Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted (edited)

I don't agree with any of that. He is way off base.

 

 

I think he's pretty spot on. Pretty much the only reason our democracy has survived for 200 years is because it is very resistant to dramatic change. No one gets everything, and the extremes on both sides are never satisfied, but everyone is usually happy enough.

Edited by Buff_bills4ever
Posted

 

That's the first thing I've ever read from The Economist that I actually agree with...

 

 

...mostly. The part you quote, about democratic involvement, completely misses the "fact" that the OWS bozos at heart believe that they're disenfranchised by a corporatist, undemocratic system.

 

Or they would believe that, if they stopped chanting for thirty seconds and gave it some thought.

Posted (edited)

That's the first thing I've ever read from The Economist that I actually agree with...

 

 

...mostly. The part you quote, about democratic involvement, completely misses the "fact" that the OWS bozos at heart believe that they're disenfranchised by a corporatist, undemocratic system.

 

Or they would believe that, if they stopped chanting for thirty seconds and gave it some thought.

 

That is a common misconception, not only by OWS. OWS is just doing something about it, or think they are.

 

On a humorous note, on Bloomberg TV this morning, Margaret Brennan was interviewing a trader at NYSE. She asked him if he had any trouble on the morning commute due to the "day of action" and he responded that he gets in much earlier than 7 am when most of the protesters were sleeping since 7 am would be considered late :lol:

Edited by meazza
Posted

On a humorous note, on Bloomberg TV this morning, Margaret Brennan was interviewing a trader at NYSE. She asked him if he had any trouble on the morning commute due to the "day of action" and he responded that he gets in much earlier than 7 am when most of the protesters were sleeping since 7 am would be considered late :lol:

 

:lol:

 

The greatest thing about the OWS clowns is that they don't even understand reality well enough to protest it.

Posted

I heard one of the traders today say on CNBC, "how about occupying a desk" :lol:

Occupying a desk? Don't get their hopes up. You gotta start at the fry station if you're going to eventually work your way up to night manager of McD's.

Posted

This is sorta whacked. What a "fit" officer.

 

Link

 

I've always said if you defy police orders don't B word if you get smacked upside the head. Or in this case a face full of pepper spray.

Posted

 

Police told Sacramento's KTXL TV station that the students were given until 3 p.m. Friday to remove their tents from the campus. When students refused, police arrived at the given time. Students sat down cross-legged and locked arms when cops showed up and the pepper spraying began.

 

UC Davis officials said the group is allowed to occupy the quad for as long as they want, but cannot camp, KCRA reported.

 

Yeah, they are not in tents. Look the OWS stuff is lame, that I freely grant. Whatever meaningful point they may have had, tis too late to get that point (if they could even decide on what it is or articulate it) across. However, if they are in a spot where they are allowed to protest, which your own article says they were then I think it is uncool to see some fat jackass walking down the line pepper spraying them.

 

Is it Libya? Hell, no. I just do not like it.

Posted

Yeah, they are not in tents. Look the OWS stuff is lame, that I freely grant. Whatever meaningful point they may have had, tis too late to get that point (if they could even decide on what it is or articulate it) across. However, if they are in a spot where they are allowed to protest, which your own article says they were then I think it is uncool to see some fat jackass walking down the line pepper spraying them.

 

Is it Libya? Hell, no. I just do not like it.

 

It's probably just deodorant anyway.

Posted (edited)

 

I guess you didn't see the video that I posted that was the same as yours but a lot longer. It started off showing Jerry Brown's Brownshirts viciously attacking peaceful protesters with pepper spray. I guess the Jerry Brown's Brownshirts thought that the protesters were violating some silly rule about blocking the sidewalk and when asked to move they formed a human chain while sitting on the walk. Now the mean authorities were being quite silly. They didn't need to exert their authority because everyone knows that if they would have immediately given in to the protesters, then from now and in the future, those protesters would have respected Jerry Brown's Brownshirts and wouldn't push the envelope anymore. But no, Jerry Brown's Brownshirts had to pepper spray them. The Protesters counter attacked by viciously chanting "shame on you" over and over. It was awful. They then went in for the kill by spontaneously coming up with a new chant that told the authorities that they owned the university. By repeating the words "our university" over and over they broke down Jerry Brown's Brownshirts until they had no more will to try to keep order. It was obvious that the protesters had won the day but by chanting "you can go" ad nauseum they mercifully allowed Jerry Brown's Brownshirts to make an ordered retreat. In the meantime the Governess has planned a counter attack and will be implementing it as soon as his speechwriter comes up with a chant more biting and powerful than the ones that drove them off campus.

Edited by 3rdnlng
Posted

I guess you didn't see the video that I posted that was the same as yours but a lot longer. It started off showing Jerry Brown's Brownshirts viciously attacking peaceful protesters with pepper spray. I guess the Jerry Brown's Brownshirts thought that the protesters were violating some silly rule about blocking the sidewalk and when asked to move they formed a human chain while sitting on the walk. Now the mean authorities were being quite silly. They didn't need to exert their authority because everyone knows that if they would have immediately given in to the protesters, then from now and in the future, those protesters would have respected Jerry Brown's Brownshirts and wouldn't push the envelope anymore. But no, Jerry Brown's Brownshirts had to pepper spray them. The Protesters counter attacked by viciously chanting "shame on you" over and over. It was awful. They then went in for the kill by spontaneously coming up with a new chant that told the authorities that they owned the university. By repeating the words "our university" over and over they broke down Jerry Brown's Brownshirts until they had no more will to try to keep order. It was obvious that the protesters had won the day but by chanting "you can go" ad nauseum they mercifully allowed Jerry Brown's Brownshirts to make an ordered retreat. In the meantime the Governess has planned a counter attack and will be implementing it as soon as his speechwriter comes up with a chant more biting and powerful than the ones that drove them off campus.

 

First thing, could you avoid the block of text?

 

Second thing, could you have a point?

Posted

First thing, could you avoid the block of text?

 

Second thing, could you have a point?

 

 

First thing, yes I could if I wanted to break up a paragraph. I'll try to remember your limitations the next time I post but in the meantime put your finger near the screen and follow it that way.

 

Second thing, did you watch the video that I posted the link for? I was very much making fun of both sides. If you didn't watch the video then you wouldn't understand my post. If you did watch the video and didn't understand my post then I can't help you.

Posted

Outstanding...might I suggest misting them with warm water first? It would give the chemical agents a better chance to remain in contact with their skin

×
×
  • Create New...