OWS now heckeling, following, threatening children???

Originally posted by undo
what? no, i don't know what you're referring to and i don't know enough about you to make the assumptions as to your reasoning for asking questions.

Are you honestly attempting to suggest someone can never know you enough to recognize a characteristic of you? Are you suggesting to me that a person passing you by on the street could never utter the words "I know you well enough to tell you what color your hair is?" Be honest and logical for a moment.

i mean who the hell are you that you can say you know me so well. what? not even my family can say they know me so well, that they can predict why i ask a question.

Maybe your family does not read your posts on ATS where I do and I have seen you around this one topic enough to know for a fact you know what I am referring to. For some reason you want to play games and pretend. That is fine. Did you ever ask yourself why Neno is not pushing this question? I know why he is not.

i wouldn't ask if i didn't want an answer to be provided by the person who claims they know the answer.. . again, i ask the same thing i asked of neno (in regards to OWS).. did the modern day tea party or any of its members suggest killing other americans?

YES!!!!!!!!!

and can you prove it is more than an isolated incident and circumstantial like neno's link about OWS members talking beheadings and guillotines?

YES!!!!!!!!!!

don't try to BS me or tap dance around this subject. i don't know enough about you to claim this is some trend of yours but if you keep it up, i'm going to assume you have problems with being truthful.

edit on 20-11-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

Problems being truthful? That seems to be you. I will give you one more try. What did the TEA party insist that the tree of liberty needed to be watered with. I know you know the answer.

Originally posted by undo
well i would say his position on the tea party is relevent to this particular part of the discussion because you're suggesting his support for the tea party nullifies his disagreement with OWS, as if everything in life was either one thing or the other and nothing inbetween. he's telling you that THAT particular part of your reasoning regarding his anti OWS stance is incorrect, and who would know better than him, what his stance is on the tea party? are you claiming he's lying about that? and if so, do you have evidence that he's lying about that and that's he's really secretly, a current tea party supporter ? if that's not your premise and you really don't care what his position is on the tea party, why in the hell would you bring it into the conversation?

You two must be inhabiting the same planet because the above argument is complete nonsense. I am not addressing Neno's personal peccadilloes. I do not care. His "point" was that two people called for murder so the entire movement is just a bunch of violent thugs.. His "point" was smashed to bits and pieces when compared to the TEA party that had an entire theme of murder. How he personally feels about seems to be important to you and him but really not to me.

don't tell me this is going to devolve into demos vs. repubs again. no wonder we don't know what the crap is going on anymore, as every time anything important comes up it gets covered up in layers of partisan bologna. (which, btw, is why we STILL haven't had a female president when many other nations have)

No, this is a reality vs. his two weak links and broad SPECULATION. If that happens to fall on party lines then so be it but so far I had not seen where they had until you just attempted to make it so.

What did the TEA party insist that the tree of liberty needed to be watered with. I know you know the answer.

reply to post by FallenWun


this is the thing, did the modern tea party say that or did they quote that ? and was it a couple people preaching that aspect of it, or was it the underlying theme of the entire thing, because they are not forming mobs in our cities at the moment but ows is. don't some of the prior tea party members also belong to the ows movement? if so, why are there lines being drawn in the sand over this if they are also ows?

i don't believe in violent revolution. i happen to like people's heads attached to their bodies and with all their faculties working, living happily and not just here in the usa, but everywhere on the planet. i'm just as frustrated with the situation for poor people in other countries as i am for the poor in the usa. if i wasn't, i wouldn't pay taxes, i'd find someway not to help my fellow human beings or work up some fake ideology to be pissed about so i wouldn't have to help them, perhaps pretend like they are my enemies. which of course they are not, although some may find me too frank or honest.

now to the subject of what you can and can't know about me. i'll be extremely honest about this: you cant know in advance, why i would ask any particular question because i often dont know myself until immediately following a reading of distressing material. i was in a coma and have some residual memory damage. i know i've talked about ows, sarah palin, wars, religion, and revolution, i even remember trying to defend people who work in government jobs from being targets of violence simply because they work in government jobs (back when people were advocating bombing the IRS and putting the tax collectors on trial and executing them. i mean, either we need taxes for public and social programs or we don't. can't have it both ways), but i frankly don't remember talking much about the tea party.

oops, i just did a search and i did respond to a thread about the tea party quite a bit but it was primarily because of a person who claimed the tea party black people, shown in a video in the thread, were not real black people because they had money. personally, i think the fact blacks are or have enjoyed financial success and independence is a good thing not a bad thing. i mean isn't suffering and poverty something we're against? sometimes people don't make sense.

