Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#77varusword75, Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 10:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lagaga,
#78 Oct 18 2011 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,900 posts
Reality, Liberace.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Oct 18 2011 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Mmm-hmmm *finger snap*
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#80 Oct 18 2011 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
It costs me 100 bucks a week just to get to work that is a whole day of work gone just so I can get to work.
That just means you have a really sh:tty job and should probably try and make your life better.

Or end it.

I gotta tell you, I'm ambivalent.


Actually what I do need is a new vehicle. It ****** me off that it costs nearly 100 bucks. Moving would also help minimzie the cost of traveling to work, unfortunately it costs more to live there then it does to drive there. My job is great, I love it, I have nothing against where I work. So no I don't need a new job.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#81 Oct 18 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
My job is great, I love it, I have nothing against where I work. So no I don't need a new job.

Sorry, you already said you had a crappy life where you lived to work and worked to live.
Quote:
The majority of people work to live and live to work, they clock in and out and still play catch up on bills, and expenses that increase everyday.

Quote:
I would love to sit in a park, and sing kumbaya and yell at the man. Unfortunately I can't, because I have to work. So I can live.

You make $26,000/year (your math, not mine), you have a sh:tty job. You need a new one.

QED
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#82 Oct 18 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
She didn't just say 'We didn't X and Y didn't happen' she first said 'We did -X and Y happened, the we did X and Y didn't happen.' You totally twisted what she was saying there.


I'm twisting what she said? This is the entire post:

Olorinus wrote:
Yeah not protesting about the richest 1% taking more and more and more and more has sure produced a lot of jobs... yep. That's why the unemployment rate in the US is... what?



This argument uses exactly the flawed logic I spoke of. It attempts to claim that since not protesting didn't produce jobs then protesting will. Surely you can see how this fails utterly. As I have pointed out several times, you could replace "protesting" with anything else that we didn't do. Now, if someone wants to argue how protesting will create jobs, that's legitimate (and IIRC, me asking for that was what prompted this response in the first place). But simply saying "Well, not protesting didn't create any jobs!" isn't a good answer.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Oct 18 2011 at 2:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Which isn't to say that youth doesn't make up a percentage of the protests and probably makes up a majority of the tent dwellers (hard to live in a tent when you have kids at home) but do they make up a majority of the protesters at large or a majority of the movement? You'll have to do better than pointing at some select photos of youth acting goofy (and thus photo-worthy) to make that point.


The first day of protests here drew a pretty diverse group. Parents brought kids, grandparents and retirees, young people etc. Things went smoothly for a crowd of around 6,000 people.

Then Monday came and most people went back to their normal life. Now we have a small group of mostly unemployed college-age kids hanging out in the park and camping with the homeless people.


I think both of you are confusing the people who come to see the circus and the people who are actually in the circus.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Oct 18 2011 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They weren't REAL Scotsmen!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Oct 18 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Found out my sister is seeing one of the higher-ups for an anarchist group involved in OWS. I asked her what his views on the goal of the movement was, and she said:
My sister wrote:
Well, we had an interesting discussion on it. You know how Mom and Dad raised us; you critique the status quo when you have some other viable options on the table. X is wrong, so why not try Y? But he was raised to believe differently. He was taught that if X is wrong, you get rid of X, even if you don't have a Y to replace it with. As citizens it isn't our job to make the Y option; but it is our job to destroy X if it isn't working. I pointed out that the end result of that would be anarchy, and he said, "Unless we tear open the moral and political fiber of the country, nothing new will spring forth. And whatever does come of it, even if we don't know what it is, has to be better than what we have now."

Basically he's offering destruction, not construction. He told me to stay away from the protests, because they will turn violent; that's the plan of him and his group. They're pushing the envelope on purpose, because they know nothing will change unless the country is shocked; they're making sure to push just the right buttons to have someone on the police force overreact. He feels sorry for the naive college kids legitimately believing that OWS will change anything just with a few signs, because they're going to get a big dose of reality when the police start to come down hard on them.


After I heard that, I've pretty much turned against the OWS movement. Yes, the majority of people are likely innocent of this kind of insanity, but there're definitely focused groups attempting to use the masses to incite violent retribution from the police. In the same way that all the Tea Partiers aren't racists or religious bigots, not all the OWS people are anarchists... but there are enough, and they are effective enough, to make the movements poisonous to the country. I'm not happy with the status quo, but I'm also not about to support overthrowing capitalism.

On a personal note, October 15th was a worldwide day of protest apparently. Meanwhile, I participated in a marathon that ended up raising over $1.1 million for children's hospitals across the country. When I saw the facebook posts about people protesting and clapping each other on the back for sticking it to the man, I felt how out-of-place their concerns were compared to the real issues facing people every day. hold signs and march on Wall Street, or try to raise money for sick kids? I think I picked the right choice this weekend.

Even if I got sick from the marathon and had to take today off, ha... Smiley: glare
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#86 Oct 18 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,435 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Which isn't to say that youth doesn't make up a percentage of the protests and probably makes up a majority of the tent dwellers (hard to live in a tent when you have kids at home) but do they make up a majority of the protesters at large or a majority of the movement? You'll have to do better than pointing at some select photos of youth acting goofy (and thus photo-worthy) to make that point.


The first day of protests here drew a pretty diverse group. Parents brought kids, grandparents and retirees, young people etc. Things went smoothly for a crowd of around 6,000 people.

Then Monday came and most people went back to their normal life. Now we have a small group of mostly unemployed college-age kids hanging out in the park and camping with the homeless people.


I think both of you are confusing the people who come to see the circus and the people who are actually in the circus.


I suppose to be fair Portland OR hasn't been considered a snapshot of mainstream America in recent years. Chances are most of the 6,000 were comfortably left-of-center politically anyway, and there seems to be a decent number here that 'support them in spirit'. I would take it as appears: more people are discontented than actually protesting. Surely that's not a stretch? I'm sure many Tea Party Supporters never attended a single rally in the early years. People do have to work and such. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#87 Oct 18 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Anarchist groups show up at EVERY large protest, regardless of what they are actually fighting against. It's absurd to turn against this one in particular, just because they'll come. They always come--it's the only thing they can do.

But I've been rather impressed with how OWS has handled them, personally, always striving to draw the line between them and the people who legitimately support the movement.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#88 Oct 18 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Anarchist groups show up at EVERY large protest, regardless of what they are actually fighting against. It's absurd to turn against this one in particular, just because they'll come. They always come--it's the only thing they can do.


It's a **** of a lot easier to do when the protests are so vaguely defined and are similarly aligned in opposition but not so much "for" things. As Locke's sister correctly states, you should always have a position defined based on what you'd replace the thing you oppose with. Failing to do so makes it terrifically easy for anarchist movements to take over.

How many anarchists showed up to cause trouble at Tea Party protests? It's not all protests and rallies which attract those groups. It's a specific subset. And the Occupy movement absolutely fits their agenda.

Quote:
But I've been rather impressed with how OWS has handled them, personally, always striving to draw the line between them and the people who legitimately support the movement.


Joph: Here's your No True Scotsman fallacy. Who are the people who "legitimately support the movement"? Isn't that the problem?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Oct 18 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:

How many anarchists showed up to cause trouble at Tea Party protests? It's not all protests and rallies which attract those groups. It's a specific subset. And the Occupy movement absolutely fits their agenda.

None; they mostly get religious bigots and racists, as I mentioned above Smiley: nod
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#90 Oct 18 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
You make $26,000/year (your math, not mine), you have a sh:tty job. You need a new one.

QED


Wish that was true so I wouldn't have to think you a moron, but I make 40 bucks an hour to likely do less work then anyone here. I sit on my *** drinking coffee all day, until there is a controls issue with a robot, then I hop in my little car drive over to the robot check the sequence and 9/10 times I just reset it, but every now and then I might have to change it a bit.

I have a ******* sweet job. Still ****** me off that I have to spend 100 dollars to get to work every week, it ****** me off I have seen a near 30% increase to my utilities cost over the last few years, and what ****** me off the most is that while I was laid off my government refused to give me money because instead of staying where I couldn't afford to stay I moved back in with my family to conserve money. Mostly because I didn't know when if I would be back to work, or when.

No I like my job, and I do work to live, otherwise why would I work, why not sit on my *** and do nothing.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#91 Oct 18 2011 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You make $26,000/year (your math, not mine), you have a sh:tty job. You need a new one.

QED


Wish that was true so I wouldn't have to think you a moron, but I make 40 bucks an hour to likely do less work then anyone here. I sit on my *** drinking coffee all day, until there is a controls issue with a robot, then I hop in my little car drive over to the robot check the sequence and 9/10 times I just reset it, but every now and then I might have to change it a bit.

I have a @#%^ing sweet job. Still ****** me off that I have to spend 100 dollars to get to work every week, it ****** me off I have seen a near 30% increase to my utilities cost over the last few years, and what ****** me off the most is that while I was laid off my government refused to give me money because instead of staying where I couldn't afford to stay I moved back in with my family to conserve money. Mostly because I didn't know when if I would be back to work, or when.

No I like my job, and I do work to live, otherwise why would I work, why not sit on my *** and do nothing.


So 2.5 hrs is a day of work? based on your $100 = day of work gone? That's where the math is coming from.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#92 Oct 18 2011 at 7:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
So 2.5 hrs is a day of work? based on your $100 = day of work gone? That's where the math is coming from.


Sounds about right for union work! Smiley: nod
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Oct 18 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You make $26,000/year (your math, not mine), you have a sh:tty job. You need a new one.

QED


Wish that was true so I wouldn't have to think you a moron, but I make 40 bucks an hour to likely do less work then anyone here.

So, you're either lying here, or you were lying in your original lame-*** lament. Either way you're a liar and nothing you have to say really matters. You should really try and keep your lies straight, especially in the same thread.
rdmcandie wrote:
It costs me 100 bucks a week just to get to work that is a whole day of work gone just so I can get to work.

rdmcandie wrote:
No I like my job, and I do work to live, otherwise why would I work, why not sit on my *** and do nothing.

You sit on your *** doing nothing most of the day anyway, according to you.


Edited, Oct 18th 2011 8:47pm by MoebiusLord
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#94 Oct 18 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
I also sit on my *** most of the day but at least I only work 7 miles from where I live - and if I do have to drive on the job, I get reimbursed by the company for mileage.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#95 Oct 18 2011 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
I'd be so bored if I didn't have a job to do. Sure if I didn't have a job I'd also not be able to eat, but I find enjoyment in the job itself.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#96 Oct 19 2011 at 6:21 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
She didn't just say 'We didn't X and Y didn't happen' she first said 'We did -X and Y happened, the we did X and Y didn't happen.' You totally twisted what she was saying there.


I'm twisting what she said? This is the entire post:

Olorinus wrote:
Yeah not protesting about the richest 1% taking more and more and more and more has sure produced a lot of jobs... yep. That's why the unemployment rate in the US is... what?



This argument uses exactly the flawed logic I spoke of. It attempts to claim that since not protesting didn't produce jobs then protesting will. Surely you can see how this fails utterly. As I have pointed out several times, you could replace "protesting" with anything else that we didn't do. Now, if someone wants to argue how protesting will create jobs, that's legitimate (and IIRC, me asking for that was what prompted this response in the first place). But simply saying "Well, not protesting didn't create any jobs!" isn't a good answer.
Posted later with a quote from an article where the scenario with both X Y scenarios was presented not just one. You're reply was subsequent to that. My bad for assuming that you read the part that she used large and bold tags on.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#97 Oct 19 2011 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
You sit on your *** doing nothing most of the day anyway, according to you.


That is correct but I get paid to do it. I may have over exaggerated on the amount of time lost due to fuel use (ok grossly exagerated) but thats not the point. 10 years ago it cost me maybe 50 bucks , I am assuming about half as gas has gone from a steady 60 cents a liter to 1.20 a liter (for the many of you who fail at conversions that is 2.28 Gal > 4.56 Gal.)

