Thread: Occupy Wall Street around the world.... Your thoughts and feelings about it!

Originally Posted by Hanna

So you are saying that banks and corporations are innocent and the real problem is that the US is too "socialist".
Well, I really don't know how to comment on that. You and I do not have the same worldview at all. You might as well say that the sun is blue.

But I am intrigued to watch how much violence and censorship is used around this protest.

Had any other country (one that the US does not like) used similar tactics against protesters, then the US would have been talking about human right abuses and unfree media.

No, actually you would be saying that the sun is blue. From your posts here is seems that you have a very left winged view. That's fine, but I don't understand it at all. I am a proud American conservative. You can still believe the left wing media's misinformation about conservatives all that you want but the reality is different. As for your questions, did you read the links? If a bank is forced by the government to give mortgages to people that can't afford mortgages, how is it the banks fault? The USA now has a lot of people that feel they don't have to earn a living but can live off of the government. There is no Obama or any other politician "stash" of money - It is mine and my follow Americans that work, hard earned money. Liberal/socialists believe they can spend my money for the benefit of their careers and I am tired of it. I hope most of my fellow Americans agree and wipe these slime bags out of office and replace them with fiscal conservatives. Yes like Ronald Reagan. This in my opinion is what America needs.

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

It is mine and my follow Americans that work, hard earned money. Liberal/socialists believe they can spend my money for the benefit of their careers and I am tired of it. I hope most of my fellow Americans agree and wipe these slime bags out of office and replace them with fiscal conservatives. Yes like Ronald Reagan. This in my opinion is what America needs.
Scott

Just don't forget that this may come with increased social inequality, higher criminal rate and no social protection (like pension)
Balance is the key

Originally Posted by Doomer

Just don't forget that this may come with increased social inequality, higher criminal rate and no social protection (like pension)
Balance is the key

Wiping away the slime bags will cause all that? I don't think so.

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

Wiping away the slime bags will cause all that? I don't think so.

Scott

Having right radicals in government will cause that

Originally Posted by fortheether

No, actually you would be saying that the sun is blue. From your posts here is seems that you have a very left winged view. That's fine, but I don't understand it at all. I am a proud American conservative. You can still believe the left wing media's misinformation about conservatives all that you want but the reality is different. As for your questions, did you read the links? If a bank is forced by the government to give mortgages to people that can't afford mortgages, how is it the banks fault? The USA now has a lot of people that feel they don't have to earn a living but can live off of the government. There is no Obama or any other politician "stash" of money - It is mine and my follow Americans that work, hard earned money. Liberal/socialists believe they can spend my money for the benefit of their careers and I am tired of it. I hope most of my fellow Americans agree and wipe these slime bags out of office and replace them with fiscal conservatives. Yes like Ronald Reagan. This in my opinion is what America needs.

Scott

First of all, this view is so terribly warped as to permanently be a fringe view, in fact bordering on the kind of radicalism and extremism we often find at the bottom of terror-bomber's "explanation" letters, those egotistical, arrogant, self-loving, hypocritical, megalomaniacal hogwash lines that betray an obvious distortion of information somewhere between reception and cognition. "The USA now has a lot of people that feel they don't have to earn a living but can live off of the government." This is not merely a poor interpretation of information - it's simply not true! I put it to you to find me a single person who believes that they never need to come across a dime of income in their lives and can live off of the government. If you do find them, it'll be among the Baby Boomers in their hoverround scooters at the back of the repub rallies.

In addition, I'm very disturbed by your ability to associate yourself PERSONALLY with things that you should have the faculty to discuss with a safe separation between political and personal. Liberal americans are not socialists, you've gravely misunderstood that and I'd expect that any of those folks here who were experiencing real SOCIALISM while I was chilling in AZ and you were chilling in NJ, should set you straight about that.

These liberals don't want "your" money. They want to rip up the pavement of the fast-track your whole party has paved right around the difficulties, often insurmountable, the rest of us encounter when we try to "get there" like the repubs did - "all on their own elbow grease" and all that nonsense. And that's gotta be heartbreaking to people who only made it because they were offered that inside track from the repub party. And.. you keep mentioning "left-wing" media.. Maybe you're not aware that the media is owned by the right. Right down from AP to us below-heaven folks. What is left-wing media? Apple commercials? Google ads??

I'm just like you, Scott, a hard working american who earns his own money. But, my concern for where the money goes and what effect it has on the world goes beyond my own pocketbook, right on into the effect it has on the rest of our country. If the guy next to me was starving, I'd give him part of my paycheck to keep him alive. I wouldn't spit in his change cup and call the local constabulary to haul him off to someplace less disturbing to my eye. Sure, I could spend that money on a Kindle and designer sunglasses. But I don't feel so strongly that what's mine is mine, that I should let the guy next to me suffer, so I can live in luxury. That's not "pride." That's "hate" masked as pride.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY is a catch-phrase that people are using to hide the unnanounced fact that, when there's not enough to go around, the priveleged will get what they need, and the underpriveleged will be left to free-fall like sandbags off of a heavy hot air balloon. It doesn't mean "small government." It means "government that panders to the priveleged." Don't believe me? Ask me to explain. It sounds deceptively financial when it's really a call to civil war, that "fiscal" line.

There's no harm with entertaining the idea that banks should be made aware of, and responsible for, the shapes they carve into the economy of america, by being huge money-moving entities, that cull the population based on factors they've worked out internally to mean "you can afford this" and "you can't." Give a marble to one brother, none to the other. Do this everyday. At the end of the week these brothers will be fighting over marbles. Blame the boys? Blame the marbles? No, blame the marble-bestower. Simple. Iniquity needs to represent not only the AMBITIONS of a capitalistic country but also the realistic NEEDS of one. If you have Tamiflu when the swine plague crosses over us, but your hired help doesn't, don't be surprised when they drop dead and now you have to pick up your OWN featherduster and do the job that was below you before. Honestly.. share the Tamiflu and you can keep your maids. Satisfy your republican pride by keeping the lion's share of it - YOU CAN STILL KEEP WAY MORE THAN YOU NEED!! - , but not ALL. See how that works? Compromise a little bit, and you can still spend all your energy focused on your own goals.. But keep your subjects alive. The heart of the low-wage american worker is democratic, but they can be fooled into thinking they're republican, for a few years. Religion works wonders for this. Until the real republican leaders who wear ivy league sweaters reveal that they're not looking out for these workers' interests, or even health, at all, but rather as flesh and labor resources.

Reagan almost destroyed the planet in the name of american luxury, american security, american greed, american power. I'd rather NOT have another ronald rayguns in office, and I am one little part of the majority you're hoping will agree with you.

I hope my fellow americans DISagree with you and wipe slime bags like Romney, Limbaugh Reagan and ilk entirely out of the running, so we're not in danger of another planet-destroying, Dubya-esque megalomaniac seeing to it that the best of everything goes to the top 1% and that the 99% are offered a rabbit on a string for dinner, forever to be yanked just out of reach as they run a track drawn out by republican chessmasters designed to keep them working to spin their wheel.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

These liberals don't want "your" money. They want to rip up the pavement of the fast-track your whole party has paved right around the difficulties, often insurmountable, the rest of us encounter when we try to "get there" like the repubs did - "all on their own elbow grease" and all that nonsense. And that's gotta be heartbreaking to people who only made it because they were offered that inside track from the repub party.

For some reason, this reminds me of:

"У соседа корова сдохла -- мелочь, а приятно"

Kidkboom, envy and suspicion of "Repubs" who are more materially successful than you will not solve your problems.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

For some reason, this reminds me of:

"У соседа корова сдохла -- мелочь, а приятно"

Kidkboom, envy and suspicion of "Repubs" who are more materially successful than you will not solve your problems.

Hmm.. Well, I like the quote, at least!

You've misread me if you think I hold any envy for these folks and what they've hoarded through these tactics. I have no envy - I do have a disdain for unfair play. The term "repubs" I shouldn't use: it's not really accurate to my intended reference .. some of these folks are on either side of the party lines, but unfair play IS unfair play. Soon as I find a better handle for this entity, I'll use that one instead.

I don't expect anything I say here to solve problems - "my" problems, or anyone's.. Discourse and solution are as different from each other as is Congress from a State Penitentiary. My intent was the former. In fact, the focus on the concept of "offering a solution" was applied by those who are arguing against the movement, not myself who would argue FOR it. I believe the argument was (no copyright violation intended as I know this is a tried-and-true debater's riposte) : "Sure, the Occupy guys can talk all day about the problem, but they don't offer any kind of a SOLUTION." .. A solution would be great, but I for one would not recommend that either side of this argument grab at straws to be ready with a solution, before discourse has voiced both sides and we've all looked for grounds on which to compromise.

For another thing - I didn't develop suspicion autonomously. I developed it through observation. Whosoever is qualified to term one man's observation as accurate and another's as overly suspicious - let him be licensed to make psychiatric evaluations, or else gifted with some altogether higher authority, such that can guarantee that this judgment is accurate and not merely a retaliatory strike in a rain of discussionary blows. Suffice it to say that until such time that such a declaration has been made, my observations, be they envious or suspicious through the eyes of another, are still my own and rendered valid by this distinction alone.

Now, here we breach the real question... How can one discuss the intent of a group that protests, without leaving the identity of the protesting group vulnerable to others' interpretations of their motives? I mean, almost ANY movement, you can say, "the challenger is ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS.. the incumbent is GREEDY and STUBBORN(can be subbed for CORRUPT on a case-by-case)." "The English Crown was GREEDY and CORRUPT, and the American revolutionaries were ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS. The white plantation owners were GREEDY and STUBBORN, and the black slaves were ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS. George W.'s regime was GREEDY and CORRUPT, and Obama's regime was ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS." ...Given no other information but that one group is in a position, and the other group seeks to uproot them... what I'm really stating is my own glass-empty/full view of life, isn't it? If I tend towards reactionism, I might interpret that, in the absence of other info, the force in power is correct. Or if I tend towards radicalism, I might interpret that the force that's oppressed by the power is correct. But - in the absence of actual criteria, it's all moot, isn't it? Beyond a Rorschach I mean?

As for the point I was originally making.. I was trying, and I'm starting to wish I wasn't the only one around here who was, to give a rough summary of the intent of the Occupy movement. I wasn't trying to bash Republicans and I wasn't trying to be Bolshevik 2.0.