The Smiley Smile Message Board

Gérard Depardieu [a famous french actor] says he will give up French passport over tax rises
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/16/gerard-depardieu-french-passport-tax

Prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault:  Depardieu's behaviour is pathetic and unpatriotic at a time when the French are being asked to pay higher taxes to reduce a bloated national debt.

Boy that sounds familiar!   :lol

Depardieu:  "Who are you to judge me, I ask you Mr Ayrault? Despite my excesses, my appetite and my love of life, I remain a free man"

Woah, woah woah.  Freedom?  Easy buddy.  Eaaasy.  
You know...they really need a wall.  Yeah.  An Iron Curtain?  Since it's France...perhaps it should be a Wrought Iron Curtain. :drumroll

An angry member of parliament:  France should adopt a US-inspired law that would force Depardieu or anyone trying to escape full tax dues to forgo their nationality.

Well, this is getting exciting!  But still...rather wimpy.  Can't you just lock them up?  C'mon...what would Mao do!

(http://www.americanthinker.com/mao2.jpg)

Depardieu:  "I am leaving because you believe that success, creation, talent, anything different must be sanctioned."

In all fairness, Mr. Depardieu...they f'ed up big time.  You know the story:  politicians spent too much of the public's money... promised too many goodies from the public trust... OK, yes to buy votes and maintain popularity and thus power.  But, c'mon.  Everybody's doing it.  This is no time to run out!

Depardieu:  "People more illustrious than me have gone into [tax] exile. Of all those that have left none have been insulted as I have."

Well, isn't it obvious?  You're a famous actor, dude!  You're not like some evil rich guy, banker or nothing.  People actually like you.  For someone of your persuasion to demonstrate freedom and turn their back on Politicians and Government and ...gasp Socialism... that's just not good for their image.  And it's hard to get elected again when your image is bad.  Did you ever think of that?

In the General Discussions forum there is a thread that notes that "If new threads with little to no substance, rehashed topics, or simple questions are being posted, we're going to reserve the right to merge those threads with related threads on the same topic." Can the moderators please ensure that the same rule applies here? The off-topics forum is being cluttered up by posts whenever one poster encounters a political news story when there are already several active politics threads going.

Excuse me Moderator, but I object to the Prosecutor's limpid attempt to extinguish a new discussion on actual events.  This thread has oodles of substance, for it addresses not a theory, but an actual event taking place as the result of a political movement being "re"birthed on our planet.  Before our very eyes!!

What could have more substance than reality unfolding within a political context?  These aren't trite things.  They are the means by which men wish to rule over other men, and are proof to the delusional destruction they reap on all human society!

This political movement is on trial...not I.  And the events that have transpired as the result of it, are at the very heart of what my people wish to bring forth, as evidence, of the faults and folly of this tired old political trick.

Furthermore, I move that this attempt at me be stricken from the record, based on the Prosecutor's previous wishes directed towards me...

Deliberately avoiding taxation is not an 'expression of liberty', it's a crime, you f***ing doofus.

Make sure to remind Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway of that fact.  ;D  Berkshire Hathaway/Buffett recently found and exploited a tax loophole which allowed them to avoid paying their "fair share" by doing some convoluted buyback of a late investor's shares which totaled over 1 billion dollars, and managed to dodge a boatload of taxes as a result.

Buffett is also under fire for finding a way to pass on his fortune to his family by going through a charity like the Gates foundation: If it goes through such a charity and is set up properly, that fortune can be given tax-free to his heirs as pseudo-employees of whatever charity it is given to, and those heirs will be able to collect a salary and live off the charity, in a way, so Buffett doesn't need to pay his taxes on that money and the family doesn't need to pay any "inheritance tax" on the fortune. If he had simply willed that money to those heirs, the taxes would be astronomical, as they are for people not named Buffett who have dealt with estates and inheritances.

Again, please fact-check the numbers, but I believe the number in question with Buffett passing it on to the charity fund is something like 44 billion dollars, the estimated value of his stock holdings which will be given to the Gates' foundation over time.

Point is, if he's so concerned about others paying their taxes, why does he continue to set up and exploit various means to avoid the same taxes where his money and holdings and his heirs are concerned?

The guy has paid €145 M in taxes over 40 years. Last year his revenue (his businesses included, because yes, he actually invests money, provides jobs and contributes to the economy) was taxed at 85%.

I'm French and I fully support him. I'd do the same thing if I were him, actually I'm heading towards a career considered "lucrative" by most and I don't intend to remain in France forever, because I want to be able to give something to my children. There comes a point where governmental stupidity needs to stop. Two weeks ago, new taxes were implemented each day. Literally.

Also, the UE is supposed to provide an area in which people and goods can move freely. If taxes are lower in Belgium, then nothing is stopping him, and it's not illegal.

Ya see, there's plenty to discuss in this topic.   :lol

Now, allow me to retort.  How is it avoiding taxes if he -- how should I put this so you understand -- if he, gets the f**k out of there, yo?  And he don't want to be no Frenchy no mo', you mutha f**king *****ss!!

Hey this is fun...my tongue is tingling with dirty word sensations!!   :lol

Actually, Yannick Noah, former tennisman and currently a singer, has been France's #1 favorite celebrity for many consecutive years, and he lives in the US. No one's bashed him the way the media and some ministers shat on Depardieu. Probably because Noah supports the current government, and Depardieu is known for his mostly right-wing views. Hell, Noah even sang at the party thrown for the current president's election. A guy who evaded taxes shook the president's hand, and the latter called him "a friend". So, yeah.

Interesting.  So he lives in the US but supports the Socialists in France.  As with the aforementioned "Buffett Rule"  :lol  I think we're seeing the all to familiar pattern of Leftist Hypocrisy rearing it's stanky head again.

Depardieu's crime is of course "not playing along" with the scam.  Us conservatives just don't know what's good for us.

If he leaves, fine. Pay your taxes wherever. But if a washed up has-been (last seen pissing in the aisle of a plane IIRC) whinges about paying taxes on his multimillion dollar fortune whilst everyone else pays what they owe on increasingly stretched wages, then he has absolutely no sympathy with me. If he can afford to f*** off, he should f*** off. If he stays in France and avoids his taxes, he is a rich twat.


For all of you who think pestering businessmen, corporations, and the well-off people to pay their taxes wouldn't help the economy 'because we're all f***ed', the 'tax gap' in the UK - the amount of unpaid tax from corporations and banks thanks to loopholes of dubious legality - would pay off the deficit in the UK easily. Not that the f***ing Tories care. Let's cut benefits AGAIN instead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/30/roll-call-corporate-rogues-tax


Sorry for the blue language, trying to give up smoking again  :lol

No worries!  Best of luck on quitting smoking!!

Sorry, but history proves that the wealthy will always leave a country with a high income tax rate. sh*t, just consider the musicians alone! Tom Jones, Cat Stevens, the Rolling Stones, Graeme Edge from the Moody Blues, Ringo Starr...they all packed up and left.

Good riddance to Monsieur Depardieu, indeed. He refuses to live in a country that punishes success and MORE POWER TO HIM FOR IT.

Actually, most serious studies show that in most cases tax flight is largely a myth though I'm sure there will be some predictable cases in France - probably for the overall improvement of the country and far better than the austerity measures that have failed dramatically. Of course, one can always hand pick a few examples, but for the most part this claim about tax flight is untrue.

Again, can someone please justify why this needs its own thread and can't be placed in any of the several active politics threads right now, some of which touch exactly on these subjects? I am not attempting "to extinguish a new discussion on actual events" but rather suggesting we avoid clutter and avoid turning the off topics forum into simply a Politics forum and merge the thread with a related one.

 :lol

Why should you pay your taxes and Gerard Depardieu can throw a hissy fit, spend his millions on fleeing the country (to no doubt a life of plebian decreptitude, oh, anywhere on the planet because he's a fucking millionaire), and be applauded for it? What possible sympathy can you have for a man with more money than he could possibly spend going to taxes when I presume you're not in the same boat and pay yours?

God, it's hard being rich - I wish I had enough money and job security to flee the country with absolutely no ramifications for petty reasons!

I don't think you need to be rich to find better circumstances - just brains.  And courage.  It's been seen throughout history. Immigrants fleeing coming to America - have you heard of America?  We used to specialize in this, not so much lately.

But it doesn't always have to be so dramatic either. Many people move to Florida to find a more favorable tax situation. Many relocate to areas simply because the job market is better, home prices are better. We're born free to do this. Recognizing this, hack politicians try to keep people from exiting. French Socialists and other leftists demonize those who do. Stalin and Mao probably just hunted you down and took you out.

He's free to do it, of course, but I fail to see why I should sympathise with the plight of a poor rich man who can easily do whatever the hell he likes and thinks taxation is somehow beneath him. Don't they know who he thinks he is? He's not some kind of hero sticking it to the man. He just doesn't want to pay his legally determined taxes unlike everyone else (nb 'everyone else' excludes the similarly well-off, corporations, banks, newspaper moguls, the British Royal Family, etc etc etc).

Why are they so special?

Tax migration in the US from state to state, in particular, is a myth according to just about every study on the matter.

Here's a report on California:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/Varner-Young_Millionaire_Migration_in_CA.pdf (http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/Varner-Young_Millionaire_Migration_in_CA.pdf)

Here is one on New England:

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/Migration_PERI_April13.pdf (http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/Migration_PERI_April13.pdf)

There are plenty of other reports like it but they all typically show the same thing - that the notion of tax migration in the US is generally a fabrication.

No one is touching the Warren Buffett issue, I'm not surprised. I actually give Depardieu credit on this one, because he actually followed through on what he said he'd do. You may disagree with his ideology or reasoning, but if we break it down, he had issues and disagreed strongly with a government policy, he voiced a public opinion against it, he got ripped apart as a result, and he basically said "fine, I'm leaving and taking my taxable income with me."

To me, that's more admirable than Warren Buffett becoming the public face of the "responsible millionaire", going around lecturing others about their duty to pay taxes and pay higher taxes, the moral responsibility of those with wealth to give up more of that wealth, the way the tax structure is unfair and unjust to favor millionaires finding loopholes and paying less in taxes than what he thinks would be their "fair share"...

Then you dig deeper and find that Buffett himself and his famous investment company Berkshire Hathaway have exploited and continue to exploit those very same loopholes in the tax code in order to find those legal "grey areas" where he and B-H can avoid paying their "fair share" yet still manage to squeak by and have the activities seem semi-legal to the general public.

That in itself isn't illegal as far as I know, as slimy and semi-legal as it may appear. But for Warren Buffett himself to continuously make public comments about others paying a "fair share" in taxes, to advocate more and higher taxes on the wealthy, to continue hectoring other millionaires about donating to charity and paying more in their own taxes, all the while ensuring HIS family and heirs won't pay as much, employing entire corporate teams of lawyers to help HIS corporate interests dodge the full tax rates they should be paying, and in general doing one thing while publicly saying another...

It's not only the height of arrogance but also a deep-rooted hypocrisy which I feel is being brushed aside by many who are saying the same things as Buffett regarding taxes. If Depardieu were going around saying people should pay higher taxes, and agreeing with the higher tax rates being implemented, but THEN moving out of France to dodge the tax rate, he'd be a hypocrite and would rightfully be subject to scorn, derision, etc.

As it stands Buffett is doing all kinds of things to dodge paying the same higher tax rates he's been advocating in public (he's all but the poster child for the 'Responsible Millionaire' club), yet he escapes for the most part anything near the criticism or even the simple scrutiny which fell on Depardieu.

If fairness and equity were the goal in all of this, at least someone should put a microphone in Buffett's face and ask him a direct question on why he doesn't seem to be practicing what he preaches.

Or why no one who immediately accuses Depardieu of being a tax dodger wouldn't point the same finger at Buffett.

No-one's touching the Warren Buffett issue because it's fairly obvious the dude is a big hypocrite, and I lump him in with any tax avoiding git. Who does he think he is?


But that shouldn't render the entire issue of calling out tax avoidance moot. In one of my posts upthread, an article from the Graun states quite clearly that the gap between what corporations, banks, and the Depardieu's of the world pay in tax and what they actually owe to the Treasury (UK Edition) if not for shady tax havens of dubious legality would pay off the entire deficit of the United Kingdom.

THE ENTIRE DEFICIT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, FOLKS.

But no, these are the 'wealth creators'. We have a chancellor who pays lip service to this idea of paying your taxes in the face of public pressure and protest, then slashes council budgets, public sector pay, reduces the rights of workers, the Welfare State, and the NHS because we need to reduce the deficit and help business by making sure they can f*** over their workers. The deficit has not been reduced, and he's been forced to doctor the figures in his policy. This is probably A-OK with you lot, mind. You are happy to let corporations f*** you lot over with zero accountability and protection from a Government of toffs - it's a veritable paradise for you! Or just like home. Free-Market Economics in action.

Force Starbucks, Amazon, Google, The Ritz, Prince Charles, etc to pay their taxes and the economy would be in much better shape. It's absolutely shameful.

It is also revelatory to take a closer look at how much in taxes General Electric has paid. Jeffrey Immelt is currently an adviser in the Obama administration, and was CEO of GE. Don't even look too far, just go to the Huffington Post and find various entries suggesting GE found a way to escape paying federal taxes in recent years. If accurate, then, I would have paid more in my own federal taxes than GE.

