Printable View
yeah, quick google search. These are the first two I foundQuote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
http://www.peavey.com/news/article.c...6/20103003.cfm
http://www.peavey.com/news/article.c.../1/article.cfm
EDIT: Here you go. Hu, three years in a row.
http://www.peavey.com/news/index.cfm...r%20Named.html
your work is still cooler.
EDIT 2: oh and this
http://www.peavey.com/news/index.cfm...05%20Plus.html
I really need to print this stuff off for my resume
I would say so. Just another notch on your belt. :tu:Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
The protesters in New York, and elsewhere, make me feel more proud of my country than I have in a long time.
what did they do?
Went to the hospital and saw my buddy's two-hour-old daughter. She's adorable.
Got an unexpected bonus at work that's almost two weeks pay, met up with Dad for dinner, booked most of my vacation, and when I got home, my neighbor handed me a glass of 15 year single malt Scotch. I could use more days like today.
Inconveniencing other people, making the city (at least NYC) spent over 8 million dollars to watch these dumbasses not to do anything stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
They've put together a concise, coherent message about what is ailing our country and what we can do to make things better. Furthermore, their efforts have caused our elected representatives to pass several important pieces of legislation that will bring about meaningful change. And they managed to do all this while keeping a professional, clean appearance AND avoiding any sort of problems for local business or commuters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
The question should be, "What haven't they done?"
Who cares if they keep a professional, clean appearance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
A lot of them are complaining about the inability to find work in this economy. And the way some of them look out there, well, let's just say that's not how you dress if you're looking for work. Not on a weekday.
I am opposed to business dress standards being a requirement for work.
Try coming in with just a banana hammock. I lasted 15 minutes here.
You could probably get away with it here. I came in with totally shredded jeans yesterday, nobody cared.
You're not the first to come in that way. Some it wasn't even intentional. Ask Roo after waking up in an alley.
Dressing up to sit in an office with a bunch of other suckers is depressing.
Please. They have identified some of the problems (that everyone was already aware of). Most of the cities they're in are sick of them and quoting Lenin and making comparisons to the Bolshevik Revolution is just making them look dumb. I can't find the article, but there was a study done by a private group that found a good percentage of the Wall Street movement were actually part of the 1% and those that weren't were mostly better off than the average American (and they were too stupid to realize this). They are a part of our culture that is truly the worst. Dangerously rabid consumers who are pissed off that they can't afford to buy everyone in their family an iPad. Their lives are driven by materialism and the fact that they may not be able to find employment that allows them to buy all the things that they want. This isn't the case for everyone, but given the lustful culture of the United States, it has to be most of them. These are the type of people who trample others to death as they rush into Walmart to get that great deal on the TV that they HAVE to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
That sounds like an article that isn't worth even a remote shit.Quote:
found a good percentage of the Wall Street movement were actually part of the 1%
You misunderstand the real point of the protests.
It's about money in politics.
I don't dress any differently hanging out with my friends than I do at the office. That being said I don't wear cargo shorts and shit like that at all. Usually jeans, sneakers and a polo/t-shirt/button-up shirt. Nothing too worn or ragged, either.
Money in politics should never have happened.
Aren't you trying to be a lobbyist?
Doesn't mean I don't believe it. I've said it on TNL plenty of times. I'm just opportunistic.
You? Opportunistic? Never.
2010 i1180 in Washington:
Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 1100 concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits).
Concise Description:This measure would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributers and producers.
Result Votes Percentage
No 1,348,213 53.43%
Yes 1,175,302 46.57%
Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the campaign in support of I-1100: [22].
Contributor Amount
Costco Wholeslale $3,549,300
Safeway $609,410
Fred Meyer (OR) $207,000
NW Grocers Association (OR) $190,000
Wal-Mart Stores $40,000
2011 i1183 in Washington:
Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 1183 concerns liquor: beer, wine, and spirits (hard liquor).
Concise Description:This measure would close state liquor stores and sell their assets; license private parties to sell and distribute spirits; set license fees based on sales; regulate licensees; and change regulation of wine distribution.
