Give the unwashed a good kicking, all they are good for.
Printable View
Give the unwashed a good kicking, all they are good for.
Or, put another way, assault innocent protesters in direct violation of their human rights and the US constitution.
Not just the American ones, they are achieving nothing and are just getting in the way and creating a health hazard, give them 24hrs to leave, then batter those still left.
But make sure it isn't done at night or when cold as the hypocrites won't be there then they will have sloped off to mummy and daddy's mansion to enjoy the trappings of capitalism.
That'll learn em.
Pissing you off for sure. Trying to 'learn" you too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
:s mokin:
Fortunately I don't come into contact with these wasters as I'm Oop North where they know they'd get short shrift at best but probably a good kicking for being hypocritical soft Southern Jessies.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Doubt it, watching QT the other week and they kept on mentioning how bad it was in the North East.
And not forgetting the huge percentage of public sector jobs in traditional Labour stronghold (vote buying) - so when they get the axe it'll make it worse.
BBC News - Unemployment in graphics
Sorry it is not from the Guardian but Beeb is almost as biased, so will it do?
People Power taking a beating in Egypt (with all respect for those who have perished)
And the movement continues . . .
one of many links:
Cairo clashes rage on, 24 people killed - CBS News
Worth a look - XKCD: xkcd: Money
Worker/CEO Pay Comparision:
1965 Production Worker Average Hourly Wage: $19.61
2007 Production Worker Average Hourly Wage: $19.71
Typical 1965 CEO Pay For The Same Period: $490.31
Typical 2007 CEO Pay For The Same Period: $5419.97
The US's 400 richest people have a greater combined net worth than the poorest 50% of the country.
Were someone to be so rude as to suggest that all you were good for is a good kicking, would you consider this offensive? I should imagine you would. Why mete out such rudeness to others, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Because he has a wind farm in his pants!Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
whoops! wrong thread, sorry. :D
It's a joke dammit!! :s mokin:
. . . and yes, BDunnell, I agree with with you. Let's do our best to be civil. And that is not a joke.
This would say that is all they are worth. From the New York Post.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
By CANDICE M. GIOVE
Occupy Wall Street protesters stay at $700-a-night hotel
Hell no, we won’t go — unless we get goose down pillows.
A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.
The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his s****y platinum-card room
I'll ask once again .... Let's assume for a second that we all hypothetically agree that this is bad. What is your solution, how do you fix this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Effin' hell. That speaks volumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
These figures are based on what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
In 1965 my father was working for 3M and had been for over a decade, he waas making less than five dollars an hour.
In what sense does your father's rate of pay in 1965 necessarily have any bearing on the matter? The figures quoted are averages. You do know what 'average' means, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
I take it that you a> didn't follow the link and b> didn't read through the list of cited sourcesQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
The Sources are here: http://xkcd.com/980/sources/DataDump.csv
An opening note says:
This chart is entirely in 2011Dollars
Every value associated with a year before 2011 was adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.
Nearly every amount has a cited source - when possible a scholarly work or government publication
In this case:
The State of Working America, 2008/2009 By Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heidi Shierholz
The State of Working America, 2008/2009 - Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heidi Shierholz - Google Books
You mean the sole source of data wasn't Bob's father?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The only thing that came up when I hit the original link was some one trying to sell me a chart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
My computer will not the first here either.
My father is dead. What is your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Rollo explained the numbers---- but if you were not such a legend in your own mind, you would know not even Detroit payed anywhere near nineteen dollars an hour in 1965. Ignorance is bliss and you are a very happy man.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
At that pay an average person could have bought and fully paid for three to four houses in one year.
Of course any one capable of using logic would say that was impossible, but then we are dealing with Dunnell here.
Bob, there is surely no basis to your 'logic' here. The average could still end up as $19 even if no-one in Detroit came close to earning that. You really don't seem to know what 'average' means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Average wage per hour in 1965 was around the $6 mark.
