Wall Street Protesters

[quote name='Msut77']MSI, you are deluding yourself if you think any of that matters.

Unlike with the tea crowd there are people who can and do articulate what it is all about.

They get ignored just as easily.[/QUOTE]

Believe what you want. That you say unlike the Tea Party crowd shows how deep you are drinking the lefts lemonaid. While most of the Tea party were old morons, they still had their intelligent mouth pieces too intially. Hell, you are no different then the Tea Party guy who called Warren a whore. People will believe what they want and truth is a movement without a message is a movement without a rutter. More importantly a movement founded in ignorance will end up just as disspaointed as the Tea Party.

Look, they dont need a mouth piece, they dont need to do it the traditional way. They do need to decide some basic form of what they are about, and people do need to educate themselves otherwise goverment will just offer promises and when the change never comes they will be too ignorant to realize it.

Our goverment got to this point because of that same ignorance. its why the tea party exploded and its why this movement will fail as much as I want it to succeed.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Believe what you want.[/quote]

I believe things that are true.

While most of the Tea party were old morons, they still had their intelligent mouth pieces too intially.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. At the very least they had/have no honest intelligentsia.

People will believe what they want and truth is a movement without a message is a movement without a rutter.
Click to expand...

Rudder.

More importantly a movement founded in ignorance will end up just as disspaointed as the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

I will try to make it clearer for you. A lot of the occupiers aren't ignorant per se, they know shit is all fucked up and it doesn't have to be this way. It happens to be difficult to articulate what exactly is wrong and solutions because we have a corrupt media that works to keep people ignorant and it has been 30 years since free market fundamentalism has become the state religion.

Look, they dont need a mouth piece, they dont need to do it the traditional way. They do need to decide some basic form of what they are about, and people do need to educate themselves otherwise goverment will just offer promises and when the change never comes they will be too ignorant to realize it.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, there are people who are able articulate key points and offer solutions that would work.

They get ignored or downplayed just as easily.

Look at healthcare reform "discussions" for examples.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']I believe things that are true.



No they didn't. At the very least they had/have no honest intelligentsia.



Rudder.



I will try to make it clearer for you. A lot of the occupiers aren't ignorant per se, they know shit is all fucked up and it doesn't have to be this way. It happens to be difficult to articulate what exactly is wrong and solutions because we have a corrupt media that works to keep people ignorant and it has been 30 years since free market fundamentalism has become the state religion.

[quote[Look, they dont need a mouth piece, they dont need to do it the traditional way. They do need to decide some basic form of what they are about, and people do need to educate themselves otherwise goverment will just offer promises and when the change never comes they will be too ignorant to realize it.[/quote]

Like I said before, there are people who are able articulate key points and offer solutions that would work.

They get ignored or downplayed just as easily.[/QUOTE]

Was the Tea Party corrupted by outside influences? Yep. Was it largly ignorant from the start? Yep! Does that mean that the entire movement was either dishonest or stupid? Nope! Again you talk big game about making things clear for me but like most of the left at this board you are simply so arrogant that you cant see that your own view COULD possibly be wrong. Christ even when I agree with you guys it is frequently annoying because again you are just the exact same as the Tea Party. A mouth peice for the beliefs of those and those like you, but since many of the facts are indeed on your side you assume that means everything you say is a fact and thus even if you were wrong it would be impossible for you to realize it.

You say a lot of the occupiers are not "ignorant per say, but they know shit is fucked up and it doesnt need to be that way". Put down the leftist Kool Aid for a second and think. How is that really any different then the Tea Party? They understood things were fucked up and they were angry. The only real difference is where they lay the blame. While I do think the left can point to charts, graphs and history to show more of the facts are on their side, it hardly means we have some undeniable proof that the entirity of the leftist economic doctrine is correct. Nor does it mean anyone that does not agree with us is a moron, brainwashed or dishonest.

