Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/30/11 12:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/30/11 12:30 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

Also, guess what another good side effect of doing thingds RIGHT is?

NO PEPPER SPRAY!!!!!

I disagree, the absence of pepper spray and other tools used by the police does not necessarily mean you're doing something right or doing it the right way. Sometimes getting pepper sprayed(or being washed down with a fire hose) means you're doing something right.

At 11/30/11 12:53 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: I disagree, the absence of pepper spray and other tools used by the police does not necessarily mean you're doing something right or doing it the right way. Sometimes getting pepper sprayed(or being washed down with a fire hose) means you're doing something right.

That's very rarely the case. If you are fighting an unjust law or legal system (you're probably thinking of situations like the civil rights movement or famous protest photos on the internet where someone faced down the methods of an oppressive and abusive government like the man in Tiananman Square) then there's a good chance you'll have to face such methods but that isn't the case with OWS. Even with all the different agendas people bring to OWS none of them are about abusive government force or people being deprived of rights which means that there is probably (in this case definitely but that isn't always true) an easy and legal way to protest that doesn't require getting a face full of capsaicin.

At 11/30/11 02:54 AM, DickBuns wrote: Breaking the law? The law is not the end all be all god that you think it is bud.

Laws change.

See: Civil rights movement.

Ok, that's a bad analogy right there, because the OWS movement is radically different compared to the Civil Rights Movement far and away.

The Civil Rights Movement was a way to combat segregation in America, particularly in the South where they had the Jim Crow laws in effect. People actively protested by sitting in the front seats of buses, organized sit-ins in both white and colored restaurants, and took part in marches for equal housing and voting rights, among many other things. Being discriminated against due to color of your skin is a far worse crime and is a much more legitimate cause for them to protest than whining about how corporate greed is affecting politics, especially if they have no solutions to the situation at hand.

The key in all this is that they weren't sitting on their asses and whine about injustice, they did something about it, OWS on the other hand, is simply pitching up tents and gathering to whine and moan about something that they don't have a rational solution towards. What they're doing is simply rhetoric in hopes to appeal to the regular masses, and to most of us, it simply rings of white noise. In short, the CRM had an effective gameplan to deal with injustice, the occupy movement does not.

And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I do agree with their core premise that corporate big shots are overpaid and acting like they're above the law, but with that said, OWS is doing this all wrong and they're are just getting worse by the minute. Perhaps they should've learned some lessons from the Tea Party and the Wisconsin rallies eariler in the year on how to organize a movement and how to have a protest without breaking the law or blocking off public lands and streets.

At 11/30/11 09:23 AM, DickBuns wrote:

You have no right to sit at the front of the bus. Simply a right to not be discriminated against. Indeed.

Except at one point a black could be arrested in america for not giving up his/her seat to a white. this is an example of a law that could only be changed by breaking it, then challenging it in court and winning. However, nothing the OWS crowd does falls into this category.

It is different to pitch a tent in a park or by city hall and demand attention while having no solution to the problem that you want solved, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate. The civil rights movement was for the cause of equal rights, the dismissal of jim crow laws, and the equal treatment of minorities and whites.

The protesters did not write up exact legislation and bills for congress. They simply stamped their feet and rolled hard until they got what they wanted.

Except they knew what they wanted, equal rights. the OWS crowd doesn't have a clue on WHAT they want done.

Likewise, the protesters want to get rid of corporate personhood, and they want corporate money out of politics.

problem is, camping by city hall or in a park will not get this accomplished...ever.

Last I checked, you don't need a solution to a problem to protest against it and ask for change. That's why we have legislators and lawmakers. To legislate and make laws that reflect the will of the people.

saying "here is what we conceive to be a problem, and this is what we think would be a way to fix it!" is better than "fuck you corporate scum! we're going to camp out in town until someone gives us what we want!"

while the OWS movement isn't bad in and of itself, it uses all the wrong methods to achieve what they want. they need to sift through their people, find the intelligent (and sane) members among them, get them together, over the internet, in person, whatever, to come up with a list of what they want, a coherent list that doesn't involve nonessential things like "legalizing pot" "implementation of communism" or "execution of corporate CEOS".

that would go a LONG way to getting their goals met, far more so than camping in town and demanding people pay attention to you.

another note on the civil rights movement; they were fighting for constitutional rights ignored by the law(s). "fair" distribution of wealth is not in there, and i pray to (non-existent) God it never will be because we all know how well the law works at making things "fair". we need social change, not legal change.

and i think someone mentioned earlier on who civil disobedience has been made illegal by the man to fight the OWS; civil disobedience has never been legal (its the whole damn point).

