DrVornoff:
Yeah, I read Andrew Breitbart's claims. They were bullshit then, too.

And the part that you forgot was that the Sandinistas were democratically elected and the Contras were a bunch of morally bankrupt psychotic thugs who kidnapped, tortured, and murdered civilians including children. Also the fact that the US sold weapons to terrorists. Kind of sticks in my craw.

I already said that, genius. How does that refute the idea that unethical things are bad?

Their finances are fucked because we're locked in a cycle where the Republicans spend money like drunken sailors and then the Democrats have to fix the damage by raising taxes among other things and then the Republicans get back in power by pointing to the mean old Democrats raising taxes. Lather, rinse, repeat.

OK...

1) Except the Tea Party protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful and cooperative with police. They also did not trash the places they protested, costing taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars, like the OWS protesters.

2) Yeah, so democratically elected people are not subject to coups? I think Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you on that one. You call them terrorists. I call them freedom fighters. (Oh, I love using the other side's words against them. Tee hee!)

3) Under your ethics, certain things are unethical. Those same things may not be unethical to me or others.

4) Hilarious. Drunken sailors? The trillion-dollar deficits occurred under Democrat congressional control, you know, the last two years of Bush and the first two years of Obama. The Democrats do not have any plan for getting rid of the deficit or debt. Not a one. Even with over a trillion dollars in tax hikes, Obama can't balance the budget. They just want to spend more. The Paul Ryan plan is the only one on the table that fixes the problem, almost solely by cutting the growth rates of government spending, not gratuitous cuts like the demagogues are claiming. So, don't even try to say that your side is serious about deficit and debt reduction. They won't even touch the entitlements and their massive unfunded liabilities.

BiscuitTrouser:
In an ideal democratic system all people would equally be elected based on sensible policies and ideas rather than the funding. And please dont get all "dem liberals" on me. Its degrading. Honestly I don't care WHO is giving the mega rich a lot of breaks, I really don't. It could be ultra religious conservative right or commie liberal left and it wouldn't make a difference to me. I'm complaining that the issues exist at all.

Your main points stem from the idea that we can't change the system. The introduction of multiple parties (with a legitimate chance) would make a presidential race far less exclusive and thus far less difficult to buy into, this would prevent politics from being limited to those associated with the mega rich.

And honestly yes. The occupy wallstreet movement has seen problems. Problems that definately do exist. And again you're right. I don't know how to fix them. But that doesnt undermine at all how dis illusioned we are with the current system and how we want these things to change. The idea is that the people, those who rightly vote in politicians and provide them with the "power" that they wield by consent, are not happy. And that makes it the politicians problem. All the OWS movement wants is recognition of these issues. It wants a politician to step up and admit that the current system has issues and then to work to confront them.

Would you suggest those who take huge issue with the holes in the current system just take it simply because they cannot offer an easy/instant solution? They have just as much right to have their ideas heard and respected even if they themselves cannot offer a solution because the problem is still a problem.

I'm saying at the end of the day the mega rich rely on the mega poor to make money through consumerism and labour. It all comes down through the system to us. The idea of the OWS movement is to draw this to their attention. Our issues are valid and need to be addressed, the workforce we comprise holds real power and if we all just decided to stop working (read: NOT riot, NOT refuse to vote. But promise that anyone who DOES tackle these issues will get a vote. Political pressure.

Also deciding that a HUGE number of people are rapists and thugs is rather niave. I mean really the ENTIRE group?

My main critisism of the occupy wallstreet is that its aims are unfocussed and its people show lack of conviction toward a single goal. But that doesnt mean that real aims and real points are not being made. Im angered its being watered down by many wasters and people with no real issue just trying to jump on a bandwagon. In many areas the OWS movement has been a bit of a failure, I'm the first to admit this is true. I still stand behind its more reasonable advocaters using real points to show their anger at a system though.

Also use of "you liberals" pretty much indicates your bias can be smelled a mile away and that most of the things you say will be bashing that group for no reason at all. Sorry but I hate dealing with fanatics. I refuse to start humping any one political party and i accept both have faults. Maybe some more than others. But the use of that language is classic arrogance and it rubs me entirely the wrong way.

1) No, that's not ideal. That's trying to force equal outcomes. Money has an influence on things. There is literally no way to change that.

2) Multiple parties have to succeed to work. If they don't, they go away. No one is stopping you from creating a third party. You just can't force it on people. Other mega-rich people would just bankroll any new party. Are you really that naive to think that wouldn't happen? Also, I'm not arguing that the system can't be changed. I am simply arguing that the things you wish to change cannot be changed. There's a difference.

3) If they want recognition of their issues, they are going about it in the absolutely worst way. The Tea Party movement got traction for doing their protesting well, despite every liberal pundit in the country calling them racist and all that garbage.

4) If you see a problem, blog, write, and/or talk about it. That's all an average citizen can really do to bring attention to something.

5) The mega poor don't work. I am talking about the government dependents when I mention the uber-poor. And all what you're saying sounds like something Karl Marx carped on about, even though he was completely wrong.

6) The entire group, no. But there were never reports of rape at a Tea Party protest. Also, you're really gonna start that one? When the liberal pundits branded the entire Tea Party movement as racist?

7) Create a different movement then because OWS is done. It is devolved into a pack of wild dogs.

8) It is easier to refer to all left-leaning people as "you liberals" than using pretty much any other label. I have bias. I admit that plainly. Everyone has bias. The problem with some people is that they refuse to admit their bias and sometimes even deny it exists.

Blablahb:
Well, if that was about the US... reducing the government income through tax breaks means an even worse budget. But what's worse is that the services the government provides can't be provided by the free market, and the tax breaks end up mostly with the rich and large companies. Basically people can't increase their wellfare with any money they may keep from tax breaks, so the break is basically useless.

