The PWS - Protect Wall Street movement

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Let me give you some strong advice. If you really want people to take your movement seriously, Drop the Wall Street crap and focus on Capital Hill and the White House. Focus on concrete actions and reforms.

Originally posted by seabag
But Wall Street can’t pass laws; only Congress can.

You may be happy to know that Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment To Ban Corporate Money In Politics.

I don't know why people don't realize that the message has always been meant for DC. They are protesting at Wall Street as a way to point out to those in Washington what needs to be changed. All the other Occupy protests aren't even at Wall Street but they are being held to show Washington that they agree with those on Wall Street.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Really, despite the LOWEST taxes in US history? Despite the LEAST regulations since the 1910's? "Business is burdened"? Is that so? Then why are so many raking in record profits every quarter? I love these economics twits who make the business sector sound like the slaves of Egypt or something.

I believe it is you who doesn’t understand. You can’t possibly believe American businesses aren’t over regulated. Why do so many jobs get outsourced? Well, let’s see…

According to a Small Business Administration report, all federal regulations combined cost American businesses about $1.75 trillion in 2008, or $8,000 per employee. More than $5,000 of those costs per employee stem from economic regulations, while more than $1,500 come from environmental rules, the report notes.

During Obama’s first two years in office, 555 new “significant” regulations, or ones that have a cost or benefit of at least $100 million in a year, have been enacted, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Over the eight years that former president George W. Bush was in office about 2,380 regulations were enacted, an average of 595 every two years.

ABC

When you take away profits through overregulation then companies outsource and jobs disappear. Our government adds new regulations every month! When a business owner doesn’t know what the economic climate will look like over the next 12-24 months he/she will not buy new equipment, add new employees, build new locations, create new products, etc. America remains one of the best countries to own a business but if jobs are going overseas then we’re obviously still over regulated.

reply to post by seabag


All you are calling for is more of the same, more power to the bankers and the International corporations.

These regulations don't drive jobs overseas, they allow the ICBs to rob the public.

As far as International Trade is concerned, we need to start writing treaties that represent the interests of the people instead of the ICBs. The U.S. public is expected to pay for the huge military that keeps the slave wage production going, time to stop that first.

Even then, jobs overseas isn't a problem, we were creating enough high tech jobs in the U.S. to continue to do well. The problem is banks taking a 40% bite out of the economy.

Are you really that brain washed, or only interested in posting propaganda nonsense?

reply to post by poet1b

What a surprise that many of the people who vote for the free market politicians also like to send money to televangelists.

Hey, I could say something similar, like, atheists who vote for Obama must be the same ones who force us to send Christmas cards that say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas....would it bother you if I said something like that? Sounds a bit obnoxious right? I mean maybe not all atheists really hate the word Christmas, or hate Christmas in general enough to demand the removal of the Nativity scene placed in obvious places where the public would have to see it. And I mean not all atheists would necessarily want to turn the celebration of the birth of Christ into a one-size-fits-all-religions day of tolerance, and fill it with generic Santas. It just would be so unfair to paint all atheists with such a broadbrush. Know what I mean?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It makes me laugh.

I think the Happy Holidays thing is ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as people sending televangelists money, but up there.

Yeah, how dare people protest against celebration of Christ on a Pagan holiday.

Just don't interrupt me in my celebration of Bacchus.

We should make Bacchus patron of OWS.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus



Hey, I could say something similar, like, atheists who vote for Obama must be the same ones who force us to send Christmas cards that say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas....would it bother you if I said something like that?

No you cannot say something like that because it is an imaginary thing that is not happening anywhere that you just pulled out of Bill Oreilly's ass. No one has forced anyone to send a happy holidays card instead of a christmas card anywhere and christmas card sales are doing just fine year after year. So when you have to completely make up # to make a point...

reply to post by FallenWun


And the bigger lesson here is to stop listening to people like Bill O'Reilly, Rush, and the rest of the talking bubble heads.

You might as well be huffing old time model glue, all the damage it does to your brain.

All the PWS crowd does is repeat the propaganda garbage put out by those brain sucking corporate zombies, and they don't even realize it.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Let me give you some strong advice. If you really want people to take your movement seriously, Drop the Wall Street crap and focus on Capital Hill and the White House. Focus on concrete actions and reforms. Concern yourselves with the system and the players that actually CREATED and ENABLED everything that you so despise. Wall Street just operated within the changing boundaries that were given to them Congress. The ever shifting goal post and a blind eye towards the law all came from DC.

Is it that you don't despise corruption? Part it sounds like you are not really on the same page
which may be why we are at a loss here, you don't "so despise" the same?Wall street spends
lots of good money and time moving the goal post, the shifts in the goal posts that allowed for
an entire newly minted derivative commodity was initiated by Wall Street and finalized by the people
they bestow money upon. But none of your conceptualization even speaks to the idea that Wall Street
is not forced to threaten America's financial health, nobody made Wall Street executives behave in
ways that were clearly fraudulent and totally reckless. We talk about people needing to get jobs
and take responsibility, so why can't we also consider the people who reap massive reward for
taking irresponsibility to new heights? The fact remains that everyone who is elected is bought
by a number of interests before they are even elected, it might mean that this is where OWS
has to go in terms of focus...

Have you read the news lately? The gig is up and the lid has been blown off the cronyism in DC from the quid pro quo played with lobbyists to the Insider Trader among congressmen and women on both sides of the aisle.

New legislation is pressing that aims to clamp down on all of this. Get behind that and make some noise about that.

We can agree here and I think you can't be anymore correct, noise needs to be made.

I am opposed to the OWS tactics and inactions than have been on display for two months now. I certainly am not one to be labeled a protector of Wall Street either. My focus has always been on Capital Hill and the White House.

Focusing on capital hill and the WH is fine, but it will do nothing to change the power dynamic which
is propelled by a never ending flow of lobbying money. I ask you, list us 20 GOOD politicians, if
you can't, don't you think trying to change the nature of politicians is a rather pointless focus?

Occupy needs a new vision and needs to pull as far away from the agitators as possible. The agitators have a different goal in mind. Get back to the End the Fed message and lose the battle cries for class warfare because in the end you won't be fighting the 1% you will be fighting the 53%. The 1% will still be up in their Ivory Towers where Occupy has intentionally placed them.

The agitators talk just like seabag, they may feel differently about the merits of welfare and other
such things, but they are certainly more reasonable than the impression I provided in the 1st
paragraph of this thread. I think there is class warfare to a degree and I think most of us are
being fleeced to enrich an ever shrinking group of interests. In my lifetime there will be the
Trillionaire, which will be achieved by making the majority of us poorer. The benefits of this
system are not granted to the American people and their interests (higher wages and things),
no, the benefit is used to create a private and political system that works for the 1%. If
the 99% and the 1% were two business entities this climate would be called war. The 1%
has the financial benefit, people on the inside, they know the law makers on a first name basis,
they donate money to their foundations and they also get to dictate the rules of the market place
that we all live in. Now I am not for artificially taking wealth, but you dead wrong if you think they should
be allowed to control the political system and the private system with their money and influence.
Don't confuse seeing these dynamics for what they are as some radical revelation.

Originally posted by FallenWun

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus



Hey, I could say something similar, like, atheists who vote for Obama must be the same ones who force us to send Christmas cards that say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas....would it bother you if I said something like that?

No you cannot say something like that because it is an imaginary thing that is not happening anywhere that you just pulled out of Bill Oreilly's ass. No one has forced anyone to send a happy holidays card instead of a christmas card anywhere and christmas card sales are doing just fine year after year. So when you have to completely make up # to make a point...

Well, you certainly took my post to heart. Did O'Reilly talk about it? I dunno about that, I just know that stories abound of non-religious groups demanding removal of the Creche from public spaces, including but not limited to the ACLU.

