Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Job is NOT a right!

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 13, 2011, 4:24 p.m. EST by Slammersworld (210)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A Job is an exchange of value, service for compensation....you get the value you offer in exchange...you haven't earned a "living wage" if you have no skills to offer an employer, or, if you have no experience or knowledge that benefits your employer a value equal to the wages he pays...

"Rights" are not things that require the participation, voluntary or imposed...if it requires the consent, or participation of another human it's an agreement, not a "right"...

A "need" is your problem, you cannot exchange a "need" for wages or anything else of value....your "needs" are your responsibility...employers want to know what you offer...not what you "need"..

If you have a bad attitude and a chip on your shoulder about authority, if your covered in tattoo's, or filled with piercings, if you have purple hair, or dress like a clown.....you probably won't get most jobs.....as you would be a poor representative of your employers enterprise.....there are exceptions...but with every one of these attributes, you limit your choices...

You are free to choose any lifestyle, philosophy, or look you choose, but with that freedom also comes the responsibility of bearing the consequences of those choices...

226 Comments

226 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 13 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Using taxpayer monies to pay off wall streets gambling debts should not be a right either.

[-] 3 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

Forum Post: A Job is NOT a right!

Well, it f*Cking should be!

[-] 2 points by TheStop (53) 2 years ago

why? I don't think people should be forced to pay other people if they have no use for them.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well get to work doing anything you are able! Figure out how to be compensated for the fruits of your labor or knowledge, and you've become an entrepreneur!

Help many others get what they want and generally, you can get what you want.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

all promises the govt made - fannie & freddie mac - govt guarantee loans. time to pay up!

[-] 1 points by hucklebuckle (19) 2 years ago

How do you expect people to acquire skills if no one gives them a chance to work? I'm tired of applying for work and having employers ask

"well do you have any experience?"

And I reply

"No, But I have a certificate that I worked my ass off for and wasted a lot of money on, showing that with perhaps a little hands-on training that I could easily perform your mundane tasks."

But I probably choose my words a little more carefully when I speak face-to-face with a prospective employer because no one likes a smartass. But me and jimmycrackerson are thinking about starting our own business because we're just worthless hippies who nobody wants to hire anyways.

[-] 2 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 2 years ago

Hi Hucklebuckle,

I'm an employer who frequently hires new grads with no work experience. I hire them without expectation that they know how to do anything, but do look for demonstrations of smarts, willingness to learn, etc.

Anyways, don't be a smart ass, look the part, act eager, smile, be serious, enthusiastic, copy what other people do, and chase opportunities that are entry level.

And try to move somewhere that is hiring. Places like Boston or Charlotte or DC probably can't find enough new grads to hire.

Respectfully,

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

I like to hire smart asses just to give them hell and see if they can ever learn humility.

My favorites are completely inept college grads who typically, when told to sweep the floor or clean the commode, respond by indignantly reminding me they have a college degree. Once and only once, I take that into consideration and freely volunteer to show them how it's done.

It's rather amusing, I suppose I should upload some of the videos to youtube and share with all.

My least favorites are those who, due to their willfulness or over-eager desire to prove to me they have initiative, proceed outside explicit instructions and damage my product or machines, THEN not only want to be paid to help fix what they've damaged, but, have the nerve to ask for over-time pay. I fire people like that on the spot, regardless of who is present.

My many years of experience working people is that, I have far fewer problems with women trying to run that type of game on me, than young hard headed men.

Now I'll just about always hire, and give preferential treatment to any person that shows up persistently, listens and observes, falls in to help when appropriate and proves he or she understands how business works and will pull their own weight.

There is a fine line doing that involving not being disrespectful or taking un-granted liberties with another person's property of which one must be ever cognizant. When you are a welcome guest in somebody's kingdom, behave as such. Earn trust and give respect to those you admire or even just want them to like you well enough to trust you in their castle.

Be willing to be an apprentice and learn. Training unproven workers can be very costly and not all good business owners are great trainers, per se, so in those cases, you may have to go above and beyond showing that you are easily trained and start yourself.

Study.

[-] 0 points by hucklebuckle (19) 2 years ago

Seriously...If you hire me to do something, and then offer to waste my time by asking me to sweep your floor. I'll smile, grab your broom and not only sweep your floor, but clean your entire dingy workplace to spotless military standards, so that I don't have to work in such conditions. Then when I am finished I'll ask, "Well what do you want me to do next"? "Should I polish your shoes and kiss your feet? Or do you want to train me to perform the functions listed in my job description?"

You've got to be kidding me. With such a high unemployment rate, I'm sure there are plenty of people without degrees and without jobs who would be more than willing to perform your menial tasks. But don't expect to hire one person and have them be satisfied with doing all the work while you sit up front playing grabass with your secretary.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You assume much. In a big boys world of getting stuff done, messes have to be cleaned and such. Your presentation in your first paragraph would be enough for me to not desire hiring you, I really am not a disrespectful asshole, nor will I be patronized. Not many people who can afford to pay people are into it. Seek membership at a BDSM club?

Regardless, your attitude of not going to give me a fair exchange for the compensation upon which we agree, based on your judgment of what I may or may not be doing, would be revealed before I ever not hired you.

[-] 0 points by hucklebuckle (19) 2 years ago

Sorry I'm not into either bondage or submission, which is why I would probably refuse to work for someone such as yourself. Especially when you're paying me in bread crumbs to make yourself rich. People in your position assume way too much which is the reason I'm still looking for a job. If you really think I talk to my prospective employers face-to-face in the same manner I chew out those same asshole online then you're sadly mistaken. How can anyone in my position be so stupid?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Actually, you suggested that you speak to perspective employers carelessly. Breadcrumbs, nope, I'd never hire a guy like you and have been doing it long enough I can promise you it's true.

No sweat kiddo, good luck finding an employer who will suffer your attitude, work ethic and values. I think starting your own business may work better for you.

How can anyone in your position be so stupid? Beats me, you're the one still looking for a job or trying to find the spine to jump out on your own! Oh wait, you were discussing partnering with your pal. Seriously, good luck.

[-] 0 points by hucklebuckle (19) 2 years ago

Okay old man, I'm done arguing with your stupid ass. Now you're just taking my words out of context and trying to turn them around on me. You're just as bad that O'Reilly fuck, probably someone you admire greatly. Keep tuned in to Fox and all of your other media sources so you can continue talk out your ass.

And you should be proud of yourself that you can do 100 pushups and situps in a day--seriously... Come back and talk me when you can do them in one sitting.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Nah, come back and run that extraordinary pickle polisher when you've managed to fool somebody into thinking what a favor you're going to do them by blessing them with your version of work, and you maintain it for at least a year without fucking up and getting fired.

Or even better, when you find the self-reliance and spine to start your own business without your boyfriend holding your princess hand, or even do it with your partner and you both don't end up hating each other over who is NOT going to sweep the floor, clean the toilet or take out the trash, because it cuts too deeply in your XBox time.

Bleh bleh bleh yada yada bleh.

I hear there is an increasing demand for feet kissers and boot lickers. The DC area, as previously mentioned, might be a good place for a feet kissing page boy. G' luck.

[-] 1 points by hucklebuckle (19) 2 years ago

lol you're funny, I hope you've figured out by now that me and jimmy are the same person. I'm sure most people already have. Thanks for the laugh nonetheless.

Maybe I will open my own business. I'm sure I can make a hell of a lot of money in the blow dart and deadly poisons industry. Nah, I'm just fucking with ya, I'm not quite that evil.

I want to open a place for my local kids to hang out so they have something better to do than smoke crack and meth all day. It's a huge problem out here. Maybe create a few jobs in the meantime...But of course no one is going to fund something like that--It's too risky, what with wal-mart's monopolistic, price-hiking, presence overshadowing all the mom-and-pops out here. I kind of need a job first to create some capital.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well good luck and likewise on the laughs.

I would tell ya to list some stuff on ebay, of whom I truly despise, but, I'm not seeing much liquid there unless you have the specific crown jewels for the plutonomy or are willing to give things away for dimes on the dollar.

What I've always done when nothing else worked was to look around where people have money and see what needs taking care of that I can make happen. This sounds crass and harsh, but you'll find it to almost always be true, it's hard to make any money working for people who have none.

I've never seen things as bad as they are now, not in over 35 years of making it on my own. Even when gas was 5/gallon, one could still liquidate cool stuff and pull through it, not the same climate just a couple calendars later.

Scrap metals, with the white exotics being preferred. They'll be worth money when paper no longer is. A CRT tv or computer monitor breaks down into 10 bucks in less than 10 minutes. Easily found free and cheap by the pallet load. The tubes are a bitch, but, doable if you have access to a dump. Circuit boards scrap well and will indeed get better.

Good savings account if you are able bodied and can do things with your hands.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

maybe the problem is they view college as a place to drink and get laid... few work hard like you did... but they all have a giant balance due at the end, regardless.

[-] -1 points by MASTERdBATER (15) 2 years ago

Liberal arts is not the best degree choice...sorry. I suppose that isn't your fault though. Nothing is your fault...ever.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

I would agree, it never should have happened, but it doesn't entitle everyone else to stick out their hands and say, "Where is mine?"

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

No but it does entitle everyone to protest and expect the rules for banks to change so that it doesn't happen again. MF Global and the hysteria over Italian bond yields lets me know that nothing has been done about systemic risk since 2008.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

Ah, but the only rules that need to change are the ones regulating the industry to dance to the government drum beat. The banks are not at fault, the government was for trying to force them to lend money to people who could not afford to pay it back. How many people can be named who had a gun held to their head and ordered to take out a loan for a house they could only dream to live in? None!!!

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

That's a bunch of crap and you know it. It was a deregulated, low interest fueled, fraudulently securitized wall street orgy. It was Greenspans fed at fault for sure. Yes the banks are at fault so is wall street. I realize you will not be swayed by facts but perhaps you should try to learn a little about what happened.Read "It take a pillage" you'll like it It was written by a X-Goldman exec

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

No where do you blame the government or the people who spent beyond their means. How were banks and Wall Street supposed to peddle these sub-par mortgage securities if not by bundling them together? I would say that the people that were left holding them should never have been bailed out, but lets not hold the others at fault as well.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

I realize you have learned everything you "know" watching Fox news. You really ought to read that book. It's a pretty pathetic argument but I know it fits on a GOP bumper sticker. All you guys have the same answers, Smoot Hawley, The gov forced banks to loan to the poor , privatize, the free market. That's it. that's the sum total of knowledge in the GOP. No reading no research no real information. No wonder wall street loves you guys you vote them in because your to lazy to find out what really happened and they write the laws to pillage whatever they can grab from our banking system.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

How do you respond to Gretchen Morgensen's book?

Tell me your background and what research you have done since you bring it up?

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

I trade stocks, so I've done a lot of reading to understand the mechanics of the trading involved, the math, the leverage,the financial products,the interest rates, the deregulation and how these affected the level of systemic risk in our banks. Never read Grethchen Morgensen

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

You probably ate excellent at trading stocks but that has very little to do with the economic crisis. You state that the Republicans say the same thing over and over with no research. The economic tenets of classical economics have been widely researched specifically at the University of Chicago and those professors have been awarded Noble Prizes for their work. In fact, no university in the world has won more Noble Prizes- over 100.

Gretchen Morgensen's writes for the NY Times and wrote a book about the mortgage problem and government actions that caused it.

Do you trade stocks for yourself or do invest for other people. Do you actually do fundamental work?

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

For myself. I'm not going to argue about government actions, Greenspan's fed, repealing Glass Steagall, allowing to much leverage in the banks, unregulated OTC derivatives .Tthere was a lot of deregulation involved for sure. The thing about the trading is I understand the nature and risk of derivatives and leverage. It certainly has everything to do with the economic crisis.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

In my opinion, the biggest mistake executive branch decision was made when they decided to bail out AIG and execute on TARP as this has not allowed the system to clear. If they had allowed AIG to going into reorganization and the CDS had to be renegotiated a lot of groups who have lost money but the moral hazard issue would have been reinforced. So to your point, the market believed that the Treasury would come to their rescue. I believe the same thing with GM, they should have let it go BK and we would have moved on from it.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Re AIG There was a law passed in 2005 that gave priority to derivatives in bankruptcy proceedings.That said I think they should have challenged that particular bailout.With Hank Paulson as treasury secretary and Goldman as one of the main counter parties that was unlikely. I think unfortunately much of the bank bailout and cheap fed loans were necessary to keep every single one of our banks from failing, but with that kind of money flowing into the system from us we should have been able to have some say about how that money was used and what executive salaries would be until the markets stabilize and that money is paid back. I don't know for sure, really I'm guessing but I think a lot of our banks are involved in the same trade that took down MF Global. They're using the cheap dollar as a carry trade for euro-bonds, it could also be a CDS issue That's why our markets are having a fit every time the interest rate in Italy goes over %7. In other word nothing has changed since 2008 IMO there's still enormous systemic risk in our banks and they are not using the money to do things like small business loans, they are still on an over leveraged fed funded gambling spree. When I started learning about the trades that were involved leading up to the crisis I could not believe the risks that people were taking. As a tiny trader using my own funds I know how much you need to manage risk. MF Global's bad trade would have been inconsequential with less leverage. The banks were nuts and the risk AIG took was unreal.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Are you British?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

It was still a loan, not a bailout, or payoff....no matter how many times you try to hide the truth....

[-] 6 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

For the shallow thinkers - a loan with absurd terms relative to the risk of the loan IS a "bailout". If I had walked into Hank Paulson's office when he was CEO of Goldman Sachs and told him that, unless he provides my company with capital, my company will fail, then he would not have loaned me money. For providing capital he would've demanded to OWN the majority of my company and, moving forward, he would've received the majority of the profits of the business. Our elected representatives demanded nothing even close to this. The taxpayer should OWN the majority of these banks and should be participating in the profits moving forward in perpetuity.

Here is the deal our elected representatives should have struck back in 08 on the taxpayer's behalf, but didn't because of the corruption between "Big Finance" and DC:

"Okay Wall Street you say that, unless the taxpayer provides capital to the institutions you manage, those institutions and the economic system will collapse. Sure Wall Street we'll provide you with the capital, but the taxpayer now owns these institutions. For the mismanagement of these institutions you're all fired and, for the risk you put the nation at, you will be prosecuted. However, if you return all of the bonus money you took from these institutions during the years you made these trades which now require our capital to avoid total systemic collapse maybe we can work out a deal on the prosecution."

That's Capitalism!

Objectively speaking, you're being a fucking idiot if you think the fact that it was a "loan" makes any difference.

As citizens and taxpayers, we should be kissing OWS's ass for speaking out about this corruption.

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Usually when there's a loan or bond the lender sets the terms. Good points. That is how business is done unless your one of the special people who screw up the entire economy and get carte blanche from the fed. Regular folks if they don't pay back a loan get charged huge interest rates for years or they get their collateral taken away ----------and taking the CDO's off the book doesn't count. I just want to know where's my trillion dollar 1% fed loan? OH wait I've been responsible and paid my bills never got over leveraged so I guess I'm not eligible.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

Apparently, in America, you need to be a psychopath with an MBA (preferably one from an ivy league school) to be eligible for that loan.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Yup that's about right. Psychopath with MBA ----very nice !

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Not really, the people's government shouldn't be involved with any banks outside of vigorously prosecuting them if they steal from the people.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

federal government still owns most of AIG, GM, Citi and Bank of America and many other companies as a result of TARP.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

anything short of the above is unacceptable

[-] 5 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Stop and get some facts. For example, 16 trillion dollars was transferred to the balance sheets of the banker and financial products companies for essentially free. No it has not been paid back. It is still out there on their balance sheets. Bernanke tried with all his might to hide this fact. It was Senator Sanders that got the Fed audited. That has never happened before.

In case you're too uninformed, 16 trillion is more than the national debt. There are also an estimated 200 trillion dollars in derivatives on the line. That is about seven times all of the worlds GDP. Worse, nobody knows just how much leverage is present in those derivatives, and even a PhD in math cannot value the derivatives. It is widely understood that another crisis with derivatives will occur if there is a recession or another trigger like a collapse in the stock market.

[-] 1 points by imhotep3223 (81) 2 years ago

Excuse me Look up the FACTs it was a loan which the banks in turn Loaned back to the government with huge interest rates. Which the tax payers (I.E. the working class) will have to pay back. so The banks will never have to pay it back because we will. Not the wealthy that are basically tax exempt. Who are you defending?????? Are you a millionaire???????

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Wealthy...tax exempt??? what planet do YOU live on?

[-] -2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

This is TROLL ALERT!!!

This thread is infected with trolls...

[+] -5 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

TARP was a loan....a profitable loan......your dislikes don't change the facts

[-] 2 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

TARP was a diversion.That's all. During the diversion there was 16 trillion dollars transferred to the bankers balance sheets for free.

No the "loan" has not been paid back, nor will they ever be able to repay the "loan."

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Where did the banks get the money to pay it off? from their 7 trillion in low interest fed loans? You can't tell people they need to operate in the "free market" and fend for themselves and then run the banking system like a giant welfare program for billionaires and expect people to take this situation seriously.

[-] 2 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 2 years ago

So true...

[+] -6 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

SlammersWorld is a TROLL

SlammersWorld is a TROLL

SlammersWorld is a TROLL

SlammersWorld is a TROLL



[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Hmmmmmm....I dunno bout this one Puzzlin....He maybe simply misguided....

[+] -7 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

um...they were loans..

[-] 3 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

i want a loan at .01% interest as they got go ahead and make it 7.7 trillion and then i will make 12 billion off that and pay $.97 cents on the dollar because of it. not even a monkey could fuck that math up fuck that they owe us a hell of a lot more than a living try The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.----fdr------ and this Group and collective rights Right to self-determination Right to economic and social development Right to a healthy environment Right to natural resources Right to communicate and communication rights Right to participation in cultural heritage Rights to intergenerational equity and sustainability------- and let me say this is only the start

[-] -3 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

I'm sorry...I think you've been misinformed..the treasury made 12 billion on Citigroup alone when it sold the equities in Dec 2010....

The loans were made at the Fed rate...that is how banks loan money to one another...don't like it...blame Ben Bernake...

ans since the treasury profited about 25 billion dollars, it was a pretty good investment, although...stupid policy...it's not the governments job to be a debt consolidator

[+] -8 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Tarp was a loan...not a pay off of debts.....and earned a 25 billion dollar profit for the treasury..you can block this comment again, and I will make it again...what is it that you people have against the truth?

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

How did they pay that off? did they use some of the 7 trillion in cheap fed loans?

[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (21309) 2 years ago

Exploiting workers with low wages is not a right either.

[-] 2 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

somone actually dislikes this statement wtf is wrong with you people where are your morals?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

We have an agreement that is not being met. Employment Act of 1946.

http://www.workers.org/2008/us/a_job_is_a_right_0417/

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21309) 2 years ago

Yes. I'd say if you want society to function in a reasonably civilized way people need to have a jobs. Even the constitution was established to promote the general welfare of the American people. Jobs would certainly fall into the realm of general welfare. Good post, JadedCitizen.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Q: How many bullies does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A. At least 4, plus a victim. One to hire the victim to screw it in for them, a second to supervise the victim, a third to start nit-picking about the way the bulb is being screwed, and a fourth to screw the victim by firing him. They take the credit though none of them actually touched the light bulb.

[-] 4 points by flip (5207) 2 years ago

a capitalist, a union worker and a tea party member were all sitting at a table with an apple pie on it - the capitalist took all but one slice - as he walked away he said to the tea party guy - "keep an eye on that union guy - he wants your slice"

[-] 18 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

A little boy goes to his Dad and asks, "What is politics?"

Dad says, "Well, son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me Capitalism. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the People. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future.Now, think about that and see if that makes sense.

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said.

Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has soiled his diaper, so the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep.

Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.

The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now."

The father says, "Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about."

The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored, and the Future is in Deep Shit."

[-] 2 points by flip (5207) 2 years ago

very nice

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That was funny.

The question I come up with is this. Is it the governements job to change our diapers (or undewrwear)? We are not infants.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

shhhhhh. you'll wake the government.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

You get to attack both sides for some point of views. Is the nanny male or female? And if the nanny was female then what would the nanny's baby represent? Either way I don't care because I am pro gay marriage even though I am straight.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

The nanny represents the working class, which represents both sexes, so I would have to go for the nanny being a hermaphrodite.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

So which type of hermaphrodite? Is the nanny sterile? If not then who is would the love child

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You're determined about this nanny thing, aren't you. The nanny is imaginary. Let it go.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

I am aware that it is a metaphor. I am merely curious about how far the metaphor can go

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

man, that is awesome, thanks. and frighteningly true.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21309) 2 years ago

Exactly.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of either of those two laws. I had to go a little deeper than that article, because it was a little biased, but I did find out some interesting facts about the Employment Act of 1946 (which didn't make it through as the "Full Employment Act") and the Full Employment Act of 1978. In '46 it seems like the focus was - if the private sector fails us, we'll just have to create federal jobs. That is a frightening proposition because it is just creating jobs for no good reason other than for people to have jobs. That is not sustainable. In 1978 they had a little bit of a better plan in that the stated objective was:

"The Congress further declares and establishes as a national goal the fulfillment of the right to full opportunities for useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation of all individuals able, willing, and seeking to work. "

I certainly agree with that. It should be the goal of the federal gov't for everyone to have a job. Of course, there is a big difference between a goal and a right. It continues talking about the private sector:

"The Congress further declares that it is the purpose of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 [15 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.] to rely principally on the private sector for expansion of economic activity and creation of new jobs for a growing labor force. "

I think the government should stop blocking growth of companies with restrictive practices and take steps that allow all businesses to flourish. I do not support creating jobs just so everyone is working.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I agree the article was a little biased. It was the first time I heard of those two laws as well. I also did a little research.

Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act

FULL TITLE: An Act to translate into practical reality the....right....of all Americans who are able, willing, and seeking to work to full opportunity for useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation; to assert the responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable programs and policies to promote full employment, production, and real income, balanced growth, adequate productivity growth, proper attention to national priorities, and reasonable price stability; to require the President each year to set further explicit short-term and medium-term economic goals; to achieve a better integration of general and structural economic policies; and to improve the coordination of economic policymaking within the Federal Government.

If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act expressly allows the government to create a "reservoir of public employment." These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector.

The Act directly prohibits discrimination on account of gender, religion, race, age, and national origin in any program created under the Act.

I more or less agree with what you're saying, I think Capitalism works, but I guess I interpret things a little differently. It expressly says employment is a right, upon the conditions of willing, able, and seeking.

[+] -4 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

that has been sold and subjugated by other terms far less savory.... it's hard to expect a nation, owned via two bankruptcy instruments of which it cannot foresee-ably make the interest payments per the terms agreed upon, to operate with in good faith with it's citizens, who are indeed collateral, just as all real property, public and private, as well as all tanglible goods having abstract titles or manufacturers statements of origin.

[-] 1 points by strongiron (1) 2 years ago

If it is a very profitable business remember it is their company, you chose to work there. If it is a smaller business think about this If you work for several hundred hours and spend several thousand dollars to try to make a company profitable and the only way to do that is to lower the salary of your workers wouldn't you do the same. Otherwise your company could fail and every worker would get NOTHING.

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Owners of businesses pay job agencies, who take 20% of the wages, to find their employees. They then make false promises that if the applicants work part time for 3 or 6 months they will get a wage above $8 an hour and full time with benefits. Then a week before that period is up they lay off the workers to hire more desperate people.

[-] -1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

Ah well. That's business. The applicants volunteered and accepted the agreement for temporary work. The owner of the business volunteered to accept the agreement with the temp agency.

It's all good.

[-] 1 points by George1234 (82) 2 years ago

Are you trying to justify exploitation. Do you justify slavery too.

[-] -1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

If you are a worker and you agree to terms you are not being exploited. You AGREED to work under those terms. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to agree. I'm surprised that I need to repeat this over and over....but then again, most of you people are incredibly stupid.

[-] 1 points by George1234 (82) 2 years ago

What about slavery. No one was pointing a gun. People were coming to the market to be SOLD. And some people were buying them at a price agreed mutually.

[-] 1 points by George1234 (82) 2 years ago

When will you consider a situation as exploitation. Could you explain with an example.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

Paying an illegal immigrant less than minimum wage.

Forcing a legally immigrated person to work at a particular business for a period of time to pay back their "debt" for obtaining their green card or visa, for little or no wages, whereby their documentation is held until the debt is considered paid.

[-] 1 points by George1234 (82) 2 years ago

So, you agree with the "minimum wage" concept.
***What will be your position, if the minimum wage is raised to $15 per hour.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

I have no position on it because it won't happen any time soon. It is nowhere on the political horizon.

[-] 0 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Except for the worker who gets lied to and fucked over. I am not talking about temp agencies. I am talking about employment agencies. The applicants are under the impression that they are not wasting months of their time and are finding work that has some sort of future. The businesses don't mind paying the agencies because they just take it out of the workers' wages. This is how many millions of jobs are filled in this country. With fascist tactics like this in place it blows my mind that so many people wonder why nobody can find a job and so many are on welfare and unemployment.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

I look at it much differently. Those companies are looking for certain qualities in people that come from those agencies. If you aren't a good fit you will be let go. If you fit the job offer will come.

It's really no different than selling real estate when you think about it, except that no one gets paid until after settlement. If you screw around with a client you won't get paid, and the broker doesn't get their split.

Brokers, like certain companies, will take on almost anyone as an employee. The strong will survive.

[-] 0 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

No they are looking for cheap labor. They recycle employees so they don't have to live up to their end of the deal.

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

Well, that's life. Everybody's looking for cheap labor, and the agreement was made from the beginning. I really don't see a problem with it. I don't know anyone who gained employment through an agency that isn't ALWAYS looking for the next gig.

It's a two way street.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21309) 2 years ago

True that as my kids would say. Except that workers have much less power than employers especially when there is high unemployment. I like Bluerose's post somewhere on these threads about how American workers should just say no to low paying jobs. I suppose they would if they could.

[-] 1 points by imhotep3223 (81) 2 years ago

And who has the choice to choose one or the other hmmmm let me think. People born into money! People Born into a above middle income household! And people lucky enough their family Slaved for years to put them thru college. Yeah , your right everyone has the option to choose who they work for and how much they get paid.

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

What I am saying is that everyone has the option to work hard and continue to look for their next job, and move up when they can.

[-] 1 points by imhotep3223 (81) 2 years ago

But if the companies want cheap employees they can go to china. they work for $2.00 an hour.

[-] 1 points by George1234 (82) 2 years ago

Really, What is exploitation. Can you give an example of exploitation.

[+] -5 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

but exploiting taxpayers is?...interesting?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21309) 2 years ago

Exploiting our government by buying politicians isn't a right either. It may be legal at the moment but it's not a right.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

If you mean by taxpayers middle and lower class. Then your right. If you mean the wealthy, then they could sure use a lot more 'exploiting' as you call it.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

really....the wealthy pay 70% of the taxation in this country...and that is ALL taxes..not just income...which is closer to 85% that the wealthy pay...

on income shares of 40-50%...so they earn 40-50%, and pay for 70-85%...that seems fair?

[-] 6 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

A job is not a right, but food and shelter is. (edit) Changed my mind, a job is a right.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

I changed my mind. A job is a right. There's always something to do, like rescue stray animals. If want a job, you should have one barring medical or safety issues.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

no...food and shelter are not rights either..... they are necessities..not rights, nothing that requires the effort or provision of others is a "right".....

If you don't own it alone..naked in a forest...it's not a right...

[-] 2 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Slammersworldisback, writes "....no...food and shelter are not rights either..... they are necessities..not rights...."

This is typical conservative nonsense. They would have us go back to the stone ages where there was a complete lack of civil systems and pure survival of the fittest. If somebody gets in the way of your accumulation of massive wealth by scam then they want the “right” to commit mass-murder by starvation. The idea of fairness and justice is an absurd concept to these conservative nutcases.

Using this idiotic logic, one could argue that having the rights enumerated in the Constitution are static, that there should be no evolution/progress in learning about civil rights, that the founders knew everything there is to know of civil rights, and that the Constitution should never be amended as the social sciences advance our knowledge of civil rights.

In other words, if the bankers perform a 16 trillion dollar theft, due to their willfully negligent behavior, then it is the 99%'s fault that we should have to be homeless and suffer death by starvation. NOT!

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

"Rights" haven't changed since then...only men's idea's that they have the "right" to control other men and that they have the "right" to the effort of other men.....

What do you do when they refuse to serve you?

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Is food a right for an American white child, in your mind?

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

what does race or national origin have to do with it?...are you a racist?

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

She is a racist and likely an illegal from across the Rio.

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

In case YOU are racist. Ok, answer. Does a six year-old child in this country have a right to food?

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

No....their parents have the responsibility to provide them food, but a "right"...No

I know you are angling for an emotional argument..so why not just get to it...

You can't have a "right" that forces another person to act....that, by it's very nature is not a "right"....otherwise who has "rights" and who doesn't...and who chooses?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

OK, this dude has officially LOST IT. I also think it is a right for a child who has been hit by two cars to not be ignored by 18 people. I am SURE you would disagree.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

you throw the word "right" around loosely.....again...you have no "right" to demand the action of others.....what is it, under your loose definition that I can force YOU to do?...as MY right? hmmm?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

You are the one who defined "right" in a weird way. Society can make rights, as well as rights existing naturally. We as Americans can give every citizen the right to not starve, if we choose to.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

if rights are granted by man, they can be revoked by men...."rights" are endowed by creation...not granted by men.....

are you confused by our foundational documents?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Is the right of gays to marry "endowed by creation"?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

marriage isn't a "right" to anyone, other than in a sense of the right to freely associate....there is no "right", however...gay or straight, to official marriage, or to being endorsed by others for particular behaviors...

Marriage is an agreement between people....not a right

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

It is like convict code with you. Do something blantant, then deny it. I know you lose cred if someone calls you out for what you are, thats the code with groups like KKK and Libertarian patriot bigots.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

hahaha....whatever, you're a fool

I wouldn't know, I'm not a member of either group...are YOU in the KKK?

keep drinking the koolaid

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

bravo, a flawless volley with an entity seemingly devoid of logic, reasoning ability and accountability.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

It is not confused. It is completely is devoid of the cognitive reasoning ability to grasp anything outside it's conveniently prejudicial views of the world and mankind around itself.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

He hasn't lost it, you've never had it, and likely never will.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You need to be heavily medicated and electroshocked.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Proof that many here simply do not like, or cannot handle truth. How could anyone click the dislike on this post?

[-] 4 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Live on the earth is a right.

Access earth's resources is a right.

The earth cannot be privatized.

[-] 4 points by forOWS (161) 2 years ago

The one percent is trying very hard to "privatize" everything. And you can't have any.

