Occupy people... Don't argue with a former USSRen about socialism..

[Cado]

As for how to expand beyond Wall Street and into the government, I quite like this proposal for reform:

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office
and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All
funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security
system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for
any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay
will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen
made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor,
not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours
should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Cado

My thinking is that we need to hit all fronts before this is over. That's going to take time, which is why I think it's absurd to criticize this movement because it's only focusing on Wall Street. If they were to pick one thing and stick with that and only that to the end then then both choices would be wrong.

It may not expand but it does provide an opportunity to do so and I want to see that happen and play a part in making it so as opposed to criticizing them for what they're not doing right now.

I understand where you're coming from, here, Cado, but if the movement goes at it from too many angles, it's more likely to fizzle. As I have suggested in my blog, the most successful movements went after one thing, and kept going after that one thing until they got what they sought. I also think that by hitting everything on multiple fronts, the movement appears to be disjointed, and so loses credibility, while it needs as many people on board as possible.

As far as criticism, the movement will also fail if it doesn't at least consider constructive criticism.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I understand where you're coming from, here, Cado, but if the movement goes at it from too many angles, it's more likely to fizzle. As I have suggested in my blog, the most successful movements went after one thing, and kept going after that one thing until they got what they sought. I also think that by hitting everything on multiple fronts, the movement appears to be disjointed, and so loses credibility, while it needs as many people on board as possible.

As far as criticism, the movement will also fail if it doesn't at least consider constructive criticism.

That is certainly true-but my understanding is that it's more focused than the mainstream media lets on, and there's a lot of overlap even among groups with different demands, such as reform of the derivatives market.

[Bliss Sage]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Who says it has to be like a country? You have the EU which is pretty much like different states.

Actually, it's not in most ways. The EU and the people within the respective countries have no common history as one country, every people in the respective countries have what they consider their own national identity and a unique mentality, everyone speaks a different language and people in one country don't follow what happens in another as the way we did in the U.S. and Canada, associating ourselves mentally with the people in the other provinces. There are definitive boundaries and the countries take their own stands as a nation facing the world, while the U.S. and Canada take stands and actions (internationally) as one nation for all the states or provinces.

On many levels, the separation between the EU countries may be purely psychological, but that makes a huge difference. And you can still feel very strongly that it is the country you are living in that is governing you and making the laws, not the politicians in Brussels.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

America is huge, and I love it, because I can go to different areas, and the laws are very similiar, and I don't need a passport. I can just drive and go to all the different areas. Snow in some, desert in another. Guns in some, no guns in another. Pot in some, no pot in another.

And I like Sweden because it's small, clean and safe and in Europe, which is very diverse. So far, I can still benefit from what I see as the better morals and values of the Swedish government (which are the most closely synchronized with my own of any government I've been exposed to) and still have a colorful and interesting variety of peoples and places to go very close by.

I've never had any great aspirations towards being a millionaire. I just want to experience both sides of love and be happy in my life. But I can start a business if I want, and I have. And I am a humanitarian, so I feel good helping other people when they're in need. And for the most part, even though the taxes are high here, I approve of what they are spent on and I know everyone here pays the taxes and this makes me feel good, in a way, because the government enables us, requires us to contribute to helping people less fortunate and I feel good about that. And I think because I value compassion and love, tolerance and understanding and other similar virtues, I feel best living in this country, because its system reflects my values.

Overall, it gives me a nice vague feeling of what it might be like to live in one of those ancient-type communities I've heard of where all the people in the community took care of each other instead of each person hoarding everything for the individual self.

But I acknowledge, the government in question must maintain a high degree of integrity and morality in its governance, or else the situation will go very bad for the people.

Maybe, no matter what form of system the power comes in, the key to it being good lies in the degree of integrity and morality of those wielding the power.

And yes, the smaller the country, the better socialism works.

Aha, so size does matter

Well, I have thought on several occasions that it's not so nice to live in such a huge and disjointed country and that it doesn't seem good for one center to rule such a vast land. I remember when I lived in Alberta, Canada hearing people complain about how can people in Ottawa know what we need out here...

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I, don't need, or want the government to help me with anything. I must be strange to you huh?

Not strange, just individualistic. Not someone who would live well in the kind of sharing society I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Socialism is still a fairly new concept, so to claim any country is doing it right, is foolish. We have yet to see the results. Tho, you can see many countries that are now horrible, because governments or dictators took over. A lot of EU countries are running out of money. How does that mean it's working? Health care is going broke. Sure, they all have free health care, but once everyone elses money runs out, then no one gets anything.

The country and system you're defending is doing better? The country you're defending has over 14 trillion dollars in debt and no health care or any of the social benefits the European countries have and has never had any of them either, so obviously it is not the social provisions that have caused the economic situations in the more socialist countries. And socialism has not caused the global crisis.

[Somnium Dico]

I'm jumping in a bit late, so I'll just go to the post that resonates most with me so far.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

As far as how are taxes are used. Well, yeah, protest the government! It's them using our taxes. When the government is in charge, then you rarely have a say in how all your taxes are used. The less money they have, the less they can waste. So why is everyone protesting wallstreet? .... Because they want government to spend even more. Just, on THEM, and not banks. That's called greed, which I thought is what they are against. I, don't need, or want the government to help me with anything. I must be strange to you huh?

Yes, very strange. But not because of your lack of interest in government help. You have a weird idea of what's going on and what the protests actually stand for.

You act like everyone in the protest is just skipping over the government and placing the blame straight on the wealthy, while refusing to see that in American politics, they're the same thing. Government does not have a hold on Wall Street, it is very much the other way around. We hear more and more reports about how some politician was bought out by a company/billionaire to stand and vote for specific things, and if you need a shining example, look no further than the city only an hour's drive south from me: Detroit.

The Motor City is a FANTASTIC example of how the system we have is biased towards the upper class, and how that bias can destroy the other classes. The Ambassador Bridge, which connects Detroit to Canada and is responsible for an estimated (and whopping) 25% of trade between us and Canada. The bridge is owned by a man named Manuel Moroun, a billionaire who lives in Grosse Pointe, who has made the bridge his monopoly.

And it is falling apart.

No joke, chunks of the bridge have fallen off in the past few years, and since 2004 the city of Detroit and Windsor, Ontario have been in talks to build a new bridge, called the Detroit International Crossing (DRIC for short) to replace it. Hell, Canada even offered to foot the bill and build the bridge between us FOR FREE, and it would be built in a struggling area of Detroit, bringing more commerce and jobs to the area. Everything about this is a sweet deal for the city, and there is absolutely no reason not to accept Canada's insanely generous offer.

Hell, the only person who stands to lose from this is one billionaire who's currently sitting in his mansion in Grosse Pointe, who might lose his monopoly on the trade.

Yet this proposal has been in limbo for the past 7 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ years, because our state representatives have voted against building the DRIC time and time again, even if they once said they were all for it. And funny enough, these politicians have all, ALL, openly accepted substantial "donations" from ol' Matty Moroun's corporate empire. And Detroit has slowly turned into a jobless, decaying slum because of it.

This is the thing we're against. It has nothing to do with wanting a hand-out from the government, it's the need for EQUALITY. That everyone have a fair opportunity to thrive, and that one rich man can't hold back the progress of an entire town/city/country. Because that IS happening in the USA right now, and if you don't see it, it's because you're blind.

No, excuse me, that's not quite right. It's because you're not bothering, or just plain refusing, to look.

The money that was given to the banks and Wall Street to bail them out? That wasn't the government's money. That was tax money. OUR money. And instead of being given back to us, it was given to the people who screwed us over in the first place under the facade that they were going to use it to restore the system. Instead, things only got worse, and stories of the CEOs getting pay-raises while there was apparently no money to support the institutions of the working class were prevalent.

If you think this is about a hand-out, or about Socialism or whatever buzz word you use to demean people who demand equality, you're an idiot. It's about accountability. It's about casting the boot off of our necks and being able to stand up again without the say-so of some rich bastards and their puppets up on capitol hill.

And so far, consider the radical response from the police departments, I say we're getting somewhere.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Cado

RR, what I see you doing is complaining that they're disrupting the status quo. That's the point-nothing gets done if you don't disrupt the status quo, and if you need permits or the like to do that then you'll never be able to succeed. A "designated protest area" is doublespeak for "this is where we put you so we can ignore you."

There's a lot of emotion here without a whole lot of facts on your end. This story is so big and complicated with so many different kinds of people involved, and the mainstream media has a vested interest in protecting big business and government so we're not going to get clear, undiluted truth from them.

The most important thing with these protests is that we communicate that we won't take corruption lying down. That's all it will take to be effective. If specific demands are made-and people have made some-then that's icing on the cake.

Our government is corrupt and corporations pay off our politicians. You can't attack one without attacking the other, and focusing on the corporate end of things will likely prove as effective as a march on washington, perhaps more so. It shows that we can't be scapegoated away from the practices of the corrupt who work through our system without accepting any of the consequences for their actions.

They want us angry at the government. It's evident by the tactical choices they've made. And it needs a lot of reform-our elected officials need to be held accountable-but let's restore democracy first by refusing to let the top 1% buy our system through rigged elections. They don't miscount the votes or prevent us from accessing information on third party candidates but they work the media in such a way that 90% of the time we end up making the choices they want us to make. We can't let that fly anymore. Part of that requires personal responsibility but that in no way lets them off the hook for what's already been done.

First off, it's not about not disrupting the status que. It's about not bothering the wrong people. I say, disrupt the status quo. Go for it. I agreed with WikiLeaks. I find things like this interesting. I personally find the occupy people interesting, but only in as much as it being a joke, and seeing them shoot themselves in the food over and over again. Plus, will be interesting to see what happens when it gets cold. I'm not against 99%. I just don't believe THEY represent the 99%. They just thing they do.

You claim nothing gets done with permits. Then why is it that the Tea Party has been so effective, and has pissed off so much of government? They've done it legally. They've never gotten into riots with police. They never leave a huge swaff of garbage everywhere they go. They go home at the end of the day. Yet, some how, they've managed to make a lot of changes, and not piss off the people who have no say in the matters that they are upset about.

As far as Occupy. What do you see happening with it exactly? They are trying to piss of the 1%. Do you think the 1% are getting pissed off? DO you really feel that they are bothered right now? Most are laughing. Their lives are just fine, and they don't have a care in the world, because they see that nothing will happen from it. The people who are getting upset, are the SMALL business' and the community. Like I said, if you want to get something done, don't march through and camp out in my neighborhood. I don't make the decisions. City hall is right down the street.

No one agrees with corruption. We get that already. We want things to change. I see absolutely no way that things are going to change with the Occupy people, aside from the government taking even MORE control, because that's exactly what they want.

So, it's all my emotion and very little facts, but you know the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I doubt that, sorry.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Cado

My thinking is that we need to hit all fronts before this is over. That's going to take time, which is why I think it's absurd to criticize this movement because it's only focusing on Wall Street. If they were to pick one thing and stick with that and only that to the end then then both choices would be wrong.

It may not expand but it does provide an opportunity to do so and I want to see that happen and play a part in making it so as opposed to criticizing them for what they're not doing right now.

Why pick wallstreet first? Why does it have to be all front? It's already been said, that spreading yourself thin, only dilutes the message. Most people don't even understand Occupy's message, let alone if they actually started to dilute it more.

If they picked GOVERNMENT, then I literally see no reason why that choice would be wrong. Government makes the decisions. THEY hold the ultimate power in the end. There is no one better to protest then them. It's not absurd to criticize this movement for my reasons, because I view, and MANY others view, that focusing on wall street focuses on the wrong people, and will not accomplish anything, because we all know they will not go after the government. Imagine if both the tea party and occupy both focused on the government instead of being on two opposite side.

[James Fletcher]

Why isn't anyone in the Occupy movement following up on Solyndra? A solar panel construction company that wasn't bailed out, but received a government loan of $535 million, then went bankrupt.

In fact, why is Obama's role in the cronyism that OWS is supposedly protesting receiving pretty much no scrutiny?

Instead, the idiots are selectively targeting wealthy individuals based on political differences, e.g. Rupert Murdoch.

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

And I like Sweden because it's small, clean and safe and in Europe, which is very diverse. So far, I can still benefit from what I see as the better morals and values of the Swedish government (which are the most closely synchronized with my own of any government I've been exposed to) and still have a colorful and interesting variety of peoples and places to go very close by.

I've never had any great aspirations towards being a millionaire. I just want to experience both sides of love and be happy in my life. But I can start a business if I want, and I have. And I am a humanitarian, so I feel good helping other people when they're in need. And for the most part, even though the taxes are high here, I approve of what they are spent on and I know everyone here pays the taxes and this makes me feel good, in a way, because the government enables us, requires us to contribute to helping people less fortunate and I feel good about that. And I think because I value compassion and love, tolerance and understanding and other similar virtues, I feel best living in this country, because its system reflects my values.

Sweden was once a great country with a strong work ethic that was, unfortunately, hijacked by socialists who have created generations who have shunned that work ethic and instead expect entitlements on the backs of the few hard working individuals that remain.

Take a look at what's going on in another well-known welfare state, Greece. That's what Sweden will look like, when other people's money runs out.

I don't think I'd last long in Sweden. If a street beggar asked me for some change and I called him lazy and told him to get a job, could I be jailed for hate speech?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Somnium Dico

I'm jumping in a bit late, so I'll just go to the post that resonates most with me so far.



Yes, very strange. But not because of your lack of interest in government help. You have a weird idea of what's going on and what the protests actually stand for.

You act like everyone in the protest is just skipping over the government and placing the blame straight on the wealthy, while refusing to see that in American politics, they're the same thing. Government does not have a hold on Wall Street, it is very much the other way around. We hear more and more reports about how some politician was bought out by a company/billionaire to stand and vote for specific things, and if you need a shining example, look no further than the city only an hour's drive south from me: Detroit.

The Motor City is a FANTASTIC example of how the system we have is biased towards the upper class, and how that bias can destroy the other classes. The Ambassador Bridge, which connects Detroit to Canada and is responsible for an estimated (and whopping) 25% of trade between us and Canada. The bridge is owned by a man named Manuel Moroun, a billionaire who lives in Grosse Pointe, who has made the bridge his monopoly.

And it is falling apart.

No joke, chunks of the bridge have fallen off in the past few years, and since 2004 the city of Detroit and Windsor, Ontario have been in talks to build a new bridge, called the Detroit International Crossing (DRIC for short) to replace it. Hell, Canada even offered to foot the bill and build the bridge between us FOR FREE, and it would be built in a struggling area of Detroit, bringing more commerce and jobs to the area. Everything about this is a sweet deal for the city, and there is absolutely no reason not to accept Canada's insanely generous offer.

Hell, the only person who stands to lose from this is one billionaire who's currently sitting in his mansion in Grosse Pointe, who might lose his monopoly on the trade.

Yet this proposal has been in limbo for the past 7 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ years, because our state representatives have voted against building the DRIC time and time again, even if they once said they were all for it. And funny enough, these politicians have all, ALL, openly accepted substantial "donations" from ol' Matty Moroun's corporate empire. And Detroit has slowly turned into a jobless, decaying slum because of it.

This is the thing we're against. It has nothing to do with wanting a hand-out from the government, it's the need for EQUALITY. That everyone have a fair opportunity to thrive, and that one rich man can't hold back the progress of an entire town/city/country. Because that IS happening in the USA right now, and if you don't see it, it's because you're blind.

No, excuse me, that's not quite right. It's because you're not bothering, or just plain refusing, to look.

The money that was given to the banks and Wall Street to bail them out? That wasn't the government's money. That was tax money. OUR money. And instead of being given back to us, it was given to the people who screwed us over in the first place under the facade that they were going to use it to restore the system. Instead, things only got worse, and stories of the CEOs getting pay-raises while there was apparently no money to support the institutions of the working class were prevalent.

If you think this is about a hand-out, or about Socialism or whatever buzz word you use to demean people who demand equality, you're an idiot. It's about accountability. It's about casting the boot off of our necks and being able to stand up again without the say-so of some rich bastards and their puppets up on capitol hill.

And so far, consider the radical response from the police departments, I say we're getting somewhere.

Uh, they are the 99% and they are against the 1%. Did I miss anything? They ARE putting the blame on the wealthy. That's their entire premise. They are specifically going after corporate and not government. Government has control over everything that they want. Corporate just gets to influence them. So, be against government being influenced. You think that the government couldn't just say no? They choose not to, to save their own butts. You're blaming the horse, for the cart breaking. I haven't seen a single thing come out of them against government. Well, except for wanting more and more government help. I'd say YOU have a weird idea of what the protests stand for. . And just because you think you are part of them, doesn't mean you know them, or how they all work. You aren't in charge last time I checked.

As far as your example. Yeah, government is corrupt. That's the point. So, as I've said a dozen times, protest them! The rich man didn't do it. He might have had influence, but in the end, it's still the government that can't decide. More and more bureaucracy going on.

Everyone has a fair opportunity to thrive. That's the fallacy behind this movement. People might have an opportunity to become billionaires, but EVERYONE can thrive. I don't know how many times I have to bring up my family as an example of that. Piss poor immigrants with no English. Yet, my entire family is thriving. Only assistance we ever got, was some food stamps for my grand mother. She was 85, and she wanted them, so what ever.

This is the land of opportunity. I literally can't see a single hurdle in my way. Only thing I can't do, is become president. No one is stopping me from doing anything else. I've seen people from every single possible walk of life succeed. The welfare system is what has ruined people. It's created generations of people who don't know the meaning of work. People who would rather stay home, and get free money, then work. You have entire section 8 areas like that. Those are about the only people I see not given the chance to succeed, because you are handicapping them. But, all I see is talk of even more government assistance. Instead of actually teaching self reliance. We came here to escape government help, not to have more put on us.

You judge and judge and judge me. Calling me an idiot. or just blind. Who possibly gives you the right to judge me, while holding yourself and your ideas in such high regard? What makes YOU right and ME wrong?

You bring up the bailouts. Well, that was the GOVERNMENT, yet again. The government forced banks to be fair an equal, so that everyone gets a mortgage. And once that failed, the government had to bail them out, because of the governments own mistake. They paid for their mistake. Were the banks greedy? Sure. But the government literally forced their hand. And if I remember hearing correctly, most of the bailout money has been paid back. It wasn't free money. It was a loan.

The radical response from the police department, was in response to radical actions. You aren't getting ANYWHERE but pissing off the wrong people. You've just proven my point. I've heard many occupy people say it. The goal is to piss off the police, to get your point across. And you've clearly just stated that. The tea party never had police action , and they've accomplished more then you guys will EVER. Should have at least started it after winter is over. You will disband very soon.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Why isn't anyone in the Occupy movement following up on Solyndra? A solar panel construction company that wasn't bailed out, but received a government loan of $535 million, then went bankrupt.

In fact, why is Obama's role in the cronyism that OWS is supposedly protesting receiving pretty much no scrutiny?

Instead, the idiots are selectively targeting wealthy individuals based on political differences, e.g. Rupert Murdoch.

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Sweden was once a great country with a strong work ethic that was, unfortunately, hijacked by socialists who have created generations who have shunned that work ethic and instead expect entitlements on the backs of the few hard working individuals that remain.

Take a look at what's going on in another well-known welfare state, Greece. That's what Sweden will look like, when other people's money runs out.

I don't think I'd last long in Sweden. If a street beggar asked me for some change and I called him lazy and told him to get a job, could I be jailed for hate speech?

OMG, it's a miracle. Someone who isn't on the side of occupy and socialism ( oh, sorry, socialism is a buzz word that doesn't exist) . Thank you for voicing your opinion. Be ready to be flamed for your opinion tho, because your probably blind and an idiot like me

Oh, and if they complained about Solyndra, then they'd be making their president look bad. They haven't said a single bad word about Obama, and they aren't going to start now.

[russianrocket]

For everyone against permits LOL.

Occupy Madison loses permit for public masturbation- News - The Daily Cardinal - University of Wisconsin-Madison

Elucidate told us about seeing mental masturbation. Now, we have psychical masturbation

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

psychical masturbation

?

You mean physical, dontcha?

Oh, and ...ew. How is public masturbation helping the cause, can someone tell me?

I'm sure it's only one or two oddballs making the rest look bad, and probably exaggerated by the media report...probably some dude scratching his balls through his pants and hotel staff freaked out.

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

OMG, it's a miracle. Someone who isn't on the side of occupy and socialism ( oh, sorry, socialism is a buzz word that doesn't exist) . Thank you for voicing your opinion. Be ready to be flamed for your opinion tho, because your probably blind and an idiot like me

It's all good. Given the choice of being a delinquent trespassing and loitering in the street waving a flag emblazoned with the image of a tyrannic murderer (Che Guevara), OR being a so-called capitalist bastard, I'll be a bastard, any day.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

?

You mean physical, dontcha?

Oh, and ...ew. How is public masturbation helping the cause, can someone tell me?

I'm sure it's only one or two oddballs making the rest look bad, and probably exaggerated by the media report...probably some dude scratching his balls through his pants and hotel staff freaked out.

Well, it's less media then normal. It's just some college media. It's not fox or cnn.

I just feel that while they are an odd ball, this protest attracts odd balls.

and yes lol physical . I'm an immagrant I still have trouble with certain words like that. Freaken English, it makes no sense! Until 5 grade, I still said throw and through as frow and frough. I just couldn't understand the concept of TUH RUH. I still have better language skills then my American counter parts, so it was all good.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I'm an immagrant

You mean immigrant don't you?

I still have trouble with certain words like that. Freaken English, it makes no sense! Until 5 grade, I still said throw and through as frow and frough. I just couldn't understand the concept of TUH RUH. I still have better language skills then my American counter parts, so it was all good.

English is a surprisingly difficult language to learn if you aren't a native speaker of it.

In Australia loads of people say stuff like "learn freakin english" to asian immigrants, or others...and I've been guilty of saying it myself in the past...until I really started to appreciate how hard grammar is to grasp and what a complex language it really is.

Now I'm much more sympathetic with people who at least are trying to learn it. There are people who moved here 30 years ago though, who still haven't even bothered to try and learn it...and they get no sympathy from me.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

You mean immigrant don't you?



English is a surprisingly difficult language to learn if you aren't a native speaker of it.

In Australia loads of people say stuff like "learn freakin english" to asian immigrants, or others...and I've been guilty of saying it myself in the past...until I really started to appreciate how hard grammar is to grasp and what a complex language it really is.

Now I'm much more sympathetic with people who at least are trying to learn it. There are people who moved here 30 years ago though, who still haven't even bothered to try and learn it...and they get no sympathy from me.

damn you lol.

Oh and, I like how you responded minutes after I posted about you in this thread like you get some kinda warning any time your name is mentioned. Wasn't even sure you'd see it.

And yeah. English grammar can be hard to grasp. I came here when I was 6, so I learned instantly. Had to teach my dad how to speak properly. lol still haven't finished teaching him, 20 years later. Some of the things he says, are just to funny.

As far as people who don't learn English. If people have trouble speaking, that's ok. Many people here, mainly Hispanics, don't even care to learn. They don't have to. I've been in parts of my state, where you can't live if you don't speak Spanish. It's the same way I feel about welfare. Society conforms to them, instead of the other way around. A few generations later, and society is molded to them, and they have no reason to change it.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

damn you lol.

hehehehe.

Oh and, I like how you responded minutes after I posted about you in this thread like you get some kinda warning any time your name is mentioned. Wasn't even sure you'd see it.

You sound like you were deliberately trying to catch my attention rr?

But yes, when I see my name I get this jolt of "yes...I'm recognized...I'm famous"

And yeah. English grammar can be hard to grasp. I came here when I was 6, so I learned instantly. Had to teach my dad how to speak properly. lol still haven't finished teaching him, 20 years later. Some of the things he says, are just to funny.

Children have the advantage as they are more capable of absorbing and storing the information and adapting I think. It gets harder the older you get.

As far as people who don't learn English. If people have trouble speaking, that's ok. Many people here, mainly Hispanics, don't even care to learn. They don't have to. I've been in parts of my state, where you can't live if you don't speak Spanish. It's the same way I feel about welfare. Society conforms to them, instead of the other way around. A few generations later, and society is molded to them, and they have no reason to change it.

It just makes it harder for natives to know what the hell they are saying, and especially if they are going to open a shop say, if they can't even speak english, then guarenteed they will lose business from the english speaking population, who aren't so patient.

That's funny what you said about society conforming to them instead of the other way around. I don't think it's the same here...at least not where I have lived? Usually people form their own communities and rarely stray outside of them, so they don't really need to learn english, but it causes some resentment from english speakers when communication is then unable to happen because they don't make the effort.

Many do though, especially immigrants who have been in detention, as they want as much as possible to 'assimilate' into the community and try and get back to having a semblance of 'normal' life.

I don't really know anyone who has learnt vietnamese to fit in with the viet community, though I do still want to learn sign language so deaf people can feel more integrated. It's been on my "to do" list for a while now.

[russianrocket]

I've mentioned it about 6 times now, since we started talking about OccupyWallstreet, but no one has bothered to respond.

How does everyone feel about them occupying a private park, and having the rights of the property owner, completely stepped on? Or does their freedom of speech rights counter the rights of the property owner? Is there a reason everyone has ignored me, or does that point dilute your argument of their freedom to protest?



Here is another interesting article. I know, it's just as bad as posting something from the huffington post, but bare with me.

NYFD Removes Gas, Generators From Protest - Bloomberg

How long do you think they'll survive without their computers?

On another note, pay close attention to a few things they mentioned.

One, being the protest outside of a bank, asking them to modify loans. How is that not going straight for big banks, and leaving the government who is responsible, completely alone?

Another, being the arrest of one of the protestors who threaded a fox reporter with a knife, saying he'll slit their throats.

Also, will they get tickets for littering all those paper airplanes at bank of America? Everyone says how horrible the policy are, and how their rights are being trampled on, but I personally have seen a lot of restraint. They are getting away with so many illegal things, when any of the rest of us, would be in big trouble. The government is catering to them.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Why isn't anyone in the Occupy movement following up on Solyndra? A solar panel construction company that wasn't bailed out, but received a government loan of $535 million, then went bankrupt.

In fact, why is Obama's role in the cronyism that OWS is supposedly protesting receiving pretty much no scrutiny?

Instead, the idiots are selectively targeting wealthy individuals based on political differences, e.g. Rupert Murdoch.

Just to add one more thing. The Occupy protesters should be FURIOUS with Obama. Obama has bailed out the banks, bailed out the auto companies, hired corrupt bankers to staff our government, taken record amounts of money from wall street corporations, passed tax cuts for the ultra-rich, stripped Americans of their civil liberties, extended America's illegal foreign wars, and on and on!

If the Occupy movement actually had any integrity at all they'd be waving anti-Obama signs right next to their anti-Wall Street signs. But, we all know that OCW is just a biased radical branch of the Dem party. When the Dems get voted out, you'll see protesters against government, from the Dem side. Tho, I doubt they'll last the winter, let alone into the election year.

[Brutha]

As for how to expand beyond Wall Street and into the government, I quite like this proposal for reform:

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office
and receives no pay when they are out of office.
[...]Serving in Congress is an honor,
not a career.

So basically your solution to the problem of corrupt politicans is to make it easier for corporations to bribe them.
You even want congressman to have the duty to receive money from other people while they are in office.

The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours
should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.

The founders created a system where banks could legally buy politicians to advocate their interests.
Let's restore everything as it was envisioned by them.

We should rather go the other direction. Find systems where congressman don't have to take jobs as lobbyists to earn money to eat after they leave congress.

They are getting away with so many illegal things, when any of the rest of us, would be in big trouble.

The government actually did arrest people from Occupy WS.

How does everyone feel about them occupying a private park, and having the rights of the property owner, completely stepped on?

The owner of the park is a corporation with twenty billion dollar in assets.

When the corporation asked for the removal of the occupy people the didn't even mention the issue of the occupy people producing a financial damage.

The corporation basically said:
"Look we accept your right to free speech but as you are camping one the park our daily cleaning team can't operate inside the park."
Then Occupy WS called them on their bluff and cleaned the park themselves.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The government actually did arrest people from Occupy WS.
The owner of the park is a corporation with twenty billion dollar in assets.

When the corporation asked for the removal of the occupy people the didn't even mention the issue of the occupy people producing a financial damage.

The corporation basically said:
"Look we accept your right to free speech but as you are camping one the park our daily cleaning team can't operate inside the park."
Then Occupy WS called them on their bluff and cleaned the park themselves.

Some cities decided to fix the problem, by arresting people who were rioting, yes. The government, tho, is supporting the OCW, and I doubt they'd do anything to really stop it.

Who cares if the owner of the park is a corporation? It's still private property, period. They are being nice about letting them stay, even tho it breaks the rules that they set, and they have EVERY right to kick them to the curb. Well, the other curb, not their curb. As far as calling their bluff. It wasn't a bluff. They wanted to clean up. You claim OCW cleaned up. In reality, Bloomberg said no to the people being kicked out, so the park can be cleaned up. How about all the dead grass that they had recently planted? It just shows really badly, when the movement originates on private property, and everyone is yelling free speech, when they are being asked to leave. And, the park is NOT cleaned. And, they are still making a mess in all the stores they go to the bathroom in. And, they are still crapping on peoples porches.

Your post still doesn't answer my main point. Does freedom of speech supersede someones property rights? And why does not a single person bring it up, let alone anyone on here actually responding to that point, when they are more then happy to respond to all my other points.

[russianrocket]

I saw a really good post today, in response to someone claiming that this is like the Vietnam War protests.

The problem with the Vietnam War protestors was that after correctly identifying the problem, they completely flubbed coming up with a solution, which resulted in the movement becoming less “The US needs to get out of this war” and more “This US needs to lose this war”. I feel a similar way about OWS. On one hand I think that there was a lot of fraud going on on Wall Street, which they have yet to be held to account for, and when it blew up in their faces it was made worse by making me pay for cleaning up the mess. The problem is that all of OWS’s solutions seem to be more about making sure I get an equal share of their suffering than it is about actually addressing the problem.

To give a personal example, my college degree is in Computer Science. When I was applying to schools, I got into Carnegie Mellon (which is pretty much the best compuer science school in the country and Penn State (which has a good computer science program as well, but is definitely second tier). Even though Carnegie Mellon was my first choice, when I looked at the numbers I came to realize I was looking at the difference between being $20k in debt at graduation or being $100k in debt. I chose to go to Penn State, because as much as I wanted to go to Carnegie Mellon, it wasn’t worth the additional $80k in debt. But as the years have past, I occasionally find myself wistfully wondering how my life would have been different if I’d made the other choice.

Now I look at OWS and see a lot of people who decided, “damn the expense, I want the gold plated education”, and now want me to, in addition to paying off my student loans, pay off theirs as well. And in reality, that has nothing to do with Wall Street, and it pisses me off to no end.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

OMG, it's a miracle. Someone who isn't on the side of occupy and socialism ( oh, sorry, socialism is a buzz word that doesn't exist) . Thank you for voicing your opinion. Be ready to be flamed for your opinion tho, because your probably blind and an idiot like me

Guh, you're like a broken record. You don't hear the other side at all.

Keep wailing on your strawmen, RR. I'm done.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Cado

Guh, you're like a broken record. You don't hear the other side at all.

Keep wailing on your strawmen, RR. I'm done.

Guh, you're like a broken record, you don't hear the other side at all.


Wait, you just said that to me...


What makes you believe YOUR side is the correct one and I'M the one who is wrong here? I've heard the other side. Thanks for assuming I haven't. I've looked into it. I've spoken with people. What makes you possibly think that because I don't agree with you, that I just don't know or understand? I've come up with very reasonable arguments. Yet, you claim they are strawmen. Sure, go right ahead with that. Take your ball and go home.

[Brutha]

Your post still doesn't answer my main point. Does freedom of speech supersede someones property rights? And why does not a single person bring it up, let alone anyone on here actually responding to that point, when they are more then happy to respond to all my other points.

There's a reason why the freedom of speech is written down in the first ammendment.
It's because it's the most important one.

It's a higher good than the right of a corporation to own property which the funders of the US didn't put into the constitution.

Who cares if the owner of the park is a corporation?

The talking point that you use specifically avoids to say that the park is owned by a big corporation.
I don't know whether you are simply repeating the talking point of somebody else or thought it up on your own, but the choice of language makes it clear that you know that there an issue. Obviously, you care.

They wanted to clean up. You claim OCW cleaned up. In reality, Bloomberg said no to the people being kicked out, so the park can be cleaned up.

Your ideology prevents you from seeing the power struggle in the situation.

Bloomberg wanted to kick them out but lost. They outmanuvered him.

Unlike the actual historic tea party with directly broke the law, the tea party people simply got permits without acutally entering the conflict with government power.

[Beingist]

Some responses.....

Originally Posted by russianrocket

[...] why is it that the Tea Party has been so effective, and has pissed off so much of government? They've done it legally. They've never gotten into riots with police. They never leave a huge swaff of garbage everywhere they go. They go home at the end of the day. Yet, some how, they've managed to make a lot of changes, and not piss off the people who have no say in the matters that they are upset about.[...]The Tea Party was pretty ineffective, until they got co-opted by the Republican Party. They can thank their effectiveness, then, to the Republicans, not protests.

In fact, that's the main reason why I can't support them.

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Why isn't anyone in the Occupy movement following up on Solyndra? A solar panel construction company that wasn't bailed out, but received a government loan of $535 million, then went bankrupt.

In fact, why is Obama's role in the cronyism that OWS is supposedly protesting receiving pretty much no scrutiny?

This is the main reason why I can't support the OWS movement.

Which sucks. I can't support anyone.

Oh, except Ron Paul. I'll vote for him. But that's really all I can do.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

For everyone against permits LOL.

Occupy Madison loses permit for public masturbation- News - The Daily Cardinal - University of Wisconsin-Madison

Elucidate told us about seeing mental masturbation. Now, we have psychical masturbation

Yes, I thought of Luce's comment myself, when I read that.

Originally Posted by Brutha

When the corporation asked for the removal of the occupy people the didn't even mention the issue of the occupy people producing a financial damage.

The corporation basically said:
"Look we accept your right to free speech but as you are camping one the park our daily cleaning team can't operate inside the park."
Then Occupy WS called them on their bluff and cleaned the park themselves.

I read somewhere that Michael Bloomberg's wife is on the Board of the Corporation that owns the park.

Now that's collusion for ya!

[Bliss Sage]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Sweden was once a great country with a strong work ethic that was, unfortunately, hijacked by socialists who have created generations who have shunned that work ethic and instead expect entitlements on the backs of the few hard working individuals that remain.

Take a look at what's going on in another well-known welfare state, Greece. That's what Sweden will look like, when other people's money runs out.

I don't think I'd last long in Sweden. If a street beggar asked me for some change and I called him lazy and told him to get a job, could I be jailed for hate speech?

Did you forget this country is socialist? There are no street beggars in Sweden. Or maybe just in Stockholm and possibly the random beggar in the 2nd and 3rd largest cities, but not elsewhere. So your question is irrelevant.

Street beggars and jailed for hate speech? That's absurd, this is not the U.S.

And I am sure Sweden will never be in Greece's situation.

Sweden has always been run by socialists as far as I can remember, which goes back to the 1980's when I was here the first time. All the political parties that are considered right-wing in this country except for one (akin to a neo-nazi party, which corresponds best to the Republican party) are more liberal and "socialist" than even the American democratic party.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

Did you forget this country is socialist? There are no street beggars in Sweden. Or maybe just in Stockholm and possibly the random beggar in the 2nd and 3rd largest cities, but not elsewhere. So your question is irrelevant.

Street beggars and jailed for hate speech? That's absurd, this is not the U.S.

And I am sure Sweden will never be in Greece's situation.

Sweden has always been run by socialists as far as I can remember, which goes back to the 1980's when I was here the first time. All the political parties that are considered right-wing in this country except for one (akin to a neo-nazi party, which corresponds best to the Republican party) are more liberal and "socialist" than even the American democratic party.

I found this interesting. I wonder how much of it is true.
Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism

Also, dating back to 1980's, doesn't even remotely give you enough justification to say that Socialism works, or that Sweden will never been in Greece's situation. Not to mention, but you didn't actually say WHY it won't be in Greece's situation. Just, that it won't be. No matter how much you claim it does. Sweden socialism only works so far, and for so long. I swear I even remember the Swedes telling America to slow down on the Socialism. I need to find that. The countries of the EU are hanging on by their finger nails to support their nanny states. America might not be working right now, and I've never said our CURRENT system is better, but their system sure as hell isn't working either. How much money have those countries gotten in bailouts exactly?

Why the latest eurozone bail-out is destined to fail within weeks - Telegraph

I'm sure everyone will just blame it all on the US tho...

[russianrocket]

Read the details in the article carefully. There are some really dumb things mentioned.

Fiend attacks protester in her tent

She said that weeks earlier another woman was raped.

“We don’t tell anyone,” she said. “We handle it internally. I said too much already.”

So what has happened, that no one has even heard about?

The private owner of the park, will get sued soon. They are allowing it, after all. At least so that they don't look bad in the publics eye. Don't wanna be big bad 1% kicking out the 99%ers. But, it is quite ironic, that they are protesting the 1% in a park owned by the 1% and the 1% is allowing them to protest them... Doesn't that kinda take away from the protest?