| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2011 07:29:11 PM · #226 |
But here's the most telling question of all:
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67
|
|
|
|
11/04/2011 07:29:44 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Just completed the test and the results are as follows:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85
That makes me a good guy right Doc. :O)
Ray |
You are SOOOO close to being a good guy Ray. A few church services and you'll be one of us!! ;0) |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 07:51:46 PM · #228 |
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46
Is this correct?
Message edited by author 2011-11-04 19:52:37. |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 07:56:54 PM · #229 |
With regard to an earlier post about voting with your wallet, Occupy Wall Street is a co-sponsor of the Move Your Money Project (Move Your Money Day is tomorrow).
OWS also seems to be moving toward consensus on supporting a repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and a return to the Glass-Steagall Act, which would again ensure the separation of commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies, something that most of us would probably support. |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 08:55:42 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You know, it may be a bias in the test (or DPC is extra liberal which makes some sense). |
I couldn't finish the test because it seemed like it was asking me to knock down straw men. I'm sure DPC is a bit liberal slanted, but how could you express a conservative slant with that test? The conservative view point has many strong and logical arguments on it's side, but the test makes you answer questions like " An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, agreed or disagree?". Well, as a minimum or a maximum punishment is the real question, isn't it? "A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies." Gee, the term predator might just skew the results a touch. IMHO a completely free market involves people robbing each other at gunpoint, so do I agree or what? I know that quick hit internet test are a blunt tool to shape complex questions but... |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 08:56:00 PM · #231 |
| Yes, I would support that. |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 09:29:33 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Lets not tear it down because some greedy bastards lacked control and had no oversight. |
It is their job to be greedy bastards. Both nature of the beast, and their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. That they lacked oversight was due to the fact that the only oversight they had was governmental oversight (Glass–Steagall and the SEC) which was removed because it was deemed too restrictive.
If you take restrictor plates off race cars, expect more accidents. When you encourage high risk behavior in banks, expect failures. You can't blame people who's job it is to maximize their profit for being greedy any more than you can expect a tiger to become a herbivore. Any unregulated system goes through a cycle of boom and bust, feast and famine. If you are going to allow true laissez-faire capitalism with little governmental oversight, you have to be willing to accept a great deal of pain as collateral damage from market corrections on steroids. |
fair points and i agree.
i want capitalism with government oversight to make sure companies place nice (ie no monopolies, price fixing, collusion), but definitely don't want government to have a stake in the oversight, they need to serve the nations best interests. i also dont want the government to determine who lives and dies, if a companies lives recklessly, then they deserve to fail. likewise government should also never seek to subsidize any company, the people decide what goods and services are provided and the companies make as much money as they can so long as they continue to provide good and services people want.
yeah i realize im living in a dream world to :)
right now we have the wrong government oversight, i agree with you the companies are doing what they are supposed to but the government is supposed to make sure they don't cheat the people and the governments are determining goods and services that the public doesn't want and they aren't letting risky practice fail.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2011 09:54:33 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
OWS also seems to be moving toward consensus on supporting a repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and a return to the Glass-Steagall Act, which would again ensure the separation of commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies, something that most of us would probably support. |
Too bad wiggly fingers don't pass legislation. |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 10:40:00 PM · #234 |
| I keep reading the title of this as "Occupy Walmart".... |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 10:50:12 PM · #235 |
| Whaat? There's a difference? |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 12:13:00 AM · #236 |
may I suggest everyone watch episode #119671 of charlie rose show. excellent overview for perspective. I would put a link but their server is down tonight - in the search box just put in amy goodman and the episode will come up.
j
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by mgsmith53:
What would be considered a satisfactory outcome of "occupy Wall Street or wherever"? |
China should send over it's air force to side with the protestors and protect them. Then they should start bombing the military bases.
Finally, when the politicians go into hiding they should arm the protestors and encourage them to hunt down the remaining army chiefs and overthrow the remnants of the government.
When the protestors capture the president/prime minister they should hand them over to the ICC for war crimes prosecution (and let's face it, every leader in the world can have *some* form of 'war crime' concocted against them)
Then the protestors can install an interim government and a randomly selected prime minister, and strike oil deals with China as payment for helping them out. |
|
|
|
|
11/05/2011 12:13:38 AM · #237 |
sorry - episode #11961.
