ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [188] -- Why Not Occupy The Media?

[ Posted Friday, November 4th, 2011 – 16:50 PDT ]

Like many Americans, I watched the events unfold in Oakland this week with some trepidation. Occupy Oakland tried two new tactics in protesting, and both were very successful at achieving a key goal -- that of getting your message across. Both the general strike and the temporary port shutdown were successful, in this regard. Later in the night, however, a group of jerks came close to ruining all this, by their criminal behavior.

I was not present -- I live too far away from Oakland to have taken part. In fact, like most Americans, I watched the news coverage on television. And, finally, the video images which the news media has been waiting for occurred -- video of idiots vandalizing anything they felt like, setting bonfires in the streets, and battling with cops.

What was missing from the media coverage (at least the coverage I witnessed) was a spokesman for the Occupy movement denouncing the violence and calling on all their supporters and fellow protesters to do the same.

This is a weakness in the movement. In fact, it is a critical weak point. Not the lack of denunciation per se (I did actually see people interviewed at the Occupy sites who strongly disavowed the violent jerks), but the fact that there is no media contact for the movement.

This needs to change, or the Occupy movement leaves itself open to being defined by anyone who shows up -- and gets their image on television by being a jerk. This would be a shame, but it seems to be inherent in the structure of the protests.

To be part of the "99 Percent" all you have to do is show up. The problem with this is, some people are going to show up who do not hew to the utopian rules of behavior. Even if the ratio of jerks to protesters-with-hearts-of-gold is extremely low -- let's just say for the sake of argument one percent versus 99 percent -- they can spoil the whole show for everyone. What the protesters need to consider is: why let the one percent of the jerks define your movement in the media, while the wishes of the 99 percent are not heard? Isn't this kind of the point of the movement in the first place?

Occupy Wall Street (and all its sister Occupy sites) is famously against "leaders." It's communitarian. Well, that's all fine and good, but what this means in a practical sense is that the media -- looking for a soundbite -- will just show up and randomly interview people. Since conflict makes good television, they will run the clip of the one jerk who says (or does) something monumentally stupid, and the other 99 interviews will wind up on the cutting room floor.

A media spokesperson is not a "leader" -- he or she is merely a conduit of information. If the Occupy sites (starting with the Occupy Wall Street site) would only realize this, they would do their cause a lot of good. Do it by consensus. In any group of people, there are some who are much better at articulating things than others. Hours are spent in General Meetings talking, so it shouldn't be that hard to identify a few who choose their words better than others. Select one of these per week, say, and rotate people through the position of Media Contact Person, to give more than one person a chance at it.

Then issue a press release, or call up all the major networks, and introduce the Media Contact Person concept to them. They will doubtlessly be pleased by this development, because it will mean when they need someone to define (or defend) the movement to the media, they will have one person they can contact, one person who can speak for the movement, and one person they can invite into their studios for a sit-down interview.

This is crucial, and this week proved why. The Oakland violence happened very late at night. Imagine how it could have been handled if there had been a Media Contact Person available to appear on all the morning television news shows -- in the same news cycle as the violence. One person strongly stating: "We disavow violent tactics, that is not what we stand for, and we call on Occupy Oakland to stand with us and strongly denounce the hooligans who hijacked their peaceful general strike, their peaceful daylong march, and their peaceful shutdown of the port of Oakland. Thousands of people from all walks of life participated peacefully, and then late at night a few dozen idiots tried to make the Occupy movement something it is not. We strongly denounce these violent tactics, and any who practice them."

Now, ask yourself: would that have been better for the movement's goals as a whole, or not? Would it have been better to have one go-to person available to speak for the movement, or is it better to spend a few days discussing it and watching random television interviews with protesters who cannot say they speak "for the movement"?

Or you can put it another way: why not "occupy" the media itself? Why not give one person (rotated weekly, perhaps) the power to speak for the 99 percent of the people on the streets who were disgusted with the violence? How can your movement not be strengthened and more successful by having a sole contact for the media? This shouldn't be some philosophical issue, it should be seen as a practical and sorely-needed solution to a very real communications problem.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We're going to hand out a group award this week in the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week category. Because, somehow, sixty Democrats in the House convinced forty Republicans to co-sign a letter which seemed to indicate in a vague sort of way that the supercommittee should be open to raising taxes.

That doesn't sound all that monumental, and it really isn't in the grand scheme of things in Washington, but at the same time it is the first time Republicans have even flirted with raising revenues for the federal government in years. Which, in its own way is a pretty big deal. Even John Boehner is now showing cracks in the "no taxes, ever" Republican orthodoxy as well. It's doubtful Boehner would have done so without this letter, though.

For this achievement, modest though it may be, the sixty House Democrats who stuck a wedge in the Tea Party Republican position on taxes this week deserve the MIDOTW award, which we're going to send to Heath Shuler, who was the point man on the Democratic side behind this effort.

[Contact Representative Heath Shuler on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate this effort.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

For three weeks running, we have essentially handed out the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to the same small group of senators, for the same reason -- voting against a Democratic bill on a vote where it wouldn't have mattered which way they voted (the outcome was going to be the same either way, in other words).

Two weeks ago, we awarded the MDDOTW to Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Mark Pryor. Last week, we awarded it to Joe Lieberman. This week, we are awarding a MDDOTW to Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, for voting against one of the breakout parts of the American Jobs Act once again.

Joe Lieberman, it should be noted, will retire after next year's election. Ben Nelson is said to be pondering stepping down as well. We'd like to add our voices to the clamor urging Nelson to hang up his hat and let a real Democrat run for his seat -- someone for whom the "D" after their name means something.

For those keeping score at home, this is Nelson's thirteenth MDDOTW (how appropriate, for Hallowe'en week!), and Lieberman's tenth. For shame, guys, for shame.

[Contact Senator Joe Lieberman on his Senate contact page, and Senator Ben Nelson on his Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 188 (11/4/11)

I actually wrote a column this Wednesday on the "talking points" subject, which was brutal (as it was meant to be -- the title was "Championing Rapists' Fatherhood Rights"). Since I've already been to this well once this week, instead of our normal fodder of suggesting ways for Democrats to frame things, today I'd instead like to take a crack at suggesting ways a Media Contact Person could have responded this week to the bad press the jerks caused for the movement in Oakland.

The movement already has been successful at changing the media conversation, and changing the way Democrats are framing important issues in Washington (using the "99 percent" refrain). But if the image of "Occupy = violence" becomes fixed in the way America views the movement, it will doom itself to eventual irrelevancy. The pictures from Oakland were bad, but my guess is that they won't be the last time the movement has to confront violence in its midst. Next time, in other words, the Occupy movement needs to be better prepared for it. And part of that preparation is opening a communications channel with the mainstream media, because the alternative would be completely destructive to the movement's true goal.

 

1
   99 Percenters

I've said this before, although it obviously didn't have a whole lot of effect. When you identify your movement (not just each individual protest) as "Occupy" or "Occupiers," it is an exclusive term rather than an inclusive one. Occupiers, by definition it seems, are occupying something or somewhere. In other words, people at home can't identify easily with the movement as a whole because they're not part of any individual Occupy protest. Call the movement something expansive and inclusive. Fortunately, you already have a brilliant slogan to springboard off of.

"While the Occupiers who are protesting at Wall Street or in Oakland, or in any of the hundreds of other towns and cities are the heart and soul of our larger movement, we prefer to be known as the 99 Percenters, because that better defines who and what we are fighting for. What I'm saying to Americans watching at home is you may not be part of an Occupy protest, but you are more than welcome to be part of the 99 Percenters."

 

2
   Condemn the violence in your own terms

The movement faces a clear choice: condemn all violence and vandalism with one loud voice, or lose a lot of public support by not doing so. Having a Media Contact Person available to be interviewed at any time means you get this message out there immediately whenever anything like what happened in Oakland goes down. Use your own terminology to define who the jerks are.

"We, as a movement, utterly condemn all violence and lawbreaking. That is not who we are, and that is not what we are about. When 99 people march peacefully and one idiot smashes a window, which video runs on the nightly news? I am here talking with you today to get the message out that the 99 people not shown in the video clips strongly condemn the tiny fraction of people who use violence under the cover of our peaceful protest. Anyone in our ranks caught committing violence or vandalism will be turned over to the police immediately, and expelled from any association with our group. I urge the media, and all Americans, to listen to the 99 who are condemning the one."

 

3
   Move Your Money

There once was a movement called "Move Your Money," a while back. It even had a celebrity spokeswoman. It seems to be asleep, now that a larger movement has picked up on the tactic, which is a shame. But, regrets aside, this is a powerful message which the 99 Percenters are putting forth for tomorrow.

"We are calling on all Americans who are fed up with the big banks to transfer your money to a local bank, a credit union, or any other institution which puts customers ahead of greed. The big banks get away with treating their customers like dirt because one customer closing their account in frustration doesn't mean a thing to a bank that big. However, when hundreds of thousands of people do the same thing on the same day, even the big banks wake up and realize the power of the 99 percent. We call on any American with money in a banking behemoth to march down to your local branch Saturday and inform them that you're sick of being treated like you don't exist. Demand to close out your account, and then walk across the street and open up a new credit union account. You'll be glad you did. It's the only way the big banks are ever going to change their ways, and you can help make it happen."

 

4
   Tout your early victories

When you win a tactical battle, brag about it for Pete's sake. Get the message out! Hammer it home as a warning to others, as many times as you possibly can.

"I see that Bank of America is already changing its ways. This giant corporation realized how mad Americans are getting at banks which throw their customers under a bus to score a cheap political point. Bank of America realized it had become the poster child for bad corporate behavior, and in the face of rising customer anger it backed down. That is a victory for the 99 percent, and it is a clear victory for the 99 Percenter movement. True, it is a small victory in the grand scheme of things, but we still claim it as a victory nonetheless. If Occupy Wall Street didn't exist, do you really think Bank of America would have backed down?"

 

5
   Financial transactions tax

This story got buried in the bad news from Oakland, and it is a shame, because it is a good idea which deserves a lot more attention than it is getting.

"This week was an eventful one beyond Oakland, even though it didn't get nearly as much coverage as the idiots lighting fires and breaking windows did. There was a march in Washington, D.C. which called for a financial transactions tax to be levied on Wall Street. The tax would be miniscule -- perhaps twenty-five cents on a hundred dollars -- but it could raise enough money to solve the deficit problem. The Dow Jones has recovered from the recession already. The other 99 percent has not. The solution is simplicity itself -- tax the trillions of dollars sloshing around on Wall Street to raise the funds so the other 99 percent can progress."

 

6
   End corporate personhood

This one is a long and tough road to travel, but that doesn't mean the first steps shouldn't be taken.

"One of the problems America faces is our own Supreme Court has equated corporations with actual persons. This is wrong, and it will likely take a constitutional amendment to fix. We are calling for politicians to support amending the Constitution with one simple sentence: 'Corporations are not considered persons under the law.' That is a simple idea which most Americans support, and would fix the horrible precedent set in the Citizens United case."

 

7
   Introduce yourself

This one really probably should have been first, but it's a good place to end, as well. Once a Media Contact Person is established, you'll need to explain the concept to the media.

"I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce myself, and to introduce my position as spokesperson. Occupy Wall Street has decided to name one person per week as the go-to contact person for the mainstream media. While I cannot speak on issues which Occupy Wall Street has not achieved consensus on, I can and will explain things we have already decided. If you have questions I cannot answer on the spot, I promise to bring the issue up to our group and get back to you with their response. I am not a 'leader' of the movement, so please don't identify me as such -- I am merely a temporary mouthpiece for the movement. I am here today, first and foremost, to issue a strong condemnation of the recent violence at an Occupy protest -- that is one subject we all agree upon unanimously. But I also wanted to introduce you to the concept of the position I represent for the movement -- a position whose definition will not change, even while the person holding that position will rotate among others."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

131 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [188] -- Why Not Occupy The Media?”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Call the movement something expansive and inclusive. Fortunately, you already have a brilliant slogan to springboard off of.

    The problem with trying to redefine your movement is that you lose credibility with every change. Witness another issue of our time that has gone thru half a dozen makeovers in it's time..

    Another reason why the Oowzers might not want to change their mantra is that the vast majority of the Oowzers ARE militant activists...

    Sadly the actions of the Oowzers in Oakland will likely become the norm across the country (warning arrogant self-grandizing ahead :D) as I predicted weeks ago...

    The movement faces a clear choice: condemn all violence and vandalism with one loud voice, or lose a lot of public support by not doing so. Having a Media Contact Person available to be interviewed at any time means you get this message out there immediately whenever anything like what happened in Oakland goes down. Use your own terminology to define who the jerks are.

    That's the problem with the Oowzers.. Many of them believe that violence IS the answer and it is only thru violence that their goals can be achieved..

    They can't (or more accurately won't) condemn that which they will all eventually resort to...

    A person can build a thousand bridges.. But if he/she murders one person, they are not a bridge builder. They are a murderer..

    The majority of the Oowzers are not involved in violence yet. But it is the violence that is defining their movement.

    Is that fair?? Probably not. No more fair than the Left trying to define the GOP based on the actions of a few cranks...

    But it is what it is..

    That is a simple idea which most Americans support, and would fix the horrible precedent set in the Citizens United case."

    How about this..

    We'll eliminate the ability of corporations to make political donations and to lobby the government IF....

    If we also eliminate the ability of UNIONS to make political donations and to lobby the government...

    Any takers???

    No???

    I'm shocked!! (not really) :D

    I owe... I owe... So off to work I go.. :D

    Michale....

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    The irony of the Oowzers.... :D

    http://hosted.ap.org/photos/1/109b870e-8e91-46de-9a36-e25c4df8d626-small.jpg

    You just have to giggle at this... :D

    Michale.....

  3. [3] 
    dsws wrote:

    There's a media tent at Occupy Boston, but at least according to one blogger several days ago, it's kind of dysfunctional: http://bostinnovation.com/2011/10/21/rifts-inside-the-occupy-movement-how-the-occupyboston-media-tent-is-hurting-its-cause/

    Saying that the Occupy movement ought to be organized enough to have a unified message is easy. Actually being organized is hard. A spokesperson is a conduit to the media -- but a conduit from whom?

    [Contact Representative Heath Shuler on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate this effort.]

    Or rather, don't. He doesn't accept contact from non-constituents.

  4. [4] 
    dsws wrote:

    "We, as a movement, utterly condemn all violence and lawbreaking. ..."

    Does that include laws against sleeping in public parks? How about Jim Crow laws in the bad old days? Civil disobedience is sometimes justified.

    One of the problems America faces is our own Supreme Court has equated corporations with actual persons. This is wrong, and it will likely take a constitutional amendment to fix.

    Any plausible threat of passing a court-packing bill would suffice. Citizens United was a very bad decision, but the Court has the power to back away from it, with sufficient persuasion.

    We are calling for politicians to support amending the Constitution with one simple sentence: 'Corporations are not considered persons under the law.'

    Oh great. Every provision of law saying "no person shall ..." would immediately cease to apply to corporations. Corporations would be free to steal, murder, maybe even possess marijuana.

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    What do you base your statement about "the vast majority" being militant upon? Fox News doesn't count.

    Estimates of the daytime rally/march in Oakland were 7000-20K. Take a look at the photos and videos of the jerks -- there are (at most) a couple hundred of them. How does that constitute a "vast majority"?

    dsws -

    That's why I suggested rotating the person once a week -- to avoid outsized egos. I know it wouldn't be easy, but I still think it's worth a try.

    When the movement started getting noticed, one guy made it onto the news chat shows. He was very articulate, and made some excellent points. After that weekend, he disappeared. And nobody took his place. This is a tactical error of monumental proportions. The movement has to have a face. It has to have a conduit for the MSM, or else it will wind up being defined by either (a) the media, (b) its enemies, or (c) some random lunatic the media interviews.

    Click on the link for Democrats For Progress (cross-post link at bottom), and scroll down (if you can see it, I'm not sure if the forums are accessible if you don't sign in) to the comments. Someone posted a cartoon of a group of serious 99%ers, and a media bimbo deciding to interview the guy in the clown suit. It's funny, but it is also a serious weakness not to have a media contact person.

    As for Shuler, sorry, didn't check the link. I run into this a lot from House members, especially. You can always hunt around on his page for his DC phone number, and call them up. That's not as good a solution, I know, and sorry for the link's not being useful. I should have checked it.

    Yeah, I should have said "vandalism" instead of "lawbreaking."

    To threaten court-packing, you'd better have a pretty big majority in the Senate...

    As for the last, no it wouldn't. If the corporation doesn't have personhood, then it is a collection of people, who are responsible for any lawbreaking individually. It just removes a layer of unaccountability, that's all.

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Oh great. Every provision of law saying "no person shall ..." would immediately cease to apply to corporations. Corporations would be free to steal, murder, maybe even possess marijuana.

    the persons who work for or own the corporations would be personally liable for any actions they took on behalf of their corporation. or union, for that matter.

  7. [7] 
    dsws wrote:

    Getting rid of limited liability, and saying that shareholders can be sued for everything a corporation does, would be far more radical than just overturning Citizens United. All those things you have a tiny amount of in a mutual fund in your 401(k)? Get ready to go to court over everything they ever did. You can't, without being in a dozen places at once. You'll have to settle.

    When there's a real problem, to hold individuals responsible for what a corporation owns, buys, sells, or otherwise does, you would have to prove to the relevant standard (beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases, preponderance of evidence in civil cases) not only that the firm violated whatever law, but which individual was legally responsible. When decisions are made jointly, that can be very hard to prove. At the very least there would have to be a ton of new statute and regulation.

    Suppose you get defrauded by your bank, and they're going to foreclose on your house for no good reason. Do you sue the employee at your local branch who handled issuing your mortgage? There's no point, even if their mistake contributed to the problem, since they don't have the wherewithal to set things right. Do you sue an unknown number of unknown individuals at some unknown office, who handled the payments the bank didn't process properly? Good luck with that. Do you sue the CEO who had nothing to do with it? They can afford lawyers who will be very good at arguing they had nothing to do with it. Everyone on the board of directors? Same thing times ten.

    Currently, your case is against the bank. It makes sense that your case should be against the bank. Laws are written to forbid various things uniformly, whether they're done by a corporation or an individual. They just say "person", and it covers both.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Currently, your case is against the bank. It makes sense that your case should be against the bank. Laws are written to forbid various things uniformly, whether they're done by a corporation or an individual. They just say "person", and it covers both.

    well then, maybe it's time to remove the individual from the mob. that's exactly the reason why many people in large organizations do such things, because they don't foresee themselves being held personally culpable. i'm not talking about shareholders, they're not the ones doing the illegal or harmful actions. i'm talking about making a dent in the diffusion of responsibility.

    every single individual who participated in the defrauding of a customer could claim they were "just following orders," but that didn't work at nuremberg and it shouldn't work in any criminal case. each individual who participated is still partially responsible. once a few people are held responsible, they'll be all too happy to share the blame. someone gave the orders, and the CEO at the top is still responsible for not knowing, because it's his or her job to know.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I intend to address everything else, but this just jumped out at me..

    every single individual who participated in the defrauding of a customer could claim they were "just following orders," but that didn't work at nuremberg and it shouldn't work in any criminal case.

    "Do you think that's the same as two teenagers executing an order they couldn't possibly think would result in any harm? These guys aren't the Nazis!"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Hawk Owl wrote:

    I thought Michale's observation "The problem with trying to redefine your movement is that you lose credibility with every change. . ." was particularly trenchant and thoughtful. Couldn't help wondering, though, if this applies, also, to the Tea Party's rotating beauty pageant (or would vaudeville show be a more apt analogy?) of presidential candidates?
    ~ Hawkowl

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    What do you base your statement about "the vast majority" being militant upon? Fox News doesn't count.

    Several things..

    First off, in the early days of the Oowzers, there were many reports of guest "speakers" at Oowzer rallys, advocating violence and ridiculing the idea that goals could be accomplished without violence.

    Secondly, the simple fact that there isn't any real effort, beyond lip service, to STOP the violence..

    To paraphrase Robin Williams, the Oowzers are like a traffic cop on Valium.. All the violence going on and they're like, "phhhwwweeeeet... Stooooop.... Stoooooop"... (OK, granted, you lose the visuals, but trust me. It's funny! :D)

    Finally, the fact that the violence has been escalating, as I had predicted it would....

    If the Oowzers were absolutely serious about stopping the violence, they would suspend their operations until such time as they could police their own better..

    The fact that their agenda is more important to them than curtailing violence shows me (and all other REAL 99 percenters) where exactly they are coming from..

    Estimates of the daytime rally/march in Oakland were 7000-20K. Take a look at the photos and videos of the jerks -- there are (at most) a couple hundred of them. How does that constitute a "vast majority"?

    Simple...

    If there were only a "couple hundred" then the 7000 to 20,000 could have easily stopped the violence by the sheer weight of their numbers...

    The fact that 20,000 people let a few hundred commit these acts of violence would indicate to me that those 20,000 people weren't really opposed to the violence..

    Logical, no??

    As far as this issue of Corporations as humans, I have an even better idea, building on my previous great idea.

    Every restriction and regulation that ya'all want to apply to Corporations would be equally applied to Unions...

    Any takers??? :D

    Now, it's time for Supernatural, Blue Bloods, Beer and Bed... :D

    Ni

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale,

    lest we forget, dawson and downey ultimately were convicted of a lesser count and dishonorably discharged. even the low-level grunts who participate in the commission of a crime are culpable to a degree.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    HawkOwl,

    I thought Michale's observation "The problem with trying to redefine your movement is that you lose credibility with every change. . ." was particularly trenchant and thoughtful.

    First CW and now you..

    Ya'all are making me positively giddy!! :D

    Couldn't help wondering, though, if this applies, also, to the Tea Party's rotating beauty pageant (or would vaudeville show be a more apt analogy?) of presidential candidates?

    While that is a good point, I was referring more to changing the name of the movement.. As we have seen with the climate issue, where the name of the "problem" has gone thru several metamorphosis, it loses credibility every time the "problem" is redefined with a new name..

    What you are referring to with the Tea Party is more of being fickle in choosing their political representative.

    But you are correct. Such fickleness could have the same impact as choosing a different name...

    Joshua,

    lest we forget, dawson and downey ultimately were convicted of a lesser count and dishonorably discharged. even the low-level grunts who participate in the commission of a crime are culpable to a degree.

    Touche'... :D

    Good point...

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    If there were only a "couple hundred" then the 7000 to 20,000 could have easily stopped the violence by the sheer weight of their numbers...

    The fact that 20,000 people let a few hundred commit these acts of violence would indicate to me that those 20,000 people weren't really opposed to the violence..

    Logical, no??

    No.

    The 7-20K were present all day long, up until the evening hours. The couple hundred were active after midnight. So how were the vast majority of the crowd supposed to prevent something happening at 2 AM, when they had already gone home?

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    The 7-20K were present all day long, up until the evening hours. The couple hundred were active after midnight. So how were the vast majority of the crowd supposed to prevent something happening at 2 AM, when they had already gone home?

    They DON'T "go home".. They are Occupying where ever they are..

    Further, they KNOW there is going to be elements within their ranks who will be prone to violence. Therefore, it's in their best interests to take steps to prevent said violence..

    All I am saying is that, if they truly are opposed to violence, there are MANY steps they could take to prevent that violence..

    The fact that they don't lends credence to the claim that the vast majority of Oowzers are not all that opposed to violence as some claim them to be...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another problem I have with the Oowzers is that they are hurting the very people they claim they represent...

    Witness in NYC where business owners are losing a LOT of business. One business owner had to lay off over 20 workers because of the Oowzers...

    How frak'ed up is that??

    Michale....

  17. [17] 
    dsws wrote:

    So the goal is that no one could work at a bank branch without individually being civilly and criminally liable for everything the bank does? The deposits a teller processes are part of the money the bank uses for whatever it might subsequently do, so that teller was involved.

    Why are people attached to that particular formulation of the no-corporate-personhood amendment, anyway? Why not be open to something like "Nothing in this Constitution, or the laws the United States or of any State, shall be construed as extending to corporations the rights of individuals, of citizens, or of the People. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."? Or any of countless other possible versions.

  18. [18] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just a quick note, CW. The Move Your Money movement is alive and well. Many folks within OWS are promoting it as well as Bank Transfer Day.

    http://www.salon.com/2011/11/04/why_bank_transfer_day_is_only_the_beginning/

    Me personally, I think it was a great idea because it's a simple action just about anyone can do - vote with your feet!

    -David

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    And when banks start laying tellers and such???

    Will it be a "great idea" then??

    The Oowzers don't really care about the consequences of their actions...

    They don't care WHO gets hurt, even if it's the 99%...

    As long as they get THEIR agenda...

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    And when banks start laying tellers and such???

    Oh boy.... THAT sure came out wrong....

    And when banks start laying OFFtellers and such???

    Guess ya'all know where MY mind was at... :D

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And when banks start laying tellers and such?

    Buahahahahahah. Indeed. That's pretty funny though :)

    I'll respond to what you intended rather than what you wrote.

    If banks are not offering a good service, shouldn't we be free to find a better one?

    I actually believe credit unions do a BETTER job of employing people than banks. That's part of why I moved.

    You keep your money in those banks though, Michale. Keep it there as they keep charging you fees and providing you less service.

    Me, I'd like to encourage some competition!

    -David

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually I am a credit union person myself. Have always liked credit unions over banks..

    But the point is, the banks employ a lot of people..

    Initiall, the largest impetus for the Occupy movement was the lack of jobs...

    I just was wondering what changed that would allow the Oowzers to cost OTHER "99%'ers" their jobs and have a clear conscience about it..

    Me, I'd like to encourage some competition!

    But at what cost??

    Hundreds of people losing their jobs??

    Michale....

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    If banks are not offering a good service, shouldn't we be free to find a better one?

    If the goal is simply to get better service, then of course you are free to change from a bank to a credit union..

    But if the goal is to attack the institution or to cause it (and it's employees) pain and suffering..

    That's economic terrorism...

    Do you really think that the CEOs and the Shareholders are hurt by those actions??

    Of course they're not. It's the secretaries and the tellers and the low level employees that are hurt..

    Ya know.

    The 99% that the Oowzers CLAIM to represent...

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale,

    Whether my money is in a bank or a credit union, people are being employed.

    Keep up the good work though. You make us sound more credible every day :)

    -David

    p.s. "Economic terrorism" ... that's a good one. If moving your money to credit unions is economic terrorism, what do you call crashing the entire world economy?

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- In the interest of disclosure, I've been with a credit union since 1996.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whether my money is in a bank or a credit union, people are being employed.

    I am certain that those employees that are fired from the banks will take great comfort in knowing that, at least there are credit union tellers who are employed...

    Whatever helps you sleep at night.. :D

    "Economic terrorism" ... that's a good one. If moving your money to credit unions is economic terrorism,

    As with real terrorism, it's the intent that is the key...

    Is one simply shopping around for better service?? Or is one trying to cause pain and suffering??

    The answer to that question is what determines whether or not it is a case of a conscientious shopper or an economic extortionist...

    what do you call crashing the entire world economy?

    I'll answer your question with a question..

    Was the intent to cause pain and suffering amongst innocent people??

    Or was the motive simply greed and the insane desire to acquire wealth un-earned??

    You have your answer only if you have the wisdom to seek it... :D

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, I am very hesitant to go with the terrorism analogy when it comes to economic actions such as this...

    However, when you take away the murder and bloodshed and the like, it DOES fit the definition...

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As with real terrorism, it's the intent that is the key.

    So people who f*ck up the entire world are ok as long as they think they're doing right?

    You've just described every dictator who ever lived.

    -David

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    So people who f*ck up the entire world are ok as long as they think they're doing right?

    Do they do it solely to cause pain and suffering and death and destruction to further a political or ideological agenda??

    Or do they do it of personal greed for money and power??

    If the answer to the former is "no" and the answer to the latter is "yes" then it's horrible, mean, nasty, uncivilized and psychotic....

    But it's not terrorism...

    You, of all people, should know that.... :D

    Michale......

  30. [30] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So banker's are horrible, mean, nasty, uncivilized and psychotic?

    Even I wouldn't say that :)

    I just don't want them gambling with my money and f*cking up our economy. Just like OWS.

    -David

  31. [31] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- Want to lay odds on the banks trying to introduce laws which go after credit unions?

    How long do you think it will take before they start trying to get the government to step in and make it even harder for people to switch?

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I can even give you some talking points, Michale:

    "Credit unions are destroying competition in America. We have to end the scourge of credit unions before we become just like the Communists!"

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    So banker's are horrible, mean, nasty, uncivilized and psychotic?

    Even I wouldn't say that :)

    "I DID say that. Would YOU say that?"
    -Joe Pesci, My Cousin Vinny

    You haven't been listening to the Oowzers much, eh?? :D

    I just don't want them gambling with my money and f*cking up our economy. Just like OWS.

    You still haven't answered my question..

    Are you moving your money because you want better service??

    Or are you moving your money to punish "the banks"???

    BTW- Want to lay odds on the banks trying to introduce laws which go after credit unions?

    Banks can introduce laws!???

    WOW... Who woulda thunked it...

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    BTW- Want to lay odds on the banks trying to introduce laws which go after credit unions?

    They already have:
    "The banking industry really, really hates credit unions, because of the threat credit unions present to the lower-service banks. Banks have mounted intensive lobbying efforts to get Congress to pass laws to make credit union operations taxable. "
    fool.com/money/banking/banking06.htm

    stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=406
    cunalendingcouncil.org/news/3748.html

    In most cases the efforts of the banks to limit the reach of the credit unions, is actually (IMHO) a blessing in disguise. Used to be, the only real difference between a bank and CU was that CUs were prohibited from engaging in certain elements of financial buisiness ... like derivatives. Now it seems that by forcing the CU to stay small (at least relatively speaking), the CUs are prevented from growing large enough to be able to treat their customers like sh**.

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "The banking industry really, really hates credit unions, because of the threat credit unions present to the lower-service banks. Banks have mounted intensive lobbying efforts to get Congress to pass laws to make credit union operations taxable."

    DerFarm- *sigh* I guess this isn't really surprising. It's sad though.

    Its very typical though. They talk about competition and letting markets work, but when it comes down to it, they lobby for monopolies.

    You still haven't answered my question.

    That's because your question is leading and you only posit two possible answers.

    In your world, you can only be moving your money for better service or you're an economic terrorist.

    You're clearly not interested in knowing why I, or anyone else for that matter, moved my money, but rather in trying to define anyone who does as an economic terrorist .

    Did you know, Michale, that if you take your money out of the banks, it also makes you Communist and will turn you into a gay vegetarian!!!

    -David

  36. [36] 
    Kevin wrote:

    David,
    Still Crawling up Everest, I see :-)

  37. [37] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    David,

    Try this instead:
    http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/oxtail_stew/

    You'll spend as much time, but the result will be pleasing.

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Still Crawling up Everest, I see :-)

    I suppose because it's there :).

    You'll spend as much time, but the result will be pleasing.

    Heheheh. If only I could cook ...

  39. [39] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    You are so far out on a limb here, you've almost dropped from sight.

    Economic terrorism? Really?

    I think we've danced this particular jig before, vis-a-vis boycotting in general.

    I call it FREEDOM, personally. If you disagree, please show me where, exactly, in the Constitution it says that big banks are entitled to have anyone's money deposited within them? I'll save you some time -- it ain't there. Or, conversely, any terrorism law which decrees that my money must be placed in any institution whatsoever. That one doesn't exist, either (although they do now require all sorts of IDs to open an account due to real terrorism).

    As an American citizen, I am free to put my money wherever the heck I want, for whatever reason enters my brain. That is freedom, pal. That's the way capitalism and the free market work, too, by the way.

    If a bank gives crappy and expensive service, then people are free to shun such crappy service and move their money to a credit union. If jobs are lost, it is due to the incompetence of the company -- not due to the customers it has lost. Economic terrorism? I don't think so. After all, while the big bank is firing people, the credit union will be hiring them to handle the new load.

    "If that's true, I'm going to open a coal oil lamp factory and sue Thomas Edison for putting me out of business."
    (-Robert A. Heinlein, from some book I'm too lazy to look up, and probably slightly misquoted)

    A business survives precisely as long as it meets the needs of their customers, for a competitive price. Once any part of that sentence doesn't apply any more, it loses customers and goes out of business. And you know what? It is decidedly NOT the fault of such customers when that happens.

    Boycotts are as American as apple pie. There is no "right" that businesses have to any customers. No business is entitled to ANYONE's money, and that, my friend, is what FREEDOM is all about. Not to mention the free market.

    -CW

  40. [40] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Chris-

    Another reason why this is my favourite site - you are more involved with the comments than most sites, and you do such a good job refuting nonsense that we're left with simply congratulating you on another well thought out piece. So, boring though it may be, thanks again.

    Kevin.

  41. [41] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kevin -

    I actually feel like I've been ignoring you guys of late, but then I've been really busy researching. Although occasionally it comes in handy, like today, when I had a column idea at the tips of my fingers without even having to think about it...

    Anyway, I still manage to read every comment, even if most of the time in the past few months I haven't had spare time to answer everyone...

    -CW

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    That's because your question is leading and you only posit two possible answers.

    No, the reason you don't want to answer is because your answer would point out the flaw in your argument.

    In your world, you can only be moving your money for better service or you're an economic terrorist.

    OK... I'll dumb it down a bit more...

    WHY are you moving your money out of your bank and into a credit union?

    CW,

    Economic terrorism? Really?

    Yea, I know.. I really hated to go there, even though it fits..

    How about let's go with Economic Extortion..

    As an American citizen, I am free to put my money wherever the heck I want, for whatever reason enters my brain. That is freedom, pal. That's the way capitalism and the free market work, too, by the way.

    That's fine. YOU have the right to do that. YOU have the right to move your money. YOU have the right to take your business to Acme Services instead of Bank Of America....

    But does a large group have the right to pressure OTHERS to take that same action?? Does a group have the right to cajole or coerce or threaten others so that they take the same action...

    THAT is the question.

    If a bank gives crappy and expensive service, then people are free to shun such crappy service and move their money to a credit union. If jobs are lost, it is due to the incompetence of the company -- not due to the customers it has lost.

    That's fine. But if that's the goal, then the Oowzers can't make the claim that they are all about saving jobs.. If they selfishly want what's best for THEM and not what's best for the 99%, then they should be honest about their actions...

    "WE'RE LOOKING OUT FOR OURSELVES AND OURSELVES ONLY! TO HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE"

    THAT's the mantra and the motto the Oowzers should be using, if they were being honest about their actions..

    Economic terrorism? I don't think so.

    Ignoring the emotional aspects of the term, it DOES fit the definition.

    If the goal is simply to achieve the best service possible, then that is one thing..

    But if the goal is to cause pain and suffering amongst innocent people so as to influence the operation of said business..... Well, that's the very definition of terrorism...

    However, to avoid the emotionalism, let's go with Economic Extortion.

    The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. For example, certain lawsuits, fees for services such as banking, automobile insurance, gasoline prices, and taxation have all been labeled "legalized extortion" by people with various social or political beliefs.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

    As we see, ya'all and the Oozers would probably agree that with the above definition..

    So, tell me. How is it any different if the Oozers tell Acme Services, "Change your ways or we will protest in front of your bank, harass your employees and basically cause you major headaches.."

    There are many MANY examples of how extortion is used by a large group of people against a government or business institution. Ironically enough, when such methods are employed, it's the very people the group claims to represent or protect are the ones that suffer the most in such extortion..

    Kevin,

    Another reason why this is my favourite site - you are more involved with the comments than most sites, and you do such a good job refuting nonsense that we're left with simply congratulating you on another well thought out piece.

    Not sure I enjoy how you continue to "ignore" me..

    Sure would be nice if you could fight your own battles instead of taking pot shots from the sidelines and the peanut gallery and let others do your dirty work...

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iddn't it funny that, other than our esteemed host, no one here said BOO when, recently, VP Biden and other Democrat Leaders called Republican CongressCritters "terrorists" for opposing the Debt Ceiling increase...

    Hell, some here even AGREED with the terminology..

    So, I guess the moral of this story is, around here, you can refer to conservatives as terrorists and be free from ridicule. Hell, you'll likely even get some kudos from the peanut gallery...

    But gods help you if you call the actions of a bunch of malcontent snotty spoiled little brats from the Left what it is.

    Economic Terrorism.

    Or Economic Extortion if you want to be polite about it...

    Oh no..

    We can't have THAT...

    THAT's not appropriate..

    THAT's not allowed..

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But does a large group have the right to pressure OTHERS to take that same action?

    You have the right to inform others and argue for what you believe in, Michale. Why do you want to take it away from others?

    To set the record straight, the "pressuring" that you refer to is talking to people and telling them the truth about banks - they're still gambling with customer money and are no longer serving the interests of their customers.

    In short, banks are not what they used to be.

    They tack on fees in order to feed their gambling habit. They are given money by the government at 0% interest to lend and they don't lend it. They place bets on derivatives instead. With government "no interest" money.

    Do you or I have that luxury? Can you get a 0% interest loan?

    The banks will fail again. It's inevitable given how little changed. And guess who they're going to ask to foot the bill when it happens?

    That's right. You and me. We'll hear it all over again about how our country will collapse if we don't bail them out.

    Why was so little done to correct this? Because of the tremendous influence of money on Washington.

    Here's a great article from the Washington Post showing what is still going on:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wall-streets-resurgent-prosperity-frustrates-its-claims-and-obamas/2011/10/25/gIQAKPIosM_story.html

    It's not a Democrat/Republican thing. The key thing to note is that it's the money in Washington which is the problem.

    Now you can support this situation if you want, but me, I'm fighting against it. And I'm encouraging others to do the same.

    I don't give a rat's ass which party you're from.

    I'd hope you'd join us because I think you believe many of the same things we do. As much as that might shock you.

    You don't like the influence of money in Washington. You weren't for the bailouts and I'm pretty damn sure you don't want to see that happen again. Hell, you're even a member of a credit union already.

    Honestly, I don't really have any 'beef' with you. Except that you're calling me a terrorist.

    Even an "economic" one whatever the hell that means. Oh, I'm sorry. An extortionist. That's so much better.

    Now that's your choice. I guess you can call me a "terrorist" or "extortionist" if you want.

    I'm big enough that I don't give a f*ck and am going to do what I believe in regardless of your BS.

    I just think it makes you look bad. Seriously, what's with the name calling?

    -David

    p.s. And I won't answer your question because people are free to make decisions they want for whatever reasons they want as long as they are not breaking any laws.

    Are you against that?

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, Kevin. I think you misunderstand. E-mail me at akadjian@yahoo.com and I'll explain.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    To set the record straight, the "pressuring" that you refer to is talking to people and telling them the truth about banks - they're still gambling with customer money and are no longer serving the interests of their customers

    In YOUR opinion..

    What if someone sees it differently??

    Then they are the "enemy", right??

    Now you can support this situation if you want, but me, I'm fighting against it. And I'm encouraging others to do the same.

    But yet, you ONLY fight Republicans on it.

    You give Democrats a pass.

    Honestly, I don't really have any 'beef' with you. Except that you're calling me a terrorist.

    First off, I am not calling YOU anything. I couldn't, because you refused to answer the question...

    But, if a person's goal is to cause pain and suffering to innocent people in hopes of putting pressure on larger institutions and/or governments, what would YOU call it??

    As far as labeling people "terrorists", why is it OK to refer to Republican CongressCritters as "terrorists" but it's not OK to refer to spoiled malcontent brats as "terrorists"??

    Especially when the actions of the spoiled brats are far more consistent with the definition of terrorism than the actions of GOP Congress...

    p.s. And I won't answer your question because people are free to make decisions they want for whatever reasons they want as long as they are not breaking any laws.

    Yes they are.. Just as I am free to ask the motivations behind those decisions.

    If you don't want to discuss it, then tell me to piss off...

    But don't try to make me the bad guy and ridicule my position just because you don't happen to like where your lack of candor leads....

    I am debating and discussing this issue in good faith (Apparently the ONLY one who is) and simply do not deserve to be treated like this....

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    WHY are you moving your money out of your bank and into a credit union?

    I was planning to move my money out of BofA and still might purely because they were planning to charge a $5 a month fee to use ATMs, though I was planning to do it by the end of the year and not November 5th. I think this was the real reason the whole change bank thing gained traction regardless of where it started and what it's mouth piece was saying.

    As for calling out Democrats. I'm not in the mood to search for it but I remember your reply once when asked why you rarely call out the right. It was to the effect that because the rest of us criticize the right you felt you did not need to. Well as you match the rest of us in total word count of posts I think I am good with and will co-op your excuse :D

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    To set the record straight, the "pressuring" that you refer to is talking to people and telling them the truth about banks - they're still gambling with customer money and are no longer serving the interests of their customers.

    These are the discussions I've been having with people as part of Occupy Wall Street.

    I am presenting this as evidence. I also know that they're the same discussions all the people I know in OWS are having.

    Where's your evidence of people committing "economic terrorism"?

    I don't see any. I only see suspicion, accusation, and name calling. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

    What if someone sees it differently?? Then they are the "enemy", right?

    "Enemies" and "terrorists" are your world, Michale. Please don't project them onto mine.

    I believe I said that you're free to do what you like so long as you don't break any laws.

    The credit union didn't ask me what my motives were when I applied. I don't believe there's a law that says I have to tell them. Or that it matters at all.

    Am I free to do what I like? So long as I don't break any laws?

    -David

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And because I know you're going to keep asking me because you don't have any other arguments ...

    Let's suppose for just a second that the answer to your question is that I'm talking to people about switching to credit unions because I want to kill all the people in the free world.

    This still wouldn't make me a terrorist.

    I would still just be talking to people about switching credit unions.

    Breaking no laws. Exercising my freedom of speech.

    -David

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I was planning to move my money out of BofA and still might purely because they were planning to charge a $5 a month fee to use ATMs, though I was planning to do it by the end of the year and not November 5th.

    That's great...

    And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that, regardless of how my words might be twisted...

    I think this was the real reason the whole change bank thing gained traction regardless of where it started and what it's mouth piece was saying.

    You mean, that's what you think the mouth piece should have said, instead of phrasing it with terroristic or extortionist overtones.

    Again, we are in complete agreement...

    David,

    Let's suppose for just a second that the answer to your question is that I'm talking to people about switching to credit unions because I want to kill all the people in the free world.

    This still wouldn't make me a terrorist.

    It depends... WHY would you want to kill all the people in the free world... :D

    All I am saying... All I have *EVER* said was that if the intent is to harm innocent people (either physically or emotionally or with hardships) so as to pressure an institution or a government to change policy, then that is the very definition of terrorism..

    You don't agree?? Fine..

    Then tell me how YOU would define such actions??

    Instead of joining in the ridicule, you tell me what YOU think that action is defined as.

    In other words, state your case instead of simply attacking mine..

    It's what (I thought) we do here....

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really???

    Are you absolutely SURE it's not terrorism???

    Occupiers terrorize us: eatery
    nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/occupiers_terrorize_us_eatery_o4dKzxi3n03WyJWAJu4AhO

    'Occupy' Protesters Splatter Blood, Urine On Food Carts After Vendors Stop Free Service...
    losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/11/07/socal-street-cart-vendors-hurting-after-occupy-group-splatters-blood-urine/

  52. [52] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Now you're just getting laughable. I mean seriously, listen to yourself.

    But does a large group have the right to pressure OTHERS to take that same action?? Does a group have the right to cajole or coerce or threaten others so that they take the same action...

    Who exactly is "coercing or threatening" anybody to do anything? Evidence?
    [sound of crickets]

    And please, keep on topic. You are referring to the effort to "move your money" only. Any large group does indeed have the right to pressure or cajole others... it's called the First Amendment. Right of assembly, right of free speech.

    You seem to have a problem with intentions. You say it's all right to pull your money out of a bank for one reason, but not another. That is defining thoughtcrime, my friend. I am free to do ANYthing legal for ANY reason that pops into my brain, and to try to peacefully and rationally talk ANYbody else into following my example. Once again: FREEDOM.

    Also once again, please inform me where in the Constitution it says anything about any corporation having any rights over the freedom of its customers to spend (or move) their money any way they see fit? Once again, it ain't there, pal.

    All I am saying... All I have *EVER* said was that if the intent is to harm innocent people (either physically or emotionally or with hardships) so as to pressure an institution or a government to change policy, then that is the very definition of terrorism.

    No, it isn't. You haven't defined who is harmed by other people's freedom at all. Somebody might lose their job because the business makes stupid decisions? That is their problem for working there. It is NOT the customer's problem, and there is simply no guarantee that anyone has any right to a job at a company which gives crappy service.

    Take away the "harm other people" ridiculousness in that statement, and you know what it defines? Politics. The American right to band together to effect change. Freedom.

    I'm sorry you have such a hard time with other people's freedom, but that's part of being an American, isn't it?

    As for "terrorism" -- where were you when a cabinet member of the Bush administration called teachers "terrorists" in the midst of post-9/11? I bet you weren't out there condemning his actions, were you?

    Here's an interesting question: do you consider anti-abortion attacks against doctors or clinics terrorism? Why or why not? We're talking illegal (vandalism) or violent (threats or attacks or murder) actions, not just free speech and marching on the sidewalk.

    -CW

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who exactly is "coercing or threatening" anybody to do anything? Evidence?
    [sound of crickets]

    Oh let's see...

    How about picketing and harassing people at the private homes of bank presidents and other high officials..

    You don't think that their families, THEIR KIDS, don't feel threatened or intimidated????

    What about the vendors who are being "TERRORIZED" (their words, not mine) by out of control Oowzers who demand free service and supplies...

    You seem to have a problem with intentions. You say it's all right to pull your money out of a bank for one reason, but not another. That is defining thoughtcrime, my friend. I am free to do ANYthing legal for ANY reason that pops into my brain, and to try to peacefully and rationally talk ANYbody else into following my example. Once again: FREEDOM.

    This is true.... Legally speaking...

    But if the intent is to cause harm to innocent people for the expressed purpose of serving a political or ideological agenda, it's terrorism..

    It may not be prosecutable.. It's only the conscience that one has to deal with..

    But that doesn't make it any less what it is..

    As for "terrorism" -- where were you when a cabinet member of the Bush administration called teachers "terrorists" in the midst of post-9/11? I bet you weren't out there condemning his actions, were you?

    If it was reported here at CW.COM, you can bet your sweet bippy I was condemning it!! :D

    Here's an interesting question: do you consider anti-abortion attacks against doctors or clinics terrorism?

    Abso-frak'in-loutly...

    Text book terrorism.... No if, ands or buts about it...

    We're talking illegal (vandalism) or violent (threats or attacks or murder) actions, not just free speech and marching on the sidewalk.

    Oh, in that case.. OK So if there is no vandalism, no attempt to stop or intimidate patrons, no contact with patrons at all, no threats, no harassment, no violence, no destruction, no assaults, no illegal activity of any kind......

    Then no.. That would be constitutionally protected free speech..

    But that is NOT what we are talking about with the Oowzers...

    With the Oowzers, it's all about vandalism and violence and destruction and obstructing innocent people from going about their lives and harassing and terrorizing families and children in their private homes and feces and urine and blood thrown at innocent vendors and their equipment and about blocking innocent people from going to work and about assaults and crack dealing and heroin dealing and prostitution and sexual assaults and rapes and so on and so on and so on...

    If that is not terrorism or at the very least, extortion, how would YOU define those actions???

    Because ALL those actions have one intent..

    To terrorize innocent people so that a government or an institution into giving in to demands....

    You don't like the ugly word terrorism?? Fine...

    Then what would YOU call it???

    Because, as far as I am concerned, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's damn likely that it's a duck....

    Now, you'll claim that all the attacks and the destruction of property and all the assaults on LEOs is all just isolated incidents..

    Com'on... I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night..

    These "isolated" incidents happen EVERY day.. At MANY places all across the country...

    And do you know what all these "isolated" incidents have in common??

    They are all at OCCUPY protests..

    Did you see anything like that happening at Tea Party events??? Not even CLOSE...

    The BIG, MEAN, BAD old RACIST Tea Partiers were family festivals and picnics...

    Why is it that hundreds get arrested at an OCCUPY event but there is hardly a hangnail at a Tea Party event??

    I'll close with repeating one simple question..

    If all the assaults and all the harassment and all the violence and all the illegal activities and the rapes and the drugs and the assaults (oops said that one) and all the LEOs being injured (OK that's kinda close to assaults) and all that happening *WITH THE STATED INTENT TO AFFECT CHANGE IN CORPORATIONS* is not the textbook definition of terrorism.....

    If you don't think that is the definition of terrorism, then you tell me how it should be defined.

    If you don't like my definition, I am willing, MORE than willing, to hear yours or anyone else's....

    As long as the definition is supported by the facts of the situation of the Oowzer protests......

    "I am all ears."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

    :D

    Michale...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another completely unrelated note.. :D

    It's being reported that Lindsay Lohan has posed nude for Playboy??

    Why???

    It's not as if all her genitalia that was worth seeing hasn't already been spread all over the media...

    I'm just sayin'....

    Now back to our regularly scheduled mayhem... :D

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It depends...

    No. It doesn't depend. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. That's why I won't answer your question.

    Because I could say that I was talking to people about switching to credit unions because I wanted kill every man, woman, and child on this planet and it still would not be an act of terrorism.

    Then tell me how YOU would define such actions?

    Intent is not a criminal act. Intent is thought.

    The moment you start arresting people for what they're thinking is the moment we become Orwell's 1984 as CW pointed out.

    Terrorism has to involve a law breaking act of terror such as a bombing, a kidnapping, etc.

    I have the right to talk to people about moving their money as much as I want. For whatever reason I want. As long as I'm not breaking the law.

    Freedom, my friend. You like it. Let everyone else enjoy it too!

    -David

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:


    CW:
    We're talking illegal (vandalism) or violent (threats or attacks or murder) actions, not just free speech and marching on the sidewalk.

    Michale:
    Oh, in that case.. OK So if there is no vandalism, no attempt to stop or intimidate patrons, no contact with patrons at all, no threats, no harassment, no violence, no destruction, no assaults, no illegal activity of any kind......

    Then no.. That would be constitutionally protected free speech..

    OK.. I misread your qualification..

    If there is violent attacks on innocent people and destruction and harassment and the like, then you bet your ass it's terrorism...

    No ifs ands or buts about it...

    My apologies for the confusion...

    Michale....

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Intent is not a criminal act. Intent is thought.

    I would have to dispute that...

    INTENT is a big... a HUGE part of criminal prosecution..

    You tell a defense lawyer that "intent" has absolutely nothing to do with anything, he'll laugh you right out of the court..

    Intent is the difference between MURDER and MANSLAUGHTER...

    Intent makes ALL the difference when it comes to terrorism cases...

    It's the difference between a conscientious shopper (like Bashi) who just wants the best value for his hard earned money and some psychotic scumbag who likes to hurt innocent people for fun and profit...

    I am honestly taken aback with your statement that intent doesn't make a difference...

    You need to brush up on recent Hate Crime legislation where intent is the prime, practically the ONLY motivation necessary for Hate Crime prosecution or lack thereof...

    Intent is a cornerstone of legal jurisprudence in this country..

    I could go on and on (even more than I have :D) on how 'intent' would be the definitive factor in whether or not someone is charged with a lower misdemeanor or a higher felony...

    "But it didn't fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was *going* to happen.
    -Tom Cruise, THE MINORITY REPORT

    Damn.. Makes me want to watch that movie again!! :D

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    akadjian wrote:

    INTENT is a big... a HUGE part of criminal prosecution.

    Fair enough ... a technicality. This would more accurately reflect what I meant:

    Intent only is not a criminal act. Intent only is thought.

    How's that?

    There still has to be a criminal act of some sort. You can't be tried for thinking about doing something.

    Does the argument stand now?

    -David

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, now were on common ground..

    So, since we have the EXPRESSED intent of forcing Banks and Corporations to change their ways AND that expressed intent is coupled with illegal activities and harassment and intimidation and violence and destruction and assaults etc etc etc.......

    Then the definition of terrorism/extortion is not so outlandish, now is it??

    It meets the criteria of "intent" and it meets your stated criteria of "a criminal act of some sort"...

    I get it, David.. You don't like the definition I put forth. I honestly understand that...

    But at least my definition is supported by the FACTS of the situation...

    If you have a better definition that fits the facts.....

    "If you have a better idea, now's the time."
    -Admiral James T. Kirk, STAR TREK IV:The Voyage Home

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Let's get even more specific to your previous argument:

    Under what specific circumstances does talking to people about changing to a credit union make someone an "economic terrorist"?

  61. [61] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Then the definition of terrorism/extortion is not so outlandish, now is it?

    Yes. It is. Let's go back to your original argument.

    My original question: "If banks are not offering a good service, shouldn't we be free to find a better one?"

    Your response: "If the goal is simply to get better service, then of course you are free to change from a bank to a credit union..

    But if the goal is to attack the institution or to cause it (and it's employees) pain and suffering.."

    Keep in mind we're just talking about switching from a bank to a credit union.

    And you're claiming that if you think one thing, it's ok. But if you think another, it's "economic terrorism".

    I'm claiming that what you think doesn't matter one whit as it's not a crime to switch from a bank to a credit union.

    No matter why you do it.

    Would you agree with this?

    -David

  62. [62] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    You need any help moving those goalposts?

    Your original point was that going in to a big bank and taking your money out with the intent to cause the bank to change its crappy service and high fees was "economic terrorism."

    Note: nothing said about OWS (who aren't even a part of the move your money campaign), nothing said about protesting or any of the rest of your red herrings. The only subject is: would you call the above paragraph economic terrorism?

    The answer, quite obviously, is no, not in the slightest. It is called "freedom" or the "free market."

    You refuse to answer the basic point because you know you're talking foolishness.

    The only action taken is closing down your bank account. That's it. The intent is utterly beside the point because if there is no crime, then intent does not matter in the slightest. And "taking your business elsewhere" is simply NOT a crime, or causing "harm" to anyone. Period. It is, once again, the free market which conservatives say they love.

    Following your logic to the end, if you aren't spending every dollar you own with every business in America every day, then you are committing economic terrorism against them. Lunacy.

    If you go to a sandwich shop for lunch, and they make a crappy sandwich and charge you $25 for it, when the next day you pick another sandwich shop, have you committed economic terrorism? Even if your intent was that the first shop go out of business and close their doors and everyone who works there lose their job? By your definition, you are supposed to buy crappy sandwiches for $25 for the rest of your life -- insanity!

    Take it a step further. If you decide to dedicate your life to driving the first shop out of business and you make a big sign and march up and down on the public sidewalk outside their store, are you committing some sort of terrorism, or excercising your free speech rights?

    My guess is you have absolutely no answer to these points that does not twist your earlier assertation into something unrecognizable. Leave the goalposts where they are, and answer my hypotheticals, please.

    -CW

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Under what specific circumstances does talking to people about changing to a credit union make someone an "economic terrorist"?

    Oh, that's easy.

    When, as a coordinated group, people begin a systematic campaign of violence, harassment, intimidation and assaults...

    As I have said ad nasuem, the label of terrorism doesn't fit this situation perfectly. Extortion might be the better label.

    However, it fits it a helluva lot more than ya'all want to admit.

    I get it. You see the Oozers as the saviors of the middle class... And this blinds you to the fact that the vast majority of the American people have more in common with the Tea Party than they do with the Oowzers...

    You don't see heroin busts, prostitution, sexual assaults, assaults, LEOs injured, crack dealers, child services taking away kids, suicides etc etc etc at Tea Party events, do you?

    Seriously, why would you defend the Oowzers???

    I'm claiming that what you think doesn't matter one whit as it's not a crime to switch from a bank to a credit union.

    No matter why you do it.

    Would you agree with this?

    As I stated above to CW, yes. I would agree with that..

    But, as you have also conceded, intent IS important in the commission of a crime..

    And it is undeniable that crimes, MANY crimes, SERIOUS crimes have been committed..

    So, yes.. In your ONE act of changing banks, no crime is committed..

    However, the conversation branched out into the acts of the Oowzers as a whole...

    But, you didn't want to go there because you know that I am dead on ballz right..

    So, yes.. In YOUR one small specific instance of changing banks, you are right...

    Now, are you ready to concede that, in the larger argument of the Oowzers actions, that *I* am right...

    Of course not.. You CAN'T do that, even though the logic is impeccable... :D

    It's OK.. I understand..

    CW,

    Your original point was that going in to a big bank and taking your money out with the intent to cause the bank to change its crappy service and high fees was "economic terrorism."

    That is a mus-characterization of what I said.. What I said was that the actions of the Oowzers as a whole, of which this is one, amounts to economic terrorism (or extortion if you prefer.).

    As I said to David above, if you want to stick with that one small specific initial point, then yes.. Moving your money from a bank to a credit union, whatever the reason, is not illegal..

    Note: nothing said about OWS (who aren't even a part of the move your money campaign),

    I am constrained to point out that the entire subject of your commentary WAS the Oowzer group.. Granted we got specific with the Move Your Money group in the initial comments. All I did was simply revert back to the original topic of the Oowzers...

    With regards to the Oozers and the Move Your Money campaign being two groups. Technically true..

    However, 1> the Move Your Money campaign would never have happened w/o the Occupy movement and B> There is enough people that are pushing both, there is serious overlap..

    It should be noted that Monday's vote came just two days after Occupy Wall Street urged supporters to participate in Move Your Money Project and Bank Transfer Day, a nationwide show of solidarity and action in which supporters were asked to move their money into a credit union and out of the major institutions such as Bank of America, Chase, and Wells Fargo.
    huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-hunt/occupy-oakland-banks-loca_b_1082930.html

    So, yes, while it's true that they are two different programs, they contain the same people and the goals are identical. To cause pain and suffering to effect change in policy.

    You refuse to answer the basic point because you know you're talking foolishness.

    I have never refused to answer ANYTHING.. Never.. Not once..

    That's ya'alls bag.. Not answering questions because ya'all don't like the answer...

    I always answer ANY question or hypothetical put to me.. It may not be the answer ya'all WANT to hear, but it's an answer nonetheless.

    I just wish ya'all would do me the same courtesy..

    Oh well.. :D

    The only action taken is closing down your bank account. That's it. The intent is utterly beside the point because if there is no crime, then intent does not matter in the slightest. And "taking your business elsewhere" is simply NOT a crime, or causing "harm" to anyone. Period. It is, once again, the free market which conservatives say they love.

    Again, I completely agree. In that ONE specific initial point, ya'all are right.

    But the discussion went far beyond that one specific point. It got back to the original topic of the commentary. Namely, the Oowzers

    Take it a step further. If you decide to dedicate your life to driving the first shop out of business and you make a big sign and march up and down on the public sidewalk outside their store, are you committing some sort of terrorism, or excercising your free speech rights?

    As I stated above with your abortion clinic hypothetical (that I answered... :D).

    If you are marching up and down holding a big sign and you are not infringing on other's right of passage, you are not attempting to intimidate or harass anyone, you are within the law and you obey the lawful orders of LEO personnel..

    Then that is a clear cut unambiguous case of First Amendment protected actions..

    As I said.. I ALWAYS answer questions and/or hypotheticals put to me..


    My guess is you have absolutely no answer to these points

    "I guessed wrong."
    -Austin Powers, AUSTIN POWERS: The Spy Who Shagged Me

    :D

    that does not twist your earlier assertation into something unrecognizable. Leave the goalposts where they are, and answer my hypotheticals, please.

    Asked and answered.. :D

    Now, would you (and David would be nice too) answer my later point. The point that this discussion blossomed into. The point that addressed the subject of the commentary...

    Can you see how one can label the over all actions of the Oowzers as terroristic or extortionist in nature??

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    And "taking your business elsewhere" is simply NOT a crime, or causing "harm" to anyone. Period. It is, once again, the free market which conservatives say they love.

    Let me put it another way...

    You have this little old lady, broke down on the side of a lonely deserted road..

    A mechanic, fresh from getting off work with all his tools in the back, is driving by..

    At this point, the universe diverges...

    In Time Track 1, the mechanic says to himself, "I know that old lady! She's a real bitch!! I am just going to let her rot!! I'm going to go get a beer!" and he drives on by...

    In Time Track 2, the mechanic is rushing home from work because his mother is dying and the mechanic needs to get back to his mother to be by her side before she dies, and he drives on by...

    Now, do you see the point??

    Driving by and not helping that old lady is not a crime. The mechanic can't be arrested or punished for NOT helping that old lady..

    One outcome. Two VERY different reasons for that outcome..

    One reason was altruistic and with regret. The other reason was spiteful and hurtful...

    Of course, in Time Track 3 the mechanic, knowing that his mother would WANT him to stop and help the old lady, the mechanic pulls over and helps the old lady get her car running again. This old lady happens to be the mother of the town's police chief, so the lady calls her son and gets the mechanic a police escort so the mechanic can be by his mother's side.

    (Michale pauses to wipe the tear from his eye.. :D

    Now, let's translate this situation into ya'alls Bank Change point..

    In Time Track 1, Bashi thinks to himself, "Self, I don't really like my bank. They don't give very good service, they are not open on Saturdays and the interest rate isn't good. I am going to move my money to a credit union..." and Bashi moves his money out of a bank into a credit union.

    Now, in Time Track 2, Evil Bashi overhears a bank manager berating a teller. The manager is blaming the teller for mistakes that the manager himself had made. Evil Bashi overhears the manager say to the teller, "If we lose ONE more account, your fired!!"

    Now Evil Bashi thinks to himself, "Self, why don't close our account and move our money to a credit union! Yea!! The teller would lose her job!! Yea, great!! And it's Christmas Eve to boot!!! Perfect!!! And I know that bitch and she has a disabled son at home and they will lose their insurance and it will be soooo awesome!!!! Yea, let's close our account and move our money to a credit union!! Maybe we can get someone fired from THERE next Christmas!!! Yea!!!!" and Evil Bashi moves his money out of a bank into a credit union.

    Once again.. One outcome... Nothing illegal about the actions. Bashi and Evil Bashi are both entitled to move their money...

    Yet in Time Track 1, all Bashi wanted to do was to get better service and a better return on his hard earned money... In Time Track 2, Evil Bashi is an asshole and deserves to rot in an especially hot place in hell..

    The moral of the stories??

    If you want to move your money from a bank to a credit union to get better service and a better return, there is nothing wrong with that.

    If you want to move your money from a bank to a credit union to cause pain and suffering then you are, like Evil Bashi, an asshole....

    Intent... It's all about intent.

    Now, is it prosecutable? Of course not...

    The only thing one would have to answer to is their own conscience...

    Legal Note: The above scenarios are completely fictitious and any resemblance to actual persons, whether living or dead, or events is entirely coincidental..

    :D

    Michale.....

    Note to Bashi... I didn't want to pick on you, but you were the only one who had the decency to answer a very simple, very logical and very pertinent and relevant question..

    No good deed goes unpunished.. :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note..

    The O Great Warrior Of The Middle Class (OGWOTMC pronounced Ogg Woot Mick) has imposed a tax on Christmas Tree sales so as to fund a federal board to promote the image of Christmas trees in the US..

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/08/obama-couldnt-wait-his-new-christmas-tree-tax/

    I think I saw this in a movie once..

    "So, what you're telling me is that we are paying for a program to make people feel good about a car that they already purchased!? No,, no don't get me wrong. I am sure that's important. But I don't want to have to tell a little kid that he can't have any lunch because we wanted to make people feel good about a car they already have. Do you?? Do you want to tell that little kid he can't have any lunch?"
    -President Bill Mitchell/Dave Kovic, DAVE

    :D

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As I stated above to CW, yes. I would agree with that.

    Good. So we've established that switching to a credit union is not a crime.

    At the time, this was all we were talking about.

    You wanted to know my motivation for doing this and said that it mattered. Despite the fact that all we were talking about was switching to a credit union. You called it "economic terrorism".

    And you tried to get me to state my intent for the purpose of trying to put me into a category of bad guys. This is a classic ploy.

    When your arguments are flawed, demonize. Look for it in a newspaper near you!

    I'll assume your apology was implied :)

    -David

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    At the time, this was all we were talking about.

    At THAT time, this was all we were talking about...

    You wanted to know my motivation for doing this and said that it mattered.

    As I have proven with Evil Bashi and the mechanic, motivation DOES matter as it pertains to whether one is a good person or not..

    And you tried to get me to state my intent for the purpose of trying to put me into a category of bad guys.

    Not at all. Because knowing you as I do, I KNOW you wouldn't take such action to cause pain and suffering to another human being..

    I was simply giving you the opportunity to re-affirm my faith in you..

    Despite what you think, a question from me is rarely a "trick" question...

    When your arguments are flawed, demonize.

    Yes, that is the Democrat's mantra...

    But, as I have proven.. My argument, the one that *I* was making, wasn't flawed...

    I'll assume your apology was implied :)

    Mebbe.. But I'll state it for the record anyways.

    I am sorry I thought that you would actually meet me halfway on this. :D

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yunno, Michale. Maybe you're not half bad after all.

    I am impressed that you're arguing for what's right and what's wrong when it comes to economics.

    This cuts against the grain of the traditional conservative "Ayn Rand" viewpoint in which they see economic decisions as independent of right or wrong, independent of any altruism or evil.

    In Rand's view and in the eyes of many conservatives just about anything money does in its own self-interest is OK.

    This is part of what the 99 percenters are against. We believe in economics, but we believe in a just capitalism. We believe more in the economics of Adam Smith than of Ayn Rand.

    The fact that you believe in doing what's right means that you share some of these beliefs.

    In Rand's world, people should always be greedy, they should do what is in their best interest 24/7. She believes people should never act out of altruism or a common good.

    Her statement of course completely falls apart logically when you start asking yourself questions like, what if helping out someone else is in your best interest?

    -David

    "What's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?" - The Oracle

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno, Michale. Maybe you're not half bad after all.

    The problem most people have with trying to figure me out is that there really isn't anything to figure out..

    I don't have any hidden agendas or trick questions or machinations or any 10-Dimensional Chess moves or anything like that..

    I am simple knuckle-dragger where common sense and decency drives my actions and beliefs..

    And common sense and decency tells me that if you have a large group from all over the country who are committing acts of violence, assaulting others, crapping on public buildings, throwing bodily fluids at innocent people who don't give them free stuff, hurting cops and basically just making everyone's life miserable to serve their own twisted agenda....

    If I see all that, my common sense tells me that they simply ARE NOT 99% of any country that I am loyal to...

    Again.. It's really simple...

    I know, I know.. Ya'all will never concede the point..

    But that doesn't make it any less valid...

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Wow, I wake up to a split personality. Was it spinny thingy or transporter accident?

    How about another quite similar situation without the protesters to rely on:

    NetFlix recently made some seriously unpopular business decisions. It separated the price of sent disks and streaming. For the budget customer it was a serious price increase to keep both streaming and a single sent disk, almost double. For the less budget customer who was getting 2 or 3 disks at a time and maybe a blu-ray upgrade it was a minor price increase. On every tech blog that was covering the story, in the comments there were many people advocating that everyone should cancel their account in protest. 800,000 people cancelled their account.

    Were these advocators economic terrorists or just concerned consumers trying to change an unpopular businesses decision?

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow, I wake up to a split personality. Was it spinny thingy or transporter accident?

    Love the Trek reference.. Double Kewpies for you!! :D

    Were these advocators economic terrorists or just concerned consumers trying to change an unpopular businesses decision?

    And another kewpie for the NetFlix example as a real world example that likely affects a good portion of us..

    Let me say, for the record, that I am against any kind of boycott... More accurately, I am against inducing, cajoling, persecuting, intimidating or otherwise pressuring others to adopt my boycotts??

    Why?? Couple reasons..

    One, because it is attempting to impose one person's belief on others that might not WANT to share those beliefs...

    Secondly, such boycotts inherently hit innocent people and cause THEM grief and pain and suffering..

    A prime example of the latter would be the NAACP boycotts of Southern states that inevitably caused the economic suffering of thousands of small business owners which were predominantly black. The very people that the NAACP claims to represent and protect are the very people that were hurt most by this boycott.. The best example of Economic Terrorism in recent history...

    Another example would be the MARRIED WITH CHILDREN boycott.. A bunch of do-gooders (of which my cousin was at the forefront) was going to save the country from the evil influence of the spawn of satan that was MARRIED WITH CHILDREN..

    What about the people who LIKED that show.. Don't they have the right to watch and enjoy it???

    And just so ya'all don't get carried away, the Left has seen it's share of boycotts gone awry... Tipper Gore and her boycott for example. An example I believe CW has commentaried on a couple times..

    So, there are examples of the latter...

    Now, for an example of the other reason I don't like boycotts..

    I have one boycott that I can name right off the bat..

    I won't by gas from CISCO outlets... It's my own personal decision to do so, but I would not EVER impose or even ATTEMPT to impose my morality or ethics on someone else... I (usually) won't even bother to explain WHY I boycott so as not to be seen as inducing or encouraging others to my boycott. It's mine, mine alone and you can't have any!! :D

    That is why I don't like, nor do I ever encourage boycotts...

    Because it all usually de-evolves in to one person or a small group of people attempting, by intimidation or by shaming or by outright violent force, to impose their view on others who might not be so inclined to share that view...

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it....

    Michale.....

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reading back over my long-winded spiel....

    "Is there another kind??
    -Jack Nicholson, A FEW GOOD MEN
    :D

    I realized I never answered your question...

    Were these advocators economic terrorists or just concerned consumers trying to change an unpopular businesses decision?

    If, as you say, such encouragement came in the form of blogs and tweets to induce people to join the boycott, then obviously it wasn't terroristic..

    However, if the "encouragement" came in the form of
    acts of violence, assaulting others, crapping on public buildings, throwing bodily fluids at innocent people who don't want to join your boycott, hurting cops and basically just making everyone's life miserable who won't join the boycott.....

    Well, YOU tell ME...

    Do YOU think that would be terroristic or extortionist in nature??

    Michale....

  73. [73] 
    akadjian wrote:

    One, because it is attempting to impose one person's belief on others that might not WANT to share those beliefs.

    What about talk radio? Or talk TV?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but ummm ... aren't they working to "impose" their beliefs on others?

    They might call it something different, but it's the same thing.

    Or religion? Or anyone who wants you to buy what they're selling for that matter?

    Or what about wars?

    I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you on this as well, Michale. Because you've never been one to oppose "imposing beliefs" as long as you agreed with those beliefs.

    When agree with the beliefs, you seem to be fine with just about any tactic up to and including unjustified wars. When you disagree with the beliefs, suddenly you don't want people "imposing those beliefs".

    Let's call this what it is.

    -David

  74. [74] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. @Bashi- Netflix. Well played.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but ummm ... aren't they working to "impose" their beliefs on others?

    Yes, but like blogs or tweets, one has the option of turning it off..

    Hard to turn it off when someone is throwing poop on you or grabbing you by the scruff of the neck...

    Or religion?

    Oh don't get me started about religion..

    Fanatical Religious groups....

    "Is there another kind??
    -Jack Nicholson, A FEW GOOD MEN
    (Twice in one thread.. Gods, I'm good!! :D)

    .... are a hop, skip and jump from being full blown terrorist groups themselves...

    Or anyone who wants you to buy what they're selling for that matter?

    High pressure salesmen! Don'tcha just hate them too!??

    "Sandworms. You hate 'em right? I hate 'em myself!"
    -Michael Keaton, BEETLEJUICE

    I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you on this as well, Michale. Because you've never been one to oppose "imposing beliefs" as long as you agreed with those beliefs.

    As with everything, it's HOW the beliefs are being imposed that determines the level of my dislike..

    All the things you name, I don't "like" them, but none of them rise to the level that the Oozers have risen to...

    When agree with the beliefs, you seem to be fine with just about any tactic up to and including unjustified wars. When you disagree with the beliefs, suddenly you don't want people "imposing those beliefs"

    Sounds like you are talking about yourselves more than me..

    Remember?? Obama?? More Bush than Bush... But yet ya'all still support him...

    Ya'all were ready to burn Bush (burning bush?? :D) in effigy over certain actions..

    Now that Obama is doing those same actions and EXPANDING on them, ya'all are as pleased as punch, singing Obama's praises as to what a tough guy he is.. :D

    Michale....

  76. [76] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You can change the subject, but you can't hide, Michale!

  77. [77] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In fact, I'm starting to think that it just might be impossible for you argue without doing one of the following:

    1) Blaming someone (liberals, the Left, Democrats, gays, communists, socialists, etc )
    2) Changing the subject

    :)

    -David

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can change the subject, but you can't hide, Michale!

    I am just following you where ever ya go, David! :D

    Granted, it's all over the map, but I bet I can keep up!! :D

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    1) Blaming someone (liberals, the Left, Democrats, gays, communists, socialists, etc )

    Only in response to you blaming conservatives...

    2) Changing the subject

    YOU brought it up, not me...

    You brought up the claim that my beliefs are conditional, yet you provide absolutely NO examples..

    I simply responded that it sounds like you were talking about yourself and I provided plenty of examples..

    If you don't want to go there, then don't lead me there... :D

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Only in response to you blaming conservatives.

    Nice. Accusation without evidence. Where have I blamed conservatives in this argument, Michale?

    You brought up the claim that my beliefs are conditional, yet you provide absolutely NO examples.

    Well, there were all those examples which you spoke to. Talk radio, salesmen, etc.

    Then there was the one you didn't. War. Yunno, the example that you conveniently left out of your response. I seem to recall you're quite a fan.

    I'm just trying to figure out when you feel "imposing beliefs" is ok. All your examples where it's not ok seem to be examples where you didn't agree with the boycotters.

    - NAACP
    - "Married with Children"
    - OWS

    Yet when you agree with the objective, pick whatever objective you believe in for the justification of the Iraq War, imposing your will is suddenly ok.

    How do you reconcile this?

    -David

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice. Accusation without evidence. Where have I blamed conservatives in this argument, Michale?

    You mentioned talk radio and talk TV. Those are primarily the domain of influential conservatives..

    I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.. :D

    Then there was the one you didn't. War. Yunno, the example that you conveniently left out of your response. I seem to recall you're quite a fan.

