Distinguishing between OWS and the Tea Party...

[dc1971]

So violence is OK so long as it serves your purpose.

Un ******* believable.

I never said violence is OK. It's NEVER OK.

Violence is something that happens. When there is unrest, there are incidences of violence. As unfortunate as it is, it is a part of human nature - especially with a large crowd of angry people.

I always get a kick out of how people are quick to criticize those who are at the business end of a taser or a baton saying "they deserve it - bunch of cry babies anyway" yet I'm sure the tables would turn if the same were to happen to you!

'Nuff said!

 

[TJM]

Well then... maybe it's here where I should say that there are times violence needs to happen in order to get a point across!

So violence is OK so long as it serves your purpose.

Un ******* believable.

I never said violence is OK. It's NEVER OK.

Contradict yourself much?

 

[dc1971]

Contradict yourself much?

Yeah dude, I said there are times violence needs to happen in order to get a point across.

Violence has occurred throughout history. I'm not happy that it has to happen but sometimes it's the only answer.

I never said it was OK. Stop taking what I say out of context.

 

[TJM]

Stop taking what I say out of context.

What have I taken out of context?

 

[dc1971]

What have I taken out of context?

ARRRGH! GRRRR!!

Pete and Re-Pete were sitting on a fence, Pete fell off who was left?

 

[TJM]

ARRRGH! GRRRR!!

Pete and Re-Pete were sitting on a fence, Pete fell off who was left?

Bizarre reply.

Probably not worth the effort, but again I must ask:

What have I taken out of context?

 

[dc1971]

What have I taken out of context?

**AHEM**

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7853370&postcount=62

 

[TJM]

**AHEM**

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7853370&postcount=62

So my pointing to your contradiction is out of context?

 

[Virus]

Anarchists are not representative of the OWS, fortunately!

Says who?

 

[TruthersLie]

AJM...

I think his point is that while he doesn't think it is ok and doesn't approve, he also believes that some times it must happen.

it is kind of like telling your kids to never get in a fight, but when they are bullied you tell them they need to punch the bully in the mouth. Might not agree with it, but sometimes it has to happen.

Personally, I think it is a contradiction too, but a whole bunch of people have those contradictory beliefs.

 

[dc1971]

Says who?

This guy...

 

[dc1971]

So my pointing to your contradiction is out of context?

DUDE!

I'm DONE!

You're not going to understand no matter how I explain it to you... so that's it!

DONE!

BYE!

 

[Pardalis]

That was a waste of bandwidth.

 

[RandFan]

Says who?

This guy...

His message doesn't fit the narrative of dirty hippies defecating in public. Sorry. I can't accept that.

 

[TJM]

AJM...

I think his point is that while he doesn't think it is ok and doesn't approve, he also believes that some times it must happen.

it is kind of like telling your kids to never get in a fight, but when they are bullied you tell them they need to punch the bully in the mouth. Might not agree with it, but sometimes it has to happen.

Personally, I think it is a contradiction too, but a whole bunch of people have those contradictory beliefs.

Yeah man, I get that. However -

My original point was to illustrate Occupy Oakland's poor decision to allow anarchists in their demonstration. They know who these guys are, they know what they're going to do. For a group that wants to deliver their message through non-violent protest and civil disobedience, it's not a smart move. dc1971's retort to that indicates to me that he believes violence is OK, so long as the people he agrees with is doing it. This from someone who goes ballistic whenever an occupier gets a bloody nose.

Outstanding.

DUDE!

I'm DONE!

You're not going to understand no matter how I explain it to you... so that's it!

DONE!

BYE!

Toodles hypocrite.

 

[dc1971]

Someone needs a hug!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

and the 'tards want everyone who isn't them to pay more taxes.

Well that's clearly not true about the OWS protestors. As has been pointed out, some of them are very wealthy celebrities who would like their own taxes to be increased.

And what they're saying is certainly not to increase taxes on "everyone who isn't them". So why do you think that's what they want?

 

[dc1971]

Well that's clearly not true about the OWS protestors. As has been pointed out, some of them are very wealthy celebrities who would like their own taxes to be increased.

And what they're saying is certainly not to increase taxes on "everyone who isn't them". So why do you think that's what they want?

Beware! You might be called a hypocrite for asking such a pressing and thoughtful question!

 

[TK0001]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Gandhi


I figure OWS is in the middle of #2 and #3. NDAA is the full realization of #3.

 

[fuelair]

At least he exposed dc1971's huge blind spot. You saw how he reacted to "tards" but not "baggers"?

With no offense, the Teabaggers chose that name themselves. They called themselves Teabaggers way back when they wore the straw "boaters" with tea bags stapled all over them. That they were stupid enough not to check carefully for a problem (and, given their positions/beliefs, not to be aware the original Tea Party did not, in any way, involve tea bags, but, rather, chests of loose tea leaves) and to not check/verify history so they would not have any place to complain from for so-naming themselves illustrates their problem wonderfully..