Originally posted by undo
and was it a couple people preaching that aspect of it, or was it the underlying theme of the entire thing,

Holy crap are you for real?
It is going to be a long time before I stop laughing at this. In yet another thread full of posts pretending their are armies of OWSers crapping on cop cars you actually have the balls to try and make THAT point about the TEA party and a common theme they had?

I need some time to recover.

It is also really funny that I never did answer your question but you figured it out just as easily as I thought you would. I guess it was a pretty popular idea afterall wasn't it? You sure knew what I was getting at.

Originally posted by FallenWun

Mobs are mobs. I can't say that I give a damn about their political leanings.

Then it begs the question why the hell you are in here specifically opining on this one "mob." Again you put that as if someone else forced the situation you are in upon you.

Is there another mob at the moment? Which mob is the subject of this thread? Yet you somehow think I'M "off topic"? Who is it that brought up the Tea Party again?

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that I'm a Tea Partier.

You seem to be fully enveloped by the delusion that it matters to me what you are in any fashion.

Of course it matters to you. The only thing you have to try to excuse OWS bad behavior with is allegations of other bad behavior, and so you latch on to allegations against the Tea Party like it's a life raft or something.

Of course it matters to you. YOU are the one hammering on the Tea Party, not me. If it didn't matter, why did you bring it up in a thread where it's not the topic?

Disingenuous is not a suit you wear well.

Let me know if you have something on topic.

Sure. Let's see what YOU have that's on topic, shall we?

You know what the TEA Party wanted to water that tree with?

Ah. Yeah, the Tea Party IS the topic here, isn't it? I forget so easily...

As I recall, there was a lot of quoting of Thomas Jefferson, and "watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of Tyrants". So how does that apply specifically to your allegation? Are you saying Jefferson advocated the murder of "fellow Americans"? Or are you saying to let tyrants slide because of nationality?



What I asked for was evidence top support your contention that the Tea Party was calling for the murder of fellow Americans.

Where IS that evidence?

I'll wait.

Originally posted by FallenWun

Originally posted by nenothtu
Only problem with that line of reasoning is that they don't.

Don't what? What the hell are you pushing now?

Chopping up quotes is easy. Here, let me help you out by re-quoting what I was responding to, with a bit of highlighting for the comprehension impaired:

Originally posted by FallenWun

I am not sure what you mean. I am speaking of the modern day TEA party and the fact that one of it's main themes is advocating the murder of fellow Americans. Apparently outright saying that as a group is not a concern, just a few lone nuts is?

There ya go. did that clear it up for you?

I'm not a big fan of their politics these days, but one thing they do have in their favor over OWS is an ability to self-control.

Your selective memory is your problem. Why you brag about is is more than beyond me.

Yeah, it's this damned old age. You'll have to jog my selective memory. Where did they lose their self control? Riots, trashing parks, you know, the stuff you're trying to say they are worse than OWS for...

Originally posted by undo

just to satisfy my curiosity, what's the tea party been up to lately that has lost your support? i'm watching all these political machinations and "mob" concepts, trying to figure out what the bottomline of all this is, so i know what to expect.

They forsook the People and gave in to the neocon/Republican (the two are pretty much synonymous these days) takeover. Some appeared like they were going to try to fight it, but the movement as a whole rolled right over for them.

Like OWS, they have some fair ideas, but the implementation flat out sucks, and other ideas they have are thoroughly hair raising, Those ideas, which take away from their original message, are the result of the neocon infiltration and take over.

Frakkin' neocons. I wouldn't let my daughter date one.

As an example, their wailing about "tax breaks". Tax breaks are for suckers. They have to implement the tax in the first place before they can give anyone a "break" on it. The whole tax system need to be restructured, same rate for everyone regardless of income, no breaks for anyone, regardless of income. That's the only way to get equality under the law for all - to have the exact same laws apply to all.

NO "progressive" tax, NO "9-9-9" tax (that very NAME reminds me of fertilizer - look at a bag sometime and see what it says - '10-10-10-' being the most popular mix for lawn grass), NONE of that foolishness.

Equality under the law - I can't seem to find anyone in favor of that. Everyone wants "someone" to be more equal than the rest. The main difference of opinion seems to be in WHO they want to make more equal.

Originally posted by FallenWun
His "point" was that two people called for murder so the entire movement is just a bunch of violent thugs..

Now THERE is a leap of faith!

1, Please point out where I have labelled the "whole movement" as violent thugs.

2. Two examples do not make a totality of possible examples. That's why they are "examples".

His "point" was smashed to bits and pieces when compared to the TEA party that had an entire theme of murder.

Not yet it hasn't but keep on swinging. You might be able to hit one over the fence... There's probably a name for the condition where one tries to justify calls for beheadings by pointing out quotes of ancient thinkers, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

How he personally feels about seems to be important to you and him but really not to me.

Of course it's important to you! You tried to justify your position and invalidate mine with a disingenuous attempt to link me to the Tea Party. If that link can't be made, your own argument is invalidated. The Tea Party is irrelevant in this discussion.

Argue the merits of OWS and certain proponents thereof calling for beheadings, rather than trying to draw a blanket over it by re-directing to an irrelevant subject, attempting to justify one call for murder by pointing to what you seem to think is another.

No, this is a reality vs. his two weak links and broad SPECULATION.

The links were not weak, they were solid. The posts are right there for all to read. You can't really weaken them by simply sweeping them under the rug and pointing in a different direction shouting "Ooh! Lookey over there!"

Broad speculation?

Oh, wait, you had that aimed at ME instead of yourself...

Nah. It's still pretty funny.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Chopping up quotes is easy. Here, let me help you out by re-quoting what I was responding to, with a bit of highlighting for the comprehension impaired:

Yeah, that was the problem.

I cannot wait, I really cannot even sit one more second with the anticipitation of your explanation of what you just changed. My response to your words is EXACTLY THE SAME. Please explain what this is all about because it makes no sense. Yes, the modern day TEA Party, not a few lone nuts. Why are you confused? Why do you think chopping up a response has anything to do with this? What do you think I molded your words to appear to say and what do you think you clarified them as?
My response remains the same so this should be quite grand.

Maybe then you can explain what your point was with those two examples. Maybe you would rather I go back and quote you word for word but I feel like you are a big enough man to do it on your own. What was that point you were making? What were you trying to say about OWS and being violent because of a theme you noticed? Please, take this time to reframe your point before it falls apart all over again. Just like that whole pretending the TEA party did not as a group call for blood. I noticed you and Undo gave that line up without my even explaining exactly what I meant. That tells me more than anything else you can write but I would love to see you try.

Originally posted by FallenWun

Originally posted by nenothtu
Chopping up quotes is easy. Here, let me help you out by re-quoting what I was responding to, with a bit of highlighting for the comprehension impaired:

I cannot wait, I really cannot even sit one more second with the anticipitation of your explanation of what you just changed.

Then await no more! No explanation is necessary, nor will one be forthcoming. There is nothing to explain. I changed nothing. The quotes are verbatim, exactly as we typed them.

I just elected not to respond to a quote I was afraid to re-quote, so I replaced it into the context for you. I note YOU are the one who conveniently left out what I had to replace, the assertion I was responding to .

My response to your words is EXACTLY THE SAME. Please explain what this is all about because it makes no sense. Yes, the modern day TEA Party, not a few lone nuts. Why are you confused? Why do you think chopping up a response has anything to do with this? What do you think I molded your words to appear to say and what do you think you clarified them as?
My response remains the same so this should be quite grand.

I'm not confused, but I think you may be if you can't grasp what I said in relation to your assertion.

Tell you what. I'll wait a while and see if anyone else can explain it to you. If they can grasp it, then the problem is not within me. It seems pretty clear, but then there are those who must be led along by the hand when it comes to matters of comprehension.

I'll give it a few hours to see if anyone else can figure it out. Besides, I just like watching you squirm when things get beyond your ken.

Originally posted by FallenWun

Originally posted by undo
and was it a couple people preaching that aspect of it, or was it the underlying theme of the entire thing,

Holy crap are you for real?
It is going to be a long time before I stop laughing at this. In yet another thread full of posts pretending their are armies of OWSers crapping on cop cars you actually have the balls to try and make THAT point about the TEA party and a common theme they had?

I need some time to recover.

It is also really funny that I never did answer your question but you figured it out just as easily as I thought you would. I guess it was a pretty popular idea afterall wasn't it? You sure knew what I was getting at.

edit on 20-11-2011 by FallenWun because: (no reason given)

dunno if you will believe me or not, but i'm not sure i understood your post. can you rephrase and explain a bit more ?

Originally posted by FallenWun

Please, take this time to reframe your point before it falls apart all over again.

No.

It stands as-is. If you want to see it fall apart, you should try attacking it. Putting actual quotes of what I said right in there with the assertion that I said it is a bonus. Pointing at something else and yelling "Look over there!" is NOT a bonus, it's an attempt at distraction.

Just like that whole pretending the TEA party did not as a group call for blood.

A "call for blood" was not your original claim. Your original claim, found here, was:

I do not recall this same concern from you when the TEA party was calling for murder en masse.

See how easy that was? I might be able to let you slide if you can convince me that you don't understand what "murder" is, and how that differs from a mere "call for blood" taken out of context.

I noticed you and Undo gave that line up without my even explaining exactly what I meant. That tells me more than anything else you can write but I would love to see you try.

Yeah. we're mind readers like that. From here on out you need to say what you mean and mean what you say. That was a freebie guess, since it is the only thing i could think of that you could potentially try to twist out of context.

ETA: In reviewing the history of the discussion, I find that you DID specify what you were referring to before I caught on. You did so in THIS post to me, saying:

You know what the TEA Party wanted to water that tree with?

and in THIS post to Undo, saying specifically:

I will give you one more try. What did the TEA party insist that the tree of liberty needed to be watered with. I know you know the answer.

reply to post by nenothtu


honestly, i didn't know the tea party called for blood. but the quote isn't talking about other members of american society, it's talking about tyrants from elsewhere, so i don't see the comparison???

i wish she/he'd just go back to the topic of the op being a silly nit picky thread subject, because it is.
at least, i could agree with that, but this other thing, got me all kinds of confused, such as her/him bringing up the tea party then complaining that you responded that you weren't enamored with the tea party, and it just keeps getting worse. : /

reply to post by undo


The call for blood thing can be philosophized upon all night, complete with legal definitions, but that's just WAY too far afield for this thread. The two are in no way cognates nor applicable one to the other.

All it really is is an admission that s/he doesn't have a valid response for what was brought up, so in an effort to hide that subject and distract, s/he is pointing in the other direction and trying to say the equivalent of "they went thataway! Look over there! They're not in the OWS camp, HONEST!"

At least it's not yet sunk to the level of the tired old "butbutbut they don't speak for the whole movement!" Instead, s/he is trying to cover for and justify the fact that they spoke at all.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by nenothtu

 

honestly, i didn't know the tea party called for blood. but the quote isn't talking about other members of american society, it's talking about tyrants from elsewhere, so i don't see the comparison???

Um...no.

The TYRANTS AND PATRIOTS are not from another place. You need to check your quote again.

You two get something straight, anything. After you do that I promise to have a ball with all these responses. Undo just makes me laugh too much.

Originally posted by nenothtu
All it really is is an admission that s/he doesn't have a valid response for what was brought up, so in an effort to hide that subject and distract, s/he is pointing in the other direction and trying to say the equivalent of "they went thataway! Look over there! They're not in the OWS camp, HONEST!"

Not even remotely. Did you already forget the point you were trying to make with your whole TWO examples? Make that point again now that you have rambled on in defense of not why. I directly responded to the twisted brand of logic and cheap trick of "examples" you tried to use in order to feign concern over a growing violent movement. That is why you ran and hid from it until you could wander off into new territory for a while.

Your point was two OWS people called for death and it is a concern to you as it pertains to the movement. I pointed out that a huge group of people with a running theme of murder just marched under your face for two years and never once did you offer the same concern. This shows a complete lack of sincerity especially as now you try to waive it off as irellevant but you are attempting to infuse some logic into two examples and that same logic can be extrapolated out further. Problem is, when I did that it fell apart and you go upset and wrote a LOT in response but nothing really responsive.

Get it?

Funny funny thread.

Originally posted by nenothtu


At least it's not yet sunk to the level of the tired old "butbutbut they don't speak for the whole movement!" Instead, s/he is trying to cover for and justify the fact that they spoke at all.

HOLY CRAP!!!!

You already did that. You are seriously mocking me for using something I did not use yet you did.


Tell me again how it was just a few lone nuts in the TEA party. Use that excuse all over again after you just got done mocking it.

Holy crap this is funny.

Originally posted by FallenWun

Originally posted by nenothtu


At least it's not yet sunk to the level of the tired old "butbutbut they don't speak for the whole movement!" Instead, s/he is trying to cover for and justify the fact that they spoke at all.

HOLY CRAP!!!!

You already did that. You are seriously mocking me for using something I did not use yet you did.

Tell me again how it was just a few lone nuts in the TEA party. Use that excuse all over again after you just got done mocking it.

Holy crap this is funny.

Is it really? Entirely aside from the fact that I specified that you had NOT yet done that, I have ONE simple request then. Remember what I said about "bonuses"?

WHERE.

Give me a direct quote of where I said that.

Otherwise, apologize, or be known for a liar.

reply to post by FallenWun


dang that's a good artwork in your avatar. i thought it was a photograph and just realized it's a pencil drawing!

anyway, i think you're making much ado about nothing at this point. and neno and i are not like two peas in a pod or similar political parties. we're just two people on a forum that are suspicious of everything lol

i'm trying not to be. so far, ows hasn't scared me so much that i think i need to leave the country but i do panic when i see big mobs of angry people anywhere. i'm just as afraid for them as i am for me and mine, not that i have much but i do like my head where it is.