Average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, total private industry:
1965 $290
1970 297
1973 315
1975 292
1976 297
1977 299
1978 301
1979 291
1980 274
1981 271
1982 267
1983 272
1984 274
1985 271
1986 271
1987 269
1988 266
1989 263
1990 259
1991 255
1992 255
Irony. Don't worry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Indeed. Hence the talk of rising inequality being an issue that should concern us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I'll try again ... If it is such a concern to all of us, what do you propose to do about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Come to that, I don't see how someone could not find it concerning, no matter whether we may disagrees on what to do about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I don't see any concern at all. If someone wants the big dollars too, they should go and get them, not expect someone to deliver them on a silver platter with a Hallmark card saying "here you go mate".Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
There seem to be a lot of Communists in this world lately :crazy:
Utter rubbish. Are you seriously suggesting that those of us who are concerned about such things are Communists? I find that a most offensive accusation, as well as a baseless exaggeration.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Did I say your name? No! I'm refering to the protesters worldwide who bitch about everything, protesting, disrupting others lives and get nothing done etc etc, d!ckhead. There, now you can be justifiably offended.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
:wave:
A few of those people are my friends, so yes, I am offended that you should choose to lump these hard-working, intelligent people in with everyone else. They're not as rude as you either.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
And calling my post (which is my opinion that I am entitled to) utter rubbish, baseless, exaggerated and falsely accusing me of calling / insinuating that you are a communist is polite? If I am rude you are also cut from the same cloth then.
Go argue with a mirror.
I didn't resort to offensive language like you, and put my objection politely. But anyway, this discussion is fruitless.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
If that was your polite I would hate to see the opposite. Like you say, fruitless.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
:wave:
Whatever you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Clearly it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
From my perspective I view it as inherently unfair (an old fashioned condept I know); not that there are wealthy people in the world you understand (that tends to be a common misconception), but that there is an ever increasing gap for no justifiable reason. We've all see the figures in this thread. What justification is there for the ever more pronounced disparity between production worker and CEO?
The argument goes that it's the free market, and everyone could become a CEO and earn lots of money. Two failings to that argument: 1) not everyone could and 2) if they did who would produce the goods that make the profits?
The free market simply does not value the different contributions of people equitably.
With this I pretty much agree. But my point is to try and see what these people who think it's unfair, a tragedy, a crisis, etc. want to do about it. Do they genuinly want Communism, or is there some other way they see?Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Again, you 'jump the shark' with your references to Communism. Honestly, do you see no middle ground between unfettered capitalism and Communism at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Why is this (gap) inherently unfair? Are workers on the lower end of the scale forced to work for "unfair" wages? Is there something unfairly holding these people "down"?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Clearly everyone can not become a CEO. Some simply are not cut out for such work. So if you do not possess the ability, desire, skills, luck, etc to be a CEO, why should you be paid as one?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Your second point is a staw man argument. Basically it is suggesting that no one should be a CEO, we should all somehow be workers. If that were the case, where would the capital come from to run the business? Who would spend the time and energy it takes to set up, and run the company? There has to be CEOs (managment), and there has to be workers (labor). Both are important in their own rights.
This is simply false. The free market pays for labor at the rate in which the market will support. Think of it this way, would you pump sh!t out of someone's septic tank for $1 a day? Probably not, so the market forces drive the labor rate for this job up.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
But yet again, you have failed to address what should be done to fix this "problem". Should governments confiscate income from the "wealthy" and simply give it to the "poor"? How do you define "wealthy" and "poor"? Or do you propose some type of cap on income? How much is that cap? Who gets to decide what that cap is? How is capping or confiscating someones wealth fair?
Come on Ben read my post. I asked do these people genuinly want Communism, or is there some other way? Apparently you believe that there is some other way, a middle ground as you call it. Yet I have yet to see you or anyone else explain how this "middle ground" would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Please enlighten me. I really do want to know what you think this "middle ground" is.