Result Votes Percentage
a Yes 1,112,140 58.79%
No 779,548 41.21%
Top 5 contributors:
Donor Amount
Costco $20,880,659.80
Safeway, Inc. $50,000
Trader Joe's $50,000
Waldorf Chris, engineer $250
Crowe Stephen $100
There were a couple of changes so it wasn't apples to apples and I'm not arguing either side of it here, but the biggest change is certainly that extra digit on the "contributions". One of the changes was having a restriction on the minimum square footage of the store (10K sq ft required, "rural" areas excepted).
Dear god please let this change come to Pennsylvania.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I'm worried about you, Gohron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Could have fooled me.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
People who don't support OWS are retards who don't realize how bad shit has gotten in the past couple decades
There's nothing to support. OWS is an unfocused, amorphous mob of general frustration with no message and no demands.
I hate to say this, but the Tea Party was angry and went about it the right way: organized protests, making powerful allies, using toilets, etc. Now they have some real influence, unlike OWS. When OWS is over, they will have changed precisely nothing because they don't even know what they want to change.
Past few decades?
Shit has been this way since forever.
Tea Party was an arm of the Republican party, that's why they had nice porta potty filled protests and money for political campaigns. OWS are apolitical, and don't want Democrat or Republican support
Lame excuse. You don't need money to have a purpose. I've seen read just as many Occupy signs and interviews calling for trade and bank regulation as I have for anarchy. Motherfuckers don't even know if they want more or less government.
they know they're unhappy
Cool. If yelling "We are the 99%," fishbowling your tent, and pissing in a Maxwell House can makes you feel like you're trying to change that, go sick.
Pretty much all of them know. They just don't all think the same thing. This is not a difficult concept. The willful ignorance (which is pretty well summed up by Andrew, Gohron and yourself) is almost as validating as the movement itself.
Welcome to America where Americans get mad at Americans for being Americans.
America, where we feel and do what we want, when we feel and want to do it.
aka Magical snowflakesQuote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
It's kind of a shit bill, though. I mean, it's great that state liquor stores are done and all but the trade off is that it's only available in huge stores and it not only won't lower the prices, it could raise them. Not to mention it wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it weren't bought by huge companies, which just bums me out on principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
My parents both work for the liquor board. My dad is 61, my mom is 57. She's been working there for over 20 years. Apparently Costco is going to be giving them interviews, but as my mom wisely put it: "An interview isn't a job."
I just had a great four hours of salsa dancing, featuring a plethora of beautiful girls, and it was all free.
Anything is better than the current, completely retarded, pathetically archaic set of laws that PA operates under.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakey
It's really not. Tea Party was basically Republican rallies so they had their funding sources, slogans, demands (which was the same shit Republicans have been saying since the 1960's), and candidates all lined up.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Occupy really is just a bunch of people pissed off. People are pissed off about different things - that's kind of the point. They just know the system is fucked.
Democrats certainly didn't organize it, since nothing they are saying has anything to do with what Democrats in DC are saying (which is mostly the same thing Republicans are saying). If Occupy was Democrat astroturf they'd all be in unison saying we need to cut Medicare and make the ultra-rich pay a few extra bucks for their yacht or some shit.
I'm glad they're angry. I'm angry, too. I just think it's a missed opportunity is all. Sure, they don't have money or backing, but they have manpower, time, and resolve. They could have accomplished something with them, but they didn't. More importantly, they didn't even try. If you're going to tell me the movement wasn't about accomplishing anything, well, then it's not a movement and hardly even a protest.
My projection bulb exploded like a year ago and I had to replace it. I swapped in a new one figuring it would give me another few years like the first one did and it started displaying the "Projection lamp nearing end of life" message a couple days ago, annoying me because I didn't want to drop another $100 and disappointed that this one went so quick. Doing some research I discovered that I never reset the TV's internal lamp timer when I swapped the new one in, so it's actually giving me a warning message for the old bulb and everything's fine.
Also: I'm eating pierogis and nachos right now. So delicious.
