Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;854705]I have no problem with these people as long as they are not some right wing KKK types they are cool with me.[/quote]No problem with Hezbollah, David Duke (former KKK, founder of NAAWP), Communist Party USA, Revolutionary Guards of Iran???

ummmm, OK.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;854660]Great stuff mlmp.[/quote]


Why is it great stuff? So you can go about waving your elephant flag in some sort of triumph victory? Because you like the association that this person is trying to link communist/racists/terrorists with the Democratic party. It's quite obvious that's exactly what they are trying to do and trying to lump the movement as.


You should be ****ing ashamed of yourself (and mlmpetert for posting that garbage) Get off that god damn Dems vs Repubs bullshit. It's sickening and it's played out. Until you realize both parties are absolute full of shit, you will continue to contribute to the downfall of this nation.

Also, guess what? The US supported Bin Laden and his Jihad, who turned around and killed over 3,000 of our people (and more if you count the wars). You didn't care much about who supported who then did you, so why in the hell are you caring now? Oh, because it fits your agendas.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;854748]Why is it great stuff? So you can go about waving your elephant flag in some sort of triumph victory? Because you like the association that this person is trying to link communist/racists/terrorists with the Democratic party. It's quite obvious that's exactly what they are trying to do and trying to lump the movement as.

You should be ****ing ashamed of yourself (and mlmpetert for posting that garbage) Get off that god damn Dems vs Repubs bullshit. It's sickening and it's played out. Until you realize both parties are absolute full of shit, you will continue to contribute to the downfall of this nation.

Also, guess what? The US supported Bin Laden and his Jihad, who turned around and killed over 3,000 of our people (and more if you count the wars). You didn't care much about who supported who then did you, so why in the hell are you caring now? Oh, because it fits your agendas.[/quote]

Chill dude. Let go of the anger, it hinders actual debate. You're all over the board and spouting nonesense.

(1) Do you dispute the factual allegation that these various groups and individuals have indicated their support for the OWS movment?

(2) In citing and creating the list where did either mlpertert or SS33 mention the Republicans? Rather than impute an intent to their actions and spew anger, why not simply post groups that show the wide spectrum of support for the OWS to disprove what you believe their intent to be?

(3) As usual you compare apples to oranges and call them equivalent - Are you seriously suggesting that the US support of the Taliban in its oppostion to the Soviet Union during the Cold War is any way the equivalent of these groups supporting the OWS? One [I]was[/I] a war time alliance of convenience to acheive a specific political goal, the other [I]is[/I] a statement of political support, by several groups, for a populist movement seen to be philosophically aligned with some of their goals.

Do these groups define the OWS? No. Just as the NRA doesn't define the Tea Party. However, like the NRA's support of portions of the Tea Party's agenda, the affiliations are indicative of the philosophical bent of the OWS.

As Lotus indicated earlier, these groups don't define the OWS. But just as the Tea Party draws its philosophical inspiration from libertarianism, it is clear that, both from the list of "supporters" and from the movements own words/actions, the OWS draws [I]its[/I] philosophical inspiration from traditional anachirstic/ communistic philosophy.

Meanwhile, you keep blaming "the media" for painting the OWS as loonies/hippies etc. and, sure, there are media outlets that do so. Just as surely, however, there are media outlets that portray the movement in a very different light. As I said, the facts - all the facts, not just the ones you like - are out there. Stop assuming people who either disagree with you are either moronic, are unaware of the facts you believe to be dispositive or are pursuing a particular agenda. Perhaps, just perhaps, they have done just a much research as you and are just as smart as you but just happen to disagree with your conclusions.

You consistently rail against being stereotyped yet, in almost every post you make, and just as consistently, you stereotype those who disagree with you or who see things differently. While not stupid, you are often either incredibly hypocritical or just simply obtuse.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;854759]Chill dude. Let go of the anger, it hinders actual debate. You're all over the board and spouting nonesense. [/quote]

You don't want to debate. You just want to sit up here, paint these guys as the hippies and that they should just go home so you all can continue business as normal. There was absolutely no reason to bring those moronic groups into this discussion. It was brought in so you can guys can stereotype the OWS movement that much more. Hey, whatever makes you blokes feel comfy in your recliner. I just hope that one day, YOU have a cause that you want the people to back and let them paint a horrible picture of you and see how it feels. Like I said, you don't want to debate and it's obvious by the remarks many of you have made up here.



