Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Jay-Z confused by Occupy Wall Street, 'What are you fighting for?'   (nydailynews.com) divider line 434
    More: Amusing, Occupy Wall Street, Jay Z, Russell Simmons, fixed rate mortgage, Zuccotti Park, demonization  
•       •       •

15641 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2012 at 5:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



434 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-09 04:36:56 PM  
"It's all about the Benjamins."
 
2012-09-09 04:41:47 PM  
I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.
 
2012-09-09 04:42:13 PM  
In other news, the "occupy" movement? What's that, some sort of real estate thing?

Oh, THAT old thing.... That's still around? What? It isn't? Oh....
 
2012-09-09 04:46:03 PM  
$99 Trillion problems?
 
2012-09-09 04:47:11 PM  
So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin i105.photobucket.com subby.
 
2012-09-09 04:50:15 PM  
He's got 99 problems but capitalism ain't one.
 
2012-09-09 04:52:06 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.


We get it He's black.
 
2012-09-09 04:54:43 PM  
Area Man Reaping Benefits Of Contorted Economic System Confused By Critics Of System
 
2012-09-09 05:03:49 PM  

FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.


To be fair, not all millionaires are part of the 1%. Thats who OWS is fighting against.
 
2012-09-09 05:09:48 PM  

cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.


I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

When 'The Man' cleared you out, you all just gave up? Why?

I'm all for organizing and protesting against a cause. But OWS just seems like misguided rage. Or even guided, ADHD rage that moved on to something else.
 
2012-09-09 05:19:13 PM  

joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

When 'The Man' cleared you out, you all just gave up? Why?

I'm all for organizing and protesting against a cause. But OWS just seems like misguided rage. Or even guided, ADHD rage that moved on to something else.


OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.
 
2012-09-09 05:21:25 PM  
Tom_the_Dancing_Bug_"Economic_Injustice".jpg
 
2012-09-09 05:24:29 PM  

joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?



OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.
 
2012-09-09 05:33:31 PM  

cman: Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.


I'll take that.

FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.


Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?
 
2012-09-09 05:40:21 PM  

joshiz: Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?


We have a system whereby if the corporation is large enough, it enjoys private profit and public risk. OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.
 
2012-09-09 05:42:27 PM  

FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.


Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something
 
2012-09-09 05:44:37 PM  

jim32rr: FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.

Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something


There's a big difference between whining about greenlights and disagreeing with the premise of the headline.
 
2012-09-09 05:45:14 PM  

doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.


How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.
 
2012-09-09 06:02:52 PM  

joshiz: cman: Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.

I'll take that.

FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?


Me? I'm not part of OWS. (I'm mainly fighting to get my students to avoid TXTSPEEK in their term papers, and it's a losing battle.)

OWS? They are fighting for regulations that would decentralize the concentration of power and influence from the banks and a few corporations to the broader population of citizens. They have a number of specific grievances, but they all boil down to the fact that, due to an extreme concentration of wealth, the boards of directors of a few banks and multinational corporations exert influence over the political, judicial, and regulatory systems in this country (and elsewhere) that is far in excess of their numbers, and in doing so, they subvert the democratic process.

For the past year, the corporate media have been repeating the claim that OWS doesn't have a coherent message, and now Jay-Z is repeating the same line, but that claim has never been accurate. They've been quite clear what the movement is about.

(There are, of course, other people who show up wanting to advocate for other issues. At any protest of sufficient size, there are going to be people who jump in and try to get their pet causes attached to a larger movement. But those hangers on do not alter the central message of the movement.)
 
2012-09-09 06:03:16 PM  

jim32rr: FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.

Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something


Welp, at least FloydA isn't an ignorant, cumstained farktard. Not that I'm calling anyone else in this thread an ignorant, cumstained farktard. I'm just saying that FloydA isn't one.
 
2012-09-09 06:03:16 PM  

joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


It remains to be seen how it is working out for US. Sure, they were disorganized, but that isn't the same as being wrong.
 
2012-09-09 06:03:16 PM  
treygivens.com
 
2012-09-09 06:05:12 PM  

joshiz: I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


You're the type of person who'd support the Empire over the Rebels in Star Wars because the Empire delivers their paychecks on time... aren't you?
 
2012-09-09 06:05:38 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid:


Continue to bite the hand that feeds you and eventually you're gonna get slapped. Simple as that.
 
2012-09-09 06:06:33 PM  
Maybe he thought it was just a fashion statement?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-09 06:11:34 PM  
Is that guy unable to grow facial hair?
 
2012-09-09 06:12:27 PM  

KingoftheCheese: Because People in power are Stupid:

Continue to bite the hand that feeds you and eventually you're gonna get slapped. Simple as that.


Continue to treat the vast majority of the planet's citizens as subhuman debt batteries and eventually you're going to get dragged screaming from your home and flogged in the public square peacefully protested against.

Sigh. Gotta start somewhere.
 
2012-09-09 06:12:36 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]


Public out of the way park versus obstructive New York presence. Does that make any sense to you?

/Tea party sucks worse than OWS but not by much
 
2012-09-09 06:12:41 PM  
I don't know what a "Jay-Z" is, but I'ma guess the Occupiers are fighting against it.
 
2012-09-09 06:13:28 PM  

James F. Campbell: jim32rr: FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.

Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something

Welp, at least FloydA isn't an ignorant, cumstained farktard. Not that I'm calling anyone else in this thread an ignorant, cumstained farktard. I'm just saying that FloydA isn't one.


I've got no idea who this guy is; he apparently went straight into my iggy list because I have no recollection of him whatsoever. He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had. It's amusing to me because, in the 9 years I've been on Fark, I have only submitted two links. He might just as well try to insult me for the fact that I don't have any CMT country music awards and I've never won a Pokemon championship.
 
2012-09-09 06:13:48 PM  

FloydA: For the past year, the corporate media have been repeating the claim that OWS doesn't have a coherent message, and now Jay-Z is repeating the same line, but that claim has never been accurate. They've been quite clear what the movement is about.


James F. Campbell: You're the type of person who'd support the Empire over the Rebels in Star Wars because the Empire delivers their paychecks on time... aren't you?


doyner: I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


I actually agree with reigning in corporate influence and prosecuting bankers for their crimes/regulating the banking system - alas most of the tenants of OWS. I'm just critiquing their methods. Whether they did not accurately get their message out (and I don't buy blaming it on the corporate media), let other interests derail their goals, or give up in the face of opposition it just doesn't seem like OWS had a clear strategy.
 
2012-09-09 06:14:13 PM  

One Bad Apple: We get it He's black a rapper.


FTFY, no charge.
 
2012-09-09 06:14:34 PM  

cman: To be fair, not all millionaires are part of the 1%. Thats who OWS is fighting against.


I'm part of the 99.9999% of Americans who didn't occupy anything, and would prefer that others didn't claim to speak for us.
 
2012-09-09 06:14:44 PM  

the_chief: Is that guy unable to grow facial hair?


1 down... 98 more to go

 
2012-09-09 06:15:53 PM  
He's really come a long way from Hawaiian Sophie.
 
2012-09-09 06:16:54 PM  
i.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-09-09 06:18:10 PM  
He could just go down and ask them.
 
2012-09-09 06:18:23 PM  
assets.amuniversal.com
 
2012-09-09 06:19:43 PM  
Because People in power are Stupid:
treygivens.com

-Not on or near Wall St. militarized zone.
-Had permits.
 
2012-09-09 06:20:23 PM  
Oh and...

media.fukung.net
 
2012-09-09 06:23:00 PM  
FloydA:
OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.

A large number of the protesters, when interviewed, claimed they DID want to end capitalism.

But, much of OWS was co-opted by the Democrats. "We hate banks, re-elect Obama" treads that fine line between simple stupidity and organic brain damage. OWS becoming a leisure service of the Re-Elect Obama campaign makes EXACTLY as much sense as the KKK demanding that Obama be re-elected because they want a white man back in the White House.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-09 06:24:38 PM  
Mr Carter is correct, poor/unfocused messaging was its downfall
 
2012-09-09 06:24:39 PM  
Jay-Z not understanding something is news? Also, didn't he buyout an entire floor of the hospital where his kid was born and make it difficult for the peons who had the gall to give birth at the same time as Queen Beyonce? No surprise he doesn't care about ordinary people. Douche.
 
2012-09-09 06:26:24 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]


Ooh, ooh, I know the answer....

What is, the Tea Partiers weren't breaking any laws, Alex?
 
2012-09-09 06:26:34 PM  

joshiz:

I actually agree with reigning in corporate influence and prosecuting bankers for their crimes/regulating the banking system - alas most of the tenants of OWS.


Most people do once they hear about them.


I'm just critiquing their methods. Whether they did not accurately get their message out (and I don't buy blaming it on the corporate media),

Considering many of the major media corporations are some of the corporations that OWS people think have undue influence, it's really not in the media's best interest to provide accurate reports of OWS's goals and aims.

That's not to say that "there is some big media conspiracy" or anything silly like that. Rather, it's a reminder that it's hard to get someone to understand a concept when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it. If I worked for Company X, they would be making it possible for me to pay my mortgage and buy booze. It would be difficult to get me to understand that Company X treats other people like crap- that story would conflict with my personal experience, so I wouldn't really understand it.


let other interests derail their goals, or give up in the face of opposition it just doesn't seem like OWS had a clear strategy.


That's certainly the way the story has been presented.
 
2012-09-09 06:27:41 PM  

joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


The strategy was fine, OWS just forgot who was going to be the ones showing them in whatever light they chose on television.
Nothing will ever change and the 1% will rule us until the end of days.
 
2012-09-09 06:28:17 PM  
The question isn't "who are you fighting for?" It's who you're fighting against.

It's those "job creators," who haven't created shiat, and those whiners that don't pay for the freeways, ports, and International Airports they need to "create." A bunch of entited dicks without the responsibility they claim is "someone else"'s fault.

Cowards and weaklings. Filth.
 
2012-09-09 06:28:35 PM  

Apos: He's got 99 problems but capitalism ain't one.


This.
 
2012-09-09 06:29:45 PM  
IDK why this was submitted. Or why it was greenlit. This is dumb as fark.
 
2012-09-09 06:30:23 PM  

rappy: IDK why this was submitted. Or why it was greenlit.


rappy: This is dumb as fark.


You answered your own question.
 
2012-09-09 06:31:59 PM  
FloydA:
OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

Well, that flies in the face of the statements of one of the major organizers of OWS, Harrison Schultz --- Listen to him yourself...

Audio Only Interview
 
2012-09-09 06:32:07 PM  

joshiz: How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?


Huh? Thats like saying I can't put any objections in writing using pen and paper due to using "byproducts of that system"

Shall I make clicking noises and use smoke signals and drum beats then?
 
2012-09-09 06:32:21 PM  
three step process to make this country work better

all the numbers are napkin math so substitute whatever smart people thing is right, the idea is the important part

1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.
2. abolish all federal income taxes including corporate and payroll taxes
3. create a national property tax equal to somewhere between 1-2% of the value of the goods calculated monthly and paid annually. Property would include all real property such as land, buildings, and equipment. It would also include all intellectual property including copyrights, patents, and trademarks which are enforced by the government. And it would also include investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, tbills etc.

It is possible to calculate this national property tax to be revenue neutral with the current tax system, the only change will be in who pays. There would be no distinction between corporate owned property and individually owned property. There would be no loopholes because ownership of anything of real value is generally easy to trace. There would be no difference between foreign owned property and citizen owned property. If the property has the protection of the government then the tax is paid.

This tax is fair in that the number one function of government is to enforce property rights. Those who own more property use this function more therefore should spend more to finance the government in absolute terms. But everybody except the very poor use this function to some extent so everyone pays for it.

The one issue I can think of is the land value of farms is much greater than the value of the food produced on them. I don't know a good solution to that. Maybe a deferment where property tax is accumulated but not collected until the land is transferred to a non-relative or until the land use is transferred to something other than food production.
 
2012-09-09 06:33:04 PM  
They farked up the presentation. Like it or not, you're not going to be taken seriously today if you gather a bunch of your unwashed friends and illegally take over a public park. The story will understandably become about your tactics rather than your message. Dial back the anarchist elements and you might get somewhere.
 
2012-09-09 06:34:02 PM  

GeneralJim: FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.
A large number of the protesters, when interviewed, claimed they DID want to end capitalism.

But, much of OWS was co-opted by the Democrats. "We hate banks, re-elect Obama" treads that fine line between simple stupidity and organic brain damage. OWS becoming a leisure service of the Re-Elect Obama campaign makes EXACTLY as much sense as the KKK demanding that Obama be re-elected because they want a white man back in the White House.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x400]


There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?
 
2012-09-09 06:34:38 PM  

cman: GeneralJim: FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.
A large number of the protesters, when interviewed, claimed they DID want to end capitalism.

But, much of OWS was co-opted by the Democrats. "We hate banks, re-elect Obama" treads that fine line between simple stupidity and organic brain damage. OWS becoming a leisure service of the Re-Elect Obama campaign makes EXACTLY as much sense as the KKK demanding that Obama be re-elected because they want a white man back in the White House.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x400]

There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists represent OWS, right?


Fixt for clarity.
 
2012-09-09 06:34:44 PM  
FTFA: He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American.

Says the crack dealer turned rapper and then multimillionaire (while still dealing with drugs, don't give me shiat about it being music made money only).
 
2012-09-09 06:35:06 PM  
OWS = pretentious entitled freeloaders. What is not to understand?
 
2012-09-09 06:35:56 PM  

FloydA: That's certainly the way the story has been presented.


Sorry, I just don't buy that - not that that didn't happen because it did. But I don't think OWS managed their message well - especially in light of their use of social media.

Which brings us to:
 
2012-09-09 06:36:07 PM  

cman: OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.



They lost the war when the police came and cleared them out. They learnt the same lesson that their parents leant in Chicago in 1968 - The Man will always kick your ass. That's why he's the man.
 
2012-09-09 06:36:10 PM  

FloydA: He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had.


I agree with you on this. I actively avoid submitting links or saying anything too important on Fark, because anything you submit or post on Fark becomes their property to do with as they wish. fark that shiat. I will be paid for my work.
 
2012-09-09 06:37:21 PM  

chrisr64: Huh? Thats like saying I can't put any objections in writing using pen and paper due to using "byproducts of that system"


If your argument was against writing, then using pen and paper would be stupid. That's what I am saying.

"I'm against picketing -- I just don't know how to show it." --Mitch Hedberg
 
2012-09-09 06:38:09 PM  

James F. Campbell: FloydA: He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had.

I agree with you on this. I actively avoid submitting links or saying anything too important on Fark, because anything you submit or post on Fark becomes their property to do with as they wish. fark that shiat. I will be paid for my work.


Dude, you'd be like... a job creator... if that were so.
 
2012-09-09 06:38:52 PM  
FloydA:
I've never won a Pokemon championship.

Well, then, mister, you've got a lot of nerve posting in the Politics thread... 

www.annarbor.com
You don't have to WIN, but you need to TRY. 
 
2012-09-09 06:38:56 PM  
He'll still vote for Obama.
 
2012-09-09 06:39:10 PM  
 
2012-09-09 06:39:16 PM  

joshiz: How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?


That's a weak ass excuse.

Capitalism produces tomatoes. Am I going to stop eating tomatoes because of it?

And now that we're at it, Capitalism doesn't "produce" these things. People do. It's a fallacy to say capitalism is responsible for that. It could have been done the same under a different system. For example, Soviet Union had a space program and those guys were communists.

Also, capitalism has produced abject poverty and environmental abuse all over the world, so you wanna attach it to the system too?
 
2012-09-09 06:39:58 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]


"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon
 
2012-09-09 06:41:07 PM  

SweetSaws: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon


Sounds more dramatic that way...

WEAPONIZED GUN

WEAPONIZED OC SPRAY

WEAPONIZED BATON

WEAPONIZED WEAPON

WEAPONIZED KITTEN

See, makes everything 10X more scary.
 
2012-09-09 06:45:30 PM  
Hey guys OWS was at least a partial success. I mean, absurd and lifelong indenturing college costs were mentioned, so the feds decided to raise interest rates on student loans. See everything is better now!
 
2012-09-09 06:46:08 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.


But a biatch ain't one.

Why does it surprise people someone that worked hard to get his money doesn't get what they are protesting?

The 99% are still under the impression a college degree instantly means Mega salary once you graduate, adapt to get ahead, that may mean you have to bust your ass to get where you want to be.
 
2012-09-09 06:47:39 PM  
I bet Jay-Z would be surprised to hear that he's probably not part of the 1%. As Shaq famously said, there's a difference between "rich" and "wealthy".

/Oh and Jay's "co-ownership" of the Nets is about one half of one percent more than the rest of us have
 
2012-09-09 06:47:48 PM  

Silly Jesus: SweetSaws: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon

Sounds more dramatic that way...

WEAPONIZED GUN

WEAPONIZED OC SPRAY

WEAPONIZED BATON

WEAPONIZED WEAPON

WEAPONIZED KITTEN

See, makes everything 10X more scary.


Now I won't be able to sleep. THANKS A LOT!
 
2012-09-09 06:48:50 PM  
While I agree the occupy movement has so far failed at creating a political movement that has fielded candidates, any of the so called 1% who asks 'what are they fighting for' are being intentionally obtuse. Perhaps to assuage themselves. Historically we have some of the highest income disparity, a financial crisis that devastated the wealth of the middle class, and higher education and health care costs that have far surpassed the rate of inflation. And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?
 
2012-09-09 06:49:13 PM  
FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.
 
2012-09-09 06:49:40 PM  

cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?



And here are plenty of racists in OWS.
 
2012-09-09 06:52:28 PM  

rocky_howard: Capitalism produces tomatoes. Am I going to stop eating tomatoes because of it?


The earth produced tomatoes long before there was capitalism.
 
2012-09-09 06:52:42 PM  

SweetSaws: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon


There is a big difference between civilian and military grade "tear gas." Most people who use "weaponized" to describe the difference between the two are drawing attention to the fact that police are using a much, much, much more potent weapon than something you could buy over the counter.
 
2012-09-09 06:53:05 PM  
Don't ask me I don't give a damn.
Next stop if Vietnam.
 
2012-09-09 06:53:40 PM  
joshiz: How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

This caught my attention and I just had to say something (though I'm sure this has been pounced on throughout the thread):

you don't know what OWS is, do you?
 
2012-09-09 06:54:12 PM  

joshiz: FloydA: That's certainly the way the story has been presented.

Sorry, I just don't buy that - not that that didn't happen because it did. But I don't think OWS managed their message well - especially in light of their use of social media.


I don't disagree with that point at all. Insofar as OWS was critical of corporate power, they were naive to rely on corporate owned media to spread their message, so yeah, very bad message management indeed. But the social media are still comparatively small media and it's difficult to contact a mass audience using what are, for practical purposes, narrowcast media.

Still, Occupy is not even a year old, so I don't know if we can really say what kind of influence they will eventually have. The GOP was founded in 1854 and didn't elect a president for another 6 years. I'm willing to give OWS at least that long until I decide that they have failed.
 
2012-09-09 06:55:02 PM  
cman:
There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?

Don't they? The TEA Party was organized to combat what was seen as over-taxing and over-spending of government. Now, if Karl Denninger, founder of the TEA Party, gave an interview in which he stated that the purpose of the TEA Party was to "purify the races in America," or some similar shiat, I would believe him. Why would I not? As it is, however, there are a couple of morons who show up at PUBLIC rallies for the TEA Party with racist signs, who are are politely asked to fark themselves, and get that shiat out of the rally -- but, of course, not before every photographer within 20 miles has taken a picture of the offensive sign.

Above, I link to an interview with the organizer of OWS, who clearly states the goal of replacing capitalism in the United States. Again, why would I not believe his stated goals?
 
2012-09-09 06:55:25 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: create a national property tax equal to somewhere between 1-2% of the value of the goods calculated monthly and paid annually. Property would include all real property such as land, buildings, and equipment. It would also include all intellectual property including copyrights, patents, and trademarks which are enforced by the government. And it would also include investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, tbills etc.


The enforcement cost of that would be staggering, and it would be even more of a clusterfark than the epic clusterfark we have now.

cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


Yes, they are both represented by those things which a large amount of their members believe. (In my opinion, they both have a healthy share of both things.)

rewind2846: No one is 'demonizing' the rich.


There's 2-3 threads on Fark that do just that.
 
2012-09-09 06:55:31 PM  

ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.


I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is anti-capitalist movement then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist.
 
2012-09-09 06:56:32 PM  
Occupy Wall Street never really had an ultimate goal defined or strategy to obtain it, everyone had different ideas and different means on which to achieve them. Does it suck that a small fraction of the population controls most of the money... kind of, I think it depends a lot more on how they are getting it and what they are doing with it. I highly doubt any of the OWS people were pissed at Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, you need to be more clear on what exactly you dislike being done by the 1%. Almost as crazy as the Tea Party protesting taxes, yeah they suck but what is your alternative? You can't really maintain a government, military, police/fire/mail... without a means of paying for them.
 
2012-09-09 06:57:07 PM  

cman: ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.

I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is an anti-capitalist movement because they have a lot of anti-capitalists then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist because the Tea Party has a lot of racists.


Fixt and elaborated.
 
2012-09-09 06:58:11 PM  

rocky_howard: And now that we're at it, Capitalism doesn't "produce" these things. People do. It's a fallacy to say capitalism is responsible for that.


You are getting it twisted. I'm saying it's hypocritical to protest against corporate profits using your MacBook Pro or Twitter - without the system you are railing against, those things would not be possible.
 
2012-09-09 06:58:29 PM  
James F. Campbell:
I actively avoid submitting links or saying anything too important on Fark, because anything you submit or post on Fark becomes their property to do with as they wish. fark that shiat. I will be paid for my work.

That's simply BRILLIANT. The best of it is that such a careful plan to husband your resources is completely indistinguishable from you not having anything to say. Sheer genius.
 
2012-09-09 06:59:03 PM  
www.thenation.com
 
2012-09-09 06:59:11 PM  

ultraholland: you don't know what OWS is, do you?


Apparently I don't. And that's the problem.
 
2012-09-09 07:00:24 PM  

James F. Campbell: FloydA: He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had.

I agree with you on this. I actively avoid submitting links or saying anything too important on Fark, because anything you submit or post on Fark becomes their property to do with as they wish. fark that shiat. I will be paid for my work.


Damned straight! I'm here to have fun. You want work out of me? As Pauly said:

i105.photobucket.com

;-)
 
2012-09-09 07:00:33 PM  

rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.


Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. If you're out there supposedly "getting out the message" and nobody knows what you're doing, don't get mad with everyone else. Don't blame their ignorance, don't blame the "corporate media', blame yourself. You have failed.

This is not to say that your intentions weren't honorable, or even that your position was wrong. It's just that your strategy and tactics have been horrible and you've managed to alienate the very people you were supposed to be recruiting to your side.

Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.
 
2012-09-09 07:02:13 PM  

FloydA: Still, Occupy is not even a year old, so I don't know if we can really say what kind of influence they will eventually have. The GOP was founded in 1854 and didn't elect a president for another 6 years. I'm willing to give OWS at least that long until I decide that they have failed.


I respect your optimism.
 
2012-09-09 07:02:38 PM  

ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. If you're out there supposedly "getting out the message" and nobody knows what you're doing, don't get mad with everyone else. Don't blame their ignorance, don't blame the "corporate media', blame yourself. You have failed.

This is not to say that your intentions weren't honorable, or even that your position was wrong. It's just that your strategy and tactics have been horrible and you've managed to alienate the very people you were supposed to be recruiting to your side.

Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


Awesome post. Enjoy
 
2012-09-09 07:03:40 PM  

Xenomech: [www.thenation.com image 550x506]


amkon.net
 
2012-09-09 07:04:01 PM  
rocky_howard:
Capitalism produces tomatoes. Am I going to stop eating tomatoes because of it?

And now that we're at it, Capitalism doesn't "produce" these things. People do. It's a fallacy to say capitalism is responsible for that. It could have been done the same under a different system. For example, Soviet Union had a space program and those guys were communists.

Also, capitalism has produced abject poverty and environmental abuse all over the world, so you wanna attach it to the system too?

I note that the Soviet system DID get into space -- but failed to reliably produce tomatoes, and other foods.

I also note that if you compare the TWO countries which were split, and one half went capitalist, and the other was a command economy, you will note that both Korea and Germany showed that socialism is MUCH more efficient at producing abject poverty and environmental abuse.

So, you're saying that you PREFER a system that is MUCH more efficient at producing abject poverty and environmental abuse, and MUCH less efficient at producing consumer goods and food? Interesting choice.
 
2012-09-09 07:04:15 PM  

ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. If you're out there supposedly "getting out the message" and nobody knows what you're doing, don't get mad with everyone else. Don't blame their ignorance, don't blame the "corporate media', blame yourself. You have failed.

This is not to say that your intentions weren't honorable, or even that your position was wrong. It's just that your strategy and tactics have been horrible and you've managed to alienate the very people you were supposed to be recruiting to your side.

Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


bears bears bears bears bears bears...
 
2012-09-09 07:04:51 PM  

ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .



or he is just a really really stupid monkey
 
2012-09-09 07:06:14 PM  
probably they want real democracy, and fair representation
 
2012-09-09 07:06:18 PM  

joshiz:
I respect your optimism.


I'm an archaeologist, so I tend to take a long view of historical events. We'll see, eventually, what effect they have, if any. It might be a while however.
 
2012-09-09 07:06:23 PM  

Mr. Carpenter: SweetSaws: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon

There is a big difference between civilian and military grade "tear gas." Most people who use "weaponized" to describe the difference between the two are drawing attention to the fact that police are using a much, much, much more potent weapon than something you could buy over the counter.


Maybe call it "prescription strength"?
 
2012-09-09 07:06:44 PM  

cman: Awesome post. Enjoy


Mahalo!
 
2012-09-09 07:07:01 PM  

joshiz: rocky_howard: And now that we're at it, Capitalism doesn't "produce" these things. People do. It's a fallacy to say capitalism is responsible for that.

You are getting it twisted. I'm saying it's hypocritical to protest against corporate profits using your MacBook Pro or Twitter - without the system you are railing against, those things would not be possible.


And that's where you're flat wrong. You're missing the forest for the trees. Humankind can produce things without capitalism, y'know?


Also, saying they shouldn't use things made by capitalism to protest is a weak argument considering they live in a capitalist society. So they should renounce to the mediums available just because it doesn't comply with your fictional moral quandary? What? America shouldn't have used the rocketry and scientist taken from Nazi Germany?

Tools are neutral and they exist to be used. Not the protesters problem Capitalism made them.
 
2012-09-09 07:07:12 PM  

ScreamingHangover: Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


We get it, you're angry because your wife wont sleep with you and you're too low rent to have a secretary on the side. Deal with your issues on your own time.

/At least as relevant as your comment.
//At least as well sourced.
///Far more likely to actually be part of reality.
 
2012-09-09 07:08:00 PM  

joshiz: rocky_howard: Capitalism produces tomatoes. Am I going to stop eating tomatoes because of it?

The earth produced tomatoes
silicon
long before there was capitalism.


or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

/take your pick
 
2012-09-09 07:08:06 PM  
i'm educated, but i don't really know what its about either.
 
2012-09-09 07:08:47 PM  

beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?


The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.
 
2012-09-09 07:11:08 PM  

FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey


Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself
 
2012-09-09 07:12:06 PM  

rewind2846: beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?

The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.


Do they have a viable solution...or are they just against it?
 
2012-09-09 07:12:52 PM  
cman:
ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.

I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is anti-capitalist movement then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist.

Nope. False equivalency is false, on several different levels at once. I understand you're trying to make a point with VERY shaky evidence, but, please, do try harder.
 
2012-09-09 07:14:10 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: three step process to make this country work better

all the numbers are napkin math so substitute whatever smart people thing is right, the idea is the important part

1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.
2. abolish all federal income taxes including corporate and payroll taxes
3. create a national property tax equal to somewhere between 1-2% of the value of the goods calculated monthly and paid annually. Property would include all real property such as land, buildings, and equipment. It would also include all intellectual property including copyrights, patents, and trademarks which are enforced by the government. And it would also include investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, tbills etc.

It is possible to calculate this national property tax to be revenue neutral with the current tax system, the only change will be in who pays. There would be no distinction between corporate owned property and individually owned property. There would be no loopholes because ownership of anything of real value is generally easy to trace. There would be no difference between foreign owned property and citizen owned property. If the property has the protection of the government then the tax is paid.

This tax is fair in that the number one function of government is to enforce property rights. Those who own more property use this function more therefore should spend more to finance the government in absolute terms. But everybody except the very poor use this function to some extent so everyone pays for it.

The one issue I can think of is the land value of farms is much greater than the value of the food produced on them. I don't know a good solution to that. Maybe a deferment where property tax is accumulated but not collected until the land is transferred to a non-relative or until the land use is transferred to something other than food production.


Its indirect taxation...I like this. As far as the farmers go, the solution would likely use a value as if it were not being used for farming. My question to you on this is how to handle depreciation.
 
2012-09-09 07:14:44 PM  

GeneralJim: cman: ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.

I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is anti-capitalist movement then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist.
Nope. False equivalency is false, on several different levels at once. I understand you're trying to make a point with VERY shaky evidence, but, please, do try harder.


THis is why I wish fark had an edit button.

I quoted myself and elaborated on what I said


I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is an anti-capitalist movement because they have a lot of anti-capitalists then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist because the Tea Party has a lot of racists.
 
2012-09-09 07:17:28 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: three step process to make this country work better

all the numbers are napkin math so substitute whatever smart people thing is right, the idea is the important part

1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.


If that means I don't have to read any more comments on Amazon that "You can get it cheaper from Amazon UK", then I'm all for it.
 
2012-09-09 07:18:58 PM  

GeneralJim: So, you're saying that you PREFER a system that is MUCH more efficient at producing abject poverty and environmental abuse, and MUCH less efficient at producing consumer goods and food? Interesting choice.


Nope. Never said that. Award yourself no points. Plus the "Communism competing directly against Capitalism" is another whole different discussion. The Soviet Union was farked right from the start. It was an un-winnable battle. Capitalism had the two biggest advantages: (1) It could produce much more resources at a faster rate and (2) the capitalism PR is much easier to accept once you start enjoying the fruits of the system (like eating a Big Mac whenever you want and having air conditioner). Comfort begets complacence, as any rags to riches person can attest. Heck, we're in a thread about one of them.

I don't know if I'm a capitalist if capitalism is what's presented by the WallStreeters.

I believe in free enterprise. I also believe in big government, at least for key areas like education and health.
I believe in people having paid jobs. I also believe in companies sharing the benefits with the workers beyond the simple salary, not just the owner keeping everything (granted, the owner/founder still should get the bigger part due to his initial investment)
I don't believe in the stock market and I think it's the single largest scam in history.
I believe in scaled taxes where the more you earn, the higher rate you pay.
I believe in other things too.
 
2012-09-09 07:19:26 PM  

rewind2846: beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?

The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.


Shouldn't that mean global warming is a good thing, creating more water for regular people? Lex Luthor should be a hero, he was going to give the low income families million dollar homes with a nice waterfront view in Superman.
 
2012-09-09 07:22:29 PM  

cman: FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey

Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself


then why did you just send me a private message saying "lol he is a monkey" ?
 
2012-09-09 07:24:25 PM  
If he asked me what I was fighting for, I'd answer him - in broken english.
 
2012-09-09 07:26:51 PM  

rocky_howard: The Soviet Union was farked right from the start. It was an un-winnable battle. Capitalism had the two biggest advantages: (1) It could produce much more resources at a faster rate and (2) the capitalism PR is much easier to accept once you start enjoying the fruits of the system (like eating a Big Mac whenever you want and having air conditioner).


Yes, that was the point.

I also believe in companies sharing the benefits with the workers beyond the simple salary, not just the owner keeping everything

I take that to imply that you are against freedom of contract?

I don't believe in the stock market and I think it's the single largest scam in history.

You sound like a creationist. Not that you'll understand why.

I believe in other things too.

That wasn't a complete list?
 
2012-09-09 07:27:10 PM  

BMFPitt:
rewind2846: No one is 'demonizing' the rich.

There's 2-3 threads on Fark that do just that.


Go back and read the threads (I'm assuming that at least one of them is the Australian millionaire pig thread). She and those like her are not being "demonized" because they are rich. They are catching flack because they're assholes. Rich assholes can do more damage to others than poor assholes.

Most folks like me don't care how much money you have, what car you drive (or have driven for you), where you live or how many russian fish eggs you eat every day with your eggs. None of that affects me in the slightest, unless I'm in the business of selling you cars, houses, bank accounts or caviar. It's when you decide to be all assholey with that money that I become concerned, the Koch brothers being one of the more egregious examples these days.

If all this was about "demonizing the rich", then what about all those rich people like Ellison and Gates and Branson and Soros and Buffett and Zuckerberg and Ballmer who don't catch flack, and the Walton(s), Adelson, Kochs, and others like the Australian PigB*tch who do? Seeing a pattern here?

If you're rich, be thankful for what you have. If you were given that money and didn't earn it, be even more so.
Don't sh*t on those who don't have what you do, help them get where you are.
 
2012-09-09 07:29:32 PM  

rocky_howard: Tools are neutral and they exist to be used.


Technology in and of itself is neutral but the specific tools are not.

rocky_howard: You're missing the forest for the trees. Humankind can produce things without capitalism, y'know?


Yes, we have and we do.

But not the specific things I mentioned. OWS would simply not have existed as it did without social media. Social media would not have existed without capitalism. See my example above regarding writing.

Another example: when I was in college, a group was protesting cutting trees by putting up thousands of posters all over campus. That is inherently hypocritical.

rocky_howard: saying they shouldn't use things made by capitalism to protest is a weak argument considering they live in a capitalist society.


You've just made my point. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you.
 
2012-09-09 07:31:05 PM  

joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


If they're smart, they will try again with a more substantial agenda. It's a learning experience as all the ones with heavy protest experience are working for the very companies being protested against.
 
2012-09-09 07:31:10 PM  
cman:
I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is an anti-capitalist movement because they have a lot of anti-capitalists then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist because the Tea Party has a lot of racists.

And, once more, you miss the point. The OWS movement is NOT anti-capitalist because some of the people attached to it are anti-capitalist, it is anti-capitalist (and pro-Marxist) because the founders of the movement made it that way.
 
2012-09-09 07:32:50 PM  

Silly Jesus: rewind2846: beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?

The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.

Do they have a viable solution...or are they just against it?


ridiculous question, if the people were represented effectively the tide would "lift all boats." Do you have a viable solution to the tide, or are you just against it?
 
2012-09-09 07:34:29 PM  

joshiz: rocky_howard: Tools are neutral and they exist to be used.

Technology in and of itself is neutral but the specific tools are not.

rocky_howard: You're missing the forest for the trees. Humankind can produce things without capitalism, y'know?

Yes, we have and we do.

But not the specific things I mentioned. OWS would simply not have existed as it did without social media. Social media would not have existed without capitalism. See my example above regarding writing.

Another example: when I was in college, a group was protesting cutting trees by putting up thousands of posters all over campus. That is inherently hypocritical.

rocky_howard: saying they shouldn't use things made by capitalism to protest is a weak argument considering they live in a capitalist society.

You've just made my point. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you.


Maybe they were protesting certain aspects of capitalism, like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and not the entirety of capitalism. I know, it's hard to imagine for some people who like to make up stupid shiat to discredit others.

Having a problem with some aspects of capitalism doesn't equal "GIVE UP ALL THE PRODUCTS MADE BY CAPITALISM!!".
 
2012-09-09 07:36:21 PM  
He understood a fast buck when he made the Occupy All Streets t-shirts he was hawking during the New York protests. I believe he applied for a copyright on the term.

/lying asshell.
 
2012-09-09 07:37:00 PM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.


Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.
 
2012-09-09 07:39:22 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maybe they were protesting certain aspects of capitalism, like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and not the entirety of capitalism. I know, it's hard to imagine for some people who like to make up stupid shiat to discredit others.


The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.
 
2012-09-09 07:41:54 PM  

joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.


1.bp.blogspot.com

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.
 
2012-09-09 07:42:14 PM  

BMFPitt:
I take that to imply that you are against freedom of contract?


You seem to love to imply stuff on the things people say. Bad habit. That has little to nothing to do with "freedom of contract".
Wanting more benefits for the workers is being against "freedom of contract"? I love how you try to attach the word freedom to your argument as a way to instantly paint yourself as the good guy. Because, how can anyone be against FREEDOM!!?!?!?!

You sound like a creationist. Not that you'll understand why.

Don't worry, you sound like a sycophant cocksucker, and you'll understand why (since you have experience with how a sycophantic cocksucker sounds like)

That wasn't a complete list?

Nope, why?
 
2012-09-09 07:43:03 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maybe they were protesting certain aspects of capitalism, like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and not the entirety of capitalism. I know, it's hard to imagine for some people who like to make up stupid shiat to discredit others.

Having a problem with some aspects of capitalism doesn't equal "GIVE UP ALL THE PRODUCTS MADE BY CAPITALISM!!".


I agree. I have a problem with some aspects of capitalism. I don't disagree with the main points of OWS. They just didn't go about it in a way that had any chance of affecting positive change.
 
2012-09-09 07:43:41 PM  

Silly Jesus: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

Ooh, ooh, I know the answer....

What is, the Tea Partiers weren't breaking any laws, Alex?


Also, the Tea Partiers weren't crapping in buckets and throwing it in the streets. (As someone who has to walk to work, that scores high on my list.)
 
2012-09-09 07:45:37 PM  

joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.
 
2012-09-09 07:45:38 PM  

Beaver Knievel: Silly Jesus: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

Ooh, ooh, I know the answer....

What is, the Tea Partiers weren't breaking any laws, Alex?

Also, the Tea Partiers weren't crapping in buckets and throwing it in the streets. (As someone who has to walk to work, that scores high on my list.)


You mean that doesn't build credibility?
 
2012-09-09 07:46:06 PM  

Silly Jesus: but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


You said it a lot better than I did.
 
2012-09-09 07:46:32 PM  

BeSerious: joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.

The strategy was fine, OWS just forgot who was going to be the ones showing them in whatever light they chose on television.
Nothing will ever change and the 1% will rule us until the end of days.


Yes blame the media! Bc the vast majority of reporters & editors aren't as broke & screwed over as the homeless people in OWS!

A lot of reporters would be down there with you fighting for equality if it wasn't a conflict of interest.

/get a clue
 
2012-09-09 07:48:11 PM  

FloydA: Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


That I can get down with. Unfortunately, that point was not made very clearly during the time of the OWS protests.
 
2012-09-09 07:48:44 PM  

FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


Have they presented any viable solutions or is the extent of their goals to draw attention to the existence of said problems?
 
2012-09-09 07:49:20 PM  
Thanks for the lively discussion all...one of the best ones I have had on TF/Fark. I gotta run...
 
2012-09-09 07:50:06 PM  

FloydA: joshiz: cman: Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.

I'll take that.

FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?

Me? I'm not part of OWS. (I'm mainly fighting to get my students to avoid TXTSPEEK in their term papers, and it's a losing battle.)

OWS? They are fighting for regulations that would decentralize the concentration of power and influence from the banks and a few corporations to the broader population of citizens. They have a number of specific grievances, but they all boil down to the fact that, due to an extreme concentration of wealth, the boards of directors of a few banks and multinational corporations exert influence over the political, judicial, and regulatory systems in this country (and elsewhere) that is far in excess of their numbers, and in doing so, they subvert the democratic process.

For the past year, the corporate media have been repeating the claim that OWS doesn't have a coherent message, and now Jay-Z is repeating the same line, but that claim has never been accurate. They've been quite clear what the movement is about.

(There are, of course, other people who show up wanting to advocate for other issues. At any protest of sufficient size, there are going to be people who jump in and try to get their pet causes attached to a larger movement. But those hangers on do not alter the central message of the movement.)


Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.
 
2012-09-09 07:50:47 PM  

cman: OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.


So much THIS.

I walked by the Occupy people up in Portland, OR months ago, and it looked like a bunch of transients, punks, and hippies just hanging out ( and dirtying up) a park to me. No organization and no focus.

/ contrast OWS to the Jacobins of the French Revolution
// IIRC , the Jacobins started out as a group of wealthy and influential men
 
2012-09-09 07:52:03 PM  

joshiz:
Technology in and of itself is neutral but the specific tools are not.


Uh, yes they are. Cops use guns. Criminals use guns. Nazis uses guns. Allied used guns. Guns don't kill people, people do.

But not the specific things I mentioned. OWS would simply not have existed as it did without social media. Social media would not have existed without capitalism. See my example above regarding writing.

Social media could have existed without capitalism. Monetizing is the only reason people create stuff? No. (Not that monetizing is bad.)
Torrents exist without capitalism.

Another example: when I was in college, a group was protesting cutting trees by putting up thousands of posters all over campus. That is inherently hypocritical.

Ok. And? It's not a comparable situation. Also, you mean hypocritical because they were using paper? Were they protesting cutting trees at all, or a specific set of trees?

You've just made my point. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you.

So they shouldn't do anything? That's a nice way for capitalism to ensure its eternal permanency on Earth. "Hey, don't do shiat against me since I created the tools you use to destroy me."

Also, what kind of values do you have that you put a perceived technical hypocrisy above the well being of the population? What's your stance on fighting a war to achieve peace? Do you find that hypocritical too?
 
2012-09-09 07:52:28 PM  
The OWS protests have strong correlations to the Earth First! protests of the 90s.
 
2012-09-09 07:53:43 PM  

dustman81: Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.


Ding! Ding! Ding!
 
2012-09-09 07:56:02 PM  

FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


Exactly. This is the core point. The "job creators" equate centralization and abuse of power as inherent to capitalism as a way to shield themselves from criticism.

They also tend to believe socioeconomical inequality is the natural state of things and that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its effects.
 
2012-09-09 07:57:58 PM  
Everyone says what occupy was for is really what they were saying what they wanted occupy to be for. A lot of them are good ideas, but seriously, there was nobody who spoke for the movement. There was nobody to truly help advocate their positions. It was truly just rage. Very legitimate rage, but just unfocused. It really boils down to having nobody in the political system to advocate for them. A true failing of the two party system.
 
2012-09-09 08:01:02 PM  

ScreamingHangover:
Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


Being intentionally obtuse is not a good thing, whether you're from the projects or from a gated neighborhood. Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again. The corporate media, whose job it was NOT to understand, didn't help much in this regard... but as the words of a popular song go, "when you own the information, you can bend it all you want".

BTW, there were a lot of people not only protesting but supporting OWS who are long past the "snowflake" euphemism you chose to use. They are people with homes, families and jobs, but they (unlike you) seem to have awakened to the fact that a very small group of people is f*cking them with a very big dick made of thousand dollar bills.

You'll get it once your prostate ruptures. Enjoy the push.
 
2012-09-09 08:02:17 PM  
Just like the Tea Party, the individuals involved probably had a relatively diverse view of what they were protesting. Some were protesting all corporations (and were probably fairly hypocritical in doing so, as some have pointed out), others would have been protesting the specific financial practices which lead to the big bust and public bailouts. A lot of Tea Party supporters demand smaller government and less interventionist policy, but would oppose any actions which actually had negative consequences for their own communities (ie their state should not cop a loss of federal funding, just everyone else's).

Here in Australia, we had a very conservative government from 1996 to 2007. I was actively opposed to it. But they did some good things I must acknowledge. One of these was some relatively minor regulation of the banking sector, by establishing an independent financial services regulator. Australia's banks survived the crash much better than most, although our investment banks went backwards like everyone else's. Combine that with some well-targeted stimulus measures and our unemployment is lower than most of the developed world, and although just like everyone else we're feeling some pain, it's not as marked as in most countries.

The Obama government should have a good look at Australia's financial regulation system. It seems to have held up better than most systems in recent times, and was introduced by a government well to Obama's right, so he could presumably sell it with a good rebuttal for the inevitable "socialist" criticisms.
 
2012-09-09 08:05:22 PM  

dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.


You've asked them all? Impressive.
 
2012-09-09 08:07:38 PM  

FloydA: dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.

You've asked them all? Impressive.


Nope, didn't have time. I was working and being productive.
 
2012-09-09 08:07:57 PM  

Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 560x376]

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


If you drive a car, you better never complain about the gas prices. Not even under your breath. It would be hypocritical. Cause lord knows, if you use a product, you are in complete agreement with all of the practices involved with with said corporation.

/When was the message to destroy all corporations and live like cavemen?
 
2012-09-09 08:09:46 PM  

rewind2846: Go back and read the threads (I'm assuming that at least one of them is the Australian millionaire pig thread). She and those like her are not being "demonized" because they are rich. They are catching flack because they're assholes. Rich assholes can do more damage to others than poor assholes.


Me and some other people pointed out that she's an asshat. But still more people insisted that basically all rich people are just like her.

It's when you decide to be all assholey with that money that I become concerned, the Koch brothers being one of the more egregious examples these days.

Examples, please?

If all this was about "demonizing the rich", then what about all those rich people like Ellison and Gates and Branson and Soros and Buffett and Zuckerberg and Ballmer who don't catch flack, and the Walton(s), Adelson, Kochs, and others like the Australian PigB*tch who do? Seeing a pattern here?

Yeah, that you'll ignore any problems with people who agree with you politically when they do the same things as those you disagree with.

rocky_howard: You seem to love to imply stuff on the things people say. Bad habit. That has little to nothing to do with "freedom of contract".

..

I say that because I can find no other interpretation of your statement. Do you have one?

Wanting more benefits for the workers is being against "freedom of contract"?

If you want to make it illegal for them to have jobs without those benefits, then yes.

I love how you try to attach the word freedom to your argument as a way to instantly paint yourself as the good guy. Because, how can anyone be against FREEDOM!!?!?!?!

I use the word because it is accurate.

Don't worry, you sound like a sycophant cocksucker, and you'll understand why (since you have experience with how a sycophantic cocksucker sounds like)

Because I'm talking to one?

Nope, why?

Because it seemed like a pretty odd thing to say.
 
2012-09-09 08:13:07 PM  

rocky_howard: Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism


Well there is no economic system for large numbers of humans that lacks that feature, so I am curious on how you intend to separate it out?
 
2012-09-09 08:13:07 PM  

dustman81: FloydA: dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.

You've asked them all? Impressive.

Nope, didn't have time. I was working and being productive.


Glad to hear it. Those burgers ain't gonna flip themselves, after all.
 
2012-09-09 08:14:13 PM  

rocky_howard: Also, what kind of values do you have that you put a perceived technical hypocrisy above the well being of the population? What's your stance on fighting a war to achieve peace? Do you find that hypocritical too?


That's not exactly the same. If you were espousing a position of non-violence but were using violence to achieve your goals, yes.

My point is not that they shouldn't use technology - they should! But at least admit it is a bit hypocritical IF you are protesting against the whole structure of capitalism.

On the other hand, like others have said here, that they only have issues with certain parts of capitalism (and it is there where we agree), then that was not expressed clearly enough. Yes, the corporate media distorted their agenda, but to not know the opponent they were going up against shows a lack of strategy. I don't think their message was clear - at least not to me.

I agree that if they could have expressed their goals better we probably wouldn't be discussing this point. I plead ignorance regarding what the goals of OWS were. There have been a few different answers in this thread so I am still not totally sure.

I would probably be down for the cause, if only I knew what it was.
 
2012-09-09 08:17:32 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.


Except how much money he has and the woman he comes home to.
 
2012-09-09 08:19:05 PM  
I think everyone who answered this is wrong.

treygivens.com

OWS wasn't about fighting the police which is what an armed insurrection would be. They were about fighting people like Richard Fuld.

upload.wikimedia.org

-------------------------------------------

As far Jay-Z's opposition to OWS -consider that the Anonymous mass protest against Scientology was a preliminary to OWS.... and Jay-Z is a scientologist clam. Hail Xenu!
 
2012-09-09 08:21:14 PM  

dustman81: I was working and being productive.


Says the guy posting on Fark.
 
2012-09-09 08:22:55 PM  

steveo1983: The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.

Except how much money he has and the woman he comes home to.


I imagine she confuses him quite a bit, actually. He didn't even consider how the language he uses could be harmful to women until after she bore his daughter, for chrissakes.
 
2012-09-09 08:24:03 PM  

One Bad Apple: The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.

We get it He's black.


Well done.
 
2012-09-09 08:25:31 PM  
Dear Mr. Carter (aka Jay-Z):

OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth, and a less interventionist foreign policy. If OWS takes power--don't hold your breath--they'll probably take some of your money away.

Hope that clears things up.
 
2012-09-09 08:25:36 PM  
They were actually rallying together to figure who the fark Jay-Z is.

/heh
 
2012-09-09 08:26:29 PM  

rocky_howard: They also tend to believe socioeconomical inequality is the natural state of things and that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its effects.


Do you think that everyone being socioeconomically equal is the natural state of things?
 
2012-09-09 08:26:31 PM  

FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.


Are you saying that Michael Moore or Oprah or 0bama or Soros or any of the Hollywood elite don't understand it either since they are multi-millionaires?
 
2012-09-09 08:26:41 PM  

BMFPitt: If you want to make it illegal for them to have jobs without those benefits, then yes.


No, it's not and you're outright lying.

Right now there are several rules that make a contract job illegal if you don't comply with them. So according to your own statements we don't have "freedom of contract."

Also, the "freedom of contract" has been defended by the employers, not the employees. I wonder why... Oh right, it's because it ends up meaning less benefits for the workers.

I use the word because it is accurate.

Nah, it's not accurate in the slightest. Manipulating language is an old trick :P

Because I'm talking to one?

Nope, because you listen to yourself talk every day.

Because it seemed like a pretty odd thing to say.

Only if you're trying to be intentionally obtuse.
 
2012-09-09 08:28:28 PM  

tirob: Dear Mr. Carter (aka Jay-Z):

OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth, and a less interventionist foreign policy. If OWS takes power--don't hold your breath--they'll probably take some of your money away.

Hope that clears things up.


Really? They want to redistribute wealth more equitably? That is good to know that they are that radical. Who will determine who should get how much wealth? How will that work?
 
2012-09-09 08:28:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: rocky_howard: They also tend to believe socioeconomical inequality is the natural state of things and that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its effects.

Do you think that everyone being socioeconomically equal is the natural state of things?


Considering socioeconomics are not a natural phenomenon, clearly not :P
Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?
 
2012-09-09 08:28:45 PM  

rewind2846: Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again.


So transients shiatting in a park and chanting is just as valid as any other way of communicating a message and if the message doesn't get conveyed it's the fault of the receiver?
 
2012-09-09 08:29:06 PM  

FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.


He "liked" it and "knew" enough about it, to try and profit off of it. Until tons of backlash and he quit making it.

i265.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-09 08:29:53 PM  

tirob: OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth


They can't even manage an equitable distribution of supplies at their camps, how the fark do they think they can redistribute the wealth of the country?
 
2012-09-09 08:31:08 PM  
Think of it like this: The Occupy movement is like the Nets, and money is like wins. Except there is a slight chance that some of those people may one day get lucky and get money.
 
2012-09-09 08:32:45 PM  

joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there


And, once you're There, how do you control human greed.? There is nothing more amusing to and greedy man than ramming it up high and breaking it off short to some dim-witted "idealist" with a 'degree' in socialism.



I realize that OWS wants everyone except themselves to return to the woods and forage on nut and berries.

OWS is, after all, the spectacularly intellectual Ubermench who can do better than anyone else with Pure Marxism.

Those stupid Russians, Cubans, North Koreans? Too stupid

A sophmore from Yale can do it MUCH better, as long as daddy, the investment banker, keeps sending the checks...

 

I prefer another Eugenic Solution. Announce a huge protest at Camp Perry, Ohio. Shoot, shovel, shut up.. The national IQ will jump up, and we might even get some of the slower Democrats...

 
2012-09-09 08:34:59 PM  

joshiz: But at least admit it is a bit hypocritical IF you are protesting against the whole structure of capitalism.


I still don't see how exactly it's hypocritical or even better, why does it matter?

Do you think if we change of economic model computers are going to stop existing? Or that computers would have never existed sans capitalism?
 
2012-09-09 08:35:11 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: tirob: Dear Mr. Carter (aka Jay-Z):

OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth, and a less interventionist foreign policy. If OWS takes power--don't hold your breath--they'll probably take some of your money away.

Hope that clears things up.

Really? They want to redistribute wealth more equitably? That is good to know that they are that radical. Who will determine who should get how much wealth? How will that work?


I confess that I myself am a bit vague on how the mechanics of the grand plan will work, and I do not sense that OWS ever came to a consensus on this issue. Perhaps someone with a better insight than I into the inner workings of OWS could clear this up.
 
2012-09-09 08:35:46 PM  

Mixolydian Master: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 560x376]

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

If you drive a car, you better never complain about the gas prices. Not even under your breath. It would be hypocritical. Cause lord knows, if you use a product, you are in complete agreement with all of the practices involved with with said corporation.

/When was the message to destroy all corporations and live like cavemen?


If I'm saying that Ford is evil while driving a Ford, yes, that would be hypocritical.

Not all of the OWS folks were anti-corporation...but a good many of them were, from what I saw / heard.

And I get what you're saying. If I eat a Chick-fil-a sandwich then I must be anti-gay ....that would get absurd quickly as it's impossible to know where all of the money from all of the parent companies of every product that you buy, goes. "You just bought a candy bar...the parent company of the sub-contractor of the candy bar distributor's supplier donates money to the KKK." Yeah, it'd get absurd quickly....

But, if you're standing in the street and actively shouting that capitalism (as a whole) is evil and that corporations are worthless and evil etc. while holding your Starbucks and taping it all on your Canon, and uploading it on your Apple, then you might just look like a bit of a hypocrite / jackass.

There's a difference between what we're talking about and the Chick-fil-a example.
 
2012-09-09 08:37:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: rewind2846: Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again.

So transients shiatting in a park and chanting is just as valid as any other way of communicating a message and if the message doesn't get conveyed it's the fault of the receiver?


As I said upthread, there were plenty of protesters and protester supporters who would not qualify as the "transients" FoxNoise tells you that OWS was composed of. They had homes, jobs, families, and all that, but they also realized that a system which purposely rewards the sh*t that went on in the concrete canyons, mahogany paneled boardrooms and corner offices of Wall Street is not only unsustainable, but inherently dangerous to what capitalism really is - a fair and equitable exchange of goods and services between two parties.

What has happened on Wall Street over the past decade was not capitalism.

The point is that those who didn't get it didn't want to get it. They wanted their paradigms to remain intact, and ignoring the real message in favor of "smelly hippy" rants soothed their troubled little psyches against the realization that not only was there something wrong with the system, but that they might be willing participants in that wrong.
 
2012-09-09 08:39:06 PM  
Jump, you f@#kers.

Occupy Wall Street didn't "accomplish" anything because you don't undo 30 years of bullshiat built on top of a regressive and conservative system in one day. You don't even have a platform in the beginning - you just know that something is wrong and want to do something about it. That's what happened, on a mass scale.

And on an aside, reintroducing the language of class (99% vs 1%) back into mainstream political dialogue is a pretty big deal.
 
2012-09-09 08:41:52 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: tirob: Dear Mr. Carter (aka Jay-Z):

OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth, and a less interventionist foreign policy. If OWS takes power--don't hold your breath--they'll probably take some of your money away.

Hope that clears things up.

Really? They want to redistribute wealth more equitably? That is good to know that they are that radical. Who will determine who should get how much wealth? How will that work?


www.bolender.com

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
 
2012-09-09 08:43:11 PM  

rocky_howard: Silly Jesus: rocky_howard: They also tend to believe socioeconomical inequality is the natural state of things and that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its effects.

Do you think that everyone being socioeconomically equal is the natural state of things?

Considering socioeconomics are not a natural phenomenon, clearly not :P
Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?


Depends on what you mean by mitigate. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" type of mitigating...no thanks. Also, not a huge fan of entitlements. So yeah, it depends on what you're proposing.
 
2012-09-09 08:43:40 PM  
Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.



I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.
 
2012-09-09 08:45:46 PM  
I

FloydA: dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.

You've asked them all? Impressive.


I haven't, But while the OWS was going on I asked about a dozen friends and co-workers on what their opinion was on it and I got the same near identical response every time: "I don't know if I should be for or against them. They don't have a coherent message so I'm really not paying much attention to the whole thing."

/csb
 
2012-09-09 08:46:53 PM  

Silly Jesus: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


I'm all for social justice but I never was a big fan of Marx solutions. The guy had a preternatural understanding of the foils of Capitalism to the point of describing it perfectly, but he really couldn't come up with a feasible alternative.

That quote turns humans into automatons. The big majority of inventions in human history happened because someone wanted it. The "want" is the single best motivator in the universe. This "according to his need" proposition is unfeasible in real life. We just need to figure out how to put a limit to the "want" so it doesn't become excessive like it has turned to in American society.
 
2012-09-09 08:50:12 PM  

rewind2846: Silly Jesus: rewind2846: Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again.

So transients shiatting in a park and chanting is just as valid as any other way of communicating a message and if the message doesn't get conveyed it's the fault of the receiver?

As I said upthread, there were plenty of protesters and protester supporters who would not qualify as the "transients" FoxNoise tells you that OWS was composed of. They had homes, jobs, families, and all that, but they also realized that a system which purposely rewards the sh*t that went on in the concrete canyons, mahogany paneled boardrooms and corner offices of Wall Street is not only unsustainable, but inherently dangerous to what capitalism really is - a fair and equitable exchange of goods and services between two parties.

What has happened on Wall Street over the past decade was not capitalism.

The point is that those who didn't get it didn't want to get it. They wanted their paradigms to remain intact, and ignoring the real message in favor of "smelly hippy" rants soothed their troubled little psyches against the realization that not only was there something wrong with the system, but that they might be willing participants in that wrong.


I'm leaning heavily toward agreeing with you...but I just think that there was a bit too much of the "let's be cool and camp here and break the law and show the man how serious we are" nonsense for the media to really ignore it. It took over any other message that existed. You see this is some sort of conspiracy in the media because they are the problem and they know it etc. I see it as them reporting how they always do...on the sensational. You shiat in a bucket and throw it in the street while a group of Nobel prize winners is speaking nearby and all of the cameras will rush to show you the idiot shiatting in the bucket. That's not some conspiracy on the part of the media to not let the message of the smart guys get out...it's the media working for their audience, the ignorant masses.

So, yeah, maybe the media is to blame for some of the failure to get out the message, but I don't use a conspiracy theory of sorts to explain it. They simply showed the circus because they knew that's what the people wanted to see.
 
2012-09-09 08:50:17 PM  

Silly Jesus: Depends on what you mean by mitigate. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" type of mitigating...no thanks. Also, not a huge fan of entitlements. So yeah, it depends on what you're proposing.


Heh, just posted something against that Marxist principle.

Anyway, this is not the forum nor the time to propose a full solution, so don't expect one.

I think things like socialized healthcare are good ways of mitigating inequalities. Not having to worry about going into bankruptcy due to a disease you can't cover is a very big deal. It's also a humane thing to do.

Not talking about everybody getting a jacuzzi, mind you :P
 
2012-09-09 08:51:03 PM  

rocky_howard: Do you think if we change of economic model computers are going to stop existing? Or that computers would have never existed sans capitalism?


No not at all. But then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
2012-09-09 08:51:48 PM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.



I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.


That's a bit vague....and as such, meaningless.
 
2012-09-09 08:52:31 PM  
Are these OWS people still active?

Aren't they aware that they are just hypocritical as the Tea Partiers who have the audacity to protest government spending while using government roads? Clearly they haven't gotten the memo that they can only protest injustices if and only if they satisfy the consistency requirement of arbitrary netizens.
 
2012-09-09 08:52:56 PM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.


I'm glad that's settled then.
 
2012-09-09 08:53:36 PM  

rocky_howard: Silly Jesus: Depends on what you mean by mitigate. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" type of mitigating...no thanks. Also, not a huge fan of entitlements. So yeah, it depends on what you're proposing.

Heh, just posted something against that Marxist principle.

Anyway, this is not the forum nor the time to propose a full solution, so don't expect one.

I think things like socialized healthcare are good ways of mitigating inequalities. Not having to worry about going into bankruptcy due to a disease you can't cover is a very big deal. It's also a humane thing to do.

Not talking about everybody getting a jacuzzi, mind you :P


Fair enough.
 
2012-09-09 08:58:41 PM  

WMittensRomney: Jump, you f@#kers.

Occupy Wall Street didn't "accomplish" anything because you don't undo 30 years of bullshiat built on top of a regressive and conservative system in one day. You don't even have a platform in the beginning - you just know that something is wrong and want to do something about it. That's what happened, on a mass scale.

And on an aside, reintroducing the language of class (99% vs 1%) back into mainstream political dialogue is a pretty big deal.


got it. so what they accomplished was class warfare. anything else?
 
2012-09-09 09:00:21 PM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.


well, if they are pro-human and that is their focus, shouldn't they be out protesting against SkyNet?
 
2012-09-09 09:01:56 PM  

super_grass: Are these OWS people still active?

Aren't they aware that they are just hypocritical as the Tea Partiers who have the audacity to protest government spending while using government roads?


Oh not this again.
Oh look a strawman!

Protesting out of control Government Spending != protesting any Government Spending.
 
2012-09-09 09:06:10 PM  
Silly Jesus:
The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.

Very nicely phrased. Have you a newsletter to which I might subscribe?
 
2012-09-09 09:07:08 PM  

Mixolydian Master: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 560x376]

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

If you drive a car, you better never complain about the gas prices. Not even under your breath. It would be hypocritical. Cause lord knows, if you use a product, you are in complete agreement with all of the practices involved with with said corporation.

/When was the message to destroy all corporations and live like cavemen?


I think never. But it's a lot easier to dismiss that irrational argument than actually addressing the deeply rooted problems with our society.
 
2012-09-09 09:11:13 PM  
OWS is a failed movement. There are 66 people in Congress affiliated with the Tea Party while OWS has ZERO. OWS failed because they fought for vague and varied ideas. They should have had one simple demand - put the white-collar crooks in jail.
 
2012-09-09 09:14:11 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: 1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.
2. abolish all federal income taxes including corporate and payroll taxes
3. create a national property tax equal to somewhere between 1-2% of the value of the goods calculated monthly and paid annually. Property would include all real property such as land, buildings, and equipment. It would also include all intellectual property including copyrights, patents, and trademarks which are enforced by the government. And it would also include investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, tbills etc.


Actually doesn't sound too bad. The only things that jump out at me are that you're having to reassess the value of everyone's shiat twelve times a year, which sounds like it would be a lot of work. Also, how do you assign a monetary value to copyrights, patents and trademarks (separate from the actual money you've earned in royalties)? Lastly, I don't like the idea of repeatedly taxing money that's parked in investments. As long as it's just numbers in a ledger, leave it alone - tax it when it gets turned back into something spendable.
 
2012-09-09 09:16:41 PM  
Never heard of jay z but to me he seems right about this one. The occupy protests were nothing more than bunch of undirected hooliganism. They had no clear goals or platform. I would love to have heard one law or policy that they wanted enacted, alas they did nothing but blather.
 
2012-09-09 09:16:50 PM  

NeedleGuy: IFloydA: dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.

You've asked them all? Impressive.

I haven't, But while the OWS was going on I asked about a dozen friends and co-workers on what their opinion was on it and I got the same near identical response every time: "I don't know if I should be for or against them. They don't have a coherent message so I'm really not paying much attention to the whole thing."

/csb


That's the funny thing I keep hearing from people. People seem to be saying "I'm not paying attention to what they say" AND "they don't have a coherent message."

Not "I haven't heard a coherent message," but "they don't have one." And people are somehow arriving at this conclusion without actually paying attention to what the OWS people say.

When I see that type of doublethink, I automatically become curious and start to suspect that there is something more than just "bad message control" going on.

YMMV I'm not a member of the Occupy movement, I'm just an anthropologist trying to understand people's behavior.
 
2012-09-09 09:17:40 PM  
He doesn't sound confused. He sounds like he thinks some people deserve to be WAAAAAAY richer than others and that as long as they do it ethically it is okay.

On the other hand he completely contradicts his 'what are you fighting for' when he makes the statement that he doesn't think it is okay for rich people to beat up on poor people. I am pretty sure you know exactly what they are fighting for you state that you are against it too...
 
2012-09-09 09:19:35 PM  
It is possible to be anti-greed and anti-corruption and not be anti-capitalist. Wall Street and the Banks farked everyone. Hard. I'm guessing if a lot of you thought for yourselves for a couple of seconds instead of parroting Fox News bullshiat you'd realize that their goals are probably pretty similar to your even if you don't like the tactics or their clothes/hair.
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-09 09:24:03 PM  
He's right. The OWS need a coherent message along the lines of
1. Something Glass-Steagall something something.
2. Roll back some Bush cuts.
3. Something mortgage, something education debt.
4. Soon if not now.
 
2012-09-09 09:25:13 PM  
What Jay-Z says in the article "Yeah, the 1 percent that's robbing people, and deceiving people, these fixed mortgages and all these things, and then taking their home away from them, that's criminal, that's bad."

It sounds like he agrees 100% with the OWS protesters...
 
2012-09-09 09:25:13 PM  

rewind2846: Silly Jesus: rewind2846: Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again.

So transients shiatting in a park and chanting is just as valid as any other way of communicating a message and if the message doesn't get conveyed it's the fault of the receiver?

As I said upthread, there were plenty of protesters and protester supporters who would not qualify as the "transients" FoxNoise tells you that OWS was composed of. They had homes, jobs, families, and all that, but they also realized that a system which purposely rewards the sh*t that went on in the concrete canyons, mahogany paneled boardrooms and corner offices of Wall Street is not only unsustainable, but inherently dangerous to what capitalism really is - a fair and equitable exchange of goods and services between two parties.

What has happened on Wall Street over the past decade was not capitalism.

The point is that those who didn't get it didn't want to get it. They wanted their paradigms to remain intact, and ignoring the real message in favor of "smelly hippy" rants soothed their troubled little psyches against the realization that not only was there something wrong with the system, but that they might be willing participants in that wrong.


I remember hearing snippets of Mike Savage shows during the OWS time, and the man was absolutely sickening in his attacks on them. To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to), freeloaders on society, a threat to capitalism and the American way of life, filth of the lowest level of society, etc. And he spend 90% of his time talking about OWS with his voice raised to his trademark near-screaming level of manufactured outrage. The other conservative mouthpieces were doing the demonizing routine too, but Savage was just... wow. I'm surprised that man hasn't died from an anyeurism caused by excessive blood pressure yet.
 
2012-09-09 09:25:59 PM  
Aussie_As:
The Obama government should have a good look at Australia's financial regulation system. It seems to have held up better than most systems in recent times, and was introduced by a government well to Obama's right, so he could presumably sell it with a good rebuttal for the inevitable "socialist" criticisms.

I'm fine with a regulated financial market. I'm also fine with an UNREGULATED financial market. I even believe that the two could live side-by-side productively and efficiently.

In a regulated market, the government can, for institutions which follow government rules, insure the money in the fund. People who invest in unregulated markets are on their own. None of this is bad, and people can select the type of risk and personal management of fincances with which they are comfortable.

But, what you CANNOT do is take the regulation off of the financial industry, and continue to back up their losses with public money. That's seriously pants-on-head retarded. For example, look at it as a casino. In a regulated fund, the ONLY way to deal with a casino would be via ownership -- stock, or whatever. But, if someone wants to go into the casino, and drop a grand on 17 on the roulette wheel, why on Earth should they expect the taxpayers to pony up when they lose? In a nutshell, that's what we did. Why would I NOT bet, as much as I could, at a casino, if I knew I could keep my winnings, and someone else would pick up the losses? Answer: There is NO reason not to bet it all every time, and let it ride any time I win. To say that such policy encourages risky behavior is an understatement to the point of idiocy. ... and U.S. government policy -- but I repeat myself.
 
2012-09-09 09:27:14 PM  

Billy Bathsalt: He's right. The OWS need a coherent message along the lines of
1. Something Glass-Steagall something something.
2. Roll back some Bush cuts.
3. Something mortgage, something education debt.
4. Soon if not now.


The cause of the lack of direction is a direct result of not wanting the movement hijacked by third parties. It's good for organizations to support Occupy but when they starting dragging their agenda it can cause division and Fox News will just saying shiat like Occupy is ACORN. Wait, they did that the second it started.
 
2012-09-09 09:29:17 PM  
The ironic thing is that OWS would have made some significant headway had they hired a lobbying firm to push their agenda.

There was actually quite a bit of momentum last year with the economy in the dumps and the banks getting bailed out. But they eschewed using the existing power structures and methods in favor of sitting in parks and drumming and chanting, and they were all but forgotten.
 
2012-09-09 09:29:34 PM  
OWS lost a lot of support in NYC when its members attempted to shut down the subways in lower Manhattan last fall.

farking idiots.
 
2012-09-09 09:30:33 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I remember hearing snippets of Mike Savage shows during the OWS time, and the man was absolutely sickening in his attacks on them. To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to), freeloaders on society, a threat to capitalism and the American way of life, filth of the lowest level of society, etc. And he spend 90% of his time talking about OWS with his voice raised to his trademark near-screaming level of manufactured outrage. The other conservative mouthpieces were doing the demonizing routine too, but Savage was just... wow. I'm surprised that man hasn't died from an anyeurism caused by excessive blood pressure yet.


To be fair to Savage, though, that's how he refers to everyone.
 
2012-09-09 09:33:46 PM  
Silly Jesus: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.

Nice load of psychobabble and "my personal experience is how it happens everywhere" malarky there. All you needed to do was compare poverty as a "mental illness" to homosexuality as a "mental illness" and it would have been beautiful.
 
2012-09-09 09:36:07 PM  

GeneralJim: Aussie_As: ...

I'm fine with a regulated financial market. I'm also fine with an UNREGULATED financial market. I even believe that the two could live side-by-side productively and efficiently.

In a regulated market, the government can, for institutions which follow government rules, insure the money in the fund. People who invest in unregulated markets are on their own. None of this is bad, and people can select the type of risk and personal management of fincances with which they are comfortable.

But, what you CANNOT do is take the regulation off of the financial industry, and continue to back up their losses with public money. That's seriously pants-on-head retarded. For example, look at it as a casino. In a regulated fund, the ONLY way to deal with a casino would be via ownership -- stock, or whatever. But, if someone wants to go into the casino, and drop a grand on 17 on the roulette wheel, why on Earth should they expect the taxpayers to pony up when they lose? In a nutshell, that's what we did. Why would I NOT bet, as much as I could, at a casino, if I knew I could keep my winnings, and someone else would pick up the losses? Answer: There is NO reason not to bet it all every time, and let it ride any time I win. To say that such policy encourages risky behavior is an understatement to the point of idiocy. ... and U.S. government policy -- but I repeat myself.


I agree. The financial regulation I'm describing is more about ensuring transparency (particularly as it applies to investor risk) rather than restricting certain types of investment, although I wouldn't rule that out entirely. I believe a lot of the bubble which occurred in the global economy occurred because investors were not aware of just how exposed they were to financial products which amounted to little more than Ponzi schemes. As long as there is transparency for investors, the risk should be on their head.
 
2012-09-09 09:37:36 PM  
Wow, if you were to add the entire publicity the Occumopes got in the last three months with what they got from something called "Jay Z" you'd be ahead of the games.
 
2012-09-09 09:38:43 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: I remember hearing snippets of Mike Savage shows during the OWS time, and the man was absolutely sickening in his attacks on them. To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to), freeloaders on society, a threat to capitalism and the American way of life, filth of the lowest level of society, etc. And he spend 90% of his time talking about OWS with his voice raised to his trademark near-screaming level of manufactured outrage. The other conservative mouthpieces were doing the demonizing routine too, but Savage was just... wow. I'm surprised that man hasn't died from an anyeurism caused by excessive blood pressure yet.

To be fair to Savage, though, that's how he refers to everyone.


He's certainly fueled by hate and anger, that's for sure. He can't go 60 seconds without insulting someone or raising his voise, and when someone calls in to debate or refute him he goes ballistic. I can only imagine the medicals bills he has, probably filled with tranquilizers and blood pressure meds.

He's also obsessed with wanting America to return to being what it was when he was a kid. How old is he?
 
2012-09-09 09:41:07 PM  

Turd_Ferguson: One Bad Apple: The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.

We get it He's black.

Well done.


Well, at least he's earning his place on my ignore list.
 
2012-09-09 09:47:21 PM  

Silly Jesus: Xenomech: [www.thenation.com image 550x506]

[amkon.net image 504x356]


What does drinking coffee have to do with being pissed off about corporate bailouts?

Was starbucks bailed out?
 
2012-09-09 09:53:21 PM  

joshiz: I actually agree with reigning in corporate influence and prosecuting bankers for their crimes/regulating the banking system - alas most of the tenants of OWS. I'm just critiquing their methods. Whether they did not accurately get their message out (and I don't buy blaming it on the corporate media), let other interests derail their goals, or give up in the face of opposition it just doesn't seem like OWS had a clear strategy.



Well then you're an idiot. The OWS movement had very clear goals, but the mainstream media kept running interviews with retarded kids over and over who had absolutely no idea why they were there, or whom were unable to properly vocalize their opinions under questioning. I participated both in person and online at varying points in time, and talked to countless intelligent people with very valid arguments. I never once saw any of these caliber of people in the media coverage. OWS got rebranded as hippy communism by the powers that be, and thats the smear campaign they ran... and it worked.

I dont blame you though. The fact that you hold these opinions just goes to show how successful the misinformation effort was. It saddens me though that this is how most people see what truly was a righteous cause.

OWS was against profiteering, not capitalism.
 
2012-09-09 09:53:32 PM  
flamingboard speaks the truth
 
2012-09-09 09:58:51 PM  

flamingboard: Billy Bathsalt: He's right. The OWS need a coherent message along the lines of
1. Something Glass-Steagall something something.
2. Roll back some Bush cuts.
3. Something mortgage, something education debt.
4. Soon if not now.

The cause of the lack of direction is a direct result of not wanting the movement hijacked by third parties. It's good for organizations to support Occupy but when they starting dragging their agenda it can cause division and Fox News will just saying shiat like Occupy is ACORN. Wait, they did that the second it started.


Luckily for OWS, the ISO has stepped in to take over leadership. Now, at least they'll have a cohesive message.
 
2012-09-09 10:00:59 PM  
Occupy is confused by Occupy.
 
2012-09-09 10:02:13 PM  
The other problem OWS had was that a lot of the serious issues people were trying to bring up are vastly complicated... its hard to explain to people whats wrong with the banking system in a 5 second sound bite... which is how most of the population is used to receiving their political information.
 
2012-09-09 10:03:08 PM  

rocky_howard: No, it's not and you're outright lying.


Keep telling yourself that.

Right now there are several rules that make a contract job illegal if you don't comply with them. So according to your own statements we don't have "freedom of contract."

That is correct.

Also, the "freedom of contract" has been defended by the employers, not the employees.

False. I'm an employee.

I wonder why... Oh right, it's because it ends up meaning less benefits for the workers.

You would rather someone be unemployed than have a job under terms you disagree with. I find that position to be horrible.

Nah, it's not accurate in the slightest. Manipulating language is an old trick :P

Please elaborate on what you find inaccurate about it.
 
2012-09-09 10:04:33 PM  

cman: joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

When 'The Man' cleared you out, you all just gave up? Why?

I'm all for organizing and protesting against a cause. But OWS just seems like misguided rage. Or even guided, ADHD rage that moved on to something else.

OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.


^ this shizz....church!
 
2012-09-09 10:07:05 PM  

joshiz: chrisr64: Huh? Thats like saying I can't put any objections in writing using pen and paper due to using "byproducts of that system"

If your argument was against writing, then using pen and paper would be stupid. That's what I am saying.

"I'm against picketing -- I just don't know how to show it." --Mitch Hedberg


Well, how are they supposed to get their message out in 2012 without some sort of electrical telecommunication devices that dominate a high percentage of the form a great deal of the populace gets their information from? "i invented it, it's mine if you don't fall lockstep with my beliefs"?
 
2012-09-09 10:14:53 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid:


Law-abiding people acting civilly, peacefully and with common consideration for others exercising their rights while not being a disruptive, mess of an expense to the taxpayer... vs. well, not.
 
2012-09-09 10:15:17 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The ironic thing is that OWS would have made some significant headway had they hired a lobbying firm to push their agenda.


Since when does anyone need a "lobbying firm" to tell people the truth?
 
2012-09-09 10:15:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: fark'emfeed'emfish: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.



I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.

That's a bit vague....and as such, meaningless.


bullshiat, that's as clear as can be. while you and yours may not want to understand we don't all have to play stupid.
 
2012-09-09 10:17:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: fark'emfeed'emfish: I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.

well, if they are pro-human and that is their focus, shouldn't they be out protesting against SkyNet?


I'm pretty sure anonymous is on that.
 
2012-09-09 10:18:06 PM  

rewind2846: AverageAmericanGuy: The ironic thing is that OWS would have made some significant headway had they hired a lobbying firm to push their agenda.

Since when does anyone need a "lobbying firm" to tell people the truth?


you don't. But if you want the government to actually do something about it a lobbying firm helps.
 
2012-09-09 10:18:13 PM  

Alonjar: The other problem OWS had was that a lot of the serious issues people were trying to bring up are vastly complicated... its hard to explain to people whats wrong with the banking system in a 5 second sound bite... which is how most of the population is used to receiving their political information making their investment decisions.


FTFY
 
2012-09-09 10:19:15 PM  

doyner: joshiz: Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?

We have a system whereby if the corporation is large enough, it enjoys private profit and public risk. OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.


Like GM and Solyndra?
 
2012-09-09 10:23:31 PM  

surfrider: Law-abiding people acting civilly, peacefully and with common consideration for others exercising their rights while not being a disruptive, mess of an expense to the taxpayer... vs. well, not.


upload.wikimedia.org

"Gentlemen, I believe we have a Tory in our midst."
 
2012-09-09 10:23:57 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: I remember hearing snippets of Mike Savage shows during the OWS time, and the man was absolutely sickening in his attacks on them. To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to), freeloaders on society, a threat to capitalism and the American way of life, filth of the lowest level of society, etc. And he spend 90% of his time talking about OWS with his voice raised to his trademark near-screaming level of manufactured outrage. The other conservative mouthpieces were doing the demonizing routine too, but Savage was just... wow. I'm surprised that man hasn't died from an anyeurism caused by excessive blood pressure yet.

To be fair to Savage, though, that's how he refers to everyone.


Why would you want to be fair to that piece of shiat?
 
2012-09-09 10:25:24 PM  
Start sentencing white collar crime as severe as it should be. The hypocrisy that someone (poor, colored) who robs a store of $20 will spend more time in prison than someone (upper class, wears a suit) who uses the system to steal hundreds of millions.
And none of this club fed, regular prison, general population.
Enjoy your nutraloaf.
 
2012-09-09 10:26:17 PM  
This just in "If you can't put your diverse group of free thinkers into a simple powerpoint presentation of your goals then you don't get recognized as a legitimate organization or movement"

Kind of how we used to claim certain people couldn't vote, while claiming every person has the right to vote, by claiming that those people just weren't people. easy.

They were mad at the system written by the powerful and wealthy to the benefit of the powerful and wealthy, and to the detriment of everyone else. They were mad that the rich and powerful people who were in charge of our largest financial institutions used our money for their benefit in a risky way and when the risk finally caught up with them, we were the ones stuck with the bill, while they kept all the profits. They were mad at all the lies they had been told growing up, that opportunity was there for the taking regardless of where you come from if you just work hard. But it isn't.

That's as close as I can get.

People who succeed see their success as earned.
People who don't succeed see success as arbitrary at best, or as the direct result of advantage.

I think the real answer is somewhere in between. The way life works, the only real success is survival and propagation, everything else is secondary.
 
2012-09-09 10:29:17 PM  

Rip Dashrock: Start sentencing white collar crime as severe as it should be. The hypocrisy that someone (poor, colored) who robs a store of $20 will spend more time in prison than someone (upper class, wears a suit) who uses the system to steal hundreds of millions.
And none of this club fed, regular prison, general population.
Enjoy your nutraloaf.


Trouble us, bankers can afford to bribe their way out of trouble. The guy who steals $20, not so much.
 
2012-09-09 10:31:17 PM  
Most people want to blame OTHERS for THEIR problems. I feel bad for people that are evicted from their homes. However it is truly not their home unless the mortgage is paid off. No one forced you to sign a sheet of paper to borrow money for 15 or 30 years. You made a choice. And sometimes bad things happen. Did they put away money? Did they have an emergency fund?

Okay, maybe they didn't have a good paying job and they didn't have a lot of money. Why didn't they work on building better/more valuable skills instead of being on facebook and playing xbox?

People feel entitled to too many things. If you didn't earn it, then you don't deserve it. It is really that simple.
 
2012-09-09 10:35:07 PM  

KingoftheCheese: Because People in power are Stupid:

Continue to bite the hand that feeds you and eventually you're gonna get slapped. Simple as that.


Wow. Nice country you have there, where you can get 'slapped' by the rich and powerful for speaking out against greed and corruption. Whatever happened to America?
 
2012-09-09 10:36:37 PM  
Silly Jesus
The story will understandably become about your tactics rather than your message.

The medium is the message. The camps were prefigurative examples of a different way of organizing society. The fact that they lasted so long that the government felt compelled to crush them, when they were probably expected to collapse on their own after a few days, should be the real story here.
 
2012-09-09 10:37:34 PM  
Did Fark get a history tab?

Occupy? How retro.
 
2012-09-09 10:39:26 PM  
static.neatoshop.com 
OT: What is that? I don't get it.
 
2012-09-09 10:40:09 PM  

rewind2846: ScreamingHangover:
Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.

Being intentionally obtuse is not a good thing, whether you're from the projects or from a gated neighborhood. Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again. The corporate media, whose job it was NOT to understand, didn't help much in this regard... but as the words of a popular song go, "when you own the information, you can bend it all you want".

BTW, there were a lot of people not only protesting but supporting OWS who are long past the "snowflake" euphemism you chose to use. They are people with homes, families and jobs, but they (unlike you) seem to have awakened to the fact that a very small group of people is f*cking them with a very big dick made of thousand dollar bills.

You'll get it once your prostate ruptures. Enjoy the push.


See: this is a perfect example of why the OWS movement failed from the get go: "for anyone who is smart enough to listen", "presentation should have nothing to do with their intent or their message"

How the message is delivered is everything and if you're unable to communicate it to your target audience the fault is your own. To claim that presentation is irrelevant and "anyone smart enough to listen" will get it: do you realize how much of a pompous twit you come off as?

I'd imagine the goal of the movement was to recruit more people into it: their effort should have been to educate and enlist. Instead it was full of a bunch of pretentious douchebags who were more concerned about preaching to the choir than actually recruiting.

The first mistake was acting confrontation ally with the police. They were having their pensions and medical benefits cut. OWS should have been actively making a positive impression on them: hell, they should have been recruitment target number one. I'm not saying you gotta make them your new best friend, but intentionally antagonizing them from the start was a huge mistake. The cops are getting screwed over just like everyone else. Why make their lives more miserable? Or were they not smart enough to listen?

Then there's the non-white non-middle class. If you had spread the message to folks in Marcy Projects. They've been getting screwed over for decades. Why was done to recruit from the bottom of the barrel? The ones who've been getting shafted for generations? Or were they not smart enough to listen?

I understand Jay Z completely about the OWS: remember where he's from. He grew up in a world where the idea of taking a few months off to camp out and hole up signs and bang drums is ridiculous. To someone from March Projects, you're just a bunch of whiny rich white kids complaining because other rich white kids have more stuff than you. If you think they should see it as anything else, then it's your fault they don't.
 
2012-09-09 10:40:47 PM  

RanDomino: Silly Jesus
The story will understandably become about your tactics rather than your message.

The medium is the message. The camps were prefigurative examples of a different way of organizing society. The fact that they lasted so long that the government felt compelled to crush them, when they were probably expected to collapse on their own after a few days, should be the real story here.


Lulz. Who "crushed" the camp in Chicago?

Oh yeah "WINTER."

And the douchebags forgot to emerge from hibernation.

No it wuz de govmint ut cwushed dem! Shut up
 
2012-09-09 10:42:37 PM  
rocky_howard:
Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?

I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

Are you NOT? Are you saying that I should be able to be on a professional basketball team in the NBA, and make huge sums of money, irrespective of how well I play basketball? To be fair, if I were paid millions a year, I would bust my ass to do as good a job as I could, but, somehow, I think those with a larger quantity of natural talent would kick my ass all over the court. So, it would be a good thing that positions would be awarded by lottery, to make sure that those with more talent did not have an advantage in the NBA.

And, I'm sure that millions of people would tune in to watch a bunch of random jerkweeds, like you and me, play B-ball in the big leagues. And sponsors would gladly pay the huge sums that allow them access to all those millions of fans, even if the players had an assortment of liabilities and even outright handicaps. Seriously, people can get VERY fired up over wheelchair basketball, so a mixed league should do okay.

Oh, and I've always wanted to be an airline pilot. I mean, I've not had any flight classes, but it would be unfair to discriminate based upon my training and abilities, wouldn't it? Again, if I had the job, I would try my best to get everyone to the (correct, hopefully) destination safely. I know you would wish for (and perhaps pray for) the best possible outcome for my work efforts -- ESPECIALLY if you were on the plane I was flying.

Oh, and surgeons make a lot of money, too. Do you want a surgeon who got the job as part of some Jobs Act after high school? Or a financial adviser with no skill but a lot of enthusiasm, and gratitude for his job?

Do you really live in such a fantasy world? I'm betting you don't, because in even a fantasy world, people would want the best at activity X to be doing activity X. The economy advances by people doing well in business, yes, but a VITAL part of that is that the people who go into business only to make stupid decisions use up their money, and their investors' money, doing stupid things, and go out of business, offering "going out of business" discounts on their equipment and inventory for others to benefit from their loss.

Capitalism is a brutal, Darwinian system, and it sucks, massively. It just sucks LESS than every other system we have ever tried. Every single time people, with the best of intentions, screw with it, the efficiency of the whole system suffers, and abject poverty increases.
 
2012-09-09 10:43:24 PM  

BMFPitt: Keep telling yourself that.


I will. Thank you.

That is correct.

Okay, then, keep it that way.

False. I'm an employee.

No, you're what they call a useful idiot since you're arguing against your own benefits.

You would rather someone be unemployed than have a job under terms you disagree with. I find that position to be horrible.

Who said they'd be unemployed? Irrelevant scenario is irrelevant.

Please elaborate on what you find inaccurate about it.

Because freedom of contract is a sophism harnessed by employers who want to give their workers less benefits.
It's loaded language used to misguide people into thinking it's good because they have choice!!!!
when in reality, it'll only be used to give them LESS freedom of everything else.
 
2012-09-09 10:49:51 PM  

kg2095: KingoftheCheese: Because People in power are Stupid:

Continue to bite the hand that feeds you and eventually you're gonna get slapped. Simple as that.

Wow. Nice country you have there, where you can get 'slapped' by the rich and powerful for speaking out against greed and corruption. Whatever happened to America?


It's not that you spoke out about injustice- it's how you went about it that you get slapped. Not by the rich but by the laws which define how we all act in society.

I know- not fair that rich people can afford a bed while bums get rolled for sleeping under bridges. Oddly enough, although not part of that 1%, I drive around in complete disregard to speeding laws as I don't speed. They only discriminate against those who speed. I'm sure the same rules are out there about how you share your views on how oppressed you are by the 1%. You break them, you get slapped.
 
2012-09-09 10:51:57 PM  

rocky_howard: No, you're what they call a useful idiot since you're arguing against your own benefits.


What benefits are those?

Who said they'd be unemployed? Irrelevant scenario is irrelevant.

Both logic and empirical evidence.

Because freedom of contract is a sophism harnessed by employers who want to give their workers less benefits.
It's loaded language used to misguide people into thinking it's good because they have choice!!!!
when in reality, it'll only be used to give them LESS freedom of everything else.


So in other words, you've got nothing.
 
2012-09-09 10:52:39 PM  

rocky_howard: BMFPitt: Keep telling yourself that.

I will. Thank you.

That is correct.

Okay, then, keep it that way.

False. I'm an employee.

No, you're what they call a useful idiot since you're arguing against your own benefits.

You would rather someone be unemployed than have a job under terms you disagree with. I find that position to be horrible.

Who said they'd be unemployed? Irrelevant scenario is irrelevant.

Please elaborate on what you find inaccurate about it.

Because freedom of contract is a sophism harnessed by employers who want to give their workers less benefits.
It's loaded language used to misguide people into thinking it's good because they have choice!!!!
when in reality, it'll only be used to give them LESS freedom of everything else.


Do you think you can help the poor by raising the cost of doing business?

Cost of business raises the cost of the end product which really helps us all doesn't it?
 
2012-09-09 10:56:28 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Turd_Ferguson: One Bad Apple: The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.

We get it He's black.

Well done.

Well, at least he's earning his place on my ignore list.


Actually, he has enough money to be categorized as an old white man. Just like Oprah.
 
2012-09-09 10:57:16 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]


So, give the police reason to fear you?
 
2012-09-09 11:03:39 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),

Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.
 
2012-09-09 11:05:21 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),
Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.


It's about feelings, not actual words. Why do you want to limit the conversation to just things people say and do? You sound like a farking right-winger.
 
2012-09-09 11:05:43 PM  

jaybeezey: doyner: joshiz: Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?

We have a system whereby if the corporation is large enough, it enjoys private profit and public risk. OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

Like GM and Solyndra?


I'll give Solyndra for Goldman Sachs any day.
 
2012-09-09 11:06:15 PM  

GeneralJim: rocky_howard: Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?
I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

With those sophism you presented? No wonder.

Read again: socioeconomic inequality. WTF does athletic ability to play NBA level has to do with it?

Regarding the pilot/doctor scenarios. How about we make sure no one, have they the talent and/or dedication, can be a pilot and doctor regardless of their socioeconomic situation? Isn't that something we should aspire too? Try to minimize it as much as we can?

In the future, try to address the arguments presented instead of fabricating your own.

Capitalism is a brutal, Darwinian system, and it sucks, massively. It just sucks LESS than every other system we have ever tried.

Nope. That's a lie repeated a myriad of times. Do you really think Capitalism is the upper echelon of socioeconomic systems? That we can do no better than we are right now? That this is it? Do you really believe the tripe Fukuyama said in the 90s about the end of history because this is it?

Every single time people, with the best of intentions, screw with it, the efficiency of the whole system suffers, and abject poverty increases.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his New Deal and the prosperity America reached in the mid-20th century that was a direct effect of his economic policies disagree with you.

Also, do you think Medicare increased poverty or diminished it?

I'm willing to give Capitalism the benefit of doubt because I like several of its precepts/effects, but if what we've been seeing with the war profiteering and the banking crisis is what this is about, then we need something new. And no, it's not Communism. Something that shares those things we like about Capitalism, because they are good. I'm gonna give it and call what the 1% does Abject Capitalism.

I also like to go back to something I said to another person, the language misdirection. The establishment has tried for a long time to equate Democracy with Capitalism, obviously as a mean to deter people from even thinking about any other option. The "Why you hate America?" conundrum. Is it possible to have Democracy without Capitalism? I think so. Is it possible to have Democracy without Abject Capitalism? I want it so.

I don't know if Social Democracy is what this is, but that sounds like a good option to try.

Maybe come up with something new and better. But what we have right now is obviously not working out for the very high majority and sorry, this is not the Feudal Era anymore, a handful of people shouldn't be owners of almost everything and enjoy almost all the benefits.

 
2012-09-09 11:07:32 PM  
GeneralJim:I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

With those sophism you presented? No wonder.

Read again: socioeconomic inequality. WTF does athletic ability to play NBA level has to do with it?

Regarding the pilot/doctor scenarios. How about we make sure no one, have they the talent and/or dedication, can be a pilot and doctor regardless of their socioeconomic situation? Isn't that something we should aspire too? Try to minimize it as much as we can?

In the future, try to address the arguments presented instead of fabricating your own.

Capitalism is a brutal, Darwinian system, and it sucks, massively. It just sucks LESS than every other system we have ever tried.

Nope. That's a lie repeated a myriad of times. Do you really think Capitalism is the upper echelon of socioeconomic systems? That we can do no better than we are right now? That this is it? Do you really believe the tripe Fukuyama said in the 90s about the end of history because this is it?

Every single time people, with the best of intentions, screw with it, the efficiency of the whole system suffers, and abject poverty increases.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his New Deal and the prosperity America reached in the mid-20th century that was a direct effect of his economic policies disagree with you.

Also, do you think Medicare increased poverty or diminished it?

I'm willing to give Capitalism the benefit of doubt because I like several of its precepts/effects, but if what we've been seeing with the war profiteering and the banking crisis is what this is about, then we need something new. And no, it's not Communism. Something that shares those things we like about Capitalism, because they are good. I'm gonna give it and call what the 1% does Abject Capitalism.

I also like to go back to something I said to another person, the language misdirection. The establishment has tried for a long time to equate Democracy with Capitalism, obviously as a mean to deter people from even thinking about any other option. The "Why you hate America?" conundrum. Is it possible to have Democracy without Capitalism? I think so. Is it possible to have Democracy without Abject Capitalism? I want it so.

I don't know if Social Democracy is what this is, but that sounds like a good option to try.

Maybe come up with something new and better. But what we have right now is obviously not working out for the very high majority and sorry, this is not the Feudal Era anymore, a handful of people shouldn't be owners of almost everything and en
 
2012-09-09 11:09:51 PM  

BMFPitt: What benefits are those?


Go back and read them, I explained some of them already :)

Both logic and empirical evidence.

Prove it.

So in other words, you've got nothing.

Translation: *BMFPitt covers his ears and shouts* NANANANANANANANA!!!
 
2012-09-09 11:10:39 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
He's certainly fueled by hate and anger, that's for sure. He can't go 60 seconds without insulting someone or raising his voise, and when someone calls in to debate or refute him he goes ballistic. I can only imagine the medicals bills he has, probably filled with tranquilizers and blood pressure meds.

While you're trying to imagine his medical bills, how about trying to imagine that he is a radio performer with an act that attracts people and makes him a good deal of money. His "rage" could easily be simply part of his job description, and he doesn't get any more worked up over it than he does his lunch bill.

Of course, I do not know the man, so this is all conjecture. The point is, it is conjecture for YOU, as well. I'm willing to bet you know Savage about as well as I do... and that being having listened to part of his show a couple times. You're talking with total assurance about a subject of which you cannot have first-hand knowledge. I claim you would appear smarter if you quit.
 
2012-09-09 11:12:35 PM  

clowncar on fire: Do you think you can help the poor by raising the cost of doing business?

Cost of business raises the cost of the end product which really helps us all doesn't it?


How is the company sharing the profits with the workers raising the cost of doing business? Operation budget is not affected.
Instead of the owner pocketing everything, he just pockets a bit less and the workers receive some of those profits.

It's not a fantastical situation either. For example, Siemens did it in the 80s by making the workers stockholders too.
 
2012-09-09 11:12:46 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),
Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.


I'm pretty sure he has at least a little intelligence, enough to not outright say that American citizens should be killed en masse because he doesn't like them and what they think. It's really obvious that's what he meant, considering his was shiatting himself in self-generated rage every time he mentioned OWS.
 
2012-09-09 11:14:30 PM  
It is confusing when people are asking for more regulations on the most heavily regulated industry in our country. It is confusing when they are asking for more regulations period. Without the government regulations and the government stepping in and bailing these 1% and their companies out they would have went bankrupt.

Jay-Z is right. The message was confusing and misguided. Maybe someone should tell the OWS and the Tea Party that they are fighting two legs of the same beast and then we can all move on together ?
 
2012-09-09 11:16:05 PM  

jasnotron: It is confusing when people are asking for more regulations on the most heavily regulated industry in our country. It is confusing when they are asking for more regulations period. Without the government regulations and the government stepping in and bailing these 1% and their companies out they would have went bankrupt.

Jay-Z is right. The message was confusing and misguided. Maybe someone should tell the OWS and the Tea Party that they are fighting two legs of the same beast and then we can all move on together ?


Yes, because the number, not the content, of regulations is what counts.
 
2012-09-09 11:18:18 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: He's certainly fueled by hate and anger, that's for sure. He can't go 60 seconds without insulting someone or raising his voise, and when someone calls in to debate or refute him he goes ballistic. I can only imagine the medicals bills he has, probably filled with tranquilizers and blood pressure meds.
While you're trying to imagine his medical bills, how about trying to imagine that he is a radio performer with an act that attracts people and makes him a good deal of money. His "rage" could easily be simply part of his job description, and he doesn't get any more worked up over it than he does his lunch bill.

Of course, I do not know the man, so this is all conjecture. The point is, it is conjecture for YOU, as well. I'm willing to bet you know Savage about as well as I do... and that being having listened to part of his show a couple times. You're talking with total assurance about a subject of which you cannot have first-hand knowledge. I claim you would appear smarter if you quit.


Hey, he chose to be an "actor" (funny that Rush also calls himself this in between telling people to wage war to take back America while preaching fear and hate) that specializes in venomously attacking and demonizing his fellow Americans. I chose to see him as a piece of worthless shiat that offers nothing to the world. Maybe he's a wonderful family man, maybe he personally bottle-feeds puppies at the local shelter. He's the one who decided to be a radio star by being a complete bug-farking dick towards the world, so I think he's trash. Simple as that.

And stop trying to be holier than me, Jim, you're really bad at it.
 
2012-09-09 11:24:10 PM  
AverageAmericanGuy:
GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),

Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.

It's about feelings, not actual words. Why do you want to limit the conversation to just things people say and do? You sound like a farking right-winger.

"It's about feelings, not actual words?" Okay, so you're doubling down. I get it. You not only know the WORDS he doesn't say, you can see what it is he is FEELING, even if he never says or writes it, or puts it into words, even in his own mind. FABULOUS! You sound like a brain-dead leftist.

Seriously, WTF is this shiat? What is it with leftists pretending to be mind readers, and arguing against what they would have liked people on the right to have said? It really does look like a cognitive abnormality.
 
2012-09-09 11:25:27 PM  
Your rage shouldn't be against the corporations or the bankers but at the politicians who crawl in bed with them. In the absence of a politician who writes favorable legislation, creates barriers to entry in the market or directs public funds or insures the bets of a private company, a corporation or a bank can only offer you a job you're not forced to take or a product you're not forced to buy. When government is constrained by its constitutional limits, there's no point in a bank buying a congressman to write favorable mortgage regulations because "ensuring everyone can afford to own a home" is not a function of congress and there's nothing the congressman can do

Sure the banks got greedy. They only did so when the government decided it would shoulder the burden of the losses on the public. When you remove the penalty of failure from any entity you get reckless decision-making.

it is far easier and more lucrative to loot than it is to diligently toil
 
2012-09-09 11:27:28 PM  

rocky_howard: Go back and read them, I explained some of them already


No you didn't.

Prove it.

It would help if you had actually elaborated on what you want, but when the cost of things goes up, you get less of them. Do you also think supply and demand is a myth?

Translation: *BMFPitt covers his ears and shouts* NANANANANANANANA!!!

No, that was a facepalm after reading you try to explain how freedom reduces freedom.
 
2012-09-09 11:28:27 PM  

doyner: Yes, because the number, not the content, of regulations is what counts.


What counts is that the regulations are made to enable and maintain monopolies. Why else do former executives of said industries write the regulations ?
 
2012-09-09 11:34:28 PM  

jasnotron: It is confusing when people are asking for more regulations on the most heavily regulated industry in our country. It is confusing when they are asking for more regulations period. Without the government regulations and the government stepping in and bailing these 1% and their companies out they would have went bankrupt.

Jay-Z is right. The message was confusing and misguided. Maybe someone should tell the OWS and the Tea Party that they are fighting two legs of the same beast and then we can all move on together ?


"The most heavily regulated industry in our country." I've no idea if this is true, but how does it possibly explain the incredible amount of money being lent out in low doc loans which burst the housing bubble and caused the whole show to go to shiat? How does it explain the ratings agencies overrating vast numbers of investment schemes which turned out to be useless? As an Australian, living in a country with reasonable financial regulation (introduced by a arguably the most right-wing federal government in post WW2 era) which is focused on ensuring transparency, our banking sector far out-performed most of the rest of the world's financial sectors during the meltdown. Regulation can take many forms - it's not just about banning certain types of investment or restricting practices, it's about ensuring that the principles of capitalism are best met by working towards the sorts of 'perfect markets' which have been discussed since the days of Adam Smith.
 
2012-09-09 11:34:44 PM  

jasnotron: doyner: Yes, because the number, not the content, of regulations is what counts.

What counts is that the regulations are made to enable and maintain monopolies. Why else do former executives of said industries write the regulations ?


I completely agree. I apparently mistook the context of your previous post.
 
2012-09-09 11:35:08 PM  

BMFPitt: No you didn't.


Yes, I did. Your inability to do a simple search is not my problem.

It would help if you had actually elaborated on what you want, but when the cost of things goes up, you get less of them. Do you also think supply and demand is a myth?

Cost isn't going up. But keep spreading fallacies :)

No, that was a facepalm after reading you try to explain how freedom reduces freedom.

It's not that hard of a concept. For example, freedom of having slaves reduces the freedom of the people who end up being slaves.
Since slavery is now illegal, people have more freedoms.
 
2012-09-09 11:39:14 PM  
He highlights the biggest problem with the group - they have no clearly defined message. They are expressing discontent and a desire for change, but they can't pin down what exactly they are upset with and how exactly they think it should be changed. I tried to figure it out back when the group was mildly relevant and couldn't do it.
 
2012-09-09 11:39:42 PM  

Aussie_As: how does it possibly explain the incredible amount of money being lent out in low doc loans which burst the housing bubble and caused the whole show to go to shiat? How does it explain the ratings agencies overrating vast numbers of investment schemes which turned out to be useless? As an Australian, living in a country with reasonable financial regulation (introduced by a arguably the most right-wing federal government in post WW2 era) which is focused on ensuring transparency, our banking sector far out-performed most of the rest of the world's financial sectors during the meltdown. Regulation can take many forms - it's not just about banning certain types of investment or restricting practices, it's about ensuring that the principles of capitalism are best met by working towards the sorts of 'perfect markets' which have been discussed since the days of Adam Smith.

The two biggest lenders in our country are government run agencies. Fannie May and Freddie Mac. As they lend so does the rest of the industry. So when they decide to lend to sub-prime lenders and give out interest only ARM's then so does everyone else. The problems followed when the financial industry devised ways to bundle these risky loans to "spread out" the risk.

I am by no means saying we shouldn't have smart meaningful regulations in place to ensure we are protected from pollution, corruption, theft, etc. I'm saying that in this case the OWS were not really sure what they wanted and "more regulations" isn't the answer.
 
2012-09-09 11:42:33 PM  

rocky_howard: Yes, I did. Your inability to do a simple search is not my problem.


Saying "benefits" a few dozen times doesn't actually tell anyone what you want.

Cost isn't going up. But keep spreading fallacies

So all these undefined benefits are free, then?

It's not that hard of a concept. For example, freedom of having slaves reduces the freedom of the people who end up being slaves.
Since slavery is now illegal, people have more freedoms.


You think slave-owning is freedom?
 
2012-09-09 11:43:40 PM  

cman: joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

When 'The Man' cleared you out, you all just gave up? Why?

I'm all for organizing and protesting against a cause. But OWS just seems like misguided rage. Or even guided, ADHD rage that moved on to something else.

OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.


That was part of the point, actually. A lot of things are wrong with America; thus a lot of things need protesting. You're just noting the order of the causes.
 
2012-09-09 11:44:00 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: He highlights the biggest problem with the group - they have no clearly defined message. They are expressing discontent and a desire for change, but they can't pin down what exactly they are upset with and how exactly they think it should be changed. I tried to figure it out back when the group was mildly relevant and couldn't do it.


Adolescence.
 
2012-09-09 11:44:24 PM  
rocky_howard:
GeneralJim: I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

With those sophism you presented? No wonder.

Read again: socioeconomic inequality. WTF does athletic ability to play NBA level has to do with it?

"Those sophism?" Really?

Sorry you're analogy-impaired. Inequality in several fields is being compared, along with the disastrous, or at least stupid, results of trying to remove that inequality. Had you gotten the analogy, you would be led to question whether trying to remove the effects of economic inequality is actually a good idea.
 
2012-09-09 11:45:14 PM  

BMFPitt: rocky_howard: Yes, I did. Your inability to do a simple search is not my problem.

Saying "benefits" a few dozen times doesn't actually tell anyone what you want.

Cost isn't going up. But keep spreading fallacies

So all these undefined benefits are free, then?

It's not that hard of a concept. For example, freedom of having slaves reduces the freedom of the people who end up being slaves.
Since slavery is now illegal, people have more freedoms.

You think slave-owning is freedom?


They said that being freeing the slaves people have more freedom. Not that complicated.
 
2012-09-09 11:48:44 PM  
rocky_howard:
Regarding the pilot/doctor scenarios. How about we make sure no one, have they the talent and/or dedication, can be a pilot and doctor regardless of their socioeconomic situation? Isn't that something we should aspire too? Try to minimize it as much as we can?

In the future, try to address the arguments presented instead of fabricating your own.

In the future, can we agree to use standard English to communicate? Or French, or German, or Spanish, or Russian, or Italian, or Portuguese? I can do pretty well in any of these, and would be willing to try a couple other, if it's your native language. For now, though, can you translate the above to standard English? I don't know what you're getting at.
 
2012-09-09 11:51:16 PM  
It's really amazing how many people have Dow Jones' cock in their ass while they fellate the Fed. They can't seem to get enough of both.
 
2012-09-09 11:53:14 PM  
Last I looked, several months ago, The OWS platform had grown to some 20 items, ranging from pro-animal rights to anti-death penalty with some financial stuff thrown in. I supported OWS initially but they were like a tsunami that finally reaches its peak level and gathers a ton of debris before it dissipates back into the ocean.

1) Ultimately, the politicians are at fault.

2) For a rallying cry. I'd recommend, "Hold politicians and Wall Street accountable!" (NOTE: PDF) Also, "Stop the Wall Street casino!"

3) I highly recommend viewing the documentary, "The Inside Job" which won the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2010, for a primer on the situation.
 
2012-09-09 11:58:04 PM  

jasnotron: Aussie_As: how does it possibly explain the incredible amount of money being lent out in low doc loans which burst the housing bubble and caused the whole show to go to shiat? How does it explain the ratings agencies overrating vast numbers of investment schemes which turned out to be useless? As an Australian, living in a country with reasonable financial regulation (introduced by a arguably the most right-wing federal government in post WW2 era) which is focused on ensuring transparency, our banking sector far out-performed most of the rest of the world's financial sectors during the meltdown. Regulation can take many forms - it's not just about banning certain types of investment or restricting practices, it's about ensuring that the principles of capitalism are best met by working towards the sorts of 'perfect markets' which have been discussed since the days of Adam Smith.
The two biggest lenders in our country are government run agencies. Fannie May and Freddie Mac. As they lend so does the rest of the industry. So when they decide to lend to sub-prime lenders and give out interest only ARM's then so does everyone else. The problems followed when the financial industry devised ways to bundle these risky loans to "spread out" the risk.

I am by no means saying we shouldn't have smart meaningful regulations in place to ensure we are protected from pollution, corruption, theft, etc. I'm saying that in this case the OWS were not really sure what they wanted and "more regulations" isn't the answer.


Ah, I'd temporarily forgotten that Fannie and Freddie are government entities. In Australia, we stopped doing that in the 1980's when a number of state-government-run financial institutions exploded.

But you do appear to be saying that regulations can be good but they're not. Or you're saying that the sorts of regulations the OWS mob were calling for were not the answer, which may be true.

As has previously been stated in this thread, I think that the OWS protests did achieve some change in the public discourse. They didn't achieve anything directly, but they may ultimately lead to improvements. Frankly, how much worse can the situation get? Fund managers inventing schemes for reinvesting the savings of ordinary folks who cosy up with ratings agencies, get great ratings to mislead investors, collect massive bonuses on the approval of their mates in other investment houses, ramp up the bubble until the inevitable happens, still collect massive bonuses despite losing incredible amounts of money into thin air, and ruin entire economies. Absolutely shameless stuff. It was quite legitimate for OWS to say "This ain't working, but unless we make a big noise about it nothing substantial will change because history tells us so."
 
2012-09-09 11:59:14 PM  

rocky_howard: GeneralJim:I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

With those sophism you presented? No wonder.

Read again: socioeconomic inequality. WTF does athletic ability to play NBA level has to do with it?

...


Only the fact that people with the ability to play sports well have a tendency to make good money off of it. And thus become richer than most of us. Rinse and repeat for anything that requires talent and hard work. Not saying that there are those with talent and who do hard work who fail, and not saying either that there aren't those who are born into wealth and do fark-all all of their lives, so yes, 'being rich' and 'hard-working talent' are only partially overlaying groups, but to pretend that there is no connection for the sake of making your own little point, is a bit disingenuous.
 
2012-09-10 12:05:31 AM  
GeneralJim


Aussie_As:

The Obama government should have a good look at Australia's financial regulation system. It seems to have held up better than most systems in recent times, and was introduced by a government well to Obama's right, so he could presumably sell it with a good rebuttal for the inevitable "socialist" criticisms.


I'm fine with a regulated financial market. I'm also fine with an UNREGULATED financial market. I even believe that the two could live side-by-side productively and efficiently.

In a regulated market, the government can, for institutions which follow government rules, insure the money in the fund. People who invest in unregulated markets are on their own. None of this is bad, and people can select the type of risk and personal management of finances with which they are comfortable.

But, what you CANNOT do is take the regulation off of the financial industry, and continue to back up their losses with public money. That's seriously pants-on-head retarded. For example, look at it as a casino. In a regulated fund, the ONLY way to deal with a casino would be via ownership -- stock, or whatever. But, if someone wants to go into the casino, and drop a grand on 17 on the roulette wheel, why on Earth should they expect the taxpayers to pony up when they lose? In a nutshell, that's what we did. Why would I NOT bet, as much as I could, at a casino, if I knew I could keep my winnings, and someone else would pick up the losses? Answer: There is NO reason not to bet it all every time, and let it ride any time I win. To say that such policy encourages risky behavior is an understatement to the point of idiocy. ... and U.S. government policy -- but I repeat myself.



GJ, disagree with you slightly, here. The roulette table is regulated by the state. It has to be or the house will rig the game. History shows this to be true, I think logic shows this to be true, too. And I think the financial industry cannot exist in a healthy entity that benefits not only the participants but society as whole that has a vested interest in a thriving and trustworthy financial market. You say that a regulated as well as an unregulated market can exist side by side. I don't see it. I think the money will migrate toward the market that they can trust is not rigged against them.

The effectiveness of the regulation is certainly worthy of debate. Wealth redistribution and dismantling are not, IMO.
 
2012-09-10 12:05:39 AM  

GeneralJim: Sorry you're analogy-impaired. Inequality in several fields is being compared, along with the disastrous, or at least stupid, results of trying to remove that inequality. Had you gotten the analogy, you would be led to question whether trying to remove the effects of economic inequality is actually a good idea.


No, but inequality in all fields is irrelevant since that's not what's being discussed. What? We're gonna talk about bleaching everyone's skin Michael Jackson style? Adding more bone and flesh to people's legs to make them taller a-la Gattaca?

We're talking about socioeconomic matters, not physical traits. No, your analogies don't apply as you showed them.

Also, I doubt we could remove economic inequality. I said mitigating the effects of socioeconomic inequality. Not the same.

Also, wow, I missed an s in "those sophisms", sue me :P

In the future, can we agree to use standard English to communicate? Or French, or German, or Spanish, or Russian, or Italian, or Portuguese? I can do pretty well in any of these, and would be willing to try a couple other, if it's your native language. For now, though, can you translate the above to standard English? I don't know what you're getting at.

Regarding the pilot/doctor scenarios. How about we make sure anybody with the talent and/or dedication can be a pilot and doctor regardless of their socioeconomic situation? Isn't that something we should aspire too? Try to minimize it as much as we can?

Better? I made a mess in that comment, even ended up posting it twice and messing the html up.
 
2012-09-10 12:08:01 AM  

cman: FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey

Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself


I've really come to respect you, cman.
You is all right.
 
2012-09-10 12:10:02 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: Only the fact that people with the ability to play sports well have a tendency to make good money off of it. And thus become richer than most of us. Rinse and repeat for anything that requires talent and hard work. Not saying that there are those with talent and who do hard work who fail, and not saying either that there aren't those who are born into wealth and do fark-all all of their lives, so yes, 'being rich' and 'hard-working talent' are only partially overlaying groups, but to pretend that there is no connection for the sake of making your own little point, is a bit disingenuous.


I understand that, but that's not the discussion.

Socioeconomic inequality =/= Physical inequality. That's all.
 
2012-09-10 12:12:56 AM  
Lifted from the comments on the original site:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jay-z-occupy-wall-street-shirt- r ocawear-260334

If it's true, it's kind of funny.
 
2012-09-10 12:14:15 AM  

jayhawk88: I bet Jay-Z would be surprised to hear that he's probably not part of the 1%


You mean you don't think the dude worth half a billion dollars is in the top 1%?

Sure.
 
2012-09-10 12:14:51 AM  

TheMysticS: cman: FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey

Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself

I've really come to respect you, cman.
You is all right.


Maybe I was wrong.
Did you send that message?
Or is the troll trolling you?
You never replied.
 
2012-09-10 12:15:28 AM  
rocky_howard:
Capitalism is a brutal, Darwinian system, and it sucks, massively. It just sucks LESS than every other system we have ever tried.

Nope. That's a lie repeated a myriad of times. Do you really think Capitalism is the upper echelon of socioeconomic systems? That we can do no better than we are right now? That this is it? Do you really believe the tripe Fukuyama said in the 90s about the end of history because this is it?

