Well, I disagree with you, it's true that capitalism can be a terribly corrupting system but it's not irredeemable. Look at Norway, they've held on to the good of capitalism and socialism. They rate high in freedom.
I don't condone crime or uncivil behavior but I reject your broad brush strokes. As for their methods America was founded on cicil disobedience. If we champion mobs who threw tea in a harbor, if blacks could shut down a bus service or students sit in against the Vietnam war then we ought to extend a little bit of that here.
Sounds identical to me. The goal is to end the corruption on Wall Street. To increase jobs and salaries of workers.
There's your problem. You expose your bias so easily. You clearly see only what you want to see. Hear what you want to hear. If you refuse to consider that there might be some legitimate points of view (and there are a hell of a lot of them) then of course you will bear them nothing but contempt.
BTW: I grew up a conservative in a conservative household. My father spewed the same rhetoric at the protestors then that you are doing now. "Dirty hippy." "Trying to get laid." "Lazy won't work". "Stoned, drunk, peeing on lawns".
I don't think the system is corrupt and immoral as a whole. There are pockets of immorality and corruption.
So now you speak for them?
Let's protest. It's a legitimate form of speech.
Asserting something doesn't make it so. You don't really get to declare that these protestors are irrelevant.
Damn straight, you've made the very same rhetorical points my father did. So yeah, I do. Absolutely. When you can accept that there are many people who are tired of the status quo, even if you don't agree with them (as I did the Tea Party) and support their right to be heard without maligning and belittling and resorting to trite hackneyed rhetoric then I would happily hear your concerns and discuss them. Until them nothing's changed.
They had goals.
They had goals.
They had goals.
I didn't mean litteraly. I meant you don't get to do so and keep your credibility to anyone who is reasonable and intellectually honest.
I'm saying that to so so is to expose your agenda of maligning and belittling and refusal to even hear them out. I've read a lot of signs that call for investigations into the corruption, a change in laws and regulations. But you've never seen one of them. Do you really want me to take you seriously?
There are none so blind as they who will not see.
They are bringing nothing new to the political discussion table. We've heard before: Wall street is evil, corporations are greedy, bankers run the country, politicians are corrupt, hope and change, (whoops, how did that slip in there?)yawn.
Then you need to start using it to the same degree by opening your eyes to the big picture and stop identifying with their useless anger and blame.
Then they should be taking their protest to someone that could actually do something about it--the white house and congress. The fact that they don't is pretty telling. Wall street isn't about to be drummed into changing their ways.
Immature retards would protest wall street for more money and jobs. Mature, rational people would spend their time networking and researching to find or create a job.
That it's old hardly renders it irrelevant. And the harm is very severe and very real, I think it's unprecedented. We shouldn't stick our heads in the sand because they've gotten away with screwing us for so long. That's a rather bizarre argument.
That's it? "Poopy heads" and "they're pointing out that wall street has been screwing us for a long time they just got better at it so nothing to see here"? Really?
Proof that anecdotes make for good rhetoric but poor evidence.