Actually the Tea Party grew out of the libertarian movement starting behind Ron Paul's 2008 run for President. The issues that have since been usurped by the mainstream Republicans were initially realistic libertarian goals. Gay marriage, for example, was sponsored under the original movement because they didn't want government to have a say over the affairs of American bedrooms. Of course since the initial, like any mass and independent organization, it was over run by Republican extremists. They did it really quickly after Obama was elected, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I'm actually amazed to see how similar the Occupy and Tea Party movements are. I've already had a conversation with a super liberal friend about how Occupy Toronto was a liberal-focused rally. Pretty soon it will be the anti-Tea Party movement to balance things out. That's where it's headed. The issue here is that liberals (like you) see the Tea Party as just a Republican front and conservatives see Occupy as a Democratic front. Nothing changed. Just the brand names. It will only get worse as the people more in the center of the aisle give up and leave as the vocal minority alienates their beliefs.
It's funny though, because all the Occupy rallies in Toronto did was take away from the genuine need of a cause called Foodstock, which planned and organized for the weekend the Occupy cunts decided to "organize" on. The issue here is that Foodstock is a movement to stop a mega-quarry up north of the city from evicting farmers from a massive area of farmland in order to build a mega-quarry up there (displacing millions of gallons of water as well).
And I mean that seems to be the problem with protesting with no goal in mind. What you do is simply create noise, and when a genuine issue arises it gets lost in the fray. I bet you our Usage Based Billing issues of last year would have gone unnoticed if the Occupy people were out shitting in the park and advocating the creation of a city of tree forts (which is what one of the main occupy toronto leaders went on the radio to advertise!).
It's cry wolf. If you want to affect change you have to be organized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakey
they just need a leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Stand up ARBM, be that leader.
I see the Tea Party as a Republican front because it is a Republican front. it got major funding from the usual right wingers (Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife, Karl Rove's group, etc.). It got major time and promotion on Fox News. Find me the spot where prominent Democrats, or even 527s (like the Third Way) are putting money into Occupy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
The Democratic machine (DNC, DSCC, etc.) hates the Occupy movement, they share none of the same goals. The Democratic machine is interested in pushing right wing economic policies, and the Occupy movement is telling them to shove those policies up their ass.
If we're going to talk about tactics, I think squatting in Zuccotti Park was a big mistake. It basically opened them up to ratfucking and allowed the right wing media to portray them as a bunch of hippies shitting all over real Americans' faces. They should've done what the Egyptians did in Tahrir Square - go there every day, protest the fuck out of it, then leave at night. But it's still early, I don't think that peoples' anger will be quelled because the tinpot dictator of New York decided to flex his muscles.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
I've got nothing planned for today so it's gonna be 8 straight hours of NFL Redzone channel.
I'm not denying it is a Republican front now. Pretty much has been since the last election. Before it "formally" formed, I guess. But when it started it was almost entirely independent / libertarian backed and fun to watch. It was wholly independent. If I wanted to hold a Tea Party rally with Democratic mandates I could have. Back then Spent and I had a conversation about Tea Party ideals. I told him the Republicans would just take over whole-hog and he was vehemently in denial stating it was going to remain independent (he's pretty libertarian in ideal - though he does understand the keynesian economic theory). Should have put money down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I'm neither a Republican or a Liberal human being. I find the tit-for-tat back and forth between them hilariously feudal.
By the time most people heard of the Tea Party it was already co-opted. I'm not talking about the Ron Paul group
You ask any Tea Party clown now, and of course they were the lone conservative deeply opposed to Bush's budget deficits as well as the bailouts he originated.
There's an letter out there from an original Tea Partier warning OWS about becoming irrelevant by being co opted which is a fairly good summary of what happened to them as well as some of the tactics being used on OWS. It was eye opening to me if just because it made me realize how much of a boogey monster mainstream media had made out of them. By the time they were a conservative poster child they had some big money behind them. At this point OWS bears little resemblance to the modern Tea Party but it's early. It's interesting to me that the elements of OWS that seem to me the most galvanizing amongst more moderate liberals (the socialist/anarchist contingent and their tactics of direct action) are likely to be the most resistant to corporate infiltration. Who knows what months of being attacked by the police and bitched at by otherwise reasonable people that agree with them will do to the spirit, though.
I passed my MSF Safety course. Barely. I can't believe I can ride a bike now.
Nice! Congrats, sir. How was the course?
Sup TNL I'm back bitches...kind of. Got married so I've been out of commission for a while but my PC took a big shit and burned out it's power supply so I finally broke down and got this Tapatalk shit so hopefully this'll work out til I get my PC working again.
So yeah got married and I'm back in TNL, life is pretty fuckin' sweet. I'll post some wedding pics when my PC gets fixed.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Not as bad as I imagined it to be. But it was very necessary. Going back for another round come March.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
I was wondering where you went. I'm raz0r SRK on live now. Add me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anal Kaboom
Aight I still don't have internet at my new place but I take my 360 to my moms every once in a while to play online and practice with my bro. Which reminds me I really need to get UMvsC3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
That's exactly what I'm talking about though. The same thing is happening to Occupy (ideals being different notwithstanding). You can't have an honest conversation without it being bi-partisan and split down a central line. It is literally one side v. the other and that's the end of it regardless of intention. Things just get boiled down to left v. right with no other options for the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
I truly think this is unique to American politics. Too many people would rather lambaste the other people without looking at the history than actually affect change. But you can't bring up the obvious, either, without being cast out of either clan. It's like people are all playing Survivor the TV show. If you don't fit in with one or the other you need to GTFO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakey
Point:
All conservatives are band-wagoners!Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
No. This is wrong. The stuff that Occupy protestors are talking about is stuff embraced by the Democratic political establishment. Extreme wealth inequality is something that is warmly embraced by both sides of the political spectrum. Anyone who speaks out against it is not working for the Democratic party - they are speaking against it, in fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
The stuff the tea party guys started talking about when they rose to prominence (roughly, February 2009) was the same stuff that the GOP has been talking about for 50 years. It's just re-branded Goldwater shit, which is what the right wing has been passing off as new the past 50 years (Reaganomics, Contract With America, Compassionate Conservatism, and now Tea Party). For the past 20 or 25 years, Democrats have mostly agreed with them.
Basically the modern Democratic party is 100% with the GOP on economic issues, about 80% with the GOP on national security issues, and about 0% with the GOP on social issues (gay marriage, etc.).
You can talk about some simplistic left-right horse race shit and normally - you'd be right. But so far, this Occupy movement really does feel different. I haven't heard any prominent Dems aside from Bernie Sanders or maybe Russ Feingold talk about wealth inequality or crooked Wall Street in a long long time.
Sorry. The Tea Party is a bunch of right wing, astroturfed hacks. Mostly the same 30% that was supporting Bush after 2006. Maybe it got started with a bunch of principled libertarian dudes. I respect those guys even though I don't agree with them. But no matter, they were irrelevant until they started getting right wing money, support, and promotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
delete this. nobody cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anal Kaboom
Super rich people and poor people is a consequence of a free market economy though (which the US mostly is). If you want to talk about the government regulation and rules that can help enhance this, that's one thing. I'm not trying to invalidate the entire movement, but a large part of it is a bunch of stupid consumers who don't have the smarts or willpower to become rich themselves but certainly put forth their effort into making other people rich (by buying everything in sight regardless of whether they can afford it). A protest that amounts in a bunch of angry words, camping out in public places and a bunch of misguided rhetoric just shows the ineptitude of OWS. The biggest issue I have with the protests is the occasional Communist rhetoric (which isn't an intelligent argument to make unless your country is extremely poor, a theocracy or that you have something to gain), the lack of achievable goals through action and the fact that a lot of the people really don't have all that much to raise shit about.
Ultimately, if this movement hopes to achieve something, they need to be united under a common set of ideals. They're also either going to have to involve a majority of the US citizens or hundreds of thousands of people that are willing to arm and/or get very very violent.
Odd that you claim to look down on OWS as being aimless, but then support them taking aimless violent action.
Violent actions with no real achievable goal other than dead Americans doesn't achieve much. The news networks would just downplay the whole thing as extremest and terrorism.
The people calling for violence are short-sighted and, incidentally, the ones spouting the socialist rhetoric Gohron so despises.
I'd encourage anyone not convinced that OWS is worthwhile to watch the bitterness with which its detractors attack. I have heard very few well measured arguements. Mostly blind rage. It doesn't make any sense to me. This is what I meant about the arguements being so validating. It reeks of fear.
Did you read the part where I said they'd have to be united under a common set of ideals? Perhaps I didn't elaborate far enough to demonstrate that I also met being organized. I don't support them taking violent action because I don't support their movement. I was pointing it out as a means to possibly achieve their goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
As for violent action, unless a group is very patient or very numerous and influential, I don't really see much of a way to enact quick change in this country (or that of any other developed country). There's too much money among the political elite for it to be otherwise. This system can still be broken and I suppose that's what the movement is about, but as it is now; it won't change a thing.
The people who truly change the world, for better or worse, are rarely completely united. History is about the details of those disagreements and how people overcome them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
And do what? What violent action could they do that would cause quick change?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
What could they do that wouldn't result in some higher up seeing it as justification for deadly force and killing them all? Hmmm? In two weeks time, they'd all be dead and the news would be calling them a cult or a terrorist group.
I would come all over the place if that started happening.
?
icarusfall just wants to watch the world burn
He's right.
I get hard thinking of the apocalypse.
It's going to get worse before (if) it gets better.
How do you think the American public would feel about the US military killing civilians (even armed ones) on US soil in large numbers? It would destroy the groundwork of this country and would lead to some type of major change. When Americans get really pissed, they're quite good at killing in response to it. We are perhaps the most violent country on the planet and it's why our society has so many things in place to suppress this violent nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
If the economical situation continues to go downhill to a level where the majority of the country no longer feels financial survivability is a realistic option, heads will roll.
I don't think the news will report them as civilians. If they report it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
were (maybe)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Now middle America is shackled by its materialism and entitlement.
With modern information (things like Twitter, Facebook, etc.) this would be impossible unless the government were to take these things over or disallow access to them. The ability for them to do this is likely not even in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
When you threaten those things, it's a different story. There's no doubt in my mind that most American citizens would kill to defend these things. Unless the government gave them all a new X-box, a big screen TV, a Porsche and a bunch of free passes to their favorite restaurants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
L O LQuote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Those things won't be threatened by a few Americans dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Yeah, yeah I figured out how to get rid if it. I didn't do it on purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Yeah man, it was seriously getting annoying. I mean we get it - you're a popular guy who's out so much he can only browse TNL from his Tapatalk app/phone. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
I think I fixed it.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk...Hi josh!
Drunk in Napa, all crushin' on the singer from Imaginary Cities, waiting for the Pixes to go on. Nice start to my vacation!
They have bands in Napa autoparts?
Either way, the antifreeze is delicious!
People already feel like that, bro - listen to what protestors are saying, instead of what the media is pretending they say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
BTW, the problem isn't the concept of income equality, it is the extreme, gross inequality of the wealth structure in the USA today. Look up the GINI coefficient. Our country's wealth distribution is closer to a third world banana republic than a first world, developed nation. Unfortunately, when citizens of third world banana republics start to get upset about this, violent crackdowns in the name of "security" and "safety" are the result more often than not. The US has been coordinating those crackdowns in countries for decades. Now it's time to see if that work will be applied at home. Going by what we have been seeing in Oakland, Davis, NYC, etc., I would say that it will be.
Gohron is too dumb to understand that. He just said this movement is about people who are poor because they buy too many things.
God help us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Congrats! Welcome to the rat race!
Your first point is accurate as fuck.
About to go see my friend who just got out of jail. Awesome day so far.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk...Hi josh!
I understand that things are fucked up right now but believing financial survivability is not an option for most people? No way. If you can feed yourself, put a roof over your head, have a smart phone and pay your utility bills, you're doing fine. This may not be the case for people in every part of the country (and never has been), but it is for most. I may not like the way everything is going but I really don't have any excuse to complain about my living situation and bitch about others who have it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
As for violent crack downs against the protestors...I wouldn't exactly call it that. I'm quite certain (with the permanent encampments and public defecation) that they're all breaking the law. They've been fortunate enough they've been given such leniency so far.
That may be the simple version of what I said. Most of the people protesting aren't even poor:Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
http://www.redstate.com/repair_man_j...11/OWSpoll.jpg
This poll came from a seemingly hard-core Republican site but it was conducted by another organization. There are other polls like it. It was much easier to find (as it was amongst about a million other polls). It demonstrates exactly what I've been saying (and I was just going off assumption until I looked up some statistics). You can romanticize the protests anyway you want to (or demonize them) but the very nature of the protests show that they're just filled with extremely stupid and angry people.
Edit: Perhaps one of the moderators should split this all into it's own thread.
Did you just cite a random opinion poll as if it was one polling people actually at the protests?
No, I know it was a poll conducted about opinion of the protests (there are more polls with similar results). It would make sense that those with the highest opinions of the protests would be the people involved? I did mention an article before (that was featured among major news outlets) mentioning that most of the protestors were much better off than average Americans and that some were apart of the 1% that they were all demonizing. I can spend some time trying to find it again later.
Yep.
All that poll proves is that poor people are stupid and conservative. Something we already knew
Gohron, you're wrong.
1. You should be upset if the people "who have it better" got that way by committing fraud, crashing the economy, and getting awarded a bailout and unspoken immunity for their crimes.
Nobody has a problem with someone working hard, inventing a product that people love, and making millions. Look at the Steve Jobs eulogies. People do have a problem with a bunch of fancy suit assholes coming up with worthless financial products designed to make each other money at the expense of everyone else. CDOs do nothing for society.
2. There has been violence - lots of it. Look up UC Davis.
3. Just because someone is "breaking a law" doesn't mean the punishment is police brutality. Especially if it is a bullshit law designed to quell dissent.
4. It's not about being poor. A rich man can feel the system is unjust, is he not allowed to protest?
I find that the worst drivers are people with BMW's and Mercedes Benz.
In all seriousness though, I believe the poll demonstrates more about the love of and addiction to money that people with lots of it have. I know some of the people that joined the protests in Philadelphia, I've read what they're saying on Twitter and Facebook. The core of the movement is constituted of above average incomes and a willing submissive slavery to the consumer market.
It's not a protest against capitalism, it's a protest against plutarchy
Let's say, in Egypt or Venezuela or China or whatever, a bunch of people protesting the government were sitting silently in the city square. Some Judge Dredd looking motherfucker walked up to them, opened their mouths, and sprayed pepper spray down their throat.
Then a bunch of cops rushed in in the dead of night, beat everyone protesting, seized their stuff, etc.
I am amalgamating two different instances of police brutality, but would people in America observing those events in China say, "oh, those protestors were breaking the law so they had it coming"? Probably not. Yet that is what Americans say about the things American cops did to American citizens. Weird.
I am upset. Not so blindly upset that I'm going to go camp out in the cold amongst human waste so that people know that I'm upset. That would just be a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Police have gone overboard and such situations should be dealt with in (proper) context of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
How would you like it if people were camping out across the street from your house? Just remember the noise, smells and other public disturbances. You wouldn't think it was such a bullshit law then. If the police come to remove them and they disobey lawful orders, what are they supposed to do? Just forget the whole thing? I'm not saying they should be pepper-spraying old ladies in the face but they wouldn't be so forgiving of someone who was jacked up on meth and refusing police orders. They're both breaking the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The people that have the most to gain from a change in the system are not representing a majority of the protestors? Why? It's difficult to give a concrete answer but my opinion is that they realize it's a waste of time to conduct a protest in such a manner. People with more money are not always very smart (and seem to forget what real life is about).Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
We're on the same page about what you claim to be the reason for the protests. We're not on the same page about the protests themselves. They need to go away, they're making the issues they're yelling about seem trivial and reversing public support.
So says you. There's been plenty of anti-capitalist rhetoric thrown about in these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
You're ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
I know that I'm not wasting my time camping out in a park with no goals because I'm angry. That's ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Poor people aren't supporting these protests because they are delusional and view themselves as part of the 1% and not the 99%. They get all of their news from Fox and are blissfully unaware how badly they have been fleeced the past few decades.The low support numbers for low income people isn't because "Rich people are dumb and poor people are smart" like you guessed.
You're missing the point. The protests themselves (and not what they may or may not be protesting about) are dumb. They will achieve nothing. There's a reason that they lack the support of the majority of the nation.
That's just like your opinion man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron