What do you guys think of what's going on with this protest? Do you think it'll actually be successful in any way?
Some of my friends went today, though I did not. (Today is supposed to be a Grade-In, a teacher demonstration of teachers just sitting there, doing their grading.)
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
I don't really see the point. What are they trying to accomplish? The message I'm getting from it is "We're angry and we're going to do something about it!"
---
CSBE FTW!
DarthMarth - Better than a bowl of Cheerios.
It's not going to accomplish anything. Demonstrating on the weekend when no one is around? Good luck with that,
---
http://lostfacts.net/boards
He never hit the brakes and he was shifting gears
They've been there non-stop (though there are of course more people on the weekend) since it started, including during the week.
That does seem to be the message. "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." But it seems like the plan is to first get attention, then talk about what they what, with the vague message of "corporate influence is bad"
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
It's kind of spreading to Iowa, there were people handing out Occupy Iowa flyers.
It's driving me crazy, for some reason. A bunch of angry people with no specific goal makes me nervous. If they had one, I could either look at it, and be like, "Yeah, that'd be something great to support," or "No, that's a horrible way of solving the problem."
Let me put it this way, if there were a group of people angry about world hunger, I would agree that they were bringing awareness to a problem, but I'd want to know their solution before supporting them. Supplying food and aid, or trying to kick start the economy in third world countries is something I could get behind. Advocating cannibalism isn't.
---
Fame is but a slow decay.
-Theodore Tilton
I'm sympathetic to their unwashed hippie anti-corporate message, but I do wish someone would try to define it in some way.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
I came into the topic to ask what it was, and it seems that there's no information on that other than like, what you'd infer from the name. I guess I would be more in tune with like, not taxing investment income for "regular" people (I'd want to see that based not just on your income but more like, on your income-to-cost-of-living comparison... because 100,000 bucks goes a lot further in Michigan than California) so that regular people could do more Wall-Streeting and probably taxing it more for unregular people, and then even more for super-unregular people like Mr. Buffet.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm kind of okay with a broad-based unwashed hippie anti-corporate message.
I might show up with a "burn the university" sandwich board.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
I walked down there for the first time today. It was interesting. The vibe was much more positive than I was expecting.
---
Ocarinakid
I'd been hearing vague things about this protest on Twitter lately and finally got around to checking out what was going on today. It seems pretty interesting, so I wondered if PMS had anything to say about it. Lo and behold, there's a topic for it here!
Obviously, there's something off about the way our country is run, but it's hard to pinpoint the problem and the solution. Is the problem with corporate America? Is it with the capitalist economic system? Is it a problem with the very existence of money itself?
It's easy to see that people are going to get angry about it. They can feel that something is wrong. They're getting angry because they want to fix it. But they don't offer any solutions because they can't come up with any. Honestly...any solution that will fix ALL the problems will require some radical change in the system, as far as I can tell.
I'm also a little curious about what everyone thinks about the mass media-blackout. According to the below article, the protest hasn't received much media coverage at all. What's up with that?
http://rockrivertimes.com/2011/10/05/guest-column-why-the-media-blackout-of-the-wall-street-protests/
---
"I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific."
The liberal media is—oh, wait.
---
Change your signature once a month for optimal health, and don't forget to backslash your backslashes.
It's pathetic and won't accomplish anything.
I think it's sickening and I couldn't disagree with it more.
They can Occupy My Nuts.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
I can see the Onion headline now: "Area Womanizer Invites Liberals Into Testicles, Surprised When Son Turns Out Gay".
---
Change your signature once a month for optimal health, and don't forget to backslash your backslashes.
What do you disagree with, Brandon?
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
Kodi, bravo on that post. That was witty and I approve of such things.
Jace, I just think it's bogus. It won't accomplish anything and it, to me, is a demonstration of nothing but pure disdain for the structure of society. These people want stupid things - like the kid who wants his college paid for because "I want it that way." Cut me an effing break. This kind of force won't accomplish anything, no one is changing anything, and ultimately this will end up a joke of a bunch of liberal cry-babies who can't/won't work for themselves to get what they want.
You want to change your life? Great. Make yourself better? Great. You know how you do that? Stay in school, study hard, and give yourself the best competitive advantage you can. Then scratch and bite your way to the top. THAT is how you succeed. Not "asking" for things like these lazy slobs. Typical liberals: want, want, want with absolutely no concept of the repercussions of their demands. Now, this isn't all liberals, I'll admit. Most of you are and I have the utmost respect for every single poster here. But the majority of the liberal population? Fools.
I applaud the people in the office buildings with the "1%" posters put up in the windows. If I were one of them I'd drive by these pigs every day with my windows down with a HUGE smile on my face. Let them know you can't be bullied like this.
When this is all said and done I'll be the one with the smug smile on my face while all these hippies go back to their hourly rates at Wal-Mart.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
From: Pooty Boy | Posted: 10/15/2011 10:49:06 AM | #015
These people want stupid things - like the kid who wants his college paid for…
I don't know if you're referring to a specific person who was interviewed or something, but having the government pay for one's college education makes eminent sense from the perspective of giving the poor a chance to escape from poverty. See, if the government doesn't help and your parents are too poor to help, you need to hold enough jobs to make enough money to pay room, board, and tuition while attending college full-time, which will put you at a big academic disadvantage relative to kids whose parents foot the bill, because doing well in college takes time.
---
Change your signature once a month for optimal health, and don't forget to backslash your backslashes.
Eh, I'm not big on this movement and, from what I've seen of its members, I'm not impressed and even a bit ashamed of them, for kind of the same reasons Pooty is putting down.
That being said, don't get confused: I'm anti-capitalist and believe a social economy (not big government, but social business) is healthier for the economy, the individual's wealth, and the society itself (especially the family). I'm not for hand-me-outs [there should be a government institution that gives people work to do for their unemployment/welfare], I'm not for big government [private businesses will always be more effective than government], and I'm not for this movement. I am for a complete revolution in our economic and business structure, however, and believe it's imminently important for the health of society.
---
SIGNATURE
I don't applaud the people in office building who put up "1%" posters, because they think they are in the 1% when they are not. That, I think, it the real problem. And the fact that you've dismissed the whole movement as liberal, when it's not about liberal or conservative. It's about unfair use of money.
It's about things being too big to fail. Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party both started with the same things: that when you privatize gains and socialize losses, everyone (but the top 1% who receives those gains) loses.
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
This. Coming from somebody who votes primarily Republican/Independent.
Kodi, it was indeed one particular interview I was speaking of. The kid wants it paid for - but doesn't want to reimburse anyone for the tuition.
You want to go to college but can't afford it? Get a loan. Millions of people have to take out loans. But if you're serious about bettering yourself then you'll do it. If not, then you're just a lazy slob.
It's not about not having the money, it's about not doing everything you can. Sometimes the solutions aren't easy. These pigs want easy.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
Jace, I can at least partially really agree with your last statement.
Sure, the top end has a bit too much. But when they've earned it who am I to tell them otherwise? I, and this is not meant to insult anyone here, absolutely despise the socialist mindset and am a staunch opponent of big government of any kind. Sharing is not caring and I do not think a PENNY of my earnings should go to anyone else without my consent. At least not with our current structure. I'd be all for a restructuring of many of our establishments, but I'd wish they were MORE laissez-faire than anything else.
That's largely why I hate that hack America put in the White House. He's a pompous ass who is in all seriousness trying to institute a European socialist structure in this country. That's not what we were founded on and that's not what Americans want, if I'm generalizing.
However, that is neither here nor there. Occupy Wall Street is a vain attempt at nothing. Nothing will change, nor should it, honestly.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
From: Pooty Boy | Posted: 10/16/2011 12:33:54 PM | #020
If not, then you're just a lazy slob.
Or you're (possibly justifiably) afraid you won't be able to pay off such a huge debt in a timely manner. Or your "expected family contribution" is unreasonably high, meaning that you won't be able cover all of tuition with Stafford loans, meaning that you'd need to take out normal loans with higher interest rates and compound (rather than simple) interest.
From: Pooty Boy | Posted: 10/16/2011 12:40:56 PM | #021
Sure, the top end has a bit too much. But when they've earned it who am I to tell them otherwise?
No matter how much I deserve to have one billion dollars, this does not change the fact that if spent a billion dollars on yachts and caviar, a lot of resources would be expended amusing me that could have been expended on feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. The right to food and clothing supersedes all rights to wealth.
I don't mean to say it's everybody's responsibility to give away every spare cent. I would prefer that society were structured such that there wasn't much in the way of private property at all, just a big pool of resources we could all add to and draw from freely.
---
Change your signature once a month for optimal health, and don't forget to backslash your backslashes.
I think my problem with that philosophy, Brandon, is that people don't make money in a vacuum. To make money you use the resources and economy of society, and so it is responsible to contribute some of that back. If truckers all decided to not pay taxes, then the government would not be able to build and maintain roads, and then the truckers would stop making their money and have nothing themselves left.
I think what you might be advocating is that none of that money goes to the government, and then the truckers pool their money to maintain the roads themselves. Is that right? But that's exactly what government is (or is supposed to be): society pooling its resources for the betterment of society.
And the protestors are protesting that society is pooling its resources but only for the betterment of some ("the 1%").
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
Here's an interesting Fox News article about this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/14/understanding-occupy-wall-street/
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
"... that could have been expended on feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. The right to food and clothing supersedes all rights to wealth."
I fundamentally disagree.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
Big government really is more of a fascist thing than a socialist one, I feel. I think socialism is a misunderstood idea.
One (of the many) problems with a capitalist state is that the capitalist is forced (because of competition from other capitalists) to get as much out of something as possible and give as little back as possible. A capitalist pays employees as little as possible, to maximize profits- some go to the company, others, to his own pocket. And he continually will make higher relative gains against his employees. If he starts making 20X his wage workers wages, he'll eventually be making 30, or 40, or 50, provided business is successful. So the rising tide isn't lifting all boats equally, and is being siphoned elsewhere.
The right-wing poster child is Andrew Carnegie, who went from rags to riches, and he stands as proof of the ability of all to succeed. But the bottom line is this: we don't all have an equal chance to succeed. If we did, an equal percentage of people from poor neighborhoods (disenfranchised workers and victims of capitalist society who become ignorant, perhaps violent and criminal) and wealthy neighborhoods would succeed (by which I mean on a scale of wealth, not anything else). They don't, though. What's the difference between 100 children in the wealthy neighborhood and 100 children in the poor neighborhood? Their environments. Their birthplace weighs heavily on their likelihood of success.
---
SIGNATURE
Not that I have much pity on the average American in "plight". I make next to no money and I love my life. I believe myself to be what's called a happy person. I barely understand how a person in America can not hold it together if I can hold it together. I know some people live in true poverty, and should be taken care of (or at least given the option through a worker-welfare system), but most are only uncomfortable. I hold much more pity for a starving African village than some schmuck who can't afford a good car.
I'm against corporate greed in principle, but at the same time I think most people are slobs looking for an easy dime. To be crude, I'll say there are two types of liberals: those who are slobs, and those looking to a brighter future. Two types of conservatives, also: those who own capital, and those who don't know what capitalism means.
---
SIGNATURE
From: Pooty Boy | Posted: 10/16/2011 9:43:44 PM | #025
I fundamentally disagree.
Well, I guess it comes down to how I think about pleasure. Luxuries don't make the world a better place. Society does not benefit when I eat ice cream. So I don't assign any ultimate value to ice cream. But society does benefit when a formerly homeless person is given a home, because we've eliminated some human suffering and brought someone closer to taking an active and productive role in society.
---
Change your signature once a month for optimal health, and don't forget to backslash your backslashes.
Can we institute a rule that if a political movement makes bile run up your throat, you have to stop and ask yourself whether you actually understand it?
Like sure there's your fair share of ku klux klans out there, but they're not the ones marching here. For the most part, people just want to get on with their lives and do the best they can by the people they love. When you understand that, you can feel human sympathy for them and at the very least regard their opinions with conscientious civility. If, after that, you're made physically ill by hearing about someone about someone who means well but disagrees with you, you're probably a sociopath.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
I agree fully with Willis. I'd like to add this, which I find inspirational and towards the end, really beautiful:
We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.
When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal.
Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go.
Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.
The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man,
but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness.
Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.
Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?
My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.
But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.
Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil.
For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.
Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
I feel like one of the fundamental misunderstandings in this topic is about the whole "1% dealio".
The question isn't whether the 1% deserve to have the money and lifestyle--whether they worked hard for it or not is not really the problem.
(According to Occupy X, ) the problem is that this 1% is calling the shots in our government. We claim to be a democracy, but in the end, all we do is elect senators and representatives who cater to lobbyists and big corporations. In short, the ones elected by the majority only listen to the minority.
If I understand correctly, a huge part of the protest is simply a complaint to Congress about not actually listening to popular opinion.
---
"I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific."
You understand correctly. Things under discussion include campaign finance reform and legislation to limit the number of congressional hookers you can write off as a business expense.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
I guess it's just a matter of trying to separate the people from the movement. For me, the people that I have seen (very limited, from news reports) seem confused, speaking in vague generalities about "corporate greed" but without assigning any meaning to the term. Or saying "I had to, you know, work during college. It was hard." These people taint my opinion, when really, they shouldn't represent the ideology behind the movement.
---
SIGNATURE
But the bottom line is this: we don't all have an equal chance to succeed.
And guess what? Not everyone deserves to be on the same playing field to me.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
Does the concept of people deserving things serve any prosocial purpose? Because its main function seems to be justifying suffering and self-indulgence.
---
Change your signature once a month for optimal health, and don't forget to backslash your backslashes.
Whoa whoa whoa. You're pro-inequality? Like, you think it's good that poor/blackhispanic/etc people are less able to go to college than you? Because of a quirk of their birth?
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
I agree; simply by being American these people have a tremendous economic advantage over most of the world. Compared to people in developing countries, they
are the 1%. It would make more sense to see "We are the ~80%" protests in Africa.
---
CSBE FTW!
DarthMarth - Better than a bowl of Cheerios.
I'm not pro-inequality, but I'm also not naive enough to think that everyone could or should start on the same playing field. It's a nice ideology, but one that is fruitless. It's an idea for dreamers - not realists. Unfair as it may be it's the way of the world.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
Relevant psychology: one of the standard economic games studied in decision-making is the dictator game, in which the subject is given a fixed amount of money and gets to choose how to split it between themself and another person. Standard economic theory says that dictators should keep all the money for themselves and give none away, but under standard conditions, 60% give at least a little (Camerer, 2003). Not surprisingly, social factors can influence how many subjects choose to give. In Cherry, Frykblom, and Shogren (2002), full anonymity for dictators and recipients was ensured, and dictators got the money they had the opportunity to split by answering GMAT questions. Here, only 5% of dictators donated anything. I think this makes plain that the conviction that one deserves what one earns is not beneficial to society.
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92, 1218–1221. doi:10.1257/00028280260344740
---
Change your signature once a month for optimal health, and don't forget to backslash your backslashes.
See, not thinking anyone could vs anyone should are two very different thoughts. One is realistic, the other is assholish. If you just accept inequality because that is the way the world is, the world would never change. And it has.
---
"You can't keep throwing people at your problems, dear." - Emma Frost to Colossus
~Jacehan~
Is there a word for when somebody takes an oppositional stance (that is a stance that "x organization/position sucks") but then emboldens that position in so facile a way that the new, more zealous position is a parody of the old one?
For example: "I oppose this group calling for egalitarian economic reforms" --> "I oppose them so much that I oppose economic reforms" --> "In fact, I oppose them so much that I oppose egalitarianism."
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
Well, there's something to be said for where Pooty is coming from.
Lots of people out there are slobs. Lots of people put zero effort into anything and expect luxury back. In fact, that's the thing- they even want luxury. Why would I want to sacrifice the money that I (let's say I earned it, didn't inherit it) I earned so that some schmuck can revel in his unemployment a little longer before getting off of his lazy bum? Or some idiot who can't afford to live, yet goes and has another child to raise, starving and malnourished though he himself is?
When you hand out free money to people, they take advantage of it much of the time (not all of them, but many). For example, a friend of mine, a pretty upstanding and bright young man, when on unemployment, did not attempt to search for a job until his unemployment ended. He rode it out for a long time without lifting a finger- why? Why him, someone who is generally not as wretched as the average human? Because free money promotes laziness.
