Latest Topics

[zartan]

the OP is wrong anyway. i don't see OWS affecting political policy the way the Tea Party has. i don't even have faith in OWS bringing about more regulations on Wall Street. and why is that?

well, i was going to put a video here but this new site is stupid, so i'll just say its because corporate interests own the government and any talk of regulation is bull**** lip service.

see also: immigration policy

[AUskip07]

they should really let the weather take care of these people.   Its going to get cold and alot will leave on their own accord.

[Tator]

"Tea Party losing revolution to Occupy Wall Street" <---is half a statement. The rest of it is ---> "because they had jobs they had to return to."

[NextYearIsHere]

HobnailedBoots, on 01 November 2011 - 11:19 PM, said:

Claims made about wealth inequality in America are irrelevant, because equality of wealth is a communist lie, and this isn't a communist country. There are several communist countries available to those who believe in equality of wealth, and I would suggest that your "educated ideologues" making claims about inequality of wealth in this country stop protesting the system that they grew fat and lazy off of and instead take up their belongings and move to China where they can support a system more in tune with their beliefs.

That's a statement that even the most partisan GOP pundit would think moronic. People have been taking about the dangers of obscene wealth inequality since Plato. Just because you are ok with waiting for table scraps from the ultra-wealthy doesn't mean everyone else is

[NextYearIsHere]

PaperShaker, on 01 November 2011 - 11:53 PM, said:

Dude, you're trying to outsmart a substitute high school teacher...... Ain't. Gon. Happen.

I also worked at a Food Lion and a Blockbuster Home Video in high school, both longer than I subbed. I can give you my full resume if you like so you have something else to talk about when you know you're wrong on an issue but have nothing to contribute.

[smokeyone]

As the OWS crowd turns more and more violent to try to hold together it will harden the resolve of those that will oppose them. Right now they are a side show to chuckle at but last night in Oakland they started getting more of the attention Im talking about. Stories of sexual assaults are staring to become more frequent and original OWS NY movement that never had a core over 300 people (in a city of millions) is falling apart. Without massive wipe spread violence the movement is going to fade away.

As it stands discontent with the man is all that is holding this unwashed, over drugged and over there mob together. As it get too cold and internal money squabbles become money pervasive, without a common real enemy, it will just go away. Besides Michael Moore needs to wrap his new film in time for next years Canns

[HobnailedBoots]

NextYearIsHere, on 03 November 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

That's a statement that even the most partisan GOP pundit would think moronic. People have been taking about the dangers of obscene wealth inequality since Plato. Just because you are ok with waiting for table scraps from the ultra-wealthy doesn't mean everyone else is

Actually, it's funny you say that, because you and your ilk want JUST that - table scraps from the wealthy. While I go out and earn my living, you all want things handed to you. So next time you bring up the table scraps analogy, why don't you crawl out from under the gov't handouts table before you do it.

Edited by HobnailedBoots, 03 November 2011 - 07:58 AM.

[nova]

NextYearIsHere, on 03 November 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

That's a statement that even the most partisan GOP pundit would think moronic. People have been taking about the dangers of obscene wealth inequality since Plato. Just because you are ok with waiting for table scraps from the ultra-wealthy doesn't mean everyone else is

Except obscene wealth inequality is not what we have regardless of what the talking points are telling you.

Are you familiar with the Gini coefficient? If not I'd suggest you go look it up so you can follow the conversation.  In short, it's a statistical value that describes dispersion of a particular value that ranges from 0 to 1.  0 means perfectly equal dispersion and 1 perfectly unequal dispersion.

Example: If you and I are in a room together with $100 between the two of us, if we both have $50, the gini is 0, if I have all $100 the gini is 1.  Get the picture?

Well here's a funny thing if you look at individuals in this country, the gini coefficient has remained virtually unchanged (based on census data) over the last 20 years or so.  In 1994 it was .512 and in 2010 it was .503, so if anything income inequality among individuals has gone down.  As the article explains, if "rich folks be taking everything" by using the financial system to suck up more money, then the individual stats are where it will show up since dividends, capital gains, stock sales, etc etc are all tied to individuals and not households/families.

Now the story is different if you look at households and families.  Families has gone from .426 to .440 and households has gone from .456 to .469.  However this is explainable by a many other factors other than "rich folks be taking everything" namely the fact that successful people tend to group together in households/families as do unsuccessful people.

