Babbling

[Satoh]

Which is exactly what att and Apple did, remember at one point att was considered a monopoly. They're not very clear who the target is, and I think a more effective demonstration would be directed at a corporation's headquarters, not the place where its stock is traded. And they're not even on Wall St., they're a few blocks north in a plaza overlooking the trade center site.

There is no aim now, the idea was noble in theory but fizzled in practice. I don't think they'll hold out much longer, we're coming into our rainy season and combined with the cold I'm sure the idea of standing outdoors all day won't be that appealing anymore.

[Ice_Faerie_Green]

SInce when is making a huge profit become an evil?

[Satoh]

When these people realized they couldn't afford the iPhone 5 when it finally comes out.

[crapshot2]

they are not against making a profit, a huge profit or capitalism at all. that is not what they are about. that list that was going around 2 days ago was something 1 guy wrote on a forum

this is what the protests are about. skip to 23

[Ice_Faerie_Green]

Okay. Watched it.

So, what is exactly the solution? I don't ask you this in a mocking tone, it is a serious question.

I don't disagree just about the ENTIRE government and some banks and some corporations are corrupt. That we are headed for a collapse as a country.

But, is "occupying" doing anthing really?

[Icarus27k]

---

Satoh wrote:
Which is exactly what att and Apple did, remember at one point att was considered a monopoly. They're not very clear who the target is, and I think a more effective demonstration would be directed at a corporation's headquarters, not the place where its stock is traded. And they're not even on Wall St., they're a few blocks north in a plaza overlooking the trade center site.

There is no aim now, the idea was noble in theory but fizzled in practice. I don't think they'll hold out much longer, we're coming into our rainy season and combined with the cold I'm sure the idea of standing outdoors all day won't be that appealing anymore.

---

Call me crazy, but I don't think many people are going to see a significant distinction between a protest at a corporate headquarters and a protest at Wall Street, much less whether the park that they are living at is a few blocks away. As far as the AT&T and Apple thing goes, perhaps they don't see any importance in a person buying a product or using a service, but they do have problems with profits taken to the extreme and too much power.

[Ice_Faerie_Green]

Because there is no solution.

[stilgar]

to what?

[Pay_No_Attention]

---

Ice_Faerie_Green wrote:

GIMME GIMME GIMME WHAT'S NOT MINE!!!

I WANT I WANT!

BOO HOO I AM NOT RICH!

WAH WAH WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

(edit: my imitation of occupiers mentality)

---

Seems more like an imitation of the European Jewish terrorists who founded Israel.

[Ice_Faerie_Green]

---

Pay_No_Attention wrote:

---

Ice_Faerie_Green wrote:

GIMME GIMME GIMME WHAT'S NOT MINE!!!

I WANT I WANT!

BOO HOO I AM NOT RICH!

WAH WAH WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

(edit: my imitation of occupiers mentality)

---

Seems more like an imitation of the European Jewish terrorists who founded Israel.

---

THAT was a beautifull troll! Kudo!

[Icarus27k]

---

Ice_Faerie_Green wrote:

SInce when is making a huge profit become an evil?

---

Hmmm... Ethically, I see nothing wrong with calling huge profits evil. That's why they're sometimes given the adjective "obscene".

[crapshot2]

in the end the protests themselfs will do nothing, but in the end the tea party protests did nothing directly either.

however, because of such a grand scale that this is growing hopefully it will turn into a political movement and by the next election and subsequently other elections down the line things will start to straighten up. hopefully what is going on will show people, well, exactly what dylan ratigan said.

if in the end what this does is cause more people to vote, it did something positive. or possibly it will cause people to open their eyes and not buy products from companies that shut down companies in america and shipped the jobs over seas. i'm looking at you GAP

[Astromang]

---

Icarus27k wrote:

---

Ice_Faerie_Green wrote:

SInce when is making a huge profit become an evil?

---

Hmmm... Ethically, huge profits are evil. That's why they're sometimes given the adjective "obscene".

---

Who defines what quantity becomes "huge" or "obscene?"

[Icarus27k]

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

[TrigunBebop]

The entire point of a protest is to draw attention to a problem in the hopes that people with the means to do so will craft a solution. Protestors don't have to already have a solution. They just have to draw attention to the problem needing solved.

[Astromang]

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

[crapshot2]

the people that sell the products.

[stilgar]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

[Ice_Faerie_Green]

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

In some people's minds, you do. What if they send their 4 kids to private schools and drive huge gas guzzling vehicles and like a few holidays overseas a year?

[stilgar]

---

Ice_Faerie_Green wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

In some people's minds, you do. What if they send their 4 kids to private schools and drive huge gas guzzling vehicles and like a few holidays overseas a year?

---

private school, cars, and vacations aren't food

[Astromang]

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

Why do you get to decide that?

[Ice_Faerie_Green]

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Ice_Faerie_Green wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

In some people's minds, you do. What if they send their 4 kids to private schools and drive huge gas guzzling vehicles and like a few holidays overseas a year?

---

private school, cars, and vacations aren't food

---

I know I know. What I am saying is SOME people see these things I listed as important as food. 

[stilgar]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

Why do you get to decide that?

---

if it costs $20 a day to feed an adult why would anyone need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4?

[stilgar]

---

Ice_Faerie_Green wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Ice_Faerie_Green wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

In some people's minds, you do. What if they send their 4 kids to private schools and drive huge gas guzzling vehicles and like a few holidays overseas a year?

---

private school, cars, and vacations aren't food

---

I know I know. What I am saying is SOME people see these things I listed as important as food. 

---

we aren't talking about those things. those things have nothing to do with the $200,000

[Ice_Faerie_Green]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

Why do you get to decide that?

---

Not stilgar.. . .non no no the Holy Government should decide such things for us!