@kceaton1

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

And they're everywhere. The only place that I can go and say anything about Christianity without being ridiculed is a Christian forum. This goes from the obvious places like atheist forums, to a place like this, to even the comments section on CNN.com. Antitheists seem to outnumber thoughtful atheists at least 100-1.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Some have been mistreated, and some are just on the hate bandwagon because they are angry, insecure people who scapegoat religion for the evil in the world. Much like an anarchist blames all the evil in the world on governments.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

Stupidity, of course, is not exclusive to any particular group of people, but is common to all of them.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

The video I posted does have a basis, the phenomena was legitimately observed:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Obviously it isn't conclusive, but it definitely has merit and should be explored rather than dismissed. I would really like to know the difference between something like this and the pure speculation accepted as fact in big bang cosmology, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. They are little more than fudge factors, as well as cosmic inflation, to account for the glaring holes that don't fit observation. That isn't science, but you excuse it because..?

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

Here's the problem with the so called theory of evolution. What Darwin observed was microevolution, not macroevolution. He observed that species will adapt to their environments. That is scientific fact, and a great discovery. What he did from there is speculate that because species adapt to their environments, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified. All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation.

Christians don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with what isn't science. Macroevolution was a giant leap made by Darwin for which there was no evidence, and the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory. Because of this, evolutionists have moved away from the fossil record and have used other lines of evidences to prove macroevolution, like common genetics in our DNA. The problem with that is, common genetics also indicates a common designer, and is better indicated by it actually, because of the mosaic pattern we observe in the genome.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

Historically the church supported scientific inquiry. Science got its start in Christian Europe, and many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit.

I grew up secular, and when I became a Christian I was more than willing to accept the conclusions of science. I had believed them all my life because they had been taught to me as factual. I was even willing to intergrate them into my faith. It was only after investigating these things that I found, to my shock, that there wasn't any actual evidence for these things, and that they were neither testable or observerd. I changed my mind based on my investigation of the facts and not because of any religious duty. I would still believe it if I thought there was convincing evidence, but it isn't there.

Since you're scientifically minded, let me give you a challenge. You appear to be quite confident that evolution is proven true, so if that is the case, see if you can refute the arguments in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

It's because they have no idea how much of western civilization is built upon Christian principles and philosophy. What they need to do is educate themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

My brother and I did this when he brought home a shock collar for his dog.
Hurt like a bitch--he never put it on his special little puppy.

This needs to become an Olympic event.

In fact, all sports should now incorporate shock collars.

Thought I'd throw in one more bit about the anti-theism comments above, like @GeeSussFreeK 's.

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

/long

Nope. We're correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_cone

quote: "A common misconception is that this effect is the aircraft breaking the sound barrier."

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^IronDwarf:
It's not the sound barrier breaking: the sound is just the sound of the jet going by extremely fast and the shockwave comes from the vapor pressure of jet flying that low over water. Military jets are only allowed to break the sound barrier over specific areas, and definitely not over areas where there are large groups of people.
Still a cool video.

QFT. You wouldn't hear the plane before it passed if it was anywhere NEAR Mach 1.

Actually, I am pretty sure you guys are wrong. That shock collar like that will only happen at transonic speeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl%E2%80%93Glauert_singularity
The sound of the jet you hear as it approaches I suspect is the sound of another jet off camera, or something. FYI, for air shows, they do quite frequently accelerate past the sound barrier.
Edit: fixed wiki link

>> ^Payback:

>> ^IronDwarf:
It's not the sound barrier breaking: the sound is just the sound of the jet going by extremely fast and the shockwave comes from the vapor pressure of jet flying that low over water. Military jets are only allowed to break the sound barrier over specific areas, and definitely not over areas where there are large groups of people.
Still a cool video.

QFT. You wouldn't hear the plane before it passed if it was anywhere NEAR Mach 1.


Actually, I am pretty sure you guys are wrong. That shock collar like that will only happen at transonic speeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl%E2%80%93Glauert_singularity

The sound of the jet you hear as it approaches I suspect is the sound of another jet off camera, or something. FYI, for air shows, they do quite frequently accelerate past the sound barrier.

Edit: fixed wiki link

More than a couple times a day: Two joints in each finger and thumb, toes, ankles, wrists, neck, elbows

Once or twice a day or so: A spot in my upper back, a couple spots in my lower back, hips

Less often: Shoulders, collar bone, knees

Reminds me of the old joke:

Two biologists are in the field following the tracks of a radio-collared grizzly bear. All of a sudden, the bear crashes out of the brush and heads right for them. They scramble up the nearest tree, but the bear starts climbing up the tree after them. The first biologist starts taking off his heavy leather hiking boots and pulls a pair of sleek running shoes from his back-pack. The second biologist gives him a puzzled look and says, "What in the world are you doing?"

He replies, "I figure when the bear gets close to us, we'll jump down and make a run for it."

The second guy says, "Are you crazy? We both know you can't outrun a full-grown grizzly bear."

The first guy says, "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you!"

^Upvoted^ for baseball cap peaks & collars. Still Northside vs. Southside? Looks like Atha Cliath ain't changed much then, eh?

Interesting idea. Personally, I believe that there is an even bigger issue affecting the rise of unemployment. It has to do with efficiency as it applies to production and the roll that technological progress plays in axing blue collar jobs. I strongly believe that the vast majority of people do want to work, and not `leech off the system` as conservatives say, but the need for unskilled labor is declining as technology matures.

@blankfist

Research that purporting that teaching is a difficult job based on 6 criteria. I suggest the whole document but here's the jest of it.
______________________________________________
---------->Societal Attitude:
The participants in this study believed that the attitude of society toward the teaching profession was unfair and detrimental to their overall functioning. They did not believe that they were valued, despite their advanced levels of education. In a recent nationwide survey of over 11,000 teachers and teacher candidates, Henke, Chen, Geis, and Knepper (2000) found that only 14.6% of the teachers surveyed were satisfied with the esteem in which society held the teaching profession.

--->Denise, a high school English teacher addressed the issue of respect:

"There is a lack of respect for teachers. It's not just the money, but also the attitude I get from administrators and politicians that teachers are trying to get away with something. We have taken these cushy jobs where all we have to do is stand up in front of a bunch of kids and BS for a few hours, and only work ten months of the year, at that teachers have it easy! Every time we ask for something (like, in my county, that the county pay our contribution to the state retirement system, for example), they make us out to look like whiners - give 'em an inch; they'll take a mile. The truth is, though, that teachers care so deeply and work SO much beyond our "contract hours." I can't tell you how many come in for weeks during the summer, as I do, and take on clubs after school (for which we are not compensated), and work during vacations. This lack of respect for teachers gets me down."
______________________________________________
---------->Financial Issues:
On top of the perception that they are not being valued by society, teachers are notoriously underpaid in our country. Four years after their graduation, Henke et al. (2000) surveyed a large sample of college graduates between 1992-1993. They found that the teachers were tied with clerical staff and service workers for the lowest salaries. A recent report from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, 2000) found the following to be the case for the 2000-2001 school year:

For new teachers, the $28,986 average beginning salary lagged far behind starting salary offers in other fields for new college graduates. For example, accounting graduates were offered an average $37,143; sales/marketing, $40,033; math/statistics, $49,548; computer science, $49,749; and engineering, $50,033.
The $43,250 average teacher salary fell short of average wages of other white-collar occupations, the report found. For example, mid-level accountants earned an average $52,664, computer system analysts, $71,155; engineers, $74,920; and attorneys, $82,712.
The majority of the participants in this study related that they were simply not paid enough to live comfortably. They drove old cars and lived in inexpensive apartments. Others struggled to save enough money to buy a home.

--->Calvin, a high school science teacher, talked about his pay:

"I love teaching, but I don't know if I love it enough to deprive my family and myself of necessities. I have a baby and another on the way. I can't see how I can ever save enough to make a down payment on a house, even with a second job in the summer."
______________________________________________
---------->Time Scarcity:
Many new teachers were physically and emotionally fatigued to the point of exhaustion. They reported that they worked long days at school, and then took home lesson plans to create, papers to grade, and parents to call. They also worked nights and weekends on school-related work.

--->Jessica, a high school math teacher:

"I work 70 hours a week, and after 3 years it's not getting any better. When Friday night rolls around, all I want to do is fall asleep at 8 p.m.! Obviously that doesn't lead to a very exciting social life, or much of a "life" at all, if I can hardly stay awake long enough to go out to dinner with my friends and family. Even at holidays there are always papers to grade."

--->Fred, a high school English teacher also had difficulty with the amount of time required to do his job, pointing to the effect the time constraints had on family relationships:

The time commitment is the worst. During my first two years of teaching I worked 70-80 hour weeks, including time worked during the school day, in the evenings and over the weekend. Time commitment varies with the subject taught and with experience, but this aspect of the job nearly ran me out of teaching on several occasions and I witnessed one great new teacher leave teaching for this very reason. "It's my job or my marriage," she explained. "I never see my husband, and we're living under the same roof."

______________________________________________
---------->Workload:
The data reveal that it is nearly impossible for a conscientious teacher to complete all that is expected of them in one school day. At the high school level, teachers were teaching five or more classes in a traditional school, and three in a block schedule school. For each class this meant that the teacher's task was to design a complete lesson lasting at least one hour. This lesson had to follow the state curriculum, be engaging and interesting to students, and include various components as required by the school district, such as a warm-up, class activities, and homework. The teachers wanted to use outside resources such as the Internet to connect the material to real world applications. Additionally, they reported that there were often several special needs students in the class, and each of them needed some special accommodation. They found that planning was not a trivial task; it took several hours to design one effective instructional plan.

