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: 826
view profile
History
Occupy Wall StreetPage 34 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)

Some hyper conservatives, say that for someone to tell them that they CAN'T throw any garbage they want onto a piece of land or into a body of water that they own, is an invasion of their rights, and is a declaration that no one has a right to private property.


That's not a conservative's view. Nuisance, which is all about balancing different landowners' property rights, was recognized in English law at least 500 years ago. Nuisance law is part of every state's codes today. And the same with trespass law.

Conservatives tend to look to state laws to resolve conflicts about property rights. They also recognize that in the Constitution, the states gave the United States only carefully limited authority to infringe those rights. They consider the illegitimate use of that authority--however nicely the benefits to be gained are portrayed--to be tyranny. They don't believe Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce was meant to be a license for unelected officials in federal agencies to dictate the design of your toilet, or the ingredients in the fertilizer you use on your daffodils.

Conservatives take very much the same view of property rights as the people who founded this country. They know that we have those rights from birth, and that they are not dispensed to us by our government, as it thinks we deserve. Conservatives recognize that private property rights are the foundation of individual freedom, and of prosperity. If someone can take away your land or your house, he controls the way you and your family live, or even your survival. And if no one could be confident that what he'd earned was his, not much effort would be put into earning anything.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 827
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 10:47:29 AM
Well there you have it, and obviously we don't even agree on the meaning of the words we are arguing about, or the concepts they embrace.

Funny, far worse to me, is those arguing for the "haves" or in my mind guilty parties, don't have any thing anyone would take away, NOT that we advocate taking anything.

"Liberalism seeks redistribution of another's property"

You will walk away from this believing what you want, despite what I will say or cite as proof. The fact that after almost 40 pages of examples of corporate greed and malfeasance, you still want to defend these people is your choice, and right. My right is to believe the opposite and scream "police" and hope they are arrested.

When a bank breaks the law 9 times in 7 years, uses the stockholders money to pay the lawyers and fines, and keeps doing the same thing, it is wrong. That none of the executives get punished personally, just means they get to do it again.

It isn't a question of redistribution of "their" money, it's a question of using laws, breaking laws and acting in an immoral way to redistribute "OUR" money!

Case in point, BOA has suffered from bad mortgage exposure, they have gone hat in hand to the government, OUR government for a handout(TARP), then did nothing to aleviate the problems of the mortgagee's, which was the basis it was sold to congress. Further what idea did they come up with, to stem their losses? A $5 monthly fee on debit cards! So they made the mistake, went to our government for the money to fix part of it, did nothing for the people they put in the situation in the first place, and now want to go back to YOU, to get MORE money to fix THEIR problem! Who's trying to redistribute who's money in that case?

As for the other poster, gawd help you man, that's a tough place and problem to fix, Detroit. I agree about several things you said. We must start to grow our economy, stop off-shoring jobs. Further we MUST cut government spending. I agreed that short term given the severity of the recession, the government was right to spend money for interim jobs until the private sector picked up steam and started to rehire.

But long term, our government must shrink it's spending, and get it's house in order. But not helter skelter, with some thought and planning. Quickly we look at medicare and social security, they must share the sacrifice. BUT what about Homeland Security? Do you realize they have more than 70,000 subcontractors, collecting information? Some of them ( 7 or 8) collecting the same data? I can understand having 2 maybe 3 to check the data against each other, but 7 or 8?

The defense budget must be trimmed. But how much is too much, and how little is too little? Every general and admiral in the pentagon is screaming don't cut my budget or it will be the end of the world as we know it. They all can't be right, but god forbid we cut their little fiefdom, they might be retired or fired. We have over 1 million troops stationed all over the world, you mean we can't close a few bases? How many in Japan? How many in Okinowa? How many in Germany? We aren't likely to go to war with any of those. Russia is not the power it was.

But we keep starting small wars, that wind up costing trillions.

These are but a few examples, there are thousands more. But every Senator and Congressman defends government spending in their district or state. He11 these idiots couldn't agree on 1.3 trillion in cuts, and 250 billion in tax increases for the top 1% of earners. How do you expect them to agree on major changes?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 828
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 11:19:31 AM

These are but a few examples, there are thousands more. But every Senator and Congressman defends government spending in their district or state. He11 these idiots couldn't agree on 1.3 trillion in cuts, and 250 billion in tax increases for the top 1% of earners. How do you expect them to agree on major changes?


