This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
'anti-capitalist' 'protesters'
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Pawson Palace  Croydon 06 Nov 15 12.03pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Nov 2015 11.40am
Quote Pawson Palace at 06 Nov 2015 11.38am
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 11.28am
Must be really comfortable waking up every morning, reading whatever your rag of choice is and going "yep, that's 100% my opinion. Glad I don't have to look in to this any further as all the information I need is right here" and carrying that around with you all day. Yup. Smashing up someone else's property is wrong in my opinion 100%. I'd say smashing up someone's private property is about 75% wrong, but then some people sometimes have it coming. As for certain company property, in the right circumstances it can be the right thing to do. Come on chap. If I smash up your house/car and then you come out and give me right hook does that me the victim?
Pride of South London |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Part Time James 06 Nov 15 12.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
I thought they were supposed to be 'pro democracy' but you'd be excused for not knowing what their point is when they don't have a clue. Reading the website I really struggle to make sense of it. It seems to surround revolt and upsetting the system I can only presume for the sake of anarchy's as there's no reference to a better system. It really annoys me when everyone has their own justification for behaving like a cnut and cumulatively manage to legitimise it on the grounds of everything the government has done from Iraq to 'raping' dead pigs. Then you've got the alleged police cover-ups of 70s abuse making them fair game too. This seems to be the format for most protests going back to the 2011 riots. Any excuse. I'd guess the end goal is to undermine the police further by provoking a heavy-handed response. This obviously mobilises more protesters and validates any ideas of oppression. There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. Edited by johnfirewall (06 Nov 2015 12.00pm)
I think you hit the nail on the head as well. Too many 'protesters' and self proclaimed revolutionaries that try to bring about change but not back it up with a clear or workable direction or plan.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Mr Fenandes  06 Nov 15 12.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 06 Nov 2015 12.00pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 11.28am
Must be really comfortable waking up every morning, reading whatever your rag of choice is and going "yep, that's 100% my opinion. Glad I don't have to look in to this any further as all the information I need is right here" and carrying that around with you all day.
Act like a thug and don't be surprised if people take exception. How do you think the person in the car felt? flashing lights (probably very difficult to see) and surrounded by masked protagonists who were tring to stop them form leaving? Go on justify what they were doing It was a small minority, and on top of that some were goaded to a ridiculous degree. You've never seen an over zealous steward, constantly provoking and provoking and then when they get a reaction, call in all their buddies for help? Justifying; no. But lets give it a fair analysis no? And again I bring you back to the football comparative, how did you feel being tarred with the "football hooligan" brush? You know it happens, the pictures in the papers are damning, how do you defend yourself?
Check out our Croydon-based football comedy series 'Road to F.A. Cup'! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 06 Nov 15 12.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. There is most certainly an element to that for sure and I can certainly understand the perception that there are those who are just looking to be angry and cause trouble, because it's true. But there are also those who see things like Goldman Sach's "advising" the government to sell the Post Office for half its value; then buying 50% of the stock and selling for double the price less than a week later. That's insider trading, there is no getting away from that. The definition of pillaging and an absolute disgrace, it should have been on of the biggest scandals of the year. Absolutely nothing. So on the other side of the coin, I can see why the elite rich have no credibility with these groups. As broker it purchased them for 3rd parties who had already purchased from GS on the back of the quoted price plus their brokerage. That's not profiting from the price increase. Further as joint bookrunner it would have owned a percentage already.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 06 Nov 15 12.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Pawson Palace at 06 Nov 2015 12.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Nov 2015 11.40am
Quote Pawson Palace at 06 Nov 2015 11.38am
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 11.28am
Must be really comfortable waking up every morning, reading whatever your rag of choice is and going "yep, that's 100% my opinion. Glad I don't have to look in to this any further as all the information I need is right here" and carrying that around with you all day. Yup. Smashing up someone else's property is wrong in my opinion 100%. I'd say smashing up someone's private property is about 75% wrong, but then some people sometimes have it coming. As for certain company property, in the right circumstances it can be the right thing to do. Come on chap. If I smash up your house/car and then you come out and give me right hook does that me the victim?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 06 Nov 15 12.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.05pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 06 Nov 2015 12.00pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 11.28am
Must be really comfortable waking up every morning, reading whatever your rag of choice is and going "yep, that's 100% my opinion. Glad I don't have to look in to this any further as all the information I need is right here" and carrying that around with you all day.
Act like a thug and don't be surprised if people take exception. How do you think the person in the car felt? flashing lights (probably very difficult to see) and surrounded by masked protagonists who were tring to stop them form leaving? Go on justify what they were doing It was a small minority, and on top of that some were goaded to a ridiculous degree. You've never seen an over zealous steward, constantly provoking and provoking and then when they get a reaction, call in all their buddies for help? Justifying; no. But lets give it a fair analysis no? And again I bring you back to the football comparative, how did you feel being tarred with the "football hooligan" brush? You know it happens, the pictures in the papers are damning, how do you defend yourself? There's two parts to this: The protest itself - Which I have absolutely no problem with The actions of a small but significant minority - they deserve everything that's coming. Wearing masks sets the tone for the demonstration. Group mentality and the mask of anonymity is a recipe for disaster. As others have said, it's now cool to hate. Yes we can all rattle of a list of wrongs that the "other side" have committed but once you use violence, you lose the argument.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 06 Nov 15 12.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. There is most certainly an element to that for sure and I can certainly understand the perception that there are those who are just looking to be angry and cause trouble, because it's true. But there are also those who see things like Goldman Sach's "advising" the government to sell the Post Office for half its value; then buying 50% of the stock and selling for double the price less than a week later. That's insider trading, there is no getting away from that. The definition of pillaging and an absolute disgrace, it should have been on of the biggest scandals of the year. Absolutely nothing. So on the other side of the coin, I can see why the elite rich have no credibility with these groups.
Edited by chris123 (06 Nov 2015 12.23pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr Fenandes 06 Nov 15 12.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 06 Nov 2015 12.22pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. There is most certainly an element to that for sure and I can certainly understand the perception that there are those who are just looking to be angry and cause trouble, because it's true. But there are also those who see things like Goldman Sach's "advising" the government to sell the Post Office for half its value; then buying 50% of the stock and selling for double the price less than a week later. That's insider trading, there is no getting away from that. The definition of pillaging and an absolute disgrace, it should have been on of the biggest scandals of the year. Absolutely nothing. So on the other side of the coin, I can see why the elite rich have no credibility with these groups.
Edited by chris123 (06 Nov 2015 12.23pm) Smoke and mirrors. They didn't offer them to their customers our of sheer benevolence; money was made, and despite their instrumental involvement in the financial crisis, were also responsible for undervaluing a publicly owned service for private gain. And regardless who took the money, we basically paid a dividend to GS customers. Why is that okay? Why were they even given such a massive job given their track record? I have been a bit laxy-daisy with my figure of 50% and probably shouldn't have used it as an example, but it would only have been more dodgy if Venebles and Redknapp were consulted. PS, it is nice this has developed in to a debate with facts (however loose) and opinions with some sort of reasoning, as opposed to just calling people idiots and calling for them to be set alight.
Check out our Croydon-based football comedy series 'Road to F.A. Cup'! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 06 Nov 15 12.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.35pm
Quote chris123 at 06 Nov 2015 12.22pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. There is most certainly an element to that for sure and I can certainly understand the perception that there are those who are just looking to be angry and cause trouble, because it's true. But there are also those who see things like Goldman Sach's "advising" the government to sell the Post Office for half its value; then buying 50% of the stock and selling for double the price less than a week later. That's insider trading, there is no getting away from that. The definition of pillaging and an absolute disgrace, it should have been on of the biggest scandals of the year. Absolutely nothing. So on the other side of the coin, I can see why the elite rich have no credibility with these groups.
