OWS camp in NYC getting raided - Now .

page: 16
35
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


If I were to guess which one of the descriptions you listed that the poster fits. I would choose # 2



2. You are none of the above but a troll with a appetite for overkill derailing topics - likes to argue for the sake of arguing even when you know you are wrong. You just pick a side and just go with it, spray and pray.


I don't like to stereotype but usually people who make some big mean looking warrior badass as their avatar are in real life small skinny kids with big egos who were picked on in school and live vicariously online as some macho dude who seeks power and revenge from his fat bullying school yard overlords.



Well, you got the skinny part right, at least, if nothing else.

Ad hominem much?




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 



I didnt know Guy Fawkes was SOOO intimidating???


He's not intimidating in the same way I listed.

I was referring to nenothtu's avatar actually.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





Well, you got the skinny part right, at least, if nothing else.

Ad hominem much?



I said it was just a guess. Besides you seem to think it's ok to use the old ad hominem when discussing the OWS protesters.

Pot calling the kettle black... Much?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


If I were to guess which one of the descriptions you listed that the poster fits. I would choose # 2



2. You are none of the above but a troll with a appetite for overkill derailing topics - likes to argue for the sake of arguing even when you know you are wrong. You just pick a side and just go with it, spray and pray.


I don't like to stereotype but usually people who make some big mean looking warrior badass as their avatar are in real life small skinny kids with big egos who were picked on in school and live vicariously online as some macho dude who seeks power and revenge from his fat bullying school yard overlords.



I didnt know Guy Fawkes was SOOO intimidating???


Nah, they're still carrying on about my avatar. Looks like they could find a better chink in the armor somewhere...

God only knows what they'd try to make out a fuzzy pink elephant as an avatar. The only certainty is that they'd have to hammer on the avatar rather than the topic for lack of smoke.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by sonnny1
 



I didnt know Guy Fawkes was SOOO intimidating???


He's not intimidating in the same way I listed.

I was referring to nenothtu's avatar actually.



Old Guido,and the millions of armchair hackers are not intimidating,your absolutely right.

Besides,I knew who ya meant.........



Thats what made it even funnier.

Carry on.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You have single-handedly spoken truth this whole time.

BTW,you did hear about the new political party,old Ad-Busters Kalle Lasn,OWS defacto Leader wants,right?

The plot thickens......................



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I guess I am beating a dead horse here,


Yeah, probably.



you are not receptive to the logic i provided that's perfectly fine with me.


Receptive? I missed it altogether. Some times, you just have to be real obvious with troglodytes like me.



But you actually have not made an impact.


Yeah, maybe not, but it hasn't been for lack of effort, and I sure got YOUR attention.

Well, maybe it was just my avatar....




I mean you are obviously sympathetic to this corruption


See, HERE is where you "logic" begins to falter - it apparently doesn't admit of anything not in keeping with the polarities you define.You cannot fathom the possibility that I don't support either one, or the corruption inherent in both. That thought is outside the "you're either with us or you're with THEM" paradigm you have constructed to inhabit.



and in doing so you demonize an entire group of individuals with the usual straw man argument.


Which "straw man" argument is that?



As far as the protesters stepping on the rights of other people that is laughable, whatever random acts that can have and will occur at OWS could never hold a candle to what the ptb have done "whom you seem less concerned with" ironically.


So by your reckoning the attempted abrogation of a right by one group means that everyone else can trample rights, too? Careful with that sort of logic - it allows summary executions to take place.



Crime and litter and undesirable things will always happen where any large group of people congregate. If that is really your argument in saying this such a threat then i have to lol,


Umm, no, I've not made that argument anywhere... I could certainly try to if you'd be more comfortable arguing against that rather than what I HAVE said, though..



might as well hold the rest of America's society accountable in doing so hence irrelevant and moot, if i choose to go to a Heavy Metal concert and some guy spills his beer on me in the crowd and i become so outraged that i join the PMRC and demonize Heavy Metal because some drunk spilled beer on my knickerbockers then everyone would call me..

An IDIOT!


What was that you were saying above about "straw man" arguments?



Really I mean if waste and random crime is an issue then you wont like living just about anywhere on planet earth. There is this thing called "tolerance" you see. However this is not about trash and poop in the street this is about where your priorities come from. Well nice to see you express your concerns.



Still trying to play off against an argument I've not made?



Must be lonely over there ?


Yeah. And dark and scary, too.




reply to post by sonnny1
 


Or in your case what appears to be a alien/pope perhaps a demon or ghost or whatever?

