pkay wrote:Despite my differences with Magma or someone like Noam... I'd gladly share a beer and a blunt peacefully with them with the understanding that the opinion on one subject does not determine the man.
Quite... let's keep in civil, ninjas. It's all love... opinions are like clitorises, every tnuc's got one.
Genevieve wrote:
Who decides what rules are good and which rules are bad? The government? What makes them authorities on this? The same people who made American Idol a toprated tv show decide who gets elected. Something as individual and unpredictable cannot be regulated according to people's needs.
... This is basically how you approach all the points I make. This is such a dumb comparison i'm not going to bother, since you didn't bother addressing any of my actual points.
I did. I'm saying you blindly trust on people who have no real authority on the matters to make the right choice for millions of people. Where do they get this authority and knowledge? Someone like Bachmann gets elected into a public office. Bachmann. You trust these kinds of people to have your well being on their minds and to make the right educated choice?
AllNightDayDream wrote:The guy is halfway correct, but allowing investment banks to own commercial ones gave free reign over their assets, and allowed their speculation to inflate prices and create this incentive to destroy lending standards, which set up all the dominos i've probably outlined in this thread a few times now. It confounds me that you'd cite a CPAC for your argument. It was their school of thought that facilitated this whole thing. Yet again you make zero sense in your statement, i'm assuming because you don't understand the stock market. Risk is matched by reward, that's a natural function of the capitalist system and has nothing to do with government regulation.
I cite Tom Woods. Who is at complete odds with the rest of CPAC and frequently criticized by Limbaugh and Levine. You truly believe that when someone like Perry says they are free-market, they actually are? Or Bush? Or the Republicans in general? The economic policies of the Democrats and Republicans are identical and they're all Keynsians. People like Tom Woods are a fringe in "conservatism".
AllNightDayDream wrote:You're gonna quote one sentence I made about your unrealistic opinion only held by teenage RATM fans out of the context of that whole post, and accuse me of strawman?
Yep, because you transfered an opinion I don't hold on to me and used cultural signifiers that don't apply to me to make my point look less valid solely based the fact that I disagree with the notion that government should exist. Not on why and how. You did this before. 'LOLOLL CPAC! CONSERVATIVE!' Never mind that pretty much over a hundred organizations contribute to it, from libertarian (or even anarchist) ones to neo-conservative ones. Meaning, they hold opinions as different as night and day. But hey, it's CPAC! A convention of "conservatives" (most meaningless term ever), their public perception is of gun totin' yokels who hate science and love Jesus, no intelligent opinion could possibly come out of that!
AllNightDayDream wrote:Statist society? Simply having a government can make you a statist society. How is that even something you can argue against?
And I said society with a statist mindset, i.e., a society composed of statists, i.e. a society with individuals who believe government is out there to take care of them and don't think government takes care of itself first and foremost. You read this properly, again, you just refuse to deliberately discuss my actual point. Going on to state how Keynsian economics are more stable than austrian ones without actual statistics and merely refute the hyperinflation America has experienced since 1913, equating it with a "healthy inflation of 3%".
AllNightDayDream wrote:If having a stable government bothers you so much, burn all of your cash and build a tree house for you to live in, and don't bother calling the police, fire department, or paramedics if you have a serious problem. Your wildly individualistic philosophy will solve all your problems for you.
We don't have a stabble government. Your president ordered to kill two American civilians. That's stable? Jesus, do you burn incense in front of city hall of every night? And you're doing the same thing again. You're acting like I said we need to get rid of government. Are you high?
AllNightDayDream wrote:
you know if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk about it. Why even reply if you had zero substance to add for your argument other than some video of a CPAC of all things?
I ask questions regarding the nature of government and you just show some dumb examples of things they do that they like. That's avoiding the question.
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:13 pm
by AllNightDayDream
Genevieve wrote:
I did. I'm saying you blindly trust on people who have no real authority on the matters to make the right choice for millions of people. Where do they get this authority and knowledge? Someone like Bachmann gets elected into a public office. Bachmann. You trust these kinds of people to have your well being on their minds and to make the right educated choice?