That is what I have a problem with. I mean hell again just like when I disagree with most of this board...you end your post by agreeing with me on the core issues(they need a message and to educate themselves)but because I dare to say things like the Tea party was not all ignorant slobbering red necks or that there are many ignorant people/hippies at this movement then dur magus needs to be informed by the likes of you and dohdoh.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Believe what you want. That you say unlike the Tea Party crowd shows how deep you are drinking the lefts lemonaid. While most of the Tea party were old morons, they still had their intelligent mouth pieces too intially. Hell, you are no different then the Tea Party guy who called Warren a whore. People will believe what they want and truth is a movement without a message is a movement without a rutter. More importantly a movement founded in ignorance will end up just as disspaointed as the Tea Party.

Look, they dont need a mouth piece, they dont need to do it the traditional way. They do need to decide some basic form of what they are about, and people do need to educate themselves otherwise goverment will just offer promises and when the change never comes they will be too ignorant to realize it.

Our goverment got to this point because of that same ignorance. its why the tea party exploded and its why this movement will fail as much as I want it to succeed.[/QUOTE]
You wanna know what else exploded? My head from reading this post...
 
[quote name='MSI Magus'] Does that mean that the entire movement was either dishonest or stupid?[/quote]

There are other reasons the Tea crowd were dishonest and stupid.

Again you talk big game about making things clear for me but like most of the left at this board you are simply so arrogant that you cant see that your own view COULD possibly be wrong.
Click to expand...

Go peddle your garbage elsewhere, I never even implied I am never wrong.

Do me a favor however, name the last time we had actual policy "discussions" in a thread, hell show me one in the entire country that got national traction.

As for the rest of your screed (is leftist supposed to be an insult?).

People have been lied to for quite a while, then you want to blame the victims for not being more eloquent than you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you state you have to make something clearer for someone it implies you are insisting your point of view is right and theirs is wrong(and in a rather dickish way). Further more if you do stuff like this on a regular basis and if you constantly argue the way people here do its an easy assumption you think you are right all the damn time. I dont think I have ever seen a single fucking person here ever admit they were wrong and its rare anyone even slightly changess their view. So maybe in life you dont always have to be right 100% of the time, but I am sorry at this board it is certainly the way most people here act.

Leftist is not meant to be an insult. But saying someone must always be leftist or on the right could be taken as such. And as for people being lied to, yes yes they have. It hardly means that the people are without any blame themselves though. You cant complain "I dont have time for politics", turn around and spend 2 hours watching TV, an hour reading people magazine and then bitch when you find yourself victimized the way most people do. Yes we should punish the 1% and those who assisted them in raping this country, but it does not mean people should be let off the hook for thumbing their nose at issues like politics, science or economics for so many years.

Again this is why I use a word like "leftist" because just like people on the right tow their party lines most people on the left do the same. I hear people here say how we are "trained" to act or think certain ways, but when it comes to politics people think they are somehow above the common man and are not "trained" themselves. The people here are no different. They are unable to break out of a tiny little box they have put themselves in, its too extreme hold a centerist/moderate view or heaven forbid a view of the right. I mean Christ just look at the way Dohdoh referred to me as a "neo liberal" which he condescendingly said is nothing more then a conservative simply because 1% of my views dont fall in line with the left. This is the way people have been trained to think regardless of if you are the common man who gets no blame from the left or if you are the average snobby quasi intellectual Politics poster ;) Its just how things are, pick a side and tow the line.

Edit - Thus concludes Magus rant of the week and attempt at enjoying the politics board. See you next week guys! ;(
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']If you state you have to make something clearer for someone it implies you are insisting your point of view is right and theirs is wrong(and in a rather dickish way).[/quote]

And?

Further more if you do stuff like this on a regular basis and if you constantly argue the way people here do its an easy assumption you think you are right all the damn time.
Click to expand...

I happen to be right a lot of the time, but by all means continue to pretend that I even implied I am right 100% of the time.

Also, you may not have noticed but the cons here (and in general) don't even bother to argue anything any more. Mostly because they don't have arguments.

I dont think I have ever seen a single fucking person here ever admit they were wrong and its rare anyone even slightly changess their view.
Click to expand...

I learned a long time ago it doesn't mean shit if someone admits to being wrong.

Leftist is not meant to be an insult.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say, I don't believe you.

Also, you say people should be punished for being ignorant and then claim I'm the one who wanders into gatherings and calling people hoo-ers?
 
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e12-one-percent

South Park 99% vs the 1% episode was just posted online. It basically revolves around Cartman being so fat he screws up the schools fit/fat average so that the whole school looks fat. As a result every kid in the school is put on a special PE program.

Edit - Just finished watching it and it really had minimum to do with the OWS movement. Pretty stupid episode.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']You never espouse any viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

I do. Often.

If /you/ (group "you", not you=camoor) agree with them, then you either ignore them or try to twist them into something else and attack me for it.

If you disagree with them, you try to twist them into something worse, then attack me for it.
 
[quote name='camoor']This is also not a viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

You are 100% correct. In fact, I never claimed it was, never implied that it was and never intended to pass it off as one. I'm sure any reasonable, intelligent person would recognize that.

The timing wasn't the best, but the guy who's livestream of the protest last night I watched just tweeted it. I loaded it, watched it for a few, then posted it knowing that there might be some fellow posters following the situation that would be interested in more first-hand knowledge instead of attempting pointless posturing on some random gaming forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rough transcript of my call to a nationally syndicated right wing radio deal from a few days ago that oddly got deleted from the podcast version of the show released a couple of days after each show:

Me: Hi sir, nice to finally get a chance to chat.
Him: Sure buddy, what's on your mind?
Me: Well, would you agree that wealth is akin to power?
Sure
So if you have a book called power divided is power checked, how can you have so much venom towards a group that agrees with you?
Well my book (plugs book) is about centralized power in the govt and has nothing to do with perceived power based on wealth. (Goes on a spiel about state's rights and calls me a communist because I want to take from the wealthy to give to the poor)
Actually sir, I've said nothing of the sort.
Oh you don't have to say it, I can tell just by your leading question.
Well, to be precise I asked you to clarify your position, but I haven't even asked you any questions that could be construed as leading.
Let me guess this about you (stereotype of protestor)
No sir, I'm (all this stuff) and to automatically assume things such as you have is rather insulting
it's insulting that you want to take from me to provide for you
No sir, I'm fine all by myself thank you very much.
Tell me this, why should 53% of the country have to pay for the other 47%.

as an aside this is his favourite factoid, the following is probably why I got deleted and my call got dumped.

it's interesting that you use that statistic to paint the picture that nearly half of the country isn't doing anything. What that statistic actually points to is that nearly half of this country doesn't make enough income to have a Federal Income Tax liability. Want to take a guess at what that 47% would be if the tax brackets had done the sunset routine as they were supposed to?
I don't have that information in front of me.
Well I'll continue and you can let me know when you do find it. Now, of that 47%, what percentage are retirees who have contributed their whole lives and are now enjoying their remaining time as opposed to clogging up the workforce with slower performance in favour of younger employees that will work for less since they lack experience?
So you're advocating for more social security then, even though it's broke?
I'm not advocating "more", and by this time the current retirees also have their pensions and personal returement to count on. Advocating for more or less has nothing to do with it, when I'm illustrating that your 53% and 47% statistic is pointless because there is much more to it than Person A paying for Person B.
But we literally have half the country paying for the other half.
Incorrect sir, it's 53%, please keep using the correct number if you're going to argue that point. In addition to these retirees, how many of these filers are claiming exempt because they are students? How many are military families that are able to claim many exemptions? How many are using their investments to shelter income, which by the way was a plan by the last administration to foster growth on Wall Street while simultaneously deregulating the investment industry and turning it into a complete gamble as opposed to a marketplace.
Oh so more regulation is the answer? Regulation is prohibiting job growth and so are these taxes.
Sir, that's completely absurd. The Fortune 500 companies are still posting record profits while sitting on more capital than they've ever had on their balance sheets. The economy hasn't stalled because production has been capped by regulation and taxes, there's simply less demand due to high unemployment.
And now you're back to taking from the wealthy to pay for the poor.
Actually no sir, I've simply stated what the problem is, we haven't even begun to talk about possible solutions.
Well you just want to raise taxes on the wealthy!
Again sir, you're absolutely wrong. If the tax brackets go back to where they were in the 90's then you'll be happy with that 47% going down to a more likely 35-40%
But then you're taxing the rich, haven't they paid enough!?
No sir, wrong again, that would be raising the brackets on everyone, again strictly for purposes of Federal Income Tax which says nothing about local sales taxes or fees on licenses and such.
No, no, no, President Obama wants to keep the rates lower for everyone but the top tier.
And that's all well and good, but our politicians aren't even having an honest discussion about tax policy.
What's so honest about having such an unbalanced tax structure?
Excuse me?
What's so honest about having such an unbalanced tax structure?
Oh no, I wasn't saying excuse me because I didn't hear you, I just find it to be such an incredulous statement.
Now you're back on your socialism track!
Ok, you're clearly insane. Look back at the times of prosperity in this country and notice that they've been preceeded by higher tax rates to spur govt spending on industry and infrastructure which has a ripple effect since, while the employees doing the work may be the receipients of a govt paycheck, the people that produce the tools/machinery/heavy vehicles/etc... are your private companies that benefit from such spending and are able to grow and expand which leads to more private and less public employment

