We disagree about OWS, let's leave it at that...

dc1971 said:
SHOW ME where I said anyone here who disagreed with me was "irrational"???
Click to expand...

What you said in your OP...

dc1971 said:
I see the 'Occupy Wall Street Better Defend it's Identity' thread is still going and I think maybe it's best to put this issue to rest by saying we're going to disagree with the purpose, efforts, and demeanor of the Occupy movement. I know that I kicked and screamed, and huffed and puffed at a few of you and it's obvious a good number of you are set with your opinions. No amount of kicking, screaming, huffing, or puffing is going to change your minds. I say we bury the hatchet and agree to disagree. There is no rational debate that is going to come out of this, especially from those who disagree with the movement, so I'm willing to say "who cares?" and move on!
Click to expand...

...was how I characterized your position:

And your opponents are incapable of rational thought, or something.
Click to expand...
 
angrysoba said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

LOL!

They don't have a clear message or issue they're protesting. Like most protests, they tend to overstep what's defined as free speech. There are whackjobs (who have no leadership position in the movement) that are involved. And their goal is not defined.

However, I think this video describes the Occupy movement best as it gives a positive message...

 
dc1971 said:
They don't have a clear message or issue they're protesting. Like most protests, they tend to overstep what's defined as free speech. There are whackjobs (who have no leadership position in the movement) that are involved. And their goal is not defined.
Click to expand...

Well, that is exactly as I said and you challenged me on it. But it seems we agree about OWS. Now, let's leave it at that...
 
angrysoba said:
Well, that is exactly as I said and you challenged me on it. But it seems we agree about OWS. Now, let's leave it at that...
Click to expand...

Maybe, in the meantime, take a look at the video. I'm not EXPECTING you to but maybe when you have some time. :)
 
dc1971 said:
LOL!

They don't have a clear message or issue they're protesting. Like most protests, they tend to overstep what's defined as free speech. There are whackjobs (who have no leadership position in the movement) that are involved. And their goal is not defined.

However, I think this video describes the Occupy movement best as it gives a positive message...

Click to expand...

I stopped watching right after the first guy said that they were kicked out of the park with no warning. Which was shown right after they showed them being told to leave hours before they were going to be kicked out of the park.

If that's the most rational video that OWS can come up with then no wonder the OWS movement is now lying dead and smelly in the bottom of the toilet bowl just waiting to be flushed into the sewers of irrelevancy along with the used cheap toilet paper of their "Manifesto".
 
I'm pretty damn well against the Occupy Wall Street movement and what they stand for, but I think they have a right to protest and it's wonderful they're doing so. I think it's incredible how condescending people here are to public protest groups like the Occupiers or the Tea Partiers.
 
AJM8125 said:
If I'm not mistaken, The woman here:

[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/WTC_Dust.jpg[/qimg]

Is none other than Tracy Blevins, AKA Medical Marijuana Barbie, AKA WTC Dust, her name here at JREF. Ms. Blevins is under the impression that no planes were involved in the destruction on 9/11, the twin towers were turned into dust where they stood by... something.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189421

Nice find Virus.
Click to expand...

Did you seriously stalk her? Oh my goodness this place is creepy.
 
madfoot said:
I'm pretty damn well against the Occupy Wall Street movement and what they stand for, but I think they have a right to protest and it's wonderful they're doing so. I think it's incredible how condescending people here are to public protest groups like the Occupiers or the Tea Partiers.
Click to expand...

Oh Chuuuuuurist! The Tea Party!

Let's just agree they're a bunch of loons and leave it at that...
 
madfoot said:
I'm pretty damn well against the Occupy Wall Street movement and what they stand for, but I think they have a right to protest and it's wonderful they're doing so. I think it's incredible how condescending people here are to public protest groups like the Occupiers or the Tea Partiers.
Click to expand...

I too support peoples rights to protest (and make fools of themselves in the process) I am all for freedom of speech. However that also means that I support the freedom of other peoples speech when they use it to point out the flaws and idiocy of those same peoples arguments. You cannot have one without the other and intelligent people will fix the flaws as they are pointed out to them. If they can't fix the problems in their own ranks than they deserve the ridicule and condescending responses.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Recognising someone is stalking? :oldroll:
Click to expand...

Considering how much of an AW free spirit she is in real life it's not really all that surprising that she gets recognized as someone who was a regular poster in the 9/11 sub forum.
 
madfoot said:
I'm pretty damn well against the Occupy Wall Street movement and what they stand for, but I think they have a right to protest and it's wonderful they're doing so. I think it's incredible how condescending people here are to public protest groups like the Occupiers or the Tea Partiers.
Click to expand...

Free speech is a two-way street. Their rights to protest are just as protected as my right to criticize them.

But the two groups aren't symmetric. The OWS movement's tactics have centered around illegal activity. That's primarily in the form of vagrancy and trespassing, but when you base your tactics on breaking the law, it should surprise no one that other forms of illegal behavior congregate around you, and that's exactly what happened. In contrast, the tea party has been very law abiding. So there's grounds for special criticism of the OWS movement beyond just disagreement with their political positions, because no, they don't have a right to protest in the way that they have been protesting.
 
dc1971 said:
LOL!

They don't have a clear message or issue they're protesting. Like most protests, they tend to overstep what's defined as free speech. There are whackjobs (who have no leadership position in the movement) that are involved. And their goal is not defined.
Click to expand...

I thought that nobody had a leadership position in the movement, just like the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom