Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Occupy Wallstreet?

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:13:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Personally I think it's a stupid movement with no set goal. They aren't working towards anything except homelessness. Big buisness isn't the problem.

Profits aren't evil.

These people are a bunch of lazy, out of work left wing hippies.

Thoughts?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:16:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:13:11 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Personally I think it's a stupid movement with no set goal. They aren't working towards anything except homelessness. Big buisness isn't the problem.

Profits aren't evil.

These people are a bunch of lazy, out of work left wing hippies.

Thoughts?

Big business is a problem when it's artificially propped up by government at the expense of everyone else.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:20:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:16:02 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:13:11 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Personally I think it's a stupid movement with no set goal. They aren't working towards anything except homelessness. Big buisness isn't the problem.

Profits aren't evil.

These people are a bunch of lazy, out of work left wing hippies.

Thoughts?

Big business is a problem when it's artificially propped up by government at the expense of everyone else.

Well I'll agree to that, no buisness is too big to fail. But I mean what are these people protesting? No Wal-Mart? No Sun Trust? No Ford?

Do they just want everything to be a cozy mom and pop shop?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:26:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:20:09 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:16:02 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Big business is a problem when it's artificially propped up by government at the expense of everyone else.

Well I'll agree to that, no buisness is too big to fail. But I mean what are these people protesting? No Wal-Mart? No Sun Trust? No Ford?

Do they just want everything to be a cozy mom and pop shop?

I'm sure some of them do. But the Occupy Wallstreet movement is not a catch all term for everyone currently "occupying". Some are Democrats, some are basic liberals, some are even communists. But some are libertarians and part of that is reflected in the message of stopping the government from helping businesses to achieve unfair advantage over consumers and other businesses. I see the same thing in the Tea Party movement (wherever they're all hiding now). Some were your basic Republicans, some were ambiguous conservatives, others were Lordknukle type fascists. But there was also a strong libertarian message that I identify with and the same applies to the Occupy movement.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:29:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:26:53 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:20:09 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:16:02 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Big business is a problem when it's artificially propped up by government at the expense of everyone else.

Well I'll agree to that, no buisness is too big to fail. But I mean what are these people protesting? No Wal-Mart? No Sun Trust? No Ford?

Do they just want everything to be a cozy mom and pop shop?

I'm sure some of them do. But the Occupy Wallstreet movement is not a catch all term for everyone currently "occupying". Some are Democrats, some are basic liberals, some are even communists. But some are libertarians and part of that is reflected in the message of stopping the government from helping businesses to achieve unfair advantage over consumers and other businesses. I see the same thing in the Tea Party movement (wherever they're all hiding now). Some were your basic Republicans, some were ambiguous conservatives, others were Lordknukle type fascists. But there was also a strong libertarian message that I identify with and the same applies to the Occupy movement.

Well at least the Tea Party movement was civil...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:33:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:29:35 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:26:53 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:20:09 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:16:02 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Big business is a problem when it's artificially propped up by government at the expense of everyone else.

Well I'll agree to that, no buisness is too big to fail. But I mean what are these people protesting? No Wal-Mart? No Sun Trust? No Ford?

Do they just want everything to be a cozy mom and pop shop?

I'm sure some of them do. But the Occupy Wallstreet movement is not a catch all term for everyone currently "occupying". Some are Democrats, some are basic liberals, some are even communists. But some are libertarians and part of that is reflected in the message of stopping the government from helping businesses to achieve unfair advantage over consumers and other businesses. I see the same thing in the Tea Party movement (wherever they're all hiding now). Some were your basic Republicans, some were ambiguous conservatives, others were Lordknukle type fascists. But there was also a strong libertarian message that I identify with and the same applies to the Occupy movement.

Well at least the Tea Party movement was civil...

The message is what I was mostly getting at but whatever. I don't think either movement has been especially civil.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:34:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:33:11 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:29:35 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:26:53 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:20:09 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:16:02 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Big business is a problem when it's artificially propped up by government at the expense of everyone else.

Well I'll agree to that, no buisness is too big to fail. But I mean what are these people protesting? No Wal-Mart? No Sun Trust? No Ford?

Do they just want everything to be a cozy mom and pop shop?

I'm sure some of them do. But the Occupy Wallstreet movement is not a catch all term for everyone currently "occupying". Some are Democrats, some are basic liberals, some are even communists. But some are libertarians and part of that is reflected in the message of stopping the government from helping businesses to achieve unfair advantage over consumers and other businesses. I see the same thing in the Tea Party movement (wherever they're all hiding now). Some were your basic Republicans, some were ambiguous conservatives, others were Lordknukle type fascists. But there was also a strong libertarian message that I identify with and the same applies to the Occupy movement.

Well at least the Tea Party movement was civil...

The message is what I was mostly getting at but whatever. I don't think either movement has been especially civil.

Well the Tea Partiers never had to be removed from public places by force, they didn't sleep in the streets or any such stuff.

But no I get at what you're saying about the message
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:38:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:34:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:33:11 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:29:35 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:26:53 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:20:09 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:16:02 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Big business is a problem when it's artificially propped up by government at the expense of everyone else.

Well I'll agree to that, no buisness is too big to fail. But I mean what are these people protesting? No Wal-Mart? No Sun Trust? No Ford?

Do they just want everything to be a cozy mom and pop shop?

I'm sure some of them do. But the Occupy Wallstreet movement is not a catch all term for everyone currently "occupying". Some are Democrats, some are basic liberals, some are even communists. But some are libertarians and part of that is reflected in the message of stopping the government from helping businesses to achieve unfair advantage over consumers and other businesses. I see the same thing in the Tea Party movement (wherever they're all hiding now). Some were your basic Republicans, some were ambiguous conservatives, others were Lordknukle type fascists. But there was also a strong libertarian message that I identify with and the same applies to the Occupy movement.

Well at least the Tea Party movement was civil...

The message is what I was mostly getting at but whatever. I don't think either movement has been especially civil.

Well the Tea Partiers never had to be removed from public places by force, they didn't sleep in the streets or any such stuff.

But no I get at what you're saying about the message

Yeah that part is annoying. I think it detracts from the actual message of the Occupy movement that I identify with. Camping out on someone else's property just gives the opposition unnecessary ammunition to attack the message without actually attacking the message.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:40:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:38:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:34:21 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:33:11 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:29:35 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:26:53 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:20:09 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:16:02 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Big business is a problem when it's artificially propped up by government at the expense of everyone else.

Well I'll agree to that, no buisness is too big to fail. But I mean what are these people protesting? No Wal-Mart? No Sun Trust? No Ford?

Do they just want everything to be a cozy mom and pop shop?

I'm sure some of them do. But the Occupy Wallstreet movement is not a catch all term for everyone currently "occupying". Some are Democrats, some are basic liberals, some are even communists. But some are libertarians and part of that is reflected in the message of stopping the government from helping businesses to achieve unfair advantage over consumers and other businesses. I see the same thing in the Tea Party movement (wherever they're all hiding now). Some were your basic Republicans, some were ambiguous conservatives, others were Lordknukle type fascists. But there was also a strong libertarian message that I identify with and the same applies to the Occupy movement.

Well at least the Tea Party movement was civil...

The message is what I was mostly getting at but whatever. I don't think either movement has been especially civil.

Well the Tea Partiers never had to be removed from public places by force, they didn't sleep in the streets or any such stuff.

But no I get at what you're saying about the message

Yeah that part is annoying. I think it detracts from the actual message of the Occupy movement that I identify with. Camping out on someone else's property just gives the opposition unnecessary ammunition to attack the message without actually attacking the message.

If they actually organized a bit more, marched peacefully and slept indoors I think people would respect it more aha
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:46:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:13:11 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Personally I think it's a stupid movement with no set goal. They aren't working towards anything except homelessness.

I saw an interview where they asked an occupier if he has a job, and if so how did he get the time off to protest. The occupier said he had a job, but quite it in order to join occupy protests.
Meanwhile people who want to work, can't find jobs; priorities.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:51:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:46:13 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:13:11 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Personally I think it's a stupid movement with no set goal. They aren't working towards anything except homelessness.

