Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 601
view profile
History
Occupy Wall StreetPage 25 of 53    (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)

North Korea you never have to worry about unemployment and you get free health care too.


If you get employed in one of their labor/re-education camps, doing miserably hard work out in sub-zero weather with barely enough food to keep you breathing, even the best medical care in the world couldn't save you. Apparently there's quite a turnover--as one prisoner dies, they toss his carcass into the woods for the animals to dispose of, and bring in a replacement. What a worker's paradise!
 BalderDog2
Joined: 1/6/2011
Msg: 602
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 4:02:57 PM

If you get employed in one of their labor/re-education camps, doing miserably hard work out in sub-zero weather with barely enough food to keep you breathing, even the best medical care in the world couldn't save you. Apparently there's quite a turnover--as one prisoner dies, they toss his carcass into the woods for the animals to dispose of, and bring in a replacement. What a worker's paradise!


For a minute there, I thought you were describing the Worker's Paradise people like the Koch Brothers would like to create for the 99 percenters.

Of course, they really don't want their workers to die. The worker's Paradise the majority of the 1 percenters actually have in mine involves Company Stores in Company Towns where the the Workers send their children to the Company School and are paid in Company script.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 603
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 4:14:49 PM
I do understand that the "I got mine" group and meme cannot conceive of life lived beyond the fantasies created by CE. But the reality of most of the under-caste in the US is far different from the ruling/lucky-ones-thus-far classes. From personal experience, as a qualified labor specialist, I have seen wages cut in half, expenses double, bargaining power cut exponentially, little things like health care and retirement funds cut to the bone, and little wiggle room given to the 99% to negotiate, as the top wages inflated by orders of magnitude. This is not imagined disparity, but real and tangible effects on those who bought into the American "dream" not that long ago. I appreciate the Icemans of these columns who believe that it is only a matter of effort, that "therefore but for the grace" go you or I. I had that belief as a hard working kiddo of immigrants with disdain for the "lazy generations" to come. But studying the realities, the demographics, the outsourcing, the rewards for offshoring and downsizing, the focus on sh*ttier products, with more toxic fallout for the bottom line, crapping on workers' health, lives, and communities for the bottom line, and the money trail that led to this commerce without morality, changed this perspective.

Those who worship commerce without morality are every bit as inclined to be, or more radical, than those they disdain for a more equitable social system, one based on community, sustainabilty and justice. The "I got Mine" crowd thinks that the whole world can thrive on liquidation, social darwinism, and power through money alone. These outbursts of citizen indignation are a movement that needs to be squashed, that intellectualism must be destroyed, that everyone left of facsism and CE must be destroyed to save the 1%, that the 1% is always the victims in all this. Pretty sick f*cks driving this...people see it, hate it, and will respond accordingly. While these folks are not nearly as adamant about "2nd ammendment" craziness of the far right/teapartiers, it may only be a matter of time before they have to respond in kind to attacks on their own. That would sucketh mightily. Dialogue, honest, true, and respectful could avert such a horrific scenario. Why cannot we do such things anymore?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 604
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:07:06 PM

From personal experience, as a qualified labor specialist, I have seen wages cut in half, expenses double, bargaining power cut exponentially, little things like health care and retirement funds cut to the bone, and little wiggle room given to the 99% to negotiate, as the top wages inflated by orders of magnitude. This is not imagined disparity, but real and tangible effects on those who bought into the American "dream" not that long ago.


This is what the labor unions (esp govt unions) have turned it into. There was a very valid reason for labor unions in the past. But... they are now the 1%. The funny part is that they get to pick and choose who they want to benefit. The rank and file get their pittance while they sit at their top living the life with lifetime medical, guaranteed retirement, pensions pensions pensions and those they supposedly represent must pay them for their protection. Seriously? Sounds like a racket to me.