j
|
|
|
|
11/05/2011 12:30:10 AM · #238 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
OWS also seems to be moving toward consensus on supporting a repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and a return to the Glass-Steagall Act, which would again ensure the separation of commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies, something that most of us would probably support. |
Too bad wiggly fingers don't pass legislation. |
I think some folks get hung up on the unconventional methods used by the protesters. Speaking of wiggly fingers, I think it's kind of cool that they've come up with their own sign language, and I've always thought it would be great if everyone in the world could learn a universal sign language so we could all communicate regardless of spoken language. |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 02:57:15 AM · #239 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
OWS also seems to be moving toward consensus on supporting a repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and a return to the Glass-Steagall Act, which would again ensure the separation of commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies, something that most of us would probably support. |
Too bad wiggly fingers don't pass legislation. |
I think some folks get hung up on the unconventional methods used by the protesters. |
I'm not hung up on it. It wouldn't matter if they were behaving "conventionally" - casting made up ballots for some list of grievances they came up with, holding their own elections -er, I mean "Consensus Powows". My point is that while it might be fun to play "we made up our own government", the fact remains that they have no power to enact any kind of change. I'm still wondering what the plan is. So they came up with a list of "demands". What are they going to do with that? And by the time they do come up with any sort of realistic means to effect change, the anarchists will have already fully infiltrated them, wreaked havoc, caused destruction and mayhem and then nobody will take any of them seriously. |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 10:02:51 AM · #240 |
| with this many pissed off people, and no real leader, all it would take is one smart terrorist to turn this into a blood bath. |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 01:09:44 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
OWS also seems to be moving toward consensus on supporting a repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and a return to the Glass-Steagall Act, which would again ensure the separation of commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies, something that most of us would probably support. |
Too bad wiggly fingers don't pass legislation. |
I think some folks get hung up on the unconventional methods used by the protesters. |
I'm not hung up on it. It wouldn't matter if they were behaving "conventionally" - casting made up ballots for some list of grievances they came up with, holding their own elections -er, I mean "Consensus Powows". My point is that while it might be fun to play "we made up our own government", the fact remains that they have no power to enact any kind of change. I'm still wondering what the plan is. So they came up with a list of "demands". What are they going to do with that? And by the time they do come up with any sort of realistic means to effect change, the anarchists will have already fully infiltrated them, wreaked havoc, caused destruction and mayhem and then nobody will take any of them seriously. |
From my point of view, I don't see the necessity for a plan of action written in stone at this early point in the movement. I recall that the Tea Party movement early on and for months in the beginning was mainly attending rallies and disrupting Congresspersons' meetings with constituents. The Tea Party was similarly decentralized, and I recall a lot of different messages, some contradictory, being voiced. So OWS is a work in progress. I hope what you say about the ultimate outcome isn't true. We'll have to wait and see what develops. |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 06:19:09 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I recall that the Tea Party movement early on and for months in the beginning was mainly attending rallies and disrupting Congresspersons' meetings with constituents. The Tea Party was similarly decentralized, and I recall a lot of different messages, some contradictory, being voiced. |
I don't remember it that way...nor do others.
//www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html
|
|
|
|
11/05/2011 07:52:28 PM · #243 |
"A protest outside the White House was broken up by police when a demonstrator threw a box of tea bags over the fence."
Looks like police will be police no matter the protest, eh? |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 09:21:12 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I recall that the Tea Party movement early on and for months in the beginning was mainly attending rallies and disrupting Congresspersons' meetings with constituents. The Tea Party was similarly decentralized, and I recall a lot of different messages, some contradictory, being voiced. |
I don't remember it that way...nor do others.
//www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html |
which was a few days after it's first public protest started as a protest outside an Obama speech
" According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser, activist Mary Rakovich was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement."
And if you did not follow certain internet sites or watch Fox news you probably first hear of the Tea Party when they shouted down any public forum that attempted to discuss a possible governmental role in health care reform.
"The New York Times reported on August 8, 2009 that organizations opposed to the health insurance reform legislation were urging opponents to be disruptive. It noted that the Tea Party Patriots web site circulated a memo instructing them to "Pack the hall. Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early. Get him off his prepared script and agenda. Stand up and shout and sit right back down."[128] The memo continued, "The Rep [representative] should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington."
Do a search on Beth Rowen, the author of the referenced article. She has a lot of nice things to say about the Tea Party, and about Pat Buchanan before the Tea Party existed. I do not trust advocates to write their own histories.
Message edited by author 2011-11-05 21:30:29. |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 09:33:34 PM · #245 |
Thank you for that, Brennan. I do remember that summer when many representatives called Town Hall Meetings to
discuss the health plan. They hoped for reasoned discussion on the details of the plan. The coordinated efforts
of the tea party folks disrupted nearly every meeting and little, if any discussion was possible. This of course,
negated our society's rules about fair and reasoned meetings of the public to receive and discuss
information. |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 10:23:25 PM · #246 |
Paul, I couldn't make my mind up so I had to take it twice.   |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 10:50:20 PM · #247 |
I'm slightly more Liberal and Anarchist than  GeneralE |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 11:59:25 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"A protest outside the White House was broken up by police when a demonstrator threw a box of tea bags over the fence."
Looks like police will be police no matter the protest, eh? |
I am not familiar with the incident in question Doc, but having worked many years in the realm of security I am not the least bit surprised that this action was undertaken, probably at the request of the US Secret Service.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/06/2011 12:31:05 AM · #249 |
| Oh yeah, I'm not surprised at all either. I'm sure there's a zero tolerance mentality there at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. |
|
|
|
11/06/2011 02:19:41 AM · #250 |
Looking at the early days of the tea party and I noticed that it claims roots in "Porkulus Protest" organized "against President Barack Obama's proposed $750 billion stimulus package" which kicked off Mid February 2009.
Barack Obama was sworn in to the office of the president January 20, 2009.
The 700 billion TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) had been signed into law by G.W.Bush on October 3, 2008.
Are those different programs? Or did the the Tea Party come into existence protest a program that President Bush made law, and then once he was out of office, the program was suddenly objectionable? Did they not object during the time the legislation was being debated, signed into law, and only voice that protest after the president of another party was in office? If I don't have my facts scrambled then that look slightly less than the actions of patriots fighting for their principles, and more like people who are pissed they lost an election. Tell me I'm wrong, I'm cynical enough already. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 07:16:06 AM EDT.
