Occupy Wall Street Organizer Interview.

haha i saw this earlier and it was hilarious. That occupy guy was a fucking moron and then to top it all off hannity had the boss football catch and throw at the end.

I'm not a big fan of foxnews or hannity/o'reilly/glen beck in general, but this isn't about that. This guy is a complete moron. The last 2 minutes made me sick. He's a typical college grad who feels entitled to a job just because he went to college.

well first off, a hippie wouldnt talk like that, and that guy needs to eat some acid and stop listening to tool

its like hes getting the growing up talk for 14 years olds from mom an pops on national television

i never thought I would agree with Sean Hannity but he was pretty much spot on , painful to watch mostly.

i never thought I would agree with Sean Hannity but he was pretty much spot on , painful to watch mostly.

haha i've never been happy about a Fox interview until this one.

haha i've never been happy about a Fox interview until this one.

haha i've never been happy about a Fox interview until this one.

haha i've never been happy about a Fox interview until this one.

#foxnewsgeneralizations

Let me get this out of the way...this guy is an IDIOT

Now that being said he sure knows how to convince a lot of stupid people that their problems are other peoples faults

That was hard to watch. Neither of them are good at arguing.... aghhhh my ears. I just wanted to hear their points

How can such rude pricks actually have their own shows? Incessantly jabbering over their guest, not letting them finish, denying facts and just straight up calling them out on things they didn't seem to have been prepared for, just like that fucking O'Reilly idiot.

Not saying that this OWS guy was a good representation for the movement, they definitely did pick a good "bad" candidate for the interview. Jesus Christ all of this just makes my fucking Monday.

Stupid fucking idiot, CAPITALISM is what gives people fucking jobs in the first place, it's what the economy that has provided an awesome and luxurious first-world life runs on!! Everyone wants to make money. Like goddamn "non-conformist" hipsters who buy from small brands, without realizing it helps those small brands grow bigger, so they can sell to more people! Because after all, people want their businesses to grow and grow. No business owner wants to ever stop "because he's made enough money." Fucking guy. McDonalds IS hiring, try there, you pretentious degree-holding piece of shit.

Way to generalize there, buddy. Some people are happy to see their business afloat, go through ups and downs and help them make a living through something they enjoy doing, working for themselves and not under someone else's rule on the corporate ladder.

It's not always about the money, with more business growth come bigger responsibilities, more employees needed, more overheads, more needed space, more environmental and societal issues, more questions about the quality/price of your products and services etc.

Some people just want to keep it simple, capitalism at its core is NOT the be all, end all ism of our modern society.

Sympathy? What? I already said he was a very bad representation for the movement, self-proclaimed is self-proclaimed, we all know what lies deeper in the OWS agenda, the main questions they wanted answered before it became EntitlementFest '11.

I just meant shows like that in general are pretty despicable.

my new favorite oxymoron.

Because there is nothing fair nor balanced with Hannity or O'Reilly, just inviting people on the show so they can "shoot" someone down and promote their own agendas. That is not news, that is not good reporting, that is not a balanced view in the media.


But with this whole OWS thing and the young, entitled anarchy-types rising to the headlines, we had a similar issue in Finland in May Day 2006. The Precarity, a group of like-minded young adults, raised up a discussion of "shitty jobs" and how in modern society, young people often have to work in fixed-term or half-time jobs and live in financial uncertainty. While their point was that sweeping the floors is not strictly a "shitty job" in their minds, it is shitty because of the lack of respect and pay people in these positions get, with the cleaning company higher-ups laughing their way to the bank. Of course, most media just focused on the fact that these are just some entitled punks who don't want to get their hands dirty, which was completely besides the point.

Their main agenda was to call for the institution of a so-called "basic income", an idea that I've been supporting for years as well. Every single citizen would receive a monthly allowance, something that would help cover basic needs, such as rent, utilities and nutrition, indexed but for discussion's sake let's say 700 dollars before tax.

By using a simple and unified payment, it could free people from those "shitty jobs" and half-time, fixed-term applications, such as Adecco and ManPower, both reigning rental work agencies in Finland. It would cut down government spending on useless bureucracy when it comes to our stunning amount of different kinds of settlements and allowances - pre-retirement payments, mandated sick leaves, welfare checks, child allowances, maternity bonuses etc.

It could help boost and benefit the the economy in many ways, such as letting people have shorter and more flexible work days, let's say a four day work week instead of five, six hours a day instead of eight etc. It could help employers pay less amenities per one worker, allowing them to hire two workers for the same or less salary that was once used to hire a single one. Decisions like these would of course be motivated and ratified with some sort of quotas and directions from the work market forces. It would help people relax and not be afraid of making ends meet, it would help entrepreneurship flourish when suddenly it would not be a deadly risk to go out there and make things happen, there would be a literal fail-safe device built into our system of welfare.

Then again, there are those who would try and abuse it, they're always out there, waiting to get a free helping. But if the amount freeloaders could be held at a bearable level, after all they would keep the economy turning with the money the receive. It kind of falls under the same thought of being entitled to something due to others, but people are just so stuck into the same formula of labor, that one has to work hard to make an honest living, while we as a society have evolved beyond that in the first world and it's time to take some chances to make our lives revolve around living, not working.

People like him have been risking their lives fighting on the front lines and then people like you come hate and say mean things about them. You dont have the courage to stand up like that because your all pussy's.


Stop bitching about people on the internet and make something out of yourself and make a change for others to see and follow and help them. Guide other people and make the world a better place.

I really don't follow either channel's hijinx enough to say anyt truths here, but I think in both ends of the spectrum it is still weird that shows like that actually exist and cohort as "news", on a "news channel". They're nothing more than talk shows and opinion pieces to me, but I'm afraid the fact that they are presented ona news channel, be it liberal or conservative in the US, they become truths and realities in many viewers' eyes, creating many people who now have a skewed view of any given situation and causing more and more drifts between the already tight value spectrum of conservative/liberal, good/evil etc.

Well, that's the thing actually... I really don't want to watch any more than I have to from either side of the US media. I'm sure there are a lot of good points and shows for both sides of every argument, but coming from a culture that is not, at least on paper, so torn up between black and white definitions of liberal/conservative, democrat/republican on the surface I find it very limiting.

It would be very superficial of me to say that it's a bad system being so two-pronged, as I'm sure representatives on both sides may share conflicting views on matters and not agree on everything on the universal level of their own chosen denomination.

And yeah, I would say both sides of any extreme would be despicable or insulting.

i thought this thread was good for a quick lol but this is way to much reading

Took me thirty seconds to realize I hate them both. Occupy is fucked and hannity is a dick. That wasn't an interview from what I saw but an assault. He didn't ask anything about what they believed or why this was happening but just lumped this guy in with any criminal down there. And they picked someone who sounds like an idiot to defend them. Awesome all around.

im surprised there was actually some one who organized this.

while he may be tool or whatever, the interview is complete horseshit. as mike-o said, very o'reilly-esque.


in the other thread about tuitions most americans seemed more than proud that they have this "top-notch" universities (although most admitted that they are a little expensive). so there are people waist-deep in debt because the american dream told them "go to college and you will pay your tuition-loan back in 3 years max and make 200,000 a year" and now its not like that anymore.

so guys pick your side. either admit that just because you pay 10,000+ a semester doesnt qualify you more or less than the canadian/european graduates or be pro OWS.

obviously a simplified and extreme view of things, but thats my stance. i am not saying that i support X or Y, but i hate it how all those people who actually went out on the street and fought for something even remotely worthwhile get called hippies and stuff.

good job. not. capitalism doesnt create jobs. at least not in the amount we currently see.


in all those financial centers in the US and europe, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs. a lot of them should really have no job right now. their companies failed but the government bailed them out.

its sickening how people call out sociology/psychology/education-majors but as soon as you say, yeah i study finance (which i do) all the people are like "GREAT, YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE A JOB, GOOD CHOICE". maybe thats right, but i will shove artificial money up and down without doing anything worthwhile. i, and the whole financial services industry do not deserve like 20% of the jobs it actually generates/d. its complete horseshit. a huge cardhouse, a bubble destined to fail every once in a while. whenever you make money out of nothing or on the back of the third world or the lower class in the first world, thats not a "good" job.

boss.

not a fan of fox news at all, but they made this kid look like an idiot.

he already was an idiot, just got brought to fruition.

socialism much?

stupid

Nicely condensed.

You think?

if that happened our founding fathers would be turning over in their graves

Well was I talking about doing such actions in your country?

I don't know how that could make me sound smart...I was trying to be funny...I guess I should just follow the herd and only post memes.

But, I would think it is pretty stretched to say the media is balanced, not just talking about TV, but newspapers, magazines, radio, and especially the internet publications are overwhelmingly liberal. It isn't just in the states I would say to, I just think that a journalist in general is more likely to be liberal, and while that doesn't mean everywhere is biased (I would say most of the media is decent at keeping out biases) they are still liberal in nature.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion, based off of what I have observed.

I don't know how that could make me sound smart...I was trying to be funny...I guess I should just follow the herd and only post memes.

But, I would think it is pretty stretched to say the media is balanced, not just talking about TV, but newspapers, magazines, radio, and especially the internet publications are overwhelmingly liberal. It isn't just in the states I would say to, I just think that a journalist in general is more likely to be liberal, and while that doesn't mean everywhere is biased (I would say most of the media is decent at keeping out biases) they are still liberal in nature.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion, based off of what I have observed.

ElGato vs Mike-O ROUND 2 GO GO GO

that guy is an idiot but I didn't like how Hannity handled the interview. Also its funny that the occupy movement only exists when the weather is nice

ah, ya dun fucked up here. You're assuming that the left-right spectrum is even REAL

i stopped watching when he claimed that the police put the rapists and druggies in the park

Not from Finland, but I would imagine:

1) They have far higher taxes than we do, so probably from there. They'd most likely have to rearrange their budget; take some of it from existing funds and maybe adjust the tax rates to compensate for the other part of it.

2) They could set it up so you only get the checks while you're working/for the first few months of unemployment so that people wouldn't have an incentive to remain unemployed too long. Just a guess, that's what would make the most sense.

Yes, you are pretty close to the possible answer, which is still veiled in theoretical rhetoric, but this is to KM as well.

One of the most popular and most discussed models would shutdown pretty much every single existing bureaucratic model for handouts - pensions, child allowances, unemployment checks, early disability pensions, housing allowance,, student allowance... you name it we got it: they'd be gone for good, reallocated into a single source and entity. The amount of money and manhours that would be saved annually simply from getting rid of a few processes in our highly complex and slow system would be tremendous. On top of the already high tax rates, it could be pulled off, not to mention that a bulk of the money automatically returns to the people and is slightly taxed as it would be used to cover necessities, the biggest for most being rent, living compensation, utilities and food.

The other factor here is of course limits to income. People could choose a model that is to their favor. If they already have a high-paying job, say 80,000/year, they could probably be exempt from receiving the basic income, there is no clear need and if they chose not to, they could receive tax cuts or reimbursations on a smaller level. Much like many other allowances in here work, if you make a certain amount of money, you will not be able get the allowance anymore, it would have to be tweaked accordingly and indexed to the average level of necessity costs.

As for the work or cleaning KM mentioned, there will always be people who do not wish to rise higher in society, or got to schools, or those who are not qualified to do more else - the point is that the pay for these "shitty" jobs at the moment is ridiculously low considering our tax rates and cost of living, which is in Helsinki one of the highest in the world. Some people become bus drivers because they need a job, hating it, others become bus drivers because they enjoy what they do. Those people will never disappear completely, and the basic income would be a fail-safe more than nothing else. After all other insitutions of welfare would be shut down, it would be the only option to go on and getting an indexed 700 dollars a month if you are unemployed will not get you far in Helsinki, it'll be just enough to maybe pay your rent and help you not starve to death - it wouldn't be much to celebrate and simply use to enjoy life.

But the benefits of the basic income far outweigh the cons when it comes to an actually working, less bureaucratic social welfare society. Like I said earlier, it would be nearly useless to abuse the system due to small amount of money received, it would help both the people enjoy their lives by giving them and their employers the ability to pay less for one and instead hire more, making it easier for us to choose when and how much we work, because we are not here to simply work anymore, we are here to live. Then again, if someone wants to keep on doing what they've always done, it's up to them - there would be no dramatic change for those who do not feel they need change.

that basic income thing obviously has its flaws, but you can argue that the "current" system has tons of flaws too.

i get the impression that a lot of americans dont really need and want a government and would prefer to pay for any public good seperately if that means that they have to pay not one cent more than they effectively need. but obviously this is equally impossible (like how to pay for all the goods? especially "protection by law", "public safety", ...)

its a general thing. what are your goals as a country? help each other? its not communism or anything, although i have to admit that the general mindset is appealing to me and is just destroyed by human greed and jealousy.

look at the chinese and indian banking sector. even right now they get criticised for their high level of government interaction/control. but the crisis in 2008/09 wasnt really a problem for them, especially in relation to the western banks. like we westerners still laugh at them for their "communist" (china) and "backwards" (india) way of doing business but maybe they play it safer than we do and this works better because our banks still think that returns are normally distributed. i think we have to open our eyes and learn from history and not cry "communism"/"socialism" at every corner. there could be a working system combining the fairness of communism and the self-fulfilling possibilities of capitalism. but as of now, there is no perfect solution. but if we fear for our freedom on every other step and constantly check our backs for a red flag, nothing will change and the cumulative greed will run the western world again into a crisis.

btw, coming from a banking and finance major, not one of those "hippies".

There are some plans to try an autonomous approach as a test stage, giving the reigns of the basic income control to one municipality that has the sought-out average specimen, a crosscut of our current society, rich, mid, poor. One of those would be the city of Vantaa.

I know the actual implementation could be rocky, but it would be a controlled experiment if it happened - we would need to create large amounts of new jobs to those working for municipalities and the government in menial positions of red tape pampering. It's the single biggest cure for the whole prgram to become steady, yet it's the single biggest problem no one has yet been able to solve.

Jealousy and greed won't always reign supreme, especially in a position where everyone would get the equal amount, every single person. After that, it's up to you to decide. It could be compared to the emergency funds in Norway, stored for a bad time from all the oil money to be used as backup for the country and citizens if shit goes haywire economically (it won't). In this case, we would just began distributing it right now BEFORE shit hits the fan in our country.

This guys a seeker of the truth! Praise him! Hazaaah!

there is* we have just not had the idea yet, or possibly we have and just not realized it.



and though you went to college and learned about banking and finance in a classroom which has its place amongst society, those are all just ideas invented by an autonomous constructive science for its own boundaries. The right system will be a thing of itself i would guess.

Just watched this video. Thought I would bump it. So hilarious.