement is actually goin to get more in the way of peoples daily lives now that they aren't being allowed to occupy the park, when the complaint about the occupying the park was them getting in teh way of people's lives and health...
-
You can not block a street in NYC without the proper permit.
-
From that article:
"Wolfson and Deputy Mayor Cas Holloway said all city agencies are on notice and extra cops will be on hand for the massive demonstrations - which could disrupt the morning commute and be among the largest in city history"
They could have said that they'll need the proper permit, so that leaves one of two options: they have the permits to protest, or the Mayor's Office is being smart enough to realize that if you try and stop a protest like this based upon legality, it is not going to end up in your favor. The police, the city, and the mayor's office know this is coming, it's not going to be a surprise (the only legitimate reason I can think behind a permit existing).
Again, constitutional right to peacefully assemble. That case would end up at the Supreme Court. You can ignore it all you want, and try and say it doesn't apply, but it's still there, and a protest like this is most definitely protected.
-
...or they just didn't bother applying for the permit. And there are plenty of people who assemble peacefully in New York City for their own causes, hold parades and do all that kind of stuff and they all have to apply for permits, which is a law. What makes the OWS group so special?
-
...or they just didn't bother applying for the permit. And there are plenty of people who assemble peacefully in New York City for their own causes, hold parades and do all that kind of stuff and they all have to apply for permits, which is a law. What makes the OWS group so special?
Because if they apply they might not get one?
-
I just think it's interesting that the movement is actually goin to get more in the way of peoples daily lives now that they aren't being allowed to occupy the park, when the complaint about the occupying the park was them getting in teh way of people's lives and health...
So to protest the banks and the super-wealthy, they're going to obstruct the commute of mostly regular, lower and middle class people? Typically, you don't want to actively piss off the people whose support you're trying to gain.
-
I'm not necessarily opposed to what they have planned for tomorrow but I'm worried it's just going to make average Joes angry.
-
If they really want to make a statement, a group of a few thousand all need to march from Wall Street to the White House.... Literally
-
I just think it's interesting that the movement is actually goin to get more in the way of peoples daily lives now that they aren't being allowed to occupy the park, when the complaint about the occupying the park was them getting in teh way of people's lives and health...
So to protest the banks and the super-wealthy, they're going to obstruct the commute of mostly regular, lower and middle class people? Typically, you don't want to actively piss off the people whose support you're trying to gain.
No, I thought the Occupying of a park was a good message, and it wasn't obstructionist to most people; but that made the establishment angry, so now they're being basically forced to protest in a more disruptive manner. I find that ironic, or something. Also, since this is New York, how many "commuters" are there? The poorer people are going to walk or use the subway, yes?
There's also what I think people have the right to do, and what I think is stupid. I think these people have the right to Occupy the park as they were doing, and I think they have the right to protest as they plan on doing.
-
...or they just didn't bother applying for the permit. And there are plenty of people who assemble peacefully in New York City for their own causes, hold parades and do all that kind of stuff and they all have to apply for permits, which is a law. What makes the OWS group so special?
:facepalm:
Look, it would really help if you read what I say.
that leaves one of two options: they have the permits to protest, or the Mayor's Office is being smart enough to realize that if you try and stop a protest like this based upon legality, it is not going to end up in your favor.
-
But why would you supply only two options if there are clearly more available? Why does it have to be the two options that favor the OWS protesters the most and paint the city in a bad light?
-
I would take an inconvenience of a protest, if it results in a change in this country. I would like to think most people would agree.
-
But why would you supply only two options if there are clearly more available? Why does it have to be the two options that favor the OWS protesters the most and paint the city in a bad light?
Because we should favor the protestors. It's not painting the city in a bad light.
-
Just came across this, not sure how credible it is.
https://wonkette.com/456282/surprise-homeland-security-coordinates-ows-crackdowns-nationwide
Remember when people were freaking out over the Patriot Act and Homeland Security and all this other conveniently ready-to-go post-9/11 police state stuff, because it would obviously be just a matter of time before the whole apparatus was turned against non-Muslim Americans when they started getting complain-y about the social injustice and economic injustice and income inequality and endless recession and permanent unemployment? That day is now, and has been for some time. But it’s also now confirmed that it’s now, as some Justice Department official screwed up and admitted that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated the riot-cop raids on a dozen major #Occupy Wall Street demonstration camps nationwide yesterday and today.
-
If they really want to make a statement, a group of a few thousand all need to march from Wall Street to the White House.... Literally
Yes. I've been saying this the whole time. The protests should be in Washington.
-
There is a small group marching there IIRC.
-
Also, since this is New York, how many "commuters" are there? The poorer people are going to walk or use the subway, yes?
Other events scheduled for the day include “Occupy the Subways” in all five boroughs at 3 p.m., a takeover of Foley Square at 5 p.m. and another march across the Brooklyn Bridge.
They're going to be occupying the subways apparently. You know, which non-rich people use to commute.
The problem with these protests is that they're just aimless. It's obvious to everyone involved that nothing is actually going to change because of them, and if it's about drawing attention to the income gap, that's not exactly something people weren't already aware of.
-
But why would you supply only two options if there are clearly more available? Why does it have to be the two options that favor the OWS protesters the most and paint the city in a bad light?
I supplied two options because of the quote I originally gave. The mayors office and the police were not saying that the protests would be illegal, they were not saying that the protesters would be protesting illegally. If they were going to try and shut down those protests, they would be warning people it would illegal, and they would be arrested.
Logically, that leaves the two options I gave. The latter one covers what you said, that they didn't even apply for a permit.
-
The problem with these protests is that they're just aimless. It's obvious to everyone involved that nothing is actually going to change because of them, and if it's about drawing attention to the income gap, that's not exactly something people weren't already aware of.
Depending upon how they "occupy" the subways, it may not get in the way for many commuters.
Also, people were unaware of the income gap as it is. There was poll I could find that showed peoples preferred income spread, what they think it is, and what it actually is. Even rich people wished that income was more equally distributed than it really was. People are or were not aware of just how bad it was.
These protests are accomplishing something.
-
These protests aren't accomplishing anything besides making itself less credible the longer it goes on. People have known about the income gap. The phrase "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" has been around for a long time and people have always been saying it. People know.
These protests are just turning into riots now and there is no goal or point to them. Blocking the Brooklyn Bridge has fuck all to do with their "message".
CNN was reporting protesters instigating police today by flicking lit cigarettes and blowing smoke in their faces. It's turning into even more of a zoo than it already was.
-
But why would you supply only two options if there are clearly more available? Why does it have to be the two options that favor the OWS protesters the most and paint the city in a bad light?
I supplied two options because of the quote I originally gave. The mayors office and the police were not saying that the protests would be illegal, they were not saying that the protesters would be protesting illegally. If they were going to try and shut down those protests, they would be warning people it would illegal, and they would be arrested.
Logically, that leaves the two options I gave. The latter one covers what you said, that they didn't even apply for a permit.
No it does not, since you worded it in a way that makes the mayor look he's scared and giving them a special pass.
And it does seem like they've gotten a permit for Foley Square so I suppose this discussion is a bit pointless now.
-
On a brighter note, the eviction could actually have a few beneficial effects for the movement. I've heard arguments saying it's clearing out people who came to OWS just for the fun of it. The people who are serious about change will still remain. As a participant of OWS events myself, I think the focus should be taken off of Zucotti Park... there's still a lot of energy here and it could be directed towards more productive matters.
-
I didn't say scared, I said smart. It would be very stupid to try and quell such a large protest, and you'd end up on the wrong side of the law.
These protests aren't accomplishing anything besides making itself less credible the longer it goes on. People have known about the income gap. The phrase "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" has been around for a long time and people have always been saying it. People know.
Like I said, people knew it was unequal, but they weren't aware of how unequal and bad it was. Demonstrations like this change the national dialogue, and they change priorities. Sometimes in a democracy, you have to do things like this to get your message out, across and to effect national policy.
