Unions stealing "occupy bostons" thunder

[Swimmer]

I have to agree with what some of the people protesters are doing, such as: outrageous CEO salaries and so forth, but much of what they are doing seems aimless.

I find it hard to imagine the original occupiers not having an issue with the union interlopers though. They have jobs, most with benefits, although some say like the SEIU/hotel people are underpaid. I don't know what they make so I can't say. But the Verizon people generally make good salaries, but the company is trying to cut the bennys.

I wonder how long before the clash occurs?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I wonder how long before the clash occurs?

I don't think it will occur. Union works have cemented in a great scam for themselves. They push to milk the employer (or taxpayer) for all they can and then paint up an illusion like they are the little guy that's being stomped on by "the 1%." The Union workers are seen as "one of us" due to the Union's effective marketing of themselves.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I don't think it will occur. Union works have cemented in a great scam for themselves. They push to milk the employer (or taxpayer) for all they can and then paint up an illusion like they are the little guy that's being stomped on by "the 1%." The Union workers are seen as "one of us" due to the Union's effective marketing of themselves.

X2......

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I have to agree with what some of the people protesters are doing, such as: outrageous CEO salaries and so forth, ?

private companies, they can protest all they want. Its none of their business. dont like it, dont do business with the company. Dont like bank fees, dont do business with them, dont want student loans, dont borrow.

Think the customer has no voice? Look at Netflx over the last few months.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

private companies, they can protest all they want. Its none of their business. dont like it, dont do business with the company. Dont like bank fees, dont do business with them, dont want student loans, dont borrow.

Think the customer has no voice? Look at Netflx over the last few months.

X2

Are we now trying to put a salary cap on a private companies CEO salary?

[Chesapeake Bill]

Funny thing is, SEIU is only two blocks from the protesters in DC. They are paying kids to protest. I was told they were offering 600 per week if you did not sleep. I was thinking of sending my boy with his Xbox, a TV, and a small generator...that would guarantee he didn't sleep and he'd have a job...do you think they take taxes out for him? LOL

[Piscator]

I heard someone was selling "Capitalism" T-shirts at the Wall Street protest for $19.99 and protestors were buying them like crazy. Perfect example of a bunch of followers having no clue what the stand for or what they are truly protesting about.

[spence]

For banks to take HUGE risks, fail miserably, get hundreds of BILLIONS in taxpayer bailouts, then recover and offer millions in bonuses to some while tens of thousands are being laid off.

This is...the American Dream.

I can't imagine why anyone would protest the American Dream.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

For banks to take HUGE risks, fail miserably, get hundreds of BILLIONS in taxpayer bailouts, then recover and offer millions in bonuses to some while tens of thousands are being laid off.

I thought you were for the bailout? Some disaster was supposed to happen without it? Is it the HUGE risks and the miserable failure that you object to? Then why bail them out? Why reward the miserable failure? Do the bonuses put tens of thousands out of work? The protesters not only don't like the banks, or the bailouts that you approve of, but they also don't like capitalism. They want to eliminate capitalism. To them, apparently, the essence of capitalism is the creation of a 1% which sucks the life out of the 99% simply because that is their goal. Capitalism isn't about private property ownership, private investment to promote private business, a symbiotic financial relationship with free market enterprise for them-- it is the destruction of all that. I don't think they have a clear concept of what the word means. People use "capitalism" to mean all sorts of things, good or bad. Like most "systems," it depends on who use them and to what ends that create good or bad outcomes. Capitalism, for the most part, has facilitated some of the greatest economic good. Some "miserable failures" have resulted from its misuse. I don't know, nor do I suspect many of the prostesters know, what economic/financial method they want to replace capitalism. It sounds like they want more government control--some form of socialism.

This is...the American Dream.

I can't imagine why anyone would protest the American Dream.

-spence

Wha??? How did the so-called "American Dream" get involved with all this mess? What the heck IS the American Dream? What is your idea of the American Dream? Do the protesters have the same vision of an American Dream that you do?