[+] -5 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

no, "life" on earth is a gift...not a right

and it's time you idiots started treating it like the gift it is.....

go naked into the forest and tell nature about your "rights" and see how long you last.....it was men of invention, creation, effort, results, and organized capital that brought you out of that forest, clothed you, provided food you didn't have to kill, or forage for, created plans for shelter to protect you, and convenient transportation to move you about...all these things were done...and yet, you demand more....go pound sand....it might be time for some of you to taste some real struggle and sacrifice....you need the character it creates, since you have none...

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

Ironic statements, really. Since it's the low wage workers who cloth, feed, and clean up after you. Yet you want to say that the fact that they want enough to survive on is selfish.

How about we ban you from ever owning anything made by a low wage worker, buying anything from a low wage worker, and living anywhere cared for by a low wage worker...hm, then you'd be the one living naked in the forest.

Who is spoiled again?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

actually I clothe, feed, and clean up after myself...or pay others to do so.....

My payment for whatever item created by whomever created is my contribution to the system....and my production contributes to others who contribute to others....and the equation is satisfied by the value in = value out....not by some contrived arbitrary means to provide false "fairness" to the contributors above and beyond the actual value of their contributions....

You are another with a lack of Education in it's etymological meaning....

As far as Naked in the Forest...I've been trained to endure that.....thanks, I'll be OK

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

LOL So you sew your own clothes, harvest your own food, and clean the buildings of your own workplace? Amazing...

Yes, you pay others to do so - and you clearly don't pay them enough for providing these essentials to you, or they wouldn't be without the very things they provide to you.

I clearly have a greater grasp of etymology than you.

As for Naked in the Forest Training. Best of luck with that.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

You and your foolish idea's are entertaining.....I pay the prices set by the market....an organization so large and intricate that you liberals in all your best efforts couldn't begin to understand or create it...

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

You have no idea about characters of anybody here.

Twisting the words does not help your argument, life both a gift and a right.

Technological advances are not a merit of the market system.

[-] 4 points by OccupyCentre (263) 2 years ago

That depends on what country you live in. In Scotland, everyone is entitled to live decently. I think that is fair enough also. Everyone is of value.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Wow, sign me up!

[-] -3 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

no, you must "earn" your value...... No one deserves to enslave others to their support..NO ONE!

[-] 3 points by OccupyCentre (263) 2 years ago

Well. We think differently. It is called a humane society, not a selfish one.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

I know it shouldn't shock me that many here disagree with your statement.

[-] 4 points by forOWS (161) 2 years ago

Of course it is. I look around every day and there is so much work that can and needs to be done. The private sector can try to create some of those jobs but I know that it cannot create them all.

[-] 3 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

I'm just curious as to why you would state the above. I understand each of your points, and in the most part agree with all of them. In fact, 5 yrs ago, 10 yrs ago, I may have even stood beside you and nodded my head off, right along with you.

Essentialy from what I understand you are saying that we as humans trade, ie; I give you this, for that, and employees 'trade' their time (which they can increase the value of through skill set aquisition) for money. Fair enough.

Trust me, if that was all there was to it, I wouldn't be here.

I'm gonna start off slow here, because it's clear that your missing certain pieces of information, that are critical to everything occupy is. I'll give you a chaalenge. Watch this video, and get back to me. It's a simple summary, of just some of the things going on. It's pretty doomy and gloomy, so be prepared. I don't necesarily agree with their answer, and just like everything, they have their own take on things, which comes with a cewrtain bias, however I can definately point you to many sources, to prove the accuracy, of many of their points.

And they are points which are sure to effect you, me, and our children, wherever we go, and whoever we are.

Dum Spiro Spero.

http://www.dystopiafilm.com/

P.s. There can be many reasons for a 'look', including cultural, religious, traditional, and others. To judge anyoine by their looks, does you the injustice my friend, not them, because you will certainly miss an excellent person here and there, because of your misconceptions....and btw, I personally often dress like a clown, in fact I get paid for it, as I am one. I also know many other performers and musicians, and other personalities, that dress to suit them, and be damned with the consequences....these people are hard working intellegent people, and not to be hastily judged.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Why don't you tell me YOUR philosophy instead of being a disciple of the philosophy of someone else?

I could send you off to read Emerson, Locke, Franklin, Frankl, and many others......but I incorporate their messages into my own philosophy, instead of having multiple disjointed points of knowledge...like the academic cultist mind

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

access to the earths resources is a right

[-] 2 points by RevolutionCA (33) 2 years ago

A job should be a right. I don't think you are opening up your mind. The condition and situation right now is not the best. Which is why we should make it the best as we possibly can. Why not fight for a guaranteed employment act? Why do you think that because it is not a right right now that it should never be one?

[-] -1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 2 years ago

A "guaranteed employment act"?!? -- there are so many people throughout OWS movements all around the country complaining about the "low wage jobs" not paying enough money -- hence, they don't pursue those jobs. So, are you really suggesting a "guaranteed wage act" instead? There are tons of unskilled and skilled low wage labor jobs out there - and if I am ever put into a position to have to perform one of those jobs to feed, shelter, and clothe my family, then hell yeah - I'm doing them... My responsibilities don't stop just because the income does.

[-] 2 points by orz (83) 2 years ago

People come to a contingent moral agreement, forget this, and then only remember a necessary 'right.'

There's no justification behind any human right. We could equally well decline rights to property or extend them to jobs.

[-] 2 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

People should pursue their happiness and the economy should serve them.

Indeed, income should be a human right. Citizens ought to benefit from the fortunes of the capitalist system. As we outsource work to machines we have to compensate workers. An unconditional basic income is the solution.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

now income is a human right?..provided by who, exactly? People can pursue their happiness...no one is stopping them...and exactly what in the economy is supposed to serve people? Citizens can benefit from the capitalist system..by participating and providing services to others..... As for machines...what is this "WE" .....do YOU outsource your work to machines, or design them, did YOU create, manufacture or market them....did YOU purchase, install or maintain them?.....if NO...then what right do you have to the results created by them? What the hell sort of retarded marxist school do you call yourself an alumni of?

[-] -3 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

now income is a human right?..provided by who, exactly?

People can pursue their happiness...no one is stopping them...and exactly what in the economy is supposed to serve people?

Citizens can benefit from the capitalist system..by participating and providing services to others.....

As for machines...what is this "WE" .....do YOU outsource your work to machines, or design them, did YOU create, manufacture or market them....did YOU purchase, install or maintain them?.....if NO...then what right do you have to the results created by them?

What the hell sort of retarded marxist school do you call yourself an alumni of?

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

The purpose of the economy is to serve the people. The people rule. Democracy means the rule of the people. They decide what business may provide and grant freedom of the market. When you replace a job by a robot, you should compensate the worker. When you outsource a job because free trade is beneficial compensate the worker whose job is lost.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

yes a job is a right

[+] -4 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Here's the gig, and it has served me well. You can have anything you want, well until the tables got tilted way too far to predictably get in the game, as long as you help enough others get what they want.

Do away with the stock market, moral people have no part of that wealth extraction mechanism anyhow, and do away with publicly owned corporations. Then get the fuck to work and produce something people want.

Trading paper and making money that way, almost always involves injury to somebody or their unknowingly being explioted.

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

Rapacious (financial) capitalism is obstructive, creative (entrepreneurial) capitalism is constructive.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Rights are an elastic thing. They are not something that came down from Mt. Sinai with Moses. Once upon a time women didn't have the right to vote and black people imported from Africa hardly had any rights at all. Free speech rights still don't extend to the work place in the sense that they are not protected and you can be fired for what you say and who you say it to in most work places. Virtually all rights are contingent on the level of material resources of a society. "Rights" simply could not be extended to most people in ancient society simply because the culture did not have the material resources to do so.

One might say a good portion of the American nation had a chip on its shoulder about the authority of King George and the British parliament, which is how American won the "right" of independence.

[-] 1 points by leavethecities (318) 2 years ago

property is not a right because no one agreed what is yours is yours

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yes, but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 2 years ago

A job is not a right unless we make it a right. Defined like this, a right is an agreement. One could of course define rights in different ways, but then we are not talking about the same thing.

