http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-occupy-wall-street-20111009,0,972806.story #Idonthavefactstobackthisup, but I think Herman Cain hired Obama in 2008 to become president so that he could implement policies that would fail which then would try to distract America from the Occupy Wall Street protests so that no one would take away his cadillac. Oh, and he also bathes in pizza grease every day .
Yeah, that's it: People just aren't trying hard enough. I'm sure the fact that there is only one job for every five potential workers has nothing to do with it. LOL POOR PEOPLE, AMIRITE?!
It was picked up by Jon Stewart, which is the only thing that matters http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-6-2011/indecision-2012---rising-cain
Herman Cain is one of the worst. He was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and he flip flops on all of his policies. Not sure how anyone could be less trustworthy. And he just has no idea what he's talking about.
Well, it's official. I've just been banned from my primary forum for trying to convince everyone there that Occupy Wall Street isn't just about a bunch of smelly hippies and spoiled college kids who are surprised their majors took them nowhere.
Someone who doesn't like you posting on that board clearly orchestrated these protests, so that you'd be banned for arguing over them.
I think the whole anarchy thing by the NYT is bogus. These people, as far as I can tell, are mad because the government lets the financial sector HAVE their anarchy at the detriment of everyone else. They want regulation to bring them below the law, not less control period. Congramulation!
I think there's a whole bunch of different people at these protests actually. The mainstream views of the public are finally realizing that big government and corporatism isn't the system we want and it's not helping the country. Most of these people know what they don't want and they can see the problems. As for their solutions, it's still really divided between protesters. A lot of people still don't know how to fix the problem. You think they aren't regulated as it is? Obviously there's tons and tons of regulations out there. There's just a certain number of big corporations that buy the government in order to form the regulations around their needs. And those are the corporations that are bringing down our government and our economy. More regulation from the government means less control by the consumer. This isn't what we want. Edit: Here's a flyer being passed around the protests to help people out. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Bankster-Flyer.pdf
I understand wanting to laugh at the foolishness of some posts in this thread, and how tempting it is to ridicule some of them, but lets be kinda conscious about hiding backhanded insults towards people in replies. I've seen a few posts by people in here that are in response to someone else, but sneak a jab in at a member for no apparent reason. Unless you're responding to something the person themselves said, there's no reason to attack their views after the fact in another post.
If that was directed at me, sorry, although I was serious in my last post. I think it's complete foolishness to count on a publicly-managed currency.
I can agree with that, except I'm still not sure whether it's you or me who has the definition of corporatism wrong I mean, I thought corporatism was when you actually emphasise the role corporations play in the economy, and regulate them less. In which case corporatism is more small government. I stand to be corrected though.
Corporatism: http://www.libertarianfaq.org/index.php?title=What_is_corporatism? Capitalism is smaller government. http://www.libertarianfaq.org/index...sm_a_system_for_the_rich_to_exploit_the_poor? "If capitalism is so beneficial according to libertarians, why does it have such a bad reputation?" http://www.libertarianfaq.org/index...ians,_why_does_it_have_such_a_bad_reputation? There's too many ism's that start with C. I used to get them mixed up a lot.