[scottw]

look on the bright side, the vermin defacating, urinating and leaving trash on the streets and parks of America currently, harassing businesses and police and causing mayhem encouraged by the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Michael Moore and Spence to complain that the government isn't doing enough for them are actually future democrat members of congress, state and local office holders etc....this is on the job training for these people, the only difference between these protesters(occupiers) and democrat members of congress is that the democrat members of congress have learned to pee indoors

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I thought you were for the bailout? Some disaster was supposed to happen without it? Is it the HUGE risks and the miserable failure that you object to? Then why bail them out? Why reward the miserable failure? Do the bonuses put tens of thousands out of work?

I think the bailout was probably necessary to stop a cataclysmic chain of events. Even I didn't realize the degree to which our economy was channeled through so few bottlenecks.

That being said, the bigger issue seems to be the one way valve attached to the system. Taxpayers bail out the banks, but seem to have little leverage after the fact.

The protesters not only don't like the banks, or the bailouts that you approve of, but they also don't like capitalism. They want to eliminate capitalism. To them, apparently, the essence of capitalism is the creation of a 1% which sucks the life out of the 99% simply because that is their goal. Capitalism isn't about private property ownership, private investment to promote private business, a symbiotic financial relationship with free market enterprise for them-- it is the destruction of all that. I don't think they have a clear concept of what the word means. People use "capitalism" to mean all sorts of things, good or bad. Like most "systems," it depends on who use them and to what ends that create good or bad outcomes. Capitalism, for the most part, has facilitated some of the greatest economic good. Some "miserable failures" have resulted from its misuse. I don't know, nor do I suspect many of the prostesters know, what economic/financial method they want to replace capitalism. It sounds like they want more government control--some form of socialism.

I don't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism. The debate in this country isn't about free markets vs socialism. It's more like a fantasy free market vs a managed market. Even the most liberal of proposals don't look much at all like real socialism. Given a Republican President and Congress our economy will still look more like a managed market than a true free market.

If anything, this movement -- in the US at least -- is fueled by a simple frustration as is the Tea Party. Like the Tea Party the crazies get most of the attention, but the undercurrent is very similar.

Wha??? How did the so-called "American Dream" get involved with all this mess? What the heck IS the American Dream? What is your idea of the American Dream? Do the protesters have the same vision of an American Dream that you do?

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but still to the point. I think the protesters think that the game has become increasingly rigged. Some of this might be to naivety of those just entering the workforce and some could be the expectations we put on ourselves.

I guess the bottom line is if you believe our current system (government and private) is really best positioning our resources and people to achieve in this century. It can't all be left to the free market, much of which has long since sold out a lot of the USA in the name of shareholder value.

The bottom bottom line is that we need transformative leadership. While not the disaster some would make him out to be, Obama has not lived up to expectations and the GOP field isn't offering anything really new.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the bailout was probably necessary to stop a cataclysmic chain of events. Even I didn't realize the degree to which our economy was channeled through so few bottlenecks.

The entire "economy" is not channeled through whatever few bottlenecks to which you refer. Had the banks that were bailed out not been bailed out, there would have remained a large "economy" that survived the "cataclysm."

That being said, the bigger issue seems to be the one way valve attached to the system. Taxpayers bail out the banks, but seem to have little leverage after the fact.

Taxpayers have the same or lack the same "leverage" before bail outs as they do after. They have the power of the vote and their individual and collective initiatives. Those powers, forgive my constitutional tourrettes, would be far greater if our Federal Government was restrained by constitutional limits. With the present juggernaut of Federal power colluding with big money and "managing" the "market," the taxpayer loses much of the power granted to him by the Constitution and becomes the ultimate bottleneck through which unconstitutional federal mandates, regulations, and agencies are funded. And the contributions to that Federal Government by big monied banks and businesses gets them immunity from failure or the pork to fund worthless Solyndras.

I don't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism. The debate in this country isn't about free markets vs socialism. It's more like a fantasy free market vs a managed market. Even the most liberal of proposals don't look much at all like real socialism. Given a Republican President and Congress our economy will still look more like a managed market than a true free market.

One of the stated desires of the protesters, at least by those who have spoken, is to eliminate capitalism. As for the debate "in this country" by which I take it that you mean beyond the protesters--there really doesn't seem to be a debate. If you pose a debate between free market vs managed market, that's more symantic than real. All markets are "managed" by those acting within the markets. The degree of freedom is proportional to how much managing is done within the market as opposed to how much regulation and restriction is imposed by external force, Government. If the market is "managed" by government, it is not a market in the traditional sense, but a command economy. Obviously, all markets have had external force applied, as well as internal forces within, so none has ever been totally free. Not as a whole. The degree to which there are free transactions within a "market" (transactions freely performed between buyer and seller) will determine how free a market is. Modern socialism comes in many forms. Just as there is no totally free market, there is no totally pure form of "real" socialism. There are degrees of socialism.

If anything, this movement -- in the US at least -- is fueled by a simple frustration as is the Tea Party. Like the Tea Party the crazies get most of the attention, but the undercurrent is very similar.

If the undercurrent is very similar, why is there such a difference? Are the objectives of the Tea Party and the Occupiers similar?

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but still to the point. I think the protesters think that the game has become increasingly rigged. Some of this might be to naivety of those just entering the workforce and some could be the expectations we put on ourselves.

"Increasingly" rigged? So, is there a certain amount of rigging that is acceptable. But, then, beyond a quantifiable amount, at that point we rise up and say no more?

I guess the bottom line is if you believe our current system (government and private) is really best positioning our resources and people to achieve in this century. It can't all be left to the free market, much of which has long since sold out a lot of the USA in the name of shareholder value.

"It," whatever that is, has never "all" been "left" to the free market. The market has never been so free that "all" was left to it. And the market is not a living thing that can sell out anything. It is the interaction of individual people and entitities transacting in different self interested ways and selling and buying individual comodities most of the time outside the ken of shareholder value. Nor is the USA an entity that can be sold by a market.

The bottom bottom line is that we need transformative leadership. While not the disaster some would make him out to be, Obama has not lived up to expectations and the GOP field isn't offering anything really new.

-spence

Transform what to what? Obama is trying to transform. Too much of us are resisting his transformation. But he may yet succeed. Give him Health Care and another term. So what is it, Spence, that needs to be transformed?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The entire "economy" is not channeled through whatever few bottlenecks to which you refer. Had the banks that were bailed out not been bailed out, there would have remained a large "economy" that survived the "cataclysm."

No, what was remarkable about the situation was the potential for short-term credit, which most companies rely upon for operations, would have blown up. Instead of the weak being culled out we would have likely seen otherwise stronger companies burn up their cash trying to stay alive. This would have been much more serious that the bad situation we actually saw...and it appears we were very close.

Taxpayers have the same or lack the same "leverage" before bail outs as they do after. They have the power of the vote and their individual and collective initiatives. Those powers, forgive my constitutional tourrettes, would be far greater if our Federal Government was restrained by constitutional limits. With the present juggernaut of Federal power colluding with big money and "managing" the "market," the taxpayer loses much of the power granted to him by the Constitution and becomes the ultimate bottleneck through which unconstitutional federal mandates, regulations, and agencies are funded. And the contributions to that Federal Government by big monied banks and businesses gets them immunity from failure or the pork to fund worthless Solyndras.

I think it's a reasonable argument that reduced federal power would bring less potential for federal abuse, but the flip side is less beneficial oversight. Believe it or not a lot of Federal regulations are positive and I don't think the States are equipped to make up the balance.

One of the stated desires of the protesters, at least by those who have spoken, is to eliminate capitalism.

Yes, and the Tea Party spits on black people.

As for the debate "in this country" by which I take it that you mean beyond the protesters--there really doesn't seem to be a debate. If you pose a debate between free market vs managed market, that's more symantic than real. All markets are "managed" by those acting within the markets. The degree of freedom is proportional to how much managing is done within the market as opposed to how much regulation and restriction is imposed by external force, Government. If the market is "managed" by government, it is not a market in the traditional sense, but a command economy. Obviously, all markets have had external force applied, as well as internal forces within, so none has ever been totally free. Not as a whole. The degree to which there are free transactions within a "market" (transactions freely performed between buyer and seller) will determine how free a market is. Modern socialism comes in many forms. Just as there is no totally free market, there is no totally pure form of "real" socialism. There are degrees of socialism.

So you're saying it's all a "spectrum"?

If the undercurrent is very similar, why is there such a difference? Are the objectives of the Tea Party and the Occupiers similar?

