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  
•       •       •

15637 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 434 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report