The Wall Street Protests

[T-Dawg]

You added some language (underlined for your convenience).
I really don't mind your disagreeing with what I post. But I do mind being misquoted & craftily re-stated.
Why did you do that?
You should've noticed by now that in both public & private venues, I prefer civil discussion over name calling, abuse, threats, etc.

To state my position simply:
I discretely & daily carry a gun. I favor this right.
Where open carry is legal & appropriate, I favor that right.
I oppose protest which unduly interferes with the rights of others.
I believe that all discourse should be civil, & serve the purpose of persuasion & understanding.
You & everyone else are welcome to agree or disagree. It's all OK with me.

Alceste mentioned Tea Partiers bringing weapons into town hall meetings, and you expressed support for the Tea Partiers in this regard in response.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, bringing weapons into government buildings is NOT legal.

Therefore, since you even called this behavior legal, I can assume you think it's ok.

The thinly veiled threats and wanting to destroy Government (the parts you underlined) are basic components to Tea Partier ideology (well, the latter is; the first is simply something that tends to happen among their leaders). It is reasonable to assume that you support the Tea Partiers, you support their agenda (especially since the more important one, wanting to destroy Government, is also a cornerstone of libertarianism).

And since you condemn the Wall Street protests but not the Tea Partiers, it is reasonable to assume that you like the Tea Partiers more than the Wall Street protests. Therefore, since your stated reason for this was an implication that the Wall Street protesters blocked traffic, I can conclude you consider traffic violations more dangerous than being heavily armed in public and wanting to destroy Government.


I don't see the personal attacks :/.

 

[Alceste]

To legally carry a gun is no problem for me.
But for protestors who disrupt traffic, I say toss da bums in da slammer!
If tea partiers did da same, den toss dem in too! (But dey don't act dat way...do dey?)

I think you may be misinformed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Alceste mentioned Tea Partiers bringing weapons into town hall meetings, and you expressed support for the Tea Partiers in this regard in response.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, bringing weapons into government buildings is NOT legal.

That has varied with time & place.
But I didn't support bringing them into places where they're illegal.

Therefore, since you even called this behavior legal, I can assume you think it's ok.

You assume too much.

The thinly veiled threats and wanting to destroy Government (the parts you underlined) are basic components to Tea Partier ideology (well, the latter is; the first is simply something that tends to happen among their leaders). It is reasonable to assume that you support the Tea Partiers, you support their agenda (especially since the more important one, wanting to destroy Government, is also a cornerstone of libertarianism).

Again, you assume too much. Moreover, libertarians want government, but less of it.

And since you condemn the Wall Street protests

I didn't condemn the protests. But I favor arresting those who violate the law by interfering with the rights of others.

....but not the Tea Partiers....

Perhaps you missed it, but I said Tea Partiers who do the same should be put in the slammer.

....it is reasonable to assume that you like the Tea Partiers more than the Wall Street protests.

I don't have any strong feelings for either.

Therefore, since your stated reason for this was an implication that the Wall Street protesters blocked traffic, I can conclude you consider traffic violations more dangerous than being heavily armed in public and wanting to destroy Government.

Logic can be difficult to use, & presumptions can be wrong, so I suggest less stridency in your uncertain conclusions.
Re-examine my posts & your reasoning, then perhaps you'll see where you went wrong.

I think you may be misinformed.

I believe you do think that.
Anything to add other than ad hominems, or are you just here to help Dawg?

 

[T-Dawg]

That has varied with time & place.
But I didn't support bringing them into places where they're illegal.

You assume too much.

Again, you assume too much. Moreover, libertarians want government, but less of it.

I didn't condemn the protests. But I favor arresting those who violate the law by interfering with the rights of others.

Perhaps you missed it, but I said Tea Partiers who do the same should be put in the slammer.

I don't have any strong feelings for either.

Logic can be difficult to use, & presumptions can be wrong, so I suggest less stridency in your uncertain conclusions.
Re-examine my posts & your reasoning, then perhaps you'll see where you went wrong.


I believe you do think that.
Anything to add other than ad hominems, or are you just here to help Dawg?

Ok, I see then. You seemed supportive of the Tea Partiers. There's a very thin line between wanting to reduce the government and wanting to destroy it, if there even is a line. Sorry for the mistake.


(By the way, Alceste's post wasn't an ad hominem, she just showed you clear evidence that the Tea Partiers DO block traffic. In case you can't see it for some technical reason, what I'm talking about is a picture of Tea Partier's lined up, blocking the street. You can tell they're Tea Party people by the signs and hats. A pity those hats have to be associated with free-market and/or religious-right radicalism these days, they actually look kind of cool.)

 

[Revoltingest]

(By the way, Alceste's post wasn't an ad hominem, she just showed you clear evidence that the Tea Partiers DO block traffic.

I never said they didn't.
So perhaps she was mistaken about my being misinformed.
You two are quite the pair.

 

[Sunstone]

I think you may be misinformed.

The statement "I think you may be misinformed" is not equivalent to the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack.

 

[Revoltingest]

The statement "I think you may be misinformed" is not equivalent to the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack.

Can't argue with that!
(Cuz I don't understand it.)

 

[Alceste]

The statement "I think you may be misinformed" is not equivalent to the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack.

Especially when in direct response to a misinformed comment.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's so touching when the entire thread becomes devoted to some weird Canadian version of me.

 

[Alceste]

I never said they didn't.
So perhaps she was mistaken about my being misinformed.
You two are quite the pair.