NEW YORK (WCBS 880) – Baby Jesus is no longer welcome at the St. George Ferry Terminal, Ginny Kosola reports.
WCBS 880′s Ginny Kosola reports
Christmas trees decorate the Terminal on Staten Island, but the Nativity scene has been removed.
“Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or Christmas, everybody should be able to celebrate,” said commuter Marian Oust.

newyork.cbslocal.com...
That's obviously CBS news, not Fox or OReilly.
So, although my post was made in half jest, it is true mostly. The Christmas card thing is just an observation over the years of the trend of using Happy Holidays or Happy Hanukkah or Kwanza in place of Christmas.
If you look at the date of the article it was last year.
Also, you may be right in that the date itself is originally a Pagan holiday, it's been Christmas officially since 350 according to comments on that page.

However, I do commend Starbucks for keeping it's famous Christmas Blend coffee beans this year, as well as fun Christmas music.


More instances of removal of Nativity

Nativity scenes have been involved in controversies and lawsuits.[42] In federal court pleadings in the United States, for example, the New York City, school system defended its ban on nativity scenes by claiming the historicity of the birth of Jesus was not actual fact. The judge in the case upheld the ban, noting that the ban on nativity scenes is not discriminatory while permitting Jewish menorahs and Islamic star and crescent displays because the latter two have secular components while nativity scenes are supposed to be purely religious.[43] In another instance, a suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, school banned a nativity scene while permitting a menorah display. The school's principal stated, "Judaism is not just a religion, it's a culture."[43]

In 1969, the American Civil Liberties Union (representing three clergymen, an atheist, and a leader of the American Ethical Society), tried to block the construction of a nativity scene on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C.[44] When the ACLU claimed the government sponsorship of a distinctly Christian symbol violated separation of church and state,[44] the sponsors of the fifty-year-old Christmas celebration, Pageant of Peace, who had an exclusive permit from the Interior Department for all events on the Ellipse, responded that the nativity scene was a reminder of America's spiritual heritage.[44] The United States Court of Appeals ruled on December 12, 1969, that the crèche be allowed that year.[44] The case continued until September 26, 1973, when the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs[44] and found the involvement of the Interior Department and the National Park Service in the Pageant of Peace amounted to government support for religion.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, no yah I pretty much know what I am talking about.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus




How about I wait right here while you try to figure out how anything you just posted backs up your claim that Christmas cards have been banned, outlawed, or removed from circulation and you have been "FORCED" to send happy holidays cards instead.

I got time.

So, although my post was made in half jest, it is true mostly

No, it was not even true a little bit. Apparently you are very confused about what the word "true" means.

Originally posted by FallenWun
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

How about I wait right here while you try to figure out how anything you just posted backs up your claim that Christmas cards have been banned, outlawed, or removed from circulation and you have been "FORCED" to send happy holidays cards instead.

I got time.

So, although my post was made in half jest, it is true mostly

No, it was not even true a little bit. Apparently you are very confused about what the word "true" means.

edit on 20-11-2011 by FallenWun because: (no reason given)

What part of that being made in jest did you NOT get?

The removal of the Creche is true though. I've just given you several examples.

Originally posted by FallenWun
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

How about I wait right here while you try to figure out how anything you just posted backs up your claim that Christmas cards have been banned, outlawed, or removed from circulation and you have been "FORCED" to send happy holidays cards instead.

I got time.

So, although my post was made in half jest, it is true mostly

No, it was not even true a little bit. Apparently you are very confused about what the word "true" means.

edit on 20-11-2011 by FallenWun because: (no reason given)

Please it was sarcasm at best. Do you not get that? However, Atheists, the ACLU, and other groups have been instrumental in changing the landscape of what Christmas means to various people and have imprinted a certain "tolerance" for other religions. Anyway, when was the last time Islam was considered pagan? It is mainstream religion, and they even accept Jesus as a prophet.


I think it would be funny to print up some cards for the Humanists. "Have a happy Humanist Day" or how about "Happy Humanism".

I actually saw some "environmentally green" cards in a shop one year, it was 2008 I think, and the cards were made from recycled camel poo or something odd like that. I thought about sending one to wish the WH a happy day of environmental Christmas.