You claim this is a lie. You know not whereof you speak. We may come up with a better way to allocate resources than capitalism -- I hope we do. So far, we have not. If you think otherwise, explain the system that did better, and show why it's better.


Every single time people, with the best of intentions, screw with it, the efficiency of the whole system suffers, and abject poverty increases.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his New Deal and the prosperity America reached in the mid-20th century that was a direct effect of his economic policies disagree with you.

Oh, I see. You know nothing of economics. FDR's plan turned a normal, slightly-less-than-a-year recession into a decade-long depression. Twice in the history of the United States, a simple recession has been dealt with by government bailouts and increases in spending. Every other time, government has tried to back out of some of it's heaviest controls, loosen money a bit, reduce taxes, and let the market solve its own problems. So far, with the exception of those two "heavy-handed" responses, AND Jimmy Carter, the economy recovers in less than a year, and things get back to normal. Those two "heavy-handed" responses? FDR's, and Obama's. Similar approaches, similar responses, similar economic disaster.


Also, do you think Medicare increased poverty or diminished it?

Increased. It increased the poverty of those paying for it, and decreased the poverty of those receiving it. That's how insurance works. Except for the fact that Congress steals from the Medicare budget, it's like insurance. Those who need it come out ahead, those that don't, lose money. But, if Medicare is like OTHER government agencies, to deliver $1 in health care to covered individuals, $8 must be collected. The moving of the $1 doesn't really have a net effect on poverty, but the burning of $7 in bureaucratic BS DOES increase poverty by lowering the amount of money available.

Note that the increased spending for Medicare is at least partially offset by Medicare dictating what will be paid to doctors and other health care companies for specific procedures. This can give the ILLUSION that Medicare is cheaper. There are two problems with that view. First, the cost "savings" are made by simply only paying part of a bill. Private insurance does not have that option. Additionally, this partial-payment approach means that many doctors are not taking new Medicare patients, and medical care will be reduced.

The second problem with looking at Medicare as "cheaper" is that they only count money INTO the program, not the cost of collecting that money. Private insurance simply stops if the patient does not pay premiums, so the cost of getting $1 into a private insurance company is almost exactly $1. On the other hand, the U.S. government collects the money before it goes to Medicare, obviously, so the costs of collecting the money should be counted as an addition to the money given to the program. The cost of collecting a Medicare dollar are probably less than the overall rate of $8/$1 of general revenue, but I'm not going to look it up. Use that figure for a rough calculation, or find out the actual number for that program yourself.
 
2012-09-10 12:15:56 AM  
Arrggh...broke the link in the last post. I meant to put this: Link
 
2012-09-10 12:17:07 AM  

BMFPitt: Saying "benefits" a few dozen times doesn't actually tell anyone what you want.


I've said part of what I want in several posts. Look for them. You haven't.

So all these undefined benefits are free, then?

Since we're talking about sharing the profits, then it has little to no effect on production. Unless you think the owner should keep 100% profit and that anything else is "cost".

So as long as insatiable greed isn't your motivator, this is not "cost".

You think slave-owning is freedom?

No, but I think you're obtuse.

Before 1865 people were free to have slaves. Slaves didn't have freedom.
After 1865 people weren't free to have slaves. Now slaves have freedom.

There were more slaves than slave-owners, thus limiting the freedom of a group translated more freedoms to a larger group.
 
2012-09-10 12:19:29 AM  

joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

When 'The Man' cleared you out, you all just gave up? Why?

I'm all for organizing and protesting against a cause. But OWS just seems like misguided rage. Or even guided, ADHD rage that moved on to something else.



Really? You're expecting the first major attempt at a protest flashmob to be as effective as state-sponsored paramilitary police forces with hundreds of years of institutional refinements to procedure?

Reframe it in your mind: a bunch of bored hipster kids and homeless people who can't focus long enough to get a bath, let alone a job, were able - largely for free and with no leadership - to organize well enough and stay together long enough that The Man *had* to respond or risk losing control.

And they didn't even have a common goal or a united sense of purpose. That's either the first step in the evolution of a social system where government is actually responsive to the needs and wants of its citizens or a recipe for (at least) one generation of social unrest.

So obviously you don't have to approve but it behooves you to understand instead of dismiss.
 
2012-09-10 12:28:38 AM  
Jay-Z confused by Occupy Wall Street, 'What are you fighting for?"

Hate. Unbridled, unrestrained, without conscience or purpose Hate

It's all their souls know

And they don't know why

Any reason will do so long as they can strike out at someting

There is an engine of demons in each soul of these misbegotten horrors
 
2012-09-10 12:36:12 AM  

DataShade: Really? You're expecting the first major attempt at a protest flashmob to be as effective as state-sponsored paramilitary police forces with hundreds of years of institutional refinements to procedure?

Reframe it in your mind: a bunch of bored hipster kids and homeless people who can't focus long enough to get a bath, let alone a job, were able - largely for free and with no leadership - to organize well enough and stay together long enough that The Man *had* to respond or risk losing control.

And they didn't even have a common goal or a united sense of purpose. That's either the first step in the evolution of a social system where government is actually responsive to the needs and wants of its citizens or a recipe for (at least) one generation of social unrest.

So obviously you don't have to approve but it behooves you to understand instead of dismiss.


The first? Don't take this the wrong way, but this type of stuff has been going on a long time. I remember my "radical" friends back in the 80's doing stuff like this all the time: complete with the tents and rambling signs and even the same slogans. Except then it was about Reagan and his breaking up unions and No Nukes and US involvement in Nicaragua and education and public housing and homelessness and corporations...

...Pretty much what OWS is doing now. And I remember my dad saying it looks like the same thing in the 60's.
Only then you couldn't upload pictures and videos to the internet. I think that's another reason OWS has failed: it's the same thing that didn't work last time just repackaged for a new generation. Unfortunately, they keep making the same mistakes.
 
2012-09-10 12:44:42 AM  

TheMysticS: TheMysticS: cman: FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey

Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself

I've really come to respect you, cman.
You is all right.

Maybe I was wrong.
Did you send that message?
Or is the troll trolling you?
You never replied.


He was tolling. I added him to my ignore list so i didn't see his follow up. First guy I have ever ignored, too
 
2012-09-10 12:46:00 AM  

cman: TheMysticS: TheMysticS: cman: FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey

Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself

I've really come to respect you, cman.
You is all right.

Maybe I was wrong.
Did you send that message?
Or is the troll trolling you?
You never replied.

He was trolling. I added him to my ignore list so i didn't see his follow up. First guy I have ever ignored, too


Fixt
 
2012-09-10 12:50:24 AM  

steamingpile: The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.

But a biatch ain't one.

Why does it surprise people someone that worked hard to get his money doesn't get what they are protesting?

The 99% are still under the impression a college degree instantly means Mega salary once you graduate, adapt to get ahead, that may mean you have to bust your ass to get where you want to be.


Nah, you need to stab someone first, right?

What a moran.
 
2012-09-10 12:55:27 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid:


Probably because the armed tea partners weren't rioting or destroying property.
 
2012-09-10 12:57:00 AM  

joshiz: rocky_howard: Also, what kind of values do you have that you put a perceived technical hypocrisy above the well being of the population? What's your stance on fighting a war to achieve peace? Do you find that hypocritical too?

That's not exactly the same. If you were espousing a position of non-violence but were using violence to achieve your goals, yes.

My point is not that they shouldn't use technology - they should! But at least admit it is a bit hypocritical IF you are protesting against the whole structure of capitalism.

On the other hand, like others have said here, that they only have issues with certain parts of capitalism (and it is there where we agree), then that was not expressed clearly enough. Yes, the corporate media distorted their agenda, but to not know the opponent they were going up against shows a lack of strategy. I don't think their message was clear - at least not to me.

I agree that if they could have expressed their goals better we probably wouldn't be discussing this point. I plead ignorance regarding what the goals of OWS were. There have been a few different answers in this thread so I am still not totally sure.

I would probably be down for the cause, if only I knew what it was.


I know, right?

www.guy-sports.com
 
2012-09-10 12:58:56 AM  
The 99th percent is crapped on by people much less wealthy than the 1%.
 
2012-09-10 12:59:34 AM  
Doesn't give a damn:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-10 01:01:12 AM  

ScreamingHangover: DataShade: Really? You're expecting the first major attempt at a protest flashmob to be as effective as state-sponsored paramilitary police forces with hundreds of years of institutional refinements to procedure?

Reframe it in your mind: a bunch of bored hipster kids and homeless people who can't focus long enough to get a bath, let alone a job, were able - largely for free and with no leadership - to organize well enough and stay together long enough that The Man *had* to respond or risk losing control.

And they didn't even have a common goal or a united sense of purpose. That's either the first step in the evolution of a social system where government is actually responsive to the needs and wants of its citizens or a recipe for (at least) one generation of social unrest.

So obviously you don't have to approve but it behooves you to understand instead of dismiss.

The first? Don't take this the wrong way, but this type of stuff has been going on a long time. I remember my "radical" friends back in the 80's doing stuff like this all the time: complete with the tents and rambling signs and even the same slogans. Except then it was about Reagan and his breaking up unions and No Nukes and US involvement in Nicaragua and education and public housing and homelessness and corporations...

...Pretty much what OWS is doing now. And I remember my dad saying it looks like the same thing in the 60's.
Only then you couldn't upload pictures and videos to the internet. I think that's another reason OWS has failed: it's the same thing that didn't work last time just repackaged for a new generation. Unfortunately, they keep making the same mistakes.


Yeah, he was a farking moran.
www.mahatmagandhionline.com
 
2012-09-10 01:10:12 AM  

ScreamingHangover:

How the message is delivered is everything and if you're unable to communicate it to your target audience the fault is your own. To claim that presentation is irrelevant and "anyone smart enough to listen" will get it: do you realize how much of a pompous twit you come off as?


It's "pompous" to actually pay attention to what is going on around you? "Pompous" to tear yourself away from Snooki and the gang to find out what's going on in the rest of the world? "Pompous" to find out for yourself on the interwebs what OWS is about from a source other than FoxNoise and the other corporate news perpetrators... like this one?

Well then, color me pomp. If anyone really wanted to know what was going on with this group, the information was there - right from the source. Americans have been trained to be spoon-fed and stupid. There is no "target audience", as the message was intended for EVERYBODY.

I'd imagine the goal of the movement was to recruit more people into it: their effort should have been to educate and enlist. Instead it was full of a bunch of pretentious douchebags who were more concerned about preaching to the choir than actually recruiting.

Anyone who is not part of the 1% shouldn't have to be "recruited"... you're already part of the army. You just don't know it yet, but you will. If you paid taxes, then part of your wages went to give bailouts and tax breaks to corporations whose CEOs wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, even after drinking a liter of Cristal. You belong already.

The first mistake was acting confrontation ally with the police. They were having their pensions and medical benefits cut. OWS should have been actively making a positive impression on them: hell, they should have been recruitment target number one.

There were cops already involved in the protests. And firemen. And Veterans. As I said, they knew they were already in that army. The police that they "confronted" (who actually confronted them) were given orders by those in power who saw these people as a threat, just like they always have. "JUMP! How high?"


Then there's the non-white non-middle class. If you had spread the message to folks in Marcy Projects. They've been getting screwed over for decades. Why was done to recruit from the bottom of the barrel? The ones who've been getting shafted for generations? Or were they not smart enough to listen?


Poor people generally (and unfortunately) don't get involved in politics of protests like this. Being poor, they often believe that what they do won't make a difference in any case, and if they are fortunate enough to be working minimum wage jobs are not as forgiving with time off.

I understand Jay Z completely about the OWS: remember where he's from.

I think I might understand him just a little better... where he's from is where I'm from. Crack dealers, pimps and hos, saw three people killed before my tenth birthday. One was a distant relative. Two of my cousins are crackheads, haven't seen them in over 15 years. They stole their own mother's welfare checks for their habit. One of my brothers was one too, he shook the habit and has been clean since 1993. To get out I joined the navy, traveled the world and now have two degrees and a decent job... and yet somehow I understand what OWS is about.

Why doesn't he?
 
2012-09-10 01:12:25 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: he was a farking moran. was willing to change and adapt both his strategy and tactics in order to achieve a specific, well defined, goal.



www.mahatmagandhionline.com



FTFY
 
2012-09-10 01:28:43 AM  

ScreamingHangover: StoPPeRmobile: he was a farking moran. was willing to change and adapt both his strategy and tactics in order to achieve a specific, well defined, goal.
[www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]
FTFY


His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan.

There are many more things wrong with this country, and in this time. They have been multiplying like roaches for the past 50 years or more, and don't have just one explanation, definition or bumper-sticker platitude.

Ghandi's bumper sticker would read simply "PEACE". Things are a bit more complex today.
 
2012-09-10 01:30:08 AM  

rewind2846: I think I might understand him just a little better... where he's from is where I'm from. Crack dealers, pimps and hos, saw three people killed before my tenth birthday. One was a distant relative. Two of my cousins are crackheads, haven't seen them in over 15 years. They stole their own mother's welfare checks for their habit. One of my brothers was one too, he shook the habit and has been clean since 1993. To get out I joined the navy, traveled the world and now have two degrees and a decent job... and yet somehow I understand what OWS is about.

Why doesn't he?


Interesting... I also joined the Navy and have 2 degrees (serious), I also understand what OWS is about, I also belive Jay Z does as well.... What I am referring to is how they're going about it. The tactics are... Old... they may have worked back in the 60's but they're passé: the police and media have been able to adapt and control to this technique since the 80's.

You're an (ex) military man: the military doesn't use the same tactics as they did in WW2 or Vietnam. However, the protestors are.

Look at StoPPeRmobile's post... he's still hung up on Gandhi: his tactics may be outdated, but look at what he accomplished: he managed to get his message out to several hundred million people. He didn't have internet. The official media of the time was against him too. And yet, he got his message through to several hundred million people. He didn't wait for them to "go find out for themselves": he found multiple ways to communicate with and recruit millions of people of disparate backgrounds -most of who were illiterate- into a united movement. Sitting around, camping out, holding signs, and waiting for everyone else to "find out for themselves"? That's not even trying.
 
2012-09-10 01:32:19 AM  

rewind2846: ScreamingHangover: StoPPeRmobile: he was a farking moran. was willing to change and adapt both his strategy and tactics in order to achieve a specific, well defined, goal.
[www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]
FTFY

His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan.

There are many more things wrong with this country, and in this time. They have been multiplying like roaches for the past 50 years or more, and don't have just one explanation, definition or bumper-sticker platitude.

Ghandi's bumper sticker would read simply "PEACE". Things are a bit more complex today.


Agreed: Gandhi may have been able to get the British out of India, but even he had his limits.

/Still one of the greatest human beings who ever lived.
 
2012-09-10 01:35:44 AM  

rewind2846: ScreamingHangover: StoPPeRmobile: he was a farking moran. was willing to change and adapt both his strategy and tactics in order to achieve a specific, well defined, goal.
[www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]
FTFY

His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan.

There are many more things wrong with this country, and in this time. They have been multiplying like roaches for the past 50 years or more, and don't have just one explanation, definition or bumper-sticker platitude.

Ghandi's bumper sticker would read simply "PEACE". Things are a bit more complex today.


That's just war talk.

It is as it has always been.

Dicks talking their way out of working in the fields.
 
2012-09-10 01:37:35 AM  

FloydA: joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?



OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.


Also, computers and the internet are not "products of capitalism". Enormous amounts of government money went into the invention of both.

Also, using those tools to fight against corporate influence is not hypocritical just because a corporation produced them if the net impact of using the product furthers one's own goal more than the purchase of the product furthers that of the corporation's.

Also, Occupy was/is more about raising awareness and making a statement of public opinion re: wealth distribution and a broken political structure than about actively undermining any specific entities.

In short, stop being a dumbass. The fact that politicians are shying away from giving the 1% another tax break is proof that Occupy accomplished something.
 
2012-09-10 02:02:04 AM  
rocky_howard:
I'm willing to give Capitalism the benefit of doubt because I like several of its precepts/effects, but if what we've been seeing with the war profiteering and the banking crisis is what this is about, then we need something new. And no, it's not Communism. Something that shares those things we like about Capitalism, because they are good. I'm gonna give it and call what the 1% does Abject Capitalism.

What you are describing is not capitalism, but crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is like capitalism, after a fashion, but the government becomes massively intrusive into business affairs, and controls the relative advantage various companies have, sometimes as simply as by making so many regulations that any company that is not huge cannot afford to track them all. Various companies then become chummy with the government in exchange for being on the "right" side of the government enforcers. Think GE stumping for Obama, and paying no taxes on a massive profit.

Crony capitalism is the model for NAZI Germany -- Several large companies got lots of control over industry through the power of the government, to which they sucked up. This binding between large corporations and an intrusive, nanny-state government is anathema to capitalism and the free market, and is pretty much the same as socialism, only with better, non-governmental managers.


I also like to go back to something I said to another person, the language misdirection. The establishment has tried for a long time to equate Democracy with Capitalism, obviously as a mean to deter people from even thinking about any other option. The "Why you hate America?" conundrum. Is it possible to have Democracy without Capitalism? I think so. Is it possible to have Democracy without Abject Capitalism? I want it so.

Hang on to your shorts -- we DON'T have democracy. We have a republic. Thank God. And, yes, political systems can be totally independent from economic systems. China, for example, is still a brutal communist state -- but they've adopted capitalism, because it works ever so much better than the dreary socialist demand economy they used to use. They learned from Hong Kong, of course, and are quick studies. They are now kicking serious butt on the world economic front, and have a lot of expanding to do.
 
2012-09-10 02:05:28 AM  
"One percent" vs."Ninety-nine percent" only really makes sense within the context of the American tax debates circa 2010. That's what really got on my wick about people who tried to transplant the Occupy "movement" elsewhere- they forgot that they have their own local politics and their own, more relevant slogans.

/Somewhere within the top 3% worldwide
 
2012-09-10 02:06:24 AM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),

Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.

I'm pretty sure he has at least a little intelligence, enough to not outright say that American citizens should be killed en masse because he doesn't like them and what they think. It's really obvious that's what he meant, considering his was shiatting himself in self-generated rage every time he mentioned OWS.

Oh, I get it. You figured it out, just like the Storm Front people figured out that socialists are filthy scum that only want to destroy the greatest country on Earth for their Soviet and Cuban overlords. In other words, you just yank it out of your butt, and claim to know what other people are thinking.

Got it.
 
2012-09-10 02:09:33 AM  

Z-clipped: FloydA: joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?



OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.

Also, computers and the internet are not "products of capitalism". Enormous amounts of government money went into the invention of both.

Also, using those tools to fight against corporate influence is not hypocritical just because a corporation produced them if the net impact of using the product furthers one's own goal more than the purchase of the product furthers that of the corporation's.

Also, Occupy was/is more about raising awareness and making a statement of public opinion re: wealth distribution and a broken political structure than about actively undermining any specific entities.

In short, stop being a dumbass. The fact that politicians are shying away from giving the 1% another tax break is proof that Occupy accomplished something.


Two can play that game, too.

Your assumption that governemnt is 100% responsible for computers and the Internet and corporations were just back seat drivers is wrong. I am going to use your logic. Harnessing electricity had 0 to do with gov. It was all private business. Without electricity, how could have the government invent computers and the Internet? Electricity is the product of capitalism

Your move, and I believe that is check mate
 
2012-09-10 02:17:05 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Yeah, he was a farking moran.


[Ghandi.jpg]

Don't forget that Ghandi benefitted from the fact that the British were somewhat inclined to be sympathetic to his cause. You can't hunger strike a tyrant. Hitler would have laughed at him while he starved. It's important to size up who you are dealing with when you conjure your tactics.
 
2012-09-10 02:20:01 AM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: He's certainly fueled by hate and anger, that's for sure. He can't go 60 seconds without insulting someone or raising his voise, and when someone calls in to debate or refute him he goes ballistic. I can only imagine the medicals bills he has, probably filled with tranquilizers and blood pressure meds.

While you're trying to imagine his medical bills, how about trying to imagine that he is a radio performer with an act that attracts people and makes him a good deal of money. His "rage" could easily be simply part of his job description, and he doesn't get any more worked up over it than he does his lunch bill.

Of course, I do not know the man, so this is all conjecture. The point is, it is conjecture for YOU, as well. I'm willing to bet you know Savage about as well as I do... and that being having listened to part of his show a couple times. You're talking with total assurance about a subject of which you cannot have first-hand knowledge. I claim you would appear smarter if you quit.


Hey, he chose to be an "actor" (funny that Rush also calls himself this in between telling people to wage war to take back America while preaching fear and hate) that specializes in venomously attacking and demonizing his fellow Americans. I chose to see him as a piece of worthless shiat that offers nothing to the world. Maybe he's a wonderful family man, maybe he personally bottle-feeds puppies at the local shelter. He's the one who decided to be a radio star by being a complete bug-farking dick towards the world, so I think he's trash. Simple as that.

Let's take this in small steps. Okay, now you are showing that you know that Savage and Limbaugh are ACTORS. They both have good careers. Now for the hard part. Think about it -- are actors, while they are acting, always telling you what their true feelings are?


And stop trying to be ass-holier than me, Jim, you're really bad at it.

Yeah, I know... never screw with the Master. (Fixed for greater accuracy and specificity.)
 
2012-09-10 02:25:14 AM  

Z-clipped: Also, computers and the internet are not "products of capitalism". Enormous amounts of government Department of Defense money went into the invention of both.


Yes, a lot of "government" money went into the development of Computers and the internet. And it all originated from the military-industrial complex. Initially, they were developed exclusively as weapons of war: the computer to design fighter aircraft (Germany), crack codes (UK) and help engineer the atomic bomb (US). The ARPANET was developed to provide decentralized military communication in case of nuclear war. Any other social/commercial benefit was ancillary.


/Hurray War!
 
2012-09-10 02:42:25 AM  

ScreamingHangover: Z-clipped:

/Hurray War!


In fairness, war has certainly led to some brilliant inventions throughout the history of civilisation. It's a very motivating circumstance to be stuck in, if ever there was a positive spin you could put on a fairly unfortunate situation. Whether your fighting it, avoiding it or working behind the scenes, you're generally more productive than in peacetime.
 
2012-09-10 02:43:23 AM  
I thought they were an autonomous collective?
 
2012-09-10 02:52:19 AM  

Aussie_As: ScreamingHangover: Z-clipped:

/Hurray War!

In fairness, war has certainly led to some brilliant inventions throughout the history of civilisation. It's a very motivating circumstance to be stuck in, if ever there was a positive spin you could put on a fairly unfortunate situation. Whether your fighting it, avoiding it or working behind the scenes, you're generally more productive than in peacetime.


It always blows my mind how they managed to create and execute D-Day... over 130,00 people in a day: 1 million in a month... Just think of that from a logistical standpoint: coordinating the troops, equipment, supplies, transportation...

And to think they did it with telephones, telegraph and the occasional analog radio. I don't think this is possible today.

And they even managed to keep the dates and locations a complete surprise to the Germans.
 
2012-09-10 03:47:18 AM  

halfof33: Did Fark get a history tab?

Occupy? How retro.



You always jump on here and claim they're ancient history. This just shows you only get your information from the mainstream media.
 
2012-09-10 03:48:36 AM  
o5iiawah:
Your rage shouldn't be against the corporations or the bankers but at the politicians who crawl in bed with them. In the absence of a politician who writes favorable legislation, creates barriers to entry in the market or directs public funds or insures the bets of a private company, a corporation or a bank can only offer you a job you're not forced to take or a product you're not forced to buy. When government is constrained by its constitutional limits, there's no point in a bank buying a congressman to write favorable mortgage regulations because "ensuring everyone can afford to own a home" is not a function of congress and there's nothing the congressman can do

Sure the banks got greedy. They only did so when the government decided it would shoulder the burden of the losses on the public. When you remove the penalty of failure from any entity you get reckless decision-making.

it is far easier and more lucrative to loot than it is to diligently toil

Wise you are in the ways of the financial force.
 
2012-09-10 03:51:35 AM  

ScreamingHangover: Yes, a lot of "government" money went into the development of Computers and the internet. And it all originated from the military-industrial complex. Initially, they were developed exclusively as weapons of war: the computer to design fighter aircraft (Germany), crack codes (UK) and help engineer the atomic bomb (US). The ARPANET was developed to provide decentralized military communication in case of nuclear war. Any other social/commercial benefit was ancillary.


/Hurray War!



It didn't matter it was defense money. It was merely government research money, the same research money thrown out today by the NIH and other agencies. Besides, the idea of computers in the first place wouldn't have been possible without the scientific breakthroughs of research years earlier not funded by any military or for any war. Government giving out funding for scientific research is always a good thing, if there wasn't a war or a military industrial complex, the technology would have been found by these same scientists working in labs in universities.
 
2012-09-10 03:55:14 AM  

cman: Electricity is the product of capitalism

Your move, and I believe that is check mate


Hardly since both writing and printing books weren't a product of capitalism and they are the cornerstone of human knowledge.
Ditto for math and language.

BAM!!
 
2012-09-10 04:11:37 AM  
Magnus:
You say that a regulated as well as an unregulated market can exist side by side. I don't see it. I think the money will migrate toward the market that they can trust is not rigged against them.

Meh. You're saying that the regulated market will be BIGGER than the unregulated one. Could be, doesn't matter.

Personally, I think you aren't understanding the statement. Currently, we HAVE both -- checking and savings accounts covered by FDIC, the same with credit union accounts. For unregulated, we have the stock market. Now, before you go ballistic, YEAH, there are rules -- as in fraud prevention, mostly. But the government does not tell you what stocks you can buy, or what minimum P/E is required for trading, or anything like that. Nor do they guarantee that you won't lose your investment.

Again, the problem comes when "wild and wooly" investments are available without government oversight, and then the losses are covered by the taxpayer. Whatever cockamamie crap derivative they want to sell, I say, have at it, as long as they don't lie about what it is. By the way, the RATINGS houses called the crap housing bubble froth good enough to use by retirement account managers. I'd say some people deserve to go to jail for THAT little fiasco. And the same twerps that said that packaging a bunch of turds in one box turned them into chocolate cake are the people who then downgraded U.S. credit after we taxpayers ate their "cakes." Hmm. Maybe we should skip the jail, and just feed them to crocodiles.

But, savings accounts held under government supervision, required to maintain conservative fractional reserves, and then guaranteed by the federal government is a function I would allow government to do. Some people want that level of protection, and are willing to lower their return to be that safe. Fine.

And, letting the "wild west" happen as well, where 'you pays your money and you takes your chances' is the rule is also fine by me -- as long as it is portrayed accurately. "Historically, you would make 20% ROI every year, but there's a 10% chance that if you keep this fund for five years, you will lose money." is okay by me. If people are too stupid to figure out what the disclosures mean, they should either NOT BUY the dammed things, or hire someone who DOES understand it as an adviser.
 
2012-09-10 04:25:05 AM  
If you expect me to bite on a strawman, you're going to have to be about 1000 times less obvious about it.

0/10 for phoning it in
 
2012-09-10 04:44:08 AM  

ScreamingHangover: Z-clipped: Also, computers and the internet are not "products of capitalism". Enormous amounts of government Department of Defense money went into the invention of both.

Yes, a lot of "government" money went into the development of Computers and the internet. And it all originated from the military-industrial complex. Initially, they were developed exclusively as weapons of war: the computer to design fighter aircraft (Germany), crack codes (UK) and help engineer the atomic bomb (US). The ARPANET was developed to provide decentralized military communication in case of nuclear war. Any other social/commercial benefit was ancillary.


/Hurray War!


Why the scare quotes? Is military research somehow not funded by taxpayers? The point is that those two things are not even close to being good examples of products of private industry, or the free market.

The OP's premise aside, it would have been at least more accurate to call Occupiers hypocritical for using lightbulbs, though that example does tend to show how stupid the whole argument is to begin with.

War between governments is about as "socialist" an endeavor as you can get.
 
2012-09-10 05:00:29 AM  

Silly Jesus: FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.

Have they presented any viable solutions or is the extent of their goals to draw attention to the existence of said problems?


Given that just a few generations ago people were getting McCarthy-ed for daring to criticize our economic and political scehma, I'd say that an enormous grassroots movement drawing attention to the fact that there's a problem is a pretty big deal.

The problems are widespread and entrenched enough that the solutions won't fit on a sign or a bumper sticker.
 
2012-09-10 06:09:19 AM  

GeneralJim: Silly Jesus: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.
Very nicely phrased. Have you a newsletter to which I might subscribe?


It's in the works.
 
2012-09-10 06:12:29 AM  

spidermilk: He sounds like he thinks some people deserve to be WAAAAAAY richer than others and that as long as they do it ethically it is okay.


You disagree?
 
2012-09-10 07:07:48 AM  

Silly Jesus: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.



Ah yes the old and tired "I'm rich because I'm better than you" opinion. The perfect excuse for the inflated sense of self worth from a person who will always be a nothing in life but desperately wants to believe they are important.
 
2012-09-10 07:09:45 AM  

Silly Jesus: You disagree?



As long as people go starving and die because they lack the basic necessities, you thinking you deserve more money is one of the many reasons you are morally bankrupt.
 
2012-09-10 07:40:16 AM  

flamingboard: They said that being freeing the slaves people have more freedom. Not that complicated.


He also said that owning slaves was freedom. Which is what I questioned.

rocky_howard: I've said part of what I want in several posts. Look for them. You haven't.

Since we're talking about sharing the profits, then it has little to no effect on production. Unless you think the owner should keep 100% profit and that anything else is "cost".


So your argument is that salaries and benefits are not costs?

So as long as insatiable greed isn't your motivator, this is not "cost".

Even if your "business" is a medical research and free puppy charity, salaries and benefits are still costs.

No, but I think you're obtuse.
Before 1865 people were free to have slaves. Slaves didn't have freedom.
After 1865 people weren't free to have slaves. Now slaves have freedom.
There were more slaves than slave-owners, thus limiting the freedom of a group translated more freedoms to a larger group.


That's not being obtuse. That's me pointing out that if you think that being able to own a slave is a form of freedom, then that's one more shining example of how you don't understand what freedom is.
 
2012-09-10 08:16:39 AM  
rocky_howard:
GeneralJim: Sorry you're analogy-impaired. Inequality in several fields is being compared, along with the disastrous, or at least stupid, results of trying to remove that inequality. Had you gotten the analogy, you would be led to question whether trying to remove the effects of economic inequality is actually a good idea.

No, but inequality in all fields is irrelevant since that's not what's being discussed. What? We're gonna talk about bleaching everyone's skin Michael Jackson style? Adding more bone and flesh to people's legs to make them taller a-la Gattaca?

Hell, I dunno. It's YOUR dumbass idea, after all. WTH were you suggesting? Putting all the salaries for the Bulls team in a big pot, and dividing it up "fairly?" The whole NBA in a pot? The whole U.S.A.? It's YOUR dumb, you run with it.


We're talking about socioeconomic matters, not physical traits. No, your analogies don't apply as you showed them.

Right... because 5'2" centers make, on average, the same as 7'2" centers.


Also, I doubt we could remove economic inequality. I said mitigating the effects of socioeconomic inequality. Not the same.

You have approximately the same odds of removing "socioeconomic inequality" as you do of removing height inequality. But, have fun trying....


www.mydarkdesigns.com
 
2012-09-10 08:17:38 AM  

intelligent comment below: Ah yes the old and tired "I'm rich because I'm better than you" opinion. The perfect excuse for the inflated sense of self worth from a person who will always be a nothing in life but desperately wants to believe they are important.


Its true. Poverty is a state of mind or a way to describe the aggregate financial situation of an individual. Barring a scant percentage who are simply a paycheck from getting their foot over the top rung and being able to sprint away from the lifestyle. A few thousand here or there to an individual who cant budget or blows their money on items that arent assets wont make a lick of difference.

You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"
 
2012-09-10 08:54:55 AM  

o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"


I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.
 
2012-09-10 08:58:06 AM  
rocky_howard:
Regarding the pilot/doctor scenarios. How about we make sure anybody with the talent and/or dedication can be a pilot and doctor regardless of their socioeconomic situation? Isn't that something we should aspire too? Try to minimize it as much as we can?

Right. But YOU get the 'dedicated and talented' blind pilots, and doctors (surgeons) with palsy.

I mean, seriously... there are any number of conditions which can either prevent one from doing what interests one, or making one not worth as much as others in one's chosen field. Such as a dyslexic accountant, a baker who can't test his or her work due to nut allergies, a tech support phone worker with a horrible stutter, or an opera singer with a beautiful, well-controlled voice... and Tourette's.Syndrome. Now, that last one sounds frickin' hilarious, and might just work as a comedy act -- which would probably frustrate the singer even worse.

And, making money in business is the same as any other field. There are a myriad of factors which can either help or hinder the person choosing that field. For example, the same cognitive issue that prevents you from extracting data from analogies would prevent you from learning about how business works, unless every situation was exactly what your business was doing. You could see a tale of a restaurant that concentrates on tiny portions to save money going out of business, and, rather than pick up the lesson that doing extra for the customer is your best insurance of success in retail, you would say "But I run a dildo store, not a restaurant," and totally miss the lesson. This, and similar behaviors, would mean that you are less likely to be successful than the average person.

You would miss the lesson, just as you missed the analogy. And the analogy shows you, if you learn from it, how trying to make everyone equal is a pointless, wasteful pursuit. So, read the whole Kurt Vonnegut story on this idea, and maybe you can see your error. In this story, Harrison Bergeron, you are attempting to play the part of Diana Moon Glampers. Hopefully, with that extra clue, you can follow.

Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut (1961)



Better? I made a mess in that comment, even ended up posting it twice and messing the html up.

Yep. Lots. I normally don't gripe about errors, but I could not decode so many at once. Now that you cleared it up, I can see that the IDEA behind what you were writing is flat wrong, whereas before I could only speculate.
 
2012-09-10 09:09:46 AM  
StoPPeRmobile:
Yeah, he was a farking moran.
www.mahatmagandhionline.com

You see the OWS delinquents as Gandhi? I think I've found your problem.

Ah, yes, Gandhi... The father of non-violent crapping on police cars and park rape. A true pioneer.
 
2012-09-10 09:29:43 AM  

Z-clipped: o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"

I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.


The US has had policies like this in the past... the highest income bracket at one point used to be a 90% tax rate. I believe limiting wealth hoarding in this manner would be a good thing for the world. People say it would prohibit growth, but that simply isnt true... people would give up on hoarding sooner or later, or not try so hard, but that simply opens up new opportunities for start ups. Its much better for the economy and society to have ten people with $10m companies than one person to have a $100m company, who uses his wealth to crush any competition coming his way.

There are a few extreme circumstances where this doesnt work... like its an advantage having nationwide cell phone carriers vs lots of local ones, but you will find these examples are far and few in between.
 
2012-09-10 09:40:13 AM  
rewind2846:
ScreamingHangover: StoPPeRmobile: he was a farking moran. was willing to change and adapt both his strategy and tactics in order to achieve a specific, well defined, goal.
[www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]
FTFY

His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan.

"Led to the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan? The creation of Pakistan was what Ghandi considered a major, if not THE major failure of his life. The only thing I can think of here is to quote Wanda, from "A Fish Called Wanda" to you... realize that it applies to you.

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
 
2012-09-10 09:41:27 AM  

GeneralJim: Ah, yes, Gandhi... The father of non-violent crapping on police cars and park rape. A true pioneer.


I have to wonder, were you gullible enough to be brainwashed by the media into this stupid sensationalist misrepresentation of the entire Occupy movement, or did you just latch onto it like a pitbull because they were spoon-feeding you the excuse you were already looking for to dismiss Occupy's real message?

I suppose you could also be trolling... I just can't tell if the obnoxious green font is a put on, or if you just really think your comments are special somehow.
 
2012-09-10 09:43:21 AM  

GeneralJim: Right. But YOU get the 'dedicated and talented' blind pilots, and doctors (surgeons) with palsy.


Idiotic argument is idiotic.

Also, who told you everyone will be made what they want just because without any kind of regulations or requirements?

Are you naturally this stupid or do you practice every day?
 
2012-09-10 09:43:54 AM  

Alonjar: who uses his wealth to crush any competition coming his way.


A businessman can only "Crush" competition if he curries favor with government to create barriers to the market, otherwise he is offering his product at better quality or price. Artificially supporting players in a market which they dont belong doesn't work.

Z-clipped: but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired.


So if I come up with a product or service that enriches the lives of millions or even billions of people, who are you to keep me from being compensated for it and where does the extra money go?

Would the government simply regulate the price of Apple's products so there was only a penny of profit per unit so Steve Jobs was forced to live on $250k or would they simply knock on his door once a year and take whatever he had leftover after rightly earning his millions?

Your version of egalitarianism doesn't work.
 
2012-09-10 09:48:21 AM  

BMFPitt: So your argument is that salaries and benefits are not costs?


Exactly.

I don't even know why you mention salary, since we're not talking about that. Sharing of the profits is the discussion, focus.

Salaries are paid no matter what, that's cost.
Sharing of the profits are only paid IF there is profit.
Do you think the owner taking 100% of the profit is a cost for the company? I doubt so.
He'd just be sharing his part with the workers. That's not cost. Unless you think human beings are things.
In that case, nothing I can do for you, pal.
 
2012-09-10 10:10:24 AM  
rocky_howard:
GeneralJim: Right. But YOU get the 'dedicated and talented' blind pilots, and doctors (surgeons) with palsy.

Idiotic argument is idiotic.

And clueless non-answer is clueless non-answer.


Also, who told you everyone will be made what they want just because without any kind of regulations or requirements?

Regulation? Jesus. Look, people will NOT always get what they want. Sometimes the reason is an obvious, physical one, such as the blind man who longs to be an airline pilot. Sometimes it's the aficionado of some product who wants nothing more than to have a store devoted to his favorite product, but has no business sense. And, sometimes, it's you, who longs to sit down to a nice breakfast bowl of stupid without drooling in it. Life's not fair. (Maybe next week...)

Success is not guaranteed by ANYTHING. But, one's best bet is to find something at which they both do well, and enjoy, and pursue it. No amount of regulation is going to make life "fair." It's a chumps' game, Chump.



Are you naturally this stupid or do you practice every day?

Look, I'm not the one saying regulations can make people equal. You're projecting.
 
2012-09-10 10:15:26 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.

Nice load of psychobabble and "my personal experience is how it happens everywhere" malarky there. All you needed to do was compare poverty as a "mental illness" to homosexuality as a "mental illness" and it would have been beautiful.


1) I said that my personal experience is how it happens everywhere?
2) Not sure what you're trying to do with throwing the whole gay thing in there...

Stark differences in attitude and behaviors exist between people who start in the same place and end up in completely different ones.
 
2012-09-10 10:16:48 AM  

zzrhardy: Silly Jesus: Xenomech: [www.thenation.com image 550x506]

[amkon.net image 504x356]

What does drinking coffee have to do with being pissed off about corporate bailouts?

Was starbucks bailed out?


That was directed at the not so tiny segment of the Occupiers who were staunchly anti-corporation. Not anti-corporation corruption...but anti the very idea of them existing etc.
 
2012-09-10 10:20:01 AM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: Silly Jesus: fark'emfeed'emfish: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.



I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.

That's a bit vague....and as such, meaningless.

bullshiat, that's as clear as can be. while you and yours may not want to understand we don't all have to play stupid.


So if you walk up to someone and say "Hi, I'm pro-human" they are going to know what the fark you are talking about? Because I sure don't.
 
2012-09-10 10:22:28 AM  

Rip Dashrock: Start sentencing white collar crime as severe as it should be. The hypocrisy that someone (poor, colored) who robs a store of $20 will spend more time in prison than someone (upper class, wears a suit) who uses the system to steal hundreds of millions.
And none of this club fed, regular prison, general population.
Enjoy your nutraloaf.


I agree that the penalties for white collar crime should be much more severe, but to compare someone fiddling with numbers on a keyboard to someone pointing a gun in another person's face is a little silly. Drug laws would be a better comparison maybe.
 
2012-09-10 10:24:25 AM  

ideamaster: Most people want to blame OTHERS for THEIR problems. I feel bad for people that are evicted from their homes. However it is truly not their home unless the mortgage is paid off. No one forced you to sign a sheet of paper to borrow money for 15 or 30 years. You made a choice. And sometimes bad things happen. Did they put away money? Did they have an emergency fund?

Okay, maybe they didn't have a good paying job and they didn't have a lot of money. Why didn't they work on building better/more valuable skills instead of being on facebook and playing xbox?

People feel entitled to too many things. If you didn't earn it, then you don't deserve it. It is really that simple.


Watch out, what you've just said is the equivalent here of saying that you love Hitler.
 
2012-09-10 10:26:01 AM  

RanDomino: Silly Jesus
The story will understandably become about your tactics rather than your message.

The medium is the message. The camps were prefigurative examples of a different way of organizing society. The fact that they lasted so long that the government felt compelled to crush them, when they were probably expected to collapse on their own after a few days, should be the real story here.


Those cesspools were supposed to demonstrate the ideal society? I hadn't heard that angle yet.
 
2012-09-10 10:31:44 AM  

GeneralJim: rocky_howard: Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?
I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

Are you NOT? Are you saying that I should be able to be on a professional basketball team in the NBA, and make huge sums of money, irrespective of how well I play basketball? To be fair, if I were paid millions a year, I would bust my ass to do as good a job as I could, but, somehow, I think those with a larger quantity of natural talent would kick my ass all over the court. So, it would be a good thing that positions would be awarded by lottery, to make sure that those with more talent did not have an advantage in the NBA.

And, I'm sure that millions of people would tune in to watch a bunch of random jerkweeds, like you and me, play B-ball in the big leagues. And sponsors would gladly pay the huge sums that allow them access to all those millions of fans, even if the players had an assortment of liabilities and even outright handicaps. Seriously, people can get VERY fired up over wheelchair basketball, so a mixed league should do okay.

Oh, and I've always wanted to be an airline pilot. I mean, I've not had any flight classes, but it would be unfair to discriminate based upon my training and abilities, wouldn't it? Again, if I had the job, I would try my best to get everyone to the (correct, hopefully) destination safely. I know you would wish for (and perhaps pray for) the best possible outcome for my work efforts -- ESPECIALLY if you were on the plane I was flying.

Oh, and surgeons make a lot of money, too. Do you want a surgeon who got the job as part of some Jobs Act after high school? Or a financial adviser with no skill but a lot of enthusiasm, and gratitude for his job?

Do you really live in such a fantasy world? I'm betting you don't, because in even a fantasy world, people would want the best at activity X to be doin ...


bears bears bears bears bears
 
2012-09-10 10:31:45 AM  

intelligent comment below: You always jump on here and claim they're ancient history. This just shows you only get your information from the mainstream media.


well that, and walking around the Loop where Occupuds are noticeably absent,

And walking near Obama's headquarters where they might get 10 people to protest once a week.

And their own web site, of where they bragged about shutting down a conference dedicated to ENDING child trafficking.

So yeah, another quality post sport.
 
2012-09-10 10:38:34 AM  
rocky_howard: I don't even know why you mention salary, since we're not talking about that. Sharing of the profits is the discussion, focus.

OK, so it seems that you want profit sharing mandated by law, which would in turn cause salaries to be lower and total income unpredictable.  Wouldn't have been easy to just say that rather than dancing around it?

Salaries are paid no matter what, that's cost.
Sharing of the profits are only paid IF there is profit.


Everything that is paid out is a cost.  That's what costs are.

Do you think the owner taking 100% of the profit is a cost for the company? I doubt so.

Yes it is.  Although you seem to believe all companies are sole proprietorships, so there's not really much of a distinction between the company and the owner at that point.

He'd just be sharing his part with the workers. That's not cost.

I get it, you don't understand the concepts of accounting, ROI, or unintended consequences.

Unless you think human beings are things.
In that case, nothing I can do for you, pal.


This is what you actually believe.
 
2012-09-10 11:12:42 AM  

o5iiawah: So if I come up with a product or service that enriches the lives of millions or even billions of people, who are you to keep me from being compensated for it


You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

All you did was have an idea. Maybe it was a good idea, and sure, you should be compensated for it. But that comes back around to the point that, what the ever-loving fark do you need with billions of dollars? If you make enough from your idea to have a good life, that should be enough.

and where does the extra money go?

Well, initially it would go to the IRS. Where it goes from there, we can all decide together as a nation. The possibilities are limitless. Tell you what... you pay yourself $250K/year for the next 50 years, and we can take the remaining $987500000 of your cool billion and maybe,

-feed 2 million starving people for a year.

-start a fund to build a space elevator

-improve the worldwide communications network

-offer about 20000 people a $50k no interest business loan to use to get their ideas off the ground (and once they pay it back, holy crap, we could do this one again!)

-start a project to terraform Mars

-fund research to improve alternative energy sources

See? You get to live very comfortably, and the rest of the world benefits too, instead of one useless person having more than they could ever spend or appreciate. It's not that difficult a concept. It was only about 50 years ago that this country had tax brackets that reflected this idea. The world didn't end, innovation wasn't stifled, and some people still had more than others. Hopefully, we can end the current bout of insanity we're going through and get back to being more civilized.
 
2012-09-10 11:51:40 AM  
He's not the only one.
 
2012-09-10 12:24:32 PM  

ScreamingHangover:

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects and is now rich enough to be part of the 1% to understand what you're doing, the problem ismay be with you, not the other guy...


FTFY. Of course Jay-Z is fundamentally opposed to criticism of the "the American Dream"- individual mobility is a central part of his personal identity - as well it should be, probably. That doesn't mean that the criticism is wrong.

Anyway, I'm pretty proud there are still people willing to go about things without recourse to mainstream pr strategies and corporatized politics more generally. As you may be aware, though I doubt it, American politics and society is morally bankrupt for a reason, and someone had to take a genuine stab at pointing that out. That's not called having "failed", it's called having tried.
 
2012-09-10 12:27:00 PM  
Sorry, what's wrong with demonizing rich people?
 
2012-09-10 12:30:56 PM  

FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


It's both actually. And other things. i don't understand why it's so hard for people to accept that different people in OWS were for different things, when the Democratic Party or the Republican Party are allowed to be wholly inconsistent. Oh, right - because they're not powerful.
 
2012-09-10 12:50:31 PM  
"Rap and hip hop is the expression of urban youth, representing the voice of the street, instead of corporate music."



Keep it real, Jay
 
2012-09-10 01:11:35 PM  

rocky_howard: cman: Electricity is the product of capitalism

Your move, and I believe that is check mate

Hardly since both writing and printing books weren't a product of capitalism and they are the cornerstone of human knowledge.
Ditto for math and language.

BAM!!



Sorry to burst your bubble, but (Chinese predecessor aside) Gutenberg developed the printing press for the explicit purpose of making a buttload of money: it was a business venture (there were even lawsuits between him and his business partners). And the Earliest known examples of math and written language are cuneiform tablets used to maintain accounting records.

The development of math, written language, and the printing press were all about money.
 
2012-09-10 01:20:31 PM  

o5iiawah: intelligent comment below: Ah yes the old and tired "I'm rich because I'm better than you" opinion. The perfect excuse for the inflated sense of self worth from a person who will always be a nothing in life but desperately wants to believe they are important.

Its true. Poverty is a state of mind or a way to describe the aggregate financial situation of an individual. Barring a scant percentage who are simply a paycheck from getting their foot over the top rung and being able to sprint away from the lifestyle. A few thousand here or there to an individual who cant budget or blows their money on items that arent assets wont make a lick of difference.

You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"


THIS

Just as one example...if you contribute the maximum ($5,000) to a Roth IRA every year starting in your 20's you'll pretty much certainly be a millionaire when you retire. Hell, it doesn't even need to be $5K...just put in what you can. That on top of whatever you get at work (401K etc.). I realized the importance of this at a young age and got a part time job delivering pizza's pretty much solely for the purpose of funding my Roth IRA. My friends easily spend 5K a year on cigarettes and video games and porn etc. They are still where we started...I am now quite comfortable. Was some of it luck? Sure. You can't avoid luck. But I firmly believe that my decision to obtain a second job and invest rather than blowing what little money I made on stupid shiat is something that separates me from my acquaintances who are still in poverty. I tried to explain what I was doing to them time and time again and they just didn't get it. They can only live in the moment. Some people are just that way...and they will stay in poverty because they keep doing the things that got them there in the first place. It's truly a mental illness.
 
2012-09-10 01:22:45 PM  

Z-clipped: o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"

I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.


Your way of thinking is genuinely interesting. It's one that I can not even begin to understand. That's not meant as an insult...it's just...I don't know. Don't even know where to start, really.
 
2012-09-10 01:28:55 PM  

Z-clipped: You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.


The guy who manufactures the ipad didn't engineer it, market it for have the wherewithal to identify that there were a large group of people who wanted one. His skill is to assemble it, ususally following some diagram that a higher-paid engineer developed so that just about anyone could put one together.

The guy who drives the product to the customer's doorstep didn't engineer the product, forsee its demand or market it, he's there to deliver it and just as easily as he delivers the ipad, he could deliver a load of oranges or a load of trees to be made into decking.

The guy who designs the advertising for the product is paid well by the guy who designs the product since making the market aware of the product is critical to its success. I'm willing to bet a company like Apple has some very highly paid and talented individuals on staff.

You're one of those "you didn't build that" crowd and thats fine. Let's be honest in saying that an industrialist with a brilliant idea is probably not going to be on the assembly line, packing the product, driving the truck, delivering the product and drawing up marketing sketches to be submitted to media all at once. He hires people to do that for him since his time is spent coming up with ideas that enrich the lives of millions whilst employing thousands or tens of thousands of people, who owe the fact that they have a job to said guy who made the product.

And when it comes to the "infrastructure" required, I'm sure that his company or his idea is going to generate tax revenue which then translates into infrastructure that his business uses.

The fact is, the guy on the line or the guy driving the truck has a certain skillset and chances are that there are millions of others just like him. The fact that he delivers a product does not grant him ownership to the assets of the product.
 
2012-09-10 01:32:01 PM  

Z-clipped: o5iiawah: So if I come up with a product or service that enriches the lives of millions or even billions of people, who are you to keep me from being compensated for it

You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

All you did was have an idea. Maybe it was a good idea, and sure, you should be compensated for it. But that comes back around to the point that, what the ever-loving fark do you need with billions of dollars? If you make enough from your idea to have a good life, that should be enough.

and where does the extra money go?

Well, initially it would go to the IRS. Where it goes from there, we can all decide together as a nation. The possibilities are limitless. Tell you what... you pay yourself $250K/year for the next 50 years, and we can take the remaining $987500000 of your cool billion and maybe,

-feed 2 million starving people for a year.

-start a fund to build a space elevator

-improve the worldwide communications network

-offer about 20000 people a $50k no interest business loan to use to get their ideas off the ground (and once they pay it back, holy crap, we could do this one again!)

-start a project to terraform Mars

-fund research to improve alternative energy sources

See? You get to live very comfortably, and the rest of the world benefits too, instead of ...


My head just assploded.
 
2012-09-10 01:45:03 PM  

Silly Jesus: Z-clipped: o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"

I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.

Your way of thinking is genuinely interesting. It's one that I can not even begin to understand. That's not meant as an insult...it's just...I don't know. Don't even know where to start, really.


Limiting it to the last 3 paragraphs, I actually have similar thoughts, but a little different.  I don't get why billionaires work 80 hour weeks.  Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anythgin hands-on?  I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life.  I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy.  Maybe it's just some weird competitive thing, and they don't know how to have cool hobbies like Richard Branson.
 
2012-09-10 01:49:43 PM  

BMFPitt: Silly Jesus: Z-clipped: o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"

I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.

Your way of thinking is genuinely interesting. It's one that I can not even begin to understand. That's not meant as an insult...it's just...I don't know. Don't even know where to start, really.

Limiting it to the last 3 paragraphs, I actually have similar thoughts, but a little different.  I don't get why billionaires work 80 hour weeks.  Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anythgin hands-on?  I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life.  I don't mind that they do, ...


I agree. The psychological profiles of such people are pretty interesting.
 
2012-09-10 02:28:11 PM  

BMFPitt: I don't get why billionaires work 80 hour weeks.  Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anythgin hands-on?  I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life.  I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy.


I dont get it either. For the mega rich, they are going to run short in minutes long before they run short on dollars but who am I do dictate how someone else lives?
 
2012-09-10 02:33:42 PM  

Silly Jesus: Watch out, what you've just said is the equivalent here of saying that you love Hitler.


*sprays you with anti-troll spray* that is probably one the most idiotic comparisons I have ever heard. If you don't make payments on your car and the bank takes it back, then you love hitler. are you really that farking stupid?  Nevermind... you probably are.
 
2012-09-10 02:36:46 PM  

Z-clipped: See? You get to live very comfortably, and the rest of the world benefits too, instead of one useless person having more than they could ever spend or appreciate. It's not that difficult a concept. It was only about 50 years ago that this country had tax brackets that reflected this idea. The world didn't end, innovation wasn't stifled, and some people still had more than others. Hopefully, we can end the current bout of insanity we're going through and get back to being more civilized.


The tax rates of a quarter century ago were set to pay for the war, not to create Utopia. Once the was was paid for, the right-wing extremist JFK cut the rates.

A funny thing happens when you decide to tax someone at 99%, You get 1% of productivity out of them. If Steve Jobs could only have made $250k/yr, he would have only worked one day per year.

When you tax (take via force) from someone, they'll seek to avoid it. They'll hide their money, move to a better state move out of the country or quit working altogether.
 
2012-09-10 02:42:06 PM  

ideamaster: Silly Jesus: Watch out, what you've just said is the equivalent here of saying that you love Hitler.

*sprays you with anti-troll spray* that is probably one the most idiotic comparisons I have ever heard. If you don't make payments on your car and the bank takes it back, then you love hitler. are you really that farking stupid?  Nevermind... you probably are.


Just my observation of the general sentiment here.

Not sure where the hate is coming from...I was agreeing with your sentiments.
 
2012-09-10 02:42:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: WMittensRomney: Jump, you f@#kers.

Occupy Wall Street didn't "accomplish" anything because you don't undo 30 years of bullshiat built on top of a regressive and conservative system in one day. You don't even have a platform in the beginning - you just know that something is wrong and want to do something about it. That's what happened, on a mass scale.

And on an aside, reintroducing the language of class (99% vs 1%) back into mainstream political dialogue is a pretty big deal.

got it. so what they accomplished was class warfare. anything else?


I could list some, but really, the fact that we're sitting here talking about class politics on the flimsiest of news hooks is enough for me. Maybe not for you, but it is for me.

i188.photobucket.com

Thanks for playing.
 
2012-09-10 03:25:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


Oh, it can. And has.
 
2012-09-10 03:30:58 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),

Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.

I'm pretty sure he has at least a little intelligence, enough to not outright say that American citizens should be killed en masse because he doesn't like them and what they think. It's really obvious that's what he meant, considering his was shiatting himself in self-generated rage every time he mentioned OWS.
Oh, I get it. You figured it out, just like the Storm Front people figured out that socialists are filthy scum that only want to destroy the greatest country on Earth for their Soviet and Cuban overlords. In other words, you just yank it out of your butt, and claim to know what other people are thinking.

Got it.


Listen to Mike Savage for three hours, hear nothing but him biatching and whining about how America isn't how he thinks it should be and attacking his fellow Americans for trying to do something about unfair conditions by spewing venomous bile at them while doing his best not to outright say they should all be executed. Plus all the snippets and clips I've heard at other times which were basically the same thing every time, screaming and rage and hatred.

When a man presents himself as a completely worthless farktard every time he opens his mouth, it's hard not to see him any other way. When Savage starts showing some humanity, maybe I'll think of him as human. Don't see how that's "pulling things out of my ass", but you always seem to dismiss and ignore things in order to try to be a smug dick towards others.
 
2012-09-10 03:38:17 PM  

Z-clipped: GeneralJim: Ah, yes, Gandhi... The father of non-violent crapping on police cars and park rape. A true pioneer.

I have to wonder, were you gullible enough to be brainwashed by the media into this stupid sensationalist misrepresentation of the entire Occupy movement, or did you just latch onto it like a pitbull because they were spoon-feeding you the excuse you were already looking for to dismiss Occupy's real message?

I suppose you could also be trolling... I just can't tell if the obnoxious green font is a put on, or if you just really think your comments are special somehow.


Hey, if it happened once or one person did it, then everyone is responsible. That's how humans work, sadly. One shark attacks one person, people think all sharks everywhere are man-eaters. One car breaks down, people think all cars of that make and model are defective. The ability to generalize and assign negativity to an entire group is a sadly overused human power.

Besides, if you're talking about something you don't like, you want to make it look as bad as possible. Take one incident and scream that everyone is doing to, generates a lot more rage and hatred and television ratings.
 
2012-09-10 03:46:32 PM  

o5iiawah: Z-clipped: You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

The guy who manufactures the ipad didn't engineer it, market it for have the wherewithal to identify that there were a large group of people who wanted one. His skill is to assemble it, ususally following some diagram that a higher-paid engineer developed so that just about anyone could put one together.

The guy who drives the product to the customer's doorstep didn't engineer the product, forsee its demand or market it, he's there to deliver it and just as easily as he delivers the ipad, he could deliver a load of oranges or a load of trees to be made into decking.

The guy who designs the advertising for the product is paid well by the guy who designs the product since making the market aware of the product is critical to its success. I'm willing to bet a company like Apple has some very highly paid and talented individuals on staff.

You're one of those "you didn't build that" crowd and thats fine. Let's be honest in saying that an industrialist with a brilliant idea is probably not going to be on the assembly line, packing the product, driving the truck, delivering the product and drawing up marketing sketches to be submitted to media all at once. He hires people to do that for him since his time is spent coming up with ideas that e ...


No man is an island, we're all in it together, and everything we do is interconnected with each other in this society created by many.

Why are people like you so angry about the truth? You may have had an idea, but others helped you realize that idea. Without infrastructure, you couldn't get people to your location to help build your buildings and bring you the materials and transport out the finished product. Without others, you couldn't manufacture your product. Without others, you couldn't advertise your product. And without customers, you can't sell your products.

The arrogance and selfishness of humans never ceases to amaze and sadden me.
 
2012-09-10 04:02:29 PM  

cman: TheMysticS: TheMysticS: cman: FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey

Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself

I've really come to respect you, cman.
You is all right.

Maybe I was wrong.
Did you send that message?
Or is the troll trolling you?
You never replied.

He was tolling. I added him to my ignore list so i didn't see his follow up. First guy I have ever ignored, too


Figured so.
 
2012-09-10 06:10:17 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: o5iiawah: Z-clipped: You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

The guy who manufactures the ipad didn't engineer it, market it for have the wherewithal to identify that there were a large group of people who wanted one. His skill is to assemble it, ususally following some diagram that a higher-paid engineer developed so that just about anyone could put one together.

The guy who drives the product to the customer's doorstep didn't engineer the product, forsee its demand or market it, he's there to deliver it and just as easily as he delivers the ipad, he could deliver a load of oranges or a load of trees to be made into decking.

The guy who designs the advertising for the product is paid well by the guy who designs the product since making the market aware of the product is critical to its success. I'm willing to bet a company like Apple has some very highly paid and talented individuals on staff.

You're one of those "you didn't build that" crowd and thats fine. Let's be honest in saying that an industrialist with a brilliant idea is probably not going to be on the assembly line, packing the product, driving the truck, delivering the product and drawing up marketing sketches to be submitted to media all at once. He hires people to do that for him since his time is spent coming up with id ...


cache.trustedpartner.com
 
2012-09-10 06:59:07 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: No man is an island, we're all in it together, and everything we do is interconnected with each other in this society created by many.

Why are people like you so angry about the truth? You may have had an idea, but others helped you realize that idea. Without infrastructure, you couldn't get people to your location to help build your buildings and bring you the materials and transport out the finished product. Without others, you couldn't manufacture your product. Without others, you couldn't advertise your product. And without customers, you can't sell your products.


You can feel in your heart that we're all interconnected and you are free to live your life, absent of coercion, in the service of others. I choose to do it as well, however I refuse to be a part of a society that throws chains on someone and demands they serve others. We tried that before and it sucked. Maybe someone, somewhere up on a hill, there's going to be an angry old man who doesn't want to help anyone, be charitable or take care of anyone else. Who are we as a society to chain him up and demand his service? I hate to just outright call someone a marxist, but damn....

Why do you keep humping this idea of infrastructure? That everyone who drives on a road or drinks a glass of water is indebted to government or the greater society for everything they do? WE ALL PAY FOR THE ROADS. You're right, without others, a person cannot manufacture that product. that is why those "Others" are paid wages to manufacture the product.
 
2012-09-10 07:50:25 PM  
Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.

You did build that.
 
2012-09-10 07:56:32 PM  
Re: "You didn't build that": The industrialists, the organizers are like a catalyst. Combine that catalyst with labor and you get big, complex end products that require organizations to create.

The catalysts are rarer. Quite rare really. The labor is more common and more interchangeable. But it takes both the catalyst and the labor to make the end product. Both are important. Neither does much good by itself. The catalyst merely has grand dreams while the labor mills about, disorganized.
 
2012-09-10 08:26:15 PM  

o5iiawah: Keizer_Ghidorah: No man is an island, we're all in it together, and everything we do is interconnected with each other in this society created by many.

Why are people like you so angry about the truth? You may have had an idea, but others helped you realize that idea. Without infrastructure, you couldn't get people to your location to help build your buildings and bring you the materials and transport out the finished product. Without others, you couldn't manufacture your product. Without others, you couldn't advertise your product. And without customers, you can't sell your products.

You can feel in your heart that we're all interconnected and you are free to live your life, absent of coercion, in the service of others. I choose to do it as well, however I refuse to be a part of a society that throws chains on someone and demands they serve others. We tried that before and it sucked. Maybe someone, somewhere up on a hill, there's going to be an angry old man who doesn't want to help anyone, be charitable or take care of anyone else. Who are we as a society to chain him up and demand his service? I hate to just outright call someone a marxist, but damn....

Why do you keep humping this idea of infrastructure? That everyone who drives on a road or drinks a glass of water is indebted to government or the greater society for everything they do? WE ALL PAY FOR THE ROADS. You're right, without others, a person cannot manufacture that product. that is why those "Others" are paid wages to manufacture the product.


I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. We both seem to agree that as a society we're all interconnected and that our money has gone to build the means to go places and buy the products others make. So why are you constantly trying to argue with everyone?

And why is others in quote marks?
 
2012-09-10 09:02:07 PM  

o5iiawah: Its true. Poverty is a state of mind or a way to describe the aggregate financial situation of an individual. Barring a scant percentage who are simply a paycheck from getting their foot over the top rung and being able to sprint away from the lifestyle. A few thousand here or there to an individual who cant budget or blows their money on items that arent assets wont make a lick of difference.

You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"



Ah yes, it's a state of mind. Not a reality to someone whos pensions and investments were torn up when they were retiring, or someone who spent their life working in a factory only to have it go overseas and them left with no job and too old and broke to go back to school to learn a new trade and be hired.

or someone who has medical bills that bankrupted them.

or someone whos business failed... restaurants fail 70% of the time.

What about those people? Obviously it's just a "state of mind" and if they only had the right mind would they magically be successful and smart like you.

Like all Fark trolls you are dirt poor and worship the rich. But you act like you're rich because you think it makes you come across as smart and important.
 
2012-09-10 09:03:23 PM  

halfof33: well that, and walking around the Loop where Occupuds are noticeably absent,

And walking near Obama's headquarters where they might get 10 people to protest once a week.

And their own web site, of where they bragged about shutting down a conference dedicated to ENDING child trafficking.

So yeah, another quality post sport.



So because they were kicked out of where they setup camp, it's gone now?

Because you only see a few people protesting that means the entire country wide movement is gone?

Nice try with the misinformation campaign about child trafficking you heard on Rush Limbaugh

Yeah, another quality post. Projecting as usual.
 
2012-09-10 09:04:46 PM  

Silly Jesus: Those cesspools



And you base that on what? What have you contributed to society? Who are you to pass judgment to an entire group of tens of thousands of people? You're a nobody and will always be a nobody. When you die nobody will care, because you will never have contributed anything to this planet.
 
2012-09-10 09:08:09 PM  

ideamaster: Most people want to blame OTHERS for THEIR problems. I feel bad for people that are evicted from their homes. However it is truly not their home unless the mortgage is paid off. No one forced you to sign a sheet of paper to borrow money for 15 or 30 years. You made a choice. And sometimes bad things happen. Did they put away money? Did they have an emergency fund?

Okay, maybe they didn't have a good paying job and they didn't have a lot of money. Why didn't they work on building better/more valuable skills instead of being on facebook and playing xbox?

People feel entitled to too many things. If you didn't earn it, then you don't deserve it. It is really that simple.



So it's my fault if I lost my job, can't find a new one in this bad economy, because a company shipped it overseas and then can't pay the mortgage or rent it out for a reasonable price?

It's my fault if I get a health condition that makes me unable to pay the bills?

It's my fault if my investments or pension disappeared with the financial crisis?

It's my fault the bankers crashed the entire world economy making my business struggle to sell enough to break even?

Go fark yourself you self entitled douchebags who think the rich deserve constant returns and less taxes while everyone else suffers because of the rich's decisions.
 
2012-09-10 09:10:36 PM  
stixblog.com
 
2012-09-10 09:12:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: if you contribute the maximum ($5,000) to a Roth IRA every year starting in your 20's you'll pretty much certainly be a millionaire when you retire



because the stock market is always a consistent constant return with no downside? You might be a moran

o5iiawah: If Steve Jobs could only have made $250k/yr, he would have only worked one day per year.



Funny then that Jobs took a salary of $1 then

Silly Jesus: My friends easily spend 5K a year on cigarettes and video games and porn etc. They are still where we started...I am now quite comfortable.



And then you grow up, go into your 40's or 50's and suddenly realize your job is outsourced or new technology takes over, you have no options, your retirement account collapses because of a stock market crash, and now you have to sell your house and live off what you have left.

So yeah, it's really worked for you, not even halfway through your life but already claiming victory.
 
2012-09-10 09:35:01 PM  

intelligent comment below: because the stock market is always a consistent constant return with no downside? You might be a moran


Of course there are no guarantees, but even if you don't want to think about your investments on a day-to-day basis, you can invest in a fund that's indexed off of the S&P 500, and I don't think there's ever been a 40-year period (which is the length of time he was talking about) where the S&P-indexed fund wouldn't give you an average annual return of at least nine or ten percent.
 
2012-09-10 10:46:22 PM  

Frederick: Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.


1) How is that different than any other business with regards to infrastructure?
2) The reason drug dealing is so profitable is the government making it illegal.
 
2012-09-10 11:02:26 PM  

intelligent comment below: So it's my fault if I lost my job, can't find a new one in this bad economy, because a company shipped it overseas and then can't pay the mortgage or rent it out for a reasonable price?

Well... Is it my fault? You can thank your congressmen for that pathetic tax code that chokes job growth in this country for the bad economy. The job belongs to the company, not to you. Should we pay someone to make a product/service that no one uses? Do you pay for the most expensive item, simply because you want them to have the money?

As for reasonable price, that is also determined by supply and demand.

It's my fault if I get a health condition that makes me unable to pay the bills?

Is it my fault? Should i have to pay for you dumping soda, caffeine, tobacco, alcohol and grease into your body? I am sure you have heard of life not being fair.

It's my fault if my investments or pension disappeared with the financial crisis?
Well, if it was an investment, then yes, it is probably your fault for not being able to manage your money. Did you diversify your assets, did you have an emergency fund, did you know what you were investing in? As for pensions, I don't know if that is your fault or not. Most of us in the real world don't have the luxury of pensions.

It's my fault the bankers crashed the entire world economy making my business struggle to sell enough to break even?

Is it fair that millions of people died in the holocaust? Be thankful you are not jewish and living in occupied poland. Or that you were not in the world trade towers when those people died. Did the bankers tell people to go out and stop buying your product or service?

Maybe you should consider changing your product lines, increasing your prices, decreasing your costs, or simply getting out of business.


Go fark yourself you self entitled douchebags who think the rich deserve constant returns and less taxes while everyone else suffers because of the rich's decisions.


The rich don't get constant returns. They risk their money in the market every day. And some people win, some people lose. You don't know jack shiat about taxes. You are entitled to the same tax breaks as everyone else. It is easy to blame the rich because that absolves you of any and all responsibility.

You Sir (or Ma'am) are the pathetic douchebag that opens their mouth and spout all kinds of whining and you don't know jack shiat about what you are talking about.

If you want to blame anyone, blame your elected officials for throwing money away and rewarding bad businesses to keep them afloat. Reward your teachers and little league coaches for giving everyone a trophy no matter how bad they suck.

For anyone that truly understands money and supply & demand they should be horrified at washington and people in general for their lack of self-control or planning for the future. 

Life isn't fair, so why don't you put on your big boy pants and do your best with the cards life has given you and stop making excuses for yourself.
 
2012-09-10 11:02:54 PM  

o5iiawah: And when it comes to the "infrastructure" required, I'm sure that his company or his idea is going to generate tax revenue which then translates into infrastructure that his business uses.


Great! That was easy! Personally, I believe in setting the top tax bracket(s) such that above a reasonably high income that affords a comfortable, maybe somewhat extravagant lifestyle (I'm using $250K in this example), almost all of what's made above that goes to taxes. Say, 70% above $250K, and 85% above $300K. No exceptions for investments.

o5iiawah: The tax rates of a quarter century ago

(1987) were set to pay for the war (ended in1945), not to create Utopia. Once the was was paid for, the right-wing extremist JFK (died in 1963) cut the rates. to a top bracket of 70%! That's some pretty good math there, Lou.

Well, it sure is a good thing there's no war that we need to pay for now, eh?

o5iiawah: A funny thing happens when you decide to tax someone at 99%, You get 1% of productivity out of them.


I know that sounds like it makes logical sense and everything, but you're wrong. It's a stupid oversimplification of the motives resultant from the human psyche, based on nonsense philosophical/economic theory.

the fact is, is just doesn't happen that way in the real world. We had a top marginal rate of over 70% from 1940 to 1981. Industry didn't collapse. The top 1% still worked hard. There was progress and innovation. The internet and the personal computer were invented under those conditions. You need to give up this idiotic fantasy.

o5iiawah: You're one of those "you didn't build that" crowd and thats fine.


That's because I'm not completely disconnected from reality, or pushing some political agenda.

o5iiawah: The fact is, the guy on the line or the guy driving the truck has a certain skillset and chances are that there are millions of others just like him. The fact that he delivers a product does not grant him ownership to the assets of the product.


Having an idea is not a skill set. Again, I'm not saying that good ideas shouldn't be compensated. But they don't entitle a single person to reap billions of dollars while others do the work for him.

Silly Jesus: Don't even know where to start, really.


Perhaps, and I don't mean this as an insult, it has to do with the difference in the inherent value we assign to other people, vs. the value range of what an individual is capable of contributing to society. I imagine my baseline of the first is quite a bit higher than yours, while my big picture view of the second is quite a bit lower.

Silly Jesus: I agree. The psychological profiles of such people are pretty interesting.


Again, I think a lot of them are mildly mentally ill. That strong a drive to acquire, even when further acquisition has no real material effect shows a disturbing disconnect from the sense of self. On the face of it, it benefits society that we have such people, but I'm personally against giving them the keys to the car we're all riding in, if you take my meaning.

It wouldn't be so bad if money had only material value, but the fact that our political system allows enormous wealth to equate to so many other forms of power is the real issue at hand. Not that the scenario can ever be completely eradicated, but we're moving completely in the wrong direction these days, IMO.
 
2012-09-10 11:06:47 PM  

Z-clipped: Silly Jesus: Don't even know where to start, really.

Perhaps, and I don't mean this as an insult, it has to do with the difference in the inherent value we assign to other people, vs. the value range of what an individual is capable of contributing to society. I imagine my baseline of the first is quite a bit higher than yours, while my big picture view of the second is quite a bit lower.

Silly Jesus: I agree. The psychological profiles of such people are pretty interesting.

Again, I think a lot of them are mildly mentally ill. That strong a drive to acquire, even when further acquisition has no real material effect shows a disturbing disconnect from the sense of self. On the face of it, it benefits society that we have such people, but I'm personally against giving them the keys to the car we're all riding in, if you take my meaning.

It wouldn't be so bad if money had only material value, but the fact that our political system allows enormous wealth to equate to so many other forms of power is the real issue at hand. Not that the scenario can ever be completely eradicated, but we're moving completely in the wrong direction these days, IMO.


You sound much more reasonable now.
 
2012-09-10 11:11:53 PM  
Z-clipped:
Well, initially it would go to the IRS. Where it goes from there, we can all decide together as a nation. The possibilities are limitless. Tell you what... you pay yourself $250K/year for the next 50 years, and we can take the remaining $987500000 of your cool billion and maybe,

-feed 2 million starving people for a year.

-start a fund to build a space elevator

-improve the worldwide communications network

-offer about 20000 people a $50k no interest business loan to use to get their ideas off the ground (and once they pay it back, holy crap, we could do this one again!)

-start a project to terraform Mars

-fund research to improve alternative energy sources

See? You get to live very comfortably, and the rest of the world benefits too, instead of one useless person having more than they could ever spend or appreciate. It's not that difficult a concept. It was only about 50 years ago that this country had tax brackets that reflected this idea. The world didn't end, innovation wasn't stifled, and some people still had more than others. Hopefully, we can end the current bout of insanity we're going through and get back to being more civilized.

I find your insistence upon stealing other people wealth offensive. It's the cry of incompetent louts everywhere "It's not FAIR that you have more money than me. I suck air, too."

Additionally, although you're probably too dim to realize it, you have provided your own rebuttal -- how polite of you. You list a whole bunch of things that someone else's money could do, once you confiscated most of it from them. Okay... Look at the items on your list, above. There's no reason that a private person couldn't do wonderful things from that list without having the government be your thug. Bill and Melinda Gates are attempting to end disease, especially in Africa, with some of Bill's billions -- and also with some of Warren Buffet's billions, since Buffet made a freaking HUGE donation to The B&M Gates Foundation.

But THAT is not the problem... Obama managed to spend about a TRILLION dollars -- a thousand times the amount you were fapping over -- and what do we have to show for it? Pretty close to NOTHING. The reason? Government is the least efficient "charity" on the planet. Some years back, it was determined that the government needed to collect $8 to get $1 to someone who needed it. And THAT is assuming that it was both a good idea, and a useful approach to do it. If government were considered as a charity, the government would shut it down. It's only 12.5% efficient. Recently, Kansas City's VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) branch was branded the least efficient charity in the nation. And it spent $23M to generate $55.5M in donations. That's roughly 70% efficient. In other words, the LEAST efficient charity in the nation is more than five and a half times as efficient as the government. If they were a private charity, they would be trying to shut themselves down.
 
2012-09-10 11:12:20 PM  

Z-clipped: Having an idea is not a skill set. Again, I'm not saying that good ideas shouldn't be compensated. But they don't entitle a single person to reap billions of dollars while others do the work for him.


I don't understand this statement or line of reasoning.

If I make a widget, and I sell it for $10 and I pay someone $5 to make each one and take it to market...and they voluntarily do this work for $5 per widget through a voluntary contract....how am I in some way not "entitled" to that $5 in profit from each widget that my company makes? Who is entitled to that money? Where does it go? If there is enough demand for my widgets that my income would be billions of dollars, why does this suddenly flip some switch whereby I am no longer "entitled" to my profits?

It's a purposefully oversimplified scenario, I realize, but perhaps it will make it easier for us to understand one another...
 
2012-09-10 11:21:12 PM  
BMFPitt:
I don't get why billionaires work 80 hour weeks. Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anythgin hands-on? I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life. I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy. Maybe it's just some weird competitive thing, and they don't know how to have cool hobbies like Richard Branson.

Just perhaps, they know that if they quit "while they're ahead" perhaps as many as tens of thousands of people will be out of a job. If ANYONE can do something that makes buttloads of money, and employs thousands of people, wouldn't you say that there is at least SOME moral pressure to keep doing what it is that makes so much money, and keeps so many profitably employed? You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish.
 
2012-09-10 11:33:16 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
When a man presents himself as a completely worthless farktard every time he opens his mouth, it's hard not to see him any other way. When Savage starts showing some humanity, maybe I'll think of him as human. Don't see how that's "pulling things out of my ass", but you always seem to dismiss and ignore things in order to try to be a smug dick towards others.

Indeed. And thank you, very sincerely, for making that both easy and justifiable. You're a mensch.

But, you miss the point. I saw the movie "Misery." Did you? In the movie Kathy Bates plays a psychotic fan. Oh, and DAMN, does she do a good job. Scared the crap out of me. But, do you know what? I don't assume that, because she PLAYED a psychotic, that she IS one.

Venomous radio is WAY big business. Unless you knew Savage personally, you have NO REASON to think that what he spouts is heart-felt. HE COULD EASILY JUST BE ACTING in such a way that he can collect a very large paycheck. An actor's job is to pretend to be someone they are not. Sorry, I can't make it any simpler. Savage is an actor on the radio. His opinions COULD match his on-air persona, but probably don't. He might be a moderate, a conservative, or a middle-of-the-road type, acting like a rabid conservative BECAUSE IT IS HIS JOB.

Since I don't know him any better than you do, all I am doing is presenting possibilities. Your concept of "I heard him, he spouts hate all day" is one I am not going to evaluate, especially since it might well be correct, and I don't care to subject myself to that. However, your claim utterly ignores that it is his JOB to be a rabid radio host, at high pay, and THAT is sufficient reason to act that way, even if it is counter to one's natural proclivities.

Do you have it yet? I can get the tire swing and the bananas, if that would help.
 
2012-09-11 12:35:16 AM  

GeneralJim: I find your insistence upon stealing other people wealth offensive.


Good. If I'm offending someone with your sensibilities, I must be on the right track.

Silly Jesus: If I make a widget, and I sell it for $10 and I pay someone $5 to make each one and take it to market...and they voluntarily do this work for $5 per widget through a voluntary contract....how am I in some way not "entitled" to that $5 in profit from each widget that my company makes? Who is entitled to that money? Where does it go? If there is enough demand for my widgets that my income would be billions of dollars, why does this suddenly flip some switch whereby I am no longer "entitled" to my profits?

It's a purposefully oversimplified scenario, I realize, but perhaps it will make it easier for us to understand one another...


It's important to remember that I said "not entitled to reap billions", not, "not entitled to profit". I'm simply putting a reasonable limit on the value of what one person can really contribute to society. I think that for one man to be able to acquire billions of dollars represents a kind of market failure. Above and beyond a certain income, there becomes no point to acquisition other than acquisition itself. If some people are driven to acquire beyond what is reasonable simply to have more than everyone else, let them do so under a constraint (say, a very high tax rate above a certain margin). As long as the constraint is applied equally to everyone, they can still feed their hubris, and society can reap the benefits directly, instead of relying on the charity of an arguably mentally ill person.

As an aside, you chose an example that actually supports something I said earlier- partnerships. The two people in your example are effectively working as equal partners, sharing equal work. The fact that one of them had the idea for the widget is not even represented monetarily. Not that all businesses should be equal partnerships, but I do think all corporations should be required to base their top tier of compensation on the bottom tier by some reasonable common multiple, like say, 10.

In the US today, allowing an individual to amass an enormous fortune has multiple devastating effects on society as a whole. It allows them far too much economic influence, multiplying their ability to create real market failure in the classic sense. It affords far too much political power by multiple channels- in fact, it has served to equate money and politics to such a degree that we (the general public) may never be able to peacefully recover our franchise. It also serves, as I said before, to create dynasties of aristocrats which I find morally repugnant, and which are one of the things the Founders came here to escape from in the first place.
 
2012-09-11 12:50:37 AM  

GeneralJim: Government is the least efficient


Quick quiz for you:

TRUE OR FALSE?

1. There exist certain goals achievable by centralized means that are not achievable through private industry.

2. While private industry governed by market forces is generally considered to be more efficient than government-run tax-funded industry, there are some cases where this is not the case.

3. Though people may not like them, it is necessary for the government to levy some taxes for a society to operate.
 
2012-09-11 02:53:02 AM  
Frederick:
Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.

You did build that.

I hate to throw water on your pretty little bonfire, but actually, "drug dealers," as most of us would define the term, REQUIRE government to be viable business entities. Without the laws that make the drugs illegal, and the police, border patrol, and even military to greatly restrict the flow of contraband into the country, pot, cocaine, and heroin, at least, would be quite cheap, and would probably be sold in spice outlets, grocery stores, and pharmacies, like seaweed is now. So, sadly, government DID make the drug trade.
 
2012-09-11 03:45:17 AM  

GeneralJim: Frederick: Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.

You did build that.
I hate to throw water on your pretty little bonfire, but actually, "drug dealers," as most of us would define the term, REQUIRE government to be viable business entities. Without the laws that make the drugs illegal, and the police, border patrol, and even military to greatly restrict the flow of contraband into the country, pot, cocaine, and heroin, at least, would be quite cheap, and would probably be sold in spice outlets, grocery stores, and pharmacies, like seaweed is now. So, sadly, government DID make the drug trade.


You like to argue, dont you? And what's this about a bonfire?
 
2012-09-11 06:49:54 AM  
Z-clipped:
It's important to remember that I said "not entitled to reap billions", not, "not entitled to profit". I'm simply putting a reasonable limit on the value of what one person can really contribute to society. I think that for one man to be able to acquire billions of dollars represents a kind of market failure. Above and beyond a certain income, there becomes no point to acquisition other than acquisition itself.

And, of course, YOU would decide how much is "reasonable," eh, Tovarische? That's a crock. It only shows YOUR lack of imagination that the only thing YOU can think of as a reason for acquiring more than "enough" money is the acquisition. Well, if that's the case, why in the Hell does government continually want more money? Just to have it?

Some people want a lot of money because money is the all-purpose tool, and nearly anything can be done with it. Long ago, more people realized what government is -- a group of unimaginative, greedy, selfish, inefficient, unproductive, and thuggish people, much like you have shown yourself to be. In contrast, someone like Andrew Carnegie amassed a great fortune, and did great things with it. Without even looking anything up, I can think of Carnegie Hall, Carnegie-Mellon University, and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh. I also know that he was a library freak, and built and funded many of them, although they're not as easy to remember as many of the things to which he gave his name.

There is a massive cultural and educational treasure which Andrew Carnegie donated to the public. If government had seized his money, they would have turned most of it into bribes and other waste, probably built a grubby office or two for their army of bureaucrats, and would have been a decade or more ahead in their plan to get their hands around every activity taking place in the country. Andrew Carnegie did much more with his money than the government would have done. And he is nowhere near the only philanthropist around. Just because your approach to money is venal, greedy, and selfish doesn't mean that such is the case with others. In fact, your venality, greed, and selfishness might just prevent you from moving from being a poorly-paid wage slave to being a rich philanthropist, the journey that Andrew Carnegie made. Omnia pueris bonis eveniunt bene.
 
2012-09-11 06:58:02 AM  
Z-clipped:
GeneralJim: Government is the least efficient

Quick quiz for you:

TRUE OR FALSE?

1. There exist certain goals achievable by centralized means that are not achievable through private industry.

FALSE


2. While private industry governed by market forces is generally considered to be more efficient than government-run tax-funded industry, there are some cases where this is not the case.

FALSE. (Name one.)


3. Though people may not like them, it is necessary for the government to levy some taxes for a society to operate.

TRUE. The Founders had this exactly right: Keep government function to as small as is possible, split the government into three parts, and have those parts fighting each other for power -- thus keeping government occupied fighting itself, and leaving the people alone, for the most part.


twistedsifter.sifter.netdna-cdn.com
 
2012-09-11 07:05:49 AM  
Frederick:
GeneralJim: Frederick: Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.

You did build that.

I hate to throw water on your pretty little bonfire, but actually, "drug dealers," as most of us would define the term, REQUIRE government to be viable business entities. Without the laws that make the drugs illegal, and the police, border patrol, and even military to greatly restrict the flow of contraband into the country, pot, cocaine, and heroin, at least, would be quite cheap, and would probably be sold in spice outlets, grocery stores, and pharmacies, like seaweed is now. So, sadly, government DID make the drug trade.

You like to argue, dont you? And what's this about a bonfire?

Meh. I prefer debate. And, for some reason, I pictured you setting up a fire out in the woods, trying to shed a bit of light... but with an idea that is fundamentally incorrect. So, while I agree that government doesn't have a stake in everything just because they are pushy, you chose a bad example to illustrate the point.

/ I'm a doctor, dammit, Jim, not a metaphor.
 
2012-09-11 07:50:52 AM  

GeneralJim: 1. There exist certain goals achievable by centralized means that are not achievable through private industry.

FALSE


Really? What motivation does a company beholden to shareholders have to pursue a goal that has little or no resulting monetary profit? That's the kind of thing that gets corporate officers fired, you know?

GeneralJim: FALSE. (Name one.)


I could name several, but I don't think the conversation would be fruitful, given your unwillingness to make the obvious concession on the first point.

GeneralJim: TRUE.


Well, at least we can agree on that point. The rest of that discussion is simply a matter of deciding what the government should be doing and what it shouldn't, and then how much we should tax people and how the taxes should be distributed. But then, your opinion isn't worth any more or less than mine on that topic. It's something we should all be deciding together. The problem is, jackasses in Washington are deciding it based on pressures from a few very wealthy people, instead of the pressure of the electorate. That needs to stop before we can make any real headway.

GeneralJim: And, of course, YOU would decide how much is "reasonable," eh, Tovarische?


Of course not. I just threw out a number for discussion. The important thing is understanding that there exists a point beyond which, it's not reasonable. That too much wealth and power in the hands of one or a few is just as equivalent to slavery as your boogeyman of socialism is.

