SA Footy

Why am I not surprised?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... ea511ea8b8

What's your point?

Are they still going in Adelaide?

**** hot in Hindmarsh Square, especially with the hairy armpits for the chicks....

SJABC wrote:Are they still going in Adelaide?

**** hot in Hindmarsh Square, especially with the hairy armpits for the chicks....

All dozen of them

Quichey wrote:What's your point?

Do they pass around drugs to minors at T.E.A party rallies?

I don't know, do they? I don't get your point?

How about any "Occupy" participants who have skipped Uni lectures to be at this protest not get paid any training allowances they are receiving from the government?

How about any "Occupy" participants who are currently unemployed and are not seeking employment while protesting have any New Start (etc) allowances cut?

How about any "Occupy" participants realise that they are trying to change the very fabric this world operates upon and their chance of succesfully campaigning for the changes has a snow balls chance in hell.

Some people who seem to have a reasonable level of intelligence that are currently participating in the "occupy" movement must really be thankful that their arts degree has given them such a head start in life.

I'm a hippy at heart but I've still got a grip* on reality.

Booney wrote:How about any "Occupy" participants realise that they are trying to change the very fabric this world operates upon and their chance of succesfully campaigning for the changes has a snow balls chance in hell.

Disagree. Corporate influence on State policy is a problem and definitely an issue that requires awareness.

Also disagree with the the stereotyping of participants. I doubt they are all either unemployed or students like the MSM would have us believe in an attempt to trivialise the philosophy.

All that being said, I find current methods of protest absolutely redundant.

The occupy protests in the US are very understandable, IMO.

There has always been a balance between those who are doing well and those who aren't, or to put it another way, between the top end of town and the rest.

That balance, fair or not, has always existed and the balance has been generally accepted.

In recent times, the top end of town has lost sight of reality when it comes to reward and is using shareholders and public money to reward themselves out of all proportion to the past.

When public money has to be used to bail out banks and financiers (in the US) and people are then put out of work and more enter the poverty zone, something has to give.

The 'trickle-down' effect is a nonsense, but that argument is used to widen the gap. In the US, the protest is now known as the 99% versus the 1%, due to the huge disparity of wealth held by 1% of the population compared to the other 99%.

The 1%, of course, are bolstered and defended by the likes of Fox News, owned by one of the 1% and presented by more of the 1%.

As for the method of protest, it can always be argued that there's a better way, but we've seen it be effective around the world in recent times.

This has further to go.

A friend of mine was invloved in the Occupy Melbourne protests. He works 50+ hours a week (on minimum wage) working in emeregency housing for homeless kids. He was going to work , then going home to sleep then off to the protests every day for a fortnight.
I told him he was a stinking bludging feral who should get a real job, like a banker.

redandblack wrote:The occupy protests in the US are very understandable, IMO.

There has always been a balance between those who are doing well and those who aren't, or to put it another way, between the top end of town and the rest.

That balance, fair or not, has always existed and the balance has been generally accepted.

In recent times, the top end of town has lost sight of reality when it comes to reward and is using shareholders and public money to reward themselves out of all proportion to the past.

When public money has to be used to bail out banks and financiers (in the US) and people are then put out of work and more enter the poverty zone, something has to give.

The 'trickle-down' effect is a nonsense, but that argument is used to widen the gap. In the US, the protest is now known as the 99% versus the 1%, due to the huge disparity of wealth held by 1% of the population compared to the other 99%.

The 1%, of course, are bolstered and defended by the likes of Fox News, owned by one of the 1% and presented by more of the 1%.

As for the method of protest, it can always be argued that there's a better way, but we've seen it be effective around the world in recent times.

This has further to go.

Westpac announced the highest ever profit lodged by an Australian bank while the protests were going on and at the same time announced more jobs being axed. Nothing to see here folks....move along.

Leaping Lindner wrote: Westpac announced the highest ever profit lodged by an Australian bank while the protests were going on and at the same time announced more jobs being axed. Nothing to see here folks....move along.

They are also the bank that has given me the most acceptable dividend on my shares.

I agree with the protesters that the executive salaries need to be limited, but too many assume we shareholders are getting big bucks.
It's not true - I'm doing better out of bank interest than out of any of my share portfolio.
The profits themselves, while the raw numbers sound high are not that great as a percentage return on the capital invested.

Often they are, though, Psyber.

Especially recently.

I walked through Hindmarsh Square yesterday for a squizz

They are very young or am I just getting older?

What % of people that support and join in with the Occupy protest movment or even simply support it in principal have shut down their bank account / loans with one of the major banks and moved over to the Credit Union or a Building Society? - How many shun Coca Cola or Pepsi in favor of Bickfords? How many shop at Foodland IGA instead of going to Coles / Woolworths?

What I would say to the Occupy movment is that I am very interested to hear from those that practice what they actually preach. Not so interested in those that preach do as I say, not as I actually do myself.

Sojourner, very few, if any, are so ideologically pure that they live in a bubble of perfection.

I don't know that such 'transgressions' weaken their argument.

Although I support some aspects of the movement like opposing excessive executive salaries and bonuses, I disagree with those who think every shareholder is getting huge profits.
I know from bitter experience it isn't so - my money is better off in a bank at present in terms of earnings.

I'll stick with the big banks so my money is safe rather than use a small institution that may lack the reserves to survive a crisis on its own, or which may be allowed to collapse, and not be guaranteed by the government in a crisis.
I'll also avoid any subsidiary of an insurance company being called a "bank" that the parent company may be prepared to jettison and allow to go bankrupt to retain their own profitability.

I don't buy Pepsi or Coke, or Bickfords, but in summer may keep some Schweppes Ginger Ale or Bitter Lemon in the fridge with my Peroni.

I've checked out our local IGA in Stirling a few times but their prices push me back towards Coles or Woolworths.
(I think IGA price by postcode too, because prices have looked better at some IGA outlets in the inner suburbs.)

redandblack wrote:Sojourner, very few, if any, are so ideologically pure that they live in a bubble of perfection.

I don't know that such 'transgressions' weaken their argument.

Perfection as a standard is unattainable.

A wise man once told me that there is no such thing as the perfect activist.

redandblack wrote:Sojourner, very few, if any, are so ideologically pure that they live in a bubble of perfection.

I don't know that such 'transgressions' weaken their argument.

I am not sure that any one would expect "perfection" R&B but some type of attempt might be at least a fair thing to get your point across. If someone genuninley is concerned about the bonus paid to the Chairman of the board and the various directors of the ANZ bank would it not be unreasonable to suggest that not banking with them is a good first step towards taking actual action over the problem instead of continuing to bank there and hoping that the Government may do something over it at some stage if people yell loud enough. People closing accounts and making the competition stronger is one way direct action can be taken over it.

Alternativley if someone is being interviewed discussing the goals of occupy and are swigging on a Coke, considering the bonuses paid to their corporates, that does not suggest to me that they are actually serious about what preaching.

Sojourner wrote:

redandblack wrote:Sojourner, very few, if any, are so ideologically pure that they live in a bubble of perfection.
I don't know that such 'transgressions' weaken their argument.

I am not sure that any one would expect "perfection" R&B but some type of attempt might be at least a fair thing to get your point across. If someone genuinely is concerned about the bonus paid to the Chairman of the board and the various directors of the ANZ bank would it not be unreasonable to suggest that not banking with them is a good first step towards taking actual action over the problem instead of continuing to bank there and hoping that the Government may do something over it at some stage if people yell loud enough. People closing accounts and making the competition stronger is one way direct action can be taken over it.

Alternatively if someone is being interviewed discussing the goals of occupy and are swigging on a Coke, considering the bonuses paid to their corporates, that does not suggest to me that they are actually serious about what preaching.

Such actions may not weaken the argument but they do appear to weaken their credibility and question their motivation.