Politicians aren't elected because of technical expertise, that's why there is a cabinet and committees, among other things. I trust that idiots like Bachmann won't ever be elected to such a high office.
Genevieve wrote:I cite Tom Woods. Who is at complete odds with the rest of CPAC and frequently criticized by Limbaugh and Levine. You truly believe that when someone like Perry says they are free-market, they actually are? Or Bush? Or the Republicans in general? The economic policies of the Democrats and Republicans are identical and they're all Keynsians. People like Tom Woods are a fringe in "conservatism".
You're not addressing any of the actual points. I don't care about tabloid politics. Do you even know what keynesianism is? The stimulus bill that I cited before that you ignored was a Keynesian type policy, and it produced positive results. He didn't believe free markets existed. So what is your point?
Genevieve wrote:Yep, because you transfered an opinion I don't hold on to me and used cultural signifiers that don't apply to me to make my point look less valid solely based the fact that I disagree with the notion that government should exist. Not on why and how. You did this before. 'LOLOLL CPAC! CONSERVATIVE!' Never mind that pretty much over a hundred organizations contribute to it, from libertarian (or even anarchist) ones to neo-conservative ones. Meaning, they hold opinions as different as night and day. But hey, it's CPAC! A convention of "conservatives" (most meaningless term ever), their public perception is of gun totin' yokels who hate science and love Jesus, no intelligent opinion could possibly come out of that!
I never said anything about gun totin yokels but if you wanna scream at the straw man you constructed, have at it.
Genevieve wrote:And I said society with a statist mindset, i.e., a society composed of statists, i.e. a society with individuals who believe government is out there to take care of them and don't think government takes care of itself first and foremost. You read this properly, again, you just refuse to deliberately discuss my actual point. Going on to state how Keynsian economics are more stable than austrian ones without actual statistics and merely refute the hyperinflation America has experienced since 1913, equating it with a "healthy inflation of 3%".
It's not hyperinflation when it's across the span of almost 90 years, and if you actually look into the statistics collected during the depression a huge part of the problem was deflation (all you'd have to do is look at the stats I posted before). I'm the only one here who has actually posted statistics so don't give me "without actual statistics" bullshit, you've yet to show me any actual data. I'd be more than happy to argue economics if you actually presented a supported point.
Genevieve wrote:We don't have a stabble government. Your president ordered to kill two American civilians. That's stable? Jesus, do you burn incense in front of city hall of every night? And you're doing the same thing again. You're acting like I said we need to get rid of government. Are you high?
We're speaking completely different languages here. If you cite two deaths as an indicator for an unstable government then I can't help you.
Genevieve wrote:I ask questions regarding the nature of government and you just show some dumb examples of things they do that they like. That's avoiding the question.
The question? I believe the question was whether the government would/could do anything to help the financial situation and I cited examples both recent and historical where they did. Caricaturing the government with irrelevant figures like Bachmann and Perry and posting videos of other people arguing your points for you is avoiding the question.
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:54 pm
by pkay
lololol.... this is upsetting a few occupyfacebook retards
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:13 am
by Intended Malice
Genevieve wrote:It's funny 'cause this is exactly the way the tea party started (it was started by capitalists and anti-capitalists working together to raise money for Ron Paul in the 2008 election cycle and later on they did more anti-corporate activism). Only difference is, they actually had goals and actually were active and didn't doe that hippie drum circle shit. They were even called 'terrorists' by Glenn Beck and were ridiculed by Fox News in general. And now.. well, we all know what the tea party is these days.
This is why I love occupywallstreet. Just to see how it will evolve in the media.
No it didn't, it was started by some imbecilic rant on MSM by an opportunist to convince the easily deluded that paying for people's mortgages was the sole problem for the economic disparity witnessed in the US. This precipitated into another Koch brothers contrived moniker/faux-movement with deity worship to your typical Statists like Palin and Bacchman for political ends, while trying to ride Ron Paul's coattails from 2007-2008 Presidential run. (And Rupert's abomination Beck was one of the greatest benefactors--the bastard even had the poor taste to try and re-write Thomas Paine's Common Sense.) It was and always has been regarded as a farce, it never had any validity.
