PDA

View Full Version : Occupy Oakland...The Pictures Dont Lie



Blue
11/22/2011, 03:42 AM
Defend this...

http://zombietime.com/occupy_oakland_10-22-2011/

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 08:48 AM
pieces of human debris.

cleller
11/22/2011, 09:13 AM
They all look very capable of solving complex problems, and entrusting the future of the country.

Pelosi should feel very comfortable.

Boomer.....
11/22/2011, 09:19 AM
I haven't really been paying too much attention to the whole "Occupy ____" movements. What exactly do these hippies think is going to happen by them camping out and making signs?

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 09:41 AM
I haven't really been paying too much attention to the whole "Occupy ____" movements. What exactly do these hippies think is going to happen by them camping out and making signs?

They're the hippies from the 60's, free sex, free drugs, if it feels good to it crowd. They have no real ideas. I would be willing to bet that well over half of them do not work, and contribute nothing to society. They do not represent the majority of people. They are the outcasts. They are the kids in high school, that dressed like bums, didn't bathe then wondered why everyone called them "stinky bums".

AlboSooner
11/22/2011, 10:00 AM
I think they are losing any chance for support by the moderates/ independents. Look, communism has been tried and it failed in a costly manner to human lives, and decades of economic underdevelopment.
Pure socialism, or 70% socialism 30% capitalism has also failed as we see Greece drown in its own debt.

The solution is very simple, if it were not for the wretched condition of the human heart. You can't pass laws to change the heart.

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 10:41 AM
So clearly there are some folks there who are just there for the party. A few cherry picked photos of some of the more colorful individuals really doesn't prove any point.

Albo, your 70/30 whatever is just a silly reference to nothing. Can you really quantify ideals? I mean clearly, in certain areas, socialism works pretty darn well, e.g., police and fire departments. The Romans had a capitalistic fire department. They'd show up at your house when it was on fire or in the path of a fire and offer to buy it from you for pennies on the dollar... but hey.. capitalism is the answer to everything, right?

I mean.. instead of police, we should all be able to pay private security firms. And if we want someone locked up for stealing our stuff, why should big government pay for that? That's socialism. If we're victims (or think we are), we should be in charge of paying what it costs to keep the bad guys locked up out of our own pockets, or if we don't think they're that big of a threat, maybe we could just cut 'em loose? Let the markets decide.

And how about municipal water and sewer? Those services are always highly subsidized. Does subsidy = socialism?

I mean clearly, socialism isn't the bogeyman you make it out to be. Without some degree of it, we'd more resemble the world of Mad Max than any sort of organized society. Socialism takes advantage of economies of scale and accomplishing tasks without a profit motive, which is something only the government can really accomplish.

But hey.. if you want to live in a 100% capitalistic society where the markets decide everything, beautiful Somalia awaits.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 11:01 AM
So clearly there are some folks there who are just there for the party. A few cherry picked photos of some of the more colorful individuals really doesn't prove any point.

Albo, your 70/30 whatever is just a silly reference to nothing. Can you really quantify ideals? I mean clearly, in certain areas, socialism works pretty darn well, e.g., police and fire departments. The Romans had a capitalistic fire department. They'd show up at your house when it was on fire or in the path of a fire and offer to buy it from you for pennies on the dollar... but hey.. capitalism is the answer to everything, right?

I mean.. instead of police, we should all be able to pay private security firms. And if we want someone locked up for stealing our stuff, why should big government pay for that? That's socialism. If we're victims (or think we are), we should be in charge of paying what it costs to keep the bad guys locked up out of our own pockets, or if we don't think they're that big of a threat, maybe we could just cut 'em loose? Let the markets decide.

And how about municipal water and sewer? Those services are always highly subsidized. Does subsidy = socialism?

I mean clearly, socialism isn't the bogeyman you make it out to be. Without some degree of it, we'd more resemble the world of Mad Max than any sort of organized society. Socialism takes advantage of economies of scale and accomplishing tasks without a profit motive, which is something only the government can really accomplish.

But hey.. if you want to live in a 100% capitalistic society where the markets decide everything, beautiful Somalia awaits.

dumb *** liberal rant of the year...

Ton Loc
11/22/2011, 11:48 AM
dumb *** liberal rant of the year...

Followed with dumb**** retard reply of the year

Yeah! (This is still better than 90% of what's being said in the football area right now)

KantoSooner
11/22/2011, 11:57 AM
Just as a thought experiment, try to imagine the response to the Occupy movement in:

1) A Communist Country (Try the old Soviet Union, China or North Korea as possible examples)
2) A theocracy (say, oh, Iran or Saudi Arabia)
3) A dictatorship (I'm thinking Argentina under Peron, but you could try Zaire under Mubutu)
4) A traditional monarchy (Czarist Russia, Iran under the Shah or Pre-WWII Japan)

The Occupy folks are very, very lucky that they live in a horrible representative democracy/market economy country. Otherwise they'd be, well, dead.

I have little sympathy for our current generation of bankers. They are incompetent and have managed to get paid to be incompetent.

Still in all, everytime I see street protests, something deep down inside wants to see hundreds of mounted Cossacks, sabres drawn, assembling in the alleyways.

Zin
11/22/2011, 12:02 PM
Barack Obama supports and encourages these people and their behavior. Disgusting.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 12:02 PM
Followed with dumb**** retard reply of the year

Yeah! (This is still better than 90% of what's being said in the football area right now)

look if midtwn wants to carry this out to it's conclusion with his analogies about police and fire services, this conversation is gong to go to hell in a hand basket.

Here, allow me to make a similar analogy:


Lets outlaw all internal combustion engines vehicles and machinery. Let's close down any and every business that has a carbon footprint. I mean if reducing emissions is a good thing, then surely getting rid of ALL emissions must be a great thing.

His argument and analogies are ignorant and have no real word application.

oudavid1
11/22/2011, 12:12 PM
If I told you that you had a better education and worded harder in life than 90% of the people you see in those pictures, would you have sympathy for them?

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 12:24 PM
look if midtwn wants to carry this out to it's conclusion with his analogies about police and fire services, this conversation is gong to go to hell in a hand basket.

I didn't make an analogy and if what you posted was supposed to be responsive to me pointing out that government services like police and fire are socialist, then you don't understand what an analogy actually is.


Here, allow me to make a similar analogy:

Lets outlaw all internal combustion engines vehicles and machinery. Let's close down any and every business that has a carbon footprint. I mean if reducing emissions is a good thing, then surely getting rid of ALL emissions must be a great thing.

I'm just going to assume that you don't even know what an analogy is.

If you think socialism is the same thing as extreme environmental protectionism, then you're wrong. Extreme environmental protectionism might be something accomplished through socialism and it is definitely not the sort of laissez-faire capitalism you might want to see, but environmental protection is not the same thing as socialism.

Let's talk about that though. Let's talk about the EPA. Before the EPA, the only thing you could do against a coal company spewing pollutants like lead into the air and mercury into your drinking water was to sue on a common law claim of nuisance. You'd actually have to prove that you were injured, which even if it actually happened, it's tough to prove scientifically, especially in the days before the EPA was created.

The EPA actually mandated that corporations had to limit or cease emitting certain harmful pollutants. Before the EPA we had burning rivers, mining with no regard given to contamination of ground water by lead, etc. After the EPA, it's indisputable that the public health and safety have been benefited. But again, you'd call that socialism.

But to compare what I said versus what you said, Washington, nor the EPA are in any danger of outlawing the combustion engine, but it's a fact that police and fire departments are socialist constructs.


His argument and analogies are ignorant and have no real word application.

Ah, like your apparently suggesting that anyone is seriously considering the elimination of the combustion engine?

Mississippi Sooner
11/22/2011, 12:27 PM
Some people don't stay gone for very long.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 01:19 PM
I didn't make an analogy

If you really believe that, then it is you my little friend, not I that needs to look up what the definition of "analogy" is.


if what you posted was supposed to be responsive to me pointing out that government services like police and fire are socialist

It was responsive and it makes perfect sense if taken in the context of your post.


Ah, like your apparently suggesting that anyone is seriously considering the elimination of the combustion engine?

There's that word again "apparently". I never suggested combustion engine should be eliminated, ever. I simply pointed out if we are too carry YOUR logic to it's final conclusion, it must be a good thing.

Who in here ever argued that everything within our society has to be based 100% off of the capitalist model? It certainly wasn't the person who started this thread.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 01:22 PM
Some people don't stay gone for very long.
Yes and some aren't gone long enough.

yermom
11/22/2011, 01:23 PM
If I told you that you had a better education and worded harder in life than 90% of the people you see in those pictures, would you have sympathy for them?

i have sympathy for anyone that has worded harder than me

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 01:24 PM
Mid, you seem big on the socialist aspects of your society. Let me ask you a yes or no question (which I know damn good and well you will not answer), are you a socialist?

Mississippi Sooner
11/22/2011, 01:35 PM
And here we go again.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 01:37 PM
And here we go again.

You're right... Hey mid you are 100% correct, how dare I argue with you, My apologies.

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 01:53 PM
If you really believe that, then it is you my little friend, not I that needs to look up what the definition of "analogy" is.

analogy [uh-nal-uh-jee]  
Example Sentences Origin
Early Insurance Agency:
Please stop by our office for a coverage comparison today!
www.earlyinsuranceagency.com
Why Men Lose Attraction
10 Ugly Mistakes Women Make That Ruins Any Chances Of A Relationship
CatchHimAndKeepHim.com
Denver Seminary
Real Answers, Real Change Is God Calling you to Lead?
Ads www.DenverSeminary.edu
a·nal·o·gy   [uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural -gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.
Biology . an analogous relationship.
4.
Linguistics .
a.
the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b.
a form resulting from such a process.
5.
Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

How does your argument resemble that?


It was responsive and it makes perfect sense if taken in the context of your post.

You fail at even a basic level to even remotely make sense. I pointed out that fact: police and fire are government services. Then you said that following my logic, we should eliminate the combustion engine. I replied as any reasonable person would, i.e., wtf are you smoking over there and can I have some?


There's that word again "apparently". I never suggested combustion engine should be eliminated, ever. I simply pointed out if we are too carry YOUR logic to it's final conclusion, it must be a good thing.

Go ahead and walk me through the steps point by point of how you got from me pointing out that socialism exists in our present government and just about everyone is fine with it to the elimination of the combustion engine. This is the chain of events so far:

1) Police and fire are socialist constructs which are widely accepted by everyone in society as being a good thing.
2) ?????
3) ?????
4) ?????
5) Lets outlaw all internal combustion engines vehicles and machinery. Let's close down any and every business that has a carbon footprint. I mean if reducing emissions is a good thing, then surely getting rid of ALL emissions must be a great thing.


Who in here ever argued that everything within our society has to be based 100% off of the capitalist model? It certainly wasn't the person who started this thread.

So then, what % should be capitalist and what % socialist? Albo seemed to be able to quantify Greece as being 70/30 socialist.

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 01:54 PM
Mid, you seem big on the socialist aspects of your society. Let me ask you a yes or no question (which I know damn good and well you will not answer), are you a socialist?

I'm a pragmatist.

Zin
11/22/2011, 02:06 PM
I'm a pragmatist.

In other words, you believe socialism hasn't worked because it wasn't implemented like you theorized it should be.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 02:28 PM
I have never encountered anyone as intellectually dishonest as you. You can write all the 15 paragraph response you want and it doesn't make your point any more valid or legitimate than mine.

I have seen numerous posters provide you with well written, accurate rebuttals. You simply say "I doubt that validity of that piece" or " I've only seen that discussed on right wing blogs" or you just dismiss it.

You made several response in your post, attempting to show the flaw in capitalism if carried out to the extreme. That's why I provided the exact same type of argument with my analogy about the combustion engine. You know it, and I know, but rather than conceding that your Somalia comment was an attempt to show what could happen if we had a society based 100% off of capitalism, you are now trying to pretend that was not your intent. If it was not, why did you say it? There could be no other explanation.

Same thing with your response regarding police and fire services. An attempt to show that some forms of socialism a good thing. Had you left it at that, it would have been a fair argument.

You then follow it up with this comment:


instead of police, we should all be able to pay private security firms. And if we want someone locked up for stealing our stuff, why should big government pay for that? That's socialism. If we're victims (or think we are), we should be in charge of paying what it costs to keep the bad guys locked up out of our own pockets, or if we don't think they're that big of a threat, maybe we could just cut 'em loose? Let the markets decide.

I assume you made this comment in an attempt to show how silly it would be to let the free market decide everything. That is why I made the comment regarding the combustion engine. I'm showing on one hand how the environmental movements ideas about cutting emissions is very solid, however, if we took it to the extreme (your comment about letting the market decide along with your Somalia comment) and did away completely with the combustion engine, that would be asinine.

You can pretend all you want that you don't understand the point I'm making or attempting to make, but anyone with a modicum of common sense should know.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 02:33 PM
So clearly there are some folks there who are just there for the party. A few cherry picked photos of some of the more colorful individuals really doesn't prove any point.

neither do your rantings about police and fire and Somalia.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 02:34 PM
In other words, you believe socialism hasn't worked because it wasn't implemented like you theorized it should be.

get ready for very well written, 5 paragraph reply with absolutely ZERO substance.

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 03:04 PM
I have never encountered anyone as intellectually dishonest as you. You can write all the 15 paragraph response you want and it doesn't make your point any more valid or legitimate than mine.

Let's go back.. you never answered this. Fill in the blanks.

1) Police and fire are socialist constructs which are widely accepted by everyone in society as being a good thing.
2) ?????
3) ?????
4) ?????
5) Lets outlaw all internal combustion engines vehicles and machinery. Let's close down any and every business that has a carbon footprint. I mean if reducing emissions is a good thing, then surely getting rid of ALL emissions must be a great thing.

You talk about intellectually dishonest, I asked you a direct question. Fill in those blanks. How was what you said reasonably derived from what I said?


I have seen numerous posters provide you with well written, accurate rebuttals. You simply say "I doubt that validity of that piece" or " I've only seen that discussed on right wing blogs" or you just dismiss it.

Yes, when you've encountered sources which lie or tell half-truths all the time, you tend to be skeptical. This is why you won't see me cut/pasting DailyKOS articles to prove the truth of something.


You made several response in your post, attempting to show the flaw in capitalism if carried out to the extreme. That's why I provided the exact same type of argument with my analogy about the combustion engine. You know it, and I know, but rather than conceding that your Somalia comment was an attempt to show what could happen if we had a society based 100% off of capitalism, you are now trying to pretend that was not your intent. If it was not, why did you say it? There could be no other explanation.

That may be your perception. My overarching point was that we are somewhat socialist and that everyone agrees that many aspects of socialism are good. Some here would hold that socialism is always bad. I illustrated how dumb an argument that is.

Now am I suggesting communism? Nope. Am I suggesting that socialism could be applied in certain areas where profits are currently dictating policy and we'd reach a better result for everyone? Yes I'm suggesting that.


Same thing with your response regarding police and fire services. An attempt to show that some forms of socialism a good thing. Had you left it at that, it would have been a fair argument.

[quote]You then follow it up with this comment:

I assume you made this comment in an attempt to show how silly it would be to let the free market decide everything. That is why I made the comment regarding the combustion engine. I'm showing on one hand how the environmental movements ideas about cutting emissions is very solid, however, if we took it to the extreme (your comment about letting the market decide along with your Somalia comment) and did away completely with the combustion engine, that would be asinine.

And you'd be correct--nearly every philosophy taken to an extreme is going to have some bad consequences.

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 03:08 PM
In other words, you believe socialism hasn't worked because it wasn't implemented like you theorized it should be.

Actually, socialism works just fine when it's implemented correctly. Police, fire departments, rural electrification are all socialist constructs which by all accounts, work really well most of the time and could not have been managed by the private sector.

How is it implemented correctly? It depends. Is it appropriate for the government to govern all aspects of society? Nope. Do I think there's a general framework which works well? I do.

Government exists for two basic reasons--to protect us from outside threats (the military is another one of those socialist constructs that seems to work okay) and to protect its citizens from one another.

To that end, since the government doesn't have a profit motivation as its raison d'être, it can be more trusted than corporations to protect people from one another except when, as now, those for-profit corporations have an inequitable amount of influence and are able to divert the government from one of its basic jobs--protecting us from each other.

On the other hand, for us to have money, jobs, etc., capitalism needs to remain unfettered and encouraged. However, its negative impacts, e.g., pollution, workplace safety, need to be regulated by someone. For-profit companies can't be trusted to regulate themselves, so someone, i.e., the government needs to do that.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 03:13 PM
everyone agrees that many aspects of socialism are good.

I don't think you've proven that, and it damn sure hasn't been claimed on this thread.


And you'd be correct--nearly every philosophy taken to an extreme is going to have some bad consequences.

then why on Earth did you pretend you had no idea what I was talking about when I made those comments??


Yes, when you've encountered sources which lie or tell half-truths all the time, you tend to be skeptical. This is why you won't see me cut/pasting DailyKOS articles to prove the truth of something.

so we can assume then all of your knowledge on the matter is gained from first hand, real world experience???

Ton Loc
11/22/2011, 03:19 PM
Actually, socialism works just fine when it's implemented correctly. Police, fire departments, rural electrification are all socialist constructs which by all accounts, work really well most of the time and could not have been managed by the private sector.

How is it implemented correctly? It depends. Is it appropriate for the government to govern all aspects of society? Nope. Do I think there's a general framework which works well? I do.

Government exists for two basic reasons--to protect us from outside threats (the military is another one of those socialist constructs that seems to work okay) and to protect its citizens from one another.

To that end, since the government doesn't have a profit motivation as its raison d'être, it can be more trusted than corporations to protect people from one another except when, as now, those for-profit corporations have an inequitable amount of influence and are able to divert the government from one of its basic jobs--protecting us from each other.

On the other hand, for us to have money, jobs, etc., capitalism needs to remain unfettered and encouraged. However, its negative impacts, e.g., pollution, workplace safety, need to be regulated by someone. For-profit companies can't be trusted to regulate themselves, so someone, i.e., the government needs to do that.[/

You and that sense makin'. Its gonna get you in trouble you damn socialist.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 03:21 PM
Government exists for two basic reasons--to protect us from outside threats (the military is another one of those socialist constructs that seems to work okay) and to protect its citizens from one another.

and it's not responsible to provide us a living, free healthcare and a cell phone, agreed?

You keep talking about "socialist constructs" the military, local police and fire departments are not socialist entities.
For you to label them as such is a stretch and you know it. I understand what you're trying to do, but this is another example of you being intellectually dishonest in order to give credence to your argument.

A society based on socialism is not the same as a society funded police department.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 03:23 PM
You and that sense makin'. Its gonna get you in trouble you damn socialist.

well there are certainly no rules keeping you and your socialist buddy Mid, from packing your **** and moving to another country, now is there.

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 03:43 PM
well there are certainly no rules keeping you and your socialist buddy Mid, from packing your **** and moving to another country, now is there.

'mrca.

I'll bet that once you're eligible, you're going to take those social security checks and just tear 'em all to hell. I'll bet you're going to insist on paying for your own healthcare when you're medicare-eligible. I'll bet when the fire department shows up to put the fire out that's burning down your house, you're going to insist on paying them for their trouble. I'll bet you're just a real principled guy whose going to do all of those things. And I'll bet the only time you call 911 is to let the pinkos on the other end of the line have an earful about their governmental interference in your life.

pphilfran
11/22/2011, 03:44 PM
Hmmmmmm

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 03:49 PM
and it's not responsible to provide us a living, free healthcare and a cell phone, agreed?

Thinking that some socialistic approaches are superior to their free market alternative/non-alternative isn't the same as accepting every program which comes down the pike.

The cell phone entitlement is basically the result of an intensive lobbying effort by the cell phone providers to qualify for free government money. It's corporate welfare as much as it is po' folk welfare and it's coming out of the pockets of the middle class.


You keep talking about "socialist constructs" the military, local police and fire departments are not socialist entities.

Oh really? Socialism means that the means of production are owned by the government, right? What does the military produce? Security. Who owns the military? The government. Sounds like a bunch of pinko socialist pigs to me. How about police and fire? What do they produce? Peace and safety. Who owns them? Government. It's just practically Marxist, ain't it?


For you to label them as such is a stretch and you know it.

For me to label them as such is for me to be correctly applying definitions of words.


A society based on socialism is not the same as a society funded police department.

What's the difference between a society funded police department and a public school system or a public museum or a public park or a public university like OU or a public street? These things are all provided by the government, so yes, if we're applying labels, they are socialistic constructs. I know that blows up your whole capitalism = good/socialism = bad false dichotomy, but so be it.

Zin
11/22/2011, 03:49 PM
Actually, socialism works just fine when it's implemented correctly. Police, fire departments, rural electrification are all socialist constructs which by all accounts, work really well most of the time and could not have been managed by the private sector.

How is it implemented correctly? It depends. Is it appropriate for the government to govern all aspects of society? Nope. Do I think there's a general framework which works well? I do.

Government exists for two basic reasons--to protect us from outside threats (the military is another one of those socialist constructs that seems to work okay) and to protect its citizens from one another.

To that end, since the government doesn't have a profit motivation as its raison d'être, it can be more trusted than corporations to protect people from one another except when, as now, those for-profit corporations have an inequitable amount of influence and are able to divert the government from one of its basic jobs--protecting us from each other.

On the other hand, for us to have money, jobs, etc., capitalism needs to remain unfettered and encouraged. However, its negative impacts, e.g., pollution, workplace safety, need to be regulated by someone. For-profit companies can't be trusted to regulate themselves, so someone, i.e., the government needs to do that.

Well, you have half of pragmatism down, you however gloss over or don't understand the practical consequences part of it.

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 03:51 PM
Well, you have half of pragmatism down, you however gloss over or don't understand the practical consequences part of it.

Go ahead and pretend that we don't all know what the "practical consequences part of it" means and tell us.

I will then tell you how you are wrong.:gary:

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 04:04 PM
'mrca.

I'll bet that once you're eligible, you're going to take those social security checks and just tear 'em all to hell. I'll bet you're going to insist on paying for your own healthcare when you're medicare-eligible. I'll bet when the fire department shows up to put the fire out that's burning down your house, you're going to insist on paying them for their trouble. I'll bet you're just a real principled guy whose going to do all of those things. And I'll bet the only time you call 911 is to let the pinkos on the other end of the line have an earful about their governmental interference in your life.

And I bet you make all your own goods, you don't buy anything that's mfg through some kind of corp. You drive a car you built yourself out of raw materials you've mined & forged with your bare hands?

The computer you're using right now,was it MFG by an evil corp who's raison d'être is profit driven? See we can both play this silly game but it really doesn't elevate this debate does it? So why don't you just tell me why you like socialism better than capitalism.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 04:07 PM
Well, you have half of pragmatism down, you however gloss over or don't understand the practical consequences part of it.

He's a master at "glossing over" things. You will learn that very quickly.

Ton Loc
11/22/2011, 04:09 PM
well there are certainly no rules keeping you and your socialist buddy Mid, from packing your **** and moving to another country, now is there.

That seems a tad bit extreme. Why would I want to move? This country is great!


Go ahead and pretend that we don't all know what the "practical consequences part of it" means and tell us.

I will then tell you how you are wrong.:gary:

Give him a minute to reply/google something else. Damn it if I can't remember where that pragmatism line came from.

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 04:10 PM
And I bet you make all your own goods, you don't buy anything that's mfg through some kind of corp. You drive a car you built yourself out of raw materials you've mined & forged with your bare hands?

The computer you're using right now,was it MFG by an evil corp who's raison d'être is profit driven? See we can both play this silly game but it really doesn't elevate this debate does it? So why don't you just tell me why you like socialism better than capitalism.

The difference is that I'm arguing for a blend of socialism and regulated capitalism. There's nothing hypocritical about cashing my social security checks by using the Chase banking app on my iPhone.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for/against, 'cept that socialism = always bad.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 04:14 PM
Thinking that some socialistic approaches are superior to their free market alternative/non-alternative isn't the same as accepting every program which comes down the pike.

The cell phone entitlement is basically the result of an intensive lobbying effort by the cell phone providers to qualify for free government money. It's corporate welfare as much as it is po' folk welfare and it's coming out of the pockets of the middle class.



Oh really? Socialism means that the means of production are owned by the government, right? What does the military produce? Security. Who owns the military? The government. Sounds like a bunch of pinko socialist pigs to me. How about police and fire? What do they produce? Peace and safety. Who owns them? Government. It's just practically Marxist, ain't it?



For me to label them as such is for me to be correctly applying definitions of words.



What's the difference between a society funded police department and a public school system or a public museum or a public park or a public university like OU or a public street? These things are all provided by the government, so yes, if we're applying labels, they are socialistic constructs. I know that blows up your whole capitalism = good/socialism = bad false dichotomy, but so be it.

again, you are intellectually dishonest. You know that having a police department funded by the tax payers is not the same as having an entire society run solely on socialistic principals. You can't acknowledge that because if you did, it would mean your entire premise is based off of a false assumption.

It's like trying to debate HOW hot the sun is with someone who will not acknowledge the sun is hot. You are a socialist, why are you afraid to admit it. What socialist society has the standard of living we have in the US, what socialist society is as prosperous as the US, what socialist society are people flocking to from around the world to get into?

NONE!!

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 04:19 PM
The difference is that I'm arguing for a blend of socialism and regulated capitalism. There's nothing hypocritical about cashing my social security checks by using the Chase banking app on my iPhone.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for/against, 'cept that socialism = always bad.

According to you, we already have this "blend" so what's your issue?

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 04:24 PM
again, you are intellectually dishonest. You know that having a police department funded by the tax payers is not the same as having an entire society run solely on socialistic principals. You can't acknowledge that because if you did, it would mean your entire premise is based off of a false assumption.

And I'm definitely not advocating communism. I've said that several times. I have explained what socialism is according to the dictionary. What do you think it is? Go ahead and tell me and I can tell you how you are wrong.

What is my entire premise? It seems you're inferring something that ain't there.

I'm all for capitalism so long as it is supervised by the government in such a way that it is structured to deliver the maximum benefit possible and do the least harm possible. That's bad?


It's like trying to debate HOW hot the sun is with someone who will not acknowledge the sun is hot. You are a socialist, why are you afraid to admit it.

Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. I have not once argued for the government to control all of the means of production. I'm all for capitalism. Just capitalism which is structured to deliver the maximum benefit and do the least harm.


What socialist society has the standard of living we have in the US, what socialist society is as prosperous as the US, what socialist society are people flocking to from around the world to get into?

According to the Inequality adjusted Human Development Index, which measures standards of living, but takes into account inequality:

1) Norway
2) Australia
3) Sweden
4) Netherlands
5) Iceland
6) Ireland
7) Germany
8) Denmark
9) Switzerland
10) Slovenia
11) Finland
12) Canada
13) Czech Republic
...
23) United States





NONE!!

22!!!ONE!

Dale Ellis to tell me to move to the Czech Republic in 3...2...1...

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 04:25 PM
According to you, we already have this "blend" so what's your issue?

The same issue OWS has, i.e., that corporations have excessive influence in the political process which has caused the government to abdicate one of its basic responsibilities of protecting us from one another.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 04:41 PM
The same issue OWS has, i.e., that corporations have excessive influence in the political process which has caused the government to abdicate one of its basic responsibilities of protecting us from one another.

The same OWS crowd which is demanding Free, Single Payer Healthcare with the elimination of all private insurance providers.
That all student loans be forgiven or paid back at 1% interest rate?
Open boarders
Outlaw credit reporting agencies.
a guaranteed living wage regardless of employment
and end to fossil fuels
a free college education

Who will pay for the free education, who will pay for all the living wages of the millions upon millions of immigrants who will flock to this country, who will pay for their healthcare, how will the DR's/Nurses and medical staff be compensated? Where will the compensation come from?


That OWS crowd?

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 04:42 PM
The same OWS crowd which is demanding Free, Single Payer Healthcare with the elimination of all private insurance providers.
That all student loans be forgiven or paid back at 1% interest rate?
Open boarders
Outlaw credit reporting agencies.
a guaranteed living wage regardless of employment
and end to fossil fuels
a free college education

Who will pay for the free education, who will pay for all the living wages of the millions upon millions of immigrants who will flock to this country, who will pay for their healthcare, how will the DR's/Nurses and medical staff be compensated? Where will the compensation come from?


That OWS crowd?

I don't agree with all of that. Just the part I talked about which is really the root of the rest of that.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 04:42 PM
Mid, do you work in the private sector? Be honest, because I already know the answer.

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 04:47 PM
I don't agree with all of that. Just the part I talked about which is really the root of the rest of that.

No, you don't agree with all of it, you just conventionally left it out. As I said intellectually dishonest. Did you see the interview with one of the OCCUPY protesters who said the bank "took" his parents home?

They did a little back ground on the guy. His parents have a 500k home, his mother has her masters, his father a PHD, and this shmoe is attending law school at G.Washington U.
His parent are selling their home because apparently one of them lost their job.

Typical "entitlement" mentality.

Ton Loc
11/22/2011, 05:45 PM
No, you don't agree with all of it, you just conventionally left it out. As I said intellectually dishonest. Did you see the interview with one of the OCCUPY protesters who said the bank "took" his parents home?

They did a little back ground on the guy. His parents have a 500k home, his mother has her masters, his father a PHD, and this shmoe is attending law school at G.Washington U.
His parent are selling their home because apparently one of them lost their job.

Typical "entitlement" mentality.

With all due respect (zero) - you're an idiot.

Mid has repeatedly stated his position:


I'm all for capitalism so long as it is supervised by the government in such a way that it is structured to deliver the maximum benefit possible and do the least harm possible.

Which you have no argument for except to try and bring up some fringe idiot from OWS, repeatedly use the phrase intellectually dishonest, or completely screwed up analogies (the sun-wtf?). What are you getting out of trying to label someone a socialist? Do you have a point or main goal?

Midtowner
11/22/2011, 07:26 PM
No, you don't agree with all of it, you just conventionally left it out. As I said intellectually dishonest. Did you see the interview with one of the OCCUPY protesters who said the bank "took" his parents home?

They did a little back ground on the guy. His parents have a 500k home, his mother has her masters, his father a PHD, and this shmoe is attending law school at G.Washington U.
His parent are selling their home because apparently one of them lost their job.

Typical "entitlement" mentality.

What the hell does some cherry picked schmuck have to do with the price of tea in China?

And I work in the private sector. I even own my own business and employ people and stuff.

East Coast Bias
11/22/2011, 08:00 PM
Mid you are not going to get anywhere bringing logic and reason into the argument. These guys obviously blame the government for everything. These are the same people that drive all the federal highways,breathe a cleaner air , and like to have their meat inspected. Can anyone remember what the rivers were like when the corporations were allowed to dump 24/7? How about the pharmaceutical industry? Does anyone trust the corporate world to certify their own drugs? They currently set their own prices, how does that feel? I like what Barney Frank says about government; "Government are the things we choose to do together". Well guess what, there is a lot we need to do together. All of this government bashing and hysteria had succeeded in taking off the table some of the really good things we could do together. Health care- is the best example. I know government trust is low, but honestly could the government **** it up any worse than the insurance industry? Ask the people on Medicare, how they like the service?

Dale Ellis
11/22/2011, 11:59 PM
Cherry Picked? I've notice you use that phrase a lot. What type of business do you own?

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 12:10 AM
Why the hell is their never any middle ground with your liberals? I never said I hated government or that all government is bad. Do I like politicians telling me what to eat, what to drive etc. Do I like the feds telling people "you make too much money, it's time to spread the wealth"? Do I like Michelle Obama telling me what I should be feeding my children why she flies her fat azz all over the world feeding her kids what ever the hell they want?


Health care- is the best example. I know government trust is low, but honestly could the government **** it up any worse than the insurance industry?

Yes they could and will. My premiums have already gone up thanks to the fact that I have to help pay for people who have their 26 year old babies living at home sponging off of their parents, when they should be out working and providing for themselves. Ask the people on medicare how efficient the services are.

Ask the people in Canada, Great Britain and other countries with socialized medicine how it's working out for them. Ask the women in Great Britain who are diagnosed with Breast cancer where they'd rather receive treatment, their or the US?

An American woman has a 97 per cent chance of being alive five years after diagnosis.

In Britain, this figure is only 78 per cent.

Routine breast screening in the U.S. starts at 40 rather than 50, as in Britain, and women are thoroughly checked every one to two years, rather than every three years under the NHS.

Breast cancer drugs such as Herceptin, which can extend the life of women suffering the most advanced forms of the disease, was made available in America in 1998.

The drug costs up to £30,000 for a full 38-week course.

Shockingly, it took nearly two years before the drug was approved for NHS use and specialists estimated that in that time, 5,000 British women who needed it had died.
Go ask the families of those 5,000 how well GUVMENT run healthcare has worked out for them.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-136377/US-v-UK-The-breast-cancer-survival-stakes.html#ixzz1eVCCXW5a

bonkuba
11/23/2011, 12:14 AM
I'm a pragmatist.

Who's the father? Heh.....

AlboSooner
11/23/2011, 12:51 AM
There is a difference between social programs, social policies, and socialist governments. Just because we have firefighters it does not validate socialism as an economic theory.

I hope we can tell the difference between a socialistic governments (Greece) and social programs (Medicare).

Personally, I think a good mix of honest capitalism and strong social programs is the way to go. Social programs should not inhibit capitalism, and capitalism should not be crony. Homeostasis.

StoopTroup
11/23/2011, 01:19 AM
Slurp up the banality of existence with a krazy-straw of resistenc!

Turd_Ferguson
11/23/2011, 01:38 AM
Slurp up the banality of existence with a krazy-straw of resistenc!I think you've had too much fluoride...

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 08:40 AM
Cherry Picked? I've notice you use that phrase a lot. What type of business do you own?

I use that phrase because you're cherry picking pictures and facts and trying to give them broader application. And as far as my business, it's a law practice.

East Coast Bias
11/23/2011, 08:44 AM
Why the hell is their never any middle ground with your liberals? I never said I hated government or that all government is bad. Do I like politicians telling me what to eat, what to drive etc. Do I like the feds telling people "you make too much money, it's time to spread the wealth"? Do I like Michelle Obama telling me what I should be feeding my children why she flies her fat azz all over the world feeding her kids what ever the hell they want?



Yes they could and will. My premiums have already gone up thanks to the fact that I have to help pay for people who have their 26 year old babies living at home sponging off of their parents, when they should be out working and providing for themselves. Ask the people on medicare how efficient the services are.

Ask the people in Canada, Great Britain and other countries with socialized medicine how it's working out for them. Ask the women in Great Britain who are diagnosed with Breast cancer where they'd rather receive treatment, their or the US?

An American woman has a 97 per cent chance of being alive five years after diagnosis.

In Britain, this figure is only 78 per cent.

Routine breast screening in the U.S. starts at 40 rather than 50, as in Britain, and women are thoroughly checked every one to two years, rather than every three years under the NHS.

Breast cancer drugs such as Herceptin, which can extend the life of women suffering the most advanced forms of the disease, was made available in America in 1998.

The drug costs up to £30,000 for a full 38-week course.

Shockingly, it took nearly two years before the drug was approved for NHS use and specialists estimated that in that time, 5,000 British women who needed it had died.
Go ask the families of those 5,000 how well GUVMENT run healthcare has worked out for them.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-136377/US-v-UK-The-breast-cancer-survival-stakes.html#ixzz1eVCCXW5a

I would argue for blended socialism and regulated capitalism as Midtowner advocates. Its clear the system currently does not work for everyone. A big reason your health care costs have risen is because the health care for profit industry has been allowed to have there way with us in every aspect. The other big issue is an elephant in the room which you totally did not address. The 49.9 million Americans with no insurance. Sure they receive services, but who pays for this and at what cost? We could solve this of course if we wanted. I believe the success of social programs in other countries and Medicare could be debated but clearly the system here only benefits the providers and those that can afford services. We have the best health care in the world for those that can afford it. I believe we could debate this out as a country and solve this but frankly we have other priorities and are not sufficiently enlightened to get this done anytime soon. We are okay with spending billions daily in overseas nation-building adventures but can't get anything basic done here. The question you need to ask yourself is: Are you happy with the way things are now? Its obvious the Doctor's, hospitals,drug companies and insurance companies are fine with the status-quo. Why would I care, I have great health insurance? I can think of 49 millions why...........................

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 08:46 AM
Why the hell is their never any middle ground with your liberals? I never said I hated government or that all government is bad. Do I like politicians telling me what to eat, what to drive etc. Do I like the feds telling people "you make too much money, it's time to spread the wealth"? Do I like Michelle Obama telling me what I should be feeding my children why she flies her fat azz all over the world feeding her kids what ever the hell they want?



Yes they could and will. My premiums have already gone up thanks to the fact that I have to help pay for people who have their 26 year old babies living at home sponging off of their parents, when they should be out working and providing for themselves. Ask the people on medicare how efficient the services are.

Ask the people in Canada, Great Britain and other countries with socialized medicine how it's working out for them. Ask the women in Great Britain who are diagnosed with Breast cancer where they'd rather receive treatment, their or the US?

An American woman has a 97 per cent chance of being alive five years after diagnosis.

In Britain, this figure is only 78 per cent.

Routine breast screening in the U.S. starts at 40 rather than 50, as in Britain, and women are thoroughly checked every one to two years, rather than every three years under the NHS.

Breast cancer drugs such as Herceptin, which can extend the life of women suffering the most advanced forms of the disease, was made available in America in 1998.

The drug costs up to £30,000 for a full 38-week course.

Shockingly, it took nearly two years before the drug was approved for NHS use and specialists estimated that in that time, 5,000 British women who needed it had died.
Go ask the families of those 5,000 how well GUVMENT run healthcare has worked out for them.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-136377/US-v-UK-The-breast-cancer-survival-stakes.html#ixzz1eVCCXW5a

You're really defending our healthcare system? Again, you're cherry picking stats. What individuals with one very specific condition experience versus one other country's system does not describe an entire system. The WHO ranks the U.S. health care system #37. I'd say there's quite a bit of room for improvement. That horrid system you spoke of in the U.K. is at #18.

And while we rank #37, we spend more on that #37 rank than any other country.

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 08:52 AM
There is a difference between social programs, social policies, and socialist governments. Just because we have firefighters it does not validate socialism as an economic theory.

It demonstrates that socialism is a valid governmental theory when correctly employed. I mean, would you rather have a Roman style fire department or the one you currently have? Easy choice, right?


I hope we can tell the difference between a socialistic governments (Greece) and social programs (Medicare).

Socialistic governments are merely governments with a lot of social programs. And Greece would have been fine if everyone had paid their fair share in taxes. Sound familiar?


Personally, I think a good mix of honest capitalism and strong social programs is the way to go. Social programs should not inhibit capitalism, and capitalism should not be crony. Homeostasis.

Sounds good to me, 'cept "honest capitalism" as of late seems a bit like an oxymoron.

cleller
11/23/2011, 08:53 AM
Maybe Finland, Sweden and Switzerland are more wonderful than the US because they don't have a bunch of lazy lay-abouts wanting the government to pay their bills.

ps: Those protesters in Oakland look like idiots that couldn't hammer a nail.

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 09:01 AM
Maybe Finland, Sweden and Switzerland are more wonderful than the US because they don't have a bunch of lazy lay-abouts wanting the government to pay their bills.

ps: Those protesters in Oakland look like idiots that couldn't hammer a nail.

American workers are the most productive in the world. Try again.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 09:33 AM
You're really defending our healthcare system? Again, you're cherry picking stats. What individuals with one very specific condition experience versus one other country's system does not describe an entire system. The WHO ranks the U.S. health care system #37. I'd say there's quite a bit of room for improvement. That horrid system you spoke of in the U.K. is at #18.

And while we rank #37, we spend more on that #37 rank than any other country.
For someone who so despises "cherry picking" you sure the hell do it a lot. Again, people from Canada, and the UK come to the US to receive treatments they can not get in at home. Do you know ANYONE who travels from the US to Canada and GB to take advantage of their great healthcare systems.

You do what you always do, you demand that posters provide something other than their opinions to back their claims, and when ever they do, you say they're "cherry picking". Again, you have to be intellectually dishonest in order to try to make your point.

I've gone over a lot of your posts on other threads, and pretty much EVERY TIME someone has provided any type of statistics or article which supports their side of the argument, you accuse them of "cherry picking" or you say, "I doubt the validity of that story".
You don't address the information provided you simply dismiss it and move on.

Don't demand that people provide you with facts, then when they do, dismiss those facts because they don't fit your socialist template.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 09:36 AM
You're really defending our healthcare system? Again, you're cherry picking stats. What individuals with one very specific condition experience versus one other country's system does not describe an entire system. The WHO ranks the U.S. health care system #37. I'd say there's quite a bit of room for improvement. That horrid system you spoke of in the U.K. is at #18.

And while we rank #37, we spend more on that #37 rank than any other country.

you're cherry picking one survey, unless we know what those rankings are based off of, they're worthless.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 09:36 AM
Maybe Finland, Sweden and Switzerland are more wonderful than the US because they don't have a bunch of lazy lay-abouts wanting the government to pay their bills.

ps: Those protesters in Oakland look like idiots that couldn't hammer a nail.

There's a reason the majority of people in those photos look like bums, it's because they are.

Ton Loc
11/23/2011, 09:40 AM
For someone who so despises "cherry picking" you sure the hell do it a lot. Again, people from Canada, and the UK come to the US to receive treatments they can not get in at home. Do you know ANYONE who travels from the US to Canada and GB to take advantage of their great healthcare systems.
You do what you always do, you demand that posters provide something other than their opinions to back their claims, and when ever they do, you say they're "cherry picking". Again, you have to be intellectually dishonest in order to try to make your point.

I've gone over a lot of your posts on other threads, and pretty much EVERY TIME someone has provided any type of statistics or article which supports their side of the argument, you accuse them of "cherry picking" or you say, "I doubt the validity of that story".
You don't address the information provided you simply dismiss it and move on.

Don't demand that people provide you with facts, then when they do, dismiss those facts because they don't fit your socialist template.

Not to cherry pick or anything but-
People leave the country for a number of treatments - I hear mostly about stem cell treatment and various cancer treatments. Mostly because of cost or because it isn't legal here yet.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 09:47 AM
While the number of Americans without insurance is 47 million
at first glance, more than nine million are not American citizens. Taking this into account, the number drops to approximately 38 million.
Of those now remaining, an additional nine million people make over $75,000 a year, nearly double the median household income in the United States. If they desire it these individuals should be able to afford basic health insurance. Adjusting for this factor, the number slides to approximately 29 million.
With an additional eight million Americans making between
$50,000 and $75,000 a year, still more than the average American, theseindividuals should be able to afford basic health insurance if they choose to purchase it. This drops the number even further to just over 20 million people. And yet the "new" number of 20 million uninsured Americans may even be too high.The number of true "uninsured" Americans could perhaps be lowered again with the estimation that almost half of those uninsured will have insurance within four months.
Many individuals not covered due to transitional periods between jobs will receive insurance through their employer and would be covered upon taking the new position.
It is estimated that 45% of those without insurance will have it within four months. So where do the exact numbers stand? There is no way to be certain, although some estimates put the number as low as eight million people; a significant difference from the "47 million" the proponents of big government would have you believe.




and yes I did "cut/past" this so I'm sure midtowner will concentrate more on that than the actual information provided.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 09:51 AM
Not to cherry pick or anything but-
People leave the country for a number of treatments - I hear mostly about stem cell treatment and various cancer treatments. Mostly because of cost or because it isn't legal here yet.

Is obama care going to make those treatments legal?

East Coast Bias
11/23/2011, 10:23 AM
While the number of Americans without insurance is 47 million
at first glance, more than nine million are not American citizens. Taking this into account, the number drops to approximately 38 million.
Of those now remaining, an additional nine million people make over $75,000 a year, nearly double the median household income in the United States. If they desire it these individuals should be able to afford basic health insurance. Adjusting for this factor, the number slides to approximately 29 million.
With an additional eight million Americans making between
$50,000 and $75,000 a year, still more than the average American, theseindividuals should be able to afford basic health insurance if they choose to purchase it. This drops the number even further to just over 20 million people. And yet the "new" number of 20 million uninsured Americans may even be too high.The number of true "uninsured" Americans could perhaps be lowered again with the estimation that almost half of those uninsured will have insurance within four months.
Many individuals not covered due to transitional periods between jobs will receive insurance through their employer and would be covered upon taking the new position.
It is estimated that 45% of those without insurance will have it within four months. So where do the exact numbers stand? There is no way to be certain, although some estimates put the number as low as eight million people; a significant difference from the "47 million" the proponents of big government would have you believe.




and yes I did "cut/past" this so I'm sure midtowner will concentrate more on that than the actual information provided.

None of that implies a system that works. In many respects your numbers reenforce the argument for a single payer system. I am sure that is not the direction you are going here? Possibly you are saying the number of uninsured is not that bad and they don't add to the overall cost of services. That argument requires more than a paring down of statistical information. Maybe we could at least agree the current system doesn't work well for everyone?

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 10:41 AM
None of that implies a system that works.

a vague, generalization which completely ignores the facts, which are this, there are not 49 million uninsured Americans roaming the streets because they can't afford healthcare or because healthcare is not available to them. No healthcare system is going to work for everyone, all the time.

I should not have to work my *** off so my tax dollars can pay for health care for people who have enough money to buy their own but don't want to, some 26 year old man who lives at home with his mommy and daddy, some illegal immigrant who's been in this country for 5 minutes. If you can't understand that, than you have absolutely no ability to think freely. You my friend might as well check yourself into your nearest prison, because you're already a ward of the state. If not physically, mentally.

Ton Loc
11/23/2011, 10:55 AM
Is obama care going to make those treatments legal?

That wasn't your question. I don't believe Obamacare addressed FDA issues in a way that would determine if those treatments would be legal.

Ton Loc
11/23/2011, 11:01 AM
a vague, generalization which completely ignores the facts, which are this, there are not 49 million uninsured Americans roaming the streets because they can't afford healthcare or because healthcare is not available to them. No healthcare system is going to work for everyone, all the time.

I should not have to work my *** off so my tax dollars can pay for health care for people who have enough money to buy their own but don't want to, some 26 year old man who lives at home with his mommy and daddy, some illegal immigrant who's been in this country for 5 minutes. If you can't understand that, than you have absolutely no ability to think freely. You my friend might as well check yourself into your nearest prison, because you're already a ward of the state. If not physically, mentally.

We already pay for all of the people who don't have insurance. If I took all that money that's already being spent to cover people who don't have insurance and redirected it into a healthcare system for those same people why wouldn't it be better than what is happening now?

What exactly is your plan?

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 11:04 AM
That wasn't your question. I don't believe Obamacare addressed FDA issues in a way that would determine if those treatments would be legal.

then they have no place in this debate.

Ton Loc
11/23/2011, 11:07 AM
then they have no place in this debate.

Then don't ask the question.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 11:09 AM
We already pay for all of the people who don't have insurance. If I took all that money that's already being spent to cover people who don't have insurance and redirected it into a healthcare system for those same people why wouldn't it be better than what is happening now?

What exactly is your plan?

Explain to me how adding 47 million more people is going to lower costs? If as you are saying they are already being paid for, what's the difference? Have you even read the Affordable Health Care Act? Wait, stupid question, the people who voted on it and passed it, didn't even read it.

