'Occupy a Desk' Job Fair Rejected By OWS

[KarateCowboy]

Yes, you have explained that dozens of times. What you haven't explained however is how America's current tax systems fall into that. Why, just a year ago I packed up and moved to another country to work, and now I pay no income tax to the American government. According to you, should I be expecting the American gestapo to kick my door down and drag me back? No? Given that I just picked up and left, what's preventing you from doing the same thing, just like your employees who don't like their wage? If the government was marching you to the mines at gunpoint I'd agree with you, but our current system isn't anywhere close to that. You are perfectly free to move to one of the other 195 countries should you not like the tax systems.

But you're coming back. VISAs and such get in the way. "My way or the highway" is the MO of the tyrant. Also, in a system where the 'greater good' is put before the rights of the individual, there is no guarantee of the ability to 'pick up and leave'. Socialist paradises Cuba and N. Korea are proof of that. For now it's possible, but that is not a guarantee.

Anyway, this tangent doesn't really address the fact that these people in the OP don't want to work for money.

 

[whatbogsends]

Anyway, this tangent doesn't really address the fact that these people in the OP don't want to work for money.

Except that this was addressed already.

A) Many of the OWS protesters have jobs.
B) The "job fair" by the Tabacco brothers was nothing but a publicity stunt.

The OWS movement doesn't want to enter into unfair labor contracts. They are, however, quite willing to work for money.

 

[stamperben]

Anyway, this tangent doesn't really address the fact that these people in the OP don't want to work for money.

Yet so many in the OWS movement are gainfully employed and bring home bacon.

(Ben wonders why this simple fact will not get absorbed by the movement's detractors...)

 

[RedDead1981]

I highly doubt anyone would be hired at this 'job fair' even if they did apply. Obvious to me it was set up to mock them.

 

[Viren]

I didn't say that competition is inherently bad. It's when you're competing with people in third world countries or in prison who are making a few dollars a day that it becomes a problem.

Corporations are generally monopolized and don't have to compete while workers have more and more competition. It's no wonder why so many people are falling into poverty while more profits funnel up to the top.

The monopolies need to be broken up, but the government is too corupt to do it.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Except that this was addressed already.

A) Many of the OWS protesters have jobs.

That is irrelevant. The fact that some have jobs does not change the fact that others do not, and complain they can't get one.

B) The "job fair" by the Tabacco brothers was nothing but a publicity stunt.

That's not true. They called businesses they knew and presented over 400 openings. Besides,OWS itself is nothing but a publicity stunt, so I don't see why they're complaining.

The OWS movement doesn't want to enter into unfair labor contracts. They are, however, quite willing to work for money.

"Fair" is subjective. But putting that aside, the people at OWS have no right to claim the jobs offered were unfair, because they never bothered to check. Why did they never bother to check? Because they're lazy and don't want to work for their livings. They want handouts, which is why they go into Burger King and demand free food.

Yet so many in the OWS movement are gainfully employed and bring home bacon.

(Ben wonders why this simple fact will not get absorbed by the movement's detractors...)

The fact that some of them have jobs does not change the fact that a large segment of them do not, and are complaining about it. You're vigorously addressing something completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

[dlamberth]

Anyway, this tangent doesn't really address the fact that these people in the OP don't want to work for money.

I'm involved in the Portland Occupy. I can tell you first hand that there are very few in the movement who are not working.

All your doing is regurgitating FOX lies.

In the mean time, the greed, recklessness and illegal acts that cause the collapse of the US economy continues un-abated. That's where the real story lies. But we aren't even looking at that. Millions have lost their jobs and their homes because of greed. And you poke at the few in Occupy who are not working? Sheesh!!!

Ya...sorry, you have hit a sore point. Outside of Occupy very few are looking at the real problem. Your all way too busy finding ways to be-little Occupy.

Follow the money. At the highest levels of Corporate marrage to the Government you will find a lot of sins that have caused this economic collapse and which put people on the streets because they have lost their homes.

.

 

[Viren]

The fact that some of them have jobs does not change the fact that a large segment of them do not, and are complaining about it. You're vigorously addressing something completely irrelevant to the topic.

Having a job or not doesn't negate the relevacy of their message. Essentially each one of them was forced to help save the big banks. There's something inherently wrong with that.

 

[Christarchist]

"Fair" is subjective.

