Adam Carolla on the 1% (and occupy this and that) NSFW Lang.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

The "movement" is now riddled with stupid people, and therefore doomed for failure unless they get some sort of famous celebrity to back them.

I don't really see U2 writing songs about these guys...

[Encryptshun]

And all this has to happen just as REM announces its official retirement.

[Jesda]

Though, in terms of quality, REM died when Bill Berry left.

[Razi]

unless they get some sort of famous celebrity to back them.

[IBCoupe]

Because god forbid you actually make your protest effective.

That is a dangerous statement, and a dangerous state of mind.

I don't see how. The name of the "movement" isn't a coincident. If the point of occupying Wall Street was that the only means available to getting through to policy makers (especially in light of Citizens United) is to interrupt the flow of cash to them, why is it that we should be surprised that they continue to make that their purpose off of Wall Street? The point of the movement is that the regular avenues of speech are closed to 99% of Americans. That's why they "occupy" instead of "lobby."

And now that they're pissing off some unions, you'd think Greg might have come around to them, but now he's doubling down on the crotchety "get off my lawn" angle.

[IBCoupe]

I wouldn't employ a bunch of video-game playing, self-absorbed, entitled, spoiled, poorly-educated US youth either.

There's a LOT of jobs for the 16-19 demographic, they won't do them. Want to know how I know? Because we have NO problem employing illegals, who actually WILL do the work. (I also have 4 teenagers...)

You know that chart shows that for college-aged Americans, the kind who just got degrees, unemployment is double the national average? Skip the 16-19 bit if you have to; it doesn't really change the argument. I'm not sure how many 16-19-year-olds are out in force right now, anyways.

God forbid you actually have a point to your protest, besides uninformed, loosely-constructed prattle about "The Man" and general malaise about having to actually work for a living. Not one of those whiners would take a minimum-wage job, so I could care less about them. Maybe the Longshoremen could shove 'em all off the end of the pier so they can get some work done. Occupy Underwater.

Malaise about having to actually work for a living?

25 MILLION AMERICANS WITHOUT JOBS
3 MILLION JOB OPENINGS.

My guess is that they'd LOVE to have to work for a living. Unless of course you're talking about minimum wage for hard labor, which certainly is a reasonable demand to make of college-educated Americans. "Sorry guys that you went to college like we've told you to for decades. Market speculation has robbed you of a healthy economy within which to find work, so now you're just gonna have to go pick potatos. And you're gonna have to like it. Forget that your student loans are going to require $800 a month; we'll just give you all hardship waivers and you can just pay it back over however many generations of your family it takes." Seriously, Greg, what the f***?

So, a protester has to break the law to get their message heard?

Yeah, sometimes. It's crazy, I know.







Surely these lawbreakers are the worst kind of protesters. HOW DARE THEY SIT THERE QUIETLY.

[IBCoupe]

Massive wealth disparity isn't against the law, and neither were segregated restaurants. But the Supreme Court held that when a State sends police to enforce trespassing statutes on the basis of a violation of a segregation policy, the State is adopting that segregation policy. Think it's any less wrong for the state to enact policies to encourage wealth disparity? In a world where you very much need money to make money?

Anyone who tells you otherwise is (a) lying, (b) gullible, or (c) the rare exception that proves the rule. If these protestors are getting in the way of the machinery with which that wealth disparity is built, and the police crack down on them, the State is (if it wasn't already through its policies) adopting that machinery as its own. The only difference between the 1960s and today is that nobody's made it illegal for the government to create wealth disparities yet.

[IBCoupe]

Also: that guy looks like Agent Skinner.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

That is a dangerous statement, and a dangerous state of mind.

I don't see how.

That all started out as a protest that people were hell bent on making "effective". Keep upping the ante until you get what you want.

Yes, I just played the holocaust card.
Extreme example, I know, just saying. Peaceful protest is fine, but when you cross the line it can snowball out of control pretty quickly.

EDIT: It would appear as though this thread has gone from Adam Corolla, to Holocaust. Wow. I thought he was Jewish, but it turns out he's Atheist (according to wackopedia)

Also interesting:
"My feeling is this whole country is founded on the principle of 'if you are not hurting anyone, and you're not f*** with someone else's s***, and you are paying your taxes, you should be able to just do what you want to do.' It's the freedom and the independence."
That's pretty much how I feel.

Another tidbit:
He invented 'Mangria', which is red wine with vodka.

[Razi]

Hey!
Godwin's Law.

Somehow this Occupy movement filled with "video-game playing, self-absorbed, entitled, spoiled, poorly-educated US youth" risk snowballing out of control into another Holocaust.
Scary.

[IBCoupe]

Until I hear "THE JEWS ARE THE 1%" as a rallying cry, I'm not gonna worry so much about it.

Let's set this straight, though: the problem with Nazis wasn't that they wanted to exert influence, it was what they wanted to use that influence to do. Not that they wanted to effectuate their grievances into policy, but the particular policy they wanted to craft. If it weren't for the nagging little policy of ethnic cleansing, the Nazis wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

Also: they got elected.

[Razi]

Just because "A" has similarities with "B", doesn't mean "A" is, or ever will become "B".

[IBCoupe]

A caterpillar and I both eat vegetables. Someday, I'll grow myself a chrysalis and I'll become a beautiful butterfly.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Wasn't there a premise that the Jews were the ones ruining the economy at the time? Kinda like the 1% is ruining the economy now?

Its like a frickin rich dude witch hunt out there man.

[IBCoupe]

Except that the Jews weren't all wealthy, and that the actual wealthy folks here have plenty of means to prevent themselves from being killed.*

*EDIT: by the government after it has been replaced by a populist movement based on anger over a severe economic hardship and a focused rage on a particular subclass of citizens, regardless of their involvement in that economic hardship. Also because nobody likes us Heebs.

You know, the parallel is a lot closer than I give you credit for.

[Encryptshun]

[tangent]Don't forget that the reputation for Jews being money-lenders was them filling a service specifically requested of them by the Gentiles. You see, lending money to someone and asking for interest wasn't a "Christian" thing to do to another Christian; so the Christian would loan the money to the Jew, who would then loan the money to the other Christian. The Jew could ask for interest, keep some for himself, and then pay the original lender back the principle plus the rest of the interest (since the Christian was collecting his part of the interest from a Jew and not the other Christian.

Bam, the financial services industry was born. If anyone was propagandizing that the Jews were ruining the economy, it's because the Jews got way too good at one of the only trades the majority would leave open for them.[/tangent]

[AZhitman]

Surely these lawbreakers are the worst kind of protesters. HOW DARE THEY SIT THERE QUIETLY.

Interestingly, none of those people broke the law. Aren't you supposed to be an expert on this stuff?

None of those OWS 'tards could carry Rosa's purse.

[AZhitman]

Bam, the financial services industry was born.

We're slick like that.

Isaac - Let's go make some money.

[EDIT] Let's leave the Jews and Nazis outta this one - Point made, and there's plenty in the original topic to disagree over w/o bringing up "Early 20th Century Atrocities for 600, Alex."

[Jesda]

The Jews were forced to drink Pepsi in those death camps.

[AZhitman]

The Jews were forced to drink Pepsi in those death camps.

Sneaky Mormons.

[Encryptshun]

The point of my tangent (and yes, even my tangents have points) was that people should be careful what they wish for. I think that's a message applicable to most anything, especially the OWS movement. I support the underpinnings of the message and I admire those who have the courage to stand and be heard. My caution to them is, though, that if they set out to create an open forum for addressing all grievances, they need to be prepared for some of those grievances being counterproductive to them achieving their goals. Giving a voice to the voiceless usually results in a usurpment of the current paradigm. But it's microcosm/macrocosm at this point, and OWS is approaching their singularity.

[AZhitman]

Correct. How about an example of a situation where a potential solution might run counter to what they're angsty about? I can think of a couple, but I'm sure your example would be better.

[Encryptshun]

First one that comes to mind is their "occupation" of the ports in Long Beach and Seattle. Independent truck drivers carrying perishable goods having to sit while burning their own fuel and time. They don't get paid until they drop off the shipment, so "fighting for the little guy" actually hurt the little guy.

[AZhitman]

Yep. Think I touched on that (not quite as eloquently) at the end of Page 2.

The underlying reality is probably not something they want to hear (or accept): If they want to work, logic dictates that unless they're entrepreneurial (which is hard work), they're going to wind up working for a company that has money with which to pay them.

Businesses exist to make a profit. Profit isn't derived from thin air, and sometimes, businesses do things that the rank-and-file might not personally agree with in order to maintain that profit margin. That's not for the employees to decide, though. If you want to be a decision-maker, then start a competitive business and do things differently than the company you worked for.

But to pronounce oneself a "representative" of the 99%, and then interfere with the comings and goings of the TRUE 99% as they try to make themselves indispensable (in uncertain economic times) is asinine, short-sighted, and ignorant.

I suppose next, they'd like to "Occupy" my front yard, to protect the oh-so-nice gentlemen helping out with my yard work.

After all, I'm oppressing them with substandard wages (likely unreported), limited opportunities for advancement (I have a pretty tiny yard), dangerous working conditions (emissions-spewing leaf blowers and really long extension cords) and insufficient training and educational avenues (my Spanish sucks).

Watch for me on the news - I'm gonna take "Get Off My Lawn (gravel, sorry)" to a whole new level.

No jobs? Boo to the hoo. Quit blaming employers and blame Washington. Go Occupy Congress - you won't interfere with ANY work getting done.

[Encryptshun]

You did touch on it, more eloquently. I just fail at reading and somehow missed that entire post.

I disagree that businesses exist to make a profit. Public corporations exist to make a profit because they are legally required to. However, businesses exist to provide a product and/or service and are able independently choose whether to make a profit, operate at a loss, or break even. And I think the perception that the primary goal of running a business is to profit is a fundamental philosophical distinction between folks of different stripes (maybe even the polar sides of this whole OWS thing).

Regardless, however, any company can choose how to treat its customers, its employees and how to position itself with regard to its impact on the local, regional, national or global economy. Used to be that companies valued their employees as critical resources. It seems, though, that the growing trend is away from this practice. Employees treated like hired guns will act like hired guns. So you get employees in it for the quick boost and, when given reign to make decisions, think only short-term. As that generation of hired guns matures, they become C-level executives, but still have the same mindset. And at that point you have an entire peer network of greedy, selfish, myopic "leaders" who can control vast swaths of the economy and who have little ethics and virtually no long-term vision.

[Jesda]

A business can exist for whatever reason it wants, but if it chooses to lose money, then it chooses to die. That's like saying people choose to breathe. You "can" strangle yourself, but there's a reason why most people choose not to. You can live to give, live to love, and live to be selfish if you choose -- but you have to breathe.

Otherwise, I agree. A lack of long-term vision is a disease that permeates business, politics, and even our personal lives (divorce).

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I wonder what the order of existence purposes is for businesses.
1. Make Profit
2. Launder Money
3. Get chicks?

[Encryptshun]

A business can exist for whatever reason it wants, but if it chooses to lose money, then it chooses to die.

Not to nit-pick, but there are lots of businesses that operate at an intentional loss, consistently, in many instances in order to act as tax shelters for their owners.

You can live to give, live to love, and live to be selfish if you choose -- but you have to breathe.

That's downright poetic!

[Jesda]

Not to nit-pick, but there are lots of businesses that operate at an intentional loss, consistently, in many instances in order to act as tax shelters for their owners.

Indeed, but in that case its still a functional (if shady) part of a profitable enterprise.

I thought we were talking more about the philosophical reason for doing business.

[Encryptshun]

Unfortunately, greed tends to be the predominant philosophy in doing business these days, which is exactly what the underpinnings of the OWS movement started out as. I just take exception to messages that seem to accept this as "the way it works". There is a difference between wanting to have a successful business, provide for your employees, create a healthy culture, create a top-notch product and/or service, and have a healthy/neutral impact on the environment and wanting to make as much money as possible in any way possible.

I despise the culture who believes in the latter and not the former.