Opinions Of Ows Vermin

[hateyou1]

To let you all see how insane and mentally disturbed these vermin are, let me post the list of their "demands."

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.
- http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-o ccupy-wall-st-moveme/

Now you can truly see how psychotic these nuts are. Fortunately, these rats have been exposed of and the true Americans had enough of their garbage. Now, if they truly wanted to go after corruption, why not protest at the front of the GE headquarters and demand that they pay their fair share? No, they were a pro-communist movement similar to the Gestapos during the early 1900's.

So to the people who were in favor of this "movement", they were also in the favor of the destruction of America. Now all they have to do is re-elect Barack HUSSEIN Obama into office and he will be president for not only 4 more years, but for life just like what the dictator Hugo Chavez did.

[Feoric]

At 6/26/12 05:19 PM, hateyou1 wrote: Now you can truly see how psychotic these nuts are. Fortunately, these rats have been exposed of and the true Americans had enough of their garbage. Now, if they truly wanted to go after corruption, why not protest at the front of the GE headquarters and demand that they pay their fair share? No, they were a pro-communist movement similar to the Gestapos during the early 1900's.

So to the people who were in favor of this "movement", they were also in the favor of the destruction of America.

well, you didnt demonstrate that at all. all you did was copy and paste what they said. how is that going to "destroy america?

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

oh no! his name!

he will be president for not only 4 more years, but for life just like what the dictator Hugo Chavez did.

yep. must be fluoride in the water.

[Korriken]

At 6/26/12 05:19 PM, hateyou1 wrote:

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

this...

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

this...

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

and this by themselves would bankrupt America so fast that whoever came up with that list won't have time to learn Chinese before our new masters roll tanks and jets in and make America a thing of the past.

so.. Let them all in, guaranteed living wage regardless of employment, and free health care to boot? If you thought the undocumented Mexicans were a problem now, wait til you throw open the border and tell em all to come in and not even have to work to make a good living. $20 an hour? that would force most small businesses to shut down.

Gotta love ppl who think they know everything, without knowing anything.

[Feoric]

At 6/26/12 06:18 PM, Korriken wrote: and this by themselves would bankrupt America so fast that whoever came up with that list won't have time to learn Chinese before our new masters roll tanks and jets in and make America a thing of the past.

america cannot go bankrupt, and i'm not too sure what the chinese have to do with anything.

anyway, it says right at the top: "This content is user submitted and not an official statement"

so this, uh, insane list of "demands" isn't really indicative of the group. which isn't even active anymore.

[Warforger]

Some of those actually make sense, an equal rights amendment, universal healthcare etc. but others? How much money do you think is in the Federal Budget?

[orangebomb]

At 6/26/12 05:19 PM, hateyou1 wrote: To let you all see how insane and mentally disturbed these vermin are, let me post the list of their "demands."

Oh God, just when I think that these OWS bastards are nuts, we get to read what they want for sitting on their asses and shitting of cop cars, hooray.

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

That's not going to work. Most of the small businesses in this country will not be able to afford $20 an hour per employee, even the lowly schmucks who clean the toilets.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

What does that remind me of? Oh right Communism, and I think we know how that turns out in the end.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Right, because that won't bankrupt America even more than now. Go back to the first argument, and see why that won't work.

Demand four: Free college education.

That includes dumbasses who don't deserve a secondary education, I'm sure that OWS would feel good about that. Making college more affordable, yes. Make it free, no.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

This might be one of the few points that make sense, but as long as gas prices keep going lower and lower, it's kind of tough to invest in alternative energy, constantly falling into that proverbial pitfall thinking that cheap crude oil will be available for a lot longer than in reality.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Where is all that money going to come from? They don't seem to notice we're neck deep in debt already, and China decides to collect, then look out because the shit will hit the fan.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Hell no, to decommission all of the nuclear plants means that a good chunk of America will go dark, just because the Fukushima Daiichi plant melted down, {due to the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami to be specific} doesn't mean that it's justified that all nuclear plants should be shut down.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Good luck with that. If I remember correctly, the ERA amendment of the 70's was similar to what OWS is asking for, and that wasn't very popular at all, apart from feminazis.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Really?, If that ever passes, then we'll be crammed in like we're in freaking India, no thanks, I value my space.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

How about no? Did OWS forgot about the 2000 election, what with all those hanging chads votes in Florida? Not to mention that in a country that has over 300 million people, and about 80% or so being voting age, it'll take a long fucking time.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now!

