We are the 99%!
The system is set up to REQUIRE cheating to be near the top. Business students are taught this on a daily basis. Business leaders admit it on a daily basis.
The fact that deregulation, bribery and cronyism has made cheating and dishonesty the smart, even heroic, thing to do...
I agree, except for the last part -- there is nothing heroic about it. Quite the opposite, in fact. :(
The really sad part is that to the most successful (read: sociopathic) among us, traits like integrity, forgiveness, and kindness are contemptible signs of weakness.
I agree with you 100%. I was trying to say that making exorbitant amounts of money through amoral dealings and unfair practices is seen (incorrectly) as heroic. Think of the memorials every news agency did of a certain recently deceased CEO (RIP). Nothing wrong with doing the stories in principle, but the tone was all wrong. Not to belittle what he did, but based on the coverage you’d think he had contributed something truly meaningful to this world.
Can anyone name one person who is celebrated by the media at that level for doing something actually heroic or good for society?
And it isn’t just the wealthy sociopaths among us that hold having and displaying wealth as the basis for worship. We all do it. Some buy into it more deeply than others, but we can’t escape it. The system and society is set up so we have to support this attitude to some degree. That is capitalism and that is the basis of civilization. The problem we currently have, though it is nothing new, is that the limits of basic decency are not there to provide a balance and we all buy onto it.
There isn’t a person here who can say they’ve never showed off a new gadget, garment, ect to their friends that exploited disadvantaged people (pretty much anything you buy) without feeling an even a small pang of guilt.
I don't know about every other city, but Denver OWS needs to shut up and go home.
SO a group that is fighting homelessness (free food, free clothing, warm place to stay) gets evicted by the mayor and thrown out of their location, and the next day the mayor has a vigil on homelessness and you expect them to not shout out how hypocritical that is?
I don't know about every other city, but Denver OWS needs to shut up and go home.SO a group that is fighting homelessness (free food, free clothing, warm place to stay) gets evicted by the mayor and thrown out of their location, and the next day the mayor has a vigil on homelessness and you expect them to not shout out how hypocritical that is?
Yeah. I mean it sounds like they were being what OWS is, obnoxious agitators. But as obnoxious agitators go I think they're probably on the right side of the argument, assuming the facts are as presented.
I don't know about every other city, but Denver OWS needs to shut up and go home.SO a group that is fighting homelessness (free food, free clothing, warm place to stay) gets evicted by the mayor and thrown out of their location, and the next day the mayor has a vigil on homelessness and you expect them to not shout out how hypocritical that is?
They refused to obey the law, and had plenty of chances to move to an alternate location or disperse. They refused. The mayor had every right to have them evicted.
As for disrupting the vigil, they should have shown some respect.
Oh, and the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, which organized the vigil and invited the mayor, does far more for the homeless than OWS ever has.
I find the irony of telling the homeless to 'go home' staggering.
I meant it as a figure of speech, not literally.
I don't know about every other city, but Denver OWS needs to shut up and go home.SO a group that is fighting homelessness (free food, free clothing, warm place to stay) gets evicted by the mayor and thrown out of their location, and the next day the mayor has a vigil on homelessness and you expect them to not shout out how hypocritical that is?They refused to obey the law, and had plenty of chances to move to an alternate location or disperse. They refused. The mayor had every right to have them evicted.
As for disrupting the vigil, they should have shown some respect.
Oh, and the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, which organized the vigil and invited the mayor, does far more for the homeless than OWS ever has.
Again, asking people who are exercising their right to freedom of speech and assembly to stop is ridiculous. You don't seem to get what protesters do. They make a lot of noise and bring attention to something. They agitate. To ask them to not be somewhere because it looks bad for the mayor is preposterous.
Again, asking people who are exercising their right to freedom of speech and assembly to stop is ridiculous. You don't seem to get what protesters do. They make a lot of noise and bring attention to something. They agitate. To ask them to not be somewhere because it looks bad for the mayor is preposterous.I don't know about every other city, but Denver OWS needs to shut up and go home.SO a group that is fighting homelessness (free food, free clothing, warm place to stay) gets evicted by the mayor and thrown out of their location, and the next day the mayor has a vigil on homelessness and you expect them to not shout out how hypocritical that is?They refused to obey the law, and had plenty of chances to move to an alternate location or disperse. They refused. The mayor had every right to have them evicted.
As for disrupting the vigil, they should have shown some respect.
Oh, and the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, which organized the vigil and invited the mayor, does far more for the homeless than OWS ever has.
You are forgetting that the government can put reasonable restrictions on both of those rights. The simple fact of the matter is that they repeatedly refused to obey the law.
What law, exactly?
Have you noticed that, despite all the claims by OWS about illegal police behavior, there hasn't been a single lawsuit over being dispersed? Ever notice that police break up protests all the time without being sued? There is a reason for that.
...the fact that none of them have the money to fight in court?
When has that ever stopped a sleazy lawyer from taking a case with the potential for millions in settlement?
Type "lawsuit" and "Occupy Wall Street" into Google and you'll see that Citizen A.P.P.L.E. is misinformed.
Can we agree that if OWS is causing a public nuisance, preventing the free flow of emergency vehicles (for example), that the city has the right to tell them to relocate and, if they don't relocate, then the city has the right to break up the camp?
No, I don't think we can.
The incomprehension here can be astonishing. Just when I think "they can't be serious," I'm proven wrong.