Another conservative view. You see that problem is with those people in government. This is the entire point of limiting the power of government. Government as an end in itself is incompetent.

So far you hold two very conservative views but seem to be so caught up in the 'politics' of it all that you reject then foundation of your own beliefs.

I can easily admit that I hold what would be considered a highly liberal view in that I believe the government has no right to abridge the rights of gay couples and to disavow their desire to be married. I personally think that concept is entirely conservative as it rejects the idea of allowing the government to abridge their pursuit of happiness. However I accept that the ideal is liberal. Also that is on the flip side of the coin for socially liberal and fiscally conservative and would place me in what people would label as 'middle of the road'. I feel the same way about abortion. I fully support the women’s right to decide for her own body and feel that is well within a conservative view of liberty. I do not feel that human beings should be legislated against as a class in any way. Which by definition must now also include 'the rich'.

I see no philosophical hypocrisy in my views. They do not align directly with one particular political party and that’s fine because I think political parties are idiots. However, the most closely aligned with the critical important tenants that I believe are important are conservative. In adhering to conservative values as far as property rights goes these things that I consider 'socially liberal' are more protected.

What I find difficult to understand is how the lack of enforcing existing laws or from allowing politicians to become rich through their corruption is somehow resolved by increasing the power and scope of government. I really, honestly, truly, do not understand that ideal. OWS should be directed at government. Not Wall ST. Wall St. did as would be expected in a corrupt environment. To direct it at Government would be to acknowledge that government has overstepped its bounds and that is in opposition to the real issue which is 'liberalism'
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 829
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 12:08:56 PM
"Another conservative view"

Be careful! Your statement and quoting mine, seem to put you at odds with the accepted "leaders" of conservatism, as viewed by those elected. Sister Sarah would have you in her crosshairs with Grover cheering her on! Cain would have you drummed out of any conservative meeting, and Mr. Perry would want to warm his Texas style hotseat for you!

Now onto the more prevalent theme of this discussion "noise and disruption"!

Our citizenry have become a group of sheeple. Who only wish to walk head down, go to work, go home and let the soothing cathode rays of TV wash over them.

No matter how you look at it, demonstration is an active way, to draw attention to a cause. In different ways MLK, Gandhi and the protests of Viet Nam inconvienenced thousands if not millions. You can't get the message out there, without making some noise. Even then then noise can be drown out by closing the windows or turning up the car radio. When you get stuck in traffic or it harries your everyday life, you get to hear the message.

Now that pisses some off. Sorry that's a fact of life. Right now, they are protesting the people who committed the offenses. In Washington, they are masters of the "ignore"!

They have had years of practice ignoring the will of the people. Further they have several forces at their disposal, to coral, disperse and avoid the very people going there to deliver the message. Over the years(even if some of you didn't notice) literally hundreds of causes went to washington to protest. Most times they don't even make the evening news or the story runs just over the obituary notices in the papers. So inured of protests is that town.

But spread all over the country in cities large and small, more attention has been paid to this, than a year of protests in DC. Frankly I find it sad, that it must come to this, to make joe average pay attention.

Eventually it will reach a protest in DC.

I realize my beliefs will not sit well with those of you dead set against it. Or those who believe it is government that should be protested for non-enforcement of existing laws. But it becomes a case of whatever it takes to get the attention of the population as a whole or those in power in washington.

You will not agree, I get it. Though whatever you think, it's being talked about, discussed and has become a force to deal with, and not be ignored. Maybe it will be all for nothing. I hope not, but at least they are trying to change things, and draw attention to the issues, albeit in a not so organized way yet.

