I took my grand kids to chuck e cheese monday and the place was filled with a ton of young couples with there kids.It cost me 15 dollars in tokens for the games and for medium pizza three drinks and a salad about 30 dollars with a tip.45 dollars total for a 90 minutes with the kids. If you think about it that is insane.This seem like a small thing in the scope of the forum, but my point when does it end.In 20 years if we make that long. my grand-kids unless there are really lucky will be slaves to the rich.
I took my grand kids to chuck e cheese monday and the place was filled with a ton of young couples with there kids.It cost me 15 dollars in tokens for the games and for medium pizza three drinks and a salad about 30 dollars with a tip.45 dollars total for a 90 minutes with the kids. If you think about it that is insane.This seem like a small thing in the scope of the forum, but my point when does it end.In 20 years if we make that long. my grand-kids unless there are really lucky will be slaves to the rich.
PACs and SuperPacs are transparent as they all have to file with the FEC as do candidates
i think those campaign finance laws should be abolished as should most other laws. Laws were written only because someone paid for them to be written.
Look at every law passed by the US federal government...someone's bitch wrote the law in exchange for campaign contributions or promise of future employment
Sen Chris Dodd (retired) was the main force behind SOPA. He is the chair of the MPAA and was hired because of his influence in DC. If Congress didnt have the authority to pass such laws, then Chris Dodd would be in jail where he should be.
There are hundreds like him...Newt Gingrich is a great example as well
Well, just the other day you said that laws were necessary as were Courts. Sometimes it is hard to debate the issues when the target keeps shifting.
PACs and SuperPacs are transparent as they all have to file with the FEC as do candidates
i think those campaign finance laws should be abolished as should most other laws. Laws were written only because someone paid for them to be written.
Look at every law passed by the US federal government...someone's bitch wrote the law in exchange for campaign contributions or promise of future employment
Sen Chris Dodd (retired) was the main force behind SOPA. He is the chair of the MPAA and was hired because of his influence in DC. If Congress didnt have the authority to pass such laws, then Chris Dodd would be in jail where he should be.
There are hundreds like him...Newt Gingrich is a great example as well
Well, just the other day you said that laws were necessary as were Courts. Sometimes it is hard to debate the issues when the target keeps shifting.
disc - i dont promote workers as the 1%. in fact the "rent seekers" are a much larger population than 1%
the article i linked to above is an interesting piece because it lays the blame on the State (who is 1% of the population) who has created all of the issues we have today in one form or another...through lobbying, playing santa claus, abdicating their duties etc
So be against the state, be against the government, 'do ya thang....'
Just please please please stop referring to them as 'the 1%' because that is TOTALLY different from what the actual '1%' figure is supposed to refer to.
You can have your agenda, I have no problem with you having alternate opinions from my own, and expressing them in any number of ways. However, in reality this is an attack on the OWS movement, and specifically OWS's message. There is no reason for you to do this. Why hijack the message? That's what I have a problem with.
Since there is NO REASON for you, and specifically the right-wing machine to put out this propaganda, other than to divide us, and DISTRACT people from the real problem... I can only hope that you realize this soon, and stop spreading these ridiculously counter-productive spin pieces.
disc - i dont promote workers as the 1%. in fact the "rent seekers" are a much larger population than 1%
the article i linked to above is an interesting piece because it lays the blame on the State (who is 1% of the population) who has created all of the issues we have today in one form or another...through lobbying, playing santa claus, abdicating their duties etc
So be against the state, be against the government, 'do ya thang....'
Just please please please stop referring to them as 'the 1%' because that is TOTALLY different from what the actual '1%' figure is supposed to refer to.
You can have your agenda, I have no problem with you having alternate opinions from my own, and expressing them in any number of ways. However, in reality this is an attack on the OWS movement, and specifically OWS's message. There is no reason for you to do this. Why hijack the message? That's what I have a problem with.
Since there is NO REASON for you, and specifically the right-wing machine to put out this propaganda, other than to divide us, and DISTRACT people from the real problem... I can only hope that you realize this soon, and stop spreading these ridiculously counter-productive spin pieces.
So be against the state, be against the government, 'do ya thang....'
Just please please please stop referring to them as 'the 1%' because that is TOTALLY different from what the actual '1%' figure is supposed to refer to.
You can have your agenda, I have no problem with you having alternate opinions from my own, and expressing them in any number of ways. However, in reality this is an attack on the OWS movement, and specifically OWS's message. There is no reason for you to do this. Why hijack the message? That's what I have a problem with.
Since there is NO REASON for you, and specifically the right-wing machine to put out this propaganda, other than to divide us, and DISTRACT people from the real problem... I can only hope that you realize this soon, and stop spreading these ridiculously counter-productive spin pieces.
disco - i support OWS or at least the part i agree with. i think you and most others are confused as to who the 1% actually is and their message is not unified in any way. you have as many End the Fed people there as you do Communists. the message is not cohesive
is someone like Steve Jobs (was) in the 1%? Peter Thiel? Larry Ellison? Mark Cuban?
if yes, then you only use wealth as your criteria which is probably wrong.
someone like Hank Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon are also in the 1% but there is a major difference...
OWS message as i understand it is to get the corporate influence out of DC, whether it be banks, auto unions, green energy companies etc
in my eyes, the 1% are those who have used the State or government's gun to advance their own personal and professional agenda. the State makes that possible. the State is the 1%
So be against the state, be against the government, 'do ya thang....'
Just please please please stop referring to them as 'the 1%' because that is TOTALLY different from what the actual '1%' figure is supposed to refer to.
You can have your agenda, I have no problem with you having alternate opinions from my own, and expressing them in any number of ways. However, in reality this is an attack on the OWS movement, and specifically OWS's message. There is no reason for you to do this. Why hijack the message? That's what I have a problem with.
Since there is NO REASON for you, and specifically the right-wing machine to put out this propaganda, other than to divide us, and DISTRACT people from the real problem... I can only hope that you realize this soon, and stop spreading these ridiculously counter-productive spin pieces.
disco - i support OWS or at least the part i agree with. i think you and most others are confused as to who the 1% actually is and their message is not unified in any way. you have as many End the Fed people there as you do Communists. the message is not cohesive
is someone like Steve Jobs (was) in the 1%? Peter Thiel? Larry Ellison? Mark Cuban?
if yes, then you only use wealth as your criteria which is probably wrong.
someone like Hank Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon are also in the 1% but there is a major difference...
OWS message as i understand it is to get the corporate influence out of DC, whether it be banks, auto unions, green energy companies etc
in my eyes, the 1% are those who have used the State or government's gun to advance their own personal and professional agenda. the State makes that possible. the State is the 1%
in my eyes, the 1% are those who have used the State or government's gun to advance their own personal and professional agenda. the State makes that possible. the State is the 1%
Everything just boils down to how impossible it is to deal with libertarians (in a good way KOAJ). The 'state' is like an abstract revolving door. The bolded section, is correct. The 1% have used the government (of the time) to push their agenda.
-BUT-
If nobody worked in the government (it just stopped) would there still be a 1%? What if you replaced them with a government you liked that didn't get paid, didn't do anything, didn't influence your life at all... they'd STILL be the 'state' but would they be the '1%?'
Your overall position makes no sense.
I'm assuming you've either haven't read anything I've wrote about this recently, chosen to ignore it (), or just failed to comprehend what I'm saying. So I won't repeat myself yet again as to what I and most other Occupy supporter's consider the '1%.'
Then again, I think you know exactly what the "1%" is referring to, but you have conveniently stumbled upon this article that promotes the libertarian position as opposed to the actual Occupy position. I'd like you to link ANYTHING from the OWS/Anon etc. movement themselves that suggests anythingevenremotelyclose to what your article is implying. Until you do, I'll ask you again politely to please stop promoting this hard right wing spin on OWS's issues.
in my eyes, the 1% are those who have used the State or government's gun to advance their own personal and professional agenda. the State makes that possible. the State is the 1%
Everything just boils down to how impossible it is to deal with libertarians (in a good way KOAJ). The 'state' is like an abstract revolving door. The bolded section, is correct. The 1% have used the government (of the time) to push their agenda.
-BUT-
If nobody worked in the government (it just stopped) would there still be a 1%? What if you replaced them with a government you liked that didn't get paid, didn't do anything, didn't influence your life at all... they'd STILL be the 'state' but would they be the '1%?'
Your overall position makes no sense.
I'm assuming you've either haven't read anything I've wrote about this recently, chosen to ignore it (), or just failed to comprehend what I'm saying. So I won't repeat myself yet again as to what I and most other Occupy supporter's consider the '1%.'
Then again, I think you know exactly what the "1%" is referring to, but you have conveniently stumbled upon this article that promotes the libertarian position as opposed to the actual Occupy position. I'd like you to link ANYTHING from the OWS/Anon etc. movement themselves that suggests anythingevenremotelyclose to what your article is implying. Until you do, I'll ask you again politely to please stop promoting this hard right wing spin on OWS's issues.
disco - i support OWS or at least the part i agree with. i think you and most others are confused as to who the 1% actually is and their message is not unified in any way. you have as many End the Fed people there as you do Communists. the message is not cohesive
is someone like Steve Jobs (was) in the 1%? Peter Thiel? Larry Ellison? Mark Cuban?
if yes, then you only use wealth as your criteria which is probably wrong.
someone like Hank Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon are also in the 1% but there is a major difference...
OWS message as i understand it is to get the corporate influence out of DC, whether it be banks, auto unions, green energy companies etc
in my eyes, the 1% are those who have used the State or government's gun to advance their own personal and professional agenda. the State makes that possible. the State is the 1%
I agree. In a debate Ron Paul was asked if he would ever be in favor of raising taxes on anyone. He said something to the effect of, it would be good to raise the taxes of those that profit from government contracts.
Meaning the billionaires that make money off of the wars they lobbied congress to wage.
disco - i support OWS or at least the part i agree with. i think you and most others are confused as to who the 1% actually is and their message is not unified in any way. you have as many End the Fed people there as you do Communists. the message is not cohesive
is someone like Steve Jobs (was) in the 1%? Peter Thiel? Larry Ellison? Mark Cuban?
if yes, then you only use wealth as your criteria which is probably wrong.
someone like Hank Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon are also in the 1% but there is a major difference...
OWS message as i understand it is to get the corporate influence out of DC, whether it be banks, auto unions, green energy companies etc
in my eyes, the 1% are those who have used the State or government's gun to advance their own personal and professional agenda. the State makes that possible. the State is the 1%
I agree. In a debate Ron Paul was asked if he would ever be in favor of raising taxes on anyone. He said something to the effect of, it would be good to raise the taxes of those that profit from government contracts.
Meaning the billionaires that make money off of the wars they lobbied congress to wage.
I agree. In a debate Ron Paul was asked if he would ever be in favor of raising taxes on anyone. He said something to the effect of, it would be good to raise the taxes of those that profit from government contracts.
Meaning the billionaires that make money off of the wars they lobbied congress to wage.
I agree with him.
What was your qualm with that Disco?
I can't imagine a reason to have one.
I think it's a good suggestion from your corner and yet another example of a targeted, common sense reform most of us would agree on.
Use that revenue to help pay down that massive debt. People exploiting crony capitalism should help offset the effects of the burden they are creating.
I agree. In a debate Ron Paul was asked if he would ever be in favor of raising taxes on anyone. He said something to the effect of, it would be good to raise the taxes of those that profit from government contracts.
Meaning the billionaires that make money off of the wars they lobbied congress to wage.
I agree with him.
What was your qualm with that Disco?
I can't imagine a reason to have one.
I think it's a good suggestion from your corner and yet another example of a targeted, common sense reform most of us would agree on.
Use that revenue to help pay down that massive debt. People exploiting crony capitalism should help offset the effects of the burden they are creating.
I think it's a good suggestion from your corner and yet another example of a targeted, common sense reform most of us would agree on.
Use that revenue to help pay down that massive debt. People exploiting crony capitalism should help offset the effects of the burden they are creating.
What revenue? Where we differ is that you have faith in politicians to fix the system they were paid to use in favor of their masters
I think it's a good suggestion from your corner and yet another example of a targeted, common sense reform most of us would agree on.
Use that revenue to help pay down that massive debt. People exploiting crony capitalism should help offset the effects of the burden they are creating.
What revenue? Where we differ is that you have faith in politicians to fix the system they were paid to use in favor of their masters
If nobody worked in the government (it just stopped) would there still be a 1%? What if you replaced them with a government you liked that didn't get paid, didn't do anything, didn't influence your life at all... they'd STILL be the 'state' but would they be the '1%?'
---------------
What if we replace the unnecessary functions with nothing. Think of all the non market demanded services you are forced to pay for...subsidies, bailouts, bridges to no where
What if government had little to no revenue? The more government has, the more oppressive they get
If nobody worked in the government (it just stopped) would there still be a 1%? What if you replaced them with a government you liked that didn't get paid, didn't do anything, didn't influence your life at all... they'd STILL be the 'state' but would they be the '1%?'
---------------
What if we replace the unnecessary functions with nothing. Think of all the non market demanded services you are forced to pay for...subsidies, bailouts, bridges to no where
What if government had little to no revenue? The more government has, the more oppressive they get
Let me blow your mind and tell you that most unions profit from government contracts.
And they pay income taxes on their wages.
I thought we were talking about billionaires who exploit the system to generate an enormous amount of personal wealth... Many of whom exploit the tax system in various ways and probably pay less than the ordinair work-a-day people you are choosing to direct the conversation towards.
Let me blow your mind and tell you that most unions profit from government contracts.
And they pay income taxes on their wages.
I thought we were talking about billionaires who exploit the system to generate an enormous amount of personal wealth... Many of whom exploit the tax system in various ways and probably pay less than the ordinair work-a-day people you are choosing to direct the conversation towards.
If nobody worked in the government (it just stopped) would there still be a 1%? What if you replaced them with a government you liked that didn't get paid, didn't do anything, didn't influence your life at all... they'd STILL be the 'state' but would they be the '1%?'
---------------
What if we replace the unnecessary functions with nothing. Think of all the non market demanded services you are forced to pay for...subsidies, bailouts, bridges to no where
What if government had little to no revenue? The more government has, the more oppressive they get
KOAJ ok I get it. You're a libertarian... But what if we were having a serious conversation...
I appreciate your generic anti-government disclaimer but you could, and usually do, say that in any thread on any topic.
Do you understand where I'm coming from with my complain about hijacking / mischaracterizing the OWS message about the '1%?'
If nobody worked in the government (it just stopped) would there still be a 1%? What if you replaced them with a government you liked that didn't get paid, didn't do anything, didn't influence your life at all... they'd STILL be the 'state' but would they be the '1%?'
---------------
What if we replace the unnecessary functions with nothing. Think of all the non market demanded services you are forced to pay for...subsidies, bailouts, bridges to no where
What if government had little to no revenue? The more government has, the more oppressive they get
KOAJ ok I get it. You're a libertarian... But what if we were having a serious conversation...
I appreciate your generic anti-government disclaimer but you could, and usually do, say that in any thread on any topic.
Do you understand where I'm coming from with my complain about hijacking / mischaracterizing the OWS message about the '1%?'
Let me blow your mind and tell you that most unions profit from government contracts.
I want to go back to this for a minute...
This is the reason the math doesn't add up to blame government unions and pensions etc.
As linked in that AJ article the other day, 1% of the population in the USA control 43% of the nations resources.
If you add all the unions together, even throw in the private sector ones too, they're STILL just somewhere lost in the system with the rest of us 99%'ers fighting for a slice of the remaining 57% of wealth and resources. Now, you could say that unions maybe shouldn't get such a large chunk of the remaining 57% compared to the rest of us, but that is hardly the pressing issue here or the main problem. We're still talking about how to divide up the 'leftovers.' The main problem is that such a small percentage of the population (1%) control such an enormous amount of wealth, resources and power.
This is the reason it makes no sense to blame ordinary people and direct attention towards them instead of the 1%... And since KOAJ is MIA, it's the reason why the assertion in the article he linked is so fundamentally unfair and objectionable... The reason why the article is grossly misleading, and serves no purpose but to divide people by promoting a completely different message from what the '1%' figure actually does refer to.
Let me blow your mind and tell you that most unions profit from government contracts.
I want to go back to this for a minute...
This is the reason the math doesn't add up to blame government unions and pensions etc.
As linked in that AJ article the other day, 1% of the population in the USA control 43% of the nations resources.
If you add all the unions together, even throw in the private sector ones too, they're STILL just somewhere lost in the system with the rest of us 99%'ers fighting for a slice of the remaining 57% of wealth and resources. Now, you could say that unions maybe shouldn't get such a large chunk of the remaining 57% compared to the rest of us, but that is hardly the pressing issue here or the main problem. We're still talking about how to divide up the 'leftovers.' The main problem is that such a small percentage of the population (1%) control such an enormous amount of wealth, resources and power.
This is the reason it makes no sense to blame ordinary people and direct attention towards them instead of the 1%... And since KOAJ is MIA, it's the reason why the assertion in the article he linked is so fundamentally unfair and objectionable... The reason why the article is grossly misleading, and serves no purpose but to divide people by promoting a completely different message from what the '1%' figure actually does refer to.
Not talking about Union Members, but the Unions themselves which make up for a significant amount of lobbying cash, and have a hand in sooooooo much corruption at the top of the Govt. it is ludicrous.
I agree that the Union Members are used like pawns, and most unions could care less about their pensions and benefits. I am not for, nor have I ever been from confiscating what is contractually due to union members. I am not against good wages, and do not begrudge good benefits.
I am saying that there are elements of the AFL-CIO that run contrary to our American form of govt. They have hit groups like La Raza, and Media Matters at their disposal and they use their significant force to mold policy and federal disbursements to their interests.
If we are going to talk about the corruption in government and leave out unions and their think tank cronies, we might as well just end the discussion and agree that you have too much in the way of political and emotional ties to these groups to be serious about this debate.
Not talking about Union Members, but the Unions themselves which make up for a significant amount of lobbying cash, and have a hand in sooooooo much corruption at the top of the Govt. it is ludicrous.
I agree that the Union Members are used like pawns, and most unions could care less about their pensions and benefits. I am not for, nor have I ever been from confiscating what is contractually due to union members. I am not against good wages, and do not begrudge good benefits.
I am saying that there are elements of the AFL-CIO that run contrary to our American form of govt. They have hit groups like La Raza, and Media Matters at their disposal and they use their significant force to mold policy and federal disbursements to their interests.
If we are going to talk about the corruption in government and leave out unions and their think tank cronies, we might as well just end the discussion and agree that you have too much in the way of political and emotional ties to these groups to be serious about this debate.
Not talking about Union Members, but the Unions themselves which make up for a significant amount of lobbying cash, and have a hand in sooooooo much corruption at the top of the Govt. it is ludicrous.
I agree that the Union Members are used like pawns, and most unions could care less about their pensions and benefits. I am not for, nor have I ever been from confiscating what is contractually due to union members. I am not against good wages, and do not begrudge good benefits.
I am saying that there are elements of the AFL-CIO that run contrary to our American form of govt. They have hit groups like La Raza, and Media Matters at their disposal and they use their significant force to mold policy and federal disbursements to their interests.
Agreed. Special intrest is special interest. Getting money out of politics should be a top priority.
However, the net benefits to society from collective bargaining ensuring workers get good wages and pensions is so far above and beyond the (lack of) benefits to society from companies like Halliburton etc. and the effects of their lobbying.
Like I said, look at the math. Focusing on these people is absurd. They're in the 99% with the rest of us just trying to get whatever they can to SURVIVE out of the remaining 57% slice of leftover resources available.
Not talking about Union Members, but the Unions themselves which make up for a significant amount of lobbying cash, and have a hand in sooooooo much corruption at the top of the Govt. it is ludicrous.
I agree that the Union Members are used like pawns, and most unions could care less about their pensions and benefits. I am not for, nor have I ever been from confiscating what is contractually due to union members. I am not against good wages, and do not begrudge good benefits.
I am saying that there are elements of the AFL-CIO that run contrary to our American form of govt. They have hit groups like La Raza, and Media Matters at their disposal and they use their significant force to mold policy and federal disbursements to their interests.
Agreed. Special intrest is special interest. Getting money out of politics should be a top priority.
However, the net benefits to society from collective bargaining ensuring workers get good wages and pensions is so far above and beyond the (lack of) benefits to society from companies like Halliburton etc. and the effects of their lobbying.
Like I said, look at the math. Focusing on these people is absurd. They're in the 99% with the rest of us just trying to get whatever they can to SURVIVE out of the remaining 57% slice of leftover resources available.
IF 1% of the population in the USA control 43% of the nations resources... [American resources].
Why is a Canadian fighting for a slice of the remaining 57% of wealth and resources of the United States ?
"They're in the 99% with the rest of us just trying to get whatever they can to SURVIVE out of the remaining 57% slice of leftover resources available."
Is the OWS movement like a "We are the World " thing ..slackers of the world, unite for a slice of America's resources !
IF 1% of the population in the USA control 43% of the nations resources... [American resources].
Why is a Canadian fighting for a slice of the remaining 57% of wealth and resources of the United States ?
"They're in the 99% with the rest of us just trying to get whatever they can to SURVIVE out of the remaining 57% slice of leftover resources available."
Is the OWS movement like a "We are the World " thing ..slackers of the world, unite for a slice of America's resources !
IF 1% of the population in the USA control 43% of the nations resources... [American resources].
Why is a Canadian fighting for a slice of the remaining 57% of wealth and resources of the United States ?
"They're in the 99% with the rest of us just trying to get whatever they can to SURVIVE out of the remaining 57% slice of leftover resources available."
Is the OWS movement like a "We are the World " thing ..slackers of the world, unite for a slice of America's resources !
Yes Slim, you can hand over all of your property to me now, or wait until Obama comes to your house to take it himself. Don't forget to load up on ammo and canned food. I also hear tin foil is fashionable for the dim witted...
(...But the Grown-ups are talking here, so move along)
IF 1% of the population in the USA control 43% of the nations resources... [American resources].
Why is a Canadian fighting for a slice of the remaining 57% of wealth and resources of the United States ?
"They're in the 99% with the rest of us just trying to get whatever they can to SURVIVE out of the remaining 57% slice of leftover resources available."
Is the OWS movement like a "We are the World " thing ..slackers of the world, unite for a slice of America's resources !
Yes Slim, you can hand over all of your property to me now, or wait until Obama comes to your house to take it himself. Don't forget to load up on ammo and canned food. I also hear tin foil is fashionable for the dim witted...
(...But the Grown-ups are talking here, so move along)
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.