• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

:lol: yeah, i'm sure that global repercussions from our mortgage bubble is what caused the Greeks to spend not only their future, but their kids' futures giving themselves 14 months worth of pay a year, and retiring in their 50's after going to school into their late 20's.

Oh indeed, but wasn't it OUR recession that tipped the dominos over?
 
bluntly put - no. that's like arguing which piece of coal caused the train to go over the cliff.

irrespective - the question stands. if big government were the answer, than we would be in much worse shape than Europe, as they would have been stronger than us the past couple of decades, and would have weathered the recession much easier. instead, we have steadily pulled away from them the past few decades, and several european nations seem to be getting close to fiscal collapse.
 
Ignoring of course the reality that a great number of people in this country have in no way been 'left out' of ****, do quite well for themselves and their families, and are more focused in life on how to continue to succeed than run around blaming everyone else for their own failings.

80 percent of the country possess 7 percent of the wealth. Your right that top 20 percent are doing pretty great. Who cares about the other 80 percent of the country?
 
Why are Republicans rushing to defend the beneficiaries of big government? Why are the Republicans rushing to defend those who have been insulated from their failures in the market?

I think you have republicans confused with Obama's Treasury and Green Jobs Departments, respectively :)

mind you it's all a crock. these people aren't upset because the corporations got bailed out. they are upset because they think that their bail-out wasn't big enough.

The typical Republican response to this protest demonstrates that they do not understand the nature of big government or free markets.

on the contrary, the typical Republican response to this protest is that these people are self-centered fools; which by and large, they seem to be.
 
80 percent of the country possess 7 percent of the wealth. Your right that top 20 percent are doing pretty great. Who cares about the other 80 percent of the country?

conservatives do. that's why we want the government to stop hurting job growth and sapping their free spirit.
 
bluntly put - no. that's like arguing which piece of coal caused the train to go over the cliff.

irrespective - the question stands. if big government were the answer, than we would be in much worse shape than Europe, as they would have been stronger than us the past couple of decades, and would have weathered the recession much easier. instead, we have steadily pulled away from them the past few decades, and several european nations seem to be getting close to fiscal collapse.

Why does it have to be big government or small government. I personally agree that there are things the government has no right to control or monitor or regulate however there are areas where government intervention is necessary. Perhaps instead of rushing to either extreme immediately proclaiming that all government is bad government or assuming that it's the government's responsibility to do everything for you we should reach some sort of middle ground. Also to oversimplify the economic collapse in Europe by merely attributing it to the size and scope their government... really was that all that happened? I think you have to agree with me on some level, to say that all government actions are harmful is a gross distortion of reality. Not necessarily saying that you personally do, but a lot of your conservative brethren regardless of how much they claim to detest big government support very aggressive government intrusion on social policy. I don't want to be told how to live my life, you don't want to be told how to spend your money. I don't want corporate America to do my voting for me, and you don't want high school kids to use contraception. The argument goes on forever. But we essentially disagree on what government does, not how much of it we have.
 
Last edited:
conservatives do. that's why we want the government to stop hurting job growth and sapping their free spirit.

Can you explain exactly what you mean when you say the government is hurting job growth? What you say has a lot more meaning if you actually provide an example of what your talking about.
 
I am not going to get into a rock throwing p-ssing contest with you. Keep your slanderous thoughts coming I love it, do you think you are a good representive of the conservative party? There is nothing as good as watching some one open their mouth up and swallowing their foot.

I find no pleasure in your ignorance, or the ignorance of the Wall Street bums. The rest of society must carry you folks, one way or the other.
 
Did the Tea Party "demonstrate" ? Did they occupy city streets and block traffic anywhere ? These free-loader idiots have over 700 arrests already, and there will be more as this last-gasp by the losers spreads. But more to the point, has the Tea Party even had 7 arrests ?

These free-stuff idiots will not change the 2012 election to their favor. All they are doing is pissing off more of the middle. Obama and all his cronies are despicable for taking so much to the gutter as they have. Most polarizing President ever. Worst President ever. Most of us **** better than that inept fool.


First of all, trying to conflate the 700 arrests without understanding the context is dishonest. The police walked along side them onto the bridge. Why did the police do that if they didn't want the protestors on the bridge, instead of barring them from getting on the bridge in the first place?