Edited by chris123 (06 Nov 2015 12.23pm) Smoke and mirrors. They didn't offer them to their customers our of sheer benevolence; money was made, and despite their instrumental involvement in the financial crisis, were also responsible for undervaluing a publicly owned service for private gain. And regardless who took the money, we basically paid a dividend to GS customers. Why is that okay? Why were they even given such a massive job given their track record? I have been a bit laxy-daisy with my figure of 50% and probably shouldn't have used it as an example, but it would only have been more dodgy if Venebles and Redknapp were consulted. PS, it is nice this has developed in to a debate with facts (however loose) and opinions with some sort of reasoning, as opposed to just calling people idiots and calling for them to be set alight. Why should we pay a dividend to anyone who bought them?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr Fenandes 06 Nov 15 12.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 12.42pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.35pm
Quote chris123 at 06 Nov 2015 12.22pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. There is most certainly an element to that for sure and I can certainly understand the perception that there are those who are just looking to be angry and cause trouble, because it's true. But there are also those who see things like Goldman Sach's "advising" the government to sell the Post Office for half its value; then buying 50% of the stock and selling for double the price less than a week later. That's insider trading, there is no getting away from that. The definition of pillaging and an absolute disgrace, it should have been on of the biggest scandals of the year. Absolutely nothing. So on the other side of the coin, I can see why the elite rich have no credibility with these groups.
Edited by chris123 (06 Nov 2015 12.23pm) Smoke and mirrors. They didn't offer them to their customers our of sheer benevolence; money was made, and despite their instrumental involvement in the financial crisis, were also responsible for undervaluing a publicly owned service for private gain. And regardless who took the money, we basically paid a dividend to GS customers. Why is that okay? Why were they even given such a massive job given their track record? I have been a bit laxy-daisy with my figure of 50% and probably shouldn't have used it as an example, but it would only have been more dodgy if Venebles and Redknapp were consulted. PS, it is nice this has developed in to a debate with facts (however loose) and opinions with some sort of reasoning, as opposed to just calling people idiots and calling for them to be set alight. Why should we pay a dividend to anyone who bought them? I was talking metaphorically in terms of a quick payout at someone elses expense. [Link]
Check out our Croydon-based football comedy series 'Road to F.A. Cup'! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 06 Nov 15 12.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Nov 2015 11.40am
Quote Pawson Palace at 06 Nov 2015 11.38am
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 11.28am
Must be really comfortable waking up every morning, reading whatever your rag of choice is and going "yep, that's 100% my opinion. Glad I don't have to look in to this any further as all the information I need is right here" and carrying that around with you all day. Yup. Smashing up someone else's property is wrong in my opinion 100%. I'd say smashing up someone's private property is about 75% wrong, but then some people sometimes have it coming. As for certain company property, in the right circumstances it can be the right thing to do. You need to grow up.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 06 Nov 15 12.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.50pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 12.42pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.35pm
Quote chris123 at 06 Nov 2015 12.22pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. There is most certainly an element to that for sure and I can certainly understand the perception that there are those who are just looking to be angry and cause trouble, because it's true. But there are also those who see things like Goldman Sach's "advising" the government to sell the Post Office for half its value; then buying 50% of the stock and selling for double the price less than a week later. That's insider trading, there is no getting away from that. The definition of pillaging and an absolute disgrace, it should have been on of the biggest scandals of the year. Absolutely nothing. So on the other side of the coin, I can see why the elite rich have no credibility with these groups.
Edited by chris123 (06 Nov 2015 12.23pm) Smoke and mirrors. They didn't offer them to their customers our of sheer benevolence; money was made, and despite their instrumental involvement in the financial crisis, were also responsible for undervaluing a publicly owned service for private gain. And regardless who took the money, we basically paid a dividend to GS customers. Why is that okay? Why were they even given such a massive job given their track record? I have been a bit laxy-daisy with my figure of 50% and probably shouldn't have used it as an example, but it would only have been more dodgy if Venebles and Redknapp were consulted. PS, it is nice this has developed in to a debate with facts (however loose) and opinions with some sort of reasoning, as opposed to just calling people idiots and calling for them to be set alight. Why should we pay a dividend to anyone who bought them? I was talking metaphorically in terms of a quick payout at someone elses expense. So was I. Could apply to you or I or absolutely anyone who bought them, which in most cases would have been through Goldmans in some capacity. I can't see your issue other than the fact we paid a large bank for the advice and to run the book.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.