Merged Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder

Were there no retailers in that area before Wal-Mart?
Click to expand...

Why would that matter?

They got their stuff at a mom-and-pop that was put out of business by Wal-Mart, and now that's their only choice. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
You should have read my footnote. I predicted this.
Click to expand...


Ahh so its like this:

Scrut: "Dirty hippies shouldn't protest because they wear Nikes and shop at WalMart."

Someone else: "But Nikes and Walmart are all there is."

Scrut: "So, we asked for them"

Someone else: "I didn't, and a lot of people protesting didn't either"

Scrut: "But we*** did, so the protesters are hypocrits"

Nice circular delusions you've got there.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Most "difficult" problems aren't difficult at all. It's just that people don't want to make tough decisions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if I don't like the bonuses paid to bank execs, I should just buy enough shares to get a voting majority in them. Simple solution. I guess I'm just stupid for not having done this already. :rolleyes:
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Thus proving my point. We get the retailers we ask for.
Click to expand...

No, your point was that if someone shops somewhere, they have no right to complain about any practices of where they shop. If my husband's family did not shop at Walmart, then the other stores around Walmart went out of business and now they have no choice but to shop at Walmart because there are literally no other alteratives, it's pretty silly to tell them they can't then complain about Walmart practices because they still need to buy things to live even though their preferred Mom and Pop stores went under.

They did not ask for the retailer they are left with. Now you can just say "well, that's the freemarket, the community voted with their wallets" but that is a completely separate issue than saying someone who has no choice but to shop at Walmart can then never complain about Walmart.

Or is your argument that if my husband's family had just been harder working and more profitable, they would have single handedly been able to keep in business all the other stores that formerly existed, and thus their inability to do this means that it is still their fault that Walmart is there now and they can't complain?
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Most "difficult" problems aren't difficult at all. It's just that people don't want to make tough decisions.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. Unless by difficult decision you mean people chose to not make the difficult decision of just commiting suicide or letting themselves die rather than do what they need to meet their basic needs.

Then I would technically agree with you. Most difficult problems in life are avoidable because you could always kill yourself and your family and then they would have no more problems.
 
Last edited:
Schrodinger's Cat said:
No, your point was that if someone shops somewhere, they have no right to complain about any practices of where they shop.
Click to expand...
If there are truly no other alternatives, that's one thing. Obviously for the kids protesting, that's not true. They don't have to use FB, cell phones, eat at McDonalds, wear Nike's, etc.
 
Neally said:
If there are truly no other alternatives, that's one thing. Obviously for the kids protesting, that's not true. They don't have to use FB, cell phones, eat at McDonalds, wear Nike's, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree. When I saw the kids who had signs that made blanket anti corporate statments to the effect of all corporations are evil, all the while wearing or utlizing corporately produced products they could easily have found an alternative to or simply forgone, I found them quite silly.
 
NoahFence said:
Why would that matter?

They got their stuff at a mom-and-pop that was put out of business by Wal-Mart, and now that's their only choice. Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...
Mom & Pop couldn't match WalMart's prices or selection or convenience.
 
NoahFence said:
Ah!

So we agree. Excellent. Heaven forbid I look out for #1 from time to time.
Click to expand...
But we do not agree. I think it's fine that quality products can be made cheaply in Asia at low cost, which is then passed on the me, the consumer.

You probably won't admit it, but you feel the same way.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
No, your point was that if someone shops somewhere, they have no right to complain about any practices of where they shop. If my husband's family did not shop at Walmart, then the other stores around Walmart went out of business and now they have no choice but to shop at Walmart because there are literally no other alteratives, it's pretty silly to tell them they can't then complain about Walmart practices because they still need to buy things to live even though their preferred Mom and Pop stores went under.
Click to expand...
Your husband's family has no internet? And why haven't mom & pop opened a store to serve the masses that don't want to shop at WalMart?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Not really.

Why do you think we have all these foreign products? Cars, t-shirts, shoes, etc all used to be made in the US. Until, one day, some corporation figured out that they could make this stuff cheaper overseas, and charge less for their products. And everyone flocked to their stores. Then their competitors did the same thing, because they didn't want to go out of business. So that fact that these hippies can't buy US made sneakers is because they want their sneakers to be made in China. It's their own fault.
Click to expand...

This argument has nothing to do with my objection.

Corporations and their products and services are everywhere; all I'm saying is that I don't think taking a Tylenol should cancel anybody's right to ever complain about drug industry hijinks - or even for the duration they're taking Tylenol.

What's wrong with "Occupy Wall Street" (in my opinion) isn't that the people there have no room or right to complain, but that they don't even know exactly what it is they're complaining about. As a movement they are pure American at its most refined: declaring themselves dedicated and committed to fighting "something", where something is so vague and undefined that being committed to fighting it is practically meaningless. Yet they view this waffling non-committal commitment to be a source of pride and "what makes the movement so strong". The fact that Ronulans, hippies, socialists, and anarchists all "don't like banks" is about as useful and poignant a thing to point out as the fact that they all breathe oxygen. If "the banks" are to be dealt with (hypothetically), however it's done is going to make a tiny segment of Occupy Wall Street happy, and severely piss off the rest - and their insistence on politely avoiding that particular dialogue amongst themselves for the sake of creating the illusion of a large number of people "on their side" isn't a "strength", it's intellectual cowardice.
 
shemp said:
Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder



Here's some of those who have heard:



Former Sen. Feingold was one of the most liberal Senators and has generally fought for working class people, so I'm not surprised at his remarks.

On the other hand, there's those who don't get it:



Yes, they should all just go out and get jobs. Oh, there aren't any? Well, let them eat cake.



This has got to be the most absolutely clueless comment I've seen yet! I don't think I even need to comment on how stupid and thoughtless his comment is. Jeffrey Immelt, go **** yourself!
Click to expand...

The protests are disconnected from the reality of what caused the economic slumps in the first place. Wasn't it the bad mortgages, and the utter irresponsibility of both bankers and homeowners on those things that contributed to the housing collapse? No doubt some of the big CEO's took their golden parachutes, but I fail to see how anger against the upper class does anything to address the failure of the banks in 2008
 
Neally said:
Then we need more coverage of the drum circles!


No jobs anywhere, doing anything? Rather than finding out what it takes and making the connections to find a job, let's just sit around banging the drum!
Click to expand...
Stop that. Don't tell us these people could just go out and get a job if they wanted one, without any government pressure on employers to accomodate the handicapped and what have you.

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.

This is just another example of the arrogance of the rightwing detractors.
 
leftysergeant said:
Stop that. Don't tell us these people could just go out and get a job if they wanted one, without any government pressure on employers to accomodate the handicapped and what have you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom