There are a hell of a lot more than 50 there today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z5AyGANrRk&feature=shareManos: The Hans of Fate said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
"OCCUPY WALL STREET"
- Thread starter jon bones
- Start date
- Status
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
A comment from a dumb investor really. A high share price doesn't mean a high company value.
UltimaPooh
Member
Ether_Snake said:
Still the group has no cohesion... and isn't going to accomplish anything.
remnant said:
Wrong.
Also what generation that's still alive wasn't raised on Capitalism Maybe some of the greatest generation but that's it.
elrechazado
Banned
Umm, that's exactly what it means. What definition are you using for value that the rest of the world isn't?Ether_Snake said:
UltimaPooh
Member
elrechazao said:
I think he was talking about cash on hand. Which it also has a lot of.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Who cares about them owning iPhones or whatever?
They aren't all anti-capitalism. They are anti-Wall Street
They aren't all anti-capitalism. They are anti-Wall Street
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
elrechazao said:
High share price means nothing. High share price * number of shares means something. A small company could easily have shares at 1000$ each, they just have to put fewer shares on the market, or buy them back.
Oh look, 100,000 a share company! http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BRK-A&ql=0
elrechazado
Banned
Yeah, too bad we don't know how many shares of apple are out there. It's probably only a few hundred.Ether_Snake said:
seriously?
Something Wicked
Member
Appears that Red Eye's Bill Schulz went down to lower Manhattan the other day:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/red-eyes-bill-schulz-protests-against-something-at-wall-st-day-of-rage-2/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/red-eyes-bill-schulz-protests-against-something-at-wall-st-day-of-rage-2/
MikeOfTheLivingDead
Grapetastic!
Ether_Snake said:
Except in the case of Apple where they have a high share price, a lot of shares, and are competing the highest market cap... It was a pretty idiotic comment. The company is worth billions so yeah, it's a valuable company by any definition.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
elrechazao said:
The guy said that Apple trades at 400$ a share as if it should mean anything to the discussion at hand. A small cap company could have shares worth as much. His comment is therefore worthless.
Saying it's a big company is enough. Saying "It's worth $400 a share!!!" means nothing.
empty vessel
Member
dave is ok said:
Not to mention that capitalism didn't make iPhones. People did. Capitalism is the way in which production is organized, not production itself.
Of course, Wall Street bankers may be deluded enough to believe they made iPhones.
elrechazado
Banned
The guy said Apple trades at 400 dollar a share. Get that? Apple. We know a lot about apple. You pretending we don't is really weird at this point man.Ether_Snake said:
UltimaPooh
Member
remnant said:
It's wrong because they weren't raised on Capitalism. How did they go to school? Probably public schools? Who provided the busess to get them there? Taxes. Just a few things that weren't capitalistic in nature.
elrechazado
Banned
What is this new definition of capitalism where no capitalistic society has taxes?UltimaPooh said:
I think GAF needs a Capitalism 101 thread, and I may take that up this weekend. For now, a barebones, simple definition of capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and are operated for profit. I've seen lots of confusion and false attributes assigned to capitalism in this thread and others. Absolutely, capitalism can be very complex, especially when looking at operational models of it, but that's for another thread.
empty vessel
Member
SuperBonk said:
That claim is kind of silly. It's also kind of silly to claim that because you have X because of Y, you can't think that Y is harmful or that something better than Y should exist.
Obvious, no?
Disagree with the former, agree with the latter.empty vessel said:
It all comes down to the fact that some people believe these protesters are completely unaware of the privileges afforded to them by the system they cry out against.
To put it even more bluntly, they're naive. This argument has been used before to describe similar "rebels" and will continue to be used in the future because it never seems to stop being true until a revolution actually occurs.
As someone who did not attend the protest, I cannot say whether it is in fact true. The majority of the pictures in this thread, however biased they may be, certainly tell me something.
empty vessel
Member
SuperBonk said:
Or that some people are completely unaware of the disadvantages imposed on them by the system they passively tolerate (or have been conditioned to support to their detriment).
SuperBonk said:
They tell you that people are upset with the status quo, as any rational, informed person should be.
If u believe Y is harmful, why do u support it by taking X, and furthermore what gives you the right to dictate who can and cannot deal with Y?empty vessel said:
People have not been waiting on pin and needles for a shallow directionless protest. Yes we get it. You hate capatalism. You've probably always hated it. Why should I care enough to stand with you?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
dave is ok said:
Most of them seem to be Anti-Capitalism. I dare say it's one of the more common themes
irfan said:
Dayyyum!
Not really.
I mean look at this example from GAF Hop
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3#
I don't think anyone is mad in that thread.
Anyhow back to the protesters
This made me laugh.
Occupy Wall Street by erin m, on Flickr
Just begs you to take them seriously.
Occupy Wall Street by erin m, on Flickr
I really don't want to know what's on her sign.
The fuuu....
Not helping to fight the stereotype.
I think a few of the arguments that you are guys are presenting need to be addressed.
The hypocrisy and/or naivety argument
1.) The protesters are being hypocritical and/or naive, as is made clear by the items/clothing/etc. that they bear - products that are (potentially) made available by capitalism, the very system that they protest against. They benefit from it, yet speak out against it. They take part of it, yet speak out against it. Clearly they are naive or hypocritical.
Response: The "hypocrisy" argument is often used, and it is a fairly disingenuous argument that has no real substance. It falls flat for several reasons.
One, to suggest that those rebelling against capitalism should not take part in capitalism requires an alternative mode of being. However, one of the fundamental characteristics of global capitalism is that it actively eliminates all alternatives to itself. To exist "outside" of capitalism is impossible. Every US citizen alive today was born in to it (save those born in previously communist countries); only meager and primarily symbolic, not fundamental, means are available for living "alternatively." When people are seen to live "alternatively," capitalism does one of two things: a.) It gives them the option of assimilate or die (as seen in nearly every interaction between civilization and indigenous people) or b.) It mocks them (if the threat is not deemed sufficient, as in the case of anarcho-primitivists, hippies, etc.). Manos, et al, your actions are part of the second response. It's odd to see you flame them for being too capitalist to speak out against it, but too silly, different, smelly, hippy, anarchist, etc., to be taken seriously. The fact is, one cannot actually exist outside of capitalism in order to then protest it. Your condition cannot be met, and you have created an unmeetable condition with the purpose of invalidating their actions entirely.
Two, to suggest that those rebelling against capitalism cannot have the trappings of a capitalist lifestyle, in whatever degree (evidently an Apple logo is quite enough, regardless of whatever else), implies that a person cannot both take part in something and simultaneously wish to dismantle it and envision a better alternative. This is madness. It is like saying that a factory worker should not wish or dream for a better life in a different profession because they are working the factory job and benefiting from the pay. Because we are invested in one thing does not mean we cannot hope or work towards a different thing. I would guess that a lot of people who are passionately against capitalism would gladly trade their iPhone for capitalism's demise - you, however, pretend the opposite and mock them as if there was legitimacy to the claim: clearly because they OWN an iPhone, they are choosing capitalism over something else, and either think they can have their cake and eat it too, or are naive or not truly committed. This is a logical fallacy and simply does not hold water. It again falls back on point number one, as well. We cannot control what we were born into, and as our system actively eradicates alternatives, we have no real hope of stepping outside of the system, leaving behind the trappings of that system.
But even more importantly, we don't have to. We don't have to have moral superiority or high ground. We don't have to be free of hypocrisy, or meet unmeetable demands before beginning our argument. If this were the case, no argument against the status quo would ever hold any water.
Three, to then make the arguments such as "these protesters are completely unaware of the privileges afforded to them by the system they cry out against" is an illogical leap and a loaded declaration (illustration courtesy of SuperBonk). How on earth could you possibly know this to be the case? Have you surveyed or polled the audience? Do you have statistical data gathered from similar protests in enough historical cases to speculate on specific population percentages reflecting this sentiment?
No. In reality, you are building a narrative. You are building the narrative that you want to hear and that you believe. Dressing it up like fact and delivering it like truth simply means you want to sell it. It doesn't make it true.
The reality is, a lot of these people, despite the fact that they own cellular phones and enjoy specific types of pizza, still understand the benefits and the drawbacks of capitalism (as evidenced by myself, other protesters and political activists I know, observable individuals at this protest, etc.). This knowledge, as explored before, simply does not enable one to shed capitalism and approach the argument from some moral high ground, nor does it require that they act like ascetics or puritans and attend the protest dressed in simple, homespun clothing, subsisting off of simple bread and water.
