Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/23/11 02:56 PM, akmeteor wrote:

At 11/23/11 03:21 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 11/20/11 11:56 PM, akmeteor wrote:
WE HAVE THESE RULES TO KEEP THINGS RUNNING SMOOTHLY AND FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION DAMMIT!

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

You aren't losing any freedoms. These standards are set so they can keep things running efficiently. I never said anything about denying the use of the land, just that you need to APPLY for it.

Having to petition in order to petition the government is stupid. And you know it.

That's it. I'm going down to Appleton where they have an occupy protest, fill everything out, get the slip, and stand there with a sign saying Occupy is false. If anyone so much as touches me I'll have them arrested.

Yeah, good luck with that narrow minded and incredibly silly plan.

At 11/23/11 07:47 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

That's it. I'm going down to Appleton where they have an occupy protest, fill everything out, get the slip, and stand there with a sign saying Occupy is false. If anyone so much as touches me I'll have them arrested.

Yeah, good luck with that narrow minded and incredibly silly plan.

not a bad idea, except you could probably do more, like have a sign that has "paid for by NYCC" on the bottom right of it. that and make verbal claims that "so and so organization is paying for me to be down here protesting!" when you see a camera crew pull up

if you're gonna stir shit up, you might as well take it as far as you can.

there was another person I remember who introduced absolute freedom of speech to his country with the catch that you had to get approval from the government to use it first. His name was Joseph Stalin.

At 11/23/11 09:35 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: there was another person I remember who introduced absolute freedom of speech to his country with the catch that you had to get approval from the government to use it first. His name was Joseph Stalin.

I remember reading your statement and realizing how not like the current situation it was...

No freedom of speech is being removed here. The freedom to peacably assemble isn't being removed. The freedom to assemble only lasts as long as that freedom is both safe and does not infringe upon the freedoms of another. The Occupy portests actually began to fail both.

At 11/23/11 09:35 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: there was another person I remember who introduced absolute freedom of speech to his country with the catch that you had to get approval from the government to use it first. His name was Joseph Stalin.

Your point being? Last time I checked, it isn't against any law to speak your peace and have a peaceful protest for whatever you want to protest, no matter how misguided, stupid, or hypocritical it might be.

Now I have already mentioned the stupidity of the Occupy movement so many times, i'm not going to bother repeating it. But now, it seems like they are now infringing on certain people's freedoms, so to speak, and not leaving when they are supposed to by law. Whether it's a cold snap, or through some legal stuff, the occupy movement is losing a lot of steam, and will most likely fall apart soon enough.

At 11/23/11 07:47 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 11/23/11 02:56 PM, akmeteor wrote:

At 11/23/11 03:21 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 11/20/11 11:56 PM, akmeteor wrote:
WE HAVE THESE RULES TO KEEP THINGS RUNNING SMOOTHLY AND FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION DAMMIT!

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

You aren't losing any freedoms. These standards are set so they can keep things running efficiently. I never said anything about denying the use of the land, just that you need to APPLY for it.

Having to petition in order to petition the government is stupid. And you know it.

You aren't petitioning to petition the government. You're asking to use its land, much like asking someone if you can hunt on their land.

That's it. I'm going down to Appleton where they have an occupy protest, fill everything out, get the slip, and stand there with a sign saying Occupy is false. If anyone so much as touches me I'll have them arrested.

Yeah, good luck with that narrow minded and incredibly silly plan.

In case you didn't realize. That idea was a joke, and guess what, it's completely in legal bounds for me to do. They'd get arrested for disturbing a peaceful protest and they literally can't do a damn thing to stop me.

At 11/23/11 11:44 PM, akmeteor wrote:

At 11/23/11 07:47 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 11/23/11 02:56 PM, akmeteor wrote:

At 11/23/11 03:21 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 11/20/11 11:56 PM, akmeteor wrote:
WE HAVE THESE RULES TO KEEP THINGS RUNNING SMOOTHLY AND FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION DAMMIT!

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

You aren't losing any freedoms. These standards are set so they can keep things running efficiently. I never said anything about denying the use of the land, just that you need to APPLY for it.

Having to petition in order to petition the government is stupid. And you know it.

You aren't petitioning to petition the government. You're asking to use its land, much like asking someone if you can hunt on their land.

pe·ti·tion (p-tshn)
n.
1. A solemn supplication or request to a superior authority; an entreaty.

You are petitioning the government to use public property. As I said. Petitioning the government in order to petition the government. It's stupid. People shouldn't need to do that.

That's it. I'm going down to Appleton where they have an occupy protest, fill everything out, get the slip, and stand there with a sign saying Occupy is false. If anyone so much as touches me I'll have them arrested.

Yeah, good luck with that narrow minded and incredibly silly plan.

In case you didn't realize. That idea was a joke, and guess what, it's completely in legal bounds for me to do. They'd get arrested for disturbing a peaceful protest and they literally can't do a damn thing to stop me.

You seem to think that someone merely touching you is grounds for arrest. It's not. And guess what? If the protesters have have a permit to use the grounds, they have the right to tell you to piss off and have you escorted off the grounds by police officers if you refuse to comply. Why? Because if they have a permit to use the grounds for a private function, then they can choose who is allowed to attend and who is not.

Basically, this whole, OMG HE TOUCHED ME, ARREST THAT MAN childish bit is just that. Childish.

At 11/23/11 06:15 PM, Korriken wrote: this is relevant to taking over public property for your own use at the exclusion of others... how?

It's what they are protesting. The reason they are here.

They still have no solution. they are rebels without a clue. Anyone can stand around and cry foul, if you want to change the system, do something about it. camping in a park and crying like a bunch of spoiled children won't fix anything. If they want to help the poor they can start a charity, or better, get into politics and do something from the inside. But they won't. they want someone ELSE to fix the problem.

First of all they did accomplish ALOT, they made the whole country aware of the issue and they shifted the dialogue from left-right to 99 vs 1%. There are also PACs who got formed, like the Wolf-PAC for example. However at this point I agree they might want to go a step further, however saying they want someone else to fix the problem and that they are a lazy bunch is entirely innacurate, to stay in a park and sleep on the hard ground, and now it's getting cold, all to protest, it takes balls.

your point? Instead of buying laptops and iphones, they could have donated that money to a good charity.

And what the fuck would it have fixed? They are protesting the rich taking all the money from then therefore they should give their money to the poor instead of buying pieces of technology? Really?

Problem is, these people don't want to DO anything, they want someone else to do something. They want to shake down businesses for more and more money so their kings in washington can continue to waste money by throwing it at an out of control welfare system that isn't regulated nearly as much as it needs to be. Want to help more people? crack down on those abusing the system. force those ON welfare to get trained for a decent job so they can get off of welfare. paying someone to just exist isn't going to solve anything.

I already explained the first part of this and the second is irrelevant to the debate at hand.

true. some are studying philosophy. which would explain a lot as well.

No, there's all kind of people with all kind of degrees, most which can give jobs, however since the bush tax cuts and all those new tax breaks, theres less fucking jobs.

One of you give me ten good reasons why members of the occupy movement aren't just silly cunts who deserve a pepper spraying.

At 11/24/11 10:55 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

First of all they did accomplish ALOT, they made the whole country aware of the issue and they shifted the dialogue from left-right to 99 vs 1%.

isn't that what the left has been saying the entire time? that the top 10% paying 70% of the federal tax need to take up the other 30% as well and then some on top of that because we got people who need money who won't go work for it? because, you know, despite paying most of the federal tax, around 70% of it, are not paying THEIR fair share.

what about the 49% of people who pay no taxes or even get refunds that go beyond their entire tax refund? why arent they paying their fair share?

There are also PACs who got formed, like the Wolf-PAC for example. However at this point I agree they might want to go a step further,

which amounts to... nothing in the end.

however saying they want someone else to fix the problem and that they are a lazy bunch is entirely innacurate, to stay in a park and sleep on the hard ground, and now it's getting cold, all to protest, it takes balls.

I'd say its accurate and no it doesn't take balls to camp in a tent in city park. once it starts to get very cold the attendance will die out.

