Occupy Wall Street

Surprising view was yours that humans are basically good.

I don't believe this. I think humans are selfish and that this results in enough humans acting in a good manner out of guilt or personal gain.

Guilt is actually a good point you bring up. Liberal guilt!!!!!!!!!!!

In some cases, yes, they do need to be forced. I'm not in favor of a Paul23 nanny society but if people aren't held accountable, then they'll probably end up causing harm that could have been prevented.

In other words, you'll murder people until enough act in the "right" manner. You claim you're "not in favor of a nanny" state but accept that "ends justify the means" and that people "need to be forced."

Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else. I don't want an extreme nanny society where your personal choices and individual liberties are infringed upon. However, I don't think everything needs to always be black and white all the time. You don't like moderates, but I think moderation is the best way to do things.

Would you kill people to save the world? (not a political question but an ethical one as I don't want to create such a hypothetical narrative)

What happens when the resources for all our cool shit runs out?

We adapt.

"No, I won't cut down on smoking! If I get cancer, I'll just adapt!"

Why don't you seem to care about or believe in global warming/climate change?

Because it has yet to present a falsifiable theory?

A theory that almost every scientist believes?

Answer this question for example: What's the proper global temperature?

The way it is now. It's not like Africa's supposed to be uninhabitable.

Second question: If man is affecting the climate unintentionally, why should man further affect the climate but intentionally

Because it's becoming an actual problem but it's preventable. Why don't we just solve our problems instead of adapting to them?

Should people born into wealth be entitled to emit shit tons of carbon for their private jet that is really everybody's (and I'm not just talking about humans)?

Why shouldn't they?

Because it harms us.

You call them "blackholes". I mean just taking care of each other.

Again, another thing that needs to be defined.

Yeah

Institutions we already have but are constantly cutting like education (this one is dodgy because I know the funds are often misappropriated and the stats don't back it up but who doesn't want a more educated and skilled populace (don't answer that )),

We spend more on education than any populace in the history of the planet. We spend gobs more than a half century ago. Where's the progress?

I don't know, but is that "gobs more" adjusted for inflation?

social security (this one's different because there's no reason to cut it)

How about the fact it's a fucking hybrid pyramid/ponzi scheme that steals from the minority poor and gives to the rich?

That's not even true. While the tax itself is regressive, the benefit system isn't, as it gives the poor a higher percentage of their income back. They also offer survivor and disability benefits, which benefit the poor far more often than the rich.

While it is similar to a ponzi scheme, it remains to be seen whether it actually is, because you don't know what the payout is going to be. It'll probably be shitty, but it could end up being higher than what you paid into.

Believe it or not, the poor aren't all lazy drug addicts. It is a rigged game but at least with that safety net, the American dream could be (and maybe even was, thanks to our favorite president) theoretically doable for all who are willing to work for it.

Doesn't justify theft, and especially doesn't justify the disaster of a system that exists today. We can easily provide a better life for the impoverished but it doesn't offer up the graft and political power the system we have does.

And why would graft and political power be lost by providing a better life for the impoverished?

I'll respond to rest later, I need a break

btw, cyanide, we are already so far in debt, but it's not like it'll be called in any time soon. We've always had a debt. It does eventually need to be cut, but it shouldn't be a focus right now. Money is already given to corporations and the myth is that the tax breaks will cause them to create jobs and the wealth to trickle down, so we may as well do the same for small ones.

btw, cyanide, we are already so far in debt, but it's not like it'll be called in any time soon. We've always had a debt. It does eventually need to be cut, but it shouldn't be a focus right now.

So your suggestion is to ignore the rising debt only to make it worse, weakening the dollar until the entire economy collapses? Money isn't unlimited and infinite, and how it is used does carry consequences.

It is unlimited and infinite in a sense. It's a arbitrary thing we can print more of. I know it's not really more money because of inflation, but still. More than that though, we can solve the problem after we fix the economy.

Off topic, but never gets old: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alvin-Gre ... 1706612271

we can solve the problem after we fix the economy.

How can you fix the economy if you're not solving the problem?

It's a arbitrary thing we can print more of. I know it's not really more money because of inflation, but still

I'm not really deep into economics nor familiar with American economics but that statement deserves a "lol wut".

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

I'm just glad that Lamrock made this thread and made his opinions open (and be scrutinized) and hopefully he doesn't end up like this douchebag in the white shirt...(skip to 4:50 for that)

phpBB [video]

That guy should have spent more time conversing with freshmen in their dorm rooms imo.

I hate doing this quote shit anymore, but I'm being lazy and actually ignoring work because it's also about OWS and is worse than anything anyone has said in this thread.

Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else. I don't want an extreme nanny society where your personal choices and individual liberties are infringed upon.

But that can't be allowed if the government pays for your health care or your education or your food or anything else. If you want these things covered by the government than a nanny state is essential. You think a President Rick Santorum would allow gays to have health care? Or get a college education? Would Queen of America MeMe Roth allow people to get McDonalds with universal food care?

A hope that the "right people" will always be in charge or able to block the crazies is not a sustainable political model. Ask the French, or Germans, or Russians, or Americans.

