[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Always the excuse. And, whether you recall it or not, they threatened war on behalf of the arabs. It’s in the link.
[/quote]
Well I check it out.
Thats probably correct, but whats the link to socialists? I am one and know plenty, but I dont know any one of them who uses jew as a insult, or tear up their cemetaries.
I have heard people using jew as a insult at high school, but those people didnt care about politics or they voted for frp( populist rightwingparty )
Are we talking about norwegian socialists or are we talking about just norwegians?
If its the latter, then yhea there is probably antisemites here in Norway. I can admit that we have a history full of racism towards: jews, sami( etnich group in northern norway ), gypsys and more resently arabs/muslims. In the case of the jews the most famous norwegian antisemitic acts are:
After we separeted from denmark in 1814 we got our own constitusion and in that constituion it stood that jews, jesuits and I think gypsis where not allowed to get in to Norway.
Under the WWII my country men where rather good at handing jews over to the Nazi`s.
So yes my country have a antisemitic and racist past and I am the first to admit that and
offcourse say that it is a shame, but I cant really see that the norwegian left have had so much to do with this. The constituion where created before any socialist movement where
created in my country. During the WWII the leftwing of my country where those who took a firmest stand against the fascists and probably where the ones who rescued jews from the fascists( again sad enough, to few where rescued ). And right after the war the norwegian labour movement where positiv towards Israel. One of the men at the top of this movement where given an honor citizenship by Israel for his support. So no the Norwegian left arent antisemitic, but in the latest decade they have gained sympathy with the struggling palestinian people based on humanitarianism not racism. Again the leftwing critique against Israel is not based on racism, we dont think you are a lowerlifeform than us, nor do we believe in those idiotic conspiracy theorys that says jews control the world in secret etc.
Remember when you were told that “talk is cheap” and I added that the cheapest talk comes from you? You asked if you had a hater and I told you you were not worthy of such a strong emotion, that you were to bland, weak, or milktoast?
Well, I did, and I am still left with an impression that he wants more stuff paid for by other people than a job. He does say he wants a certain kind of job (for himself and generally for people), but it is all within the context of “free” health care, etc.
So, he wants a job - but he wants that job to be accompanied by goodies paid for by other people so that then that job becomes the right kind fo job - i.e., he can work 40 hours a week, but his income doesn’t pay for health care, so he has more to spend on other things.
What he wants is a kind of wealth redistribution that allows people to have certain things by individually working less. That’s fine, he’s ok to make that argument - but that isn’t a plain vanilla complaint for “jobs” - it’s a call for an expansion of enititlement programs.
And, of course, the only thing Wall Street can do to impact the situation being complained of by the OWS crowd is to pony up more money. That’s fine - but let’s call a spade a spade: this is an argument for wealth redistribution, not full employment policies.
There is some incoherence in your post, so I just want to cut to the chase and get a straight answer - you say corporations shouldn’t be able to influence government, and more particularly, they shouldn’t be able to “wine and dine” and give money to politicians.
So, should labor unions and environmental advocacy groups be able “wine and dine” and give money to politicians? Yes or no?
What if corporations form a lobbying group - like oil companies do with the American Petroleum Institute - to lobby? Tell me how the American Petroleum Institute is different from UAW or the Sierra Club, if they are different.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Revealed - the capitalist network that runs the world
The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the “real” economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
LOL. What a bad plagerism of the Protocols of Elders of Zion (which, itself, was a bad fogery by ultra-nationalist Russians of a book attacking Napolean).
I guess the “New Scientists” are just the “Old Conspiracy Whackos”
Well, I did, and I am still left with an impression that he wants more stuff paid for by other people than a job. He does say he wants a certain kind of job (for himself and generally for people), but it is all within the context of “free” health care, etc.
So, he wants a job - but he wants that job to be accompanied by goodies paid for by other people so that then that job becomes the right kind fo job - i.e., he can work 40 hours a week, but his income doesn’t pay for health care, so he has more to spend on other things.
What he wants is a kind of wealth redistribution that allows people to have certain things by individually working less. That’s fine, he’s ok to make that argument - but that isn’t a plain vanilla complaint for “jobs” - it’s a call for an expansion of enititlement programs.
And, of course, the only thing Wall Street can do to impact the situation being complained of by the OWS crowd is to pony up more money. That’s fine - but let’s call a spade a spade: this is an argument for wealth redistribution, not full employment policies.
[/quote]
Fair enough. You had said that you “hadn’t seen” the argument for “decent jobs” so I posted.
When you get past the anger and the crazy, it seems to be the shrinking middle class and the loss of decent jobs that is the primary complaint of the protesters. You are right, it’s not “just” full employment that they seem to be arguing for, but a society where the American (middle class) Dream can be recognized. …and it’d sure be nice if “we all” had healthcare too.
There is some incoherence in your post, so I just want to cut to the chase and get a straight answer - you say corporations shouldn’t be able to influence government, and more particularly, they shouldn’t be able to “wine and dine” and give money to politicians.
So, should labor unions and environmental advocacy groups be able “wine and dine” and give money to politicians? Yes or no?
What if corporations form a lobbying group - like oil companies do with the American Petroleum Institute - to lobby? Tell me how the American Petroleum Institute is different from UAW or the Sierra Club, if they are different.
[/quote]
I would say they are all the same and should only be represented by the individual votes that make up the whole. but that is my opinion.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Always the excuse. And, whether you recall it or not, they threatened war on behalf of the arabs. It’s in the link.
[/quote]
Well I check it out.