[quote=JoeRedskin;854759](2) In citing and creating the list where did either mlpertert or SS33 mention the Republicans? Rather than impute an intent to their actions and spew anger, why not simply post groups that show the wide spectrum of support for the OWS to disprove what you believe their intent to be?[/quote]

He doesn't have to mention Republicans. I know good and god damn well how the man thinks at this point. He sees two sides. The Dems, and the Repubs. I already ignored his comment in regards to my article where he had to point out it was by Dems and liberal..blah..blah..blah. Yet, when I post stuff bashing Dems, it's ok. When he posted "Great stuff", I know exactly why.


Let's go down this list of Dems on that list:

1) Barrack Obama
2) Joe Biden
3) Nancy Pelosi

It doesn't take a genius to see what this list was designed to do.

[url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1382&bih=653&q=obama%20communist&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1495l4886l0l5011l15l14l0l3l3l0l199l1270l5.6l11l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi]obama communist - Google Search[/url]
[IMG]http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000239888/polls_obama_socialist_3703_626078_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg[/IMG]


For the record, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I do have a problem bringing bullshit like this into the discussion where it's not relevant to the discussion and does nothing but bring animosity.

Give me a break with the NRA supporting the Tea Party. Those people on that list weren't credible unions or associations. You want to talk about apples and oranges...lol


As long as you continue with this type of "debate" and nonsense, I'm going to continue to be "angry". You are fine with your arguments of "What do they want?", "What are their demands?", "why are they there?". Valid arguments and points. So why bring the other mud slinging into this? To back up the stereotypes you all have so eloquently painted? I'm going to fight fire with fire. It's how I operate. When you stop stereotyping, so will I.


Also, why wasn't this guy's name up there?
[url=http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-hispanic-republicans/2011/10/10/gop-presidential-candidate-joins-occupy-wall-street-the-end-is-near/]GOP Presidential Candidate joins Occupy Wall Street? The end is near. - Arizona Hispanic Republicans[/url]

Rhetorical question. We all know why.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;854759] Stop assuming people who either disagree with you are either moronic, are unaware of the facts you believe to be dispositive or are pursuing a particular agenda. [/quote]



The mention of "moronic Americans" was in regards to people believing the "guilt by associations" crap being passed around. (much like the list shown previously) The "Birther" crowd and the people who believed Obama was Islamic and a terrorist supporter are the people I'm targeting with that statement. If you aren't one of those people, then it doesn't apply.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Back to regularly scheduled program:

[url=http://bangordailynews.com/2011/10/31/news/nation/google-refuses-to-remove-police-brutality-videos/]Google refuses to remove police-brutality videos, it says — Maine News — Bangor Daily News[/url]

[QUOTE]In its most recent Transparency Report, Google states that it has received multiple requests from law-enforcement officials to remove videos.

“We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.”[/QUOTE]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/WVb6I.jpg[/IMG]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=Chico23231;854569][url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/31/us/tennessee-occupy-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t1]Judge tells Tennessee to stop arresting Occupy protesters - CNN.com[/url]

Apparently Nashville = China. Glad to see political free speech and the right to assemble are still important to Tennessee. Such an embarrassment the state conceded to the ruling.[/quote]

About time somebody stood up for the people.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MiAo4.jpg[/IMG]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

^
Gotta love the unhappy kid on the far right. Must be a Sesame Street Republican.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=Lotus;854848]^
Gotta love the unhappy kid on the far right. Must be a Sesame Street Republican.[/quote]


[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Thats Oscar the Grouch, that kid is just in character. Youd be pissed too if you lived in a trash can..... or an occupy tent[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Kid's probably just a little hippie leaching off the rest of the family - GET A JOB GROUCHY!!!

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;854748]Also, guess what? The US supported Bin Laden and his Jihad, who turned around and killed over 3,000 of our people (and more if you count the wars). You didn't care much about who supported who then did you, so why in the hell are you caring now? Oh, because it fits your agendas.[/quote]Without restating JoeR's excellent post (the last couple lines hit the nail squarely on the head) here's another fact for you. The U.S. did NOT finance Bin Laden.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html"]Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth | Fox News[/URL]

You'll call this article BS, from Fox News, blah, blah, blah, but unless you've done extensive research into the matter (like the author has) or have concrete evidence, your statement is simply a matter of misguided opinion.

Here's the part of my post you referenced in a response to JoeR:
"I know this will never change your mind/views, but it's as hypocritical as the day is long for you to lecture us (particularly conservatives) about how you "don't care about D vs. R, Red vs. Blue", etc. and we're all so stupid we don't know the "Man" is pitting us against each other while he keeps us down.

....Yet [B]many of your posts lean far left[/B] and you post an article from a Democratic strategist who was a comms director at the DNC and a senior advisor to Hillary that bashes the GOP in several spots and glosses over the fact that campaign contributions made by major corporations split almost evenly between D & R pols. It completely blames the GOP for the current state of affairs, which couldn't be further from the truth since the Ds have controlled Congress for quite sometime."

You think you "know good and gd well" that I only see R vs. D, yet a majority of what you post leans hard left, then you claim some sort of higher intellectual ground....yes that's hypocritical.

You are definitely an angry fella.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Is this Woodstock thing still going on?

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

heard balt mayor rawlings-blake talk today about occupy baltimore and the alleged rape.

the concealed identity lady in the balt fox news interview who said she was raped and there is rape evidence at the hospital would lead you to believe there was semen taken from her va jay jay.

Rawlings-blake said she had scratches on her butt and bruises . . which means no semen, im going to assume no penetration. . .

the lady also said she had $1,800 taken from her tent that night and doesnt remember anything that happened.

mayor also said the occupy people are going to have to stop sleeping there overnight at some point/pretty soon.

the new mayor sounds good, she sounds like she is an honest straight up person unlike dixon who just seemed and sounded so so corrupt. idk give stephanie some more time as a politician and lets she is she changes . .

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

@ JoeRedskins – thanks very much. I completely agree and feel the same on all points you raised.

@ NCSkins – I have requested that the author of that list add Buddy Roemer to the list, which im almost positive he will. There are a lot of people/groups still not on the list and the author mention that this is just a start. Michael Moore, comes to mind. Also Unions are left off.

I think the intention of the list is to show that there is a lot of extremely questionable and unsavory supporters of the OWS movement. Although its obvious to rational people that OWS leadership (if there is any) would not accept endorsement from some of these groups. However, the reasoning these groups are supportive of OWS is because of the socialist/communist/collective principles that they and OWS share. The same issued plagued the Tea Party’s limited government capitalistic principles, and the attraction unsavory groups had early on to the Tea Party was very well publicize by the media. If anything I would say OWS is being treated far better by the media then the Tea Party ever was.

Ill also add that the majority of Americans and nearly all conservative commentators ive heard are upset and agree with the heart of what OWS is protesting (bailouts, inequality, special interest/corporation influence) (I think that’s what their protesting, right?), but the solutions to those issues are far different then the solutions OWS seem to endorse. I define myself as socially liberal / fiscally conservative and that individual interest is just as important and sometimes even more important than collective interest; in no way am I supportive of Social Justice. So while current fiscal and social issues may be just as upsetting to me and most other Americans as they are to you and OWS protesters, my views on solving the problems are vastly different.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=mlmpetert;854665][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Unfortunately there was another rape reported, this time at Occupy Baltimore. Baltimore is the same place that started handing out pamphlets that discouraged individuals from reporting sexual assaults to the police in a effort to keep the allegations internal.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/emotional-interview-alleged-occupy-baltimore-rape-victim-says-activists-refused-to-help/"]Raped and Robbed Occupy Baltimore Woman Receives No Help From ‘Activists’ | Video | TheBlaze.com[/URL]


[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I think I was 1 rape short in my above post, plus there was one i missed all togather at Occupy Lawrence in Kanas. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]T[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]his is the current recap of reported rapes or sexual assaults:[/FONT][/COLOR]