At this point I'm cut off, the guy actually yells on air that I'm a commie and dumps the call.

It's kind of fun to use their logic against them. Also fun to shit on the whole 53/47 thing as the factual support of the claim does not come anywhere close to arriving at their conclusion. I think my favourite moment was pulling that bush tax cut thing outta my ass on the air. Basically "your own policy is what you're complaining about" is really fun to point out.
 
[quote name='nasum']rough transcript of my call to a nationally syndicated right wing radio deal from a few days ago that oddly got deleted from the podcast version of the show released a couple of days after each show:

Me: Hi sir, nice to finally get a chance to chat.
Him: Sure buddy, what's on your mind?
Me: Well, would you agree that wealth is akin to power?
Sure
So if you have a book called power divided is power checked, how can you have so much venom towards a group that agrees with you?
Well my book (plugs book) is about centralized power in the govt and has nothing to do with perceived power based on wealth. (Goes on a spiel about state's rights and calls me a communist because I want to take from the wealthy to give to the poor)
Actually sir, I've said nothing of the sort.
Oh you don't have to say it, I can tell just by your leading question.
Well, to be precise I asked you to clarify your position, but I haven't even asked you any questions that could be construed as leading.
Let me guess this about you (stereotype of protestor)
No sir, I'm (all this stuff) and to automatically assume things such as you have is rather insulting
it's insulting that you want to take from me to provide for you
No sir, I'm fine all by myself thank you very much.
Tell me this, why should 53% of the country have to pay for the other 47%.

as an aside this is his favourite factoid, the following is probably why I got deleted and my call got dumped.

it's interesting that you use that statistic to paint the picture that nearly half of the country isn't doing anything. What that statistic actually points to is that nearly half of this country doesn't make enough income to have a Federal Income Tax liability. Want to take a guess at what that 47% would be if the tax brackets had done the sunset routine as they were supposed to?
I don't have that information in front of me.
Well I'll continue and you can let me know when you do find it. Now, of that 47%, what percentage are retirees who have contributed their whole lives and are now enjoying their remaining time as opposed to clogging up the workforce with slower performance in favour of younger employees that will work for less since they lack experience?
So you're advocating for more social security then, even though it's broke?
I'm not advocating "more", and by this time the current retirees also have their pensions and personal returement to count on. Advocating for more or less has nothing to do with it, when I'm illustrating that your 53% and 47% statistic is pointless because there is much more to it than Person A paying for Person B.
But we literally have half the country paying for the other half.
Incorrect sir, it's 53%, please keep using the correct number if you're going to argue that point. In addition to these retirees, how many of these filers are claiming exempt because they are students? How many are military families that are able to claim many exemptions? How many are using their investments to shelter income, which by the way was a plan by the last administration to foster growth on Wall Street while simultaneously deregulating the investment industry and turning it into a complete gamble as opposed to a marketplace.
Oh so more regulation is the answer? Regulation is prohibiting job growth and so are these taxes.
Sir, that's completely absurd. The Fortune 500 companies are still posting record profits while sitting on more capital than they've ever had on their balance sheets. The economy hasn't stalled because production has been capped by regulation and taxes, there's simply less demand due to high unemployment.
And now you're back to taking from the wealthy to pay for the poor.
Actually no sir, I've simply stated what the problem is, we haven't even begun to talk about possible solutions.
Well you just want to raise taxes on the wealthy!
Again sir, you're absolutely wrong. If the tax brackets go back to where they were in the 90's then you'll be happy with that 47% going down to a more likely 35-40%
But then you're taxing the rich, haven't they paid enough!?
No sir, wrong again, that would be raising the brackets on everyone, again strictly for purposes of Federal Income Tax which says nothing about local sales taxes or fees on licenses and such.
No, no, no, President Obama wants to keep the rates lower for everyone but the top tier.
And that's all well and good, but our politicians aren't even having an honest discussion about tax policy.
What's so honest about having such an unbalanced tax structure?
Excuse me?
What's so honest about having such an unbalanced tax structure?
Oh no, I wasn't saying excuse me because I didn't hear you, I just find it to be such an incredulous statement.
Now you're back on your socialism track!
Ok, you're clearly insane. Look back at the times of prosperity in this country and notice that they've been preceeded by higher tax rates to spur govt spending on industry and infrastructure which has a ripple effect since, while the employees doing the work may be the receipients of a govt paycheck, the people that produce the tools/machinery/heavy vehicles/etc... are your private companies that benefit from such spending and are able to grow and expand which leads to more private and less public employment

