![]() |
|
Debating with the enemy Discuss politics, current events, and other hot button issues here. |
|
Thread Tools
![]() |
Display Modes
![]() |
|
![]() |
#11 | |
Contains football related knowledge
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
|
Re: 'Occupy' types
Quote:
(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 was a war time alliance of convenience to acheive a specific political goal, the other is 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 its 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.
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go. Last edited by JoeRedskin; 11-01-2011 at 10:14 PM. |
|
![]() |
|
|