I saw an interview where they asked an occupier if he has a job, and if so how did he get the time off to protest. The occupier said he had a job, but quite it in order to join occupy protests.
Meanwhile people who want to work, can't find jobs; priorities.

That's really sad actually..
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 5:18:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:26:53 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:20:09 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:16:02 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Big business is a problem when it's artificially propped up by government at the expense of everyone else.

Well I'll agree to that, no buisness is too big to fail. But I mean what are these people protesting? No Wal-Mart? No Sun Trust? No Ford?

Do they just want everything to be a cozy mom and pop shop?

I'm sure some of them do. But the Occupy Wallstreet movement is not a catch all term for everyone currently "occupying". Some are Democrats, some are basic liberals, some are even communists. But some are libertarians and part of that is reflected in the message of stopping the government from helping businesses to achieve unfair advantage over consumers and other businesses. I see the same thing in the Tea Party movement (wherever they're all hiding now). Some were your basic Republicans, some were ambiguous conservatives, others were Lordknukle type fascists. But there was also a strong libertarian message that I identify with and the same applies to the Occupy movement.

I have explained multiple times why I am NOT fascist and yet you keep calling me one.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Occupy movement is trying to even the playing field a bit. The wealth of this country has. Even funneled towards an unfair percentage of the population for far too long (in my opinion). The movement's current goal is to take corporate money out of politics as much as possible by changing the ruling which states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as natural persons. It is a very young movement which seems to fairly accurately represent the frustrations present throughout the majority of the American population. Give it time and you may be surprised by the storm Occupy Wallstreet creates in the near future.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 10:55:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
The Occupy movement is trying to even the playing field a bit. The wealth of this country has. Even funneled towards an unfair percentage of the population for far too long (in my opinion). The movement's current goal is to take corporate money out of politics as much as possible by changing the ruling which states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as natural persons. It is a very young movement which seems to fairly accurately represent the frustrations present throughout the majority of the American population. Give it time and you may be surprised by the storm Occupy Wallstreet creates in the near future.

You are basing your case of the premise that it is bad that some of the population control all the wealth. Expound please.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:28:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 10:55:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
The Occupy movement is trying to even the playing field a bit. The wealth of this country has. Even funneled towards an unfair percentage of the population for far too long (in my opinion). The movement's current goal is to take corporate money out of politics as much as possible by changing the ruling which states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as natural persons. It is a very young movement which seems to fairly accurately represent the frustrations present throughout the majority of the American population. Give it time and you may be surprised by the storm Occupy Wallstreet creates in the near future.

You are basing your case of the premise that it is bad that some of the population control all the wealth. Expound please.

It is bad. Logic suggests that if a small percentage of the population are in control of and enjoying a standard of living derived from the majority of wealth available to the total population.... That the rest of or the majority of the population is living at a far lower standard of living or poverty. Morality would also suggest that this equation is both wrong and unjust.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:06:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:28:33 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:55:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
The Occupy movement is trying to even the playing field a bit. The wealth of this country has. Even funneled towards an unfair percentage of the population for far too long (in my opinion). The movement's current goal is to take corporate money out of politics as much as possible by changing the ruling which states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as natural persons. It is a very young movement which seems to fairly accurately represent the frustrations present throughout the majority of the American population. Give it time and you may be surprised by the storm Occupy Wallstreet creates in the near future.

You are basing your case of the premise that it is bad that some of the population control all the wealth. Expound please.

It is bad. Logic suggests that if a small percentage of the population are in control of and enjoying a standard of living derived from the majority of wealth available to the total population.... That the rest of or the majority of the population is living at a far lower standard of living or poverty. Morality would also suggest that this equation is both wrong and unjust.

Just because a small percentage enjoy a lot of the wealth, does not mean that the other people will not enjoy it or eventually enjoy it. If the rich are wealthy, the money will trickle down through labor, jobs, goods, etc....

