Printable View
The Occupy filth is just standard angst that has existed for one reason or another for my entire life. There's always something going on. Some people will always be raging against something.
2002-2008ish it was anti war movements, MoveOn etc and the usual suspects sympathetic to them are now sympathetic to Occupy. The excuse to protest has changed, the fact of it has not.
You are wrong, and 100% so. Unless this financial crisis is solved in a way that doesn't ruin a vast majority of ordinary citizens that Occupy thing will result in scenes that will make your riots from last year look like picknicks in the garden.
I don't remember MoveOn being nearly this big. The excuse that there is always something to bitch about shouldn't be used to ignore the numbers of such things.
The only crisis we have is the decades of statist overspending that is supported by you lefties and the Occupiers. Thankfully here at least we have austerity measures getting placed to fix that.
Really? Rather short term memory then. From a UK perspective I remember in 2003 over a million marching in a Stop The War Coalition march. Occupy had not even a small fraction of that many involved camping out in the grounds of St Paul's Cathedral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I recall bigger protests in the US too. And that was without the benefit of Twitter/Facebook etc making it easier to organise. These protests you'd have thought would be bigger but they're simply not.
You're comparing turn out of one specific event to turn out at one specific event, completely void of all factors? really?
Nice how you call this 'the only crisis', because indeed it is the only crisis that really matters, and that would be because it's not a cyclical crisis but a structural crisis. Of the kind that could lead to very ugly outcomes for everybody involved. The fact that bankers haven't figured this out yet tells 'us' very much about how much value we should put on them being the 'best and the brightest'.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
All this talk about how banks and bankers would move to 'better' places; we should call their bluff. Let them go to these eldorados and see how much they prosper without us putting our money in their care. It's not like Asians are waiting for Europeans to take over running their financial sector.
You said that Occupy was not just bigger than the protests a few years ago but that those a few years ago were in facts not even "nearly this big". I rebutted that with facts. I do hope even you know what a fact is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Please provide any facts at all to show the Occupy etc movements protests are bigger than the anti-war movements protests were. I doubt you could come up with any to show they're even a fraction as big but I'd like to see you try. Any figures, anything at all.
I was comparing movements, not single protests. Hence I used moveon and occupy without location identifiers.
One of the things that made the occupy a media talking point was how they were so spread out over the world.
As for the factors, didn't the occupy london protest start only a few weeks after the riots? isn't it still on going? and wasn't it strong enough as is to shutdown the Cathedral, and large enough to open a second occupy location in Finsbury Square?
You're comparing apples and oranges when you try comparing the headcount at a single march to the headcount at one encampment.
"Strong enough" meaning a few dozen (perhaps low hundreds)? And you're comparing that to the regular 100k+ anti-Iraq marches?
And the anti-war movements weren't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The riots were started following the death of somebody, which led to protests that turned violent and escalated. It had nothing to do with this and nobody has even suggested it has.Quote:
As for the factors, didn't the occupy london protest start only a few weeks after the riots?
Is it? I've not heard much about it.Quote:
isn't it still on going?
The Church is led by extreme lefties anyway in the UK, who kind of supported this movement just as it kind of supported the anti-war ones. The established Church in the UK is extremely left-wing, the Archbishop is anti-nuclear and borderline communist. The Church was shut down in large part due to a desire not to clash with protestors they supported. Finsbury Park the same, it was an epicentre of anti-war feeling too before then.Quote:
and wasn't it strong enough as is to shutdown the Cathedral, and large enough to open a second occupy location in Finsbury Square?
You've just kind of demonstrated my "usual suspects" moving on to another reason to protest by highlighting that. Its the same people.
Fine, demonstrate anything to show that Occupy is more serious than the anti-war movements were. In fact, demonstrate anyway on this forum even who was pro-war who supports the Occupy movement? Its the same people on the same sides, issue has changed. There's always an issue.Quote:
You're comparing apples and oranges when you try comparing the headcount at a single march to the headcount at one encampment.
Are you saying the heightened tensions, police response, and fallout from the riots would have not, in any shape or form, influenced anyone's decision to partake in this exact display you've decided to single out as an example? Its not like the riots sprung up from nothing, they started peacefully enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Filth? :rolleyes: 'Standard angst and always something going' on doesn't discount or invalidate what a large chunk of protesters are angry about. In fact, you've shown some anger or resentment toward the EU, monetary policy, and political economics that didn't seem pro-British enough in your view.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Maybe you're not the public protesting type, but if Cameron or UK gov't had decided differently, or you felt tax payers were unfairly on the hook for other counties financial follies, or bailed out zombie banks instead of funding public education (or whatever)....maybe you'd change your attitude toward OWS as a movement. :donkey:
It's possible. Don't see your point though as this then goes against tQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
he notion of the Occupy movement being the spark.