At 12/1/11 04:14 PM, akmeteor wrote: Not stupid, just that Freedom of Assembly might work differently. Where as long as you're protesting you can't be arrested kind of different.

meh, don't know if its different, someones gonna have to go do the comparison.

(lolz; tumult)

Canadian law also allows you to go all vigilante on rioters (or those suspected of trying causing a tumult).

Except they knew what they wanted, equal rights. the OWS crowd doesn't have a clue on WHAT they want done.

oh look, this worn out argument again. I'll tell you its about ending corporate welfare and lobbying and no more sending our tax dollars to fix other peoples mistakes who are already rolling in money as it is, and the same argument will be made again, then the same answer will be given.

or alternatively you could try to justify the bailouts because heaven forbid they go bankrupt for losing all of OUR money. The only solution has GOT to be for us to give them MORE of OUR money so they can fix the problem they created and then give themselves massive bonuses with the left overs.

At 12/1/11 08:33 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

oh look, this worn out argument again. I'll tell you its about ending corporate welfare and lobbying and no more sending our tax dollars to fix other peoples mistakes who are already rolling in money as it is, and the same argument will be made again, then the same answer will be given.

or alternatively you could try to justify the bailouts because heaven forbid they go bankrupt for losing all of OUR money. The only solution has GOT to be for us to give them MORE of OUR money so they can fix the problem they created and then give themselves massive bonuses with the left overs.

I have an idea. If they want their voice heard, and probably ignored anyway, they should bring up their own ideas on how to fix it. Right now they're just illegally camping in parks. That's not even remotely productive.

At 12/1/11 08:33 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

oh look, this worn out argument again. I'll tell you its about ending corporate welfare and lobbying and no more sending our tax dollars to fix other peoples mistakes who are already rolling in money as it is, and the same argument will be made again, then the same answer will be given.

fair enough, so riddle me this, camping out in the city park or by the city hall fixes this problem... how?

i'll answer your riddle with another one, how will not bringing attention to the subject be better?

At 12/3/11 03:26 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: i'll answer your riddle with another one, how will not bringing attention to the subject be better?

I'll answer your riddle with yet another one.

what does camping in the park have to do with corporate welfare?

i think a few points might help bring us out of our circle-jerk; i doubt everyone here disagrees with the need for change (accountability, a "fairer" system, etc...), but it seems there is a considerable disconnect between these people and the protesters (which could be for any number of reasons such as method, message [or the jumble of messages from a non-centralized movement] or the 1% vs 99%, etc...).
how to overcome it? well we've seen the attempt to draw links between OWS and the Civil Rights movement suggesting they identify with them, yet how OWS is proceeding is very different and i think that's the problem; the Civil Rights movement was an intensely organized and issue based movement intent on achieving small, specific goals intent on undermining the systems of laws and governance that supported segregation, as opposed to changing the entire system in one go.
they used marches/protests (like the OWS), sit-ins (like the OWS), legal action (unlike the OWS [insofar as i've heard], which is the pity because they are claiming it is a legal issue), boycotts (unlike the OWS; again missing a very relevant means of action), etc... but the most important difference, in my opinion, is what they expected from civil disobedience (the non-violent breaking of laws), mainly physical action from police, but there was little in the way of the continuous charge of police brutality or unjust arrest as the whole point of their movement was to show the nation the laws were stupid not that police procedure was flawed (and this was old-timey Southern police [but that's excluding the times the police did go old-timey pointy hood brutality on them]) or infringing their rights to free speech.
as for those arrested there's also their jail no bail non-resistant protest which would be dandy for the OWS because that too hits the man in his purse.

of course if the feeling is that the man is in control of the media and is taking away all your power, they can always buck up and take examples from the South African Anti-Apartheid movement (important note: they had 0 rights); but that too requires getting organized, using financial action (or is not buying stuff too terrible for us?) and taking a beating without losing sight of the goals you came for.

Impact of OWS on politicians.

When you say OWS is useless and they bring no solution, think again.

At 12/3/11 07:57 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Impact of OWS on politicians.
present by the young turks

Fail. find a source that isn't more biased than Josef Stalin's opinion of communism and try again.

At 12/3/11 08:07 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/3/11 07:57 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Impact of OWS on politicians.
present by the young turks

Fail. find a source that isn't more biased than Josef Stalin's opinion of communism and try again.

It's an opiniated show I linked, true, however what he is talking about is true and in the dexcription of the video. You should actually watch and analyze the content instead of dismissing it just because it goes against what your erroneous view of reality.

Here is what people using the "ipod" argument need to watch.

What OWS is about.

At 12/3/11 07:57 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Impact of OWS on politicians.