[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]1 at Occupy Cleveland[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]1 at Occupy Dallas (statutory, 14 year old)[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]1 at Occupy Oakland (questionable)[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]3 at Occupy Wall Street (NYC), including one on a deaf man[/FONT][/COLOR]
1 at Occupy Lawrence (Kanas)
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]1 at Occupy Baltimore[/FONT][/COLOR]


[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Plus 1 at Occupy Glasgow (in the UK)[/FONT][/COLOR]


[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]This brings the total to 8 or 9, plus 1 serial flasher that was arrested in Seattle and 1 serial groper that was arrested in NYC. Again these are a mix of reported rapes from a combination of first hand and second hand testimony, although a minimum of 4 have been reported to police. Heres a good recap of most of the assults:[/FONT][/COLOR]

[URL="http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/31/sexual-assaults-continue-to-plague-occupy-protests/"]Occupy Wall Street | Sexual Assault | The Daily Caller[/URL][/quote]


Also a couple more things to add to this list:

An Occupy New Hampshire protester got arrested for trying to pimp out a 16 year old girl to a undercover police officer:

[URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hampshire-woman-justina-jensen-pimp-teen-met-occupy-protest-police-article-1.969272?localLinksEnabled=false"]New Hampshire woman, Justina Jensen, tried to pimp Â*out teen she met at Occupy protest: policeÂ* - NY Daily News[/URL]

And Occupy Madison (Wisconsin) was denied getting their perment reissued do to instances of public masturbation (I guess because theyre no longer willing to be screwed by the banks):

[URL="http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-fayetteville/permit-denied-for-occupy-madison-due-to-public-masturbation"]Permit denied for Occupy Madison due to public masturbation - Fayetteville Political Buzz | Examiner.com[/URL]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;854782]You don't want to debate. You just want to sit up here, paint these guys as the hippies and that they should just go home so you all can continue business as normal. ... Like I said, you don't want to debate and it's obvious by the remarks many of you have made up here.[/quote]

First, I have not painted them as hippies - I believe I have been very evenhanded in both my portrayal and understanding of individuals within the movemnt.

Second, I am sorry but it is you who continually cut off debate by ignoring valid points, moving your rhetorical target and assuming you have some moral high ground on all the issues. I am happy to debate the validity of the movement, what it stands for and how it can best accomplish it's goals. You, however, have a disconcerting methodology of disparaging/ignoring facts you don't like or are not supportive of your agenda and of selectively addressing questions with answers that would be disprove your answers to other questions (the whole "govt. suing finance companies as evidence of misdoing but not of govt. action" thing - it wasn't the first time you have used such disengenous arguments and I doubt it will be the last).

[quote=NC_Skins;854782]As long as you continue with this type of "debate" and nonsense, I'm going to continue to be "angry". You are fine with your arguments of "What do they want?", "What are their demands?", "why are they there?". Valid arguments and points. So why bring the other mud slinging into this? [B]To back up the stereotypes you all have so eloquently painted? I'm going to fight fire with fire. It's how I operate. When you stop stereotyping, so will I.[/B][/quote]

So when confronted with what you believe to be unreasonable arguments, rather than expose the lack of reason through thoughtful logical responses based in fact, you will simply respond with what you know to be equally unreasonable arguments.

"Fight fire with fire"?? When others act unreasonably or speak illogically it is okay to do the same? That's an excellent way to solve the problems facing America - I am sure that responding to what you believe to be name calling [I]with[/I] name calling will raise the level of debate and create a political atmosphere conducive to problem solving.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;854906]First, I have not painted them as hippies - I believe I have been very evenhanded in both my portrayal and understanding of individuals within the movemnt.

Second, I am sorry but it is you who continually cut off debate by ignoring valid points, moving your rhetorical target and assuming you have some moral high ground on all the issues. I am happy to debate the validity of the movement, what it stands for and how it can best accomplish it's goals. You, however, have a disconcerting methodology of disparaging/ignoring facts you don't like or are not supportive of your agenda and of selectively addressing questions with answers that would be disprove your answers to other questions (the whole "govt. suing finance companies as evidence of misdoing but not of govt. action" thing - it wasn't the first time you have used such disengenous arguments and I doubt it will be the last).



So when confronted with what you believe to be unreasonable arguments, rather than expose the lack of reason through thoughtful logical responses based in fact, you will simply respond with what you know to be equally unreasonable arguments.

"Fight fire with fire"?? When others act unreasonably or speak illogically it is okay to do the same? That's an excellent way to solve the problems facing America - I am sure that responding to what you believe to be name calling [I]with[/I] name calling will raise the level of debate and create a political atmosphere conducive to problem solving.[/quote]

LOL.....he also stated the he would throw gasoline bombs at police if so provoked.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

I wonder if the OWS types considered their effect on local, small businesses, and their workers:

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/01/owner-occupy-wall-street-cost-restaurant-21-jobs-and-counting/?test=latestnews]Cafe Owner Says He Was Forced To Cut Staff By Nearly A Fourth Because Of 'Occupy' Protests | Fox News[/url]

The OWS folks aren't doing anything to hurt Wall Street, investment bankers, hedge fund managers, or corporate CEOs, but they're destroying this small business and certainly others like it so they can keep up their Woodstock-like, 20-something shenanigans.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

So I'm flipping through the news and saw this guy trying to explain the complex process the Occupy group is going to use to police themself. They have more layers in their process then the federal gov. to kick people out of a park they don't even own or control. I love to see what will happen when they try to kick someone out of a park and the person says its not your park. LOL So for a good laugh I found the link to the interview and what the hell kind of face is the host making?

[url=http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/occupy-wall-street-ryan-hoffman-on-security-detail-serving-the-undesirables]Occupy Wall Street: Ryan Hoffman on security detail, serving the 'undesirables' - Countdown with Keith Olbermann // Current TV[/url]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Peter Schiff vs. Occupiers

(actually a pretty good dialogue...)

[YT]<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UGL-Ex1CD1c&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UGL-Ex1CD1c&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>[/YT]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

i think its safe to say most of the criminal and vagrant problems associated with the occupy people are from "street" people hitching their wagon to the movement.

the guy who jacks off at an occupy site is the same guy would be doing it under a bridge or behind a dumpster somewhere else. same for people shooting up, etc . . . imo.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=over the mountain;854937]i think its safe to say most of the criminal and vagrant problems associated with the occupy people are from "street" people hitching their wagon to the movement.

the guy who jacks off at an occupy site is the same guy would be doing it under a bridge or behind a dumpster somewhere else. same for people shooting up, etc . . . imo.[/quote]

That is the occupy group. Have you not looked at the 99% of the people involved with occupy. Its not like they could have a job and protest 24/7 for months at a time.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=firstdown;854939]That is the occupy group. Have you not looked at the 99% of the people involved with occupy. Its not like they could have a job and protest 24/7 for months at a time.[/quote]

FD, dont be such a hippy hater.
Dont you know its easier to sit in a park and complain you don't have a job than to actually go look for one.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=Beemnseven;854935]Peter Schiff vs. Occupiers

(actually a pretty good dialogue...)

[YT]<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UGL-Ex1CD1c&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UGL-Ex1CD1c&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>[/YT][/quote]

I'd vote for Peter Schiff if he ran for office. Never thought about student loans as he talked about them and it makes good sense.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Harsh brah....


[IMG]http://www.glennbeck.com/publish/uploads/2011/10/1791-shirt-occupy-edison_r318-516x620.jpg[/IMG]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=firstdown;854945]I'd vote for Peter Schiff if he ran for office. Never thought about student loans as he talked about them and it makes good sense.[/quote]


Yeah i never thought about student loans in that sense either, definitely makes a good point.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Several pleas were made above not to stereotype occupy people as a monolith. Yet the stereotypes continue. Sigh.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Well, mainly by firstdown ... does that really count? ;)

I kid, I kid.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=Lotus;854982]Several pleas were made above not to stereotype occupy people as a monolith. Yet the stereotypes continue. Sigh.[/quote]To be clear about my post on the business potentially being shut down...

I'm referring to the folks occupying parks & living in tents (most often against normal City ordinances) for several weeks, generating trash, violating other City codes that would get normal folks arrested or fined, attending improptu concerts, committing assaults or other crimes, using illegal drugs at these events, all the while being unemployed or a "student" of some sort living off Mommy & Daddy's credit cards. Essentially the "I'm cool counter-culture" crowd SS referenced in his posts.

I am NOT referring to folks who identify with the broad goals of the OWS movement, are working towards crafting concrete proposals to address the issues they want resolved, and are working toward their goals in the normal course of civil debate and lawful action.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;854986]Well, mainly by firstdown ... does that really count? ;)

I kid, I kid.[/quote]

I don't think that I have refered to them as an organized whole that acts as a single unfied powerful or influential force. If so I'm sorry.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;852699]I know this will never change your mind/views, but it's as hypocritical as the day is long for you to lecture us (particularly conservatives) about how you "don't care about D vs. R, Red vs. Blue", etc. and [U][B]we're all so stupid [/B][/U]we don't know the "Man" is pitting us against each other while he keeps us down.

....Yet many of your posts lean far left and you post an article from a Democratic strategist who was a comms director at the DNC and a senior advisor to Hillary that bashes the GOP in several spots and glosses over the fact that campaign contributions made by major corporations split almost evenly between D & R pols. It completely blames the GOP for the current state of affairs, which couldn't be further from the truth since the Ds have controlled Congress for quite sometime.[/quote]


I haven't said you are stupid so stop implying it. I do however have to question anybody who still uses Fox as a news source. I understand you are conservative and a Republican, but you have fallen into that trap of the "Blame game". You want a good news source. Try here: [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/us_and_canada/]BBC News - US & Canada[/url]

That article wasn't to point out the fallacies of the Republican party. You have to learn to take out the Repub vs Dem bullshit out to get the grit of the story. Yes the story was definitely pointing fingers at the GOP, but I didn't walk away thinking, "you know, the GOP is responsible". No, they ALL are responsible. I walked away from the story with the notion that, IT IS PERSONAL. (the OWS movement)

The two party system is a complete failure at this point. It's no longer about doing what's right for America, it's about which side can show up the other side by mud slinging and detracting the citizens from the core issues at hand.


My posts lean left because my views slightly leans left. That doesn't I support the liberal party (aka...donkey). There is a difference between having liberal views and supporting the liberal democratic party.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[url]http://movetoamend.org/news/boulder-votes-constitutional-amendment-abolish-corporate-personhood[/url]


[quote]“Today’s ‘corporate personhood’ referendum in Boulder, Colorado is the latest message from the American people to state and federal legislators on the need for a Constitutional Amendment,” said Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD). “The Supreme Court’s misguided Citizens’ United ruling burst open the floodgates of corporate spending in our elections, but it also unleashed a wave of public outcry over the need to put individuals, not corporations, in control of our elections. The results from today are just one example that we must take action to protect our treasured democracy.”

Edwards introduced a bill last month for a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the controversial Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.[/quote]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=firstdown;855020][B]I don't think that I have refered to them as an organized whole that acts as a single unfied powerful or influential force[/B]. If so I'm sorry.[/quote]

No, but you have implied that the vast majority are either vagrants looking for handouts or are just a bunch of jobless folks without a point.

[quote=firstdown;854939]That is the occupy group. Have you not looked at the 99% of the people involved with occupy. Its not like they could have a job and protest 24/7 for months at a time.[/quote]

It's quotes like the above (and others, I just wasn't going to cut and paste them all) that stereotype "99%" of the protestors as, essentially, dummies, ne'er-do-wells or people who either don't want to work or are living off others.

Obviously, many people involved are out of work which is part of the reason they are protesting, many people are part of SmootSmack's "Hey I am cool cause I am protesting" group, many - and I would suggest much more than the 1% you imply - are dedicated people with high ideals who are making real sacrifices to be there. What is clear from the various news outlets is that there are a wide wide spectrum of people involved and to lump them all in one category - either favorably or unfavorably - is wrong.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;855030][url=http://movetoamend.org/news/boulder-votes-constitutional-amendment-abolish-corporate-personhood]Boulder Votes for a Constitutional Amendment to Abolish Corporate Personhood | Move to Amend[/url][/quote]

An interesting article and movment. I am coming around to the concept of limitations on the concept of corporate "personhood" - although I think it is not as simple as this movment makes it out to be. The SCOTUS decision granting certain constitutional rights to corporations did not spring out of whole cloth in 2010. Corporate personhood has existed since the Romans and, in the US, the extension to these entities of certain constitutional rights has evolved over time to meet the changing needs of society and the economy. Further, the simple abolition of "personhood" - even for limited aspects - would have far reaching implications. [I]With that said[/I], I get saden1's earlier post about if money = speech, then my voice is barely an inaudible whisper compared to these large legal entities and something about that is just not right.

Here's an interesting article from individuals who are clearly no friend of large corps but who suggest that the abolition of "personhood" is not necessarily a good idea: [url=http://proxyexchange.org/2011/10/1242/]Abolishing Corporate Personhood: Be Careful What You Ask For. | United States Proxy Exchange[/url]

A good read, highlighting some of the complexities of the issue.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;855026]I haven't said you are stupid so stop implying it. [/quote]You may not have said, "You're stupid." But here are several quotes, just in this thread, towards those who have different views than you:

Post 242: You should be ****ing ashamed of yourself (and mlmpetert for posting that garbage) Get off that god damn Dems vs Repubs bullshit. It's sickening and it's played out. Until you realize both parties are absolute full of shit, you will continue to contribute to the downfall of this nation.

Post 245: The mention of "moronic Americans" was in regards to people believing the "guilt by associations" crap being passed around. (much like the list shown previously)

Post 169: That's a false illusion they want you to think Smoot

Post 171: Not even getting where you come up with that conclusion. Are you going of Fox news reports? Random youtube clips?

Post 176: I can understand the "what do they want?" portion, the "they just want a hand out" crap is a bit lame and probably exaggerated to the fullest. [I]That's what they want you to believe.[/I]

Post 183: Let's not make me repeat this for the 100th time.

Post 145: You need your eyes checked.

Post 157: You know what you sound like? You sound like some of those Redskins fans that say you aren't a true Redskin fan unless you attend games...lol

Post 94: .....[I]It's sad most of you sit back and listen to the bullshit the media pumps and believe it.[/I] Just look at FOX to get a good view on how very much they've slanted this "occupy" movement. It's amazing thing to watch. Turning Americans against their own kind all the while they sit back and laugh because [I]you are again blinded by the crooks in Washington[/I].

Post 41: Just like a talking head parrot from the [I]Republidiots[/I].

Post 52: This kind of shit pisses me off and it does exactly what it is supposed to. [I]Throw guys just like YOU off on the real problem[/I].

Post 54: I don't get you. Why in the **** are you up here trying to blast Democrats? Haven't you got it through your skull yet that I don't support ANY party and I think both parties are worthless? It's getting a bit annoying with your petty Repbulican vs Democrat bickering. That's the problem. [I]Most of you guys are so blinded by the whole Repubs vs Dem that you take that mantle and run with it.[/I] You'd think many of you see it as a Cowboys vs Redskins rivalry. DEMOCRATS SUCK!!......REPUBLICANS ARE MORONS!!

Post 67: I think you are reading what you want to

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

^^ Thank you.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

n/t

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;855043]You may not have said, "You're stupid." But here are several quotes, just in this thread, towards those who have different views than you:

Post 242: You should be ****ing ashamed of yourself (and mlmpetert for posting that garbage) Get off that god damn Dems vs Repubs bullshit. It's sickening and it's played out. Until you realize both parties are absolute full of shit, you will continue to contribute to the downfall of this nation.
[COLOR="Red"]
Anytime you bring mudslinging into a debate with me, I'm going to react as such. Expect it. Also the mere fact you two are trying to associate the OWS movement with some heinous groups is despicable. I stand by what I said.[/COLOR]

Post 245: The mention of "moronic Americans" was in regards to people believing the "guilt by associations" crap being passed around. (much like the list shown previously)

[COLOR="Red"]I expounded on this. You aren't one of those moronic birthers or guys who thought Obama was Islamic/terrorist supporter are you? If so, then yes you would be a moron. If not, the statement doesn't apply to you.[/COLOR]

Post 169: That's a false illusion they want you to think Smoot

[COLOR="Red"]Yes. I believe corporate media has a huge influence on our nation, and not in a positive way either.
[/COLOR]
Post 171: Not even getting where you come up with that conclusion. Are you going of Fox news reports? Random youtube clips?