Also, there is no way in hell you could convince an Anti-Capitalist to give money to Ron Paul whose entire principles, economic/foreign policy etc... rely on it as the basic premise for productive Human behavior.
I was in the Campaign for Liberty in 2007-2008, when I still forced myself to believe in deluded concept of a limited Government/State (or its existence for that matter) attained by political means. Suffice it to say, that no longer holds true.
Occupywallstreet has yet to achieve anything other than devote 85-95% of their time, resources and efforts to erecting Hoovervilles throughout the US and getting people arrested or maimed in the process; while it would be pre-mature to call it a failure I do not see the aforementioned changing in critical reform anytime soon. In the earlier stages there was talk about Bank Runs on BoA, but they have become so dismissive to being associated to any activity that may portray them in a negative light in the eyes of the MSM--which at this point should actually become a priority not an aversion. And even then it was glib as many of them failed to understand the implications of Fractional Reserve Banking and were solely fixated on the portrayal of the tired narrative of an evil business gouging its clients on fees. Which is true, but is missing the point entirely.
Awareness cannot and will not be an end itself, it is only means to an end in resolving a conflict or problem. The discussions brought up in certains General Assemblies seem well intentioned toward a desired end, but seldom stray from actual measures on how to attain said end. Claims like 'we all want jobs' lambasted over a PA isn't going to accomplish much of anything, much less since unions are becoming evermore present in this 'movement.'
It remains to been seen what they can achieve once 'they get the numbers.'
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:20 am
by NickUndercover
Way too much #Occupy and not enough #Freebuju in here
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:40 am
by karmacazee
IMO
More and more people are getting disgruntled with the whole system. I'm not just talking about young people who've seen a few documentaries and polemics on the internet either. I'm talking about bus drivers, your landlord, that geezer in the pub and the girl down the shop. The single mum pushing the pram and the doley that never leaves the sofa. Students, bankers, politicians and musicians. All walks of life, and it's a very recent thing.
Lots of people are disgruntled and everyone has an opinion, but nobody seems to be able to agree on what the best course of action is. Austerity? Violent revolution? Civil disobediance? Non-compliance? Quantitive easing? Pay back our debts?
How can we actually pay back debts so massive? It's impossible! Think of how badly the reparations on Germany messed up the entire world. After the First world war everyone was mighty pissed of at Germany (especially the French), so much so that they imposed huge, unpayable reparations on the people, and when the stock market bubble burst Germany imploded, Hitler got into power and then 60+ million people lost their lives.
Why do people put so much faith and power into a system that is essentially just an idea and a bunch of numbers on a computer? If the stock market crashes, or currencies devalue or governments default, all it really means, when you look at it objectively, is that some numbers somewhere change or are erased. The rain keeps falling, birds keep singing, the rivers keep flowing and the sun's still burning. Yet all of human civilization will grind to a painful halt when some abstract, imaginary concept turns out to have not been working.
It's kind of like finding out Santa doesn't exist. All along you believe that there's this magical force whizzing around the world making everyone happy by delivering gifts and rewards. Then one day you either find out or you figure out that it isn't real, it's all make believe. But somehow you still got presents anyway, and you still keep getting them. Nothing changed except for your idea of how presents are delivered. Did you panic and sell everything you own? No.
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:10 am
by jugo
this sums up a lot for me
"Congressman John Lewis attempted to address the group that was gathered in Atlanta.
Lewis, who was a prominent figure in the Civil Rights movement says he wanted to voice his support and solidarity with the group."
so what happened?
at the first show of hands and blocks the majority want to hear him speak. then the few blockers manage to drag it out until they got what they want.
result - a representative of the system the protesters want dialogue with, and who comes from a successful protest movement, isn't allowed to speak
see for yourself
(the 'human megaphone' repeating also reminds me of monty python's 'life of brian' to be honest.)
he was very dignified in his response
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:42 pm
by spiderbro
If someone let me have a go, I'd be like
MITREBAN
IZDURTY
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:08 pm
by magma
jugo wrote:"Congressman John Lewis attempted to address the group that was gathered in Atlanta.