So ya I exagerrated, but the point still stands, my government takes money off my check for social programs, which they then denied me access too. (because I moved home? Made to much money before lay off? I don't really know) Then the turned around and bailed out corporations and banks (mostly american corporations in canada, and banks with dirty american assets.).




Edited, Oct 19th 2011 3:50pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#98 Oct 19 2011 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
She didn't just say 'We didn't X and Y didn't happen' she first said 'We did -X and Y happened, the we did X and Y didn't happen.' You totally twisted what she was saying there.


I'm twisting what she said? This is the entire post:

Olorinus wrote:
Yeah not protesting about the richest 1% taking more and more and more and more has sure produced a lot of jobs... yep. That's why the unemployment rate in the US is... what?



This argument uses exactly the flawed logic I spoke of. It attempts to claim that since not protesting didn't produce jobs then protesting will. Surely you can see how this fails utterly. As I have pointed out several times, you could replace "protesting" with anything else that we didn't do. Now, if someone wants to argue how protesting will create jobs, that's legitimate (and IIRC, me asking for that was what prompted this response in the first place). But simply saying "Well, not protesting didn't create any jobs!" isn't a good answer.
Posted later with a quote from an article where the scenario with both X Y scenarios was presented not just one. You're reply was subsequent to that. My bad for assuming that you read the part that she used large and bold tags on.


What the **** are you talking about? We had a conversation about the youth of the crowds, then she went on a tangent about how young people are having a hard time finding jobs. Here's the entire exchange:

catwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Also... I don't think you really understand what these people are saying - young people ARE having to live with their parents longer - not because they are slackers but because rents are high and wages are low.


And how exactly does targeting those most likely to provide them with good paying jobs help them? They may as well call themselves the "hit me over the head with a shovel" movement. It would be just as productive.


Where are all these mythical good paying jobs? That's what they are out there protesting. Them being out there isn't going to take away what currently doesn't exist in the first place.


Followed by:

Olorinus wrote:
Yeah not protesting about the richest 1% taking more and more and more and more has sure produced a lot of jobs... yep. That's why the unemployment rate in the US is... what?


Followed by:

gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:

Yeah not protesting about the richest 1% taking more and more and more and morehitting yourself on the head with a shovel has sure produced a lot of jobs... yep. That's why the unemployment rate in the US is... what?


Do you see the flaw in your logic?



Do I really have to show you this step by step? The flaw is the statement that because they didn't protest and things went badly, that this means that protesting is a good idea. As I correctly pointed out, you can replace "protesting" with anything you didn't do while things went badly. You honestly can't see this? That's just amazing to me.


Edited, Oct 19th 2011 1:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Oct 19 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
So ya I exagerrated, but the point still stands, my government takes money off my check for social programs, which they then denied me access too. (because I moved home? Made to much money before lay off? I don't really know) Then the turned around and bailed out corporations and banks (mostly american corporations in canada, and banks with dirty american assets.).



This is what makes me wonder at the mental faculties of Liberals. You acknowledge that it was the government which screwed you over, but then apparently think that the solution is more government. You can't make up stuff this absurd!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Oct 19 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
So ya I exagerrated, but the point still stands, my government takes money off my check for social programs, which they then denied me access too. (because I moved home? Made to much money before lay off? I don't really know) Then the turned around and bailed out corporations and banks (mostly american corporations in canada, and banks with dirty american assets.).



This is what makes me wonder at the mental faculties of Liberals. You acknowledge that it was the government which screwed you over, but then apparently think that the solution is more government. You can't make up stuff this absurd!


It's because, if given the option, the private sector will ***** us over twice as hard and for twice the money.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#101 Oct 19 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
catwho wrote:
It's because, if given the option, the private sector will ***** us over twice as hard and for twice the money.


So you've been told. Strange that you put more weight in the scary story of what might happen than the bad things you know are happening. And liberals think that Conservatives act on faith instead of reason! Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (53)