- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What? I'm just asking you to describe in an adult and clear way what you're talking about. Nothing disingenuous at all with that. I'd be absolutely happy to answer if you could do such a thing. Its rather curious that you're seemingly incapable of doing such.
Why would I keep doing something that I'm not doing? Can someone retire from their job and then go to the unemployment office and apply for unemployment checks? No, because retirement is a different status then being "unemployed".
Obviously yes, but not necessarily the plan you think it is, which is specifically why I pointed out the distinction between strategy and tactics. In fact, they are very likely not interested in the plan you're asserting (destabalizing the economy), given the extraordinary amount of evidence to the contrary (like, for instance, the attitudes and statements of the vast majority of OWS protesters that I've ever read or heard).
Which might support your position if Adbusters had any real influence with OWS, which they very emphatically do not.
They are not "against" our economic system (not the way you mean, at least), they take issue with flaws in our economic and political systems. And if you actually talk to them, you'll find that with the exception of the die hard anarchists and socialists (most of whom are part of groups that pre-date OWS by years or decades, but have joined up with OWS nonetheless), none of them support destabalizing the economy. In fact, their primary interest is to create a stronger economy by pointing out and fixing the flaws in our economic and political system that perpetuate stagnant wages, a weakened middle class, and increasingly ridiculous profits for those elements of the financial sector most responsible for causing the disastrous recession we're all currently living through.
you can unfortunately walk into somewhat public areas of a house to witness some pretty horrible sites
I think you should work on your comprehension skills...buddy.
I said nothing of the kind.
That's why I called the people in the parks useful idiots. I don't give a wit about what they say or do.
They do nothing useful...nothing that matters...nothing really original. All of their activities are directed by the few behind-the-scenes people at Adbusters.
Keep pretending that retired people are not unemployed. Your disingenuity is fooling no one.
Why would I keep doing something that I'm not doing? Can someone retire from their job and then go to the unemployment office and apply for unemployment checks? No, because retirement is a different status then being "unemployed".
Unemployed is being without a paid job but still available to work. Retired means having left ones job and casing to be available to work. Also, in regards to the different status's, I again state...
Except that you did. This is you in post 141:
And by studiously ignoring their statements and actions, you've somehow managed to convince yourself, according to post 190, that...
So, in a nutshell, you don't care about their actions or statements, but somehow know both that their actions and statements are useless, and also simultaneously "directed" by an organization that by all accounts has had very little to do with OWS almost since it's inception.
Tell you what, why don't you make some effort to compare the actions and statements of OWS with what you believe to be the goals of Adbusters and see how much they overlap. You'll find, if you do that, that they don't overlap much at all.
I have never ignored the statements and actions of the useful idiots...I DO contend that their statements and actions are useless, disruptive and, in the end, counter to any hope they have of being taken seriously...which is why I DON'T take them seriously.
Now. I asked you in another post, and I'll ask you again: Do you have any information...with links, please...that prove your contention that Adbusters has little to do with OWS?
I have posted links that show they do.
Do you have any information...with links, please...that can substantiate the highlighted statement?
No, I did not. I asked who is taking the risk.Sure I did. You asked if workers took a risk, and I answered by pointing out that workers risk their health and their lives. It's not my fault if you thought your question had only one right answer; it's the result of your limited pov, which leaves one unable to see the risks that workers take in order to earn a living.
Now answer my question - What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
When people talk about unemployment today, then they are talking about the ones who are actively looking for a job, but can't find one. All definitions say the same.Wrong. Unemployed means "not employed"
What you describe is the qualifications to receive UI benefits.
You've got it ass-backwards. It's not his burden to prove a negative. You made the claim; you just haven't proven it.
Which might support your position if Adbusters had any real influence with OWS, which they very emphatically do not.
No, I did not. I asked who is taking the risk.
And I answered that the workers are taking a risk with their health and their life. I answered the question you asked
Then i specified that I was talking about the investment. And I won't respond before you start acting more mature and respond to my questions in a proper way. There are no reason to talk to you, if you have no interest in listening to other people.
I have never ignored the statements and actions of the useful idiots...I DO contend that their statements and actions are useless, disruptive and, in the end, counter to any hope they have of being taken seriously...which is why I DON'T take them seriously.
Now. I asked you in another post, and I'll ask you again: Do you have any information...with links, please...that prove your contention that Adbusters has little to do with OWS?
I have posted links that show they do.
Aderleth makes a very direct statement that Adbusters do not have any real influence with OWS. I asked him to prove this statement.
It was quite clear what I was talking about, since I talked about investment.It's not my fault you were careless in wording your question. It's your fault. I answered the question you asked. If you think I'm going to answer question after question until you get it right (if ever) while you ignore my questions, you're being foolish. Answer my first question, and I'll answer your second:
What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
It was quite clear what I was talking about, since I talked about investment.
You are just going to keep "misunderstanding" what I write, so it is a complete waste of time debating with you.
Did the workers take the risk?
Read what is below the question, and you will realize i was talking about investment. I said.No, you asked about risk. Misrepresenting your own questions is not going to dig you out of the hole.
Here's the question you asked:
I answered your question. Now you answer mine:
What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
Did the workers take the risk?Yes, the workers built the factories.
You know that most investment projects fail?
Read what is below the question, and you will realize i was talking about investment. I said.
It should be quite clear what I am talking about, even for you. Since you misunderstood my statements on purpose, then I have no interest debating this any further with you. You are just going to keep "misunderstanding".
I have heard that the OWS is not against capitalism at all, though I have seen many OWS groups and signs that indicate they are indeed against capitalism. What is the truth? Are they against capitalism or not? I wuld reason that during their earlier days they came to protest against businesses and corporations, which are all a part of capitalism. What do you think about this? I see OWS members on YouTube chanting against the crimes of capitalism while holding their signs that reflect their belief.
I have a question for you. How many of the bottom 1% died while working construction?Now answer my first question, and I'll answer your 2nd
What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
I have a question for you. How many of the bottom 1% died while working construction?
Hint: it is the same as the 1%.
So we have different opinions on the matter. If OWS was more transparent perhaps I would have a different opinion.Obviously yes, but not necessarily the plan you think it is, which is specifically why I pointed out the distinction between strategy and tactics. In fact, they are very likely not interested in the plan you're asserting (destabalizing the economy), given the extraordinary amount of evidence to the contrary (like, for instance, the attitudes and statements of the vast majority of OWS protesters that I've ever read or heard).
Adbusters created a premise for OWS, which is anti-Capitalism. 3 seconds at adbusters site should be telling enough on that subject.Which might support your position if Adbusters had any real influence with OWS, which they very emphatically do not.
They are not "against" our economic system (not the way you mean, at least), they take issue with flaws in our economic and political systems. And if you actually talk to them, you'll find that with the exception of the die hard anarchists and socialists (most of whom are part of groups that pre-date OWS by years or decades, but have joined up with OWS nonetheless), none of them support destabalizing the economy. In fact, their primary interest is to create a stronger economy by pointing out and fixing the flaws in our economic and political system that perpetuate stagnant wages, a weakened middle class, and increasingly ridiculous profits for those elements of the financial sector most responsible for causing the disastrous recession we're all currently living through.
Who cares? ANd what does it have to do with me?OWS protesters are more likely to have a job than Tea Tantrum protesters
» Get a What? A Job? 70% of Occupy Wall Streeters are Employed, Compared to 56% of Tea Partiers
If I was interested, I would have written more.Gee, I thought you had no interest in continuing. Like your question, that comment you made earlier was poorly thought out.
And now you're trying to hide that carelessness by once again, failing to answer my question
What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?