GeneralJim: Long ago, more people realized what government is --


Oh man, my eyes almost rolled out of my skull reading the rest of that post. I think we've gone about as far as we're going to with this. Have a nice day.
 
2012-09-11 07:55:06 AM  

GeneralJim: Just perhaps, they know that if they quit "while they're ahead" perhaps as many as tens of thousands of people will be out of a job. If ANYONE can do something that makes buttloads of money, and employs thousands of people, wouldn't you say that there is at least SOME moral pressure to keep doing what it is that makes so much money, and keeps so many profitably employed?


If I hadn't already excluded people who would be in that kind of situation, that might be a valid reason.

You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish.

You seem to have a desperate need to see that in any statement, even one that is in direct opposition to it.
 
2012-09-11 08:16:57 AM  

Z-clipped: It's important to remember that I said "not entitled to reap billions", not, "not entitled to profit". I'm simply putting a reasonable limit on the value of what one person can really contribute to society. I think that for one man to be able to acquire billions of dollars represents a kind of market failure. Above and beyond a certain income, there becomes no point to acquisition other than acquisition itself. If some people are driven to acquire beyond what is reasonable simply to have more than everyone else, let them do so under a constraint (say, a very high tax rate above a certain margin). As long as the constraint is applied equally to everyone, they can still feed their hubris, and society can reap the benefits directly, instead of relying on the charity of an arguably mentally ill person.

1) It's not necessarily only a mentally ill person driven by some crazy desire to hoard money that becomes a billionaire. Bill Gates started a product that keeps on selling. Is he mentally ill to keep improving on his product and advertising it and selling it simply because he has amassed a huge sum of money? To some people the idea of making an exceptional product is indeed a driving force. I think you have an image of all wealthy people as Howard Hughes sitting in a dim room alone and letting his money pile up. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell someone that they have enough money and the government should seize the rest from them?
2) As has been cited in this thread a few times...the government is incredibly inefficient at charity. The numbers used here were $8 in expenses to donate $1. I've seen similar figures cited elsewhere. Bill Gates, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, donates truckloads of money to charities more efficiently than the government ever could. Why confiscate their money and then spend it less efficiently?


As an aside, you chose an example that actually supports something I said earlier- partnerships. The two people in your example are effectively working as equal partners, sharing equal work. The fact that one of them had the idea for the widget is not even represented monetarily. Not that all businesses should be equal partnerships, but I do think all corporations should be required to base their top tier of compensation on the bottom tier by some reasonable common multiple, like say, 10.

So a company like, say, Coca-Cola that has an incredible number of "levels" of employment should limit the compensation of the guy that oversees an entire continent, say Coca-Cola China, to 10X the salary of the janitor? Say the janitor makes $20K....so the guy in charge of millions of dollars of product and market share and thousands of employees should only be compensated $200K?

What about a neurosurgeon and the guy who cleans the toilets in the hospital?


In the US today, allowing an individual to amass an enormous fortune has multiple devastating effects on society as a whole. It allows them far too much economic influence, multiplying their ability to create real market failure in the classic sense. It affords far too much political power by multiple channels- in fact, it has served to equate money and politics to such a degree that we (the general public) may never be able to peacefully recover our franchise. It also serves, as I said before, to create dynasties of aristocrats which I find morally repugnant, and which are one of the things the Founders came here to escape from in the first place.

The money intertwined in politics problem does need to be taken care of, but I don't think the solution to that problem is to confiscate money from the wealthy. There are laws currently that aren't being enforced and there are probably others that wouldn't be a bad idea to have....I think that that is the way to solve the problems that you are talking about....not by government confiscation of private wealth.

 
2012-09-11 08:22:11 AM  
i47.tinypic.com
Screw it, as long as we punish the rich.
 
2012-09-11 08:26:26 AM  

GeneralJim: [i47.tinypic.com image 400x400]
Screw it, as long as we punish the rich.


www.heritage.org
 
2012-09-11 08:35:15 AM  
Z-clipped:
GeneralJim: 1. There exist certain goals achievable by centralized means that are not achievable through private industry.

FALSE

Really? What motivation does a company beholden to shareholders have to pursue a goal that has little or no resulting monetary profit? That's the kind of thing that gets corporate officers fired, you know?

You have monomania. "Beholden to shareholders?" Well, just for one, a non-profit can't make a profit. A "Hey, let's build a new road" non-profit could do just that. There's nothing magic about taking money from people at gunpoint. Furthermore, it's probably BETTER if projects get done by (or at least paid for by) people who want to see the project completed. Let those who want more books for the library (or a library itself) pay for it, and the folks who want the road resurfaced pay for THAT. Every job that is done privately will have about a factor of eight increase in the money. If the government quit doing everything, and taking (or printing) so much money, more would get done. If only 25% as much money were given voluntarily as is taken by taxes, twice as much would get done.
 
2012-09-11 08:52:47 AM  
Z-clipped:
2. While private industry governed by market forces is generally considered to be more efficient than government-run tax-funded industry, there are some cases where this is not the case.

GeneralJim: FALSE. (Name one.)

I could name several, but I don't think the conversation would be fruitful, given your unwillingness to make the obvious concession on the first point.

So, you can't think of one, either. Got it.


3. Though people may not like them, it is necessary for the government to levy some taxes for a society to operate.

GeneralJim: TRUE.

Well, at least we can agree on that point. The rest of that discussion is simply a matter of deciding what the government should be doing and what it shouldn't, and then how much we should tax people and how the taxes should be distributed. But then, your opinion isn't worth any more or less than mine on that topic. It's something we should all be deciding together. The problem is, jackasses in Washington are deciding it based on pressures from a few very wealthy people, instead of the pressure of the electorate. That needs to stop before we can make any real headway.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that there are WAY more slackers than doers. It's an obvious problem when people on the dole vote for those promising them a "raise." Since the leeches greatly outnumber the rich, there is too much catering to them. Those on government dole, INCLUDING government employees and people serving in Congress, should not have the vote. Furthermore, the salaries of House, Senate, and Executive Branch officials should be set by popular vote. And, further, there should be NO law passed by Congress that does not apply to Congresscritters. You want to foist off that abortion called Obamacare on us with the force of law? Well, then, that's what YOU get, too.

Despite your drawer-dousing over rich people, they don't cause much of a problem. And, you're totally backwards on your tax ideas, as well. What we need is a totally inescapable, one-page tax code: Somewhere around 10% of income goes to general taxes, and another 15% for the socialist crap we have put in place, like SS, and Medicare. Drop the cap on the SS contributions, too, and give people an exclusion on the 10% tax for the first, say, $10,000 / person of income. End of story.
 
2012-09-11 09:02:20 AM  
Z-clipped:
GeneralJim: And, of course, YOU would decide how much is "reasonable," eh, Tovarische?

Of course not. I just threw out a number for discussion. The important thing is understanding that there exists a point beyond which, it's not reasonable. That too much wealth and power in the hands of one or a few is just as equivalent to slavery as your boogeyman of socialism is.

You fail to understand the basics. Any business transaction is VOLUNTARY. Government transactions are INVOLUNTARY.

Yes, companies and individuals might well conspire to eliminate competition, and that must be stopped. But, in a free market, anyone who thinks "prices are too high for X" is entitled to make or collect X, and sell it at whatever price they like. Then people get to CHOOSE from whom they get their X, which often has a lot to do with the price charged for X by the various vendors or manufacturers. And if they don't like it, they can do without X, or make their own X, or whatever is appropriate for the X under discussion.

The point is that business gets money from transactions that people want to make, and government TAKES money, like it or not. It's a whole different class of transaction, which puts limits on business that do not exist for government, INCLUDING a requirement for efficiency to survive.
 
2012-09-11 09:04:59 AM  
BMFPitt:
GeneralJim: Just perhaps, they know that if they quit "while they're ahead" perhaps as many as tens of thousands of people will be out of a job. If ANYONE can do something that makes buttloads of money, and employs thousands of people, wouldn't you say that there is at least SOME moral pressure to keep doing what it is that makes so much money, and keeps so many profitably employed?

If I hadn't already excluded people who would be in that kind of situation, that might be a valid reason.

Oh, you did? I missed that. Where is it?
 
2012-09-11 09:17:20 AM  
Silly Jesus:
GeneralJim: [i47.tinypic.com image 400x400]
Screw it, as long as we punish the rich.

[www.heritage.org image 432x434]

Yeah, thanks for bringing up the Laffer Curve. So, before the derpfest begins, the Laffer Curve is only about HEAVY taxation. There IS a point, below which further tax rate cuts have no effect. That point is somewhere near 35-40%. The Laffer Curve, mostly, points out that if you are punishing the rich with a 85% tax rate, lowering that to 75% would bring in a LOT more money in tax revenue. And you have to be a totalitarian to want higher taxes, when those taxes will REDUCE the amount that government nets.

 
2012-09-11 12:30:21 PM  

GeneralJim: Oh, you did? I missed that. Where is it?


"Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anything hands-on? I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life. I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy. Maybe it's just some weird competitive thing, and they don't know how to have cool hobbies like Richard Branson."

But like I said, if you have a desperate psychological need to find attacks on rich people where none exist, you'll tend to ignore stuff like that.

Unless you would like to make a compelling case that a mutual fund manager retiring is likely to cost tens of thousands of jobs.
 
2012-09-11 03:24:57 PM  
Question:

How many jobs have job creators created under the Bush tax cuts?
 
2012-09-11 03:27:17 PM  

FloydA: James F. Campbell: jim32rr: FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.

Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something

Welp, at least FloydA isn't an ignorant, cumstained farktard. Not that I'm calling anyone else in this thread an ignorant, cumstained farktard. I'm just saying that FloydA isn't one.

I've got no idea who this guy is; he apparently went straight into my iggy list because I have no recollection of him whatsoever. He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had. It's amusing to me because, in the 9 years I've been on Fark, I have only submitted two links. He might just as well try to insult me for the fact that I don't have any CMT country music awards and I've never won a Pokemon championship.


Doubt if I'm on your ignore list, haven't said anything to be ignored over. My comment was stupid and not the direction I should have taken. You were slamming that the story was submitted, based on the comments/conversations in the thread quite a few farkers had an interest, you included.

No harm, no foul Floyd
 
2012-09-11 06:40:34 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: When a man presents himself as a completely worthless farktard every time he opens his mouth, it's hard not to see him any other way. When Savage starts showing some humanity, maybe I'll think of him as human. Don't see how that's "pulling things out of my ass", but you always seem to dismiss and ignore things in order to try to be a smug dick towards others.
Indeed. And thank you, very sincerely, for making that both easy and justifiable. You're a mensch.

But, you miss the point. I saw the movie "Misery." Did you? In the movie Kathy Bates plays a psychotic fan. Oh, and DAMN, does she do a good job. Scared the crap out of me. But, do you know what? I don't assume that, because she PLAYED a psychotic, that she IS one.

Venomous radio is WAY big business. Unless you knew Savage personally, you have NO REASON to think that what he spouts is heart-felt. HE COULD EASILY JUST BE ACTING in such a way that he can collect a very large paycheck. An actor's job is to pretend to be someone they are not. Sorry, I can't make it any simpler. Savage is an actor on the radio. His opinions COULD match his on-air persona, but probably don't. He might be a moderate, a conservative, or a middle-of-the-road type, acting like a rabid conservative BECAUSE IT IS HIS JOB.

Since I don't know him any better than you do, all I am doing is presenting possibilities. Your concept of "I heard him, he spouts hate all day" is one I am not going to evaluate, especially since it might well be correct, and I don't care to subject myself to that. However, your claim utterly ignores that it is his JOB to be a rabid radio host, at high pay, and THAT is sufficient reason to act that way, even if it is counter to one's natural proclivities.

Do you have it yet? I can get the tire swing and the bananas, if that would help.


You sure like to watch yourself type, don't you.

Sorry, Charlie, but there's a big difference between an actress in a fictional movie and a talk radio host in real life. I know the actress is acting when she's pretending to be someone form the 1800's, or pretending to ride atop a dragon while she shoots magic bolts at ogres. Talk show hosts in real life, though, are not dealing with fantasy things or talking about fantasy people (unless they're the insane people who are the right's mouthpieces, apparently). When I hear nothing from Rush, Hannity, Larson, Beck, and Savage but fear-mongering, hate-mongering, attacks on American citizens because they don't think they way they do, attacks on American citizens for not conforming to what they think (Sandra Fluke ring a bell?), and pronouncing fellow Americans as trash, filth, vermin, evil, etc for daring to go against what they hold sacred... no. No, that is not acting. That is what they think and feel in their daily lives, and they feel the need to spew it to the world to get as much money and attention as possible. And no, the "I'm just an actor" thing doesn't work, if you believe that you might as well believe your five-year-old when he beats up his younger brother and cries "We were just playing!" when you confont him about it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They're free to blech and barf their hateful filth, and I'm free to point out that they're nothing but greedy disenguous filth-belching troglodytes.
 
2012-09-11 07:24:50 PM  
BMFPitt:
GeneralJim: Oh, you did? I missed that. Where is it?

"Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anything hands-on? I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life. I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy. Maybe it's just some weird competitive thing, and they don't know how to have cool hobbies like Richard Branson."

Sorry -- that was a trick question. I KNEW you said no such thing, because I looked back. Your exceptions here are for people who LIKE what they are doing, and has nothing to do with the fact that very competent people slacking off to make "just enough" money could lose thousands of people their jobs.


But like I said, if you have a desperate psychological need to find attacks on rich people where none exist, you'll tend to ignore stuff like that.

Where none exist? Really? Did you read this thread? Holy crap. Actually, it is YOU who is sounding desperate... for what I don't know... just envy, maybe?


Unless you would like to make a compelling case that a mutual fund manager retiring is likely to cost tens of thousands of jobs.

It COULD. Or, in the case of a truly gifted MFM, his slacking off could cost pension funds billions of dollars they would otherwise have had.

And, since you probably missed it, the point was that there can be compelling moral cases to do a lot of work, if one is gifted at that work. Michael Jordan could have had a "comfortable life" by only playing a few games a year on a per game contract. But he played in every game he could. By doing that, he helped his team in many ways.
 
2012-09-11 07:27:47 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
You sure like to watch yourself type, don't you.

Did you ever notice how most of the people making dipshiat claims about others all seem to think they know what others think, and want, but never say? It's a frickin' cognitive disorder, I tell you...
 
2012-09-11 07:31:34 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
Sorry, Charlie, but there's a big difference between an actress in a fictional movie and a talk radio host in real life. I know the actress is acting when she's pretending to be someone form the 1800's, or pretending to ride atop a dragon while she shoots magic bolts at ogres.

What a naif! No, Bucko, that is YOU not being able to see the fact that people talking on the radio are PERFORMERS, just like movie actors. I suppose if they got all riled up in an attack on the same stuff, while pretending to be Ben Franklin, THAT would be enough to clue you in.

I get it: the concept of radio performance is beyond you.
 
2012-09-11 08:00:51 PM  

GeneralJim: Sorry -- that was a trick question. I KNEW you said no such thing, because I looked back. Your exceptions here are for people who LIKE what they are doing, and has nothing to do with the fact that very competent people slacking off to make "just enough" money could lose thousands of people their jobs.


Like I said, I'm not surprised that you would choose to willfully misinterpret my statement in such a way as to create a fictional enemy.

Where none exist? Really? Did you read this thread?

I did. And there were tons. But my post wasn't one of them.

Actually, it is YOU who is sounding desperate... for what I don't know... just envy, maybe?

You're not completely sure that it's envy? Watch out, your imaginary world is starting to fracture.

It COULD. Or, in the case of a truly gifted MFM, his slacking off could cost pension funds billions of dollars they would otherwise have had.

Who said anything about slacking off? I was talking about retiring to an island or finding something more fulfilling but less intense to do.

And, since you probably missed it, the point was that there can be compelling moral cases to do a lot of work, if one is gifted at that work. Michael Jordan could have had a "comfortable life" by only playing a few games a year on a per game contract. But he played in every game he could. By doing that, he helped his team in many ways.

I understand why a basketball player would enjoy basketball. In my original post I stated that it is possibly the same sort of motivation.

I also don't understand why people collect stamps. Clearly this indicates that I hate all stamp collectors and want the government o ban stamp collecting.
 
2012-09-11 09:03:17 PM  
BMFPitt:
GeneralJim: Sorry -- that was a trick question. I KNEW you said no such thing, because I looked back. Your exceptions here are for people who LIKE what they are doing, and has nothing to do with the fact that very competent people slacking off to make "just enough" money could lose thousands of people their jobs.

Like I said, I'm not surprised that you would choose to willfully misinterpret my statement in such a way as to create a fictional enemy.

You're freaking SERIOUS? Heck, I gave you too much credit, and assumed you were just lying to make a point. Sorry -- I'll try to use smaller words.

So, now you're claiming that I WILLFULLY misinterpreted your lie, er, statement? And, you would know this HOW?



i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-11 09:17:19 PM  

GeneralJim: You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish.


I really don't think it's about money after a certain level. One person can only eat so much caviar and $100 steak, washing them down with $5000 bottles of champagnes... drive so many Bentleys... own so many acres of oceanfront property...

No, when you get to the $billion mark, it's about power. It's about control. It's about the ability to snap your fingers and have sh*t happen because you have more money than you could ever spend in 100 lifetimes.

Take that doughy asshole Sheldon Adelson, for example. He owns the equivalent of a small nation, and he couldn't even spend all of the interest on his money in his lifetime... yet he's pumping millions into the RNC coffers to make sure his candidate gets elected so that not only can he escape possible criminal investigation and prosecution, but he wants to actually change the foreign policy of the United States of America (vis-a-vis Israel).

Power. And he's not alone... wealthy people from the Rockefellers to the DuPonts to the Vanderbilts to the Bushes have done exactly the same thing throughout american history, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is what makes everyone else dislike some rich people... not because of their money, but because of what they do with it.

It's not about money, it's about controlling you, controlling me, controlling anything and anyone they can. And no one likes being controlled. 

And yes, some are greedy as well. If they weren't they might pay their workers a bit more, and if you're a billionaire do you need even more when you could give someone in your employ who's making minimum wage an extra dollar an hour?
 
2012-09-11 09:43:22 PM  
BMFPitt:
Actually, it is YOU who is sounding desperate... for what I don't know... just envy, maybe?

You're not completely sure that it's envy? Watch out, your imaginary world is starting to fracture.

Seriously? You're giving me shiat because I am NOT claiming to be able to read minds? You're one sick puppy.
 
2012-09-11 09:48:03 PM  

BMFPitt:

It COULD. Or, in the case of a truly gifted MFM, his slacking off could cost pension funds billions of dollars they would otherwise have had.

Who said anything about slacking off? I was talking about retiring to an island or finding something more fulfilling but less intense to do.

So? You prefer to call it goofing off instead? Pick nits much?
 
2012-09-11 09:51:46 PM  
BMFPitt:
And, since you probably missed it, the point was that there can be compelling moral cases to do a lot of work, if one is gifted at that work. Michael Jordan could have had a "comfortable life" by only playing a few games a year on a per game contract. But he played in every game he could. By doing that, he helped his team in many ways.

I understand why a basketball player would enjoy basketball. In my original post I stated that it is possibly the same sort of motivation.

There you go with the "enjoy" crap again. At least you're consistent. Consistently clueless, but the consistency has to count for SOMETHING. You missed it again. Look, I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. I'm done with this topic.
 
2012-09-11 10:32:45 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: Sorry, Charlie, but there's a big difference between an actress in a fictional movie and a talk radio host in real life. I know the actress is acting when she's pretending to be someone form the 1800's, or pretending to ride atop a dragon while she shoots magic bolts at ogres.
What a naif! No, Bucko, that is YOU not being able to see the fact that people talking on the radio are PERFORMERS, just like movie actors. I suppose if they got all riled up in an attack on the same stuff, while pretending to be Ben Franklin, THAT would be enough to clue you in.

I get it: the concept of radio performance is beyond you.


You're sure doing a lot of white-knighting for people who have proclaimed time and time again that their listeners need to start a war to take back America while outright attacking and slandering people they disagree with. If you're convinced they'll sleep with you in gratitude, knock yourself out. I'll continue to hold them as the evil filth they are.

You might also want to try responding to one post with one post, you're looking a lot like I drunk what.
 
2012-09-11 11:47:10 PM  
rewind2846:
GeneralJim: You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish.

I really don't think it's about money after a certain level. One person can only eat so much caviar and $100 steak, washing them down with $5000 bottles of champagnes... drive so many Bentleys... own so many acres of oceanfront property...

No, when you get to the $billion mark, it's about power. It's about control. It's about the ability to snap your fingers and have sh*t happen because you have more money than you could ever spend in 100 lifetimes.

Look above... I said "You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish." You're proving my point. Apparently, you cannot imagine anyone rich having ANYTHING but selfish motives. I've know rich people; some of them are dicks, just like with poor people, and some of them are simply great folks, people who got ahead by being both smart and hard-working. Most of them I know donate a great deal to charity, and take good care of their relatives. But you seem to be buying the Democratic bull that anyone with money is evil, some in one way, and some in another. It is, truly, bullshiat.
 
2012-09-11 11:49:17 PM  
rewind2846:
It's not about money, it's about controlling you, controlling me, controlling anything and anyone they can. And no one likes being controlled.

Actually, that's the process for statist governments. Are you as virulently hateful of them as you are of rich people?
 
2012-09-11 11:57:03 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
You're sure doing a lot of white-knighting for people who have proclaimed time and time again that their listeners need to start a war to take back America while outright attacking and slandering people they disagree with. If you're convinced they'll sleep with you in gratitude, knock yourself out. I'll continue to hold them as the evil filth they are.

You might also want to try responding to one post with one post, you're looking a lot like I drunk what.

First off, about you telling me how to post -- Fark you. I prefer one idea per post; if you don't like it, tough.

Second, YOU are "black knighting" anyone with money. It makes you look petty and venal, as well as envious. And then this business with radio shock jocks. Surely you can't think that anyone rich is evil, and that anyone talking shiat on the radio believes everything they are saying? Well, maybe you DO believe anything anyone says on the radio is their heartfelt belief, and that they would NEVER exaggerate, or rabble-rouse, just because it's their freaking JOB. I keep trying to give you credit for being smarter than that, and you keep insisting that you ARE that clueless. For example, do you think Howard Stern is the flaming jackass he plays on his show?/font>
 
2012-09-12 12:20:35 AM  

GeneralJim: rewind2846: It's not about money, it's about controlling you, controlling me, controlling anything and anyone they can. And no one likes being controlled.
Actually, that's the process for statist governments. Are you as virulently hateful of them as you are of rich people?


We elect our governments. We can always vote them out. No one elects the rich people that want to control you.
 
2012-09-12 12:31:57 AM  

GeneralJim: But you seem to be buying the Democratic bull that anyone with money is evil, some in one way, and some in another. It is, truly, bullshiat.


Hope you keep that armor nice and shiny, you White Knight kinda guy you. Let us all know how the sex went after they promised to give you some, okay?

These people wouldn't piss dom Perignon on you if you were on fire, yet you're swinging from the sack like a starving deer tick. Sad.

Plenty of good rich folks, folks that actually give more than money to charities and do good work. Those aren't the ones that get the grief... in fact they frequently get praise from us evil democrats.
The bad ones are the ones that cause the most hurt and do the most damage, and as a result earn the most scorn. They're also the ones who see it as their mission to subvert our political process at all levels with assloads of cash to achieve their own selfish ends. Thank you Citizens United and the United States Supreme court.

To put it so that even you can understand:
RICH != BAD
POOR != BAD
ASSHOLE = BAD
POOR ASSHOLE = BAD
RICH ASSHOLE = VERY BAD

Got it? Good.
 
2012-09-12 09:33:37 AM  
rewind2846:
GeneralJim: rewind2846: It's not about money, it's about controlling you, controlling me, controlling anything and anyone they can. And no one likes being controlled.

Actually, that's the process for statist governments. Are you as virulently hateful of them as you are of rich people?

We elect our governments. We can always vote them out. No one elects the rich people that want to control you.

So, "no," then. You LIKES you some totalitarian government. Well, I have a bit of information, Bucko -- the more powerful government is, the more it will be bought. If government has no power to interfere in business, and give cronies an advantage, NOBODY will be buying politicians. It's pretty straightforward. Obama is using the fascist business model, which ties a few huge corporations into a network of favored toadies, and then the government forces others either out of business, or into losses by selective legislation.

So, we're headed down the same road taken by NAZI Germany. Don't come crying to me when you get what you want, and it ends up putting the rich and the CEOs of large corporations WAY more firmly in control. Enjoy. Oh, and by the way, when governments get powerful enough, that whole "we can vote them out" thing goes by the wayside. Dictators don't have elections... at least fair ones. And they tend to slaughter political opponents, along with the useful idiots who put them in power in the first place. If a person can revolt once, they can do it again, so it's more efficient to just kill them -- they served their purpose.
 
2012-09-12 09:37:47 AM  
rewind2846:
Hope you keep that armor nice and shiny, you White Knight kinda guy you. Let us all know how the sex went after they promised to give you some, okay?

These people wouldn't piss dom Perignon on you if you were on fire, yet you're swinging from the sack like a starving deer tick. Sad.

Oh, FFS. You morons just have a list of insults, don't you, and pick the one that seems to fit... right?

You're herping and derping about how all rich people are evil greedy bastidges, blah, blah, blah. I point out that rich people are like other people, a mix of bad and good, only with more money, and that suggests sex to you? Pervert.
 
2012-09-12 09:48:03 AM  
rewind2846:
Plenty of good rich folks, folks that actually give more than money to charities and do good work. Those aren't the ones that get the grief... in fact they frequently get praise from us evil democrats.

Now you're singing a bit of a different tune. Could it be that I convinced you your previous stand, expressed HERE, was pants-on-head stupid? 'Cause that would be super.

Hopefully you'll pardon my skepticism about Democrats praising the rich at all, let alone "frequently." The reaction is generally like that huge pustule, Michael Moore, who reached out to choke a reporter that pointed out that he was in the 1%. It appears that the only way to be acceptably rich to Democrats is to be rich from media, AND to diss other rich people.
 
2012-09-12 05:46:17 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: You're sure doing a lot of white-knighting for people who have proclaimed time and time again that their listeners need to start a war to take back America while outright attacking and slandering people they disagree with. If you're convinced they'll sleep with you in gratitude, knock yourself out. I'll continue to hold them as the evil filth they are.

You might also want to try responding to one post with one post, you're looking a lot like I drunk what.
First off, about you telling me how to post -- Fark you. I prefer one idea per post; if you don't like it, tough.

Second, YOU are "black knighting" anyone with money. It makes you look petty and venal, as well as envious. And then this business with radio shock jocks. Surely you can't think that anyone rich is evil, and that anyone talking shiat on the radio believes everything they are saying? Well, maybe you DO believe anything anyone says on the radio is their heartfelt belief, and that they would NEVER exaggerate, or rabble-rouse, just because it's their freaking JOB. I keep trying to give you credit for being smarter than that, and you keep insisting that you ARE that clueless. For example, do you think Howard Stern is the flaming jackass he plays on his show?/font>


Oh, you think this is about money? I couldn't give more of a rat's ass about how much cash is up their asses. This is about them, either reality or fantasy (and if they truly are doing it as an act, then it's even worse), spreading fear, hatred, and an "us vs them" mentality among Americans. I think what they're doing is reprehensible, evil, and trash. They could be using their amazing acting abilities to brong the country together, to tell us we should work more closely and in unity to get the country out of the mire it's fallen into. Instead they've preaching to people to hate others for not thinking like they do, to fear others for being different from them, to go to war with each other, all with lies and mangled truths. They chose to be actors in a very ugly and filthy play. I'm one of the critics telling it like it is about their "performance". You give them a standing ovation if that's how you roll. I'll give them a few crates of rotten tomatoes and the hook.
 
2012-09-12 10:11:45 PM  

GeneralJim:
"His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan."


Where in my posts did I say that Ghandi's goal was the formation of Pakistan? His goal was peace in the nation that was, but to achieve it the people who were fighting split into two nations.

Remember:
Goal = peace
What actually happened = peace by separation.

Also, go back and read my post at 2012-09-11 09:17:19 PM. Did I use the word "all"? Did I use the word "most"? Did I use the phrase "every one of them"? Yet you somehow feel the compelling need to stick up for the bad rich people as well as the good ones, just because they're rich? You would actually stick up for societal cancers Like Adeslon?

Maybe if you read more slowly and out loud... not that you probably don't anyway... you could understand what I wrote and not what you wanted to see.  Hope that armor doesn't get too hot.
 
Displayed 434 of 434 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report