Second, there have been arrests of Tea Party protestors: Tea Party activists hit the Hill, arrested outside Pelosi’s office – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Third, so what if they were arrested, when they committed no violence or destruction of property?


Times said:
On trial in Montgomery was the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., 27, pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church and leader of the Negro boycott against the Montgomery bus company (TIME, Jan. 16 et seq.}. King was the first of 90 defendants (including 24 ministers) to be tried under an Alabama law (enacted in 1921 as an antilabor measure) making it a misdemeanor to conspire "without a just cause or legal excuse" to hinder any company in its conduct of business.

snip.

Heart & Pocketbook. As a witness, Defendant King argued that the boycott began spontaneously, that he had not instigated it but had become its spokesman after it had already developed. It did not take Judge Carter long to hand down his verdict (King had waived a jury trial): King was found guilty, fined $500, assessed $500 in court costs, and released on bond pending appeal. The crowd flowed out in front of the courthouse, surrounding King and his wife. A gold-toothed woman shouted: "We ain't going to ride the buses now for sure." A middle-aged woman told King: "My heart and my pocketbook are at your disposal." A mass prayer meeting was set for that night. A man yelled to the crowd: "You going to be there?" Chorused the crowd: "Yes!" The same man shouted: "You going to ride the buses?" Roared the crowd: "No!" The old courthouse, which had never heard such sounds from Negroes, would never be the same again.

Read more: National Affairs: New Sounds In a Courthouse - TIME
 
Last edited:
First of all, trying to conflate the 700 arrests without understanding the context is dishonest. The police walked along side them onto the bridge. Why did the police do that if they didn't want the protestors on the bridge, instead of barring them from getting on the bridge in the first place?

Second, there have been arrests of Tea Party protestors: Tea Party activists hit the Hill, arrested outside Pelosi’s office – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Third, so what if they were arrested, when they committed no violence or destruction of property?

The numbers aren't working out for you on this, are they ?
 
The numbers aren't working out for you on this, are they ?

You asked for 7, the number is 12 from one source. What else is needed? And there were 90 defendants for the Kings' trial, are they scumbags to you too?
 
I find no pleasure in your ignorance, or the ignorance of the Wall Street bums. The rest of society must carry you folks, one way or the other.

But I find great pleasure in you petulance and rancor!

And your insistence that you're carrying everyone who disagrees with you is simply precious!
 
Can you explain exactly what you mean when you say the government is hurting job growth?

well there are a number of ways, the uncertainty is a major killer. the main thing I was thinking of here however is the regulatory burden.
 
Why does it have to be big government or small government. I personally agree that there are things the government has no right to control or monitor or regulate however there are areas where government intervention is necessary.

yes. we call those "issues of the commons", typically limited to non-consumable goods.

Perhaps instead of rushing to either extreme immediately proclaiming that all government is bad government or assuming that it's the government's responsibility to do everything for you we should reach some sort of middle ground.

and we can all hold hands and sing about how we'd like to buy the world a coke. speaking in fluffy generalities is well and good, but you need clear borders.

Also to oversimplify the economic collapse in Europe by merely attributing it to the size and scope their government... really was that all that happened?

no. nor has anyone argued this. it is a host of factors, however, most of them can be drawn back directly or indirectly to their choice of governance.

I think you have to agree with me on some level, to say that all government actions are harmful is a gross distortion of reality. Not necessarily saying that you personally do, but a lot of your conservative brethren regardless of how much they claim to detest big government support very aggressive government intrusion on social policy. I don't want to be told how to live my life, you don't want to be told how to spend your money.

that's always the claim made, but somehow they are never able to point to a comparable reach into our lives on the part of social conservatives. there is no Individual Mandate saying that everyone must go to an officially approved church, for example.

I don't want corporate America to do my voting for me, and you don't want high school kids to use contraception.

i don't want them having sex. but i'm hardly about to use the government to force them to stop.
 
well there are a number of ways, the uncertainty is a major killer. the main thing I was thinking of here however is the regulatory burden.