Can we agree that if OWS is causing a public nuisance, preventing the free flow of emergency vehicles (for example), that the city has the right to tell them to relocate and, if they don't relocate, then the city has the right to break up the camp?
Can we agree that if OWS is using their crowds to hide a nuclear weapon about to detonate and destroy NYC, then it would be OK to arrest them for treason? I mean, if it's pure speculation (with no links showing it happening).
Can we agree that it is FAR more likely that a large crowd can block the free flow of traffic than it is for a large crowd to be hiding a nuke?
It's FAR more likely that you're a spy for a neo-nazi terrorist group than it is that you're an alien scout seeking to take over the Earth. That doesn't necessarily make either one true, however. You're leaving out answer (C), "None of the Above."
So, if someone dies in an ambulance which is unable to get to a hospital because an OWS group is blocking traffic or if a firetruck takes longer to get to a burning building (and someone dies as a result) because of an OWS meeting, you're okay with that?
See, here's the problem. You say "can we agree that if they're causing a public nuisance" they should have their camp broken up and only provide one example.
That example is pretty ludicrous, because they weren't making their camp in the street and ambulances don't usually transverse parks in order to get to the hospital.
Also, what Kirth said.
Comrade Anklebiter, have you stopped beating your wife recently?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comrade Anklebiter, have you stopped beating your meat recently?
Which reminds me...I'll see you guys in a bit.
What I said is "if they're causing a public nuisance". See that 'if'? It's important. It doesn't imply that they -are- or -were- causing a public nuisance. It implies 'if'.
Thank you, I understand the meaning of the word "if".
What I am saying is that you ask "if" they're causing a public nuisance, can we agree that their camp should be broken up. You provide one hypothetical example. But that is not the only thing they could hypothetically be doing that could render them a public nuisance. You just jump to one that causes death to innocent bystanders.
If they were drumming and singing "The Internationale," for example, until the wee hours of the morning, that would also make them a public nuisance. And, no, we can't all agree that their camp should be broken up for such a reason.
You are the first person I've met who takes the position that it is impossible for a large group of people to block the free flow of traffic.
You are the first person I've met who takes the position that if something is possible, it must currently be occurring in a specific case.
If they are drumming and singing "The Internationale" until the wee hours of the morning and keeping me up so that I can't get any sleep, then they are no different than a bunch of kids having an illegal rave in the apartment next door. In many cities, there are laws regarding disturbing the peace.
I understand that, but you originally asked "Can we all agree..."
And I'm telling you that we can't all agree, as my post, Citizen Gersen's posts and Comrade Jeff's posts indicate.
What law, exactly?Have you noticed that, despite all the claims by OWS about illegal police behavior, there hasn't been a single lawsuit over being dispersed? Ever notice that police break up protests all the time without being sued? There is a reason for that.
You mean like this one?
I'm glad that Comrade Anklebiter knows the meaning of the word 'if'. You, however, don't. When I said 'if', that clearly indicated to the typical English speaker that I wasn't saying 'it must certainly be occurring'.
Your tactics are transparent.
If I'm aware of no attempt on your part to do anything illegal, and start spouting off "Can we all agree that if Darkwing Duck is pirating gaming materials, that he should be prosecuted for it? Or at the very least kicked off the boards? I don't think he should be allowed to get away with that!" -- that's not an honest "if." Rather, it's an underhanded way to make an accusation while pretending you're not.
I wish they were a little more organized.
I dunno who thought it was a good idea to block off the ports in Portland to stick it to the man, but in the process stopping a day's work for the dockworkers...were the dockworkers part of the 1%?
Or does this fall under "you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs"?
Either way it sucks, and is not consistent with their goals, it would seem. Especially if you're an "egg".
No, its not. What it is is seeking common ground and following the age old philosophical construct of "if X then Y'.
That would be awesome. Let's try this, then:
"Can we all agree that if our politicians are in the pockets of big business in order to hyper-concentrate wealth, eliminate the middle class, and usher in a feudal society, that someone should probably call attention to the fact? And can we further agree that attempts by those same politicians to censor the protests could easily be seen as damage control in many contexts, rather than as actions in the interest of public safety?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we all agree that not everything an elected official does is a conspiracy by the man to keep people down?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we all agree that not everything an elected official does is a conspiracy by the man to keep people down?
Sure. Sometimes it's all about hookers and blow.
Yes, I can agree to that.
By the same token, I'd agree that if and when a said protest is blocking necessary emergency services, someone should shove them the hell out of the way.
Yes, I can agree to that.By the same token, I'd agree that if and when a said protest is blocking necessary emergency services, someone should shove them the hell out of the way.
<sigh of relief>
Thank you.
So, nothing should be done preemptively? We should wait until an actual life is lost or until an actual life is put in jeopardy?
Are you implying that protesters wouldn't let an ambulance through in an emergency? Should they be removed from any place they are because and ambulance MIGHT need to go through the spot they're using?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we agree that if OWS is causing a public nuisance, preventing the free flow of emergency vehicles (for example), that the city has the right to tell them to relocate and, if they don't relocate, then the city has the right to break up the camp?
No.
We loose how many people a year for the second amendment right to bear arms making handguns easier to get than produce, but we're supposed to give up our right to assemble over the THEORETICAL death of one person in an ambulance who inexplicably needs to drive through a park?