[Bruce N]

Video of Syrian protesters being fired on by police as they demonstrate for democracy and freedom.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=5WEK6HgXBsQ

Oops... sorry, my bad. That's a video of Oakland Occupiers exercising their democratic right and freedom to protest.

[FunkDaddy]

lol @ a mixture of peace signs and anarchy signs. Seems like some of them were looking for a fight.

[jonie]

Hard to believe this is occurring in such a so-called bastion of freedom. Is this the example of democracy the US is comfortable setting for the rest of the world? How can President Obama and Hillary Clinton hope to dissuade Syrian authorities from firing upon their own people when they condone the very same action in their own country? The answer is...they can't. US foreign policy has taken a knife and castrated itself.

[jonie]

Speak for yourself, Sven. As the video shows, we in the US have no greater freedom than Syria when it comes to the right to protest for change.

You do realize that the video Bruce posted was taken in the US, don't you? US citizens being fired upon by police and law enforcement authorities?

Bruce was joking about it being in Syria.

[RLD]

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

seeing things like this reminds me that just because we live in Western countries doesn't mean that we're completely free either.....in countries like Syria those in power crack down on protestors when they threaten to take away their power.

The only reason it doesn't happen so much in Western countries is that our lives our relatively comfortable at the moment...but if our lives started to become more and more uncomfortable and the ordinary man kicked up a bit of fuss those in power would have the police to do whatever they needed to keep 'law and order'....

not sure what I'm talking about .

When I worked in a big multi-national DIY shop if someone was caught shop lifting a plumbing fitting or something relatively small the police would be over pretty much straight away whenever security called. There seemed to be some great importance attached in protecting the profits of this large and profitable store and the police would do anything to help.

Not that I'm particularly fond of the Daily Mail this sort of thing is normal in our western society.....and I'm guessing that a lot more police resources are being poured into controlling criminality within the Occupy movement than being poured into investigating banking....

[Simple Simon]

Jackie Chan said:

Not that I'm particularly fond of the Daily Mail this sort of thing is normal in our western society.....

That's genuinely disturbing.

Says it all:

'I cannot see the difference between this and a bribe.

'If a dodgy-looking fellow turned up to a council and said, "Guv'nor, if you give me planning permission, I'll make sure you get a nice new police station," it would be referred for investigation.'

What the defenders of laissez faire economics don't get is that it doesn't lead to "freedom" or "democracy - quite the opposite; it leads to, is leading to, a form of "government" in which those with the economic power make the rules... the laws... for those without the economic power.

I just can't get over the irony of those who complain about the power of governments being totally willing to accept, succumb to, even embrace, the power of the elite few who control the world's major corporations.

[m24p]

At first I thought "oh no not Syria, too!" But than I realized it was just the U.S. Whew!

[bernabby]

Bruce N, on 29 January 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

Video of Syrian protesters being fired on by police as they demonstrate for democracy and freedom.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=5WEK6HgXBsQ

Oops... sorry, my bad. That's a video of Oakland Occupiers exercising their democratic right and freedom to protest.

Another cheap shot by a foreigner. You fail to mention what precipitated this confrontation. You only want to show the response required to disperse this crowd of rioters because you have a sympathy towards the agenda of commies and anarchists. Why didn't you include the looting, graffitti and vandalism activities of this unruly crowd before riot police had to be called in. Maybe you'd like to sit back and watch your business or property destroyed by these occupy thugs. Maybe you want your car damaged just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. These are street terrorists and the less we have of them the better off we are.

[Alistair S]

Having only seen one side, could you show us the other side you speak of, Bob?

It's often hard to work out the truth of the matter after the event, as there are so many invested opinions.

[Scotto]

Here's a balanced article on the subject from the Daily Beast.

[Bruce N]

bernabby, on 30 January 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Another cheap shot by a foreigner.

Bob, I'm a Canadian living in my own country, I'm not in the U. S. Therefore I can't be a foreigner (well, unless Lou Gramm asked me)

You should get your bigoted ducks line up and in a row first. You're embarrassing yourself.

[m24p]

Bruce N, on 30 January 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

bernabby, on 30 January 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Another cheap shot by a foreigner.

Bob, I'm a Canadian living in my own country, I'm not in the U. S. Therefore I can't be a foreigner (well, unless Lou Gramm asked me)

You should get your bigoted ducks line up and in a row first. You're embarrassing yourself.

I think he meant only Chinese citizens can complain about human rights issues in China.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Quote

I just can't get over the irony of those who complain about the power of governments being totally willing to accept, succumb to, even embrace, the power of the elite few who control the world's major corporations. Posted Image

yeah, I really don't understand that either...it's like Communism or Socialism is just about the worst thing as it means the government taking away your liberty and choice, or telling you what to do or else and making everything centralised and controlled. Like the party official producing a list of books that you can read and burning the books that you shouldn't
But have people not seen what places like WalMart are doing to them and their communities and how they want to control their choice? Like do they not see that incredibly powerful corporations like Monsanto or McDonalds are taking their freedom away and taking the wealth away from their communities much more effectively than any government?

Like if a WalMart opens all the profits are zooming away from a local community to some centralised location. Not Washington but Arkansas.

[Simple Simon]

Jackie Chan said:

But have people not seen what places like WalMart are doing to them and their communities and how they want to control their choice? Like do they not see that incredibly powerful corporations like Monsanto or McDonalds are taking their freedom away and taking the wealth away from their communities much more effectively than any government?

Nope, they don't... largely. It's a form of blissful (and I sometimes think wilful) ignorance. A small number are very aware of what's going on, but the majority of folks have been brainwashed into believing they are "free".

bernabby, on 31 January 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Why didn't you include the looting, graffitti and vandalism activities of this unruly crowd before riot police had to be called in.

