[GITS SAC Motoko]

Dark Stranger, on 22 May 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

I totally agree on the coporations out of polictics. Could you image who would really be a front runner if rommey didn't have coporations backing him or obama having all of holloywood backing him and it was all determinted by what private citizans contribute. (course the owners of companies are "private citizans too I guess and could donate....anyway) I think it would be very different enviorment.

Oh yeah totally agree. And the thing is it was recently passed (and this was obviously backed by MANY corporations) that a corporation legally is now deemed as a "person" (they were not before legally when it came to donating political funding for campaigns) and also they are now now limited to how much they can donate to a candidate, so now it's anyone's game. They were limited before and I think the limit was based on how big your corporation was too. But what you said about the prvate citizens and the owners of corporations donating--at least it wouldn't be money from the corporation donating, it'd be coming directly out of the pocket of that owner or whatever. I feel when people's actual money is then spent, they are more hesitant to let it go. XD

[XenoBlade]

I think the occupy people need a Tea party like movement. As much as i hate em, and most of America does, they are quite effective. They rally well, get government officials in and so forth. (well more of folk they back) Itll be better to go their path. Honestly, i didn't even know what occupy really wanted. It was like a glob of unconcentrated complaining. I was all for it (as it is a right, and the level of b.s. the rich get...) Tho as sent said, it was just confusing on what was the main goal. I think if there was a singular goal, it would have been much much more successful. It seemed lots of people had different ideas. We all knew the hatred for the 1%, just needed a tied together opinion on what should be done.

[Dark Stranger]

XenoBlade, on 22 May 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

I think the occupy people need a Tea party like movement. As much as i hate em, and most of America does, they are quite effective. They rally well, get government officials in and so forth. (well more of folk they back) Itll be better to go their path. Honestly, i didn't even know what occupy really wanted. It was like a glob of unconcentrated complaining. I was all for it (as it is a right, and the level of b.s. the rich get...) Tho as sent said, it was just confusing on what was the main goal. I think if there was a singular goal, it would have been much much more successful. It seemed lots of people had different ideas. We all knew the hatred for the 1%, just needed a tied together opinion on what should be done.

Why do you hate the tea party xeno? I'm interested to hear that opinon.

[XenoBlade]

Dark Stranger, on 22 May 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

Why do you hate the tea party xeno? I'm interested to hear that opinon.

First and foremost...They backed Sarah Palin. I can't take you serious if you like Sarah Palin. lol (okay that was half joke, but my point is there. Sarah Palin is a joke. Good thing she isn't in the news anymore. Also, I don't want to even get into a political debate about this, but I do not agree with how they view Obama and what he has done for our country (well trying to do. Too many people are don't like to read facts and stats before they blindly accuse someone of doing a bad job.) Not to mention, my biggest beef with the conservative party is their view on economics...I generally don't like conservative ideas, and the Tea Party is pretty much is all about it. If you want a general thing tho, I just don't agree with their views and how some of them go about doing things. I kinda want to avoid some huge political debate since I care so little about the Tea Party, or defending things they are against, so I'm just gonna leave it at these points.

I'm going to leave it at that, as I rather not go all deep into (black and white) political discussions. Also why are you surprised someone doesn't like the Tea Party? That's not anything new, when has the Tea Party been popular? When I said hate, I didn't mean a seething hatred, just a dislike. It's always easier just to say hate. lol

[Dark Stranger]

I was interested because we seem to debate pretty well and get along. And I'm a big tea party supporter (mostly on how goverment should be ran, not so much on personal freedoms as I stated earlier). I know the tea party was never popular mostly cuz the news portaryed them as such even though they got some of their goals accomplished by actually doing something. And most people that actually really get facts and look at the tea party don't see them as such that the media or common people think they are and your more educated then I am so that's why I was surprised.

[XenoBlade]

Dark Stranger, on 22 May 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

I was interested because we seem to debate pretty well and get along. And I'm a big tea party supporter (mostly on how goverment should be ran, not so much on personal freedoms as I stated earlier). I know the tea party was never popular mostly cuz the news portaryed them as such even though they got some of their goals accomplished by actually doing something. And most people that actually really get facts and look at the tea party don't see them as such that the media or common people think they are and your more educated then I am so that's why I was surprised.

Well I would agree that they are really REALLY good at getting their goals completed. And I don't ever EVER take the media at face value. Trust me on that. They always tend to get biased for certain things. For instance, the whole Trayvon Martin case. (I know this is a whole can of beans, and I'm not saying what side i'm on, just that the media fails at bringing out everything) Just about every picture they put of the kid was him at like 10 or something. I had no idea dude was 17 til I heard his age. Those pics where NOT of him at 17. Anddddd we are done with that topic. Not going to get into anymore about that.

But I can understand your surprise, but I tend to dislike a lot of conservative viewpoints.

[sentinel28a]

GITS SAC Motoko, on 21 May 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

I do see what you are saying. Now, I am speaking for my friends and I (who have occupied with me and what we think, I'm not representing everyone obviously, but this is merely the general opinion of what we say when asked about why we are apart of occupy)

We don't want corrupt lobbying and we see it as unfairly ruling the government and do not want politics to be a bidding numbers game as "the one with the most money is voted in" by being more known about like through ads and such. A huge part of lobbying we don't like is the medical field lobbying like with the AMA, PHARMA and AHIP. Passing bills to keep insurance companies denying people like me actually because my mom and I have a pre-existing condition that we can't control (it's genetic and no, it's not obesity). (No, the new health care bill did not fix the pre-exisiting condition problem. You can still be denied but instead of the company going free, they are fined instead per day. But in some cases, it's cheaper for them to be fined than cover your medical costs). Or drug companies lobbying to make conditions where profits can be at the highest and for even government standards of screening drugs to be more lenient to get drugs on the market NOW. Personally I think this is what happened with Vioxx and Yaz/Yasmin/Ocella--not enough clinical trials to show long term or more side effects.

The problem that I and my friends have is that why do big wigs have to make so much money? Why isn't 1 billion dollars enough? Why do you have to make 500 billion dollars in profits? Why not use that money to increase wages of workers, use that money to stop outsourcing jobs to China and other nations and give even MORE jobs to people here in the United States? Or use that money to give workers who do not have a lot of benefits (like insurance) those benefits? Why do profits have to be so high? When I see "share the wealth" that is what comes to my head and also my friends in the Occupy club we have at school.

When it comes to jobs, I believe that outsourcing to other nations is a huge blame for that. Like why aren't Apple products/computers/shoes/clothes made in the United States? To keep prices low, or to avoid the losing of money to maximize profit to pay little wage to the workers? That is what I question. And with college degrees like you said, yeah it's the people's choice to choose what they major in, but I do think that outsourcing a lot of things (heck even Radiology is being outsourced to other countries!) is a big factor in that taking away jobs people could have.

One thing with the tea party is that is is different from Occupy (how I and my friends see it) a lot (not saying all) of the tea party has a strong view for total free market economics. The occupiers that I know among my friends and close people I know we are curious to discover and think about changes that can be made to our free market capitalist system--just a different way of running things. We discuss this a lot in our club and I'm having a hard time remembering my club advisor brought up some political philosophers that talked about things like this and I am having a hard time remembering their names (since we read a lot of different texts talking about this). I think Heath and Potter wrote on something like this.

great debating, by the way. im enjoying this.

Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill are the most well-known philosophers on capitalism at its inception. Jean-Jacques Rousseau provides a counterpoint, as does Karl Marx (of course). They were all around trying to make sense of the end of mercantilism and the upheaval that it brought (the American and French Revolutions).

Here's the problem with wealth distribution. You put a ceiling on how much money is "fair" and pretty soon the economy tanks. Why shouldn't it? You're telling people "Don't make money. Don't invest. The government's just going to take it away from you." If that's the case, small business or startups won't grow, won't hire new workers. Because it makes no sense to do so if the government's simply going to take your money away.

Or to greatly simplify it: you've got that Sun Dress Asuka figure I've always wanted. Give it to me. NOW. I don't think you deserve to have something I don't.

Personally, I think that's what wealth redistribution means. You're rich, and I'm not, so I must punish you for daring to be rich. Microsoft and Apple would be dead in the water today as startups. I also find it hilarious that some of the most ardent "supporters" of Occupy are some of the richest celebrities in America: Michael Moore, Exhibit A. He has absolutely no right to come down and tell the people of Occupy anything--he is the 1%. And if you're waiting for wealth redistribution from him, you'll be waiting a long time.

Xeno's right. If the Occupy people really want to change the world, organize as a political party and start running candidates. Come up with a solid platform--"free jobs" and "free healthcare" isn't a platform. That's utopia, and it'll never happen the way we would like. Make sure your movement isn't hijacked by people who just want to see the world burn (anarchists) or people who want to use Occupy to feather their own political nests. Especially make sure that the candidates you run are not moonbatty idiots, but smart men and women.

Like the Tea Party or not, the reason why it is successful is because it has a solid platform: less government, cut spending, cut entitlements. Those are very simple, straightforward things to run on. Most people get that, and a good number of people agree with it. I'm one of them.

Capitalism sometimes sucks, but it beats what's running in second place. We know Marxism doesn't work, only a lunatic would embrace fascism, and we're watching socialism implode right now in Europe. There's really no other option.

Ben Da Mad Irishman

[Dark Stranger]

sentinel28a, on 22 May 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill are the most well-known philosophers on capitalism at its inception. Jean-Jacques Rousseau provides a counterpoint, as does Karl Marx (of course). They were all around trying to make sense of the end of mercantilism and the upheaval that it brought (the American and French Revolutions).

Here's the problem with wealth distribution. You put a ceiling on how much money is "fair" and pretty soon the economy tanks. Why shouldn't it? You're telling people "Don't make money. Don't invest. The government's just going to take it away from you." If that's the case, small business or startups won't grow, won't hire new workers. Because it makes no sense to do so if the government's simply going to take your money away.

Or to greatly simplify it: you've got that Sun Dress Asuka figure I've always wanted. Give it to me. NOW. I don't think you deserve to have something I don't.

Personally, I think that's what wealth redistribution means. You're rich, and I'm not, so I must punish you for daring to be rich. Microsoft and Apple would be dead in the water today as startups. I also find it hilarious that some of the most ardent "supporters" of Occupy are some of the richest celebrities in America: Michael Moore, Exhibit A. He has absolutely no right to come down and tell the people of Occupy anything--he is the 1%. And if you're waiting for wealth redistribution from him, you'll be waiting a long time.

Xeno's right. If the Occupy people really want to change the world, organize as a political party and start running candidates. Come up with a solid platform--"free jobs" and "free healthcare" isn't a platform. That's utopia, and it'll never happen the way we would like. Make sure your movement isn't hijacked by people who just want to see the world burn (anarchists) or people who want to use Occupy to feather their own political nests. Especially make sure that the candidates you run are not moonbatty idiots, but smart men and women.

Like the Tea Party or not, the reason why it is successful is because it has a solid platform: less government, cut spending, cut entitlements. Those are very simple, straightforward things to run on. Most people get that, and a good number of people agree with it. I'm one of them.

Capitalism sometimes sucks, but it beats what's running in second place. We know Marxism doesn't work, only a lunatic would embrace fascism, and we're watching socialism implode right now in Europe. There's really no other option.

Ben Da Mad Irishman