Revolution is coming

It's a bit on the anarchic-loving side no? That makes it nutjobby. It's kinda in the same league as a religious thread being sticky'ed imo.
 
Anarchy means "Lawlessness" Right?

Hmmm...Who do you think are the ones breaking the law here:
-The Police Assaulting & hurting people using excessive force
-The People who have a right to protest, who are non-violent.

Anarchic-loving? I think it's quite the opposite actually.
 
Well the thing with rights is this - they can conflict.
Freedom of Speech? Ok, so I decide to call you a **@$%* *****#$%***..... But then you say "that's imposing on my right from Racial Discrimination".
See the problem?

Even though this conflicts of rights is a problem, I haven't seen many(any?) cases of them actually vandalizing property - what I have seen though, is Police Assaulting people for no reason.

i've provided my links - so please provide me with your links, or actually, provide me videos of them vandalizing and damaging property, if possible?


One question for you though:
Since when is it ok for Police to break laws, and make up their own laws and assault people?
(especially when the people getting beaten aren't breaking any laws)




thanks for answering my questions btw :)
 
Keeper said:
Well the thing with rights is this - they can conflict.
Freedom of Speech? Ok, so I decide to call you a **@$%* *****#$%***..... But then you say "that's imposing on my right from Racial Discrimination".

See the problem?
Click to expand...

There is no problem. Verbal insults may well constitute racism, but they don't constitute discrimination. You do not have the right to not be offended.

It is different however when "Protestors" (Henceforth to be referred to as "squatters") occupy public spaces, thereby depriving other citizens of their rights of use.

Even though this conflicts of rights is a problem, I haven't seen many(any?) cases of them actually vandalizing property
Click to expand...

Nonsense, the stupid little protest in Auckland alone caused damages in excess of $200K, and I don't see the protestors lining up to reimburse the council. That money is coming out of the pockets of honest hard working ratepayers.

I shudder to think what the cleanup bill would be in a major American city.

- what I have seen though, is Police Assaulting people for no reason.
Click to expand...

Actually you have seen footage of police alledgedly assaulting people, you have no idea as to whether their reasons are valid.

i've provided my links - so please provide me with your links, or actually, provide me videos of them vandalizing and damaging property, if possible?
Click to expand...

In any number of Occupy videos you see people squatting in public places. That causes damage.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-protests-cost-cities-millions/story?id=14975940

One question for you though:
Since when is it ok for Police to break laws
Click to expand...

Police have powers which exceed those of the public, they may use excess speed, may exercise force to varying degrees, may inhibit a person's freedom. (These powers will of course differ from country to country.) What would be breaking the law to joe citizen might not be for police.

, and make up their own laws and assault people?
Click to expand...

Police impliment the law, although sometimes they are forced to interpret the law. The assault of persons may be legal and justified within their mandate.

(especially when the people getting beaten aren't breaking any laws)
Click to expand...

aren't they? Are you a policeman, or a judge able to make that call?

I am mildly amused however by your attempt to justify squatter's vandalism and abuse of other citizens rights by the response (Valid or note) of police officials.


The problem here is one of rights versus responsibilities.

The squatters wanting to exercise their "Right" to protest have failed to acknowledge any responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of the public assets they have hijacked. Futhermore they are denying those that are shouldering the responsibility (The ratepayer) access and fair use of their assets.

The squatters are being unjustly enriched at the ratepayers expense, in simple terms that's theft.
 
i'm starting to change my mind here.....
You're actually right man, I've been wrong all along :(

Yeah! How dare these people do this! they are destroying and vandalizing! They're freaken....um....what's the word......

alloytoo said:
The squatters are being unjustly enriched at the ratepayers expense, in simple terms that's theft.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Theft! that's it - they are stealing from the tax payers!
I mean, after all, it's is the tax payers that are going to pay for all this :mad:

How much stuff have they broken?
alloytoo said:
caused damages in excess of $200K
Click to expand...

Dammmmmmn dude, 200k? that's a lot of money hey...


jeeez....



oh wait... err..... got just one question. How much "damage" did the Wallstreet Bailouts cost though?

Uncle Sam said:
a few Billion.
Click to expand...

Dollars?!

Uncle Sam said:
Yep.
Click to expand...

how much is "a few Billion"?

Uncle Sam said:
Over 700 Billion US Dollars.
Click to expand...

Ah. so who's paying for this?

Uncle Sam said:
You are.
Click to expand...




You go Occupy!! your damage to the taxpayers is nothing!
200K? my sis has enough money to pay that dude. :p
 
Keeper said:
i'm starting to change my mind here.....
You're actually right man, I've been wrong all along :(

Yeah! How dare these people do this! they are destroying and vandalizing! They're freaken....um....what's the word......



Ah yes, Theft! that's it - they are stealing from the tax payers!
I mean, after all, it's is the tax payers that are going to pay for all this :mad:

How much stuff have they broken?


Dammmmmmn dude, 200k? that's a lot of money hey...


jeeez....
Click to expand...

$200K is a considerable sum for a small city like Auckland.

It is not, as you've tried to imply, the total global cost of occupy, it is the cost of a relatively small protest. Costs in the states would be considerably more.



oh wait... err..... got just one question. How much "damage" did the Wallstreet Bailouts cost though?
Click to expand...

Nothing.

Dollars?!
Click to expand...

The bailout had a return of 8.2%

how much is "a few Billion"?
Click to expand...

25.2 Billion.

Ah. so who's paying for this?
Click to expand...

The institutions which received the bailouts of course, ultimately their shareholders through lower returns.




You go Occupy!! your damage to the taxpayers is nothing!
200K? my sis has enough money to pay that dude. :p
Click to expand...

Occupy is not going to beat US treasury bonds with a return of 8.2%.

Occupy is squatting on public property, damaging it in the process, and dumping the bill on ratepayers whom they're depriving the use of the facilities.

In addition they're claiming mandates which elections are proving to be false.

Thieves and liars.
 
Last edited:
Keeper said:
Ah. so who's paying for this?
Click to expand...
alloytoo said:
The institutions which received the bailouts of course
Click to expand...


Ah, right - makes sense now.
The institutions which received the bailouts, are paying the bills. okay... I read yah..

Right. so basically,
The institutions which received the bailouts, are bailing out The institutions which received.....the bailouts? :wtf:
 
Keeper said:
Ah, right - makes sense now.
The institutions which received the bailouts, are paying the bills. okay... I read yah..

Right. so basically,
The institutions which received the bailouts, are bailing out The institutions which received.....the bailouts? :wtf:
Click to expand...

The institutions which received bailouts are repaying the bailouts with an interest return to the federal government of more than government bonds.
 
This is happening right now in Romania. Help us raise awareness.

[video=youtube;0BlqUWqMH2w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BlqUWqMH2w[/video]

posted on reddit
 
Hi Keeper. I agree with the sentiments you express, about the US Govt and the Euro-elites expropriating ordinary people and bailing out their lackeys in "business" and "banks". It's outrageous.

But if you look at the Occupy movements all over the place, they're basically anti-capitalist, anti-free-market. The great majority think that more government involvement in the economy is better, whereas I think it's the root of the problem. That's why I thnk they're naive, stupid, and maybe even dangerous. Time to clean the streets.

I, too, would like to see a revolution. But the very opposite of what Occupy seems to want. I want to throw off the shackles of government, not take on more.
 
Last edited:
Revolution my arse, this is a fart in a hurricane. A bunch of bored hipsters sticking it to the man.
 
Arthur said:
Hi Keeper. I agree with the sentiments you express, about the US Govt and the Euro-elites expropriating ordinary people and bailing out their lackeys in "business" and "banks". It's outrageous.

But if you look at the Occupy movements all over the place, they're basically anti-capitalist, anti-free-market. The great majority think that more government involvement in the economy is better, whereas I think it's the root of the problem. That's why I thnk they're naive, stupid, and maybe even dangerous. Time to clean the streets.

I, too, would like to see a revolution. But the very opposite of what Occupy seems to want. I want to throw off the shackles of government, not take on more.
Click to expand...

They aren't an anti-capitalist movement per say, it's more about the way the system is set up (or bought over) by the rich, for the rich.

They don't have a problem with Americans making money, they have a problem with trading money, debts and derivatives as a commodity in itself.
(Wallstreet doesn't really produce anything)


basically, it comes down to this:
-Rich Executive has $1,000,000 just sitting in some portfolio. he receives $10,000 per month in interest by doing NOTHING
-1000 People each borrow $1,000 - they need to now pay interest, that basically goes to fund the millionaire listed above.

It's a little more complex than this, but the poor basically fund the rich people.


The Federal Reserve is another issue. why doesn't the government print money? why is the Fed a for-profit company?
It gets pretty complicated when people borrow X amount of dollars, but have to pay back X+Y amount.....it's IMPOSSIBLE to pay back in the big picture, even a kid can work that out.
 
Keeper said:
They aren't an anti-capitalist movement per say, it's more about the way the system is set up (or bought over) by the rich, for the rich.

They don't have a problem with Americans making money, they have a problem with trading money, debts and derivatives as a commodity in itself.
(Wallstreet doesn't really produce anything)


basically, it comes down to this:
-Rich Executive has $1,000,000 just sitting in some portfolio. he receives $10,000 per month in interest by doing NOTHING
-1000 People each borrow $1,000 - they need to now pay interest, that basically goes to fund the millionaire listed above.

It's a little more complex than this, but the poor basically fund the rich people.
Click to expand...

If people want to borrow money, then basically there IS a market and money IS a commodity.

Wallstreet is a market, and like the village produce market, it is a place to connect buyers and sellers.

The village produce market does really produce anything either. It provides a service.


The Federal Reserve is another issue. why doesn't the government print money? why is the Fed a for-profit company?
Click to expand...

Actually the US Department Of The Treasury prints the currency.

The Fed is independant from governement with it's own statutory mandate. It's policy decisions are independant of the government of the day. (Like the SA Reserve Bank). The vast bulk of it's profits flow back into government coffers.

It gets pretty complicated when people borrow X amount of dollars, but have to pay back X+Y amount.....it's IMPOSSIBLE to pay back in the big picture, even a kid can work that out.
Click to expand...

Where "Y" is the cost of borrowing.

If you hire a car, you have to return the car plus "Y"
 
What about working high up in AIG, playing wallstreet with bets AGAINST AIG, and then start running AIG into the ground with "Risky Investments?"
-If the investment turns out good, you make money from AIG.
-If the investments go bad and AIG loses, you again make money (as you were playing the stock market)

This is how a few companies go down -it's because some people have incentive when that company goes down.
1000's of people lose their jobs, and others walk away very wealthy.




You are also not seeing the "Big Picture" when it comes to lending.

I borrow $10 from you. you ask $12 back. it's interest...fine.
(You are now $2 up)
2 Days after, you borrow $10 from me, and I ask $12 back. you're ok with that, and pay me $12.
(We are now square again...none of us really paid $2)

Still with me? Ok.

Now, what do you think would happen if every person in America borrowed $10? they all owe $12....correct?
My question to you now is, Where is all those millions of $2 of extra debt going to come from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X