Lewis, who was a prominent figure in the Civil Rights movement says all his digital tellies come with a 5 year warranty and confirms that he has never knowingly been undersold."
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:17 pm
by pkay
Can't believe that. Goes to show most of those fucks know nothing about the history of peaceful protest in this country.
John Lewis is one of the fucking Freedom Riders and is in power. Do you not see how this could be a vital dialogue to be had?
Fucking Morons
Dear John Lewis, I apologize on behalf of my generation for being full of fucking morons.... especially the minorities in the crowd who owe their livelyhood to you and those like yourself.
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:18 pm
by danny_scrilla
Rönin wrote:Way too much #Occupy and not enough #Freebuju in here
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:22 pm
by noam
magma wrote:
jugo wrote:"Congressman John Lewis attempted to address the group that was gathered in Atlanta.
Lewis, who was a prominent figure in the Civil Rights movement says all his digital tellies come with a 5 year warranty and confirms that he has never knowingly been undersold."
magma smashin it today
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:23 pm
by pompende
jugo wrote:this sums up a lot for me
"Congressman John Lewis attempted to address the group that was gathered in Atlanta.
Lewis, who was a prominent figure in the Civil Rights movement says he wanted to voice his support and solidarity with the group."
so what happened?
at the first show of hands and blocks the majority want to hear him speak. then the few blockers manage to drag it out until they got what they want.
result - a representative of the system the protesters want dialogue with, and who comes from a successful protest movement, isn't allowed to speak
see for yourself
(the 'human megaphone' repeating also reminds me of monty python's 'life of brian' to be honest.)
he was very dignified in his response
yeah the human megaphone can be very cringey! It is especially cringey when used in combination with amplification as its origin is as a novel solution to bylaws preventing the use of amplification.
I see what you mean but I feel like that is going to be a flaw in any system where you want to give every party an equal voice. And, like Frisco said...
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:06 pm
by tyger
the consensus decision-making process has its problems, duznit? ... al giordano makes some good comments on that, & the broaders tactics of OWS, in this article:
tyger wrote:the consensus decision-making process has its problems, duznit? ... al giordano makes some good comments on that, & the broaders tactics of OWS, in this article:
I think whether or not they are playing drum circles or not is rather beside the point.
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:12 am
by pkay
this was a large part of my point earlier in this thread
if you aren't willing to change the ways you consume products you will continue to create new monsters of industry... if the money can't be made off of tv's it will be made off of the related commodities... if not the commodities the land it is created on.... if not there then the supply chain.
We have to change how we consume
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:38 am
by AllNightDayDream
That has absolutely zero to do with our economic disparities. If it wasn't for our consumption of said products, none of us would have the comfortable living that we do.
Re: #Occupywallstreet >
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:53 am
by pkay
AllNightDayDream wrote:That has absolutely zero to do with our economic disparities. If it wasn't for our consumption of said products, none of us would have the comfortable living that we do.
It has everything to do with our economic disparities.
You said it... you're consuming from these corporations in order to provide a comfortable lifestyle. We enabled these companies to become so huge that their success or failure is directly linked to our countries financial well being. We, the people, made them far too powerful.
You can't keep asking for your comfortable lifestyle from these corporations and not be subject to their terms. If you ask these people to give you something, they will always control you.
I still don't get why the people of this forum think this is such a terrible notion. Do you think the level of control we give to corporations is a healthy trade off for the comforts they provide us ? You guys have to acknowledge they have far too much control right? Do you not think it's about time we gave up some of our spoiled lifestyle accessories for a bit more freedom?
you know if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk about it. Why even reply if you had zero substance to add for your argument other than some video of a CPAC of all things?