I have already seen my premiums increase because of Obama Care. So, it's costing me more to have the same coverage. Please explain how that benefits me. The company I work for has 1200 employees and EVERY one of us has seen this increase in premiums. As I said, if you want to surrender your freedoms to Uncle Sam, you're already beyond help.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 11:13 AM
Then don't ask the question.


People leave the country for a number of treatments - I hear mostly about stem cell treatment and various cancer treatments.

It was a legitimate question given the above response by you. I asked it because I already knew the answer. Again, a case of a liberal being intelligently dishonest. I'm done with this, if you cant be honest, what's the point of any further discussion.

Ton Loc
11/23/2011, 11:34 AM
Explain to me how adding 47 million more people is going to lower costs? If as you are saying they are already being paid for, what's the difference? Have you even read the Affordable Health Care Act? Wait, stupid question, the people who voted on it and passed it, didn't even read it.

I have already seen my premiums increase because of Obama Care. So, it's costing me more to have the same coverage. Please explain how that benefits me. The company I work for has 1200 employees and EVERY one of us has seen this increase in premiums. As I said, if you want to surrender your freedoms to Uncle Sam, you're already beyond help.

My premiums have increased every year since 2001. Well before any obamacare nonsense. The obamacare talk is nothing more than a scapegoat to raise premiums the past couple of years. Plus, I didn't say I supported any part of Obamacare. I support finding a better way to spend my money.


It was a legitimate question given the above response by you. I asked it because I already knew the answer. Again, a case of a liberal being intelligently dishonest. I'm done with this, if you cant be honest, what's the point of any further discussion.

You ask a question - someone will probably answer. I generally only ask questions I don't know the answer to - I'm not a game show host. I'm a liberal in only that I have my own opinions, I'm a conservative in ways that fit those opinions. Please, I would never label you a conservative. Your affiliation gives them a bad name. There are better labels for you.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 12:15 PM
My premiums have increased every year since 2001. Well before any obamacare nonsense. The obamacare talk is nothing more than a scapegoat to raise premiums the past couple of years. Plus, I didn't say I supported any part of Obamacare. I support finding a better way to spend my money.




You ask a question - someone will probably answer. I generally only ask questions I don't know the answer to - I'm not a game show host. I'm a liberal in only that I have my own opinions, I'm a conservative in ways that fit those opinions. Please, I would never label you a conservative. Your affiliation gives them a bad name. There are better labels for you.


Anyone who thinks the government holds the key to nirvana is a liberal. You can take that however you like. If you think being called a liberal is an insult, why the hell would you be one?

diverdog
11/23/2011, 12:47 PM
Not to cherry pick or anything but-
People leave the country for a number of treatments - I hear mostly about stem cell treatment and various cancer treatments. Mostly because of cost or because it isn't legal here yet.

India and Thailand have developed a good sized business taking care of US patients. I know lots of people who get their meds in Canada.

yermom
11/23/2011, 01:23 PM
Anyone who thinks the government holds the key to nirvana is a liberal. You can take that however you like. If you think being called a liberal is an insult, why the hell would you be one?

seems conservatives want the government out of matters until it comes to drugs, gay marriage, pr0n, alcohol, sex ed., Israel, etc...

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 01:25 PM
a vague, generalization which completely ignores the facts, which are this, there are not 49 million uninsured Americans roaming the streets because they can't afford healthcare or because healthcare is not available to them. No healthcare system is going to work for everyone, all the time.

Yet in the U.S., we have the most expensive system in the world which works for the smallest percentage of citizens of any first-world country.


I should not have to work my *** off so my tax dollars can pay for health care for people who have enough money to buy their own but don't want to, some 26 year old man who lives at home with his mommy and daddy, some illegal immigrant who's been in this country for 5 minutes. If you can't understand that, than you have absolutely no ability to think freely. You my friend might as well check yourself into your nearest prison, because you're already a ward of the state. If not physically, mentally.

You want to abolish medicare and medicaid? And besides that, you obviously don't even know what the ACA does. It won't cover illegal immigrants at all. It'll just force them to either pay for health insurance (unless they qualify for Medicaid) or pay a fine.

And the more healthy people paying into the healthcare system, the cheaper it will be. Other parts of the ACA include provisions that require companies to use 85% of their revenue on actual health care costs or quality improvement. And to continue to raise prices, if they go up by more than 10%, they are subject to a rate review where they'll have to justify their price hike.

Additionally, health care insurance companies will be forced to compete on price terms being compared side by side at exchanges. The ACA is going to lower costs for everyone except those who are the deadbeats of the system who rely on the bankruptcy code to pay for catastrophic illness.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 01:32 PM
health care insurance companies will be forced to compete on price terms being compared side by side at exchanges.

no they all be regulated out of business, you know it, I know it and Obama knows it. He has to first get enough idiots on board to get the the thing enacted, once that's done, he can strangle the private providers out of business by choking them to death with regulations.

When people ask, "Hey, I thought you said we could keep our current coverage, what happened?" He'll say "let me make something perfectly clear, you could have kept your current coverage, but these insurance companies didn't want to abide by the federal laws, so rather than cut their costs to you, they decided to just fold up shop".

"now go get in line and wait a year and a half to have that procedure done, you know the one that you could have had done in two weeks, under the previous system"

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 01:40 PM
oops, did I "cherry pick" again.

diverdog
11/23/2011, 03:46 PM
no they all be regulated out of business, you know it, I know it and Obama knows it. He has to first get enough idiots on board to get the the thing enacted, once that's done, he can strangle the private providers out of business by choking them to death with regulations.

When people ask, "Hey, I thought you said we could keep our current coverage, what happened?" He'll say "let me make something perfectly clear, you could have kept your current coverage, but these insurance companies didn't want to abide by the federal laws, so rather than cut their costs to you, they decided to just fold up shop".

"now go get in line and wait a year and a half to have that procedure done, you know the one that you could have had done in two weeks, under the previous system"

Can you name some companies that have been regulated out of business?

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 03:55 PM
no they all be regulated out of business, you know it, I know it and Obama knows it. He has to first get enough idiots on board to get the the thing enacted, once that's done, he can strangle the private providers out of business by choking them to death with regulations.

Bull****. You don't win arguments by just making stuff up. The ACA in its current form was originally a Republican idea until it wasn't. You have no idea what you are talking about. How do you force a business to go under if you practically guarantee them a profit by providing both captive customers and revenue?


When people ask, "Hey, I thought you said we could keep our current coverage, what happened?" He'll say "let me make something perfectly clear, you could have kept your current coverage, but these insurance companies didn't want to abide by the federal laws, so rather than cut their costs to you, they decided to just fold up shop".

Again, you're just making stuff up. We have mandatory auto insurance. Geico seems to be doing okay and actually everyone is better off for being insured. It's a win-win-win.


"now go get in line and wait a year and a half to have that procedure done, you know the one that you could have had done in two weeks, under the previous system"

How do you figure? There'll be exactly the same demand for procedures, there's no cap on what providers can charge for procedures, nothing changes there except now we'll have more people paying into the system which virtually guarantees a healthy bottom line for the insurance companies.

Have even read a summary of the Act's provisions? Or have you relied on Fox News and your cut/paste websites for all of your information?

Single payer would have been the way to go, and I'd have also liked to have a public option. Those will be options in the future if this doesn't work out. The ACA strikes a pretty good balance between public and private interests. You should actually try to understand what the Act is all about until you read a summary about it.

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 03:56 PM
oops, did I "cherry pick" again.

If by "cherry pick," you mean making stuff up, then yes.

cleller
11/23/2011, 04:00 PM
American workers are the most productive in the world. Try again.

I agree with that completely. We have the best and most capable people here you can find anywhere. But we have a higher ratio of lazy, lay-about moaners than you'll find anywhere, also.
Do those people in Oakland look like a shining example of the most productive workforce in the world to you?

I've never been to Helsinki, but I doubt you'd find the kind of rabble there you will in Oakland.

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 04:55 PM
I agree with that completely. We have the best and most capable people here you can find anywhere. But we have a higher ratio of lazy, lay-about moaners than you'll find anywhere, also.
Do those people in Oakland look like a shining example of the most productive workforce in the world to you?

Are you trying to argue that a couple hundred folks at a leftist rally are good statistical representations of the American worker? If you are trying to argue that, I'm going to think you're an idiot.


I've never been to Helsinki, but I doubt you'd find the kind of rabble there you will in Oakland.

You've never been there, but you know the people are different? How?

soonercruiser
11/23/2011, 05:25 PM
Yet in the U.S., we have the most expensive system in the world which works for the smallest percentage of citizens of any first-world country.


Nice LW "talking points".
But, no facts!
You can say you want, but this is the nation with the highest tech and best healthcare!
(Even if they are Indian doctors)

cleller
11/23/2011, 05:32 PM
Are you trying to argue that a couple hundred folks at a leftist rally are good statistical representations of the American worker? If you are trying to argue that, I'm going to think you're an idiot.



You've never been there, but you know the people are different? How?

Geez, use your memory and ability to think in broad terms. You posted a list of a bunch of countries that are supposed to have a better standard of living than the US. If you looked over that list, one of the things that should be glaringly obviously is that they are mostly smaller countries that are not nearly such a vast melting pot as the US.

In response to this list, I suggested the US had more lazy, moaning multitudes than those countries. You can dispute that if you want, but anyone residing outside your narrow spectrum of peers would not agree.
I threw in the remark about the Oakland protesters, because that is the subject of this thread, and as an illustration that their agenda is unlikely to boost the development of our country.

As for the Helsinki comment, I did not say I KNOW the people are different, and can't imagine why you'd respond that way.
My comment was I DOUBT you would find the kind of people populating Helsinki that you would in Oakland. (or L A, New York, etc).
This is where you must think broadly, drawing on your observations and education. Do you THINK the major cities of those highly developed countries have the kind of down and out folks shuffling around that all our major cities do? You have to think, to form an opinion of your own.
Look at that list, picture the cities, would you walk from a hotel to a restaurant and back late at night there? Would you do the same in any major US city without fear?

What I'm trying to get across is there is a good reason the majority of those countries are considered more developed. They have fewer inhabitants that refuse to work and contribute to society.

Shoot, I thought you were one of the nice, tolerant liberals.

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 06:20 PM
Nice LW "talking points".
But, no facts!
You can say you want, but this is the nation with the highest tech and best healthcare!
(Even if they are Indian doctors)

It's a fact that we have the highest per capita spending on healthcare and it's not even close. If your'e ranking a system and comparing countries, you have to do it in a way that takes into account the access ALL of the people have to that healthcare. Otherwise, how do you really measure up?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2010/Jun/~/media/Images/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/jun/MM2010l.gif

cleller
11/23/2011, 06:40 PM
Our medical stuff is screwy as all get out. I wish we'd start with some serious tort reform, class action limits, and loser pays civil suits. Who is against that? Democrats?
Doctors waste tons of money on unneeded tests, equipment costs are sky high, all kinds of insurance is outrageous, and everything is slowed down because of people suing left and right trying to make a easy buck.

TitoMorelli
11/23/2011, 09:55 PM
So clearly there are some folks there who are just there for the party. A few cherry picked photos of some of the more colorful individuals really doesn't prove any point.

There are 40-50 freakin' photos of Occupy loons on that site. Either he didn't have to search very hard to find them, or he's picked more cherries than Roman Polanski.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 10:39 PM
Are you trying to argue that a couple hundred folks at a leftist rally are good statistical representations of the American worker? If you are trying to argue that, I'm going to think you're an idiot.

Well you're damn sure trying to argue on there behalf. You've come to their rescue in every negative thread that's been started about them.
Again, you cherry pick a poll or study that fits your template. It's like when the prosecutor puts on their "expert witness", then the defense find some "expert witness" that will say the exact opposite.

Unless you can tell us what that polling data was based off of, and how the data was obtained, and from who it was obtained, it means nothing. I promise you, I can go online right now and find a similar type of chart, put together by "experts in the know" that will contradict what your chart shows.

I'm sure I can walk into S.Central LA and take a survey asking are white cops racist? And 99% of the respondents will say "yes".

I can go into Beverly Hills and ask the same question and 99% of the respondents will say "no". So which survey is correct? You could argue both, or neither. It all depends where the information is coming from.

cleller
11/23/2011, 11:17 PM
On this tangent of this health care, I googled three words. "surgery" "waits" "england". This is the first story returned.
Waits up to 1 year for things like hips, knees. Sounds pretty swell, alright. Its from the BBC.

NHS waiting time 'underestimated'
Waiting times may often be much longer than people expect
People in Britain underestimate the time they would have to wait for an NHS operation, a survey suggests

The poll of 1,000 people, by TNS on behalf of Norwich Union Healthcare, showed most expect to wait five months for a hip operation.

Most wait nearer 11 months, independent medical researchers Dr Fosters said.

Patients also had unrealistic expectations for other operations and many said they did not know where to go to find out waiting times.

Waits 'improving'

For knee surgery, the public were prepared to wait for three months and expected to wait for five months.

The actual wait for a knee replacement is a year, data from Dr Foster suggests.

Two-thirds of those questioned said they would not know where to go to find information on waiting lists and a tenth did not realise they could access this type of information.

Dr Doug Wright, clinical development manager at Norwich Union Healthcare said: "People aren't necessarily taking advantage of the information that is available and they may be waiting several months for something like a hip operation in their area, when it could actually be done more quickly elsewhere."

Roger Taylor, research director at Dr Foster which gathered the data on current waiting times, said waits were improving thanks to government initiatives to reduce waiting times such as diagnosis and treatment centres.

'Speedier treatment'

"The increased use of diagnosis and treatment centres across the country is already beginning to have an incredible impact on NHS waiting times," he said.

For example, Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs the Ravenscourt Park diagnostic and treatment centre in west London, has seen waiting times for hip replacements drop from 204 days in 2002 to 30 days in 2003.


CURRENT WAITING TIMES IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND
8 months for cataract surgery
11 months for a hip replacement
12 months for a knee replacement
5 months to repair a slipped disc
5 months for a hernia repair

Health Minister John Hutton said: "The indisputable facts are that patients are getting speedier treatment on the NHS.

"Hardly anyone now has to wait more than nine months and the average wait is now around ten weeks."

Tory spokesman Tim Yeo said: "Patients are being trapped unnecessarily on waiting lists.

"Labour's solution is to offer patients a limited choice of hospitals once the system has failed them. This is not enough."

Mr Richard Rawlins, orthopaedic surgeon at Bedford Hospital and BMA council member, said the reason for waiting times was chronic underfunding and understaffing since the NHS' conception.

He said: "The government is increasing capacity by investing money but I'm concerned as a surgeon that the arrangements are not in the patient's best interest.

"The individual patient may get their operation done quicker by the NHS funding treatment in the private sector but it will be with a different surgeon from the one they saw in the clinic.

"Quality of care is being compromised. The waiting lists are coming down but it's at a cost - a cost to the actual care of the patient who is getting a second class service.

"Waiting times for a second class service are coming down. But waiting times for a first class service are going up."

Norwich Union has developed a waiting list guide, called Personal Health Manager, to help people research how long they could expect to wait to have a procedure at different hospitals around the country.

soonercruiser
11/23/2011, 11:26 PM
Medical tourismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism


United StatesA McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[73] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).[74] The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care,[73] whereas the low costs for hospital stays and major/complex procedures at Western-accredited medical facilities abroad are cited as major motivators for American travelers.[74] Also, it has been noted that the decline in value of the U.S. dollar is offering additional incentive for foreign travel to the U.S., although cost differences between the US and many locations in Asia far outweigh any currency fluctuations.

Several major medical centers and teaching hospitals offer international patient centers that cater to patients from foreign countries who seek medical treatment in the U.S.[75] Many of these organizations offer service coordinators to assist international patients with arrangements for medical care, accommodations, finances and transportation including air ambulance services.

Many locations in the US that offer medical care comparable in price to foreign medical facilities are not Joint Commission Accredited.[citation needed]

Just anotrher piece of the healthcare picture!
(Quality and technology)

AlboSooner
11/24/2011, 11:43 AM
I don't how one can say that our healthcare system works. As a follower of Christ I think healthcare is a fundamental human right. It baffles me when I hear Christians support wars, but get bent out of shape at the possibility of a homeless person getting free healthcare.

The high-tech nature of the healthcare system has NOTHING to do with healthcare being a business. Just because a suit decides whether you should get chemo or not, has nothing to do with UNIVERSITIES, doing research. By the way research that the scientific community does is depended on government grants, or government handouts. On and by the way a large portion of PHDs earned in the US are by foreign born scientists.

Dale Ellis
11/24/2011, 11:49 AM
Here's one

It's a fact that we have the highest per capita spending on healthcare and it's not even close. If your'e ranking a system and comparing countries, you have to do it in a way that takes into account the access ALL of the people have to that healthcare. Otherwise, how do you really measure up?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2010/Jun/~/media/Images/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/jun/MM2010l.gif

Dale Ellis
11/24/2011, 11:51 AM
Here's another....

analogy [uh-nal-uh-jee]  
Example Sentences Origin
Early Insurance Agency:
Please stop by our office for a coverage comparison today!
www.earlyinsuranceagency.com
Why Men Lose Attraction
10 Ugly Mistakes Women Make That Ruins Any Chances Of A Relationship
CatchHimAndKeepHim.com
Denver Seminary
Real Answers, Real Change Is God Calling you to Lead?
Ads www.DenverSeminary.edu
a·nal·o·gy   [uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural -gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.
Biology . an analogous relationship.
4.
Linguistics .
a.
the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b.
a form resulting from such a process.
5.
Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Dale Ellis
11/24/2011, 11:53 AM
Here's another..

According to the Inequality adjusted Human Development Index, which measures standards of living, but takes into account inequality:

1) Norway
2) Australia
3) Sweden
4) Netherlands
5) Iceland
6) Ireland
7) Germany
8) Denmark
9) Switzerland
10) Slovenia
11) Finland
12) Canada
13) Czech Republic
...
23) United States

that's numerous cut and pasts by you on this thread alone, not too mention many others on other various threads. Now will you please dispense with this feeble effort to discredit what you know to be true just because the information was cut and pasted from another site to this one.
You just got owned.

soonercruiser
11/24/2011, 02:50 PM
Why don't you Libs get over it!
We Americans don't want to be like no da** Sweeeeeden!
You want Sweeeeden; got to Sweeeden!
:onthego:

cleller
11/24/2011, 05:12 PM
Why don't you Libs get over it!
We Americans don't want to be like no da** Sweeeeeden!
You want Sweeeeden; got to Sweeeden!
:onthego:

Don't you realize, we got to be the most powerful country on earth by abandoning our principles, and copying someone else's?

Midtowner
11/24/2011, 06:33 PM
You just got owned.

I attribute my cut/pastes and give primary citation links to entities like the World Health Organization, a U.N. sponsored entity whose job it is to advise governments on healthcare policy and to a thorough study by the Commonwealth Fund. I sure like those surveys better than pablum and posturing cut and pasted from right wing blowhards who won't cite sources, give obviously faulty data sets or deal in half-truths and outright falsehood.

My facts > your "facts."

If you were an educated person, you'd know the difference.

East Coast Bias
11/24/2011, 07:39 PM
No way Ellis ever owned any part of Midtowner and again he brings to light another little known fact: Liberals are more educated than conservatives.

Turd_Ferguson
11/24/2011, 08:36 PM
and again he brings to light another little known fact: Liberals think they are more educated than conservatives.Concur.

cleller
11/24/2011, 09:12 PM
Do liberals just love school or hate work?

Midtowner
11/25/2011, 11:39 AM
No way Ellis ever owned any part of Midtowner and again he brings to light another little known fact: Liberals are more educated than conservatives.

The Pew Research Center conducted a study which bears that out. Liberals vote more and are more highly educated by a wide margin than any subgroup of Conservatives. The same study found that liberals, the largest subset (17% of all people)of the left wing are 41% likely to earn $75K or more whereas the highest earning conservatives, "enterprisers" (9%) are just as likely to earn as much, but again, there are a lot less of 'em, so no, statistically, liberals work just as smart/hard as conservatives. That is, if you care about facts and books and stuff, which don't typically seem to impress our local ultra-conservative circle jerkers.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7d/Ideology_US_copy.jpg/350px-Ideology_US_copy.jpg

C&CDean
11/25/2011, 11:58 AM
This ranks very near the top for the worst/stupidest/gayed up POS thread in the history of history.

How about we do this:

We all agree that the Occupy Whatever people are a bunch of worthless miscreants. Check.

We all agree that the poor/homeless already get free health care. Check.

We all agree that America is still the best country on the planet. Check.

We all agree that having a 3-5 person 6+ page circle jerk with a couple of players and a couple of back-up cheerleaders is the pinnacle of meh. Check.

Sheez, you people need to cop one. One what? Life? Some booty? A buzz? A clue? Yeah boy, let's just keep arguing our polarized stances with a few well-placed personal insults. Yeah, that'll accomplish something.

pphilfran
11/25/2011, 12:19 PM
We all agree that having a 3-5 person 6+ page circle jerk with a couple of players and a couple of back-up cheerleaders is the pinnacle of meh.

2, 4, 6, 8....who do we appreciate! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Midtowner!

C&CDean
11/25/2011, 12:38 PM
RaH RAH ReE, kick em in the knee

Rah RAh rAsss shoot em in the ****ing head

Midtowner
11/25/2011, 01:25 PM
We all agree that having a 3-5 person 6+ page circle jerk with a couple of players and a couple of back-up cheerleaders is the pinnacle of meh. Check.

Well hot damn then. I'll get on the football board post haste and have an enthralling discussion about whether Stoops should replace the secondary coach.

Or I could go on South Oval and tell y'all what I had for T-day, that'd be a great use of my time as well.

Dale Ellis
11/25/2011, 01:58 PM
Liberals are usually elitest types who value theory and book work over actual real world application. Give me a guy who's been on the field, in the huddle, and you can take the guy who's only read the "how to" book. I'll beat your *** every time in any arena.

again, your survey is useless without us knowing, how many people were polled, what % of those people polled were liberal compared to conservative. What were the back grounds of the respondents? Did they test each individual to see which ones were more educated?

Does the poll show that a college educated liberal is smarter than a college educated conservative?

Midtowner
11/25/2011, 02:11 PM
Liberals are usually elitest types who value theory and book work over actual real world application. Give me a guy who's been on the filed, in the huddle and you can take the guy who's only read the "how to" book. I'll beat your *** every time in any arena.

again, your survey is useless without us knowing, how many people were polled, what % of those people polled were liberal compared to conservative. What were the back grounds of the respondents? Did they test each individual to see which ones were more educated?

Does the poll show that a college educated liberal is smarter than a college educated conservative?

You're sure to take the Pew Research Institute to task for their methodology. I'm sure you know much better than they about how to come up with statistically reliable data.

Or we could just rely on your "teh huddle" nonsense.

C&CDean
11/25/2011, 04:13 PM
Well hot damn then. I'll get on the football board post haste and have an enthralling discussion about whether Stoops should replace the secondary coach.

Or I could go on South Oval and tell y'all what I had for T-day, that'd be a great use of my time as well.

Any of those pursuits would beat trying to win a pissin' contest with a skunk. Just sayin'.

cleller
11/25/2011, 06:41 PM
You'd THINK we'd all agree the Occupy people are all worthless....

Midtowner
11/25/2011, 06:57 PM
You'd THINK we'd all agree the Occupy people are all worthless....

But then some of us have the ability to think for ourselves rather than form our opinions based on whatever the talk radio host du jour tells us to think. No doubt some are worthless/clueless, others are extremists. Many are good working folks who are fed up with how corporations have such an influence in D.C. that what's good for the middle class has become irrelevant politically. That's a pretty valid sentiment.

Midtowner
11/25/2011, 06:57 PM
Any of those pursuits would beat trying to win a pissin' contest with a skunk. Just sayin'.

God dangit Dean, I can't abide someone being wrong on the internet. It's just too much to bear.

hawaii 5-0
11/25/2011, 10:09 PM
You'd THINK we'd all agree the Occupy people are all worthless....



Ya calling retired cops worthless? Firefighters worthless?

Or middle class folks that got laid off, lost their health benefits, got sick and lost their house to pay off medical bills? Ya calling them worthless?

Or students that graduated from college and are now stuck with 5 figure student loans?

To call them all worthless just shows a lack of understanding. And shows a lot of plain ignorance.

5-0

cleller
11/25/2011, 10:33 PM
Ya calling retired cops worthless? Firefighters worthless?

Or middle class folks that got laid off, lost their health benefits, got sick and lost their house to pay off medical bills? Ya calling them worthless?

Or students that graduated from college and are now stuck with 5 figure student loans?

To call them all worthless just shows a lack of understanding. And shows a lot of plain ignorance.

5-0

For the record, that was a response to a post by Dean suggesting we all agreed the Occupy people were worthless something or other....

I AM a retired cop, and have nothing in common with that bunch of whining rabble. I don't see cops and firemen out there with those leeches. We're calling the people that want to ignore ordinances, disrupt commerce, and ask the government to provide for them worthless. Its fine to oppose shoddy businesses; these people actively promote anarchy and government control of the populace.

If someone has a 5 figure student loan, it was because they chose to take that out, I see no reason someone else (like me via the govt) should pay it for them.

So anyway, it looks like we don't all agree to stipulate points on the Occupiers.

Midtowner
11/25/2011, 11:55 PM
apP7nZJIKEY

hawaii 5-0
11/26/2011, 11:13 AM
Seems not all cops are against the WSO.

5-0

cleller
11/26/2011, 11:19 AM
There's one in every crowd. An east coast pencil pusher that "actually cried" when Obama was elected. That would create howls of laughter in squad rooms across the country. I'm sure you can find one or a handful of anything out there. Doesn't make them representative of the group as a whole.

To each his own.

hawaii 5-0
11/26/2011, 11:39 AM
There's one in every crowd. An east coast pencil pusher that "actually cried" when Obama was elected. That would create howls of laughter in squad rooms across the country. I'm sure you can find one or a handful of anything out there. Doesn't make them representative of the group as a whole.

To each his own.



It simply goes to show that your previous blanket statement that all Wall Street Occupiers are worthless is mistaken.

The generalization is yours.

5-0

cleller
11/26/2011, 11:53 AM
It simply goes to show that your previous blanket statement that all Wall Street Occupiers are worthless is mistaken.

The generalization is yours.

5-0

I concede that point. (about generalizations, not the movement) Uncle, you got me, etc. Wouldn't mind hearing from some of this guy's former co-workers, though.

If the protesters conducted themselves as a group they way this man likely did, I doubt I would have any problem with them. They'd just be another group of tax and spenders that think they know best.

The reality of the protest is that its main avenue and agenda is to change the country from capitalism to socialism, and create a government that controls most aspects of a person's life. They've also shown that violence and anarchy are acceptable means to achieve their end. That I don't agree with, nor do most Americans.

Still don't want to pick up the tab for every student loan.

hawaii 5-0
11/26/2011, 01:46 PM
I would submit the majority of protestors are everyday folks that just want a fair shake. Plain and simple.


Big Business AND the government has robbed them of that.

5-0

soonercruiser
11/26/2011, 05:39 PM
I concede that point. (about generalizations, not the movement) Uncle, you got me, etc. Wouldn't mind hearing from some of this guy's former co-workers, though.

If the protesters conducted themselves as a group they way this man likely did, I doubt I would have any problem with them. They'd just be another group of tax and spenders that think they know best.

The reality of the protest is that its main avenue and agenda is to change the country from capitalism to socialism, and create a government that controls most aspects of a person's life. They've also shown that violence and anarchy are acceptable means to achieve their end. That I don't agree with, nor do most Americans.
Still don't want to pick up the tab for every student loan.

And the bolded statment above is fact!
It was established after the only good survey of the OWS crowd done several weeks ago.
This is what Obama trained them for!

C&CDean
11/26/2011, 05:44 PM
I would submit the majority of protestors are everyday folks that just want a fair shake. Plain and simple.


Big Business AND the government has robbed them of that.

5-0

Wrong. As wrong as wrong can be. The majority of normal folks are out there working, paying taxes, and going to their kids' football game - not hanging out in the QPOC tent and ****.

You can try to "normalize" these effing freaks all you want. It ain't working. Normal people get jobs, pay their bills, whine a little bit, watch some TV, eat supper, maybe have a drink or two and go to bed.

soonercruiser
11/26/2011, 05:53 PM
5-O
Here's the facts from the only good survey of the "Occupiers" that has been done!
You do like facts 5-O, don't you?

soonercruiser's post....

OWS Statistics -NOT THE TEA PARTY!
For GOD's sake! What is happening in the media??
Another random act of journalism and polling!
This time in the Wall Street Journal....

OWS:
31% would resort to violence!
Vast majority ARE currently employed!
65% think that everything to be worked for, should be free!



Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.

By DOUGLAS SCHOEN
President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.

Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...965745362.html

Turd_Ferguson
11/26/2011, 06:01 PM
I would submit the majority of protestors are everyday folks that just want a fair shake. Plain and simple.


Big Business AND the government has robbed them of that.

5-0BWAAAAHHHahahahhahahahhahahahahha...Girl, you crack me the **** up...

hawaii 5-0
11/26/2011, 07:09 PM
BWAAAAHHHahahahhahahahhahahahahha...Girl, you crack me the **** up...



Ahhhhh, my own Special Troll Doll.

Carry on.


BTW, I'll stick with my statement, thank you.

5-0

Tulsa_Fireman
11/26/2011, 07:43 PM
So wait, almost a supermajority oppose an across the board tax hike and they're split down the middle on the bailouts?

And support protectionist policies intended to keep american jobs from going overseas?

If these are representative of a "deep commitment to left-wing policies", and being that folks are in lockstep with left-wing policies putting a bullet in the head of America, as an honest question is the antithesis here to SUPPORT an across the board tax hike? SUPPORT sending american jobs overseas?

Is this the epiphany moment where we realize there's validity to portions of the arguments from either side of the aisle? Or is this where we point fingers and scream about how LIBZ UR KILLIN MAH AMERICUH!

TitoMorelli
11/26/2011, 08:26 PM
So wait, almost a supermajority oppose an across the board tax hike and they're split down the middle on the bailouts?

And support protectionist policies intended to keep american jobs from going overseas?

If these are representative of a "deep commitment to left-wing policies", and being that folks are in lockstep with left-wing policies putting a bullet in the head of America, as an honest question is the antithesis here to SUPPORT an across the board tax hike? SUPPORT sending american jobs overseas?

Is this the epiphany moment where we realize there's validity to portions of the arguments from either side of the aisle? Or is this where we point fingers and scream about how LIBZ UR KILLIN MAH AMERICUH!

So which part of "opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth" do you not get?

Tulsa_Fireman
11/26/2011, 08:39 PM
So which part of "opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth" do you not get?

So which part of my post did it say anything about whether or not I get "opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth"?

That's what's f*cked up. If we'd take 5 seconds to breathe and look at the counterargument coming from these moonbats, we'd see that instead of dismissing the whole, there might be actual points of concern to consider. Does it mean that the mechanic of this great nation needs abrupt and violent change? No. Does it mean we stomp around vehemently opposing everything that comes from the mouths of others with dissimilar views? No.

But can we look at what's being said and say, "Yeah. Everything else you're saying is retarded, but the part about american jobs? That's a problem. That part on tax increases? That's a problem." Instead, it's being thrown out in its entirety on the basis of the method, not on the premise of the viability of the ideas within.

hawaii 5-0
11/26/2011, 08:42 PM
Cruiser, I'm sure you had some really important stuff to relate in you last post, but when you tried to pass off 'survey results' as 'facts' I quit reading right there.


5-0

Blue
11/26/2011, 09:05 PM
People are fed up with Big Business and the Govt in bed together. Downright theivery and looting byway of bailouts, insider trading (Pelosi), and blatant highway robbery (MF Global).