I have to admit that I have a certain amount of sympathy for what you're saying here, Bernabby. I don't know the details of the situation in Oregon, of course, but I am aware of the deterioration of similar protests here in New Zealand. What began as sincere and well-intentioned protests have gradually devolved into camps of convenience for handfuls of the disaffected and marginalised members of our cities. Most of the original protesters have packed up and gone, probably a bit disillusioned with the way things have gone.Having said that, I don't believe police brutality can ever be condoned. I've seen enough of it myself, and it always leads, eventually, to an escalation in violence and polarisation. If we truly wish to live in and enjoy a peaceful society, we must learn to resolve our problems and differences peacefully.

[Gordon]

In Bruce's video the woman in purple near the end looked especially dangerous to me...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=mvg4n8Txgdc

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=a6irfBMm48g

but if you sync the music in my second link to the video Bruce posted, it is almost like CSNY wrote it specifically that way...

... like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon and Wizard of Oz...

... or the Eagle's Hotel California and Ghost Busters...

it's eerie, man... eerie...

[FunkDaddy]

Gordon, on 30 January 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

In Bruce's video the woman in purple near the end looked especially dangerous to me...

Nobody looks dangerous after they've been tear gassed, pepper-sprayed and shot with rubber bullets...

...which is kind of the point...

[feegis]

I was tailgating at a concert one time. We were all set up with a tent, coolers, chairs, etc. A police officer came and told us we had to move, as we were in a throughway in the parking lot. Half of us jumped up and started moving stuff, a few of the other half grumbled, but moved, and one guy stood his ground, dammit! This was his attitude. "I have every right to be here, and I ain't movin'!! Look at everyone else!! If we have to move, what about them?!!" And he refused to move his chair, despite our prodding for him to just move while we proceeded to move our stuff up on the curb. The police officer explained we were the first ones he came to, and the others would have to move, too (though I think the cop offered up more of an explanation than he needed to). "Well, once they've all moved, then I'll move!!" The police officer didn't retaliate with force. The "protester" was being disrespectful and belligerent in attitude and action, and I thought he deserved whatever attitude the cop gave in return. The cop kept cooler than I thought this jackass deserved, but, seeing this mini-protest, two more cops showed up. That never should have been necessary if the guy wouldn't have taken that "It's my right!" stance to a simple, reasonable request. If he wouldn't have been blinded by his own agenda, maybe he would have seen that. But he didn't. And while the majority of us responded respectfully, one guy's approach threatened to cause problems. His actions escalated what should have been a non-event.

No - I am not saying this is the same thing as what the Occupy movement is all about. What I'm saying is that there are better and worse ways, more genuine and less genuine ways, more respectful ways and less respectful ways, smarter ways and less smart ways to go about advancing your cause. And if you are drawing fire, you may have done so innocently, but it might not hurt to examine the manner of your approach.

I would guess a good number of Occupy protestors did so respectfully, but there are always those who seem to be on a different agenda, thus prompting more reaction. The point is, maybe, just maybe, without seeing all that transpired leading up to this isolated segment of a video, just maybe the protestors contributed something to this reaction. I think we'd all agree that it's dangerous and unfair to start passing judgment without seeing the whole story. We can all be guilty of it, and it's important to be aware of that. It's also important to consider that there are people who simply fight authority for no reason other than it's "authority".

At my carwash, we had the city police department as an account. I had five or six employees that hated - absolutely hated - the police. For what reason? Because the cops gave them a hard time. I would tell them that I probably had more confrontations with police officers than all of them (not something I'm proud about, but it's the truth, and I'll provide detail to anyone who asks for it), and I never had a cop give me a hard time. One time I had a cop give me attitude, and I recognized it, kept my mouth in check, and cooperated, because, the truth of the matter, I had done something I shouldn't have done to prompt my "interaction" with the police. If you approach police disrespectfully and belligerently, the police will respond in kind. But from the behavior I see some use toward cops, I'm shocked at how calm officers remain on a whole. Push police far enough, and the police will be forced to control a situation.

Do people truly believe that police just come out firing as a first line of action?

[Scotto]

One more distinction... In Syria the Bullets aren't made of rubber and they don't bother with tear gas. You're just dead.

[feegis]

Quote

One more distinction... In Syria the Bullets aren't made of rubber and they don't bother with tear gas. You're just dead.

Perspective is an intersting thing, ain't it?

I remember watching a golf tournament on tv. At the end, the wife of the golfer who won came out and hugged him. Admittedly, he gave what appeared to be a cool, perfunctory reception to his wife, and my mom never liked him again. I said to my mom, "But if earlier in the day he found his wife in bed with his caddy, then I think his reaction to her would be remarkably tame."

[jonie]

What the Oakland Occupiers did was nothing.

Nothing compared to what has been done to the American (and European) economies in the name of capitalist greed.

Nothing compared to the homelessness and joblessness.

Nothing compared to the utter loss of trust in our elected officials and our judicial systems. (deserved)

Nothing compared to what the future holds if everyone continues to focus on the cat crapping in the corner instead of the elephant sitting on our chests.

And nothing compared to what might be coming down the pike. (protesters with their own weapons)

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Quote

Do people truly believe that police just come out firing as a first line of action?

I'm just wondering if you think the same if you see a clip like the one above from somewhere like Syria? in that case does it mean that it is all about perspective and the protesters might be the ones provoking the police/army who are only doing their best to keep law and order?

[feegis]

Quote

I'm just wondering if you think the same if you see a clip like the one above from somewhere like Syria? in that case does it mean that it is all about perspective and the protesters might be the ones provoking the police/army who are only doing their best to keep law and order?

You see, to me, this thread isn't about Syria. The post that started this thread was never about Syria. I am not referring to Syria. I am referring to the comparison made between what happened in Oakland to Syria. If you're going to bring Syria back into the discussion in the vein it was presented in the opening post of this thread, is it really and truly an accurate comparison? Does Scotto's post have any validity? I think it does.

