Merged Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder

Checkmite said:
In the sense that searching for a job does not guarantee securing a job, that is true. But I think what Neally was trying to point out is that not searching for a job does, in fact, guarantee not securing a job.
Click to expand...
He totallty ignores the fact that engineers, teachers, fire fighters, cops, and a whole ist of other highly-trained professionals are out of work because nobody is higher in those professions because slime like the Koch roaches and the Walton larvae need their tax breaks for CREATING JOBS in the minds of idiots like chinless Mitch and the orange skinned freak from Ohio.

The slime working in those offices on wall street are pulling the strings on the meat puppets who are spending all their time thinking of ways to screw Obama rather than how to bring jobs back here at a living wage. Those people in the park are begining to bother them, and this is a good thing.

It is time for peopple to get mad and start looking more closely at what the investor class has done to them.
 
You just dropped proof to the contrary in front of us in your video. There is at least one identifiably disabled person there who would need a hell of a lot of special accomodations in most jobs that pay a living wage.
Click to expand...

Its as if they think all you need to do is snap your fingers and a viable job magically appears out of thin air. Getting a job is as easy as saying "i need a job"....
 
Clearly noone can come to these protests unless they are wearing clothes they fashioned themselves, and raised on food grown themselves. Clearly every single person there is there only for their own betterment, and not out of solidarity for others or others' situations.

sFXXtl.jpg
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
My guess (but I'm not positive on this) is that there were and that they shopped there when they existed, but they went out of business after Walmart came around because even if his family patroned these other businesses, enough people switched over to Walmart to drive the others out of business.

I do know that there are quite a few products they just didn't have access to prior to Walmart, particularly in terms of entertainment, and products for children. The area they are from (I've been there) is just so sparsely populated that you could not get everything available at Walmart prior to its existence, I just don't see how there would be the market to support stores that are very specialized.

But his family still would prefer to not have Walmart as their only shopping outlet, even if it means they didn't have access to certain products due to lack of a Walmart.
Click to expand...

Not that this is a thread about WalMart but I bet most of the poor people there are happy a Walmart is there.
 
Fishstick said:
Clearly noone can come to these protests unless they are wearing clothes they fashioned themselves, and raised on food grown themselves. Clearly every single person there is there only for their own betterment, and not out of solidarity for others or others' situations.

sFXXtl.jpg
Click to expand...
I posted a link earlier to a site that sells only American-made clothing, shoes, etc. http://americanapparel.net/

So American-made products are available, but I bet 98% of the protestors wear the foreign-made clothes because they're cheaper. Which makes them hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
I posted a link earlier to a site that sells only America-made clothing, shoes, etc. http://americanapparel.net/

So American-made products are available, but I bet 98% of the protestors wear the foreign-made clothes because they're cheaper. Which makes them hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Because people who are on a living wage can't spend $22 on a Tshirt, maybe?

And like I said, there area also 'wealthier' people present in the 99% that join(ed) the movement as solidarity to those who can't.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Not that this is a thread about WalMart but I bet most of the poor people there are happy a Walmart is there.
Click to expand...

That's quite likely true. My point was just that sometimes you have to shop somewhere you don't like because you don't have options, and that in such a case its understandable to complain about a place even though you shop there.

leftysergeant said:
What ash trays?
Click to expand...

As Wildcat says, they mean the tin cans I saw all over the place for cigarette butts.

Also, it was in the paper today that almost 150 protesters were arrested yesterday. Apparently they did in fact spread out into a larger area than they were in just a few days ago when I saw them, and so they were arrested. I'm still a little spotty on the details. Maybe they were on private property or disrupting traffic in the street, is my best guess. When I saw them, they were just camped in a small public park area, and the position of city officials is that the park is for public use, and protesting is a right we are entitled with, so they had the right to use the park to protest.
 
Last edited:
Fishstick said:
Because people who are on a living wage can't spend $22 on a Tshirt, maybe?
Click to expand...
Sure they can, they just have to buy fewer t-shirts. Just like their grandparents did in the Golden Age when everything was made in the USA and people were happy with a 1000 sf house.

1 telephone per household, 1 television (if even that), no computers except if you're rich, no smart phones. I can buy a new professional-grade power saw made in China for $110 at a big-box home improvement store, the same quality saw 20 years ago would have cost me nearly $200 at 1991 prices!