This started with the "End the Fed" and Ron Paul movement. We had the Tea Party and now OWS. Yes we are united in that we know something is wrong.

Yet I bet hawaii 5-0 was the first to bash the Tea Party and whats funny is that they were protesting the same thing. Just not pimping socialism and fascism as solutions.

Turd_Ferguson
11/26/2011, 09:11 PM
Cruiser, I'm sure you had some really important stuff to relate in you last post, but when you tried to pass off 'survey results' as 'facts' I quit reading right there.


5-0I'm guessing the majority here has quit reading your post except for the occasional laugh...Keep posturing up to the ones you think you know better than...It makes you look like a ****.

cleller
11/26/2011, 09:52 PM
I would submit the majority of protestors are everyday folks that just want a fair shake. Plain and simple.


Big Business AND the government has robbed them of that.

5-0

Oh my word. You can't be serious about this. The majority are everyday folks? Have you seen footage of these people? Did you look at the pictures on the thread here? I don't know what it is like where you are, but those are not everyday people that are out there shutting down the port in Oakland, and smashing the windows business owners. The protesters in NYC are driving native New Yorkers (not terribly conservative) nuts.

hawaii 5-0
11/26/2011, 10:05 PM
Oh my word. You can't be serious about this. The majority are everyday folks? Have you seen footage of these people? Did you look at the pictures on the thread here? I don't know what it is like where you are, but those are not everyday people that are out there shutting down the port in Oakland, and smashing the windows business owners. The protesters in NYC are driving native New Yorkers (not terribly conservative) nuts.


Well, I think the photographer or videographer can take pictures of what he/she wants to. As I don't personally know any of the protestors I can't personally speak to their intent or actions.

Please share your personal experiences at the protests.



Some of the protesters here at vets. 1 out of 10 vets here are homeless.

5-0

Turd_Ferguson
11/26/2011, 10:14 PM
Well, I think the photographer or videographer can take pictures of what he/she wants to. As I don't personally know any of the protestors I can't personally speak to their intent or actions.

Please share your personal experiences at the protests.



Some of the protesters here at vets. 1 out of 10 vets here are homeless.

5-0Why do you keep bringing up Police Officers/Vet's? Do you think it sells your position or something?

hawaii 5-0
11/26/2011, 10:15 PM
I'm guessing the majority here has quit reading your post except for the occasional laugh...Keep posturing up to the ones you think you know better than...It makes you look like a ****.

By the look at the responses to my posts it seems a lot of people are reading my posts.


Turd, do you ever bring anything positive to the Board or is your modus operandi just consist of personal jabs at other posters?

What's your problem, man?


5-0

hawaii 5-0
11/26/2011, 10:16 PM
Why do you keep bringing up Police Officers/Vet's? Do you think it sells your position or something?


I also brought up students and people that have lost their jobs and homes.

5-0

Turd_Ferguson
11/26/2011, 10:26 PM
By the look at the responses to my posts it seems a lot of people are reading my posts.


Turd, do you ever bring anything positive to the Board or is your modus operandi just consist of personal jabs at other posters?

What's your problem, man?


5-0Don't have a problem. Just like following your "left is the bomb, right is wrong" diatribe you always spew. I find it comical and like commenting on it.

cleller
11/26/2011, 11:01 PM
Well, I think the photographer or videographer can take pictures of what he/she wants to. As I don't personally know any of the protestors I can't personally speak to their intent or actions.

Please share your personal experiences at the protests.



Some of the protesters here at vets. 1 out of 10 vets here are homeless.

5-0


Look, its obvious I've not been at any of the protests. I live in Oklahoma. If you live in Hawaii, unless you've flown in to participate, we've probably seen the same scenes: on the major networks and new outlets.

I look at them and see loathsome nincompoops. You look at them and see heroic...something. We have no common ground. You also seem to feel everyone is owed a lot a free stuff from the the government, I don't. You seem to think if someone bought a house that fell in value, someone owes them something, I don't. I believe in paying my debts, regardless of whether or not someone else is taking handouts.

REDREX
11/26/2011, 11:14 PM
I just hope that the Dems wrap themselves in the occupy movement and run with it

TitoMorelli
11/26/2011, 11:37 PM
So which part of my post did it say anything about whether or not I get "opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth"?


The part where you take only the portion of the article that discusses the occupiers' ideas concerning protectionist policies, tax hikes and bailouts and pretend that that's what the writer meant when he described their "deep commitment to left-wing policies." The writer didn't label those ideas as such. He clearly was referring to their support for anti-capitalism and redistribution.



That's what's f*cked up. If we'd take 5 seconds to breathe and look at the counterargument coming from these moonbats, we'd see that instead of dismissing the whole, there might be actual points of concern to consider. Does it mean that the mechanic of this great nation needs abrupt and violent change? No. Does it mean we stomp around vehemently opposing everything that comes from the mouths of others with dissimilar views? No.

But can we look at what's being said and say, "Yeah. Everything else you're saying is retarded, but the part about american jobs? That's a problem. That part on tax increases? That's a problem." Instead, it's being thrown out in its entirety on the basis of the method, not on the premise of the viability of the ideas within.

Good points, T_F.


But just how seriously should we view those who admit to being promoters of revolution and anarchy, who proudly carry signs or wear clothes honoring some of the 20th century's vilest mass murderers, who behave in their encampments like feral dogs, who pressure victims in their own little community not to report rapes and other crimes, and who claim that everything they wish to do should be protected under the First Amendment, even as they show no respect for the rights of others? Their behavior serves to discredit any worthwhile ideas they may have.

Dale Ellis
11/27/2011, 12:19 AM
apP7nZJIKEY

Cherry picked
I doubt the validity of his comments.
Nice cut and paste.

Dale Ellis
11/27/2011, 12:21 AM
You're sure to take the Pew Research Institute to task for their methodology. I'm sure you know much better than they about how to come up with statistically reliable data.

Or we could just rely on your "teh huddle" nonsense.

The poll is useless unless we know the following:


how many people were polled, what % of those people polled were liberal compared to conservative. What were the back grounds of the respondents? Did they test each individual to see which ones were more educated?

Does the poll show that a college educated liberal is smarter than a college educated conservative?

So when you're done cutting and pasting useless data, get back to us.

Dale Ellis
11/27/2011, 12:24 AM
But then some of us have the ability to think for ourselves rather than form our opinions based on whatever the talk radio host du jour tells us to think.

oh yes, we should all just listen to you.


Many are good working folks

and you know this how?

Tulsa_Fireman
11/27/2011, 01:36 AM
The part where you take only the portion of the article that discusses the occupiers' ideas concerning protectionist policies, tax hikes and bailouts and pretend that that's what the writer meant when he described their "deep commitment to left-wing policies." The writer didn't label those ideas as such. He clearly was referring to their support for anti-capitalism and redistribution.

Cherry picked it for a reason. The explanation is coming.


Good points, T_F.

But just how seriously should we view those who admit to being promoters of revolution and anarchy, who proudly carry signs or wear clothes honoring some of the 20th century's vilest mass murderers, who behave in their encampments like feral dogs, who pressure victims in their own little community not to report rapes and other crimes, and who claim that everything they wish to do should be protected under the First Amendment, even as they show no respect for the rights of others? Their behavior serves to discredit any worthwhile ideas they may have.

That, in and of itself, is where the problem lies.

Hitler's Nazi regime stood for some of the most vile crimes and atrocities the world has seen. Yet IDEAS within the regime revolutionized the world. Things like pulse-jet cells, a tech that is poised to replace the very convention of VTOL aircraft. Coal to oil technology. Long range missile tech. The list is massive and amazingly distinguished. But do we dismiss these ideas because of the crimes of the regime responsible for them? Not only no, but HELL no. We take what works and assimilate it into our own.

How's this any different? The base message of the protest is off the reservation. But within the protest there are some pretty grounded ideas that we should all be concerned with. Does that mean we support the protest? Nope. Does it dismiss or belittle the idea because of the loudest crowd that's preaching it? Nope. Does it make it any LESS of an idea we should espouse? Nope.

To do anything less is simply myopic.

Midtowner
11/27/2011, 08:03 AM
Cherry picked
I doubt the validity of his comments.
Nice cut and paste.

Cherry picking is acceptable when folks are making blanket all/none statements. Do I need to teach you elementary logic and critical thinking skills?

You're coming off as a troll more than anything else at this point. You may actually think that you're using my own tactics against me or some nonsense, but you're doing it wrong. In every instance, you've missed the point of what makes one valid and the other not. If you want to make it your position that random right wing internet cut/pastes are wrong and the Pew Research Institute, which does polling for both sides for profit, go right ahead. Pew's methods are similar to any other polling company. They design a list of questions which aren't aimed at getting anything but accurate and useful responses, they then poll, usually by telephone, a statistically valid sample of people and then sell/publish the results.

cleller
11/27/2011, 08:29 AM
http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/mad-as-hell.jpg

oudivesherpa
11/27/2011, 11:15 AM
If the OWS crowd is not careful, there could be a significant backlash against their movement. Look at the pictures, it is hard to deny that a significant portion of the OWS crowd is hard core Marxists. I’m a Pro-choice, Moderate swing voter (who voted Democratic in the last election) but after seeing those pictures, it would be very hard for me to vote Democratic in 2012.
The OWS crowd scares me!

Dale Ellis
11/27/2011, 12:51 PM
Do I need to teach you elementary logic and critical thinking skills?

Yes, right after you learn what a hypocrite is.


You may actually think that you're using my own tactics against me or some nonsense, but you're doing it wrong.

you've argued against your own logic, there's no need for me to pile on.


random right wing internet cut/pastes

Again, just because someone cut and pastes information does not make that information wrong. Anymore than you regurgitating something you read in a law book would make that information wrong, just because you repeated it rather than achieving that information through first hand, real world experience, agreed?


they then poll, usually by telephone, a statistically valid sample of people and then sell/publish the results.

as I've already stated, the information you provided in that survey is worthless without knowing the who the people are that were surveyed, if the people surveyed were being honest when they answered the questions, etc. I could call your home and ask you how much money you make a year, you could tell me you make 2.5 million a year, when in actuality you may only make 75k a year.
If I figured your income into the survey I was doing, my survey would be flawed.

I find most liberals intellectually dishonest, there for I doubt the validity of the answers they give. Also we don't know what questions were asked or how they were asked. In other words if I took a survey and asked 1000 people, "do you think Obama has done a good job in turning the economy around?", I'm sure about 80% would say "no", as a result my survey would show that 80% of people polled do not think Obama is doing a good job.

Now if I ask "compared to Jimmy Carter, do you think Obama has done a good job of turning the economy around?", you may have 70% of the people say "yes", as a result that survey would show that 70% of the people say Obama has done a good job on the economy.

Elementary logic and critical thinking are not your strong points. Ignoring, and trivializing any information that doesn't fit your far left wing, radical agenda is however one of your strong points. Agian, you "cherry pick" a survey which shows the results you want, then you ignore or down play any information which contradicts those results. You put on your expert witness, then I put on mine to contradict yours. Basic courtroom gamesmanship. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Let me ask you what kind of law do you "practice"?

Dale Ellis
11/27/2011, 12:58 PM
How's this any different?

well one is a radical political agenda which costs millions their lives, the others are conceptual ideas which deal with a technological advancement regarding energy and jet propulsion. Did you really need to be told that?

TitoMorelli
11/27/2011, 01:19 PM
Cherry picked it for a reason. The explanation is coming.



That, in and of itself, is where the problem lies.

Hitler's Nazi regime stood for some of the most vile crimes and atrocities the world has seen. Yet IDEAS within the regime revolutionized the world. Things like pulse-jet cells, a tech that is poised to replace the very convention of VTOL aircraft. Coal to oil technology. Long range missile tech. The list is massive and amazingly distinguished. But do we dismiss these ideas because of the crimes of the regime responsible for them? Not only no, but HELL no. We take what works and assimilate it into our own.

How's this any different? The base message of the protest is off the reservation. But within the protest there are some pretty grounded ideas that we should all be concerned with. Does that mean we support the protest? Nope. Does it dismiss or belittle the idea because of the loudest crowd that's preaching it? Nope. Does it make it any LESS of an idea we should espouse? Nope.

To do anything less is simply myopic.

Fair enough, T_F. Thanks for your response.

I'll nit-pick a little and point out that the examples you share above are all technological in nature rather than ideological. Assuming that the occupiers have offered only philosophical or political ideas, I also imagine that none are revolutionary in terms of being truly original.

TitoMorelli
11/27/2011, 01:35 PM
The Pew Research Center conducted a study which bears that out. Liberals vote more and are more highly educated by a wide margin than any subgroup of Conservatives....


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7d/Ideology_US_copy.jpg/350px-Ideology_US_copy.jpg

Actually, it didn't bear out any such thing.

According to the study to which you refer, the percentage of "Liberals" with a college degree (49%) is only slightly higher than that of "Conservative Enterprisers" (46%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States#Demograp hics_of_ideological_groups


Maybe you should ask pphil to teach you some rudimentary graph-reading skills.

Midtowner
11/27/2011, 03:08 PM
Actually, it didn't bear out any such thing.

According to the study to which you refer, the percentage of "Liberals" with a college degree (49%) is only slightly higher than that of "Conservative Enterprisers" (46%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States#Demograp hics_of_ideological_groups


Maybe you should ask pphil to teach you some rudimentary graph-reading skills.

Go back and read the full study. Enterprisers are 11% of all voters whereas liberals are 19%. Whereas enterprisers are a small minority within their party, (11% out of 35%, little less than 1/3), liberals are much more numerous and significant, (19%/43%, almost half). Maybe you should go read the graphs and what I wrote about 'em before you start jumping to conclusions based on the pretty pictures.

SCOUT
11/27/2011, 04:36 PM
I took a few minutes to read through an OWS forum.
Linky (http://occupywallstreetforum.com/forums/11-The-Demands?)

Interesting bunch.

cleller
11/27/2011, 04:48 PM
I took a few minutes to read through an OWS forum.
Linky (http://occupywallstreetforum.com/forums/11-The-Demands?)

Interesting bunch.

All the bickering over who to license their name and logos to really turned me off.

soonercruiser
11/27/2011, 11:50 PM
Cruiser, I'm sure you had some really important stuff to relate in you last post, but when you tried to pass off 'survey results' as 'facts' I quit reading right there.

5-0

Sorry that you are confused 5-O!
What I presented was, a close as you can come to the facts of who the OWS peeps are.
I know that you use survey results selectively, especially when they support your view point.
You can muse all day about what nice people and good citizens they are; but, the facts are, that they are.....


OWS:
31% would resort to violence!
Vast majority ARE currently employed!
65% think that everything to be worked for, should be free!


The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.


Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.



Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

5-O
If you have any other survey results, please be sure to post them for public view.
Do not put them under you pillow at night!

hawaii 5-0
11/28/2011, 12:25 AM
Maybe if there was a survey done in all 50 states, with verification that none of the surveyees were plants or fakes might help satisty me.

One random sample survey in one park might or might not represent everyone in America.

Those pictures from Oakland were very biased, but represented the lunatic fringe very well. There were some real wackos. I think if pictures were taken in Vermont, they might paint a different scene.

It's really hard to me to side one way or the other since I own a house and am gainfully employed. Sure I side with the protestors that Wall Street and the Govt should be accountable for their criminal actions, and that the Super Rich should pay more taxes. I also favor the 1st Amendment, giving citizens the right to assemble and speak.

That's pretty much my 2 cents in the matter.

Don't expect much heavy argument from me about the WSO mess. I just have no dog in this fight.

Do you think the Wall Streeters, Big Banks and Government stooges should get off scott free? No one should be held responsible for the housing crisis? Just sweep it under the rug while others walk away with the millions of Americans' hard earned wages and retirement savings? Just curious.

5-0

Tulsa_Fireman
11/28/2011, 01:06 AM
Fair enough, T_F. Thanks for your response.

I'll nit-pick a little and point out that the examples you share above are all technological in nature rather than ideological. Assuming that the occupiers have offered only philosophical or political ideas, I also imagine that none are revolutionary in terms of being truly original.