The problem with the dialogue is that the real 'they' is winning. Liberalism defines anyone that does not subscribe to their ideals as right wing 2nd amendment women hating racists. When the truth is that it’s all bs. The part that I think is funny is that the tea party agrees yet they are dismissed as nut cases because they are your grandparents. They are normal functional members of society and they banded together for a cause, established a political foothold and used the existing processes to make their voice heard and establish change. How is that at wrong. It's mind numbing how that can't just be acknowledged. It should be appreciated for what it is and not mocked and humiliated and dismissed. The funny thing is you will still be able to criticize them if they got everything they wanted but for liberalism, if it wins, you will be an enemy for disagreeing
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 605
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:12:21 PM
^^^That's really not expressed very clearly.

From what I can understand, you're criticizing all "liberals" for disparaging those they disagree with by using blanket stereotypes. You might want to look up "irony" in the dictionary.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 606
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:24:01 PM

There was a very valid reason for labor unions in the past. But...


Right wing, rich guy propaganda, straight from the source.

It is INCREDIBLY ignorant to think this way. How about we go through a few similar things. If unions are no longer needed, because they accomplished their goals, then :

1. We can disband the Army, Air force, and all other military groups the moment we finish a war. They accomplished their goals.

2. we can dispense with police and all private guard services, their show of force has cowed the criminals.

3. No need to go on inspecting our food supply to keep the industrial suppliers from giving us cheap, dirty food at premium prices. They've learned their lesson, and would NEVER let profits tempt them into turning a blind eye to health concerns again.

I could go on ad finitum.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 607
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:28:00 PM
Your right... but it is what it is.

My opinion and experience is that. And I am allowed to have that opinion. I think it is disingenuous to think that it would be a better society if the federal government controlled the distribution of necessities.

Name one person in media or in politics that you disagree with but respect their opinions and thoughts on this type of topic. Enough to where their ideas have a merit worth listening to and even possibly altering your opinion..


<div class='quote'>I could go on ad finitum.
You don't need too. They don't need to be disbanded however they are out of control and are now causing more harm then good. So, they really need to be regulated.

Can't double post so edit: Are you permitted to withhold your union dues if the labor union votes for or supports a political party that you feels does not represent you? A large part of the corruption that occurs in government is from the unions. Look at the CA state budget for pensions and retirement and how it is bankrupting the entire state. This is occurring at all levels of government. So you can say its regulated but its out of control.
VVVVVVVV
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 608
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:34:41 PM
Unions are regulated. There's a whole thing called a Labour Code that deals with it.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 609
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:44:12 PM
Your tea bagger buds beg to differ.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/radical_socialist_infrastructu032010.php

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/30/conseratives-brought-nation-to-default-ask-for-govt-handouts.html

Just words and rhetoric/dogma with little basis in reality. Cafeteria Socialism Villification at it's most hypocritical manifestations. These Patridiots are every bit as corrupted by the system and dependent upon it as those they choose to villify and have disdain for.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 610
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:55:26 PM

Your tea bagger buds beg to differ


Ok... your point. Because I really could have swor that in other posts it was made very very clear that infrastructure projects were not 'socialism'

Now, is the federal government forming a BIG RAIL project and increasing taxes to support a train from CA to NY. Or has that time passed.

I don't agree with the rail projects they are trying to do in CA. It is absolutely stupid and much higher costs. However, Texas? I don't live there. Maybe they need it. So it’s ok to demonize a politician for supporting a public project because they are not for federalized healthcare or insane bailouts and raising the debt ceiling?

It is not disingenuous to try to provide the best you can for the area you represent.

Now, I will admit I have not read through the proposals and probably never will but it is incredibly disingenuous to say that starting a public project is corrupt.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 611
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 6:15:41 PM

If they are protesting that government and the economy should be separate? If so, I heartily agree; but I have a hunch this is not what Occupy Wall Street is after. They want Big Government to replace big business.

If 'hunches' equaled facts we could dispense with gathering information and then skip the tedious step of actually looking at it.
Unfortunately though, there's still a few sticklers out there (who probably have OCD and secretly want to collapse the entire western world) who have been conducting research and they've come up with the obviously insane idea that can't possibly be connected to reality that most people just want to be treated fairly. It seems crazy I know, but my hunch is that the protesters don't want 'BIG' anything, either government or business, and they'd quite like the two of them to stop collaborating to the detriment of the 99%.


Never mind that these politicians haven't the slightest idea where bacon comes from, have never produced bacon and merely seize bacon to give it to people who reward them with votes, money and power.

Is that what you protesters and anti capitalist want?

(My emphasis) Apparently unaware, you have described the problem.
The political process is so expensive that only very wealthy, or well connected, people can participate in it.
The temptation, once in power, is to 'reward' those who enabled the elevation. So as you say, government can fall into the trap of siphoning off the 'bacon' to give it to the 'people' who delivered the "votes, money and power".
Isn't that the very thing the 99% are protesting against? Which is kind of the complete opposite to what you, for some reason, seemed to be suggesting.



hey you can always move to Cuba or North Korea you never have to worry about unemployment and you get free health care too.

That's a good idea, for the same reasons you might consider moving to Juarez - the ultimate destination for those interested in unfettered free market capitalism unrestrained by social controls.

______________________________________________________________________________________


If you get employed in one of their labor/re-education camps, doing miserably hard work out in sub-zero weather with barely enough food to keep you breathing, even the best medical care in the world couldn't save you. Apparently there's quite a turnover--as one prisoner dies, they toss his carcass into the woods for the animals to dispose of, and bring in a replacement. What a worker's paradise!

Rather comically, you describe (though somewhat exaggerated) the logical outcome of banning unions, and generally avoiding responsibility for the health and well-being of the national work force.

So you'd be in favour of strong workers unions then? To prevent this ^^^ kind of tyranny? Presumably you'd also see a national concern for health and individual welfare as a useful preventative measure to avoid situations such this ^^^ arising?


But what both posters who (strangely) advocate emigration to Cuba or North Korea overlook is that neither are actually beacons of socially responsible democracy. To find examples of countries that provide a 'safety net' for their population try these references -


A welfare state is a "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization."

Examples of early welfare states in the modern world are Germany, all of the Nordic Countries, the Netherlands, Uruguay and New Zealand and the United Kingdom in the 1930s.

Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in most countries, whose welfare states commonly constitute at least a fifth of GDP. Most "welfare states" have considerably lower poverty rates than they had before the implementation of welfare programs.

There is very little correlation between economic performance and welfare expenditure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state




Universal health care is a term referring to organized health care systems built around the principle of universal coverage for all members of society, combining mechanisms for health financing and service provision.

Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. In Britain, the National Insurance Act 1911 marked the first steps there towards universal health care, covering most employed persons and their financial dependents and all persons who had been continuous contributors to the scheme for at least five years whether they were working or not. This system of health insurance continued in force until the creation of the National Health Service in 1948 which extended health care security to all legal residents. Most current universal health care systems were implemented in the period following the Second World War as a process of deliberate health care reform, intended to make health care available to all, in the spirit of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, signed by every country doing so. The US did not ratify the social and economic rights sections, including Article 25's right to health.

The Americas
Argentina - Health care is provided...
Brazil - The universal health care system was adopted in Brazil in 1988...
Canada - In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed...
Chile - Health care in Chile is provided by the government (via Fonasa) and by private insurers...
Colombia - In 1993 a reform transformed the health care system in Colombia...
Greenland - Greenland has a free medical service funded by taxation...
Mexico - Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution...
Peru - On April 9, 2009 the Government of Peru published the Law on Health Insurance to enable all Peruvians to access quality health services...
Trinidad and Tobago - A universal health care system is used in Trinidad and Tobago and is the primary form of health-care available in the country. It is used by the majority of the population seeking medical assistance, as it is free for all citizens...

United States - The United States does not have a universal health care system...

Asia
Bhutan - The Royal Government of Bhutan maintains a policy of free and universal access to primary health care...
Hong Kong - Hong Kong is one of the healthiest places in the world. Because of its early health education, professional health services, and well-developed health care and medication system, Hongkongers enjoy a life expectancy of 84 for females and 78 for males, which is the second highest in the world, and 2.94 infant mortality rate, the fourth lowest in the world.
India - India has a universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial) governments...
Macau - Macau offers universally accessible single-payer system funded by taxes. Health care is provided by the Bureau for Health...
People's Republic of China - Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the goal of health care programs has been to provide care to every member of the population and to make maximum use of limited health-care personnel, equipment, and financial resources.
On January 21, 2009, the Chinese government announced that a total of 850 billion yuan (US$ 127.5 billion) will be provided between 2009 and 2011 in order to improve the existing health care system...
Singapore - Singapore has a universal health care system where government ensures affordability, largely through compulsory savings and price controls, while the private sector provides most care...
Taiwan (R.O.C.) - The current health care system in Taiwan, known as National Health Insurance (NHI), was instituted in 1995. The system promises equal access to health care for all citizens, and the population coverage had reached 99% by the end of 2004...
Thailand - Thailand introduced universal coverage reforms in 2001, becoming one of only a handful of lower-middle income countries to do so back then...

Europe
Virtually all of Europe has either publicly sponsored and regulated universal health care or publicly provided universal healthcare. The public plans in some countries provide basic or "sick" coverage only; their citizens can purchase supplemental insurance for additional coverage.
Countries with universal health care include Austria, Andorra, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

Oceania
Australia - Universal health care is is funded through general taxation. According to WHO, government funding covered 67.5% of Australia's health care expenditures in 2004; private sources covered the remaining 32.5% of expenditures...
New Zealand - New Zealand's healthcare system is funded through general taxation. According to the WHO, government sources covered 77.4% of New Zealand's health care costs in 2004; private expenditures covered the remaining 22.6%...

Africa
Countries that provide public healthcare in Africa are Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Mauritius, Morocco, Seychelles, South Africa, and Tunisia.

Universal health care in most (of the above) countries has been achieved by a mixed model of funding. General taxation revenue is the primary source of funding, but in many countries it is supplemented by specific levies (which may be charged to the individual and/or an employer) or with the option of private payments (either direct or via optional insurance) for services beyond that covered by the public system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 612
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 6:30:54 PM

who probably have OCD and secretly want to collapse the entire western world


So, How's the OCD going for ya :)



Universal health care in most (of the above) countries has been achieved by a mixed model of funding. General taxation revenue is the primary source of funding, but in many countries it is supplemented by specific levies (which may be charged to the individual and/or an employer) or with the option of private payments (either direct or via optional insurance) for services beyond that covered by the public system


Would actually really like to see a proposal that started out at a state level, didn't bankrupt the state, doesn’t increase costs of those currently already adequately covered, included the legislature, with a simple charter that allowed for patients privacy, rights, and the ability to acquire multiple opinions from different doctors in situations where the patient felt they were not receiving the care they expected.

Also, how to encourage the growth and modernization of research and improve distribution without reducing care or quality of life.

I know it’s possible but do not trust politicians to write it. They are really not smart enough.

This is the basic problem. The plans put forth are a freaking disaster.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 613
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 6:33:23 PM
LC and others... please. Facts and statistics are only going to cause heads to explode and dogma to replicate exponentially. Please refine your responses to keep the amusing, yet disarmingly charming hypocrisy flowing accordingly. Without that BS, the world would be far less humorous. Gotta talk down to the lowest common denominator. This is what AmeriKa was built upon and is the thrust of our declining Grateness.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 614
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 9:06:31 PM

That's a good idea, for the same reasons you might consider moving to Juarez - the ultimate destination for those interested in unfettered free market capitalism unrestrained by social controls.
Nah I love it here in Canada thanks , plus Im not the one complaining, personally the recession hasn't affected me negatively , its become a buying opportunity to be frank.

Do I feel for some of the 99% , yes I do, do I feel sorry for all of them, no I don't, I feel sorry for those that thinks big brother will come to the rescue on their white horse and rescue them from the greedy corporation/ capitalists out there to destroy society

America used to be great, once upon a time your own government suggested you do great things with your lives, become leaders, entrepreneurs , but today , yesterday, yesteryear you trading in the ambitious dream for Job security, a job with the very corporations you despise, the corporations were okay when you were making money but now that you are not they should be burned down and the CEO's jailed.

Where is your outrage when sports teams holds the state, municipality hostage for new stadiums for their sports teams? where was your outrage when the government stepped in to save Crappy Motors and that other piece of crap car company, oh that right it saved jobs, and those jobs it saved their salaries was cut, but the CEO salaries went up, great union bargaining there I might add
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 615
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 11:58:21 PM

That's a good idea, for the same reasons you might consider moving to Juarez - the ultimate destination for those interested in unfettered free market capitalism unrestrained by social controls.

Nah I love it here in Canada thanks , plus Im not the one complaining, personally the recession hasn't affected me negatively , its become a buying opportunity to be frank.

I didn't suggest you move there and nor did I say you were complaining. I merely used the Juarez analogy to point out how nonsensical it is to suggest, as you did, that people who think society could be fairer should move to Cuba or North Korea.

Addressing points that no one has made is about as productive, discussion wise, as positing wildly misleading interpretations, labeling them 'hunches', and then forecasting negative outcomes based on your own fantastical assumptions.

Not that having all this, along with the facts, pointed out seems to be slowing you down at all...

Do I feel for some of the 99% , yes I do, do I feel sorry for all of them, no I don't, I feel sorry for those that thinks big brother will come to the rescue on their white horse and rescue them from the greedy corporation/ capitalists out there to destroy society.

How many of 'them' think this way?
Do the OWS protesters actually want to substitute a beneficent 'big brother' for what exists now?
What proportion of the OWS protesters are anti-capitalist?

Do you know the answer to any of these questions? Or are you only capable of spouting meaningless propaganda? Do tell.


America used to be great, once upon a time your own government... /snip/

I am not even in the northern hemisphere.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 616
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/11/2011 9:30:08 AM

I didn't suggest you move there and nor did I say you were complaining. I merely used the Juarez analogy to point out how nonsensical it is to suggest, as you did, that people who think society could be fairer should move to Cuba or North Korea.
And tomorrow we can go to the zoo and see the Lions tigers and Bears oh my, perhaps you missed my point from all the way from Down under mate.


How many of 'them' think this way?
Do the OWS protesters actually want to substitute a beneficent 'big brother' for what exists now?
What proportion of the OWS protesters are anti-capitalist?

Do you know the answer to any of these questions? Or are you only capable of spouting meaningless propaganda? Do tell.
perhaps you need to take a peak on the internet, news or where ever you get your info what do you think they are protesting about?


I am not even in the northern hemisphere.
and who said I was referring to you Slick, you must love the sound of your own voice, Good Lord I bet you eat alone and you don't even pass the salt .

But thanks for your monday morning armchair quarterback advice from down under, when you come to this side of the hemisphere and see what the problems is we can have a conversation , reading it or seeing it on the news well you know what they say right?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 617
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/12/2011 12:52:37 AM

and who said I was referring to you Slick, you must love the sound of your own voice, Good Lord I bet you eat alone and you don't even pass the salt .

That you now resort to disparaging ad hominems slick, only further reveals you still can't think of any rational response.


But thanks for your monday morning armchair quarterback advice from down under, when you come to this side of the hemisphere and see what the problems is we can have a conversation , reading it or seeing it on the news well you know what they say right?

Yes, I know what the ones who only 'read it and see it on the news' say because they seem compelled to regurgitate their shallow 'newsgrab' versions of reality here in threads such as this without seeming to notice the implications of what they're saying.
eg;
I have a hunch this is not what Occupy Wall Street is after. They want Big Government to replace big business. They believe that politicians like Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi will not only bring home the bacon, but distribute it fairly and equitably. Never mind that these politicians haven't the slightest idea where bacon comes from, have never produced bacon and merely seize bacon to give it to people who reward them with votes, money and power.
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 618
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/12/2011 2:52:52 AM
Day by day, event by event this communist secular athiest system seems better than whats falling apart now, i often wondered if we hadn't gone to war against communism and in fact sought peace as JFK tried, where would we be now?
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 619
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/12/2011 5:21:25 AM

That you now resort to disparaging ad hominems slick, only further reveals you still can't think of any rational response.
Is this the part where Im supposed to go boo hooo hooo, Rational response ? please.... if you're capable of reading you were the one with the attack and I responded.

I love it when people just talk and talk and talk well post in this case, have you given your opinion on the occupier or what they should do?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 620
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/12/2011 6:07:26 AM
My problem with a number of your posts here, iceman, is that they ARE packed with your negative ASSUMPTIONS about the OWS protesters.

This is an amorphous, independent protest movement, unlike some of the more canned things (such as the obviously guided and organized and funded Tea Party). NONE of your declarations about THEIR intents or desires have any validity, other than to reveal you own prejudices. Yes, you can find individual examples in the news that show that at least ONE person said or did something there that you don't like, but that's true of ALL such situations, including those political movements and protests that you DO approve of.

Please come back to arguing with ACTUAL facts, and not with suppositions based on your prejudices. Stop the name calling, both of other posters, and of the protesters who you have never met.

I myself have no interest in joining those folks in protest, but it is not because I don't agree with the gist of WHAT they are upset about. They are angry about the blatant and ongoing amoral, and worse, financially illogical greed-only based behaviors going on on Wall Street, and within too many of the worlds financial institutions. They have NOT NOT NOT expressed any unified oppositions to capitalism such as you have claimed, nor have they expressed any OTHER of the wild things you have accused them of doing. This is NOT the organized anti-tea-party, nor is it the socialist party, nor the communist party. These are NOT just people looking for a hand out, these are people who have been STOLEN FROM by rich, greedy liars, who then turned around and awarded each other bonuses from the very money the taxpayers were forced to give them to rescue them from the consequences of their own greed.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 621
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/12/2011 6:37:42 AM
Spare me Igorfrankensteen, you are a intelligent guy that I will give you but you have NO idea when it comes to finances or economics, this whole protest things is about Capitalism or what they perceive as capitalism.

Facts okay lets talk about facts, Who put a gun to the head of these borrowers that borrowed money from these Wall street pricks to get sub prime mortgages? who fault is that? its quite simple you shouldn't of borrowed if you can afford it, just because the institution says you can that doesn't mean you should?

Greedy corporations sure lets talk about those greedy Wall street Bankers and their Derivatives and risky behavior getting around Basel II, and who is to blame for that? where do you think Basel II and all the Basel rules came from?

I'm all for every one right to protest and freedoms but protesting Wall Street bankers when they are the only the fraction of the problem was my entire friggen point.



They are angry about the blatant and ongoing amoral, and worse, financially illogical greed-only based behaviors going on on Wall Street, and within too many of the worlds financial institutions. They have NOT NOT NOT expressed any unified oppositions to capitalism such as you have claimed, nor have they expressed any OTHER of the wild things you have accused them of doing. This is NOT the organized anti-tea-party, nor is it the socialist party, nor the communist party. These are NOT just people looking for a hand out, these are people who have been STOLEN FROM by rich, greedy liars, who then turned around and awarded each other bonuses from the very money the taxpayers were forced to give them to rescue them from the consequences of their own greed.
And these greedy liars are in bed with whom? care to make a guess or are you just going to sit there and blame all the bankers and corporations Ive said it a million times its starts with Congress/politicians/powerful lobbyist, half the wall street bankers wouldn't exist without their special friends in government

I don't belong to any party even in my own country, I don't believe in Big government, I don't believe any party whether in the States, Canada , the UK or where ever has the best interest of the people , Ive said it a million friggen times it would be impressive if they gather about a million or so people and march on Washington demanding change, or get million or so people to walk into the bank of America and take their money out and go to another institution that is what will grab their attention

I don't believe Big Brother can come up with a solution to the problem unless they ( congress) can come up with new regulations that has transparency , and closing loopholes but I see you conveniently never address those concerns I brought up instead you just friggen accuse me of bull shit negative slander type of posting .
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 622
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/12/2011 8:01:09 AM
(IgorFrankensteen) Right wing, rich guy propaganda, straight from the source.

