No topic about Occupy Wall Street?

[Teddy Roosevelt]

What I want to know is why aren't these fucks protesting in Washington DC? Financial institutions aren't going to stop giving money to politicians simply because people say so. You can make a difference by protesting the politicians since their main priority is getting reelected (so they can receive lobby money). But since the White House and upper house of congress (Senate) is controlled by the Democrats, these liberal hippies wouldn't want to protest the politicians they so blindly worship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/occupy-dc-protesters-rally-in-freedom-plaza/2011/10/06/gIQATeeLQL_story.html
(Cornel West just came home)


There's protests in front of the white house all of the time, some don't even be in English.  The thing is that they usually have small groups of people rather than hundreds and thousands/millions

They need to protesting at the White House and U.S. Capitol.

[Sikotic™]

you'd have to be a confused fuck to feel moved by this

Moved? It's called irony, that's all. Why would a picture like that invoke emotion?

Irony doesn't apply here.  But the way you had put up that picture like it was supposed to be humorous/irony was bone-headed, that's all.

Honest question, not rhetorical at all:  How does irony not apply here?

Most of these people are protesting against the greed of corporations, while simultaneously feeding into that greed by buying 500 dollar phones, etc.  Wouldn't that be the definition of irony?

At least Russell gets it.

[BiggBoogaBiff]

you'd have to be a confused fuck to feel moved by this

Moved? It's called irony, that's all. Why would a picture like that invoke emotion?

Irony doesn't apply here.  But the way you had put up that picture like it was supposed to be humorous/irony was bone-headed, that's all.

Honest question, not rhetorical at all:  How does irony not apply here?

Most of these people are protesting against the greed of corporations, while simultaneously feeding into that greed by buying 500 dollar phones, etc.  Wouldn't that be the definition of irony?

At least Russell gets it.

1st off (on some real shit) none of us even know if those labels are even accurate.  I mean really, "makeup by Proctor & Gamble".  So dont go puttin your hands over your face and ears just yet.

2nd, even though some of it can be true or you could use it as a hypothetical example it still means shit when we all shop at the same franchises (becuz they've monopolized) and we all pretty much want the same typa shit.  

3rd, where else are you going to get metals, cottons already picked and made into clothes, corn in the winter and there's snow on the ground, and so on.  The picture is pretty redundant in reality.  I'm not going to get carried away becuz this is the internet.  I'm not saying ALL corporations are evil (becuz that would be naieve too) but ALOT goes into making what we Americans (old and young) label as "necessities".  


All I'm saying is that it's simpler to buy a phone contract or already made shirt than to find metal, break it down and mold it, build all of the insides to the phone and all of it's little details, hack into a network, and all of that other shit just to call somebody and let em know to give me my money.  I'm not on no Rambo shit trying to go outta my way when it comes to trying to get in contact with somebody real quick.  But don't get it twisted, I'm on the side of the people.  All it is is simple sarcasm.

[Chamillitary Click]

This is one of the more funnier things I've seen. That picture sums it on. Greatness.

A bunch of fucking unemployed people telling trillion dollar corporations, "You're making a gazillion dollars! Either give it to us or stop making money!".

I'm ready for some Communism, bring it on.

[The_Ripper]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/w6tboOENXtU" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/w6tboOENXtU</a>

[virtuoso]

Ready for communism? Communism is run the elitist financial parasites too. Communism is just about the mindset of getting the people to accept peasantry through collectivism. Collectivism when forcibly imposed is murderous and tyrannical. No one should accept anything which allows these fucks to get away with it. I don't know what to make of the protest at the moment.

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

communism is a good idea in theory but just doesn't apply to human nature. every historic example of it shows that.

[Russell Bell]

Ready for communism? Communism is run the elitist financial parasites too. Communism is just about the mindset of getting the people to accept peasantry through collectivism. Collectivism when forcibly imposed is murderous and tyrannical. No one should accept anything which allows these fucks to get away with it. I don't know what to make of the protest at the moment.

I agree.

I dont think people get it.  They believe in that "right vs left" paradigm that has been set up, which really has the same endgame - to control the money supply, and make the rich richer. 

Instead of buying into that, people should be trying to advocate a return to sound money (end the fed) and constitutional govt.

But that wont happen, because the left wants to reign in business with regulations which drive businesses away and allow them to make stuff in indonesia and sell it back to us and increase entitlements not realizing that "there is no such thing as a free lunch", and the right wants to police the world which keeps billions of our dollars in a stranglehold.

I cant remember how many times Ive gotten into this argument with people in life and on here.  You cant have a govt that does everything, because where would that end?  Doesnt everyone deserve welfare, free college education, affirmitive action benefits, equality no matter what, the safest world possible with american troops everywhere to ensure this, etc?  So who decides that, who crowned that person king, and how will we pay for it?  Oh wait, we cant, we dont, and our system is overblown and broke because of this thinking.  But people are too wrapped up in their own wants to realize or accept this.

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

You're right, lets go back to a time where government didn't have a hand in business, unions didn't exist and the working man had no rights. lol @ complaining that corporations are now going to other countries to fuck over others instead of us. Unless you want your kids to be working in those sweatshops. How well are the people in those countries doing, you know, the countries where our corporations go to get away from our regulation? Might want to think about that before you advocate we adopt their policies.

[Russell Bell]

You're right, lets go back to a time where government didn't have a hand in business, unions didn't exist and the working man had no rights. lol @ complaining that corporations are now going to other countries to fuck over others instead of us. Unless you want your kids to be working in those sweatshops. How well are the people in those countries doing, you know, the countries where our corporations go to get away from our regulation? Might want to think about that before you advocate we adopt their policies.

So you missed the entire point because i struck a chord with the "left" comment.  Lol.

To you, constitutional govt (living within our means, not creating institutions which are illegal, etc) = going back to the stone age and having no rights?  When did this backwards notion of more govt regulation equate to more freedom?  Oh, its because the evil corporations are so evil, i forgot.  Well, maybe they are.  But do you really think our govt is much different?  And would you rather those people (govt bureaucrats) make the rules as we go and live with the unintended consequences (bailouts for corporations who are deemed to big to fail costing us billions and perpetuating these greedy business moves) or would you rather live with a free market where competition and choice (me and you) decide what businesses fail and succeed?

And before you try to go Upton Sinclair on me, the FDA (and countless other agencies) could be privatized and run in a smoother more efficient way, with less cost to us the public.

[Sikotic™]

you'd have to be a confused fuck to feel moved by this

Moved? It's called irony, that's all. Why would a picture like that invoke emotion?

Irony doesn't apply here.  But the way you had put up that picture like it was supposed to be humorous/irony was bone-headed, that's all.

Honest question, not rhetorical at all:  How does irony not apply here?

Most of these people are protesting against the greed of corporations, while simultaneously feeding into that greed by buying 500 dollar phones, etc.  Wouldn't that be the definition of irony?

At least Russell gets it.

1st off (on some real shit) none of us even know if those labels are even accurate.  I mean really, "makeup by Proctor & Gamble".  So dont go puttin your hands over your face and ears just yet.

2nd, even though some of it can be true or you could use it as a hypothetical example it still means shit when we all shop at the same franchises (becuz they've monopolized) and we all pretty much want the same typa shit.  

3rd, where else are you going to get metals, cottons already picked and made into clothes, corn in the winter and there's snow on the ground, and so on.  The picture is pretty redundant in reality.  I'm not going to get carried away becuz this is the internet.  I'm not saying ALL corporations are evil (becuz that would be naieve too) but ALOT goes into making what we Americans (old and young) label as "necessities".  


All I'm saying is that it's simpler to buy a phone contract or already made shirt than to find metal, break it down and mold it, build all of the insides to the phone and all of it's little details, hack into a network, and all of that other shit just to call somebody and let em know to give me my money.  I'm not on no Rambo shit trying to go outta my way when it comes to trying to get in contact with somebody real quick.  But don't get it twisted, I'm on the side of the people.  All it is is simple sarcasm.

Can you sum that all up in 140 characters or less?

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

You're right, lets go back to a time where government didn't have a hand in business, unions didn't exist and the working man had no rights. lol @ complaining that corporations are now going to other countries to fuck over others instead of us. Unless you want your kids to be working in those sweatshops. How well are the people in those countries doing, you know, the countries where our corporations go to get away from our regulation? Might want to think about that before you advocate we adopt their policies.

So you missed the entire point because i struck a chord with the "left" comment.  Lol.

To you, constitutional govt (living within our means, not creating institutions which are illegal, etc) = going back to the stone age and having no rights?  When did this backwards notion of more govt regulation equate to more freedom?  Oh, its because the evil corporations are so evil, i forgot.  Well, maybe they are.  But do you really think our govt is much different?  And would you rather those people (govt bureaucrats) make the rules as we go and live with the unintended consequences (bailouts for corporations who are deemed to big to fail costing us billions and perpetuating these greedy business moves) or would you rather live with a free market where competition and choice (me and you) decide what businesses fail and succeed?

And before you try to go Upton Sinclair on me, the FDA (and countless other agencies) could be privatized and run in a smoother more efficient way, with less cost to us the public.

First of all, don't misappropriate the word constitutional for your opinion. There is something you either are oblivious to or are intentionally ignoring: the fact that government regulation is what put in place all the freedoms the workforce and consumers have today.

I'm pretty sure I've told you this before, but it simply defies all logical reasoning to argue that giving power to corporations is in the best interest of our constitutional rights. I don't think you really believe that yourself.

[Russell Bell]

You're right, lets go back to a time where government didn't have a hand in business, unions didn't exist and the working man had no rights. lol @ complaining that corporations are now going to other countries to fuck over others instead of us. Unless you want your kids to be working in those sweatshops. How well are the people in those countries doing, you know, the countries where our corporations go to get away from our regulation? Might want to think about that before you advocate we adopt their policies.

So you missed the entire point because i struck a chord with the "left" comment.  Lol.

To you, constitutional govt (living within our means, not creating institutions which are illegal, etc) = going back to the stone age and having no rights?  When did this backwards notion of more govt regulation equate to more freedom?  Oh, its because the evil corporations are so evil, i forgot.  Well, maybe they are.  But do you really think our govt is much different?  And would you rather those people (govt bureaucrats) make the rules as we go and live with the unintended consequences (bailouts for corporations who are deemed to big to fail costing us billions and perpetuating these greedy business moves) or would you rather live with a free market where competition and choice (me and you) decide what businesses fail and succeed?

And before you try to go Upton Sinclair on me, the FDA (and countless other agencies) could be privatized and run in a smoother more efficient way, with less cost to us the public.

First of all, don't misappropriate the word constitutional for your opinion. There is something you either are oblivious to or are intentionally ignoring: the fact that government regulation is what put in place all the freedoms the workforce and consumers have today.

I'm pretty sure I've told you this before, but it simply defies all logical reasoning to argue that giving power to corporations is in the best interest of our constitutional rights. I don't think you really believe that yourself.

I believe that giving the govt power to do things that are illegal based on the constitution is bad for our country, this isnt my opinion, its a fact that the founding fathers foresaw and shaped the document that is supposed to guide our country's decision making. 

Another fact:  govt interference doesnt protect anyone in both short and long term, it only leads to the mess we're in now.  I'll give u an example:  low lending standards forced upon banks by our all knowing govt (community reinvestment act) cost lenders billions.  And what happened to the housing market?  All supposedly good intentions, and look good when put up against evil corporations supposedly selfish intentions, but its obvious what the logical conclusion is here.  If you look just at the surface what youre saying would make complete sense.

[when it rains it pours]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com//v/drOPqAG3K50" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com//v/drOPqAG3K50</a>

[Triple OG Rapsodie]

You're right, lets go back to a time where government didn't have a hand in business, unions didn't exist and the working man had no rights. lol @ complaining that corporations are now going to other countries to fuck over others instead of us. Unless you want your kids to be working in those sweatshops. How well are the people in those countries doing, you know, the countries where our corporations go to get away from our regulation? Might want to think about that before you advocate we adopt their policies.

So you missed the entire point because i struck a chord with the "left" comment.  Lol.

To you, constitutional govt (living within our means, not creating institutions which are illegal, etc) = going back to the stone age and having no rights?  When did this backwards notion of more govt regulation equate to more freedom?  Oh, its because the evil corporations are so evil, i forgot.  Well, maybe they are.  But do you really think our govt is much different?  And would you rather those people (govt bureaucrats) make the rules as we go and live with the unintended consequences (bailouts for corporations who are deemed to big to fail costing us billions and perpetuating these greedy business moves) or would you rather live with a free market where competition and choice (me and you) decide what businesses fail and succeed?

And before you try to go Upton Sinclair on me, the FDA (and countless other agencies) could be privatized and run in a smoother more efficient way, with less cost to us the public.

First of all, don't misappropriate the word constitutional for your opinion. There is something you either are oblivious to or are intentionally ignoring: the fact that government regulation is what put in place all the freedoms the workforce and consumers have today.

I'm pretty sure I've told you this before, but it simply defies all logical reasoning to argue that giving power to corporations is in the best interest of our constitutional rights. I don't think you really believe that yourself.

I believe that giving the govt power to do things that are illegal based on the constitution is bad for our country, this isnt my opinion, its a fact that the founding fathers foresaw and shaped the document that is supposed to guide our country's decision making. 

Another fact:  govt interference doesnt protect anyone in both short and long term, it only leads to the mess we're in now.  I'll give u an example:  low lending standards forced upon banks by our all knowing govt (community reinvestment act) cost lenders billions.  And what happened to the housing market?  All supposedly good intentions, and look good when put up against evil corporations supposedly selfish intentions, but its obvious what the logical conclusion is here.  If you look just at the surface what youre saying would make complete sense.

You're making a fictional statement and calling it fact. How do you expect me to take you seriously? I just made an obvious point in my last reply as to how government interference has protected us. Government interference is why unions have a say, and why workers have basic rights. Government interference is why we have a minimum wage. Government interference is why our schools aren't segregated. Government interference is why women can pursue careers in their field of choice. To deny the progressive accomplishments gov. intervention has accomplishment is being blatantly ignorant. And insulting to the millions of people who now have rights because of it.

Addressing your other fictional statement. The founding fathers formed the Constitution to protect the individual, not corporations. Basically the opposite of your intentions.

Your arguments consist of conveniently ignoring anything that doesn't fit with your view.