Yes. What else do you call people defecating in public areas, camping out inside a city etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
No the fact that they're wrong about what they're angry about invalidates it.Quote:
'Standard angst and always something going' on doesn't discount or invalidate what a large chunk of protesters are angry about. In fact, you've shown some anger or resentment toward the EU, monetary policy, and political economics that didn't seem pro-British enough in your view.
If I felt that maybe I'd agree. I'd also be stupid and ignorant since the truth is the other way around.Quote:
Maybe you're not the public protesting type, but if Cameron or UK gov't had decided differently, or you felt tax payers were unfairly on the hook for other counties financial follies, or bailed out zombie banks instead of funding public education (or whatever)....maybe you'd change your attitude toward OWS as a movement. :donkey:
The truth is the banks have bailed out the taxpayers for decades not the other way around.
The UK government has spent ~120bn on bailouts - much if not all of which is due to be repaid.
However the UK government takes from the banks well over £60bn per annum (every year) and was taking even more prior to the recession.
The banks have already paid in taxes since the bailout more than the cost of the bailouts. The government does insanely well from taxing the banks, it is not the other way around.
In whose hands did the 401K losses end up? Might as well call that a tax levied by the "banks".
:confused: You're not having much luck following the rather short conversation thus farQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Why don't you do what OG demonstrably failed to do, which I've done twice in the last few posts and provide some FACTS. How much do you think banks have "taxed" society in the last decade and vice-versa. Which do you think is higher?Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Hardly a surprise since you keep moving the goalposts after getting called out in order to avoid backing up your extremely outlandish claims with any facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
i call them people :confused: "filth" is like african warlord with armies of child soldiersQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Mine is more literally correct. The warlords typically live in opulence themselves not filth too. We don't exactly have such extremes in the west anyway.
nice try except that you said "filth" as a name for the the people and the political aspects of their actions, not as an adjective for their environment or as a noun denoting that enviroment. it's not surprising mind youQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Actually the word chosen was deliberately apt.
Nice to see you hang up on one word that you don't deny accurately describes the environment rather than address the issues though.
I will deny though that I intended or think that the political aspects are "filth" though. Wrong, idiotic and left are words amongst those I'd use.
Rape-enablers would probably be a more accurate label.
I wouldn't go that far. Though I don't think they help by wasting the polices resources etc
There have been numerous stories about OCW people telling rape/sexual assault victims to not report the abuse to the police.
http://www.observer.com/2011/10/obje...their-message/
At the hight of the crisis the UK tax payer was on the hook for well over a trillion of your mickey mouse money. I don't really think it's a good deal for the tax-payer at large if a sub-group of tax-payers de facto have the ability to jank back 20 years of taxes paid at any given moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Theoretically, assuming the banks all went bust and not a penny was repaid. Yeah right. And as you say, even if that worst case doomsday scenario had happened, that'd be 20 years of taxes - we've had the banks for more than 20 years. We'd also have bigger fish to fry had that happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
The banks are the goose that lays the golden egg, and the taxman has been pilfering that gold egg and frying it up for everybody every year and still is. Just because the goose got a bit sick and had to be fed once does not mean we should slay it.
Its like you're responding to a conversation thats not even there :noob: You admit to not knowing about the occupy movement in your own area, so I'm curious how your thus provided facts mean anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Also curious how I'm moving the goal posts. I have from the beginning kept this as a comparison between moveon and occupy. You are the one who has tried to tie these groups to leftists, antiwar movements, attempting to dishonestly compare single events to push your own stance; and what the fuck was up with the "spark"?
You want to try to be a little more honest in understanding all this flith? compare moveon's membership numbers to occupy's, compare the length of their protests, or even the number of cities protests are/were in. I'll be honest, I'm not expecting much, when information like that slaps you in the face your first response is to explain it away, like you've already done in this thread, and like you did in the luck thread.
Doesn't take away from the fact you were on the hook for over one trillion before you could say 'what?' and you could have been on the hook for several times more. The fact that it dÃ*dn't quite get so bad doesn't mean it's right that the irresponsable actions of your banks could put YOU (and here I am talking to you personally) so bad in the red that it would take you right into bankrupcy or saddle you with a debt it would take you your entire life time to pay off.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The puny amount banks pay for the luxury of unlimited access to your pockets should give you reason to think again about how good a deal it is you are getting. For me 60 billion in taxes would be far too little if I were a citizen of the UK.
Look man you wrote what you wrote, man up already. If you want to equate passing judgement on people with criticising bad hygiene well I dunno what to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Re. The banks, is this the first time banks have crashed spectacularly? Do your calculations take into consideration the short- and long-term social costs of royal fuckups every decade or so? No to both. Thank you for playing Banker Apologetic. No doubt banks and bankers have done a lot of good but it's ridiculous to pretend that the good negates the bad. The bad is still there