Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Climate protesters to 'flood' Wall Street on Monday


freebuddy

Recommended Posts

Is it trolling if you're serious?

On that note, what is the commonly agreed upon definition of "Trolling"

I thought it was someone who comes onto a message board for the expressed purpose of pissing people off.

Lol if you were actually serious then...lol I don't even know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accusing me of something or just grumpy this morning?

I'm not even going to try to have a discussion about climate change with you fools. It's just funny watching you guys dismiss something so complex and so beyond your understanding (and mine) with a comedian and some gifs. Who's inane here lol...

^

Believes in something far beyond his own understanding, just because.

Posts in a topic when he has stated he has no interest in discussing the topic at hand.

You don't even need to debate anything with him, just read his posts, then his username.. and the script writes itself. Too bad it's a script done to death, like Michael Bay and explosions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

Believes in something far beyond his own understanding, just because.

Posts in a topic when he has stated he has no interest in discussing the topic at hand.

You don't even need to debate anything with him, just read his posts, then his username.. and the script writes itself. Too bad it's a script done to death, like Michael Bay and explosions.

I believe in plenty of things I don't understand, don't you?

I would wager you believe in some things because science, and the vast majority of scientists agree is true. So, what makes this different?

I'm happy to discuss the issue of the protestors, but if it's going to dissolve into a debate about climate change, no thanks.

Don't be scared bud, let's chat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in plenty of things I don't understand, don't you?

I would wager you believe in some things because science, and the vast majority of scientists agree is true. So, what makes this different?

I'm happy to discuss the issue of the protestors, but if it's going to dissolve into a debate about climate change, no thanks.

Don't be scared bud, let's chat.

I iz is so scurred.

The issue of climate and AGW is the basis for the many people who are borderline militant about things they likewise don't understand going down to Wall Street or Wal-Mart and stupidly protesting.

What they should grasp, on the other hand, is some elementary basics of economics.. which they ignore in blaming Wall Street for government created problems, even more hilariously, calling for more government to save them, as if that;s going to work out the way they want it and not exacerbate their problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I iz is so scurred.

The issue of climate and AGW is the basis for the many people who are borderline militant about things they likewise don't understand going down to Wall Street or Wal-Mart and stupidly protesting.

What they should grasp, on the other hand, is some elementary basics of economics.. which they ignore in blaming Wall Street for government created problems, even more hilariously, calling for more government to save them, as if that;s going to work out the way they want it and not exacerbate their problems.

While their target may be misplaced, should the message be ignored?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While their target may be misplaced, should the message be ignored?

While I disagree with their message, I'd have a lot more respect for their protests if they were targeted at the rightful people -- the government.

For that, US liberals have to first recognize every time they vouch for bigger government, and get it, they don't get what they expected to get.. so of course, when they don't get what they want, the worse thing to do is ask for even bigger government to step in.

If their problem is socioeconomic inequality, they should have government stop screwing with the economy, reduce government and it's power, so individuals can once again affect that outcome themselves. The lazy liberal line of thinking is that government is going to solve their problems, ignoring every time it makes things worse. These are the overwhelming majority of protesters for these OWS related protests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I disagree with their message, I'd have a lot more respect for their protests if they were targeted at the rightful people -- the government.

For that, US liberals have to first recognize every time they vouch for bigger government, and get it, they don't get what they expected to get.. so of course, when they don't get what they want, the worse thing to do is ask for even bigger government to step in.

If their problem is socioeconomic inequality, they should have government stop screwing with the economy, reduce government and it's power, so individuals can once again affect that outcome themselves. The lazy liberal line of thinking is that government is going to solve their problems, ignoring every time it makes things worse. These are the overwhelming majority of protesters for these OWS related protests.

Who is vouching for bigger government? How do you define a 'liberal'? What is your point here, that industry/business will act on climate change, or that climate change doesn't exist so government shouldn't do anything or...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boohoo, stop killing the planet, boohoo... All those tree hugging whiners. We aren't killing the planet, if it can evolve and go through everything it's been through, I am sure it will be fine. Might take a few billion years, but who cares, we are just worm food only, right.

You're right, the planet will be fine. It was here long before us and will be here long after us in some form or another.

Pesky thing is that we live on it and rely on it for water, oxygen, sustenance etc.