I'm glad to see groups pointing at GE, and the inequity of all this. Yet I also don't see anywhere near the scrutiny nor the mainstream attention calling out the complete nonsense being perpetrated by Immelt and GE while someone like Depardeiu gets raked over the coals as a tax dodger.

Like the example of the other entertainer from France living in the US, there is still far too much political ideology playing into who gets the spotlight shone on their activities and who gets a pass. That bothers me.

Hypocrisy needs to be called out. I think guys like Immelt and Buffett do not get called out enough for their hypocrisy, or by the right sources, because of who they are and who they are allied with politically. My two cents.

Socialism...an idea so good that John Bull forces you to do it.

I can tell you who Buffet is.  I can also tell you why no one is actually touching the issue -- because they don't understand it.  He is not just any ole' tax avoiding git.  He and Immelt are not just a big fat hypocrites.  Guitarfool2002 said it -- it's who they're allied with.  Politically, you see.  What we're witnessing is actually the syrupy photo op of tyranny.

Businesses and individuals can either fight tyranny or... well, try a different approach.

Conservatives have labeled it "soft tyranny."  You "play ball and deal with it" -- OR, you get a bus load of ObamaPhone ladies showing up on your CEO's gated front lawn, terrorizing the children inside.  Or you take the aforementioned "different approach."  You function as a mouthpiece... the good boy... the teacher's pet.  You're spared and held up as an example.  You get breaks.  The goons (both in sweat pants and the ones in suits) look the other way.  But for how long?  Well, let's not speculate, too much...

Unlocked this thread...I don't know why it was or who locked it.

Of course - the Administration of the President and the mainstream media are controlled by virtually the same ideological group - namely, the right wing corporate elite. It's no surprise that they would protect each other.

Not sure how that figures. In reality though capitalism was an idea that was so good that it could only be effectively put into practice when landowners destroyed the peasant population, who stridently and rebelliously resisted the movement, by seizing their commonly held land and means of sustenance and turning it into private enterprise, driving the population into the hands of urban manufacturers.

Looks like the French Commies maybe realizing they went up against the wrong dude...
France warms to Gérard Depardieu, the heroic exile
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9750510/France-warms-to-Gerard-Depardieu-the-heroic-exile.html

"For a few hours, the government spin doctors thought the French... would join in the public shaming. It did not happen."  Apparently, the poll numbers said differently.   :violin

The wrong dude indeed...
"Depardieu is excessive in every way, but he’s never been a hypocrite: there have been no stints in rehab after one too many drunken brawls; no staged acts of contrition at any moment of his chaotic private life; no tabloid-monitored diets or fitness regimes. A working-class boy with no formal training but a miraculous gift for bringing to life the most complex nuances of almost every character he has played..."

This should be a lesson in dealing with these creeps.  Unapologetic, fearless -- there's no "negotiating" with tyranny.  None.  They're whacked!  Unfortunately we don't have people like that in Congress... we got John Boehner.  Good man, I'm sure... but he doesn't understand the thugs we're up against.  Nor did Romney.  Nor did McCain.  Nor does the Republican Party.  And unfortunately nor do a lot of people.

I don't really understand the bitterness, if the argument is that millionaries who enjoy the benefits and security of the society they live in are obliged to contribute to the upkeep of that society, shouldn't proponents of taxation be completely satisfied if someone decides to forgo those benefits in order to not have to pay for them? He decided not to pay his fair share, and he left the country because in his mind the taxes weren't worth the right of living there. How is that anything other than a completely fair exercise of freedom?

Well said.

Tell that to the Parisian pinkos and their cumstained copies of Marxist pamphlets.

I don't know how much currency Marxism really has among the higher ranking members of the political establishment. My point in a lot of these threads has been that they are all very unprincipled people, capitalism is just a scapegoat, and Marxism is just a word that tests well with the public sentiment. I don't agree with Marxism, but the types of people we're talking about have complex motivations beyond intellectual adherence to any ideology. They're narcissists and manipulators that are more than willing to sell out their people and, with a straight face, brand their actions as egalitarian and progressive.

Of course.

But, calling him 'heroic' is dim. He's a hero because he wants to move?

Paying taxes = socialism?!

Did you even READ my post? Britain hasn't had anything remotely close to a socialist in a Cabinet position since 1979. Its been free market ideologues for over 30 years. Your kind of people, right?

So you think nothing of the tax gap I refer to?

That's exactly the right question -- why all the bitterness?

Well... it's because, not only did he not play along -- he published a letter.  Woohoo!  :pirate  A very popular actor, who is known for being unafraid and fearless of "public opinion" called these jive turkeys out.  He didn't move away in the middle of the night.  He didn't play around with lawyers and loopholes.  Like Han Solo, he turned this mother out.

They rang his doorbell during brunch and told him he wasn't paying enough (85% apparently wasn't enough).  So he -- dressed in nothing but a "loosely fitting" bathrobe and a cigarette, munching a croissant -- spit his remaining brunch in their powdered faces and kicked them in their pantaloons.

So all the Statist are pissy because they got served in the public square.  You see, they're not supposed to get served -- we are.  We're supposed to kiss their rings and thank them for the tough job they have of stealing other people's money, so they can get credit for caring, thus winning more votes.  That's their "schtick."  That's their little party.

"Dim?"

People who stand up to bullies -- the biggest bullies we can face, mind you -- and show no fear in the face of what was "expected" to be overwhelming public criticism -- his public and his career, mind you -- and leave your life and home behind ... yeah bro, that takes stones.  Massive stones.

Therefore, thinking that he's simply moving to a new neighborhood for better schools... well, eh-hmm.  My aim is to make sure everyone understands that that perspective is severely lacking in, shall we say "proper illumination?"   ;)

If you classify the state and the laws of the land as a 'bully', sure, that holds water.....

Man, someone should ring Bob Dylan up - this man's a real folk hero for moving house.

Don't hold your breath!  Dylan's probably too far down the beaten path to come to any new realizations about the world.  However, he could certainly live long enough to see things unfold that may change his mind.  But again... Depardieu is not just moving house, which I covered.   ;D

But yes... Government 101 -- the State has enormous power over the individual.  But it's not just the State.  There's the media, entertainment, education, religion, business and family too.  It's not inconceivable to assume one would use these pillars to get their way -- but rather inconceivable to assume otherwise.

As for bullying... one uses bullying tactics to get people to do things against what their own common sense tells them is to their benefit.  The Statists are relying primarily on their friends in the media, education and entertainment to get their way -- which is to steal money.  They are not happy and are quite embarrassed when one so publicly displays the courage to shine common sense.

French Court Says 75% Tax Rate on Rich Is Unconstitutional!!!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-29/french-court-says-75-tax-rate-on-wealthy-is-unconstitutional.html
 :ahh

Hey Bean Bag, no comment on the fact that Gerard, libertarian messiah, sticking it to the state, has just got Russian citizenship?




