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

Originally Posted by Ramil

Imagine those capitalists appear and surrender. What's next?

+1
I don't believe in "the current situation is so unbearable that we should destroy it first and then we'll figure it out". Also, the notions like the social justice have been largely discredited throughout the 20th century. I think the protesters don't really know what they want. I would be grateful to be proved wrong.

Originally Posted by Ramil

but if they really want the capitalists to change something they ought to start hanging the wrong guys.

You see, I would be very careful with that. First of all, I noticed that those who are proud of themselves they are not afraid of the bloodshed, hadn't really seen the blood of their own and their friends. And if you think that nobody would defend the "rotten bankers" or something like that, I would respectfully disagree. I would think many people would defend their current way of living as they know it, they would fight the chaos and would not believe the change would bring any real better.

Originally Posted by nulle

I wish I lived as "poorly" as these "protesters" in USA.
Demographics of New York City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And with incomes like that they are protesting??
I do not earn even half of that - which car should I burn?

Michael Moore's car.

Michael Moore Hates America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Yeah, I'm not saying that at all. I'm trying to suss you out ideologically.. I don't have any way of knowing you are or ever were American... Coming from the stance that you DO have citizenship here, I'd narrow my questioning to whether you are a conservative who dislikes this protest, a cynic who doubts there is efficacy behind protest, or so on.... let's just take a step back here and remember that I'm trying to be civil and discuss ideology and not people. I have no intention of attacking you or anybody else. Who you are is not my topic and who I am is not your topic.. as for who I am ideologically, I am a liberal that borders on libertarian views, and a big supporter of change - and to address the definition of that word post-comments-by-people-who-didn't-want-obama-for-president, i'm defining "change" as ANYTHING that shakes up the current alignment of money and power in the country. That's my own personal def, not obama's. =)

Anti-American is sloganism in phrase-coining, just like Pro-Life.. Pro-Life is understood as meaning Against Abortion, but by strict definition, if I don't shoot my cat in the face, I'm Pro-Life, aren't I? Anybody who says their opinion is "American" could excommunicate the counterpoint opinion with the appending of a simple "Anti-" and I won't insult your intelligence by saying that.

I am a liberal that borders on libertarian views,

How do you do that?

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

I am a liberal that borders on libertarian views,

How do you do that?

Scott

I have some liberal views, as pertains to WHAT government should do, if it's going to exist in the first place. And then, I have some libertarian views, about IF/WHEN government should be allowed to pry in this place or that, and what power/control they should have while they're there.

As Steven Wright once quoted a cat as saying: "See? That's how you do that."

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Here it goes, how far can one go following implementation of his/her ideas, and what's meant by the "blood part"?

Well, these are pretty heavy questions, but I respect where you're coming from.

How far can one go in implementation of his or her own ideas? It depends on what you believe of history, and what you feel we can draw from it. Sun Tzu and Confucius, Caesar, Jesus, Machiavelli, Charlemagne, John the Baptist, Ghandhi, Ben Franklin, Tesla, Patton, and so on.. There are a lot of people to try to draw an answer from the records of.. "Far," is a fair but facetious answer, "but not everywhere:" . You can get a lot done on your own, but not everything. Most of the people on this list got to BE on this list not because of the solidarity of their own ideas, but because of their a) ability to communicate those ideas to others and b) the receptiveness TO those ideas found in the crowd at that time and place.

It can be dangerous to say the right thing, if you have a), but not b). I believe Michael Moore was more or less just that - a non-leader, who got it in his head to say the right thing [ "a)" ].. but to the wrong crowd, at the wrong time, and certainly (by choosing himself) with the wrong mouthpiece. It's been said a good general must show that he can do all he asks his troops to do, and more. Moore in that respect is a poor show, and even if the words appealed to the intellecutal facet of his audience, his appearance and self-respect level soured him against the INSTINCTUAL facet of his audience. I knew from external research that he'd been pulling a lot of the right threads with his first movie. But I didn't even need to get hit with the poison-pill campaign that followed; after getting to know who he was, I didn't like him as a leader, and this made me intellectually struggle with listening to him, even as I knew a lot of what he was on about was dead-on.

