Useless Thread
- Thread starter Leafaholic99
- Start date
maplesyrup
New member
So I whipped out the "plum" sauce last night at dinner and happened to look at the ingredients. No surprise, the first ingredient is water. The second ingredient I thought might be sugar but sugar was actually the fourth. So what is the second ingredient you ask?...
... Pumpkin! Yes, pumpkin. So that begs the qusestion. Why isn't "plum" sauce called "pumpkin" sauce? Anyway, I'm calling it "pumpkin sauce" from here on out.
... Pumpkin! Yes, pumpkin. So that begs the qusestion. Why isn't "plum" sauce called "pumpkin" sauce? Anyway, I'm calling it "pumpkin sauce" from here on out.
Sucker Punch
New member
Can someone explain to me what this Occupy Wall Street thing is all about? I can't figure out what their goal is. I understand that they don't like corporate greed, but how is camping out going to accomplish anything?
Even the website doesn't say anything about what they want. The about page doesn't say anything about what their goal is, it's just all about what they're doing and how they're doing it.
Have they made any requests? How do "We, the people of the United States of America, considering the crisis at hand," plan to "now reassert our sovereign control of our land."?
This seems like a bunch of college kids protesting just for the sake of protesting without really trying to accomplish anything but get articles written about them.
There's a rally here in St. John's tomorrow, but while I support the idea in theory, I'm not going to spend my Saturday sitting around and whining with other people for no reason. Newsflash: poor people don't like being poor and unemployed people want jobs. Do we really need to protest to send government the message that we want more money and better jobs?
Even the website doesn't say anything about what they want. The about page doesn't say anything about what their goal is, it's just all about what they're doing and how they're doing it.
Have they made any requests? How do "We, the people of the United States of America, considering the crisis at hand," plan to "now reassert our sovereign control of our land."?
This seems like a bunch of college kids protesting just for the sake of protesting without really trying to accomplish anything but get articles written about them.
There's a rally here in St. John's tomorrow, but while I support the idea in theory, I'm not going to spend my Saturday sitting around and whining with other people for no reason. Newsflash: poor people don't like being poor and unemployed people want jobs. Do we really need to protest to send government the message that we want more money and better jobs?
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Everytime there is any protest everyone just says it is "a bunch of college kids." I've seen a pretty wide spectrum of society represented in these.
Sucker Punch
New member
That comment wasn't really about the demographic makeup of the protesters. I just get the impression that they're full of piss and vinegar and want to change the world without actually doing anything. Stereotypical qualities of college kid protesters.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Ahh gotcha now, I see.
L K
Active member
Sucker Punch said:
I read an article (CNN I think), these protests are trying to mimic the Team Party rallies (back when it first started and it hadn't become a lobby group yet). The difference is the Tea Party demographic was a bunch of people who would go out and vote.
Maybe these protesters prove me wrong, but I'm not expecting them to show up and enact change through democracy.
bustaheims
Active member
Sucker Punch said:
That's the problem with a lot of protests these days. Little to no discernible cause or goal, confusion over what they're protesting, etc. It's a shame, too, because, these guys have done a great job of organizing what could be a very influential group - one that could conceivably accomplish something - but, I can't help but feel like they've sort of dropped the ball here.
Busta Reims said:
What really irks me is the amount of Marx these people throw out there. I'm left of center and I agree that unfettered capitalism isn't the answer and Marx makes some good points, but even Engels himself stated his Manifesto was outdated by the turn of the century. I'm just so tired of intellectuals using theory as if it's reality and the cure all for our social ills. Show me a working model as opposed to "Capitalism is evil."
I think Keynes did a pretty good job at placing safety nets in his capitalist theory. I think people think that Milton Friedman's capitalism is the only one out there.
Manson
New member
Sucker Punch said:
I've been saying the same thing. I'm trying to figure out exactly what they're protesting. They are very vague when giving reasons. I've heard, "We want the government to step in and level the financial playing field". Okay there.
From what I gather, though, it looks like a collection of society's finest who are angry that they never accomplished or amounted to anything and are taking it out on the global corporate environment and/or the government.
Corn Flake
New member
Busta Reims said:
RABBLE RABBLE!
Protesters these days indeed. Back when WE were protesting, we had a reason! And a goal! And we got what we wanted from the man!
Of course back then I also wore an onion on my belt.....
bustaheims
Active member
Corn Flake said:
Jokes aside, the fact is, it's largely true. In the 60s, the major protests had clear goals - equal rights for all, regardless of skin colour, race, gender etc; stop the war in Vietnam, and so on. People knew exactly what the protesters wanted and what they were protesting. These days, the cause has become blurred, there's less unity among the protesters and their demands are . . . well, I'm not sure they even know what their demands are.
And, for the record, I don't tend to protest and you're older than I am.
Kin
New member
L K said:
But that's always going to be the goal. Protests make the news, news coverage informs the discussion, the discussion affects voting. The idea that protests of the 60's were somehow in and of themselves the catalyst for change or that they had any more specific policy initiatives other than OWS' goal of addressing the disparity of wealth in the western world strikes me as rose-coloured hindsight.
It's a fledgling movement that is in the process of asserting itself. Criticizing them for not having a policy platform already strikes me as holding them to a standard that not many movements would meet.
Saint Nik said:
Yeah, but until the political climate of America shifts to the middle you're going to have the far right vs. left of centre and far left. And the ethos of America has basically been "leave me alone, don't take my money." The majority of Americans don't want tax increases but want better services. They want a social safety net without paying for it. Now that people are on hard times and they want help, they simply can't get any.
People will say that the money that went to the bailouts should've went to the people. Well, to be perfectly honest, without the bailouts everyone would be a lot worse off than they are now.
And while I agree America needs tighter controls and regulation and should work for the people, the people need to come together first and bridge the gaps between each other first. You have a dismal approval rating from Congress right now, but yet you have such strong support for one of the most divisive figures in American politics right now in Rick Perry. I think the powder keg hasn't even exploded yet.
Kin
New member
Bender said:
It depends on which bailouts you mean. Some were probably beneficial to the economy, others just capitalized banks without having strict assurances that those banks would then unfreeze their lending. A strong case could be made that nationalizing those banks and getting them to lend out the bailout money or "give it to the people" would have done much, much more to staunch the collapse and increase the speed of recovery.
Bender said:
Such strong support? He's polling at an average of 13.7 percent in the Republican primary. Even if you assume that a Republican primary comprises 50% of the voters that works out to under 7 percent nationally. That seems like a pretty good working definition of fringe.
And there are lots of things that do have broad based support that the OWS' movement seems built around. Every poll I've seen about raising the taxes on the highest income bracket back to Clinton-era levels tends to be at 65% or higher.
Clinton's quote in Rolling Stone:
"I think that, on balance, this [protest] can be a positive thing, but they?re going to have to transfer their energies at some point to making some specific suggestions ... to put the country back to work," he said. A good place to start: Obama's jobs plan. "They need to be for something specific and not just against something because if you?re just against something, somebody else will fill the vacuum you create," he said.
Totally agree with this, however it's a hard thing to achieve. People are better at identifying things they dislike rather than solutions that could work. However, I also think it's somewhat unfair to look at the protestors for a solution. I think they have some ideas for what a solution could look like but ultimately its up to Congress to actually work together to perform the will of the people. I think it can be done though. There needs support for initiatives that can curtail some of the banks' unfettered policies.
"I think that, on balance, this [protest] can be a positive thing, but they?re going to have to transfer their energies at some point to making some specific suggestions ... to put the country back to work," he said. A good place to start: Obama's jobs plan. "They need to be for something specific and not just against something because if you?re just against something, somebody else will fill the vacuum you create," he said.
Totally agree with this, however it's a hard thing to achieve. People are better at identifying things they dislike rather than solutions that could work. However, I also think it's somewhat unfair to look at the protestors for a solution. I think they have some ideas for what a solution could look like but ultimately its up to Congress to actually work together to perform the will of the people. I think it can be done though. There needs support for initiatives that can curtail some of the banks' unfettered policies.
Kin
New member
Bender said:
I think that's bogus. The Tea Party never made any specific policy agenda. "Cut spending" is no more specific than "Regulate the banks". The only thing this movement needs to be effective is to be a cohesive voting block.
And something tells me that the people in OWS aren't terribly concerned with making their movement positive in Bill Clinton's eyes. Clinton is as responsible as anyone for the way the treasury department became a lobbying extension of investment banks.
Corn Flake
New member
Manson said:Another peaceful protestor becomes the victim of police brutality
Ooh I'm sure that cop did something to provoke him and fully deserved that clothesline.