And what the fuck would it have fixed? They are protesting the rich taking all the money from then therefore they should give their money to the poor instead of buying pieces of technology? Really?

except the rich don't take the money from them, the rich pay more taxes than they do, by a huge margin. Wonder how many of these "occupy" protestors pay anything in taxes.

No, there's all kind of people with all kind of degrees, most which can give jobs, however since the bush tax cuts and all those new tax breaks, theres less fucking jobs.

so cutting taxes on the wealthy took away all the jobs. PLEASE elaborate. I definitely want to hear your theory on this one. Because most ppl who are not brain washed know that Bush did not wreck the economy. the mortgage giants (freddy and fannie, along with some banks taking very bad risks like dumbasses) did. But of course, freddy and fannie are run by the left so they are not to blame, right?

This whole OWS is ridiculous. Let me start off by saying that I am a liberal not as far left as some people but I can easily say I not a Conservative. However, I am against ALMOST all of OWS. I am in favor of the idea to cut government spending, regulation of bonuses in high profile insurance and loan companies (Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae et. al.) and the idea of putting limits on budgets in congress. What I am against is the execution of the protests. Yes, the protesters are mainly comprised of college students, but there are also the unemployed middle aged group, the working poor, elderly, and those people looking for a way to vent frustration in a place besides the Tea Party; however, sitting around and whining is getting these people no where. The lack of a clear focus, organization, and rationality is really hurting this group. Everything that OWS is lacking, the Tea Party has.

The Tea Party (while mostly comprised of ideas and people i do not like) has had a goal, a CLEAR list of demands, mostly proper etiquette of protesting in addition to thought out venues to protest at. OWS has none of that. While I cannot generalize everyone protest (I'm sure there are many smart, educated people protesting but their voices are being drowned out by the sheer amount of stupid and weed) I have to say that OWS needs someone to stand up and get things done.

OWS needs a person who knows exactly what is going on in the economy along with an idea of what's actually going on in wall street. Not someone who is just going to cry out " End corporate greed" or "fuck the economy" as way of bring a point across. Anyone can scream out shit, but it takes skill to lead a whole rally of people to follow you no matter what it is you're preaching (i.e. Hitler).

What OWS needs to do is stop for a second, make a list of demands, quit being hypocrites (people juggling a starbucks coffee in one hand and an apple product in the other), and move to D.C. to protest where the problems are actually starting from (the huge split between congress, obama, and the failure of the "super"committee). Please OWS, get your act together and go the one place people can actually make a difference.

At 11/24/11 01:17 PM, Dromedary wrote: One of you give me ten good reasons why members of the occupy movement aren't just silly cunts who deserve a pepper spraying.

1. They're nonviolent

2. They're nonviolent

3. They're nonviolent

4. They're nonviolent

5. They're nonviolent

6. They're nonviolent

7. They're nonviolent

8. They're nonviolent

9. They're nonviolent

10. They're nonviolent

At 11/25/11 10:24 AM, ZJ wrote: isn't that essentially attacking free speech?

but they aren't just speaking.

nor would an end to occupation end their message...
it may actually get productive as they start thinking of manners of change as opposed to demanding that everyone else change for them.

Our local OWS movement (here they occupied a park called Spirit Square) got thrown out, then city workers threw all their tents and stuff out. There was a big uproar about the way they were treated and I agree with them. They are on public property, which has no set time limit. The cops come in, kick them out immediately and anyone who didn't leave, was thrown in the can for the evening. Then everything that was left there (because nobody had time to remove it) was thrown into the city dump by city workers. The property doesn't belong to city council, it belongs to the people in the city, hence PUBLIC park. Nobody complained about the OWS in the park, except city officials.

Our local TV station showed clips of Occupy protests from around the continent being torn down and I have to say, a lot of them resemble Tahrir Square in the past days. Cops with clubs (riot police without the shield) shooting tear gas.

At 11/26/11 07:43 AM, bcdemon wrote: it belongs to the people in the city, hence PUBLIC park.

in these here parts you can't be in a park past 11 at night, even if you're just walking through.

fancy that BC wouldn't have such limitations for public parks.

At 11/25/11 02:45 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

1. They're nonviolent

2. They're nonviolent

3. They're nonviolent

4. They're nonviolent

5. They're nonviolent

6. They're nonviolent

7. They're nonviolent

8. They're nonviolent

9. They're nonviolent

10. They're nonviolent

Any group that has to have anti-rape tents is violent.

At 11/27/11 05:36 PM, akmeteor wrote:
Any group that has to have anti-rape tents is violent.

Anyone that seeks to defend themselves is violent.

That's pretty much what you just said.

Basically, your opinion is stupid.

At 11/27/11 05:36 PM, akmeteor wrote:

Any group that has to have anti-rape tents is violent.

Just like the students at UC Davis, they were so violent they really had it coming.

At 11/27/11 08:25 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Just like the students at UC Davis, they were so violent they really had it coming.

whats with all this infallibility of the non-violent?

At 11/27/11 07:38 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

Anyone that seeks to defend themselves is violent.

That's pretty much what you just said.

Basically, your opinion is stupid.

So your saying that a group that has anti-rape tents isn't violent and are just defending themselves?

That's like saying that America wasn't being an asshole with the internment camp thing in WWII.

At 11/27/11 08:25 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 11/27/11 05:36 PM, akmeteor wrote:

Any group that has to have anti-rape tents is violent.

Just like the students at UC Davis, they were so violent they really had it coming.

Asked to move, refused, and obstructed a walking path. Dumbasses who had it coming.

At 11/27/11 09:12 PM, akmeteor wrote: Asked to move, refused, and obstructed a walking path. Dumbasses who had it coming.

They had forceble dispersal coming, not pepper spray. Tear gas, arrests, or some other form of forceful corralling was what they had coming.

The use of pepper spray was way more force than necessary to solve the problem as it existed. That isn't to say that all uses of pepper spray in response to the Occupy camps has been too much.

At 11/27/11 11:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/27/11 09:12 PM, akmeteor wrote: Asked to move, refused, and obstructed a walking path. Dumbasses who had it coming.

They had forceble dispersal coming, not pepper spray. Tear gas, arrests, or some other form of forceful corralling was what they had coming.

The use of pepper spray was way more force than necessary to solve the problem as it existed. That isn't to say that all uses of pepper spray in response to the Occupy camps has been too much.

As someone who has had both pepper spray and tear gas used on them. (for reasons that didn't involve law) I have to say that Pepper spray is a HELL of a lot less painful than tear gas. Pepper spray makes your eyes hurt. Tear gas makes your whole body hurt.

At 11/27/11 11:37 PM, akmeteor wrote: As someone who has had both pepper spray and tear gas used on them. (for reasons that didn't involve law) I have to say that Pepper spray is a HELL of a lot less painful than tear gas. Pepper spray makes your eyes hurt. Tear gas makes your whole body hurt.

That may be true. The difference with tear gas and pepper spray is the delivery method.

Tear gas is meant for the sole purpose of breaking up crowds. Pepper spray is meant for close quarter defense.

At 11/27/11 11:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

That may be true. The difference with tear gas and pepper spray is the delivery method.

Tear gas is meant for the sole purpose of breaking up crowds. Pepper spray is meant for close quarter defense.

To be fair, isn't this the same group that refused to move from tear gas?

At 11/27/11 11:41 PM, akmeteor wrote: To be fair, isn't this the same group that refused to move from tear gas?

I dunno. Either way, there are numerous things that should have been tried before pepper spray was used.

At 11/27/11 11:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I dunno. Either way, there are numerous things that should have been tried before pepper spray was used.

Even if it were unfair, if there's a cop with pepper spray....fuck that.

At 11/27/11 09:12 PM, akmeteor wrote:

Asked to move, refused, and obstructed a walking path. Dumbasses who had it coming.

Wow... you will feel right at home in your cozy little police state.

And to all those other people saying they somehow deserved it.

It's a bunch of people peacefully protesting, they are using their first fucking ammendment WITHOUT BREAKING ANY LAWS! And you fucking dare say they had it coming.

I honestly ask you, what the fuck is wrong with you? I always try to analyze and comprehend the other person,s point of view, but here I admit I am beaten, I cannot even comprehend how you could side with the cops on that issue. Honestly this makes me sick.

More proof that occupy wallstreet protesters are brainless sacks of shit