[nova]

smokeyone, on 03 November 2011 - 07:44 AM, said:

As the OWS crowd turns more and more violent to try to hold together it will harden the resolve of those that will oppose them. Right now they are a side show to chuckle at but last night in Oakland they started getting more of the attention Im talking about. Stories of sexual assaults are staring to become more frequent and original OWS NY movement that never had a core over 300 people (in a city of millions) is falling apart. Without massive wipe spread violence the movement is going to fade away.

As it stands discontent with the man is all that is holding this unwashed, over drugged and over there mob together. As it get too cold and internal money squabbles become money pervasive, without a common real enemy, it will just go away. Besides Michael Moore needs to wrap his new film in time for next years Canns

They all but attacked the port of Oakland last night.  You want to erode sympathy for your cause, a very good way to do that is to do things that cause other people to lose the jobs they have....

[nova]

And when you have people doing crap like this...

http://www.columbian..._medium=twitter

Quote

During the march, one subject shoved a police sergeant into a moving TriMet bus, then ran back into the crowd.

It's no surprise to see this...

http://www.quinnipia...?ReleaseID=1670

Quote

By a 39 - 30 percent margin, American voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement, with 30 percent who don't know enough about it for an opinion.

Oh yeah, Americans just love the OWS crowd.  After Oakland and some of the other shenanigans, I expect that number to go up sharply over the next few weeks....

[A10Rebel]

violence is the answer...

apparently if you get robbed, raped, or stop complaining in the OWS community and go to the police they run your ass out.

Now that's pulling together.  This has epic fail written all over it.

[ShortyPrice]

If the news agency would report what the people are, professional parasites, this so-called swing in support would quickly fade.  However, the protestors are doing a pretty good job of further killing mainstream support by the violence they produce in their wake

I notice that the OWS losers are specific in the cities they choose to display their lawlessness.  They don't seem to want to stir the pot in areas where the local populace is liable to show up bringing with them large cans of whoop-a$$.  Playing the part of the poor little put-upon martyr is a lot better than actually being one after some of Zartan's toothless hayseeds gets a hold of them.

Edited by ShortyPrice, 03 November 2011 - 09:41 AM.

[ShortyPrice]

Another thing to consider is the number and breakdown of the respondants.

The graphics provided do not show the total number of respondants, nor does it show the numbers of each political leanings, only the political leanings as a percentage of how they responded.  The numbers of those responding could be anything.  They could 5000 liberals and 300 conservatives, which would show   By their own admission, Pew "oversamples" certain groups such as minorities and young people.

http://people-press....ology/sampling/

[TigerWalk]

Now it will be interesting to see if the violence and vandalism occurring at Occupy Oakland is an isolated event or if it will start becoming the norm for the movement.

[zartan]

nova, on 03 November 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

Except obscene wealth inequality is not what we have regardless of what the talking points are telling you.

Are you familiar with the Gini coefficient? If not I'd suggest you go look it up so you can follow the conversation.  In short, it's a statistical value that describes dispersion of a particular value that ranges from 0 to 1.  0 means perfectly equal dispersion and 1 perfectly unequal dispersion.

Example: If you and I are in a room together with $100 between the two of us, if we both have $50, the gini is 0, if I have all $100 the gini is 1.  Get the picture?

Well here's a funny thing if you look at individuals in this country, the gini coefficient has remained virtually unchanged (based on census data) over the last 20 years or so.  In 1994 it was .512 and in 2010 it was .503, so if anything income inequality among individuals has gone down.  As the article explains, if &quot;rich folks be taking everything&quot; by using the financial system to suck up more money, then the individual stats are where it will show up since dividends, capital gains, stock sales, etc etc are all tied to individuals and not households/families.

Now the story is different if you look at households and families.  Families has gone from .426 to .440 and households has gone from .456 to .469.  However this is explainable by a many other factors other than &quot;rich folks be taking everything&quot; namely the fact that successful people tend to group together in households/families as do unsuccessful people.

&quot;Since the Census Bureau started measuring the Gini coefficient in 1967, it has risen by 20% for full-time workers and 18% for households. Among households, the index has risen from 39.7 to 46.9,^[46] from 31.4 to 42.4 among men and from 29.8 to 35.7 among women.^[47] According to Gini coefficient data, income inequality in the U.S., already among the highest in the post-industrial world,^[8] has risen considerably between 1967 and 2005 among households^[46] and individuals.^[47] &quot;

Income Inequality Reaches Gilded Age Levels, Congressional Report Finds

Edited by zartan, 03 November 2011 - 03:14 PM.