'Occupy' types

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

I kid, I kid.

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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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 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.

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: BBC News - US & Canada

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.

[NC_Skins]

http://movetoamend.org/news/boulder-...ate-personhood

“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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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.

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Boulder Votes for a Constitutional Amendment to Abolish Corporate Personhood | Move to Amend

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. With that said, 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: Abolishing Corporate Personhood: Be Careful What You Ask For. | United States Proxy Exchange

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

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I haven't said you are stupid so stop implying it.

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. That's what they want you to believe.

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: .....It's sad most of you sit back and listen to the bullshit the media pumps and believe it. 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 you are again blinded by the crooks in Washington.

Post 41: Just like a talking head parrot from the Republidiots.

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

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. Most of you guys are so blinded by the whole Repubs vs Dem that you take that mantle and run with it. 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

[JoeRedskin]

^^ Thank you.

[Alvin Walton]

n/t

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

Yes. I believe corporate media has a huge influence on our nation, and not in a positive way either.

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

Yes. Somebody stated a stereotype so I wanted to know where they got that notion from.

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. That's what they want you to believe.

...back to defending the many stereotypes people were throwing out there on the OWS movement.

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

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.

Post 145: You need your eyes checked.

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.

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

It was the best analogy I could ever use and it's true.

Post 94: .....It's sad most of you sit back and listen to the bullshit the media pumps and believe it. 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 you are again blinded by the crooks in Washington.

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.

Post 41: Just like a talking head parrot from the Republidiots.

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.

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

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

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. Most of you guys are so blinded by the whole Repubs vs Dem that you take that mantle and run with it. You'd think many of you see it as a Cowboys vs Redskins rivalry. DEMOCRATS SUCK!!......REPUBLICANS ARE MORONS!!

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.

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

Well, people always decipher words differently.

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.

[mlmpetert]

Apparently Milk is starting to get pissed too:

[Chico23231]

Biggest Public Firms Paid Little U.S. Tax, Study Says - Yahoo! Finance

Any opinion on these FACTS. I have to emphasize facts in this thread. Little to none seem to be found other than NCSkins is an aggressive a$$hole. Just playin NC

[SmootSmack]

Preview: Ganging Up on the One Percent (Season 15, Episode 12) - Video Clips - South Park Studios

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.



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.

Thats not true they do have a point. The other stuff is just true.

[JoeRedskin]

<sigh> You have been reading to many liberal blogs and accepting their statements as fact. Fox news is not and has never been "banned" in Canada:

“[November, 2004] The conservative-leaning Fox News Channel will soon be coming to Canadian digital television channels. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved an application Thursday to bring the Fox News Channel, one of the highest-rated news channels in the United States, onto Canadian digital airwaves. The Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA) applied to the broadcast regulator in April. Canadians already have access to the main Fox network, but not the right-leaning, 24-hour news channel, with its trademarked slogan of ‘fair and balanced.’ ”

There was a point when Fox News had it’s application denied by the regulatory authority, but not due to any content related issues:

“The CRTC rejected a CCTA application to bring Fox to Canada last November [2003] because Fox News U.S. and Winnipeg-based Global Television were planning to create Fox News Canada, a combination of U.S. and Canadian news. However, in March, a Fox U.S. executive said there were no plans to create the combined channel.”

CRTC approves Fox News for Canada - Canada - CBC News

In Canada, the Fox News Channel is currently available on: Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV.

You don’t like the way Fox presents facts. Got it. At the same time,

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You have to learn to take out the Repub vs Dem bullshit out to get the grit of the story.

By the way, to be clear, when I use the word “you” in responding to your posts – I mean you, NC_Skins. Just as I believed that, when you used the term “you” above, you were referring to SS33 and implying he was either incapable of seeing or choosing not to see beyond “the Repub vs Dem bullshit”. Since this is the common use of English and the natural implication of your word and contextual placement, I suggest you clarify in the future if it is your intent to insult the general public when you say “you” rather than the particular poster.

By the way, just for clarification, in the post referenced above, which was the manner you intended: Were implying you’re smarter than everyone else b/c they can’t see beyond the bullshit or just smarter than SS33?