• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More than 700 arrested in Wall Street protest

Here's another video showing the police leading the protesters as they walk on the roadway


You can see the police lead them in calmly. News reports even said the cops let them in at first before they could change their story.
 
The only people who legitimately fear the current uprising on Wall Street are the financial institutions and their stockholders. We normal Janes and Joes ar too busy applauding their efforts to fear them.

As for those saying 'quit their jobs to protest on-going': Has it occurred to you that there may be enough people holding this sentiment to use their vacation time to camp-out on Wall Street in shifts? I was looking at one of their websites and it appears they are coordinating this very thing. No wonder the financial institutions are worried that this may well bring their central role in our economic decline into the view of most voters and make it impossible for the pundits and MSM outlet, FoxNews, to convince people they don't deserve tax breaks, bailouts or to be able to regulate themselves.

My wife and I are planning to hit the LA protests in just this way. As long as it doesn't start to get hairy, because I'm wired in a way that makes me respond very negatively to the way protesters are "dealt with" at protests. My wife forbids me to get shot!
 
What has Wall Street to be afraid of? There is trillions of dollars in the banks not being invested because of the present US environment and that money, like many businesses and corporations, will just move elsewhere. The Left has been complaining about businesses leaving the country while at the same time harassing them and demanding more. Goofy? You bet!



Sure. Chase the money out of the country. It will be very welcome elsewhere. Those people who use their vacation time to camp on sidewalks will probably be spending a great deal more time there in the future.

So basically what you're saying is "if youre getting raped, the best thing to do is try to enjoy it".

They'll stop as soon as you stop resisting.
 
So basically what you're saying is "if youre getting raped, the best thing to do is try to enjoy it".

They'll stop as soon as you stop resisting.

You are getting raped?

How so?

And please don't interpret what I am "basically saying". That only leads to confusion. Just go with what I am saying, ok?
 
You are getting raped?

How so?

And please don't interpret what I am "basically saying". That only leads to confusion. Just go with what I am saying, ok?

Ok.

Seems to me yohre saying that those responsible screwed us fair and square and that if we don't just accept it they will punish us by pulling MORE money out of a struggling economy.

Shut up and take it or we'll make it worse seems to be what you are saying.

I resent financial bullying, like what occurred in electrical deregulation a while back. Where the justification for gouging was NIMBYism that made it impossible to build new power plants.

Only problem with that is that it was power company demands to be able to build whatever types of plants they wanted to build wherever they wanted to build them that people objected to.

They wanted to build one directly upwind of a school here, for example, because it was cheaper for them to do so.

Not exactly the NIMBYism they were referring to.
 
My wife and I are planning to hit the LA protests in just this way. As long as it doesn't start to get hairy, because I'm wired in a way that makes me respond very negatively to the way protesters are "dealt with" at protests. My wife forbids me to get shot!

I think you should let your conscious guide you - don't limit yourself.
 
I think you should let your conscious guide you - don't limit yourself.

My conscious IS what's limiting my conscience.

Been close enough to police brutality to know how I respond to it.

See, the badge doesn't give you a pass to act any way you want in my book.

So me and my book stay away from people with guns who think it DOES.
 
Only when it's the tea party or does it apply with the Occupy Wall Street / Union crowd too?

I must have missed them. Where are the OWS protestors wearing a gun and holding a sign that threatens spilling of blood??? Please post a link to your evidence of this?
 
I must have missed them. Where are the OWS protestors wearing a gun and holding a sign that threatens spilling of blood??? Please post a link to your evidence of this?

When people stand up to corporate power, the rightwingers start babbling
 
I must have missed them. Where are the OWS protestors wearing a gun and holding a sign that threatens spilling of blood??? Please post a link to your evidence of this?
I'm asking if your criteria applies to the OWS / Union crowd or just the tea party. It's a simple question...
 
My wife and I are planning to hit the LA protests in just this way. As long as it doesn't start to get hairy, because I'm wired in a way that makes me respond very negatively to the way protesters are "dealt with" at protests. My wife forbids me to get shot!

Very cool! Be careful, but know that we the citizens appreciate, and are proud of, your efforts
 
I'm asking if your criteria applies to the OWS / Union crowd or just the tea party. It's a simple question...

Yes, I would also be opposed to the OWS protestors wearing a gun and holding a sign calling for the spilling of blood.
 
Yes, I would also be opposed to the OWS protestors wearing a gun and holding a sign calling for the spilling of blood.

Would an OWS protestor wearing a gun and holding a sign calling for the spilling of blood also be a threat of violence?
 
Would an OWS protestor wearing a gun and holding a sign calling for the spilling of blood also be a threat of violence?

Rightwingers have to make up stuff in order to have an argument

Was the teabagger who wore a gun a held a sign calling for the spilling of blood making a threat of violence?
 
Would an OWS protestor wearing a gun and holding a sign calling for the spilling of blood also be a threat of violence?

IMO, Yes! Have you seen any of that in this protest?
 
IMO, Yes! Have you seen any of that in this protest?

I haven't been paying much attention to it. But if I do, I'll let you know.
 
I haven't been paying much attention to it. But if I do, I'll let you know.

Yes, please do let me know if you seen anything like this at the OWS protest:

story1.jpg
 
Ok.

Seems to me yohre saying that those responsible screwed us fair and square and that if we don't just accept it they will punish us by pulling MORE money out of a struggling economy.

Shut up and take it or we'll make it worse seems to be what you are saying.

I resent financial bullying, like what occurred in electrical deregulation a while back. Where the justification for gouging was NIMBYism that made it impossible to build new power plants.

Only problem with that is that it was power company demands to be able to build whatever types of plants they wanted to build wherever they wanted to build them that people objected to.

They wanted to build one directly upwind of a school here, for example, because it was cheaper for them to do so.

Not exactly the NIMBYism they were referring to.


You just said "OK" and then more 'seems to me you're saying" stuff. I cannot debate with anyone who who makes up arguments for me and then responds to them. Instead you can continue to debate with yourself.
 
You just said "OK" and then more 'seems to me you're saying" stuff. I cannot debate with anyone who who makes up arguments for me and then responds to them. Instead you can continue to debate with yourself.

Your need for literality is cowardly and hypocritical. You have no trouble ascribing motives and opinions to others, but hide behind your own words when challenged.
 
Your need for literality is cowardly and hypocritical. You have no trouble ascribing motives and opinions to others, but hide behind your own words when challenged.

My need for literality?

Yes, I think it's important that we express ourselves clearly and also respond to other posts accurately. You seem to think this attitude is "cowardly and hypocritical" however, which explains why your posts tend to be wildly exaggerated with little concern for facts. That doesn't say much for the your education.

Yes, I do use my own words and see nothing wrong with that. You apparently use words that just pop into your head, as does the poster I was referring to, and that seems acceptable. To each his own I suppose.
 
Like I said, the left rejected violent people like SDS members, while the right defends and embraces the violence.

Difference is, the violent ones the left CREATED actually engaged in terrorism, while being rejected, and the people like this guy in the picture, does nothing but remind people of the potential. And you'll find just as many people today on the so called right who would denounce this guy, as you would find people on the left in the 60s and 70 who applauded the actions of the weathermen, black panthers, and other such groups.
 
He was at a political rally for pete's sake, not fending off armed thugs from the government out to get him. How would I define tyranny? - Armed thugs from the government out to get you.

Like, FBI raids that don't require a warrent, only "reasonable doubt", one of the loosest legal terms we have right now? Would that be tyranny? How about someone taking money from you without consent, now without due representation, and to resist such theft, leads to prison or death? No one argues with me when I say that our current administration is, first and foremost, concerned about re-election, then money making, THEN actually representing their constituents. Most of you all would say, yeah, that sounds about right of DC these days. That means we are NOR represented. Yet we still have to pay for that lack of proper representation. Maybe that's what this guy is so pissed off about. But then folks like you are all like, "ZMOG, our government is NOT tyrannical!!!!" Says the person with a native american for his avatar. And again, I'm not condoning violence. The best revolutions, er, the most effective and long lasting, are ones completed without a shot fired. But I believe Benjamin Franklin had something to say regarding the idea of peaceful revolution. Not saying we are at that point. Not in my opinion, anyway. Many would say we are. Like that guy in the picture.
 
A monopoly on the legal use of force is the definition of government. Unless you're advocating armed revolution, I don't get it.

What I like the most about this is, Catawba and Sangha "like" this comment, which to me, seems to mean they wholeheartedly approve of the idea that our government is, and SHOULD be, monopolizers on the legal use of force.

I'M not advocating armed revolution, but the guy in this pictures seems to be. And I believe it is his right to do so. To ADVOCATE, at least.
 
Back
Top Bottom