Occupy Wall Street

[HeyYou]

I agree that the Tea Party is a pretty good comparison for what's happening on Wall Street, which is why I brought it up to begin with.

Ron Paul has voiced his support for the occupy wall street protest early on.

 

He does?? That seems very un-republicanlike of him.......

[Ghogiel]

I agree that the Tea Party is a pretty good comparison for what's happening on Wall Street, which is why I brought it up to begin with.

Ron Paul has voiced his support for the occupy wall street protest early on.

 

He does?? That seems very un-republicanlike of him.......

Apparently. I didn't read a direct quote.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

I didn't analogize you to a shepherd boy. Thus, false attempt to call what I did a false analogy. You completely misunderstand the purpose I brought in the story about the Boy who Cried Wolf. Your response to my point shows you don't even understand the lesson behind the fable about the Boy who Cried Wolf. (hint: it actually doesn't have much to do with 'don't lie')

You can knock off patronizing me immediately.

You didn't compare me to the boy. You compared protesters to the boy, as if to say that if you protest about little things no one will care when you protest big things.

This is a false analogy because the government is not our father whose purpose is to rescue us from danger, nor are the people as replaceable as a shepherd boy. The government can not afford to ever fail to respond to the cry. If they ever do, they will be replaced by someone who will. The Boy obviously does not have such a luxury.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Please address my questions as I posted them in the last thread:

You seem to be saying that random, arbitrary, purposeless protests are necessary to ensure that elected government officials 'stay' honest or some nebulous concept which doesn't make any sense. If this is what you mean, you don't justify why this 'blanket protesting' is preferable to, or more effective that, or is necessary to supplement holding elections every 2-6 years to assess those elected officials' competence for the job.

I don't know what doesn't make sense to you. If you are unhappy and you do nothing, nothing will change. If you are unhappy and make your feelings heard, nothing *may* change, but then again, something may. Maybe everyone just thinks you're an idiot and ignores you, but maybe your grievance resonates and people get behind you. One way has a chance, one way doesn't. It's a necessary supplement to elections because elected officials can't change their ways if they don't know what you are unhappy with. It is pretty straightforward. The framers of the Constitution must have thought there was some merit to this because US Citizens are guaranteed the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression for that very purpose.

 

If you are actually referring to everyday government employees, then LOL. Those people don't have a voice in government superior to yours, they're working stiffs just like everyone else. Not to mention, you outnumber them heavily in the political process. Get a grip on reality.

 

Finally, if you are referring to those appointed officials who essentially serve for life, need I remind you that these people do not apply for those jobs, the President seeks them out. A lot of them leave higher paying, more prestigious jobs in their respective careers to take that appointed position. Their job security is not high on their list of concerns; effecting public service is.

Dunno what you mean here. I am clearly not talking about low level government clerks or supreme court justices, though the latter clearly have an incentive to preserve government stability.

[Ghogiel]

. If you are unhappy and you do nothing, nothing will change. If you are unhappy and make your feelings heard, nothing *may* change, but then again, something may. Maybe everyone just thinks you're an idiot and ignores you, but maybe your grievance resonates and people get behind you. One way has a chance, one way doesn't.

This randomly sprang to mind when I read that. :biggrin:

 

[Quetzlsacatanango]

That's what I'm talkin' about! Yeah baby! So complex yet so simply put.

Youtube- repository of all human knowledge.

[grannywils]

Ghogiel, I must admit that the video you posted was a classic. I just loved it!

[lukertin]

You didn't compare me to the boy. You compared protesters to the boy, as if to say that if you protest about little things no one will care when you protest big things.

This is a false analogy because the government is not our father whose purpose is to rescue us from danger, nor are the people as replaceable as a shepherd boy. The government can not afford to ever fail to respond to the cry. If they ever do, they will be replaced by someone who will. The Boy obviously does not have such a luxury.

Wrong. I was stating that when you dilute important things with trivial matters, nobody will listen to the important things. That is the lesson of the Boy who Cried Wolf. The fact that you don't understand this is not my problem.

 

I don't know what doesn't make sense to you. If you are unhappy and you do nothing, nothing will change. If you are unhappy and make your feelings heard, nothing *may* change, but then again, something may. Maybe everyone just thinks you're an idiot and ignores you, but maybe your grievance resonates and people get behind you.

Your inconsistency makes no sense. First off you state protesting for the sake of protesting, even if you have no reason to protest, is a good thing that needs to be done. Now you are saying it is necessary to bring attention to things that need to be changed.

 

You're all over the place, pick a stance and stick with it, don't change your former position and pretend you didn't just because your former position is completely untenable.

 

One way has a chance, one way doesn't. It's a necessary supplement to elections because elected officials can't change their ways if they don't know what you are unhappy with. It is pretty straightforward.

Utterly wrong. There's nothing stopping you from writing letters to your elected officials, and joining with like-minded individuals and issuing statements to them, taking up advertisements in newspapers, TV, radio, etc. Protesting for no reason is not a necessary supplement to anything.

 

The framers of the Constitution must have thought there was some merit to this because US Citizens are guaranteed the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression for that very purpose.

You should re-read the Constitution, then. Be aware that the Bill of Rights were not written by the framers of the Constitution. Also, re-read the bill of rights in the language of the late 1700's, because freedom of assembly does not mean 'freedom to protest'. It meant 'freedom of association' in today's words.

 

Dunno what you mean here. I am clearly not talking about low level government clerks or supreme court justices, though the latter clearly have an incentive to preserve government stability.

I couldn't tell, they are part of the 'Man' and act as his express agents by implementing his laws. So why don't you stick it to them as well?

Edited October 7, 2011 by lukertin

[Thandal]

[Pops up to stir pot.]

As someone much wiser than me once observed, "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually one runs out of other people's money."

[/pot stirring]

[Balagor]

[Pops up to stir pot.]

As someone much wiser than me once observed, "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually one runs out of other people's money."

[/pot stirring]

 

Funny with those -ism, since the same is true for capitalism :P

[marharth]

Its not the exact same thing as the tea party. You said it yourself, these protesters are not organized.