Occupy Wall Street

  • (15 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15

216 Replies - 10475 Views - Last Post: 16 December 2011 - 10:05 AM

#181 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2538
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,641
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:28 PM

Yes, you responded to a comment I made to KYA.

I responded to that comment you directed at me... pointing out that yes you made a logical and coherent argument. Implying that KYA did not.

That was the purpose of my using the word you.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#182 WolfCoder  Icon User is offline

  • Isn't a volcano just an angry hill?
  • member icon


Reputation: 790
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Joined: 05-May 05

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:09 PM

I love arguing about arguing.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#183 Choscura  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover


Reputation: 467
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,228
  • Joined: 18-October 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 04 November 2011 - 03:27 PM

No you don't! You love arguing about loving to argue!
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#184 KYA  Icon User is offline

  • g++ jameson.cpp -o beverage
  • member icon

Reputation: 3120
  • View blog
  • Posts: 19,163
  • Joined: 14-September 07

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 04 November 2011 - 04:17 PM

I find it hilarious that Oakland taxpayers paid for the city to be shut down for a day. The mayor doesn't control that decision for private business so I must, by the power of elimination, be referring to public employees. Seems pretty clear, that post had a clarity index of 12.


Allow me to clarify what 'clarity index of 12' means: if you passed high school in the United States, you should be able to understand what it says.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#185 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2538
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,641
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 04 November 2011 - 10:24 PM

I's be retarded...

hurr durr durr

I didn't passa da high school. I has no idea how I even feeds myself or program these compooter thingies.

This from the same man who spewed this nonsense:

Quote

OWS in a nutshell: State is God. No oil. No military. Even more government spending. Illegal immigration encouraged. More government. More taxes. More abortion. Calls for violence against Jews, bankers, business owners and Republicans. Delighted with the fact that policies from Washington are designed to modify behavior and disappointed that in the last couple of years these policies have not been more forceful. Results as of this moment: Confusion, arrests, a shocked and disgusted public which sees them defecating on police cars, complaints of public masturbation, smoking dope, selling drugs, sexual assault, fighting with the police, trashing everything they touch, walking around naked, having sex publicly, pimping/prostitution of underage kids, investing their donations in a bank, repeating en masse what they are told in strange organized rituals, spitting on military members, desecrating the American flag, getting support of Iran, North Korea, David Duke and the Nazi and Communist parties, not working, lying, cheating, stealing, and generally damaging all the businesses around them.


And you wonder why I question what it is you're exactly trying to say.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#186 KYA  Icon User is offline

  • g++ jameson.cpp -o beverage
  • member icon

Reputation: 3120
  • View blog
  • Posts: 19,163
  • Joined: 14-September 07

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:48 AM

That's pretty clear too, but I'll elaborate:

This movement is misguided.

Why?

Regardless of any other subtexts I think we can all agree that the main reason, the general consensus, is that these people are pissed about the Wall Street individuals who wrapped up sub-prime mortgages and sold them as AAA securities which played a significant role in the crash of 2008 and the subsequent recession. These people then walked away unscathed with millions of dollars, a golden parachute, whatever metaphor you wish to bestow upon it.

The call is that these people should be prosecuted. However, America is a nation of laws and thus, to be prosecuted, one must break a law. What these people did is no doubt unethical, shady, etc.. but it is not illegal. There is a distinction. Thus, if they had actually engaged in criminal behavior and were not prosecuted then it is a failure of government.

Neither one of the past two administrations brought charges against these people. In fact, the federal government encouraged "risky" lending through such organizations as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This brings into the discussion a whole other issue regarding America's obsession of home ownership and what all that entails, but that is a tangent we don't really need to go down, but know that mindset played/continues to play a large role in dictating policy. The real problem, that I don't think the Occupy movement is addressing, is the concept of private profits and public debt. This absolves corporations/groups of financial responsibility when they can sell their crap investments to taxpayers and "get off scot free". Offloading debt publicly and then scooping up the profits privately is grossly unethical. If you're going to take risk, you must bear the consequences of that risk.

If you have a brother who is terrible at managing money, you don't give him more money in hopes that he will will pull his head out of his ass. Thus, the bailouts starting with the Bush administration set a terrible precedent for his successor. The market would have corrected itself had the organizations that dabbled extensively with these toxic assets simply gone under. Instead, we put the economy on life support by saving them and merely kicked the can down the road.

All of that to say, if people are truly pissed about the legality of Wall Street's actions, they are protesting in the wrong place. Why are they not camped outside the White House and the Justice department? Symbolism. I get it, Wall Street is the face of your dissent, but then why are you encouraging people to protest wherever they are? The municipal government of Oakland, California had nothing to do with the Wall Street bailouts. California's debt crisis is a whole other kettle of fish, though related somewhat, really has no bearing on the topic at hand.

So you have a bunch of people who are pissed off, camping wherever it is convenient for them (which is quite American), to protest the actions of a few without understanding the context surrounding it.

Anytime you have a protest you're always going to attract "the crazy". Since the movement, by its own degree and very nature, has no central governing authority, their message, however poignant, is diluted by retards running through the camp raping people, people defecating on cop cars, so on and so forth.

Then you have the whole, "let anyone who has something to say have the bullhorn". An attempt at pure democracy, but as we all have seen over the last few weeks, this doesn't work. Not to mention that the United States has never been a pure democracy. We are a constitutional republic. When you let anyone with a pulse come up to the microphone you get people spouting nonsense like "we should print our own money". This adds to the mixed messaging and turns people away due to the idiocy of these statements.

On top of all of this, no one is addressing the concept of living beyond your means. The "common folk" have to budget, scrimp and save, but the government and these "fat cats" don't and that's "not fair". Of course it's not fair, life isn't fair. But you cannot legislate your way to economic equality. Take the example of 100 men on an island: if you order the men in a single line from lowest amount of wealth to the highest and you have the richest man distribute all of his wealth evenly among the other 99, what have you accomplished? Nothing. The richest man moves to the end of the line and everyone else moves up a notch.

Why do I need a house? Why do I need a new car? Am I in a financial position to take on certain types of debt? Make no mistake, debt used well is an excellent financial tool. Otherwise most of us wouldn't be able to purchase such large ticket items. The problem arises when you misuse this tool. If you make $40,000, you should not be buying a $300,000 house. Period. It doesn't matter if your neighbor got a great deal from some backroom lender or some subsidized mortgage provider, it does not make financial sense for you to buy that house. Not to mention the costs associated with the ownership of said house. Sure you might be able to make the mortgage each month, but what about property taxes, maintenance?

The issue is that we are all spoiled. We want everything right now and we want the best. I know I'm not going to single-handedly curb America's addiction to cheap credit and I'm not going to try. All I know is that I can continue to make good financial decisions for myself and if need be, my family. I can attempt to persuade people around me to do the same. Only when everyone in America is exercising prudence and wise financial decisions based on their current income/financial situation will we "be out of the woods".

Part of the problem regarding the lack of financial "knowledge" is that money is the only thing not taught in public school anymore. Sure it might be mentioned in government class, and some of the better high schools might actually have an economics class, but the majority don't. Money is still considered a taboo subject and for the life of me I don't know why. If you don't understand how money works, how can you possibly expect to survive in the real world? As the saying goes, a fool and his gold are soon parted. The Richest Man in Babylon should be required reading. The rules for building wealth are ridiculously simple. It's not how much you make, it's how much you keep. Pay yourself first.

Laws, like locks, are there to keep honest people honest. The unethical, backroom dealers are going to continue to operate regardless of legislation passed. Thus, rather then kneejerk and starting passing all kinds of crap (I'm looking at you Patriot Act), addressing the actual issues that contributed to the crisis would have far more reaching effects then simply throwing more money at the envisioned problem.

---

I have a lot more thoughts on the matter, but I think this is long enough. Let me know if I need to expound on any of the points above.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#187 Choscura  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover


Reputation: 467
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,228
  • Joined: 18-October 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 05 November 2011 - 10:37 AM

This seems in no way related to any of the 'points' you made before, but is nonetheless well thought out and very articulate. Welcome back, KYA!
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#188 WolfCoder  Icon User is offline

  • Isn't a volcano just an angry hill?
  • member icon


Reputation: 790
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Joined: 05-May 05

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 05 November 2011 - 01:26 PM

View PostChoscura, on 04 November 2011 - 04:27 PM, said:

No you don't! You love arguing about loving to argue!


Yes, actually.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#189 Choscura  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover


Reputation: 467
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,228
  • Joined: 18-October 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 05 November 2011 - 11:32 PM

Nuh-uh!
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#190 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1947
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,488
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:40 AM

View PostKYA, on 05 November 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

That's pretty clear too, but I'll elaborate:

This movement is misguided.

Why?

Regardless of any other subtexts I think we can all agree that the main reason...


That there, if it's original thoughts/prose, should be enshrined somewhere. It is the essence of being able to separate objective from subjective and divorce fact from emotion...something I find to be lamentably scarce when applied to political discourse in our country anymore.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#191 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2538
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,641
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:54 AM

View PostKYA, on 05 November 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

That's pretty clear too, but I'll elaborate:

This movement is misguided.

Why?

...snip


You start out pretty much agreeing with the #occupy movement and 'some' of the issues they have. That being WallStreet, bail-outs, etc. (it's generally easy to agree on facts... to an extent).

You then wonder why people are not protesting in D.C. (White House, etc), which actually there had been. Or what the relevance of other cities are, forgetting that maybe bail-outs/WallStreet isn't the only issue/concern they have.

You then only expand on that by including what you think is a good answer to the problem with "fat-cats" and "wallstreet", and what you think are stupid answers to the problem.




So in the end it sounds like you are pretty much just as angry and befuddled as the rest these people protesting. You spent a good deal of this thread spewing un-organized thoughts that were perceived as ignorant, mean-hearted, and generally stupid (just like some of the 'crazies' at the protests you speak of). Then you sat down and you wrote a well-organized explanation of how you are basically pissed off for similar reasons as the rest of the protestors, but only that your answer to the problem differs from theirs. Not realizing that your initial statement about how the 'protest is disorganized' completely explains this away... you, just like everyone else, is angry and has their own opinions about it. And when you recognize that everyone has their own opinions, it looks disorganized. But the point of it is that they are supposed to be disorganized.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 07 November 2011 - 10:55 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#192 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1947
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,488
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 09 November 2011 - 01:01 PM

Hard hitting interview with the OWS crowd
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#193 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4517
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,417
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 09 November 2011 - 01:18 PM

it was fantastic.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#194 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2538
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,641
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 09 November 2011 - 01:20 PM

Triumph, triumphantly floating in a state of pure mediocre comedy.

"My other sign is a yacht" did get a smile out of me though.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#195 WolfCoder  Icon User is offline

  • Isn't a volcano just an angry hill?
  • member icon


Reputation: 790
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Joined: 05-May 05

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 09 November 2011 - 03:16 PM

I like revolution and all that, but I get the feeling this occupy movement is going to start hosting shitty anarchist rock music.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

  • (15 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15