Forum
Occupy Wall Street
|
its really chase wrote
at 12:00 PM, Thursday September 29, 2011 EDT
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-elites-enjoy-police-protection-2011-09-27?pagenumber=2
http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/news/2011/09/observations-of-a-jailed-journalist/ This makes me proud to be an American for the first time in a while. It also made me want to drive to NY and join in. |
|
0632242545 wrote
at 10:07 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT Well put mrK.
On a less serious note I just read on reddit that a common danish euphemism for periods is that "there's communists in the funhouse". You're welcome. |
|
0632242545 wrote
at 10:18 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT Well put mrK
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 10:21 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT strange double post
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 10:21 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT strange
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 10:43 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT My only issue with these types of protests is that the purpose and placement of them always seems to be about causing disruption.
The Tea Party generally protests in public gathering areas (parks, DC Mall, parking lots etc). And they use the events to organize behind policies and leaders. Generally no one gets arrested because there is no laws being broken. Whereas when this Occupy Wall Street thing happened. It was complete mayhem. And the goal seemed to be more about stopping traffic, hollering, and committing misdemeanors. I'm no PR expert; but I can't imagine that this movement will gain very much support beyond hoodlums and hipsters. If this movement grows; it would seem that a London based riot is more likely then a political platform. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 10:44 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT based = -like
|
|
mr Kreuzfeld wrote
at 11:18 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT "My only issue with these types of protests is that the purpose and placement of them always seems to be about causing disruption. "
when the people are figthing back, do you see any other way? isn't civil disobidence one of the few things that is left to do? you say that everyone should have the right to have weapons, so that they can defend themselves against government. Are you against people defending themselves non violently like this? causing disruptions instead of riots? (guessing you are for legalised weapons) |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 11:24 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT They aren't defending themselves because their rights haven't been violated.
|
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 11:41 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT I am pretty sure the actions of the Federal government over the last 20 years have violated plenty of constitutional protections the people should have. So yes I think you could make a case that the relation between money and politics is violating the rights of the individual voters, which is the core cause of these protests.
|
|
mr Kreuzfeld wrote
at 11:45 AM, Friday September 30, 2011 EDT and before you answer skrum,
a right is a right, it does not matter if it is in the constitution or not. you would not say that a north korean does not have the right to free speach, you would say that his rights has been taken away from him. |