Discussion:
OT: Is this "freedom to assemble" you assholes?
(too old to reply)
popinjay999
2011-11-03 13:57:59 UTC
Permalink
I still can't believe the assholes on this newsgroup who support the
Occutards. Is this what you want? To see American cities burning?
Especially James Mossingen, what is your fucking problem?



And has anyone seen the video of fat ass Michael Moore calling for an
end to capitalism? I mean, if there ever was any doubt that that
mutherfucker is a communist, there shouldn't be now.

It's time for the police to start using real bullets. Overdue!
Bill Vanek
2011-11-03 14:14:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:57:59 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
I still can't believe the assholes on this newsgroup who support the
Occutards. Is this what you want? To see American cities burning?
Right, but Is it really that bad if Oakland burns?
johnny_t
2011-11-03 23:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:57:59 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
I still can't believe the assholes on this newsgroup who support the
Occutards. Is this what you want? To see American cities burning?
Right, but Is it really that bad if Oakland burns?
Think of the pot man, the pot...
mo_ntresor
2011-11-03 14:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
I still can't believe the assholes on this newsgroup who support the
Occutards. Is this what you want? To see American cities burning?
Especially James Mossingen, what is your fucking problem?
http://youtu.be/QngE6kKk8Lg
And has anyone seen the video of fat ass Michael Moore calling for an
end to capitalism? I mean, if there ever was any doubt that that
mutherfucker is a communist, there shouldn't be now.
It's time for the police to start using real bullets. Overdue!
end wall street handouts, vote for chuck schumer and barrack obama!

mo_ntresor

---- 
popinjay999
2011-11-03 14:19:04 UTC
Permalink
These assholes supposedly want jobs, would YOU hire some of these
people if you had a business? I know there's probably very few RGPers
who actually have a business, except Susan. But look at the turds at
these Occutard encampments, who would hire them? And for what? What
do they want? I'll tellya what they want. They want TROUBLE, that's
all. Face it, some people are just no damn good, no damn good for
anything but trouble. Time to turn the water cannons on these
mutherfuckers. Overdue!

And why isn't Michael Moore in jail, brought up on incitement
charges? There used to be a day when you weren't allowed to shout
'fire' in a crowded theater, and that's exactly what that fat fuck is
doing.
Bradley K. Sherman
2011-11-03 14:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
These assholes supposedly want jobs, would YOU hire some of these
people if you had a business?
I was there with someone I *did* hire. There were 10,000 peaceful
occupiers and 50 jerks. For all I know you were one of the jerks.
It's not like you had to show ID to participate. We know that the
_American Spectator_ has sent agent provocatueurs to the protests.

--bks
mo_ntresor
2011-11-03 14:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Post by popinjay999
These assholes supposedly want jobs, would YOU hire some of these
people if you had a business?
I was there with someone I *did* hire. There were 10,000 peaceful
occupiers and 50 jerks. For all I know you were one of the jerks.
It's not like you had to show ID to participate. We know that the
_American Spectator_ has sent agent provocatueurs to the protests.
what were you protesting, and what can the non-lazy half do to help you
and your friends?

mo_ntresor

____________________________________________________________________ 
Bradley K. Sherman
2011-11-03 14:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by mo_ntresor
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Post by popinjay999
These assholes supposedly want jobs, would YOU hire some of these
people if you had a business?
I was there with someone I *did* hire. There were 10,000 peaceful
occupiers and 50 jerks. For all I know you were one of the jerks.
It's not like you had to show ID to participate. We know that the
_American Spectator_ has sent agent provocatueurs to the protests.
what were you protesting, and what can the non-lazy half do to help you
and your friends?
Goldman Sachs (et al.) got bailed out to the tune of $16,000,000,000,000
and all I got was this lousy pepper spray.

I was just glad to see all the young people who had logged off
their computers and were talking to each other. Here's a picture
I took:
<Loading Image...>

--bks
mo_ntresor
2011-11-03 14:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Post by mo_ntresor
what were you protesting, and what can the non-lazy half do to help you
and your friends?
Goldman Sachs (et al.) got bailed out to the tune of $16,000,000,000,000
and all I got was this lousy pepper spray.
I was just glad to see all the young people who had logged off
their computers and were talking to each other. Here's a picture
<http://mediacdn.disqus.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/161/6211/original.jpg>
wall street got $16T, where do you guys get this stuff? the bailouts got
you a lot more than pepperspray: your country still exists, it has a
functioning banking system, your fellow citizens still have assets, and
you still have your head.

mo_ntresor

______________________________________________________________________ 
popinjay999
2011-11-03 15:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Goldman Sachs (et al.) got bailed out to the tune of $16,000,000,000,000
and all I got was this lousy pepper spray.
I will expect you to also spell out the amount with zeros should you
ever participate in a thread about how much fucking debt Obama has run
up during the first half of his term.
mo_ntresor
2011-11-03 15:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Goldman Sachs (et al.) got bailed out to the tune of $16,000,000,000,000
and all I got was this lousy pepper spray.
I will expect you to also spell out the amount with zeros should you
ever participate in a thread about how much fucking debt Obama has run
up during the first half of his term.
he had to do it. the only solution to debt is more debt.

mo_ntresor

------ 
Dave the Clueless
2011-11-03 19:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by mo_ntresor
Post by popinjay999
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Goldman Sachs (et al.) got bailed out to the tune of $16,000,000,000,000
and all I got was this lousy pepper spray.
I will expect you to also spell out the amount with zeros should you
ever participate in a thread about how much fucking debt Obama has run
up during the first half of his term.
he had to do it. the only solution to debt is more debt.
mo_ntresor
------ 
I know, right? If only we had borrowed more, the stimulus would have made
everything better.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

________________________________________________________________________ 
popinjay999
2011-11-03 20:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by popinjay999
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Goldman Sachs (et al.) got bailed out to the tune of $16,000,000,000,000
and all I got was this lousy pepper spray.
I will expect you to also spell out the amount with zeros should you
ever participate in a thread about how much fucking debt Obama has run
up during the first half of his term.
he had to do it.  the only solution to debt is more debt.
mo_ntresor
------
I know, right? If only we had borrowed more, the stimulus would have made
everything better.
Just to be clear, some of the shit you quoted in your reply was not
me, it was that turd Bradley K. Whateverthefuck.
Mossingen
2011-11-03 14:46:25 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by popinjay999
These assholes supposedly want jobs, would YOU hire some of these
people if you had a business?
I was there with someone I *did* hire. There were 10,000 peaceful
occupiers and 50 jerks. For all I know you were one of the jerks.
It's not like you had to show ID to participate. We know that the
_American Spectator_ has sent agent provocatueurs to the protests.
--bks
What exactly is the agenda? What event would have to happen for you and the
other protesters to call it a day? We've got some occupiers here in
downtown Oklahoma City and I've talked to a few. The agenda seems to be a
kind of vague, "down with the man"-type expression of anger, but little else
of substance. That, and a few of the regular homeless getting some
attention and food.
Bradley K. Sherman
2011-11-03 15:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
What exactly is the agenda?
In an event that shocked the civilized world, the editorial
board of the _New York Times_ said something cogent about OWS:
|
| It is not the job of the protesters to draft legislation.
| That's the job of the nation's leaders, and if they had
| been doing it all along there might not be a need for these
| marches and rallies.
|

To Occupy is a rationale in and of itself.

--bks
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 16:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
In article
Post by popinjay999
These assholes supposedly want jobs, would YOU hire some of these
people if you had a business?
I was there with someone I *did* hire. There were 10,000 peaceful
occupiers and 50 jerks. For all I know you were one of the jerks.
It's not like you had to show ID to participate. We know that the
_American Spectator_ has sent agent provocatueurs to the protests.
--bks
What exactly is the agenda?
You STILL don't know, but still are against them?