When you say OWS is useless and they bring no solution, think again.

but it just sounds like they're trying to learn how to put on a prettier face rather than do things differently.

also, what about the liberals, i thought this was a bipartisan anti-corruption smack-down?
...or an example of small steps?

Oh and Youtube is rarely a competent source for anything but incompetence...

At 12/3/11 10:11 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

It's an opiniated show I linked, true, however what he is talking about is true and in the dexcription of the video. You should actually watch and analyze the content instead of dismissing it just because it goes against what your erroneous view of reality.

I tried, but that guy's voice irritates the shit out of me. So i went and found a better article without the smug fucker talking

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/repub licans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-str eet-133707949.html

Also, this is really nothing new, the left also does this. Something comes up with unpopular, they change the language, that's why we have terms like "pro-choice" over "abortion" and "Assisted Living" over "Welfare"

It's really nothing more than changing a few words around. nice try though.

Here is what people using the "ipod" argument need to watch.

What OWS is about.

more young turks... don't kill your credibility, go find better links to work with, it took me all of 15 seconds to find the yahoo article.

At 12/4/11 12:15 AM, Korriken wrote:

I tried, but that guy's voice irritates the shit out of me.

I happen to think his voice is awesome.

So i went and found a better article without the smug fucker talking

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/repub licans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-str eet-133707949.html

Funny how it's the exact article they linked in the video description.

Also, this is really nothing new, the left also does this. Something comes up with unpopular, they change the language, that's why we have terms like "pro-choice" over "abortion" and "Assisted Living" over "Welfare"

it's not a new tactic, but it's still a dramatic change over what republicans said before and it is undeniable evidence of Occupy Wall Street's influence.

It's really nothing more than changing a few words around. nice try though.

Nice try downplaying this and shrugging it off like it's nothing.

more young turks... don't kill your credibility,

How does posting TYT kills one's credibility? Spoiler alert: It does not.

go find better links to work with, it took me all of 15 seconds to find the yahoo article.

Which I read already because it was in the video description of the video I just linked.

Also GOOD JOB IGNORING THE ARGUMENTS IN THE VIDEO ONCE AGAIN.

At 12/4/11 02:14 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

Funny how it's the exact article they linked in the video description.

exactly, just without all the hooping and hollering about the republicans being in full retreat.

it's not a new tactic, but it's still a dramatic change over what republicans said before and it is undeniable evidence of Occupy Wall Street's influence.

not really. It all means the same thing. politicians change strategies and change words all the time.

Nice try downplaying this and shrugging it off like it's nothing.

because it is.

more young turks... don't kill your credibility,

How does posting TYT kills one's credibility? Spoiler alert: It does not.

Once you've been here a while you'll realize that posting heavily biased news sites and videos will drag down your credibility and make people think you're just some mindless zombie drone that goes around repeating what they want you to say instead of making your own opinion.

Also GOOD JOB IGNORING THE ARGUMENTS IN THE VIDEO ONCE AGAIN.

do a better job and I might take you seriously.

At 12/4/11 08:59 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/4/11 02:14 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

exactly, just without all the hooping and hollering about the republicans being in full retreat.

Well, thans Cenk for ya, he loves to exagerate a bit, but he's still right.

not really. It all means the same thing. politicians change strategies and change words all the time.

They do it just like that you know, because they feel like it, not because not doing it will get in trouble, and this change cannot be attributed to OWS at all of course make sperfect sense.

Nice try downplaying this and shrugging it off like it's nothing.

because it is.

It is not, saying otherwise and repeating it like a 5 years old will not change this fact.

Once you've been here a while you'll realize that posting heavily biased news sites and videos will drag down your credibility and make people think you're just some mindless zombie drone that goes around repeating what they want you to say instead of making your own opinion.

I do make my own opinion, also the young turks is opinionated but it is not biased, they do comment the news and yes it os arguabely some form of bias, but they still report the actual news, unlike a real biased media like fox.

do a better job and I might take you seriously.

Once again you prove your own incompetence by not even looking at the argument and shrugging it off like it somehow makes you win the argument. This makes me start to think you are not arguing in good faith.

At 12/4/11 09:10 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 12/4/11 08:59 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/4/11 02:14 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

exactly, just without all the hooping and hollering about the republicans being in full retreat.

Well, thans Cenk for ya, he loves to exagerate a bit, but he's still right.

and still biased.

They do it just like that you know, because they feel like it, not because not doing it will get in trouble, and this change cannot be attributed to OWS at all of course make sperfect sense.

Obviously they change jargon based on their perception of current public opinion.

It is not, saying otherwise and repeating it like a 5 years old will not change this fact.

It is indeed nothing, its as much of nothing as calling Welfare "assisted living" same thing, just another word for it.

I do make my own opinion, also the young turks is opinionated but it is not biased, they do comment the news and yes it os arguabely some form of bias, but they still report the actual news, unlike a real biased media like fox.

That's perception for ya, great way to cloud judgement. your argument falls as flat as saying "Well, Glenn Beck may be opinionated, but he's not biased, he DOES speak of real new articles afterall."
Obviously you wouldn't agree with that statement because Glenn Beck isn't opinionated in the way you WANT him to be.

Once again you prove your own incompetence by not even looking at the argument and shrugging it off like it somehow makes you win the argument. This makes me start to think you are not arguing in good faith.

I argue in fine faith. I just see things for what they are. I'm not underplaying it, you're overplaying it. It's easy to grab a news article like that and take off running with it to see how far you can blow it out of proportion. Here's an example.. not a great example, but it still makes the point!

Bob the Builder turns down a contract to build a black guy's house, explaining he doesn't have the time or manpower to build the house in the time the man wants his house built in.

Tom: Bob the Builder is obviously racist for not wanting to build a house for a BLACK MAN! I can't believe racists like this still exist in the world! They should take his contractor's license away from him for being a bigoted idiot!

Reality: Bob the Builder has too much work on his hands as is and doesn't have the manpower to build another house in the amount of time the man wants it built. simple.

Obama makes a reference to there being 52 states.
Left: he misspoke, he's tired.
right: he's a moron! does he know even know how many states are in our nation? this man doesn't deserve to be our president!

Palin makes a reference to skinning a moose
Left: she's a MORON for talking about skinning a moose, he's not sophisticated enough to be vice president!
Right: so she skinned a moose, big deal.

multi billion dollar corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America.

At 12/5/11 01:05 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: multi billion dollar corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America.

All I really see is an overly biased comic. Especially since the banks already paid for most of their bailout money.

Also, we shouldn't have given them that bailout money because it messes with Capitalism.

Just like how what OWS is asking for wrecks Capitalism.

At 12/5/11 10:52 AM, akmeteor wrote:

At 12/5/11 01:05 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: multi billion dollar corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America.

All I really see is an overly biased comic. Especially since the banks already paid for most of their bailout money.

You of course have proof to back that up.

Also, why defend capitalism? The bailout was 100% socialist.

At 12/5/11 11:23 AM, DickBuns wrote:

At 12/5/11 10:52 AM, akmeteor wrote:

At 12/5/11 01:05 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: multi billion dollar corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America.

All I really see is an overly biased comic. Especially since the banks already paid for most of their bailout money.

You of course have proof to back that up.

Also, why defend capitalism? The bailout was 100% socialist.

I did say that if you read the entire post.

The OWS is also socialist. What the banks and corporations do in Congress is actually a part of Capitalism.

Unless of course you are asking to stem completely away from Capitalism to Socialism.

At 12/5/11 11:32 AM, akmeteor wrote:

At 12/5/11 11:23 AM, DickBuns wrote:
You of course have proof to back that up.

Also, why defend capitalism? The bailout was 100% socialist.

I did say that if you read the entire post.

The OWS is also socialist. What the banks and corporations do in Congress is actually a part of Capitalism.

Unless of course you are asking to stem completely away from Capitalism to Socialism.

Back to the reason why you were banned.

At 12/5/11 11:39 AM, DickBuns wrote:

Back to the reason why you were banned.

Not related to the conversation at all. Nice try getting me mad though.

At 12/5/11 11:41 AM, akmeteor wrote:

At 12/5/11 11:39 AM, DickBuns wrote:

Back to the reason why you were banned.

Not related to the conversation at all. Nice try getting me mad though.

Not trying to get you mad. Just trying to convince you to actually address the discussion, and not skirt around it with irrelevant drivel.

So again. Do you have proof that the banks paid back most of their bailouts? And what about the issues that the comic brings up? Do you have some sort of retort for that? Or are you simply going to dismiss it because of some sort of irrelevant "It's overused" dodge?

At 12/5/11 11:44 AM, DickBuns wrote:

Not trying to get you mad. Just trying to convince you to actually address the discussion, and not skirt around it with irrelevant drivel.

So again. Do you have proof that the banks paid back most of their bailouts? And what about the issues that the comic brings up? Do you have some sort of retort for that? Or are you simply going to dismiss it because of some sort of irrelevant "It's overused" dodge?

How about the fact that the post I made was to say that while I think it is extremely biased, it does have meaning.

Bailouts = Socialist

OWS = Even More Socialist than the goddamn bailouts.

If you call any of that skirting around the issue, you need to figure out how to use reading comprehension.