Making it (jobs) a right could be highly problematic, especially given certain socio-economic contexts and its generated attitudes.

And that is part of the problem with our current form of socio-economic organisation built on the notion of labour and competition. It is unstable, and potentially very dangerous for both the individual and the whole of society.

But leeching of other people and their labour is generally not really a good idea, as we have seen in lots of collectivist experiments. Its fortunate then that our understanding and skill in building productive machinery is constantly increasing. If we started to organize and own it and much of earth resources collectively, Jobs would no longer be a need.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

100% true OP.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

While a job may not be a "right" creating middle-class supporting American jobs is a fiduciary responsibility of all responsible companies that want to profit from America's middle-class driven consumer economy and market.

If companies do not produce jobs then there is no demand for their products. They are screwing only themselves and their investors.

Henry Ford understood this one hundred years ago and paid his workforce paying them a good middle-class wage.

Intel understands this today and works to develop and grow its American workforce.

Wall Street forced American companies to pander to Chinese work and pay standards and China is paying us back by TODAY imposing duties on American made auto imports to China.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 2 years ago

Corporations that are based in this country should have a basic ethic of employing their fellow citizens before employing Chinese labor.

If corporations have a fiduciary duty to their stock holders then the law needs to be changed to have a fiduciary duty first to their country, then to the employees, and lastly to the stock holders. If they can't live by these basic rules of ethical behavior then maybe they should build their own roads, sewers, power lines, water supplies, and anything else that we the people actually own.

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 2 years ago

The Revolution has a new theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ

http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-name-of-allah/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

You say "a job is not a right" well I say "it should be"

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

So what about being able to live or stay alive?

[-] 1 points by KillerInstinctGold (43) 2 years ago

What about when your output is far greater then your compensation? I agree you should get paid what you are worth. Most people are far under paid. This is because my employer is greedy he wants to keep more for himself. I asked for a raise and he said “yes” he would bump me up a dollar. 4 months later I still make the same. I am way more productive than my coworkers, it is not fair that I be paid the same. This proves that working hard dose not guarantee higher wages and better standard of living. Going to work with a positive attitude only keeps your greedy boss happy and working hard just makes them more money. While all this is going on we got all these wall street dirt bag sitting around trying to think up ways to squeeze every dime they can out of me. So you tell me how I should feel about this situation.?

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 2 years ago

yes, a job IS a right. and no, you are not free to choose any lifestyle. if you believe that you have the freedom to decide everything about your life, well, you are an idiot. of course you don't. I didn't choose to be born, I didn't choose when to be born, I didn't choose to make the economy suck, I didn't choose to be white, tall, or to be born in Alaska. I didn't choose to be laid off, I didn't choose to not have health care, I didn't choose to pay taxes, I didn't choose to get cancer. where the fuck do you come off?

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

When society became so large it prevented people from being able to live freely off the land, it became responsible for providing opportunities for people to survive by some other means. If the starving, homeless people in the world are not provided with the opportunity to support themselves, they will rise up and take what they are prevented from earning.

No one capable of working should be provided with a free lunch, but everyone should have the opportunity to support themselves. Welfare and unemployment compensation should be replaced by the opportunity for employment at a living wage.

Private employers profit from the labor of those they hire. When the private sector is unable to supply enough jobs, the government can profit from providing jobs, and use those profits to reduce the cost of government.

[-] 1 points by Crimzon (91) from Arizona City, AZ 2 years ago

Wow what a crock-

You know the more jobless - the more homeless - the more people suffer - starve etc

This non "right" of ours!

Tell me what right is it that we deserve to starve, to live homeless, to be in a luckless hopeless situation?

In the end sir the end result of the majority becoming homeless / jobless etc will not be a pretty one far from it

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

sure it is. How else to you expect us to live with liberty, vote with our dollars, and pursue happiness?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Application for Slammersworld:

NAME: Bleeding Heart Liberal w/purple hair

DESIRED POSITION: Reclining. Ha! But seriously, whatever's available. If I was in a position to be picky, I wouldn't be applying here in the first place.

DESIRED SALARY: $185,000 a year plus stock options and a Michael Ovitz style severance package. If that's not possible make an offer and we can haggle.

EDUCATION: Yes.

LAST POSITION HELD: Target for middle management hostility.

SALARY: Less than I'm worth.

MOST NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENT: My incredible collection of stolen pens and post-it notes.

REASON FOR LEAVING: It sucked.

HOURS AVAILABLE TO WORK: Any.

PREFERRED HOURS: 1:30-3:30 pm, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday.

DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL SKILLS?: Yes, but they're better suited to a more intimate environment.

MAY WE CONTACT YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER?: If I had one, would I be here?

DO YOU HAVE ANY PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM LIFTING UP TO 50 LBS?: Of what?

DO YOU HAVE A CAR?: I think the more appropriate question here would be "Do you have a car that runs?"

HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY SPECIAL AWARDS OR RECOGNITION?: I may already be a winner of the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes.

DO YOU SMOKE?: Only when set on fire.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE DOING IN FIVE YEARS?: Living in the Bahamas with a fabulously wealthy super model who thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread. Actually, I'd like to be doing that now.

DO YOU CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?: No, but I dare you to prove otherwise.

SIGN HERE: Scorpio with Libra rising.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Who decides Human Rights?

Know Your Rights – Because They Are Not Set In Stone

Human Rights must be known if they are to take hold. They must be yearned. Or learned. Or taught.

http://www.theurbn.com/2011/12/know-your-rights-because-they-are-not-set-in-stone/

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Rights are endowed by creation...rights granted by men can be revoked by men...

No man has the right to the results of another man's actions or to force another man to act

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I can see your point, but I still think you're full of it.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I hereby make a citizen's arrest on this troll. For violating tenants of the 1946 United Nations Charter on Human Rights, Article 23:

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Troll. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Work.....and "A Job" are not the same thing..FOOL!

You can go to work anytime you like....but you haven't a right to the actions of other men to create a job for you..

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Who decides Human Rights? You are the status quo, we are the change....

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

you are parasites, and entertaining diversions....you will change nothing

No one decides human rights...rights are endowed by creation....but you have no right to force another man to act in your benefit.....and no man has a right to force your action.....

if rights are given by men, they can be taken by men...and they aren't rights

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

If I throw a stick, will you leave?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

how can you throw a stick?....surely someone would have to cut it for you...

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

you'd have to get off your ass to even try....hahaha

you can keep this up if you like, I kinda enjoy it.....you can't hurt my feelings though...I'm a Republican..I don't have them, apparently

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Republicans are like fish; they don't have feelings, so they are okay to eat.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

yeah.....and Liberals feel too much, like angry suffering, they're best put out of their misery

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

If YOU agreed with me I might have to reevaluate my position, as I couldn't be right....

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Then I agree with you.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 2 years ago

Well, we've got ourselves a job now, think of all the press interviews we're going to get after having been made Time's Person of the Year 2011 (the Protester) !!!

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45657166/ns/today-today_celebrates_2011/t/time-magazine-reveals-its-person-year/

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

My reply keeps getting deleted so I'm going to try posting it here I said------- Using taxpayer monies to pay off wall streets gambling debts should not be a right either. the reply was--------------- [-] slammersworldisback

It was still a loan, not a bailout, or payoff....no matter how many times you try to hide the truth.. My reply is: Where did they get the money to pay back tarp ? form the 7 trillion in cheap fed loans? you can't tell people to toughen up and go out in the "free market and get a job and then run the banking system like a giant welfare program for billionaires and expect to be taken seriously.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

loans..are not...by definition, welfare....if you want to discuss the problems with the federal reserve, and low interest rates, I'm open to that.....but it doesn't change the meaning and nature of my original post....

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Sorry but banks make a fortune using those loans to get even more leveraged out doing whatever trading they felt like and writing themselves fat checks. I'm going to keep saying it you can't have a system that rewards the rich for bad behavior and tells the poor to shut up and take it. Sooner or later the rich will get their heads handed to them on a platter. I know you like to call this system capitalism -------I don't.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 2 years ago

this is true, but fraud is fraud, crime and corruption is corruption. someone has to take responsibility and pay and it should not be the tax payer

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

there will always be corruption...always, but..in our system...compared to the other systems of the world, the incidents, and results are lower....I would like to see OWS in China, or the Balkan States.....Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Nigeria, Sierra Leon, etc.....

and we have a system to address it...already in place

[-] 2 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 2 years ago

you right - see people in Russia and China protesting about it as well, the bankers and their friends have defrauded the US taxpayer for billions..isnt acceptable, less and less are charged with anything (under Obama) the least...these people must be routed out

[-] 1 points by DYLANDIRT (44) 2 years ago

Having a job isn't a right. Working for one's survival is. The function and the only function of government is to protect property titles. Not property rights. Your only rights to private property are claimed rights backed up by police power paid for by the land "owners", provided by the government. Government concedes to the people. Welfare keeps them from falling out of the system and becoming radicalized. As Bob Dylan said " When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose". You become a problem as you struggle for your survival. Without jobs, we are starting to become a problem for the system as we struggle for our survival. As we falter, the government will fail. Their land titles will become worthless as will the money based on them. To offer another quote "Weebles wooble but they don't fall down." As the system crashes, we will prosper. No, I don't have a right to your job. I don't want your job. I'm gonna do mine instead.

[-] 1 points by imhotep3223 (81) 2 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-defense-of-a-living-wage/ Sorry but people born in poverty have two choices die or work as a slave.........what CHoice is that?

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

"you probably won't get most jobs.....as you would be a poor representative of your employers enterprise....."

Clearly, you aren't in Marketing. If you want to sell products to 'those people', than clearly you would hire 'those people'. If a majority of consumers is low-wage, disposable income youth, than why wouldn't you hire any youth?

You have a massive error in your judgement. I've seen cops with full sleeves tattooed on their arms, what category does he fit into? The authority figure I don't take seriously, or the bad attitude with tattoos that got a 54K job?

As well; if the suits don't hire the long-hair freaky people, you end up with another solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

A job is not a right but welfare is. So if you don't care about people asking for job opportunities, then I assume you won't care if everyone lived on welfare. Or if we get jobs that pay no taxes.

[-] 1 points by BLUTODOG (111) 2 years ago

What the Fuck! How many of these condescending arrogant lectures do we have to bear from you bastards?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Maybe a job is not a right, but it should be, or at least a guaranteed annual income, job or not. What's the alternative? Let people starve? That doesn't seem very humane to me, it is certainly in opposition to the basic values of this website, our society has more than enough material goods to provide enough for everyone and if we saw a loved one starving or homeless, we would not left that continue even if we were skeptical about aspects of their character and personal discipline.

Rights do not require that you exercise them. For example we have the right to free speech, the right to practice religion and the right to assemble, but we have no obligation to do any of that.

What's a "bad attitude" about authority? What if "authority" has a bad attitude or a chip on its shoulder about me, or the vast majority of the rest of society?

You are free not to participate in discussions with people whose values you do not share, which seems like good advice. You ask, why do we protest? I ask, if you are so fundamentally at odds with our values, why do you bother to try to engage us?

[-] 0 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 2 years ago

How do you fund a "guaranteed annual income"? Furthermore, you say "job or not" -- how do you get people to actually work and do jobs for the money if they don't have to (welfare system comes to mind)?

The very concept of a "guaranteed annual income, job or not" is 100% at odds with the concept of individual liberty because that means someone is getting something from someone else without their approvalor consent -- stealing and thus - enslaving them.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Understand, there is no fiscal crisis anywhere in the world. The problem is huge transers of wealth to the super rich from virtually everyone else and the austerity programs being proposed everywhere are basically an effort on the part of the super rich to squeeze still more out of everyone else.

There is more than enough wealth in society to provide more than enough for everyone with a much shorter work week, more time to spend with our families and frankly more spiritually and intellectually rewarding jobs.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 2 years ago

So one giant welfare system then... that's the end game? Again, how do you get people to actually work when you take away the incentive by guaranteeing an income. Society has been degenerated throughout the generations to the point where people will naturally digress into the laziest lifestyle - I refer you to the previously mentioned welfare system that has more than its fair share of abusers.

Your ideal solution also doesn't address the concept of individual liberty. Was the dismissal of that point purposefully done to suggest that you believe a collectivist mindset is in the best interest of everyone? If so, then with all due respect, you can count me out.

Finally, to your last point of your original post, "I ask, if you are so fundamentally at odds with our values, why do you bother to try to engage us?" I would ask you the same question - If you are so fundamentally at odds with the values of others, then why do you bother to engage in protest? consider our engagement with you a microblogged-protest to your protest - deal?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

That material incentives are the only thing that drive people is a myth. I know wonderful jazz musicians who struggle to make a living in music. They are very talented people and could do all kinds of things, but nothing could make them give up their art. Conversely, people throw themselves into hobbies with a passion that would be the envy of any boss.

Any just social system starts with liberty and democracy, but these too are elastic concepts in the sense that the more liberty and democracy we have the more we can see that is possible

Struggling at a job that we hate, or are bored by, or that we merely tolerate for the money, or that we enjoy well enough, but not really passionately is not what I'd call liberty. In his 50s Duke Ellington was asked about retiring, to which he replied "retire to what?" He was already doing exactly what he wanted and did it until he died. I don't know many doctors lawyers, business men,factory workers or office workers who feel that way and I don't think it's intrisic to the work. That is, the drive to retire is not dislike of a job itself, but rather everything that goes with it, especially having to answer to other people who have economic power over you. There is no liberty in that.

Social change is possible. there are countless examples. Individual change is possible but some individuals choose not to change. Not everybody goes along with changes, even changes that end up being good for them. I don't expect them to and I generally don't engage them except perhaps when they seem to be doing something antithetical to their own values which seems strange to me.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 2 years ago

To be clear - while the implication may be such - I didn't say material incentives were the only thing driving people. I do, however, contend that it is one of the biggest drivers... I mean, look at OWS - and their reaction to the help that John and Derek Tabacco were attempting to provide. There were people who actually looked through their list of prospective hires and turned away because the jobs didn't pay enough... none of them were minimum wage jobs BTW. Now, the wages may not be enough to compensate for the chosen lifestyles, education expenses, etc - but it's a start and a far better cry than unemployment wouldn't you agree?

So, with that being said - let's get to your "guaranteed income" concept... If someone has a choice between working 2 jobs for $40,000 per year - OR no jobs for a guaranteed $40,000 per year income - where is the incentive to work? More often than not, because of society's degradation, people will choose the latter... It happens every day in welfare offices around the country.

Women having a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th child to get more welfare, medicaid, WIC, and EBT - rather than sacrificing in life to support that which they've already brought into this world. I've been there - working 2 low paying jobs to support my family - to the point where I've had to make the decision to forgo a full substantive meal (and subsit on Ramen noodles) just to make sure my wife and children are properly nourished. Did it suck? Yep... Did I ever look to someone else for help? Nope... Did I accept private help when it was offered out of grace? Yep... Did I utilize any government assistance? Yep (ona temporary basis as it should be).

The problem is - society doesn't think like me because it's easier to not sacrifice (or not sacrifice as much anyhow). It's easier to sit home watching the shows than beating the streets to get paid. It's easier to live as a ward of the state than to bust your ass doing everything you need to do to take care of you because generations have been bred to believe that responsibility lies elsewhere... It's truley tragic to see what this country has become in terms of its dependence and cries for furthering dependence on a government that is flat out broken.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It's not easier to sleep on concrete night after night or have to scrounge for a place to stay night after night which is what more than 200 occupiers in NYC have had to do since the eviction. Organizing a movement of social opposition is hard work and those movements of social opposition are exactly why we today have things like no more slavery, the right of women to vote, public education, paved streets and roads, week ends, the right of public assembly, etc., etc.---one could go on and on. If everyone thought like you with absolutely no human empathy and no concept of the Golden Rule we would still be living in caves.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 2 years ago

You don't know me or my level of empathy toward anybody or anything - especially as it pertains to the Golden Rule (actually, i'm not even sure you get the concept of the Golden Rule given the context you used it here). I will give you this though - as far as government being the provider - I absolutely have ZERO empathy outside of temporary assistance... that's what it's supposed to be there for - so I guess you got me there.

How much did I donate to charities and how much time did I volunteer in 2011 in my community and at a local food bank in my city? (Hint - much much more time and money than the average occupier has committed to laying his or her head on a sidewalk for 3 months)

That's the difference between me and people like you -- I'm all about charitable giving of time and money. What I am not all about is uncharitable forced coercion of one person's time and money for the benefit of others who won't do for themselves. Keep in mind, I'm really only addressing a portion of the dependent population - I'm pragmatic and I realize that there are those who are truley dependent because they have to be and not because they are lazy.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Do you dismiss the notion that there may be systemic crises, which is what OWS is trying to address?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You are not being realistic at all. There are always going to be problems, and punishing those who love to work is not fair.

[-] -1 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

"Let people starve"...see, I reject that rhetoric...If people cannot care enough about themselves NOT to starve, then it's their problem, is it humane to drag down everyone else because some won't participate?..Hell no it's not...

Hmmm? Why....because perhaps their are some of you that might be redeemable...some that can be brought back into productive society...and with all the lies and half-truths on this site...someone needs to be the voice of truth...why am I here...I'm here because I believe in people, and in their potential, their ability, and their self-determining birthright, and their capacity for excellence....not some half-alive existence of a pet of government, provided for for all needs, except the need to triumph and achievement...which the collectivist nanny, support state steals from people and makes them something less than human...

Unemployment gives you (at least it did before it became welfare) a year, after which you better be in a job, or you suffer the consequences...there are millions of people not looking for work, because they get continued unemployment...paid for by the rest of us..who ARE working...it's time to kick some birds out of the nest to fly or fall, on their own.....that's how "I" did it...

[-] 3 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

One slave telling another: look, if you do what your master tell you, you won't be beaten up next time, that's our life.

If all people were like you, we would still be in slavery.

[-] 3 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Besides the fact that letting people stave is antithetical to the values upon which our society is based, much less our movement, there are more than enough resources in our society that as a practical matter no one should want for anything. I do not understand why someone whose values are so antithetical to the values of this website or our culture for that matter whould choose to participate in this discussion.

There are libraries full of literature about how the wealth of our society is not equitibly distributed. Is a CEO really worth 500 times that of an entry level employee? Is the owner of a basketball team really more socially useful than an EMT? There is tremendous guilt among the unemployed and pervasive feelings that there circumstances are their fault, yet the most conservative economists know otherwise or they wouldn't spend a second thinking about unemployment as a social problem.

I'm 68 years old. And when my kids are having trouble adjusting to adult life I certainly wouldn't kick them out. I wouldn't do that to a total stranger and neither would my Christian parents. P.S. I don't lock my door either, but on the other hand I don't have much to steal. Property is theft.

[-] -3 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

you obviously have no idea about the "values" our society was based...they tried a collectivist system under the Mayflower Compact...equal shares of everything..and it ended like all experiments of that sort do...in massive failure.....and our founders knew the lessons of that failed experiment, so they founded a nation where men where NOT tied to one another, or responsible for the behavior and lifestyles of others....they created a society based on the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.....I am not sure what they are teaching nowadays...I guess Marx and Engles...but you are WRONG about what values we are based on....

Yes, a CEO has put forth more effort and sacrifice than an entry level employee, more self-education and personal development, they have worked long hours and given up weekends, holidays, and done MORE than they were paid for...ALWAYS....and then, after 20-30 years of extra effort and exceptional service they become worthy of being top level executives, because they have EARNED it.....and I would say the effort disparity is far greater than ANY income disparity that exists....

My parents DID kick me out, and it was the most loving and kind thing they could have EVER done for my ability to exist under by my own means....

Property is theft? hahaha...you are an old fool

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I am not speaking here of collectivism and it is clear that collectivism is most certainly not a fundamental value in America. On the other hand, it's not an ideology either. What I mean is that from time to time groups in America do engage in collective behavior when they find it to their advantage, but they are not wedded to it ideologically.

More important, I think, are various notions rooted in both Christianity and the Enlightenment, notions such as we are our brother's keeper, we care for those less fortunate, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc. I think these are values that most Americans share. BTW the average OWS activist is 33 and out of school more than a decade. Personally I'm 68 and out of school several decades.

St. Paul said that to be a fool for Christ's sake was the highest calling.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

unless you're a banker.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Is it a left? I believe yes.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

Careful Slammers, you're using common sense. You'll be considered a troll.

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

either (a right) is it for millionaires and CEO billionaires to get tax payer funded bailouts because they have bought out congress;

a job isn't a right, but corporate control in politics isn't a right either...

a right is our right to freedom of speech; which is being taken away by billionaires who want to maintain the status quo and line their pockets.

[-] 0 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

You are correct that a job is not a Right and that things like welfare, food stamps, and other government assistance are privileges. You are also right that the amount of one's wage is determined by their skill, but skill is very much based on education, the quantity and the quality being the deciding factors. I believe that if our education system can be reformed, we will have a healthy, competitive economic environment with high wage earners. Unskilled jobs are on the decline do to technological advances, but these same advances increase the need for a skilled workforce, but our education system lags behind. Although education is not a Right, it is important for the reasons I just stated and so I believe we should put in major reforms to our educational system to fix our economy.

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

Funny how when someone posts something that is dead on right but against what the wack jobs in the OWS movement don't agree with they get discounted and called a troll. Slammer, you hit the nail on the head. Good post.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

yeah...keep blocking me..I thought Occupy stood for free speech?...I'm back, and will continue to keep coming back....

[-] 1 points by imhotep3223 (81) 2 years ago

No thats america. Fox news can block communication of ideas so can OWS.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

We heard your speech, we are just expressing our opinion about it which we have the right to. Your irrelevant opinion can still be seen when people click the [+] button. ;)

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

no...my screen name was disabled...the password no longer works.....

[+] -4 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

Fuck the politically minded, here's something I want to say, About the state of nation, the way it treats us today. At school they give you shit, drop you in the pit, You try, you try, you try to get out, but you can't because they've fucked you about. Then you're a prime example of how they must not be, This is just a sample of what they've done to you and me.

Do they owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do. Owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do. Owe us a living? OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.

Don't want me anymore, cos I threw it on the floor. Used to call me sweet thing, I'm nobody's plaything, And now that I am different, 'd love to bust my head, You'd love to see me cop-out, 'd love to see me dead.

Do they owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do. Owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do. Owe us a living? OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.

The living that is owed to me I'm never going to get, They've buggered this old world up, up to their necks in dept. They'd give you a lobotomy for something you ain't done, They'll make you an epitomy of everything that's wrong.

Do they owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do. Owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do. Owe us a living? OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.

Don't take any notice of what the public think, They're so hyped up with T.V., they just don't want to think. They'll use you as a target for demands and for advice, When you don't want to hear it they'll say you're full of vice.

Do they owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do. Owe us a living? Of course they do, of course they do. Owe us a living? OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.---------CRASS

[-] -2 points by Slammersworld (210) 2 years ago

yeah...no wonder you can't make a living.....can you even read?

If so, I suggest an attitude change, and a library card....

If not....I suggest you pick up a shovel and start forming some trenches

[-] -1 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

ha you are scum

[+] -4 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Amen! I know some desperately seeking mime or finger painting work. I may know some highly skilled fingernail painters needing a living wage as well.

[+] -4 points by nkp (33) 2 years ago

Well said