Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/8/11 11:44 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Nah. You just don't pay attention.

Could you post a link to a written version? I am not always in a place where I can play sounds aloud.

At 10/8/11 10:14 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Refuted already. Please stay on the topic like I am doing.

No it's not, and no you're not.

At 10/8/11 02:08 AM, Hybridization wrote: doesn't mean it's a tyrannical oppression of people who are offended or otherwise.

Also, we have no legal right to not be offended.

At 10/8/11 06:21 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 10/7/11 11:06 PM, orangebomb wrote:
This "occupy Wall St." movement is really no different than the Tea Party when you get down to brass tacks, the only difference is that at least the Tea Party has 1 political issue to unite on, whereas OWS is really nothing more than angsty rhetoric.

So says the mainstream media, and you are silly enough to believe it.

Orangebomb is actually right. The Tea Party had the political underpinnings of wanting much smaller government. That was their main goal with a few other small ideas piggy-backing upon it. The Occupy Wall Street is based on "We're poor and mad about it!" as well as "We don't like how rich people have power!" with a few small legitimate political ideals piggy-backing upon it.

At 10/7/11 11:53 PM, djack wrote: Devious psychological techniques generally include such things as separating your members from regular society,

Monks. Nuns.

lying about religious experiences such as visions (Joseph Smith),

Sermon on the mount, Moses and the Ten Comandments?

an individual who makes themselves the indisputable leader by being the only hope for salvation of their followers through what they claim to be the truth which only they have access to \

Jesus?

Satisfied?

Yeah in the fact that your so-called examples pretty much apply to Christianity itself as much as they apply to Mormonism.

At 10/7/11 11:57 PM, adrshepard wrote: Must you play the logical definition game?

Well, when I am trying to show that those who claim Mormonism is a cult are doing nothing but splitting hairs to fit their own views, asking their exact definition is quite important.

They're most definitely freaks, and I didn't need a dictionary to convince me of it.

This isn't even close to anyt of your examples. This is like saying that men who like women who are 2 inches above average are freaks. It's hair splitting at its finest.

But they are still freaks, just the same.

Now, I have had some NASTY encounters with the Mormon religion in my lifetime and my opinion of it is less than sparkling, but for one religion to call this a cult is just plain stupid. yeah, their beliefs are kinda weird, but so much weirder than regular Christianity as to lebal them freaks? HA! Don't waste my time.

At 10/7/11 11:20 PM, djack wrote: I never claimed they weren't Christian, I simply said that some of their behavior fits the definition of a cult.

Righto, then dj. Define cult.

I think angry hatter nailed part of it with the comment about how it fits better with Bush, knowing Bush's propensity for putting his foot in his mouth...

There is definitely a tinge of the race card in there though... It's much much easier to say things about a white guy without crossing or nearing any barriers than you can with a black guy.

At 10/7/11 10:56 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: @Camerohusky:

Dammit Smilez! How many times do I have to tell you! It's Camaro. Like the car. yeesh... ;p

It's more complicated than this, but [aggregate] demand based economics is the intellectual bodyguard of the bailout mentality, and the

Looks like this idea got cut off...

When it comes down to the GOP picking a person who can win versus a cook it definitely matters. If Mormon hating causes the GOP to put a loser cook up for the nomination, then, hell yes, Mormonism is a cult. Also, I heard that Joseph Smith peed on the American flag while making Mexican babies, who grew up to take all of the manufacturing jobs away from white people.

If this pull is false? Then No, it's not a cult, and ignore all of the above. If the GOP is willing to shoot itself inthe foot based on religious infighting, i will gladly play along.

At 10/7/11 12:09 PM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Gentleman, dodging the arugments and saying you're a troll doesn't work. What is your position on drugs now user? Is it a stark contrast from your 'druggie' insults from a year ago?

Here's your chance to prove you're not a troll.

When you want to post, step back and ask yourself a simple question. "Am I posting a coherent argument with both a set up and proof?" In other words "Would a random joe, just reading my specific post have any idea what I am talking about?"

You have two options. Either take your time and post coherently, or prove yourself to be the troll others have accused you of being.

At 10/7/11 10:37 AM, Elfer wrote: People break their addictions through treatment, not through fear of jail. In fact, when the fear of prosecution is removed, we have pretty much universally seen an increase in the number of people seeking treatment for their drug problem, and a decrease in associated problems such as spread of blood-borne diseases, petty crime, and deaths due to overdose.

I have two responses to this.

First, you speak of penal deterrents to breaking the addiction. What about penal deterrents to start or upgrading an addiction?

Second, at least in my county, much of the drug prosecution and punishments are meant to force the user into treatment. We have correctional centers, drug court, treatment packages and a bunch of other programs that are attached as conditions on to probation for drug offenses. The hard jail time is reserved for the dealers, the manufacturers, and the users who consistently refuse to be treated. In other words, prosecuting drug addicts in my jurisdiction focuses first on treatment, and second on punishment as a last resort (except for dealers and manufacturers)

Again, I'm not saying that there's no drug problem to be solved, I just can't see any convincing evidence that prohibiton is a workable route to success.

I think the treat first sort of prosecution, adopted universally, could help.

At 10/7/11 10:51 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: I go the courts here to watch cases, and watched many youth being persuaded into drug diversion.

Seeing as juvenile cases are confidential, I seriously doubt you have been able to watch cases involving minors and drugs. Furthermore, the vast majority of drug diversion youths are put there through informal punishment (i.e. their juvenile counselor issues such a punishment in lieu of an actual prosecution.)

At 10/7/11 10:10 AM, Elfer wrote: What advantages do you believe prohibition has over decriminalization?

I am not convinced by the situation in Portgual. I see that problems that drugs cause to others every day at work (actually just 2 days a week, now that school has started back up) The those who say drug use is a victimless crime, I strongly disagree. Sure, drug usage by a single person of age who has enough money to fuel the habit and never chooses to drive, and had no family or friends, may count as a victimless crime. The minute a single one of those elements changes, a victim shows. The majority of CPS cases result from drug usage. The majority of child neglect and mistreat criminal charges come from drug use. In other words, drug usage is a major driving factor in the neglect and abuse of children.

At 10/7/11 10:12 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Do I need sarcasm tags?

A translator function might help us more.

At 10/7/11 07:57 AM, MatthewF wrote: Sure you can move to another state but chances are it will be as bad there thats if you have the resources to move.

The issue I find with ultimate State power is that extremist majorities are easier to build when there is a smaller number of total people to dilute them. Even when the majorities cannot be created large blocs with enough power to influence can be created (Think tablespoon in a barrel to tablespoon in a cup) The diluting effect of the masses best serves th rights of people and companies when chosenover the States.

At 10/7/11 07:31 AM, MatthewF wrote:

At 9/28/11 09:36 AM, Korriken wrote: apparently its not unconstitutional given the courts have ruled again and again that it is constitutional.

Appeal to authority thats a fallacious argument sir

Yeah, actually no. When the scope of the argument is sconstitutionality, refering to the highest arbiters of constitutionality is NOT fallacious. On the other hand it is actually very apt.

If the supreme court said it was ok to sterilize the poor would you participate?

Even in the legal world there is a difference between "rights" and "obligations"

At 10/6/11 10:35 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: without jail, then drugs no longer become a life style, they become a slow, very agonizing form of suicide. It wont even be a circle any more: get high, get addicted, die. point a point b.

That wasn't the crime I was speaking of. I was speaking of the assaults, thefts, and robberies that come along with heavy drug use.

At 10/6/11 09:34 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The protesters tend to have the very ideology that is part of the problem.

Exactly how so?

At 10/6/11 07:56 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Are you referring to the money within a deposit account being moved around to different fund pots for seperate investments by the bank (Ala good ol' fractional reserve) or are we talking the active use of "special rate" investment options?

No, I am referring to the vast array of investments that are not protected by the FDIC. Savings, checkings, and CDs represent a very small amount of investment. There are even a few other bank runs accounts that might be protected, but those are few and far between.

I find it crazy that people are pouring that sort of cash into investment schemes if this is true. And if so they did take a risk and so long Joe and your cash. Next time consider going to the Bookies instead. Speculating on the market is best left to those who do it full time.

CDs, savings, and checking all has piss poor interest rates. We'll just say their rates range in the area of less than ten percent of inflation. I believe I had a CD that got at best .45% interest.

Stocks, money markets, hedges, bonds, debentures, and so on all represent opportunities to get higher interest rates, but they represent higher risks.

Np.

Here's a few that have paid back.

Yes and no.

More on the yes. A few taxes may end up going up in the long run due to TARP, but more money was saved because the sector was saved from collapsing completely. We'll just use Detroit and the auto industry as a localized example of what would have happened to us should the financial markets have collapsed the way they were leaning toward.

Even if I beleived in the longterm that the books would be balanced I don't have the conviction to say that it's worth standard of living. At the end of the day, money is only a representitive of value of tangible goods and services. And the bottom line are still being hit alot harder than anyone else. Those who could buy GM bonds with spare cash can take the hit, those who hadn't the cash to speculate obviously can't.

I do agree. The lower end got hit the hardest. No doubt. However, your statement about GM bond buyers isn't actually accurate. The GM bond buyers weren't buying the bonds with their money, they were using the middle class' money.

But there's unjust wars, the bank bailouts, huge poverty issues, private companies exploiting workers, oligarchs generating coups, medical companies faking epidemics. I don't feel that the protests are spurious, it's not like they're out every day marching about Chemtrails or Area 51's secrecy, generaly their complains are about tangible, factual issues.

True, however, by picking EVERY battle, instead of the most important battles, they have dulled the impact of their protests.

Contempt for the common man is a slippery slope!

And the slippery slope is a load of shit.

At 10/6/11 08:45 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: if you want to eradicate the drug users, stop arresting them and let them kill themselves off then.

If only drug related crime and violence were solely contained within the world of drug users...

Too bad much of it spills out into the regular world, which is largely why the drug war exists.

At 10/6/11 06:34 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: People from all over the US are feeding them with take out by internet orders and call ins.

How's about regular people actually start participating instead of encouraging the semi-homeless career protestors?

At 10/5/11 09:15 PM, adrshepard wrote: Mass protests are never founded on rationality. They couldn't be. Reasonable solutions to major problems are very complex and usually take a lot of experience or background knowledge to understand. To rally people, you need passion and conviction, not logic and an objective mind. It's one reason to be thankful we elect representatives to vote for us rather than cast a ballot for each and every legislative action.

You're not going to find many people who understand this system who will be opposed to it. The nature of this system is that it is so comple that those who have the knowledge can navigate, control, and thus benefit from the system.

However, it seems as if some unions have joined the protest, so it seems that the average Joe might be hopping on this bandwagon. Now this protest needs to let them be the forefront and get a more articulate message than "they have money, and we don't like that they have it!"

At 10/5/11 06:14 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: 100,000 per bank sounds absurdly low. And it is, according to this site it's per person. Though I think the high interest accounts may actually not be covered by this statute.

The biggest restriction here is not the $100K or how many it applies it, it's what it applies to. The vast majority of the average American's savings is not in checking, savings, or CDs. They lie in things like stocks, 401Ks, IRAs, and other non FDIC protected investment instruments. In those things, absolutely ZERO of your money is protected.

Some groups have payed back, yes, but the net deficit seems to be quite high. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae seem to be the blurst of the worst. So I'm not really convinced outright, if you've any particular sources that contradict the fairly vauge results google threw up I'd be really interested in reading them!

Give me some time to do some actual research and I'll come back with some.

Because they don't seem fit for the job at this point in time. You need a complete idealogical culling in order to remove the problem (Bad market practices) instead of the symptoms (Boom-bust economic cycles).

The bailout wasn't meant to fix the problem. It was meant to keep a hole from caving in.

But it would seem this is already leading to a cavern as. There is no way to fix a system with this bad a debt/fiat currency ratio, there simply isn't the funds! The best thing to do would be to write off the debts as absurd amounts and start again. Give priority to citizens, let institutions and corporations take the burden of dead credit.

But it's not.

Here's a representation:
Invesment sector A has 100 billion dollars of invested capital out there. This investment capital exists largely of derivatives and combinations of average Joes' stock and investments.

Now, A goes reckless with 10 billion of its money, giving out false insurance plans thinking they'll never have to cash out. Oops! Economy tanks, cash out time!

Now, A has lost 10 billion dollars of average Americans' retirement and savings money. Two bailout options, pay the Joes that 10 billion, or pay A that 10 billion.

Bailut out the Joes. The Joes get a few thousand each. A and 20 of their ilk lose a combined 100 billion dollars and begin to collapse. A loses more and more and more of Joes' money. In the end, the collapse costs A 30 billion more dollars of Joes' money.

Bailout A. A and its compatriots are bailed out. A stabilizes and loses very littel more money. Joes' retirement and savings, doesn't take the massive hit.

There are your options. Sure, both have some side effects, and it sure makes us feel warm and fuzzy to pay the Joes instead of the reckless corporations, but in the end, sometimes it's better to be smart than it is to go for warm and fuzzy.

I wouldn't exactly call this the drop of a hat. Yes they protest alot. But do you not feel there's alot of things wrong with the world? Things you wish people would try and change? They're idealists and yes, sometimes, even naive. But I'd never hold that against them.

You ever hear of the story of the boy who cried wolf? Yeah, the career protestors protest about so much these days that it's just so dang hard to really get excited or care anymore. Liek I said it's lost its novelty.

Well, Cam, I'm sorry to say that you don't actually need to be qualified or informed in order to particiape in a democratic society and in fact you should never have to be! The government IS deliberately misinforming people and to expect the backlash to come from Academia, some mob of militant fiscal conservatives, is unrealistic.

You don't have to be educated to participate, but it definitely helps. They say something's wrong. yes. They propose solutions. Should I trust their solutions? Should I trust solutions from people who don't really understand what the problem is? No, not really.

I could quote that Black Panther story where the guy askes for a weapon and they give him a book but I don't want to come across too flower power.

Well, can we pass these guys each a book on securities?

Again, while I understand you took pride in your understanding of economics, law and legislation in the US and how it has and continues to interact with US and global politics I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to adhere to such a standard.

If someone came to your music business and started protesting in front of it. Day and night, blocking your business and in general being a pain in the ass, but all they knew about music is that guitars and round brass things make pretty noises, wouldn't that grind on you? Now, I don't work in finances, but I see people who try so hard to make points about it, but they know so little they cannot even pin point the problem. "Corporations are bad!" is not something I cannot jump on board with. When the base question to a protest can be answered with a "yeah, and...?" it's not a strong enough point.

At 10/5/11 07:05 PM, orangebomb wrote: I know that mob mentality in general isn't exactly the brightest thing in the world to do, but this is getting to a point where this is just asinine, especially when there is no central leadership or even a halfway decent cause for us to understand.

Occupy Corvallis! It just got real...

Whatever good intentions they had in mind with this Wall St. black out is clearly being overshadowed by their complete ignorance of the situation at hand, and their lack of answers on how to solve the problem, without to the point of radicalization or just being naive.

The issues of "We're tires of being poor!" and "The rich are rich!" don't really provide any answers or solutions.

Now, these protestors have two options. They can either come up with some clear and worthy problems and solutions to them, or they do the better solution, get some credibility by getting some regular people whose opinions other regular people actually value.

I am no fan of opinions reeking of weed...

At 10/5/11 07:08 PM, Warforger wrote: You forgot to put the "-Karl Marx" at the end of your post.

Slippin'

At 10/5/11 01:03 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Still quite substantial to the average family!

$100,000 is substantial, but really, what percentage of Americans' debt is contained within the small confines of checking, savings and CDs? Also, the best of my knowledge, the $100K isn't per account, it's per bank (as if that distinction makes much of a difference for most Americans...)

Sorry, Cam, I'm going to need sauce on this!

I'm short on time so here's a google connection a few
links.

Yes and no, while they were investing the money on Joe's behalf Joe was lending them money on the gaurantee of return. Asuch if the investment failed the first priority should have been to give Joe Public his money and let what happens to the financial institutions happen, it's a free market or it's not!

Why do that when you could do both by placing the money exactly where it was before it dissapeared. In that I mean in the hands of the banks where it was being held. This way, we could also avoid the collateral collapse of honest funds that would have crumbled along with the bad ones. Frankly, where the money was put was the right place. Very little in terms of percentage of the money was being used in such a reckless manner, (at worst 10%) but a collapse of these institutions could lead to well over that amount disappearing. It would take substantially more money to fill in the cavern created by the collapse than to patch the hole that already existed.

First of all, let's not use personal attacks to justify ourselves. Greedy bankers sounds great but it doesn't really mean anything, neither does Bonaroo (Where did you get that word, actualy?)

Bonaroo isn't a personal attack. It's an indy hippie music/art festival. I use it to describe exactly who I talk about when I say career protestors. The types that patron things such as Bonaroo, Burning Man, Sasquatch and alike are the kind that are career protestors who garner little to no cred in the arena.

Maybe they haven't but neither has Average Joe, as you said. You don't like them because they alienate the common man, which isn't an unfair arguement. But I'll take the hippy movement over waiting for a sedentry middle class to get angry any day.

Better than nothing? Sure. However, when it's the protest at the drop of a hat sort, they have no room to complain about lack of tattention by the media.

No one ever really likes these groups - as I said, I've met socialists and while the ideas are often good the personalities can be pretty..bleh. But it's the issues that should be our priority, not the nature of the demographic - that is completely logicaly unsound.

This leads me to my bleak outlook of their understanding of the issues. These sort of protestoers are not quite likely to be versed in the ways of the monied class (i.e. science, economics, business, law). They tend to be more knowledgable when it comes to the social areas (i.e. art, sociology). So when they pick perhaps one of the most complex systems of economics to attack I seriously doubt they know anything about what they speak of.

Trust me, having grown up in the Pacific Northwest and spent the better part of my high school and early college years (perhaps even leaking into my original NG posts) being if nothing else, alligned with these bunch (however, much better on the blending in to normal society part) I have a fairly good knowledge of the makeup of these groups. Oh yeah, I also study law with the best and brightest of these folk, so I have experience with their superlatives as well. Trust me, they don't take business law, or securities, they take public interest and environmental.

At 10/5/11 02:06 AM, Psil0 wrote: Well it doesn't matter what city they protest in,

Very true.

because either their anger/reasoning is unfocused or it's focused on the wrong people.

I wouldn't call this the issue.

Also they're disorganized and have no leadership, they'll fall apart quickly due to that alone.

Again this isn't the issue either. Very few protests have leadership or organized views, even the ones that blossom into something more (see Tea Party).

The problem here isn't the What, the Why, the Where, or the How of the protests. It's the Who.
They are protesting something that people feel strong about. They are doing so because they feel strongly about it. They are doing it wherever they can get enough people and attention. They are unorganized like virtually every other protest out there, including successful ones.

The issue here is that this protest is made up of a group of people that not only don't attract any attention, they actually scare it away. Liek I have said numerous times before, the Bonaroo crowd does three things, get high, go to "rock" festivals, and protest. They protest so much that them protesting is about as novel as love for Reagan. Furthermore, this group is so repsulive to so many that there is a large sector of society that will actively stay away and not support this when they otherwise might, just because of the crowd that's protesting.

If these protestors wanted us to care, they'd do a couple things. They'd either, stop protesting, become normal average people, and then protest again, or they would get the average folk on and then take a back seat while the who have at least some worth to today's society (not the hippies) take the protest and run with it.

I think Pakistan's allegiance lies in the dead bodies of Mumbai...

The fatc that we even tried to ally with them is nothing more than an example of the very reason we're in a lot of the messes we're in. Perhaps we should support countries for the right reasons, not because they fit our needs in the short term...

At 10/4/11 10:33 PM, EdgarDraco wrote: The solution is simple: Abolish banks. Abolish corporations. And the problem is solved and the World is happy.

W emight as well abolish the whole concept of ownership and possession, even the physical kind.

At 10/3/11 04:20 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: These are photos teenage girls post on there own facebook wall.

Strangely, I have seen pictures like this as discovery for a case at work...

I guess reddit is now in the position that Craigslist was with their sex ads. They can cave to public pressure, or they can go forward and keep on posting this stuff.

A site that posts controversial stuff for other's pleasure really has no motive to stop. It's not liek this stuff was considered socially OK to take from other's pages without their consent, and then just turned bad. These people take pictures knowing the social view of them. A bit of moral pressure seems like little harm for an activity that was already thought to be iffy to begin with.

At 10/3/11 07:54 PM, TheMason wrote: Now with bullying and fighting in school you often have the same mindset.

With bullying yes, but that's not my worry here. Fighting, at least when I grew up, was usually between two evenly matched participants. In this situation, what would likely be a wrestling match could turn into an actual fight between two people who know how to fight to win.

At 10/3/11 07:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote: apparently they're coming to Canada even though we're more in line with their demands than the US.

Sounds liek pretty strong evidence that the protesters truly don't know what they're protesting about, and instead are protesting because it's hip amongst their crowd to protest.

get ready for a more polite lack of interest.

Protestor: "We regret to say that we don't agree with Wall Street!"

General Canadian public: "Thank you for your input, but no thanks."