Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[Dragon]

It's sweet of you to explain the Latin.... but there is no need. I know my Latin too. Unlike you, I feel no need to make myself look intelligent. I rely on the fact that I am intelligent without having try.

Empty rhetoric, devoid of cognitive content, unworthy of a reply. Non-answer, very much typical of you. (By the way, I didn't explain the Latin if by this you mean translate it. Just in case the above is meant to hide the fact that you don't know what it means, argumentum ad autoritandem means "argument by authority" -- which is the fallacy I was not using but that you implied I did -- while argumentum ad hominem means "argument towards the man," which is the fallacy you WERE using.)

I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the 'wisdom' of a left wing 'thinker' on a demonstrably leftist 'spontaneous' movement. I have no interest.

In that case, say nothing. It's the only honest thing to do, insofar as you know nothing and are not interested in learning anything.

What interests me is the bullshit about the nature of the protests, the comparison between these protests and the genuine Arab uprisings, the 'demands' that reach beyond our shores to making global demands, who's behind the protests and what is their agenda.

About which you have still not offered one scrap of evidence supporting your views. We are still waiting.

 

[Dragon]

Hmmm. I've been to many protests, many. Every time anyone said anything off-color about a group of persons, the crowd immediately admonished them, shunned them, drowned them out, etc.

And you know that this has not happened -- how? Were you there? Did you see this happen with your own eyes? Footage on YouTube inherently does not show anything that occurred outside the time and place that it covers.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that views like these are endorsed by most of the participants in OWS?

 

[Dragon]

So please tell us,, what do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?

So please tell us,deleted-no family?

 

[California Girl]

It's sweet of you to explain the Latin.... but there is no need. I know my Latin too. Unlike you, I feel no need to make myself look intelligent. I rely on the fact that I am intelligent without having try.

Empty rhetoric, devoid of cognitive content, unworthy of a reply. Non-answer, very much typical of you.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the 'wisdom' of a left wing 'thinker' on a demonstrably leftist 'spontaneous' movement. I have no interest.

In that case, say nothing. It's the only honest thing to do, insofar as you know nothing and are not interested in learning anything.

What interests me is the bullshit about the nature of the protests, the comparison between these protests and the genuine Arab uprisings, the 'demands' that reach beyond our shores to making global demands, who's behind the protests and what is their agenda.

About which you have still not offered one scrap of evidence supporting your views. We are still waiting.

Odd that you accuse me of 'empty rhetoric' that is 'unworthy' of a reply... and by replying show your own desperate need to be seen as my intellectual equal. Clue: You aren't.

I'm interested in learning.... which is why I dismiss partisan sources. They won't teach me anything honest.... they will give me spin.... I can spin for myself.

There is no 'we', little man. There is 'you'. 'You' are not a 'we'. You're an individual. You do not speak on behalf of others. I have provided reasons for my opinion. It is for others to research those reasons for themselves. This crap about 'evidence' is laughable. You provide a partisan article and call that 'evidence'... and you want me to think you are intelligent. That's funny.

Again, I've given my reasons for my opinions. Hard facts. Your 'spontaneous' protest is no more 'spontaneous' than Christmas. It's a joke. The demands produced from the leaders of this 'leaderless' 'spontaneous' planned protest tell me all I need to know about the who, what and why of OWS.

It's a crock.

 

[Si modo]

So please tell us,, what do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?

So please tell us, no family

And you think her question is similar in type to yours?

 

[Si modo]

Hmmm. I've been to many protests, many. Every time anyone said anything off-color about a group of persons, the crowd immediately admonished them, shunned them, drowned them out, etc.

And you know that this has not happened -- how? Were you there? Did you see this happen with your own eyes? Footage on YouTube inherently does not show anything that occurred outside the time and place that it covers.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that views like these are endorsed by most of the participants in OWS?

Ummm, show me on the video where it did happen.

Go ahead. You can do it, can't you?

 

[California Girl]

So please tell us,, what do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?

So please tell us, deleted?

There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?

 

[WillowTree]

So please tell us,, what do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?

So please tell us,deleted?

Still clueless..

 

[Dragon]

There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?

LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)

However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.

Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.

EDIT: Well, actually, I'm afraid you misrepresented the rules once more. There ISN'T a "no-family" rule here. The rule says: "Attacks on family members will not be tolerated."

Even if I had been seriously asking that question, which of course I wasn't, it still wouldn't have been an attack on a family member.

 

[Si modo]

There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?

LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)

However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.

Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.

But it's not of the same category.

A moron would think it was, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[Dragon]

[And you think her question is similar in type to yours?

It is IDENTICAL in type to hers.

 

[California Girl]

There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?

LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)

However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.

Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.

You dodged a legitimate question and dragged her family into the discussion to do so. And now you defend that instead of apologizing. That says a lot about you.

Let me ask you one hypothetical question. If there was evidence that OWS was part of a planned attack on our society - and our Constitutional Republic... with the aim of destroying that Republic in order to replace it with a more socialist based government, would you still support it?

 

[WillowTree]

There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?

LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)

However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.

Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.

EDIT: Well, actually, I'm afraid you misrepresented the rules once more. There ISN'T a "no-family" rule here. The rule says: "Attacks on family members will not be tolerated."

Even if I had been seriously asking that question, which of course I wasn't, it still wouldn't have been an attack on a family member.

So your sorry ass broke the rules even though you already knew that action was against the rules?

 

[Mr Natural]

These people need to get serious.

Put down the goofy signs and start smashng windows and burning cars.

 

[Dragon]

Odd that you accuse me of 'empty rhetoric' that is 'unworthy' of a reply... and by replying show your own desperate need to be seen as my intellectual equal. Clue: You aren't.

I'm quite confident that I am MUCH more intelligent than you are -- so I would agree. We are not intellectual equals.

I'm interested in learning.... which is why I dismiss partisan sources. They won't teach me anything honest.... they will give me spin.... I can spin for myself.

If you were really interested in learning, you would not dismiss ANY sources, although you might treat partisan ones with a grain of salt.

Again, I've given my reasons for my opinions. Hard facts.

The only hard facts you have presented are that Van Jones made a speech calling for a left-leaning populist uprising before OWS began. That proves nothing whatsoever.

 

[WillowTree]

These people need to get serious.

Put down the goofy signs and start smashng windows and burning cars.

a cry for anarchy.. that is typical of left wing lunatics..

 

[Si modo]

[And you think her question is similar in type to yours?

It is IDENTICAL in type to hers.

For your review, here is her question: "What do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?"

You claim her premiss is untrue. It would only be untrue if capitalism and corporations do not exist.

If that is the case, then there would be no need to protest against something that doesn't exist, now would there?














Idiot.

 

[EriktheRed]

]

Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com <----tides foundation receives a ton of money from Sorros.

And this proves that people are PAID to be at OWS?

 

[Dragon]

So your sorry ass broke the rules even though you already knew that action was against the rules?

It's not against the rules.

 

[Dragon]

You claim her premiss is untrue. It would only be untrue if capitalism and corporations do not exist.

Wrong. It would only be untrue if we do NOT propose MAKING them nonexistent. Which we don't.