We're crapping where we eat. It's not really a smart, long term plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accusing me of something or just grumpy this morning?

I'm not even going to try to have a discussion about climate change with you fools. It's just funny watching you guys dismiss something so complex and so beyond your understanding (and mine) with a comedian and some gifs. Who's inane here lol...

I'm in a great mood. I even appreciate you showing a perfect example of my comment.

You're a very black and white guy I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is vouching for bigger government? How do you define a 'liberal'? What is your point here, that industry/business will act on climate change, or that climate change doesn't exist so government shouldn't do anything or...?

The government getting involved in the economy -- writing FTA legislation, subsidizing private enterprise, manipulating the wealth of every individual, picking economic winners and losers via bailouts and exemptions from already existing laws/regulations, inflating economic bubbles that cause massive recessions, or, to stave off said recession, inflate an even bigger bubble.

Liberals are saying there is no "regulations".. passing legislation by itself is often considered "regulation" to them, notwithstanding when they circumvent their own legislation with other legislation and government decrees.

What I'm saying is businesses do and will act themselves when pressured enough by the populace, especially under the threat of losing their bottom line, but when government gets involved, it screws things up.

A good example for the US is internet:

Good, limited use of government: Regulating businesses from taking up too much public space laying down fiber, lines, etc. Making companies share that infrastructure.

Bad, overreaching use of government: State governments signing franchising agreements allowing monopolies of that type of technology, anti-competitive behaviour, reducing a company's will to negotiate with the customer, recuding a company's will to implement technological advancements (hence why broadband development stalled so much throughout the US)... all of these things a company would be acting in the opposite manner to compete for customers if government only involved itself in a limited, minimalist fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad, overreaching use of government: State governments signing franchising agreements allowing monopolies of that type of technology, anti-competitive behaviour, reducing a company's will to negotiate with the customer, recuding a company's will to implement technological advancements (hence why broadband development stalled so much throughout the US)... all of these things a company would be acting in the opposite manner to compete for customers if government only involved itself in a limited, minimalist fashion.

FYI, businesses lobby the government to do those bad things.

It isn't (at least not specifically) a "too much government" problem. It's a too much business controlled government problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government getting involved in the economy -- writing FTA legislation, subsidizing private enterprise, manipulating the wealth of every individual, picking economic winners and losers via bailouts and exemptions from already existing laws/regulations, inflating economic bubbles that cause massive recessions, or, to stave off said recession, inflate an even bigger bubble.

Liberals are saying there is no "regulations".. passing legislation by itself is often considered "regulation" to them, notwithstanding when they circumvent their own legislation with other legislation and government decrees.

What I'm saying is businesses do and will act themselves when pressured enough by the populace, especially under the threat of losing their bottom line, but when government gets involved, it screws things up.

A good example for the US is internet:

Good, limited use of government: Regulating businesses from taking up too much public space laying down fiber, lines, etc. Making companies share that infrastructure.

Bad, overreaching use of government: State governments signing franchising agreements allowing monopolies of that type of technology, anti-competitive behaviour, reducing a company's will to negotiate with the customer, recuding a company's will to implement technological advancements (hence why broadband development stalled so much throughout the US)... all of these things a company would be acting in the opposite manner to compete for customers if government only involved itself in a limited, minimalist fashion.

That's great in theory, doesn't always pan out. Or, it takes too long to pan out. Business has one objective, make profit. That's not good or bad, it just is. Government has to consider many other factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, businesses lobby the government to do those bad things.

And they do that because the government decided it wants to oblige them. If it didn't, companies would be throwing money away.. and wouldn't do it.

Also, individuals lobby government. Ron Paul was a good example of this.

That's great in theory, doesn't always pan out. Or, it takes too long tose pan out. Business has one objective, make profit. That's not good or bad, it just is. Government has to consider many other factors.

It's interesting that you call what I describe as theory when I'm flat out giving you how government works based on it's actions, not theoretical nonsense. ISP's acted much differently before franchising agreements were signed.

It's going to be impossible to teach someone economics on a forum, or to understand economic implications if they were clearly not paying attention to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they do that because the government decided it wants to oblige them. If it didn't, companies would be throwing money away.. and wouldn't do it.

Also, individuals lobby government. Ron Paul was a good example of this.