Morality does not suggest any of this. Also, there are so many types of morality that to put one face on it is absurd.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:19:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 1:06:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:28:33 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:55:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
The Occupy movement is trying to even the playing field a bit. The wealth of this country has. Even funneled towards an unfair percentage of the population for far too long (in my opinion). The movement's current goal is to take corporate money out of politics as much as possible by changing the ruling which states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as natural persons. It is a very young movement which seems to fairly accurately represent the frustrations present throughout the majority of the American population. Give it time and you may be surprised by the storm Occupy Wallstreet creates in the near future.

You are basing your case of the premise that it is bad that some of the population control all the wealth. Expound please.

It is bad. Logic suggests that if a small percentage of the population are in control of and enjoying a standard of living derived from the majority of wealth available to the total population.... That the rest of or the majority of the population is living at a far lower standard of living or poverty. Morality would also suggest that this equation is both wrong and unjust.

Just because a small percentage enjoy a lot of the wealth, does not mean that the other people will not enjoy it or eventually enjoy it. If the rich are wealthy, the money will trickle down through labor, jobs, goods, etc....

Morality does not suggest any of this. Also, there are so many types of morality that to put one face on it is absurd.

1. Trickle down economics is a fantasy and I do not logically see how it is practical in reality. I see the concept as a mechanism to trick the working class into thinking that the rich getting richer is somehow more beneficial to them than if they were to actually become more wealthy themselves by an increased income margin derived from a more balanced distribution of wealth.

2. I disagree with you from my own personal foundation of morality, but I do agree with you that the implications of what I stated are too multiple to be practically applied to all definitions and concepts of morality in general.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:19:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
my blog has a post on it
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:31:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 1:19:19 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/3/2012 1:06:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:28:33 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:55:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
The Occupy movement is trying to even the playing field a bit. The wealth of this country has. Even funneled towards an unfair percentage of the population for far too long (in my opinion). The movement's current goal is to take corporate money out of politics as much as possible by changing the ruling which states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as natural persons. It is a very young movement which seems to fairly accurately represent the frustrations present throughout the majority of the American population. Give it time and you may be surprised by the storm Occupy Wallstreet creates in the near future.

You are basing your case of the premise that it is bad that some of the population control all the wealth. Expound please.

It is bad. Logic suggests that if a small percentage of the population are in control of and enjoying a standard of living derived from the majority of wealth available to the total population.... That the rest of or the majority of the population is living at a far lower standard of living or poverty. Morality would also suggest that this equation is both wrong and unjust.

Just because a small percentage enjoy a lot of the wealth, does not mean that the other people will not enjoy it or eventually enjoy it. If the rich are wealthy, the money will trickle down through labor, jobs, goods, etc....

Morality does not suggest any of this. Also, there are so many types of morality that to put one face on it is absurd.


1. Trickle down economics is a fantasy and I do not logically see how it is practical in reality. I see the concept as a mechanism to trick the working class into thinking that the rich getting richer is somehow more beneficial to them than if they were to actually become more wealthy themselves by an increased income margin derived from a more balanced distribution of wealth.
And that is why every single class of people earned an average of 17% higher salary during Reagan terms. Trickle down effect does work.
2. I disagree with you from my own personal foundation of morality, but I do agree with you that the implications of what I stated are too multiple to be practically applied to all definitions and concepts of morality in general.
Couldn't care less about your personal morality.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 5:38:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 1:31:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 1:19:19 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/3/2012 1:06:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:28:33 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:55:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
The Occupy movement is trying to even the playing field a bit. The wealth of this country has. Even funneled towards an unfair percentage of the population for far too long (in my opinion). The movement's current goal is to take corporate money out of politics as much as possible by changing the ruling which states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as natural persons. It is a very young movement which seems to fairly accurately represent the frustrations present throughout the majority of the American population. Give it time and you may be surprised by the storm Occupy Wallstreet creates in the near future.

You are basing your case of the premise that it is bad that some of the population control all the wealth. Expound please.

It is bad. Logic suggests that if a small percentage of the population are in control of and enjoying a standard of living derived from the majority of wealth available to the total population.... That the rest of or the majority of the population is living at a far lower standard of living or poverty. Morality would also suggest that this equation is both wrong and unjust.

Just because a small percentage enjoy a lot of the wealth, does not mean that the other people will not enjoy it or eventually enjoy it. If the rich are wealthy, the money will trickle down through labor, jobs, goods, etc....

Morality does not suggest any of this. Also, there are so many types of morality that to put one face on it is absurd.


1. Trickle down economics is a fantasy and I do not logically see how it is practical in reality. I see the concept as a mechanism to trick the working class into thinking that the rich getting richer is somehow more beneficial to them than if they were to actually become more wealthy themselves by an increased income margin derived from a more balanced distribution of wealth.
And that is why every single class of people earned an average of 17% higher salary during Reagan terms. Trickle down effect does work.
2. I disagree with you from my own personal foundation of morality, but I do agree with you that the implications of what I stated are too multiple to be practically applied to all definitions and concepts of morality in general.
Couldn't care less about your personal morality.

1. Prove number is accurate. Then prove that the number was a direct cause of trickle down economics.

2. You argue like a child. Grow up. I never asked you to care about my personal stance on morality.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 5:45:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 5:38:45 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/3/2012 1:31:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 1:19:19 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/3/2012 1:06:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:28:33 PM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:55:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
The Occupy movement is trying to even the playing field a bit. The wealth of this country has. Even funneled towards an unfair percentage of the population for far too long (in my opinion). The movement's current goal is to take corporate money out of politics as much as possible by changing the ruling which states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as natural persons. It is a very young movement which seems to fairly accurately represent the frustrations present throughout the majority of the American population. Give it time and you may be surprised by the storm Occupy Wallstreet creates in the near future.

You are basing your case of the premise that it is bad that some of the population control all the wealth. Expound please.

It is bad. Logic suggests that if a small percentage of the population are in control of and enjoying a standard of living derived from the majority of wealth available to the total population.... That the rest of or the majority of the population is living at a far lower standard of living or poverty. Morality would also suggest that this equation is both wrong and unjust.

Just because a small percentage enjoy a lot of the wealth, does not mean that the other people will not enjoy it or eventually enjoy it. If the rich are wealthy, the money will trickle down through labor, jobs, goods, etc....

Morality does not suggest any of this. Also, there are so many types of morality that to put one face on it is absurd.


1. Trickle down economics is a fantasy and I do not logically see how it is practical in reality. I see the concept as a mechanism to trick the working class into thinking that the rich getting richer is somehow more beneficial to them than if they were to actually become more wealthy themselves by an increased income margin derived from a more balanced distribution of wealth.
And that is why every single class of people earned an average of 17% higher salary during Reagan terms. Trickle down effect does work.
2. I disagree with you from my own personal foundation of morality, but I do agree with you that the implications of what I stated are too multiple to be practically applied to all definitions and concepts of morality in general.
Couldn't care less about your personal morality.

1. Prove number is accurate. Then prove that the number was a direct cause of trickle down economics.

2. You argue like a child. Grow up. I never asked you to care about my personal stance on morality.

There's nothing wrong with being rich. Not everyone can be rich. Why can't people just learn to accept that?

In a vast majority of cases the rich work harder, are smarter and more innovative than the average person so they reap higher than average reward. Executives are known for working 60 hour work weeks and have the responsibility of keeping a company afloat. There's nothing wrong with that.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 7:11:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:
The Occupy movement is trying to even the playing field a bit. The wealth of this country has. Even funneled towards an unfair percentage of the population for far too long (in my opinion). The movement's current goal is to take corporate money out of politics as much as possible by changing the ruling which states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as natural persons. It is a very young movement which seems to fairly accurately represent the frustrations present throughout the majority of the American population. Give it time and you may be surprised by the storm Occupy Wallstreet creates in the near future.

The majority? I've met 3 intelligent people who know what they're talking about since the movement started that support it. The vast majority of people I know recognize that, as a whole, the idea is bull. If I go and become and engineer ad develop some new commercial product that's as big as the ipod, or some new piece or composite that can be used to make every mechanical object cheaper, lighter, and safer, then I'll make a sh!t load of money when all is said and done. I may even have started a massive engineering company and be pulling in millions a year. Do I not deserve the money made from my efforts and breakthroughs?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:17:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:13:11 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Personally I think it's a stupid movement with no set goal. They aren't working towards anything except homelessness. Big business isn't the problem.


Personally I think it is a great movement.
Yes, big business is the problem

Profits aren't evil.


That is not what they are saying.

These people are a bunch of lazy, out of work left wing hippies.


I would venture to say that they are more educate than people in the Tea Party movement.

Thoughts?

You're not seeing the facts of the movement.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:18:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:46:13 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:13:11 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Personally I think it's a stupid movement with no set goal. They aren't working towards anything except homelessness.

I saw an interview where they asked an occupier if he has a job, and if so how did he get the time off to protest. The occupier said he had a job, but quite it in order to join occupy protests.
Meanwhile people who want to work, can't find jobs; priorities.

Yes, lets demonize the guy who quits his job to fight for a better America...???
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:27:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 7:11:22 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:06:54 AM, Justin_Thiel wrote:

The majority? I've met 3 intelligent people who know what they're talking about since the movement started that support it. The vast majority of people I know recognize that, as a whole, the idea is bull. If I go and become and engineer ad develop some new commercial product that's as big as the ipod, or some new piece or composite that can be used to make every mechanical object cheaper, lighter, and safer, then I'll make a sh!t load of money when all is said and done. I may even have started a massive engineering company and be pulling in millions a year. Do I not deserve the money made from my efforts and breakthroughs?

If you did that, you may not become rich at all; instead, unless you're politically backed or already successful, you will likely become a victim of predatory practices and watch someone else become stank rich by making your invention far less intuitive (in the ways you described) than you did -- such as what Apple/HP did to Prada/LG.

I think its funny that people will have economic gripes, but will still criticize Occupy Wall Street protestors with just much (or more) economic ignorance as the protestors majority.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:31:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Might I add that engineers don't get rich from their inventions, businesspeople who take advantage of them do. This is at the core of the occupy wall street campaign. You clearly don't know any engineers.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:44:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 8:31:15 PM, Ren wrote:
Might I add that engineers don't get rich from their inventions, businesspeople who take advantage of them do. This is at the core of the occupy wall street campaign. You clearly don't know any engineers.

*Cough* Bill Gates, Steve Jobs. *End Cough*

Also, I bet those engineers were on a contract, that their idea belonged to the businessman, so its not the business mans fault that he makes the money.

The fact is, if you have a good idea, and you have the funds to make it work, then it can, assuming your willing to work for it. Why is it assumed that rich people don't deserve their money? I can tell you one thing, they deserve it a heck of a lot more than the OWS drum circle.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:45:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 8:18:22 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:46:13 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:13:11 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Personally I think it's a stupid movement with no set goal. They aren't working towards anything except homelessness.

I saw an interview where they asked an occupier if he has a job, and if so how did he get the time off to protest. The occupier said he had a job, but quite it in order to join occupy protests.
Meanwhile people who want to work, can't find jobs; priorities.

Yes, lets demonize the guy who quits his job to fight for a hippies/communists idea of a better America...???

Fix'd.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:47:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 8:31:15 PM, Ren wrote:
Might I add that engineers don't get rich from their inventions, businesspeople who take advantage of them do. This is at the core of the occupy wall street campaign. You clearly don't know any engineers.

I have a brother and a sister who are engineers. They make very good money, as do most engineers. Also without businessmen they would be unable to sell their product in the first.

An engineer may have a very good product design. However he lacks the both the skills in marketing to sell their product and the capital to produce enough of it to be profitable. That is where your evil conniving business men come in. You see, they have the expertise to create awareness for their product and the capital to create enough to meet demand. The engineer benefits from this. So to imply that an businessman takes advantage of engineer is false. Without the businessman the engineer would never be able to sell their product.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.