[COLOR="Red"]Yes. Somebody stated a stereotype so I wanted to know where they got that notion from.[/COLOR]

Post 176: I can understand the "what do they want?" portion, the "they just want a hand out" crap is a bit lame and probably exaggerated to the fullest. [I]That's what they want you to believe.[/I]

[COLOR="Red"]...back to defending the many stereotypes people were throwing out there on the OWS movement.[/COLOR]

Post 183: Let's not make me repeat this for the 100th time.
[COLOR="Red"]
What do you expect when people keep making the same comment "You hate corporations and rich people" over and over again. I've stated my stance, yet people keep making that statement. At this point, people are just trying to antagonize me.[/COLOR]

Post 145: You need your eyes checked.
[COLOR="Red"]
Well, when I post a video and the guy narrates it and even highlights everything you need to know. Don't come back to the argument with a "I didn't see it". It tells me you didn't view the video and insult my intelligence by trying to say what you saw was different.[/COLOR]

Post 157: You know what you sound like? You sound like some of those Redskins fans that say you aren't a true Redskin fan unless you attend games...lol

[COLOR="Red"]It was the best analogy I could ever use and it's true.[/COLOR]

Post 94: .....[I]It's sad most of you sit back and listen to the bullshit the media pumps and believe it.[/I] Just look at FOX to get a good view on how very much they've slanted this "occupy" movement. It's amazing thing to watch. Turning Americans against their own kind all the while they sit back and laugh because [I]you are again blinded by the crooks in Washington[/I].
[COLOR="Red"]
Back to corporate controlled media. I think we all know where I stand on this and how they've control what people see or know. FOX has been banned in Canada for a reason.[/COLOR]

Post 41: Just like a talking head parrot from the [I]Republidiots[/I].

[COLOR="Red"]I got nothing for that. That was me just being a asshole. I'll be sure to insert "Demodummies" or "Democraps" in the near future.[/COLOR]

Post 52: This kind of shit pisses me off and it does exactly what it is supposed to. [I]Throw guys just like YOU off on the real problem[/I].

[COLOR="Red"]Yes. I get a bit agitated when people are trying to pigeonhole the OWS movement to some hippies who are to lazy to find a job. They pick particular youtube videos or watch a particular news agency and say "SEE, I TOLD YOU THE ARE NO GOOD HIPPIES". Almost as bad as Cult making the claim that all black QBs get by on their speed. Well, maybe not that bad. :P[/COLOR]

Post 54: I don't get you. Why in the **** are you up here trying to blast Democrats? Haven't you got it through your skull yet that I don't support ANY party and I think both parties are worthless? It's getting a bit annoying with your petty Repbulican vs Democrat bickering. That's the problem. [I]Most of you guys are so blinded by the whole Repubs vs Dem that you take that mantle and run with it.[/I] You'd think many of you see it as a Cowboys vs Redskins rivalry. DEMOCRATS SUCK!!......REPUBLICANS ARE MORONS!!

[COLOR="Red"]Yeah. I get tired of repeating I support no sides. I have liberal views, but I certainly don't support the liberal party. Even then, I have quite a few conservative views as well. [/COLOR]

Post 67: I think you are reading what you want to

[COLOR="Red"]Well, people always decipher words differently. [/COLOR]
[/quote]



I may come off as aggressive or even assholish on some of my posts but it's not intended. Yes, I do think a majority of Americans are dumb and uneducated, but the world wide scores back that up. That doesn't mean I'm talking about you directly when I say something like that either. Many of my statements are general in nature. I take each person on a case by case basis. Even though I may think a majority of people lack the education needed, doesn't mean I'm going to put you into that hole until I've interacted with you.