Beyond a certain point, I'd bet Ramil will be right, that without a decent leader (and the ACLU doesn't count as such), this movement will fizzle, like any army without a general.

But just like the guy on the receiving end of Groucho Marx' "tutti frutti" grift, I know that we can't beat them at their own game; we can't out-gamble a cheater with his own loaded dice. So, as much as my moral heart might grind at the idea, SOMETIMES THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH A BUNCH OF CARD CHEATS IS TO THROW THE TABLE OVER, grab your money, and storm out. Then, at least, when the table's picked back up, the guy doing the cleaning up thinks real hard about preventing such CHEATING next time a gambling outfit is set up.

Since you can't show enough people at one time the insidiousness of the system of laws, bills, and bills-tacked-on-back-of-bills, and logrolling, and congressional/commercial/industrial hand-shaking that goes on, and still be dealing with the minds of THE MASSES instead of a handful of really bright individuals who are able to conceive so many moving parts at once, essentially you can't show everyone at the table that they're being cheated, until you get close enough to the cheater to draw the hidden aces from his sleeve.

Sad as it is, that would require blood. And if we had a leader capable of this sort of direction, I wouldn't be afraid to help achieve that end.

But it's a bit of a moot point, because without a leader, we're really just as Ramil said, more of a danger than a help. Wish it weren't so.

Maybe a leader will come, pull the sword from the stone of wall street, and then we'll see. It's not over until the fat lady sings.

From this site:

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution

In the section "October 15th Call to Action"

It says in part:

This has to stop!
We must usher in an era of democratic and economic justice.
We must change, we must evolve.
On October 15th the world will rise up as one and say, "We have had enough! We are a new beginning, a global fight on on all fronts that will usher in an era of shared prosperity, respect, mutual aid, and dignity."

**

I can't help but to think that "economic justice" and "shared prosperity" means to some people that I should go to work and they should stay in their mom's basement and that I owe them something.

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

From this site:

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution

In the section "October 15th Call to Action"

It says in part:

This has to stop!
We must usher in an era of democratic and economic justice.
We must change, we must evolve.
On October 15th the world will rise up as one and say, "We have had enough! We are a new beginning, a global fight on on all fronts that will usher in an era of shared prosperity, respect, mutual aid, and dignity."

**

I can't help but to think that "economic justice" and "shared prosperity" means to some people that I should go to work and they should stay in their mom's basement and that I owe them something.

Scott

Yeah, and this will end up in the way they'll force you to work, and watch you're not rich enough no matter how hard you work and not their "class enemy". We already have examples of such systems.

Frankly, I don't know what else I can say that could be constructive. The last two posts I've read were just descriptions of personal fears that were extracted from some pretty general language that certainly didn't target the concepts you two pulled out of them.

The one thing that I can say is, through the wording, it is revealed that Scott feels he's doing okay fiscally. That's good news and I certainly won't want to detract from that.

And given the lack of usefulness discussing political opinion in the face of what seems to be socio-psychological paranoia (basement? huh??) I'm going to save my effort on this topic for a later conversation where all parties are better informed - or, at least, less personally and emotionally tied to the issue.

When I discuss my opinions about politics, I rarely factor my own personal loss/gain into the equation - in my view, it would color my opinions and corrode my concept of what is just. I try to think more macro than this. This morning I've given a lot of thought to this... and I could conceive doing someone an emotional injury by accident, arguing politics when the recipient of my arguments is considering his personal finances. I'll stop for the sake of amicability, though I still support this movement.

And honestly, when I hear the phrase "think that I owe them something" in a political discussion, it's a red flag for me, that the moment of debate has passed, and the moment of right-wing spitball throwing has begun. I leave this arena to Rush and friends.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Frankly, I don't know what else I can say that could be constructive. The last two posts I've read were just descriptions of personal fears that were extracted from some pretty general language that certainly didn't target the concepts you two pulled out of them.

