|
If you agree that freedom is the right to communicate, to live, to be, to go, to love, to do what you will without the impositions of others, then you might be one of us.
This is how you know that the people behind this movement are emotionally stuck at 15. No impositions from others? That's a high school thing, sorry. The real world is all about dealing with impositions from others and getting your own impositions so you don't get rolled over. Because life is unfair. People are unfair. They don't need Wall Street or government to be unfair. They just will be at times, and you have to learn to deal with it.
If you agree that a person is entitled to the sweat of their brows, that being talented at management should not entitle others to act like overseers and overlords, that all workers should have the right to engage in decisions, democratically, then you might be one of us.
Every commune system that has ever been tried has failed, so sorry, all workers should not have the right to engage in business decisions.
The problem is here that "that being talented at management should not entitle..." is not what they are really against, being against (some) people acting like overseers and overlords is not worth making a political movement over as everyone is against jerk or exploitative bosses. They are against management period.
If you agree that state and corporation are merely two sides of the same oppressive power structure, if you realize how media distorts things to preserve it, how it pits the people against the people to remain in power, then you might be one of us.
Put down the Primer Marxism handbook, Anonymous, and back away slowly. You're getting into ideas you definitely don't understand and being manipulated by older, smarter people than you.
If you agree that power is not right, that life trumps property, then you might be one of us.
What's really funny is that most of the groups behind Occupy Wall Street are hardcore into a boot with a red star on it stamping into the face of mankind, forever. Power isn't right... unless we have it.
|
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"?
|
On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"?
People can whine all they want, the fact of the matter is whenever they shop at a large chain they're handing their money over to these people that they feel are undeserving. It's hypocritical and if you're protesting how money is distributed in a free market there are some things you clearly don't understand involving how wealth is transferred
|
On September 19 2011 02:11 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 01:43 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 18 2011 22:26 two.watup wrote:On September 18 2011 22:18 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 18 2011 22:11 two.watup wrote:
The banking system didn't fail. Individual banks made poor investments. It did. Back in the day all the individual banks were separate so they had to take into deep consideration whether you could pay off that car or house within a reasonable amount of time. Now it's all centralized so the individual banks don't actually lose anything, even if you've got the worst credit rating in the world they'll let you get the loan. The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. I assumed "That was one of the plans if i'm not mistaken, to get some people from Congress/the White House to try and help fix the failed banking system." meant the housing market crash. If you meant the banking system failing in 1913, then I'm glad to let you know that the Federal Reserve was created, and has successfully prevented another similar failure. Worry not young netizen. Yea, they can just enslave the poor to save the banks. wow, that statement really has some impact behind it. Although if you really think about it banks have absolutely no right to enslave poor people. If you are trying to use some kind of vague metaphor about how poor people will get indebted to banks, then I just thought I'd let you know banks can't be blamed because people take out a loan that their income does not support. What happened to accountability and good decision making. It seems in today's society you can get yourself in extreme debt at YOUR OWN DOING and then blame the banks for not giving away their money and actually expecting to get paid back.
How is the fed creating money, giving it to banks, and effectively devaluing my savings, my doing?
|
On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"?
Because not everyone agrees that skewed wealth in a free society is a bad thing. At least, I wouldn't favor instituting more government control over private property just to make sure that some people don't make a lot of money. It's not the rich people's fault that some people end up homeless.
What matters is not the distribution of wealth, but the average standard of living. If the standard of living for the average America continues to rise, why should I give a fuck that some people are making more than me?
|
On September 19 2011 02:38 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"? People can whine all they want, the fact of the matter is whenever they shop at a large chain they're handing their money over to these people that they feel are undeserving. It's hypocritical and if you're protesting how money is distributed in a free market there are some things you clearly don't understand involving how wealth is transferred
lol, how is money distributed in a free market? Like our own stupendously free market. This should be classic.
|
On September 19 2011 02:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"? Because not everyone agrees that skewed wealth in a free society is a bad thing. At least, I wouldn't favor instituting more government control over private property just to make sure that some people don't make a lot of money. It's not the rich people's fault that some people end up homeless. What matters is not the distribution of wealth, but the average standard of living. If the standard of living for the average America continues to rise, why should I give a fuck that some people are making more than me?
It isn't a bad thing. We don't live in a free society though.
|
On September 19 2011 02:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:38 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"? People can whine all they want, the fact of the matter is whenever they shop at a large chain they're handing their money over to these people that they feel are undeserving. It's hypocritical and if you're protesting how money is distributed in a free market there are some things you clearly don't understand involving how wealth is transferred lol, how is money distributed in a free market? Like our own stupendously free market. This should be classic.
willing buyer and willing seller. That's how its distributed... pretty simple actually
|
On September 19 2011 02:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:11 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 01:43 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 18 2011 22:26 two.watup wrote:On September 18 2011 22:18 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 18 2011 22:11 two.watup wrote:
The banking system didn't fail. Individual banks made poor investments. It did. Back in the day all the individual banks were separate so they had to take into deep consideration whether you could pay off that car or house within a reasonable amount of time. Now it's all centralized so the individual banks don't actually lose anything, even if you've got the worst credit rating in the world they'll let you get the loan. The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. I assumed "That was one of the plans if i'm not mistaken, to get some people from Congress/the White House to try and help fix the failed banking system." meant the housing market crash. If you meant the banking system failing in 1913, then I'm glad to let you know that the Federal Reserve was created, and has successfully prevented another similar failure. Worry not young netizen. Yea, they can just enslave the poor to save the banks. wow, that statement really has some impact behind it. Although if you really think about it banks have absolutely no right to enslave poor people. If you are trying to use some kind of vague metaphor about how poor people will get indebted to banks, then I just thought I'd let you know banks can't be blamed because people take out a loan that their income does not support. What happened to accountability and good decision making. It seems in today's society you can get yourself in extreme debt at YOUR OWN DOING and then blame the banks for not giving away their money and actually expecting to get paid back. How is the fed creating money, giving it to banks, and effectively devaluing my savings, my doing?
The federal reserve causing inflation has little to do with wealth distribution so I don't really see why you're bringing that into the argument. Devaluing savings through inflation (which is often repaid in interest) has little to do with getting in over your head with debt. Secondly, those big evil corporations don't like inflation either. Maybe you guys would actually get along.
|
lol, how is money distributed in a free market? Like our own stupendously free market. This should be classic.
willing buyer and willing seller. That's how its distributed... pretty simple actually
precisely.
the problem is, as it always is, the source of the money.
|
On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
That, my little communist, is completely dishonest and a single read through of https://occupywallst.org/ is enough to know this.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
And you think that this distribution of wealth happens for no reason? People that acquire wealth are just lucky layabouts who do nothing but magically take the poor mans money?
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Well, only if you're an idiot who just read the works of Marx/Engels. If you think the misallocation of wealth, the causation of economic downturns, has nothing to do with government interventions in the market....I have some bad news for you.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"?
Because that's what it is, the website and this movement are obviously a bunch of loud left wing ideologues trying to start a glorious "revolution"...Way to be obvious buddy.
|
On September 19 2011 02:59 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:11 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 01:43 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 18 2011 22:26 two.watup wrote:On September 18 2011 22:18 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 18 2011 22:11 two.watup wrote:
The banking system didn't fail. Individual banks made poor investments. It did. Back in the day all the individual banks were separate so they had to take into deep consideration whether you could pay off that car or house within a reasonable amount of time. Now it's all centralized so the individual banks don't actually lose anything, even if you've got the worst credit rating in the world they'll let you get the loan. The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. I assumed "That was one of the plans if i'm not mistaken, to get some people from Congress/the White House to try and help fix the failed banking system." meant the housing market crash. If you meant the banking system failing in 1913, then I'm glad to let you know that the Federal Reserve was created, and has successfully prevented another similar failure. Worry not young netizen. Yea, they can just enslave the poor to save the banks. wow, that statement really has some impact behind it. Although if you really think about it banks have absolutely no right to enslave poor people. If you are trying to use some kind of vague metaphor about how poor people will get indebted to banks, then I just thought I'd let you know banks can't be blamed because people take out a loan that their income does not support. What happened to accountability and good decision making. It seems in today's society you can get yourself in extreme debt at YOUR OWN DOING and then blame the banks for not giving away their money and actually expecting to get paid back. How is the fed creating money, giving it to banks, and effectively devaluing my savings, my doing? The federal reserve causing inflation has little to do with wealth distribution so I don't really see why you're bringing that into the argument. Devaluing savings through inflation (which is often repaid in interest) has little to do with getting in over your head with debt. Secondly, those big evil corporations don't like inflation either. Maybe you guys would actually get along.