Not only that, people getting free money are put in a position where they, I believe, feel no self-worth for what they're getting. No accomplishment. No "I earned this," leading to laziness and self-hatred, and in turn, the destruction of the family unit. Idle hands are also the tools of the devil and idle time earned from receiving your money for nothing results in lots of social degenerate behavior.
I don't want to give my money to those people. A system where unemployed and welfare people can receive stipends/rations/housing in trade for work they do (cleanup of cities, textiles, aiding farms or other labor programs, whatever) you enable people to 1) do something positive for the money you were giving them anyways and 2) make those people into better individuals. You give them the option, and tailor it to their abilities: do this and you'll receive what you need to survive.
At least, that makes sense to me. I'm certainly against free money (aside from the very rare cases where someone is completely useless, and can't even partake in this federal union... I guess they need it, since it'd be inhumane to just let them die in the streets)
---
SIGNATURE
Yeah, I'd like to see able-bodied and able-minded people work for their welfare. I'm fine with just giving money to the handicapped.
BUM hit it on the nose for me.
I agree 100%.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
Well, answer me this: did your funemployed friend live with his parents? Even if he was paying rent, was he feeding kids? Unemployment is hardly a walk in the park if you have actual expenses. Same thing with welfare: it sounds like a sweet deal, but in practice it's really not enough to get by on. I'm sure there are people who live with a spectacularly reduced quality of life on public assistance and consider it gaming the system, but the idea that that kind of lifestyle is common or desirable is a fiction. More often you're going to find people struggling with terrible jobs to make ends meet.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
^ Such is the way of the world.
This world isn't about all things being equal. It's about having competition and the ability to fight and scratch for what you want.
To me, these swine are the best campaign supporters the Republican Party could ever ask for. I'd assume most Americans think this is a joke (these "revolutionaries" are such a small percentage). It HOPEFULLY will turn people off to the Obama re-election campaign, since more-often-than-not these kinds of people are associated with liberals.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
Okay so to be clear your proposal is that perhaps they should die and decrease the surplus population because social Darwinism.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
> This world isn't about all things being equal. It's about having competition and the ability to fight and scratch for what you want.
Fighting and scratching is what Occupy Wall Street is all about. It is nothing like easy to be out there, in the elements, every day, always looking out for police who might come to arrest you or hit you with tear gas or crack your skull. It's not a walk in the park and it's certainly no party. If the protestors were lazy or unmotivated they would not be protesting. But they have tried getting a job and seen that there are none. They have tried going to college and found themselves no more hired but now in debt. With the scales so heavily tilted against them, speaking out on the street with big signs is the last hope of all these people to get a shot at the American Dream, for themselves and for others.
The reason these protesters are protesting -- and not, say, waiting patiently for the next election -- is that the structure of this democracy, whereby the more money you have the more say you have in politics, allows Big Money to get such favorable treatment. They can hire a lobbyist for $500,000 who rubs a few elbows and get them a contract or a subsidy or a loosened requirement that lets them score an extra $50 million, at the expense of their taxpayers or customers or employees. The middle class has nothing like that political power; they need all that money for stuff like a house or college. And the poor need every damn cent they have for food or a roof or to pay off a bank fee that they got for not having enough money.* Yelling with signs is the one way they have left to get their say listened to.
And what they're demanding on Wall Street (the reason that those protests are at Wall Street and financial district throughout the country) is not for poor people, or lazy people to get more handouts because they want to live the life. They're demanding for big financial firms and other major industry players to stop getting government handouts, and government leeway, and paying so much less as a proportion of what they can afford to part with for taxes at the expense of the middle class. They're protesting that the government is in a major financial hole because, for example, of the Bush tax cuts, the business end of which was basically letting the rich have more money. Or that corporations like BP or Goldman Sachs do huge damage to the economy and then pay either nothing at all, or so little relative to the profit they made from the damage that it would be worth their time to do it again. Even if it was the case that the Occupiers contributed nothing to the economy -- which is patently false -- they have done more to help than Goldman Sachs et. al., who have actively damaged the economy. And yet big financial firms are allowed to keep making the same money using the same methods.
So when Occupiers demand things like the President's Jobs act -- which includes such goodies as lowering payroll taxes (so it's easier for companies to hire people) and closing tax loopholes that the wealthy exploit (which should be a no-brainer anyway) -- they're not looking for handouts so they can work less. They want jobs to be available so they get the chance to work, and they want their hard work to be rewarded. And they want to government to stop rewarding the rich simply for being rich, because no one needs more incentive to get rich than they already have.
It's not about making the score equal for every game. It's not even about making sure the home team doesn't start every at bat on Third. It's about keeping the ump from calling a strike when you can't leave the dugout because your leg is broken.
---
* I cannot describe poverty any better (or more colorfully) than this guy:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/
---
Was it a car or a cat I saw?
Pooty, this is really mean. Where does all this anger come from? Calling people "swine" just isn't right. That kind of behavior is, I'll use your words against you here, one of the best campaign supporters the Democrat party could ever ask for.
Wil- you were right that my friend had no responsibilities, thus enabling him to fully enjoy his funemployment, unlike many other people on unemployment. I guess it is a losing war to "game" the system by living a meager existence, and a losing argument to explain people's behaviors on welfare as "gaming". But either way, to me, the system itself just doesn't seem to work, and that alone justifies trying something else.
If scraping by, stressing and clawing and sweating just to survive is a real way of life for those at the bottom of the scale [meaning, gaming is not a good strategy], then there's something wrong with the system. In the federal union, where shelter/rations/daycare and a small stipend are provided for a 30 hr workweek, you have no needs of fear and stress, because your goods are provided for you- there won't be a day where there is no food on the table. The stipend is yours to spend or save. Your children will be in safe environments and off the streets. They'll see a parent(s) who works, not laze or sit glued to the tv in a fit of apathy. It's helpful to lowering rates of obesity and a slew of other health problems to boot, as well as social ones.
Do you get luxury? Well, no, not unless you save for it. But it's not really anything to me if Joe and Ally can't afford their dream mansion, as that's inherently selfish of them anyway. It's not sustainable, it's extravagant and wasteful. Of course, I'd feel bad if they were so poor they couldn't afford their favorite book, which is more emotional than decadent, but with a stipend that shouldn't happen.
My concern is with the necessities of all guaranteed; the luxuries are just that. With our current system, the necessities, as we've agreed upon, are not guaranteed.
---
SIGNATURE
So did anybody move their money out of a big bank on Saturday? My old bank/Credit Union actually e-mailed me to tell me to do it (and move it to them, obviously).
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
First of all, I haven't been following this topic very closely but zomg a topic on PMS made it to a second page! That hasn't happened in awhile.
And no, I didn't move my money out of a big bank on Saturday, nor did I get any e-mails or other form of notifications about it (other than what I read myself about the movement in general.)
---
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/ukealii50/kylo.jpg - Thanks uke!
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/829/07kyloforce.png - Thanks Diyosa!
Nope. Mine will be staying right in Bank of America's vaults.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
I want to apologize for any harsh statements I made.
My true opinion of the Occupy protestors isn't nearly as vicious as I made it sound. While I staunchly disagree with their movement, the hate really isn't there.
So for anyone I offended please know that I am not that radically hateful. I apologize to anyone who was upset by my actions.
---
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas
Were we supposed to move our money then? I missed the memo.
---
Was it a car or a cat I saw?
No, but "switch to a credit union" has been added to my list of to-dos. A hundred times the interest on a savings account? "Ac"count me in!
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
Wait, how would you be getting a hundred times the interest?
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
My current rate is an offensive .01%. USAA apparently does 1% ergo ipso facto holy **** Chase is terrible.
To their credit they do have ATMs everywhere, though.
Ed.: Well, not USAA, which I'm still confused about. Basically, I skimmed the "switch to a credit union" thread on SA and came away with a lot of generally accurate but conflicting information.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
I was thinking yesterday, and I came to the conclusion that Wall Street isn't much dirtier than Main Street; they just play with bigger numbers. I know plenty of dishonest people on Main Street. I'm pretty suspicious of my own dad that he has cheated (in a very small-time way) on his taxes. I know from my mechanic buddy that 90% of auto shops cook their books.
So then I was thinking, this is a classic case of class warfare. It's not "I envy your money therefore I am mad". It's pride, not envy. "You are worse than me; I am better than you. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves."
But again, the difference is that when a mechanic charges you an 800% markup on parts because you don't know any better, he doesn't turn around and buy legislators so they'll make laws that ensure his continued ability to do that--and to deny his customers any recourse.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
.01%? Yeah, that's terrible. I do still use Chase for checking, because of the said convenience of their ATMs, but I moved my savings account to HSBC a while ago, and they have .8%. (They had 1.4% at the time.) But I can switch to my old credit union TFCU and get the same rate, so I might. Since the savings account is not money I need to access very often, TFCU isn't that much less convenient than HSBC, and there are benefits to using a credit union.
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
Well, sure, that's right. But I'm talking about cheating on their accounting and thus their taxes. The point being, the desire to cheat, the desire to take at someone else's expense, is part of human nature, not some essential flaw of Wall Street.
HeyDude posted...
Well, sure, that's right. But I'm talking about cheating on their accounting and thus their taxes. The point being, the desire to cheat, the desire to take at someone else's expense, is part of human nature, not some essential flaw of Wall Street.
Yeah. That's certainly something worth keeping in mind.
But the point shouldn't be establishing moral superiority over "Wall Street Types." As you say, that's nonsense. The point is that the government is turning a blind eye to, abetting or even sanctioning certain kinds of cheating. Even if we leave aside questions of objective right and wrong, it's in the rational self-interest of the vast majority of Americans to object to the current system.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
My point is that we're *already* a government of the people and always have been and I don't see anything changing fundamentally unless human nature changes.
In 235 years of America and many many years of human history, when has it been done right? If we change the laws without changing human nature (and we can't change human nature) then new outlets of greed are going to be discovered. And it's innate that greed hurts people. We're never going to find a nice, safe, tidy way for people in power to express their greed.
That said, I'll certainly vote for any measures passed because, who knows, maybe I'm wrong. And there's certainly something that feels good about outlawing an immoral behavior.
Yeah, but it's not like we're going to run out of legislation. The laws can and should be adapted to new times, places, situations, and modes of getting around the existing laws.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
OK. I guess my point was more that we should point the finger at ourselves equally as much as we do at these people. After all, the 1% come from the 99%. If not this generation, at some point they did; they weren't a rich family going back into eternity.
So the right way to bring about real change is by each of us looking inward, learning lessons, and passing them on to our children. Of course, that hasn't happened in all of human history either, so God save us.
Yes, it's just like I always say, the problem is clearly a lack of parental discipline and strong family values.
---
octopuses : octopi : octopodes :: address : URL : URI
Smash Bros. : tires don exits :: Transformers : trukk not munky
Well Kodi, what's your take then?
In truth, I have only a foggy idea of what the problems are, never mind how to solve them. I'd need to read a lot more to form a meaningful opinion. The most I can do in a discussion like this, without actually doing the homework, is (a) attack positions that are broad enough to be attacked on purely ethical or psychological grounds and (b) trot out ideals like socialism and government regulation of big business that in theory are laudable but in practice depend for their success on a lot of messy details.
tl;dr: Public policy is hard; let's go shopping!
---
octopuses : octopi : octopodes :: address : URL : URI
Smash Bros. : tires don exits :: Transformers : trukk not munky
You sound kind of like Dostoevsky, I guess. Pre-Siberia, he was a radical who sought great reforms in the country. Afterwards though, as he aged, he started to hold great disdain for utopian thought. His judgement was that mankind could never achieve utopia, no matter what they tried or what anyone did, and he became a reactionary. Nevertheless, he believed it was important to continue to try to teach others to love each other, even if the effort was ultimately futile.
---
SIGNATURE
lol, evicted
---
http://lostfacts.net/boards
He never hit the brakes and he was shifting gears
lol, they forced people out while ignoring a court order and blocked the press from watching and shut down the airspace so no one could see what they did at 1 in the morning
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)