Plus some mechanisms remain in place to place burdens that belong with employers, on the government. For instance California has kept illegal immigrants on benefits when unemployed. Sounds humane at first, but that program was only created after farmers who exploited the immigrants lobbied for it, because their workers vanished after the harvest. So basically they made the state pay for keeping their workers around and available during the winter, making the taxpayer pay for something that they as business owners should be doing. S. Smith wrote a very well-known study on that in the late 90's.

Second example is healthcare. Healthcare insurers are almost unregulated. They screw people over. Health checks, refusing people, canceling insurance after a diagnosis... So people can't get healthcare or postpone having healthcare, and then end up on the ER, and the taxpayer gets the bill. Thus, the unethical business practises that increase the profits on health insurance companies are paid for by the taxpayer.

In such a situation, tax breaks are not the answer. The answer lies in more regulations and more government spending, not based on Reaganomics.

For instance wanting to keep prisons cheap as can be has caused incredibly poor rehabilitation rates in the US compared to other countries. Guess who gets the pay the bills for police, incarceration and health damage to former convicts and re-offenders, again the taxpayer. Spending a little more on prisons in the past would've yielded major savings today.

I'm really right wing when it comes to many things, but the economical thinking of what's called the right wing in the US is just incorrect.

There's a lot wrong with your post. Let's begin, shall we?

1) No, health insurance companies are not unregulated. They are one of the most heavily regulated industries in existence. Because we don't have a national market for health insurance, i.e. you can't bring your health insurance with you if you move to a different state, lobbyists have gotten to state legislators forcing all health plans in a state to cover retarded things, making health insurance more expensive. Health insurance in this country is not a free market. Also, INSURANCE companies should not have to cover people with preexisting conditions. It goes against the very definition of INSURANCE. I'd rather leave the power of insurance to health care providers in the free market, where I can choose which insurer I use, than giving it to the government, which can force me to do things I don't want to do.

2) Few services the government provides could not be accomplished by the free market operating under spontaneous order. Pretty much just the courts and the military. Tax breaks end up mostly going to the rich because the rich pay the most taxes. Are you really that naive?

3) No argument from me on the illegal immigrant thing. Sanctuary cities are breaking the law and providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants (which can only be given to legal residents and citizens as it is used as one of the most basic forms of identification for identifying the difference between legal and illegal.)

4) More spending and regulation is not the answer. No way, no how.

5) Rehabilitation is not the primary goal of prison. Justice and punishment are the two primary goals, with a secondary goal being removing the asshole criminal from civil society. Rehabilitation is the primary goal of psychiatric facilities. If the convict breaks the law again, that's their own damn fault. They probably should have gotten a longer sentence or should never have been released to begin with. Blame the activist SCOTUS of the '60s and '70s which was very pro-criminal.

6) I think you should read some F. A. Hayek, especially his capstone work, "The Fatal Conceit."

Big_Willie_Styles:

1) No, that's not ideal. That's trying to force equal outcomes. Money has an influence on things. There is literally no way to change that.

2) Multiple parties have to succeed to work. If they don't, they go away. No one is stopping you from creating a third party. You just can't force it on people. Other mega-rich people would just bankroll any new party. Are you really that naive to think that wouldn't happen? Also, I'm not arguing that the system can't be changed. I am simply arguing that the things you wish to change cannot be changed. There's a difference.

3) If they want recognition of their issues, they are going about it in the absolutely worst way. The Tea Party movement got traction for doing their protesting well, despite every liberal pundit in the country calling them racist and all that garbage.

4) If you see a problem, blog, write, and/or talk about it. That's all an average citizen can really do to bring attention to something.

5) The mega poor don't work. I am talking about the government dependents when I mention the uber-poor. And all what you're saying sounds like something Karl Marx carped on about, even though he was completely wrong.

6) The entire group, no. But there were never reports of rape at a Tea Party protest. Also, you're really gonna start that one? When the liberal pundits branded the entire Tea Party movement as racist?

7) Create a different movement then because OWS is done. It is devolved into a pack of wild dogs.

8) It is easier to refer to all left-leaning people as "you liberals" than using pretty much any other label. I have bias. I admit that plainly. Everyone has bias. The problem with some people is that they refuse to admit their bias and sometimes even deny it exists.

1. Yes it is ideal. Impossible yes but ideal also. Because a genius who has a good idea to fix the economy and balence the budget is denied a political on the basis of being poor? I thought the entire point of a democracy was to get the right people for the right jobs based on consensus of their skill rather than doing it blindly (any kind of despotism/monarchy) or through force (faschism). I just think a perfect democracy would weigh all good ideas equally and pick the one that worked best independant of other factors.

2. It would happen. And this is another point the OWS protestors (well some anyway) are trying to raise. This is a fault in the system.

3. To an extent i agree. Its not the best movement at all. We have some serious well thought out ideas floating around spear headed by unfocussed idiots and wasters watering down people with real concerns. The protest has become too big and is now a magnet for the young and randomly dissaffected. I agree with the core of OWS but the chaff dont do it for me.

4. And all those things do nothing since it doesnt apply any real pressure on anyone with power to care. I do all those things. How does this bring about change or awareness to politicans?

5. I also believe Karl Marx (while he had his heart in the right place) was utterly wrong. I argue that from a capitolistic perspective all have equal rights in the "food chain" so to speak since many of the higher ups depend on the lower downs. I talk of the poor who struggle to work several jobs because living standards are so high. These people exist.

6. Honestly i care little for what side threw shit at another side when in relation to this shit flinging. I really dont. Both are wrong. To label a group as "rapists" doesnt help your arguement. Its only a single step below a Godwins. The slander of some of the group does nothing to undermine its aims. And to attack the actual USE of the protest is pointless since i agree some of it is useless in its actions.

7. Its become the band wagon, where do we go from here, like i said its become a magnet for ANYONE under the label "dissaffected" and competing with that is all but impossible. To be fair i think its as formless and amorphous as its always been after it gained huge speed but the aims are true and i think we can perhaps salvage it.

