Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Worldwide Occupy Movement?

12467…13

Comments

  • #92
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    davoxx wrote: »
    go on so, show us where it falls to your logical interrogation,

    Look at all the questions over all the different threads that Occupy supporters have avioded answering.


  • #93
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Valmont wrote: »
    I've noticed this meme (to use the Occupy parlance;)) of late; I think 20Cent has mentioned it too.

    How do you know it isn't the state corrupting the corporations? Please explain why you believe the corruption to flow in one direction only.

    I'm not sure your question makes sense. In what sense is the state corrupting the corporation? What function does the corporation have that the state would stand to gain by preventing it from accomplishing?

    My understanding is that the corporation exists for one purpose and one purpose alone. To create profit for its shareholders and to shield them from consequences of risk and failure as much as possible.

    It CAN be argued that a corporation will often feel forced to bribe an official in order to get preferential treatment or a contract because if they don't someone else will and they will lose out. India is a good example of this where corruption has spread so deep that many investors are wondering whether it is worth the cost.

    It's a vicious cycle.

    But the state has nothing to gain by corrupting corporations. Only corrupt individuals within the state benefit from this. However, the corporation has a whole has a lot to gain by corrupting the functions of government.

    But in the end, it doesn't matter which direction the corporation flows. Except, corrupting government is natural evolution for the purposes of corporate growth, the alternative is not true.

    We want government to serve its purpose, which is representing the interests of those who vote for them. And to do this we must stop corruption.

    Edit: Okay, thinking about it a little more I can see where you are coming from. China for example is one instance where a state is corrupting corporation. By reducing freedom of speech. But China is not a democracy. So I think it's important to keep context in mind when having these discussions.

    My aim is to discuss and encourage stronger democracy. As such the argument you present is a tangent and not really applicable to what we are talking about.


  • #94
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Valmont wrote: »
    Throw its current form in the bin - mob rule is one thing libertarians are explicitly against. We know it, too.

    Who is talking about mob rule? The libertarian version is nothing more than a return to times where the rich did whatever the hell they want and the rest of us were little more than pawns in their games.


  • #95
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Look at all the questions over all the different threads that Occupy supporters have avioded answering.
    i did, and i saw answers.
    granted some answers are fluffy answers, but then again those were in response to fluffy questions.
    if you feel a question was avoided, can you point it out?

    if the question is "when does someone know that they are in love?" expect a fluffy answer.
    if it is a factually based question and that the answer given failed to meet logical reasoning, and i'd like to hear it.

    otherwise this video (which is neither pro nor con) is very apt, at showing the confusion surrounding it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-rxe9Ayb8c


    the media constantly attempts to discredit the Occupy Movement, but that is because it scares them and their owners ...


  • #96
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    davoxx wrote: »
    i did, and i saw answers.
    granted some answers are fluffy answers, but then again those were in response to fluffy questions.
    if you feel a question was avoided, can you point it out?

    if the question is "when does someone know that they are in love?" expect a fluffy answer.

    I'll ask them again. What are Occupys goals? How do they hope to achieve them? Should be reasonably detailed they've had a few months.Why do they do they not practice what they preach(Look a the Occupy Galway Thread). What would Occupy do to reslove our current crisis(again they've had plently of time to come up with a detailed response)

    Others have asked more. None of these are difficult. Any organisation that is any good is capable explaining these to outsiders in a clear and understandable fashion.

    If the people within the Occupy movement want to succeed they have to able to answer these questions.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    What are Occupys goals?
    as a movement that have a clear goal: to make the world a better place, where everyone can live in peace and everyone is equal. (that was paraphrased obviously)

    so that logically stands.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    How do they hope to achieve them?
    like most movements, by raising awareness. should that fail who knows what their next step is.

    so that logically stands.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Should be reasonably detailed they've had a few months.
    they want to remove corruption, inequality, greed, censorship ... they are a movement, movements don't have detailed implementation plans.

    so that logically stands and your point is flawed.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Why do they do they not practice what they preach(Look a the Occupy Galway Thread).
    you'll have to be more specific. each sub occupy movement may have their own gaols, demands that are specific to that country or city.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    What would Occupy do to reslove our current crisis(again they've had plently of time to come up with a detailed response)
    again you are looking for an implementation plan.

    your point is flawed.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Others have asked more. None of these are difficult.
    or relevant.

    your point is flawed.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Any organisation that is any good is capable explaining these to outsiders in a clear and understandable fashion.
    good as in efficient? good as in morally good? you are mushing different concepts into an incorrect conclusion.

    your point is flawed.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    If the people within the Occupy movement want to succeed they have to able to answer these questions.
    they have, but people need to understand them and think for themselves rather than following media guided answers.

    your point is flawed.

    conclusion:
    they are a movement, they are not a group of investors, nor a customer with a complaint with a single product.
    they are a group of people who have a broad common complaint and a broad common goal. i think you are confusing them with a political parties campaign ...


  • #98
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    as a movement that have a clear goal: to make the world a better place, where everyone can live in peace and everyone is equal. (that was paraphrased obviously)

    ...


    "all we are saying, is give peace a chance"?

    Maybe we will all go to San Francisco and put flowers in our hair?

    Ok, not all cultural references are that old.

    "Heal the world, make it a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race...."


  • #99
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Everyone is equal... ok, how: Economically? Socially?
    I knew occupy was a secret communist wealth-redistribution network.


  • #100
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Godge wrote: »
    "all we are saying, is give peace a chance"?

    Maybe we will all go to San Francisco and put flowers in our hair?

    Ok, not all cultural references are that old.

    "Heal the world, make it a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race...."
    hey, if you don't want to give peace a chance, that is your opinion.

    i understand that there are people that don't want to heal the world, they'd rather make money from the sick ... but that is your call, just like it is your call to try and mock those that want to make the world a better place ...

    but still it doesn't take away from the fact that the do have a gaol now does it?


  • #101
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    hey, if you don't want to give peace a chance, that is your opinion.

    i understand that there are people that don't want to heal the world, they'd rather make money from the sick ... but that is your call, just like it is your call to try and mock those that want to make the world a better place ...

    but still it doesn't take away from the fact that the do have a gaol now does it?

    Should have included the roll-eyes icon, you might have understood the post better then.

    The point of my post, obviously lost on you, is that the give peace a chance goal has been around for nearly 50 years as a part of the hippie movement and just begs the question once again, isn't ODS just the same old story from the same old tired protesters? I just used artistic licence in using lyrics from various songs from the last 50 years.

    might strap on my guitar and head down for a singalong some night in Dame Street:D.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Everyone is equal... ok, how: Economically? Socially?
    I knew occupy was a secret communist wealth-redistribution network.
    if you really think so ... you'd be wrong. as much as you want wealth sharing, Occupy movement are not against capitalism ... i know it make you sad that they can't see the flaws, but the movement is not a communist movement.

    i imagine equal socially, you know the same rights for everyone regardless of where you grew up, who you went to college with, which economic system you prefer ... you know equability? does that mean economic equality? i would have thought it did, but others might disagree ...


  • #103
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    davoxx wrote: »
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Everyone is equal... ok, how: Economically? Socially?
    I knew occupy was a secret communist wealth-redistribution network.
    if you really think so ... you'd be wrong. as much as you want wealth sharing, Occupy movement are not against capitalism ... i know it make you sad that they can't see the flaws, but the movement is not a communist movement.

    i imagine equal socially, you know the same rights for everyone regardless of where you grew up, who you went to college with, which economic system you prefer ... you know equability? does that mean economic equality? i would have thought it did, but others might disagree ...

    You miss the point. Either you're for economic equality (whatever that is) or you're not. I'm asking here.

    If you want economic equality, what is that and how do you propose accomplishing that?

    If its social equality, show where we have social inequality and what causes that?

    Otherwise it's pie in the sky stuff. I want to be clear that I'm not calling occupies hippies here, but worthwhile goals with no direction have been around since the hippie movement and while admirable goals, they lacked any focus and definition. I want to be able to support the movement, but I can't when I can draw parallels to other failed movements of the sort.


  • #104
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #105
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You miss the point. Either you're for economic equality (whatever that is) or you're not. I'm asking here.
    i understand that, but you'll have to agree that "economic equality" is a broad term and more than likely has several definitions depending on who you ask.
    i think the equality mention in their goals is a broader all encompassing equality, and i don't think it in anyway implies that economic equality is excluded. whether it is included, depends on who you as in the movement.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    If you want economic equality, what is that and how do you propose accomplishing that?
    no idea, it's not relevant to the movement.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    If its social equality, show where we have social inequality and what causes that?
    seriously? you can't see where we have social inequality? i honestly do not know if i can show you if you can't see a single example.

    i'd say abuse of power, derived for wealth, is part of what causes social inequality. ignorance and discrimination also help perpetuate it.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Otherwise it's pie in the sky stuff.
    it's not really.

    a similar analogy would be "do you call yourself irish? if so why?"
    that question would have a broad spectrum of results with contradictions inherently based on the definition of being irish. does that mean that someone can't say he is irish if he married an irish person? what about if his great grand parents were irish?

    that is what a movement is about and how one defines membership based on the definition of the movement.

    (there is a legal definition of being irish, there is none for the occupy movement.)
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I want to be clear that I'm not calling occupies hippies here, but worthwhile goals with no direction have been around since the hippie movement and while admirable goals, they lacked any focus and definition.
    that is true, but occupy hopes to add focus, aligning the people into a laser, or at least pulling them together to create a critical mass.

    the hippie movement did do some good things, but not everyone in society wanted the end of the war, or the drugs ... some of those had legitimate concerns, others wanted the money. Occupy is very close to the hippies movement reborn, just that they are not all hippies.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I want to be able to support the movement, but I can't when I can draw parallels to other failed movements of the sort.
    i understand, i have spoken to others who "believe" the movement, but are afraid of repercussions or that it will fail and because of these reasons they will not support the movement.


    true it might fail, it might take years before it gathers traction, it might self destruct, but unless those who want change participate, nothing will change.
    and even if it does fail, another similar movement will rise again, and again until it succeeds ... it's a question of how long people will wait till the realise that they have to make a stand and force the system to be changed.


  • #106
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Godge wrote: »
    Should have included the roll-eyes icon, you might have understood the post better then.

    The point of my post, obviously lost on you, is that the give peace a chance goal has been around for nearly 50 years as a part of the hippie movement and just begs the question once again, isn't ODS just the same old story from the same old tired protesters? I just used artistic licence in using lyrics from various songs from the last 50 years.

    might strap on my guitar and head down for a singalong some night in Dame Street.
    no your point was not lost on me, it was badly formulated and badly explained, so i guess my reply was wasted though.

    yeah it's an old goal, like reducing murders, stopping human trafficking ... gotcha, others wanted to do it before, for all anyone knows could even be some of the same people from before (50 years ago they'd be 20-ish making them 70-ish now?), but i do know there are new people there.

    but still it doesn't take away from the fact that the do have a gaol now does it? it does not mean that their goal is any less admirable.

    and yeah you should head down and show your support, bring bikkes, i'll bring cake!!


  • #107
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    davoxx wrote: »
    ...you'll have to agree that "economic equality" is a broad term and more than likely has several definitions depending on who you ask.

    [...]

    i think the equality mention in their goals is a broader all encompassing equality, and i don't think it in anyway implies that economic equality is excluded. whether it is included, depends on who you as[k] in the movement.

    [...]

    ...occupy hopes to add focus, aligning the people into a laser...
    The defining characteristic of a laser is coherency. Until the answers stop depending on who you ask, Occupy has no coherency.


  • #108
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The defining characteristic of a laser is coherency. Until the answers stop depending on who you ask, Occupy has no coherency.
    well that is not true, you know people can have different reasons for supporting a cause/movement. they still reflect the cause/movement as they have a common goal ...

    i'm sure you think that because they don't all agree exactly on a subset of a very specific question, that they are not a group, but then i'd point out to you that the supporters of football teams do not agree on who is the best player, who was the best manager, etc ... but that does not stop them from cheering when the team scores a goal ...

    they still have coherency, but as another teams supporter you are just making up excuses ...


  • #109
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    no your point was not lost on me, it was badly formulated and badly explained, so i guess my reply was wasted though.

    yeah it's an old goal, like reducing murders, stopping human trafficking ... gotcha, others wanted to do it before, for all anyone knows could even be some of the same people from before (50 years ago they'd be 20-ish making them 70-ish now?), but i do know there are new people there.

    but still it doesn't take away from the fact that the do have a gaol now does it? it does not mean that their goal is any less admirable.

    and yeah you should head down and show your support, bring bikkes, i'll bring cake!!


    Yes, but if you define the goal in such ambiguous terms as world peace, who can disagree?

    Kim Jong-Il wanted world peace, so did Ronald Reagan, hey I bet if you asked, David Drumm, Sean Fitpatrick and Michael Fingleton also want world peace. Enda Kenny wants world peace, let's support him.


  • #110
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    Davoxx your responses are getting a bit ridiculous at this stage. This is a politics forum I'm not supposed to be laughing at what I persume to be serious points.

    Specific questions seem to be a no go and so from what I can deduce from you Occupy stands for nothing because it stands for everything.


  • #111
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Godge wrote: »
    Yes, but if you define the goal in such ambiguous terms as world peace, who can disagree?
    that's what i thought, but sure enough there are people complaining ...
    some are warmongers, some are people you follow the media, some just don't know ...

    but yes, there are people who disagree ... there are even those you try to make sarcastic remarks and claim that it is an ambiguous term as world peace ...
    Godge wrote: »
    Kim Jong-Il wanted world peace,
    no he did not. i think you'll find that everything that he made no reference to world peace, so while i admire your attempt to muddle the premise of world peace, i will call you out and ask for something to back up this claim ...
    Godge wrote: »
    so did Ronald Reagan,
    no he did not. i think you'll find that everything he did was against world peace, so while i admire your attempt to muddle the premise of world peace, i will call you out and ask for something to back up this claim ...
    Godge wrote: »
    hey I bet if you asked, David Drumm, Sean Fitpatrick and Michael Fingleton also want world peace. Enda Kenny wants world peace, let's support him.
    i bet if you asked them would they like to be kittens or have the power rangers, that they'd pick the latter ... but hey that's not relevant now is it?
    so, are you done now? are you done trying to make fun of the goal?

    i hope so, because you've failed to show a flaw in their goal, or that they are lacking a goal ... time to crack out the guitar and sing a song about it ...


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Davoxx your responses are getting a bit ridiculous at this stage. This is a politics forum I'm not supposed to be laughing at what I persume to be serious points.

    Specific questions seem to be a no go and so from what I can deduce from you Occupy stands for nothing because it stands for everything.
    that's okay, because your questions are ridiculous in the first place .. remember fluffy questions get fluffy replies ...

    your deduction that if it stands for everything, that means it stands for nothing, is a clear logical flaw.

    but if you want to twist it that occupy stands for everything, that is up to you, i've set the record straight that they have a goal, and that as a movement they don't need to have implementation plans ... the rest is for you to deny and ignore, it's your choice.


  • #113
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    davoxx wrote: »
    ...i've set the record straight that they have a goal, and that as a movement they don't need to have implementation plans ...
    I have a goal of retiring early with a private jet and my own island retreat somewhere sunny. I don't have an implementation plan.

    Now, if my girlfriend were to refuse to join enthusiastically in this vision of the future, I could sulk and assume she has something against private jets or island retreats. Doubtless she'd point out that her issue is actually with the fact that without a plan, it's not going to happen.

    A movement with a goal and no idea how to achieve it is a waste of time. You are free to believe otherwise, and to waste your time supporting such a movement until you eventually realise you're wasting your time. But do us all a favour and stop criticising us for not wanting to waste our time in the same way.


  • #114
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    davoxx wrote: »
    that's okay, because your questions are ridiculous in the first place .. remember fluffy questions get fluffy replies ...

    your deduction that if it stands for everything, that means it stands for nothing, is a clear logical flaw.

    but if you want to twist it that occupy stands for everything, that is up to you, i've set the record straight that they have a goal, and that as a movement they don't need to have implementation plans ... the rest is for you to deny and ignore, it's your choice.

    Occupy don't have a goal fullstop or at least an achievable goal because working out to achieve their goal isn't what Occupys for.

    At this stage I don't think your being in anyway serious. Its clear you think everyone else is at fault and anyone who questions the movement is just asking a fluffy question. If you are being serious and you find direct questions fluffy/unclear(Any half decent organisation could answer them coherently or at least the ones I've asked) I would worry for you and the Occupy movement.

    Either way its clear at this stage debating with you and the Occupy movement is pointless from my point of view .


  • #115
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Just a short and non fluffy question for you davoxx. How involved are you in the Occupy movement on a day to day/week to week basis?

    I don't remember you posting that before, apOlogies if you have though, I must have missed it.


  • #116
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I have a goal of retiring early with a private jet and my own island retreat somewhere sunny. I don't have an implementation plan.
    it's not a bad goal, no doubt other capitalist icon have had similar goals ...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Now, if my girlfriend were to refuse to join enthusiastically in this vision of the future, I could sulk and assume she has something against private jets or island retreats.
    yes that would be the correct assumption (unless she explains that she likes the goal), since she is not sharing your goal.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Doubtless she'd point out that her issue is actually with the fact that without a plan, it's not going to happen.
    you could also infer that she does not share your goal as she is planing on leaving you for a better person ... to assume that it is the lack of a plan is pointless, and realistically an excuse.

    maybe she wanted you to make a plan of what you can achieve and plan it out day by day in advance with key achievement factors before she commits to you, but spin it as you want, i've already explained how a movement works.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    A movement with a goal and no idea how to achieve it is a waste of time.
    that is your opionon and historcally you'd be wrong.
    you'd also be wrong to assume that raising awareness is not a means to achieve it.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You are free to believe otherwise, and to waste your time supporting such a movement until you eventually realise you're wasting your time.
    that is true, i would not mind if someone convinced that it is a waste of time, but then again saying nothing will change only reinforces that nothing will change ... eventually people will realise it.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But do us all a favour and stop criticising us for not wanting to waste our time in the same way.
    tell you what there bub, i'll stop correcting you if you stop posting incorrect nonsense like 'they have no goals', 'they don't have a company mascot and weekly reports about the new staff' ... fair compromise?
    you stop wasting our time with why you hate occupy and go waste your time believing the system works, and we'll waste our time trying to change it, agreed?

    ============================================
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Occupy don't have a goal fullstop or at least an achievable goal because working out to achieve their goal isn't what Occupys for.
    which one is it? no goal or an non-achievable one? they are two different concepts.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    At this stage I don't think your being in anyway serious.
    i'm always serious, except on Saturdays, and Tuesdays that have a 6 in them.

    it's nice to try to dismiss the points i made by claiming that i'm not serious, i'd rather the points were disputed factually or logically ...
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Its clear you think everyone else is at fault and anyone who questions the movement is just asking a fluffy question.
    i have no idea how you guessed that, nor can i confirm that assumption is correct or not. what i can say is that a fluffy question is a fluffy question. addressing a movement as though it is a company with a business plan is wrong. if you don't agree, then you are wrong.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    If you are being serious and you find direct questions fluffy/unclear(Any half decent organisation could answer them coherently or at least the ones I've asked) I would worry for you and the Occupy movement.
    what i can say is that a fluffy question is a fluffy question. addressing a movement as though it is a company with a business plan is wrong. if you don't agree, then you are wrong.

    and don't worry for 'us' ... we worry for you
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Either way its clear at this stage debating with you and the Occupy movement is pointless from my point of view .
    i agree, you want to stick to your misconceptions and use them to defend your incorrect views. i can't change that, nobody can.

    ============================================
    Dr Galen wrote: »
    Just a short and non fluffy question for you davoxx. How involved are you in the Occupy movement on a day to day/week to week basis?

    I don't remember you posting that before, apOlogies if you have though, I must have missed it.
    i have not posted it before, as it is not relevant to whether Occupy's movement is valid. nor does it affect the points that i made. all it does is give people a vector to attack the movement through a persons involvement with it.

    if you really must know, pm me and i can tell you.


  • #117
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Rest assured I didn't want to know to use it to attack the platform or anything untoward like that.

    Just curious really, yourself and a few others do appear to te forum authorities on the movement, so was wondering how involved you were really.

    If you want to PM me, that's cool. If you are happier not doing so, that's cool too.


  • #118
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    no he did not. i think you'll find that everything he did was against world peace, so while i admire your attempt to muddle the premise of world peace, i will call you out and ask for something to back up this claim ...


    ...


    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

    Ronald Reagan, in 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter


    "I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security."

    I think that proves my point, that world peace is something everyone can sign up to, just like the hippies. Probably even a Hitler quote out there calling for world peace.

    Maybe next time you want to call me out, you could do a little google search first. Took me less than ten seconds to find that quote.


  • #119
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    davoxx wrote: »




    which one is it? no goal or an non-achievable one? they are two different concepts.


    i'm always serious, except on Saturdays, and Tuesdays that have a 6 in them.

    it's nice to try to dismiss the points i made by claiming that i'm not serious, i'd rather the points were disputed factually or logically ...


    i have no idea how you guessed that, nor can i confirm that assumption is correct or not. what i can say is that a fluffy question is a fluffy question. addressing a movement as though it is a company with a business plan is wrong. if you don't agree, then you are wrong.


    what i can say is that a fluffy question is a fluffy question. addressing a movement as though it is a company with a business plan is wrong. if you don't agree, then you are wrong.

    and don't worry for 'us' ... we worry for you

    i agree, you want to stick to your misconceptions and use them to defend your incorrect views. i can't change that, nobody can.

    The thing is you have no intention of clearing up any misconception I have because you won't answer my questions. I asked if were you serious because if someone wanted to discredit the Occupy movement I don't think they could have done a better job than the one you've done yourself. Its very different from OWS that inspired this. What ever your views on it, it has been successful at some level and it has some clearly identifable goals(whether you agree with them is a different story).


  • #120
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    That's probably true, but given Occupy's democratic nature if they're promoting a campaign like Shell to Sea it means a majority involved support it.

    I support it, but ironically enough I support it based on a RIGHT WING ideal, not a left wing one. That of private property.

    If the right believes so strongly in private property why don't they oppose the idea of nationalizing someone's private land without their permission? If I own a field, you can't f*cking build something in it without my permission.

    Note that I DON'T want this thread to disintegrate into a ridiculous shell to sea debate so let's keep this one short. Shell 2 sea has absolutely nothing to do with why I support Occupy, and indeed I have always fet that mixing and muddying the waters between protest movements is an incredibly stupid move, as evidenced here. But the point does stand. My opposition to the corrib pipeline has no agenda behind it other than the fact that I don't believe in confiscating people's private property, no matter how supposedly worthwhile the cause is, and certainly not without massive compensation.

    Does that make me some sort of communist? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I have a goal of retiring early with a private jet and my own island retreat somewhere sunny. I don't have an implementation plan.

    Now, if my girlfriend were to refuse to join enthusiastically in this vision of the future, I could sulk and assume she has something against private jets or island retreats. Doubtless she'd point out that her issue is actually with the fact that without a plan, it's not going to happen.

    A movement with a goal and no idea how to achieve it is a waste of time. You are free to believe otherwise, and to waste your time supporting such a movement until you eventually realise you're wasting your time. But do us all a favour and stop criticising us for not wanting to waste our time in the same way.

    I proposed an implementation plan several pages back, how would you react to it?

    Banning all corporate donations whatsoever, and thoroughly regulating and investigation all lobbying by corporations / financial institutions.
    Secondly, chasing down and vigorously punishing corporate corruption and wrongdoing, a la Anglo Irish. Let's call a spade a spade here:
    Either FitzPatrick & co's loans were illegal or they weren't. Either the Golden Circle was illegal or it wasn't.
    If it was, those people should be up in front of a judge ASAP and facing very serious consequences for what they did.
    If it wasn't, then it should be and this government should draft high priority legislation immediately to ensure no such corruption is ever allowed to take place again inside the borders of this state.

    Is that a clear enough plan, for starters I have other ideas regarding communications of ministers, cabinet minutes etc but let's do this slowly, what do you think of the above?


Advertisement