Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:52 pm
Page 17 of 24
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:55 pm
Oh god I hate when conservatives start playing the victim.
I just like to make things clear where we stand.
I'm respectfully raising objections to OWS; the music community isn't all people who support it.
Note I'm not posting daily "OWS acts of stupidity" or anything like that, my sole role is to provide an opposing voice, if nothing else as a reminder that not everyone here agrees.
So if it makes you happy to attack the messenger, go for it.
I'll grab the popcorn.
Just to be clear, nobody is bothering to refute the emails because they're meaningless.
They're not meaningless - they show the implicit involvement of organized labor from the very beginning (refuting the HP claim), they show the lack of minority presence and involvement from the inside (again, countering what you linked), and the other things I mention above.
You may not like what they say, or disagree with the conclusions that can be drawn, but they're not meaningless.
They're a significant look inside the movement that I think everyone seriously interested in the topic owes to themselves to actually read.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:02 pm
rfurtkamp wrote:Oh god I hate when conservatives start playing the victim.
I just like to make things clear where we stand.
I'm respectfully raising objections to OWS; the music community isn't all people who support it.
Note I'm not posting daily "OWS acts of stupidity" or anything like that, my sole role is to provide an opposing voice, if nothing else as a reminder that not everyone here agrees.
So if it makes you happy to attack the messenger, go for it.
I'll grab the popcorn.Just to be clear, nobody is bothering to refute the emails because they're meaningless.
They're not meaningless - they show the implicit involvement of organized labor from the very beginning (refuting the HP claim), they show the lack of minority presence and involvement from the inside (again, countering what you linked), and the other things I mention above.
You may not like what they say, or disagree with the conclusions that can be drawn, but they're not meaningless.
They're a significant look inside the movement that I think everyone seriously interested in the topic owes to themselves to actually read.
Sounds like superficial details of a movement which is nothing more than superficial as a whole.
Politics is Politics and P.R. is P.R.. Do I think OWS will achieve their goals? No. Do I have any clue what OWS' succinct, legitimate goals are? No. Is this why they're a bunch of well-meaning numb-skulls? Yes. Could the same be said about the Tea Party? Absolutely.
In other words, lets let the kiddies fling rocks at each other while the grown ups get down to reasonable, cooperative business(age metaphors are figurative only).
This is why being a moderate-liberal rules. You get to act super chill and have low expectations.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:03 pm
Once again man, really not attacking you. Disagreeing, yes, with not just your views but also your methodology. Not interested in going after you or your character (If so, I'd mention that I too lived in Idaho for awhile and point out that you must be a gun nut or white supremacist to want to move there 
)
How can emails prove a lack of minority presence? I think the union involvement is obvious and somewhat inconsequential, I think you'd have to just be anti-union in general to make a fuss about it (which I'm sure you are, and that's fine. Just saying it doesn't immediately prove some kind of giant conspiracy)
Also, to be clear, neither of us has sat down and read all 7,000 emails so this is all somewhat academic. Doesn't matter if we did, I'm sure we'd both come to the same conclusions regardless.
Also, is there extra popcorn? I like popcorn.
)How can emails prove a lack of minority presence? I think the union involvement is obvious and somewhat inconsequential, I think you'd have to just be anti-union in general to make a fuss about it (which I'm sure you are, and that's fine. Just saying it doesn't immediately prove some kind of giant conspiracy)
Also, to be clear, neither of us has sat down and read all 7,000 emails so this is all somewhat academic. Doesn't matter if we did, I'm sure we'd both come to the same conclusions regardless.
Also, is there extra popcorn? I like popcorn.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:04 pm
Really not kidding about that popcorn guys, I am muuuuuunchy.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:15 pm
plhogan wrote:Once again man, really not attacking you. Disagreeing, yes, with not just your views but also your methodology. Not interested in going after you or your character (If so, I'd mention that I too lived in Idaho for awhile and point out that you must be a
gun nut or white supremacist to want to move there
Or someone who wanted out of a major metro area and saw a business opportunity or three.
How can emails prove a lack of minority presence?
Read them!
There's an entire thread on "Focusing on bringing immigrant/minority community groups" to the movement. From one of the earlier participants, "The GA is made of the 99%, but it is also made predominantly of white young people. I am one myself." (GA being General Assembly, the organizing body of this whole affair), and the author goes on to discuss how the minority groups not represented in OWS should be natural allies. There are several calls to bring diversity to a few planned protest actions against the banks as well so it's not all angry white men.
I think the union involvement is obvious and somewhat inconsequential, I think you'd have to just be anti-union in general to make a fuss about it (which I'm sure you are, and that's fine. Just saying it doesn't immediately prove some kind of giant conspiracy)
Your Huffpro link works hard to disprove this connection and to deny it exists. That's why I mention it.
Also, is there extra popcorn? I like popcorn.
Always is, if you've made enough to be worth the time to make.
[/quote]Also, to be clear, neither of us has sat down and read all 7,000 emails so this is all somewhat academic.
One of us here has. I like my news unfiltered and was willing to spend the few hours to do so over the last week. I read large swaths of Wikileaks diplomatic cables too, and read the Congressional Record too.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:22 am
I like Ping Pong.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:22 am
unownunown wrote:http://the53.tumblr.com
Partisan shilling. That site was founded by Eric Erickson, who works for CNN and runs/is heavily involved with RedState. Dude's a dickhead, but beyond that he's got three awesome gigs and certainly isn't hurting for money the way the people with meaningful points (on either side of the discussion) are.
Also, reading the emails is important. Of course, I also waste hours on Wikileaks, so I'm into that mindset.
[/in before someone horrifically misunderstands my position and calls me an angry right-winger]
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:16 pm
rfurtkamp wrote:plhogan wrote:Once again man, really not attacking you. Disagreeing, yes, with not just your views but also your methodology. Not interested in going after you or your character (If so, I'd mention that I too lived in Idaho for awhile and point out that you must be a
gun nut or white supremacist to want to move there
Or someone who wanted out of a major metro area and saw a business opportunity or three.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:40 pm
rfurtkamp wrote:One of us here has. I like my news unfiltered and was willing to spend the few hours to do so over the last week. I read large swaths of Wikileaks diplomatic cables too, and read the Congressional Record too.
Good work.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:09 pm
Ok, not to start this up again but I don't believe for a second that you read and processed 3,257 meaningless emails. I appreciate that you've taken up the mantle of the conservative spokesman here (so appreciative that you feel the need to educate us), but I'm not interested in debating someone who would just lie to everyone's fucking face like that. You must have a very low opinion of everybody here to think we'd buy that.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:15 pm
The fact that your "role" is to oppose means there's no point in any kind of conversation in hopes of changing your mind. Meaning we're on different levels...hence my overall frustration with you and the other two.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:21 pm
You don't agree with me. It's not worth trying to find out why.
Interesting.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:30 pm
Outstanding...my overall policy of existence and conversing is nowhere close to that. i understand now.
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:55 pm
plhogan wrote:Ok, not to start this up again but I don't believe for a second that you read and processed 3,257 meaningless emails.
A bit over twice that. Doesn't take long, most of it's bottom posting quotes. I've cited from the pile, I've backed up my claims.
You've resorted to "Impossible" when it represents a few hours of time casually spent on a topic of interest.