The free world is in peril
-
ict558 wrote:
Anarchists, who are largely responsible for the violence associated with peaceful demonstrations
If you want to compartmentalize the factions to inoculate the perceivably peaceful groups as separate from the rest (with whom I'm guessing you may relate), then do you think the "Anarchists" are helping or hurting, for example, the campaign for "social justice" conducted by NYCC (formerly known as ACORN). http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/acorn-officials-scramble-firing-workers-and-shredding-documents-after-exposed/[^] Or, do you think the "Anarchist" element is augmenting the effectiveness of the rest.
ict558 wrote:
(I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I find it strange that he did not mention Anarchists, who are largely responsible for the violence associated with peaceful demonstrations. Why is he deflecting your attention from them? Just saying ... Glenn Beck Helps Turn Anarchist Book Into Bestseller ... something to investigate.)
I am somewhat concerned that you could take such a remark seriously.
puromtec1 wrote:
(with whom I'm guessing you may relate)
If you are guessing that I relate to people protesting peacefully, you're right. Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Fox Hunting, whatever. Whether I agree with the protesters or not, they have a right to peaceful (don't mind a bit of chanting) protest.
puromtec1 wrote:
do you think the "Anarchists" are helping or hurting, for example, the campaign for "social justice" conducted by NYCC (formerly known as ACORN)...
Or, do you think the "Anarchist" element is augmenting the effectiveness of the rest.How would I know? I am not a citizen of New York, or the USA. For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
ict558 wrote:
(I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I find it strange that he did not mention Anarchists, who are largely responsible for the violence associated with peaceful demonstrations. Why is he deflecting your attention from them? Just saying ... Glenn Beck Helps Turn Anarchist Book Into Bestseller ... something to investigate.)
I am somewhat concerned that you could take such a remark seriously.
puromtec1 wrote:
(with whom I'm guessing you may relate)
If you are guessing that I relate to people protesting peacefully, you're right. Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Fox Hunting, whatever. Whether I agree with the protesters or not, they have a right to peaceful (don't mind a bit of chanting) protest.
puromtec1 wrote:
do you think the "Anarchists" are helping or hurting, for example, the campaign for "social justice" conducted by NYCC (formerly known as ACORN)...
Or, do you think the "Anarchist" element is augmenting the effectiveness of the rest.How would I know? I am not a citizen of New York, or the USA. For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
Here I am going to disagree. The OWS group's perceived ineptitude of the US government to redistibute wealth is what is fueling their actions. Simply put, they want the government to take more actions against its citizens. This is in stark contrast to the Tea-party's goal of trying to restrain our government. IMO, the OWS's acts of violence, intimidation of wealthy private citizens, and general disregard for the rule of law and disorderly conduct are extensions of the concept on which they wish to align our government.
-
ict558 wrote:
For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
Here I am going to disagree. The OWS group's perceived ineptitude of the US government to redistibute wealth is what is fueling their actions. Simply put, they want the government to take more actions against its citizens. This is in stark contrast to the Tea-party's goal of trying to restrain our government. IMO, the OWS's acts of violence, intimidation of wealthy private citizens, and general disregard for the rule of law and disorderly conduct are extensions of the concept on which they wish to align our government.
ict558 wrote:
For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
puromtec1 wrote:
Here I am going to disagree.
Woah! You can't disagree with what I know is my reaction to violent protests. For me (personally, speaking for myself), the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'. Redistribute wealth. Reduce taxation. Perfectly reasonable 'causes' for which to hold peaceful protests, whether I agree with them or not. I (personally, speaking for myself), do not condone the use of violence to further a 'cause'.
puromtec1 wrote:
The OWS group's perceived ineptitude of the US government to redistibute wealth is what is fueling their actions. Simply put, they want the government to take more actions against its citizens. This is in stark contrast to the Tea-party's goal of trying to restrain our government. IMO, the OWS's acts of violence, intimidation of wealthy private citizens, and general disregard for the rule of law and disorderly conduct are extensions of the concept on which they wish to align our government.
Jolly good. I'll leave you Americans to your fun.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
ict558 wrote:
For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
puromtec1 wrote:
Here I am going to disagree.
Woah! You can't disagree with what I know is my reaction to violent protests. For me (personally, speaking for myself), the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'. Redistribute wealth. Reduce taxation. Perfectly reasonable 'causes' for which to hold peaceful protests, whether I agree with them or not. I (personally, speaking for myself), do not condone the use of violence to further a 'cause'.
puromtec1 wrote:
The OWS group's perceived ineptitude of the US government to redistibute wealth is what is fueling their actions. Simply put, they want the government to take more actions against its citizens. This is in stark contrast to the Tea-party's goal of trying to restrain our government. IMO, the OWS's acts of violence, intimidation of wealthy private citizens, and general disregard for the rule of law and disorderly conduct are extensions of the concept on which they wish to align our government.
Jolly good. I'll leave you Americans to your fun.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
Woah! You can't disagree with what I know is my reaction to violent protests.
