or if you actually walk past the park as I have you will see a bunch of people banging on empty pails while another bunch of people obviously under the influence dance in cirlces.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

pdx begins with:
"Says it all. But I don't expect this to dent the thick skulls of those on here who think it's all about envying the rich and wanting something for nothing. Funny thing is most of you who think that are being f@cked slower or faster by the same machine, guess you like that sort of thing though. Lot of Stockholm syndrome going on around here with the abused identifying with and helping their abusers."


Based on this opening statement, does the OP want to:

A. have the reader review the information and offer up unbiased opinions for discussion.
B. try to force his own views onto others by belittling those who think differently.


It's truly sad.

tailgater wrote:

Drugs - more than a joint or two. Meth, coke, etc.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

Oh, the horror. They should be eliminated.

Dude, where the f*ck are your priorities? You say there is a lot you agree with the OWS movement on yet you keep coming out with this crap. I no longer believe you at all.

When you are looking at trillions of our country's dollars going to policies that benefit the few instead of the entire country, the rip off of our 401k's, lack of healthcare, etc etc etc and compare it to pail banging and dancing and think the latter is more of a problem, you hace one f*cked up sense of morality and priorities.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Maybe HockyDad was right – I should get off the couch and go to the park . . . . .

Brewha wrote:

pdx begins with:
"Says it all. But I don't expect this to dent the thick skulls of those on here who think it's all about envying the rich and wanting something for nothing. Funny thing is most of you who think that are being f@cked slower or faster by the same machine, guess you like that sort of thing though. Lot of Stockholm syndrome going on around here with the abused identifying with and helping their abusers."


Based on this opening statement, does the OP want to:

A. have the reader review the information and offer up unbiased opinions for discussion.
B. try to force his own views onto others by belittling those who think differently.


It's truly sad.

tailgater wrote:

You make it sound like its one or two people or isolated incidents.

There were over 1,000 people taking over the Port of Oakland. Not all had firebombs but no one seemed to try to stop it either.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

Demands? maybe I'll give you that as a lack of leadership point that has been made before. Anyone can make any demand they want in the name of OWS; whos to stop them?

MikeyRavioli wrote:

Assaults - seem to be pretty wide spread. At least a lot more than racist signs at Tea Party events

MikeyRavioli wrote:

Drugs - more than a joint or two. Meth, coke, etc. Even the "legitimate" protestors wont go into certain parts of the park at night.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

Maybe HockyDad was right – I should get off the couch and go to the park . . . . .

Brewha wrote:

guess how many f*cks I give if you believe me or what you think of my morals or priorities?

if you guessed zero f*cks - you would be correct.
Because I don't give a single f*ck.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

I agree with virtually everything the Tiabbi article states. Look up other articles Tiabbi has done for RS and find the one where he shows how GS has made a profit from every single bubble and every single collapse since WWII. Its a fascinating read.

But it doesnt change the fact that that the OWS is corrupted by the lunatics that they do nothing to stop or even renounce. Was there a statement today from the "real" OWS about the violence in Oakland? If there was I missed it.

there are enough people that beleive the things in the article that if an actual candidate had a platform of reform that people would vote for him. Even if he didnt win it would show that real tax paying americans are behind the movement.

My contempt comes from the fact that I actually feel that some of the points in the article are worth more respect than a bunch of dancing unwashed 21 yo hippies can bring it.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

Party on Garth.

FuzzNJ wrote:

you are truly funny.

In order for your criticism to be valid one must believe that those on the right DON't "try to force his own views onto others by belittling those who think differently".

And if he posted without comment you would say, 'well, what's your opinion? You just cut and paste and not say anything so you are a troll.'

truly funny

FuzzNJ wrote:

guess how many f*cks I give if you believe me or what you think of my morals or priorities?

if you guessed zero f*cks - you would be correct.
Because I don't give a single f*ck.


I agree with virtually everything the Tiabbi article states. Look up other articles Tiabbi has done for RS and find the one where he shows how GS has made a profit from every single bubble and every single collapse since WWII. Its a fascinating read.

But it doesnt change the fact that that the OWS is corrupted by the lunatics that they do nothing to stop or even renounce. Was there a statement today from the "real" OWS about the violence in Oakland? If there was I missed it.

there are enough people that beleive the things in the article that if an actual candidate had a platform of reform that people would vote for him. Even if he didnt win it would show that real tax paying americans are behind the movement.

My contempt comes from the fact that I actually feel that some of the points in the article are worth more respect than a bunch of dancing unwashed 21 yo hippies can bring it.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

NHow do we remove all the bull****, smoke screen socio/religious moral values red herrings that the bastages in power use to divide us and keep themselves elected such that people who are like minded on the need for reforms in the financial and electoral sector can effectively unite.

pdxstogieman wrote:

I can tell you how you don't. See Zuccoti park.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

Fuzz you refuse to accept the fact that it's not just the message it's the messenger. If it was just about the message then Perot would have won that election. He had the best message but during the debate he made a fatal mistake. They were bad on television. Based on what I have seen from OWS both in the media and in person they are worse.

MikeyRavioli wrote: