This.

 

That's unfortunate, because it's a giant strawman.

It's a blog, but still an observation that is kinda wierd with the Cain stuff going on.

 

http://theothermccain.com/2011/11/05/f-mic...upy-dc-protest/

 

 

That's unfortunate, because it's a giant strawman.

 

You think its a strawman that I look at OWS' issues with sexual assault, hypocrisy , violence, entitlement, greed, drug use, communism/socialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, ignorance and so forth and consider that to be baggage that absolutely ruins any positive influence and message they might have started with? I could provide multiple examples of each of these. It doesn't surprise me that you'd look fondly at a movement overrun with degenerates, but I'm not going to join you.

You think its a strawman that I look at OWS' issues with sexual assault, hypocrisy , violence, entitlement, greed, drug use, communism/socialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, ignorance and so forth and consider that to be baggage that absolutely ruins any positive influence and message they might have started with? I could provide multiple examples of each of these. It doesn't surprise me that you'd look fondly at a movement overrun with degenerates, but I'm not going to join you.

 

I'm glad you're here, it's nice to see another opposing voice that can see things both ways without having a problem calling people out on either side when they show their lack of logic, hypocrisy, stupidity and/or irrationality. Though as a forewarning, many here will argue that you only see things in a neo-conservative way since they don't agree with you. They'll usually follow up these brilliant opinions/arguments with the words "straw man", "anecdotal" or "lol", without further explanation. This has already happened in this thread a few times. This doesn't apply to all of these people all of the time, however...but I'll warn you now it's hard to have an honest/open discussion here without whacked ideology creeping in that completely ignores reality.

 

Though I have my reservations since you sound quite angry, and while I understand you described that as your "shtick", anger can corrupt an opinion and spin it out of control.

 

Now, I'll recap in case you missed the past around here, because by and large, this is the way it worked out. Many posters, including some of the more liberal minded ones in this thread have at one time or another, posted vast generalizations about how white, religious, stupid and racist the tea party was/is -- often using the very "creative" and demeaning term "teabaggers" -- to both describe and dismiss them.

 

Yet now, they will attempt to apply logic and reason to argue for the OWS movement because they happen to agree with it. They will say OWS isn't all bad just because "some" of them are bad. And while I agree with this new found logic they've decided to conditionally apply to something they agree with, because it IS logical, the issue is they didn't lend that same logic to the "teabagger rallies", as they described them. Because, you know, EVERYONE involved in the tea party was a racist religious zealot that has hijacked congress and held it hostage!

 

Oh, and for the record, I don't agree with the tea party movement OR the OWS movement.

Edited November 6, 201114 yr by Y2HH

I'm glad you're here, it's nice to see another opposing voice that can see things both ways without having a problem calling people out on either side when they show their lack of logic, hypocrisy, stupidity and/or irrationality. Though as a forewarning, many here will argue that you only see things in a neo-conservative way since they don't agree with you. They'll usually follow up these brilliant opinions/arguments with the words "straw man", "anecdotal" or "lol", without further explanation. This has already happened in this thread a few times. This doesn't apply to all of these people all of the time, however...but I'll warn you now it's hard to have an honest/open discussion here without whacked ideology creeping in that completely ignores reality.

 

Though I have my reservations since you sound quite angry, and while I understand you described that as your "shtick", anger can corrupt an opinion and spin it out of control.

 

Now, I'll recap in case you missed the past around here, because by and large, this is the way it worked out. Many posters, including some of the more liberal minded ones in this thread have at one time or another, posted vast generalizations about how white, religious, stupid and racist the tea party was/is -- often using the very "creative" and demeaning term "teabaggers" -- to both describe and dismiss them.

 

Yet now, they will attempt to apply logic and reason to argue for the OWS movement because they happen to agree with it. They will say OWS isn't all bad just because "some" of them are bad. And while I agree with this new found logic they've decided to conditionally apply to something they agree with, because it IS logical, the issue is they didn't lend that same logic to the "teabagger rallies", as they described them. Because, you know, EVERYONE involved in the tea party was a racist religious zealot that has hijacked congress and held it hostage!

 

Oh, and for the record, I don't agree with the tea party movement OR the OWS movement.

 

Good post. The media would do well to understand this concept.