You are being obtuse.
ict558 wrote:
Perfectly reasonable 'causes' for which to hold peaceful protests
This has nothing to do with my original post, nor my secondary question. Not to let you re-characterize my earlier messages, consider this. I thought that the rally held by Jon Stewart in DC on the mall was great. The same socialist/marxist/union organizations showed up their, too. However, this was a "rally", not a protest, damaged no property (except for the the mall grass, but it sucks anyway), no intimidation, infringed on no one's right of passage. It even provided normal people with a view of what these people had to say--the more political speech the better. Now, fast forward to today: http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/11/03/union-chief-we-need-more-militancy-blocking-bridges-occupying-banks[^] This is a completely different ball-game. And, one that will test our constitutional institutions. As a side note (referring to the linked article), I could easily imagine Leo Gerard with a much smaller mustache and inserting "jew" before "...Wall Streeters are getting their way." But I digress...
-
ict558 wrote:
For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
Here I am going to disagree. The OWS group's perceived ineptitude of the US government to redistibute wealth is what is fueling their actions. Simply put, they want the government to take more actions against its citizens. This is in stark contrast to the Tea-party's goal of trying to restrain our government. IMO, the OWS's acts of violence, intimidation of wealthy private citizens, and general disregard for the rule of law and disorderly conduct are extensions of the concept on which they wish to align our government.
puromtec1 wrote:
IMO, the OWS's acts of violence, intimidation of wealthy private citizens, and general disregard for the rule of law and disorderly conduct are extensions of the concept on which they wish to align our government.
Nonsense. No more so than that the tea party is violent because there is an underlying anti-abortion refrain from which some people have murdered/attacked people based on that.
-
ict558 wrote:
Woah! You can't disagree with what I know is my reaction to violent protests.
You are being obtuse.
ict558 wrote:
Perfectly reasonable 'causes' for which to hold peaceful protests
This has nothing to do with my original post, nor my secondary question. Not to let you re-characterize my earlier messages, consider this. I thought that the rally held by Jon Stewart in DC on the mall was great. The same socialist/marxist/union organizations showed up their, too. However, this was a "rally", not a protest, damaged no property (except for the the mall grass, but it sucks anyway), no intimidation, infringed on no one's right of passage. It even provided normal people with a view of what these people had to say--the more political speech the better. Now, fast forward to today: http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/11/03/union-chief-we-need-more-militancy-blocking-bridges-occupying-banks[^] This is a completely different ball-game. And, one that will test our constitutional institutions. As a side note (referring to the linked article), I could easily imagine Leo Gerard with a much smaller mustache and inserting "jew" before "...Wall Streeters are getting their way." But I digress...
puromtec1 wrote:
You are being obtuse.
You appear insufficiently acute to understand that I am totally indifferent to your attempt to discuss "The free world is in peril."
puromtec1 wrote:
This has nothing to do with my original post, nor my secondary question.
But it does have to do with my reply.
puromtec1 wrote:
Not to let you re-characterize my earlier messages
To do that, I would have had to take them seriously.
puromtec1 wrote:
I thought that the rally held by Jon Stewart in DC on the mall was great.
Glad to hear his rallies are better than his TV shows.
puromtec1 wrote:
The same socialist/marxist/union organizations showed up there, too.
Did the Socialists and Marxists start throwing punches at each other? Oh, "no intimidation". Guess they didn't. They're just no fun anymore.
puromtec1 wrote:
However, this was a "rally", not a protest
Great. So they "rallied", declared they were happy with the status quo, nothing to protest about, and went home.
puromtec1 wrote:
It even provided normal people with a view of what these people had to say
Normal people? MSM types?
puromtec1 wrote:
the more political speech the better.
Well, your average Marxist will give certainly you plenty.
puromtec1 wrote:
This is a completely different ball-game.
See? 'They' are not all alike after all.
puromtec1 wrote:
And, one that will test our constitutional institutions.
If you say so.
puromtec1 wrote:
As a side note (referring to the linked article), I could easily imagine Leo Gerard with a much smaller mustache and inserting "jew" before "...Wall Streeters are getting their way." But I digress...
And I could easily imagine you could.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Extremity is always stupid. Yes, capitalism fucked up big style, it actually fucked itself up, because many banks did not understand the credit products they were buying, and the ratings agencies commited fraud in rating pretty much anything tripple A. Of course the Clinton administration was responsible for pushing house loans for the poor, creating a great deal of low quality debt product, so socialism has a role to play in this. Thatcher freed up the credit market back in the 80s, but it went too far, and lenders lending 130% on the price of a house are just plain stupid. But for people like Rosanne Bar to suggest such idiocy as this is nothing short of laughably childish! And hypocritical if she markets her self for the higest price she can get. :) We need maturity and circumspection, as always. Not extremist chaos.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Extremity is always stupid
You probably meant "extremism". Extremity is an arm or leg...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