Eventually leaders will emerge, issues identified and solutions pro-offered. Until then, I say go for it, because I believe in it. You will not be so happy with it, and I understand you, even if as I hope, ultimately it will help you as well.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 830
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 12:48:26 PM

Be careful! Your statement and quoting mine, seem to put you at odds with the accepted "leaders" of conservatism,


And that’s the whole point. I am permitted. Liberalism does not permit dissent. Look at abject hatred of anything labeled ‘right wing'. Michel Moore only exists to spew out his hatred of American Capitalism because of that inherent freedom to dissent. The 'conservative leaders' you list may want the authority to abridge your rights to believe differently but if the enforcement of law is not corrupted they will be incapable of it. They themselves though would most likely not increase the restriction of private property which is where these things are kept in check.

You do not have to worry that because you viscerally hate Palin that you will not be branded a terrorist. However, if you oppose the spreading of a liberal government you 'by definition' are classified as an enemy which is how I see it expressed for the 'tea party'. I cannot for the life of me understand your opposition to the tea party. They did exactly what you are supposed to do and became relevant. However it does appear that you are hoping for the same of 'OWS' since you last comment was, 'Eventually leaders will emerge."

What will you do if you don't agree with the emergent leaders 100%? Will you choose to stick to your values or join the party just because it is in opposition? What if the party that comes out of OWS is openly highly anti capitalism and very strongly and openly socialist? Is that the direction you would support?

I'm on the fence about how I would like to see it emerge. Part of me really wants it to be full socialist so it is honest and up front about what liberalism is. The other part of me really hopes that it falls away to silence indicating that most people know what it is and do not care about Hollywood elite running the show. Then again, maybe if just California had every person in the legislature investigated for corruption I would be happy.



I realize my beliefs will not sit well with those of you dead set against it. Or those who believe it is government that should be protested for non-enforcement of existing laws. But it becomes a case of whatever it takes to get the attention of the population as a whole or those in power in washington.


Again, here. I read that you do agree that the problem is in Washington but they are ignoring it. You support the opposition of Wall St. as a means to get the population as a whole and of that government that is ignoring the problem to pay attention. So, by definition of what you are saying OWS is a misdirection to cause change in 'Washington'. Why does it have to be abstract?
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 831
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 1:42:39 PM
"Liberalism does not permit dissent."

HUH? Both sides embrace their views, but I believe liberals allow more dissent than the conservatives.(that's the horserace of beliefs between us) It has been my experience that conservatives are much more in favor of shutting down dissent(or did you miss that police officer with the pepper spray at UC-Davis, I'm sure he was a liberal, right?)

My dislike for Palin stems from the fact that she is a phony and stupid, not because she is a conservative! Her speeches foment hate, "don't retreat, reload". She was qualified to be vice president because she could see russia from her backyard, or she was injured by the press for asking what she read to keep up on current events? She left the governorship in her state, in the middle of her term(the highest office in her state) to make money, doing speaking engagements and selling books. The people of her state elected her to serve 4 years, OK she was nominated for VP, but lost. Was that then a reason not to fulfill her obligation to the people of Alaska?

As for the Tea Party, a pretty good idea at the beginning(the same hope I have for OWS) went off track in my mind, when they decided to come to rallies, even appearances where the President was to be ARMED! I've seen the people of the tea party at their rallies, they seem like everyday folks, no different than you or I or someof the people who belong to OWS. Do you really believe it was they who organized and put people on ballots for office? Don't kid yourself, that was organized in a way that none of them could do nationwide, that was the Koch brothers moeny and organization to further their political goals.

As for what I will do when their leaders and ideas emerge, I will see when that happens. I believe what "I" believe, and will support and remain true to that belief. If that mean just like the tea party, it runs off the rails in the wrong direction, I will walk away.

It isn't a "misdirection" if by demonstrating somewhere else, to get those in power to look at the issue seriously. It has to be what makes it relevant, not abstract. If you go someplace and nobody listens, than what did you accomplish? If you go someplace else and they pay attention, you moved your cause forward.

As for Michael Moore, he has made some good points and some not so good ones. I'm a bit jaudiced for the average guy. I'm still not sure Michael Moore is not about making films and money,more than anything else. But to date, he has stayed the course and been supportive of the causes he films about. Was his film wrong about the guns? Was his films wrong about the mortgage crisis? Was his film wrong about GM? Maybe to you they were, they struck a chord with me. Isn't it funny that a number of years after his film about GM closing plants and the higher ups getting theirs, they went belly-up?