I think the two movements are a reflection of the undercurrent (frustration with the "system" be it government, private industry or a combination) expressed through two large lenses that make up the USA.

The Tea Party might not have camped out, but then again they probably had to be at work in the morning.

"Increasingly" rigged? So, is there a certain amount of rigging that is acceptable. But, then, beyond a quantifiable amount, at that point we rise up and say no more?

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

"It," whatever that is, has never "all" been "left" to the free market. The market has never been so free that "all" was left to it. And the market is not a living thing that can sell out anything. It is the interaction of individual people and entitities transacting in different self interested ways and selling and buying individual comodities most of the time outside the ken of shareholder value. Nor is the USA an entity that can be sold by a market.

Don't understand this paragraph.

Transform what to what? Obama is trying to transform. Too much of us are resisting his transformation. But he may yet succeed. Give him Health Care and another term. So what is it, Spence, that needs to be transformed?

I think we'd both agree that our current trajectory (in many regards) in not sustainable. Regardless of ones politics, our future leadership will be required to lead America into an even more competitive global economy, with at present less than firm footing and the daunting task of addressing our fiscal issues. This will require innovative thinking...not just lower taxes and less regulation. Doesn't mean we have to give up our identity, but we have to adapt so that we can continue to lead.

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

For banks to take HUGE risks, fail miserably, get hundreds of BILLIONS in taxpayer bailouts, then recover and offer millions in bonuses to some while tens of thousands are being laid off.

This is...the American Dream.

I can't imagine why anyone would protest the American Dream.

-spence

You would think they could take it to DC and protest the weasels they elected - oh wait, some of them are too young to have voted before and communists can't vote - that line their pockets with money from Wall St.

Occupy hard work day in and day out for a decade or two then perhaps you will have earned a right to bitch about something other than asking some Wall St puke to pay for your Ivy League Marxist education.

[UserRemoved]

Yea they like playing footsie in the bathroom stalls too


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Saltys

Yea they like playing footsie in the bathroom stalls too

of course, Larry Craig was a republican....

So for example:

Bank of America received (and mostly paid back) 45Bil + guarantees against something outrageous like $100Bil in bad loans from TARP.

they lay off 30,000 workers... but still give 11Mil to people who did a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty job?

Bank Of America Coughs Up $11 Million To Ousted Execs - Forbes

yup. nothing is wrong with this country.

I work with local banks for all our accounts for a reason...

[Swimmer]

Thanks for the replys guys. Always something to learn here.

[Pete F.]

The American Dream
When I was a kid in the 50s my parents bought a house.
They were in their 20s (26 and 28)
My mother was a stay at home mom.
My father worked one job. He did go to college at night but never finished his degree.
People had passbook savings accounts that made 5-1/4% and the money was loaned out by the bank in their community.
I could go on and on.
Just like when my kids say you need to be greener Dad.
When I was a kid milk and soda came in bottles, you returned them, they washed them and reused them.
Meat was wrapped in butcher paper.
I don't think you can buy a food item that is not encased in plastic today.
There was no such thing as paper towels.
We rode our bikes, came home from school and went out of the house and played with our friends till our mother called us for dinner.
Doctors made house calls, you paid them with money and you could.
If your family or neighbors were sick or had a tough time YOU helped them.


Think about how things have changed and where the American Dream has gone.
Now follow the money and see where it leads.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The American Dream
When I was a kid in the 50s my parents bought a house.
They were in their 20s (26 and 28)
My mother was a stay at home mom.
My father worked one job. He did go to college at night but never finished his degree.
People had passbook savings accounts that made 5-1/4% and the money was loaned out by the bank in their community.
I could go on and on.
Just like when my kids say you need to be greener Dad.
When I was a kid milk and soda came in bottles, you returned them, they washed them and reused them.
Meat was wrapped in butcher paper.
I don't think you can buy a food item that is not encased in plastic today.
There was no such thing as paper towels.
We rode our bikes, came home from school and went out of the house and played with our friends till our mother called us for dinner.
Doctors made house calls, you paid them with money and you could.
If your family or neighbors were sick or had a tough time YOU helped them.


Think about how things have changed and where the American Dream has gone.
Now follow the money and see where it leads.

This post is full of win.

Money leads to two places: Wealthy and Politicians

Now follow the POWER, where does it lead? Politicians, the Political Class, and the Wealthy

Cui Bono?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The American Dream
When I was a kid in the 50s my parents bought a house.
They were in their 20s (26 and 28)
My mother was a stay at home mom.
My father worked one job. He did go to college at night but never finished his degree.
People had passbook savings accounts that made 5-1/4% and the money was loaned out by the bank in their community.
I could go on and on.
Just like when my kids say you need to be greener Dad.
When I was a kid milk and soda came in bottles, you returned them, they washed them and reused them.
Meat was wrapped in butcher paper.
I don't think you can buy a food item that is not encased in plastic today.
There was no such thing as paper towels.
We rode our bikes, came home from school and went out of the house and played with our friends till our mother called us for dinner.
Doctors made house calls, you paid them with money and you could.
If your family or neighbors were sick or had a tough time YOU helped them.


Think about how things have changed and where the American Dream has gone.
Now follow the money and see where it leads.

Pete,thanks for the memories.

I believe the 40s and 50s were the best decades in our country's history.
It all changed in the mid 60s when Timothy Leary and his cronies became
the icons with their "turn on and drop out" hippie drug mentality.

In addition women's lib was born where they wanted
everything a man could have and do. They desrerved the equal pay and
same opportunities but left the home and began to work. Then you
had 2 incomes in a family rather than 1 and people began to live on
the 2 salaries and up grade instead of salting some away. All great till
one loses their job.

They gave their kids material things instead of their time and good values
buying them off the with material things, hence the path to greed.
Many from that generation are in power now, milking the establishment,
as usual, with the values and morals of a slug.

Just my observations and pity for those who never lived the American Dream
or have a clue what real living is all about. Their loss.
As you say, it's now" follow the money and see where it leads."

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The American Dream
When I was a kid in the 50s my parents bought a house.
They were in their 20s (26 and 28)
My mother was a stay at home mom.
My father worked one job. He did go to college at night but never finished his degree.
People had passbook savings accounts that made 5-1/4% and the money was loaned out by the bank in their community.
I could go on and on.
Just like when my kids say you need to be greener Dad.
When I was a kid milk and soda came in bottles, you returned them, they washed them and reused them.
Meat was wrapped in butcher paper.
I don't think you can buy a food item that is not encased in plastic today.
There was no such thing as paper towels.
We rode our bikes, came home from school and went out of the house and played with our friends till our mother called us for dinner.
Doctors made house calls, you paid them with money and you could.
If your family or neighbors were sick or had a tough time YOU helped them.


Think about how things have changed and where the American Dream has gone.
Now follow the money and see where it leads.

The other day a young female coastie was walking to South Station by the occupiers and many of them taunted her and then a few spit on her. Incredible rude, some of them.

So may of thier quotes surround them not having to work for what they want, and they want what they want now, or I am not going home. Guy about thirty says on TV, his parents must be proud, "they, (the man, or the conglomerate) don't have a job for me at the wages I want, so I am occupying this park until they do".

So may seem like underachievers. Like the guy who has a biochemistry degree that can get work readily working in a hospital lab, but he said that was beneath him and he only does that work when he runs out of money, unemployement I guess, meaning us.

It is going to be funny when it comes to a crashing interactive end. Mennino is going to get sick of all those big donors complaining about the mess, fecal, rubbish and otherwise and in the middle of the night, goodbye.

[Karl F]

Yes Pete, better days they were.. the Doc made house calls, and was paid money.. if he came in the evening, he was most likely made a drink by the old man, and mom cooked him a home made dinner... at least it worked that way in my house... back then... the doc was not buried in student loans, malpractise insurance costs, lawyers fees, only needed one secretary/bookeeper, most likley his wife, no the staff, that plauges the doctors of today.. I could rant on the other stuff too.. but will stop now..thanks for the trip down memory lane, and as the Prophet, George Carlin stated.. "You know why the call it the American Dream don't you?.. It's 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it!"

There WAS a time...however...and some of us, remember... the "Owners" can't wait for us to die off.

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by Karl F

Yes Pete, better days they were.. the Doc made house calls, and was paid money.. if he came in the evening, he was most likely made a drink by the old man, and mom cooked him a home made dinner... at least it worked that way in my house... back then... the doc was not buried in student loans, malpractise insurance costs, lawyers fees, only needed one secretary/bookeeper, most likley his wife, no the staff, that plauges the doctors of today.. I could rant on the other stuff too.. but will stop now..thanks for the trip down memory lane, and as the Prophet, George Carlin stated.. "You know why the call it the American Dream don't you?.. It's 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it!"

There WAS a time...however...and some of us, remember... the "Owners" can't wait for us to die off.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Mike P

Attachment 48778

I think it cynical BS. Its easy to place the blame on some invisible force ..."the man".
The owners do need obediant workers and they also need leaders, creative people, and thinkers. It takes all kinds and there are NO barriers to becoming an owner. Only your own limitations. Unfortunatley for this country, we dont have many obediant workers willing to do low paying jobs so they went overseas.

I've seen too many people, very close to me, come to this country with nothing and become successful. Fueled by hard work and sacrifice.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I think it cynical BS. Its easy to place the blame on some invisible force ..."the man".
The owners do need obediant workers and they also need leaders, creative people, and thinkers. It takes all kinds and there are NO barriers to becoming an owner. Only your own limitations. Unfortunatley for this country, we dont have many obediant workers willing to do low paying jobs so they went overseas.

I've seen too many people, very close to me, come to this country with nothing and become successful. Fueled by hard work and sacrifice.

Most jobs went over seas so that companies could pad their pockets, make no mistake about it. Consumers never reap the benefits when a company saves money, the owners or the investors do.

If Verizon cuts the benefits that so many think are too good, do you think that you as a consumer will reap some savings off your monthly bill? If you think that keep dreaming....

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Most jobs went over seas so that companies could pad their pockets, make no mistake about it. Consumers never reap the benefits when a company saves money, the owners or the investors do.

True - but its because its too expensive to manufacture here. If it were cheaper, they would not go overseas.

If Verizon cuts the benefits that so many think are too good, do you think that you as a consumer will reap some savings off your monthly bill? If you think that keep dreaming....

I agree, but as a consumer I can go elsewhere and so can employees. If VZ cant get the people to do the jobs, they'll have to improve wages and benefits to attract employees.

Im not saying its a perfect system, its not. I'm saying its not some trap or conspiracy, many work the system to their benefit. It takes sacrifice and work. I think the majority of americans are afraid of hard work. Its much easier to be cynical and blame the man than picking up a shovel and digging through the BS.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

If Verizon cuts the benefits that so many think are too good, do you think that you as a consumer will reap some savings off your monthly bill? If you think that keep dreaming....

I know you mention Verzion to make a point but have you ever had a Verizon guy come to your house? I can honestly say that there was 1 guy that actually was good out of probably 10 I've had come over. The others were the laziest "I'm beating the system" types of guys I've ever met. I have friends that used to work for Verizon, believe me the stories are insane. Guys getting all over other guys that have more than 4 completes in a day etc, etc. They are purposely underperforming so expectations aren't too high.

To follow up to your point, if a company like Verizon continues to increase benefits the consumer will bear the additional cost as an increase in their bill. In a free market, that is where competition steps in .

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I've seen too many people, very close to me, come to this country with nothing and become successful. Fueled by hard work and sacrifice.

Like Thomas J. Flatley who came here from Ireland in 1950 with $32 in his pocket, he only ended up making about $1.6 Billion. Gave millions back to charities. His business continues even though he passed on.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Like Thomas J. Flatley who came here from Ireland in 1950 with $32 in his pocket, he only ended up making about $1.6 Billion. Gave millions back to charities. His business continues even though he passed on.

My wife and her family came here when she was 11, father died shortly after,mom was dirt poor and didnt speak english, she put her self through college working nights, her brothers opened their own business and put themselves through school. All are very, very successful.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Mike P

Attachment 48778

If the "owners" own everybody and everything and the media and what you see and hear, then it follows that Carlin, being owned, is a schill for the "owners." I would, therefore, be wary of what he says--might be some sort of trap laid by the "owners." Oh, oh . . . we are all owned . . . this forum is OWNED . . . all these posts must be propaganda paid for and ordered by the "owners." But, of course, you can trust me and Spence.