At this point I'm cut off, the guy actually yells on air that I'm a commie and dumps the call.

It's kind of fun to use their logic against them. Also fun to shit on the whole 53/47 thing as the factual support of the claim does not come anywhere close to arriving at their conclusion. I think my favourite moment was pulling that bush tax cut thing outta my ass on the air. Basically "your own policy is what you're complaining about" is really fun to point out.[/QUOTE]

A+ job man. I can just picture the average listener to that show sitting and fuming.
 
I'd rather that 4 or 5 of the listeners heard that and started thinking outside of the echo chamber. The angry ones can get bent for all I care.

What I was really hoping to round the guy into was admitting that a reduction in the income gap (against his principles) would create more equality in the tax basis (which is inline with his principles) to deomnstrate that backward thinking is getting nowhere. Had I had another 2 minutes I might have been able to get there. In the end I got three and a half minutes of drive time in the CST to make one of ten points that needed to be made.
 
[quote name='nasum']I'd rather that 4 or 5 of the listeners heard that and started thinking outside of the echo chamber. The angry ones can get bent for all I care.

What I was really hoping to round the guy into was admitting that a reduction in the income gap (against his principles) would create more equality in the tax basis (which is inline with his principles) to demonstrate that backward thinking is getting nowhere. Had I had another 2 minutes I might have been able to get there. In the end I got three and a half minutes of drive time in the CST to make one of ten points that needed to be made.[/QUOTE]

You should send them an email and ask why the chose to censor your segment of the show. Point out you wernt disrespectful, you wernt cursing etc etc. The only thing left is that they are scared of your opinion and or they have an agenda.
 
Curious - what show was it?

[quote name='nasum']What that statistic actually points to is that nearly half of this country doesn't make enough income to have a Federal Income Tax liability.[/QUOTE]

A note on this - what you're saying isn't exactly true - some of these people actually do have enough of an income to have a income tax liability - they simply get it back in "credits".
 
So, listening to this GA Meeting... I'm impressed with the amount of people who are attending this meeting - basically, expressing an interest in politics and getting involved.

I attend virtually every City Council meeting. Many of them are boring - but I go. Outside of the people who are required to be there and the occasional individual who shows up with a specific concern, I'm the only one who shows up on a regular basis who wasn't old enough to witness World War II.

I know we're a small town, but I imagine it's fairly similar to this in most places - little to no interest unless there's a specific concern. I just can't help but wonder where all these people have been for the past 20 years... I can't help but think things might have been slightly different if we had this much interest in political activities all along...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Curious - what show was it?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='nasum']So if you have a book called power divided is power checked, how can you have so much venom towards a group that agrees with you?
Well my book (plugs book)[/QUOTE]

Google.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good plan.

Jason Lewis? Never heard of him. Though I'll admit, I'm far from an expert on who's-who of radio talk show hosts.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Google.[/QUOTE]

I sincerely doubt any of the right wing radio ninnies would have a substantially different response.

Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz etc. are all cut from the same cloth.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I sincerely doubt any of the right wing radio ninnies would have a substantially different response.

Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz etc. are all cut from the same cloth.[/QUOTE]

I am convinced they all share a talking points script to ensure they stay on message.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Anybody else participating in bank transfer day? I closed my Citi accounts today and moved the money to a credit union.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't participate today, but I will be closing my accounts first thing Monday.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']We have always used Credit unions ;) We tried a bank once and were done with that within a year.[/QUOTE]

Meh, I was a credit union member when I was a young teen (20+ years ago). A few years ago, they decided to change into a bank (technically, it was voted on by the members; I voted nay). But really, nothing has changed in our relationship.

I *technically* have a membership in the CU at my work, but they are terrible (we call it the Cruddy Union). Pentagon Federal Credit Union, which I have a relationship w/ through my wife has been fine...but so has Wachovia/Wells Fargo. We had separate relationships with the two banks before they merged. And not much problems with them post merger.

It's decent to have contact with a local 'financial institution', but not all locals are great and all nationals terrible. They all have their benefits and 'evils'.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Meh, I was a credit union member when I was a young teen (20+ years ago). A few years ago, they decided to change into a bank (technically, it was voted on by the members; I voted nay). But really, nothing has changed in our relationship.

I *technically* have a membership in the CU at my work, but they are terrible (we call it the Cruddy Union). Pentagon Federal Credit Union, which I have a relationship w/ through my wife has been fine...but so has Wachovia/Wells Fargo. We had separate relationships with the two banks before they merged. And not much problems with them post merger.

It's decent to have contact with a local 'financial institution', but not all locals are great and all nationals terrible. They all have their benefits and 'evils'.[/QUOTE]

Not every bank is evil and I imagine there is no reasons in the long run CU wont become just as bad. Hell we are about to switch CUs because of some of the shit they pulled with our home loans and IRA. Thing is just that in general it seems CU are nowhere near as bad as banks.
 
Decided to share this here since I am not sure on where else to put this and was hesitant on creating another thread.

http://www.businessinsider.com/29-banks-g20-too-big-too-fail-2011-11

29 banks that are too big to fail- if you don't want to click through the slideshow here is the entire list with wikipedia links to learn more about each one if one is so inclined.

Bank of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America)
Bank of New York Mellon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bank_of_New_York_Mellon)
Citibank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank)
Goldman Sachs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs)
J.P. Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan)
Morgan Stanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley)
State Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Corporation)
Royal Bank of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland)
Wells Fargo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo)
Lloyds Banking Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyds_Banking_Group)
Barclay's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays)
HSBC Holdings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC)
Crédit Agricole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Agricole)
BNP Paribas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNP_Paribas)
Banque Populaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_Banque_Populaire)
Société Générale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Société_Générale)
Deutsche Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank)
Commerzbank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerzbank)
Unicredit Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniCredit)
UBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS)
Credit Suisse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Suisse)
Dexia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexia)
ING Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ING_Group)
Banko Santander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santander_Group)
Nordea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordea)
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_UFJ_Financial_Group)
Mizuho Financial Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuho_Financial_Group)
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumitomo_Mitsui_Financial_Group)
Bank of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_China)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']I sincerely doubt any of the right wing radio ninnies would have a substantially different response.

Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz etc. are all cut from the same cloth.[/QUOTE]

And that cloth is an American flag kissed by the forefathers themselves.

Nah but seriously I just wanted to be sort of nice to Bob for once and kind of answer his question. I even edited out my normally biting remarks!
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']We have always used Credit unions ;) We tried a bank once and were done with that within a year.[/QUOTE]

I had a bank account for 9 years without a fee or problem... what was the challenge?
 
[quote name='eldergamer']
And in Occupy Portland news.
Let's start smashing bank windows. That'll teach em.... Uhm, something.
Fat Cats! Greed!
(There's also a "Real Occupy Portland" separate group now too)

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/11/occupy_portland_2.html[/QUOTE]

Think. If all the protestors engaged in this behavior then it would be far greater. I wouldn't just absorb lamestream media coverage and framing of (and obvious attempt to discredit) the OWS movement.

How about all the Occupiers who went and fixed stuff? By and large the movement does not support this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y0rRWO1ak

And OF COURSE, you need to consider the role of agent provocateurs in protest movements. This has been a tool of gov't since the rise of black equality movements.