If only it was that easy. Basically, this would only encourage those to repeat the same mistakes of putting everything on credit, and hope that they have a steady job for the rest of their lives.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Never going to happen, simple as that.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

How exactly are they going to pull this off? Most of the unions hate OWS to begin with, I don't think that they would appreciate them messing around with their business.

This is what happens when you let a bunch of lazy career protestors, hippies and hypocritical college students who ran out of drugs to smoke get ideas on how government should be based off pipe dreams and reading stuff by Karl Marx. If there is any dignity left with them, they will let OWS die already, and maybe get someone who knows what they're talking about.

[Warforger]

At 6/26/12 11:14 PM, orangebomb wrote:

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

What does that remind me of? Oh right Communism, and I think we know how that turns out in the end.

Wow...... Universal Healthcare may be a Socialist idea but it's not Communist, and other countries which have it tend to either have better healthcare than we do or roughly equal so it does not seem to be a horrible idea.

Now when they're talking about destroying the government and creating an equal society through force come back to me, but wait that's not what they're asking for at all. That's not even what the American Communist party is calling for.

Demand four: Free college education.

That includes dumbasses who don't deserve a secondary education, I'm sure that OWS would feel good about that. Making college more affordable, yes. Make it free, no.

Except when you keep it paid for it means it puts barriers for those people in lower economic classes, when it's free everyone has an equal chance.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

This might be one of the few points that make sense, but as long as gas prices keep going lower and lower, it's kind of tough to invest in alternative energy, constantly falling into that proverbial pitfall thinking that cheap crude oil will be available for a lot longer than in reality.

They're not, they make temporary drops but in the long term they're going up.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Good luck with that. If I remember correctly, the ERA amendment of the 70's was similar to what OWS is asking for, and that wasn't very popular at all, apart from feminazis.

Oh wow the famous "F" word of the Feminists, oh will those women ever learn that in a society in which they are the group with more college graduates yet still are hired less than the other and are judged on their looks not by character (as opposed to men where it doesn't matter) is one where they're equal.

As a matter of fact the ERA amendment got pretty damn far, it was just stopped by a last minute Conservative backlash from people who felt that it would ruin the traditional family.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Really?, If that ever passes, then we'll be crammed in like we're in freaking India, no thanks, I value my space.

Highly doubt it.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

How about no? Did OWS forgot about the 2000 election, what with all those hanging chads votes in Florida? Not to mention that in a country that has over 300 million people, and about 80% or so being voting age, it'll take a long fucking time.

.....What? I think the election of 2000 is exactly why they would want standardized voting.....

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

How exactly are they going to pull this off? Most of the unions hate OWS to begin with, I don't think that they would appreciate them messing around with their business.

That doesn't seem that unreasonable and sounds perfect. In fact it may be their most realistic demand. The problem is that often times when you get hired for a job you have to join a Union or you're automatically enrolled in one, this is done so that the Unions can keep their strength and keep workers organized, otherwise you have industries where workers are unorganized. However with the way the modern labor unions are and how questionable they've become I think this is good.

This is what happens when you let a bunch of lazy career protestors, hippies and hypocritical college students who ran out of drugs to smoke get ideas on how government should be based off pipe dreams and reading stuff by Karl Marx. If there is any dignity left with them, they will let OWS die already, and maybe get someone who knows what they're talking about.

Ahhhh good ol' insults to let you know the speaker is so open-minded.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/26/12 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote: so it does not seem to be a horrible idea.

It does because America has no hope of affording it now, and even less hope in the future.

Except when you keep it paid for it means it puts barriers for those people in lower economic classes, when it's free everyone has an equal chance.

America already has way too many people going to college. Poor people who currently don't receive scholarships are unlikely to be smart enough to complete demanding and useful programs and so are unlikely to benefit significantly from college, and so are just wasting everyone else's money.
Oh, and once again america can't afford it.

Oh wow the famous "F" word of the Feminists, oh will those women ever learn that in a society in which they are the group with more college graduates yet still are hired less than the other and are judged on their looks not by character (as opposed to men where it doesn't matter) is one where they're equal.

Women are more likely to major in useless subjects. Graduates ain't graduates.

Highly doubt it.

Millions of poor, uneducated people flooding into a failing economy won't turn america into a third world country. Got it.

That doesn't seem that unreasonable and sounds perfect. In fact it may be their most realistic demand. The problem is that often times when you get hired for a job you have to join a Union or you're automatically enrolled in one, this is done so that the Unions can keep their strength and keep workers organized, otherwise you have industries where workers are unorganized. However with the way the modern labor unions are and how questionable they've become I think this is good.

Agreed.

Ahhhh good ol' insults to let you know the speaker is so open-minded.

No, really, most OWS are morons, and happen to be among the least open-minded people you could possibly ever meet.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/26/12 06:18 PM, Korriken wrote: Gotta love ppl who think they know everything, without knowing anything.

This smacks to me more of either a case of the "well-intentioned" who feel terrible for the guy working in the grocery store chain for shit wages (which is a criminal and horrible situation) but do not take into account that to force the chain to pay more in line with what it takes in off it's employees, they would also screw the mom and pop, single owner, single store that may be doing the same exact thing as a matter of survival.

Or conversely these are the people who WANT to work in these low skill, low pay gigs, aspire to nothing better and have no desire to do better...and somehow feel the world should reward them for staying a cog in a crappy wheel and not trying to improve their situation on their own initiative.

[digiman2024]

At 6/26/12 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote:
Wow...... Universal Healthcare may be a Socialist idea but it's not Communist, and other countries which have it tend to either have better healthcare than we do or roughly equal so it does not seem to be a horrible idea.

Now when they're talking about destroying the government and creating an equal society through force come back to me, but wait that's not what they're asking for at all. That's not even what the American Communist party is calling for.

i tire of this argument "other countries have universal healthcare and it works" please name 1 country with universal healthcare that is better or equal to our level of care and has a population near or over 300 million people? i haven't heard of 1 with that population.

just because other countries do something does not mean its a good idea for us, to use the old saying "if your friend jumped off a bridge, should u?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/27/12 12:26 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: which is a criminal situation

Death to tyrants who say we should use words based on their definitions!

[Dawnslayer]

At 6/27/12 12:47 AM, digiman2024 wrote:

i tire of this argument "other countries have universal healthcare and it works" please name 1 country with universal healthcare that is better or equal to our level of care and has a population near or over 300 million people? i haven't heard of 1 with that population.

Kind of an unfair challenge, seeing as it's the third most populous country in the world by a margin of about 80 million people. But as long as we're using population as a measuring stick, let's start with the top ten:

-United States (for comparison): Population 313.8 million (3rd); economy ranks 1st in the world by GDP. Ranks 37th in overall quality of health care out of 191 (according to a report published by the World Health Organization in 2010), but also ranks 1st in health care spending per capita.

-China: population 1.4 billion (1st); economy ranks 2nd. Ranks 144th in quality; no data on spending per capita.
-India: population 1.2 billion (2nd); economy ranks 3rd. Ranks 112th in quality; no data on spending per capita.
-Brazil: population 196.7 million (5th); economy ranks 7th. Ranks 125th in quality; no data on spending per capita.
-Pakistan (?): population 180 million (6th); economy ranks 27th. Ranks 122nd in quality; no data on spending per capita.
-Russia: population 143.1 million (8th); economy ranks 6th. Ranks 130th in quality; no data on spending per capita.
-Japan: population 127.6 million (10th); economy ranks 4th. Ranks 10th in quality and 13th in spending per capita.

If we extend the list to the top 25...

-Egypt (with the understanding these statistics predate the revolution): population 82.3 million (15th); economy ranks 26th. Ranks 63rd in quality and 113th in spending per capita.
-Germany: population 81.9 million (16th); economy ranks 5th. Ranks 25th in quality and 3rd in spending per capita.
-France: population 65.4 million (21st); economy ranks 9th. Ranks 1st in quality and 4th in spending per capita.
-United Kingdom: population 62.3 million (22nd); economy ranks 8th. Ranks 18th in quality and 26th in spending per capita.
-Italy: population 60.8 million (23rd); economy ranks 10th. Ranks 2nd in quality in 11th in spending per capita.
-South Africa: population 50.6 million (24th); economy ranks 25th. Ranks 175th in quality; no data on spending per capita.
-South Korea: population 48.6 million (25th); economy ranks 12th. Ranks 58th in quality and 31st in spending per capita.

The statistics do indicate that countries with populations in excess of 100 million tend to do worse with universal health care systems. But is it because of the large population, or is that just a distraction from the real problem? I think there's another, far more important factor: in countries where health care is poor, the quality of life there is generally shit to begin with.

China and India, despite being economic powerhouses, have poverty, class, and/or corruption issues that far exceed our own; similar issues exist in Brazil, Pakistan, and Russia. In contrast, Japan is a first-world society, with an economic and governmental structure that are more or less regarded as free and fair. This is also the case throughout western Europe, all of which does as well or better providing universal health care for what is collectively about 75 million more people than in the United States.

[bismuthfeldspar]

Well, I can explain why they are wrong. Whether they have the intelligence to understand why is another matter.

Demand one: end "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods...nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages...raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Businesses dependent on cheap imports would have to downsize, tariffs would not raise demand for American manufacturing, they would also slow down economic growth in the developing world slowing political liberalisation and reducing their dependence on foreign trade which means our attempts to get them to improve human rights and cooperate with global environment initiatives will be less effective. Assuming businesses cannot switch to migrant labor programs in place of American workers, such a high minimum wage would only cause inflation cancelling out the benefits of the higher wages and resulting in a net reduction in standards of living due to economic instability.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market

There are many different types of private insurer and most are not responsible for the ad-hoc cluster of tax breaks, benefits, bizarre regulations unrelated to law enforcement or safety, small print, different programs and clinics which vary from state to state and county to county which serve no purpose and often leave customers in the dry or paying far more than they need to. Those few that lobby for these laws can do so because voters give the state license to pass them.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

How would they receive a wage if they aren't employed? Why get a job if you're being paid $12.50 an hour to do nothing? Food stamps and project housing to keep them from being homeless and destitute and allow them to look for work would be a better argument.

Demand four: Free college education.

It is unfair to people who studied career oriented STEM degrees, trade school and professional qualifications to have to pay for people who studied drama, music, art history and liberal arts. You may have the right to follow your dreams but so do "corporate drones".

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

It will take decades of meticulous research to develop this technology and open up new forms of alternative energy as well as the many small innovations needed to improve energy efficiency, pouring billions into white elephants like corn ethanol and Solyndra in an attempt to "fast track" the process is not how to accomplish this.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

A suspiciously round number for a spending policy that needs to be properly analysed and researched to prevent waste.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

The waste, corruption and inefficiency in spending that round number would be worse than the benefits to the environment and bunny huggers.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Would that mean insurance companies can no longer offer cheaper insurance to women and universities can no longer institute racial quotas?

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

So illegal immigrants can work for US companies that don't want to pay the $20 minimum wage mentioned earlier.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

This should be your only demand.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.

There would be a run on the banks that lent money, people who worked hard and saved would lose everything.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

So people who balance their books can't prove they are more reliable than dodgy dealers. It would only make mortgages more expensive.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

You can do this by enforcing the constitution, the right for people to peacefully assemble.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

The real world doesn't work like that, you can create jobs in the short term by taking on excessive debt but in the long term this is a less effective policy because the excess capital you used could have been used more effectively by a private business slowing growth.

[Korriken]

At 6/27/12 12:26 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

This smacks to me more of either a case of the "well-intentioned"....

my point exactly. think they know everything, actually know nothing. as the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Or conversely these are the people who WANT to work in these low skill, low pay gigs, aspire to nothing better and have no desire to do better...and somehow feel the world should reward them for staying a cog in a crappy wheel and not trying to improve their situation on their own initiative.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions and choices. If that's all you want, that's all you should get.

[camobch0]

I support those demands.

[orangebomb]

At 6/26/12 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 6/26/12 11:14 PM, orangebomb wrote:

Wow...... Universal Healthcare may be a Socialist idea but it's not Communist, and other countries which have it tend to either have better healthcare than we do or roughly equal so it does not seem to be a horrible idea.

Still, how exactly are you going to get over 300 million people under a universal health care system, including death-row prisoners and hardcore drug addicts? UHC sounds good on paper, but with a population as big as ours, it's virtually unfeasible from an economic standpoint.

Demand four: Free college education.

That includes dumbasses who don't deserve a secondary education, I'm sure that OWS would feel good about that. Making college more affordable, yes. Make it free, no.

Except when you keep it paid for it means it puts barriers for those people in lower economic classes, when it's free everyone has an equal chance.

Once again, we don't have the money for it, unless we want to be deeper in debt. Plus, there are a lot of dumbasses in college already who waste away those scholarships, it's kind of hard for the lower economic classes to get scholarships when the idiots take them away. And then there are the people who are still looking for jobs even with a college degree, so what's the benefit of that? You can't just let everyone in the door, without diluting the college experience.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

This might be one of the few points that make sense, but as long as gas prices keep going lower and lower, it's kind of tough to invest in alternative energy, constantly falling into that proverbial pitfall thinking that cheap crude oil will be available for a lot longer than in reality.

They're not, they make temporary drops but in the long term they're going up.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, I never said that gas prices were going down permanently, I said that it just makes it harder for alternative fuels to gain much traction, largely due to apathy. Hope that clears that up.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Good luck with that. If I remember correctly, the ERA amendment of the 70's was similar to what OWS is asking for, and that wasn't very popular at all, apart from feminazis.

Oh wow the famous "F" word of the Feminists, oh will those women ever learn that in a society in which they are the group with more college graduates yet still are hired less than the other and are judged on their looks not by character (as opposed to men where it doesn't matter) is one where they're equal.

Except when they major in useless subjects in college, all graduates are not equal. Plus, the radical feminists out there just love to bitch about even the most petty problems on men, and even tried to ruin their own cause because even most rational women wants no part of the feminist movement. Unless you work hard enough, it's kind of hard to simply cast yourself off of any stereotype, fair or not.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Highly doubt it.

So your in favor of removing the borders then? As I said about college, we can't just let everyone in the door, we don't want to deal with all of the poor, uneducated people in a crappy economy, much less the Mexican drug cartels who would threaten to turn cities in the Southwest into Miami circa 1982.

That doesn't seem that unreasonable and sounds perfect. In fact it may be their most realistic demand. The problem is that often times when you get hired for a job you have to join a Union or you're automatically enrolled in one, this is done so that the Unions can keep their strength and keep workers organized, otherwise you have industries where workers are unorganized. However with the way the modern labor unions are and how questionable they've become I think this is good.

Ok, I'll bend with you on this one, provided that the state has the right to work laws, and that the unions have no negative reputations in the past {i.e associate with the Mafia} or now. No business should force you to be in a union if you don't want to, even if it is for your own benefit to join one.

This is what happens when you let a bunch of lazy career protestors, hippies and hypocritical college students who ran out of drugs to smoke get ideas on how government should be based off pipe dreams and reading stuff by Karl Marx. If there is any dignity left with them, they will let OWS die already, and maybe get someone who knows what they're talking about.

Ahhhh good ol' insults to let you know the speaker is so open-minded.

Except for when it's the truth, not to mention the irony of calling me closed-minded, when the OWS has been accused {and proven true many times BTW} of being the least open minded to anyone who differs from their opinion. Say what you will, I still believe that OWS movement is a waste of time and space, and the vast majority of them are hypocritical douchebags.

[Dawnslayer]

At 6/27/12 11:14 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 6/26/12 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow...... Universal Healthcare may be a Socialist idea but it's not Communist, and other countries which have it tend to either have better healthcare than we do or roughly equal so it does not seem to be a horrible idea.

Still, how exactly are you going to get over 300 million people under a universal health care system, including death-row prisoners and hardcore drug addicts? UHC sounds good on paper, but with a population as big as ours, it's virtually unfeasible from an economic standpoint.

It would require a tax increase to cover the expense. Even supporters of universal health care don't deny that. But this is another reason I argue that sheer population is not an issue; yes, we have more people, but that also means a proportionate number of taxpayers that contribute to the system. And yes, that means less money in your monthly paycheck, but on the other hand that's money you're not spending on expensive prescriptions and medical procedures in the long term.

Furthermore, if those taxes were paid into state systems rather than a federal one, you would effectively nullify the "300 million people" argument. Even California, the most populous state, only has 38 million people; compare to Germany (81 million), France (65 million), or the UK (62 million), all of which have universal health care and manage it quite well.

[Korriken]

At 6/28/12 02:21 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

...or the UK (62 million), all of which have universal health care and manage it quite well.

I can only point to hundreds of news articles stating otherwise.
here's a good one,

another good one,

This is one of my favorites.

once Obamacare bankrupts the insurance industry and we're forced into this same system, we're gonna be hearing these same stories, but in America, and a lot more of them.

[orangebomb]

At 6/28/12 02:21 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 6/27/12 11:14 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 6/26/12 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote:

It would require a tax increase to cover the expense. Even supporters of universal health care don't deny that.

Right off the bat, your argument is shot down. Let's be honest here, not too many people {especially the working class} would like to have a tax increase and lose a little bit of money that they desperately need. The last thing we need is the government getting even more of our money and more debt piled on something that is questionable at best.

But this is another reason I argue that sheer population is not an issue; yes, we have more people, but that also means a proportionate number of taxpayers that contribute to the system. And yes, that means less money in your monthly paycheck, but on the other hand that's money you're not spending on expensive prescriptions and medical procedures in the long term.

First off, why would anyone want to have less money in their paycheck, I ask you? As I said, UHC sounds good on paper, but when people have less income to spend, it doesn't matter if procedures and prescriptions are cheaper, because they will still burn away a similar percentage of income, and have less money in the end, no one wants that. Second, it will require a good cut of said paycheck to pay for UHC, never mind the eventual problems of growing debt when we support UHC, try telling that to the unions.

Furthermore, if those taxes were paid into state systems rather than a federal one, you would effectively nullify the "300 million people" argument. Even California, the most populous state, only has 38 million people; compare to Germany (81 million), France (65 million), or the UK (62 million), all of which have universal health care and manage it quite well.

If by manage, you mean get into deep debt, then yes. Now I'm not saying that the UHC systems in Europe is the reason why they are so deep in the red alone, but it just so happens to be that way.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/28/12 11:13 AM, orangebomb wrote: First off, why would anyone want to have less money in their paycheck, I ask you?

Why? Because humans (especially Americans) have the financial foresight of a toddler. We would rtaher blow $100 a month on gummy bears than save it up in case of a problem. So when Joe Blow blows his money on crap and then finds out he's got a heart problem, loses a leg, or worse, loses kidney function, he no longer has the $ to pay for insurance. What then? Do we just let Joe die or languish in pain and disillusionment? Do we give him healthcare either way, but pay for it out of our own pocket? Neither solution is preferrable, good, or even tolerable (imagine being forced to choose being eating shit and drinking someone else's urine).

So instead of being stupid and allowing these bad decisions to come to the fore, the government can use its power to force people to plan a rainy day fund in the ever increasing chance (what with Americans being fatties and all) that a severe or terminal illness will befall them.

As someone who has a severe illness, I can tell you that they spring up out of nowhere and they can be extremely expensive (mine costs well over $10K a month to treat). Do you want to be on the hook for my $120K/year treatment? If I never decided to get insurance, that's exactly what would be the case. Luckily for you, I could afford health insurance.

[Dawnslayer]

In response to Korriken:

At 6/28/12 11:02 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 6/28/12 02:21 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

...or the UK (62 million), all of which have universal health care and manage it quite well.

I can only point to hundreds of news articles stating otherwise.
here's a good one,

The title of the article makes it sound like the NHS is to blame, but its actual content indicates the fault lies with two physicians, who made the mistake of not looking closely enough at the patient's medical history. I don't see how this story would have played out differently if the doctors in question worked in a private system.

another good one,

Fair, but it should be noted that it's the medical institutions that are cutting care while the government is pushing for the cuts to be made elsewhere.

This is one of my favorites.

To quote the article itself:

"According to Nat Lievesley, an expert researcher into older peopleâEUTMs care, such attitudes should by now have been banished from the NHS because they are in fact illegal. He explains that the 2010 Equality Act outlawed age discrimination, such as age limits for treatment, in all official NHS policies. But Lievesley, an investigator for the Centre for Policy on Ageing, says that while official rules have changed, the attitudes of individual doctors and nurses has not."

I'm left with the impression this is not a case of failure of public health care, but is an issue of prejudices on the part of individual doctors, who would have the same prejudices if they were paid privately.

once Obamacare bankrupts the insurance industry and we're forced into this same system,

Obamacare is not universal health care. The Republicans took care of that when they eliminated the public option from the bill. Do not confuse the two.

we're gonna be hearing these same stories, but in America, and a lot more of them.

These stories already happen in America; I know this because I have family and friends who have had to deal with such issues - misdiagnosis/non-diagnosis, age and weight-based prejudices, etc. - on a constant basis, from privately paid doctors. In my own experience, I was relying on my GP to treat my diabetes for three years when I should have been seeing an endocrinologist, which I couldn't afford because I wasn't insured, and my treatment suffered as a result. The only reason I can see one now is because I qualified for Medicaid, which only strengthens my support for the public option.

-----

In response to Orangebomb:

At 6/28/12 11:13 AM, orangebomb wrote:

At 6/28/12 02:21 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: It would require a tax increase to cover the expense. Even supporters of universal health care don't deny that.

Right off the bat, your argument is shot down. Let's be honest here, not too many people {especially the working class} would like to have a tax increase and lose a little bit of money that they desperately need. The last thing we need is the government getting even more of our money and more debt piled on something that is questionable at best.

One, of course no one likes paying taxes; we see it as a necessary evil to support the services we use. Two, the majority of working-class people ultimately don't pay taxes, and those that do wouldn't pay nearly as much as the middle or upper class. Three, what debts does a universal health care system incur that the aforementioned tax increase would/could not offset?

But this is another reason I argue that sheer population is not an issue; yes, we have more people, but that also means a proportionate number of taxpayers that contribute to the system. And yes, that means less money in your monthly paycheck, but on the other hand that's money you're not spending on expensive prescriptions and medical procedures in the long term.

First off, why would anyone want to have less money in their paycheck, I ask you?

To simplify Husky's reply to this question: return on investment. Sooner or later, everyone gets sick, needs to see a doctor, and undergo some form of treatment, and for serious illnesses this can get very, very expensive. This is especially true for people with chronic illnesses (which insurance companies affectionately refer to as "pre-existing conditions"), who are likely to need medical treatment for their whole life. If you have the money to pay for it yourself when it happens (and I assure you it will happen), that's great; but for those that can't, the years of tax they contributed to the public system pay off.

Also, the money doesn't necessarily have to come straight out of the paycheck. My home state of Washington, for instance, does not collect an income tax; the government excises its funds through sales tax instead. In essence, we invest in government services every time we buy something, for a modest increase in the price of the product. There's no reason funding for a public option couldn't work the same way.

Second, it will require a good cut of said paycheck to pay for UHC, never mind the eventual problems of growing debt when we support UHC, try telling that to the unions.

Again, most of the burden would fall on the most affluent members of society (read: not union members), as it already does in most cases. The small amount paid by working-class people (for those who pay anything) would be much less per capita; and compared to what those same people pay for health services now, that amount should be reasonable.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 6/26/12 07:29 PM, Warforger wrote: How much money do you think is in the Federal Budget?

As much as they want to print.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Just a bunch of Dumbass Lefties and college student who think they know everything or just want free shit.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/29/12 01:29 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Just a bunch of Dumbass Lefties and college student who think they know everything or just want free shit.

This is a much more accuarate and appropriate way to go after OWS. Calling them "vermin" just makes you look like an asshole. (You might as well call every woman who voice their opinions a slut).

Seriously, OWS is a clusterfuck of problems and dysfunction. The ease with which you can find flaws means any use of targetted bad words or ad hominem attacks is well beyond needed, and actually becomes counter productive (by making yourself the bad guy, instead of an observer of facts).

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/29/12 02:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Seriously, OWS is a clusterfuck of problems and dysfunction. The ease with which you can find flaws means any use of targetted bad words or ad hominem attacks is well beyond needed, and actually becomes counter productive (by making yourself the bad guy, instead of an observer of facts).

besides not being effective and being a nuisance to the locals and local business. I've been surprised that the movement hasn't quit already.

[Korriken]

At 6/29/12 03:58 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

besides not being effective and being a nuisance to the locals and local business. I've been surprised that the movement hasn't quit already.

never underestimate the power of a bunch of neo-hippies who somehow believe they're making a difference. in the 60's it was pot and woodstock. today its pot and Apple. Both sets of hippies were against something and fought against it by being worthless wastes of life.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/29/12 04:08 PM, Korriken wrote: never underestimate the power of a bunch of neo-hippies who somehow believe they're making a difference. in the 60's it was pot and woodstock. today its pot and Apple. Both sets of hippies were against something and fought against it by being worthless wastes of life.

and look at what they both accomplished: little or absolutely no change.

[Warforger]

At 6/27/12 11:14 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 6/26/12 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 6/26/12 11:14 PM, orangebomb wrote:

Wow...... Universal Healthcare may be a Socialist idea but it's not Communist, and other countries which have it tend to either have better healthcare than we do or roughly equal so it does not seem to be a horrible idea.

Still, how exactly are you going to get over 300 million people under a universal health care system, including death-row prisoners and hardcore drug addicts? UHC sounds good on paper, but with a population as big as ours, it's virtually unfeasible from an economic standpoint.

It's called GDP. In terms of total GNP we make the most in the world, thus we can pay for each individual some portion of the GDP, say if we had a GDP of 10,000$ we spend say 2500 on healthcare.

Now I'm not saying we should have a UHC plan, what I am saying is that it's retarded to call it Communism.

Except when you keep it paid for it means it puts barriers for those people in lower economic classes, when it's free everyone has an equal chance.

Once again, we don't have the money for it, unless we want to be deeper in debt.

I'm not saying that we should do it right now or that we do it at all, I'm saying it makes sense.

Plus, there are a lot of dumbasses in college already who waste away those scholarships, it's kind of hard for the lower economic classes to get scholarships when the idiots take them away.

Right, they're probably dumbasses because they're liberals right?

And then there are the people who are still looking for jobs even with a college degree, so what's the benefit of that?

You're right some people are, there are also alot of people who aren't, it also means that when the economy booms again those unemployed are more likely to get hired. If you don't get a college degree that means you'll probably never going to hold down a good paying job.

You can't just let everyone in the door, without diluting the college experience.

You do realize not all colleges are equal right? They have huge standards and all.....

Except when they major in useless subjects in college, all graduates are not equal.

Don't see how that's relevant.

Plus, the radical feminists out there just love to bitch about even the most petty problems on men,

Some do, some don't. Many have good reason to believe what they believe.

and even tried to ruin their own cause because even most rational women wants no part of the feminist movement.

These rational women being those trying to protect the "traditional family".

Unless you work hard enough, it's kind of hard to simply cast yourself off of any stereotype, fair or not.

? Except statistics tend to be on their side, attractive women get hired more than unattractive women, there are more female college graduates than male and yet males are still hired more often.

So your in favor of removing the borders then? As I said about college, we can't just let everyone in the door, we don't want to deal with all of the poor, uneducated people in a crappy economy,

We do when they take jobs no one else will.

much less the Mexican drug cartels who would threaten to turn cities in the Southwest into Miami circa 1982.

You don't need to worry about that they already have.

Except for when it's the truth, not to mention the irony of calling me closed-minded, when the OWS has been accused {and proven true many times BTW} of being the least open minded to anyone who differs from their opinion. Say what you will, I still believe that OWS movement is a waste of time and space, and the vast majority of them are hypocritical douchebags.

Right. You accuse them of being Communists when they're not, you accuse them of being potheads when that's just a stereotype and you accuse them of being douchebags without even knowing them.

[Iron-Hampster]

this is why a movement that had merit and potential failed. the ignorant voices drowned out the base cause of the movement. I did what I could to defend this movement on grounds that it was anti corporatism and anti corruption and was supposed to be in favour of individual liberty and human rights.

instead, the idiots kept screaming the word socialism until the movement became nothing but socialism. (and a few anti-Semites, who's voices were also amplified by the media).

basically fell to the same crap Tea Party fell to. the extremist and ignorant voices resonated over the actual cause. In fact, the page you linked to isn't even an official set of demands, its just some page that some douche bag college hipster thought he/she would make while he was probably stoned out of his/her mind thinking "I'm gonna represent these guys, yea, that will be sweet man!".