Politicians (not governments) decided they wanted all that money to do that obliging. "Government" is not the problem. Corrupt government filled with greedy politicians bought out by the wealthy (and their corporations) is the problem.

*Wealthy individuals, usually with corporate backing lobby government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politicians (not governments) decided they wanted all that money to do that obliging. "Government" is not the problem. Corrupt government filled with greedy politicians bought out by the wealthy (and their corporations) is the problem.

*Wealthy individuals, usually with corporate backing lobby government.

You're free to focus your attention on the wrong people just as the OWS loons are.

Government has been the problem, is the problem, and will further be a problem, as a significant population oblige politicians already known to be corrupt by giving them more power.. then want to stupidly turn around and blame corporations, rich people, or lobbying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're free to focus your attention on the wrong people just as the OWS loons are.

Government has been the problem, is the problem, and will further be a problem, as a significant population oblige politicians already known to be corrupt by giving them more power.. then want to stupidly turn around and blame corporations, rich people, or lobbying.

You seem to have difficulty discerning the difference between politicians and government.

"Government" is not inherently bad. The people you have running it and the ability for money to influence them and hence interfere with that government are the problem.

See Scandinavian countries for examples of "big" government that actually functions fairly well and for the interest of it's people.

Again, government is not the problem. Poor government and corrupt, financial interference is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have difficulty discerning the difference between politicians and government.

"Government" is not inherently bad. The people you have running it and the ability for money to influence them and hence interfere with that government are the problem.

See Scandinavian countries for examples of "big" government that actually functions fairly well and for the interest of it's people.

Again, government is not the problem. Poor government and corrupt, financial interference is.

I have no qualms with how other countries manage their government. However, we're talking about the US here.

And yes, government IS inherently bad. The government needs to be regulated and persistently kept minimized with oversight. It's only useful within the constraints of populace that makes use of it.

A far cry from the US situation, where the government is out of control and does as it pleases. But nevermind that, government is not the problem.

I've yet to see why so much fault is placed on those who lobby others.

Is it McDonalds' fault people have McHeartattacks eating too much of their food? Is it McDonald's fault so many Americans don't regulate how much of McCrapfood they eat because McDonalds lobbies customers to buy their food? Well, using your logic on government not being at fault because they're lobbied, it's McDonalds' fault customers elect to eat their crap when in fact onus is on them not to, not onus on McDonalds to control what they eat.

Individuals are a huge chunk of lobbying, why aren't you blaming individuals? Individuals are also the voters who vote for the corrupt politicians.

You're blaming all but the people responsible. This is where political inanity gets you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they do that because the government decided it wants to oblige them. If it didn't, companies would be throwing money away.. and wouldn't do it.

Also, individuals lobby government. Ron Paul was a good example of this.

It's interesting that you call what I describe as theory when I'm flat out giving you how government works based on it's actions, not theoretical nonsense. ISP's acted much differently before franchising agreements were signed.

It's going to be impossible to teach someone economics on a forum, or to understand economic implications if they were clearly not paying attention to them.

Just like business/industry. You rail against government but business/industry is just as guilty.

No one is perfect here, why don't you start with that framework instead of 'government bad'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like business/industry. You rail against government but business/industry is just as guilty.

No one is perfect here, why don't you start with that framework instead of 'government bad'.

Because not only is government automatically bad unless made "good", even more importantly, onus is on the government as the authority figure and representative of the populace to ignore lobbying attempts by individuals and corporations and focus on their constituents at large.

A business can lobby for government to do things..

A business can lobby for consumers to do things..

In the end, it's not the business' fault either party does anything, because the parties in question are not only in control of themselves, they are in a position of authority over their own body, respectively.

There is no ambiguity here, if a government does not cater to lobbying as far as money goes, businesses stop spending it on lobbying. Businesses work within the constraints of what laws the government makes through the population, government is the authority here, so why blame the subordinates? This is not only an exposé on yours and OWS logic, but the convoluted politics that has you blaming people you shouldn't be blaming while giving a pass (in one poster's case here, a 100% guilt exemption) to the party that morally and legally is the responsible one.

Oh hey look, little Jimmy lobbied me to take this gun and blow my head off.. looks like it's his fault for me obliging. Not my fault here. -- logic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...