Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Occupy" Protests
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed"Occupy" Protests

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 49>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Topic: "Occupy" Protests
    Posted: December 18 2011 at 10:25
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

I'm not sure what world does that cartoonist inhabit...

One where a cartoonist can (presumably) be paid to be 1) not funny 2) not poignant 3) not clever 4) inaccurate.



"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2011 at 06:16
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2011 at 03:48
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

I'm not sure what world does that cartoonist inhabit...

One where a cartoonist can (presumably) be paid to be 1) not funny 2) not poignant 3) not clever 4) inaccurate.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2011 at 03:46
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Pat, understood, but do you really feel the Supreme Court picks are that unimportant, as a constitutionalist?   I would think you appreciate Bush for the justices he got in there.  Lifetime appointments seems like a bigger deal than you make it sound.  


The Supreme Court shows what a conflict of interests checks and balances really is.  The SC interprets a document that limits the power of the other two branches...who are responsible for nominating and installing new justices. 

Interesting, well perhaps the ability to remove justices by the other branches for ethical misconduct should be stronger.  But it only becomes a conflict of interest they are all dominated by one party and act in such a manner as to say, override the people and decide a presidential election.



Looks to me like a bunch of dumb objections and one incredibly good one. Sure it's neat to protest against an abstract concept like greed. Except it's futile and dumb. Wall Street bigshots don't give a f**k about the people. They're not employed by the people. But guess who f**king is? 
 
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2011 at 21:15
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

<font size="+1"><span style="color: rgb0, 0, 153;"></span>

Funny... Most of the tv channels seems to support the occupy movement... I'm not sure what world does that cartoonist inhabit...
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17846
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2011 at 17:10
....pull my finger
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Online
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2011 at 15:17
Yeah, because they haven't received any sympathetic coverage....LOL  
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2011 at 13:48
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 20:45
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Pat, understood, but do you really feel the Supreme Court picks are that unimportant, as a constitutionalist?   I would think you appreciate Bush for the justices he got in there.  Lifetime appointments seems like a bigger deal than you make it sound.  


The Supreme Court shows what a conflict of interests checks and balances really is.  The SC interprets a document that limits the power of the other two branches...who are responsible for nominating and installing new justices. 

Interesting, well perhaps the ability to remove justices by the other branches for ethical misconduct should be stronger.  But it only becomes a conflict of interest they are all dominated by one party and act in such a manner as to say, override the people and decide a presidential election.




Edited by Slartibartfast - December 14 2011 at 06:57
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 17:32
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Pat, understood, but do you really feel the Supreme Court picks are that unimportant, as a constitutionalist?   I would think you appreciate Bush for the justices he got in there.  Lifetime appointments seems like a bigger deal than you make it sound.  


The Supreme Court shows what a conflict of interests checks and balances really is.  The SC interprets a document that limits the power of the other two branches...who are responsible for nominating and installing new justices.  Wacko
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 17:31
Originally posted by Dudemanguy Dudemanguy wrote:

Coolidge had been reluctant to choose Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad." -Taken from wikipedia of course. 

It's sad that people actually think that Hoover had a laissez-faire economic policy. The "Hoover Dam" is called just that for a reason.  



"Hoover said we should all dry out / I say let's all drink to that."
Back to Top
Dudemanguy View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: November 14 2011
Location: In the closet
Status: Offline
Points: 89
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 17:26

Coolidge had been reluctant to choose Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad." -Taken from wikipedia of course. 

It's sad that people actually think that Hoover had a laissez-faire economic policy. The "Hoover Dam" is called just that for a reason.  



Edited by Dudemanguy - December 13 2011 at 17:27
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2011 at 20:00
I see the country shifting towards executive power. I see bill being passed, or in the process of doing so, which shift questions of guilty and innocence from civilian courts to the decisions of shadow groups and military courts. The Judiciary is waning. Even so, I'm not all that impressed with the job that those guys do. Bush's picks have been alright for judges. I don't think that's enough to vote against my conscious. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Online
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2011 at 19:55
Pat, understood, but do you really feel the Supreme Court picks are that unimportant, as a constitutionalist?   I would think you appreciate Bush for the justices he got in there.  Lifetime appointments seems like a bigger deal than you make it sound.  
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2011 at 19:52
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Understood Robert, he's amazingly hot right now, but seriously, Obama has close to 45-50% range nailed down.  In what scenario could Paul get close when the Republican would be competing directly with him.  I do not believe Obama voters are going to woo'd by Paul enough to defect, esp when the "hope and change" trillion dollar ad blitz begins.  


If they don't, the country is lost anyway so it doesn't matter. I would think there has to be people who are actually against the wars and who actually want to see things like Gitmo closed down.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2011 at 19:50
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Of course you bought the Playboy just for the political coverage, I understandWink.  I think I voted for Clinton that year, then switched to Nader for a while. 

You're most correct about the other stuff on the ballot being important too, but I just can't see how people will ignore math on the presidential race.  What do you gain by high fiving over a small percentage when it helps put your opposition in power?  I respect Paul for going for the nomination and would be happy for him if he wins, but to run Indie in this election....wow, he would be literally handing it to Obama. 

Pat and MoM are really gonna blast me, but that's how I feel.  I felt exactly as they did in 96/00, but I just don't anymore. 


Paul has indicated that he will not run indie so it doesn't really matter.

That's how people stay in power. People are afraid to vote for anyone who would actually change anything because they're "unelectable". There is no opposition if Paul doesn't win the nomination. There's just defeat. If you're being attacked by two violent gangs, you can side with one of them and call yourself a winner all you want. You're still going to be a slave to the winning gang. Yeah there's some differences here and there, but they're just stylistic ones.

I won't admit defeat to act like a winner. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2011 at 19:45
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Huh? You do realize I despise Bush right? And every other president of the last 100 years?


http://witwisdom.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/1879-calvin-coolidge-b-72g4-age-7.jpg

Posts like this make baby Coolidge cry.  Cry


We need to get to 2030 so I can stop adding the Coolidge exception. The past 100 years sounds so much cooler than admitting one exception. But yeah, I screwed up my dates for his presidency.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Online
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2011 at 19:44
I think it also has Guy Fawkes head candy pieces and weed-brownie chunks.Wink
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2011 at 19:37
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 12 2011 at 19:08
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

I agree, and if I honestly though Paul could pull from Obama to any significant degree I'd be more upbeat, but it's all going to come from the R. 

Now, if people don't really care if Obama beats the R, then I understand voting Paul/3rd party completely.  I'm just speaking about those who believe there is a benefit to having O lose. 

I suppose all of this is old hat and really boringLOL.  And off-topic. Embarrassed  Thought we were in the other thread there. 




Well, a lot can happen in a year.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 49>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.359 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.