Thats probably correct, but whats the link to socialists? I am one and know plenty, but I dont know any one of them who uses jew as a insult, or tear up their cemetaries.
I have heard people using jew as a insult at high school, but those people didnt care about politics or they voted for frp( populist rightwingparty )
Are we talking about norwegian socialists or are we talking about just norwegians?
If its the latter, then yhea there is probably antisemites here in Norway. I can admit that we have a history full of racism towards: jews, sami( etnich group in northern norway ), gypsys and more resently arabs/muslims. In the case of the jews the most famous norwegian antisemitic acts are:
After we separeted from denmark in 1814 we got our own constitusion and in that constituion it stood that jews, jesuits and I think gypsis where not allowed to get in to Norway.
Under the WWII my country men where rather good at handing jews over to the Nazi`s.
So yes my country have a antisemitic and racist past and I am the first to admit that and
offcourse say that it is a shame, but I cant really see that the norwegian left have had so much to do with this. The constituion where created before any socialist movement where
created in my country. During the WWII the leftwing of my country where those who took a firmest stand against the fascists and probably where the ones who rescued jews from the fascists( again sad enough, to few where rescued ). And right after the war the norwegian labour movement where positiv towards Israel. One of the men at the top of this movement where given an honor citizenship by Israel for his support. So no the Norwegian left arent antisemitic, but in the latest decade they have gained sympathy with the struggling palestinian people based on humanitarianism not racism. Again the leftwing critique against Israel is not based on racism, we dont think you are a lowerlifeform than us, nor do we believe in those idiotic conspiracy theorys that says jews control the world in secret etc.
Remember when you were told that “talk is cheap” and I added that the cheapest talk comes from you? You asked if you had a hater and I told you you were not worthy of such a strong emotion, that you were to bland, weak, or milktoast?
This kind of drivel is the reason for my comment. [/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is some incoherence in your post, so I just want to cut to the chase and get a straight answer - you say corporations shouldn’t be able to influence government, and more particularly, they shouldn’t be able to “wine and dine” and give money to politicians.
So, should labor unions and environmental advocacy groups be able “wine and dine” and give money to politicians? Yes or no?
[/quote]
No. Politicians should only be beholden to the people. Not a company. Not a union. Not a lobby group. The wishes of companies, unions, and lobby groups should not be taken into account by politicians. Clear enough?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is some incoherence in your post, so I just want to cut to the chase and get a straight answer - you say corporations shouldn’t be able to influence government, and more particularly, they shouldn’t be able to “wine and dine” and give money to politicians.
So, should labor unions and environmental advocacy groups be able “wine and dine” and give money to politicians? Yes or no?
[/quote]
No. Politicians should only be beholden to the people. Not a company. Not a union. Not a lobby group. The wishes of companies, unions, and lobby groups should not be taken into account by politicians. Clear enough?[/quote]
Just wondering, cause I don’t recall any such thing, but were there any 'please don’t call the police, here’s what to do if you’re raped" stuff going on at Tea Party rallies?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is some incoherence in your post, so I just want to cut to the chase and get a straight answer - you say corporations shouldn’t be able to influence government, and more particularly, they shouldn’t be able to “wine and dine” and give money to politicians.
So, should labor unions and environmental advocacy groups be able “wine and dine” and give money to politicians? Yes or no?
[/quote]
No. Politicians should only be beholden to the people. Not a company. Not a union. Not a lobby group. The wishes of companies, unions, and lobby groups should not be taken into account by politicians. Clear enough?[/quote]
Sorry for stating the obvious – but companies, unions and lobbies are simply groups of like-minded PEOPLE.
Fair enough. You had said that you “hadn’t seen” the argument for “decent jobs” so I posted.
When you get past the anger and the crazy, it seems to be the shrinking middle class and the loss of decent jobs that is the primary complaint of the protesters. You are right, it’s not “just” full employment that they seem to be arguing for, but a society where the American (middle class) Dream can be recognized. …and it’d sure be nice if “we all” had healthcare too. [/quote]
But from what I can tell, the OWS crowd - nor the author of the article - isn’t representative of nor arguing for a middle class, properly understood. The middle class is not and should not be a standard of living subsidized by wealth external to the middle class. The great value of the middle class in history was/is that it is propertied and independent.
What the OWS crowd wants is something else - a kind of proletarian* class, not a middle class.
*Not necessarily the same thing as the proletariat of the Marxist type
No. Politicians should only be beholden to the people. Not a company. Not a union. Not a lobby group. The wishes of companies, unions, and lobby groups should not be taken into account by politicians. Clear enough?[/quote]
So that First Amendment - which preserves “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, along with free speech - is in need of changing, in your opinion, aye?
No. Politicians should only be beholden to the people. Not a company. Not a union. Not a lobby group. The wishes of companies, unions, and lobby groups should not be taken into account by politicians. Clear enough?[/quote]
So that First Amendment - which preserves “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, along with free speech - is in need of changing, in your opinion, aye?
[/quote]
No, by counting the individual you are giving multiple voices to the cause, by only counting the group it is one voice, one vote. The problem comes into play when that one big group uses lots of money to get politicians to make things unequal in their favor.
:chuckles: silly idiots, communists dont believe in open books
this article had a lot of great gems. my neighbors like to hold drum circles on the weekends, that depending on the strengths of the LSD, can go all night long. I have long fantasized about doing a raid while they are recovering and stabbing every one of their damn drums.
this quote is the sense I am getting though:
based on what I am hearing from friends in NYC. One told me that the reality is that the press and tourists out number the protesters by atleast 5:1