Quote

Nothing compared to what has been done to the American (and European) economies in the name of capitalist greed.

Well, I'm not greedy, myself. I understand greed exists, just like murder exists, but I don't blame a whole entity for what exists within it. And at the line between the wealthy and the poor, I'm on the wrong side of that line. But I blame no one, I ask for nothing for free, I'm willing to work for what I get, I understand that you don't always win, I don't complain when I lose, I don't worry about what someone else has that I don't, and I still like what capitalism has to offer, so I don't know what else to tell you.

[bernabby]

jonie, on 31 January 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

What the Oakland Occupiers did was nothing.

Nothing compared to what has been done to the American (and European) economies in the name of capitalist greed.

Nothing compared to the homelessness and joblessness.

Nothing compared to the utter loss of trust in our elected officials and our judicial systems. (deserved)

Nothing compared to what the future holds if everyone continues to focus on the cat crapping in the corner instead of the elephant sitting on our chests.

And nothing compared to what might be coming down the pike. (protesters with their own weapons)

Are you advocating for an armed revolt? You're a very scary person hoping the protestors come back with weapons. Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?

[feegis]

Quote

Are you advocating for an armed revolt? You're a very scary person hoping the protestors come back with weapons. Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?

I think Jonie might be including right-wing militia, and maybe exclusively right-wing militia. But, in any case, she's not advocating an armed revolt, just considering the possibility.

[Gordon]

bernabby, on 31 January 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Are you advocating for an armed revolt? You're a very scary person hoping the protestors come back with weapons. Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?

hmmm... i agree with Feegis... knowing Jonie i don't believe she advocates violence.

second, i don't believe that the protestors necessarily lack jobs. Maybe some do. I'm sure plenty have jobs. I remember seeing quite a few pretty racist looking Tea Party signs. I'm sure that you would not appreciate or agree if i then characterized every single Tea Party protestor as a racist, fascist, neo-nazi, white supremicist...

... i'm sure that most Tea Party advocates would say that, regrettably, there were undoubtedly some ill-advised signs and some less savory characters who turned out at these events who did not represent the true spirit of the movement... perhaps some of these Tea Partiers saw an opportunity to express their extreme right-wing views... but i'm sure the mainstream conservatives, republicans, and "true" Tea Partiers do not endorse those viewsm as ugly as they may look on television...

... i'm reasonably sure of that.


I think similarly with the OWS movement, there are those who take it too far, who maybe look to create conflict for whatever reason.... who maybe see an opportunity to express a far left wing, perhaps anarchistic view...

and i'm sure the mainstream OWS movement does not endorse that, either.

As far as being dissatisfied with the "job creators"... well here's our biggest job creator, one that gets billions of dollars out of our taxpaying pockets in spite of the profits they make...

ExxonMobil had the largest profits of the Big Five oil companies in 2011, raking in $41.1 billion for the year. This 35 percent jump from last year is driven in large part by record-high oil prices. Today, the oil giant announced its fourth quarter profits of $9.4 billion, a 2 percent increase since 2010. Here are a few other facts about ExxonMobil:

• Exxon’s $41.1 billion in 2011 profit translates into nearly $5 million in profit every hour, or more than $1,300 every second. The annual profit comes near the record revenues of $46.23 billion in 2008.

• Stock buybacks for Q4 were $5.4 billion, and $ 21.60 billion for the year, equivalent to 53 percent of total 2011 profit. This enriches executives, the board of directors, and largest shareholders.

• Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American. Between 2008-2010, Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate, while the average American paid a higher rate of 20.4 percent. [In 2010, Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9%.]

• The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.

• The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States.

• Exxon is sitting on $11 billion cash on hand as of September 30.

• Exxon spent nearly $13 million on lobbying expenditures in 2011. The company gave nearly another $900,000 in federal campaign contributions. 92 percent of contributions went to Republicans.

• Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson made $29 million in 2010 (according to the latest records): He made $2.2 million in salary, a $3.4 million bonus, and stock awards valued at $15.5 million.

• Exxon is drawing out a legal battle for damages on a spill from 22 years ago. Exxon hasn’t paid $92 million in cleanup for the devastating Valdez Alaskan oil spill. In its Sept. 30 court filing, Exxon argued the damages it agreed to pay only covers “restoration” and not additional “clean-up.”

• Far from a job creator, ExxonMobil — together with Chevron, Shell, and BP — reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees between 2005 and 2010.

Yes... creating many jobs from all those profits... like these guys, too...

Caterpillar reported a 36 per cent increase in after-tax profit for both the fourth quarter of 2011 and the full year 2011. Revenues for the year increased four per cent to $2.65 billion.

Despite the record profits, the company is pressuring its employees at the London [Ontario] locomotive plant to accept a pay cut from $32 per hour to $16.50. Caterpillar locked out the workers on Jan. 1 after union members rejected the pay cut.

While certainly not in the same league with Apple’s abuses, Caterpillar is just the latest company attempting to force workers to accept wage cuts at the same time its hauling in huge profits and paying its CEO millions. AT&T, Navistar, John Deere, and Wellpoint have all pulled the same trick in the last few years, laying off hundreds of workers. Caterpillar’s CEO, Doug Oberhelman, made $10.5 million in 2010.

“This is all about greed,” says Bob Scott, union chairman at the plant. “How are workers supposed to go back to earning wages last paid nearly 25 years ago, while the company is richer than ever?” CEOs today make about 343 times the amount earned by the typical worker.

So... am i a communist opposed to the free market system?

Absolutely not! Couldn't be more untrue!

Do i think that all corporations are saintly and will protect and look out for all of us commoners if only we believed and trusted in them with all our hearts and removed all oversight and regulation so that they would be completely free to bathe us in all their holy glory and sanctified goodness???

I'm not that naive. I haven't believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy in at least three or four years now...

[Simple Simon]

An excellently illustrative post, Gordon.

Gordon, on 01 February 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

• The company gave nearly another $900,000 in federal campaign contributions. 92 percent of contributions went to Republicans.

But of course they won't be expecting any favours in return.

As a relavent aside, I think it's a bit rich that Gingrich is accusing Romney of "buying the election", considering the fact that buying elections is pretty much standard practice in the US system of politics.

[bernabby]

bernabby, on 31 January 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

jonie, on 31 January 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

What the Oakland Occupiers did was nothing.

Nothing compared to what has been done to the American (and European) economies in the name of capitalist greed.

Nothing compared to the homelessness and joblessness.

Nothing compared to the utter loss of trust in our elected officials and our judicial systems. (deserved)

Nothing compared to what the future holds if everyone continues to focus on the cat crapping in the corner instead of the elephant sitting on our chests.

And nothing compared to what might be coming down the pike. (protesters with their own weapons)

Are you advocating for an armed revolt? You're a very scary person hoping the protestors come back with weapons. Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?

feegis, on 31 January 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Quote

Are you advocating for an armed revolt? You're a very scary person hoping the protestors come back with weapons. Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?

I think Jonie might be including right-wing militia, and maybe exclusively right-wing militia. But, in any case, she's not advocating an armed revolt, just considering the possibility.

The quote in red above is jonie's. Where do you extrapolate, even giving her the benefit of any doubt, anything about right wing militia? Reads like a threat to me. When you consider bringing weapons via a written suggestion how is that not advocating violence?

[Lazz]

bernabby said:

Reads like a threat to me. When you consider bringing weapons via a written suggestion how is that not advocating violence?

Yeah, you're right.
It's clear that Jonie is Pirate Jenny, able to command armies of her own.
It all makes sense.

[Bruce N]

bernabby, on 01 February 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

The quote in red above is jonie's. Where do you extrapolate, even giving her the benefit of any doubt, anything about right wing militia? Reads like a threat to me. When you consider bringing weapons via a written suggestion how is that not advocating violence?

Interesting comment coming from you Bob.

What would be of even greater interest to me, would be your opinion on this story from a few short years ago ?

http://articles.nyda...ing-gun-control

[Bruce N]

Simple Simon, on 31 January 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

An excellently illustrative post, Gordon.

I concur, an intelligent researched and fact supported post.

[bernabby]

Bruce N, on 01 February 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

bernabby, on 01 February 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

The quote in red above is jonie's. Where do you extrapolate, even giving her the benefit of any doubt, anything about right wing militia? Reads like a threat to me. When you consider bringing weapons via a written suggestion how is that not advocating violence?

Interesting comment coming from you Bob.

What would be of even greater interest to me, would be your opinion on this story from a few short years ago ?

http://articles.nyda...ing-gun-control

Those carrying were not protesting, rioting and not breaking any laws was how I read the story. They have every right to carry openly. What's the problem? The thugs in your video were breaking laws by vandalizing property and throwing projectiles at the cops. Maybe you can't comprehend the difference between gun rights individuals hanging out vs rioting protestors wreaking havoc on the streets. Maybe your sympathies are with marauding troublemakers mine are with peaceful gun loving citizens.

[feegis]

Quote

The quote in red above is jonie's. Where do you extrapolate, even giving her the benefit of any doubt, anything about right wing militia? Reads like a threat to me. When you consider bringing weapons via a written suggestion how is that not advocating violence?

Because your response implied she's talking about the OWS protestors. I wouldn't think Jonie would only consider OWS protestors when contemplating an escalation to weapons. She made a comment one time about you taking a vacation to go to "survivalist camp", (a comment I thought was unfair) which is generally a militia thing, and it's pretty well understood that militia want reduced gun control laws. I connected some dots, but I don't think what I said was out of line. I said she might be including right-wing militia. When you say"Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?" , that seems to me that you feel she is only talking about OWS.

And, again, Jonie did not say they should get weapons, she merely said it might come to that. That is not an advocation.

[bernabby]

Gordon, on 31 January 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

bernabby, on 31 January 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Are you advocating for an armed revolt? You're a very scary person hoping the protestors come back with weapons. Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?

hmmm... i agree with Feegis... knowing Jonie i don't believe she advocates violence.

second, i don't believe that the protestors necessarily lack jobs. Maybe some do. I'm sure plenty have jobs. I remember seeing quite a few pretty racist looking Tea Party signs. How many have you seen rioting, vandalizing and confronting the police? Was that none, ok so much for your silly comment. I'm sure that you would not appreciate or agree if i then characterized every single Tea Party protestor as a racist, fascist, neo-nazi, white supremicist....Characterize them anyway you want because you obviously don't care for their movement, peaceful and law abiding as it may be.... i'm sure that most Tea Party advocates would say that, regrettably, there were undoubtedly some ill-advised signs and some less savory characters who turned out at these events who did not represent the true spirit of the movement... perhaps some of these Tea Partiers saw an opportunity to express their extreme right-wing views... but i'm sure the mainstream conservatives, republicans, and "true" Tea Partiers do not endorse those viewsm as ugly as they may look on television...

... i'm reasonably sure of that.


I think similarly with the OWS movement, there are those who take it too far, who maybe look to create conflict for whatever reason.... who maybe see an opportunity to express a far left wing, perhaps anarchistic view......yes but where is your condemnation?and i'm sure the mainstream OWS movement does not endorse that, either.

As far as being dissatisfied with the "job creators"... well here's our biggest job creator, one that gets billions of dollars out of our taxpaying pockets in spite of the profits they make...

ExxonMobil had the largest profits of the Big Five oil companies in 2011, raking in $41.1 billion for the year. This 35 percent jump from last year is driven in large part by record-high oil prices. Today, the oil giant announced its fourth quarter profits of $9.4 billion, a 2 percent increase since 2010. Here are a few other facts about ExxonMobil:

• Exxon’s $41.1 billion in 2011 profit translates into nearly $5 million in profit every hour, or more than $1,300 every second. The annual profit comes near the record revenues of $46.23 billion in 2008.

• Stock buybacks for Q4 were $5.4 billion, and $ 21.60 billion for the year, equivalent to 53 percent of total 2011 profit. This enriches executives, the board of directors, and largest shareholders.

• Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American. Between 2008-2010, Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate, while the average American paid a higher rate of 20.4 percent. [In 2010, Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9%.] He also paid over $3M in taxes and gave an equal amount to charity. How much have you paid, how much have you given?
• The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.

• The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States.

• Exxon is sitting on $11 billion cash on hand as of September 30.

• Exxon spent nearly $13 million on lobbying expenditures in 2011. The company gave nearly another $900,000 in federal campaign contributions. 92 percent of contributions went to Republicans. .......Your colors are showing. You just couldn't resist making a political statement could you? $900,000 is peanuts compared to what Soros, Hollywood, Silicone Valley and other left wing entities contribute to the libs. There you go doing all this reasearch trying to pretend you have an objective bone somewhere in your pinky. You, again, checked your credibility at the door.

• Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson made $29 million in 2010 (according to the latest records): He made $2.2 million in salary, a $3.4 million bonus, and stock awards valued at $15.5 million......your math is wrong - your numbers only add up to about $20M. What rock are you looking under for your "facts?" Doesn't seem out of line to me, $5.6M in salary is not much. He thinks enough of the company and his leadership to put his money where his mouth is and that's investing in his company by accepting stock in lieu of money. You do know stocks are notorious for peak and valley cycles. He made $40B for his company - should he be paid minimum wage?
• Exxon is drawing out a legal battle for damages on a spill from 22 years ago. Exxon hasn’t paid $92 million in cleanup for the devastating Valdez Alaskan oil spill. In its Sept. 30 court filing, Exxon argued the damages it agreed to pay only covers “restoration” and not additional “clean-up.”

• Far from a job creator, ExxonMobil — together with Chevron, Shell, and BP — reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees between 2005 and 2010.[/indent........What's your point? How many jobs have you created?
Yes... creating many jobs from all those profits... like these guys, too...[indent]Caterpillar reported a 36 per cent increase in after-tax profit for both the fourth quarter of 2011 and the full year 2011. Revenues for the year increased four per cent to $2.65 billion. I guess 4% is too much profit from one year to the next. I guess you'd rather see them lose money. Typical commie position.Despite the record profits, the company is pressuring its employees at the London [Ontario] locomotive plant to accept a pay cut from $32 per hour to $16.50. Caterpillar locked out the workers on Jan. 1 after union members rejected the pay cut.

While certainly not in the same league with Apple’s abuses, Caterpillar is just the latest company attempting to force workers to accept wage cuts at the same time its hauling in huge profits and paying its CEO millions. AT&T, Navistar, John Deere, and Wellpoint have all pulled the same trick in the last few years, laying off hundreds of workers. Caterpillar’s CEO, Doug Oberhelman, made $10.5 million in 2010. So what, Lebron James makes double that and he only works 6 months out of the year.“This is all about greed,” says Bob Scott, union chairman at the plant. “How are workers supposed to go back to earning wages last paid nearly 25 years ago, while the company is richer than ever?” CEOs today make about 343 times the amount earned by the typical worker.

What is the purpose of all this - the protests are aimed at wall street financial entities. Why is it your concern how much Exxon makes? Why do you lefties try to hide the fact that Corporations pay much more than their "fair share" of taxes. That percentage game you play is just more of the left's devious ploy of class warfare. The fact remains that they paid $15B in corporate taxes or about 1% of the total federal government tax revenues when they are but one out of a 150,000,000 taxpayers. I'd say they are carrying much more of the tax load than your beloved OWS'. You think $15B is peanuts? How much do you think they should pay?
So... am i a communist opposed to the free market system? Yes, you tend commie because commies tell people how much they will earn so how is your dictating that companies are making too much money any different than the teachings of communism?

Absolutely not! Couldn't be more untrue!

Do i think that all corporations are saintly and will protect and look out for all of us commoners if only we believed and trusted in them with all our hearts and removed all oversight and regulation so that they would be completely free to bathe us in all their holy glory and sanctified goodness??? The more important question is what do you think will happen if you tax corporations out of business? Of course, you and your ilk will feel jubilant until the government now starts coming after you to pick up the lost tax revenues. I wonder how you will like communism then.

I'm not that naive. I haven't believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy in at least three or four years now...Well there's naive and there's a fool who blindly bites the hand that has been feeding him. What will the fool do when the hand is gone?

You'll be better off believing in Santa Claus than the federal government.

[bernabby]

jonie, on 31 January 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

What the Oakland Occupiers did was nothing. Please note specifically, OAKLAND OCCUPIERS.
Nothing compared to what has been done to the American (and European) economies in the name of capitalist greed.

Nothing compared to the homelessness and joblessness.

Nothing compared to the utter loss of trust in our elected officials and our judicial systems. (deserved)

Nothing compared to what the future holds if everyone continues to focus on the cat crapping in the corner instead of the elephant sitting on our chests.

And nothing compared to what might be coming down the pike. (protesters with their own weapons) Pay particular attention to the word protestors in the parenthesis - she is referring to the occupiers not militia..

feegis, on 01 February 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

Quote

The quote in red above is jonie's. Where do you extrapolate, even giving her the benefit of any doubt, anything about right wing militia? Reads like a threat to me. When you consider bringing weapons via a written suggestion how is that not advocating violence?