    Perhaps.. Apparently, as are you... I seem to recall you not saying much about Obama's Libya war.. You seemed to be quite a fan of that particular war.. Especially after Obama won it..

    So, we're fans of war. What does that prove???

    I'm just trying to figure out when you feel "imposing beliefs" is ok. All your examples where it's not ok seem to be examples where you didn't agree with the boycotters.

    Imposing beliefs is NEVER OK and I never said it was...

    I simply pointed out that your examples of conservatives "imposing" their beliefs is a far FAR cry from the examples of the Left Wing Oowzers imposing THEIR beliefs..

    To the best of my knowledge, Limbaugh hasn't pooped on a bank recently... O'Reilly hasn't thrown urine and blood on vendors who wouldn't give them free food....

    You are comparing Oranges and Eskimos if you think that talk radio is any where near the imposition that your Oowzers are...

    What?? Are people being FORCED to listen to Limbaugh or watch O'Reilly???

    Next you'll claim that I am "imposing my will" on you because I post here to CW.COM... :D

    Do you honestly see no difference between the violence and disgusting attacks committed by your Oowzers and talk radio!???

    SERIOUSLY???

    Please tell me I am misunderstanding what you are saying...

    Yet when you agree with the objective, pick whatever objective you believe in for the justification of the Iraq War, imposing your will is suddenly ok.

    How do you reconcile this?

    Simple.. I never said "imposing your will" is OK..

    Matter of fact, I distinctly said the opposite...

    Read my post to Bashi if your memory fails you...

    Michale....

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Three minutes to the Big Test... :D

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/us/emergency-alert-test/

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Short... Yet pointless"
    -Egon, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    :D

    Didn't understand a word they said.... :D

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You mentioned talk radio and talk TV. Those are primarily the domain of influential conservatives.

    I used them as examples of persuasion. Examples which I believe are covered by free speech. I have nothing against talk radio.

    Where have I blamed conservatives in this argument, Michale?

    The answer is, I haven't.

    You are comparing Oranges and Eskimos if you think that talk radio is any where near the imposition that your Oowzers are.

    I never made any such claims. You did in your statement. I was simply trying to find out how consistently you applied your argument. Once again, let's return to the original argument instead of changing the subject.

    (BTW- Remember what I said about not being able to argue w/o blaming liberals or changing the subject.)

    You said:
    I am against any kind of boycott. One, because it is attempting to impose one person's belief on others that might not WANT to share those beliefs.

    I questioned why because you don't seem to have any trouble with other methods of persuasion. I'll accept your talk radio argument that you can turn it off for a second. So let's leave that out.

    Similarly, you said:
    Secondly, such boycotts inherently hit innocent people and cause THEM grief and pain and suffering.

    While I find your concern for innocent people heartening, you don't seem to share this concern when it comes to war. For example, some estimates put the number of innocent people killed in Iraq at 100,000.

    So your criteria for being against something are:

    1) It imposes a belief
    2) It harms innocent people

    It follows then that you should be against war. (Which is, btw, a much more extreme example because let's be honest, boycotts don't "harm" people like wars do)

    Using your criteria, why aren't you against war?

    Or, conversely, your argument against boycotts has some flaws and you need to redefine your criteria.

    I calmly await your next change of subject or attempt to blame this on liberals.

    -David

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I used them as examples of persuasion. Examples which I believe are covered by free speech. I have nothing against talk radio.

    Other than that it is dominated by conservatives. :D We've had this conversation before... :D

    I never made any such claims. You did in your statement. I was simply trying to find out how consistently you applied your argument. Once again, let's return to the original argument instead of changing the subject.

    Which "original" argument are you referring to?? The subject of this commentary?? Or the side "original" argument that dealt with a part of the Oowzer movement called Move Your Money Day??

    While I find your concern for innocent people heartening, you don't seem to share this concern when it comes to war. For example, some estimates put the number of innocent people killed in Iraq at 100,000.

    You know as well as I do that, when it comes to war, there are so many other factors at play..

    It's a non-argument argument that has little or nothing to do with the actions we are discussing in this thread.

    So your criteria for being against something are:

    1) It imposes a belief
    2) It harms innocent people

    Seriously???

    My "criteria" for being against something is a LOT longer of a list than just the two you mention..

    Using your criteria, why aren't you against war?

    Now look who is changing the subject.

    Which "war" are you talking about?? The Libya War?? The Iraq War?? The First Gulf War?? The Vietnam War?? World War II?? War in general??

    What does ANY of this have to do with whether or not it is accurate to label the actions of the Oowzers as terroristic??

    Or, conversely, your argument against boycotts has some flaws and you need to redefine your criteria.

    No.. You need to quit mis-characterizing my remarks and pulling things out of thin air..

    I calmly await your next change of subject or attempt to blame this on liberals.

    Seriously, David. It is you who is changing the subject constantly. We started out as talking about the Oowzers as the subject of this commentary. Then you branched out into the Move Your Money part of the Oowzers.. I followed you there for a bit, then moved back to the Oowzers, the subject of this commentary. Then you moved to boycotts in general and I followed you there. Then you wanted to discuss war and how you never blame conservatives for everything. And, I followed you there..

    And now you claim that it is *ME* who is always trying to change the subject..

    Seriously!???

    Tell you what, David... I'll answer ALL your questions if you would just answer ONE of mine..

    The one that I have been asking throughout this entire thread.. The one question that I have asked repeatedly and you have (rudely, I might ad) completely ignored.

    If you do not agree that the actions of the Oowzers are terroristic or extortionist in nature, how would YOU define their actions..

    Answer that one question and then we can move on.. Bonus points if you can provide substantiating facts for your opinion..

    If you can't do me the courtesy of answering that question, then don't bother asking me anything else..

    Michale....

  86. [86] 
    akadjian wrote:

    My "criteria" for being against something is a LOT longer of a list than just the two you mention.

    Yet the reasons you stated for being against something are:

    1) It imposes a belief
    2) It harms innocent people

    Why doesn't war fit into these criteria? Any war. They all impose a belief and harm innocent people.

    Yet you're fine with war and against boycotts.

    What does ANY of this have to do with whether or not it is accurate to label the actions of the Oowzers as terroristic?

    Changing the subject. We were talking about your stated belief about boycotts.

    And now you claim that it is *ME* who is always trying to change the subject.

    Changing the subject. We were talking about your stated belief about boycotts.

    Tell you what, David... I'll answer ALL your questions if you would just answer ONE of mine.

    Changing the subject. We were talking about your stated belief about boycotts.

    If you do not agree that the actions of the Oowzers are terroristic or extortionist in nature, how would YOU define their actions.

    Changing the subject. We were talking about your stated belief about boycotts.

    Let me repeat. Your stated criteria for being against something are:

    1) It imposes a belief
    2) It harms innocent people

    It follows then that you should be against war. (Which is, btw, a much more extreme example because let's be honest, boycotts don't "harm" people like wars do)

    Using your criteria, why aren't you against war?

    Or, conversely, your argument against boycotts has some flaws and you need to redefine your criteria.

    You're the one who brought this up. I'm just how you might want to strengthen your argument. You keep trying to change the subject to something else.

    This is especially odd after you seemed eager to have this argument:
    I am just following you where ever ya go, David! :D

    But now you're not? What happened?

    Now you seem angry and want to have a different argument.

    I'd be happy to talk about OWS in another thread. But we were talking about boycotts. Why don't you want to talk about your boycott claim anymore?

    -David

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll be happy to answer your questions.

    Once you do me the courtesy of answering my question.

    A question, I might add, that is the subject of this entire commentary...

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Once you do me the courtesy of answering my question.

    Changing the subject. We were talking about your stated belief about boycotts.

    Really, Michale. You engaged willingly and then suddenly changed your mind and started demanding a different conversation.

    What happened? Why can't we finish the discussion we were having?

    If you don't want to talk, I suggest in the future maybe not getting into the conversation from the outset.

    Or, if you don't want to continue, just say so and we'll move on.

    When you change the argument in the middle of a conversation, it can't help but raise questions.

    -David

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    I will, however, tell you that, if you look at post #1, the subject of this thread is clearly defined..

    Another reason why the Oowzers....

    Sadly the actions of the Oowzers in Oakland....

    That's the problem with the Oowzers..

    The majority of the Oowzers are not....

    It seems clear that the topic is well-defined..

    I will be happy, no... ECSTATIC to move on to other topics...

    Once you answer one simple relevant question..

    If you don't think that the actions of the Oowzers amount to terrorism or extortion, then how would YOU define the actions of the Oowzers?

    Dangerously irresponsible???

    "Dangerously irresponsible?? Com'on Arthur, that sounds almost pleasant. She's a fucking lunatic!!"
    -General Ira Potter, THE FINAL OPTION

    :D

    I've been waiting a while to use that one..

    Michale.....

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you change the argument in the middle of a conversation, it can't help but raise questions.

    Sorry, David.. It's clear that it was you who changed the subject..

    I have always wanted to talk about the Oowzers, as is clear from practically every post I made.

    I only went off on tangents to keep up with ya'all... :D

    Now, if you want to concede the point about the Oowzers, then we can talk about boycotts, war, my favorite color or the price of tea in China...

    But, let's close out the Oowzer discussion first... :D

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's clear that it was you who changed the subject.

    Changing the subject. We were talking about your stated belief about boycotts.

    I swear, Michale, you are near impossible to keep on track.

    Was this not you?

    Let me say, for the record, that I am against any kind of boycott... More accurately, I am against inducing, cajoling, persecuting, intimidating or otherwise pressuring others to adopt my boycotts??

    Why?? Couple reasons..

    One, because it is attempting to impose one person's belief on others that might not WANT to share those beliefs...

    Secondly, such boycotts inherently hit innocent people and cause THEM grief and pain and suffering..

    I guess you just regret saying this as there are clearly some holes in your argument.

    That's ok though. We can talk about something else.

    It seems clear that the topic is well-defined.

    A topic is a topic.

    A defined topic is not the same as a defined argument.

    To quote the Monty Python skit:

    "An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition".

    There are three stages to an argument: premises, inference, and conclusion.

    You actually stated some well-formed premises when you were making an argument against boycotts (though there were some holes in them, well-formed just means they meet the criteria of a premise without saying anything about the validity of the argument) so I'm sure you're well aware of what an argument consists of.

    So first off, do you want to spout random things about this topic or would you like to have an argument?

    I can do either, but I think we should be clear. Because much of your previous work has taken the form of the former rather than the latter.

    -David

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously David??

    Because "boycotts" was mentioned, you think that everything now revolves around "boycotts"??

    You brought up religion.. By your definition, the entire subject is now religion, regardless of the initial commentary...

    The subject of this commentary and thread is the Oowzer movement.. Yes it has tangentalized (like that?? :D) once or twice... But the topic of this commentary is the Oowzer.. ALways has been...

    Now, if you want to switch topics, I'll be HAPPY to talk about ANYTHING your heart desires..

    But let's get THIS topic out of the way first..

    Why are you so afraid of giving your opinion on the sad and pathetic actions of the Oowzers??

    Do you think that ANYONE would think less of you if you called someone who craps (literally) on a public building an asshole??? Are you afraid that, by saying that anyone who throws urine or feces on a vendor, simply because said vendor won't give out free stuff is an asshole, that you won't be a "good" Democrat???

    Frankly, I am amazed I have to even ASK your opinion on these actions?? Common sense dictates that ANY decent human being would be appalled at such actions..

    But, aside from CW generically condemning all the "violence", not ONE SINGLE PERSON here has said ANYTHING with regards to these disgusting and perverse actions..

    I tell ya, it's enough to shake my faith in humanity as it is represented here...

    Anyways, until we dispense with the subject at hand, and not all the tangents, we are at an impasse...

    Michale.....

  93. [93] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because "boycotts" was mentioned, you think that everything now revolves around "boycotts"?

    Non sequitur. Does not follow from anything that was said. Poor use of grammar. Correct conjugation: "were".

    It appears you'd like to use wild accusation and poor grammar as your choice of weapons.

    If so, I have to say I'm not impressed. I'd much rather have an argument.

    Why are you so afraid of giving your opinion on the sad and pathetic actions of the Oowzers?

    Leading question. It appears your mind is already made up before we've even decided to have an argument.

    I'm afraid there's not going to be much point in having an argument if you've already made up your mind.

    Do you think that ANYONE would think less of you if you called someone who craps (literally) on a public building an asshole??? Are you afraid that, by saying that anyone who throws urine or feces on a vendor, simply because said vendor won't give out free stuff is an asshole, that you won't be a "good" Democrat?

    Lots of random assertions and accusations.

    Michale, you're all over the place. This won't do at all for an argument.

    Here. I'll help you out.

    What's your proposition? What are you trying to say about OWS?

    We need to define that if we're ever going to have an argument. Otherwise, it's just gibberish.

    I'll take a stab:

    - The protesters involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement are a bunch of terrorists.

    Would that be accurate? Or did you want to go with extortionists? I know you've used both in this thread. Sloppy, sloppy.

    It's kind of general and we'll likely have to get more specific but did I get the gist? Please adjust as you see fit.

    -David

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh Jeezus H Christ, David..

    You are really pulling out every stop to avoid taking a position on the Oowzers..

    The fact that you go to such lengths to avoid it simply indicates to me that you KNOW that your support of the Oowzers is not in keeping with any rational and civilized person...

    Since you seem so afraid to stake a position, I won't torture you by continuing to ask for something that you are, obviously, ill-prepared to give.

    A logical and rational response...

    What are you trying to say about OWS?

    Now, you're just being childish...

    That isn't the question, nor has it ever been the question.. My feelings about the Oowzers has been clear and obvious from the start...

    The question has always been, what do YOU say about the Oowzers...

    The fact that you are afraid to say your position pretty much indicates that you, yourself, realize that your position is untenable and indefensible...

    That answers my question....

    Discussion ended...

    Michale.....

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just let me finish my participation in this thread by saying.....

    It's a sad sad commentary on people when they let political ideology determine for themselves what is decent and what is not....

    Ask people around here, "is it disgusting when a person throws urine and feces on a vendor, simply because the vendor wouldn't give the person any free services" people here would rail against such a person and an act and say how disgusting and perverse it was..

    But, let it be known that it was a Left Winger, pursuing a Left Wing agenda and.....

    ........ <<>>>...... <>...... <>>

    Cricket city......

    THAT is what is so sad and disappointing....

    Michale.....

  96. [96] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Come back Michale!

    Don't you want to have an argument?

    The question has always been, what do YOU say about the Oowzers.

    Well then why didn't you say so. Why do you keep making all the wild claims:

    - "That's economic terrorism."
    - "How about let's go with Economic Extortion."
    - "Why are you so afraid of giving your opinion on the sad and pathetic actions of the Oowzers?"
    - "it was a Left Winger, pursuing a Left Wing agenda"

    For a proper argument, you need to focus your proposition.

    Case in point: Are OWS members terrorists, extortionists, Left Wingers, sad and pathetic, or all of the above?

    It's really not clear. It's sloppy.

    You say I know what your argument is, but actually, no I don't. Because you won't state it.

    Without clear definition, you're really just throwing around names.

    So I'd like to help you up your game.

    Let's see. Where to start. Well, you wanted me to say what I thought about OWS.

    Alright, I'll give it a go.

    Here's my premise:

    "Characterizing the entire Tea Party movement as stupid is very similar to characterizing the entire OWS movement as violent. They are both broad generalizations based on a small sample base."

    There it is. This is my stated proposition.

    It may need some tightening up but I think it's a good first draft.

    If you don't like it, we can argue about your proposition, but you'll have to state one first.

    -David

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    FINALLY!!! Some headway...

    OK, now we have a firm and concrete answer from you..

    Hallelujah!!! :D

    Now, let's look at your response..

    "Characterizing the entire Tea Party movement as stupid is very similar to characterizing the entire OWS movement as violent. They are both broad generalizations based on a small sample base."

    Your position pre-supposes that there is as much factual evidence to characterize the "entire Tea Party movement" as "stupid" as there is evidence to characterize the Oowzer movement in the same manner..

    I would ask you to support such a claim with factual evidence...

    I have provided enough factual evidence to show the objective person would consider the Oowezers to be A>violent B>law breaking and C>totally inconsiderate of other people's rights...

    Do you have as much factual evidence to show that the personnel involved in the Tea Party events meet that criteria..

    Do you have ANY evidence to show that the Tea Party events have met that criteria..

    I would suspect you don't because, if such evidence existed, it would have been aired and vetted long ago...

    So, your comparison of the two groups is completely without foundation and is based more on your political ideology than it is on facts...

    As far as stating my position, are you serious???

    Does ANYONE here have ANY doubt as to what my position is vis a vis the Oowsers....

    ....... {{{chiiiirrrrppppppp}}}

    Apparently not...

    However.... Because I like you (I really do... You ever get to St Augustine, FL and I guarantee you that you will NEVER have to buy a beer... :D That goes for anyone here... :D) I'll be more than happy to state my position...

    Overall, the Oowsers are animals... They are inconsiderate of ANYONE's rights and freedoms except their own.. They are immature and spoiled little brats who like to talk the talk, but are simply incapable of walking the walk... I would spit on them, if they were on fire, ONLY to prove that I am better than them...

    I am ashamed that they are fellow Americans...

    I will concede that there may be those amongst the group who DON'T fit that bill.. THOSE people simply exhibit bad judgement for being involved with such an animalistic group...

    Now, if that's not clear, feel free to inquire further... I am ALWAYS amiable to answer ANY questions from the peanut gallery around here... :D

    Provided certain courtesies are observed.... :D

    "Did you want to talk about the weather?? Or were you just making chit chat???"
    -Bill Murray, GROUND HOG DAY

    :D

    Michale.....

  98. [98] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Which would you like to have an argument about, your position or mine?

    Let's first try to put some precision around this. Your choice. But pick one. Once again, it's not clear.

    -David

  99. [99] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I like you too, Michale. That's why I try not to take some of your comments too seriously even though the ones about "terrorists" are highly insulting considering I've been a part of the Occupy movement.

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's first try to put some precision around this. Your choice. But pick one. Once again, it's not clear.

    Your position has already been refuted as lacking in factual basis...

    But, my position is not clear???

    SERIOUSLY???

    Now I KNOW yer just teasing me... :D

    Tell ya what.. Let's take it here.....

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/11/09/guest-column-occupy-wall-street-is-not-the-tea-party-of-the-left/#comment-17028

    .... where a similar discussion is going on....

    Michale.....

  101. [101] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But, my position is not clear?

    Your position is clear, but you still don't seem to be clear about what you want to argue about.

    Your position or mine.

    A) Your position
    B) Mine

    A or B? (pick one)

    Can you keep it to a single argument or are you going to rant and keep changing the subject?

    I thought you were actually serious about wanting to have an argument.

    -David

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why I try not to take some of your comments too seriously even though the ones about "terrorists" are highly insulting considering I've been a part of the Occupy movement.

    If you haven't pooped on a bank, or thrown urine at a vendor who wouldn't give you free food, or tried to deal in heroin or crack meth or been part of assaulting cops or destroying private or public property.....

    Then you are definitely NOT part of the Occupy movement... :D

    I thought you were actually serious about wanting to have an argument.

    Naaawww... Yer a bud... I don't like arguing with buds...

    Now, Matt?? I would love to have an argument with him!! :D

    But you and I?? We can have a debate...

    Tell ya what... You provide all the evidence you can that the Oowzers are all goodness and light.... I've already acknowledged the BOA win, so that doesn't count..

    And I will provide all the evidence that the Oowzers are scum of the earth terrorists who would just as soon throw poop on an issue.....

    We both do that and we'll see who amasses the most evidence to support their respective position... :D

    Michale....

  103. [103] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You provide all the evidence you can that the Oowzers are all goodness and light.... I've already acknowledged the BOA win, so that doesn't count.

    I'm really not interested in that. I said my argument would be more like this:

    Characterizing the entire Tea Party movement as stupid is very similar to characterizing the entire OWS movement as violent. They are both broad generalizations based on a small sample base.

    If you look at it mathematically, the argument is very similar to this:

    1. Say you have a category X
    2. You take a subcategory of this, let's call it x, or little x
    3. And what you're trying to say is that if you can say something about x, then it applies to the entire category X

    To prove this logically incorrect, all you have to do is find some situations where what you say about subcategory x doesn't apply to the larger category X.

    Here's an example:
    X=Penn State students
    x=Penn State students who rioted after Joe Paterno was fired
    Are all Penn State students violent scumbags because a few idiots rioted? Obviously not. (Ok. I live in Ohio so many here might think they're scumbags anyways. :) )

    A Tea Party example:
    X=Tea Party
    x=Tea Party members who say stupid things
    Does this mean all members of the Tea Party are stupid? I know some pretty smart ones so obviously not.

    Other examples:
    X=A barrel of apples, x=several bad apples in the barrel; Do you throw them all out?
    X=Police officers, x=crooked police officers; Does this mean you get rid of all police?
    X=Americans, x=Americans who commit crimes; Does this mean all Americans are criminals because some commit crimes?

    Therefore, in any situation where you can find members of X who are not members of x, you have a situation where you can't generalize about the entire category.

    In terms of OWS, Michale, you've already stated that people here are not violent and seem to be ok in your book.

    So apparently x does not equal X. Therefore, the most you can say, even if all of your stories are true (I'm assuming the best possible scenario for you), the most you can say is that some people within OWS are acting like criminals.

    To be very precise, keep in mind this in not my premise, but it would be the most you could say about OWS logically.

    In this manner, saying that the Tea Party is stupid is very similar to saying that OWS is violent. Both are broad generalizations.

    QED

    This is what a mathematical proof would look like for all situations in which you have a subcategory x of a larger category X.

    Does this mean that everyone is all "goodness and light" within OWS as you put it?

    Not at all. According to the proof, if you can find some people within the movement who aren't, you can't make this broad generalization. I believe that this is possible as well. So the most you could say is some people within the movement are all "goodness and light" :)

    This would hold up quite well to scrutiny from folks who are better mathematicians than me.

    Now I'm showing you this not to be an ass (though it may come off that way). But as an example of the type of rigor I believe should go into formal "arguments".

    Even without the math.

    I know this likely won't change your mind as you feel very strongly about the movement. But maybe, just maybe someday, I'll be able to encourage you to go and meet some of the people involved to see and judge for yourself.

    I marched with a group of 200 last weekend and I can tell you there was no violence, no incidents, and everyone was very friendly.

    Similarly, I found that once I met people in the Tea Party, I started defending them when people called them stupid. I still don't agree with what they believe. But to call them stupid is ... well, stupid.

    -David

  104. [104] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Now if you want stupid ... :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    In terms of OWS, Michale, you've already stated that people here are not violent and seem to be ok in your book.

    Now now now... Don't be misquoting me..

    What I said was is that the majority of Oowzers are not violent at that time..

    But it is an undeniable fact that the majority is shrinking as more and more Oowzers turn to violence and illegal activities such as has been described in detail.

    In essence, what you seem to be saying is that the violence and drugs and assaults and rapes and drugs (oops mentioned that one :D) are not indicative of the Oowzer group as a whole...

    Now I can understand why you would say that, but you must concede to some facts:

    1. There is sufficient evidence that there is a LARGE portion of the Oowzers committed to violence.

    2. Those not committed to violence do not appear to be making any effort to curb the violence of the group as a whole.

    3. The percentage of Oowzers committing violent acts is growing.

    These conclusions are based on the facts and have to be acknowledged. Sweeping them under the rug serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the myth that the Oowzers are non-violent.

    Put another way..

    Maximum Security prisons are violent places, even though the majority of prisoners do not perpetuate violence.

    It's the same with the Oowzers. They are, by all accounts, a violent group. Even though the majority of them do not commit violent acts. By failing to reign in their violent members, by failing to even give an APPEARANCE of attempting to reign in their violent members, the Oowzers deserve the label of a violent group.

    In that, I haven't said anything that CW himself hasn't said...

    Hell, until right here with you, I couldn't get anyone here to even ACKNOWLEDGE that there was violence by Oowzers at all..

    Note Paula's subsequent Guest Commentary. All sunshine and light and not ONE SINGLE mention of the violence that is ongoing and growing.. That's simply being intellectually dishonest...

    And ya'all lapped it up... :D

    There is violence within the Oowzer movement. People are dying.

    That violence is growing.

    The Oowzer "leaders" and members are not lifting a finger to stop the violence.

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale.....

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Note Paula's subsequent Guest Commentary. All sunshine and light and not ONE SINGLE mention of the violence that is ongoing and growing.. That's simply being intellectually dishonest...

    I stand corrected...

    Paula DID mention violence in her Guest Commentary..

    Simultaneously, violent reactions by some police have also been enlightening -- they have exposed the militarization of our police forces; the criminalization of poverty in America, and the lie that is "freedom".

    Get that??

    The ONLY violence she mentions were the lawful self-defense actions of the LEOs in response to the violence of the Oowzers..

    SERIOUSLY??

    You always give me a virtual Gibbs-Slap upside the head because you claim I only give a one-sided view...

    But THAT is what a true "one-sided" view looks like. Completely myopic and totally devoid of ANY reality.. It's a surreal world where the Oowzers are all that is good and light and wonderful in the world and the LEOs (who are more of the 99% than the Oowzers) are evil jack-booted thugs who only live to bash the heads of the people of goodness and light.

    And YOU complimented her!!????

    Again.... SERIOUSLY???

    I'm gabberflasted...

    This is a REALITY based place...

    In pursuit of the "Utopian Fantasy" that ya'all think the Oowzers are, it appears ya'all have forgotten that...

    Michale.....

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Now if you want stupid ... :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg

    Ouch.... And the ref takes a point away! :D

    Yet, I can't argue with the label..

    Be interesting to get a neurological report at the time to see what was going on in Perry's head... :D

    Michale.....

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Now if you want stupid ... :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg

    On the other hand, Perry is handling the followup (and the fallout) quite well...

    Even with his flaws, the facts show that he is a better leader than Obama ever was or likely will ever be...

    If being President is about debates, then obviously Perry is not the man we want...

    But, as we have seen with Obama, being articulate and intelligent doesn't a good President make either...

    Michale.....

  109. [109] 
    akadjian wrote:

    They are, by all accounts, a violent group. Even though the majority of them do not commit violent acts.

    I knew I wouldn't be able to convince you. But I at least give you credit for saying the majority don't commit violent acts.

    Someday ... maybe someday ... I hope you'll go down and see for yourself.

    Because the media wants entertainment. And just like with the Tea Party, when they find one thing to pick on, they're going to exaggerate it.

    There is violence within the Oowzer movement. People are dying.

    Now you're just being melodramatic ... Kittens and puppies are getting killed too :)

    In that, I haven't said anything that CW himself hasn't said.

    I believe you're misstating CW's position. If I recall, he argued for a media spokesperson.

    In his words:
    This is a weakness in the movement. In fact, it is a critical weak point. Not the lack of denunciation per se (I did actually see people interviewed at the Occupy sites who strongly disavowed the violent jerks), but the fact that there is no media contact for the movement.

    You always give me a virtual Gibbs-Slap upside the head because you claim I only give a one-sided view.

    I don't believe that's true. I've been trying to encourage people (not just you) to not get into the Left/Right back and forth because it just doesn't seem to be productive.

    It's one side yelling "Lazy" and the other yelling "Racist".
    It's one side yelling "Communist" and the other yelling "Change"
    It's one side yelling "Stupid" and the other yelling "Liberal"

    I'm sorry if you took it this way. I've been working to try to do my part not to be one of these sides.

    Does this mean I won't take strong positions? Not at all. Two of my biggest are:

    1) Getting the money out of politics
    2) Working towards a better economic system, one that isn't just "trickle down"

    But I've decided that I'm going to do this by arguing for these positions. If I don't talk about violent incidents related to the OWS protests, it's because I'd rather focus on other things. Criminal incidents are a matter for the police.

    I believe that if we're ever going to recover from the economic crisis, we're going to have to get beyond left vs. right. Because right now, both parties are largely serving the same interest- those who pay for them.

    -David

    p.s. About Rick Perry. Yeah, I made a joke about a conservative. And it was funny. I apologize. I'm not saying anything though that conservatives didn't already realize in the early primaries. So it's not a "conservatives are stupid" joke, it's an OMG, did that really happen joke?

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I knew I wouldn't be able to convince you. But I at least give you credit for saying the majority don't commit violent acts.

    That would be stupid to deny the facts..

    BUT....

    Are you willing to concede that that particular majority is shrinking?? That the violence is getting worse and more often.. Hell, there have been two shooting deaths at Oowzer events just yesterday...

    People are DYING!! And no one lifts a finger, let alone a voice, to condemn it..

    Someday ... maybe someday ... I hope you'll go down and see for yourself.

    I actually have intended to check out the St Augustine Occupy movement as a cub reporter for CW.COM :D Unfortunately, they only have them on Saturdays and I have to work on Sat and Sun...

    But even if I did, I am sure I would have the same experience with St Augustine Oowzerss that you have with your small town Oowzers..

    But neither would be indicative of the national trend.

    And, like it or not, that national trend is trending towards violence..

    I believe you're misstating CW's position. If I recall, he argued for a media spokesperson.

    I was speaking overall. If I recall correctly several times CW has mentioned the need for the Oowzers to distance themselves from the violent fringes. Nationally, the Oowzers have failed to do this. Here at CW.COM, I can't get anyone (sans you) to even acknowledge the violence exists, let alone condemn it..

    But I've decided that I'm going to do this by arguing for these positions. If I don't talk about violent incidents related to the OWS protests, it's because I'd rather focus on other things. Criminal incidents are a matter for the police.

    Unless, of course, it's a Right Wing group committing the violence and criminal incidents...

    Don't make me good back amongst the archives and post all the comments condemning the violent actions of Right Wing groups..

    You KNOW there would be a ton of them.. :D

    But, I agree completely with you. Violence and criminal matters are NOT a Right vs Left thing. It's a Decency vs Un-American thing..

    All I am asking for is a little bi-partisan consistency.

    If you condemn violent criminal acts committed by Right Wing groups then, if you truly don't believe in the Right vs Left meme, you MUST condemn the violent and criminal acts committed by Left Wing groups..

    Don't you think so??

    p.s. About Rick Perry. Yeah, I made a joke about a conservative. And it was funny. I apologize. I'm not saying anything though that conservatives didn't already realize in the early primaries. So it's not a "conservatives are stupid" joke, it's an OMG, did that really happen joke?

    I am not worried about it. :D I bet if Rick Perry actually read CW.COM he would likely agree with your characterization, as I did..

    But you also must acknowledge that bonehead moves are not the sole purview of the Right.. :D

    Michale.....

  111. [111] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Don't make me good back amongst the archives and post all the comments condemning the violent actions of Right Wing groups.

    You're gonna have to work real hard to find any from me.

    My position: I'm against violence and criminal acts. I'm also against these being used for political purposes. When it comes to politics, I'd rather focus on the issues than on trying to say which party is more "evil" or "stupid" or the branding of the day.

    All I am asking for is a little bi-partisan consistency.

    I believe my position is completely consistent. I'm against criminal acts. And I'm against them being used for political purposes.

    Question for you, Michale: why are you so interested in branding the OWS movement as violent?

    -David

    But you also must acknowledge that bonehead moves are not the sole purview of the Right.. :D

    I never said they were.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're gonna have to work real hard to find any from me.

    Unlike the Oowzers, I am not afraid of hard work.. :D I am not afraid of 30, 40 or even 60 Hour work weeks.. :D

    I believe my position is completely consistent. I'm against criminal acts. And I'm against them being used for political purposes.

    Yet you have never condemned the violence and criminal acts from the Oowzers..

    It was like pulling teeth just to get you to acknowledge them...

    Question for you, Michale: why are you so interested in branding the OWS movement as violent?

    I am ALWAYS interested in calling a spade a spade, free from partisan rhetoric...

    If ya'all let the Oowzers get away with THIS level of violence and simply try to paint it with the brush of indifference, what's to stop violent RIGHT Wing groups from following suit??

    The law of unintended consequences...

    By letting the Oowzers get away with violence, without actively opposing said violence, a very VERY dangerous precedent is being set...

    Michale.....

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Question for you, Michale: why are you so interested in branding the OWS movement as violent?

    Why are you so adamant about not condemning the violence by the various Oowzer groups??

    Michale....

  114. [114] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I am ALWAYS interested in calling a spade a spade, free from partisan rhetoric.

    Then why not call the criminals criminals?

    Why are you so interested in linking the majority of OWS (who you said were non-violent), with the criminals?

    Why not call a spade a spade as you said?

    -David

  115. [115] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why are you so adamant about not condemning the violence by the various Oowzer groups?

    This is a leading question. The violence was not committed by OWS groups. It was not committed to achieve a purpose. It was committed by individuals.

    Violence doesn't help our cause.

    I'd much rather focus on the issues.

    -David

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the same reason that I would call the KKK or Al Qaeda a terrorist group...

    Based on the actions committed by the members of the same group..

    Do you think that we shouldn't label HAMAS a terrorist group just because not each and every member of HAMAS has committed a terrorist act??

    Of course not. Hamas is defined by the actions of it's members, even if it's only a small percentage of the members that commit terrorist acts..

    It's the same with the Oowzers.. There is enough violence by it's members and done IN THE NAME of the group to justify labeling the group as a violent group..

    Would you be so kind as to answer my question now??

    Why are you so adamant about NOT condemning the violent acts of the Oowzers??

    Michale....

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is a leading question. The violence was not committed by OWS groups. It was not committed to achieve a purpose. It was committed by individuals.

    Oh, com'on David!! I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night...

    The violence WAS committed by members of the Oowzer group at Oowzer sanctioned protests. It was committed to serve a purpose.. To further the agenda of the Oowzer thru violent means...

    I know for a FACT that you would be condemning the Tea Party AS A GROUP if their members had generated a TENTH of the headlines that the Oowzers have had...

    I'd much rather focus on the issues.

    Apparently, the Oowzers who commit violence don't agree with you...

    But in this particular thread, the violence *IS* the issue..

    So, let's focus on the issues....

    Why won't the Oowzers police their ranks better???

    Simple..

    They approve of the violence..

    No other explanation is supported by the facts...

    Michale.....

  118. [118] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why are you so adamant about not condemning the violence by the various Oowzer groups?

    I believe I did.

    For the same reason that I would call the KKK or Al Qaeda a terrorist group.

    Michale, if OWS members were shooting bank VPs and sending letters claiming responsibility for these acts, then I'd have to admit you have a point.

    But they're not. You're comparing apples and self-propelled lawn mowers.

    OWS is protesting non-violently and criminal acts are occurring around them.

    The best example of this are the shootings you mentioned earlier:
    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/111111/ows-2-deaths-at-occupy-protests-california-vermont

    One was a suicide. So it's impossible that that was being used to politically coerce anyone. The second, occurred "near the Occupy Oakland protest in California".

    There's no evidence that it even had anything to do with OWS. But even if somehow an OWS member was involved, the OWS group is not trying to say "do what we say or we'll kill you".

    It's a criminal act. Committed by a criminal who may or may not have anything to do with OWS. It is not a political act committed by OWS to coerce anyone into anything.

    What's happening is very similar to the anti-Muslim hysteria we saw so recently. That is, saying that all Muslims are terrorists because some are terrorists. (NOTE: I'm not saying you said this as I know better. I'm using merely to show how the arguments are similar.)

    A better example. All Penn State students are not criminals because a few rioted.

    I'm curious though ... how do you feel about the issues I mentioned previously:

    1) Getting the money out of politics
    2) Working towards a better economic system, one that isn't just "trickle down"

    I know you feel number one is important. What about number 2 (heh heheh heheheheheh, I said #2)?

    -David

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe I did.

    Nope.. You claimed that the violence was NOT caused by Oowzers... That's not condemning the violence. That's making excuses. Excuses, I might add, not supported by ANY facts whatsoever..

    Michale, if OWS members were shooting bank VPs and sending letters claiming responsibility for these acts, then I'd have to admit you have a point.

    So, what you are saying is that, even though their are Oowzers who have been confronted by reporters in the commission of violent acts, just because another Oowzer says they don't support the violence, YOU are going to go with that one statement..

    Even though I posted over 30 links of documented evidence of violent acts.. Even though the FACT is that there have been several deaths... Even though there is an overwhelming evidence that supports the fact that Oowzers are committing acts of violence..

    YOU are going to believe it's not true, just because a few other Oozers say it isn't true..

    Does that about sum things up??

    OWS is protesting non-violently and criminal acts are occurring around them.

    Seriously???

    So, what you are saying is that, if the Oowzers hadn't been there, there would still be those same acts of violence..

    All the pimping, the sexual assaults, the drug dealings, the murders and the deaths and the assaults on LEOs, the massive increase in area shootings etc etc..

    ALL of that would have happened, even if the Oowzers hadn't been there...

    That, in your opinion, the Oowzers are completely blameless in all the criminal acts and the acts of violence...

    THAT is your claim???

    I honestly don't believe even YOU believe that... :D

    A better example. All Penn State students are not criminals because a few rioted.

    True. But that was an spontaneous event..

    To make it more analogous, let's postulate that a group calling itself PATERNO's PROTECTORS set up camp in a local park and demonstrated day after day, week after week. And during the course of those protests day after day and week after week, larger and larger numbers of members of PATERNO's PROTECTORS committed crimes and acts of vandalism with one or two of the group saying, "we don't condone violence"...

    Now, would a unbiased objective person logically conclude that PATERNO's PROTECTORS is a violent group.

    Of course they would..

    Now if one was sympathetic to the groups goals, then that person would likely claim that PATERNO's PROTECTORS is NOT a violent group, despite all the claim to the contrary...

    You are sympathetic to the goals of the Oowzers. Because of that, you turn a blind eye to the criminality and the violence.

    If a group did the exact same thing that the Oowzers have done, generated all the crime and assaults and deaths that the Oowzers have done, but who's stated goal was to support Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, EVERYONE here would be condemning that group til the cows came home...

    The only difference is, I would be alongside ya'all condemning them louder and longer than ya'all..

    The ONLY reason you give excuses for the Oowzers is that you are sympathetic to their goals..

    1) Getting the money out of politics
    2) Working towards a better economic system, one that isn't just "trickle down"

    You know I am with you on those.. And when there is a commentary regarding those issues, we can hug and hold hands and sing koom-bye-yaaa while dancing around a bonfire with our bodi..... I'll just stop right there.. :D

    But this Oowzer discussion is what's in the here and now...

    Michale.....

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    You gotta ask yourself one question David..

    If the number of those committing violence within the Oowzer group is so small, why can't they be stopped??

    Say you have 20 agitators committing violence and you have 5,000 who (as YOU claim) do not condone nor support the violence..

    How could 20 people get away with violence that 5,000 people don't support??

    The answer is simple.. The 5,000 will pay lip service to being against violence because they know that's what people want to hear.. But it's only lip service...

    If the Oowzers truly were against violence as they claim to be, they would either A> Stop the violence before it starts or B> Close up shop until such time as they can police their ranks better..

    The ONLY logical conclusion to the events we have since is that the majority of the Oowzers support the violence, either by commission or by omission..

    NOTHING else fits the facts..

    Now, if you have another possible explanation that fits the facts better, bring it on.. I would LOVE to hear it...

    Michale.....

  121. [121] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You claimed that the violence was NOT caused by Oowzers.

    No, I didn't. I never said anything of the sort.

    So, what you are saying is that, even though their are Oowzers who have been confronted by reporters in the commission of violent acts, just because another Oowzer says they don't support the violence, YOU are going to go with that one statement.

    I don't even know what you're trying to say here. So I have no idea what statement you're trying to link me to.

    Let me be very clear here. These are criminal acts that may or may not have been committed by OWS members. However, irregardless, in no way are they being used to advance an OWS agenda.

    CW had a good example earlier which I'm going to borrow.

    Why won't the Oowzers police their ranks better?

    Let's consider the people who killed abortion doctors.

    For a second, I'm going to take the following position:
    Since the abortion doctor killers were conservatives, all conservatives are terrorists.

    All conservatives are animals and scum who can't police their own.

    Now there is one critical difference between the situation of abortion doctors and the recent acts you mention. Those going after abortion doctors are politically motivated.

    They are trying to stop all doctors from performing abortions.

    So if anything, the argument against ALL conservatives being terrorists is even stronger.

    But I'm not making this argument. Why?

    Well, it's obvious. You might even say it's ridiculous.

    Because the majority of conservatives aren't terrorists and think this type of action is deplorable.

    Well, then why don't conservatives police their own (as you've said)?

    It's also ridiculous. Why should conservatives have to somehow know about in advance and then stop the actions of an insane few?

    Now I don't believe any of this. But it's the same argument (w/ the one exception I mentioned).

    Yet I'm not calling conservatives terrorists. Using your reasoning, however, it would fit.

    Are conservatives terrorists too, Michale?

    -David

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I didn't. I never said anything of the sort.

    OK.. So we are agreed that the assaults and the violence and the crimes are being committed by Oowzers..

    Good so far??

    Let me be very clear here. These are criminal acts that may or may not have been committed by OWS members.

    May or may not??? Really???

    http://kiem-tv.com/node/2491

    :D

    Well, then why don't conservatives police their own (as you've said)?

    You are comparing an entire country, even an entire WORLD to a city block???

    I think you can see the fallacy of your argument. :D

    Are you trying to say that the Oowzers have NO control over the violence?? That they can't stop it??

    Are conservatives terrorists too, Michale?

    If they are crapping on buildings, throwing bodily fluids, etc etc in pursuit of their agenda to force corporations to change their ways, then yes...

    They are terrorists...

    Michale.....

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    The solution is really simple..

    What are the Oowzers trying to accomplish??

    They don't even know themselves. Ask 20 different Oowzers what they want and you'll get 40 different answers...

    So, right off the bat, the Oowzers appear to have 2 major problems.

    1> They have a violence problem insofar as they seem incapable of policing their own ranks...

    B> They have an agenda problem insofar as no one, INCLUDING the Oowzers, know what they really want..

    As I said, the solution is simple..

    Disband, go home and plan better...

    Apparently, their agenda, WHATEVER it is, is more important then anything else, up to AND INCLUDING the safety and security of the REAL 99%'ers...

    Michale.....

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, we probably have run THIS subject into the ground, eh? :D

    Wanna talk about boycotts in general now?? :D

    Michale.....

  125. [125] 
    akadjian wrote:

    OK.. So we are agreed that the assaults and the violence and the crimes are being committed by Oowzers.

    No. Once again. I never said anything of the sort.

    I think you can see the fallacy of your argument. :D

    Yes. I do see the fallacy of the argument. But it's not mine :)

    You are comparing an entire country, even an entire WORLD to a city block?

    They've got more people to police with. And they still can't do it?

    They must be really bad at policing. :)

    In your words, I guess they must have an even worse violence problem insofar as there's so many and they still seem incapable of policing their own ranks.

    What are the Oowzers trying to accomplish?

    Changing the subject. Deduct one point.

    -David

  126. [126] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wanna talk about boycotts in general now?? :D

    Heheheheh. Now this made me laugh :)

  127. [127] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale, someday I really do hope we get to have that beer. Where's St. Augustine? I think we'd have a good time.

  128. [128] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Perhaps the more important question is, are there any strip clubs in St. Augustine?

    :)

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    :D heheheheheheheheh

    St Augustine is on the "First Coast" of Florida, equi-distance between Jacksonville and Daytona Beach..

    It's claim to fame is America's Oldest City, established 1565.. :D It's got a rich and colorful history that began more than 200 years before this country WAS a country..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Augustine,_Florida

    No strip clubs around. There used to be one that the wife and I frequented a lot that was ...er... couple friendly, if you know what I mean. :D But that shut down a while ago...

    But the beer here is good... That alone makes it worth the trip.. :D

    Michale.....

  130. [130] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Nice. I don't know too much about Florida. Except Orlando is a swamp (except for Disney World) and Sanibel on the gulf coast is wonderful. If you have the right protection against the "no see ems".

    Would you shoot me your e-mail at akadjian@yahoo.com?

    I have a question for you offline (I promise it has nothing to do with arguing). It's just hard to explain here.

    Happy 11/11/11 or binary day!
    -David

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you have the right protection against the "no see ems"

    The wife and I love to vacation in Ozello Keys on the gulf coast with some friends.. Kinda a Jimmy Buffett weekends.. :D

    We were there one weekend and our friend, Lynn said, "Look!! On my arm!! There's a bunch of NoSeeEms..."

    Her husband asked, "Can you see them??"

    Lynn said, "Yes, right there!!"..

    Her husband replied, "Think about that."

    Must have laughed for an hour... :D

    Michale....

Comments for this article are closed.