Occupy Seattle cost hits $529,000

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 12:51 AM GMT
    Money the city cannot afford. In a way it's ironic... where do you suppose the money will be redirected from?

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/11/10/occupy-seattle-cost-hits-529000/

    The city’s price tag to monitor the entrenched Occupy Seattle protest ballooned to $529,609 this week, which includes last week’s pepper-spraying and arrests of protesters in Capitol Hill.

    Much of that cost was for police overtime, but includes money for parks and facilities work related to the populist movement.

    Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn said managing Occupy Seattle has taken a “big chunk” of a police fund reserved for monitoring events.

    “It’s taken a big chunk of their reserve in this area, and if they go past it, they’ll have to figure out how to readjust their budget to deal with it,” the mayor said Thursday.

    Last week, Occupy Seattleites protested at a Chase bank in Capitol Hill and outside a downtown appearance by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Before the demonstrations, which included arrests and police pepper spray, the city’s cost was $486,051.

    Afterward, it rose by $43,558 to hit the half-million mark. The money dates back to Oct. 1, when protesters set up at Westlake Park. They’re now encamped at Seattle Central Community College in Capitol Hill.

    The latest figure prompted McGinn to say:

    “Preservation of public safety – making sure that people can protest, can express themselves, can do so in a way that’s safe to others and protects the rights of overs – that’s important to get it right.”

    Jesse Mulert, an organizer with Occupy Seattle, said the group – as taxpayers – wants a “breakdown and justification” of the city’s expenses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 1:31 AM GMT
    Hopefully a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 1:38 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidHopefully a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens.


    Yes - because they're the ones who "caused" these violent protesters? I am curious though - do you actually believe that inequality results in violence? If so, prove it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 3:11 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidHopefully a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens.


    I love this propaganda from the left. lets not forget all the good the wealthy do, and all the employment they creat as well; why punish them for being successful. Seems to me these lay about protesters want wealth while not working and living in tents, time the tax payer charge them rest to cover cost, they have created.

    Join the crusade of Boot them OUT.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 3:13 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidHopefully a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens.


    Yes - because they're the ones who "caused" these violent protesters? I am curious though - do you actually believe that inequality results in violence? If so, prove it.


    Crack open a history book. Any history book and read about a time when this society or any other society has been so unequal and see how it turned out. It doesn't end up with "hugs and puppies".

    It's not really about how much wealth an individual or group has per se. It's when the disparity grows so great that the influence that money buys destabilizes the social contract that undergirds a democracy.

    You need look no further than the Penn State riots and its zero arrests and the Occupy movements and its hundreds of arrests to see where and how power is operating in this country. Or the people being foreclosed upon and being evicted when Lloyd Blankfein hasn't done a perp walk. It's completely and totally disproportionate and favoring the elites.

    Once that happens, why would the vast majority of Americans play by the rules? Once the perception that the game is rigged become common wisdom among the 99%, why pay your mortgage or your student loans? The game is rigged against you and no matter how hard you work, you still get screwed. So why not take what you can?

    And given that i have a much rosier view of human nature than you, mock, socal or SB, surely you would expect nothing less.
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Nov 13, 2011 3:18 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidHopefully a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens.

    Yes - because they're the ones who "caused" these violent protesters? I am curious though - do you actually believe that inequality results in violence? If so, prove it.

    Once that happens, why would the vast majority of Americans play by the rules? Once the perception that the game is rigged become common wisdom among the 99%, why pay your or your student loans? The game is rigged against you and no matter how hard you work, you still get screwed. So why not take what you can?

    Because the vast majority of Americans can recognize that playing victim gets you nothing and doesn't make the situation better. They also recognize that they need to make better, smarter decisions. This is not to say that the wealthiest are not to be blamed, but when only the wealthiest are blamed, it is indeed a problem.

    Plenty of people live in the same situations and make do and try to improve their life. No body is out to get them. Taking what you can is what leads to inequality for which you blame only the wealthiest.

    While inequality does not cause violence, it leads to social unrest which can and sometimes does lead to violence. Recently though, I was reading research where the scientists were surprised to see that crime had fallen, instead of risen during a deep recession which is what happens traditionally.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 3:22 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidHopefully a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens.


    Yes - because they're the ones who "caused" these violent protesters? I am curious though - do you actually believe that inequality results in violence? If so, prove it.


    Crack open a history book. Any history book and read about a time when this society or any other society has been so unequal and see how it turned out. It doesn't end up with "hugs and puppies".

