The Envoy: halfof33: The Envoy: Disagree. Protests shouldn't be restricted because they're inconvenient. Making it so that protests are far enough removed so that nobody hears them and thus gets annoyed by them is simply another way of removing it as a tool of the people. Is that seriously what you're advocating? Limiting or removing one of the populace's only means of communicating their discontent? That's just a piss-poor idea however you look at it.

I am utterly baffled how you drew that conclusion from what I posted. Further, are you really asserting that the populace's only means of communicating their discontent is CAMPING?

That is remarkable.

Really? Ok, I'll go step-by-step:
halfof33: there is no reason why a small group of people should be entitled to usurp public property indefinitely.

To which I responded "Protests shouldn't be restricted because they're inconvenient". Put another way, protesting is a reason that runs contrary to your statement above.

halfof33: Further, are you really asserting that the populace's only means of communicating their discontent is CAMPING?

That is remarkable.

What is actually remarkable is that you managed to get that drivel from this: (re: protesting)"Limiting or removing one of the populace's only means of communicating their discontent?".

Now, I quite clearly stated that protesting is "one of" the populace's only means of communicating dsiscontent. So no, I am not asserting that it is the population's only means. At all. Did you misread it or intentionally twist it? Further, I didn't say "camping", did I? It can quite clearly be seen from my post that I am talking about protesting. Did you fail to pick up on the context or were you too busy misreading everything else?

It is funny how you say you are going "step by step" and yet intentionally omit your post to which I was replying:

halfof33: The Envoy: Are you saying that if everybody camping was a taxpayer you'd be fine with it? How do you know that they're not taxpayers or have been recently? What about retirees who paid taxes all their lives, would they be ok to protest by camping?

Obviously not, there is no reason why a small group of people should be entitled to usurp public property indefinitely.

I bolded your claim. go be mad somewhere else.

This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them

Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights

And Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation

Know your rights
These are your rights
Wang

Know these rights

Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.

Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well..............................

Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You don't have a home to go to
Smush

Finally then I will read you your rights

You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you

Listen to this
Run

Good, get rid of 'em.

They have good goals. But they are doing absolutely nothing to achieve them.
Living in a public area and holding signs does not count.

halfof33: I bolded your claim. go be mad somewhere else.

Wow. That is farking pathetic pal! I didn't omit the post to which you were replying with your "baffled" post. I quoted it. It has your name right by it. Your quote contains MY quote, to which you replied.

halfof33: Obviously not, there is no reason why a small group of people should be entitled to usurp public property indefinitely.

The Envoy: Disagree. Protests shouldn't be restricted because they're inconvenient. Making it so that protests are far enough removed so that nobody hears them and thus gets annoyed by them is simply another way of removing it as a tool of the people. Is that seriously what you're advocating? Limiting or removing one of the populace's only means of communicating their discontent? That's just a piss-poor idea however you look at it.

We'd quite clearly moved on to protesting in general not being a populace's only means of communicating discontent. If not, what's the reason for this:
halfof33: The Envoy: Disagree. Protests shouldn't be restricted because they're inconvenient. Making it so that protests are far enough removed so that nobody hears them and thus gets annoyed by them is simply another way of removing it as a tool of the people. Is that seriously what you're advocating? Limiting or removing one of the populace's only means of communicating their discontent? That's just a piss-poor idea however you look at it.

I am utterly baffled how you drew that conclusion from what I posted. Further, are you really asserting that the populace's only means of communicating their discontent is CAMPING?

That is remarkable.

You post a quote, respond to it, get shown to be an idiot and then go back to an older quote that wasn't relevant. Honestly, that's the best you could do? You do realise the posts are up above, meaning that your lame attempt at evading the point are obvious, don't you? I'm not mad, I'm pointing out that you're disingenuous and/or an idiot.

Go be mad somewhere else.

halfof33: I bolded your claim. go be mad somewhere else.

Also, that wasn't a claim. See that funny squiggle: "?" at the end? That makes it a question. Might want to look up how that's different to a claim, it may enable you to appear slightly less stupid in future.

I suggest the cops fight non-violence with non-violence. I recommend blasting "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" on repeat until they clear out. Even the completely nutty occupiers would be out within 48 hours.

/Occupy supporter
//employed

bighasbeen: WhyteRaven74: FredaDeStilleto: My guess is they're resisting arrest.

On what grounds are they being arrested then?


OLA's twitter said this was the law cited to them (new window)

What it breaks down to is this:

Occupy LA might be threatening other people's civil rights, so we're going to take theirs away before they might possibly infringe on someone else's.

Jeepers, applying that to Occupy LA consitutes some serious double-speak.

The Envoy: Also, that wasn't a claim. See that funny squiggle: "?" at the end? That makes it a question. Might want to look up how that's different to a claim, it may enable you to appear slightly less stupid in future.

And my post was a direct response to your question.

This your first day using English, sport?

You OWS guys are 0 for what? 15? You still haven't accomplished dick. Great job.

otterly_delicious: I tried to watch the KTLA coverage earlier and when they interviewed the OWS people it just angered me. One of the comments was, "We have been here 8 weeks and they wont listen to us!" I'm still confused at to what the message is aside from being upset. What are you trying to accomplish? Change. Got it. What kind of change? How do you want this change to happen? What is the end result? What realistic timeline are you expecting? Clicking your heels three times isn't going to change policy. Get a plan and present it! Voting in a dog as your leader doesn't help anything.

John and Ken from KFI even gave them an afternoon on the radio, not just interviews but full access to the radio station and I still don't understand what would make them happy. There is no agenda or solution to general disgruntlement.

That most don't want to be arrested seems to underline the idea that they can't stand behind their convictions when they can't articulate them. At the very least they should be protesting in the state capital and annoy the politicians who vote on policies that are detrimental to everyone but the politicians.

It's like asking what I should make you for dinner and replying "Whatever." Then you get upset that you didn't get what you wanted. Be Specific!

/sigh, I need to go to sleep
//sleepy rant may or may not be coherent

The stated goals:

1. Arrest the Wall Street idiots who broke the law and thereby tanked the economy of an entire planet
2. Regulate Wall Street so we don't have a repeat in ten years
3. Make farking jobs

/Why the hell do I have to post this EVERY DAMN THREAD?
//Seriously, do you people have some sort of long-term memory problem? You're reading exactly the same damn news articles I am. I have farking Asperger's syndrome, I'd think if I can remember what's going on without writing it down you might be able to.

o5iiawah: WhyteRaven74: liam76: "peaceably"

And what do you know, the Occupy protests are peaceable. Except in a few cases where the cops showed up in riot gear. Funny how that works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilq_66LnRaw
Link (new window)

[cdn.abclocal.go.com image 600x450]

[savethe99.com image 600x540]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x543]

[boldcolors.net image 600x450]

Ah, those jack-booted police must have been provoking people to destroy all that property and threaten others!

Because a few did something, all of them are guilty!

SLAUGHTER ALL SHARKS BECAUSE A FEW BIT PEOPLE!

JAIL ALL BLACKS BECAUSE A FEW COMMIT CRIMES!

DESTROY ALL AIRPLANES BECAUSE A FEW MALFUNCTIONED!

DEMONIZE ALL OWS PROTESTERS BECAUSE A FEW WERE STUPID!

oh lookie. something 99.999% of occupy idiots are clueless about

http://news.yahoo.com/worlds-central-banks-act-ease-market-strains-13 1 058151.html

ParaHandy: Snatch Bandergrip: Wow, you anti-OWS farkers love to bury your heads in the sand, huh?

ParaHandy provided a link to a highly detailed and sound summation of the goals of the OWS movement, written directly by protesters.

We can argue the validity of their points, but STOP PRETENDING there are not specific goals.

Here, I'll even relink it for ya. (new window)

And whether you agree with their message or not, the brutality of the police response to OWS has been absolutely disproportionate (especially since the cops did nothing to bother the armed, violence-threatening Tea Partiers).

The Tea Party is unwitting astroturf for the 1% ... as someone posted in a thread a few days ago, it's the "my master beats me less than yours" phenomenon.

The fact is that the Occupy movmement is a real threat to the current oligarchy that transcends political lines. Politics in the US consists of choosing which of the two parties Wall St needs to bribe more for the next 2 years.

I've found without exception that anyone who supports the GOP is misinformed ... they quote deliberately misleading stats prepared to trap the unwary, such as the income tax distribution without Capital Gains and FICA. When confronted with data, they resort to vague homilies such as "socialized healthcare will be less efficient because everything run by the government is" ... despite the fact that we've already discussed the point that most of the 36 countries that have better and less expensive health care ARE single-payer systems run by their governments.

Latest round with a colleague at work: after conceding that single-payer is in most cases cheaper and more efficient, he starts picking at one thread: "WHO may say that Europe has better health care than us, but we have the best cancer survival rate" ... I haven't dissected this particular one yet, but note how he is happy to narrow the discussion to one tiny area where there might be an opportunity to continue to defend the broken system he supports. I'd give it at least 50:50 that he's wrong again; for one thing, the 35% or so of Americans that have no insurance or can't afford the co-pays just die untreated, but even if you say fark them and narrow focus to the 65% who can access care, the fact that some of the best care in the world is available here gets undermined by insurance companies arguing against treatment plans that are expensive, and by treatment practices being distorted by litigation avoidance and profit motive ... treatment for TIA (stroke) in US ER's is incredibly bad due to doctors avoiding risky but statistically correct life saving decisions, and childbirth complications are much higher than Europe due to the high profit margins on unnecessary Caesarian sections.

It's not that they are toadies, they have entrenched views to which they are emotionally attached, and no-one gives those up liightly. In college, used to argue passionately against the Strong AI Hypothesis ... I was wrong, but didn't see it until much later.

This is why, in the sardonic wit of Mrs PH's favourite neuroscience professor, strongly held opinions are "rarely hampered by data"

HAHAHAHAAH. The "all republicans are misinformed fools" nonsense. I don't understand how anyone can really believe this. I am a very solid democrat, but I understand that republicans are smart and informed too, they just feel differently about issues than I do. How can anyone be taken seriously who basically writes off 40-45% of the population.

PsiChick: otterly_delicious: I tried to watch the KTLA coverage earlier and when they interviewed the OWS people it just angered me. One of the comments was, "We have been here 8 weeks and they wont listen to us!" I'm still confused at to what the message is aside from being upset. What are you trying to accomplish? Change. Got it. What kind of change? How do you want this change to happen? What is the end result? What realistic timeline are you expecting? Clicking your heels three times isn't going to change policy. Get a plan and present it! Voting in a dog as your leader doesn't help anything.

John and Ken from KFI even gave them an afternoon on the radio, not just interviews but full access to the radio station and I still don't understand what would make them happy. There is no agenda or solution to general disgruntlement.

That most don't want to be arrested seems to underline the idea that they can't stand behind their convictions when they can't articulate them. At the very least they should be protesting in the state capital and annoy the politicians who vote on policies that are detrimental to everyone but the politicians.

It's like asking what I should make you for dinner and replying "Whatever." Then you get upset that you didn't get what you wanted. Be Specific!

/sigh, I need to go to sleep
//sleepy rant may or may not be coherent

The stated goals:

1. Arrest the Wall Street idiots who broke the law and thereby tanked the economy of an entire planet
2. Regulate Wall Street so we don't have a repeat in ten years
3. Make farking jobs

/Why the hell do I have to post this EVERY DAMN THREAD?
//Seriously, do you people have some sort of long-term memory problem? You're reading exactly the same damn news articles I am. I have farking Asperger's syndrome, I'd think if I can remember what's going on without writing it down you might be able to.

