A Conservative Defense of OWS

^^^^ That's the problem. Idiots who believe the bullshit instead of using logic to understand what people they disagree with are saying. The TEA Parties do not believe the poor are to blame. They believe (and they are right) that the fucking government is responsible. Hence, they protest the government.

Moron.

how fucking stupid. the government is to blame for everything. how about you. how about your consumer behavior. how about the corporations you bow down to, that are in collusion with teh government you hate so much. The tea party scope is far too narrow and incorporates no personal responsibility whatsoever. at least those at OWS are withdrawing their money from these big banks.

Hey that's a good idea -- withdrawing from the big banks. But guess what? It is EXACTLY GOVT policy that is CAUSING consolidation in banking. Goobling up smaller community banks that can't cope with the onslaught of nannifying regulation.. Demand MORE regulation and BIGGER GOVT with the ability to pick winners/losers and watch your ECONOMIC FREEDOM to make statements like that one simply vanish..

No one "bows down" to corporations. They exist to serve customers. If they don't do that -- they are history.

Who are YOU more afraid of? Pillsbury dough boy or the IRS? Who protects consumers better? Underwriter Labs (UL) or the CPSC? You better realize that ALL of your economic options and choice are under assault by a GOVT that not's concentrating on the basics like education, borders, ending wars, assuring fraud-free voting, and fixing EXISTING entitlements. THey're out playing high roller with taxpayer money in the marketplace.

Have you seriously failed to realize that the government is not separate from the largest of corporations and the captains of industry? That there is a revolving door between CEO's and positions in our executive cabinets and lobbyists, for example, among many other positions? Eg... the CEO of Monsanto now being the head of the EPA... that is a rather comical one. How about the most famous example of Dick Cheney having been the CEO of Halliburton and then becoming the VP and handing out enormous no-bid cost-plus military contracts for the war in Iraq for which they did a terrible job, incidentally, and killed American troops... , or Hank Paulson having been at the top of Goldman Sachs, who are very responsible for the economic collapse and then being appointed Head of the Treasury after the collapse, appointed to fix the mess he helped create??? The reality is terrifying unless you blind yourself to it, which, it seems you have done. How sad. You seem rather intelligent.
 
One thread the cons say you are the problem, the next, government is the problem. All the while pretending that TP'ers don't think the poor is a problem. Then attack every govt program for the poor as being a waste then repeatedly wail "leave the rich alone, the poor don't pay any taxes"

But the TP don't think poor people are part of the problem? Yeah, ok.

Let me fix this for you.. The ONLY reason the 47% that pay no income tax comes up AT ALL --- is to illustrate how ridiculous the leftist demand (and Obama fixation) that the "rich pay their fair share is"...

Beyond that --- you won't find more than 2 or 3 Conservatives or Libertarians on this board that will tell you that the poor ought to be paying income tax tomorrow. It's not even in the top 20 things to consider. IN FACT -- Libertarians at least would like EVERYONE to be paying less. And there's where you're in the way.. Cutting the budget IS NOT an excersize in punishing the poor. Because we SHOULD BE STARTING with corporate subsidies and handouts. THAT'S what OWS should reach out with. A statement of the BILLIONS in cuts that could be made tomorrow that libertarians at least would endorse.

It WILL take a NEW political organization of more than 2 parties to fix this. We need choices BESIDES the T.P. who are confusing subsidy cuts with tax increases. A 3rd party right now that just pledged to take away the Congressional Cash piggy bank to industry would win in all 50 states.
 
Corporations put CUSTOMERS before profit. They put their REPUTATION before profit. Because profit is impossible if you lose either one of them. I'm kinda tired of the free market being modeled as a free for all for profit. Because there are at least 6 fundamental inherent constrainsts on what corporation can do in order to realize a profit if they want to thrive. They have to make LOTS of stakeholders happy.

Except ... Corporations don't put employees before profits. And since employees are also customers, how do you rationalize that?

A corporations employees usually aren't their customers.

Do you really believe corporations should put employees before profits?

Some of the time, yes.

What's better for our country? A corporation sitting on tons of profits or healthy, well-paid workers?
 
Corporations put CUSTOMERS before profit. They put their REPUTATION before profit. Because profit is impossible if you lose either one of them. I'm kinda tired of the free market being modeled as a free for all for profit. Because there are at least 6 fundamental inherent constrainsts on what corporation can do in order to realize a profit if they want to thrive. They have to make LOTS of stakeholders happy.

This is probably the most ignorant statement in the history of written language. Corporations, by their nature, care ONLY for profit, for what is written on the bottom line on a balance sheet, for what shareholders get in profit... you seem to have a romantic view of corporations as actually caring for people they don't know or see. My only questions, where did you adopt this view? It would be nice to be so blissfully ignorant and actually believe the world is a good place.

Your knowledge of business is pretty piss poor.

A business that does not take care of its customer base goes out of business.

You're knowledge of recent corporate behavior is pretty poor.

How many potential customers are out there? A lot.. what's one lost when their marketing budgets are so incredible. They attract new customers all the time. It's simple a cost/benefit analysis. You are operating on a very basic understanding of business, and not reality.

Here's a perfect, and very current example:

Citibank customers were arrested for trying to close out their accounts. They know the media won't cover this, and that the loss of these twelve people and whoever they tell PALES in comparison to the amount of money they make.

Developing Story: People Arrested for Trying to... | Gather

#OWS #OCT15 CITI BANK ARRESTS - YouTube
 
Last edited:
Except ... Corporations don't put employees before profits. And since employees are also customers, how do you rationalize that?

A corporations employees usually aren't their customers.

Do you really believe corporations should put employees before profits?

Some of the time, yes.

What's better for our country? A corporation sitting on tons of profits or
healthy, well-paid workers?

The best thing for our country is that corporations stay strong and financially healthy. Corporations need to operate with a little government interference as possible.

Employees need to shut the fuck up and get to work.

I think the economy would improve if corporal punishment was brought back to the workplace.
 
One thread the cons say you are the problem, the next, government is the problem. All the while pretending that TP'ers don't think the poor is a problem. Then attack every govt program for the poor as being a waste then repeatedly wail "leave the rich alone, the poor don't pay any taxes"

But the TP don't think poor people are part of the problem? Yeah, ok.

Let me fix this for you.. The ONLY reason the 47% that pay no income tax comes up AT ALL --- is to illustrate how ridiculous the leftist demand (and Obama fixation) that the "rich pay their fair share is"...

No. The reason they pay no income taxes is because Bush and the GOP lowered the rates and then we saw a decade of wage stagnation.

If you want them to pay more in taxes, either roll back the Bush Era rates or pay your workers more. It's really pretty simple.
 
A corporations employees usually aren't their customers.

Do you really believe corporations should put employees before profits?

Some of the time, yes.

What's better for our country? A corporation sitting on tons of profits or
healthy, well-paid workers?

The best thing for our country is that corporations stay strong and financially healthy. Corporations need to operate with a little government interference as possible.

Employees need to shut the fuck up and get to work.

I think the economy would improve if corporal punishment was brought back to the workplace.

this is another one of the dumbest things I have ever read. this forum is rich tonight.
 
how fucking stupid. the government is to blame for everything. how about you. how about your consumer behavior. how about the corporations you bow down to, that are in collusion with teh government you hate so much. The tea party scope is far too narrow and incorporates no personal responsibility whatsoever. at least those at OWS are withdrawing their money from these big banks.

Hey that's a good idea -- withdrawing from the big banks. But guess what? It is EXACTLY GOVT policy that is CAUSING consolidation in banking. Goobling up smaller community banks that can't cope with the onslaught of nannifying regulation.. Demand MORE regulation and BIGGER GOVT with the ability to pick winners/losers and watch your ECONOMIC FREEDOM to make statements like that one simply vanish..

No one "bows down" to corporations. They exist to serve customers. If they don't do that -- they are history.

Who are YOU more afraid of? Pillsbury dough boy or the IRS? Who protects consumers better? Underwriter Labs (UL) or the CPSC? You better realize that ALL of your economic options and choice are under assault by a GOVT that not's concentrating on the basics like education, borders, ending wars, assuring fraud-free voting, and fixing EXISTING entitlements. THey're out playing high roller with taxpayer money in the marketplace.

Have you seriously failed to realize that the government is not separate from the largest of corporations and the captains of industry? That there is a revolving door between CEO's and positions in our executive cabinets and lobbyists, for example, among many other positions? Eg... the CEO of Monsanto now being the head of the EPA... that is a rather comical one. How about the most famous example of Dick Cheney having been the CEO of Halliburton and then becoming the VP and handing out enormous no-bid cost-plus military contracts for the war in Iraq for which they did a terrible job, incidentally, and killed American troops... , or Hank Paulson having been at the top of Goldman Sachs, who are very responsible for the economic collapse and then being appointed Head of the Treasury after the collapse, appointed to fix the mess he helped create??? The reality is terrifying unless you blind yourself to it, which, it seems you have done. How sad. You seem rather intelligent.

First off -- Lisa Jackson is Head of EPA and as far as I can tell -- she's never had a real job ANYWHERE --- not even Monsanto.. Where in hell do you get this crap?

Secondly, like MOST anti-free-markets types, you have this false romantic view of GOVT as a tough all-knowledgeable enforcer. That's not the way it works. The Commerce Dept EXISTS to promote corporations and American goods. The Ag Dept EXISTS to promote the consumption of food. The FAA EXISTS to promote the advancement of air travel..

I want an energy policy that reflects the knowledge of what ALL OF INDUSTRY knows, not some fairy-tale about Green jobs. Just like a want a education policy that is based on the solid input of educators. Congress which directs this giant overweight behemoth is arrogant enough to believe that the 535 people in those buildings can one day define "white meat turkey" and the next design a nuclear power plant. NOTHING REALISTIC or valuable comes from the FED govt making all these judgements in a vacuum.

You have 2 choices.. Restrain their ability to meddle in shit they know nothing about (like Solyndra and mortgage backed securities) and hand out massive amounts of loot to cronies.

Or --- expect that GOVT and INDUSTRY NEED to fornicate in order to develop meaningful policy.. I prefer the former.

It's totally unrealistic to expect that you can direct the economy without a constant incestuest interchange of people and money between GOVT and Industry..
 
Last edited:
One thread the cons say you are the problem, the next, government is the problem. All the while pretending that TP'ers don't think the poor is a problem. Then attack every govt program for the poor as being a waste then repeatedly wail "leave the rich alone, the poor don't pay any taxes"

But the TP don't think poor people are part of the problem? Yeah, ok.

Let me fix this for you.. The ONLY reason the 47% that pay no income tax comes up AT ALL --- is to illustrate how ridiculous the leftist demand (and Obama fixation) that the "rich pay their fair share is"...

Beyond that --- you won't find more than 2 or 3 Conservatives or Libertarians on this board that will tell you that the poor ought to be paying income tax tomorrow. It's not even in the top 20 things to consider. IN FACT -- Libertarians at least would like EVERYONE to be paying less. And there's where you're in the way.. Cutting the budget IS NOT an excersize in punishing the poor. Because we SHOULD BE STARTING with corporate subsidies and handouts. THAT'S what OWS should reach out with. A statement of the BILLIONS in cuts that could be made tomorrow that libertarians at least would endorse.

It WILL take a NEW political organization of more than 2 parties to fix this. We need choices BESIDES the T.P. who are confusing subsidy cuts with tax increases. A 3rd party right now that just pledged to take away the Congressional Cash piggy bank to industry would win in all 50 states.

REALLY? Then explain this:

Huntsman Criticizes Bachmann, Perry - Washington Wire - WSJ

This goes beyond just pointing out hypocrisy, he wants to add them to the tax rolls. From the story:

And he agrees with the new Republican orthodoxy that the half of American households no longer paying income tax – mainly working poor families and seniors – should be brought onto the income tax rolls.

“Marco Rubio was right when he said we don’t have enough people paying taxes in this country,” he said, referring to the senator from Florida.

:lol:
 
This is probably the most ignorant statement in the history of written language. Corporations, by their nature, care ONLY for profit, for what is written on the bottom line on a balance sheet, for what shareholders get in profit... you seem to have a romantic view of corporations as actually caring for people they don't know or see. My only questions, where did you adopt this view? It would be nice to be so blissfully ignorant and actually believe the world is a good place.

And this is probably THE best argument why Corporations are NOT people. For one, they aren't born, they are created...on paper. Two, they don't die or cannot die. Three, you can't arrest them. Try arresting Mr. Wall Street, or Mr. CitiGroup.

Thanks for this statement. :clap2: :clap2:

We need to have that RW judgement that proclaimed that corporations are people MFing REPEALED!!!
 
Except ... Corporations don't put employees before profits. And since employees are also customers, how do you rationalize that?

A corporations employees usually aren't their customers.

Do you really believe corporations should put employees before profits?

Some of the time, yes.

What's better for our country? A corporation sitting on tons of profits or healthy, well-paid workers?



HUH? What the fucketh.

OK Vern, let me explain - investors buy stock in corporations in order to make a profit for their investors. I don't ever remember directing a corporation to "sit on tons of profits" .

If I can find no US Corporations that can enhance my portfolio then I will invest on those doing business overseas.

.
 
A corporations employees usually aren't their customers.

Do you really believe corporations should put employees before profits?

Some of the time, yes.

What's better for our country? A corporation sitting on tons of profits or healthy, well-paid workers?



HUH? What the fucketh.

OK Vern, let me explain - investors buy stock in corporations in order to make a profit for their investors. I don't ever remember directing a corporation to "sit on tons of profits" .

If I can find no US Corporations that can enhance my portfolio then I will invest on those doing business overseas.

.

Yup. Pretty much. But you're taking a solidly selfish view, and that's fine, but what's good for you and good for an investor may not be what's good for workers or what's good for the country.
 
I think what both groups are motivated by is that they see less success and oppurtunity than their parents had in a globalized, corporate world where nations are less important.

Government has become so large because it has taken up the slack for what we can't do for ourselves anymore. This is what the Tea Party resents, and rightfully so.

The OWS resents the fact that big corporations put profits before people, even though the long term effect is damaging.

And of course, you'll have the crackpots who show up to both groups, and they get more attention than the sensible people making valid points.

Corporations put CUSTOMERS before profit. They put their REPUTATION before profit. Because profit is impossible if you lose either one of them. I'm kinda tired of the free market being modeled as a free for all for profit. Because there are at least 6 fundamental inherent constrainsts on what corporation can do in order to realize a profit if they want to thrive. They have to make LOTS of stakeholders happy.

This is probably the most ignorant statement in the history of written language. Corporations, by their nature, care ONLY for profit, for what is written on the bottom line on a balance sheet, for what shareholders get in profit... you seem to have a romantic view of corporations as actually caring for people they don't know or see. My only questions, where did you adopt this view? It would be nice to be so blissfully ignorant and actually believe the world is a good place.

You obviously don't much about the economic system we live in do you?

WE are defending Capitalism because we know that the NATURAL restrainsts on unmitigated mayhem are stronger and more durable than measly selectively enforced govt regulation. When the Massey coal mine killed a dozen or more workers it had been closed 14 times by regulators who CONTINUED to let them operate. Did those regulators ever get punished? No.. Did the Govt regulators who wrote waivers to the deep water operations on that BP rig ever get punished? No...

Everyday -- business is restrained thru NATURAL Capitalist mechanisms.. Like for instance..

1) Customer perception and satisfaction.

2) Stakeholders who excercize control, like stock/bond holders, banks, Boards.

3) Criminal liability law.

4) Competition.

5) Contract law..

I shouldn't have to explain to you how EACH AND EVERY ONE of these items works.. But EACH one has a powerful moderating influence on business behaviour. And when companies IGNORE these restrainsts --- they SHOULD be punished by the system itself without the neccessity for politicians to grandstand and claim credit.

Let me know WHICH restrainsts on business you DON'T understand. They all are moderating influences on profit. PROFIT alone does not drive the market.

Where did you get the idea that "corporations care only about profit"? Did Starbucks screw AGAIN today? Did Home Depot reach into your paycheck and rob you?
 
Some of the time, yes.

What's better for our country? A corporation sitting on tons of profits or healthy, well-paid workers?



HUH? What the fucketh.

OK Vern, let me explain - investors buy stock in corporations in order to make a profit for their investors. I don't ever remember directing a corporation to "sit on tons of profits" .

If I can find no US Corporations that can enhance my portfolio then I will invest on those doing business overseas.

.

Yup. Pretty much. But you're taking a solidly selfish view, and that's fine, but what's good for you and good for an investor may not be what's good for workers or what's good for the country.

Very very soon I will retire.

My income then will the be extremely limited.

I will depend on my Fidelity investments and on my ability to buy the most with the least amount of money.

I will not be able to depend on you to support me . Nor will I be able to depend on Social Security even though the GD bastards made me pay premiums for over forty years.

Capisce?

.
 
One thread the cons say you are the problem, the next, government is the problem. All the while pretending that TP'ers don't think the poor is a problem. Then attack every govt program for the poor as being a waste then repeatedly wail "leave the rich alone, the poor don't pay any taxes"

But the TP don't think poor people are part of the problem? Yeah, ok.

Let me fix this for you.. The ONLY reason the 47% that pay no income tax comes up AT ALL --- is to illustrate how ridiculous the leftist demand (and Obama fixation) that the "rich pay their fair share is"...

Beyond that --- you won't find more than 2 or 3 Conservatives or Libertarians on this board that will tell you that the poor ought to be paying income tax tomorrow. It's not even in the top 20 things to consider. IN FACT -- Libertarians at least would like EVERYONE to be paying less. And there's where you're in the way.. Cutting the budget IS NOT an excersize in punishing the poor. Because we SHOULD BE STARTING with corporate subsidies and handouts. THAT'S what OWS should reach out with. A statement of the BILLIONS in cuts that could be made tomorrow that libertarians at least would endorse.

It WILL take a NEW political organization of more than 2 parties to fix this. We need choices BESIDES the T.P. who are confusing subsidy cuts with tax increases. A 3rd party right now that just pledged to take away the Congressional Cash piggy bank to industry would win in all 50 states.

REALLY? Then explain this:

Huntsman Criticizes Bachmann, Perry - Washington Wire - WSJ

This goes beyond just pointing out hypocrisy, he wants to add them to the tax rolls. From the story:

And he agrees with the new Republican orthodoxy that the half of American households no longer paying income tax – mainly working poor families and seniors – should be brought onto the income tax rolls.

“Marco Rubio was right when he said we don’t have enough people paying taxes in this country,” he said, referring to the senator from Florida.

:lol:

EASY ONE...

A) Huntsman is a BIG GOVT Republican. The kind that LOVES huge revenue streams.

B) He doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination from a party that started to tire of Bush's big govt agenda.

C) He's dead as doornail in funding. Ain't NO Conservatives gonna PAY FOR a tax-raising Repub..

BTW: Weren't you leftists bitching about REPEALING ALL of those nasty BUSH tax cuts?? Including the ones that would change the 47% back to 39% not paying income tax? Hypocrits. Those folks had better know which team is on their side eh??
 
Last edited:
Corporations put CUSTOMERS before profit. They put their REPUTATION before profit. Because profit is impossible if you lose either one of them. I'm kinda tired of the free market being modeled as a free for all for profit. Because there are at least 6 fundamental inherent constrainsts on what corporation can do in order to realize a profit if they want to thrive. They have to make LOTS of stakeholders happy.

This is probably the most ignorant statement in the history of written language. Corporations, by their nature, care ONLY for profit, for what is written on the bottom line on a balance sheet, for what shareholders get in profit... you seem to have a romantic view of corporations as actually caring for people they don't know or see. My only questions, where did you adopt this view? It would be nice to be so blissfully ignorant and actually believe the world is a good place.

You obviously don't much about the economic system we live in do you?

WE are defending Capitalism because we know that the NATURAL restrainsts on unmitigated mayhem are stronger and more durable than measly selectively enforced govt regulation. When the Massey coal mine killed a dozen or more workers it had been closed 14 times by regulators who CONTINUED to let them operate. Did those regulators ever get punished? No.. Did the Govt regulators who wrote waivers to the deep water operations on that BP rig ever get punished? No...

Everyday -- business is restrained thru NATURAL Capitalist mechanisms.. Like for instance..

1) Customer perception and satisfaction.

2) Stakeholders who excercize control, like stock/bond holders, banks, Boards.

3) Criminal liability law.

4) Competition.

5) Contract law..

I shouldn't have to explain to you how EACH AND EVERY ONE of these items works.. But EACH one has a powerful moderating influence on business behaviour. And when companies IGNORE these restrainsts --- they SHOULD be punished by the system itself without the neccessity for politicians to grandstand and claim credit.

Let me know WHICH restrainsts on business you DON'T understand. They all are moderating influences on profit. PROFIT alone does not drive the market.

Where did you get the idea that "corporations care only about profit"? Did Starbucks screw AGAIN today? Did Home Depot reach into your paycheck and rob you?

Wow dude. Takes some serious skill to spin and twist and blame the government for Massey and BP. Well done. Karl Rove would be proud.

Now, as for profits, if a company could ignore an environmental regulation and pay $1M in fines, but make an extra $2M in profit, what do you think they would do?
 
Last edited:
"Bring it on". The longer the OWS continue to make fools of themselves and attack capitalism and the "Jewish conspiracy" the easier it will be to make a decision in 2012.
 
Topline Results of Oct. 9-10, 2011, TIME Poll | Swampland | TIME.com

Check what the PEOPLE are saying about the #OccupyWallStreet movement.

Note Q8 to Q13

The Q's before that about Obama and the Democrats paint a much GRIMMER story for ze RepubliCON$

LOL! :lol:

If thats the best you got. Your side is the one in trouble.
If you say so brah..

I'd take the raw data and numbers over your hard RW ideology and wishes any and every day of the week.

I hope you're feeling comforted in it.

LOL!!! :lol:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top