Hello over there on the side lines, nice pom poms


Ok back on topic, this is derailing

Sorry mods I apologize for sonnny1


Still got nothing to shoot at but avatars? You know, you're able to use that "edit" button if you think you're derailing something, and I'd imagine sonnny1 can apologize for himself if he feels it necessary.

On a potentially related note, I guess you could, too.



edit on 2011/11/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by nenothtu
 





Well, you got the skinny part right, at least, if nothing else.

Ad hominem much?



I said it was just a guess. Besides you seem to think it's ok to use the old ad hominem when discussing the OWS protesters.

Pot calling the kettle black... Much?


Examples, please?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You have single-handedly spoken truth this whole time.

BTW,you did hear about the new political party,old Ad-Busters Kalle Lasn,OWS defacto Leader wants,right?

The plot thickens......................



Yup, I heard about it. Matter of fact, I more or less predicted it in another post over a month ago, right near the beginning of this mess.

My application for a prophet license is in the mail, and the OWS crowd still can't see how they're being played against the American people. some things never change.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


But you're wrong! The 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee is absolutely comparable to the Wall Street occupation! Are you familiar with the details of what happened to Spotted Elk (aka Chief Bigfoot) and his band of Miniconjou and Hunkpapa Sioux at Wounded Knee on December 29, 1890? When talking about the 1973 occupation of The Knee, it is important to understand what happened in 1890. The group of about 200 Lakota Sioux and the members of AIM who were involved in the 1973 occupation, specifically chose Wounded Knee because of the symbolism of the location. If you’re not sure of the details of the 1890 Massacre, here is a refresher: www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...

As for you saying the Wounded Knee protesters were “occupying their own land”…..well, that’s kind of a joke. First of all, “their own land” consists of the Black Hills and the surrounding plains, not the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, which they were forced onto by the United States Government after the U.S Government had nearly wiped them out, and which consists of the crappiest piece of land in the entire Northern Plains. Do not even get me started on the breaking of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty!
Second of all, before the U.S. government came poking around wanting to “buy” their land, the Sioux had never even conceived of the notion of land ownership. Their belief was that the land was a gift from the Great Spirit for all creatures to share and benefit from, not a possession to be bought and sold.


While I am in no way implying that the current situation in the broader U.S. is even the tiniest bit close to the appalling conditions on Pine Ridge in 1973 or today (at least not yet!), the basic parallels between the current Wall Street occupation protest and the 1973 Wounded Knee occupation protest are undeniable.

The 1973 Wounded Knee occupation protest by the group of Lakota and members of AIM was born out of the frustration of years of deplorable living conditions on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and as a reaction to the blatant and astonshing corruption of then tribal president Dick Wilson and his thuggish phalanx of “enforcers” known as GOON’s. The Wounded Knee protesters chose the location for their occupation based on the strong historical and ideological symbolism of the place. They were protesting the practice of widespread nepotism and cronyism in tribal government. They were protesting the appalling living conditions on Pine Ridge which were a result of the worsening economical crisis there (and which, by the way is even worse now than in 1973 -- current unemployment rate hovers around 85%). They were angry that the United States Government had broken every single treaty with the Sioux people and they wanted the U.S.Government to address the broken treaties and start renegotiating them.

The current Occupy Wall Street movement was born out of frustration with the widening gap between the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor. They are protesting the deliberate destruction of the middle class in our country by the extremely wealthy elite. The OWS protesters chose Wall Street as the target and the location of their occupation because the institution of Wall Street is the symbolic heart of the financial and banking industry that OWS believes is at the center of our current economical crisis. OWS is protesting the corruption, greed, and cronyism of the corporate investment and banking industries and the politicians in Washington who are owned and manipulated by the corporations.OWS is protesting the unacceptable job situation we are currently facing.They are angry with the U.S government because the taxpayers were promised that the massive bailouts of the too-big-to-fail corporations would create jobs and fix the economy for everyone. It didn't work and we need a solution that will work.

I am not implying that the economic and societal crisis we are currently facing in the broader U.S is in any way as grave or violent as the conditions on Pine Ridge in 1973, but the basic dynamics and fundamentals of the two protests are absolutely similar.

I'm close friends with several Sioux people and I am very well aware of how they perceive their own history (I lived about 45 minutes outside of Pine Ridge for about 5 years). Therefore, I would never ever compare the occupation of Wounded Knee with the current Wall Street occupation if I thought my Sioux friends would find it offensive or disrespectful. As a matter of fact, I'm quite sure my friend Charlie and his dad would find my comparison between the two protests to be valid, somewhat ironic, and maybe even amusing.

I'm done now. Oh, I totally forgot to mention the occupation of the BIA offices in Washington, DC in November 1972! I think I’ll save my rant about that and about the Alcatraz Island occupation for another day.
edit on 17-11-2011 by dalloway because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Holy crap! www.ustream.tv...

1000s and 1000s of people, police cannot hold a line



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Following live stream and watched this "the other 99%" on this stream all through evacuation of Liberty Park and after. This is guy Tim is great.

www.ustream.tv...

Mahree



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by dalloway

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by dalloway
 


Indians Occupying Indian land? Who'd have thunk it?




OWS -- Americans occupying American Land.
Think about it!

And actually, Alcatraz Island is owned by the U.S. Federal Government.



You're not an Indian, I see, or you wouldn't have made those mistakes. You seem to be oblivious to the concept of tribal lands, yet seek to apply that concept to other people's lands which belong to neither you nor your tribe.

Just an FYI - If I were you, I wouldn't try obstructing an Indian on tribal lands. that can get pretty dicey.

You should check into the Alcatraz occupation, and recall that I did mention that the feds lay claim to it, which is a statement of fact, but not an assignment of "ownership".



Ummm, what the hell are you talking about? You are making absolutely no sense here. At all. All I can guess is that you completely missed the point of what I said. Wow. Just wayyyyyy off.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


Watching the Live stream... I'm proud of these people. They are proving what they are made of. This movement is not going away.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Opening Bell went ahead.

I snapped a photo of the bell's live stream.




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dalloway
 


I will just have to accept that you see some sort of valid correlation between the two events, and you will have to accept that I don't. I am not Lakota, but Lakotas were not the only Indians there, either, in the end. If they would prefer to identify their history to OWS than to that of the other tribes, that is their right, I suppose.

Yes, I am familiar with the 1890 massacre. The "trophy" photos of Spotted Elk laying frozen in the snow, frozen in all appearances of having died while trying to crawl away aren't easily forgettable. What kind of people does that to the Old?

The 1973 Wounded Knee occupation only happened after all other avenues for redress were exhausted. That's generally the Indian way, seeking solutions before applying contrary action.

The 1973 Wounded Knee occupation had clearly defined goals and demands - The removal of Wilson and renegotiation of treaties by the US government.

They offered solutions for remedial action to end the standoff.

OWS meets neither of these criteria for comparisons.



As for you saying the Wounded Knee protesters were “occupying their own land”…..well, that’s kind of a joke.


Yes, it was. I'm glad you caught it. I'm acquainted with a fellow, also not a Lakota, who was once asked by a white guy who just couldn't quite grasp it why he "fought on behalf of the people who harmed his own people so". He thought for a few seconds before responding. "I didn't fight for them. I was just in their army. I fought for my own people - you're forgetting WHOSE land you stand on."

No, I don't accept the comparison of OWS with Wounded Knee, for those and other reasons. If you, or the Lakotas, want to accept that comparison, I have no dog in their fights any more. I'll find something else to be offended at.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dalloway

Ummm, what the hell are you talking about? You are making absolutely no sense here. At all. All I can guess is that you completely missed the point of what I said. Wow. Just wayyyyyy off.



Then Pine Ridge must be a lot nicer place to live than most rez's.

Who knew they would become so integrated? Even the Cherokees out here in the east, as peaceful as they are, will teach one new ways to hurt if he tries to obstruct them on their own land.

No, I'm not a Cherokee, either, but they are the majority tribe around here.








edit on 2011/11/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Well nenothtu, I'm happy to say that I very much appreciate your thoughtful responses to my replies! It's nice to find that we share a good understanding of Native American history and culture, and that we share a concern with the difficult issues they face. It's always a good thing when a somewhat heated discussion with another ATS member culminates with a discovery that there is in fact something about which we do agree.

I do want to point out that the Pine Ridge reservation suffers from the highest poverty rate, around 95%, of all of the 334 Indian reservations in the U.S., so it is decidedly not a nice place to live. It's not an exaggeration to say that Pine Ridge is akin to a third world country. If you're interested, here is a site with some startling and staggering facts and stats about Pine Ridge: www.backpacksforpineridge.com...

As you said, we'll just have to agree to disagree about my comparison of the Wounded Knee occupation with the occupation of Wall Street. Glad we had this exchange!





new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join