Interesting strategy, when your claim that tea partiers don' t block traffic is on this very page. Banking everybody's too lazy to scroll up, are you?

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting strategy, when your claim that tea partiers don' t block traffic is on this very page. Banking everybody's too lazy to scroll up, are you?

Perhaps you could demonstrate your keen observance of facts by showing my post wherein I said that, eh?
(Note: It doesn't count if you cite one of Dawg's posts.)

 

[T-Dawg]

To legally carry a gun is no problem for me.
But for protestors who disrupt traffic, I say toss da bums in da slammer!
If tea partiers did da same, den toss dem in too! (But dey don't act dat way...do dey?)

If tea partiers did da same, den toss dem in too! (But dey don't act dat way...do dey?)

(But dey don't act dat way...do dey?)

There. Your direct statement that the Tea Partiers don't do this thing we now know they do is only dampened by the question mark at the end, which we probably interpreted as being sarcastic or rhetorical.

For the love of government, can this nonsense end now?

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps you could demonstrate your keen observance of facts by showing my post wherein I said that, eh?
(Note: It doesn't count if you cite one of Dawg's posts.)

Scroll up, lazyfingers. I quoted you. Since it is now clear that both groups impact traffic, do you agree there is a strange disparity between the way the fuzz deal with the tea party and a grassroots movement that was not created and is not manipulated by Wall Street?

 

[Revoltingest]

There. Your direct statement that the Tea Partiers don't do this thing we now know they do is only dampened by the question mark at the end, which we probably interpreted as being sarcastic or rhetorical.
For the love of government, can this nonsense end now?

It is a question, of course. Generally, tea partiers don't block traffic at their events, but I allowed that some could at times.
This is precisely why I said earlier that they should be tossed in the slammer if/when they commit that very same sin.

 

[Revoltingest]

Scroll up, lazyfingers. I quoted you.

You didn't.

Really, what purpose does it serve to claim I believe something which I don't believe?
Are you & Dawg so focused on winning some argument....any argument, that you must invent targets?
Now...enuf discussing each other....let's get back to....to.....what was the issue?

 

[T-Dawg]

You didn't.

Really, what purpose does it serve to claim I believe something which I don't believe?
Are you & Dawg so focused on winning some argument....any argument, that you must invent targets?
Now...enuf discussing each other....let's get back to....to.....what was the issue?

Something about a protest at Wall Street. I don't know enough about it to add anything productive.

Here, a quick google found this:
https://occupywallst.org/
I think these guys are connected to the movement.

Apparently 700 people have been arrested. For what? Were they committing a crime? (not a rhetorical question, someone answer that if they know)

 

[Revoltingest]

Bummer....getting arrested would blow goats.

Another source (by a Canadian news outfit)...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/02/us-wallstreet-protests-idUSTRE7900BL20111002

 

[Alceste]

Something about a protest at Wall Street. I don't know enough about it to add anything productive.

Here, a quick google found this:
https://occupywallst.org/
I think these guys are connected to the movement.

Apparently 700 people have been arrested. For what? Were they committing a crime? (not a rhetorical question, someone answer that if they know)

Unofficially, it's a crime to oppose corporate oligarchy and draw attention to the "democratic" governments that obediently provide legitimacy to the predations of the filthy rich.

700 is nothing! Harper locked up almost a thousand Canadians simply for being out in the streets during Toronto's G8 / G20 meetings. We're not meant to notice similarities between our ruling classes and villains like Ghaddafi and Mubarak, but they sure make it difficult.

 

[Rakhel]

Something about a protest at Wall Street. I don't know enough about it to add anything productive.

Here, a quick google found this:
https://occupywallst.org/
I think these guys are connected to the movement.

Apparently 700 people have been arrested. For what? Were they committing a crime? (not a rhetorical question, someone answer that if they know)

You really, and I mean seriously, don't know how to read do you? And if you bothered reading mewspapers you would see exactly what they were arrested for.

Here you go. Just for you

News stories about Occupy Wall Street.


Wall St. protesters shut down Brooklyn Bridge - NYPOST.com

Dozens arrested at Occupy Wall Street protest; Brooklyn Bridge shut down

Police Arrest About 400 Protesters on Brooklyn Bridge - NYTimes.com

'Wall Street' protesters jailed after Union Square scuffle vow to keep fighting for financial reform

Park Gives Wall St. Protesters Place to Call Home - NYTimes.com

Ex-guv David Paterson: Occupy Wall Street 'very well organized' - am New York

Metro - 'Occupy Wall Street': Police paying protest

Occupying, and Now Publishing, Too - NYTimes.com

I'll try to get my hands on one their newspapers. I'm not up that way often.


and if you want the one about the pepper spraying inccident I'll get that for you too


adding their website
https://occupywallst.org/

Must add these Hundreds Arrested on Brooklyn Bridge - WSJ.com

The Book Bench: The Occupy Wall Street Library : The New Yorker

Rational Irrationality: The Anti-Wall Street Protesters’ Best Friend: Ray Kelly : The New Yorker

This is the second time you have missed clearly what is right in front of your face.
Further IF you even begin to look at their damned site, will see that it is their ******* site.
I would swear but it would only be censured.

 

[T-Dawg]

Ok. When I first read that post, I felt a little bad. That you were right, because I know I'm not the greatest at researching, and you were likely to know something I didn't.


Now I've went over all of the links you've provided for me, and I don't understand what your point is. In each version of the story, the police appear to be the villains, and the protesters are misguided at worst. I don't see what the "crime" I asked for information on is.