How do you "regulate wall street" and how do you "make jobs"? Got any details?

lilplatinum: Kinda funny how differently the LAPD deals with large groups of crackers as opposed to more... swarthy gentlemen.

Big difference if you are comparing this to the LA riots. The Occupy LA protesters were good on their word that they were a peaceful bunch. And yes, yelling is still "peaceful" on the great spectrum of things.

The Occupy LA people were not violent, they did not loot. The police responded in kind: they used force just sufficient to get their job done, punch their time card, and go back to their families.

One thing I noticed while watching the wall-to-wall TV coverage: The protesters interviewed often mentioned the government ignoring the constitution. This seemed like a message considerably different than their previous plea to redistribute wealth... and a message very much in alignment with the Tea Party.

WhyteRaven74: otterly_delicious: Then you tell me exactly what do they want?

banking and finance reform, education loan reform, addressing the issue of 30 years of stagnant wages, the issue of job loss, campaign finance reform, those are the big ones.

No sympathy for those who went $30K+ underwater to obtain a bullshiat degree from a "prestigious" university, and then whine about not being able to find a job that utilizes their "unique" skill set. There are others who have valid arguments about their circumstances, but a lot of those 99% pictures referenced farked-up degrees.

/imho
//currently having this discussion with my son who is in college
///not having a lot of success

I love how occupiers are all constitutional scholars now.

Wretched: WhyteRaven74: otterly_delicious: Then you tell me exactly what do they want?

banking and finance reform, education loan reform, addressing the issue of 30 years of stagnant wages, the issue of job loss, campaign finance reform, those are the big ones.

No sympathy for those who went $30K+ underwater to obtain a bullshiat degree from a "prestigious" university, and then whine about not being able to find a job that utilizes their "unique" skill set. There are others who have valid arguments about their circumstances, but a lot of those 99% pictures referenced farked-up degrees.

/imho
//currently having this discussion with my son who is in college
///not having a lot of success

So there's only a few "important" careers and everyone must learn them or die?

WaitWhatWhy: entitled: WaitWhatWhy: The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Laws enacted by any means other then a Constitutional amendment are subject to it, and cannot remove or otherwise over-ride the Constitution. Ergo, the First Amendment's right to assemble cannot be legitimately limited by public camping ordinances.

Pretending to be a constitutional authority is so much fun!

Such a pretty strawman you've made. Care to refute any part of my analysis?

Yes. Court rulings--not your amateurish interpretation--determine the constitutionality of a law. Your ignorance of constitutional law doesn't deter you from publicly demonstrating it.

otterly_delicious: tried to watch the KTLA coverage earlier and when they interviewed the OWS people it just angered me. One of the comments was, "We have been here 8 weeks and they wont listen to us!" I'm still confused at to what the message is aside from being upset. What are you trying to accomplish? Change. Got it. What kind of change? How do you want this change to happen? What is the end result? What realistic timeline are you expecting? Clicking your heels three times isn't going to change policy. Get a plan and present it! Voting in a dog as your leader doesn't help anything.


I think that's pretty much how most of America feels about it at this point.

PsiChick: The stated goals:

1. Arrest the Wall Street idiots who broke the law and thereby tanked the economy of an entire planet
2. Regulate Wall Street so we don't have a repeat in ten years
3. Make farking jobs

And you say you post that in every OWS thread?

Here's a clue bat for you, stop because those are laughably naive.

arrest idiots? Who, for what, why?
regulate wall street? how, when?
make jobs? face palm.

Make jobs.

halfof33: PsiChick: The stated goals:

1. Arrest the Wall Street idiots who broke the law and thereby tanked the economy of an entire planet
2. Regulate Wall Street so we don't have a repeat in ten years
3. Make farking jobs

And you say you post that in every OWS thread?

Here's a clue bat for you, stop because those are laughably naive.

arrest idiots? Who, for what, why?
regulate wall street? how, when?
make jobs? face palm.

Make jobs.

Let's hear your ideas for fixing the country.

halfof33: PsiChick: The stated goals:

1. Arrest the Wall Street idiots who broke the law and thereby tanked the economy of an entire planet
2. Regulate Wall Street so we don't have a repeat in ten years
3. Make farking jobs

And you say you post that in every OWS thread?

Here's a clue bat for you, stop because those are laughably naive.

arrest idiots? Who, for what, why?
regulate wall street? how, when?
make jobs? face palm.

Make jobs.

Suddenly "conservatives" demand specifics and details to go with rhetoric. Almost as funny as them suddenly caring about spending the day Obama gets elected.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Let's hear your ideas for fixing the country.

Make jobs.

Regulate unions

Arrest OWS protesters.

Make more jobs.

Arrest protesters that protest OWS protesters

Make jobs.

Arrest Aaron Rogers.

Make more jobs but not as much as last time.

Implement Final Solution I mean make jobs

halfof33: PsiChick: The stated goals:

1. Arrest the Wall Street idiots who broke the law and thereby tanked the economy of an entire planet
2. Regulate Wall Street so we don't have a repeat in ten years
3. Make farking jobs

And you say you post that in every OWS thread?

Here's a clue bat for you, stop because those are laughably naive.

arrest idiots? Who, for what, why?
regulate wall street? how, when?
make jobs? face palm.

Make jobs.

...First, what is a 'clue bat', and second, if the question is "What are the goals of OWS?", why do I even have to state whether or not I agree with them to answer the question? What, do I have to give my opinion on whether or not I think the sky is blue to answer that, too?

PsiChick:
...First, what is a 'clue bat', and second, if the question is "What are the goals of OWS?", why do I even have to state whether or not I agree with them to answer the question? What, do I have to give my opinion on whether or not I think the sky is blue to answer that, too?

I didn't say you had to agree with them. I said your recitation of them was laughably naive.

And yes you do have to give your opinion of whether or not you think the sky is blue.

It sure as hell wasn't blue yesterday.

halfof33: PsiChick:
...First, what is a 'clue bat', and second, if the question is "What are the goals of OWS?", why do I even have to state whether or not I agree with them to answer the question? What, do I have to give my opinion on whether or not I think the sky is blue to answer that, too?

I didn't say you had to agree with them. I said your recitation of them was laughably naive.

And yes you do have to give your opinion of whether or not you think the sky is blue.

It sure as hell wasn't blue yesterday.

I'm not entirely sure how stating facts can be 'laughably naive'.

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: Let's hear your ideas for fixing the country.

Make jobs.

Regulate unions

Arrest OWS protesters.

Make more jobs.

Arrest protesters that protest OWS protesters

Make jobs.

Arrest Aaron Rogers.

Make more jobs but not as much as last time.

Implement Final Solution I mean make jobs

Try again, this time without being a trolling retard.

PsiChick:
I'm not entirely sure how stating facts can be 'laughably naive'.

Of course you don't and you also think that "make jobs" is somehow an effective way to summarize complicated macro-economic issues.

halfof33: The Envoy: Also, that wasn't a claim. See that funny squiggle: "?" at the end? That makes it a question. Might want to look up how that's different to a claim, it may enable you to appear slightly less stupid in future.

And my post was a direct response to your question.

This your first day using English, sport?

Don't want to move on because everything that came after (which is what I was addressing, not your original point, hence the quotes handily preceding my posts so you can remember what you typed) simply makes you look dumber than you already do? That's ok cupcake.

On this little tidbit: you said you'd bolded my claim. I stated it wasn't a claim but a question. Your response is that you responded to a question? So are you admitting that you were stupid to call it a claim? That's what you did. You called a question a claim. I didn't claim anything. You may think that, but the plain language I used proves otherwise.

Yeah, someone's got a tenuous grasp of the language and it's not me.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Try again, this time without being a trolling retard.

Curious, you don't seem to apply the same standards to your pals in the OWS. Why is that?

Here is one: Require all public employee unions subject to a collective bargaining agreement to contribute to health and pension benefits at a rate commensurate with the median contribution rates of private employers in the same geographic area, and prohibit multiple pension payments (a/k/a double dipping) beyond the amount on the second (third, fourth) pension at a rate greater than the individual's actual contributions to those pensions.

halfof33: PsiChick:
I'm not entirely sure how stating facts can be 'laughably naive'.

Of course you don't and you also think that "make jobs" is somehow an effective way to summarize complicated macro-economic issues.

I AM ONLY REPEATING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID.

There is no 'naive'. There is no 'macro-issues'. I am repeating the words, as close to verbatim as I can, of a different person. This is like, when a blind child asks you what color the sky is, saying the word 'blue'. I really have no clue why you're trying to argue that I didn't repeat their goals correctly by saying their goals are stupid.

FInally. Stupid "moviment".

Coelacanth: WhyteRaven74: Oh and here's a non-OWS problem but still a major problem that needs addressing, doctors per 100,000 population, the United States 240, France 337, Germany 340, Belgium 390 and Italy 420. Oh, if that's not enough to make you facepalm, Mongolia has has 263 doctors per 100,000 people, Kazakhstan has 354 and Azerbaijan 355. Think about that for a minute.

I've given it quite a bit of thought. Here's my solution: Give our surgeon general a real army.

Recruit those people who have an aptitude for medicine. We pay for their education. They pay us back by going where we need them for eight to ten years. When they're done, they get their license and no debt.

I think departing war veterans should be screened for aptitude and interest, then, eligible individuals should be given grants to attend medical school.

Or we could start a medical corp. Qualifying individuals would receive grants to attend medical school provided theymet all med school requirements and maintained no less than a 3.5 grade average. Following residency, graduates would be assigned a county, that has no doctor, and be required to practice in that county for four years. I envision two students from each state receiving the scholarship. New doctors would be assigned to the poorest counties first until every county had at least one doctor.

WhyteRaven74: Occupy Wall Street, cops arresting a retired cop

[i.imgur.com image 640x426]

Occupy Stockholm, cops bringing food to the protesters

[www.techedon.com image 640x433]

One of those two police departments understands "to serve and protect", yeah it's not the NYPD.

Wow, a retired cop showing up in uniform to protest. It must have wondered if he would be targeted more than other individuals. That is a brave man.

The Envoy: Don't want to move on because everything that came after (which is what I was addressing, not your original point, hence the quotes handily preceding my posts so you can remember what you typed) simply makes you look dumber than you already do? That's ok cupcake.

On this little tidbit: you said you'd bolded my claim. I stated it wasn't a claim but a question. Your response is that you responded to a question? So are you admitting that you were stupid to call it a claim? That's what you did. You called a question a claim. I didn't claim anything. You may think that, but the plain language I used proves otherwise.

Yeah, someone's got a tenuous grasp of the language and it's not me.

Has anyone ever made a claim in the context of a question? Would you have to be a farking moran to assert that a claim cannot be formed into a question? Are you a complete farking butt hurt moran?

So many questions, lulz.

WhyteRaven74: Coelacanth: Recruit those people who have an aptitude for medicine. We pay for their education. They pay us back by going where we need them for eight to ten years. When they're done, they get their license and no debt.

Or we could open more medical schools, which we really need to do, and just cover everyone's med school costs. Going to medical school in France or Germany is cheap. In Italy even cheaper. Granted they don't have medical schools as graduate only schools, which helps. Also it means you get to actually be a doctor a bit younger than in the US. Which doesn't hurt either.

We have to delay a persons' entry into the work work world as long as possible because it makes our unemployment figures look better.

I'm so late to this thread, I might as well be having a "conversation" with my significant other. :(

halfof33: Has anyone ever made a claim in the context of a question? Would you have to be a farking moran to assert that a claim cannot be formed into a question? Are you a complete farking butt hurt moran?

Good questions. Irrelevant to anything I said as my question was quite clearly not masquerading as a claim. Try again. You're still coming across as a total cretin.

PsiChick: halfof33: PsiChick:
I'm not entirely sure how stating facts can be 'laughably naive'.

Of course you don't and you also think that "make jobs" is somehow an effective way to summarize complicated macro-economic issues.

I AM ONLY REPEATING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID.


Yes, perhaps you are only repeating what someone else said, but your claim seems to be that somehow this is a clear description of what they want. it went like this.

otterly: there is no clear message.
chick: yes there is, I post it all the time. here it is.
half33: That's about as clear as mud.
chick: I AM ONLY REPEATING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID.

In other words you haven't addressed the complaint that there is no clear message though you claim too, and then disavow the "message" after you post it.

I happen to agree that "make jobs" is about as vague a demand as "world happiness and hope".

However, replace "regulate wall street" with "reinstate glass-steagall" and that one is concrete and clear, admittedly.

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: Try again, this time without being a trolling retard.

Curious, you don't seem to apply the same standards to your pals in the OWS. Why is that?

Here is one: Require all public employee unions subject to a collective bargaining agreement to contribute to health and pension benefits at a rate commensurate with the median contribution rates of private employers in the same geographic area, and prohibit multiple pension payments (a/k/a double dipping) beyond the amount on the second (third, fourth) pension at a rate greater than the individual's actual contributions to those pensions.

I have, many times. But, while they have said and done some dumb things, they do have definitive grievances and goals, but the other side seems to want to focus only on the negative aspects of OWS that they can use to demonize the entire thing without addressing the problems that brought all of those people, from many age groups, walks of life, backgrounds, etc together on these issues.

When BOTH sides stop being retarded, maybe we can actually get somewhere. Yes, that includes you and myself, I know I seem pissy right now, but the constant derp can do that to someone.

ThrobblefootSpectre: PsiChick: halfof33: PsiChick:
I'm not entirely sure how stating facts can be 'laughably naive'.

Of course you don't and you also think that "make jobs" is somehow an effective way to summarize complicated macro-economic issues.

I AM ONLY REPEATING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID.


Yes, perhaps you are only repeating what someone else said, but your claim seems to be that somehow this is a clear description of what they want. it went like this.

otterly: there is no clear message.
chick: yes there is, I post it all the time. here it is.
half33: That's about as clear as mud.
chick: I AM ONLY REPEATING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID.

In other words you haven't addressed the complaint that there is no clear message though you claim too, and then disavow the "message" after you post it.

I happen to agree that "make jobs" is about as vague a demand as "world happiness and hope".

However, replace "regulate wall street" with "reinstate glass-steagall" and that one is concrete and clear, admittedly.

...And you couldn't have just said "Wait, could you explain that in a bit more depth"?

*shakes head* Anyway, here's the clarified version:

1. Arrest those responsible for tanking the economy. There should be a formal investigation by the appropriate agencies into the actions that caused the recession, as there is some witness evidence that there was a pattern of illegal actions through nearly every section of Wall Street. In other words, multiple laws were broken with very bad consequences. Why are there no police agents of the appropriate variety? (I'd assume FBI, but it might be normal police...)

2. Regulate Wall Street. This one's simpler--put new rules and legal tools in place so we can catch and stop this sort of thing before it happens again. The rules we vetted during our 'deregulation' phase would be a good place to start coming up with ideas.

3. Create more jobs. This is the same strategy used during the Depression. A good start would probably be to tax the bejeesus out of anyone moving jobs offshore or automating them (except in cases of safety or equally pressing reasons), but almost anything would be good at this stage.

Clearer?

/Really, I didn't have a single damn clue what you wanted. Just ask next time.

halfof33: PsiChick:
I'm not entirely sure how stating facts can be 'laughably naive'.

Of course you don't and you also think that "make jobs" is somehow an effective way to summarize complicated macro-economic issues.

Tax Cuts!