Why, I'm almost shocked  ;D

Such a freedom fighter..... :lol

Oh, I know!  Crazy, isn't it??!!  Rock, rock roll!!  Not only him... but bridget bardot was also flirting with becoming Russian (not for taxes... but for, get this... "elephant treatment."  Yeah...)

Depardieu's puzzling love for Russia
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/opinion/fraser-depardieu-putin/index.html
"Depardieu's love for Russia cannot be indifferent to the country's flat 13% income tax rate, measurably lower than the 75% rate that France's socialist government will impose this year..."

What's so puzzling about it, CNN?  Flat rate 13%.  Or a staggering 75% rate?  Now... I didn't go to one of them "big fancy journalism schools" in the northeast... nor do I possess a degree in comparing numbers and percentages.  But... well... you know.

The libtards at CNN can't bear the fact that people want to pay less in taxes...they probably wonder what butthurt the Obama regime will be feeling as a result.

In fact, that's typically untrue. According to a recent poll taken by Quinnipiac, about 65% of US voters are in favour of increasing taxes on the wealthy:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail/?ReleaseID=1821 (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail/?ReleaseID=1821)

So just because the majority says so means it should be so? I wonder what European Jews circa 1939 would think of that!

Well, it mostly means that your claim that "people want to pay less in taxes" is misleading and doesn't bear up to the facts.

But since you shift the goal posts, yes, I do believe democratic values are important values.


I think you're being disingenuous suggesting that there was anything like a democracy in Germany in 1939. There was a great deal of support for the Nazis internally in Germany in 1939 (as well as externally, for other reasons) and according to the statistics, the Jewish population was not remarkably different.

Take a look, for example, at this article from the New York Times from around that time:

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0819.html (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0819.html)

It suggests that in some Jewish communities, about 65% endorsed Hitler, sometimes higher. And what we can conclude from this is that in this society no poll would have correctly or accurately indicated what anybody in Germany thought, whether it was a blonde blue-eyed Aryan or a Jewish person. The population was largely coerced into supporting the tyrannical regime in power to the extent that the leading internal victims of the regime claimed to be in favour of it. You simply can't make a plausible correlation between the two examples because it is comparing apples to oranges.

I'm glad you find the "tyranny of the majority" (which is all democracy is, has been, and ever will be) to be an important value. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, right? :) I'll take the individual over the angry mob any day of the week AND on Sundays.

Elections in 1933 seem to paint a different picture when it comes to the Third Reich...the NSDAP received the majority of the votes. Sorry, but "the people have spoken" does not necessarily lead to good results.

http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschland/RT8.html (in German, but I'm sure everyone here can read it)

Well, the concept of a "tyranny of the majority" is kind of like Orwell's doublethink - structurally it simply doesn't make any rational sense and there's a good reason for it. It's basically a term dreamed up by elitists (and propagated by the dutiful followers of elitists like yourself), like some of the founding Fathers, who very clearly feared that their own very real control over the majority of the population could crumble. So it was understood by people like James Madison that the government should function to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." And John Jay noted similarly that "The people who own the country ought to govern it." And it's no surprise that the "tyranny of the majority" phrase should come out of this same mindset and from the same type of public figure who felt that it was crucial to keep the power amongst the elite owners and out of the hands of the people at all costs, even if resorting to nonsensical cliches is a necessity. This is the very premise behind the phrase "tyranny of the majority". The fact is that genuine democracy has nothing to do with the scenario that you are drawing out (and importantly, you are forced to construct some cartoonish situation and vilify that rather than anything in reality) because in reality a genuine democracy would have all parties being able to talk things out and come to a consensus that could take into account all points of view.  See, when people (not wolves or sheep) decide in a group what they are going to have when they have dinner together, there is going to be a variety of opinion but you will end up eating something and you wouldn't say that that is a result of a tyranny within the group, unless you are truly that fanatical.


See, here you have to understand your history. None of the votes in the first two elections that Hitler ran in gave him a majority. In fact, even in the election which led to him getting the Chancellor position, he lost to Marshall Hindenburg who received a majority but through politicking, Hitler was eventually appointed  Chancellor by the elected Hindenburg despite losing the election. After Hitler was appointed he called for an election in 1933 and a week before the election, the Reichstag building burned down which Hitler claimed was a communist conspiracy so he called for Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree which curbed civil liberties and allowed Hitler to go on a spree of jailing communists. Doing that, along with surpressing the Communist vote gave the Nazi Party the election, giving them the most votes but still not enough to have absolute majority in parliament. So Hitler devised the Enabling Act which required 2/3rd parliament to vote in favour of it but this was not too difficult since several of the Social Democrats were unable to take their seats due to arrests and intimidation. The Act passed and this is what gave Hitler legislative power.

Importantly, none of this had to do with democracy. When Hitler followed the traditional democratic route, he lost. The only way he was able to gain power was through appointment and then systematically changing laws to curb civil liberties and throwing dissidents and political opponents in jail. Otherwise, it seems, he wouldn't have stood a chance.

A 75% rate that didn't pass, natch..... Finally, conclusive proof he's a moron.


TRBB, you don't want individualism. You want a corporate state. Your solution to anything has always been free-market ideas, and you essentially want to have absolutely no say in how your life is run, instead leaving it to businessmen who don't give a f*** about you, would never give a f*** about you, and would make it their business to ensure that they are absolutely not accountable (somewhat like now, in fact, but the baffling thing is that you want MORE). On the other hand, democratic government IS accountable.

And you couch it in idiotic 4chanism like 'libtard' and chatting about the Nazis like some common room dunce.  I can't believe people still argue with you.

A "corporate state"? Let's cut the political correctness. It's called a "fascist state".

Exactly what have I posted here would lead you to the conclusion that I advocate fascism? Corporations exist BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. I don't push for a society run by corporations and certainly not one in which corporations and government work hand in hand, which is otherwise known as a fascist state. I don't believe in socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. I don't believe in capitalizing gains and socializing losses. I believe in capitalism for EVERYONE. I believe in HUMAN rights. You will NOT find those qualities in a fascist state.

A democratic state will only go as far as what the angry mob wants and damn the rest of them. That's not accountability. Democracy is not to be envied and certainly not to be desired. I'm an atheist in a predominantly Christian United States - those people see me as undesirable. Why the hell would I want to put faith in a majority to ensure my rights are protected? Sorry, but "consent of the governed" doesn't cut it.

That's untrue. There are periods where the government has less control over corporations and this typically works to strengthen their power. The government works to reduce the inherent tyranny of corporate power.


You can't use a dysfunctional democracy as an example in order to write them all off. That's like saying filmmaking is a job not to be envied and certainly not to be desired - because, after all, look at Snakes on a Plane.