If you look at the objective facts, like the disappearing middle class, half of Americans living in poverty while CEO pay skyrockets, and massive unemployment, it's not difficult to see that the system has been unfairly rigged in favor of the rich.

But putting that aside, the people at OWS have no right to claim the jobs offered were unfair, because they never bothered to check. Why did they never bother to check? Because they're lazy and don't want to work for their livings. They want handouts, which is why they go into Burger King and demand free food.

It's the 1% who demand and receive handouts.

 

[whatbogsends]

That is irrelevant. The fact that some have jobs does not change the fact that others do not, and complain they can't get one.
That's not true. They called businesses they knew and presented over 400 openings. Besides,OWS itself is nothing but a publicity stunt, so I don't see why they're complaining.
"Fair" is subjective. But putting that aside, the people at OWS have no right to claim the jobs offered were unfair, because they never bothered to check. Why did they never bother to check? Because they're lazy and don't want to work for their livings. They want handouts, which is why they go into Burger King and demand free food.


The fact that some of them have jobs does not change the fact that a large segment of them do not, and are complaining about it. You're vigorously addressing something completely irrelevant to the topic.

You are vigorously making claims without offering any support for those claims. OWS isn't about "i don't want to work, give me money", nor is that attitude reflected by a sizeable percentage of that group. Are there some who fall into that category? Probably, but it is not reflective of OWS as a whole. You making the bare assertion does not make it so.

 

[KarateCowboy]

You are vigorously making claims without offering any support for those claims. OWS isn't about "i don't want to work, give me money", nor is that attitude reflected by a sizeable percentage of that group. Are there some who fall into that category? Probably, but it is not reflective of OWS as a whole. You making the bare assertion does not make it so.

This is just one big red herring. This tangent has nothing to do with the fact that a considerable portion of them claim to want jobs and talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

 

[dlamberth]

That is irrelevant. The fact that some have jobs does not change the fact that others do not, and complain they can't get one.

Your thinking way too small. Think bigger!!!

Occupy isn't complaining that "they" can't get a job. Your not even close to what Occupy is looking at.

Think bigger....The Occupy movement is pointing toward the greed, recklessness and illegal acts of the biggest institutions in America that have caused so many, for no fault of their own, to have lost both their jobs AND their homes. Millions and millions of Americans have been affected. The poverty rate keeps going up. Good paying jobs, more and more are becoming a thing of the past. And all of this has caused many more people to live on the streets. It's not uncommon now to see whole families homeless. The problem is HUGE...and getting worse!!!

And what's alarming is that the greed, recklessness and illegal acts continue. Follow the money and see for yourself.

.

 

[dlamberth]

This is just one big red herring. This tangent has nothing to do with the fact that a considerable portion of them claim to want jobs and talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

You passing on lies.

.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's all covered in the definition of the word "fair" So it looks like you're in my camp on this one

So the definition of the word "fair" disagrees with your pre-conceptions of what fairness is? You won't address the arguments I've put to you, so you might as well cede the point.

Publicly subsidized means taking, by force, money from the person who earned it and giving it to the person who didn't earn it.

So you're an Anarchist? You oppose publicly subsidising anything?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Anyway, this tangent doesn't really address the fact that these people in the OP don't want to work for money.

That is irrelevant. The fact that some have jobs does not change the fact that others do not, and complain they can't get one.

...

The fact that some of them have jobs does not change the fact that a large segment of them do not, and are complaining about it. You're vigorously addressing something completely irrelevant to the topic.

Ah, I see... employment (or lack of employment) is only relevant when you bring it up as a point to disparage OWS. When others bring it up to correct your error, then it's "irrelevant".

 

[MachZer0]

So the definition of the word "fair" disagrees with your pre-conceptions of what fairness is? You won't address the arguments I've put to you, so you might as well cede the point.

The only argument I've seen from anyone opposing me is that fair doesn't really mean fair

So you're an Anarchist? You oppose publicly subsidising anything?

What is your understanding of publicly subsidizing, seeing as how so many of my friends enjoy the semantics games?

 

[stamperben]

I love questions answered with questions! Makes the game SO much fun!

 

[MachZer0]

I love questions answered with questions! Makes the game SO much fun!

Kind of throws a wet blanket on some of that semantic game playing though

 

[stamperben]

And it answers no question...

 

[MachZer0]

And it answers no question...

But t ensures we're discussing the same thing