8. I admit i have biases. Im somewhat left leaning. Well american VERY left. Im more british middle. Honestly the politics in your country scares me. Right and further right shouldnt be the two options. I just say that to begin every attack with "dem liberals" is as usefull as begining it with "you whites". Really it is. It doesnt do anything for you and it attacks an amorphous group of people many of which probably dont hold those views.

arbane:
I've been to local Occupy protests, and I don't do drugs or rape people. YOUR OVERGENERALIZATION IS INVALID.

Why would the cops BOTHER busting the skulls of people who are protesting to promote the right of rich people to get richer? For all their talk of "Second Amendment Solutions", the teabaggers didn't disrupt things much in public, as they prefer to commit felonies out of the public eye.

OK. This is simple thing to get straight: There were rapists and drug users at Occupy events, which led to at least a few drug overdose-related deaths. Not any of those at Tea Party protests.

I love that you use a crude sex act to describe the Tea Party movement. Totally works in getting people supportive of them to join your side.

One data point and you're jumping for joy. Also, did you actually read that story? The "felony" you're saying they did (a) led to zero arrests, (b) was about using Facebook to collect signatures to then shred, and (c) hilarious because you actually agree with the article's author that it is a felony. Also, you expect me to take a site with a "Scott Walker Video Liar-brary" seriously?

Tyler Perry:

Big_Willie_Styles:
OK. This is simple thing to get straight: There were rapists and drug users at Occupy events, which led to at least a few drug overdose-related deaths.

Considering the number of people at these events, it was an utterly infinitesimal, statistically insignificant amount. But hey, let the actions of a few randos at an event with no planning, central leadership or admittance policy tar the entire movement, right? Andrew Breitbart would be proud.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Not any of those at Tea Party protests.

I seem to remember a woman getting her head stomped in at a Rand Paul campaign event, which was in essence a Tea Party rally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head_n_773857.html

(Yeah, it's HuffPo, I don't give a fuck. First link that came up. Don't try to deny it happened.)

Hrrm... I use the rules of the opposition. If a few signs can smear a whole movement, I can use a few rapists to do the same.

I believe that woman was also making a mad dash at the soon-to-be Senator and that the man who did that was part of the soon-to-be Senator's crew. Your point? An Obamacare supporter bit off the finger of someone who didn't support it.

DrVornoff:

Big_Willie_Styles:
1) Last time I checked, liberals are the ones who implement those on college campuses. Dude, it's called private property.

A park is public property, kid.

2) Yes, and Iraqi women have basic human rights now. They can vote. Tell me that ain't a plus.

They had a number of basic human rights under Saddam too. A lot of people forget that Saddam was a secular ruler. Oh, he was a devout Sunni, sure. But it really didn't have any appreciable effect on his policy other than gassing sects he didn't like, such as the Kurds. And they're getting shot at now anyway, so it's kind of a lateral move for them.

3) Pepper spray is painful, yes. Probably more painful than most things that are non-lethal. Doesn't change the fact that brandishing it is useful in certain situations.

Like using it on students who were completely non-violent?

4) Effective my ass. They're terribly ineffective. All they've managed to do is make their causes toxic by association with them.

If you only listen to Fox News, I'm sure it seems that way. However, they successfully changed the discourse. Even Republicans are now using phrases like, "the 1%" unironically.

5) And the Occupy movement is turning into a hilarious thing to point and laugh at. They've become a parody of their former selves.

Again, if you watch only Fox News, yeah.

6) The Occupy movement did not need a leader for their public support to evaporate. That's already happened.

Then why are they back?

7) The government agency tasked with overseeing that BP oil drilling platform was filled with porn addicts and even had a crystal meth user. Instead of doing their jobs during work hours, they were watching porn and doing drugs. They even gave that exact oil drilling platform a safety award only months before it exploded. The government dropped the ball on this one. Just like with the Exxon Valdez. (The captain was drunk and asleep when it crashed, and the company knew he was a drunk but could not discriminate against him as anti-discriminatory laws have set up drunks as a protected class for some reason.)

All that occurred under the Bush administration who actually weakened the safety regulations that were supposed to prevent disasters like this and made appointments based on croneyism and nepotism. But your argument is that it wasn't incompetence that caused the Gulf disaster, but the fact that we have government at all?

8) I'll refer you to the works of F. A. Hayek of the Austrian School of Economics, especially his capstone work "The Fatal Conceit." Supply-side economics is still macroeconomics. Microeconomics has a much better track record.

Yawn.

9) Liberals are not doing anything either. They have their own favorite constituents, such as the trial lawyers and the unions.

Waaaaahhhhh!! The other side does it too!!! WAAAAHHHHH!!

10) Labor is cheaper in China, thus, companies get a lot of things produced in China. Doesn't change the fact that American companies with production facilities in China tend to pay better than the Chinese companies.

Because they legally have to. What's your point?

11) I don't think that's his moral philosophy, just the one you ascribe to him for disagreeing with the Occupy movement. I adhere to my own morals, my own conscience.

It's an educated guess I've made based on past arguments with him. Please do not tell me what my motives are. Thank you.

1) Except the Tea Party protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful and cooperative with police. They also did not trash the places they protested, costing taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars, like the OWS protesters.

Citation needed. And I'm not accusing the Tea Party of violence. Those were your own dumbass words. No, I accuse them of the shit they are currently being investigated for like Joe Walsh being a deadbeat dad and Christine O'Donnell illegally using campaign funds.

2) Yeah, so democratically elected people are not subject to coups? I think Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you on that one. You call them terrorists. I call them freedom fighters. (Oh, I love using the other side's words against them. Tee hee!)

You're not using my own words against me. You're just throwing words at me like a chimp flinging feces. Trust me, kid, I've had these arguments with people much smarter than you, many of them real conservatives unlike you.

Point is, the Sandanistas were democratically elected, but they were communists so we decided the mass murdering Contras were more palatable and we helped by selling weapons to terrorists. If you can't see anything morally wrong with that, then I wouldn't trust you to hold a door open for me.

3) Under your ethics, certain things are unethical. Those same things may not be unethical to me or others.

Point?

4) Hilarious. Drunken sailors? The trillion-dollar deficits occurred under Democrat congressional control, you know, the last two years of Bush and the first two years of Obama. The Democrats do not have any plan for getting rid of the deficit or debt. Not a one. Even with over a trillion dollars in tax hikes, Obama can't balance the budget. They just want to spend more.

Is that why the economy has been improving steadily since Obama's policies went into action? The proof is in the pudding kiddo. And we were losing a crapload of money long before the Democrats took Congress. We suddenly got more because when they got Congress back, they forced the Bush administration to put the costs of the Iraq War back on the books when they had previously been hiding them.

The Paul Ryan plan is the only one on the table that fixes the problem,almost solely by cutting the growth rates of government spending, not gratuitous cuts like the demagogues are claiming.

So, don't even try to say that your side is serious about deficit and debt reduction.

Back atcha, sparky.

They won't even touch the entitlements and their massive unfunded liabilities.

Because as Adam Smith pointed and I am very fond of reminding Republicans, the concentration of wealth is the greatest threat to a capitalist society. We need social safety nets in order to create class mobility and strengthen the middle class. And I would also point out that the Republicans won't even touch the massive tax breaks, loopholes and tax shelters that the wealthy exploit even though they don't need or deserve them.

Looks like I got my work cut out for me on this one...

1) Zuccotti Park is not public property, chief.

2) Yeah, and women couldn't vote.

3) Non-violent? Let's go to the video tape. What? We don't have video of the events that led up to the guy using the pepper spray? Oh... So, you're saying they were non-violent but you have no proof...

4) Successfully changed the discourse how? By shutting down ports? By causing millions upon millions in damage that the taxpayers will foot the bill for? The public is against them now.

5) Back how? Anybody can go to a park and protest. It doesn't mean they're "back." That's like saying M.C. Hammer is back when he announces new tour dates even if only three people buy tickets. Scale, baby, scale.

6) Proof of those claims against the Bush Administration? Also, no, not under Bush. They got that safety award under Obama. They were surfing for porn and doing drugs under Obama. I never said government is the reason it happened. It just dropped the ball on this one.

7) Ah, you won't even address my Hayek point. Hilarious and telling at the same time.

8) Yes, I'm making the point that pointing the finger at the Republicans is hypocritical.

9) Proof of the "legally have to" point? That sounds odd.

10) I am questioning your motives for questioning the motives of another person and you're telling me not to do that? Hilarious.

11) http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-protests-cost-cities-millions/story?id=14975940 Joe Walsh and Christine O'Donnell? Who cares about them? The latter is crazy and the former is someone I've never heard of.

12) Real conservative? Could you define that for me? Also, I refer to myself as a fiscal libertarian.

13) And Nicaragua has a democracy now without communists.

14) The economy has been improving steadily? What are you smoking? The economy is growing anemically. This is not good growth. We have to add 250,000 jobs a month for five straight years to even get back to pre-recession employment levels. No, that's not the reason. The Iraq War is not why we have trillion dollar deficits. *Double Facepalm.* TARP pushed it over a trillion and the "stimulus" the next year gave us another trillion dollar deficit. You clearly know very little about economics and public policy.

15) Hilarious. You think that Bender video is a substitute for a substantive point. The Paul Ryan plan is the only CBO-approved plan to fix the entitlement, deficit, and debt problems. So, good job talking out of your ass.

16) God, you're so ignorant. The Paul Ryan plan gets rid of all tax loopholes. You don't even know the specifics of the plan you ridicule. A safety net is the answer to the concentration of wealth? That doesn't really make sense. "Don't need them" my ass. That's your judgment not mine.

Tyler Perry:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Hrrm... I use the rules of the opposition. If a few signs can smear a whole movement, I can use a few rapists to do the same.

That's cute.

Big_Willie_Styles:
I believe that woman was also making a mad dash at the soon-to-be Senator and that the man who did that was part of the soon-to-be Senator's crew. Your point?

Which is a lie. The first part, not the second.

Big_Willie_Styles:
An Obamacare supporter bit off the finger of someone who didn't support it.

Totally unprovoked and not in any sort of altercation, I'm sure.

So, a bodyguard for Rand Paul just decided to stomp on a woman's head? Totally unprovoked and not in any sort of altercation, I'm sure.

There exists a situation where biting off someone's finger is excusable? Pray tell.

Tyler Perry:

Big_Willie_Styles:

So, a bodyguard for Rand Paul just decided to stomp on a woman's head? Totally unprovoked and not in any sort of altercation, I'm sure.

Woman tries to ask Senator a question, woman is forcibly separated from senator, woman is taken to ground, Paul supporter steps on her head. Remember?

Big_Willie_Styles:
There exists a situation where biting off someone's finger is excusable? Pray tell.

I don't suppose you have a link to where I said it was excusable? Go ahead and find it, I'll wait.

I see you have the same amount of intellectual honesty as so many of your right-wing brethren around here. Which is to say, very little.

Yes, poor MoveOn.org woman dressed in a wig and mocking clothing which signaled she saw Rand Paul as a stooge for corporations. Totally the kind of person I'd want approaching the person I'm guarding. Also, it being a "head stomp" has been heavily debunked. She never pressed charges, it would seem.

You said it could not possibly be totally unprovoked. I was questioning your logic on that. What kind of situation exists where a sane person bites off another's finger?

DrVornoff:

Lilani:
You don't have the right to make businesses lose profit,

Boycotts are illegal now? News to me.

No, boycotts are quite legal. What is illegal is physically barring people from conducting business on commercial property, which is exactly what Blahab was talking about when he said "blocking harbors." That is something Occupy Oakland wanted to do--line themselves up and keep people from going to work, effectively shutting down the harbor.

