- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 11,655
- Reaction score
- 3,612
- Location
- WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You can see the police lead them in calmly. News reports even said the cops let them in at first before they could change their story.Here's another video showing the police leading the protesters as they walk on the roadway
The only people who legitimately fear the current uprising on Wall Street are the financial institutions and their stockholders. We normal Janes and Joes ar too busy applauding their efforts to fear them.
As for those saying 'quit their jobs to protest on-going': Has it occurred to you that there may be enough people holding this sentiment to use their vacation time to camp-out on Wall Street in shifts? I was looking at one of their websites and it appears they are coordinating this very thing. No wonder the financial institutions are worried that this may well bring their central role in our economic decline into the view of most voters and make it impossible for the pundits and MSM outlet, FoxNews, to convince people they don't deserve tax breaks, bailouts or to be able to regulate themselves.
What has Wall Street to be afraid of? There is trillions of dollars in the banks not being invested because of the present US environment and that money, like many businesses and corporations, will just move elsewhere. The Left has been complaining about businesses leaving the country while at the same time harassing them and demanding more. Goofy? You bet!
Sure. Chase the money out of the country. It will be very welcome elsewhere. Those people who use their vacation time to camp on sidewalks will probably be spending a great deal more time there in the future.
So basically what you're saying is "if youre getting raped, the best thing to do is try to enjoy it".
They'll stop as soon as you stop resisting.
So basically what you're saying is "if youre getting raped, the best thing to do is try to enjoy it".
They'll stop as soon as you stop resisting.
You are getting raped?
How so?
And please don't interpret what I am "basically saying". That only leads to confusion. Just go with what I am saying, ok?
You are getting raped?
How so?
And please don't interpret what I am "basically saying". That only leads to confusion. Just go with what I am saying, ok?
Ok.
Seems to me yohre saying that those responsible screwed us fair and square and that if we don't just accept it they will punish us by pulling MORE money out of a struggling economy.
Shut up and take it or we'll make it worse seems to be what you are saying.
I resent financial bullying, like what occurred in electrical deregulation a while back. Where the justification for gouging was NIMBYism that made it impossible to build new power plants.
Only problem with that is that it was power company demands to be able to build whatever types of plants they wanted to build wherever they wanted to build them that people objected to.
They wanted to build one directly upwind of a school here, for example, because it was cheaper for them to do so.
Not exactly the NIMBYism they were referring to.
My wife and I are planning to hit the LA protests in just this way. As long as it doesn't start to get hairy, because I'm wired in a way that makes me respond very negatively to the way protesters are "dealt with" at protests. My wife forbids me to get shot!
I think you should let your conscious guide you - don't limit yourself.
You are getting raped?
How so?
Only when it's the tea party or does it apply with the Occupy Wall Street / Union crowd too?
I must have missed them. Where are the OWS protestors wearing a gun and holding a sign that threatens spilling of blood??? Please post a link to your evidence of this?
I'm asking if your criteria applies to the OWS / Union crowd or just the tea party. It's a simple question...I must have missed them. Where are the OWS protestors wearing a gun and holding a sign that threatens spilling of blood??? Please post a link to your evidence of this?
I'm asking if your criteria applies to the OWS / Union crowd or just the tea party. It's a simple question...
My wife and I are planning to hit the LA protests in just this way. As long as it doesn't start to get hairy, because I'm wired in a way that makes me respond very negatively to the way protesters are "dealt with" at protests. My wife forbids me to get shot!
I'm asking if your criteria applies to the OWS / Union crowd or just the tea party. It's a simple question...
Yes, I would also be opposed to the OWS protestors wearing a gun and holding a sign calling for the spilling of blood.
Would an OWS protestor wearing a gun and holding a sign calling for the spilling of blood also be a threat of violence?
Would an OWS protestor wearing a gun and holding a sign calling for the spilling of blood also be a threat of violence?
IMO, Yes! Have you seen any of that in this protest?
I haven't been paying much attention to it. But if I do, I'll let you know.
Ok.
Seems to me yohre saying that those responsible screwed us fair and square and that if we don't just accept it they will punish us by pulling MORE money out of a struggling economy.
Shut up and take it or we'll make it worse seems to be what you are saying.
I resent financial bullying, like what occurred in electrical deregulation a while back. Where the justification for gouging was NIMBYism that made it impossible to build new power plants.
Only problem with that is that it was power company demands to be able to build whatever types of plants they wanted to build wherever they wanted to build them that people objected to.
They wanted to build one directly upwind of a school here, for example, because it was cheaper for them to do so.
Not exactly the NIMBYism they were referring to.
You just said "OK" and then more 'seems to me you're saying" stuff. I cannot debate with anyone who who makes up arguments for me and then responds to them. Instead you can continue to debate with yourself.
Your need for literality is cowardly and hypocritical. You have no trouble ascribing motives and opinions to others, but hide behind your own words when challenged.
Like I said, the left rejected violent people like SDS members, while the right defends and embraces the violence.
He was at a political rally for pete's sake, not fending off armed thugs from the government out to get him. How would I define tyranny? - Armed thugs from the government out to get you.
A monopoly on the legal use of force is the definition of government. Unless you're advocating armed revolution, I don't get it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?