Again, you have misunderstood the term "tyranny of the majority" - it was a term evoked in order to support a tyranny of the minority.

I think he just "had it up to here" with the buttplugs in France -- to be "frank."  :drumroll

Whatever France's current rate is, it sho'as hell ain't no 13%.

To the bolded bit - Do the words 'corporate tax avoidance' mean anything to you? If anything (unless you in fact are the CEO of Amazon and moderate this board inbetween games of golf) it's the other way around - we normal working people (middle, lower, whatever) pay our full taxes and they exploit loopholes to avoid it. The numbers are ridiculous - as I repeatedly state, in Britain the  deficit and the amount of avoided corporation tax is roughly the same -  but who's going to enforce that if not a progressive government*? You probably think they're 'sticking it to the man' or something. Does pocketing vast amounts of cash (through lots of illegal means, not just tax avoidance) whilst the economy stagnates and living conditions for the majority of people decline count as heroism in your book?

This notion of yours that paying taxes somehow equals socialism is absurd. It's obeying the goshdarn law, just like you do. Unless of course, you somehow feel taxation is beneath you.

Face it, you are constantly being played by the free market. If totally deregulated, you wouldn't have a minimum wage (the right of the Tory party constantly say how this will re-energise business, which is right... if you want the workforce to live in utter poverty), health insurance policies as a perk of your job - the fact that's viewed as a perk is disgusting. Hell, the most vocal proponents of right-wing pro business agenda say Western societies should be more like China, reversing a century of progressive legislation so businesses don't have to worry about decent working conditions or decent wages. Do you agree with that?

P sure Atheists haven't been persecuted in modern American society. Or indeed, any progressive society. Bad Amazon reviews of The God Delusion don't count as evidence.

*we certainly don't have one here. I reckon you'd like Britain, our chancellor was recently caught on film getting quite excited telling big business owners how to avoid paying their taxes. And they just voted to decimate the benefits of the working poor! Your kind of place!

Here in the States many/most of the country isn't paying taxes, Hypehat.  That was the genesis of Mitt Romney's 47% comment, more or less.  So yes, the "numbers are ridiculous" as you stated.

I don't think anyone's advocating not paying taxes.  A flat tax is fair.  Is fairness beneath the Left?  What we have is wealth redistribution. Socialist voodoo.

Minimum wage?  :quote :lol  Why does the Left strut around like Mic Jagger, proudly touting the minimum wage!!  I'm sorry... but I get such a kick out of that!   ;D

Anyway... you know what are they're paying the illegal aliens?  It's sure as hell ain't "minimum wage!" I'll tell you that much!

Basically, I would have accepted:  no man has the power to set a "minimum wage" OR  China.  There's your stickin' minimum wage!.  I also would have accepted, simply:  "Detroit."

Mitt Romney's 47% was such bullsh*t, but you can believe that if you want to. Benefits fraud is a nebulous myth spread by rightwing ideologues that has little basis in fact to demonise the working poor. Only know the UK figure, but 0.7% of benefits claimed last year were fraudulent. 0.7%. That's a little less than 47%, even by your tenuous grasp on reality.

So underpaying vulnerable immigrants is ok in your book because they can get away with it? Great. You're an entitled moron.

Or are you advocating better rights for illegal immigrants? Doesn't sound like you are? Because you are an entitled  moron.

No, Hypehat... I'm simply advocating that you're a moron.  With all due respect.  :lol

But seriously... minimum wage is a fantasy, is it not?  This isn't rocket science.  Either it is or it isn't.  I've got all day... I'm entitled, remember?   ;)

No one is "entitled" to a job or a wage. You have to earn them.

I take it you've never been unemployed? All Internet libertarians seem to come from positions of privilege that they take for granted to the extent that they cannot possibly fathom how other people get into such situations. Doesn't being able to afford food and a place to live come under 'life' in your oft trumped 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'? Or does everyone in poverty simply deserve it?

I have been unemployed. Don't presume to tell me how you think I'm some kind of privileged individual because I think a certain way that doesn't parallel your pinko sensibilities. You sound like one of those class warfare folks in the news...bourgeoisie keeping you proles down, eh? Solidarity and all that. No one's keeping you down in the free market. Maybe it's because you serve no purpose in the market institutions in which you attempt to fit.

I work for my keep and while I don't live an extravagant life by any means it doesn't make me a bad person because I see the hypocrisy in a statist like you. See, while I criticize your thought processes, I refrain from attacks on your character. Yet you rebound with this.

Seriously? f*** you.

What free market are you referring to? Where does this exist where a free market isn't keeping anyone down?

Free markets by their very nature are voluntary...no one has a gun held to his or her head and is forced to participate. Markets do not keep people down, governments and "welfare" keep people down.

Amazed you didn't work a John Bull reference into that.

Seriously, you bring this aggressive bullshit into these threads, even when i wasnt posting to them. You also expect people to let it slide, only because you think you're right and bludgeon people with 4chan grade assholism. You want a discussion, don't call me, or anyone else for that matter, a 'libtard' or a pinko and expect me to not respond in kind.

When you got your benefits cheque, did you weep a solitary tear at the prospect at finally being a pawn of that nasty, nasty government, or did you simply get on with your life, thinking 'sure is nice I'm not homeless'?

No, Hyphat: he's earned his pittance and that's the only reality he knows or cares to know and anyone who's done anything else but bust their ass for $10 an hour is a fool and a statist... The anger of the prole is what it really is: just misdirected.

I never applied for benefits because I was too busy looking for gainful employment. I subsisted on savings until I found another job.

Again, I ask, what free markets are you talking about?

If true, this is commendable... I hardly know anyone who has any real savings. Not even people who make "real" money....

There aren't different types of free markets. It's either a free market or a coercive market, i.e. the state.

Well, that's not completely true but give me an example of what you're talking about.

It's called planning ahead. Sure, it wasn't necessarily easy going off of savings for a couple weeks and living on peanut butter sandwiches, but that's the price to be paid. No gainful employment means one needs to hold off some previous comforts for a bit. I refuse to run up huge credit card bills as well.

The best example is Somalia. The lack of government oversight with regards to the market effectively led to people voluntarily organizing themselves to provide competitively priced services (food, telecommunications, airlines, hospitality) at lower prices. It's based off of Xeer customary law.

I have heard about that and its commendable, but it doesn't change the fact that Somalia is lawless hellhole.

Somalia is chaotic because the United Nations won't leave them alone. Those people by and large do not want another centralized government after the sh*t they went through before 1991 and the United Nations has tried their damnedest to institute a new central government in that country. Somalis DON'T WANT IT.

It's not the anarchism I'd necessarily push for but it's a hell of a lot better than a central government.

This article below discusses the customary "Xeer" organization that Somalis use as a guideline.

http://mises.org/daily/2701

Actually the telecommunications industry which is the more successful element of the Somali economy was by and large successful because of remittances from abroad.

And for the most part, the economy is controlled by warlords.

I wouldn't call this a free market by any means nor would I say that people are "voluntarily organizing themselves." It is a largely controlled society - but it is, for the most part, controlled by gangs rather than an official government. I would agree that the outside world does have a lot to answer for for the state Somalia is in, though I certainly wouldn't blame the UN.

Your luck in the situation (like Pinder, no-one I know has savings that wouldn't get completely wiped out by a months rent/food in London) still doesn't justify the attitude you have to people who don't have that luck. If you were strictly calling it a game of luck, I'd buy that. But you say people 'deserve' poverty, even if they work.

In Britain, lots of recipients of housing benefits, child benefits council housing, etc, are in employment. Granted, that employment  is temporary unskilled work defined by vast corporate entities like Tesco because neo-liberal policy decimated the industrial sector and the working class. That was 30 years ago. And now there's nothing but shitty work of that nature for great swathes of the population due to this notion of rugged individualism. Of course, it's definitely not the free-market ideology, or the companies fault that there's only sh*t work for no pay, is it? No, much easier to blame the working class for being 'shirkers'.

Like I say,you'd love Britain. They've spent the new year decimating the benefits system based on sneering posh stereotypes of benefits fraud on council estates - ie, something the public school elite in Britain have only seen on Little  Britain. The real number of fraudulent benefits? 0.7%. And then they leave those nice corporations who owe the UK roughly the deficit in their lawful taxes alone. Never mind that those nice businessmen and bankers are flagrantly breaking the law in many, many ways (and getting richer in what's going to be a triple-dip recession), there's some more poor people they can kick out of their homes. Clearly they aren't working hard enough, right?

You said you read The Guardian, right? Like, are you sure? Or by 'read' do you mean 'my chips are wrapped up in The Guardian'?

Also, in your tirade....

Are you trying to infer that I am unemployed, which of course would be the only reason one would rep for the Welfare state? I'm a middle class, well employed, university graduate, you jackass. At least I had the good grace to try and explore where you got your sneering hatred for people without your privilege.

Where have I said that people "deserve" poverty? I don't have a negative attitude or hatred towards those people but I certainly have problems when they try to say that they're somehow "owed something". No one is "owed" ANYTHING. But I don't blame the private sector for the shitty job market. I blame the government. And I wasn't even trying to infer that you are unemployed.

Who exactly thinks they are owed something? This is what I don't get, and it largely just seems like a fever dream cooked up as misplaced anger at the feeling of working working and working with little reward but a great deal of pride: which is a positive actually, but why direct it at this imaginary mass of people who somehow believe they are owed something of YOURS? I tell you, this doesn't exist.... I've known some people who have been on unemployment, and the level of shame involved was staggering. And these people all lost a lot of sleep while relentlessly looking for work, and most people I knew in such situations actually found work before a single unemployment dollar made it's way through all the red tape.... Imagine that, being filled with shame over receiving money from a system that YOU paid into during all your previous years of working/contributing.... It is pure, unadulterated indoctrination to assume that hordes of evil people think they are owed something.... And what is so wrong with such a concept anyway? You are born unwittingly into this world, you have to work and basically pay just for the privilege of being alive, and at every turn you have to pay more and more and more for basically less and less, YOUR labor and blood and sweat is OWED to society..... If your scumbag President decides to send you into war to line his pockets, YOU OWE YOUR LIFE....... Oh, but don't ask for a damn thing. Shut up and work your ass off while your idiot President who never had to work a day in his life reaps the rewards of you all that YOU OWE..... Don't give me this PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY'RE OWED SOMETHING line of bullsh*t.... I feel you. Trust me. I know the emotion..... But please examine it before it eats you alive.

If people pay their taxes into the welfare state, as everyone does (including you, TRBB, I assume) they should have the assurance of those benefits if and when they fall upon hard times. I have claimed my benefits when need be, because I have paid for them. That's how it works for 99.3% of British people.

Yeah, so call me Comrade Hypehat.

What I'm trying to get you to think about is, why should these corporations, and merchant bankers, not abide by the law and pay their taxes when we do? What makes them above the law? What makes them different to you? You haven't tried to address the tax gap in the UK, which I've mentioned so many times in this thread, because of your dogged insistence that the forces of the banking free market want to do right. They don't. They just want to make money off of libor rates or whatever and f*** off to their beach houses with their ill gotten gains. The free market, in a post thatcherite age, would let this rampant abuse continue. It has, and it will continue to unless people start giving a sh*t about who is playing the system. It sure as f*** ain't the government, the businesses don't like to pay their tax. Because they are divorced from real life and they don't give a flying f*** about anything outside their bubble of privileged snobbery. They despise the working class.

You said people have to earn a wage. Bullshit. If you have a job, it should be able to keep you off the streets. Any notion that people don't work hard enough for a living is noxious and foul, everyone works hard to live. As do you, and as do I.

Politicians are not the nation's brightest.  Especially as financial advisers/investors.  They should not be trusted.  If assurance of benefits is all you seek -- great, we're in business -- cuz there's better ways to provide this safety net.

FUN FACT:  Statist/Marxist/Communists really just want assurance of power, not assurance of benefits distribution.  Their goals don't align with your stated goal.

Don't give in so easily.  Marxists' the world over get aroused and tingly over such submissive behavior.

Short answer -- they're not above the law.

Every major corporation has the legal resources to avoid paying where they don't have to -- legally.  The law has holes, it's not a flat tax.  It's a maze of laws created by "not the nation's brightest."  Politicians.  Tax law has things called deductions.  They're legal.  The Board and the financial/tax people at a corporation are usually risk adverse and wouldn't gamble on "not paying."

But most importantly -- what taxes they do pay, they don't pay.  You pay.  People pay taxes.  Corporations either raise the cost of their product or take it from employees paychecks.  It's not some philosophical debate.  You can't tax "a thing."  Just the people that use it or work at the thing.  You can't tax "a thing."  Just like you can't talk to "a thing" or shake "a thing's" hand.  Call up Nike or Pepsi... and if you hear a booming disembodied voice that says "Hello HypeHat... this is Pepsi," I'll buy lunch.

Them is not a "them."  It's a thing.  Them is "a thing."  You and me -- and the people that work at a company -- are people.  You've been lied to by liberals.

Yes.  They're divorced from real life because they're not a "life."  And for thinking they are -- you're divorced from reality.  But today's a new day...

HypeHat, it is.  The media helps them... but the people running government are stealing, burning our money.  Until people understand what folks like me are trying to tell folks like you -- yes, it will continue.  We need to come together and vote them into retirement.  Hating me prolongs it.

Reality is at times "noxious and foul."  Sure, people work hard.  But there's a growing number being subsidized with the fruits of others' labor.  I think that stinks.

George Monbiot says things that I have been trying to say itt

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/14/neoliberal-theory-economic-failure

With regards to me own views, just because one government (or indeed, the neo-liberal strain that's dominated since Thatcher) is spectacularly shite doesn't mean I write off all government and embrace the corporate 'anarchism' TRBB suggests, for instance.

Your strange line of debate trying to abstract the fact that bankers and corporate CEOs (y'know, people)  seek to avoid any notion of taxation, even on the bonuses they give themselves.

]

Does this sound right to you? Or do you applaud their rugged individualism whilst (at least over here) the govt cut benefits to the working poor and laugh? (no kidding. They laughed. Odious posh bastards)

Oh good heavens Hypehat... that article is looney tunes!  Be careful with that stuff.  That's the kind of loopy, disconnected anger and negative energy that led people into the arms of some terrible, terrible times.  Fascist dictatorships, blood in the streets.

Bare with me, this might sting...

"Before I go on, I should point out that I don't believe perpetual economic growth is either sustainable or desirable."
That is like eating poo and telling me it's a steak.  Economic growth is not desirable.  I'm glad he pointed that out before he went on.
Right there... you should know this man is either a derelict -- or he has some dastardly plan to rob the f*ck out of you.  Suspect the latter.  He's trying to convince you of something that is unnatural.  The desire to earn more money and grow.  The desire to defend oneself from harm, the desire to make today better than tomorrow, the desire for happiness, love and joy... these are natural things.

"But if growth is your aim – an aim to which every government claims to subscribe – you couldn't make a bigger mess of it than by releasing the super-rich from the constraints of democracy."
Releasing the super-rich from democracy is code for it's not their money... and your gonna help me take it.
Did you ever see those ads that ask you to send in $20 dollars and learn how to make $5000 a week from your home?  The idea being -- after your $20 life lesson, now you get to ask other saps to send in $20!  Maybe you'll make your $5000 dollars a week!

The point is this -- he's not at the top of that pyramid.  As such, neither him nor you (especially you) are going to get any of that super-rich guy's cash.  They'll tickle your fancy with "benefits."  But there's A LOT of people waiting in line.  I mean, c'mon.

You sure know how not to make sense.


Again, tell me how you feel about these rich guys disobeying the rules you play by. Clearly they show the business acumen necessary to flagrantly break the law, and feel good about it due to snobbish entitlement. You haven't answered my central point all the way thru this pointless discussion - what makes them so special?

You mean like Bernie Madoff?  Is that your question -- how do I feel about guys like him?  Or just rich guys in general?  And why are they special?

They're not.  I don't think anybody should be above the law.

I also don't think they should be beneath the law... and pay MORE than their fair share.  They pay all the taxes, give or take.  I think people of your line of thinking have had their way for FAR too long on these matters.  The left has been doing the gang-banging, thug routine on the rich for too long -- and lo' and behold, they're back for more!!   :-D  It's never enough.  Shocking... could this be proof I'm right Hypehat?   :lol  Think about it.

I aim to end this.  The rich ain't your money machine or punching bag.

Stealing from the rich and giving it to the government doesn't put that money in your hands.  In reality... oh so ironically ...it takes money and opportunity out of yours.  It causes LESS jobs and LESS innovation.  It equals MORE expensive goods and services for you.  I know this isn't comprehended by leftists.  They scoff at "trickle-down" economics at the hands of private citizens -- doing business freely amongst themselves.  But they see only roses and rainbows with "trickle-down" government -- a middle man of gargantuan proportions.  That's somehow better.  A giant Middle man.

Do you know how much money gets wasted and stolen by... wait for it... EVIL rich people when you launder it though the middle man of government?!!!  Huh!??!?!  Have you ever thought about that?  No.  No you haven't.  Taxing the rich is doing EVERYTHING you claim you hate.  Empowering the evil rich guys, while raping the good ones.

Put down the red pamphlets.  Walk away...

I agree with hypehat.

So punish them. You're asking for fairness, neutrality, and impartiality, no special treatment. That's exactly what "laissez-faire" capitalism is all about, complete government neutrality in economic matters. But I don't think that's what you really want, you want intervention, you just want the intervention to favor different people than it does and punish different people than it has.
Obama chose not to punish the criminals. Period. That was his administration's policy, it was something that was entirely within the scope of his powers to deal with as he saw fit, and he gave the executives a pass. He was biased, he showed favor, he was anything but impartial. That's the way it is in modern western command economies, the root issue is constant intervention. Whenever the government intervenes it's helping someone at someone else's expense. If want to end all favoritism and see every firm within our economy treated equally under the law you need to renounce socialism.

Wasn't Occupy Wall Street basically a big protest against the rich?  Like the 99% wanted a piece of the pie? 

No it was not.... Well, that's not what the initial spark of protest was about. Not at all. You can research it and find your answers quickly.... Of course a bunch of folks got involved for the wrong reasons and ruined it though, but the idea behind the whole thing was valid.... If there's something wrong with calling out for fairness and accountability, then I'm happy to be wrong....

I could have sworn that Occupy Wall Street was typical 'community organizer' faire.  Settin' the stage for their "Mitt Romney's a Wall-Street Evil Guy" bumper sticker & T-shirt ad campaign.  

They saw the Tea Party and sh-t their pants.  Fixated on themselves, they thought the T-Party was about them.  About Obama.  So they got the "oh-so-original idea" to stage their own.  But not in DC, man... but like... you kno,... at WALL STREET!

So they rallied up all their leftys, college-dopes and communist miscreants lookin' for a place to crash -- promising them TV time and a place to sh-t.


And that is the truth.
 :smokin

Mickelson vows 'drastic changes'
http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/phil-mickelson-plans-drastic-changes-due-to-tax-situation-012013

"Phil Mickelson gave a civics lesson after his play Sunday... The lecture: I’m not going to pay more in taxes than I can take home to my wife and kids.  'If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate is 62, 63 percent,' Mickelson said. 'I’ve got to make some decisions on what I am going to do.'

It is indeed PART of the truth, Mr. Bag!

How many of us actually attended any of these said demonstrations? I did in Los Angeles and I can tell you, the folks who were free to camp out in front of city hall for months on end were only able to do so because they make more money in a year than the lot of us will likely see in our lifetimes..... Of course, the squatters came along and sullied the whole thing up.... I'm not sitting here advocating any of it, just pointing out that it wasn't just a bunch of hippies and bums wanting hand-outs. I work in TV and can assure you what you see on TV is only the half of it (and that's if someone even does their homework) ..... But alas no one in this life cares to be convinced, let-alone informed of anything... We just pick a side and only let in whatever information supports this adopted viewpoint..... And that is the truth.

Things like that make me incredibly nervous. The French Revolution in its' own way was more terrifying than a lot of the supposedly horrific things the institutions it targeted were said to have did. I feel like a lot of the sentiment is festering and I really don't want to live through that type of event so thank god "Occupy" never reached its' critical mass.

I agree Fishmonk.  The media did its best to paint the Tea Party that way.  Radical.  Foaming at the mouth.  Hate-filled.  Irrational.  They wanted the low-information, voting public to fear the Tea Party.  While successful here and there -- they couldn't sell it.  Too out of step with reality.

But Occupy really was full of these dirt bags.  "Squatters," as Pinder pointed out.  That's why no one's sure of the point.  It was rampant with dubious goals and invidious agendas.  Terrifying shop owners, destroying public pooperty and leaving their "camp-sites" full of litter and trash.  That's their legacy.  Here's why...

The campaign's agenda (as I mentioned) was to direct public anger about the financial mess towards Wall Street Rich Guys (Romney) -- and away from D.C. (Obama), where it actually belonged.  Period.  But like flies on poop... if you're selling "HATE THE RICH"... you will also attract the scary, nasty element that Fishmonk suggested.

As for critical mass -- There are many who believe, part of Obama's agenda is to get America its critical mass of revolutionary dirt bags.  Out of work and angry at the rich.  He's certainly doing just that.  Whether intentional or not.

Both tea party and OWS have nuts in their ranks.

Yeah, but focus on reality...
The ruling class-- the elites in Washington and their protectors in the Media.  They used/created Occupy Wall Street to deflect the American people's attention away from themselves.

Hate Wall Street.  Wall Street Bad.  1%'ers.  OCCUPY!!  ...ok, but who bailed them out?  The Tea Party?  No.

It was the ruling class in Washington.  They first STOLE the money (from the people).  Then GAVE the money away.  The Tea Party had nothing to do with ANY of that.  They were the ones putting the attention on the ruling class.  The Occupiers? ...they wanted you to hate recipients.  Kind of dumb... kind of nuts...

What was the Tea Party message?  Fiscal responsibility.  Accountability of our leaders -- regardless of their party.  How does that message help anybody in power?  It doesn't.  Trust me... the Republican party HATES them, just like they hate Conservatives.  The Tea Party was regular people -- like us, sick of all the above.  Sick of getting thugged.  Sick of getting robbed.  Sick of trillions of their dollars (!!!) going to help the powerful.  Sick of no one giving a sh-t about the people.

The point is:  To say that Occupy and the Tea Party, both have nuts in their ranks, could be used as an attempt to equate the two.  Not only is that not true... but it's not helping.  Well, it's helps the elites.

I have no agenda, its just common knowledge that crazy people can join mass movements.

...I understand, it's a valid point -- as said nuts can be used by opponents to de-legitimize a movement.

My point was to highlight the content of the mass movements -- which one was or wasn't nuts.  Therefore, the nut "in the ranks" of an already nutty movement are thus the nuttlier.

I mean both movements have great ideas at the beginning, (tea party- fiscal responsibility) (OWS- pointing out some glaring crimes the the Madoff types pulled on wall street) but as the movement swells, the message is lost.

Both the Occupy and Tea Party movements were hijacked - the former by socialists and the latter by "compassionate Christians" and neoconservatives. Both are currently disgraceful.

Wrong Bean. It was directed at the Wall Street criminals AND D.C.....

Sometimes it seems you and Fishmonk just like to be contrary.... Which can be fun, I admit.....At least Fishmonk doesn't seem to just take any knee jerk sides. But Bean, you are a right winger. We get it. Maybe try to be less severe and obvious with it?

But I agree with the Monk Man that mass movements ect can often be more frightening than what they are supposedly up in arms about.... Oh, absolutely....

Said it before and will say it again - the Wall Street criminals are able to get away with what they do because the government allows them to in most cases. Proof of this is the fact that the government bailed most of them out. I'm sure Lehman Brothers wonder every day where their bailout was. Bernard Madoff probably found his prosecution by the United States government for running a Ponzi scheme ironic in the extreme, considering that the United States has run their own Ponzi scheme (Social Security) for nearly eighty years.

I went to Occupy Philadelphia for an afternoon when the whole movement was getting big. These folks did not want accountable government...at least not in the sense we're talking about here. These people wanted government as The Great Redistributor of Wealth. There were even Mao Zedong and Kim Il-sung fanatics there, believe it or not (the latter insisted that North Korea is the victim of a smear campaign and that they actually have an exemplary standard of living). My friends and I were asking them why they weren't in Washington, and they insisted that the economic crisis wasn't the government's fault. These people were also going on and on about "exploited children in China"...and EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM owned an Apple product and had one on their persons.

Needless to say, my faith in the Occupy movement was forever soured after that day. Those people don't want accountability, they want their utopian Che Guevara communist paradise. But hey...at least in Pennsylvania we can defend ourselves (for now).

Word. Maybe it was a bit different in LA, but just as many folks out here seemed just as pissed at the government than at the Madoff types... But alas, they were outnumbered.

And don't get me started on all the iHoles I know  >:D

Well, then great.  The cozy relationship of DC/Wall St. was part of the issue.  But they called themselves Occupy Wall Street.   :lol  (Should I vamp on the term "occupy" now?  You know how that's gonna end...  :angel:)


Knee jerk?  What!? (I actually take this as a compliment.  My reactions are as fluid as a reflex, yes.  But they are very well thought out.  Poke no holes, can you?)


Well, I don't get it.  I don't even know what a right-winger is.  I'm an artist... so I despise laws, there's way too many.  I despise the notion that every crisis not be wasted... to pass more laws.   :wall  And I despise people taking my money, and having them tell me it's good for me.  And then having others tell me I'm a "winger" to complain.  I'm not one who sees poo and tells people it's a steak.


Ok.  I will try to be less obvious and severe.  That just might work.

I am quite delighted with your comments.... We keep seeming to be getting somewhere, arriving at an understanding, and I dig it....

I don't like people taking my money and then telling me I have an entitlement complex if I have suggestions about what they might use it for.....

I hear you.  I have some observations on this... such as, how and why.  But answers they are not.  Answers, or success, involves the critical mass component...

As other wise men on this forum have alluded to -- the dark side is after the same thing...

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/33668792.jpg)

Frankly, I find that organized protesting of any kind (at least in this day and age) is probably about as unproductive and useless as you can get.  It doesn't seem like anything gets accomplished except maybe blocking street traffic for folks who are actually trying to live their lives.  Doesn't matter if I agree with the protest (Tea Party) or disagree (Occupy Freeloaders) with it; at the end of the day you look like an a-hole either way.  F_ck protesters.