The one thing that I can say is, through the wording, it is revealed that Scott feels he's doing okay fiscally. That's good news and I certainly won't want to detract from that.

And given the lack of usefulness discussing political opinion in the face of what seems to be socio-psychological paranoia (basement? huh??) I'm going to save my effort on this topic for a later conversation where all parties are better informed - or, at least, less personally and emotionally tied to the issue.

When I discuss my opinions about politics, I rarely factor my own personal loss/gain into the equation - in my view, it would color my opinions and corrode my concept of what is just. I try to think more macro than this. This morning I've given a lot of thought to this... and I could conceive doing someone an emotional injury by accident, arguing politics when the recipient of my arguments is considering his personal finances. I'll stop for the sake of amicability, though I still support this movement.

And honestly, when I hear the phrase "think that I owe them something" in a political discussion, it's a red flag for me, that the moment of debate has passed, and the moment of right-wing spitball throwing has begun. I leave this arena to Rush and friends.

Kidkboom,

OK then can you spare your effort and explain what this movement is about? What would have to happen for this movement to say we've accomplished our goals?

As to your red flag the phrase "think that I owe them something" - how else do you redistribute the wealth as Barack Obama has stated he wants to do without someone owing someone else something (money) by force?

Your comments about my finances are hilarious.

And honestly, when I hear the phrase "I'm going to save my effort on this topic for a later conversation where all parties are better informed - or, at least, less personally and emotionally tied to the issue." please see me first two questions and please inform us.


Scott

Originally Posted by kidkboom

And honestly, when I hear the phrase "think that I owe them something" in a political discussion, it's a red flag for me

Please, don't take that personally, as that seemed to me being a very valid concern: Canadians ‘Occupy’ Toronto, Montreal in Wall Street Protests - Businessweek

About 1,000 people gathered in the heart of Toronto’s financial district beginning at 10 a.m. local time to protest inequality and advocate higher taxes for the wealthy.

One of my socially-oriented friends joined and later on said there were all kind of people there. Some of them were more sober and motivated and others just gathered to plainly smoke pot and hang around.
Also, the taxes in Toronto (a very Liberal city) are quite high, but apparently that's still not enough.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Please, don't take that personally, as that seemed to me being a very valid concern: Canadians ‘Occupy’ Toronto, Montreal in Wall Street Protests - Businessweek


One of my socially-oriented friends joined and later on said there were all kind of people there. Some of them were more sober and motivated and others just gathered to plainly smoke pot and hang around.
Also, the taxes in Toronto (a very Liberal city) are quite high, but apparently that's still not enough.

The taxes (property tax) here in New Jersey are quite high also, but apparently that's still not enough.

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

The taxes (property tax) here in New Jersey are quite high also, but apparently that's still not enough.

Scott

Well, it's not only the property tax, but the land transfer tax in Toronto is twice as high as anywhere else in Canada. Just for the sake of it. You can wake up the next day, just to find another $70 yearly tax because you have a car. Just something to cover their expenses with. The province of Ontario (which is Liberal) recently found that it would be very beneficial to tax all goods and services 13% (and it was just 5% or 8% on some goods and services before July 2010). Mostly, the new increase influenced the fuel costs, but, hey, the basement dwellers don't have to drive, do they? And so on. The Conservative federal government had been reducing their tax (from 7% down to 5%) and the Liberal provincial government is happy to cancel that positive economic effect because, hey, now people got some money available, so why not?

Originally Posted by fortheether

Kidkboom,

OK then can you spare your effort and explain what this movement is about? What would have to happen for this movement to say we've accomplished our goals?

As to your red flag the phrase "think that I owe them something" - how else do you redistribute the wealth as Barack Obama has stated he wants to do without someone owing someone else something (money) by force?

Your comments about my finances are hilarious.

And honestly, when I hear the phrase "I'm going to save my effort on this topic for a later conversation where all parties are better informed - or, at least, less personally and emotionally tied to the issue." please see me first two questions and please inform us.


Scott

It's clear to me that this is less about hearing what everyone has to say, and more about winning an argument, so I'll keep this concise, as i've already put three or four hours worth of work into this thread, and without much to show for it in the way of understanding each other.
In my opinion this movement is about one purpose: to wake people up. Particularly, to wake up people who are saying things similar to what you're saying, and there are many. To respond to the occupy movement by saying: "you need to get a job and move out of mommy's bassement" seems to me to be as biased and ill-informed as telling black plantation slaves in the 1800s to "just get an education and get a real job."
I'm leery to do this again: I swore I wouldn't get in another political debate on MR.com after the last one broke down so similarly - what happens next is, I try to describe the nature of the problem by explaining the common situation a lot of these people are going through; and the token republicans respond by telling me that it doesn't fit the description of THEIR life. I explain that jobs are requisite of education, that public/free education is a joke and doesn't GET jobs, that only those with the familial money to purchase education get tracked toward those jobs; then the republican tokens tell me that they got there through a grant and really hard work. I try to explain that the entire plane of business in america is corrupted and closed-door'd, that new businesses stand literally no hope in the face of these giant corporations that have enshadowed the entire playing field - Apple and the dread pirate Jobs own the cell-tech world, ConAgra owns the lion's share of the world's DNA, DuPont and AP own the world's political and commercial opinions, and so on. Then the republicans tell me about their own small business which they started (skipping neatly over the business college education they got and how it was paid for, and the hand-shaking they had to do with the existing businesses, the unions, the city and state governments, the special interests etc) .. They paint a Joe the Plumber picture that's really an extreme minority, but because somebody stands there and says "This is Everyman" x% of the readership believe him.
I'm saying all this to communicate to you that THERE IS A PROBLEM. Just because the problem has been sitting in one place for awhile, and hasn't moved, it doesn't make it a phantasm - it's real. The people on the OUTSIDE of wall street today don't have Roth IRAs, Harvard degrees, penthouses, pension plans, college savings for their kids and Gerber plans.. The people INSIDE of wall street do. (And it's lost 20-odd% value (oh no!) - that's nothing compared to the guy who lost 100% of his place to live in the same 'wave of recession'.)
At the end of the day, the problem is, capitalism is great, and I love the theory, but in practice - it's trumped by the injustice of a well-to-do individual munching on turkey legs while out the window, people are starving - that he wears italian sportcoats a few pockets shy of enough to hold his wallet, ipod, ipad bluetooth and blackberry; and the people outside keep their heads try with paper bags. The essence of the problem is, if there's no way toward success provided to a certain group of people, they're enslaved. And enslaved people WILL fight, and they'll be perfectly willing to die in the process, since it's often a better option to die fighting than to waste away unseen. It seems to me that if democrats would just accept the supine position of financial inferiority, and die off under the weight of their problems, that would be a fine solution for most republicans. if i had one, that would break my heart.
Until those folks become willing to take the other half of the country on as their responsibility and comrades both, this is just going to be hatfield-and-mccoy stupidity.
For this movement to accomplish goals, I will refrain: it needs a LEADER. I would say it needs a politician willing to represent its goals, and then find that the mob moves to the voting polls in support of this individual; but we got burned last time. I've watched for 4 years as every cotton-pickin thing Obama tried to do got shut down by the Republican army, both through legitimate means, and sneaky ones. And it's a wicked pisser because the whole time I knew that at the end of the four years, this same group would look at Obama's failed attempts as defeats that HE caused, when we all know better, we all watched him battle with the other branches of government in a stalemate that amounted to "blacklist: Obama". These people are a group of moneyed american elitists who never woke up from the H3 dream of the 90s, who wore Bush's tenure as president like a mink coat to protect them against all the madness of the world around them after 9-11, like some collective Scarlett O'Hara coming down the recession stairs in a curtain. And as opposed to join with the rest of their countrymen in achieving A SOLUTION THAT'S WORKABLE FOR EVERYONE, they have spent years throwing the bodies of american youth at the fire of the middle east like some crazed religious sacrifical priests, maybe hoping all the while to dwindle the population numbers that thwart their financial success by demanding those last few coveted pennies be allotted to feeding people who need food, and such other trivial democrat-ish things. Certainly they were hoping that by falling on outdated and defunct 50s-era callbacks like "military tradition" and "family values" that they would somehow revert the messed up world we live in back to the era of riding high on fossil fuel and commandeered assets from third-world countries. Apparently the new definiton of recession is the Hamptons maintain fiscal stasis while Brooklyn starves to death - and it surprises everyone that there's dissent about this?
But it's still a moot point.. We couldn't have a leader now - where would we get one? - unless this went from protest to riot, and then it would be silenced in one quick mortar-blast fired by the 33% of our country who serve in the military and have received military training that employs techniques picked right up out of hitler camps - the sleep deprivation, nutritional deprivation, followed by political indoctrination in a brain-stressed state - so that doesn't lead us anywhere good, either.
And if there was a gandhi in that crowd? well, you wouldn't notice him. you'd be busy assuming he lives in his parent's basement, and telling him to stop trying to get a buck off of you, and go get a haircut and a real job.
Sigh... my sincerest apologies to Lampada for having to read through all my crud. feeling kind of guilty about that.

Short term profits killed the economy. The "Greed is good" mentality.
Americans have a short term outlook and memory. Double digit profits don't happen every year and when they do, a collapse will follow (see housing).
We used to make a lot of "things" here. Short term profit sent the manufacturing overseas. A less expensive product (then cheaper) = better profits but no one to buy the products.
Henry Ford might have been a a real SOB but he knew that paying his workers allowed them to buy his product and kept a stable an loyal workforce.
I worked in plastics for 30 years, primarily shoes and other consumer goods. The footwear industry is gone. Not just a couple companies, all of it. A few bookkeepers, accountants and designers remain with upper management. All of the lower level production and assembly, mid level management, tooling (me) are gone and I doubt they will come back.

I worked for years learning and developing my skills to make a quality product at a fair price. I used to make some things that can be done without like fishing lures and golf trinkets but they kept companies alive that also made packaging, printing, raw and manufacture materials.

My resume is a graveyard of companies that were made to fail over a percentage point or two.
See Is "Walmart Good for America?". Transcript | Is Wal-Mart Good For America? | FRONTLINE | PBS

They did the same thing to Dr. Scholl's; one of my former clients. Collective Brands (Collective Brands, Inc.) sent all their manufacturing overseas. Not some, all. And took the profits. I could take you for a ride about an hour from my home and spend 3 hours showing you all the empty buildings where businesses once were.

We gave it all away for cheap crap and short term profits.

The stuff we get from China is no less expensive in terms of price but far greater in the long term.

China is thinking long term.

That's the root cause. Immediate gratification.

Originally Posted by capecoddah

I worked for years learning and developing my skills to make a quality product at a fair price. I used to make some things that can be done without like fishing lures and golf trinkets but they kept companies alive that also made packaging, printing, raw and manufacture materials.

That is an excellent point! The totally 'unregulated' free market is fundamentally based on the idea of the 'agile workers', the ones who would move from one employment to another and acquire new skills fairly quickly. But the reality is that concept has limited applications. That's why we need some balance. We shouldn't let the extremes of either way (right or left) to rule the country. And especially we shouldn't let those who need blood for their social experiments to rule the country. Regardless of how passionate they are in their desire to hang the wrong guys.

The "social justice" deals with the problem of slicing the pie more equally, but the Western-style capitalism deals [most of the time] with how to create a larger pie. But, there should be some limits and stoppers on that process to make it more humane.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

It's clear to me that this is less about hearing what everyone has to say, and more about winning an argument, so I'll keep this concise, as i've already put three or four hours worth of work into this thread, and without much to show for it in the way of understanding each other.
In my opinion this movement is about one purpose: to wake people up. Particularly, to wake up people who are saying things similar to what you're saying, and there are many. To respond to the occupy movement by saying: "you need to get a job and move out of mommy's bassement" seems to me to be as biased and ill-informed as telling black plantation slaves in the 1800s to "just get an education and get a real job."
I'm leery to do this again: I swore I wouldn't get in another political debate on MR.com after the last one broke down so similarly - what happens next is, I try to describe the nature of the problem by explaining the common situation a lot of these people are going through; and the token republicans respond by telling me that it doesn't fit the description of THEIR life. I explain that jobs are requisite of education, that public/free education is a joke and doesn't GET jobs, that only those with the familial money to purchase education get tracked toward those jobs; then the republican tokens tell me that they got there through a grant and really hard work. I try to explain that the entire plane of business in america is corrupted and closed-door'd, that new businesses stand literally no hope in the face of these giant corporations that have enshadowed the entire playing field - Apple and the dread pirate Jobs own the cell-tech world, ConAgra owns the lion's share of the world's DNA, DuPont and AP own the world's political and commercial opinions, and so on. Then the republicans tell me about their own small business which they started (skipping neatly over the business college education they got and how it was paid for, and the hand-shaking they had to do with the existing businesses, the unions, the city and state governments, the special interests etc) .. They paint a Joe the Plumber picture that's really an extreme minority, but because somebody stands there and says "This is Everyman" x% of the readership believe him.
I'm saying all this to communicate to you that THERE IS A PROBLEM. Just because the problem has been sitting in one place for awhile, and hasn't moved, it doesn't make it a phantasm - it's real. The people on the OUTSIDE of wall street today don't have Roth IRAs, Harvard degrees, penthouses, pension plans, college savings for their kids and Gerber plans.. The people INSIDE of wall street do. (And it's lost 20-odd% value (oh no!) - that's nothing compared to the guy who lost 100% of his place to live in the same 'wave of recession'.)
At the end of the day, the problem is, capitalism is great, and I love the theory, but in practice - it's trumped by the injustice of a well-to-do individual munching on turkey legs while out the window, people are starving - that he wears italian sportcoats a few pockets shy of enough to hold his wallet, ipod, ipad bluetooth and blackberry; and the people outside keep their heads try with paper bags. The essence of the problem is, if there's no way toward success provided to a certain group of people, they're enslaved. And enslaved people WILL fight, and they'll be perfectly willing to die in the process, since it's often a better option to die fighting than to waste away unseen. It seems to me that if democrats would just accept the supine position of financial inferiority, and die off under the weight of their problems, that would be a fine solution for most republicans. if i had one, that would break my heart.
Until those folks become willing to take the other half of the country on as their responsibility and comrades both, this is just going to be hatfield-and-mccoy stupidity.
For this movement to accomplish goals, I will refrain: it needs a LEADER. I would say it needs a politician willing to represent its goals, and then find that the mob moves to the voting polls in support of this individual; but we got burned last time. I've watched for 4 years as every cotton-pickin thing Obama tried to do got shut down by the Republican army, both through legitimate means, and sneaky ones. And it's a wicked pisser because the whole time I knew that at the end of the four years, this same group would look at Obama's failed attempts as defeats that HE caused, when we all know better, we all watched him battle with the other branches of government in a stalemate that amounted to "blacklist: Obama". These people are a group of moneyed american elitists who never woke up from the H3 dream of the 90s, who wore Bush's tenure as president like a mink coat to protect them against all the madness of the world around them after 9-11, like some collective Scarlett O'Hara coming down the recession stairs in a curtain. And as opposed to join with the rest of their countrymen in achieving A SOLUTION THAT'S WORKABLE FOR EVERYONE, they have spent years throwing the bodies of american youth at the fire of the middle east like some crazed religious sacrifical priests, maybe hoping all the while to dwindle the population numbers that thwart their financial success by demanding those last few coveted pennies be allotted to feeding people who need food, and such other trivial democrat-ish things. Certainly they were hoping that by falling on outdated and defunct 50s-era callbacks like "military tradition" and "family values" that they would somehow revert the messed up world we live in back to the era of riding high on fossil fuel and commandeered assets from third-world countries. Apparently the new definiton of recession is the Hamptons maintain fiscal stasis while Brooklyn starves to death - and it surprises everyone that there's dissent about this?
But it's still a moot point.. We couldn't have a leader now - where would we get one? - unless this went from protest to riot, and then it would be silenced in one quick mortar-blast fired by the 33% of our country who serve in the military and have received military training that employs techniques picked right up out of hitler camps - the sleep deprivation, nutritional deprivation, followed by political indoctrination in a brain-stressed state - so that doesn't lead us anywhere good, either.
And if there was a gandhi in that crowd? well, you wouldn't notice him. you'd be busy assuming he lives in his parent's basement, and telling him to stop trying to get a buck off of you, and go get a haircut and a real job.
Sigh... my sincerest apologies to Lampada for having to read through all my crud. feeling kind of guilty about that.

I don't want an argument but when you say this:

"I've watched for 4 years as every cotton-pickin thing Obama tried to do got shut down by the Republican army, both through legitimate means, and sneaky ones."

I have to reply. BTW - I'm a registered independent. The makeup of congress for the first 1 year and about 9 months of Obama's presidency was democratic. Both houses. Kind of means Obama was thorted by democrats, eh?


From:

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Major events

• January 2009: Two Senate seats were disputed when the Congress convened:
  
  1. An appointment dispute over the Illinois seat vacated by President Barack Obama arose following Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's alleged solicitation of bribes in exchange for an appointment to the Senate. Roland Burris (D) was appointed to the seat on December 31, 2008, his credentials were accepted on January 12, 2009, and he was sworn in to office on January 15, 2009.
  2. An election dispute over the Minnesota seat previously held by Norm Coleman (R), between Coleman and challenger Al Franken (D), was decided in late June 2009 in favor of Franken,^[6] who was sworn in on July 7, 2009.^[7]
• January 8, 2009: Joint session counted the Electoral College votes of the 2008 presidential election.^[8]
• January 20, 2009: Inauguration of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
• September 9, 2009: President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to promote health care reform, which Representative Joe Wilson (R) interrupted by shouting at the President.
• January 25, 2010: 2010 State of the Union Address
• April 20, 2010: Deepwater Horizon oil spill
• November 2, 2010: 2010 general elections, in which Republicans regained control of the House while the Democrats remained in control of the Senate.

I'm going to read this thread's earlier posts as until recently I didn't care what the Occupiers are about. I became interested when Obama made positive statement's about this movement. I wonder why he made fun of the tea party but suspect the Occupiers also agree with him - yea all that less government and freedom talk.

Kidkboom - thank's for replying and I'll do some reading about this.

Scott

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Well, it's not only the property tax, but the land transfer tax in Toronto is twice as high as anywhere else in Canada. Just for the sake of it. You can wake up the next day, just to find another $70 yearly tax because you have a car. Just something to cover their expenses with. The province of Ontario (which is Liberal) recently found that it would be very beneficial to tax all goods and services 13% (and it was just 5% or 8% on some goods and services before July 2010). Mostly, the new increase influenced the fuel costs, but, hey, the basement dwellers don't have to drive, do they? And so on. The Conservative federal government had been reducing their tax (from 7% down to 5%) and the Liberal provincial government is happy to cancel that positive economic effect because, hey, now people got some money available, so why not?

Mostly, the new increase influenced the fuel costs, but, hey, the basement dwellers don't have to drive, do they?

That's so funny

Isn't it funny that some people from big cities that can use public transportation want everyone else to drive less.

Scott

Bill Black: #OccupyWallStreet A Counter to White-Collar Fraud | AmpedStatus.
.
AmpedStatus - Knowledge Is Power.