I believe this discussion is more appropriate for this thread, so to avoid completely hijacking the other thread I posted it here.
You see, that's the problem with you, you (almost) never understand that people are not trying to use a comparison to make them equal. That's not the point at all. You continue to examine the specifics, and not look at the overall picture. And if I instead changed it to Women's suffrage, would you then go on about how this does not compare to women's suffrage either? Or would you finally understand that the point I'm trying to make is that sometimes laws do have to be broken in order to make a stand against something that is hurting you. People losing their jobs, and their homes, and having to move their families into relatives houses, (if they are lucky) or even worse out into the street. These are very real things that many people get upset about and don't have any way to fight back other than to demonstrate.
I understand what you are trying to say about breaking the laws, but what do the laws that the OWS, and the other 98%, break show? Why is it so difficult for them to protest within the laws, and show their points in a respectable manner?
You however, (almost) always will concentrate on whether what people do is either legal or illegal, and if it's legal, then why should anyone have a problem with it. If they passed a law tomorrow stating that there is a $100 bounty on puppy pelts, would it be perfectly okay with you for people to go around shooting puppies in order to get the bounty, just because it's now legal? Of course not.
I do not say almost always say if it is legal no one should have a problem with it. Maybe on the subjects I discuss on here, but those are such a small percentage of the laws.
But yet, (almost) every time a debate is brought up, that is your fall back plan, that and telling people that you've proven them wrong 183 times in the last 39 seconds.
Why should the users of this forum have to be presented false information? You argue that Fox News shouldn't be called news, but when I point out the errors of posters, mostly those on the left, you make sarcastic remarks about it? Shouldn't we all be presented accurate information, or are you OK with inaccurate information as long as it supports your point?
It's just as possible that a smaller economy would nose dive even faster because they don't have the depth in their economy to absorb such a shock.
Possibly, but there are differences between them, so we will never know for sure.
Just like you had your own opinion.
Realistically, how long do you think it would have taken Congress to act on a deal to bailout the individuals who were underwater? And then, how long do you think it would have taken for the money to get to the banks to unfreeze the credit market? You seem to think that the US had a lot of time to decide what to bailout, but realistically they did not.
Insult my intelligence or ability to comprehend, yes I understand fully thank you very much.And after the "chaos" was over, why couldn't it be done then?
Not sure if you are referring to a bailout or arresting the executives, please clarify?
That's what happened in Ireland.Did you even research what they did in Ireland or are you just making this sh*t up as you go along?And now that there is time? Why shouldn't something be done about it? Why do we continue to let the bankers play games with our money and our economy?
Insult my intelligence or ability to comprehend, yes I understand fully thank you very much. Just curious, what charges would the bankers be brought up on? You might be able to get them on what the Enron execs got, but even that would have been tough for them to prove. Or potentially a SOX violation, but that would also be difficult to prove. How do you suggest the bankers stop "playing games" with our money and our economy, by the nature of their business they essentially control the credit market, they higher some of the smartest finance individuals, so they know how to invest in the stock market, they have the capital to make large transactions that will sway the market simply because of the size of a transaction.
Again, you are the one hung up on the legality of things, not whether they are right or wrong.
Hey, whatever he did, it was legal, so who the hell cares?
Without seeing all the tax forms, and the amounts of cash he has in "blind" trusts in offshore accounts, no one will ever know whether he is legally filing his taxes or not.
So innocent until proven guilty. So be it.
That doesn't mean we have to believe him, and we can question his motives and actions all we want.
Why are you not giving me a serious answer on why currently any taxpayer should pay more than they are legally required and why they are a bad person if they pay the smallest amount required?
So, IRS audits Romney and finds nothing, and that is not enough for you to know if he is legally paying all his taxes? Are you sure even Romney knows what is in the blind trusts? Do you even know how a blind trust gets reported? Here is a pro tip for you- you can't tell if someone is hiding their money from tax forms because if it makes it on the tax forms, then guess what, they are not hiding it, they are legally reporting it.
It is great to question people instead of accepting what they tell you.
Do you know what is not great? Accusing people of serious offenses without solid proof to back it up.