Thread: Occupy Wall Street?

Originally Posted by JosephB

Ha ha. Who's the "we?" And odd, the little bit you chose to quote.

And I've watched "The Warning." I didn't say any of this was normal or right. You haven't been paying attention. And you obviously need to look up the work complicit.

If everyone is complicit in the problem, they should deserve the same treatment, no?

I say we give the taxpayers the same punishment handed out to Wall Street. What was that again?

Oh right, hundreds of billions of dollars in relief.

Take that free market!

Originally Posted by Brock

You want to blame the guy who wasn't sure if he could afford his home or do you want to blame the banking industry and Wall Street who knew what was going on on a massive scale?... Not to mention those who purposely brought the sky falling down (e.g. Goldman Sachs) in order to make millions.

He wasn't sure? Boo hoo.

I blame both. Home buyers who took out sub-prime loans were complicit -- or more accurately, the just didn’t do the math. They forgot -- if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

So you’ve got all these people who bought into the notion -- bowing to the social pressure -- that they must have a home or they’re somehow inadequate. Problem is, they wanted NOW what their parents worked for years, even if they couldn’t afford it. And lenders took advantage of that mentality. Without adequate oversight, regulation or underwriting, naturally, banks often committed fraud to make the loans.

You’ve got all these people hooked on credit and buying above their means who didn’t bother to educate themselves -- people who are perfectly willing to hand over the responsibility of making the biggest, most important financial decision of their lives to some stranger at a mortgage lending company. Yes -- stupidity and greed is a bad combination.

Originally Posted by Brock

Also, all the protestors who "benefited" from this greed and corruption... please show your data to support this claim.

They benefited from the economic boom prior to the downturn just like everyone else.

Originally Posted by Brock

You're assuming.... dude.

LMAO. That's the best you've got? A less exciting version of PeeWee Herman's freakin' catchphrase?

Originally Posted by Capulet

You don't pay taxes but have asked for nothing? When was the last time you walked on a sidewalk or used any other public infrastructure? If you want to make the form of protest you suggest meaningful, go off the grid completely, otherwise the system you are proposing is just as big a free load as what you accuse these kids of doing, only with a second scoop of hypocrisy.

Tu quoque. Fallacious. I didn't ask for anything to be built and 'provided' for me. These 'protesters' are, effectively, asking the government to steal even more money from their 'fellow citizens' in order to make their lives run a little smoother. When, compared to myself and many many millions of people, they live like kings in comparison. I'm not demanding they be stolen from to ease my path with a sidewalk or any other damn thing.

As a matter of fact, you're just repeating the Herman Principle as well.

Originally Posted by Leyline

Tu quoque. Fallacious. I didn't ask for anything to be built and 'provided' for me. These 'protesters' are, effectively, asking the government to steal even more money from their 'fellow citizens' in order to make their lives run a little smoother. When, compared to myself and many many millions of people, they live like kings in comparison. I'm not demanding they be stolen from to ease my path with a sidewalk or any other damn thing.

As a matter of fact, you're just repeating the Herman Principle as well.

You may not have asked for sidewalks to be built, but you don't seem opposed to using them. I submit that someone who doesn't pay taxes walking on a sidewalk is akin to someone fare dodging on the subway. Nobody asked for the subway to be built, but they pay if they use them.

For the form of protest you suggest to be effective and ethical, you would also have to eschew the pros of tax-provided services, not just the taxes themselves. Otherwise it's just a convenient way of trying to justify being a societal-deadbeat.

Put another way, say one of your "non-taxees" was standing on a street, someone started assaulting them, and a police officer saw it happening. Would you want your NT to decline assistance, based on the fact he's opted out of that service?

The answer is of course, no. As a society, as humans, we would want the police to intervene. It's why we've agreed as a group to come together and pay for the service, so that you don't need to pull out your "police insurance" card while being assaulted before an officer would intervene. The police intervene automatically because you're a member of society, and you need help.

Because one lives "within" the physical boundaries of society they still take part in the benefits, from paved roads and sidewalks to police and fire protection. By not paying taxes one is not providing any substantive form of protest, all they're doing is freeloading, plain and simple.

You're fond of lables, so we can call it the Leyline principle if you want?

LMAO. That's the best you've got? A less exciting version of PeeWee Herman's freakin' catchphrase?

Unbelievable. Are you serious? I was merely responding to you with how you addressed me. Wow... I guess if I would respond with a "LMFAO" you would take issue with that also. LMFAO

LMFAO. You're assuming, dude. I'm a hobo writer who makes a living bartering stories for room and board. I know all about the money gap: especially the one that separates me from the vastly more wealthy little middle class protesters having an extended block party on mommy and daddy's allowance.

I blame both. Home buyers who took out sub-prime loans were complicit -- or more accurately, the just didn’t do the math. They forgot -- if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

So you’ve got all these people who bought into the notion -- bowing to the social pressure -- that they must have a home or they’re somehow inadequate. Problem is, they wanted NOW what their parents worked for years, even if they couldn’t afford it. And lenders took advantage of that mentality. Without adequate oversight, regulation or underwriting, naturally, banks often committed fraud to make the loans.

You’ve got all these people hooked on credit and buying above their means who didn’t bother to educate themselves -- people who are perfectly willing to hand over the responsibility of making the biggest, most important financial decision of their lives to some stranger at a mortgage lending company. Yes -- stupidity and greed is a bad combination.

So I guess the FBI's findings were incorrect.

So please show me the quotes that show this is the reason why these protestors are out there... "because they want to be rich too." I hear this from so many, and it's BS. They aren't out there because they "want it all now." They are out there to say "we've had it with the greed and corruption." This to you and so many others is translated as "hey it's not fair that you're rich, I want to be rich too and not have to work for it." This is how you want and so many others would prefer them to be portrayed, but in reality, it's not what they are about. They are not an entitlement class that wants everything handed to them. Why does saying "hey, fix this corrupt bs" have to mean "hey, give me what you have now"? Why must they keep their mouths shut and accept injustice in the name of a "free" market as if this poison just goes with the territory. Maybe when a blue collar criminal breaks into your home and steals everything you own, the cops should just say "Hey, this goes with the territory. You should have known better than to live here. Now keep your mouth shut." I just don't understand your logic.

And please show me the data that shows that all these people benefited from the housing boom, just as the Wall Street execs did. What are they, a bunch of homeless, jobless screw-offs protesting on "mommy and daddy's allowance" or homeowners who benefited and came out ahead just as Wall Street did? Which is it?

Originally Posted by Capulet

You may not have asked for sidewalks to be built, but you don't seem opposed to using them. I submit that someone who doesn't pay taxes walking on a sidewalk is akin to someone fare dodging on the subway. Nobody asked for the subway to be built, but they pay if they use them.

Look up the term 'easement.' The sidewalks are in my way, impeding my own free travel. The fact that I step on them in order to go about my business means nothing. Your comparison is pure straw in a vague man shape.

For the form of protest you suggest to be effective and ethical, you would also have to eschew the pros of tax-provided services, not just the taxes themselves. Otherwise it's just a convenient way of trying to justify being a societal-deadbeat.

Nonsense, pure and adulterated. I do avoid tax funded services unless they impede my peaceful business. I don't accept food stamps, welfare, housing benefits, educational grants, cops, subsidized bus routes, etc. If you cannot see the difference between walking on a sidewalk or the shoulder of the road and demanding government intervention on a massive scale to save yourself from the bad choices you made, then we may as well end the discussion here. You are either too canalized in your opinion or you're dissembling.

Put another way, say one of your "non-taxees" was standing on a street, someone started assaulting them, and a police officer saw it happening. Would you want your NT to decline assistance, based on the fact he's opted out of that service?

I wouldn't care one way or the other. I don't go around demanding people behave in my preferred manner.

The answer is of course, no.

See above. The answer is, actually, 'it's none of my business.'

As a society, as humans, we would want the police to intervene.

Massive generalization. I have a vastly different conception of society than you do, and consider it inferior to the individual.

It's why we've agreed as a group to come together and pay for the service,

I must have missed that meeting, because I'm damn sure neither I nor anyone I know ever agreed to that. Unless you want to pull out the ignorant 'love it or leave it' canard, to which my response it 'Make me.'

so that you don't need to pull out your "police insurance" card while being assaulted before an officer would intervene.

I'd actually pull out my pistol and shoot the attacker dead center.

The police intervene automatically because you're a member of society, and you need help.

LOL! A fan of the imaginary Officer Friendly. Cops are thugs and scum, who have legal precedent that they have absolutely no duty to protect anyone, only investigate crimes after the fact. You are massively uninformed, and seem to have no clue how the world actually works.

Because one lives "within" the physical boundaries of society they still take part in the benefits, from paved roads and sidewalks to police and fire protection. By not paying taxes one is not providing any substantive form of protest, all they're doing is freeloading, plain and simple.

Collective thought: the most deadly fallacy on the planet. Has led to entire cities burned to the ground and hundreds of millions of people dead in the 20th Century alone. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot -- they'd all agree with you and call you wise.

All of you can stick it.

You're fond of labia

I certainly am, but I don't see the point.

so we can call it the Leyline principle if you want?

You can call it anything you want. I call it collectivist bullshit.

Oh, and by the way -- my tax avoidance is completely legal. I am exempt from income tax because I'm extremely poor and prefer it that way. I avoid sales tax by dealing mostly in barter. Your beloved society says this is perfectly acceptable, so you don't even have that on me.

Originally Posted by Brock

Unbelievable. Are you serious? I was merely responding to you with how you addressed me. Wow... I guess if I would respond with a "LMFAO" you would take issue with that also. LMFAO





So I guess the FBI's findings were incorrect.

So please show me the quotes that show this is the reason why these protestors are out there... "because they want to be rich too." I hear this from so many, and it's BS. They aren't out there because they "want it all now." They are out there to say "we've had it with the greed and corruption." This to you and so many others is translated as "hey it's not fair that you're rich, I want to be rich too and not have to work for it." This is how you want and so many others would prefer them to be portrayed, but in reality, it's not what they are about. They are not an entitlement class that wants everything handed to them. Why does saying "hey, fix this corrupt bs" have to mean "hey, give me what you have now"? Why must they keep their mouths shut and accept injustice in the name of a "free" market as if this poison just goes with the territory. Maybe when a blue collar criminal breaks into your home and steals everything you own, the cops should just say "Hey, this goes with the territory. You should have known better than to live here. Now keep your mouth shut." I just don't understand your logic.

And please show me the data that shows that all these people benefited from the housing boom, just as the Wall Street execs did. What are they, a bunch of homeless, jobless screw-offs protesting on "mommy and daddy's allowance" or homeowners who benefited and came out ahead just as Wall Street did? Which is it?

You quite obviously didn't read their list of ridiculous demands.

Welcome to my ignore list, unfunny person. If you're going to spout nonsense, try to be amusing about it. Bye.

You quite obviously didn't read their list of ridiculous demands.

Welcome to my ignore list, unfunny person. If you're going to spout nonsense, try to be amusing about it. Bye.

It's funny how he had no response to his ridiculing me for using his own words in addressing him, and I guess those who share different views than what he does and those that use data and ask for it in return are "spouting nonsense." If I "obviously didn't read their list of ridiculous demands" then why doesn't he quote them? Isn't data all I'm asking for and the basis for any good debate? But I guess the easy way out of any debate is by way of the "ignore list." If there any intelligent, mature writers out there who can deal with constructive critisism of their point of view who would like to continue this debate, please proceed.

BTW, Capulet -- since you're so into 'sidewalk ethics', you must be infuriated that the people of NY and other cities are being impeded on the sidewalks they PAID for by a bunch of out-of-towners!

BTW, Capulet -- since you're so into 'sidewalk ethics', you must be infuriated that the people of NY and other cities are being impeded on the sidewalks they PAID for by a bunch of out-of-towners!

Don't dispute his point of view or use his own words against him or you will be on his dreaded "ignore list" also, Capulet. Oh, the horror!

Originally Posted by Brock

Don't dispute his point of view or use his own words against him or you will be on his dreaded "ignore list" also, Capulet. Oh, the horror!

LOL. You do seem rather horrified by the idea, strangely enough. You're certainly going on and on about it.

Originally Posted by Leyline

Look up the term 'easement.' The sidewalks are in my way, impeding my own free travel. The fact that I step on them in order to go about my business means nothing. Your comparison is pure straw in a vague man shape.

Easements are generally used to cross driveways to get to a house, across parcels of land to drive cattle, and other uses established between two parties to "ease" a specific goal. There's no "freesement' law where we look to ease the free loading of someone that wants to exist in society yet not pay their part. I hope you "cross" the sidewalks and roads, and not "walk" on the sidewalks and roads to get where you're going. I have this image of you hopping from lawn to lawn over fences, thanking everyone involved for allowing you to cross their property.

Originally Posted by Leyline

I do avoid tax funded services unless they impede my peaceful business. I don't accept food stamps, welfare, housing benefits, educational grants, cops, subsidized bus routes, etc.

I'm sure you also avoid public washrooms, fountains, refuse to breathe any air or food that's been tested by the FDA or other regulatory bodies, or any of the other services that go on in the country that you take for granted, or choose to remain blind to in order to justify your lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Leyline

I wouldn't care one way or the other. I don't go around demanding people behave in my preferred manner.

Sure you do. You've specifically asked to be treated, or not treated, in the manner you've described. You've even quoted common law. How can anyone exert rights under common law, then claim they make no demands on anyone? Preposterous.

Originally Posted by Leyline

Massive generalization. I have a vastly different conception of society than you do, and consider it inferior to the individual.

Of course it's a massive generalization. SOCIETY IS MASSIVE. You have a minority conception of society, hence why the laws are based on the massive generalization instead of your minority position.

Originally Posted by Leyline

I must have missed that meeting, because I'm damn sure neither I nor anyone I know ever agreed to that. Unless you want to pull out the ignorant 'love it or leave it' canard, to which my response it 'Make me.'

You know me, and I agreed to it, so you can no longer make that statement. If you want to plead ignorance you can go ahead, but it's written into the laws of the land in which you've chosen to live. To claim otherwise is beneath you.

Originally Posted by Leyline

I'd actually pull out my pistol and shoot the attacker dead center.

Your licensed pistol? The one you walked on the sidewalk to purchase from a licensed gun dealer? Is it loaded with licensed ammunition? Did you pay sales tax on your pistol, or did you refuse to purchase it until the store owner deducted it from the purchase price?

Originally Posted by Leyline

LOL! A fan of the imaginary Officer Friendly. Cops are thugs and scum, who have legal precedent that they have absolutely no duty to protect anyone, only investigate crimes after the fact. You are massively uninformed, and seem to have no clue how the world actually works.

I can't speak to the legal obligation of Police in the United States to intervene in crime, but the overpowering availability of anecdotal evidence of police intervening, on and off duty, to prevent crimes makes the above statement pretty delusional.

Originally Posted by Leyline

Collective thought: the most deadly fallacy on the planet. Has led to entire cities burned to the ground and hundreds of millions of people dead in the 20th Century alone. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot -- they'd all agree with you and call you wise... All of you can stick it... You can call it anything you want. I call it collectivist bullshit.

I completely agree. I've argued for many years how paying taxes for police and fire services directly led to the start of World War II and the Holocaust, but I never had an ally. Let us go spread the word my brother.

"Down with collectivism! All you blowhards can stick your rules and society where the sun don't shine! Every man for himself! Now, let's get back to my rights under Common Law..." :p

Originally Posted by Leyline

You're fond of labia

I certainly am, but I don't see the point.

If you're going to misquote, at least try to do so in a way that still fits with the family format of the board? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Leyline

Oh, and by the way -- my tax avoidance is completely legal. I am exempt from income tax because I'm extremely poor and prefer it that way. I avoid sales tax by dealing mostly in barter. Your beloved society says this is perfectly acceptable, so you don't even have that on me.

Yes, I'm sure you report all your income. I wonder why more extremely poor people aren't firing up their laptops on their broadband connections and joining the conversation? Maybe it's because you and I have wildly different definitions of "extremely poor." That's probably because I account for all those "didn't ask for" services as part of wealth, and you claim their use shouldn't count if you never "asked" for them.

Also, don't confuse one's well-developed ability to defraud the system with their lawful participation in it.