Look my opinion of you simply boils down to, you want everything to fit in a box. It's good or bad, white or black, liberal or conservative. Life is messy, people are messy, sometimes they are dishonest, sometimes they are immoral. The problem I have with the whole mess, is nobody is doing ANYTHING! The banks break the law repeatedly, the beat goes on, people lose their homes because they lost their jobs, the beat goes on, the jobs get shipped overseas, the government goes ohwell, the beat goes on. The banks get a bailout and still try and screw the shareholders and customers and the beat goes on.

It's time for the beat to stop, and SOMEONE elected to enforce the laws, stop people from getting screwed over in the name of big business, that basically paid for their election, cause our courts can't see that corporations AREN"T PEOPLE!!!!!!!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 832
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 1:58:01 PM

HUH? Both sides embrace their views, but I believe liberals allow more dissent than the conservatives.(that's the horserace of beliefs between us) It has been my experience that conservatives are much more in favor of shutting down dissent(or did you miss that police officer with the pepper spray at UC-Davis, I'm sure he was a liberal, right?)



My dislike for Palin stems from the fact that she is a phony and stupid, not because she is a conservative!


So you would vote republican if a conservative spoke without using 'lock and load' metaphors?

I really did like the concept of Moore's healthcare movie. I didn't agree with his conclusions since he very obviously ignored any negative aspect of countries with socialized medicine. The one point I would never argue against is the phone call Nixon about how insurance companies make a profit. That is not a wise, enlightened or philosophical leader. And look how that turned out for him.

I want people to see the same thing in Congress being exempt from insider trading.

As for my black and white box. Actually yes. As much as possible when it comes to defining the role of the federal government in the private lives of people. That should be pretty clear. Ambiguity does not create clarity. Just because some thing’s are difficult to understand does not mean they don't have a definition and a foundation. I would rather see a leader that spoke with wisdom and character and had a foundation for their beliefs then someone that just said, "Change!"
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 833
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 2:12:11 PM
I certainly hope that by saying "being exempt from insider trading" You are talking about the abuses of PAC money, and not the practice on Wall Street? That practice on wall street is theft without a gun and a mask. A scourge our industry will be rife with until the end of time. Because there will always be some bad apples looking to make a quick buck and hurt the average investor.

As for rather see a leader with wisdom and character instead of one who said change.

Remember it just takes a short look at congress today, to see that any leader can be thwarted from any course of change whether you agree or not, simply by congress sitting on their hands.

edit to add: Paul, so we understand each other. You seem to enjoy picking choice phrases and not overall thoughts, you never answer questions when I pose them, you ignore what you want to.

That's fine with me. But to be fair to both of us, since the discussion is always one sided with you picking one thing and not entering the general spirit of the discussion. I think so I don't react negatively to you, or just give you fodder for another straw man argument, I will just ignore your posts. You of course are free to do as you please, post whatever you want, and have your say.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 834
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 4:06:38 PM

Remember it just takes a short look at congress today, to see that any leader can be thwarted from any course of change whether you agree or not, simply by congress sitting on their hands


And this is the entire point of limiting government. Anything that expands the governement only increases the impact of its corruption. Let them shut the government down for a few weeks. Watch what happens. Nothing. The world will not end. Despite how much it seems so desperatly wanted for the governemnet to control all aspects of the economy and life. They don't. Not yet. But they want it really bad. It's just natural. Take away the spoiled childs toys.
 Home_for_30
Joined: 2/6/2010
Msg: 835
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 5:34:51 PM

"Liberalism seeks redistribution of another's property"[\quote]

Simple question, since there are some very well informed people on both sides of this OWS situation. One of many things I hear the protesters, and now many members of Congress is wanting to raise taxes on just the so called 1%. Isn't raising taxes (taking money from) one small group of peole and not others 'redistribution' of wealth? Not saying its Liberalism. Wouldn't a flat tax, with no loopholes be much fairer? I know there is more to it then that, but KISS...Keep It Simple, Stupid. I would like to hear comments on that with the 'they can afford it' and anything assuming how that person got into the '1%' BTW I hate that term...the Cosbys would be 1% if they really existed. Would you deny Cliff Huxtable his really cool sweaters??
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 836
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 5:40:01 PM
Sure. I'm all for the Huxtables paying the same rate they were paying in the 80's. He could afford his cool sweaters under the onerous tax burden he was under at the time.