There's reasons such things are not made in the USA any more. Not even the protestors really want these things made in the USA, if they did they'd buy the more expensive US-made clothes. But they're not doing that, because they're hypocrites. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
 
WildCat said:
While smoking cigarettes made by Big Tobacco, stocking the medical tent with products produced by Big Pharma, using Big Electronics products to post on Big Social Networking about how they're sticking it to The Corporate Man and aren't gonna take it any more.
Click to expand...

It's a large group of people, but my guess is that the majority aren't really anti-capitalism as many here keep suggesting. I'm sure there are probably some who protest capitalism in general, but I think the majority are protesting that the rich continue to benefit disproportionally from the poor and middle class.

One can wear Nike shoes, use cell phones, take aspirin, and even smoke cigarettes while protesting against companies shipping jobs overseas and sitting on profits without hiring, the rich lobbying against jobs bills intended to increase demand, the huge discrepancy in pay between the management of large companies and their workers, attempts to balance the budget by cutting programs that benefit the poor while refusing to increase taxes for the rich, the growing amount of the country's wealth going to a smaller number of the richest people, the potential conflict of interest created by allowing corporations to anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to organizations that endorse and support certain politicians, or lobbying against regulation that might prevent the bad behavior that put us into this mess.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Maybe they can't afford the higher priced because they're out of work....


the circle of :rule10:
Click to expand...
And yet they can afford laptops and smartphones and the necessary subscription fees those products entail.
 
Bri said:
It's a large group of people, but my guess is that the majority aren't really anti-capitalism as many here keep suggesting. I'm sure there are probably some who protest capitalism in general, but I think the majority are protesting that the rich continue to benefit disproportionally from the poor and middle class.

One can wear Nike shoes, use cell phones, take aspirin, and even smoke cigarettes while protesting against companies shipping jobs overseas and sitting on profits without hiring, the rich lobbying against jobs bills intended to increase demand, the huge discrepancy in pay between the management of large companies and their workers, the growing amount of the country's wealth going to a smaller number of the richest people, the potential conflict of interest created by allowing corporations to anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to organizations that endorse and support certain politicians, or lobbying against regulation that might prevent the bad behavior that put us into this mess.

-Bri
Click to expand...
Hey, I support limiting campaign donations to $10 per person/entity per year. Do the same for party donations. Such a law has no Constitutional issues.

Now everyone's equal, no one has any undue influence. Sound good?
 
WildCat said:
Hey, I support limiting campaign donations to $10 per person/entity per year. Do the same for party donations. Such a law has no Constitutional issues.

Now everyone's equal, no one has any undue influence. Sound good?
Click to expand...

Or better yet: limit every party's campaign funds to a set, equal amount.
 
WildCat said:
Hey, I support limiting campaign donations to $10 per person/entity per year. Do the same for party donations. Such a law has no Constitutional issues.

Now everyone's equal, no one has any undue influence. Sound good?
Click to expand...

Does you law stop me from buying ads supporting a candidate if I do not contribute to them directly?

Does it stop me from getting together with my friends in local Steamfitters #309 to jointly buy an ad?

What if I, the owner of a national magazine , decide to start my "Elect Ron Paul and Sarah Palin's Love Child" editorials and use copious space in my magazine to spearhead a campaign to get the spawn elected and to trash any other candidate. I spend no money to do so, except indirectly. Does your law stop me?

If it doesn't, then I don't see much difference. If it does, then I do see some Constitutional problems.
 
WildCat said:
Hey, I support limiting campaign donations to $10 per person/entity per year. Do the same for party donations. Such a law has no Constitutional issues.

Now everyone's equal, no one has any undue influence. Sound good?
Click to expand...

I personally have no problem with it. Better yet, use public funds to provide each candidate with equal amounts of money to campaign. That might entirely remove any conflict of interest inherent in voting on issues that might affect those to whom you're dependent for re-election.

Your comment doesn't have much to do with what I said, however. Some in this thread have been making fun of protesters for using the bathroom at McDonald's and buying products made by large corporations, presumably insinuating that they're all protesting corporations or capitalism in general.

I suspect that's not the case.

-Bri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom