|
On November 18 2011 08:25 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:17 Talin wrote:On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.
BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable. That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street? See: income inequality. I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses. What about income inequality? Really? And here I thought segregation was the direct consequence of this particular form of private entrepreneurship called slavery. Private businesses also neither challenged nor opposed segregation as far as I'm aware. You would discount the government's role in establishing and preserving the institution of slavery?
I believe his point would be that private business was equally complicit in the perpetuation of segregation. Your response is a serious overreading of what he wrote.
|
On November 18 2011 08:20 TCC wrote:
I have no fucking clue what these people are doing other than waste taxpayers money. Occupy Vancouver doesn't have any specific demands yet they continue to camp in the Vancouver art gallery. A lot of these people are homeless people that just needs shelter. WTF!!
One must then question. Why are these people homeless. I know most dismiss with a contemptuous wave, oh they are squatters, oh they choose to. How about the mentally ill or the downtrodden? Yes I know why society scorns these people, but it is exactly my point. These people are no longer treated like people.
Again the stand alone complex and apathy shell is strong within our modern culture, something I will absolutely fight against.
Yes yes yes I know the art gallery isn't the best place to "camp" out at. I don't think a lot of people can express their demands that satisfy anyone but themselves. That is the main problem with the movements. We are dis-satisfied yet we don't know how to change it for the better, because the general populace is supposedly equally in-ept. Doing it the "legal" way however has only let the governments spin whatever the hell they want for too long. I don't condone violence or widespread destruction, but I do condone stiff peaceful opposition.
You bet, Gandhi was annoying as hell to the British. He did things the British considered illegal under their law of the day. I think it annoys people even more there is no leader to stack hope/blame upon in the current OWS movement.
|
On November 18 2011 08:21 ZestyPickle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.
BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable. That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street? See: income inequality. I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses. What about income inequality? Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan. (Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!) Please tell me what you do with your life outside of sitting on a street? Im curious how much you actually know about "our communal demons"
If you are interested in private conversation about the workings of crooked cdo's and the bamboozling of an entire states retirement pensions (mississippi) or about 33 to 1 leveraging in the investment banking system or credit default swaps, or things as simple as why private/corporate lobbying must die than please send me a pm, I'm doing a lot of marketing today but if you actually wish to find out if I'm a cracked out liberal or someone just dreaming of a better world than please pm me and we can have a conversation. If not, np
|
On November 18 2011 08:26 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:21 ZestyPickle wrote:On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.
BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable. That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street? See: income inequality. I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses. What about income inequality? Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan. (Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!) Please tell me what you do with your life outside of sitting on a street? Im curious how much you actually know about "our communal demons" If you are interested in private conversation about the workings of crooked cdo's and the bamboozling of an entire states retirement pensions (mississippi) or about 33 to 1 leveraging in the investment banking system or credit default swaps, or things as simple as why private/corporate lobbying must die than please send me a pm, I'm doing a lot of marketing today but if you actually wish to find out if I'm a cracked out liberal or someone just dreaming of a better world than please pm me and we can have a conversation. If not, np
No its fine I just like seeing people's perspectives when they make loud statements.
|
On November 18 2011 08:21 ZestyPickle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.
BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable. That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street? See: income inequality. I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses. What about income inequality? Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan. (Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!) Please tell me what you do with your life outside of sitting on a street? Im curious how much you actually know about "our communal demons"
Well.. if the corporations give billions a year to politicians to make sure they get their way. And set up mega fake news to influence and lie to ppl then the only thing left is public disobedience and protests......
Its worked for Women's voter rights. Workers rights against child labor, jobs that pay 2 dollars and hour and weekends off. Minorities and Jim Crow. The Vietnam war.... hmmm seems pretty effective to me. Hell even the gun toting racist bastards called the tea party aka the lets blame everything on the govermentment because the president is black instead of when Bush was in power and fucked everything up movement. They even changed the conversatioin so yeah. Protests work.
|
I think CBS just got blocked from the NY protests (it may be my connection). Does anyone have a good live news feed of this?
|
On November 18 2011 08:31 Schematic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:21 ZestyPickle wrote:On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.
BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable. That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street? See: income inequality. I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses. What about income inequality? Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan. (Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!) Please tell me what you do with your life outside of sitting on a street? Im curious how much you actually know about "our communal demons" Well.. if the corporations give billions a year to politicians to make sure they get their way. And set up mega fake news to influence and lie to ppl then the only thing left is public disobedience and protests...... Its worked for Women's voter rights. Workers rights against child labor, jobs that pay 2 dollars and hour and weekends off. Minorities and Jim Crow. The Vietnam war.... hmmm seems pretty effective to me. Hell even the gun toting racist bastards called the tea party aka the lets blame everything on the govermentment because the president is black instead of when Bush was in power and fucked everything up movement. They even changed the conversatioin so yeah. Protests work.
It's interesting that you would mention the tea party. Despite being stereotyped as uneducated racists, they seemed to get their message across without so much illegal behavior.
|
On November 18 2011 08:34 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:31 Schematic wrote:On November 18 2011 08:21 ZestyPickle wrote:On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.
BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable. That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street? See: income inequality. I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses. What about income inequality? Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan. (Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!) Please tell me what you do with your life outside of sitting on a street? Im curious how much you actually know about "our communal demons" Well.. if the corporations give billions a year to politicians to make sure they get their way. And set up mega fake news to influence and lie to ppl then the only thing left is public disobedience and protests...... Its worked for Women's voter rights. Workers rights against child labor, jobs that pay 2 dollars and hour and weekends off. Minorities and Jim Crow. The Vietnam war.... hmmm seems pretty effective to me. Hell even the gun toting racist bastards called the tea party aka the lets blame everything on the govermentment because the president is black instead of when Bush was in power and fucked everything up movement. They even changed the conversatioin so yeah. Protests work. It's interesting that you would mention the tea party. They seemed to get their message across without so much illegal behavior. They got it though with help of fox cable news babying their story and big money backing them for the most part, which would be counter cyclical to the ows message on corruption. Fyi if you don't know how news esp cable news works if one of them picks up a story they all pick it up, take a look at the 2000 election where bush's, cousin? who was part of fox's team on calling the election called it for bush when it's clearly too close to call 15 mins later all the news stations based on fox's calling called bushed as the winner. Just shows how little they care about being right and how much they just want viewers.
|
On November 18 2011 08:36 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:34 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:31 Schematic wrote:On November 18 2011 08:21 ZestyPickle wrote:On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.
BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable. That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street? See: income inequality. I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses. What about income inequality? Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan. (Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!) Please tell me what you do with your life outside of sitting on a street? Im curious how much you actually know about "our communal demons" Well.. if the corporations give billions a year to politicians to make sure they get their way. And set up mega fake news to influence and lie to ppl then the only thing left is public disobedience and protests...... Its worked for Women's voter rights. Workers rights against child labor, jobs that pay 2 dollars and hour and weekends off. Minorities and Jim Crow. The Vietnam war.... hmmm seems pretty effective to me. Hell even the gun toting racist bastards called the tea party aka the lets blame everything on the govermentment because the president is black instead of when Bush was in power and fucked everything up movement. They even changed the conversatioin so yeah. Protests work. It's interesting that you would mention the tea party. They seemed to get their message across without so much illegal behavior. They got it though with help of fox cable news babying their story and big money backing them for the most part, which would be counter cyclical to the ows message on corruption.
Yes, the tea party ended up working the system, something OWS seems dead-set against. I understand the desire to avoid being co-opted, but to make the leap to "let's just block traffic until our nonspecific demands are met" just makes them look bad.
|
On November 18 2011 08:34 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:31 Schematic wrote:On November 18 2011 08:21 ZestyPickle wrote:On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.
BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable. That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street? See: income inequality. I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses. What about income inequality? Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan. (Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!) Please tell me what you do with your life outside of sitting on a street? Im curious how much you actually know about "our communal demons" Well.. if the corporations give billions a year to politicians to make sure they get their way. And set up mega fake news to influence and lie to ppl then the only thing left is public disobedience and protests...... Its worked for Women's voter rights. Workers rights against child labor, jobs that pay 2 dollars and hour and weekends off. Minorities and Jim Crow. The Vietnam war.... hmmm seems pretty effective to me. Hell even the gun toting racist bastards called the tea party aka the lets blame everything on the govermentment because the president is black instead of when Bush was in power and fucked everything up movement. They even changed the conversatioin so yeah. Protests work. It's interesting that you would mention the tea party. Despite being stereotyped as uneducated racists, they seemed to get their message across without so much illegal behavior.
This is just wild cherry-picking.
The Tea Party protests were small in participants and geographically confined. The message they were fighting for was relatively limited: reductions in government size and scope. Many, but not all, Tea Party protesters were also armed. They were, consequently not confronted nearly as much by police.
|
I think the tea-party is great. Any group standing up and saying "you don't represent me anymore" is great. I hope that another 50 parties spring up and the people of each area of represented by people that actually share their communal interests!
|
On November 18 2011 08:39 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:34 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:31 Schematic wrote:On November 18 2011 08:21 ZestyPickle wrote:On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.
BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable. That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street? See: income inequality. I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses. What about income inequality? Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan. (Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!) Please tell me what you do with your life outside of sitting on a street? Im curious how much you actually know about "our communal demons" Well.. if the corporations give billions a year to politicians to make sure they get their way. And set up mega fake news to influence and lie to ppl then the only thing left is public disobedience and protests...... Its worked for Women's voter rights. Workers rights against child labor, jobs that pay 2 dollars and hour and weekends off. Minorities and Jim Crow. The Vietnam war.... hmmm seems pretty effective to me. Hell even the gun toting racist bastards called the tea party aka the lets blame everything on the govermentment because the president is black instead of when Bush was in power and fucked everything up movement. They even changed the conversatioin so yeah. Protests work. It's interesting that you would mention the tea party. Despite being stereotyped as uneducated racists, they seemed to get their message across without so much illegal behavior. This is just wild cherry-picking. The Tea Party protests were small in participants and geographically confined. The message they were fighting for was relatively limited: reductions in government size and scope. Many, but not all, Tea Party protesters were also armed. They were, consequently not confronted nearly as much by police.
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded. Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. In any event, I'm sure that if the tea party protests lasted indefinitely and broke numerous laws, they would have ended up in a similar situation to OWS.
In my opinion, having a "relatively limited" message is necessary to effect real change.
|
On November 18 2011 08:41 AttackZerg wrote:
I think the tea-party is great. Any group standing up and saying "you don't represent me anymore" is great. I hope that another 50 parties spring up and the people of each area of represented by people that actually share their communal interests!
Agreed. Any time people feel capable of democratically challenging things that they disagree with, it is empowering. I may disagree with their aims, but as a person who believes in the Constitution, I absolutely respect their right to demonstrate and organize.
EDIT: fixed bad writing.
|
On November 18 2011 08:42 Pertinacious wrote:
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded.
This is true, and
Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves.
this is true, but
it is NOT true that Tea Party protesters were broadly harassed by police for open carrying. Your combination of those statements is disingenuous.
|
On November 18 2011 08:46 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:42 Pertinacious wrote:
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded. This is true, and Show nested quote + Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. this is true, but it is NOT true that Tea Party protesters were broadly harassed by police for open carrying. Your combination of those statements is disingenuous.
I only presented that information to refute the idea that the tea party protesters went unmolested because they carried guns. They were left alone because they did not flagrantly disregard the law, as "occupy" protests have been doing of late.
|
On November 18 2011 07:26 imperator-xy wrote:
yea id just shoot all o' them
Yeah, you have some fucking problems.
Can't believe people are defending the police who enjoy macing 84 year old women, pretty sad. Then there are other people, who aren't even from the U.S, questioning why people are doing this in the first place. Holy shit, really?
If you don't know how this country works then just don't comment please, getting rather tired of reading bullshit. Maybe some don't agree with OWS and everything they are doing, I certainly don't, but there is no need to wish violence or death upon them.
|
On November 18 2011 08:49 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:46 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:42 Pertinacious wrote:
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded. This is true, and Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. this is true, but it is NOT true that Tea Party protesters were broadly harassed by police for open carrying. Your combination of those statements is disingenuous. I only presented that information to refute the idea that the tea party protesters went unmolested because they carried guns. They were left alone because they did not flagrantly disregard the law, as "occupy" protests have been doing of late.
If that's the case, then what was your reasoning for posting that
Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. ?
This seems quite intellectually dishonest.
|
On November 18 2011 08:56 Enki wrote:Yeah, you have some fucking problems. Can't believe people are defending the police who enjoy macing 84 year old women, pretty sad. Then there are other people, who aren't even from the U.S, questioning why people are doing this in the first place. Holy shit, really? If you don't know how this country works then just don't comment please, getting rather tired of reading bullshit. Maybe some don't agree with OWS and everything they are doing, I certainly don't, but there is no need to wish violence or death upon them.
You hit the nail on the head. I sure as hell don't agree with every OWS motive, at all. However, this sneering, demeaning of human beings, some which have survived the Great War and lived longer then a lot of people. How about the veterans of the current wars marching in solidarity as well? Disgusting. We live in a land of equals? What hypocrisy spewed forth from the Land of the Free.
|
On November 18 2011 08:58 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:49 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:46 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:42 Pertinacious wrote:
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded. This is true, and Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. this is true, but it is NOT true that Tea Party protesters were broadly harassed by police for open carrying. Your combination of those statements is disingenuous. I only presented that information to refute the idea that the tea party protesters went unmolested because they carried guns. They were left alone because they did not flagrantly disregard the law, as "occupy" protests have been doing of late. If that's the case, then what was your reasoning for posting that Show nested quote + Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. ? This seems quite intellectually dishonest.
I don't understand what you mean. The assertion was that the tea party protesters were left alone in part because some of them carried guns. The point I was attempting to make is that individuals carrying firearms are typically hassled more by law enforcement, not less.
|
On November 18 2011 09:04 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 08:58 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:49 Pertinacious wrote:On November 18 2011 08:46 Expurgate wrote:On November 18 2011 08:42 Pertinacious wrote:
As far as I am aware, states which allow open carry also stipulate that the guns must not be loaded. This is true, and Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. this is true, but it is NOT true that Tea Party protesters were broadly harassed by police for open carrying. Your combination of those statements is disingenuous. I only presented that information to refute the idea that the tea party protesters went unmolested because they carried guns. They were left alone because they did not flagrantly disregard the law, as "occupy" protests have been doing of late. If that's the case, then what was your reasoning for posting that Individuals that open-carry are notoriously harassed by police, some of whom are ignorant of the laws themselves. ? This seems quite intellectually dishonest. I don't understand what you mean. The assertion was that the tea party protesters were left alone in part because some of them carried guns. The point I was attempting to make is that individuals carrying firearms are typically hassled more by law enforcement, not less.
Yeah, I agree that individuals carrying openly are typically hassled more by law enforcement. But that didn't happen during Tea Party protests. So I don't see your point as being relevant to the Tea Party, although it's certainly true on its own merits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
141
EPT