Great idea!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 837
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 6:16:21 PM

Sure. I'm all for the Huxtables paying the same rate they were paying in the 80's. He could afford his cool sweaters under the onerous tax burden he was under at the time


Actually he was a Dr. So, in your world not only would you tax him into the stone age you would also take his job, federalize it, then limit his pay, but don't forget that he will be unionized and the union will eventually get him lifetime pay at 2x the rate of his current salary and reduce his working hours to about 20 hours a week with full retirement at 45.

I love fairy tale land. It all works perfectly because we care.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 838
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 7:08:04 PM

You are a self-proclaimed Liberal. What are your views on property rights? From what I understand Liberalism has a view of property rights as:
"…under which the state has the right to reorder property rights as it sees fit.”

Or is that too extreme? I'm just trying to understand since it seems that the loss of home ownership fits with liberalism while property ownership is in opposition.


There ya go...a liberal democrat...by the view of this post is a socialist...a communist (and by extension-un american)...who...""…under which the state has the right to reorder property rights as it sees fit.”

Yet it is the supreme court who see's fit to redistribute an individual's property..see Kelo vs. New London Ct...in the interest of good ole capitalism...let's take a persons home to give to a developer...that's what this good ole boy supreme court did recently.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 839
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 7:42:05 PM

Actually he was a Dr. So, in your world not only would you tax him into the stone age you would also take his job, federalize it, then limit his pay, but don't forget that he will be unionized and the union will eventually get him lifetime pay at 2x the rate of his current salary and reduce his working hours to about 20 hours a week with full retirement at 45.

You ever notice that those on the right have a really delusional idea about what those on the left advocate?

I bet it's really easy to win arguments when you get to make up the stuff the other side is saying.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 840
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 7:56:02 PM
I don't know about you but as far as I know this isn't fantasy land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation



The state supreme court held that the use of eminent domain for economic development did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court held that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed urban area (even if not blighted), then the project qualifies as a public use. The court also ruled constitutional the government delegation of its eminent domain power to a private entity.


There are conditions which can be met and agreeable or not to you it was decided by multiple courts to be within the law. Or do you believe that we are already a communist government? Your post seems to indicate that.


I may not like the ruling either and I'm sure I wouldn't if it happened to me. However this is not a systemic problem where property is being seized by government officials and turned into communal development projects.

Yes, freeways had to be built also. All in the name of 'progress'. That didn't turn us into an authoritarian slave state.

BTW... I didn't make up that definition. I copied from: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/12/27/ilya-somin/what-surveys-tell-us-about-liberal-views-of-property-rights/ Although I'm sure you disagree. Do you have a definition or are definitions stupid.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 841
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 8:34:28 PM

There are conditions which can be met and agreeable or not to you it was decided by multiple courts to be within the law. Or do you believe that we are already a communist government? Your post seems to indicate that.


Let me splain sumthin...the "state" took the land...the supreme court upheld the ruling...it was done in the interest of "developement"...for the good of increasing the tax roles by taking residential land and turning it into so higher use land...and it sit's fallow...BTW it weren't no highway they were building!!!

Nope, my point is that a facist supreme court took land from a private property owner to give to a comercial concern....not communism at all.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 842
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 9:14:23 PM
Flat tax, interesting and long debated concept. Let's see what's out there?

Well obviously we have 9-9-9, an interesting flawed concept at best. While the 9% income tax would make most jump for joy, especially those in the top bracket. Business would whoop as well. But the sales tax, on top of state sales tax would be onerous on the middle class, and a disaster on the poor. If you made 100K or more, you could save a certain amount and limit your spending, thereby avoiding that aspect of the tax. More for those who make 1 million or more. But those who make 20K or less and spend every dime just to live, would be decimated.

Next we have the Perry 20%, a lot more fair, if not totally. Again not so different for the middle class and what they pay now. A good windfall, for those of the 1% set, at least a saving of 15%.

The key is what does it cost to run the government? This varies from year to year, obviously more in a year like 2009, than more prosperous years.

So what's the answer? A rate near 25% on ALL income, no deductions. That's my thought. A business rate closer to 20%, but with restrictions on where they hide income such as offshore retained earnings, again with little to no deductions. While that will make some howl, a deal where no one is happy, is usually a fair one.

Ahhhh, now comes the "BUT", we have to reduce the size of the federal government budget. Gone are the boon doggles of old. No more exceptions for the good ol boy network of the Senate. Over 6 years, an independent, totally "independent" group of economic experts must cut the waste and special projects from government. No more 10K wrenches, or 50k toilets. Government contracts have no over-run clauses, you bid, you deliver for the price you quoted. No more no bid contracts, like the kind Haliburton got.

That to name a few of the things that need to change. Real accounting with accruels. That should stop spending with no limits.

Now there is my thoughts, worth less than a penny. Because there is no way on this earth, congress would ever pass it. It's a pipe dream, from the pensions they receive that would be scaled back to amount of time served, self paid healthcare like the rest of us.

These ideas of fiscal constraint, and flat taxes remind me of a, think well cooked T-bone! Once every four years they pull the sucker out and pass it under your nose, give you a good wiff, then away it goes until they need to fool you next time!

Have no illusions, if congress wanted fair, they could have done it years ago!

You do remember congress? Where almost all are millionaires! Hahahaha!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 843
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 9:22:26 PM

Nope, my point is that a facist supreme court took land from a private property owner to give to a comercial concern


Wow, ok. So your ultra conservative. Or is there another label that you use. The definition of Fascism that I see is : Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, discipline and family policy (such as eugenics).

I don't know how a business that lobbies for and is awarded the use of property (even though they eventually went bankrupt themselves) is fascist. Well, I guess this definition can apply to: Fascists advocate: a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state; the use of state enterprise where private enterprise is failing or is inefficient; and autarky.[3] They are hostile to finance capitalism, plutocracy, the "power of money", and internationalist economics.

But, you have a strong belief in private property rights. That’s a good start. So, how does fascism apply to OWS?

Would you be suggesting that the banks are the fascist arm of the government and by over extending a significant amount of the population on home loans that they did this on purpose with the expectation of mass foreclosures so they could take the property for themselves and relinquish it to government control?

Or is there some other scenario you think you could 'splain'?
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 844
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 9:37:35 PM
WOW! Are you sure, you aren't taking meds that screw with your head?

Does everything have to conform to set labels or trite phrases and definitions?

I won't bother to quote that gibberish of your last paragraph. Fascist arm of the government? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

On wall street when I was a young lad, an older broker once told me a saying. He said son "never stay at the party too long"! What that meant was basically take the profit and run, or no one ever went broke taking a profit.

If you saw the special on the mortgage mess, Greenspan himself, said he did not understand the underlying equation for CDO's. Now I don't know what you know about math, but the head of the FED and his minions certainly know a lot about math.

CDO's are akin to tankers, it takes miles to stop or turn a large tanker. It takes a while from womb to delivery to collect slice and dice 500 million(the size of most MBO's), into CDO's, then have the rating agency rate them, then have a prospectus written, proofed and distributed, then sold and closed.

While the servicing end of the banks business caused them headaches as administrators for the CDO's. What really hurt them was the unsold inventory of the mortgages they owned. In other words in their heads CDO's was like printing money and the party would NEVER stop, so they got caught with their hands still in the cookie jar.

Got it?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 845
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/26/2011 10:06:42 PM
I won't bother to quote that gibberish of your last paragraph. Fascist arm of the government? ARE YOU SERIOUS?


Of course not.... Sheesh... did you read the message that I was responding to.




Nope, my point is that a facist supreme court took land from a private property owner to give to a comercial concern....not communism at all.


Haha... I do not believe that America is a Fascist Communist state.

I do believe that banking has been playing games with governement a bit too closely and that serious reform is needed. The first place I would start would be making it illegal for congressmen to trade stocks on insider information. Any company involved in current or proposed or pending legistlation (even if just industry) should be illegal. That is a start.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 846
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/27/2011 1:17:55 AM
Glad you finally agree with the OWS crowd Aires. One of the main points of contention brought to light by the movement is to remove corporate influence from politics and return democracy to the republic as it was intended.

To get a handle on our economic crisis, consider that unelected people are now setting national and international policy. A $12.3 Trillion theft happened because our representative government is AWOL or in the pocket of corporations, Supreme Court 5 included.
http://pubrecord.org/nation/8622/pentagon-papers-wall-street/

And we have indeed moved into fascist territory. Indicators include being an empire with a troop presence in most of the world's nations, the corporate control of policy, media message control, uber-nationalism, and gleeful, willing relinquishment of basic human rights for the cause.
http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/american-fascism-by-political-definition-the-us-is-now-fascist-not-a-constitutional-republic

There is also Laurence Britt's fascism checklist to compare ourselves to.
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

From Liberty Forum

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=642
109&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 847
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/27/2011 7:11:57 AM

Haha... I do not believe that America is a Fascist Communist state.


A Fascist Communist state??? How can two oposing political idealisms be combined???

14 points to seriously consider though...it does seem as though parts of this America are sincerely fascist leaning.

You see...declaring liberal democrats as socialists or communists or marxists...is just another way of the the right to declare a liberal democrat an un-American...and some take that labeling as a liberal democrat and interpolate it to mean that there is a conspiracy to socialise all aspects of the American way of life..when in reality that viewpoint cannot be farther from the truth....personally I have always seen the two party system as a good check and balance...the sad truth is the two party system has mutated to be us vs them....the Americans vs the un-Americans
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 848
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/27/2011 8:52:08 AM
Glad you finally agree with the OWS crowd


Well, I don't. I agree with the tea party more. Sorry.

OWS in my opinion is targeting the wrong direction and is being supported by the unions which I feel have a large hand in destroying the economies of the states. The messages of taking from the wealthy are class divisions that do nothing but increase the divisions in class.

So... What I was trying to show was that even those that are liberal actually still hold the values that we all have in common and even though there are fundamental differences in ideologies it is still possible to communicate.

IOW the problem is directly in Washington and it is not the sole problem of republicans. The problem is that it is now a game but the game is how rich the politicians can become in the short term.

If you look at the regulatory leaders. How many of them use to be political lobbyists. They figured out being a lobbyist which direction the money flowed and jumped into the path.

Some of the problems have been going on for 50+ years. However, the more recent issues relating to money and what congress is getting out of it is a bit more recent.

Just search for visa and Pelosi and just think of the money they can make through legislation and manipulation. It's a simple fix to take away the financial windfall of public office. You can't trust anyone in power anymore when they are getting rich off of their position. That was why it used to be called, “public service".
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 849
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/27/2011 10:11:56 AM

Yet it is the supreme court who see's fit to redistribute an individual's property..see Kelo vs. New London Ct...in the interest of good ole capitalism...let's take a persons home to give to a developer...that's what this good ole boy supreme court did recently.


Kelo was nothing like the radical departure it's often made out to be. For decades, the Court had been interpreting the "public use" requirement of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause so broadly that it already didn't mean very much. A couple examples:

In Berman v. Parker, a 1954 case, the Court interpreted public use very loosely in upholding an urban renewal scheme which benefited private redevelopers of inner-city districts.

In 1984, in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, the Court found a state scheme served a public use, even though it forced large private landowners to sell their properties and transferred the proceeds to private tenants on those properties.

I don't agree with the Kelo decision. But your notion that it shows the Supreme Court is a "fascist" agent of land redistribution is complete nonsense.
 hoopsnhikes
Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 850
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/27/2011 11:48:41 AM

You ever notice that those on the right have a really delusional idea about what those on the left advocate?

I bet it's really easy to win arguments when you get to make up the stuff the other side is saying.


This trait is hardly exclusive to those on the right. Look no further than your own words from a few pages back in this thread:


American conservatives can only find their ideological partners in military juntas and Islamic authoritarian regimes.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street