You don't like moderates, but I think moderation is the best way to do things.

I'm actually pretty Taoist, the problem with political "moderates" and "political moderation" is that it's stupid. I say we kill all the left handers, you say we kill all the right handers. The "moderate" says we kill half of each!

Would you kill people to save the world?

No.

Because I know there will never be a situation where killing people will save the world. It's merely justification for killing people.

"No, I won't cut down on smoking! If I get cancer, I'll just adapt!"

The current political thinking of this country is "if I smoke more packs a day it'll kill the cancer!"

A theory that almost every scientist believes?

This means literally nothing. Define "scientist", define the exact "theory", define what they believe. Also figure out what the "proper" temperature is and explain why a predictive model apparently can't predict.

The way it is now.

Why not 1950? Why not 1875? Why not 1764? Why not 986? Why not 1453 BCE?

The centrality of modern man was wrong when Earth was supposed to be the physical center of the universe. Why must the climate of modern man be the one enforced upon the planet?

Because it's becoming an actual problem but it's preventable. Why don't we just solve our problems instead of adapting to them?

Do you really trust government to "manage" the climate of the world? Look at how well governments managed the Aral Sea or the housing market.

I don't know, but is that "gobs more" adjusted for inflation?

U.S. per capita government spending on education, at all levels, in constant dollars has quintupled since 1960.

That's not even true. While the tax itself is regressive, the benefit system isn't, as it gives the poor a higher percentage of their income back.

The poor don't live as long and minorities especially don't. They don't even collect. And survivor benefits are basically shit compared to what you so-called "earned."

While it is similar to a ponzi scheme, it remains to be seen whether it actually is

No, it doesn't. It requires more and more people to pay in.

because you don't know what the payout is going to be. It'll probably be shitty, but it could end up being higher than what you paid into.

From the start of the program until about now the average payout has always been more than what was "contributed." (And this was for very obvious political reasons.) But for you and me and everyone else after the baby boomers get done with us, the payout is going to be less than zero.

And why would graft and political power be lost by providing a better life for the impoverished?

You missed my point. The system for providing means for the impoverished through gigantic unaccountable bureaucratic states exists for only one reason, graft and political power. I don't like the Fair Tax, but it for example with a properly set prebate would almost absolutely have to be better for the poor than the current system of endless agencies with ever expanding budgets and people enslaved to them. Hell, setting a floor on the payroll taxes and eliminating the ceiling would do more for the poor than anything any government agency ever has.

We can look at projects and Detroit Public Schools for how the current method simply does not work.

We've always had a debt.

This is simply untrue. The founders were so afraid of the long term consequences of debt they did everything they could to eliminate it. And the same things were done throughout the 19th century.

Debt does matter and it's not because of it "suddenly being called in" it's the continued destruction of the value of everything we do.

Another shitty thing Nixon did.

It is unlimited and infinite in a sense. It's a arbitrary thing we can print more of. I know it's not really more money because of inflation, but still.

lolololol omg

More than that though, we can solve the problem after we fix the economy.

Good luck fixing the economy when you need a dump truck to buy a wheelbarrow to buy bread.

phpBB [video]

Batman makes more sense than the rest of 99% and those 1% who 'support' the 99%

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/occ ... eat-768532 NO JUSTICE NO PEACE

Occupy Portland protesters became enraged when Pizza Schmizza ran out of breadsticks to accompany their entree order. They threatened to assault employees and vandalize the restaurant.”

A police spokesman told TSG that the incident Sunday evening involved a man and woman who became upset when they were told that the pizzeria had temporarily run out of breadsticks and that they would have to wait 15-20 minutes for a new batch. The customers, cops noted, told a Pizza Schmizza employee, “Your job is bullshit, you know you work for a big corporation.”

When asked to leave, the male customer threatened "to come back with a group of people when the restaurant closes,” police noted.

The breadsticks in question, according to the Pizza Schmizza web site, are “dipsticks hand made from our very own pizza dough.” The oven-baked delicacies (seen above) are served with either marinara, ranch, or Alfredo dipping sauce.

NO JUSTICE NO PEACE #occupypizzashcmizza

Sorry I bailed on the thread. I'll be back, but it got to the point where my points were getting indefensible.

I'll be back, but it got to the point where my points were getting indefensible.

Stick with it. It makes good practice for something maybe.

Frank Miller giving some lulz:

Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:

The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached - is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

This is no popular uprising. This is garbage. And goodness knows they’re spewing their garbage – both politically and physically – every which way they can find.

Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.

Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.

And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently - must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh - out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.

In the name of decency, go home to your parents, you losers. Go back to your mommas’ basements and play with your Lords Of Warcraft.

Or better yet, enlist for the real thing. Maybe our military could whip some of you into shape.

They might not let you babies keep your iPhones, though. Try to soldier on.

Schmucks.

FM

http://frankmillerink.com/

Amen.

shadowgrin, Was that actually a serious blog post?

It's Frank Miller.

That's a 'yes'.

phpBB [video]

lol

Nice pink bandana you hippie faggot.

How about that jacket? Is that a tweed jacket?

Police raided the park and cleaned it out over the night.

You believe the police did all that? Batman helped them.