It has everything to do with wealth distribution. As for it being repaid in interest, I don't think you really understand what I'm talking about because that makes no sense whatsoever. You're right about it not being a cause of people getting in over their heads with debt, but again, that just makes me think you have no idea what I'm talking about. Plenty of corporations love inflation, because it gives them exceedingly easy access to credit, at the expense of everyone else. I do get along with many corporations. The honest ones.
|
On September 19 2011 02:56 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:38 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"? People can whine all they want, the fact of the matter is whenever they shop at a large chain they're handing their money over to these people that they feel are undeserving. It's hypocritical and if you're protesting how money is distributed in a free market there are some things you clearly don't understand involving how wealth is transferred lol, how is money distributed in a free market? Like our own stupendously free market. This should be classic. willing buyer and willing seller. That's how its distributed... pretty simple actually
Damn, if only we had that.
|
|
|
On September 19 2011 03:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:56 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:38 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"? People can whine all they want, the fact of the matter is whenever they shop at a large chain they're handing their money over to these people that they feel are undeserving. It's hypocritical and if you're protesting how money is distributed in a free market there are some things you clearly don't understand involving how wealth is transferred lol, how is money distributed in a free market? Like our own stupendously free market. This should be classic. willing buyer and willing seller. That's how its distributed... pretty simple actually Damn, if only we had that.
so you're suggesting we have unwilling buyers and unwilling sellers? I'm confused. Whenever you go shopping you're an example of a wiling buyer and a willing seller. How can you say it doesn't exist?
|
On September 19 2011 03:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:56 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:38 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"? People can whine all they want, the fact of the matter is whenever they shop at a large chain they're handing their money over to these people that they feel are undeserving. It's hypocritical and if you're protesting how money is distributed in a free market there are some things you clearly don't understand involving how wealth is transferred lol, how is money distributed in a free market? Like our own stupendously free market. This should be classic. willing buyer and willing seller. That's how its distributed... pretty simple actually Damn, if only we had that.
Why don't you explain your point and what you actually mean instead of making a pointless smart ass remark. Walmart willingly sells me items. I willingly buy them. The workers willingly work there, and the company willingly pays them a wage. Where is the gun and the force in the equation? When you come up with your example, make sure you distinguish between government initiated force, and business initiated force. They aren't the same thing.
|
On September 19 2011 03:12 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:59 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:11 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 01:43 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 18 2011 22:26 two.watup wrote:On September 18 2011 22:18 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 18 2011 22:11 two.watup wrote:
The banking system didn't fail. Individual banks made poor investments. It did. Back in the day all the individual banks were separate so they had to take into deep consideration whether you could pay off that car or house within a reasonable amount of time. Now it's all centralized so the individual banks don't actually lose anything, even if you've got the worst credit rating in the world they'll let you get the loan. The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. I assumed "That was one of the plans if i'm not mistaken, to get some people from Congress/the White House to try and help fix the failed banking system." meant the housing market crash. If you meant the banking system failing in 1913, then I'm glad to let you know that the Federal Reserve was created, and has successfully prevented another similar failure. Worry not young netizen. Yea, they can just enslave the poor to save the banks. wow, that statement really has some impact behind it. Although if you really think about it banks have absolutely no right to enslave poor people. If you are trying to use some kind of vague metaphor about how poor people will get indebted to banks, then I just thought I'd let you know banks can't be blamed because people take out a loan that their income does not support. What happened to accountability and good decision making. It seems in today's society you can get yourself in extreme debt at YOUR OWN DOING and then blame the banks for not giving away their money and actually expecting to get paid back. How is the fed creating money, giving it to banks, and effectively devaluing my savings, my doing? The federal reserve causing inflation has little to do with wealth distribution so I don't really see why you're bringing that into the argument. Devaluing savings through inflation (which is often repaid in interest) has little to do with getting in over your head with debt. Secondly, those big evil corporations don't like inflation either. Maybe you guys would actually get along. It has everything to do with wealth distribution. As for it being repaid in interest, I don't think you really understand what I'm talking about because that makes no sense whatsoever. You're right about it not being a cause of people getting in over their heads with debt, but again, that just makes me think you have no idea what I'm talking about. Plenty of corporations love inflation, because it gives them exceedingly easy access to credit, at the expense of everyone else. I do get along with many corporations. The honest ones.
If your money is invested at a bank you get paid interest. High inflation raises interest rates. It's pretty simple, I don't know what you plan to accomplish by denying these basic traits to investing and then claiming I don't know what you're talking about.
|
On September 19 2011 03:19 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 03:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:56 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:38 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"? People can whine all they want, the fact of the matter is whenever they shop at a large chain they're handing their money over to these people that they feel are undeserving. It's hypocritical and if you're protesting how money is distributed in a free market there are some things you clearly don't understand involving how wealth is transferred lol, how is money distributed in a free market? Like our own stupendously free market. This should be classic. willing buyer and willing seller. That's how its distributed... pretty simple actually Damn, if only we had that. so you're suggesting we have unwilling buyers and unwilling sellers? I'm confused. Whenever you go shopping you're an example of a wiling buyer and a willing seller. How can you say it doesn't exist?
I'm something like $45,000 dollars in debt right now. I never spent a dime of it.
|
On September 19 2011 03:21 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 03:19 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 03:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:56 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:38 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"? People can whine all they want, the fact of the matter is whenever they shop at a large chain they're handing their money over to these people that they feel are undeserving. It's hypocritical and if you're protesting how money is distributed in a free market there are some things you clearly don't understand involving how wealth is transferred lol, how is money distributed in a free market? Like our own stupendously free market. This should be classic. willing buyer and willing seller. That's how its distributed... pretty simple actually Damn, if only we had that. so you're suggesting we have unwilling buyers and unwilling sellers? I'm confused. Whenever you go shopping you're an example of a wiling buyer and a willing seller. How can you say it doesn't exist? I'm something like $45,000 dollars in debt right now. I never spent a dime of it.
It's more like 47k now, I assume you're talking about debt per capita?
|
On September 19 2011 03:25 qosu.tQ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 03:21 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 03:19 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 03:15 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:56 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:53 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 19 2011 02:38 Tewks44 wrote:On September 19 2011 02:35 N3rV[Green] wrote:
There is no objective other than to show the government and people in the financial market that there are a LOT of pissed off people about the seriously skewed wealth of our Country.
The top >1% of the population has the majority of the wealth, while there are people homeless, hungry, and sick in the Country with nothing at all.
That's it, just to show people that a lot of people are seriously pissed the fuck off about the way money is handled here.
Why must things be labeled "right wing" or "left wing"? People can whine all they want, the fact of the matter is whenever they shop at a large chain they're handing their money over to these people that they feel are undeserving. It's hypocritical and if you're protesting how money is distributed in a free market there are some things you clearly don't understand involving how wealth is transferred lol, how is money distributed in a free market? Like our own stupendously free market. This should be classic. willing buyer and willing seller. That's how its distributed... pretty simple actually Damn, if only we had that. so you're suggesting we have unwilling buyers and unwilling sellers? I'm confused. Whenever you go shopping you're an example of a wiling buyer and a willing seller. How can you say it doesn't exist? I'm something like $45,000 dollars in debt right now. I never spent a dime of it. It's more like 47k now, I assume you're talking about debt per capita?
Public debt, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