You think its a strawman that I look at OWS' issues with sexual assault, hypocrisy , violence, entitlement, greed, drug use, communism/socialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, ignorance and so forth and consider that to be baggage that absolutely ruins any positive influence and message they might have started with? I could provide multiple examples of each of these. It doesn't surprise me that you'd look fondly at a movement overrun with degenerates, but I'm not going to join you.

 

You think its a strawman that I look at the military's issues with sexual assault, hypocrisy , violence, entitlement, greed, drug use, communism/socialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, ignorance and so forth and consider that to be baggage that absolutely ruins any positive influence and message they might have started with? I could provide multiple examples of each of these. It doesn't surprise me that you'd look fondly at a movement overrun with degenerates, but I'm not going to join you.

 

Using a group that you are familiar with to make my point. Yes, I agree that a group's message becomes weakened when member(s) of the group act in these ways. Every group from fraternities to Churches have members who disgrace their ranks, I just do not think it is reasonable to reject the entire organization based on what some of their members may do. I differentiate that from groups who organize around an ideal or belief that is immoral, illegal, or unethical (NAMBLA, Nazis, etc). The Occupy movement didn't gain momentum around the belief that rape, stealing, violence, drug use, etc was good. This wasn't a Neonazi group suing to march in Skokie.

You think its a strawman that I look at the military's issues with sexual assault, hypocrisy , violence, entitlement, greed, drug use, communism/socialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, ignorance and so forth and consider that to be baggage that absolutely ruins any positive influence and message they might have started with? I could provide multiple examples of each of these. It doesn't surprise me that you'd look fondly at a movement overrun with degenerates, but I'm not going to join you.

 

Using a group that you are familiar with to make my point. Yes, I agree that a group's message becomes weakened when member(s) of the group act in these ways. Every group from fraternities to Churches have members who disgrace their ranks, I just do not think it is reasonable to reject the entire organization based on what some of their members may do. I differentiate that from groups who organize around an ideal or belief that is immoral, illegal, or unethical (NAMBLA, Nazis, etc). The Occupy movement didn't gain momentum around the belief that rape, stealing, violence, drug use, etc was good. This wasn't a Neonazi group suing to march in Skokie.

 

Didn't we go over this already?

 

Any group has good members and bad members. The military, OWS, the Tea Party, etc. And while I agree with you that NAMBLA and Nazis are in a different category, this doesn't mean we can't make negative judgements about groups like OWS. You can take away all the behavior of their worst members (and I've seen plenty of them) but they still lose because they have no clear message. That's why its easy for them to be coopted by groups with unsavory messages. If they want to become legitimate, they need to step up and tell us all why they're out there.

 

You can hate the Tea Party all you want, but its harder for them to be coopted by their worst members because they actually have leadership that puts forth their main principles. But OWS has so far refused to put forth official demands and so it is easier for communists, anarchists and other idiots to claim to be the face of the movement. A solid leadership cadre could also officially denounce the bad behavior by certain sects within the movement.

 

Oh yeah, another thing, the military punishes its degenerates. Try raping someone as a member of the military and see how that turns out for you. But do it as a member of OWS, and your fellow protesters will likely try to prevent your victim from going to the police.

 

Lastly, how many people were raped at Tea Party rallies?

What's it going to take, Tex, until you admit that the morons are all over the place in this movement and the whole thing needs to just go away?

 

This is getting out of hand. Unless these good people you want to claim exist finally show up and take this thing back, it needs to disappear before people get killed.

You think its a strawman that I look at OWS' issues with sexual assault, hypocrisy , violence, entitlement, greed, drug use, communism/socialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, ignorance and so forth and consider that to be baggage that absolutely ruins any positive influence and message they might have started with? I could provide multiple examples of each of these. It doesn't surprise me that you'd look fondly at a movement overrun with degenerates, but I'm not going to join you.

I think this post illustrates my point nicely.

I'm glad you're here, it's nice to see another opposing voice that can see things both ways without having a problem calling people out on either side when they show their lack of logic, hypocrisy, stupidity and/or irrationality.

 

Both ways? He/she is probably the most bull-headed, single viewpoint poster on this site.

 

Both ways? He/she is probably the most bull-headed, single viewpoint poster on this site.

 

That's possible, as mentioned, he/she seems quite angry, and I think that anger can push a persons opinions further than they originally intended.

 

Point was, it's good to have another vocal viewpoint here. It gets tired when only a handful of us have the same conversations.

 

And quiet your face down, M's fan.

 

Both ways? He/she is probably the most bull-headed, single viewpoint poster on this site.

 

And you're not? That's hilarious.

I like how consistently disagreeing with the resident fruit makes me bull-headed and single-minded. If I was instead a steadfast liberal, holding such views with the same consistency that I hold conservative ones, he wouldn't say a word. But God forbid someone be consistently conservative, because refusing to submit to the all-knowing genius known as Big Sqwert is a sure sign of unholy bullheaded-ness. Pathetic.

Edited November 6, 201114 yr by God Loves The Infantry

I like how consistently disagreeing with the resident fruit makes me bull-headed and single-minded. If I was instead a steadfast liberal, holding such views with the same consistency that I hold conservative ones, he wouldn't say a word. But God forbid someone be consistently conservative, because refusing to submit to the all-knowing genius known as Big Sqwert is a sure sign of unholy bullheaded-ness. Pathetic.

 

For the record, whether you two agree with each other or not, BS is a really cool person, and he's not a "fruit". And by that, I'm not sure if you were calling him gay or a non-meat eater...but either way, you probably shouldn't need to do either in order to make a point.

 

...and that's the way it usually works. When people agree with you, they tend to say so, or say nothing at all. It's when they disagree that you'll find a dissenting opinion.

 

In either case, don't get banned with personal attacks like I have plenty of times in the past, it's good to have you here. So stay.

Edited November 6, 201114 yr by Y2HH

...and that's the way it usually works. When people agree with you, they tend to say so, or say nothing at all. It's when they disagree that you'll find a dissenting opinion.

 

I don't care if he disagrees with me. That's fine. But if he wants to call me bull-headed because I stick to my opinions every bit as much as he sticks to his, I'm going to call bulls***. I disagree with a lot of people here and I see a lot of people here who post unrelenting liberal stances; I don't think they're bullheaded and single-minded however, because I realize they are simply as convinced of their own righteousness as I am of mine.

I like how consistently disagreeing with the resident fruit makes me bull-headed and single-minded. If I was instead a steadfast liberal, holding such views with the same consistency that I hold conservative ones, he wouldn't say a word. But God forbid someone be consistently conservative, because refusing to submit to the all-knowing genius known as Big Sqwert is a sure sign of unholy bullheaded-ness. Pathetic.

 

As the resident fruit on this board, I don't know why we consistently disagree. As the resident fruit, I would just like to remind the poster that he had me mistaken for someone else. And as a mod on this board, I would like to remind the poster that this sort of name calling is not really allowed here.

 

And by the way, in your first post in this thread, you said that Scott Olsen was the person who ran "I Hate The Marines dot com". Turns out, it was not this Scott Olsen - but another Scott Olsen. Actually the Scott Olsen who was injured in the protests was serving our country in Iraq when that domain name was purchased and website brought up. The Scott Olsen who founded the domain in question lived in Southern Illinois, and the Scott Olsen who was injured lived in Wisconsin at the time.

I like how consistently disagreeing with the resident fruit makes me bull-headed and single-minded. If I was instead a steadfast liberal, holding such views with the same consistency that I hold conservative ones, he wouldn't say a word. But God forbid someone be consistently conservative, because refusing to submit to the all-knowing genius known as Big Sqwert is a sure sign of unholy bullheaded-ness. Pathetic.

No, you are bull-headed because you routinely insult other poster's character as your way of argumentation.

Repeating Rex's post...can we all drop the angry name-calling in this thread before we have to close it?

close it. Nothing good is going to happen in this thread.

Repeating Rex's post...can we all drop the angry name-calling in this thread before we have to close it?

 

balta, maybe if you would lead by example we wouldn't have these issues.

balta, maybe if you would lead by example we wouldn't have these issues.

I apologize for calling the finger-voting thing silly, I didn't figure that would get counted as name calling.

No, you are bull-headed because you routinely insult other poster's character as your way of argumentation.

 

Oh bulls***. You guys do the same s***. I don't whine about it because earning the respect and admiration of people I loathe means nothing to me. But y'all do it just like I do. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

Michael Moore suggested the rioters were undercover cops too. Wonderful company you have there.

It's certainly happened before.