According to the teachers in this study, class sizes were another difficult feature of the teacher's day. In public high schools, most class sizes ranged from 25 to 35 students for a total of 125-175 students in a traditional school, and 75-105 in a four period block school. Henke et al. (2000) reported that the average number of students taught by secondary teachers each day is 115.8.

--->Abby, a high school history teacher explained the effect of large class sizes:

"Imagine any other professional trying to deal with the needs of this many "customers" at one time. If a physician were seeing patients, and grouped this many together, it is readily apparent how ridiculous it would be to expect her or him to address the needs of each person. The same is true for teachers.
Each student is an individual, with needs and issues that must be addressed. In a class period, the teachers expressed frustration because they could not address the needs of 25 or more students. "

--->Gina, a former high school science teacher described the variety in her workload as well as in her students' abilities:

"What I least expected was the amount of paperwork I had to do. Grading papers, progress reports, parent conferences, English-as-a-Second Language, exceptional students, ADD paperwork, and even work for absent students seem to take more time than "teaching."

To compound the issue, teachers also related many learning issues, where students had questions or misunderstandings that could easily have been cleared up with a few minutes of one-on-one time. They also reported discipline issues that got more serious when they were not addressed. Some students were bored. Some lacked basic skills and could not perform without help. In general, the teachers expressed being frustrated because they are educated professionals who could address these issues, if there were time to get to everyone. There was simply not enough time to address the variety of issues that simultaneously too place. Farkas et al. (2000) reported that 86% of new teachers report that the change most likely to improve teaching is reducing class size.

--->Eva, a high school English teacher summed up her frustration with large class sizes.

"This was not a matter of poor time management; it was a matter of too many students with too many needs and one harried teacher trying to be superhuman. There were times that I had a great lesson plan, only to have it totally derailed because of one or two students who needed individual attention and could not get it."

The total number of students that this professional was expected to evaluate, plan, and care for each day was as many as 150.
______________________________________________
---------->Working Conditions:
School administrators varied in their support of young teachers, and many teachers reported that this support was inadequate. The new teachers felt that they were evaluated and judged, but they would have preferred real feedback and suggestions for improvement of their teaching. They felt that they were often not supported in discipline issues or in conflicts with parents.

--->Carol, a former high school math teacher:

"I was very frustrated with the lack of support from my principal/administration in that after three observations I never got any feedback either in written or verbal form. I never really knew how I was doing. I felt I was doing a good job, but did not think the administration cared one way or the other."

--->Fran, a high school mathematics teacher expressed a need for more funds:

"Teachers should be given all the supplies that they need - $25 is not enough! At all other jobs that I have worked at, whatever you need to do your job is provided."
______________________________________________
---------->Relationships with Students and Parents:
A common problem reported by beginning teachers was student apathy. Many of the novice teachers reported that students had no interest in learning. In addition to attendance problems, a number of students often came to class without pencil, paper, and textbook. It was difficult to force or entice them to participate in classwork, and virtually impossible to get them to do homework.

--->Owen, a former high school mathematics teacher, was frustrated by his students' apathy:

"The vast majority of my students had no interest in learning math and I quickly tired of trying to force them (or entice them). They refused to bring paper or pencil to class, refused to do homework or classwork, and frequently came to class late or not at all. Most of them, to my great surprise, were not at all belligerent or confrontational about their refusal to do anything in class; they just had no intention of working at anything."

--->Mattie, a former high school history teacher, could not deal with the frustration:

"I just became very frustrated teaching to a class of 20 students and about 5 were interested or at least concerned with their grades. I decided not to return, because I was so exhausted and depressed at the end of the year. I just couldn't see "wasting" my time in a classroom where the kids don't care about themselves or what you're trying to accomplish."

--->Eugene, a former high school math teacher, also reported problems with apathy:

"I was frustrated with the apathy of the students. Many days I felt as though I was standing up there talking to myself. It was the longest year of my life. I was an emotional wreck because I felt as if the kids/parents didn't care enough to try or participate."

They dressed me up like this. And this isn't my collar, it's a false one!

I think part of the problem is that there's a whole lot of people out there who can't quantify how much wealthier the people feeding them the "Creating Jobs" stuff are. See: http://videosift.com/video/Most-Americans-Unaware-of-Growing-Concentration-of-Wealth at the 1:40 mark. Everyone thinks they are middle class that's a 29k avg neighborhood and 140k neighborhood, 3:30 repeats it again....they think the majority of Americans are middle class.