The regulatory burden.... which regulations in particular. Post tomorrow if you need to research a bit. The ones I hear your side of the aisle complaining about are EPA regulations, once again I must ask for specifics. I realize it's quite annoying that I keep on asking for such specific answers however you propose that these regulations are killing jobs so I unfortunately am forced to rely on you for the burden of proof. Once again I also have to question the totality of your argument, I have the same problem with liberals and democrats too I assure you. However, the Clayton and Sherman Acts are definitely regulation, the FDA is a regulatory agency, I'll have more examples when I'm not so tired but point being not all regulation is destructive to the economy. I'm not against profit, I'm not against success, but I most certainly am for a better, happier, more secure and stable society and I feel as if we all looked at everything a little more objectively instead of picking sides and writing down a couple of talking points that we could accomplish so much more and grow as a nation.
 
yes. we call those "issues of the commons", typically limited to non-consumable goods.



and we can all hold hands and sing about how we'd like to buy the world a coke. speaking in fluffy generalities is well and good, but you need clear borders.



no. nor has anyone argued this. it is a host of factors, however, most of them can be drawn back directly or indirectly to their choice of governance.



that's always the claim made, but somehow they are never able to point to a comparable reach into our lives on the part of social conservatives. there is no Individual Mandate saying that everyone must go to an officially approved church, for example.



i don't want them having sex. but i'm hardly about to use the government to force them to stop.

I mean Coke sold Fanta to the Nazi's during WWII so screw them, but I don't see any other reason than your cynicism for why we can't reach a middle ground, otherwise we're just yelling back and forth at each other like a bunch of idiots. As far as the contraception thing goes I guess I'm still a little miffed at Jon Kyl deliberately misquoting the percentage of Planned Parenthood funds that go to abortion. He said 90 percent the actual total is 3 percent and it's three percent which due to the Hyde amendment all comes from private donors. The rest is spent on sex education, providing contraception to young adults, and other services. So no your party hasn't been that direct, instead the whip of your party lied about the numbers to further his agenda and limit the access the most vulnerable and unfortunate of all had to understanding the dangers involved with having sex and what you need to do to protect yourself in case you should.
 
The regulatory burden.... which regulations in particular.

I could not even begin to give you a full list. the Federal Register is over 80,000 pages long.

In general, though? The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008. That is, it was just a hair shy of twelve percent of GDP[/url]. and that was before the explosion we have seen over the past three years.

The ones I hear your side of the aisle complaining about are EPA regulations, once again I must ask for specifics.

my uncle is a real American Story. living in a trailor, no college education, hard work up by his bootstraps built a multi-million dollar contracting company, etc. He has about 60ish employees (figures as of last Christmas when last we spoke of this), but has already run the math. The day after the EPA passes Cap and Trade by fiat, he has to walk into work and let 20 of his workers go, just to keep the business in the black and keep the other 40(ish) employed. The regulatory costs of Obamacare are similar (for some reason he didn't have those numbers on hand); but they can be avoided simply by firing 11 workers, and getting his business below the count of 50. Why in the world would he hire someone else, when he's not even sure he will be able to keep the workers already has?

according to the Business Roundtable and the National Association and Manufacturers, the five worst for job-killing are insanely tightened ozone standards, industrial and commercial boiler emissions, export controls, and the Dodd-Frank bill, and livestock marketing. Making pig farmers keep track of every time their pigs poop and every time they shovel said poop out of the barn is idiotic; and it wastes hours.

House Republicans have decided to focus in on the ones that they consider to be the top ten:

1. NLRB’s Boeing Ruling (Week of September 12)
2. Utility MACT and CSAPR (Week of September 19)
3. Boiler MACT (Week of October 3)
4. Cement MACT (Week of October 3)
5. Coal Ash (October/November)
6. Grandfathered Health Plans (November/December)
7. Ozone Rule (Winter)
8. Farm Dust (Winter)
9. Greenhouse Gas (Winter)
10. NLRB’s Ambush Elections (Winter)


but the worst by far is the 6,000 pages (thus far) that have been added to the Federal Registry from Obamacare alone. remember the boondoggle about the paperwork that had to get filed every time a business had a purchase of over a few hundred dollars? there are oodles of that kind of crap spread-load throughout that thing. some studies actually indicate that we were headed towards a fully normal recovery that stalled and stopped coincidentally the instant Obamacare passed Congress.

and so on and so forth. You want more?

I'm not against profit, I'm not against success, but I most certainly am for a better, happier, more secure and stable society and I feel as if we all looked at everything a little more objectively instead of picking sides and writing down a couple of talking points that we could accomplish so much more and grow as a nation.

everybody feels that way, alex. they simply have completely different "objective" conclusions.
 
I mean Coke sold Fanta to the Nazi's during WWII so screw them, but I don't see any other reason than your cynicism for why we can't reach a middle ground, otherwise we're just yelling back and forth at each other like a bunch of idiots

that's because our current political structure is the result of three "wave" elections - two putting the lefter of the Democrats in power, and one sweeping out the moderate democrats and replacing them with conservative republicans.

think of a venn diagram.... with very little overlap. there simply isn't enough shared assumption for much meaningful compromise. If I think the way to create jobs is to increase government spending, and you think the way to create jobs is to reduce it, we have what is called "mutually contradicting ideals".

As far as the contraception thing goes I guess I'm still a little miffed at Jon Kyl deliberately misquoting the percentage of Planned Parenthood funds that go to abortion. He said 90 percent the actual total is 3 percent and it's three percent which due to the Hyde amendment all comes from private donors.

that is inaccurate, and is the result of PP twisting its' books to provide precisely such a small number. the overwhelming majority of people that go to PP get abortions, but PP counts each procedure separately in order to hide multiple services that are happening simultaneously or one after the other. What Kyle was trying (and failing) to say was that 90% of PP's services to pregnant women consists of abortion. That, too, would be false. the correct number is 98%. According to Planned Parenthood’s 2009 report, it performed 332,278 abortions, saw, 7,021 prenatal care clients, and made 977 adoption referrals.

The rest is spent on sex education, providing contraception to young adults, and other services. So no your party hasn't been that direct, instead the whip of your party lied about the numbers to further his agenda and limit the access the most vulnerable

this belongs in another thread - but the most vulnerable person in this event is the baby. who is being sawed into pieces while still alive.
 
nonpareil said:
First of all, trying to conflate the 700 arrests without understanding the context is dishonest.

The majority of those were given citations (tickets), but 'arrests' make it sound so much sinister...:)
 
i guess that is one way to explain why 50% of our nation owns but 2.5% of its wealth
while 1% of the nation owns 33.8% of all assets

what other industrialized nations displays such a wealth disparity?
Who gives a damn? Seriously...if you have the opportunity to become succesful, who CARES if there are literally thousands of the "Hollywood elite", "socialites", or other extemely wealthy? Grow a set and stop being so worried about what everyone else has managed to accumulate and focus instead on what YOU can do to become successful. There have ALWAYS been extraordinarily wea;thy individuals. I dont CARE that they are getting MORE wealthy. The reality is they are in fact only the tiniest fraction of people in this country. Stop bitching about Oprah Winfreys massive wealthy or even Jon Stewarts 15 million a year salary and focus instead on YOUR ability to provide well for your family. This whole latest round of anti-rich whining has NOTHING to do with the 1% or even the vast majority of the 99%. It has EVERYTHING to do with the considerably smaller percentage of miserable failures running around being pissed off that THEIR lives are such dismal failures. Those very wealthy individuals didnt get there at the expense of the dismal failures...the dismal failure so it to themselves every day. Then they whine bitch and moan becauyse the wealthy arent doing more to take care of them. It is pathetic.
 
Who gives a damn? Seriously...if you have the opportunity to become succesful, who CARES if there are literally thousands of the "Hollywood elite", "socialites", or other extemely wealthy?
Progressives care... the class warfare assclowns care. Everyone else just wants to be successful and see their family and children be successful. Those who are jealous whine about those who are successful.
 
Progressives care... the class warfare assclowns care. Everyone else just wants to be successful and see their family and children be successful. Those who are jealous whine about those who are successful.

Everyone does want to be successful and see their family do well. We are in agreement.

Some of us do not stop there however. We want to see everyone do well so that we have a prosperous and sustainable society for all. Why that should make us "assclowns" is a mystery to me. Perhaps I should see if Lew Rockwell has written a column on the topic.
 
Those who are jealous whine about those who are successful.

You sound like a beleaguered mother trying to coax a young child after a day of getting teased at school.

"Oh no little Timmy, they are only mean to you because they are jealous."
 
Back
Top Bottom