That isn't protest. That is an arrogant and petulant disregard for the lives and livelihoods of others. You don't keep regular people from earning a paycheck just to prove a point--especially if your point is supposed to be highlighting how evil the corporations are. That isn't civil disobedience, that is cruel and unfair. I understand that Occupy Oakland is the vocal minority of the Occupy movement, prone to harsh and violent actions most of the OWS crowd disapproves of. But unless I misunderstood, you're sitting here defending their inexcusable behavior.

That is why I took so much offense, because as far as I can tell you have this perverse notion that not only is your point more important than others' right to choose to remain uninvolved, but that your point is best communicated when negatively affecting bystanders. That isn't going to help your case, that's just going to piss them off and lose you any support they might have considered giving you. Because who are they going to have more sympathy for: the corporations who are evil according to these protesters but haven't really negatively affected them much up to that point, or the protesters who get in their way and add extra hassles and worries to their days?

What is your opinion on worker's strikes?

I have no problem with them, as long as they follow the law and don't bar other workers from continuing to work. As the protesters have the right to strike, others have the right to not strike.

So in order to protest authority, you have to do the things they tell you to do that would make your protest a marginalized failure?

If you want to prove the authority is wrong, then you need to prove you are better than them. Use your head, find ways to prove them wrong in ways that make them have to bend the law backwards and forwards to silence you. Because if you break laws while protesting, you will always lose the support of the public. Every single time, just like pissing them off. But, if you cause the law to break its own rules to try and break you, the hypocrisy will play itself out right before the public's eyes.

So that's my advice. Don't deliberately piss the public off, they are your best allies. And don't deliberately break the law, because the law will always win. Unless, of course, the law is unjust. But I really see nothing unjust about anybody wanting to keep their designated public area from becoming a residential zone, and an unsightly fire hazard.

You know what would make people see the OWS movement as lead by upstanding people? If they kindly left and found alternative places to stay when asked. Not only would you be on the move all the time, seeing and meeting different people, but it would show you want to ally with the public rather than pit yourselves against them with a "my way or the highway" mentality. Hell, maybe people would be willing to offer put you up on their property for a while if you prove yourselves to be civil and mobile enough. Work with people, not against them.

DrVornoff:

I've always found the notion of free speech zones creepy. I either have the right to protest in a public area or I don't.

I didnt say anything about "free speech zones." You get a permit that says you can protest, you can set up anywhere you want. There is just a limit to how long you can be there. You can go back later.

Well, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't like the idea of nation building in other people's nation, and that's the real reason we went there. I also dislike the idea of spreading democracy at the end of a gun. Freedom! Or else! Using the spread of democracy to justify stomping into a foreign nation, deposing the government, wrecking their shit, and then wasting an entire decade trying to clean up your own mess (badly) just makes you sound like a jingoist savage in my mind.

Well, how else are we supposed to do it? Dictators wont let power go, and Saddam gassed his own people (which, under my book, means simple death is too easy for him. Lets just say, I break my "do not torture" policy with dictators). Plus, from what I have learned, alot of the people over there love us, ESPCIALLY the women and children, with the latter being VERY helpful later on. The Kurds absolutely adore us, and it is the only region of Iraq were NO military personal were killed by enemy action! Its only the old fundimentalist who have problems with us.

The region is still very politically unstable. It's exceedingly difficult to predict what will come in the next few years, though right now we have to prepare for the worst.

Well, yeah, but at the moment it looks like thier democracy will last. There has been very little in the news about anything bad happening there except for right after we pulled out.

Did you see how the first five years of the reconstruction effort went? The whole thing was riddled with croneyism, corruption, incompetence and failure at every level. It took us as long as we did to get out of there because the Bush administration had no idea what they were doing and made appointments based on party loyalty rather than actual qualifications.

As I said, things didnt go quite according to plan, but in the end it turned out alright.

Exactly! They're discharging a weapon onto a target with no proper knowledge of what this thing can do.

Well, then what else are they supposed to use?
Handgun...no, wait, that will have an even higher chance of killing them.
Tazer...no, they may die if they have a heart condition, have been drinking, or are covered in gasoline.
Baton...no, that may leave brusing and break bones.
Thier bare hands.....no, that could also leave brusing if they are resisting.

They won't.

Well, then that is something that needs to change. No one is above the law, not even the ones who enforce them.

snip.

Except we did have a target. One that resulted in much more collateral damage then was nessesary. Look, I KNOW that not everyone in Occupy was some drug-addicted, "I want the government to take care of me", sitting on thier asses, trashing everything in site kind of people. As I said, my social worker was in the one in my town. But the problem is that people saw the out of control ones on the news, like in Oakland, New York, etc. and assigned them too the whole movement. My social worker, she said that is why the one here in town shut down after afew days. Because they didnt want to be lumped in with people who WERE actually crazy and WERE actually saying "DEATH TO THE RICH!" It just wasnt worth it to them anymore.

An abstract entity needs to be a person in order for this happen? I'll believe a corporation is a person when BP is arrested.

The only thing on that list that cant be done without corporations being people is the double taxation. That said, I dont see whats the big problem with it. Corporations DONT have the same rights as a person. They are not allowed to vote, before Citizens United, they werent allowed to give money to polititions for campaining purposes, there really is no downside to a corporations being a person. It is just a strawman for people to get angry over.

And what evidence is there that supply-side economics are not horseshit?

He said it hasnt been in place long enough to have a total answer, but it was starting to show at the end of Reagens presidency. He said there needs to be 12 years, maybe 16 now, of continued and careful deregualation to get to where you want to be. Supply-side favors short term stagnation, long-term prosperity, while Demand-side favors Short-term Prosperity, Long-term stagnation. Again, with Europe as his example. He also said the fact that people are addicted to thier entitlement programs, both here and there, doesnt help matters. He also has no love for Occupy, comparing them to the Hippies/counter-culture/anti-war movement of the 1960's....that is not a good thing coming from him.

So what are Republicans in general doing that cancels out this sort of corporate favoritism?

Well, for one, even ignoring the corporate favoritism, they are more business friendly. They also have better ideas about the economy. I also agree with them on a majority of social issues, however that one is not a very accurate indicator as my social ideas are literally all over the place. Plus, I like thier sense of pride for country better than democrats and while I dont think they should be pushing religion, I like that at least they are attacking it like some democrats try too.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, I forgot Energy Policy....Republicans get the edge there too.

I already do that, but the problem is that I don't like the fact that the representatives I elect see corporations being unethical and say, "You know what he needs? More tax breaks!" instead of, "Hey! Pack that shit in!"

..........Then why did you vote for him/her???

If your response to outsourcing labor to Chinese sweatshops where children are forced work 14-hour shifts because it's cheaper is, "So what?" it seems there might be a bit of a disconnect between our respective moral outlooks on life.

Outsourcing get a whole other outlook. I have no problem with companies outsourcing SOME of thier factories/labor to other countries, but to be considered a company of that country, you should be employing at least 51% of your workers from that country. For instance, GM is headquarters in the US. If they want to get tax breaks, favorable treatment, etc., they should ACT LIKE THEIR FROM THE US BY EMPLOYING MOSTLY AMERICANS! However, we need to reform unions, taxes, and regulations before they can do that.

arbane:

Does that include dictators the US propped up? How quickly they forget...

Yes. More so actually. It was one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" things, but now we really should start cleaning up our messes.

It's been THIRTY BLOODY YEARS, when do we get our cake?

No, its actually been zero by his count. Heres how:

Start with Reagen. He starts on the track to supply-side. He gets 8 years started.
Then comes Clinton. Backtracks on everything Reagen does, and resets it to zero, in addition making a poor and hasty deregulation that hadnt been thought through.
Then comes Bush. He has to clean up Clinton, sets us back on track, but after a total of 6 years on Supply-side, the Democrats take us off of it again, and the hasty deregulation of Clinton hits.
And Obama...."Set us Back to the point we need to start from scratch all over again because of people who want another Reign of Terror, ala the French Revolution."

Yeah, some people just can't break that pesky food habit they've built up, the lazy bastards.

Im not even going to dignify that with a response.

We've been implementing GOP economic policies for the last three decades, and they PLAINLY SUCK.

No we havent, we have been on and off of GOP and Democrat for that time.

Which social issues would that be? The "hunger is a great motivator" ones, or the "we will eliminate the very concept of homosexuality" ones?

Neither. We are grossly overpaying on entitlements, but I still think we should have them (just find ways to spend more efficiently), and I want Gay Marriage legalized (like the Log Cabin Republicans). Try again.

Why?

Because unions have become the very bullies they were created to stop. By reforming taxes, I dont mean "lower them", I mean "Make them simpler" (like a flat tax), and there are needless regulations on the books that cost companies money. We should get rid of them.

DrVornoff:

Would you have approved of a major military strike against the Soviet Union during the Cold War?

No. I realize that there are some dictators that they are too powerful and an attack would be suicideal, North Korea and China being more modern examples. Now granted, I dont think they should be allowed to get away with torturing, enslaving, and oppressing thier people just because they are powerful, but bombing them would most likely get us or one of our allies nuked, and that would be even worse. We just have to find SOME other way to get rid of them.

Or you could try not discharging weapons at people who do not present an immediate physical threat. Seriously, look at that video up there. Those students were not posing any threat whatsoever, and he blasted them with a chemical weapon. The public outcry was significant and all that fat prick got was paid administrative leave. A vacation in other words.

What if they are resisting arrest? They dont have to be doing it violently, but they are disobeying police orders, and you do what the police say or face the punishment.

Also, in reference to that video, they had been orders numerous times to disperse and await arrest. Now, I have heard people say that the police just should have pulled them apart and carried them away and the only reason they peppersprayed them was because the police were lazy...when in reality, other than the fact they could have hurt them WORSE trying to pull them apart, it was because the last time Occupy pulled that stunt, A cop got his hand sliced open with a knife!

Now, they had NO IDEA what these people were planning. They may have been just surrendering, or they could have been trying to do the same thing.

And how do you propose we start doing that?

I'd say reform to the laws and justice system. I am not even going to try and say that I have the perfect answer, but that shit will not fly.

Which is kind of the point. There is no way you can respond with force to such a group and come out smelling like roses. You attack them at your own peril. It was a brilliant move on the part of the Occupy movement to have no central leadership. The violent police actions against them only make those in authority look vicious, panicky and incompetent.

But it Didnt work that way. I am assuming you tryed to make yourselves out as the victums in doing that, but it just didnt happen. People JUST DONT CARE about the movement. They just want to get on with their lives and try and keep things from getting worse, and most dont want someone camping in the nearby park, always ticking off the police because they are camped illegally, and harrashing them for not joining them. That doesnt get you any sympathy when the police say "Screw it!" and send in units to clear you out.

Wouldn't an amendment to the tax law fix that?

Tax code is complicated enough as it is (it is literally 74,564 PAGES long!). We dont need to make it more complicated.

Actually, yes there are disadvantages. The biggest one being that a corporation isn't just a money machine, it's a liability shield. A corporate director or executive facing criminal charges can deflect responsibility for wrong-doing onto the corporation. Instead of going to jail, he can deflect the responsibility onto the legally-considered-a-person corporation, which you can't arrest or detain. You can only make it repay damages.

By declaring corporations to be people, you are effectively losing a part of your right to be angry at criminals.

Ok, that is something I can be ok with changing.

If that's the best pitch you've got...

Its the only one I got. Thats my story, and Im sticking to it.

I don't know him from Adam, so what does that mean to me?

Nothing, just seeing if that made some sort of difference that he is a 65 year old Vietnam Vet, who thinks we are overpaying on entitlements (especially social security), and thinks unions (all of them) are the devil, and also has a degree in Psychology(which is why he also has us do alot of finacial morality exercises. He has said that I am a very much a "No BS" attitude when it comes to business).

Well, for one, even ignoring the corporate favoritism, they are more business friendly
How?

Deregulation, for one. But again, it has to be done carefully. Also, thier wanting to make unions weaker is the other.

They also have better ideas about the economy.

Such as?

Supply-side is more sound economically then Demand-side.

And follow-up question, what about that embarrassing display over the debt ceiling?

Complete and udder disgrace and I am going to try and vote out my senators who tried it. I dont care if they oppose Obama on other things, you DO NOT!!!!! PLAY CHICKEN WITH THE FEDERAL DEBT!

I also agree with them on a majority of social issues, however that one is not a very accurate indicator as my social ideas are literally all over the place.

Such as?

Well, just to show how "all over the place" I am, here are afew (and lets just leave them alone: I dont want to get 50 messages for my opinions that dont have to do with Occupy and Economics):

Where I stay with the party is on the opinion we are overpaying on entitlements (ironically, my girlfriends family is poor enough to get social security...they believe we are overpaying too), and On Abortion (Although, I think it is ok in EXTREME cases). However, I break lockstep over Gay Marriage (It really should be legalized) and Torture of terrorist (Did I mention I REALLY like Shepard Smith)

and while I dont think they should be pushing religion, I like that at least they are attacking it like some democrats try too.

Examples?

Ok, forget that one.

Only 51?

More is better, but at least its a majority.

Also, some of the jobs are coming back, mostly the ones sent to India. But not because of any reform Stateside. No, you see Indians have a strange cultural tendency toward entrepreneurial spirit mixed with astounding cheapness. They started demanding better wages and more workplace regulation. That's why tech support has more Americans now than it has in years. Unfortunately this also means that manufacturing jobs are now going to places like the Philippine Islands.

I have also seen articles about how some companies are moving thier manufacturing back to America because they are tired of having thier designs and products stolen by China (which has no copyright laws).

DrVornoff:
Zucotti Park specifically is privately owned public space. The New York police commissioner however said that protesters have a right to be there as the agreement was that the space be open to the public 24 hours a day. So far, the owners have said nothing about what can and cannot be done in the space.

They also didn't get car bombed. Point?

Pictured: proof

Not pictured: my middle finger

Everyone's talking about income inequatity when no one was before they showed up. Everyone's talking about how the system favors the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes. They changed the discourse.

They're out protesting again. They're not giving up. And they still have a better approval rating than you think.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/sex-lies-and-oil-spills_b_564163.html

First link I found. Basically, the failsafe at the Deepwater Horizon was the cheap, less safe version. The regulation demanding the more expensive one was repealed by the Bush administration. Allegedly, Dick Cheney thought it was unfair to make them pay the extra money.

Because I've heard it a million times before and still have no proof that supply-side economics are not horseshit.

Not if they're actually responsible for a fuckup.

Minimum wage? Labor laws? Any of that ringing a bell?

It's not his motives I question. I believe he genuinely wants to do the right thing. I just don't think that his moral ideology has become cohesive yet. It took me over two decades for my own philosophy to coalesce into the aretological perspective it is today.

Joe Walsh is a Congressman who is notorious for refusing to pay child support to his ex-wife and then lying about it and getting very hostile and nasty with his constituents after getting into office. And Christine O'Donnell was a Tea Party darling in 2011. Don't pretend she wasn't.

I would consider a real conservative to be someone like William F. Buckley. I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, but I respected him. I admired the fact that he could engage in tough debates with other educated men and they would still walk away with a healthy respect for one another.

There's also a friend of mine who is still in college, but more well-read than most of the Republicans on Capital Hill. He doesn't limit himself to just Hayek and Friedman. He's read Chesterton, Malthus, Marx, Hobbes, Locke, and so on. Hell, he's more well-read than I am. I'm still trying to catch up with him. And we argue quite a bit, but we never do it maliciously. We've been able to walk away several times with a decision meeting each other half-way and feeling pretty good about it.

You? I somehow doubt you'll present yourself to me in that sort of light.

Warning bell just went off in my head.

Which is cheap for you to say because you didn't fight for it. You didn't shed any blood. Hell, you didn't do shit. For all I know, you weren't even alive when it happened. The Contras butchered civilians and violently overthrew a legitimate using money they acquired through selling illegal drugs, human trafficking and a slew of other illegal activities.

That looks pretty steady to me. Slow, but steady.

Tarp by the way was the Republicans' idea. They only hated it when the black guy endorsed it. They do that a lot, actually.

Oh, and in regards to the Iraq War:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/10/27/the-economic-crisis-and-the-hidden-cost-of-the-wars.html

The Bush administration tried to keep that off the books because it looked bad.

Garbage in, garbage out.

In regards to the safety nets, they prevent from falling through the cracks. Food stamps for example cover a basic necessity for those who are struggling, allowing them to accumulate greater savings and eventually increase their buying power in the market. Without class mobility, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer until you end up with something like Mexico wherein over 90% of the wealth is controlled by less than 1% of the population.

This should be fun.

1) The owners of the park have the right to kick those people out, especially since the park has public hours. You can't sleep there overnight. The problem was the cops deciding not to enforce this.

2) Except there were rape and torture chambers under Saddam. Also, the gassing of the Kurds, where over 100,000 people were on the receiving end of a slow and painful death by means of a gas similar to the one seen in "Saw II" (quickest way to explain the nerve gas that I could think of.)

3) Yes, three seconds before it happens is plenty of context. That once again tells me nothing! Why were the students sitting in that row? Why was the cop in front of them to begin with? These are questions that video of three seconds before the pepper spray is sprayed does not answer those two key questions.

4) Your side has always talked about those things. They did not change the discourse at all. They tried to, but people don't care anymore. The conservation has returned to "What is the proper role of the federal government as far as the economy is concerned?"

5) The May Day protests sputtered and failed. Next question.

6) And? Obama had plenty of time to take corrective measures. He instead opted to fight for Obamacare for a year. The BP oil spill did not happen three days into his administration. He could have ordered a complete top-to-bottom restructuring of the agency or its rules. He did not. Blaming it on Bush makes no sense. Yes, the regulations put in place by Bush made it more likely that a massive oil spill could get really, really bad, but nothing was stopping Obama from changing that. Not with a supermajority in both houses of Congress for the first two years of his term.

7) Never said I endorse supply-side economics. I support microeconomics.

8) Except they're not responsible in totality.

9) That doesn't mean they have to manufacture their products in China. It is just cheaper to do so. And as more and more American capital is put into manufacturing in China, wages will increase. We're already seeing that. It is doing wonders for the poverty-stricken in China. And once labor gets too expensive in China, companies will go somewhere else with cheaper labor and build up that area. My money is on Africa or South America.

10) And? Your virtue moral perspective doesn't stop you from casting aspersions on that guy's moral philosophy, which you think you can glean from a posting on an Internet forum.

11) Joe Walsh, who I looked up before I said I did not know who he was (I really had no clue,) is a bad person. And Christine O'Donnell was not taken seriously the second she won the primary. From Dick Morris to Karl Rove, she was thoroughly lambasted as a fool.

12) William F. Buckley, founder of National Review, playful critic of Ronald Reagan (which is why Ronald Reagan would joke that Human Events, the second biggest conservative publication, was his favorite publication, just to josh on National Review, the biggest conservative publication,) and the reason the John Birch Society was kicked out of the Republican Party. Good man.

13) My best friend is a Noam Chomsky disciple. We debate all the time. I read plenty of other philosophers. Hayek just happens to be my favorite.

14) That's your problem. Fiscal libertarian is the label Hayek ascribed to himself later in life when he wrote the famous essay "Why I Am Not A Conservative."

15) And your point? It was a fight between a communist government and brutal rebels. You gotta be kidding me into thinking that was an easy decision to make when deciding who to support. The side that got our support won. The communist government wasn't all sunshine and lollipops.

16) Yeah, except you gave me a graph so small I can't even see the axis labels. The economy has been improving anemically. Any negative world event can push us right back into a deep recession. The recovery is looking similar to the New Deal under FDR. It gets better for a short bit and then gets really, really bad and stays that way for a long time. Obama didn't get us out of anything. He extended the length of the recession by spreading out the pain without letting the housing market hit bottom or the market correct itself.

17) Yes, TARP was. Obama still voted for it and all the budgets while he was in the Senate. He's complicit.

18) The article is hilarious. Talks about cutting taxes without mentioning the huge spike in collected tax revenue that followed those tax cuts. The tax cuts helped growth which increased tax revenues over what they would have been otherwise. Same thing happened when JFK and Reagan also enacted across-the-board tax cuts. Don't give me some moronic static analysis which shows tax revenue would have been higher without the cuts. Static analysis assumes the economy would have done the same thing without the tax cuts. It is completely foolish to think that.

19) He didn't keep it off the books. The government just did a bad job projecting the cost of the wars. That happens with everything! The government's projection of Medicare costs ended up being a tenth or less of what Medicare ended up costing. The government is bad at projecting the cost of government? Tell me something I don't know!

20) Nice, using a moronic gimmick like that to say he's against closing corporate tax loopholes. He wants to get rid of all tax loopholes along with several other changes to the tax code. He doesn't want his plan in piecemeal. It is not effective that way. Get a clue.

21) Yes, and all of them were invented in the last 80 years. Class mobility was not a problem before that. The problem is the people who get addicted to the government dole. That happens all the time. Some have even broken welfare down to a science to squeeze as much money out of it as possible. The rise in illegitimate births can be tracked back to welfare. A woman gets more money in welfare to raise her child if she isn't married.

22) 90% of the wealth? That's hilarious that you think that. The number is actually 34.6%. How much of total federal income tax revenue does the top 1% pay? 36.73%. You will notice that the one that doesn't help your case is bigger than the one that bolsters it.

Links to those two numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

PercyBoleyn:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Pepper spray is painful, yes. Probably more painful than most things that are non-lethal. Doesn't change the fact that brandishing it is useful in certain situations.

It can cause blindless, corneal scarring and death.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Labor is cheaper in China, thus, companies get a lot of things produced in China. Doesn't change the fact that American companies with production facilities in China tend to pay better than the Chinese companies.

Yes, and that somehow makes it OK and non-exploitative.

Yes, and is pepper spray a better crowd control measure than say, bullets?

It is funny that you think it's exploitative. The wages in China are going up, largely due to American companies having manufacturing there. It has done wonders for the poor and poverty-stricken in China. Back at the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, factory working conditions were also terrible in what are now first world countries. You can't get from impoverished to wealthy without eating many, many crap sandwiches first. It takes a lot of back-breaking work to get an economy from third world to first world.

arbane:

Big_Willie_Styles:

OK. This is simple thing to get straight: There were rapists and drug users at Occupy events, which led to at least a few drug overdose-related deaths. Not any of those at Tea Party protests.

Given the median age of the Teabaggers, I'd be shocked if most of the people there weren't taking drugs every day. :-P (A very cruel blogger once referred to a Tea Party event as "The Gathering of the Juggalos for the mobility-scooter set." I like him.)

Big_Willie_Styles:
I love that you use a crude sex act to describe the Tea Party movement. Totally works in getting people supportive of them to join your side.

Some early TEA party supporter started calling them that, and it spread. Not MY fault they don't play FPSes.

I'm not running for office. I don't NEED to be nice to ignorant cranks.
And I'm pretty certain that people who think that right now we have record-high tax rates and that Obama is a Marxist will never, EVER be 'on my side'.

So coy. You know I meant illegal substances. But let's move on.

No, they didn't. That's a lie you tell yourself, like many other liberal pundits.

I'm an ignorant crank? Love it.

Taxmageddon is coming. January 1, 2013. Who's bringin' the chips?

Obama likes the European democratic-socialism model over America's democratic-capitalism model. That's pretty well-established. He's not a fan of free markets. That one couldn't be more obvious.