    It's not really about how much wealth an individual or group has per se. It's when the disparity grows so great that the influence that money buys destabilizes the social contract that undergirds a democracy.

    You need look no further than the Penn State riots and its zero arrests and the Occupy movements and its hundreds of arrests to see where and how power is operating in this country. Or the people being foreclosed upon and being evicted when Lloyd Blankfein hasn't done a perp walk. It's completely and totally disproportionate and favoring the elites.

    Once that happens, why would the vast majority of Americans play by the rules? Once the perception that the game is rigged become common wisdom among the 99%, why pay your mortgage or your student loans? The game is rigged against you and no matter how hard you work, you still get screwed. So why not take what you can?

    And given that i have a much rosier view of human nature than you, mock, socal or SB, surely you would expect nothing less.


    Yes- but what you point to are structural constraints in mobility. History actually suggests that violence and conflict has been consistently falling. See http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

    Further, the violence you paint has not been lead by the poor but rather a few in the bourgeois often used to replace one group of oligarchs for another.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 4:16 AM GMT
    pattison said
    Christian73 saidHopefully a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens.


    I love this propaganda from the left. lets not forget all the good the wealthy do, and all the employment they creat as well; why punish them for being successful. Seems to me these lay about protesters want wealth while not working and living in tents, time the tax payer charge them rest to cover cost, they have created.

    Join the crusade of Boot them OUT.


    These protesters are jealous, greedy, hateful, disrespectful, dirty, smelly, racist garbage. They have caused trouble in every city. What gets me is, why hasn't the Governor ordered the National Guard to help the police???

    The protesters should be ordered to do community service to pay back the city.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 5:41 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidHopefully a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens.


    Yes - because they're the ones who "caused" these violent protesters? I am curious though - do you actually believe that inequality results in violence? If so, prove it.


    Crack open a history book. Any history book and read about a time when this society or any other society has been so unequal and see how it turned out. It doesn't end up with "hugs and puppies".

    It's not really about how much wealth an individual or group has per se. It's when the disparity grows so great that the influence that money buys destabilizes the social contract that undergirds a democracy.

    You need look no further than the Penn State riots and its zero arrests and the Occupy movements and its hundreds of arrests to see where and how power is operating in this country. Or the people being foreclosed upon and being evicted when Lloyd Blankfein hasn't done a perp walk. It's completely and totally disproportionate and favoring the elites.

    Once that happens, why would the vast majority of Americans play by the rules? Once the perception that the game is rigged become common wisdom among the 99%, why pay your mortgage or your student loans? The game is rigged against you and no matter how hard you work, you still get screwed. So why not take what you can?

    And given that i have a much rosier view of human nature than you, mock, socal or SB, surely you would expect nothing less.


    Yes- but what you point to are structural constraints in mobility. History actually suggests that violence and conflict has been consistently falling. See http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

    Further, the violence you paint has not been lead by the poor but rather a few in the bourgeois often used to replace one group of oligarchs for another.


    riddler, honey, you have two modes of operation when you argue. One is to complicate things far beyond reason in hopes that it will hide the vacuous nature of your argument. This is displayed by your first sentence.

    The second, is simplifying things beyond reason to render them historical, politically or sociologically suspect. That is inherent in your second sentence.

    Neither of which gives any merit to your response or negates the utter truth of what I've stated.

    For all the bullshit that gets said on here about Obama and FDR or other liberal figures and their "socialist" tendencies, what they all have in common is their interest in preserving capitalism. The New Deal was not some grand socialist experiment. Rather it was the minimum necessary to restore and maintain the social order and prevent an actual revolution. The difference between the monied classes of Roosevelt's time and ours is that now they don't know when to quit. When to put aside their greed and allow the majority to benefit from that wealth that their labor provides for.

    There is a part of me that hopes that Obama loses, because whichever Republican replaces him, there is no doubt that they will double down on austerity and continue to attack the pitiful social safety net that we still have. Perhaps that is what it will take to fully awaken the sleeping Giant that is the American people.

    Even if Obama does win a second term, short of Congress getting behind a plan to actually put Americans back to work and restore the social contract, unrest will continue to spread, worsen and deepen. Thus far, Americans have largely held on to the idea that things will get better, but polls indicate that they are losing that hope. And once it's gone, there's no reason for millions, if not tens of millions of Americans, to play by the niceties of society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 7:07 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidThe New Deal was not some grand socialist experiment.


    Correct. It was a socialist disaster.


    It could not of been said better, SB.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 9:29 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidriddler, honey, you have two modes of operation when you argue. One is to complicate things far beyond reason in hopes that it will hide the vacuous nature of your argument. This is displayed by your first sentence.

    The second, is simplifying things beyond reason to render them historical, politically or sociologically suspect. That is inherent in your second sentence.

    Neither of which gives any merit to your response or negates the utter truth of what I've stated.

    For all the bullshit that gets said on here about Obama and FDR or other liberal figures and their "socialist" tendencies, what they all have in common is their interest in preserving capitalism. The New Deal was not some grand socialist experiment. Rather it was the minimum necessary to restore and maintain the social order and prevent an actual revolution. The difference between the monied classes of Roosevelt's time and ours is that now they don't know when to quit. When to put aside their greed and allow the majority to benefit from that wealth that their labor provides for.

    There is a part of me that hopes that Obama loses, because whichever Republican replaces him, there is no doubt that they will double down on austerity and continue to attack the pitiful social safety net that we still have. Perhaps that is what it will take to fully awaken the sleeping Giant that is the American people.

    Even if Obama does win a second term, short of Congress getting behind a plan to actually put Americans back to work and restore the social contract, unrest will continue to spread, worsen and deepen. Thus far, Americans have largely held on to the idea that things will get better, but polls indicate that they are losing that hope. And once it's gone, there's no reason for millions, if not tens of millions of Americans, to play by the niceties of society.


    Oh Christian - I believe you are sadly mistaken (or actually happily since mine is the more optimistic outlook ;) ).

    First you confuse causation that inequality causes violence. Historically where there has been violence, it has been more symptom rather than a cause. There exist countries where far more inequality exists than the US and people live in peace.

    The issue of falling violence is very much relevant because despite increased inequality in many parts of the world we have seen violence in fact fall. So the issue is not one of causation. And yet...

    I agree that when the inequality is reinforcing it is a cause of instability but is this the case in the US? Yes there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the bailouts but this isn't to say that there was necessarily wrong doing - particularly when it was government that created the incentives that resulted in the collapse.

    Don't forget much of the tea party rant by Rick Santelli that resonated with most Americans at the time was about the bailouts that most Americans weren't getting. That the people who were wild speculators with real estate (rich and poor alike) were the ones getting the bailouts while the people who saved and were conservative were the ones getting screwed.

    Now as for Obama and FDR and socialist tendencies... I think the ideas of socialism and greater government intervention get conflated - and in our modern context, it's largely true. There has been a lot of research done since the Great Depression but as Christine Romer's research suggests, what prolonged the great depression was not free trade or low taxes but the diametric opposites - Smoot-Hawley, higher taxes, price controls and rigid labor laws plunged the US into a much wider and greater depression. To suggest then that the New Deal was absolutely necessary, may be partially true (in a political sense) but this was only because politicians had screwed things up so much to begin with.

    Ironically, part of me hopes that Obama will win - but I also believe Congress will almost certainly go Republican in both houses. There will be tough decisions that need to be made with respect to cutting entitlements and the longer it drags on, the worse it's going to get.

    I am far more optimistic however that Americans are smarter than to believe that the solution is greater taxes and greater regulation - especially with the tectonic shifts in technology. We may well be headed for an era of much greater inequality - but what's critical is not so much inequality but whether or not there is mobility and the speed at which it can happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 1:19 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidriddler, honey, you have two modes of operation when you argue. One is to complicate things far beyond reason in hopes that it will hide the vacuous nature of your argument. This is displayed by your first sentence.

    The second, is simplifying things beyond reason to render them historical, politically or sociologically suspect. That is inherent in your second sentence.

    Neither of which gives any merit to your response or negates the utter truth of what I've stated.

    For all the bullshit that gets said on here about Obama and FDR or other liberal figures and their "socialist" tendencies, what they all have in common is their interest in preserving capitalism. The New Deal was not some grand socialist experiment. Rather it was the minimum necessary to restore and maintain the social order and prevent an actual revolution. The difference between the monied classes of Roosevelt's time and ours is that now they don't know when to quit. When to put aside their greed and allow the majority to benefit from that wealth that their labor provides for.

    There is a part of me that hopes that Obama loses, because whichever Republican replaces him, there is no doubt that they will double down on austerity and continue to attack the pitiful social safety net that we still have. Perhaps that is what it will take to fully awaken the sleeping Giant that is the American people.

    Even if Obama does win a second term, short of Congress getting behind a plan to actually put Americans back to work and restore the social contract, unrest will continue to spread, worsen and deepen. Thus far, Americans have largely held on to the idea that things will get better, but polls indicate that they are losing that hope. And once it's gone, there's no reason for millions, if not tens of millions of Americans, to play by the niceties of society.


    Oh Christian - I believe you are sadly mistaken (or actually happily since mine is the more optimistic outlook ;) ).

    First you confuse causation that inequality causes violence. Historically where there has been violence, it has been more symptom rather than a cause. There exist countries where far more inequality exists than the US and people live in peace.

    The issue of falling violence is very much relevant because despite increased inequality in many parts of the world we have seen violence in fact fall. So the issue is not one of causation. And yet...

    I agree that when the inequality is reinforcing it is a cause of instability but is this the case in the US? Yes there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the bailouts but this isn't to say that there was necessarily wrong doing - particularly when it was government that created the incentives that resulted in the collapse.

    Don't forget much of the tea party rant by Rick Santelli that resonated with most Americans at the time was about the bailouts that most Americans weren't getting. That the people who were wild speculators with real estate (rich and poor alike) were the ones getting the bailouts while the people who saved and were conservative were the ones getting screwed.

    Now as for Obama and FDR and socialist tendencies... I think the ideas of socialism and greater government intervention get conflated - and in our modern context, it's largely true. There has been a lot of research done since the Great Depression but as Christine Romer's research suggests, what prolonged the great depression was not free trade or low taxes but the diametric opposites - Smoot-Hawley, higher taxes, price controls and rigid labor laws plunged the US into a much wider and greater depression. To suggest then that the New Deal was absolutely necessary, may be partially true (in a political sense) but this was only because politicians had screwed things up so much to begin with.

    Ironically, part of me hopes that Obama will win - but I also believe Congress will almost certainly go Republican in both houses. There will be tough decisions that need to be made with respect to cutting entitlements and the longer it drags on, the worse it's going to get.

    I am far more optimistic however that Americans are smarter than to believe that the solution is greater taxes and greater regulation - especially with the tectonic shifts in technology. We may well be headed for an era of much greater inequality - but what's critical is not so much inequality but whether or not there is mobility and the speed at which it can happen.


    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 1:34 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 1:38 PM GMT
    FrostedFlakes said
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.


    There is no point to mounting a counter-argument where no argument has been offered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 1:46 PM GMT
    FrostedFlakes said
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.


    Lol - you noticed that too? Of course, the problem for Christian is that anyone who bothers to read his comments and the response will recognize it - which makes him either lazy or dishonest. For the sake of charity, I'm betting on the former.

  • Nov 13, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    Protesting is great, its the American way and right. But at what point do protesters become part of the problem, are we there yeticon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 3:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    FrostedFlakes said
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.


    There is no point to mounting a counter-argument where no argument has been offered.


    Actually there can be no counter argument until some coherent argument has been made, which is why I ignore SOuthBitch
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 3:08 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    Christian73 said
    FrostedFlakes said
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.


    There is no point to mounting a counter-argument where no argument has been offered.


    Actually there can be no counter argument until some coherent argument has been made, which is why I ignore SOuthBitch


    "Incorrect." icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 3:17 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    Christian73 said
    FrostedFlakes said
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.


    There is no point to mounting a counter-argument where no argument has been offered.


    Actually there can be no counter argument until some coherent argument has been made, which is why I ignore SOuthBitch


    Unfortunately for both you and Christian, wishing it away, won't make it go away. It's a bit sad. I mean for Christian I do understand. What if his life's work and sacrifice is for nothing. In fact what if his "self sacrifice" and policies that he advocates actually hurts those for whom he purports to advocate. How many decades will he have lost?

    Christian has noted repeatedly that he could make far more in the private sector and yet he chooses not to. As it turns out, I suspect history will show if he bothers to examine it, if these are not false claims, he could have done far more earning the money and donating the surplus to the most needy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 5:19 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Lostboy said
    Christian73 said
    FrostedFlakes said
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.


    There is no point to mounting a counter-argument where no argument has been offered.


    Actually there can be no counter argument until some coherent argument has been made, which is why I ignore SOuthBitch


    Unfortunately for both you and Christian, wishing it away, won't make it go away. It's a bit sad. I mean for Christian I do understand. What if his life's work and sacrifice is for nothing. In fact what if his "self sacrifice" and policies that he advocates actually hurts those for whom he purports to advocate. How many decades will he have lost?

    Christian has noted repeatedly that he could make far more in the private sector and yet he chooses not to. As it turns out, I suspect history will show if he bothers to examine it, if these are not false claims, he could have done far more earning the money and donating the surplus to the most needy.


    Again, more rambling that has no substance.

    I've never held myself out as a martyr who is "sacrificing" anything. I genuinely love what I do. When I draw the comparison between what I could earn in the private sector for similar experience/work/etc. it's to illustrate that money is not what drives me (or many other people) to counter the claims - made by riddler, mock, socal - that humans are driven by their own greed.

    In terms of the policies I advocate, the historical record is very clear. When the policies I support are implemented people are lifted out of poverty, suffering is diminished and wealth is more equally spread. The country also has the ability to invest in infrastructure, technology, education, etc. which benefits the society as a whole and makes for a stronger nation. At the same time, there are plenty of very rich people who are rewarded for their success and innovation, as it should be, but also with the workers who take their ideas and implement them.

    When the policies that riddler et al advocate are implemented, as they have been for the past 30 or so years, inequality increases, suffering increases and wealth is highly concentrated and the economic engine seizes up.

    All one needs do is look at the historical record to see this is so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 5:32 PM GMT
    FrostedFlakes said
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.



    Frosted, you're an RJ troll with a capital T. As such your input on a topic like this means nothing.


    I find it amusing to see declarations that no inequality breeds any violence, yet the Occupy thing which has come about from extreme inequality has ended in a few deaths, and a fair amount of violence, as observed on RJ topics by the very people saying inequality breeds no violence.

    O.o


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 5:58 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    FrostedFlakes said
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.



    Frosted, you're an RJ troll with a capital T. As such your input on a topic like this means nothing.


    I find it amusing to see declarations that no inequality breeds any violence, yet the Occupy thing which has come about from extreme inequality has ended in a few deaths, and a fair amount of violence, as observed on RJ topics by the very people saying inequality breeds no violence.

    O.o




    Er no, to hear others tell it, the whole occupy thing came from the fact they were protesting the bailouts for the wealthy. You presume that these murders and rapes were because of inequality as opposed to a bunch of spoiled rich kids which frankly is odd.,.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 6:00 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Lostboy said
    Christian73 said
    FrostedFlakes said
    Christian73 said
    As usual, not a single actual argument, just a bunch of words that do not actually mean anything except where you're completely wrong.


    Now, the above specimen does not have a counterargument, so he just throws out "no" as a desperate attempt to salvage the waning credibility of his viewpoint.


    There is no point to mounting a counter-argument where no argument has been offered.


    Actually there can be no counter argument until some coherent argument has been made, which is why I ignore SOuthBitch


    Unfortunately for both you and Christian, wishing it away, won't make it go away. It's a bit sad. I mean for Christian I do understand. What if his life's work and sacrifice is for nothing. In fact what if his "self sacrifice" and policies that he advocates actually hurts those for whom he purports to advocate. How many decades will he have lost?

    Christian has noted repeatedly that he could make far more in the private sector and yet he chooses not to. As it turns out, I suspect history will show if he bothers to examine it, if these are not false claims, he could have done far more earning the money and donating the surplus to the most needy.


    Again, more rambling that has no substance.

    I've never held myself out as a martyr who is "sacrificing" anything. I genuinely love what I do. When I draw the comparison between what I could earn in the private sector for similar experience/work/etc. it's to illustrate that money is not what drives me (or many other people) to counter the claims - made by riddler, mock, socal - that humans are driven by their own greed.

    In terms of the policies I advocate, the historical record is very clear. When the policies I support are implemented people are lifted out of poverty, suffering is diminished and wealth is more equally spread. The country also has the ability to invest in infrastructure, technology, education, etc. which benefits the society as a whole and makes for a stronger nation. At the same time, there are plenty of very rich people who are rewarded for their success and innovation, as it should be, but also with the workers who take their ideas and implement them.

    When the policies that riddler et al advocate are implemented, as they have been for the past 30 or so years, inequality increases, suffering increases and wealth is highly concentrated and the economic engine seizes up.

    All one needs do is look at the historical record to see this is so.


    Now who's spouting blather? The historical record *is* quite clear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 6:06 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidNow who's spouting blather? The historical record *is* quite clear.


    Yes. It is despite your attempts at historical revisionism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 6:10 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidNow who's spouting blather? The historical record *is* quite clear.


    Yes. It is despite your attempts at historical revisionism.


    Your attempt at deflection notwithstanding, the historical record is quite clear - and history continues to unfold with respect to the folly of pursuing "fairness".