[Closed] Occupy Wall Streets list of demands - Major ROFLMAO reporting for duty.

ahahahhhahahaha!!!

amazing. people are truly AMAZING 🙂

A stoner's* manifesto 🙂

* not our Malvern dweller.

They had a proper meeting and everything

[img] [/img]

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww bless.

What on earth would happen if any of them ever found themselves in the real world?

Why do you want to be called Loretta, Stan? 😆

Caught up with the Chartists 150 years late.

i think they stand a good chance of getting all they want passed apart from

Ban private gun ownership.

its america after all

tbh most of their demands are quite reasonable

tbh most of their demands are quite reasonable

Go on then, fill your boots.

[i]Spend loads of cash![/i]

Fine, but how do you fund it all?

[i]Erm. Well, erm. Yes, you know, it's like, erm. Oooh look, Starbucks is open again, KTHXBY![/i]

😉

Hopi Sen is always worth a read, Labour blogger.

Re:the Occupy Movement

So, while I am very critical of the left, and of the agit-prop tantrum-politics that constitutes what might call the "id" of the Occupy movement, if not its core ideology, there is a grain of truth in the idea that "mainstream" politics is not providing a particularly coherent response to the crisis, and so laughable incoherence becomes an equally attractive option. If the best the right can offer is an attack on red tape, and the best we offer is a short term VAT cut, maybe facepainting your way to a solution seems just as sensible a response as any other.

Instead, mainstream left politicians argue for a cautious, small increase in demand against the backdrop of potential catastrophe, while the idealists busy themselves with constructing a fantasy world where libertarians can lie down with communists, because they all feel upset with the way things are going. The most interesting thing about the Occupy movement, as far as I can tell, is that it is not, in any meaningful way, left wing. It is protest as therapy, not solution, and glories in a refusal to offer an alternative.

http://hopisen.com/2011/the-twin-crises/

Told you he was good.

and glories in a refusal to offer an alternative.

Genius!

Quite literally the politics of.... "ERM?"

A stoner's* manifesto

I reckon mine might look a tad different 😉

mcboo - Member
Go on then, fill your boots.

ok.....

Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.

Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.

Institute a 6 hour workday, and 6 weeks of paid vacation.

Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately

Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws.

Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.

Create a single-payer, universal health care system.

Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers.

Institute a negative income tax, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%.

Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.

Allow workers to elect their supervisors.

Lower the retirement age to 55. Increase Social Security benefits.

Create a 5% annual wealth tax for the very rich.

Ban the private ownership of land.

Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.

Reduce the age of majority to 16.

Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.

Release all political prisoners immediately.

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Abolish the debt limit.

Ban private gun ownership.

Strengthen the separation of church and state.

Immediate debt forgiveness for all.

End the 'War on Drugs'.

[edit]wot kimbers said[/edit]

Fine, but how do you fund it all?

Flashy, you can pay...

bit fanciful this one but minimum wage is a good idea, just like we have in the uk

As they do in the US [apart from 4 or 5 states]

I can see the thinking in most of that (some of it is silly). But as you say it's a user submission, which is kind of the point isn't it? Everyone should have a voice?

Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws. [b]Not sure what this refers to would need to look into it but doesn't sound ridiculous[/b]

Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.[b]Give us your poor, your hungry?[/b]

Create a single-payer, universal health care system.[b]Makes sense[/b]

Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers.[b]Makes a lot of sense and would like to see similar over here![/b]

Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.[b]Can't see much wrong with that but would need details![/b]

Abolish the death penalty [s]and life in prison[/s]. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.[b]Agree with that with the annotation[/b]

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.[b]Would like to see more movement toward withdrawal - immediate obviously isn't practical/safe[/b]

Ban private gun ownership.[b]Tighter gun laws rather than ban[/b]

Strengthen the separation of church and state.[b]Yep[/b]

End the 'War on Drugs'.[b]Every study shows the WoD is costly and ineffective. All it does is fill prisons with users[/b]

$18/hour?
There's some skilled people out there earning that sort of money.
I'm all for taxing the very rich but 90% is stupid.
If we're trying to discourage religious fanaticism, can we ban faith schools whist we're at it?
If land ownership is prohibited how will new areas be developed (new housing etc)?
Opening borders would be suicide but other than that (and kimbers omissions); crack on!

Essentially not an unreasonable list of 'wants'.

Of course there's not a hope in hell of them ever being acted upon. I suppose it comes down to approach.

Do you aim unrealistically high because that's what you believe in even if by doing so you make the likelihood of achieving anything even close to what you want less likely because people will marginalise you for being a nutter.

Or, do you set realistic, smaller goals and once you achieve them, set new ones?

I suspect that the real answer is that you need the former beardy wierdies with their unrealistic goals to keep up the impetus of the latter people who probably actually achieve change but in a series of much smaller steps. Though of course the problem with that is that the latter people can be sidelined by the rich/powerful because they're less obsessive/driven about the cause. Maybe.

I suspect that the real answer is that you need the former beardy wierdies with their unrealistic goals to keep up the impetus of the latter people who probably actually achieve change but in a series of much smaller steps.

This. Especially in America, where the Right have the Tea Party crazies, the Left need their nutters to start shouting louder to stir up some debate.

But, carry on with the mocking, apolitical capitalists...

Clubber. Haven't you just described the Lib Dems? Pre and post getting-into-bed-with-Dave?

Quite possibly 🙂 I think they maybe got a bit too enamoured with being in power though and the Tories have rather cleverly painted them into the corner, occassionally throwing them some food to keep them going while they keep painting the floor.

Politicians looking after their own self interest - who'd have thought...

Fair enough boys, I guess there is something in there for everyone to embrace, I'm all for ending the war on drugs, and church and state is in the constitution thanks to T.Jefferson and others.

Thanks for replying at length kimbers but tbh you are a long way from

tbh most of their demands are quite reasonable

I stand by

maybe facepainting your way to a solution seems just as sensible a response as any other.

I like the way that right-whingers like Flashy and McBoo scoff, but then Kimbers and Lifer come along and produce intelligent, well-tought out responses, but they can't then respond. 😆

Thanks for replying at length kimbers but tbh you are a long way from

tbh most of their demands are quite reasonable

Ok then; your turn: Please to explain why. KTHX.

elfin, you've walked into the thread and picked a fight without even offering your own opinion on the list. that's bad form in my humble opinion.

i dont think im a long way off

more than 50% (ie most)of their demands arent just reasonable they are bleedin obvious

here we go

reasonable

Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.
6 weeks of paid vacation.
Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws.
Create a single-payer, universal health care system.
Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers.
Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.
Create a 5% annual wealth tax for the very rich.
Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of
the US.
Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.
Reduce the age of majority to 16.
Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.
Release all political prisoners immediately.
Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Abolish the debt limit.
Ban private gun ownership.
Strengthen the separation of church and state.
End the 'War on Drugs'.

not reasonable

Immediate debt forgiveness for all.
Ban the private ownership of land.
Allow workers to elect their supervisors.
Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately.
Institute a 6 hour workday,Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.
Lower the retirement age to 55. Increase Social Security benefits.
Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal.
Institute a negative income tax, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%.

ok we could argue how ive categorized a couple but the balance is clearly in the favour of the occupy movement being in the right and the status quo in the democratic land of the free is anything but

Actually CFH raises one of the most valid points IMHO.

My only issues with kimbers reasonable list are

Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal.

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think most of the demands are reasonable and achievable. If people put greed and selfishness to one side. Which right-whingers can't.

That do yer? 🙂

Actually CFH raises one of the most valid points IMHO.

He does not in any way, actually. He's just thrown in the stock right-whingers response, without actualy thinking about it.

We're having a nice chat with a hint of whimsy and then I'm a scoffing, whinging right-winger.

Go away you little turd.

😯

Instead of resorting to childishness, why not instead focus that energy in challenging Kimbers' and Lifer's views?

You might get more out of it. Insulting me, well, just makes me laugh tbh.

He does raise a very valid point, stock or not.

well assuming you go with my idea of reasonable and not then youd be saving a tone of cash

end costly war on drugs, tax them out the arse!
public healthcare costs us roughly half what it costs the us taxpayer
death row is very expensive
withdraw from iraq and afgahnistan would save millions

and so on

right ive got a really long and dull risk assesment to write so im not gonna post any more

edit yeah i got the borders one and the amnesty one the wrong way round

There isn't much on the sensible list that will cost a lot. Some of it will save money. Flashy pays for the rest.

[edit]wot kimbers said. Again.[/edit]

everyone's entitled to their own opinions, just seemed bad form to start pick a fight in your first post on a thread tis all.

not reasonable

Some of the "not reasonable" aren't that bad, really:

Institute a 6 hour workday

When you've not got full employment, does it not make sense for those in work to 'bunk over' and let some others in?

Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.

The numbers might not be right, but the well paid have certainly seen their income increase faster than the poorly paid. Some redress of that isn't too unreasonable.

Increase Social Security benefits.

I'd need to know more about the US Social Security benefits to comment on this.

Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.

Make em legal, protect their welfare and tax their income.

Institute a negative income tax

This is working families tax credits, isn't it?

tax the very rich at rates up to 90%

Again, the figure might be a little high, but the sentiment's not too wacky.

Ban private gun ownership.

like any civilised country on the planet and the uk

Yeah, look at those second world nations like Switzerland, Finland and Canada?

Are you the Peoples' Front of Judea?

SPLITTER!

[b]The Peoples' Front of Judea?[/b]

**** OFF!!!

We're the Judeans Peoples Front!!

The Peoples' Front of Judea?.....

Yeah, look at those second world nations like Switzerland, Finland and Canada?

Switzerland = no armed forces to speak of, so citizens are expected to form a militia if their borders are threatened, and in Canada and Finland firearms are kept mainly for sport and hunting, not 'personal protection' from other people, as in the US.

Very poor, Labby. Please try harder.

the occupy demand isn't a ban on guns for personal protection, its a ban on private gun ownership.

So, is [u]private gun ownership[/u] banned in those coutries or not Freddie darling?

Yes, or No... simple answer for us retarded gun owners please

oh, whats that, I'm a gun owner, sorry, I thought private gun ownership was banned in the UK too 🙄

Do the other countries you mentioned have a similar death rate where guns are involved?

EDIT - nice tag 😆

Labby, go and research the impact of private gun ownership in allthose countries mentioned. Then bring us some figures of gun crime. Bear in mind to also consider the estimated numbers of illegally held firearms, particular social problems and stuff like that.

Basically try to have a think about why many people think that banning private gun ownership in the US might be a positive move.

Mentioning other countries is irrelevant. Why don't you also mention many other nations where private gun ownership is rife, such as many African countries, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc...

I didnt bring up other countries Fred.

There's no mention or discussion of the figures of gun crime, completley irrelevant.

we were told that private gun ownership was [b]banned[/b] in [i]any civilised country on the planet and the uk[/i]

Now, is that true, or is it false?

are privatley held guns banned in any civilised country, or not?

true or false, yes or no, is the argument made on this site in support of the occupy movements demand right, or is it wrong.

one word answer please Freddie dahling.

You asked for somone to focus their energy in challenging Kimbers' and Lifer's views - I've challenged Kimbers on the assertion that privatley held guns are banned in any civilised country, and pointed out several examples of civilised countries where privatley held guns are not banned, this undermines his point, its what you asked me to do, thats how debate works.

true or false, yes or no

Has this thread morphed into [i]Shooting Stars[/i]?

[i]OVAVO[/i]

[img] [/img]

coo, coo, coo...

<gestures for TJ on a wire to descend>

I didnt bring up other countries Fred.

No of course you din't; I and everyone else mustuv imagined you saying

Yeah, look at those second world nations like Switzerland, Finland and Canada?

🙄

You getting a bit senile Labby? Keep forgetting what you've posted?

we were told that private gun ownership was banned in any civilised country on the planet and the uk

That's Kimber's personal view, not a statement of fact.

one word answer please Freddie dahling.

When you've produced figures for gun related crime in the US. Which might have something to do with many US citizens feeling that banning private gun ownership might be a good idea...

Interesting that you din't mention countries such as Angola, South Africa, ****stan and Mexico. Countries where private gun ownership is permitted, and which are famed for being peaceful crime-free places...

and pointed out several examples of civilised countries where privatley held guns are not banned, this undermines his point, its what you asked me to do, thats how debate works.

And conveniently ignored those I've mentioned, I see. 😆

As well as the fact that in many of those countries which do permit private gun ownership, such ownership is strictly controlled, and as I pointed out earlier, mainly for hunting and shooting purposes.

Care to produce a list of 'civilised countries' which allow private gun ownership for the purpose of 'personal protection', like the US?

This can't be an official statement. Can it?

Care to produce a list of 'civilised countries' which allow private gun ownership for the purpose of 'personal protection', like the US?

Again - thats not the question.

The question is whether Kimbers assertion that private gun ownership is [b]banned in [u]any[/u] civilised country[/b], correct, or not?

again, one word answer please, for this retarded gun owner to understand.

Look at the uncivilised swiss people, how little they know...

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimedia/picture_gallery/Gun_loving_folk_.html?cid=29123560

What I don't understand, is that with your obvious love for the US system, in terms of gun ownership and health care, you aren't actually living there?

Care to provide us with info on the level of control over private gun ownership and context of use in 'civilised countries'? How many countries allow gun ownership for 'personal protection'? What are those countries?

I think if Kimbers were to claim that [i]private gun ownership for the purpose of 'personal protection' is banned in any civilised country[/i], then he may well have a good point...

I think if Kimbers were to claim that private gun ownership for the purpose of 'personal protection' is banned in any civilised country, then he may well have a good point...

But, well, erm, he didn't, did he 😉

z11
while switzerland and canada for example have gun onwership rates 10x higher than the uk they also have f[s]o[/s]irearms death 6-8x higher than the uk

there is a correlation between how many guns there are in a country and how likely you are to be killed by a gun although other factors such as whether your country is in the middle of a cartel shootout etc play a large factor, which is all pretty obvious really

sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The "demands" are a bog standard/classic troskyite strategy......totally unattainable demands are made, and it's very important that they are [i]"unattainable",[/i] with the argument being that, unable to deliver the demands capitalism will implode, or something, which will lead to a revolutionary situation. If they thought $18/hr min wage was feasible, then they would simply demand $24/hr, and so on. If it is pointed out to them that however desirable a $18/hr might be, society simply can't pay that as a min wage, then they are more than pleased as they can counter it with "what sort of society can't pay a decent wage, time for revolution, blah, blah". I don't know who the authors are, but I am certain they are Trots. And yes, they are fully aware that their demands are unattainable.

He does raise a very valid point

I'm guessing that the incredibly wealthy will pay for it.. the supposed 1% that control 99% of the moolah.. hence perhaps the wage demands..
isn't that the entire point of the protest..!?

damned right too really FFS

ernie_lynch - Member

The "demands" are a bog standard/classic troskyite strategy......totally unattainable demands are made,

Don't they ever get tired of the silly games? either do something credible about the situation that you don't like or shut up

the posturing of some on the left is distinctly odd IMO

Kimbers, regards your links:

i) A list of how many guns per resident is skewed, as one person may have a lot of guns...

ii) Who's bothered about how someone chooses to commit suicide? Nobody's particularly threatened or worried about suicide rates, we don't ban paracetamol, alcohol, bridges or trains because people might commit suicide with them! Sort it by Homicide rates, and you'll see that the highest homicide rate, South Africa, is only 50th on the gun rankings... Far more to do with the social conditions in the country.

Regardless, your point was that private gun ownership was [b]banned in all civilised countries[/b]! Have a look at France, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Norway - all with around 30 guns per 100 population - are you [b]really[/b] suggesting they are all uncivilised (well, maybe France!)

Don't blame America's problems on guns, they're really far more deeply seated than that.

I bet Obama would love to be able to get some of those things past the senate; gun control, social security, reduced racism, health care, pork barrel politics, the environmental stuff. All pretty worthy and only being held back by self serving right wingers/rabid fundementalists .

Its a user generated list so there is bound to be some wacky stuff in there but do they not have a right to be angry and demand change? The younger generation is the one that is going to have to pick up/is currently picking up the tab for the mistakes of their parents one.

Don't they ever get tired of the silly games?

Oh yes, and often very quickly. This is particularly true of the transient revolutionaries in the SWP. They soon leave their youthful revolutionary days behind, and the working-class who's interests they once purported to represent, as they settle down in their nice well-paid professional careers.

Some will have nothing more to do politics other perhaps voting Tory/Liberal Democrat at election time. A few might carry on as active members of New Labour, often showing an astonishing zeal to fight 'the threat from the left'.

In my personal experience the person who most epitomises this is former New Labour minister Jimmy Fitzpatrick. When I first met Jimmy Fitzpatrick he was a long haired tub-thumping ranting SWP trot, determined to lead the workers into revolution. Today he is the archetypical warmongering New Labour politician, who is determined to keep Labour as a free-market thatcherite party.

Really Ernie? I would have thought Tony Benn was a better example 😉

Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.

Ban the private ownership of land

Really Ernie? I would have thought Tony Benn was a better example

That's because you're daft as a brush.

Tony Benn entered parliament very much on the right-wing of the Labour Party. It was during his parliamentary career that he gradually moved to the left, until he was firmly on the left of the party.

He explains his epiphany thus :

[i]"As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum."[/i]

LOLZ! Someone said a bad about Ernie's beloved Tony Benn and he trawled the interwebz to find quotes to back him up!

(Sound familiar, Ernie? You're as bad as each other, FFS!)

Didn't really want to go too far to the left though, did he Ernie?

Still got that Holland Park house, and the Estate, His son's still going to get the family title when he passes on.

This would be the Tony Benn who placed the family wealth into an offshore trust, away from pip squeaking Dennis Healey?

Oh, and I suppose his son got his job though the good old socialist meritocracy, Third generation meritocracy 😉

Hardly "trawled the interwebz" Flashheart. In case you hadn't noticed, I copied and pasted it from another current thread. On which I had already posted the quote.

Try to keep up mate.

Don't blame America's problems on guns, they're really far more deeply seated than that.

The guns don't bloody help matters though, do they?

Gun crime is a massive problem in the US. Hence it might be an idea, to ban the private ownership of firearms or at least introduce far stricter controls than already exist.

how would you address the US' myriad problems then, Labby? I notice the right whingers have bin rather quiet on actual solutions, preferring instead to bang on about gun ownership or 'who's going to pay for it' or other such nonsense...

Truth is you don't actually have any real feasible answers. So, how's about, until you do you just keep quiet?

And focus instead on just how your neo-con dream is going to save the World...

Happy to Fred - my top four solutions for the USA would be as follows

i) Create a national insurance/single payer system, health stamps - I have no problem with a national insurance system with fixed rate open market private sector delivery (you go where you want for treatment)

ii) Legalise all drugs (not just decriminalise, legalise and tax) - you've got a ridiculous situation where a huge tranche of young black men are in prison for something that does no harm and piss billions up the wall on enforcing pointless prohibition.

iii) stop bailing out banks and failing corporations and propping them up with public money - let them fail

iv) Stop using welfare to work and prison inmates to prop up private businesses, use them to replace public sector employees instead.

There you are - four easy ones, a hell of a lot more realistic than the occupy demands too. suggestions ii,iii and iv will happily pay for suggestion i) hell, the money pissed up the wall on the exiting ineffective system would pay for most of i) on its own.

I have no problem with a national insurance system

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Labby endorses Socialism! You read it here first folks! 😀

You can go to bed now.