It is INCREDIBLY ignorant to think this way. How about we go through a few similar things. If unions are no longer needed, because they accomplished their goals, then :

1. We can disband the Army, Air force, and all other military groups the moment we finish a war. They accomplished their goals.


Military goals are not the same as labour goals. Not even close.


2. we can dispense with police and all private guard services, their show of force has cowed the criminals.


See above. When labour constantly threatens us the same way crime does, then I'll concede that you have a point.


3. No need to go on inspecting our food supply to keep the industrial suppliers from giving us cheap, dirty food at premium prices. They've learned their lesson, and would NEVER let profits tempt them into turning a blind eye to health concerns again.


Again, see above. You're making some specious comparisons, Igor.


I could go on ad finitum.


I'm sure you could. Correctness on an issue is not measured by who can last the longest, however.

I believe that unions do still have a present-day purpose. The days of Cornelius Vanderbilt and Henry Ford are long-gone, however, and you do workers a disservice by pretending that the labour of TODAY faces the same challenges as the labour of the 19th/early 20th century.

Arlo...
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 623
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/12/2011 8:03:29 AM

(earthpuppy) Gotta talk down to the lowest common denominator.


The irony in this statement is just too much...

Arlo...
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 624
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/12/2011 10:50:04 AM
Arlo: I in no way said, or meant even vaguely imply that labor faces the same troubles today as the 19th c. I was directly addressing the notion expressed that "unions are no longer necessary." I also do not believe we need the same military that we did in the 19th C, we need a modern one. Until a truly beneficent magical being descends and places a spell on all corporations that causes their owners and directors NEVER to put profits above safety, legality, fairness, and so forth, we will need unions to provide balance.

Ice: still no support for any of your accusations that the OWS protesters actually believe anything you are lambasting them for. No support for the idea that THEY are the ones who borrowed the money that was lost, etc.

All I ask for is factuality. As with your exaggerations about opposing ALL government regulations in the past (which you specifically admitted were exaggerations in other threads), you are wildly exaggerating and making completely false statements of facts here.

I am convinced that GOOD QUALITY debates between people who are TRYING to be honest, can improve the world. When you have been calm and accurate, I have learned from you. When you make angry, and obviously unsupported statements, even your OWN points of view are obscured, and all that you communicate is "I really don't like or respect these people, of whom I have no direct knowledge."
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 625
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/12/2011 11:06:40 AM
Igor you cant be real, Ive pointed out in other threads every regulations that lead to the crises, now your playing games or you have selective reading comprehension , even in the capitalist thread we debated/argued about Microsoft and Ive laid out the facts( backed by actual laws and regulations) and you still believe what you believe, that is not my problem.


All I ask for is factuality. As with your exaggerations about opposing ALL government regulations in the past (which you specifically admitted were exaggerations in other threads), you are wildly exaggerating and making completely false statements of facts here.
read the above your quote, I have many times.


I am convinced that GOOD QUALITY debates between people who are TRYING to be honest, can improve the world. When you have been calm and accurate, I have learned from you. When you make angry, and obviously unsupported statements, even your OWN points of view are obscured, and all that you communicate is "I really don't like or respect these people, of whom I have no direct knowledge."
I don't get angry, but you are starting to test my patience , I don't make exaggerations I presented facts , and Ive said many times I don't blame the protesters for being upset and wanting changes, Ive said this many times they are protesting the wrong group, my stance hasn't changed, I haven't exaggerated anything you just for what ever reason pick and choose things you either think I'm trying to say compared to what is actually said.

Tell me what Ive said that was so false? point it out and I will address cause I really don't feel going round and round and round.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street