Occupy Wall Street

[marharth]

Now, you are jumping ahead.

 

Problem is, most people aren't even trying. Don't give me this crap about corporation not allowing you to leave. Besides, they don't want to leave: I certainly like all this 'corporate influence' around me. Hell, this computer I paid for goes to the CEO's pockets!

People are protesting money in politics, not computer companies. When people say they don't like corporations they don't mean they hate star bucks. They mean they hate corporations that f*** up the country.

 

Also quit bringing communism up. Just because the left wing disagrees with you does not mean we are all Stalin lovers.

Edited November 17, 2011 by marharth

[RZ1029]

I swore I wouldn't do this, but I also swore I'd give up Cheetos's and that hasn't worked out yet, so:

 

When you take the money out of a democracy, the democracy loses power. Though Athens had open forums where anyone could speak, and practiced something resembling direct democracy, the only ideas that were ever really passed were those of the rich and powerful. Why? They had the money to make it happen.

 

And why can't communism be brought up? In reality I would draw it more akin to socialism, but honestly you're arguing over semantics if you want to get that technical. Even their slogan is something quasi-pro-restribution-of-wealth. The 99% wanting what the 1% got, by whatever means. The irony in that statement is the fact that Occupy Wall Street was started by a Canadian activist group. Yep.

 

Also, they still aren't organized, at all. I've found a half-dozen list of 'demands' that the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Oklahoma/Occupy Mexi-- oh, sorry, that's the ATF, anyways...

 

Like I was saying, it's nowhere near organized enough to make that one, clear and loud voice that you have to have in politics today. Coupled with the fact that the 'face' of the Occupy Wall Street movement is some idiot running around with a sign and a Guy Fawkes mask on. I'm totally sure he's qualified to speak on serious matters of congressional importance. Right?

 

http://images.politico.com/global/news/111021_occupy_wall_street_ap_328.jpg

http://cdn.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/tim-robbins-occupy-wall-street-600x384.jpg

 

Really? This isn't 16th century Europe. Nobody's coming to your house in the middle of the night to steal you away, necessitating the need for a mask to maintain anonymity. This is, largely, a generation of people out of college with Liberal Arts degrees, stupidly expensive student loans they were talked into, and nowhere to go.

 

http://bsimmons.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street.jpg?w=600&h=407

 

This is a little closer to what I see going on. They're clueless.

[marharth]

About half of your post is just angry insults, buy okay.

 

Are you seriously saying having money in politics is good? Do you not understand that causes a huge amount of corruption and defeats the entire purpose of a democracy in the first place?

 

Having one percent of the country controlling 49 or so percent of the wealth is not good and it causes serious economic and social problems. Why do you think wealth redistribution is instantly bad? Taxation is also technically a form of wealth redistribution.

 

What huge protest is perfectly organized?

 

Your first two images are not close to the majority, so that is not valid. Your third image just shows ignorance on the matter based on the anarchist symbol.

 

The protest is simple, and if you still can't understand it that is your own issue. The protests are about getting rid of money in politics and stopping one percent of the country from controlling nearly half of the wealth. If you know anything about history you should know that things get screwed when the upper class gains too much power.

 

The mask is a symbol. It changes nothing. Its the same thing as wearing a pin or a hat to support your point. Just because it looks different then what you are used to seeing means nothing.

[Kendo 2]

The protests are about getting rid of money in politics and stopping one percent of the country from controlling nearly half of the wealth. If you know anything about history you should know that things get screwed when the upper class gains too much power.

 

Just pointing out the obvious here about history lessons.

 

Russia 1917 and Lenin: With the help of the 'common mass' revolting, Lenin set forth a system where 1% of a politcal elite ended up controlling everything.

China 1949: Mao and later the Gang of Four did the same thing.

Idi Amin in Uganda in the 1970's, Pol Pot in Cambodia. Same scenarios, same results.

 

Trading a corrupt system for one even more corrupt is NOT a step in the right direction. We can go from 1% controlling half of everything to 1% controlling it ALL. Good intentions won't keep one small group from snatching power, no natter their polical views.

 

And Guy Fawkes was a traitor to his country and what would be defined today as a terrorist. Using that symbol from a REALLY bad movie just sends the wrong message.

[marharth]

The protests are about getting rid of money in politics and stopping one percent of the country from controlling nearly half of the wealth. If you know anything about history you should know that things get screwed when the upper class gains too much power.

 

Just pointing out the obvious here about history lessons.

 

Russia 1917 and Lenin: With the help of the 'common mass' revolting, Lenin set forth a system where 1% of a politcal elite ended up controlling everything.

China 1949: Mao and later the Gang of Four did the same thing.

Idi Amin in Uganda in the 1970's, Pol Pot in Cambodia. Same scenarios, same results.

 

Trading a corrupt system for one even more corrupt is NOT a step in the right direction. We can go from 1% controlling half of everything to 1% controlling it ALL. Good intentions won't keep one small group from snatching power, no natter their polical views.

 

And Guy Fawkes was a traitor to his country and what would be defined today as a terrorist. Using that symbol from a REALLY bad movie just sends the wrong message.

It symbolizes revolt.

 

I have no idea why you are talking about Mao and Lenin, that has nothing to do with what I said.

[Aurielius]

Reads Kendo's.....Big Book of Relevant History..then reads RZ's... Big Book of Pundit Humor...then has a very droll chuckle..well done guys. :thumbsup:

[marharth]

Reads Kendo's.....Big Book of Relevant History..then reads RZ's... Big Book of Pundit Humor...then has a very droll chuckle..well done guys. :thumbsup:

Because redistribution of wealth is Maoism and the protesters are all anarchists right?

 

Can you post something relevant or reply to the actually posts?

Edited November 17, 2011 by marharth

[Beriallord]

Redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with real Socialism. This is a neo-Liberal fad. Not all Socialists are Communists either. I'm a Socialist and I believe the ones who produce wealth should be the ones who make it. Not the ones who gain wealth by creating nothing. A banker for example, who loans $10,000 to someone at 30% interest doesn't create wealth, they feed off the ones who do. When the entire country is in debt, it is not the bankers and loan sharks who suffer, it is the ones who work and produce wealth.

 

The debt could be ended right now by Nationalizing the banks, and offer loans for people who qualify at 0% interest. Basically we eliminate the entire sector of the market that thrives off loaning money with interest. Whether anyone realizes it or not, and whether you take a loan out in your entire lifetime or not, in some way you are paying extra/making less because that banker is owed interest on loans. When a company is in debt, they have to look to cutting costs somewhere, and it is usually labor wages and benefits that get cut as a result, as well as increased prices. What is happening today? Labor is remaining stagnant and prices on everything are going up. Many jobs pay the same now as they did 10-15 years ago. In the mean time inflation has risen over 20%. So you actually make 20% less now than you did 10 years ago because of all this debt.

 

I don't believe in spreading the wealth around or any other such nonsense, but I firmly believe the ones who create wealth are the ones most deserving of it.

 

Even Marx said the ones who do not work shall not eat. So spreading the wealth around isn't even a Marxist idea.

 

The current government is not only against Conservative principles, but also against Socialist principles. I heard the term Crony Capitalist thrown around before, and I believe that is pretty accurate.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Beriallord

[ginnyfizz]

Marharth, it is the job of the staff to tell people what they can and can't post here. I am sure Aurelius is entitled to a little chuckle.

 

You do realise, I sincerely hope, that Socialism and Communism both trumpet loudly about redistributing wealth and then you find in practice that all men are equal, but some are more equal than others. Red Len McCluskey, who heads up my own trade union, has a whopping big limo, a big house paid for by the mugs...sorry, members, and a taste for fine dining. Thus Kendo's examples are highly relevant, and so is RZ1029's argument. Please don't try and tell us that these protestors would be any different.

 

"The debt could be ended right now by Nationalizing the banks"

 

REALLY? Well you could have fooled me. In Britain we had to virtually nationalise a couple of banks to stop them collapsing and it's costing us a ruddy fortune. Billions. NOT my idea of ending the debt!

 

Btw...the first five letters of your username, not anything to do with one Lavrenti I trust?

[marharth]

Marharth, it is the job of the staff to tell people what they can and can't post here. I am sure Aurelius is entitled to a little chuckle.

 

You do realise, I sincerely hope, that Socialism and Communism both trumpet loudly about redistributing wealth and then you find in practice that all men are equal, but some are more equal than others. Red Len McCluskey, who heads up my own trade union, has a whopping big limo, a big house paid for by the mugs...sorry, members, and a taste for fine dining. Thus Kendo's examples are highly relevant, and so is RZ1029's argument. Please don't try and tell us that these protestors would be any different.

 

"The debt could be ended right now by Nationalizing the banks"

 

REALLY? Well you could have fooled me. In Britain we had to virtually nationalise a couple of banks to stop them collapsing and it's costing us a ruddy fortune. Billions. NOT my idea of ending the debt!

 

Btw...the first five letters of your username, not anything to do with one Lavrenti I trust?

I didn't tell anyone to stop posting.

 

Redistribution of wealth is part of communism, so what? That does not instantly mean every other part of communism falls into it. This is really simple logic, I don't quite understand why everyone thinks that you are a Maoist for believing in a certain degree of redistribution of wealth. The examples are not valid at all. Would also like to point out once again that taxation is a form of wealth redistribution.

 

It costs a lot to save the banks due to what the banks did in their corporate structure.

Edited November 17, 2011 by marharth