I'll give you that.

And it's possible that for some, the gulf between the idea and the method is too much to breach. But for me, it seems simply honest to look at a scenario and/or circumstance and state plainly what one deems good and foul. Personally, there's a message or two beneath all the trash that's worth listening to. And again, while method (in my opinion) may be horridly unacceptable, the idea, the concept, the premise, when applied to another man's perception and method, may very well be the idea and method that is the force for positive change.

On a side note, thanks for keeping this civil.

TitoMorelli
11/28/2011, 10:50 AM
Go back and read the full study. Enterprisers are 11% of all voters whereas liberals are 19%. Whereas enterprisers are a small minority within their party, (11% out of 35%, little less than 1/3), liberals are much more numerous and significant, (19%/43%, almost half). Maybe you should go read the graphs and what I wrote about 'em before you start jumping to conclusions based on the pretty pictures.

Once again, this time more slowly. You claimed that libs "are more highly educated by a wide margin than any subgroup of Conservatives" I proved you wrong using your own source, no matter how hard you try to squirm your way out of it. Just be a man and admit it for once.

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 11:09 AM
Once again, this time more slowly. You claimed that libs "are more highly educated by a wide margin than any subgroup of Conservatives" I proved you wrong using your own source, no matter how hard you try to squirm your way out of it. Just be a man and admit it for once.

I have never seen him admit he's wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I'm telling you, reading the guy is like reading a comic book. He presents pie charts, graphs and surveys, all of which he's cut and pasted from other sources. However when someone else presents the same type of evidence in support of their side of the argument, he dismisses it as "cherry picking", or right wing rantings from a source who's validity he "seriously questions".

The true measure of a man is when he can admit he's wrong, this freaking guy will never do that.

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 11:14 AM
Once again, this time more slowly. You claimed that libs "are more highly educated by a wide margin than any subgroup of Conservatives" I proved you wrong using your own source, no matter how hard you try to squirm your way out of it. Just be a man and admit it for once.

receiving a higher level of education, does not mean the person is intellectually superior or that a person has any common sense at all. Some of the most illogical people I've ever met, had a PH.D

Position Limit
11/28/2011, 11:54 AM
dale,

you are without a doubt the most bitter poster on this board. maybe the history of this board. did you get beat up by liberals in your formative years? your rants are nonsensical fragments of bitter talking points. youre like some kind of bad mutation formed from rush, oriley, fox and savage all in one. what's worse is that your trying to attain legendary status. in your own mind. did you recently get let go at the post office? if not why do you act like it? you need to relax, turn off fox and read a book. non fiction that is. good luck. cheers...

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 12:47 PM
dale,

you are without a doubt the most bitter poster on this board. maybe the history of this board. did you get beat up by liberals in your formative years? your rants are nonsensical fragments of bitter talking points. youre like some kind of bad mutation formed from rush, oriley, fox and savage all in one. what's worse is that your trying to attain legendary status. in your own mind. did you recently get let go at the post office? if not why do you act like it? you need to relax, turn off fox and read a book. non fiction that is. good luck. cheers...

tremendous rant, made no points, added nothing to the board addressed no issues being discussed on this thread. Typical liberal response when you can't present a well thought out, concise, fact based argument.....attack the people you disagree with in an effort to somehow make them and their opinions appear to be less valid.

C&CDean
11/28/2011, 01:06 PM
So, between all the stupidity and butt plugging did we all decide the Occupy Wherever folks are bat**** crazy ****ers?

Position Limit
11/28/2011, 01:23 PM
tremendous rant, made no points, added nothing to the board addressed no issues being discussed on this thread. Typical liberal response when you can't present a well thought out, concise, fact based argument.....attack the people you disagree with in an effort to somehow make them and their opinions appear to be less valid.

so i point out the obvious, your bitterness, and you conclude that i'm liberal. got any more quantum leaps for us dale? you seem to be a champion of fact based arguments(notice the use of kneejerk negative word) but from everything i've read in this post you come up short. you wrote "attack the people" more negativity. do you really feel attacked? i'm just making an obvious observation. you're a bitter man. lighten up francis.

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 03:04 PM
so i point out the obvious, your bitterness, and you conclude that i'm liberal. got any more quantum leaps for us dale? you seem to be a champion of fact based arguments(notice the use of kneejerk negative word) but from everything i've read in this post you come up short. you wrote "attack the people" more negativity. do you really feel attacked? i'm just making an obvious observation. you're a bitter man. lighten up francis.

not bitter at all, not angry. I don't give people like you, the power to upset me. Now if you come in here and let a bunch of complete strangers get you all riled up, therefore giving them control over you,that's your character flaw pal, not mine.


you conclude that i'm liberal.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you're a liberal. The proof is in your own words...


you're like some kind of bad mutation formed from rush, oriley, fox and savage all in one.


turn off fox

Dale Ellis
11/28/2011, 03:09 PM
So, between all the stupidity and butt plugging did we all decide the Occupy Wherever folks are bat**** crazy ****ers?

yes!!

cleller
11/28/2011, 07:25 PM
So, between all the stupidity and butt plugging did we all decide the Occupy Wherever folks are bat**** crazy ****ers?

Attention OWS Defenders:
Care to take him to task?

C&CDean
11/28/2011, 08:31 PM
Well, Dale is spending the night in timeout so there's really nothing to see here.

soonercruiser
11/28/2011, 10:36 PM
dale,

you are without a doubt the most bitter poster on this board. maybe the history of this board. did you get beat up by liberals in your formative years? your rants are nonsensical fragments of bitter talking points. youre like some kind of bad mutation formed from rush, oriley, fox and savage all in one. what's worse is that your trying to attain legendary status. in your own mind. did you recently get let go at the post office? if not why do you act like it? you need to relax, turn off fox and read a book. non fiction that is. good luck. cheers...

Best personal attack on the forum in weeks!
Nice! :moody:

ouwasp
11/29/2011, 12:14 AM
Whenever I see a pic of those Occupy Someplace misfits being snots to the police, makes me shake my head and imagine "Looks like a good place for a police dog..."

Let those Nimrods try to explain civil rights to a mean German Shepherd.

Oh well, maybe I'm getting too old...

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 09:02 AM
Once again, this time more slowly. You claimed that libs "are more highly educated by a wide margin than any subgroup of Conservatives" I proved you wrong using your own source, no matter how hard you try to squirm your way out of it. Just be a man and admit it for once.

Are you just trying to be argumentative? If I take a subgroup of 1,000 people and 500 of them have a college degree while you have a subgroup of 100 people where 50 have college degrees, which is the more educated bunch?

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 09:11 AM
So, between all the stupidity and butt plugging did we all decide the Occupy Wherever folks are bat**** crazy ****ers?

I'll agree that those who oppose the OWS crowd have been successful in using a select few bat**** crazy ****ers to misrepresent the majority of the protesters.

But that isn't even the most interesting thing here. We have a lot of Americans who ostensibly support the First Amendment who have absolutely no problem with these protests being crushed by force. A look at the Conservative talk radio talking points before the crackdowns is pretty sobering. A student of the law would tell you that a protest like this can only arguably be broken up when the state is exercising its power to protect the health/safety/welfare of everyone else, i.e., that the protests threaten those things. To back that up, we had the Right magnifying every transgression, magnifying the charge that a criminal element had comingled with the protesters, etc.

After a few days/weeks of that, cities and college campuses used their police forces to forcibly put down the protests.

I really don't care what was being protested. I care that the First Amendment's guarantee that we can assemble to protest our grievances has essentially been rendered meaningless by a swarm of technical loopholes, a sort of death by papercuts.

The bloodlust of a few here at the crackdowns is either just not very well thought out on their part or they really don't care much for a free country and free expression of views.

Ton Loc
11/29/2011, 09:21 AM
The bloodlust of a few here at the crackdowns is either just not very well thought out on their part or they really don't care much for a free country and free expression of views.

They care about their views, not so much anyone elses. When you keep your views relegated to a forum, your home, or in the family no one is going to do much to stop you. Until they need to express their views in a public forum or somewhere where they will actually be heard, they will never change.

Zin
11/29/2011, 09:34 AM
So, between all the stupidity and butt plugging did we all decide the Occupy Wherever folks are bat**** crazy ****ers?

Yes. The scary thing is Obama supports them. If that doesn't give you some insight into what he stands for and why you should vote against him, I don't think anything ever will.

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 09:39 AM
Yes. The scary thing is Obama supports them. If that doesn't give you some insight into what he stands for and why you should vote against him, I don't think anything ever will.

He might have paid them lip service, but when their core message is that Wall Street has exercised a disproportionate amount of political clout, Obama is the offender in chief, but probably still a better option than someone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich who both have a long history of being financial industry stooges as well. He has appointed several Wall Street insiders to core cabinet positions and depended heavily on the advice of fraudsters like John Corzine.

OWS is a lot of things, but supportive of the Democrat Party's establishment it ain't. Hopefully, it picks up enough momentum to do to the Democrat Party what the Vietnam protests did back in the 1960s, i.e., force the establishment characters out and put those whose actual ideals more match up with their voters back into power.

okie52
11/29/2011, 10:09 AM
He might have paid them lip service, but when their core message is that Wall Street has exercised a disproportionate amount of political clout, Obama is the offender in chief, but probably still a better option than someone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich who both have a long history of being financial industry stooges as well. He has appointed several Wall Street insiders to core cabinet positions and depended heavily on the advice of fraudsters like John Corzine.

OWS is a lot of things, but supportive of the Democrat Party's establishment it ain't. Hopefully, it picks up enough momentum to do to the Democrat Party what the Vietnam protests did back in the 1960s, i.e., force the establishment characters out and put those whose actual ideals more match up with their voters back into power.

Very true Midtowner. Nothing wrong with the public wanting to hold Wall Street accountable for the meltdown and, regrettably, most politicians are beholding to Wall Street in one form or another so I doubt real change is ever really going to happen.

cleller
11/29/2011, 10:44 AM
Whenever I see a pic of those Occupy Someplace misfits being snots to the police, makes me shake my head and imagine "Looks like a good place for a police dog..."

Let those Nimrods try to explain civil rights to a mean German Shepherd.

Oh well, maybe I'm getting too old...

He would have loved to help.

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/Picture_1925.jpg

C&CDean
11/29/2011, 10:53 AM
He might have paid them lip service, but when their core message is that Wall Street has exercised a disproportionate amount of political clout, Obama is the offender in chief, but probably still a better option than someone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich who both have a long history of being financial industry stooges as well. He has appointed several Wall Street insiders to core cabinet positions and depended heavily on the advice of fraudsters like John Corzine.

OWS is a lot of things, but supportive of the Democrat Party's establishment it ain't. Hopefully, it picks up enough momentum to do to the Democrat Party what the Vietnam protests did back in the 1960s, i.e., force the establishment characters out and put those whose actual ideals more match up with their voters back into power.

I'll bet you a very large amount that if you polled the Occupy freaks at any location they're funking up with their filth and stupidity who they voted for in the last election (those who actually voted) and I'd bet it'd be very close - or even unanimously - Obama. And it wouldn't be close. I'd also bet they vote straight party D (again, those that actually vote). If there's a single conservative participating it's probably because they got kicked in the head by a horse and copped some retard.

Do I think Wall St. is ****ed up? Don't know, and DGAS. I don't watch news except Channel 4 at 10, I don't gamble in the stock market, and try to pay cash for everything I can. I can't be troubled by what's going on with these stupid people. Do they really think being bums is going to change anything - other than to make things worse?

Zin
11/29/2011, 11:08 AM
He might have paid them lip service, but when their core message is that Wall Street has exercised a disproportionate amount of political clout, Obama is the offender in chief, but probably still a better option than someone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich who both have a long history of being financial industry stooges as well. He has appointed several Wall Street insiders to core cabinet positions and depended heavily on the advice of fraudsters like John Corzine.

OWS is a lot of things, but supportive of the Democrat Party's establishment it ain't. Hopefully, it picks up enough momentum to do to the Democrat Party what the Vietnam protests did back in the 1960s, i.e., force the establishment characters out and put those whose actual ideals more match up with their voters back into power.

Haha, I understand you don't want democrats associated with the flea baggers, but the ideals are the same. The only difference is democrats don't like to be so transparent.

Position Limit
11/29/2011, 11:30 AM
with credit spreads widening at the rate they are with sovereign foreign debt, it's only a matter of time until helicopter ben prints. Bankers and technocrats dont lose. will those with the firm judgemental grasp of the OWS crowd be forced to join the freaks and misfits of today's disenfranchised youth? or will they cling dearly to thier cubical servitude? my guess the latter. paying the minimum credit card payment and monthly yukon payment are more worthy endeavors than exercising rights. i think i like this broad brush approach!!!!

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 11:30 AM
I'll bet you a very large amount that if you polled the Occupy freaks at any location they're funking up with their filth and stupidity who they voted for in the last election (those who actually voted) and I'd bet it'd be very close - or even unanimously - Obama. And it wouldn't be close. I'd also bet they vote straight party D (again, those that actually vote). If there's a single conservative participating it's probably because they got kicked in the head by a horse and copped some retard.

Dean, you've been drinking the koolaid. There has been some limited polling of participants. A survey conducted by a Fordham Poli Sci prof had 15 interviewers fan out and collect 301 surveys from OWS participants. They found that only 28% were unemployed and that there were even a few (very few, 3%) Republicans out there.

As far as voting, only 36% said they'd be voting for Obama in 2012.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/occupy%20wall%20street%20survey%20results%20102611 .pdf


Do I think Wall St. is ****ed up? Don't know, and DGAS. I don't watch news except Channel 4 at 10, I don't gamble in the stock market, and try to pay cash for everything I can. I can't be troubled by what's going on with these stupid people. Do they really think being bums is going to change anything - other than to make things worse?

Well, most of us do care because we understand that the economy as a whole affects us. I don't know whether you're retired or whatever, but I'm assuming you did everything right, saved a lot and are doing fine. I hope to be able to do the same. My retirement vehicle is a SEP-IRA, which is a piece of **** way to have to have some sort of tax-deferred income, but it's all us really-small-business types get access to.

The Financial Industry's wrongs have cost me real money in my portfolio and have cost me economic opportunity in that a lot of folks can't afford my services due to the state of the economy. It's not really a good thing that you don't seem to care to pay attention to the world around you. I wouldn't be so proud of that.

Position Limit
11/29/2011, 11:31 AM
with credit spreads widening at the rate they are with sovereign foreign debt, it's only a matter of time until helicopter ben prints. Bankers and technocrats dont lose. will those with the firm judgemental grasp of the OWS movement be forced to join the freaks and misfits of today's disenfranchised youth? or will they cling dearly to thier cubical servitude? my guess the latter. paying the minimum credit card payment and monthly yukon payment are more worthy endeavors than exercising rights. i think i like this broad brush approach!!!!

C&CDean
11/29/2011, 12:14 PM
Dean, you've been drinking the koolaid. There has been some limited polling of participants. A survey conducted by a Fordham Poli Sci prof had 15 interviewers fan out and collect 301 surveys from OWS participants. They found that only 28% were unemployed and that there were even a few (very few, 3%) Republicans out there.

As far as voting, only 36% said they'd be voting for Obama in 2012.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/occupy%20wall%20street%20survey%20results%20102611 .pdf



Well, most of us do care because we understand that the economy as a whole affects us. I don't know whether you're retired or whatever, but I'm assuming you did everything right, saved a lot and are doing fine. I hope to be able to do the same. My retirement vehicle is a SEP-IRA, which is a piece of **** way to have to have some sort of tax-deferred income, but it's all us really-small-business types get access to.

The Financial Industry's wrongs have cost me real money in my portfolio and have cost me economic opportunity in that a lot of folks can't afford my services due to the state of the economy. It's not really a good thing that you don't seem to care to pay attention to the world around you. I wouldn't be so proud of that.

Spare me the angst and drama.

First, if I don't watch the news, how the hell could I "drink the kool-aid?" The only thing I know about these freaks is what I've seen on this board. Nothing more. If only 36% said they wouldn't vote for Obama in 2012 then that is great. Hope.

I didn't say a word about 2012 though, I was talking about 2008. You always gonna play these silly games with your stats? And I pay a ton of attention to the world around me without being brainwashed by a TV.

I care about me and mine. I care about my good neighbors. I care about all decent citizens who pay their taxes, work hard, and try to realize the American dream. I care about our troops. I believe people who invest unwisely in the stock market are just getting what they asked for. If you wanna gamble, go to a casino. That's what I do.

SoonerTerry
11/29/2011, 12:52 PM
Mid, you seem big on the socialist aspects of your society. Let me ask you a yes or no question (which I know damn good and well you will not answer), are you a socialist?

Mah names Amel Muzzz... and I'm a Pegan!!

Bourbon St Sooner
11/29/2011, 01:48 PM
So clearly there are some folks there who are just there for the party. A few cherry picked photos of some of the more colorful individuals really doesn't prove any point.

Albo, your 70/30 whatever is just a silly reference to nothing. Can you really quantify ideals? I mean clearly, in certain areas, socialism works pretty darn well, e.g., police and fire departments. The Romans had a capitalistic fire department. They'd show up at your house when it was on fire or in the path of a fire and offer to buy it from you for pennies on the dollar... but hey.. capitalism is the answer to everything, right?

I mean.. instead of police, we should all be able to pay private security firms. And if we want someone locked up for stealing our stuff, why should big government pay for that? That's socialism. If we're victims (or think we are), we should be in charge of paying what it costs to keep the bad guys locked up out of our own pockets, or if we don't think they're that big of a threat, maybe we could just cut 'em loose? Let the markets decide.

And how about municipal water and sewer? Those services are always highly subsidized. Does subsidy = socialism?

I mean clearly, socialism isn't the bogeyman you make it out to be. Without some degree of it, we'd more resemble the world of Mad Max than any sort of organized society. Socialism takes advantage of economies of scale and accomplishing tasks without a profit motive, which is something only the government can really accomplish.

But hey.. if you want to live in a 100% capitalistic society where the markets decide everything, beautiful Somalia awaits.

Why do some people confuse socialism with the economic concept of public goods. Public ownership of roads, fire and police departments is not socialism. These items fit in the economic concept of public goods. The concept of public goods fits is all about the efficient use of resources. Does it make sense for everybody to make their own roads which would involve negotiating rights of way and contracting to have the road built? No it doesn't. Does it make since for me to hire my own police force or fire department? No. This is why these goods are more efficiently resourced in the public sector.

Socialism involves taking goods that are more efficienty resourced in the private sector (at least from a pure economic standpoint) and moving them to the public sector. Things such as health care, personal retirement, etc.

Position Limit
11/29/2011, 01:55 PM
[QUOTE=Bourbon St Sooner;3412586]Why do some people confuse socialism with the economic concept of public goods. QUOTE]

why do some people confuse free market capitalism with lavish corporate subsidies taken from the public?

Bourbon St Sooner
11/29/2011, 02:23 PM
[QUOTE=Bourbon St Sooner;3412586]Why do some people confuse socialism with the economic concept of public goods. QUOTE]

why do some people confuse free market capitalism with lavish corporate subsidies taken from the public?

With my post, I was trying to educate on basic economic concepts, not make a political statement.

That being said, any Adam Smith capitalist should be sickened by the bailouts, subsidies and other crony capitalism the exists in our country today. True capitalism says that if you make bad bets, you lose your shirt, you don't get bailed out by taxpayers. We don't have free market capitalism in this country. We have socialism - corporate socialism along with regular socialism. The free market capitalists like myself agree with the grievances of OWS. We just can't agree on the remedies being proposed.

C&CDean
11/29/2011, 02:46 PM
[QUOTE=Position Limit;3412600]

With my post, I was trying to educate on basic economic concepts, not make a political statement.

That being said, any Adam Smith capitalist should be sickened by the bailouts, subsidies and other crony capitalism the exists in our country today. True capitalism says that if you make bad bets, you lose your shirt, you don't get bailed out by taxpayers. We don't have free market capitalism in this country. We have socialism - corporate socialism along with regular socialism. The free market capitalists like myself agree with the grievances of OWS. We just can't agree on the remedies being proposed.

Fair assessment.

Position Limit
11/29/2011, 02:49 PM
[QUOTE=Position Limit;3412600]

With my post, I was trying to educate on basic economic concepts, not make a political statement.

That being said, any Adam Smith capitalist should be sickened by the bailouts, subsidies and other crony capitalism the exists in our country today. True capitalism says that if you make bad bets, you lose your shirt, you don't get bailed out by taxpayers. We don't have free market capitalism in this country. We have socialism - corporate socialism along with regular socialism. The free market capitalists like myself agree with the grievances of OWS. We just can't agree on the remedies being proposed.

fair enough. you seem to get it. most here seem ignorant when railing against all things "socialism" if the can attach it to obama or the left while conviently ignoring their hypocrisy.

Midtowner
11/29/2011, 03:57 PM
Why do some people confuse socialism with the economic concept of public goods. Public ownership of roads, fire and police departments is not socialism. These items fit in the economic concept of public goods. The concept of public goods fits is all about the efficient use of resources. Does it make sense for everybody to make their own roads which would involve negotiating rights of way and contracting to have the road built? No it doesn't. Does it make since for me to hire my own police force or fire department? No. This is why these goods are more efficiently resourced in the public sector.

Socialism involves taking goods that are more efficienty resourced in the private sector (at least from a pure economic standpoint) and moving them to the public sector. Things such as health care, personal retirement, etc.

So in your world, anything that is socialist is bad whereas anything that is good and works is not socialist.

Let's apply that to healthcare then. In the U.S., we have a non-socialist healthcare system. We experience similar outcomes across the board as compared to socialist systems, but we pay twice as much. So are you going to argue that healthcare can be more efficiently resourced in the private sector?

TitoMorelli
11/29/2011, 04:42 PM
Are you just trying to be argumentative? If I take a subgroup of 1,000 people and 500 of them have a college degree while you have a subgroup of 100 people where 50 have college degrees, which is the more educated bunch?

They are equally educated. If you have a group in which 20 out of 100 people have a college degree, and another group of 10 people in which all 10 have a college degree, are you going to try to tell me that statistically the group of 100 is more educated?

Tulsa_Fireman
11/29/2011, 05:13 PM
So in your world, anything that is socialist is bad whereas anything that is good and works is not socialist.

Let's apply that to healthcare then. In the U.S., we have a non-socialist healthcare system. We experience similar outcomes across the board as compared to socialist systems, but we pay twice as much. So are you going to argue that healthcare can be more efficiently resourced in the private sector?

Define "outcomes".

Bourbon St Sooner
11/29/2011, 05:35 PM
So in your world, anything that is socialist is bad whereas anything that is good and works is not socialist.

Let's apply that to healthcare then. In the U.S., we have a non-socialist healthcare system. We experience similar outcomes across the board as compared to socialist systems, but we pay twice as much. So are you going to argue that healthcare can be more efficiently resourced in the private sector?

My view is that resources should be used as efficiently as possible and control of those resources should be in the hands of those that can use them most efficiently. The problem with our current health care system is that market forces do not drive the system. Nobody shops for health care. For 95% of people in this country, you get the health care that your employer or the gov't provides. Does anybody in this country go shop for a doctor or an MRI provider or any other medical service like they do a car? I don't. I go onto the web site of my insurance company, bring up the provider directory and go eenie-meenie-miney-mo. I go to that guy and if I don't like him I do it all over again. And the reason I don't shop is because the money isn't coming out of my pocket, so what is my incentive? When I buy a car the money is coming out of my pocket. Thus, I'm going to put much more effort into shopping for one.

BetterSoonerThanLater
11/29/2011, 05:38 PM
"god is great, beer is good, and people are crazy"....you only live once. quit worrying so damn much. everything and everyone has its ups and downs. if you spend your life worrying about **** you can't change, you're gonna have alot of regrets lying on your death bed.. respect yourself, respect your neighbor, and make the best of it. **** ain't always gonna be perfect. deal with it. i spent 18 months in a combat zone in a country that would love to have the "problems" we spend so much time arguing about on a message baord. really puts stuff into perspective. not everyone is going to agree, so what? so you're not as well of as others. so you aren't rich, join the club. there's always going to be someone better off than you--how they got there shouldnt concern you. otherwise you're just jealous. regardless of which side of the issues i fall on, i can tell you this: if everyone spent as much time just respecting each other and working with the hand they are dealt, as they do bitching about the haves and have nots, the world would be a better place. find something else to bitch about. life isn't slowing down.


semper fi

Bourbon St Sooner
11/29/2011, 05:41 PM
So in your world, anything that is socialist is bad whereas anything that is good and works is not socialist.

Let's apply that to healthcare then. In the U.S., we have a non-socialist healthcare system. We experience similar outcomes across the board as compared to socialist systems, but we pay twice as much. So are you going to argue that healthcare can be more efficiently resourced in the private sector?

OK, I reread my post. Socialism is much more than an economic concept. It's mostly a political one, so I wasn't really trying to get into calling it good, bad or the other. The point I was really trying to make is that even free market economic theory recognizes that there are certain goods or services that are naturally more efficiently resourced through the public sector. I just don't happen to believe that health care is one of them (see above).

Dale Ellis
11/29/2011, 05:43 PM
"god is great, beer is good, and people are crazy"....you only live once. quit worrying so damn much. everything and everyone has its ups and downs. if you spend your life worrying about **** you can't change, you're gonna have alot of regrets lying on your death bed.. respect yourself, respect your neighbor, and make the best of it. **** ain't always gonna be perfect. deal with it. i spent 18 months in a combat zone in a country that would love to have the "problems" we spend so much time arguing about on a message baord. really puts stuff into perspective. not everyone is going to agree, so what? so you're not as well of as others. so you aren't rich, join the club. there's always going to be someone better off than you--how they got there shouldnt concern you. otherwise you're just jealous. regardless of which side of the issues i fall on, i can tell you this: if everyone spent as much time just respecting each other and working with the hand they are dealt, as they do bitching about the haves and have nots, the world would be a better place. find something else to bitch about. life isn't slowing down.


sempr fi

Bravo!!!

C&CDean
11/29/2011, 05:46 PM
sempEr fi

I think the jar head had a little too much to dirnk already.

BetterSoonerThanLater
11/29/2011, 05:48 PM
sempEr fi

I think the jar head had a little too much to dirnk already.

lol. i went back and fixed it. never claimed to be a great typerist ;)

BetterSoonerThanLater
11/29/2011, 05:51 PM
sempEr fi

I think the jar head had a little too much to dirnk already.

looks like i'm not the only one :)

cleller
11/29/2011, 06:04 PM
"god is great, beer is good, and people are crazy"....you only live once. quit worrying so damn much. everything and everyone has its ups and downs. if you spend your life worrying about **** you can't change, you're gonna have alot of regrets lying on your death bed.. respect yourself, respect your neighbor, and make the best of it. **** ain't always gonna be perfect. deal with it. i spent 18 months in a combat zone in a country that would love to have the "problems" we spend so much time arguing about on a message baord. really puts stuff into perspective. not everyone is going to agree, so what? so you're not as well of as others. so you aren't rich, join the club. there's always going to be someone better off than you--how they got there shouldnt concern you. otherwise you're just jealous. regardless of which side of the issues i fall on, i can tell you this: if everyone spent as much time just respecting each other and working with the hand they are dealt, as they do bitching about the haves and have nots, the world would be a better place. find something else to bitch about. life isn't slowing down.


semper fi

If you're still reading: How do you think those people overseas would react to the Occupy movement if they were transported over here? Supportive? Disapproving?

C&CDean
11/29/2011, 06:10 PM
looks like i'm not the only one :)

No, it is correct. When you dirnk, you get durnk. Just ask olevet.

BetterSoonerThanLater
11/29/2011, 06:32 PM
No, it is correct. When you dirnk, you get durnk. Just ask olevet.

gotcha!

BetterSoonerThanLater
11/29/2011, 06:33 PM
If you're still reading: How do you think those people overseas would react to the Occupy movement if they were transported over here? Supportive? Disapproving?

I don't think it's a matter of what the people would think, as opposed to what the government would do.

we have the right to " peacably assemble", which--from what i've seen, both first hand, and in media-- is not completely peaceful. our government is much more tolerant than those in other countries would be.

i think alot gets taken for granted here. the idea of free healthcare, free tuition, and the like are trivial. some of the countries i've been to, would rather be protesting forced rapes, geneocide, famine, etc. all of which is very sombering when compared to what the OWS crowd expects. although i do believe there are changes that need to be made with the way wall st operates, adding more government oversight and regulation is not the answer. governement can't even manage itself, why would we want them controlling more? whether it healthcare, wall st. or fossil fuels, big governemnt is as much to blame--if not more--than wall st.

i personally think, that we need less government. let the American spirit and ingenuity that made this contry great take the riegns and get us back on track. we are the longest standing democracy on the history of the planet. although we don't have it right, we are far better off then the vast majority of countries out there. if you fail to see that, then i suggest you go live somewhere else.

on a side note, i believe that the ability for people to debate and discuss issues they might disagree on has made this country the great place it is. there should always be conversations on what is the right path, its just that people are inherantly emotional people, and that sometimes leads to passions that cloud the ability to find real applicable solutions

to end a long answer to your short question, i think if people from the aforementioned countries were brought here--and this is merely my opinion-- they would think that we as a society known for greatness and self preservation have become selfish and entitled. we lack the ability to see just how great of a country we have--for all its faults and imperfections, we have it very good. they might approve in standing up for what you believe, but maybe, jus tmaybe, the things we are exerting so much effort on are relatively petty in the end. i would venture a guess, that very few citizens of this country could compare their "poverty and problems" to those in tribal afghanistan, parts of africa, and the like. whereas OWS complains about free healthcare and education, and crony capitalism, the people in said countries are complaining about inhumane treatment and persecution. kinda makes you think about what's important. there are still people in this world that have no idea what an iPad is, how to drive a car, or have ever watched tv. meanwhile the OWS crowd is printing up flyers on computers in their "encampments" complaining about what they dont have.

long winded, i know...sorry for that.

East Coast Bias
11/29/2011, 06:42 PM
OK, I reread my post. Socialism is much more than an economic concept. It's mostly a political one, so I wasn't really trying to get into calling it good, bad or the other. The point I was really trying to make is that even free market economic theory recognizes that there are certain goods or services that are naturally more efficiently resourced through the public sector. I just don't happen to believe that health care is one of them (see above).

Are we to assume from this you think the current system works well? Or are you not concerned about the cost because it doesn't come out of your own pocket like one of the above posters related? The system works very well for those who can afford it and for all the various providers. The real problem is in the cost. Compare what we pay for MRI's,drugs, etc, to what is paid in other countries. The current market influence here is perfect for providers and insurance companies. It doesn't really matter if you are LW or RW, this is a problem we need to solve. Any suggestions on how to lower costs and give better service to more people?

cleller
11/29/2011, 09:34 PM
To Bettersooner.... I think the word "petty" captures alot.

Bourbon St Sooner
11/30/2011, 09:57 AM
Are we to assume from this you think the current system works well? Or are you not concerned about the cost because it doesn't come out of your own pocket like one of the above posters related? The system works very well for those who can afford it and for all the various providers. The real problem is in the cost. Compare what we pay for MRI's,drugs, etc, to what is paid in other countries. The current market influence here is perfect for providers and insurance companies. It doesn't really matter if you are LW or RW, this is a problem we need to solve. Any suggestions on how to lower costs and give better service to more people?

I alluded to my issues with the current system in another post. The problem is that health care is not an unlimited resource. Nowhere is health care free. It has to be rationed in one way or another. In our system market forces are not in effect because consumers of health care do not pay for thier own care. That's why costs here are spiralling out of control. In single payer systems, gov't bureaucrats ration health care. That's how they control costs.