But you want to spin their involvement within capitalism into a proof of naivety, simply because it reinforces your inclination that this protest is somehow childish, uninformed, immature, and naive. Unfortunately, based on the information provided in the articles and pictures, that is simply not shown to be the case, and your evidence amounts to nothing.
Let us be clear, then, that the argument for hypocrisy or naivety is bunk. The reality of the situation does not allow for viable alternatives to capitalism to be practiced, nor are individuals unable to simultaneously benefit from capitalism while being against it, and knowingly so of the full range of benefits and drawbacks that it presents.
And when you express things like "Yes we get it. You hate capatalism. You've probably always hated it. Why should I care enough to stand with you?" you in turn need to understand that you don't have to. Protests aren't about coercion, and in reality, if you can't observe the problems of our economic situation and of global capitalism, then we probably have no business with one another. Protesting is the protesters choice, and abstaining, ignoring, or protesting in turn against said protest is your choice. Just don't act like they need your blessing to go about their business. This isn't your lawn, old man.
The hypocrisy and/or naivety argument
1.) The protesters are being hypocritical and/or naive, as is made clear by the items/clothing/etc. that they bear - products that are (potentially) made available by capitalism, the very system that they protest against. They benefit from it, yet speak out against it. They take part of it, yet speak out against it. Clearly they are naive or hypocritical.
Response: The "hypocrisy" argument is often used, and it is a fairly disingenuous argument that has no real substance. It falls flat for several reasons.
One, to suggest that those rebelling against capitalism should not take part in capitalism requires an alternative mode of being. However, one of the fundamental characteristics of global capitalism is that it actively eliminates all alternatives to itself. To exist "outside" of capitalism is impossible. Every US citizen alive today was born in to it (save those born in previously communist countries); only meager and primarily symbolic, not fundamental, means are available for living "alternatively." When people are seen to live "alternatively," capitalism does one of two things: a.) It gives them the option of assimilate or die (as seen in nearly every interaction between civilization and indigenous people) or b.) It mocks them (if the threat is not deemed sufficient, as in the case of anarcho-primitivists, hippies, etc.). Manos, et al, your actions are part of the second response. It's odd to see you flame them for being too capitalist to speak out against it, but too silly, different, smelly, hippy, anarchist, etc., to be taken seriously. The fact is, one cannot actually exist outside of capitalism in order to then protest it. Your condition cannot be met, and you have created an unmeetable condition with the purpose of invalidating their actions entirely.
Two, to suggest that those rebelling against capitalism cannot have the trappings of a capitalist lifestyle, in whatever degree (evidently an Apple logo is quite enough, regardless of whatever else), implies that a person cannot both take part in something and simultaneously wish to dismantle it and envision a better alternative. This is madness. It is like saying that a factory worker should not wish or dream for a better life in a different profession because they are working the factory job and benefiting from the pay. Because we are invested in one thing does not mean we cannot hope or work towards a different thing. I would guess that a lot of people who are passionately against capitalism would gladly trade their iPhone for capitalism's demise - you, however, pretend the opposite and mock them as if there was legitimacy to the claim: clearly because they OWN an iPhone, they are choosing capitalism over something else, and either think they can have their cake and eat it too, or are naive or not truly committed. This is a logical fallacy and simply does not hold water. It again falls back on point number one, as well. We cannot control what we were born into, and as our system actively eradicates alternatives, we have no real hope of stepping outside of the system, leaving behind the trappings of that system.
But even more importantly, we don't have to. We don't have to have moral superiority or high ground. We don't have to be free of hypocrisy, or meet unmeetable demands before beginning our argument. If this were the case, no argument against the status quo would ever hold any water.
Three, to then make the arguments such as "these protesters are completely unaware of the privileges afforded to them by the system they cry out against" is an illogical leap and a loaded declaration (illustration courtesy of SuperBonk). How on earth could you possibly know this to be the case? Have you surveyed or polled the audience? Do you have statistical data gathered from similar protests in enough historical cases to speculate on specific population percentages reflecting this sentiment?
No. In reality, you are building a narrative. You are building the narrative that you want to hear and that you believe. Dressing it up like fact and delivering it like truth simply means you want to sell it. It doesn't make it true.
The reality is, a lot of these people, despite the fact that they own cellular phones and enjoy specific types of pizza, still understand the benefits and the drawbacks of capitalism (as evidenced by myself, other protesters and political activists I know, observable individuals at this protest, etc.). This knowledge, as explored before, simply does not enable one to shed capitalism and approach the argument from some moral high ground, nor does it require that they act like ascetics or puritans and attend the protest dressed in simple, homespun clothing, subsisting off of simple bread and water.
But you want to spin their involvement within capitalism into a proof of naivety, simply because it reinforces your inclination that this protest is somehow childish, uninformed, immature, and naive. Unfortunately, based on the information provided in the articles and pictures, that is simply not shown to be the case, and your evidence amounts to nothing.
Let us be clear, then, that the argument for hypocrisy or naivety is bunk. The reality of the situation does not allow for viable alternatives to capitalism to be practiced, nor are individuals unable to simultaneously benefit from capitalism while being against it, and knowingly so of the full range of benefits and drawbacks that it presents.
And when you express things like "Yes we get it. You hate capatalism. You've probably always hated it. Why should I care enough to stand with you?" you in turn need to understand that you don't have to. Protests aren't about coercion, and in reality, if you can't observe the problems of our economic situation and of global capitalism, then we probably have no business with one another. Protesting is the protesters choice, and abstaining, ignoring, or protesting in turn against said protest is your choice. Just don't act like they need your blessing to go about their business. This isn't your lawn, old man.
The effectiveness argument
2.) These protesters aren't actually doing anything to initiate change; they aren't being effective; they are a parody of real change and a headache for the people of New York. They are wasting everyone's time, and as a result, they should pack up and go home. They should have never come. If they were going to do something, they should have done something worthwhile.
Response: The effectiveness argument is entirely a subjective one, utilizing subjective standards for subjective agendas, none of which can helpfully or rightfully be applied to an event of which you, the effectiveness arguer, are not taking place. In addition, you may be at fault of your own hypocrisy argument by prattling on about effectiveness from behind a computer screen.
The reasons why this argument falls short are again multiple:
One, arguing that protests are ineffective isn't accurate. Protests in the name of civil rights, women's rights, and against foreign occupation (of India by Britain for example) are all examples of events in which protests were useful in publicizing critiques and achieving results. Protests may not be effective all the time, but that doesn't become a reason to then never have them. They may not be totally effective by themselves, but then again, they usually are part of a greater historical move of social unrest, change, etc. But simply arguing that protests are ineffective is wrong.
Two, even IF protests categorically weren't effective - which historically is not the case - there is still no reason that protesters shouldn't be allowed to gather. Effectively publicizing their message and meeting with like-minded fellows is enough of a reason, if a reason is even needed. Mucking up your traffic? Making it hard to get to work? Cry me a river. So does all of the population of Manhattan when you are trying to get anywhere.
Three, to argue that protests aren't effective is to imply standards, and unless you make those standards clear and public, you should not deliver your critique with any sense of definitiveness or confidence. Even with your standards being made clear, concise, and public, it must then be noted that your subjective standards of success are not necessarily the subjective standards of success held by the protesters, and should not be considered as such. The truth seems to be that rather than having real criteria to judge effectiveness with, you are creating a vague standard that isn't meant to be met. The problem is that even upon coming up with one, it won't mean anything. It belongs with the same statement from before, asking "Why should I join you?". You shouldn't, and you aren't expected to. The right to assemble is still theirs to take, with or without your consent.
Four, protesters still again don't have to agree with your means of effecting change. Your belief that "getting a job in government" or becoming a lobbyist, or what-have-you, is the best way to achieve results is fine. It does not mean that your methodology or goals hold special privilege. A lot of the people protesting most likely are against reform. They'd probably balk at the idea of becoming a lobbyist to effect political change (and with good reason). A fair percentage probably wants revolution. Your means won't achieve it, not simply because they are ineffective, but because they are fundamentally geared towards a different end: they have nothing to do with revolution.
So before suggesting that these hippies go shower up and get a job, you should perhaps understand that they don't want the same goals you do and are willing to take a different route. Intolerant of that? Well, you aren't the first, you won't be the last, and that's AOK. It makes you look like an ass when you rant about them getting a job, but hey . . . that's fine too. You've got the right to look like an ass.
In conclusion, your assessment of effectiveness is based on your own agenda - oftentimes with purposeful vagueness, so to elude meeting it - and cannot be, nor should be reified as the objective goal of those who you critique. Protesting can be seen historically to have effected change in various places and times, and cannot be discounted categorically. Your simple disagreement with the effectiveness of protest is not enough reason for these people not meet and protest, anymore than my belief that there is no god is enough of a reason for people to not be allowed to meet and go to church. I don't agree with it, I think it is hogwash and a waste of time, and yet still, I cannot effectively make the argument that they should not be able to meet simply because I disagree with them. If we were all disallowed to do things because others disagreed with us, we would have an awful and homogenous culture, most likely of domination (well . . . we already are working towards that awfully hard with capitalism, but my point stands).
2.) These protesters aren't actually doing anything to initiate change; they aren't being effective; they are a parody of real change and a headache for the people of New York. They are wasting everyone's time, and as a result, they should pack up and go home. They should have never come. If they were going to do something, they should have done something worthwhile.
Response: The effectiveness argument is entirely a subjective one, utilizing subjective standards for subjective agendas, none of which can helpfully or rightfully be applied to an event of which you, the effectiveness arguer, are not taking place. In addition, you may be at fault of your own hypocrisy argument by prattling on about effectiveness from behind a computer screen.
The reasons why this argument falls short are again multiple:
One, arguing that protests are ineffective isn't accurate. Protests in the name of civil rights, women's rights, and against foreign occupation (of India by Britain for example) are all examples of events in which protests were useful in publicizing critiques and achieving results. Protests may not be effective all the time, but that doesn't become a reason to then never have them. They may not be totally effective by themselves, but then again, they usually are part of a greater historical move of social unrest, change, etc. But simply arguing that protests are ineffective is wrong.
Two, even IF protests categorically weren't effective - which historically is not the case - there is still no reason that protesters shouldn't be allowed to gather. Effectively publicizing their message and meeting with like-minded fellows is enough of a reason, if a reason is even needed. Mucking up your traffic? Making it hard to get to work? Cry me a river. So does all of the population of Manhattan when you are trying to get anywhere.
Three, to argue that protests aren't effective is to imply standards, and unless you make those standards clear and public, you should not deliver your critique with any sense of definitiveness or confidence. Even with your standards being made clear, concise, and public, it must then be noted that your subjective standards of success are not necessarily the subjective standards of success held by the protesters, and should not be considered as such. The truth seems to be that rather than having real criteria to judge effectiveness with, you are creating a vague standard that isn't meant to be met. The problem is that even upon coming up with one, it won't mean anything. It belongs with the same statement from before, asking "Why should I join you?". You shouldn't, and you aren't expected to. The right to assemble is still theirs to take, with or without your consent.
Four, protesters still again don't have to agree with your means of effecting change. Your belief that "getting a job in government" or becoming a lobbyist, or what-have-you, is the best way to achieve results is fine. It does not mean that your methodology or goals hold special privilege. A lot of the people protesting most likely are against reform. They'd probably balk at the idea of becoming a lobbyist to effect political change (and with good reason). A fair percentage probably wants revolution. Your means won't achieve it, not simply because they are ineffective, but because they are fundamentally geared towards a different end: they have nothing to do with revolution.
So before suggesting that these hippies go shower up and get a job, you should perhaps understand that they don't want the same goals you do and are willing to take a different route. Intolerant of that? Well, you aren't the first, you won't be the last, and that's AOK. It makes you look like an ass when you rant about them getting a job, but hey . . . that's fine too. You've got the right to look like an ass.
In conclusion, your assessment of effectiveness is based on your own agenda - oftentimes with purposeful vagueness, so to elude meeting it - and cannot be, nor should be reified as the objective goal of those who you critique. Protesting can be seen historically to have effected change in various places and times, and cannot be discounted categorically. Your simple disagreement with the effectiveness of protest is not enough reason for these people not meet and protest, anymore than my belief that there is no god is enough of a reason for people to not be allowed to meet and go to church. I don't agree with it, I think it is hogwash and a waste of time, and yet still, I cannot effectively make the argument that they should not be able to meet simply because I disagree with them. If we were all disallowed to do things because others disagreed with us, we would have an awful and homogenous culture, most likely of domination (well . . . we already are working towards that awfully hard with capitalism, but my point stands).
elrechazado
Banned
yeahmagicstop said:
cooljeanius
Member
As if that somehow invalidates his argumentselrechazao said:
elrechazado
Banned
My back has fat rolls: your argument is invalid. As to his "argument", I'd just reference jimcarrey's whoyatalkinto??.gif.cooljeanius said:
SuperBonk said:
Absolutely; I used it because it was accurate and to the point. I think you reserved your judgement fairly judiciously and clearly. I'll edit my original post to read a little more accurately. Cheers!
I've got a few other points to pick, but I've got to get some sleep. Hopefully I'll get a few more responses from people actually able to read and comprehend my points, whether they wish to disagree or agree. I couldn't possibly be more bored or disinterested in discussing with or listening to people who seek to discredit valid points with brilliant, misogynistic witticisms about "fat chicks."
In fact, I was pretty sure the "Cool story bro"-type response was bannable. Might want to try a little late ninjaing action, lest you get banned from "contributing" anymore . . .
empty vessel
Member
magicstop,
Well said all the way through. Thanks for putting the time into articulating a thorough argument. It's much appreciated.
Well said all the way through. Thanks for putting the time into articulating a thorough argument. It's much appreciated.
Houston3000
Member
This whole thing is pretty pathetic
I work on Wall Street and the police have pretty much quarantined all the protesters into Zuccotti Park. For those not in-the-know, Zucotti Park is a little shit plaza across the corner from the World Trade Center site - it's not even on Wall Street, but a few blocks northwest.
Instead the Police just completely closed the main part of Wall Street (where Federal Hall, NYSE, and the Trump Building are). Usually the immediate sidewalk in front of the New York Stock Exchange is guarded but otherwise it's an open street. This past week they have the street completely closed and guarded with metal gates and are funneling everyone around the sidewalks - to cross the street you have to go to one of two 'cross points'. It's just annoying and crowded (there's always tourists but now everyone's squished together).
The protestors at Zuccotti park don't do shit except yell really loud every hour or so like a roaring crowd, not chanting anything in particular. When you walk by they don't talk to you or anything and 90% of the time their signs are all just laying, lined up on the ground and they lounge around and eat pizza. Truly the most lackluster gathering I've ever seen. As much as I was against them coming to Wall Street in the first place I almost feel sorry and embarrassed for the people that actually are there because of how lame and pathetic they seem to everyone else.
Also:
http://news.yahoo.com/80-people-arrested-occupy-wall-street-protest-002026906.html
I work on Wall Street and the police have pretty much quarantined all the protesters into Zuccotti Park. For those not in-the-know, Zucotti Park is a little shit plaza across the corner from the World Trade Center site - it's not even on Wall Street, but a few blocks northwest.
Instead the Police just completely closed the main part of Wall Street (where Federal Hall, NYSE, and the Trump Building are). Usually the immediate sidewalk in front of the New York Stock Exchange is guarded but otherwise it's an open street. This past week they have the street completely closed and guarded with metal gates and are funneling everyone around the sidewalks - to cross the street you have to go to one of two 'cross points'. It's just annoying and crowded (there's always tourists but now everyone's squished together).
The protestors at Zuccotti park don't do shit except yell really loud every hour or so like a roaring crowd, not chanting anything in particular. When you walk by they don't talk to you or anything and 90% of the time their signs are all just laying, lined up on the ground and they lounge around and eat pizza. Truly the most lackluster gathering I've ever seen. As much as I was against them coming to Wall Street in the first place I almost feel sorry and embarrassed for the people that actually are there because of how lame and pathetic they seem to everyone else.
Also:
http://news.yahoo.com/80-people-arrested-occupy-wall-street-protest-002026906.html
empty vessel
Member
Houston3000 said:
Sounds good to me. May they annoy you more. As if whatever you do is more important.
UltimaPooh
Member
elrechazao said:
The end game in capitalism is to have a society that doesn't put restrictions on business (taxes being one) because the market will be able to sort it out.
- Status