'Occupy' types

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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 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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

(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?

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.

obama communist - Google Search



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?
GOP Presidential Candidate joins Occupy Wall Street? The end is near. - Arizona Hispanic Republicans

Rhetorical question. We all know why.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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).

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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 with name calling will raise the level of debate and create a political atmosphere conducive to problem solving.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 with name calling will raise the level of debate and create a political atmosphere conducive to problem solving.

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

[Slingin Sammy 33]

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

Cafe Owner Says He Was Forced To Cut Staff By Nearly A Fourth Because Of 'Occupy' Protests | Fox News

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.

[firstdown]

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?

Occupy Wall Street: Ryan Hoffman on security detail, serving the 'undesirables' - Countdown with Keith Olbermann // Current TV

[Beemnseven]

Peter Schiff vs. Occupiers

(actually a pretty good dialogue...)

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Peter Schiff vs. Occupiers

(actually a pretty good dialogue...)

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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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.