Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby Tigerman » 18 Apr 2012, 09:12

BigJohn wrote:No, TM. You are the one making my views on TC's lame post part of something else.


No. I'm not. I'm just making an observation.

BigJohn wrote:As I said earlier, there is no necessity for posters to allocate their comments in some sort of even way.


And have I disagreed with that? Nope.

BigJohn wrote:Are you suggesting I should defend the Tea Party before I can attack a daft post about OWS?


I've made no such suggestion. Again, I'm just pointing out the obious, as an observation. That's all.

BigJohn wrote:Leave it alone: you are becoming boring.


Just making an observation! :lol:

BigJohn wrote:The point I made is that those black clad anarchists do not represent OWS.


And I agreed. Or, did you miss that?

BigJohn wrote:If you want to post about what does or does not represent the Tea Party, go ahead. But leave me out of it.


You've already left yourself out of similar comments re the TP. I'm just pointing the same out, as an observation! Understand? :lol:
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby BigJohn » 18 Apr 2012, 10:09

The fact that I have not commented on the Tea Party is totally irrelevant; that is my point. Let it go.
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4560
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
97 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby GuyInTaiwan » 18 Apr 2012, 10:27

I actually agree with BigJohn here. If people are talking about pizzas and hamburgers, either at the same time or on separate occasions, one person can freely comment on pizzas without being compelled to comment on hamburgers.
And you coming in to scold us all like some kind of sour-puss kindie assistant who favors olive cardigans and lemon drinks without sugar. -- Muzha Man

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. -- George Orwell
GuyInTaiwan
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
 
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Jun 2008, 23:01
341 Recommends(s)
269 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby TainanCowboy » 18 Apr 2012, 10:40

Another "lame post" about the damage left by OWS tools:
(Maybe add some pics later...LOL)

"DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - According to the office of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the Occupy L.A. encampment at City Hall left behind 25 tons of debris, killed more than an acre's worth of grass and destroyed some high-tech sprinklers. The damage is tentatively expected to cost taxpayers between $300,000 and $400,000."
Dead City Hall Lawn Brings Questions of Grassy Returns
Lets remember that Los Angeles, as is most of California, is financially broke. As in tapped-out...destitute. Tax-payers (those who actually work and pay taxes) are, again, stuck with the bill for the petulant
actions of the OWS wank-jobs.

more:

Fixing Destroyed L.A. City Hall Lawn After Occupy Protest
Press release on the subject.
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --- "Caesar and Cleopatra"...G.B. Shaw
-----
Kid Rock - Born Free
-----
"The big sisters are usually hot, but the dads smell of alcohol and tobacco....and have dirty feet with dead toe nails in blue slippers. "...Bob_Honest on "The Culture"
------
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
------
Isaiah 40:31
Forumosan avatar
TainanCowboy
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16234
Joined: 18 Jun 2004, 17:50
Location: Tainan - The Original Taiwan
103 Recommends(s)
49 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby cfimages » 18 Apr 2012, 11:09

TainanCowboy wrote: Tax-payers (those who actually work and pay taxes) are, again, stuck with the bill for the petulant
actions of the OWS wank-jobs.



The %age of unemployed in OWS was about the same as the %age in society in general. The majority of OWS are working tax payers.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8569
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
153 Recommends(s)
164 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby Tigerman » 18 Apr 2012, 11:37

Big John wrote:The fact that I have not commented on the Tea Party is totally irrelevant; that is my point. Let it go.


What don't you understand re my point? Its very simple. I am not suggesting that you should do or refrain from doing anything, or saying anything. I am simply pointing out that you have commented on A but not on B. Its an observation and I am as free to make it as you are to refrain from commenting on B.

GuyInTaiwan wrote:I actually agree with BigJohn here. If people are talking about pizzas and hamburgers, either at the same time or on separate occasions, one person can freely comment on pizzas without being compelled to comment on hamburgers.


Yes. Certainly. But, I am not asking that anyone comment on hamburgers, much less attempting to compel hamburger comments. I am simply observing that some people frequently comment on pizzas but never comment on hamburgers.

We're all free to make that observation, and likewise free to take from that observation anything we like.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby GuyInTaiwan » 18 Apr 2012, 12:08

Okay. I think maybe BigJohn thinks there's a subtle commentary behind that observation.
And you coming in to scold us all like some kind of sour-puss kindie assistant who favors olive cardigans and lemon drinks without sugar. -- Muzha Man

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. -- George Orwell
GuyInTaiwan
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
 
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Jun 2008, 23:01
341 Recommends(s)
269 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby BigJohn » 19 Apr 2012, 01:00

GuyInTaiwan wrote:Okay. I think maybe BigJohn thinks there's a subtle commentary behind that observation.


Of course I do, thanks Guy. He is not implying a link between my comments on OWS and not doing so on the Tea Party, as if this was in some way indicative of something. Maybe it would be if I had made other types of comments about the Tea Party which seemed incongruous with ones I made about OWS, but I have not.The theme here is that anyone is saying something critical about someone saying something critical about OWS,and that connects to TM's endless battle against libs bashing cons.

But I'm not even a lib, I'm a centrist, so the whole thing is just annoying.
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4560
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
97 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby Tigerman » 19 Apr 2012, 13:06

BigJohn wrote:But I'm not even a lib, I'm a centrist...


:roflmao:

Riiiiiight. :D
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby BigJohn » 19 Apr 2012, 13:51

Tigerman wrote:
BigJohn wrote:But I'm not even a lib, I'm a centrist...


:roflmao:

Riiiiiight. :D


No, I am serious! I am a centrist. By Canadian standards, but then we ain't in Kansas anymore.

I hardly see what you would laugh at such a thing. Do you think I am deliberately lying, because manipulating the Flob is my one true secret passion?

Or do you think I don't understand the term?

Either way, I fail to see on what basis you would dismiss my claim.
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4560
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
97 Recognized(s)

6000

PreviousNext




 
 
 x

Return to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 2 visitors

You don't have to type "http://www" into your Web browser. Just type the remainder: "nytimes.com" or "dilbert.com," for example. (In the Safari browser, you can even leave off the ".com" part.)
More tips from David Pogue