People knew racism existed, and many knew it was a problem; does that mean MLK shouldn't have marched and protested?
These protests are just turning into riots now and there is no goal or point to them
That's just extreme hyperbole. Riots are what happened in London this year, not peaceful protests. If they're headed in that direction, it's because of actions done by the state (Oaklands response created problems, the eviction from Zuccotti Park). They're goal and point is still quite obvious, I don't know how any can say otherwise. You know what they're complaining about, therefor you know their goal and their point.
-
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/roughly_people_demonstration_gathered_dqucDJs1oJYCdedLgh4rwL
Overall, I gotta say, this is a shameful day for America. We can't even falsely pretend to be a Democracy.
-
Listen I know what you're getting with the freedom to assemble but don't you think purposely disturbing the daily lives of people whose numbers greatly exceed their numbers is crossing the line a bit?
-
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/roughly_people_demonstration_gathered_dqucDJs1oJYCdedLgh4rwL
Overall, I gotta say, this is a shameful day for America. We can't even falsely pretend to be a Democracy.
You really don't understand what has been going on down there do you? Tell me, what does clogging up the Brooklyn Bridge have anything to do with their cause or message? They don't even have a message, its just a general anxiety. But seriously, what does stopping traffic on the Brooklyn bridge say about Wall st? NOTHING. This whole thing has lost its direction if there was even any to begin with.
-
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/roughly_people_demonstration_gathered_dqucDJs1oJYCdedLgh4rwL
Overall, I gotta say, this is a shameful day for America. We can't even falsely pretend to be a Democracy.
You really don't understand what has been going on down there do you? Tell me, what does clogging up the Brooklyn Bridge have anything to do with their cause or message? They don't even have a message, its just a general anxiety. But seriously, what does stopping traffic on the Brooklyn bridge say about Wall st? NOTHING. This whole thing has lost its direction if there was even any to begin with.
Doesn't matter. I mean, I don't think that kind of protest is the smartest thing to do, but it's within their rights. Democracy isn't always the prettiest thing, it's supposed to get ugly from time to time, otherwise you don't have an actual democracy. And while I agree with the movement taking place, what I'm complaining about is far greater than that. And again, they wouldn't be stopping traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge if we had just let them occupy the park they wanted to occupy. Don't you think it's a little silly for you to be supporting that eviction, then complain about the consequences of that eviction?
You really don't understand democracies, do you?
Listen I know what you're getting with the freedom to assemble but don't you think purposely disturbing the daily lives of people whose numbers greatly exceed their numbers is crossing the line a bit?
I think it's perhaps stupid, but I don't think it's illegal or should be illegal. This country is seriously fucked up when people are more concerned about an extra 15 minutes in their already bullshit long commute than the corruption of their government, financial systems, and their future prospects. This kind of complaint is really just selfish and a little immature; people effect my daily life every fucking day I've ever been alive, and a lot of it could be called "disturbing." This country is founded upon a definition of liberty where you are free to do whatever it is you want, so long as you do not harm or take away someone else's rights.
I mean seriously, what is the grave injustice being done to people by seeing another group of people marching, protesting, etc? Some people are disturbed by the sight of gay people, some people are disturbed by my long hair. It reminds me of a "Bullshit!" episode where Penn and Teller interview this guy who complains about how rude other people are being, because they're not all following his exact moral guidelines.
-
Isn't it harmful to a person's livelihood to prevent them from working?
-
Who's being prevented from working?
It's harmful to a person's livelihood to have the corruption that we see.
-
You really don't understand democracies, do you?
Being a condescending ass isn't really a good way to convince people who disagree with you on something. Just saying. Especially when you don't seem to actually know what you're talking about, no matter how much you think you do.
At this point, OWS isn't accomplishing anything by continuing to be obstructive. If they were actually trying to accomplish something with these stunts, that would be fine. The whole message about the income gap has been made clear. There's nothing else they seem to be trying to accomplish.
Protest can be a great tool of democracy. The uprisings in the middle east are a perfect example of people standing up for themselves and not putting up with an oppressive system. OWS may have had a point when it started, but clogging up the Brooklyn Bridge now is pointless.
It's harmful to a person's livelihood to have the corruption that we see.
And obstructing the commute of regular people helps the situation how?
-
Isn't it harmful to a person's livelihood to prevent them from working?
You know, this is a totally valid point. But my natural reaction is to compare this damage to the damage done by the institutions actually occupying Wall Street with their towers and their backdoor connection with the government. In comparison, the little racket the occupiers is NOTHING.
This whole thread consists of people arguing about whether the protesters are good guys or bad guys. Seriously, who gives a fucking shit? A small group of people planned a little gig in Wall Street as a response to a severe threat posed to the general population which is becoming ever clearer since the beginning of the financial crisis (people in Europe are definitely feeling this stronger than ever right now). Not everyone understands the entire picture. I sure don't, and I try to learn more every day. The gig turned out to attract a variety of people. Everybody has a different response to the felt threat. Some feel that simply taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth will fix their problems. Others see our economic system as being unsustainable and participate in discussion groups to exchange ideas. Still others just show up because they want to do something even though they don't have a clue what's going on.
OWS and especially the occupiers camping out are symptoms of America's current social and economic condition. People are fed up with the political system since wherever they try to place their hope and allegiance they end up being disappointed. Skepticism runs deep, and that's one thing that's interesting about OWS. The movement as a whole isn't ready to let a single person or single idea take over.
From what I've seen, though, the "elites" of the movement seem to hold faith in one ideal; democracy (calling it faith may be going too far). They vehemently reject there ever being an unchecked center in the movement. The question is how long this can last, especially with the occupiers being in a chaotic state, having the rug pulled from under them.
If you want to critique this group of people loosely tied together with some catch phrases and a sense of community, critique what is being applied to this symptom; democracy or the ideology of consensus building. There are no good guys or bad guys, just a swing of the pendulum and your emotions.
-
You really don't understand democracies, do you?
Being a condescending ass isn't really a good way to convince people who disagree with you on something. Just saying. Especially when you don't seem to actually know what you're talking about, no matter how much you think you do.
:lol The juxtaposition of your first sentence and your last sentence is awesome.
Also, you'll notice the mirroring of that sentence with the first sentence in his post. See what I did there?
At this point, OWS isn't accomplishing anything by continuing to be obstructive. If they were actually trying to accomplish something with these stunts, that would be fine. The whole message about the income gap has been made clear. There's nothing else they seem to be trying to accomplish.
Protest can be a great tool of democracy. The uprisings in the middle east are a perfect example of people standing up for themselves and not putting up with an oppressive system. OWS may have had a point when it started, but clogging up the Brooklyn Bridge now is pointless.
Have you been reading what I've said? I agree that blocking a bridge isn't very productive for their message - that does not mean I do not think it's not within their rights. I don't think smoking crack is very productive for someone, but I still think they should have the right to smoke crack if they so choose.
There is a point, it's just not the most productive way of getting that point across.
It's harmful to a person's livelihood to have the corruption that we see.
And obstructing the commute of regular people helps the situation how?
Let me ask you this: airline workers are a backbone of our economy, without airline workers, many people would not be able to do very important business trips. If airline workers decide to go on strike, they're negatively effecting those other peoples ability to do business - does that mean we should prohibit and make it illegal for airline workers to go on strike?
There was very little actual obstruction of commuters, just so ya know, so it's really a red herring at any rate.
-
What rights do you keep bringing up? I'm pretty sure the right to assembly is against the government and while the message is anti-policy those being directly affected are not associated with the government. Blocking traffic/streets/bridges turns into individual on individual instead of individual vs government.
-
be careful of the tone this thread is taking. :hat
-
Isn't it harmful to a person's livelihood to prevent them from working?
You know, this is a totally valid point. But my natural reaction is to compare this damage to the damage done by the institutions actually occupying Wall Street with their towers and their backdoor connection with the government. In comparison, the little racket the occupiers is NOTHING.
This whole thread consists of people arguing about whether the protesters are good guys or bad guys. Seriously, who gives a fucking shit? A small group of people planned a little gig in Wall Street as a response to a severe threat posed to the general population which is becoming ever clearer since the beginning of the financial crisis (people in Europe are definitely feeling this stronger than ever right now). Not everyone understands the entire picture. I sure don't, and I try to learn more every day. The gig turned out to attract a variety of people. Everybody has a different response to the felt threat. Some feel that simply taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth will fix their problems. Others see our economic system as being unsustainable and participate in discussion groups to exchange ideas. Still others just show up because they want to do something even though they don't have a clue what's going on.
OWS and especially the occupiers camping out are symptoms of America's current social and economic condition. People are fed up with the political system since wherever they try to place their hope and allegiance they end up being disappointed. Skepticism runs deep, and that's one thing that's interesting about OWS. The movement as a whole isn't ready to let a single person or single idea take over.
From what I've seen, though, the "elites" of the movement seem to hold faith in one ideal; democracy (calling it faith may be going too far). They vehemently reject there ever being an unchecked center in the movement. The question is how long this can last, especially with the occupiers being in a chaotic state, having the rug pulled from under them.
If you want to critique this group of people loosely tied together with some catch phrases and a sense of community, critique what is being applied to this symptom; democracy or the ideology of consensus building. There are no good guys or bad guys, just a swing of the pendulum and your emotions.
Rathma's got a point. An Occupier can disrupt someone's commute, and make a person late for a few days or something. Someone on Wall Street with their hands in government institutions can ruin many people's lives and livelihoods on a much grander scale and with much greater severity. Not that I'm trying to play a game of "Who's causing more harm than whom," but I see it as a good reason OWS shouldn't let up. And hey, this is coming from someone who's been alienated by some of the finer details of their agenda.
-
What rights do you keep bringing up? I'm pretty sure the right to assembly is against the government and while the message is anti-policy those being directly affected are not associated with the government. Blocking traffic/streets/bridges turns into individual on individual instead of individual vs government.
Our rights are agreements between fellow people though. As a society, we give people the right to protest, in return for being given the right to protest. Don't like this movement? Form a counter-protest movement.
I really don't see how you're going to effect the government without effecting individuals, especially in a democracy. Those individuals are voters, voters who determine the government.
-
Fair enough, though I don't see how the actions today would really help their cause.
-
I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.
-
Fair enough, though I don't see how the actions today would really help their cause.
In some of their actions today, I agree with you. I generally think a lot of protests don't do anything. I thought the occupy idea was a much better way to get their message out, much more potent.
Honestly, I'm starting to have suspicions that the people who forced out the occupation wanted this to happen. What they were doing was less offensive to people than what they figured they would force the demonstrators to do. It's fucking coninvingly brilliant, in an evil, undemocratic, authoritarian way. But this is just me being conspiratorially, ironically, so even I don't really believe it.
I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.
If it veered of course, that's because they were forced that way.
-
I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.
How long does it take for a person, trying to be nice and diplomatic about things, to get tired of being ignored or laughed at?
-
I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.
How long does it take for a person, trying to be nice and diplomatic about things, to get tired of being ignored or laughed at?
That's a fair point. And the OWS experience so far has been one or the other, if you look at the news media. It's only politico-nerds like us that give them legitimate attention. :P
-
I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.
How long does it take for a person, trying to be nice and diplomatic about things, to get tired of being ignored or laughed at?
That's a fair point. And the OWS experience so far has been one or the other, if you look at the news media. It's only politico-nerds like us that give them legitimate attention. :P
I was gonna ask: has not listening to a bunch of disenchanted young people ever been a good thing?
-
Well this looks fun:
(https://i.imgur.com/0UoEz.jpg)
-
Well this looks fun:
(https://i.imgur.com/0UoEz.jpg)
Video of the same incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo
Apparently it was forced "out of concern for [the officers'] own safety after they were surrounded by students." What a load of shit. There's clearly no harm being presented by the protesters, they're sitting on the ground for fuck's sake.
This is actually pretty hard to watch.
-
I came here to post that. Does anyone know more about the situation?
-
That's horrible.
-
Protect and Serve!!
Check this out:
Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street
By Jonathan Larsen and Ken Olshansky, MSNBC TV
A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.”
The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.
CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.
According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”
The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”
[...]
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to comment on the memo. But he responded to its characterization of Republicans as defenders of Wall Street by saying, “My understanding is that President Obama is the single largest recipient of donations from Wall Street.”
On “Up” Saturday, Obama campaign adviser Anita Dunn responded by saying that the majority of the president’s re-election campaign is fueled by small donors. She rejected the suggestion that the president himself is too close to Wall Street, saying “If that’s the case, why were tough financial reforms passed over party line Republican opposition?”
The CLGC memo raises another issue that it says should be of concern to the financial industry -- that OWS might find common cause with the Tea Party. “Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protestors and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism,” the memo says. “…This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season.”
The memo outlines a 60-day plan to conduct surveys and research on OWS and its supporters so that Wall Street companies will be prepared to conduct a media campaign in response to OWS. Wall Street companies “likely will not be the best spokespeople for their own cause,” according to the memo. “A big challenge is to demonstrate that these companies still have political strength and that making them a political target will carry a severe political cost.”
The memo indicates that CLGC would research who has contributed financial backing to OWS, noting that, “Media reports have speculated about associations with George Soros and others.”
"It will be vital,” the memo says, “to understand who is funding it and what their backgrounds and motives are. If we can show that they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent it will undermine their credibility in a profound way.”
That bolded part is hilarious. Tough financial reforms, my ass :lol
-
They would've been tough had a certain MA senator not killed it... :yeahright:
-
Well, anyway, that wasn't the point of the article I just couldn't resist the easy jab. On one hand I'm glad OWS has got these people worried enough to try to start this "campaign", but on the other hand I'm concerned about what something like that might do.
Edit: I think the President should address the public about these police abuses. There's seriously something new every day.
-
What could it do? It's out in the open now, isn't it?
-
What could it do? It's out in the open now, isn't it?
Yeah, but everyone's not going to know about it, and people are susceptible to propaganda. I think it's unwise to underestimate what large lobbying and PR firms can do to mold public opinion.
Chris Hedges always seems to have a flair for the dramatic in his writing, but I liked this piece on OWS (https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_what_revolution_looks_like_20111115/).
Edit: Okay, one more link.
Here's an Open Letter to UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi (https://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/), written by an assistant professor at the school.
-
They would've been tough had a certain MA senator not killed it... :yeahright:
Who exactly?
-
They would've been tough had a certain MA senator not killed it... :yeahright:
Who exactly?
Scott Brown. He took out all the stuff that actually limited what Wall Street bankers could do with the money that came into the bank's hands, such as hedge funds. I remember because I was following the bill intensely.
-
Well this looks fun:
(https://i.imgur.com/0UoEz.jpg)
Video of the same incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo
Apparently it was forced "out of concern for [the officers'] own safety after they were surrounded by students." What a load of shit. There's clearly no harm being presented by the protesters, they're sitting on the ground for fuck's sake.
This is actually pretty hard to watch.
That's insane.
I'm waiting for some group to just snap... A couple hundred students bum rushing a few dozen offers and kicking the ever living shit out of them. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.
-
That's insane.
I'm waiting for some group to just snap... A couple hundred students bum rushing a few dozen offers and kicking the ever living shit out of them. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.
I can understand why they didn't, though. The cops are well armed and prepared for a fight, and if students merely encircling them gave them the excuse to pepper spray at will, things could ended up being really nasty for any students who tried to start a brawl.
-
Not to mention terrible P/R for OWS. Those lobbyists would have a field day.
-
So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.
-
(https://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg62/scaled.php?server=62&filename=1321824788327.jpg&res=iphone)
-
So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.
-
Decide for yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BjnR7xET7Uo
-
So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.
As previously mentioned, the defense given by the Chancellor who apparently authorized the use of pepper spray, (no word from the actual cop himself, for obvious reasons) was that the students had encircled the officers and were threatening their safety. From there, I think you can look at the video and see if there is any real safety threat to the cops at all. What else do you need to draw a conclusion?
-
Not to mention terrible P/R for OWS. Those lobbyists would have a field day.
And the opposite is good PR for OWS.
-
So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.
As previously mentioned, the defense given by the Chancellor who apparently authorized the use of pepper spray, (no word from the actual cop himself, for obvious reasons) was that the students had encircled the officers and were threatening their safety. From there, I think you can look at the video and see if there is any real safety threat to the cops at all. What else do you need to draw a conclusion?
Something to blame on the protesters.
-
So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.
As previously mentioned, the defense given by the Chancellor who apparently authorized the use of pepper spray, (no word from the actual cop himself, for obvious reasons) was that the students had encircled the officers and were threatening their safety. From there, I think you can look at the video and see if there is any real safety threat to the cops at all. What else do you need to draw a conclusion?
Just wondering if there was any provocation, which seems to be left out of a lot of news stories regarding these "police bruality" incidents. This one does look pretty terrible for the cops, though.
-
So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.
As previously mentioned, the defense given by the Chancellor who apparently authorized the use of pepper spray, (no word from the actual cop himself, for obvious reasons) was that the students had encircled the officers and were threatening their safety. From there, I think you can look at the video and see if there is any real safety threat to the cops at all. What else do you need to draw a conclusion?
Just wondering if there was any provocation, which seems to be left out of a lot of news stories regarding these "police bruality" incidents. This one does look pretty terrible for the cops, though.
The point of a protest (not just this one) is to let the man know that you want/need positive change. Throughout history, if protesters left every time police asked them to move, nothing would ever had been accomplished. It's not like these kids were rioting and destroying campus property, I find it hard to believe they were "threatening" a group of armed cops in riot gear. The police define the chanting of things like "we will not give up" as if they were saying "we have knives and guns that we plan on using". Of course the cops felt threatened... I would be too if I were standing in the middle of a few hundred pissed off young adults. Shooting a pepper spray at point blank range in the faces of student who were SITTING DOWN and not being a threat to anything other than a campus golf cart that may have needed to get by is not only unprofessional, but completely uncalled for. I'm asking this hypothetically, say the officers used tasers instead of spray, would your opinion be any different?
-
Huh? I just said this was a terrible move by the cops, why throw hypotheticals out there?
-
So according to an expert on American politics I overheard at the Cheesecake Factory tonight, the Jews are behind OWS. Also legalize everything.
-
You should've gotten their attention and then:
(https://i.imgur.com/XJyGY.gif)
-
:P
Frankly it was pretty annoying. He was saying all this stuff pretty loudly too, but he didn't sound like a belligerent drunk because it actually sounded like he was totally self-aware. He also happened to be saying a lot of this stuff to his wife and kid, which gave me a sick feeling in my stomach.
Oh, and Muslims have taken over our government, apparently.
-
So, I am entering this thread 31 pages in, and I have been out of the country all the time this stuff went down and am really only barely aware of the Occupy movement.
Can anyone succinctly summarize their demands? To my casual glance it seems like a "we don't like this" movement.
rumborak
-
They don't like the idea of some people having more things than others.
There's obviously a lot more to it than that, alot of stuff that I agree with, but it boils down to that.
There's also a lot about how the political system is geared towards those with a lot of money, sprinkled with some juicy corporate conspiracy theories.
-
The basic idea is to end or at least severely shrink economic inequality. The specific demands seem more group specific and are very liquid in their definitions. Someone like Scheavo would be better to explain in a little more detail. I'm curious to hear your opinion on the whole thing, though.
-
I would definitely need to hear some concrete criticisms/demands. Complaining in times of hardship is of course not particularly surprising.
rumborak
-
They don't like the idea of some people having more things than others.
Are you watching Fox News or something? They're sick of some people gaming the system so that they get more than their fair share of things, and other people are left with the scraps.
They're against bail out of wall street, and our constant fellating of all their demands. One thing I know they're basically all against is the big bank bail outs, and how there hasn't been one person held accountable for the financial crisis we're in. They don't like that corporations have been basically declared people in Citizens United, and most of them want money out of politics. Basically, the 1% in this country have been doing better and better for years, despite our working harder, while we've seen our wages and our benefits decrease. Now, when we're in a financial crisis, Republicans are against raising any money from these same people, and instead pushing the burder more onto the same families are who doing worse now than they were 20 years ago.
In two basic ways, I'd say it's anti-corruption and anti-greed. It's not anti-business, it's not anti-captalism, it's not anti-money, and it's not demonizing people who succeed due to their own merit; it's about making the system fair enough so that people who have the same merit will be rewarded equally. There may be some people at the protests who are all of those things, but that doesn't seem to be the general consensus.
-
Dude, sarcasm? I'm probably less-than-ideally informed, but I know it goes waaaay deeper than that.
-
Dude, sarcasm? I'm probably less-than-ideally informed, but I know it goes waaaay deeper than that.
I don't know why people think sarcasm carries on the internet.
-
I know we are in P/R, but sometimes we can be a little less serious, surely. Figured it would have been reasonably obvious that I was kidding given the context.
-
To be fair, Riceball is correct about some of the conspiracy theory stuff. It does run rampant for example with their whole bit about ending the Fed. I know Scheavo that you've said they're against the Fed itself, but it sounds like a lot of them also just don't like the idea of a central bank, which is plainly ridiculous.
-
I seriously don't think that end the Fed stuff is anywhere near a universal view. Also important: The movement is decidedly nonpartisan.
-
In two basic ways, I'd say it's anti-corruption and anti-greed. It's not anti-business, it's not anti-captalism, it's not anti-money, and it's not demonizing people who succeed due to their own merit; it's about making the system fair enough so that people who have the same merit will be rewarded equally.
But don't we live in a system that does reward people who have that same merit? Convincing yourself you have the ability to succeed and actually succeeding are two different animals and the people that actually have the ability to succeed either have already done so or are in the process of doing so. It seems easy for these protesters to claim that they're being preventing from rising up when in fact it may possibly be their lack of either motivation, capital (obviously a big problem) or just lack of ability to actually succeed at the level you want to (hey we're not all geniuses).
-
In two basic ways, I'd say it's anti-corruption and anti-greed. It's not anti-business, it's not anti-captalism, it's not anti-money, and it's not demonizing people who succeed due to their own merit; it's about making the system fair enough so that people who have the same merit will be rewarded equally.
But don't we live in a system that does reward people who have that same merit?
Not really.
ability to actually succeed at the level you want to (hey we're not all geniuses).
It's not about being everyone being a millionaire, but people being able to own their home, afford health care, food, a good education for their kids, and have some time to relax and be sane. It's about the next generation facing less opportunities than the last one. Those things are being actively fought by corruptive forces in our government.
-
I know we are in P/R, but sometimes we can be a little less serious, surely. Figured it would have been reasonably obvious that I was kidding given the context.
If this wasn't on the internet, I probably would've gotten in. On the internet, it really is too hard to tell when some people are being serious.
-
The two officers that did the pepper spraying have been put on administrative leave.
-
In two basic ways, I'd say it's anti-corruption and anti-greed. It's not anti-business, it's not anti-captalism, it's not anti-money, and it's not demonizing people who succeed due to their own merit; it's about making the system fair enough so that people who have the same merit will be rewarded equally.
But don't we live in a system that does reward people who have that same merit?
Not really.
ability to actually succeed at the level you want to (hey we're not all geniuses).
It's not about being everyone being a millionaire, but people being able to own their home, afford health care, food, a good education for their kids, and have some time to relax and be sane. It's about the next generation facing less opportunities than the last one. Those things are being actively fought by corruptive forces in our government.
Are we living in the same country? Sure it's not a walk in the park to obtain some of those things but that's because it requires a little bit of work. You're making the situation seem a lot more dire and oppressive than it actually is.
-
In two basic ways, I'd say it's anti-corruption and anti-greed. It's not anti-business, it's not anti-captalism, it's not anti-money, and it's not demonizing people who succeed due to their own merit; it's about making the system fair enough so that people who have the same merit will be rewarded equally.
But don't we live in a system that does reward people who have that same merit?
Not really.
ability to actually succeed at the level you want to (hey we're not all geniuses).
It's not about being everyone being a millionaire, but people being able to own their home, afford health care, food, a good education for their kids, and have some time to relax and be sane. It's about the next generation facing less opportunities than the last one. Those things are being actively fought by corruptive forces in our government.
Are we living in the same country? Sure it's not a walk in the park to obtain some of those things but that's because it requires a little bit of work. You're making the situation seem a lot more dire and oppressive than it actually is.
I don't mean to keep challenging you, but the area I live in would disagree with you. In my part of CT, people can not find jobs. I had friends who graduated 2 years ago, and are still working the same job the had when they were in college. Friends that have engineering, accounting, and marketing degrees. There are many families out here who are virtually fucked. I know of several families in which both parents had well paying jobs (70k per year +) who have lost or are about to lose everything. People out here would kill for a job paying even just 10 dollars an hour, and there are almost none to be found.
This isn't directed toward you, but many people not in favor of OWS. There is this idea that people don't want to work as hard as they should, or are being lazy when it comes to getting their life in order. This may be true for some, but not the majority. How can you tell people to find jobs, when most employers are looking to get rid of them? It's not right that 1 in 6 families are now unable to obtain healthy meals.
-
Good points, Chino. Not to mention the numbers do confirm that wealth is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, and that has nothing to do with people "not trying hard enough."
-
I think a general summation of the protests can be as simple as this:
Our country is broken. Our political system is broken. Our financial system is broken. Progress is needed in some form or fashion to fix it.
-
I seriously don't think that end the Fed stuff is anywhere near a universal view. Also important: The movement is decidedly nonpartisan.
I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. From what I've seen most Conservatives (who tend to be Republicans) scoff at it and most Liberals (who tend to be Democrats) support it or at least don't ridicule it. Casting it as "decidedly nonpartisan" is a bit misleading, I think.
The movement seems to be a mostly liberal (and thus mostly Democratic leaning) uprising.
I'm not saying that's good, bad or indifferent, that's just what it looks like to me.
-
I disagree completely. Yes, it espouses many traditionally liberal themes but I know there's a committee within the group (https://ampedstatus.org/welcome-to-the-ows-99-movement-we-will-not-be-co-opted-working-group/) dedicated to prevent a co-option by the powers that be. I think these protesters are smart enough to prevent OWS from turning into a vehicle for Democratic support. Here's an opinion piece that examines it in more depth. (https://www.salon.com/2011/11/19/heres_what_attempted_co_option_of_ows_looks_like/singleton/)
-
I think the Occupy people probably think of themselves as non-partisan, but most outside observers consider them left-leaning.
-
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/arts-post/201111/Images/pepper-spray-cop3.jpg?uuid=03QMUBRBEeGQSB9TUhh-7Q)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/arts-post/201111/Images/pepper-spray-cop4.jpg?uuid=0425jhRBEeGQSB9TUhh-7Q)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/arts-post/201111/Images/pepper-spray-cop5.jpg?uuid=07XqihRBEeGQSB9TUhh-7Q)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/arts-post/201111/Images/pepper-spray-cop10.jpeg?uuid=DFzkmBRVEeGQSB9TUhh-7Q)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/arts-post/201111/Images/pepper-spray-cop8.jpg?uuid=0-rqjBRBEeGQSB9TUhh-7Q)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/arts-post/201111/Images/pepper-spray-cop9.jpg?uuid=0_xhwhRBEeGQSB9TUhh-7Q)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/arts-post/201111/Images/pepper-spray-cop11.jpeg?uuid=DJuDTBRVEeGQSB9TUhh-7Q)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/arts-post/201111/Images/pepper-spray-cop2.jpg?uuid=1CHOxhRBEeGQSB9TUhh-7Q)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/arts-post/201111/Images/pepper-spray-cop1.jpg?uuid=1A5o6hRBEeGQSB9TUhh-7Q)
"Upset is nothing for real men. We just laughs at it!"
:lol
-
I think the Occupy people probably think of themselves as non-partisan, but most outside observers consider them left-leaning.
Probably, but left leaning =/= Democrat.
-
I don't like this OWS movement for what it is. I do, however, agree with a lot of points being made. That we need change and the whole thing. There is undoubtedly a problem with the system.
Also, there is an article at CNN.com saying how the super committee has failed to come up with a debt reduction plan. Along with that the markets took a huge nose dive. The problem is with Washington and their failure to lead this country anywhere good. I think a huge movement needs to head down to Washington. This is ridiculous.
-
:rollin :rollin :rollin @ those pictures
-
To be fair, Riceball is correct about some of the conspiracy theory stuff. It does run rampant for example with their whole bit about ending the Fed. I know Scheavo that you've said they're against the Fed itself, but it sounds like a lot of them also just don't like the idea of a central bank, which is plainly ridiculous.
At last week's Alternative Banking working group meeting I was specifically at the table discussing the Fed, so I can give a picture of what sort of stuff are being deliberated (here's a long version of the meeting's notes: https://www.nycga.net/groups/alternative-banking/forum/topic/1113-discussion-the-fed/)
- The Fed has two roles, setting monetary policy and regulating banks. In other countries bank regulation is the responsibility of an institution separate from the central bank. Should the Fed's roles be separated?
- Who exactly owns the Fed?
- Should the Fed be expanding or contracting the money supply?
- Is the NY Fed completely privately owned?
There were a few anti-Fed type people but that definitely wasn't the center of discussion. Very interesting stuff.
-
I don't like this OWS movement for what it is. I do, however, agree with a lot of points being made. That we need change and the whole thing. There is undoubtedly a problem with the system.
Also, there is an article at CNN.com saying how the super committee has failed to come up with a debt reduction plan. Along with that the markets took a huge nose dive. The problem is with Washington and their failure to lead this country anywhere good. I think a huge movement needs to head down to Washington. This is ridiculous.
It's all circular though; the reason Washington can't lead this country is because Congress and a bunch of other folks are in the pockets of big business.
-
LOL @ those pictures
-
I think a huge movement needs to head down to Washington.
I'd totally be up for an Occupy Washington
Congress and a bunch of other folks are in the pockets of big business.
... to address exactly this.
-
(https://static.hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/pepper-spray-cop-27.jpeg)
(https://static.hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/pepper-spray-cop-24.jpg)
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150394611004091.366589.577414090&type=3
-
fuck
-
I think a huge movement needs to head down to Washington.
I'd totally be up for an Occupy Washington
Congress and a bunch of other folks are in the pockets of big business.
... to address exactly this.
Yes, because this whole time I always felt this should be the focus 100%. I was never agreeing with the whole screw the rich 1% part. Let people be rich, don't let the rich control all the politics by throwing money around though.
-
I'm not sure this is actually a good comparison, but someone posted in on Facebook and I'm sure it'll create some discussion.
(https://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/376187_10150366967676556_684441555_8395465_1077379149_n.jpg)
-
I mean that's a fair point. Neo-Nazi marches as well.
-
I disagree completely. Yes, it espouses many traditionally liberal themes but I know there's a committee within the group (https://ampedstatus.org/welcome-to-the-ows-99-movement-we-will-not-be-co-opted-working-group/) dedicated to prevent a co-option by the powers that be. I think these protesters are smart enough to prevent OWS from turning into a vehicle for Democratic support. Here's an opinion piece that examines it in more depth. (https://www.salon.com/2011/11/19/heres_what_attempted_co_option_of_ows_looks_like/singleton/)
I think you misread my post. I am not saying they have been co-opted by anyone. What I am saying is generally speaking the movement is, by and large, supported by liberals, and not really supported by conservatives. And that's mostly because you won't find many liberals among the rich. Oh, yeah, sure there are a few liberals scattered among the rich, but for the most part, the rich tend to be conservative. This movement is targeting the rich.
You claimed it was non-partisan. It may be attempting to cast itself as non-partisan, but the fight for equality in terms of wealth distribution in the United States is anything BUT a non-partisan conflict. It's pretty much one of the defining issues of the partisan divide we're in. Whether or not the movement itself is trying to prevent being co-opted by anyone has no bearing on who is supporting it and who is not. And that's all I was saying.
I agree that they have not (yet) been co-opted by either party. And I doubt they WILL be co-opted in the same way that the Tea Party was co-opted by the Republicans, and there's a good reason for that. I don't think either party wants to get too close to this, because BOTH parties reek of rampant corporatism anyway.
-
I don't think that's true, or at least not entirely. I'm pretty well off and also pretty liberal (and actually fairly farther to the left than most P/R posters save a few), and most of my wealthy friends are liberal as well, and almost everyone in or near my social circle for most of my life have been Democrat-only voters, except maybe one or two families (and one of those families was actually probably closer to middle class than upper-middle class). I'd say the conservative rich stand out more because they're richer; most of the liberal wealthy I've met have been within the upper 20% or so. And on the other side of things are the conservative poor, who will stand by the conservative rich through hell and hounds (or whatever that expression is), because they believe government is the problem, not the wealthy.
Although - and once again to make a broad generalization - it might have something to do with the fact that I and most of the people I've known in my life have been Jewish.
-
Don't mean to make this into some emotion-driven thing, but seems police violence has gotten a notch more out of hand than previously:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303025_296175273738513_113544412001601_972383_91080753_n.jpg)
Like, did they beat him with a police baton or something?
-
If you do some -what I call- "opposition research" such as watching Fox News for a week you'll see what I mean. Almost universally, Republicans/Conservatives castigate the protestors as "lazy apathetic hippies and filthy lowlifes" who "should occupy a job" instead of "pissing in the park" (I'm exaggerating, but you get my point) and from what I've observed of conservative commentary from the talking heads on TV (Hannity, Bill O, et al) they don't have anything good to say about the movement. Contrast that with the liberal talking heads on TV (Matthews, Olbermann, et al) and they are almost universally in support of the movement and rarely speak ill of it.
Also on a side note just about every Jewish person I know (and I know a TON of them, most of them are clients of mine) are liberal, so you might not have an objective group from which to draw your experience, Super Dude.
-
Yeah, the police are getting out of hand in a few places. That really bugs the shit out of me.
-
If you do some -what I call- "opposition research" such as watching Fox News for a week you'll see what I mean. Almost universally, Republicans/Conservatives castigate the protestors as "lazy apathetic hippies and filthy lowlifes" who "should occupy a job" instead of "pissing in the park" (I'm exaggerating, but you get my point) and from what I've observed of conservative commentary from the talking heads on TV (Hannity, Bill O, et al) they don't have anything good to say about the movement. Contrast that with the liberal talking heads on TV (Matthews, Olbermann, et al) and they are almost universally in support of the movement and rarely speak ill of it.
Also on a side note just about every Jewish person I know (and I know a TON of them, most of them are clients of mine) are liberal, so you might not have an objective group from which to draw your experience, Super Dude.
To that first bit, I don't disagree. But I don't think it's a rich-poor divide, because like I said, there are poor conservatives, like the genius I overheard at the Cheesecake Factory last night, who seemed more akin to redneckdom and yet was talking about those lazy, spoiled OWS kids who are under "mind control" by "the Jews."
And yeah, that probably has a lot to do with it. :lol Although to be fair, I know a fair few Jews who are conservatives as well. It tends to be that the more religious and observant they get, the more conservative they are, and the more Westernized, assimilated, and whatnot they are (like myself), the more liberal they are. In fact you'll find the American and Israeli right and American and Israeli left have a lot in common with each other ideologically.
-
Off the top of my head I'd say I have about two dozen Jewish clients and not one of them is conservative, and every single one of them is loaded, but I think that's a ridiculous stereotype anyway. My clients are loaded because they worked hard and were smart, it's got nothing to do with their heritage.
I have yet to meet a single conservative person who supports the OWS movement.
-
Don't mean to make this into some emotion-driven thing, but seems police violence has gotten a notch more out of hand than previously:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303025_296175273738513_113544412001601_972383_91080753_n.jpg)
Like, did they beat him with a police baton or something?
You know, you throw pictures around like that with no context. This is an example of you trying to push a bias around. Where did this picture come from? This could have been taken from something 5 years ago in another country for all I know. How do we know this picture has anything to do with the OWS movement? Just saying, you should back up stuff like this otherwise its on the same level as any other random Facebook post that shows up all the time.
-
From what I understand, he tried to steal an Officer's hat. Granted, a blow to the head is maybe more than the punishment due, but when you're lunging and grabbing at a police officer, that's what you should expect to receive.
-
You know, you throw pictures around like that with no context. This is an example of you trying to push a bias around. Where did this picture come from? This could have been taken from something 5 years ago in another country for all I know. How do we know this picture has anything to do with the OWS movement? Just saying, you should back up stuff like this otherwise its on the same level as any other random Facebook post that shows up all the time.
You haven't seen a picture of this guy before? This is at least the fifth time I have (newspaper, internet, etc.). Just sayin.
-
You know, you throw pictures around like that with no context. This is an example of you trying to push a bias around. Where did this picture come from? This could have been taken from something 5 years ago in another country for all I know. How do we know this picture has anything to do with the OWS movement? Just saying, you should back up stuff like this otherwise its on the same level as any other random Facebook post that shows up all the time.
You haven't seen a picture of this guy before? This is at least the fifth time I have (newspaper, internet, etc.). Just sayin.
No I haven't seen this picture before. Also, with the huge text written underneath it, it's obviously supposed to be some kind of propaganda of sorts for the movement. For lack of a better term. Getting your head bashed in by the police has pretty obviously NOT been the norm with the way these protests have been going. So I'm going to go out on a limb and say this guy was probably provoking the police to some extent at least. The picture isn't so black and white as people want it to be.
-
Cops don't do anything half-assed. From their perspective if it's worth doing, it's worth doing with overwhelming force. Unfortunately, that means that if they decide to clear you out of a park, there's not going to be much space between "move on along and go home" and a blow to the head with Mr. Nightstick. It's the nature of the game, and that kid should have been prepared for it.
Add to that, I'd take what he got before the CS anyday.
-
Randall Munroe made a massive chart detailing/comparing costs, incomes, government & corporate expenditures, etc. It's pretty cool: https://xkcd.com/980/huge/
-
Randall Munroe made a massive chart detailing/comparing costs, incomes, government & corporate expenditures, etc. It's pretty cool: https://xkcd.com/980/huge/
That is huge.
-
Off the top of my head I'd say I have about two dozen Jewish clients and not one of them is conservative, and every single one of them is loaded, but I think that's a ridiculous stereotype anyway. My clients are loaded because they worked hard and were smart, it's got nothing to do with their heritage.
I have yet to meet a single conservative person who supports the OWS movement.
I have a Jewish friend, rather less well off, and talking to him is like talking to PraXis. And it's all he ever talks about.
-
Don't mean to make this into some emotion-driven thing, but seems police violence has gotten a notch more out of hand than previously:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303025_296175273738513_113544412001601_972383_91080753_n.jpg)
Like, did they beat him with a police baton or something?
You know, you throw pictures around like that with no context. This is an example of you trying to push a bias around. Where did this picture come from? This could have been taken from something 5 years ago in another country for all I know. How do we know this picture has anything to do with the OWS movement? Just saying, you should back up stuff like this otherwise its on the same level as any other random Facebook post that shows up all the time.
I'm not trying to push anything. I just happen to find these on Facebook, and paste them when I damn well please.
-
(https://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1497/copzw.jpg)
-
Off the top of my head I'd say I have about two dozen Jewish clients and not one of them is conservative, and every single one of them is loaded, but I think that's a ridiculous stereotype anyway. My clients are loaded because they worked hard and were smart, it's got nothing to do with their heritage.
I have yet to meet a single conservative person who supports the OWS movement.
I have a Jewish friend, rather less well off, and talking to him is like talking to PraXis. And it's all he ever talks about.
SD, you can do without the comparison
-
You know, you throw pictures around like that with no context. This is an example of you trying to push a bias around. Where did this picture come from? This could have been taken from something 5 years ago in another country for all I know. How do we know this picture has anything to do with the OWS movement? Just saying, you should back up stuff like this otherwise its on the same level as any other random Facebook post that shows up all the time.
You haven't seen a picture of this guy before? This is at least the fifth time I have (newspaper, internet, etc.). Just sayin.
No I haven't seen this picture before. Also, with the huge text written underneath it, it's obviously supposed to be some kind of propaganda of sorts for the movement. For lack of a better term. Getting your head bashed in by the police has pretty obviously NOT been the norm with the way these protests have been going. So I'm going to go out on a limb and say this guy was probably provoking the police to some extent at least. The picture isn't so black and white as people want it to be.
This picture is pretty recent, it's been in the newspapers and is a direct result of police overreacting.
-
Randall Munroe made a massive chart detailing/comparing costs, incomes, government & corporate expenditures, etc. It's pretty cool: https://xkcd.com/980/huge/
Huge png of it: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2989349/980-r2.png
-
Obama is tearing the republicans a new asshole in the speach he is currently giving.
-
That's nice, though it still won't stop them from not giving a shit.
-
The problem is that neither side gives a shit about the other. Broken system is broken.
-
Off the top of my head I'd say I have about two dozen Jewish clients and not one of them is conservative, and every single one of them is loaded, but I think that's a ridiculous stereotype anyway. My clients are loaded because they worked hard and were smart, it's got nothing to do with their heritage.
I have yet to meet a single conservative person who supports the OWS movement.
I have a Jewish friend, rather less well off, and talking to him is like talking to PraXis. And it's all he ever talks about.
SD, you can do without the comparison
My bad, although I meant in the sense that he is very firmly against any sort of government intervention and very strongly believes in property rights, much like PraXis. I didn't mean to suggest I was comparing his demeanor or anything, just his specific political outlook.
tl;dr: I meant in terms of his political views, no offense intended.
-
Off the top of my head I'd say I have about two dozen Jewish clients and not one of them is conservative, and every single one of them is loaded, but I think that's a ridiculous stereotype anyway. My clients are loaded because they worked hard and were smart, it's got nothing to do with their heritage.
I have yet to meet a single conservative person who supports the OWS movement.
I have a Jewish friend, rather less well off, and talking to him is like talking to PraXis. And it's all he ever talks about.
SD, you can do without the comparison
My bad, although I meant in the sense that he is very firmly against any sort of government intervention and very strongly believes in property rights, much like PraXis. I didn't mean to suggest I was comparing his demeanor or anything, just his specific political outlook.
tl;dr: I meant in terms of his political views, no offense intended.
Oh, my bad then :-*
-
double post
-
(https://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1497/copzw.jpg)
Holy fucking shit I laughed so hard at this I think I peed a little bit :rollin
-
Off the top of my head I'd say I have about two dozen Jewish clients and not one of them is conservative, and every single one of them is loaded, but I think that's a ridiculous stereotype anyway. My clients are loaded because they worked hard and were smart, it's got nothing to do with their heritage.
I have yet to meet a single conservative person who supports the OWS movement.
I have a Jewish friend, rather less well off, and talking to him is like talking to PraXis. And it's all he ever talks about.
SD, you can do without the comparison
My bad, although I meant in the sense that he is very firmly against any sort of government intervention and very strongly believes in property rights, much like PraXis. I didn't mean to suggest I was comparing his demeanor or anything, just his specific political outlook.
tl;dr: I meant in terms of his political views, no offense intended.
No offense taken, I know what you meant. :)
I'm not against any government intervention, I just want limited federal intervention. For example, instead of the FDA, separate food and drugs, but understand that the FDA is operated by lobbyists such as Monsanto and Big Pharma.
Take the Department of Energy... completely useless.. we're more dependent on foreign oil than ever, and the point of the DoEnergy was to make us less dependent.. they also handle our nukes now... not sure why, that belongs to the DOD.
Same with the Dept of Edu... our kids are worse off than before it.. get rid of the fed dept and let states handle it.
My focus on the federal reserve is pretty simple... to get rid of all the vampires, you have to kill Dracula. ;)
-
I guess, but instead of simply tearing everything down, why not just build them back up in a better form? Or just try to improve what's already there? For all the bad, good things come out of those good federal departments as well.
The deal with my friend though is pretty much no more taxes ever, no more D of Education, and zero safety net. Which is somewhat ironic considering that given his socioeconomic status and what I know about him personally (we've been friends almost our entire lives), he's more dependent on any of those things than I am, and I'm very strongly in support of keeping those things.
-
People are probably sick of seeing these, but this one is the best.
(https://i.imgur.com/X6qtn.jpg)
-
I think I'll just leave this here... https://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/11/fox_news_megyn_kelly_calls_pep.html
-
I heard about that.
I just don't understand.
-
Wow.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Q5XZd.jpg)
https://imgur.com/a/ltMqM#6
-
What about this story?
https://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/21/pregant-woman-blasted-with-pepper-spray-by-spd-reportedly-miscarries
-
What about this story?
https://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/21/pregant-woman-blasted-with-pepper-spray-by-spd-reportedly-miscarries
I wonder if the far right will treat that like a murder?
-
What about this story?
https://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/21/pregant-woman-blasted-with-pepper-spray-by-spd-reportedly-miscarries
I feel really bad for that lady, but I can't help but think that itnwas very poor judgement on her part to attend an event like that.
-
Sort of a random thing I was thinking about after seeing tick's thread: are we perhaps moving back to a time like the 19th century, when urban workers had low pay and long hours? 'Cause I think that would illuminate much about this conflict, the growing wealth gap and all that.
-
Movement has definitely gone to complete shit: https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t2
Stupid, stupid people.
-
What about this story?
https://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/21/pregant-woman-blasted-with-pepper-spray-by-spd-reportedly-miscarries
'Story' and The Stranger hardly go together. It is BS anyway:
https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016829484_occupybaby23m.html
Fox has declined to provide medical records supporting her claim that she had a miscarriage five days after being hit, and her family has cast doubt on the claim.
In an interview Tuesday at the Occupy Seattle encampment on Capitol Hill, Fox said she had three ultrasound pictures of her fetus in her tent, but declined to show them to reporters.
She also said she did not plan to pick up medical records at Harborview Medical Center that could document the miscarriage until after a planned memorial service Saturday, and she declined to sign a waiver allowing reporters to obtain the documents independently. She said the baby was a girl, to be named Miracle.
"I have some stuff to do today," said Fox, who described herself as a homeless former foster child. "I have to get some stuff done."
Fox's former foster mother, Lark Stebbins, said Fox called her from Harborview after one recent protest but did not mention she was pregnant.
Stebbins said Fox, whom she parented for 10 years, has a pattern of exaggeration. "My daughter is a compulsive liar," Stebbins said. "She's a wannabe drama queen."
"I have some stuff to do today" :lol
-
Movement has definitely gone to complete shit: https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t2
Stupid, stupid people.
... :facepalm:
-
Movement has definitely gone to complete shit: https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t2
Stupid, stupid people.
That is the worst thing they could have done....
-
crapitalist
-
crapitalist
trololol
-
Movement has definitely gone to complete shit: https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t2
Stupid, stupid people.
i support the movement but really? occupying retailers? people want to buy things, that has nothing to do with corporate greed and money's influence on government. hopefully they don't take that too far
-
Oh boy.
-
Movement has definitely gone to complete shit: https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t2
Stupid, stupid people.
Um, what do you find stupid about it? Actually occupying the stores is a stupid move (private property), but the general economic message they gave is accurate. Seriously don't tell me that Christmas hasn't gotten crazy lately, people die during Black Friday getting trampled, or attacked for gifts. If we treated Christmas differently, and didt buy a bunch of things on credit cards, nor buy gift cards and cheap shit at big national chains, that would effect the market make up.
Movement has definitely gone to complete shit: https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t2
Stupid, stupid people.
i support the movement but really? occupying retailers? people want to buy things, that has nothing to do with corporate greed and money's influence on government. hopefully they don't take that too far
Sure it does, it's basic economics. We purchase shit from Walmart, a purchase which ends up helping the 1% more than other alternatives, or possible alternatives. Consumerism is very much a role in why corporations are so big, and why they have the money to corrupt our government.
-
Movement has definitely gone to complete shit: https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t2
Stupid, stupid people.
i support the movement but really? occupying retailers? people want to buy things, that has nothing to do with corporate greed and money's influence on government. hopefully they don't take that too far
Well I wouldn't say that (see Scheavo's post), but this could get outta hand fast. Unless that was sarcasm.
-
Occupy Retail. For real?
What do they, honestly, think that is going to achieve beyond pissing off Joe Everyman?
-
Movement has definitely gone to complete shit: https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t2
Stupid, stupid people.
i support the movement but really? occupying retailers? people want to buy things, that has nothing to do with corporate greed and money's influence on government. hopefully they don't take that too far
Well I wouldn't say that (see Scheavo's post), but this could get outta hand fast. Unless that was sarcasm.
yeah i mean i can agree with that
but people shop, people buy things. maybe that protest puts someof it's merit in preventing corporations from making credit card interest or something, but this seems to be a protest in how people are conducting their personal money, not how the corporations are dealing with theirs.
what i'm saying i guess is i don't really see how sales and shopping are something that needs to be reformed or regulated and therefore protested. they're already covering most of the right fronts for that so far.
but heck i'm just a dickless godless liberal 20 year old who thinks he's hot shit because he's young and can jerk off seven times straight what do i know really
-
I'm the same except 21. :lol
And I'm totally with Scheavo on the consumerism thing.
-
22 and losing my skills here.....oh wait.
Not flaming here, but the end goal of an economic system is consumption...
-
Well sure, but I'm sure there's a way in which an alternative system can work. For example: https://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2011/06/seven_problems_a_recovery_wont.html and https://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2011/05/is_a_well_lived_live_worth_anything.html
-
If someone tried to block me from shopping I'd bowl them right over.
-
Yeah its not an endorsement of consumerism on steroids, but I don't get the argument that is implied by the occupation of retailers on the biggest day of retailing that said retailers will probably ever have. As much as they may not want to believe it, a happy and healthy consumer spending their cash is one of the US' tickets out of its current ills - notwithstanding unemployment and stagnant incomes*.
If someone tried to block me from shopping I'd bowl them right over.
Bam.
*Note: again, this is not a dismissal of what the Occupy movement stands for, I'm assuming it away.
-
the end goal of an economic system is consumption...
Nope.
-
Do go on. https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=29639.0
-
what i'm saying i guess is i don't really see how sales and shopping are something that needs to be reformed or regulated and therefore protested. they're already covering most of the right fronts for that so far.
I don't see anyone suggesting our consumerism needs regulated or reformed from a central location, but this movement is about the 99%, and so their economic message is wonderfully accurate and, all you libertarians, it's a non-governmental way to address our problems. Our government is fucked, so one thing you can do, right now, is stop supporting those organizations.
-
@ Riceball: I know what people say about spending being the answer, but people have been doing that now for three years and the wealth gap has only increased.
-
Movement has definitely gone to complete shit: https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t2
Stupid, stupid people.
As far as I can see stopblackfriday is just some random dude's blog that got picked up by the mainstream news.
-
Considering the blog has 74 likes on Facebook yeah, it's just some random dude no one cares about.
-
(https://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/pokemon.jpg)
-
The video of that was taken down. Ah well.
-
It still really bothers me that DHS was involved in the nationwide raids on the protests a couple weeks ago. The President had to be involved in that, some way or another. And where was he? Out of the country.
Edit: WAIT I just heard that President Obama did not THANK GOD (https://news.yahoo.com/obama-leaves-god-thanksgiving-speech-riles-critics-173023786.html) in his Thanksgiving address! Screw this protest shit, THAT is something to be angry about :lol
-
It still really bothers me that DHS was involved in the nationwide raids on the protests a couple weeks ago. The President had to be involved in that, some way or another. And where was he? Out of the country.
I don't see why the President would have to be involved in that at all. It would be incredible if you could, because he's publicly supported the movement pretty much.
-
Come on, he at least knew about it.
-
That's quite an assumption, given the size of the bureaucracy (especially Homeland Security), and it's something you'd really have to prove. Something like this could very easily never reach the President's ear. I severely doubt Obama is aware of every single military-op either, even though he's the c commander in chief.
Like I said, he's come out in public support for the movement, basically, saying they're the reason has ran for President; so to catch him actively fighting the movement would be huge.
-
Well, Occupy Retail musta been a bit of a failure, apparently sales are up 6.6 per cent.
America: unemployed, falling real wages, but still know how to shop.
-
Someone brought up a good point about the umemployment the other day. It's really a matter of "glass half full/glass half empty". Sure around 9% plus or minus is umemployed and that is definitely a number that needs to be worked on. That being said 90 to 91% percent of people who actively look for work are employed. That's really good.
-
Yeah thats very true, the more damning stats are in the form of underemployment (working less than you want) and participation rates.
The former is around 12 per cent I think ( thats in addition to the nine per cent unemployment), while the latter has fallen by five percentage points since '07 - which is big. Even more concerning is these rates (UE, underemployment and participation) amongsts certain groups, prime age males, youths and mature workers spring to mind.
If you ever feel like playing economist for a couple of hours, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is among the best statistical warehouses I've ever used.
-
Yeah, people don't seem to understand the concept of people without a job versus people who are attempting to get a job and have not found work yet. It's so tempting to try to use the former as a statistic when the latter is the more accurate and true one.
-
Well, there's the trouble of, with "haven't found work yet," how long till that person finds work? Because people who've been looking for three years without success can be included in that. Unless I'm just totally misunderstanding your point.
-
Someone brought up a good point about the umemployment the other day. It's really a matter of "glass half full/glass half empty". Sure around 9% plus or minus is umemployed and that is definitely a number that needs to be worked on. That being said 90 to 91% percent of people who actively look for work are employed. That's really good.
The unemployment rate isn't a "half full/half empty" matter at all... 9% unemployment would be a positive achievement if 5 years back the same figure was at say18%, but that's not the case. The only way you can draw positive conclusions is if you compare it to something worse, like "hey at least it's not as bad as the Great Depression."
-
What I'm getting at is the people who are appalled at the 9% number, not comparative to any other point in time.
-
Well, Occupy Retail musta been a bit of a failure, apparently sales are up 6.6 per cent.
Pretty sure there was no "Occupy Retail" dude.
-
There wasn't besides that one tard with a blog.
-
What I'm getting at is the people who are appalled at the 9% number, not comparative to any other point in time.
Some of that is because people are also not looking for work anymore - they've given up. If you've given up on finding a job, you're not technically counted as unemployed, even though you would work if you had the opportunity.
Though I think some of what you say is true. We don't need to think that every single person in a family needs a job.