Because your response implied she's talking about the OWS protestors. No, there is no implication. I have posted, in red, her entire post. Where does it say anything other than OWS. I wouldn't think Jonie would only consider OWS protestors when contemplating an escalation to weapons. Why? How would you know what she was thinking? She obviously wrote down what she thought. Who are you to speak for her thoughts.She made a comment one time about you taking a vacation to go to "survivalist camp", (a comment I thought was unfair) so what would make you think that she didn't mean what she said in this instance of advocating violence? which is generally a militia thing, and it's pretty well understood that militia want reduced gun control laws. I connected some dots, but I don't think what I said was out of line. I didn't say you were out of line I said you were wrong. I said she might be including right-wing militia. Words have meanings it is silly of you to interpret what you think she might be thinking. When you say"Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?" , that seems to me that you feel she is only talking about OWS. She is only talking about them. What do you read in her post that I am not reading?
And, again, Jonie did not say they should get weapons, she merely said it might come to that. That is not an advocation. If I said it might come down to shooting Obama how would you respond? After all, I wouldn't be saying someone should actually shoot him but I'm only saying it might come to that.

What is your obsession with trying to read something in someone else's post that is not there? I've given you her exact quote yet you continue playing these word games of what you think she might be saying. This isn't some foreign language post that needs interpretation. This is the full context of her thoughts. I am puzzled why you have annoited yourself to defend her position. I'm sure she can do this herself.

[Bruce N]

bernabby, on 01 February 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

Bruce N, on 01 February 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

bernabby, on 01 February 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

The quote in red above is jonie's. Where do you extrapolate, even giving her the benefit of any doubt, anything about right wing militia? Reads like a threat to me. When you consider bringing weapons via a written suggestion how is that not advocating violence?

Interesting comment coming from you Bob.

What would be of even greater interest to me, would be your opinion on this story from a few short years ago ?

http://articles.nyda...ing-gun-control

Those carrying were not protesting, rioting and not breaking any laws was how I read the story. They have every right to carry openly. What's the problem? The thugs in your video were breaking laws by vandalizing property and throwing projectiles at the cops. Maybe you can't comprehend the difference between gun rights individuals hanging out vs rioting protestors wreaking havoc on the streets. Maybe your sympathies are with marauding troublemakers mine are with peaceful gun loving citizens.

Thank you Bob, now what I take from your response, is that it's perfectly fine for an individual to be carrying a open automatic firearm to within killing range of the leader of your country and it should be taken as the person being a sane, rational thinking human being who is merely exercising his constitutional rights to bear arms as an American citizen, and is free to go about his business without fear of harassment from any law enforcement agencies, and it's a perfectly normal thing to do.

Have I got that right so far Bob ?

And If I do, then what you're saying, is it would also be perfectly fine for an Muslin American to carry the very same type of weapon to within killing range, of say, oh I don't know, maybe Newt Gingrich at one of his campaign rallies, and that Muslin American would have absolutely nothing to worry about. As I'm sure you would also have to consider him to be a "peaceful gun loving citizen."

Or perhaps even if some of the OWS crowd in Oakland were to do the same thing, as long as they were behaving themselves and not breaking any laws, and just exercising their constitutional rights of free assembly while carrying that same type of weapon, that would also be perfectly fine to do so, in your opinion of course ?

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Bernabby,
I'll honest with you....I don't understand you.
You seem very happy to have the police regulate and control protests like the one above by whatever force necessary.
I notice over on another thread here you are very happy to have a forum moderator moderate what goes on there so it's fair to everyone. Nothing wrong with that sort of regulation.

Yet strangely you seem to go nuts with the idea of the government regulating things so it is fairer. (eg Gordon said "Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American. Between 2008-2010, Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate, while the average American paid a higher rate of 20.4 percent. [In 2010, Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9%.] You said 'He also paid over $3M in taxes and gave an equal amount to charity. How much have you paid, how much have you given? ')



Why shouldn't everybody pay the same? If you're happy for someone to moderate something like an internet forum and make it fair why not government?
I don't understand.... *queue lots of red shouting*

[bernabby]

Bruce N, on 01 February 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

bernabby, on 01 February 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

Bruce N, on 01 February 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

bernabby, on 01 February 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

The quote in red above is jonie's. Where do you extrapolate, even giving her the benefit of any doubt, anything about right wing militia? Reads like a threat to me. When you consider bringing weapons via a written suggestion how is that not advocating violence?

Interesting comment coming from you Bob.

What would be of even greater interest to me, would be your opinion on this story from a few short years ago ?

http://articles.nyda...ing-gun-control

Those carrying were not protesting, rioting and not breaking any laws was how I read the story. They have every right to carry openly. What's the problem? The thugs in your video were breaking laws by vandalizing property and throwing projectiles at the cops. Maybe you can't comprehend the difference between gun rights individuals hanging out vs rioting protestors wreaking havoc on the streets. Maybe your sympathies are with marauding troublemakers mine are with peaceful gun loving citizens.

Thank you Bob, now what I take from your response, is that it's perfectly fine for an individual to be carrying a open automatic firearm to within killing range of the leader of your country and it should be taken as the person being a sane, rational thinking human being who is merely exercising his constitutional rights to bear arms as an American citizen, and is free to go about his business without fear of harassment from any law enforcement agencies, and it's a perfectly normal thing to do. I'm not sure if automatics are permitted to be carried openly. If so, no problems here.

Have I got that right so far Bob ? Yes, so far.
And If I do, then what you're saying, is it would also be perfectly fine for an Muslin American to carry the very same type of weapon to within killing range, of say, oh I don't know, maybe Newt Gingrich at one of his campaign rallies, and that Muslin American would have absolutely nothing to worry about. As I'm sure you would also have to consider him to be a "peaceful gun loving citizen." Yes, unless there is evidence otherwise - like being a part of al quaida or OWS. Any Americans who have no restrictions against carrying are free to exercise their second amendment right.

Or perhaps even if some of the OWS crowd in Oakland were to do the same thing, as long as they were behaving themselves and not breaking any laws, and just exercising their constitutional rights of free assembly while carrying that same type of weapon, that would also be perfectly fine to do so, in your opinion of course ? Your imagination and wishful thinking goes too far here. There is no such thing as a behaving OWS follower who doesn't break any laws. Their riots have already demonstrated their destructive intents so they have forfeited any right to a label of peaceful and law abiding.

Do you know there are far many more crimes that have been prevented by guns than there are crimes committed by guns? Guns are not the problem people like the ows crowd are. Let me ask you something. You are leaving this world suddenly and you have only 10 seconds to choose a complete stranger to take care of your child. You only have 2 choices. Some random ows protestor or me, a gun right advocate. No cheating. Be honest.

[feegis]

Quote

What is your obsession with trying to read something in someone else's post that is not there? I've given you her exact quote yet you continue playing these word games of what you think she might be saying. This isn't some foreign language post that needs interpretation. This is the full context of her thoughts. I am puzzled why you have annoited yourself to defend her position. I'm sure she can do this herself.

Bernabby, I don't think I'm playing word games. I acknowledged that I did some connecting of dots, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't think what I said was inflamatory or a ridiculous stretch. As far as defending Jonie - I'm not defending Jonie. I think you took her comment incorrectly, and I decided to respond to it. Why I chose that particular comment? I don't know. It just grabbed my attention at the moment.

[bernabby]

Jackie Chan said:

Bernabby,
I'll honest with you....I don't understand you.
You seem very happy to have the police regulate and control protests like the one above by whatever force necessary.
I notice over on another thread here you are very happy to have a forum moderator moderate what goes on there so it's fair to everyone. Nothing wrong with that sort of regulation......I'm not following your analogy. That's what police are supposed to do - to serve and protect. There's no fairness issue in that line of work. If not, the anarchists would be running the show. What's the connection to a moderator moderating? There are rules established by the owner/operator of this site and you can choose to abide by them or go elsewhere. If you want chaos in a discussion forum go build your own.
Yet strangely you seem to go nuts with the idea of the government regulating things so it is fairer. (eg Gordon said "Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American. You better put on your reading glasses and stay off that Guiness when responding. I'm going to say this just one more time but please read it before taking another gulp. Exxon paid $15 billion in taxes irrespective of the tax rate. The tax rate is only a scheme used by Obama to play the class warfare game. Sure, you can put a 50% tax rate on Exxon but do you think Exxon is just going to say sure take another $30B federal government. Come on Wee, put on your thinking cap. Exxon is not going to bust it's ass just to fork over billions more to Obama or any any politician, would you? The higher tax rate will return lower profits and ultimately a lower tax amount that Exxon will contribute to the government. Between 2008-2010, Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate, while the average American paid a higher rate of 20.4 percent. [In 2010, Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9%.] You said 'He also paid over $3M in taxes and gave an equal amount to charity. How much have you paid, how much have you given? ') Yes, I stated that fact. What's your point? Is $3M in income taxes and $3M in charitable contributions too little for you? How much should he pay and how much should he give to satisfy you?



Why shouldn't everybody pay the same? If you're happy for someone to moderate something like an internet forum and make it fair why not government? Can anyone explain to me the connection between these 2 thoughts?
I don't understand....Neither do I. *queue lots of red shouting*

I have no problem with everyone paying the same rate - that's why I favor a flat tax as my second choice. My first choice is the Ron Paul plan of zero income taxes. The US did quite well before the implementation of the income tax and even that rate was only supposed to be about 2%. The problem is once government got the taste of an unlimited stream of money they went on a Macy's spending spree. Another problem is that not everyone pays income taxes. The lefties here would have you believe that the Mitt Romney's don't pay their fair share when they are actually carrying most of the load. 47% percent of the people don't pay ANY income taxes at all. The top 10% of income earners pay about 70% of the entire tax burden. What is fair about our current system? Romney and the 1%ers pay about 30% (understand that you only need an income of $250,000.00 to be included in the 1%). Do you understand now why Obama and the left are waging this class warfare propaganda? He's going after the 47%ers' votes.

[bernabby]

feegis, on 01 February 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Quote

What is your obsession with trying to read something in someone else's post that is not there? I've given you her exact quote yet you continue playing these word games of what you think she might be saying. This isn't some foreign language post that needs interpretation. This is the full context of her thoughts. I am puzzled why you have annoited yourself to defend her position. I'm sure she can do this herself.

Bernabby, I don't think I'm playing word games. I acknowledged that I did some connecting of dots, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No, you did more than just connect some non-existant dots and you are wrong. I don't think what I said was inflamatory or a ridiculous stretch. It was not inflamatory but the jury is 11 to 1 in my favor on the other. As far as defending Jonie - I'm not defending Jonie. I think you took her comment incorrectly, how so? You still haven't shown where I have taken her comment out of context. You have her quotes please break them down for me so I can see where I am incorrect. and I decided to respond to it. Why I chose that particular comment? I don't know. It just grabbed my attention at the moment.

Well, let's just say that when you re-write what has been clearly written then I have a problem understanding how it cannot be defending her.

[Lazz]

bernabby said:

Let me ask you something. You are leaving this world suddenly and you have only 10 seconds to choose a complete stranger to take care of your child. You only have 2 choices. Some random ows protestor or me, a gun right advocate. No cheating. Be honest.

Oh, that's easy for me.
Sooner take a chance with a random OWS protester than a nut like you.
Sorry.

[feegis]

Quote

And nothing compared to what might be coming down the pike. (protesters with their own weapons)

This is her quote. How is this advocating? If she said, "OWS protesters should get weapons and take the fight to the establishment," then I would say she is advocating the use of weapons. That is not what she said.

You said:

Quote

If I said it might come down to shooting Obama how would you respond? After all, I wouldn't be saying someone should actually shoot him but I'm only saying it might come to that.

How would I respond? The same way. I wouldn't think you are advocating shooting Obama.

Advocate

n. 1. One who pleads the cause of another. Specifically: One who pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court; a counselor.
2. One who defends, vindicates, or espouses any cause by argument; a pleader; as, an advocate of free trade, an advocate of truth.

v. t. 1. To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal or the public; to support, vindicate, or recommend publicly.


Neither Jonie's nor your comment fits this definition. Now, if you think Jonie is issuing a veiled threat or masking a private hope, that's your read. That's not how I took it, and her words don't provide a clear indication supporting your assessment, either.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Quote

Exxon is not going to bust it's ass just to fork over billions more to Obama or any any politician, would you? The higher tax rate will return lower profits and ultimately a lower tax amount that Exxon will contribute to the government

Maybe some of us don't want a company like Exxon busting it's ass to make more money at any cost? Not if it means more oil and pollution.Or maybe some of us don't want Walmart taking over our towns or McDonald's and Starbucks all over the world all in the sake of profit.

My mum works for Asda which is owned by Walmart.
It's not Walmart who are busting their ass, it is someone like mum who is busting her ass to make profits for the owners of Walmart while paying tax to the government and paying for groceries (which will probably be bought in Asda and make more profits for Walmart shareholders) or to pay for insurance or whatever.

But sure everyone knows that and seemingly people just have to accept it as the way things are.

[feegis]

I should say, bernabby, that I see where you are coming from regarding my insertion of right-wing militia. I wouldn't say the dots were non-existent, as I do retain some of the comments from past posts in my memory. With that said, it was a leap that shouldn't have been made. And with that said, I still don't say Jonie was advocating the use of weapons.

[bernabby]

Lazz, on 01 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

bernabby said:

Let me ask you something. You are leaving this world suddenly and you have only 10 seconds to choose a complete stranger to take care of your child. You only have 2 choices. Some random ows protestor or me, a gun right advocate. No cheating. Be honest.

Oh, that's easy for me.
Sooner take a chance with a random OWS protester than a nut like you.
Sorry.

Was anyone asking you? Or, are you just trolling like you did with DRS? Do you ever offer anything of value other than your snot nose arrogance? Well, from this nut go crawl back into your cesspool you pathetic frustrated loser.

[bernabby]

feegis, on 01 February 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I should say, bernabby, that I see where you are coming from regarding my insertion of right-wing militia. I wouldn't say the dots were non-existent, as I do retain some of the comments from past posts in my memory. With that said, it was a leap that shouldn't have been made. And with that said, I still don't say Jonie was advocating the use of weapons.

Ok, let's agree to call it issuing a threat. If her quotes were not advocating for the protestors what would call them?

[Lazz]

bernabby said:

Lazz, on 01 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

bernabby said:

Let me ask you something. You are leaving this world suddenly and you have only 10 seconds to choose a complete stranger to take care of your child. You only have 2 choices. Some random ows protestor or me, a gun right advocate. No cheating. Be honest.

Oh, that's easy for me.
Sooner take a chance with a random OWS protester than a nut like you.
Sorry.

Was anyone asking you? Or, are you just trolling like you did with DRS? Do you ever offer anything of value other than your snot nose arrogance? Well, from this nut go crawl back into your cesspool you pathetic frustrated loser.

Oh dear.
I mistakenly believed the question was open to all.
And I was being honest as you requested.
Sorry you didn't like the answer.

[bernabby]

feegis, on 01 February 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Quote

And nothing compared to what might be coming down the pike. (protesters with their own weapons)

Ok, let's call it an implied threat. Maybe my vocabulary is off.
This is her quote. How is this advocating? If she said, "OWS protesters should get weapons and take the fight to the establishment," then I would say she is advocating the use of weapons. That is not what she said. What did she say?

You said:

Quote

If I said it might come down to shooting Obama how would you respond? After all, I wouldn't be saying someone should actually shoot him but I'm only saying it might come to that.

How would I respond? The same way. I wouldn't think you are advocating shooting Obama. But I would be implying that is the outcome to which I look forward don't you agree? In that sense it is no different than what jonie is saying.

Advocate

n. 1. One who pleads the cause of another. Specifically: One who pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court; a counselor.
2. One who defends, vindicates, or espouses any cause by argument; a pleader; as, an advocate of free trade, an advocate of truth.

v. t. 1. To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal or the public; to support, vindicate, or recommend publicly.


Neither Jonie's nor your comment fits this definition. Now, if you think Jonie is issuing a veiled threat or masking a private hope, that's your read. That's not how I took it, and her words don't provide a clear indication supporting your assessment, either. Which assessment?

What do you think? Is it a veiled threat, an innocent mis-statement or an actual call to arms? I'm inclined to believe that it's not (.

[feegis]

Quote

It's not Walmart who are busting their ass, it is someone like mum who is busting her ass to make profits for the owners of Walmart

Do you really believe the people at the top of organizations don't bust their asses, and didn't bust their asses to get where they are?

The truth is, some people have more ability than others and they take it further. Some waste the talent. I can't sing like Pavarotti could sing, no matter how hard I tried or desired, and Pavarotti could have wasted his talent. But he didn't. He worked hard. Maybe he didn't have to work as hard as I would have, but that's his gift in life, and he's entitled to it. I love to sing, but I can't do what Pavarotti did. Should I have made him do less or demand the government cap his ability because I can't achieve the same thing?

Some have circumstances that get in the way of their progress (and some complain about it and some suck it up and move on). Some get lucky and some pull strings and pay off to move up. But isn't it clear that, generally, people are good, which includes people in high places, and people in high places have a whole different set of responsibilities. I would guess if you got rid of all management and left it to the staff level, the first thing the staff level people would do is appoint a leader, or what they would see as a fair and impartial group of leaders (like a board of directors). And if they tried to run the business without leadership, they would soon run aground. So, when those leaders feel the responsibility of survival falling on their shoulders, they will start making the same tough decisions that they once opposed.

If the business someone is running is something they started from scratch and busted their ass to survive and make a going concern, I'd bet they're going to be that much more protective of it, and it's well right of them.