I'd venture to say that many people in that crowd are there, not because they understand that the people working on wall street dwarf their salary probably by a factor of 4 or 5 in the lower paid white collar jobs and up into the 100+ factors when they get into the upper positions. They are there because they want what they had back, and they can now see that Wall Street or at least the mentality of Wall Street has in a very short period of time affected many aspects of their lives.

If they could still afford a place to live, food, and have a decent job, they probably would have never noticed the long term erosion of the system by those with the money and power...twisting it so they took more of the pie and left the middle and lower class to figure out how they will afford their house (debt which in turn shifts more money up the ladder).

I mean most people who have jobs right now, the only information they care about on unemployment is when it comes from someone they know who they consider to be a "useful employee" and not their stoner brother, etc. And even then it's probably "These things happen, you'll find another job." until they are still unemployed 6 months later....maybe they were just lazy. 12 months rolls around and they are still unemployed? Now it starts to scare the living shit out of people, especially when another friend or family lost their job a month or two back. When it looks like it might affect them personally is when they care, and by that time it's been 1-2 years of people they know going unemployed at various times...working at McDs or Walmart because there's nothing out there.

http://videosift.com/video/Food-Speculation-Explained

Showing another way the Wall Street mentality is just giving us all a good screwing. Instead of these folks taking their talents to create something, they leech off of the people doing the work and drive up costs while creating massive uncertainty for everyone involved.

http://videosift.com/video/Elizabeth-Warren-The-Coming-Collapse-of-the-Middle-Class

Shows that people were experiencing bankruptcy more often that you would assume, but were able to hide it. Plus the general fixed costs being increasingly higher over the years with no overall salary gains to offset them.

http://videosift.com/video/Paul-Krugman-Income-Inequality-and-the-Middle-Class

Showing that they have been on the union bust kick for 30 years now at least, and it's something unique to the US because Canada in a similar global economy still has the level of unionized work force as the US had 30 years ago. Education has nothing to do with the income disparity. And the income disparity was fixed by policies put in place during the 1930s and early 40s. Which have been removed layer by layer since then, with increasing frequency in more recent history. And he points out in the video that the highest paid hedge fund manager makes more in a single year than 88000 NY teachers do in 3 years, my recounting of it might be off a little it's near the end of the video.


http://videosift.com/video/Multi-Millionaire-Rep-Says-He-Can-8482-t-Afford-A-Tax-Hike

Then you have this knucklehead talking about 200k to feed his family and how he can't afford a tax hike because it will prevent him from investing in store improvements and openings (that make him MORE money, so yeah..). Jon Stewart covered this in a much more funny way and how stupid the argument being made is. I'll re-iterate my take on this though. If they can't create jobs with the money they have coming in now after all the other tax deductions over the years, and all the opportunities before this day to do.....they will not do so. It's a fool's bet to depend on some guy who can't demonstrate how he has created jobs in the last 2-4 years in some meaningful way and how those low taxes make it possible to do so. Taxes would pretty much force him to reinvest in his business because if he tried to take it in profit he'd be paying a chunk of it out in taxes.




I think the most profane thing about this country right now is that people who want to work can't find work. And those who are working, especially blue collar jobs have a bunch of white collar guys speculating on their production....every thing that blue collar guy makes/produces probably has 10 or more white collar guys trying to make a buck off of it. It's like a house of cards, except the support structures are the very few people who still put out useable materials. It's crazy how something like that was let run wild, with more and more of the regulation taken away so they could stack even more cards onto the mess. The money isn't to be had in production, it's made in speculating/futures/etc...and it's just massively crazy to realize that all the middlemen are allowed to drive up the costs of oil/food/etc instead of cutting that shit out through regulation.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^lurgee:
F ck the police!

This is the point I'm always torn with. Everyone always says their are good cops...I'm sure there were cops there that didn't like this strategy thought it was wrong and unethical. And people say we shouldn't lump all cops together like they all believe in this stuff and suppress people in the way that they do.
Well why the fuck don't they stand up? Why are the cops that have a problem with the shit that's going on just standing there...not having a problem with it. This is why the idea of "Don't Snitch" and "Fuck the Police" gains ground. If you're not going to stand up for what's right in your OWN DEPARTMENT, you will get lumped in with everyone else.
We are the American People. We don't trust you, we don't believe in you, we won't cooperate with you. You are there to protect and serve, just what does that mean anymore?


https://occupywallst.org/article/Officer-Bologna/ (toward the end of the page):

This was an attempt to make us weak, this was an attempt to destroy or derail our message, our conversation. It has not succeeded. We have grown, we will grow. Today we received unconfirmed reports that over one hundred blue collar police refused to come into work in solidarity with our movement. These numbers will grow. We are the 99 percent. You will not silence us.

pretty sure the popped collar was the source of his power.