Here are some cops who have been impersonating protestors. Especially the second cop. And listen to the quote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrvMzqopHH0
 
Some (mostly) reasonable demands are made in a Occupy commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O_Ao9w1u7c&feature=player_embedded

To "Serious Political Conversations" guy - sounds good. Not sure how protesting big corporations is going to help this though. Time to get involved in the political process? Occupy is a nice start, but it seems the largest groups within the Occupy movement *don't* want to get directly involved in the political process. Watching the live stream of the Occupy Oakland GA meeting, this exact thing was actually addressed - where there was a large concern about the idea of the Occupy group even proposing ballot measures because they didn't feel that Occupy should be endorsing such things because they didn't want the Occupy movement to be seen as political.

To "Corporations Out, People In" guy - Sounds good (so long as you realize that people run the corporations). Aside from that, protesting corporations to give up their power? Are you serious? Who really sees that happening? We need to be going after the government, taking back the power that is already ours.

To "Peace" lady - Sounds awesome. Though, aside from shady dealings and military contractors, again, protesting private corporations isn't going to make this happen. Taking your savings from Bank of America and into a Credit Union isn't going to do this. Again, the government is who you need to initiate this conversation with.

To "Tax 'em higher" lady - ... I'm not sure giving a drunk more beer is the way to go, but if you really want our government to raise taxes - you'll need to talk to them. Evil corporations aren't going to do it willingly (because, as we've already discussed on here, if they really wanted to, they could already do it).

To "Economic Justice" guy - Your idea of "economic justice" probably isn't the same as a lot of other folks. Be more clear.

To "Speak my voice" lady - Here we go! This is something you can protest your employer and/or evil corporations for! While you could also worth with the government to create new and refine existing rules that do this, you can also work to get corporations to change their internal policies so that they don't do this. However, if "your voice" consists of taking several weeks off work to go squat in a park... not sure you're going to get much traction on that. Otherwise, perfectly reasonable.

To "Regulations" guy - Hm. Mixed on this one. He doesn't use the word "More" or "New" to prefix "regulation" - he uses the term "greater". I would have went with "More effective regulation and enforcement" But regardless, so long as the banks control the Fed and the Fed ultimately sets monetary policy *and* you're expecting the government to regulate the banks/markets, protesting corporations isn't going to get you very far. I mean, geesh - if these guys could be trusted to self-regulate, we wouldn't really need regulations, would we? Consider protesting the Federal Reserve or the government. Or protesting to the government to End the Fed.

To "Kids have a job and health care" guy - You want your kids to have a job? You'll need to protest the government to put an end Child Labor laws. Probably won't get much traction there.
Seriously, though - this one is interesting. Is he protesting private corporations because he wants them to hire his kids? Because he wants them to provide health care for his kids? Hasn't most of the free world decided the tying health insurance to your place of work is a horrible idea?

To "True Democracy" guy - Sounds awesome - but, again, don't expect these private corporations to give up their power freely. You're going to need to take that power back from your government.
 
I don't know if the "kids have a job and healthcare" guy necessarily wanted his kids to have a job while they're adolescents. I think he meant as a father, he would like his children, when they grow up, to have a job and healthcare.

Could be wrong, but I doubt anyone in this group is the type to be in favor of repealing child labor laws.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I don't know if the "kids have a job and healthcare" guy necessarily wanted his kids to have a job while they're adolescents. I think he meant as a father, he would like his children, when they grow up, to have a job and healthcare.

Could be wrong, but I doubt anyone in this group is the type to be in favor of repealing child labor laws.[/QUOTE]

We've actually discussed this before - while UB can string a sentence together and occasionally complete a train of thought, he can only understand things literally and cannot grasp nuance or figures of speech. Also, like most conservatives, he has a higher faith in cherry-picked personal anecdotes and logical fallicies over science and historical truth. Combine this with overuse of cheap debate tactics (strawman anyone) and it often ends in frustrating exchanges, to put it mildly.
 
[quote name='camoor'][Insults, flaming and trolling][/QUOTE]
As opposed to your usual debate tactics of insults, flaming and trolling?

[quote name='IRHari']I don't know if the "kids have a job and healthcare" guy necessarily wanted his kids to have a job while they're adolescents. I think he meant as a father, he would like his children, when they grow up, to have a job and healthcare.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I should have put some smiley icons in that reply about child labor laws. I followed it with the word "seriously", attempting to imply that the bit about child labor laws was a joke....

To take the guy's statement seriously, as for the health care part - as I said before, I thought it'd been pretty well decided that tying health insurance to a job isn't a good plan - so protesting the employers isn't a big help here. I suppose we could protest that they just stop providing any health insurance at all. That might move along a single-payer system.

As for the hiring his kids part, I assumed his kids were grown up - is he protesting for a particular business to hire his kids? Seems like a bad way to go about getting them a job.

If we're talking about there being jobs for his kids when they grow up, I'm just not sure what good protesting corporations helps here. I suppose you could protest for them to stop shipping jobs overseas - But they ship the jobs overseas because Americans want cheap stuff. If, say, Walmart started selling nothing but products 100% made in the US (let's pretend they could actually source enough stuff to do this), people are just going to start shopping at the Dollar store or wherever they can get the cheaper stuff. You'll either need to attempt to educate your fellow Americans as to why you should buy American, even if it means spending more for the product - or - fight for legislation that puts US-built products more inline with those built overseas - your choice if you want to protest for the end of minimum wage laws or tariffs on imports, etc., etc... Either way, I don't really see how protesting corporations will address this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to your usual debate tactics of insults, flaming and trolling?[/QUOTE]

I was a bit harsh, but (and here comes some more brutal honesty) you have a massive ego problem. If you'd tone down the narcissism a tad it would go a long way to increasing your likeability.

I'm no psychologist but, as a layman, if I was to venture a guess I'd probably go with learning disability. I say this because sometimes you seem to have potential. There is nothing wrong with Walmart if that's the best you can do, but I'm not convinced that's the case here. With a checkup from the neckup you might start flexing your true potential.
 
[quote name='camoor']There is nothing wrong with Walmart if that's the best you can do, but I'm not convinced that's the case here.[/QUOTE]

I just used Walmart as an example of a place to get cheap plastic crap from China. I don't think it matters too much where the stuff is coming from - Americans like it and will keep buying it and they don't much care who's providing it.

Occupy Oakland GA Live Stream again tonight:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occup...ign=t.co&utm_source=9636787&utm_medium=social
 
Anybody else participating in bank transfer day? I closed my Citi accounts today and moved the money to a credit union.
Click to expand...
I've used a credit union since I was a little kid. No reason to put my money anywhere else. After I got married, my wife and I closed her accounts (at a national bank chain) and moved everything to a local (relatively, it is in a few cities in our area) credit union.
 
A lot of the stuff we buy is not made in China to keep prices down, its made in China to keep corporate profits up. I recall reading an article awhile back that said if you made every last componet of the IOS devices in the US it would cost apple about 50% profit. If you took 50% of their profit for the year they still would have still made hundreds of billions of dollars.

Now this may not be true of all companies, but for many many companies the myth that they must make stuff in China is just that a myth.

Edit - Also watching people debate with Bob at this point is like watching an old couple who has not been in love for 25 years. At one point one of them started the stupidity and is clearly to blame....but it really doesnt matter because its been so long that both sides do nothing but take petty swipes at the other. No real points are ever raised....its all just childishness from both parties.
 
Well, you have to understand why they say it's done to keep prices down. They say that because (and we should all know this) they aren't going to sacrifice their profit to keep the prices of products at a certain level. So yeah, they'd just pass down that extra cost to consumers rather than take the hit themselves, despite the fact that they'd still make more than enough profit if they did take the hit.
 
[quote name='niceguyshawne']I am convinced they all share a talking points script to ensure they stay on message.[/QUOTE]

There was (maybe still is) a doc on Netflix streaming about the utter bullshitedness of Fox News, in that doc there's a section where a previous news room employee (not an anchor or anything like that) leaked memos that were more or less marching orders from the VP of Fox News.

Also, when it's not a big news day, if you listen to their opening segment they're basically all the same. By that I mean the same talking points with "different opinions" on the topic as opposed to the same nonsense conclusions derived from whatever data they decide to abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top