Meanwhile, back to WallStreet protests.
They could take all those tents and put Christmas Lights on them and then have a drive-thru for locals to enjoy the light show. They could make money off it, oh wait that would be so Capitalist of them.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

What part of that being made in jest did you NOT get?

The next part.

The removal of the Creche is true though. I've just given you several examples.

edit on 20-11-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Where you claim you somehow proved something you also claim you need not prove because it was made in jest. Was it made in jest or did you provide several examples?

Answer: You provided 0 examples of what you claimed and it stands as completely made up just like I said it was.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Please it was sarcasm at best. Do you not get that? However, Atheists, the ACLU, and other groups have been instrumental in changing the landscape of what Christmas means to various people and have imprinted a certain "tolerance" for other religions. Anyway, when was the last time Islam was considered pagan? It is mainstream religion, and they even accept Jesus as a prophet.

So it was a joke.
It was sarcasm.
And you backed it up with several examples proving it was fact?

You are confused. There is Christmas # all over town and at every store here. You are full of crap.

I think it would be funny to print up some cards for the Humanists. "Have a happy Humanist Day" or how about "Happy Humanism".

I have no doubt you do think that is a really funny idea.

I actually saw some "environmentally green" cards in a shop one year, it was 2008 I think, and the cards were made from recycled camel poo or something odd like that. I thought about sending one to wish the WH a happy day of environmental Christmas.

edit on 20-11-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

That is great. Thank you for sharing.

Originally posted by FallenWun

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

What part of that being made in jest did you NOT get?

The next part.

The removal of the Creche is true though. I've just given you several examples.

edit on 20-11-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Where you claim you somehow proved something you also claim you need not prove because it was made in jest. Was it made in jest or did you provide several examples?

Answer: You provided 0 examples of what you claimed and it stands as completely made up just like I said it was.

Have I not just cleared up the whole card thing? I did that, and you missed it because you are clearly just trying to create trouble. And yes the Creche thing is completely true.
If you heard it from O Reilly, it's because YOU were listening to him, not me!

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Have I not just cleared up the whole card thing?

No. I did that when I pointed out that you made completely up.

I did that, and you missed it because you are clearly just trying to create trouble.

By questioning your claims? Odd how people that tell the truth never find me asking them for proof as "trouble creating."

And yes the Creche thing is completely true.

That one unrelated thing that does nothing to back up your point? Cool.

If you heard it from O Reilly, it's because YOU were listening to him, not me!

Yes I did.
Now that your lie has been exposed. See if you can remember the on topic reason you told it and get back there. You are embarrassing yourself trying to both prove and distance yourself from your own words.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

However, Atheists, the ACLU, and other groups have been instrumental in changing the landscape of what Christmas means to various people and have imprinted a certain "tolerance" for other religions. Anyway, when was the last time Islam was considered pagan? It is mainstream religion, and they even accept Jesus as a prophet.

I am not sure what beef you have with the idea of tolerance for the religions,
would a devote Christian be any less faithful if they tolerated Islam without
reservation? In case you haven't paid attention, there is a very vocal faction
in both the Christian and Islamic worlds that teach that other religions and
people are evil because of their religious affiliations. Evangelical America
constitutes a huge portion of that voice here in America, they preach
intolerance for various groups and several religions, including Islam and LDS.
This intolerance is used by people who are involved in the business of war
to drum up support for more business, AKA war, because religious institutions
have created the psychological framework to kill the evil Christians, Jew, Muslimers
etc, etc...

My point is, I don't think you have examined the reasons for promoting tolerance,
it is not always spot on, but it is not a communist plot either. Men and GOVERNMENTS
usually capitalize on the strength, zeal and intolerance of a religious state and climate,
not god.

reply to post by mastahunta


OMG my post was done in jest in answer to the ridiculous claim that all the people who are not pro OWS must of necessity be followers of televangelists.

You and Fallen both have taken it entirely too seriously.
I am not going to continue this with either of you.

Chill already both of you.