Some of the OSW complaints:

For the last 140-years, about every 15 or 20 years, we had another crisis,
or 'panic. After the Great Depression, the 99 Percenters (they didn't call
themselves that - I did - it's a Jerryism) marched and camped out in
Washington and called it Hooverville. Anyway, like the Civil Rights
marchers, they forced the government to put in three new rules to protect
us. The Glass-Steagall Act (separating our community banks from WALL
STREET investment banks); FDIC (Insurance); and SEC Regulations (so we can
invest without being cheated too badly by the Bernie Madoff type). For 50
years we have no bank failures; no major crises.

Then we get to the 1980's. They (Ronald Reagan's bunch and the WALL STREET
Gang) decided to start getting rid of them pesky regulations and we get:
THE DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS DEREGULATING AND MONETARY CONTROL ACT OF 1980.

Gee, late 1980's: Savings and Loan crisis (the Keating Five with John
McCain). Then the 1999 Repeal of Glass-Stegall. Now we mix banking with
risky, speculative, activity in our financial services industries. Late
1990's: Long term capital management hedge funds debacles. Early 2000's:
ENRON. And finally we have the biggest crisis since The Great Depression.
Thank you WALL STREET and Republican Deregulation.

Alan Greenspan admits, "I MADE A MISTAKE IN PRESUMING THAT THE SELF
INTERESTS OF ORGANIZATIONS, SPECIFICALLY BANKS AND OTHERS, WERE SUCH THAT
THEY WERE BEST CAPABLE OF PROTECTING THEIR OWN SHAREHOLDERS."

No shit? Financial institutions giving bad loans, then rating toxic
mortgages as AAA? Selling them; then betting against the very stocks they
were selling; without telling the clients? Then surprised when they crash?
Bailout?

Federal Reserve hands out $1 trillion dollars (not to you and me), and
puts $2.2 trillion at risk. Democratic Congressmen question Ben Bernanke,
on TV, but he refuses to reveal any names. (Kind of like Dick Cheney
holding secret meetings, refusing to name names and agendas, then issuing
non-bid contracts to his own company - Halliburton) (Then blocking
investigations of thefts by his own company). Anyway Ben Bernanke clams up
and the Democrats want an audit of the Federal Reserve but the Republicans
block it.

The conservative members of the SCOTUS rule corporations are people and
can make secret donations (on top of regular donations) to politicians and
political organizations, giving them corporate denomination of the
electoral process. The Obama Administration puts back some Wall Street
Regulations and the Republicans are trying to get them removed and
blocking new ones. Gee, I wonder why WALL STREET wants that?

Guess what? I'm sure Fox didn't show you this, but yesterday a new
government report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just reported
that from 1979 (let’s call it 1980) to 2007, there was a doubling of the
national income going to the top 1%. (Gee, starting from when Ronald
Reagan and WALL STREET deregulated in '80). The share of income of the top
1% has increased 275% (avg $347,000 a year). The poor jumped 18%, $14.000
a year. Us middle class saw a 40% jump. The wealthy are getting richer 15
times faster than the poor.

Gee. WALL STREET has control of the government, politicians, banking, have
secured just about every possible deductions a corporation and rich person
can have. (Notice how some of the biggest money making corporations and
owners paid no taxes?) They have political and SCOTUS protection and are
busting unions in a number of states, have tax protections for shipping
jobs overseas and the SEC is in their pocket (Bernie Madoff and his fellow
brokers take them to lunch - every day). And you wonder why we 99% are
marching on WALL STREET? (The ones smart enough to watch something other
than Fox and know All of the Above) (Or did you already know all this?)

For ONE THING; we need to overhaul the 1% corporate tax code. Nobody in
this country got rich on their own. They moved their goods to market on
the roads the rest of us paid for. They hired workers the rest of us paid
to educate. They make money off that. Good. Take a big chunk of that
profit; you earned it. But the social contract is for corporations to take
a chunk of that and pay forward for the next generation being educated and
working. But what are the Republicans blocking, and actually working on?
More tax cuts for corporations and removing the very regulations they
removed in the '80s.

And the WALL STREET rich could at least pay the same tax rate we do. And
taxes on WALL STREET transactions, like the rest of us pay on
transactions. And the Death Tax Transactions. Hell, the list goes on and
on.

Now that you know A PORTION of what the OWS is about; you, why aren't you
marching?

http://front.moveon.org/this-powerful-clip-is-exactly-why-we-support-occupywallstreet/?rc=fbs&id=32303-3408214-mK10K%3Dx

http://tiny.cc/b2g0g


Jerry 'n Vegas












What event would have to happen for you and the
Post by Mossingen
other protesters to call it a day? We've got some occupiers here in
downtown Oklahoma City and I've talked to a few. The agenda seems to be a
kind of vague, "down with the man"-type expression of anger, but little else
of substance. That, and a few of the regular homeless getting some
attention and food.
----- 
Mossingen
2011-11-04 01:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
Post by Mossingen
In article
Post by popinjay999
These assholes supposedly want jobs, would YOU hire some of these
people if you had a business?
I was there with someone I *did* hire. There were 10,000 peaceful
occupiers and 50 jerks. For all I know you were one of the jerks.
It's not like you had to show ID to participate. We know that the
_American Spectator_ has sent agent provocatueurs to the protests.
--bks
What exactly is the agenda?
You STILL don't know, but still are against them?
I am not against them. I am generally in favor of street protesters, but
usually it's something like "Free Johnny" or "Don't buy food from this
place." You know, an easily understandable goal or aim of some sort. With
these occupiers, I'm not sure what can happen to make then say, "hey, ok,
we've been heard and the government has responded to us." What event would
cause that sentiment?
Post by VegasJerry
For the last 140-years, about every 15 or 20 years, we had another crisis,
or 'panic. After the Great Depression, the 99 Percenters (they didn't call
themselves that - I did - it's a Jerryism) marched and camped out in
Washington and called it Hooverville. Anyway, like the Civil Rights
marchers, they forced the government to put in three new rules to protect
us. The Glass-Steagall Act (separating our community banks from WALL
STREET investment banks); FDIC (Insurance); and SEC Regulations (so we can
invest without being cheated too badly by the Bernie Madoff type). For 50
years we have no bank failures; no major crises.
Then we get to the 1980's. They (Ronald Reagan's bunch and the WALL STREET
THE DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS DEREGULATING AND MONETARY CONTROL ACT OF 1980.
Gee, late 1980's: Savings and Loan crisis (the Keating Five with John
McCain). Then the 1999 Repeal of Glass-Stegall. Now we mix banking with
risky, speculative, activity in our financial services industries. Late
ENRON. And finally we have the biggest crisis since The Great Depression.
Thank you WALL STREET and Republican Deregulation.
Alan Greenspan admits, "I MADE A MISTAKE IN PRESUMING THAT THE SELF
INTERESTS OF ORGANIZATIONS, SPECIFICALLY BANKS AND OTHERS, WERE SUCH THAT
THEY WERE BEST CAPABLE OF PROTECTING THEIR OWN SHAREHOLDERS."
No shit? Financial institutions giving bad loans, then rating toxic
mortgages as AAA? Selling them; then betting against the very stocks they
were selling; without telling the clients? Then surprised when they crash?
Bailout?
Federal Reserve hands out $1 trillion dollars (not to you and me), and
puts $2.2 trillion at risk. Democratic Congressmen question Ben Bernanke,
on TV, but he refuses to reveal any names. (Kind of like Dick Cheney
holding secret meetings, refusing to name names and agendas, then issuing
non-bid contracts to his own company - Halliburton) (Then blocking
investigations of thefts by his own company). Anyway Ben Bernanke clams up
and the Democrats want an audit of the Federal Reserve but the Republicans
block it.
The conservative members of the SCOTUS rule corporations are people and
can make secret donations (on top of regular donations) to politicians and
political organizations, giving them corporate denomination of the
electoral process. The Obama Administration puts back some Wall Street
Regulations and the Republicans are trying to get them removed and
blocking new ones. Gee, I wonder why WALL STREET wants that?
Guess what? I'm sure Fox didn't show you this, but yesterday a new
government report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just reported
that from 1979 (let's call it 1980) to 2007, there was a doubling of the
national income going to the top 1%. (Gee, starting from when Ronald
Reagan and WALL STREET deregulated in '80). The share of income of the top
1% has increased 275% (avg $347,000 a year). The poor jumped 18%, $14.000
a year. Us middle class saw a 40% jump. The wealthy are getting richer 15
times faster than the poor.
Gee. WALL STREET has control of the government, politicians, banking, have
secured just about every possible deductions a corporation and rich person
can have. (Notice how some of the biggest money making corporations and
owners paid no taxes?) They have political and SCOTUS protection and are
busting unions in a number of states, have tax protections for shipping
jobs overseas and the SEC is in their pocket (Bernie Madoff and his fellow
brokers take them to lunch - every day). And you wonder why we 99% are
marching on WALL STREET? (The ones smart enough to watch something other
than Fox and know All of the Above) (Or did you already know all this?)
For ONE THING; we need to overhaul the 1% corporate tax code. Nobody in
this country got rich on their own. They moved their goods to market on
the roads the rest of us paid for. They hired workers the rest of us paid
to educate. They make money off that. Good. Take a big chunk of that
profit; you earned it. But the social contract is for corporations to take
a chunk of that and pay forward for the next generation being educated and
working. But what are the Republicans blocking, and actually working on?
More tax cuts for corporations and removing the very regulations they
removed in the '80s.
And the WALL STREET rich could at least pay the same tax rate we do. And
taxes on WALL STREET transactions, like the rest of us pay on
transactions. And the Death Tax Transactions. Hell, the list goes on and
on.
Now that you know A PORTION of what the OWS is about; you, why aren't you
marching?
http://front.moveon.org/this-powerful-clip-is-exactly-why-we-support-occupywallstreet/?rc=fbs&id=32303-3408214-mK10K%3Dx
http://tiny.cc/b2g0g
Jerry 'n Vegas
Well, that's a lot of crap to read through, but I'm still a little bit
unclear of what action government must take to appease the occupiers.
VegasJerry
2011-11-04 23:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
Post by VegasJerry
Post by Mossingen
In article
Post by popinjay999
These assholes supposedly want jobs, would YOU hire some of these
people if you had a business?
I was there with someone I *did* hire. There were 10,000 peaceful
occupiers and 50 jerks. For all I know you were one of the jerks.
It's not like you had to show ID to participate. We know that the
_American Spectator_ has sent agent provocatueurs to the protests.
--bks
What exactly is the agenda?
You STILL don't know, but still are against them?
I am not against them. I am generally in favor of street protesters, but
usually it's something like "Free Johnny" or "Don't buy food from this
place." You know, an easily understandable goal or aim of some sort. With
these occupiers, I'm not sure what can happen to make then say, "hey, ok,
we've been heard and the government has responded to us." What event would
cause that sentiment?
Relate that to the Civil Rights march. Or how the rioters in the Middle
East fought. Sometime a cause is clear and concise; sometimes difficult to
generalize. When the surfs stormed the castle, they didn't have to carry
an itemized list.
Post by Mossingen
Post by VegasJerry
For the last 140-years, about every 15 or 20 years, we had another crisis,
or 'panic. After the Great Depression, the 99 Percenters (they didn't call
themselves that - I did - it's a Jerryism) marched and camped out in
Washington and called it Hooverville. Anyway, like the Civil Rights
marchers, they forced the government to put in three new rules to protect
us. The Glass-Steagall Act (separating our community banks from WALL
STREET investment banks); FDIC (Insurance); and SEC Regulations (so we can
invest without being cheated too badly by the Bernie Madoff type). For 50
years we have no bank failures; no major crises.
Then we get to the 1980's. They (Ronald Reagan's bunch and the WALL STREET
THE DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS DEREGULATING AND MONETARY CONTROL ACT OF 1980.
Gee, late 1980's: Savings and Loan crisis (the Keating Five with John
McCain). Then the 1999 Repeal of Glass-Stegall. Now we mix banking with
risky, speculative, activity in our financial services industries. Late
ENRON. And finally we have the biggest crisis since The Great Depression.
Thank you WALL STREET and Republican Deregulation.
Alan Greenspan admits, "I MADE A MISTAKE IN PRESUMING THAT THE SELF
INTERESTS OF ORGANIZATIONS, SPECIFICALLY BANKS AND OTHERS, WERE SUCH THAT
THEY WERE BEST CAPABLE OF PROTECTING THEIR OWN SHAREHOLDERS."
No shit? Financial institutions giving bad loans, then rating toxic
mortgages as AAA? Selling them; then betting against the very stocks they
were selling; without telling the clients? Then surprised when they crash?
Bailout?
Federal Reserve hands out $1 trillion dollars (not to you and me), and
puts $2.2 trillion at risk. Democratic Congressmen question Ben Bernanke,
on TV, but he refuses to reveal any names. (Kind of like Dick Cheney
holding secret meetings, refusing to name names and agendas, then issuing
non-bid contracts to his own company - Halliburton) (Then blocking
investigations of thefts by his own company). Anyway Ben Bernanke clams up
and the Democrats want an audit of the Federal Reserve but the Republicans
block it.
The conservative members of the SCOTUS rule corporations are people and
can make secret donations (on top of regular donations) to politicians and
political organizations, giving them corporate denomination of the
electoral process. The Obama Administration puts back some Wall Street
Regulations and the Republicans are trying to get them removed and
blocking new ones. Gee, I wonder why WALL STREET wants that?
Guess what? I'm sure Fox didn't show you this, but yesterday a new
government report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just reported
that from 1979 (let's call it 1980) to 2007, there was a doubling of the
national income going to the top 1%. (Gee, starting from when Ronald
Reagan and WALL STREET deregulated in '80). The share of income of the top
1% has increased 275% (avg $347,000 a year). The poor jumped 18%, $14.000
a year. Us middle class saw a 40% jump. The wealthy are getting richer 15
times faster than the poor.
Gee. WALL STREET has control of the government, politicians, banking, have
secured just about every possible deductions a corporation and rich person
can have. (Notice how some of the biggest money making corporations and
owners paid no taxes?) They have political and SCOTUS protection and are
busting unions in a number of states, have tax protections for shipping
jobs overseas and the SEC is in their pocket (Bernie Madoff and his fellow
brokers take them to lunch - every day). And you wonder why we 99% are
marching on WALL STREET? (The ones smart enough to watch something other
than Fox and know All of the Above) (Or did you already know all this?)
For ONE THING; we need to overhaul the 1% corporate tax code. Nobody in
this country got rich on their own. They moved their goods to market on
the roads the rest of us paid for. They hired workers the rest of us paid
to educate. They make money off that. Good. Take a big chunk of that
profit; you earned it. But the social contract is for corporations to take
a chunk of that and pay forward for the next generation being educated and
working. But what are the Republicans blocking, and actually working on?
More tax cuts for corporations and removing the very regulations they
removed in the '80s.
And the WALL STREET rich could at least pay the same tax rate we do. And
taxes on WALL STREET transactions, like the rest of us pay on
transactions. And the Death Tax Transactions. Hell, the list goes on and
on.
Now that you know A PORTION of what the OWS is about; you, why aren't you
marching?
http://front.moveon.org/this-powerful-clip-is-exactly-why-we-support-occupywallstreet/?rc=fbs&id=32303-3408214-mK10K%3Dx
Post by Mossingen
Post by VegasJerry
http://tiny.cc/b2g0g
Jerry 'n Vegas
Well, that's a lot of crap to read through, but I'm still a little bit
unclear of what action government must take to appease the occupiers.
Be fair and just to all? Oh, wait, too simple......


J..

-------- 
~M~
2011-11-04 02:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
I was there with someone I *did* hire.
For what it's worth, the teenaged
androgynous boy you paid to rub his
gonads in your face does not count as an employee.
--
"'Personal responsibility' there addressess [sic] people who feel a personal
responsibility to help others... "
- The Dictionary According to Beldin
necron99
2011-11-04 02:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~M~
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
I was there with someone I *did* hire.
For what it's worth, the teenaged
androgynous boy you paid to rub his
gonads in your face does not count as an employee.
Is that a legal opinion? I would have thought it would depend on how long
the gonad rubbing engagement was for?

Adam

______________________________________________________________________ 
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 16:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
These assholes supposedly want jobs, would YOU hire some of these
people if you had a business? I know there's probably very few RGPers
who actually have a business, except Susan. But look at the turds at
these Occutard encampments, who would hire them?
And for what? What do they want?
You STILL don't know what the OWS is about. STILL? Do I need to tell you
AGAIN?


Jerry











I'll tellya what they want. They want TROUBLE, that's
Post by popinjay999
all. Face it, some people are just no damn good, no damn good for
anything but trouble. Time to turn the water cannons on these
mutherfuckers. Overdue!
And why isn't Michael Moore in jail, brought up on incitement
charges? There used to be a day when you weren't allowed to shout
'fire' in a crowded theater, and that's exactly what that fat fuck is
doing.
_____________________________________________________________________ 
bub
2011-11-03 23:01:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
And why isn't Michael Moore in jail, brought up on incitement
charges? There used to be a day when you weren't allowed to shout
'fire' in a crowded theater, and that's exactly what that fat fuck is
doing.
:
"Moore's holdings have "included such evil pharmaceutical and medical
companies as Pfizer, Merck, Genzyme, Elan PLC, Eli Lilly, Becton
Dickinson and Boston Scientific,"

"Moore's supposedly nonexistent portfolio also includes big bad energy
giants like Sunoco, Noble Energy, Schlumberger, Williams Companies,
Transocean Sedco Forex and Anadarko, all firms that 'deplete
irreplaceable fossil fuels in the name of profit' as he put it in
‘Dude, Where's My Country?'"

"And in perhaps the ultimate irony, he also has owned shares in
Halliburton. According to IRS filings, Moore sold Halliburton for a 15
percent profit and bought shares in Noble, Ford, General Electric
(another defense contractor), AOL Time Warner (evil corporate media)
and McDonald's."

"Also on Moore's investment menu: defense contractors Honeywell,
Boeing and Loral."
Mossingen
2011-11-03 14:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
I still can't believe the assholes on this newsgroup who support the
Occutards. Is this what you want? To see American cities burning?
Especially James Mossingen, what is your fucking problem?
http://youtu.be/QngE6kKk8Lg
And has anyone seen the video of fat ass Michael Moore calling for an
end to capitalism? I mean, if there ever was any doubt that that
mutherfucker is a communist, there shouldn't be now.
It's time for the police to start using real bullets. Overdue!
What exactly are the facts here? What did the protesters do to deserve a
tear gas barrage? Just curious. The right to peacefully assemble is often
a powerful catalyst for change, sometimes it's the only thing that works.
popinjay999
2011-11-03 15:09:46 UTC
Permalink
What exactly are the facts here?  What did the protesters do to deserve a
tear gas barrage?  Just curious.  The right to peacefully assemble is often
a powerful catalyst for change, sometimes it's the only thing that works.
I call BULLSHIT! We have levels of representation at many levels. We
have representatives in the HOUSE apportioned 1 per every 500,000
people. THAT is how things get changed in a constitutional republic.
I expect this kind of shit from an obvious anarchist like Bradley K.
Sherman who obviously has no moral foundation, but from YOU, JAMES?
My jaw is dropping in dumbstruck awe. I cannot fucking believe you
are taking this stance. Seriously. I don't know if you are trolling
me or not, if you are then it's a damn good troll.
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 16:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
What exactly are the facts here?  What did the protesters do to deserve a
tear gas barrage?  Just curious.  The right to peacefully assemble is often
a powerful catalyst for change, sometimes it's the only thing that works.
I call BULLSHIT! We have levels of representation at many levels.
But they're not representing us. They're representing whoever pays them
the most. THAT'S been proven a number of times.
Post by popinjay999
We
have representatives in the HOUSE apportioned 1 per every 500,000
people. THAT is how things get changed in a constitutional republic.
Except they don't. And that's what the march is about. Why aren't you
marching?



Jerry 'n Vegas
Post by popinjay999
I expect this kind of shit from an obvious anarchist like Bradley K.
Sherman who obviously has no moral foundation, but from YOU, JAMES?
My jaw is dropping in dumbstruck awe. I cannot fucking believe you
are taking this stance. Seriously. I don't know if you are trolling
me or not, if you are then it's a damn good troll.
_______________________________________________________________________ 
ChrisRobin
2011-11-03 17:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
I call BULLSHIT! We have levels of representation at many levels. We
have representatives in the HOUSE apportioned 1 per every 500,000
people. THAT is how things get changed in a constitutional republic.
How's that system working out for the average American, numbnuts?

------- 
popinjay999
2011-11-03 20:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChrisRobin
I call BULLSHIT!  We have levels of representation at many levels.  We
have representatives in the HOUSE apportioned 1 per every 500,000
people.  THAT is how things get changed in a constitutional republic.
How's that system working out for the average American, numbnuts?
Well, pretty good, I would say. The only reason why it would not
work, is because of apathy or lack of understanding by the
constituents, or lack of morality. But as far as the structure of
this system is concerned, it is working great. It is a brilliant
system, as a matter of fact. Yes, that's right, it is not only the
best system that mankind has ever lived under, it is also an extremely
brilliant system. It's perfect. And how would you do it differently,
fuckface? I mean, we already know where your loyalties stand, but how
would you do it differently, you fucking traitorous little piece of
bolshevik shit? I mean, you've got a lot of audacity, you think you
are smarter than the men who founded our country? Go fuck yourself,
Chris, you make me want to vomit.
Clave
2011-11-03 20:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChrisRobin
Post by popinjay999
I call BULLSHIT! We have levels of representation at many levels. We
have representatives in the HOUSE apportioned 1 per every 500,000
people. THAT is how things get changed in a constitutional republic.
How's that system working out for the average American, numbnuts?
Well, pretty good, I would say...
I get it -- everyone should just shut the fuck up and enjoy their bread and
circuses.

Jim
Iceman
2011-11-03 20:58:52 UTC
Permalink
"popinjay999" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:00829ee0-f237-4af8-a1c0-***@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
"Well, pretty good, I would say. The only reason why it would not
work, is because of apathy or lack of understanding by the
constituents, or lack of morality. But as far as the structure of
this system is concerned, it is working great. It is a brilliant
system, as a matter of fact. Yes, that's right, it is not only the
best system that mankind has ever lived under, it is also an extremely
brilliant system. It's perfect. And how would you do it differently,
fuckface?"


For starters, the Senate and Electoral College give disproportionate power
to small states, and the winner-take-all system keeps out third parties. A
system where X percent of the vote gets you X percent of the seats in
parliament would be much more open to alternative parties.
phlash74
2011-11-03 23:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
"Well, pretty good, I would say. The only reason why it would not
work, is because of apathy or lack of understanding by the
constituents, or lack of morality. But as far as the structure of
this system is concerned, it is working great. It is a brilliant
system, as a matter of fact. Yes, that's right, it is not only the
best system that mankind has ever lived under, it is also an extremely
brilliant system. It's perfect. And how would you do it differently,
fuckface?"
For starters, the Senate and Electoral College give disproportionate power
to small states, and the winner-take-all system keeps out third parties. A
system where X percent of the vote gets you X percent of the seats in
parliament would be much more open to alternative parties.
Yeah, that system works REALLY well in Europe, where they change
governments every other month and the party with the most seats rarely has
a majority, so they have to barter with various other parties in order to
form a government. Gives new meaning to the saying "Politics makes
strange bedfellows."

How do the small states have disproportionate power in the Electoral
College? The Senate I get, but that's to balance the proportional
representation in the House and keep the small states from getting
dominated in Congress. The EC divides up votes according to the number of
Congresspersons, so the small states are virtually invisible and the
Presidential elections generally come down to the swing states with
double-digit electoral vote totals (Ohio, Florida, etc.)

OTOH, you could argue that they have too much impact on the nominations
given the early primaries/caucuses held in states like New Hampshire and
Iowa, where potential nominees can be derailed by a poor showing in the
states that have maybe 1% of the delegates.

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

_______________________________________________________________________ 
Iceman
2011-11-03 23:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by phlash74
Post by Iceman
"Well, pretty good, I would say. The only reason why it would not
work, is because of apathy or lack of understanding by the
constituents, or lack of morality. But as far as the structure of
this system is concerned, it is working great. It is a brilliant
system, as a matter of fact. Yes, that's right, it is not only the
best system that mankind has ever lived under, it is also an extremely
brilliant system. It's perfect. And how would you do it differently,
fuckface?"
For starters, the Senate and Electoral College give disproportionate power
to small states, and the winner-take-all system keeps out third parties.
A
system where X percent of the vote gets you X percent of the seats in
parliament would be much more open to alternative parties.
Yeah, that system works REALLY well in Europe, where they change
governments every other month and the party with the most seats rarely has
a majority, so they have to barter with various other parties in order to
form a government. Gives new meaning to the saying "Politics makes
strange bedfellows."
It's true that the governments change more often in Europe, but there are
advantages to that. Voters can more easily punish a party without electing
its opposite. If you're a disappointed liberal or conservative in the US
system, you have nowhere to go. In Europe the smaller parties help to hold
the mainstream parties accountable. And in many US house districts and
local elections, only one party is competitive, so there are no real checks
and balances - look at corrupt urban mayors.
Post by phlash74
How do the small states have disproportionate power in the Electoral
College? The Senate I get, but that's to balance the proportional
representation in the House and keep the small states from getting
dominated in Congress. The EC divides up votes according to the number of
Congresspersons, so the small states are virtually invisible and the
Presidential elections generally come down to the swing states with
double-digit electoral vote totals (Ohio, Florida, etc.)
You get 1 vote for each house or senate seat, so the disproportionate
representation in the Senate carries over to the Electoral College to a
lesser degree. In practice, the whole election comes down to a few large
swing states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida) and large one-way
states are ignored (California, New York, Texas, Illinois). The National
Popular Vote movement would solve that.
Post by phlash74
OTOH, you could argue that they have too much impact on the nominations
given the early primaries/caucuses held in states like New Hampshire and
Iowa, where potential nominees can be derailed by a poor showing in the
states that have maybe 1% of the delegates.
The primary system isn't written into the Constitution, but I agree that it
is flawed. A few unrepresentative states with early primaries have massive
power over the nomination, and then it's not surprising we get idiotic
policies like ethanol subsidies that favor those states. It would be better
to get rid of state-by-state primaries and have four regional primaries
across entire parts of the country, and have the order of which region goes
first rotate each election cycle.
Pepe Papon
2011-11-04 08:05:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:05:38 -0700, "phlash74"
Post by phlash74
Post by Iceman
"Well, pretty good, I would say. The only reason why it would not
work, is because of apathy or lack of understanding by the
constituents, or lack of morality. But as far as the structure of
this system is concerned, it is working great. It is a brilliant
system, as a matter of fact. Yes, that's right, it is not only the
best system that mankind has ever lived under, it is also an extremely
brilliant system. It's perfect. And how would you do it differently,
fuckface?"
For starters, the Senate and Electoral College give disproportionate power
to small states, and the winner-take-all system keeps out third parties. A
system where X percent of the vote gets you X percent of the seats in
parliament would be much more open to alternative parties.
Yeah, that system works REALLY well in Europe, where they change
governments every other month
We don't have a parliamentary system like Europe. Abolishing
winner-take-all would in no way lead to a system of constantly
changing governments.
Post by phlash74
and the party with the most seats rarely has
a majority, so they have to barter with various other parties in order to
form a government.
You say this like it's a bad thing. It means that minority parties
have a voice. It increases the importance of compromise.
ChrisRobin
2011-11-05 19:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
Post by ChrisRobin
I call BULLSHIT!  We have levels of representation at many levels.  We
have representatives in the HOUSE apportioned 1 per every 500,000
people.  THAT is how things get changed in a constitutional republic.
How's that system working out for the average American, numbnuts?
Well, pretty good, I would say. The only reason why it would not
work, is because of apathy or lack of understanding by the
constituents, or lack of morality. But as far as the structure of
this system is concerned, it is working great. It is a brilliant
system, as a matter of fact. Yes, that's right, it is not only the
best system that mankind has ever lived under, it is also an extremely
brilliant system. It's perfect. And how would you do it differently,
fuckface? I mean, we already know where your loyalties stand, but how
would you do it differently, you fucking traitorous little piece of
bolshevik shit? I mean, you've got a lot of audacity, you think you
are smarter than the men who founded our country? Go fuck yourself,
Chris, you make me want to vomit.
Mission accomplished!

If you think the current condition of this country even remotely resembles
anything the founders envisioned, then you're an even bigger idiot than I
could have imagined. Perfect my ass, you authoritarian-loving nitwit.

________________________________________________________________________ 
popinjay999
2011-11-10 15:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChrisRobin
If you think the current condition of this country even remotely resembles
anything the founders envisioned, then you're an even bigger idiot than I
could have imagined. Perfect my ass, you authoritarian-loving nitwit.
I doubt if you even know who your congressman is. If you do, then
surely the vast majority of RGPers do not. And absolutely the vast
majority of Occupy Wall Streeters do not. So please tell me what a
better system might look like. Like I said, we have one member in the
House for every 500,000 people, and those House members are very
accessible and hold plenty of power. All appropriations bills must
originate in the House. So show me a better system, you whiney piece
of traitorous shit.
Iceman
2011-11-10 16:44:58 UTC
Permalink
"popinjay999" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:163003dc-6920-443c-9bd2-***@h31g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
"I doubt if you even know who your congressman is. If you do, then
surely the vast majority of RGPers do not. And absolutely the vast
majority of Occupy Wall Streeters do not. So please tell me what a
better system might look like. Like I said, we have one member in the
House for every 500,000 people, and those House members are very
accessible and hold plenty of power. All appropriations bills must
originate in the House. So show me a better system, you whiney piece
of traitorous shit."


A party gets X% of the vote, they get X% of the seats in parliament.
popinjay999
2011-11-10 17:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
A party gets X% of the vote, they get X% of the seats in parliament.
That's fine for people like you and Chris because most of the
"separate" parties are actually the same thing, a bunch of snively
whiney socialists. In a parliamentary system you have socialism from
Column-A, from Column-B, etc.

Look, there doesn't need to be political parties. A position in our
government has a proper role, a proper constitutional role, a
constitutional function. In your "dream" system they have allegiance
to their party platforms, which are basically just different flavors
of the same thing. But statesmen like George Washington and Paul
Popinjay think they should have allegiance to the Constitution.

I'm not at all surprised that you, Iceman, would want a parliamentary
system. I'm sure you're a nice kid, but you're really fucked up in
the head.
Iceman
2011-11-10 19:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
A party gets X% of the vote, they get X% of the seats in parliament.
"That's fine for people like you and Chris because most of the
"separate" parties are actually the same thing, a bunch of snively
whiney socialists. In a parliamentary system you have socialism from
Column-A, from Column-B, etc."


In most European governments, you have a lot more ideological diversity
among parties in government than you have in the US.

"Look, there doesn't need to be political parties. A position in our
government has a proper role, a proper constitutional role, a
constitutional function. In your "dream" system they have allegiance
to their party platforms, which are basically just different flavors
of the same thing. But statesmen like George Washington and Paul
Popinjay think they should have allegiance to the Constitution."


Government officials are required by law to follow the Constitution, and the
courts can strike down laws that don't.

For all the flaws of political parties, a political party is like a brand -
you have a certain assurance about the people running under its banner. And
political parties make it easier for candidates who don't have their own
funds to get into politics. It would just be better to have many parties
instead of just two. And in many areas, one party totally dominates and
there's no accountability no matter how badly they fuck up.
popinjay999
2011-11-10 20:25:06 UTC
Permalink
 It would just be better to have many parties
instead of just two.
It would be better to have none.

I can see how what I said is completely lost on you. I really didn't
expect you to get it.

By the way, what party was Washington?
mo_ntresor
2011-11-10 20:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
 It would just be better to have many parties
instead of just two.
It would be better to have none.
I can see how what I said is completely lost on you. I really didn't
expect you to get it.
By the way, what party was Washington?
it's much simpler to convey the depths of your political and social
understanding with a party name than actually think, talk, and explain a
bunch of complicated shit. it comes in handy when iceman's wooing his
wife over a microwave dinner in his mom's house in houston.

mo_ntresor

--- 
popinjay999
2011-11-10 20:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by mo_ntresor
it's much simpler to convey the depths of your political and social
understanding with a party name than actually think, talk, and explain a
bunch of complicated shit.  it comes in handy when iceman's wooing his
wife over a microwave dinner in his mom's house in houston.
He thinks there is a difference between the Green Party, the Labor
Party, the Social Democrat Party, and on and on.

Of course, Iceman can tell you how different Mao's communism was from
Castro's communism, from Pol Pot's communism, from Tito's communism.
He doesn't see it like I do, that they're all fucking commies. I am
too simplistic. Too black and white.
Iceman
2011-11-10 22:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by mo_ntresor
it's much simpler to convey the depths of your political and social
understanding with a party name than actually think, talk, and explain a
bunch of complicated shit. it comes in handy when iceman's wooing his
wife over a microwave dinner in his mom's house in houston.
"He thinks there is a difference between the Green Party, the Labor
Party, the Social Democrat Party, and on and on."


There is. They have clear differences on the size of government, labor
policy, environmental policy, immigration, foreign policy, etc. Of course
in most European countries all of those parties and even some of the
conservative parties would be to the left of our Democrats.

"Of course, Iceman can tell you how different Mao's communism was from
Castro's communism, from Pol Pot's communism, from Tito's communism."


I don't defend any of them, but there were some differences. Tito's
Yugoslavia was a much less horrible place to live than say, Cambodia under
the Khmer Rouge. Franco's Spain was much less horrible than Hitler's
Germany. French-ruled Morocco was much less horrible than the Belgian-ruled
Congo Free State. Etc., etc. And none of those are comparable to modern
European social democratic parties.
popinjay999
2011-11-10 23:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
Post by Iceman
"He thinks there is a difference between the Green Party, the Labor
Party, the Social Democrat Party, and on and on."
There is.
Not to me there isn't. It's the same shit. That's my opinion, and it
would be George Washington's opinion too if he were still alive.
Popinjay and George probably would have hung out together a lot if
they had lived in the same era.
Iceman
2011-11-11 03:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
Post by Iceman
"He thinks there is a difference between the Green Party, the Labor
Party, the Social Democrat Party, and on and on."
There is.
"Not to me there isn't. It's the same shit. That's my opinion, and it
would be George Washington's opinion too if he were still alive.
Popinjay and George probably would have hung out together a lot if
they had lived in the same era."


If George Washington was around today he'd be Occupying Wall Street.
Steam
2011-11-11 05:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
Post by Iceman
Post by Iceman
"He thinks there is a difference between the Green Party, the Labor
Party, the Social Democrat Party, and on and on."
There is.
"Not to me there isn't. It's the same shit. That's my opinion, and it
would be George Washington's opinion too if he were still alive.
Popinjay and George probably would have hung out together a lot if
they had lived in the same era."
If George Washington was around today he'd be Occupying Wall Street.
Doubtful, he would have been a 1%er,

____________________________________________________________________ 
Iceman
2011-11-11 15:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steam
Post by Iceman
Post by Iceman
Post by Iceman
"He thinks there is a difference between the Green Party, the Labor
Party, the Social Democrat Party, and on and on."
There is.
"Not to me there isn't. It's the same shit. That's my opinion, and it
would be George Washington's opinion too if he were still alive.
Popinjay and George probably would have hung out together a lot if
they had lived in the same era."
If George Washington was around today he'd be Occupying Wall Street.
Doubtful, he would have been a 1%er,
Yeah, but he sympathized with people's struggles against oppression.
popinjay999
2011-11-11 04:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
If George Washington was around today he'd be Occupying Wall Street.
You obviously have him confused with Robespierre.
Iceman
2011-11-10 22:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by mo_ntresor
Post by popinjay999
Post by Iceman
It would just be better to have many parties
instead of just two.
It would be better to have none.
I can see how what I said is completely lost on you. I really didn't
expect you to get it.
By the way, what party was Washington?
it's much simpler to convey the depths of your political and social
understanding with a party name than actually think, talk, and explain a
bunch of complicated shit.
For president or governor or mayor, fine, but tell me who is running for
your local public advocate or city comptroller and what they believe.
Post by mo_ntresor
it comes in handy when iceman's wooing his
wife over a microwave dinner in his mom's house in houston.
How big is your apartment? I could probably fit ten of it in this house.
The weather is nice almost all year round, if it's not beach weather it's
golf weather. And there are good public schools and it's the safest
neighborhood in Houston. I haven't had to cross any streets to avoid people
of any race lately...
mo_ntresor
2011-11-10 22:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iceman
Post by mo_ntresor
it's much simpler to convey the depths of your political and social
understanding with a party name than actually think, talk, and explain a
bunch of complicated shit.
For president or governor or mayor, fine, but tell me who is running for
your local public advocate or city comptroller and what they believe.
Post by mo_ntresor
it comes in handy when iceman's wooing his
wife over a microwave dinner in his mom's house in houston.
How big is your apartment? I could probably fit ten of it in this house.
The weather is nice almost all year round, if it's not beach weather it's
golf weather. And there are good public schools and it's the safest
neighborhood in Houston. I haven't had to cross any streets to avoid people
of any race lately...
sounds like a giant waste of resources and energy. how do you live with
yourself?

mo_ntresor

----- 
David Monaghan
2011-11-12 00:29:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:25:06 -0800 (PST), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
 It would just be better to have many parties
instead of just two.
It would be better to have none.
Paul declares himself as RGP's first anarchist.

Good on you, Paul.

DaveM
popinjay999
2011-11-12 02:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Monaghan
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:25:06 -0800 (PST), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
 It would just be better to have many parties
instead of just two.
It would be better to have none.
Paul declares himself as RGP's first anarchist.
Good on you, Paul.
DaveM
You could not be any further from the truth.

I said "none" as in no political parties, not "none" as in no
government. My allegiance as a candidate and holder of political
office would be to the Constitution, not some party platform. There
is a proper role, a proper function. And in the execution of that
proper role, it does not entail taking from any 'haves' and giving to
any 'have-nots'. Such an action would amount to legal plunder.

necron99
2011-11-03 20:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
What exactly are the facts here?  What did the protesters do to deserve a
tear gas barrage?  Just curious.  The right to peacefully assemble is often
a powerful catalyst for change, sometimes it's the only thing that works.
I call BULLSHIT! We have levels of representation at many levels. We
have representatives in the HOUSE apportioned 1 per every 500,000
people. THAT is how things get changed in a constitutional republic.
I expect this kind of shit from an obvious anarchist like Bradley K.
Sherman who obviously has no moral foundation, but from YOU, JAMES?
My jaw is dropping in dumbstruck awe. I cannot fucking believe you
are taking this stance. Seriously. I don't know if you are trolling
me or not, if you are then it's a damn good troll.
You should tone this down Paul, I mean, people are watching. Keep it up
and you could find yourself first against the wall when the revolution
comes. someone like Beldin would just run screaming to them, wetting
himself while he waves printouts of your posts.
Adam

_____________________________________________________________________ 
Pepe Papon
2011-11-03 23:19:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 08:09:46 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
What exactly are the facts here?  What did the protesters do to deserve a
tear gas barrage?  Just curious.  The right to peacefully assemble is often
a powerful catalyst for change, sometimes it's the only thing that works.
I call BULLSHIT! We have levels of representation at many levels. We
have representatives in the HOUSE apportioned 1 per every 500,000
people. THAT is how things get changed in a constitutional republic.
We also have the First Amendment to the Constitution. That must have
been put in there just for yuks.
popinjay999
2011-11-04 00:03:16 UTC
Permalink
We also have the First Amendment to the Constitution.   That must have
been put in there just for yuks.
You don't know why it was put there, numbnuts, I guarantee you that.
If Mossingen does't, and he's a lawyer for cryin outloud, then you
sure the fuck don't.
Pepe Papon
2011-11-04 08:06:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:03:16 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
We also have the First Amendment to the Constitution.   That must have
been put in there just for yuks.
You don't know why it was put there, numbnuts, I guarantee you that.
If Mossingen does't, and he's a lawyer for cryin outloud, then you
sure the fuck don't.
OK, let's pretend I don't. Whaddya know, it's still there!
mo_ntresor
2011-11-03 14:42:59 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 3 2011 8:40 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

<snip>
So they can continue to be among the 1% that pays NO
taxes at all. They want their corporations to be among the many that pay
NO taxes at all. And they want to be able to keep their tax returns secret
so you don't know it.
i wonder what percent of fleabaggers actually believe this. do they
seriously think the herd in tents pissing and shitting in other's yards
are the ones keeping the government goodies rolling?

mo_ntresor

------ 
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 14:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
I still can't believe the assholes on this newsgroup who support the
Occutards.
I can't believe you don't.
Post by popinjay999
Is this what you want?
Hell yes! The 1%ers are already starting to squirm. They want to keep
their "lower tax percentage," than you. They want to keep their thousands
of special deductions that allow them to keep more of their millions. They
want to be allowed to have their corporations make unlimited donations to
bribe politicians. So they can continue to be among the 1% that pays NO
taxes at all. They want their corporations to be among the many that pay
NO taxes at all. And they want to be able to keep their tax returns secret
so you don't know it.

But already we OWS have them squirming. B of A just decided to cancel
their Debit Dollars. US Airways - because of us and their union - moved
400 customer service Call Centers jobs back from the Philippines to be
American Jobs. 40 Republicans joined 60 Democrats in a letter urging the
Deficit Cutting Super Committee to consider ALL options to raising
revenue. About 24 of those Republicans had previously signed a "No tax
increase" pledge.

You fucking well bet we're making a difference. And it ain't over yet. The
question is, why aren't you pissed at Wall Street, too? Why are you
supporting the very people that want to fuck you?



Jerry (marching this Saturday) 'n Vegas







To see American cities burning?
Post by popinjay999
Especially James Mossingen, what is your fucking problem?
http://youtu.be/QngE6kKk8Lg
And has anyone seen the video of fat ass Michael Moore calling for an
end to capitalism? I mean, if there ever was any doubt that that
mutherfucker is a communist, there shouldn't be now.
It's time for the police to start using real bullets. Overdue!
_______________________________________________________________________ 
Dave the Clueless
2011-11-03 14:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
Post by popinjay999
Is this what you want?
Hell yes! The 1%ers are already starting to squirm.
Hehe. Right. Buncha smelly weirdos camped out in a public park are making
those fat-cat CFOs wish they didn't have so much money!

BTW, I'm big on the right to peaceably assemble and air grievances. OWS is
fine in my book, so long as they don't break laws.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

------- 
popinjay999
2011-11-03 15:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave the Clueless
BTW, I'm big on the right to peaceably assemble and air grievances. OWS is
fine in my book, so long as they don't break laws.
They don't have a right to flood the downtown area of a city, tying up
the flow of traffic and commerce and using up city resources, police,
fire, medical, etc. And that's not even taking into account the
assholes who are breaking windows and throwing rocks at the police,
what about city permits? Isn't THAT breaking the law when they are
flooding the area without a permit? This is not what the
Constitution's provision for freedom of assembly is about, not one
iota.

I mean, we have at least two lawyers and one supposed (doubtful) ex-
policeman on this newsgroup supporting this "rebellion". And then
there are total morons like Chris Robin who think these uprisings are
occurring spontaneously, all over the world, with no central
organization.
Dave the Clueless
2011-11-03 17:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
Post by Dave the Clueless
BTW, I'm big on the right to peaceably assemble and air grievances. OWS is
fine in my book, so long as they don't break laws.
They don't have a right to flood the downtown area of a city, tying up
the flow of traffic and commerce and using up city resources, police,
fire, medical, etc. And that's not even taking into account the
assholes who are breaking windows and throwing rocks at the police,
what about city permits? Isn't THAT breaking the law when they are
flooding the area without a permit? This is not what the
Constitution's provision for freedom of assembly is about, not one
iota.
I mean, we have at least two lawyers and one supposed (doubtful) ex-
policeman on this newsgroup supporting this "rebellion". And then
there are total morons like Chris Robin who think these uprisings are
occurring spontaneously, all over the world, with no central
organization.
OWS who violate the law should be subject to the just and legal handling
by Jerry's people.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

_______________________________________________________________________ 
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 21:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by popinjay999
Post by Dave the Clueless
BTW, I'm big on the right to peaceably assemble and air grievances. OWS is
fine in my book, so long as they don't break laws.
They don't have a right to flood the downtown area of a city, tying up
the flow of traffic and commerce and using up city resources, police,
fire, medical, etc. And that's not even taking into account the
assholes who are breaking windows and throwing rocks at the police,
what about city permits? Isn't THAT breaking the law when they are
flooding the area without a permit? This is not what the
Constitution's provision for freedom of assembly is about, not one
iota.
I mean, we have at least two lawyers and one supposed (doubtful) ex-
policeman on this newsgroup supporting this "rebellion". And then
there are total morons like Chris Robin who think these uprisings are
occurring spontaneously, all over the world, with no central
organization.
OWS who violate the law should be subject to the just and legal handling
by Jerry's people.
It may be Saturday. I answer the email by volunteering to be arrested. The
problem is often the fact that many of the cops are actually supportive of
the movement and are only doing their job. They helped us on the march
when we marched on the strip.

Jerry (marching off to war)
Post by Dave the Clueless
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
_______________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________ 
ChrisRobin
2011-11-03 17:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
I mean, we have at least two lawyers and one supposed (doubtful) ex-
policeman on this newsgroup supporting this "rebellion". And then
there are total morons like Chris Robin who think these uprisings are
occurring spontaneously, all over the world, with no central
organization.
That's a total fabrication on your part. But at least you're consistent.

---- 
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 16:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by VegasJerry
Post by popinjay999
Is this what you want?
Hell yes! The 1%ers are already starting to squirm.
Hehe. Right. Buncha smelly weirdos camped out in a public park are making
those fat-cat CFOs wish they didn't have so much money!
And already BofA backed off. And already US Airways - because of us and
their union - moves 400 cusomer service jobs - Call Centers - back from
the Phipplipines. And already 40 Republicans joined 60 Democrats in a
ltter urging the Deficit cutting super committee to consider ALL options
to raising revenue. About 24 of those Republicans had previously signed a
"No tax increase" pledge…



Jerry 'n Vegas
Post by Dave the Clueless
BTW, I'm big on the right to peaceably assemble and air grievances. OWS is
fine in my book, so long as they don't break laws.
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
------- 
---- 
Dave the Clueless
2011-11-03 17:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by VegasJerry
Post by popinjay999
Is this what you want?
Hell yes! The 1%ers are already starting to squirm.
Hehe. Right. Buncha smelly weirdos camped out in a public park are making
those fat-cat CFOs wish they didn't have so much money!
And already BofA backed off. And already US Airways - because of us and
their union - moves 400 cusomer service jobs - Call Centers - back from
the Phipplipines. And already 40 Republicans joined 60 Democrats in a
ltter urging the Deficit cutting super committee to consider ALL options
to raising revenue. About 24 of those Republicans had previously signed a
"No tax increase" pledge…
Jerry 'n Vegas
Wow, you really believe that? Really? MSKGB filling your empty little head
with nonsense again.
Post by VegasJerry
Post by Dave the Clueless
BTW, I'm big on the right to peaceably assemble and air grievances. OWS is
fine in my book, so long as they don't break laws.
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
------- 
---- 
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

----- 
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 21:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by VegasJerry
Post by Dave the Clueless
Post by VegasJerry
Post by popinjay999
Is this what you want?
Hell yes! The 1%ers are already starting to squirm.
Hehe. Right. Buncha smelly weirdos camped out in a public park are making
those fat-cat CFOs wish they didn't have so much money!
And already BofA backed off. And already US Airways - because of us and
their union - moves 400 cusomer service jobs - Call Centers - back from
the Phipplipines. And already 40 Republicans joined 60 Democrats in a
ltter urging the Deficit cutting super committee to consider ALL options
to raising revenue. About 24 of those Republicans had previously signed a
"No tax increase" pledge…
Jerry 'n Vegas
Wow, you really believe that?
Wow, you ever come up to date; or can't you change your TV from the FAUX
Channel?

(It's funny how Clueless continues to prove his own name)

J..







Really? MSKGB filling your empty little head
Post by Dave the Clueless
with nonsense again.
Post by VegasJerry
Post by Dave the Clueless
BTW, I'm big on the right to peaceably assemble and air grievances. OWS is
fine in my book, so long as they don't break laws.
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
------- 
---- 
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
----- 
----- 
bratt
2011-11-03 21:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave the Clueless
Wow, you really believe that?
Jerry - maybe its time for you to change your BRAIN

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/11/03/hang_on_40_republican_members_of_congress_want_tax_hikes_.html



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racism only comes in one color, and that color is white.
B-BillB

______________________________________________________________________ 
popinjay999
2011-11-03 15:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
You fucking well bet we're making a difference. And it ain't over yet. The
question is, why aren't you pissed at Wall Street, too? Why are you
supporting the very people that want to fuck you?
And you were a policeman at one time? You think it's ok for mobs to
tie up a city and break windows and destroy property and refuse to
disperse? You are without a doubt one of the most fucked up in the
head RGPers to ever post on this newsgroup. You are a total disgrace
to the badge.
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 16:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
Post by VegasJerry
You fucking well bet we're making a difference. And it ain't over yet. The
question is, why aren't you pissed at Wall Street, too? Why are you
supporting the very people that want to fuck you?
And you were a policeman at one time?
Hell yes. And something else you don't know is that many of the police
support us. Why don't you?
Post by popinjay999
You think it's ok for mobs to
tie up a city and break windows and destroy property and refuse to
disperse?
Hell yes. I'll be joining in it this Saturday. Why aren't you?



Jerry 'n Vegas
Post by popinjay999
You are without a doubt one of the most fucked up in the
head RGPers to ever post on this newsgroup. You are a total disgrace
to the badge.
______________________________________________________________________ 
bratt
2011-11-03 17:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
Post by popinjay999
And you were a policeman at one time?
Hell yes. And something else you don't know is that many of the police
support us. Why don't you?
Post by popinjay999
You think it's ok for mobs to
tie up a city and break windows and destroy property and refuse to
disperse?
Hell yes. I'll be joining in it this Saturday. Why aren't you?
Jerry - what happened to your mantra "just do what the nice cops tell you
do do?"
Post by VegasJerry
Post by popinjay999
You are without a doubt one of the most fucked up in the
head RGPers to ever post on this newsgroup. You are a total disgrace
to the badge.
______________________________________________________________________ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racism only comes in one color, and that color is white.
B-BillB

------ 
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 21:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by bratt
Post by VegasJerry
Post by popinjay999
And you were a policeman at one time?
Hell yes. And something else you don't know is that many of the police
support us. Why don't you?
Post by popinjay999
You think it's ok for mobs to
tie up a city and break windows and destroy property and refuse to
disperse?
Hell yes. I'll be joining in it this Saturday. Why aren't you?
Jerry - what happened to your mantra "just do what the nice cops tell you
do do?"
Nothing. It's what you do when you want to stay out of trouble. Is that so
hard for you to understand?

These marches are theater. They're for getting in the press. I’ve been an
activist (and 'communit orginizer?) for decades. I’ve had a byline in a
newspaper, been invited to public debates; been invited to talk at public
libraries; ran for public office; held Vice Chairman on an appointed
commission, and ran a Proposition Campaign where I was in debates on TV.
This is all about press and theater. The Vietnam marches, and Oakland
riots and Civil Rights marches had to stay in the press. I’m surprised
about the Vegas OWS guys sitting on their butts. I didn’t join them
because they're not doing stuff like the Oakland bunch. They aren’t
getting press. But when I was sent an email for Saturdays march, I sent in
my reply that I volunteered to be arrested. It’s all about press, sue.


Jerry (pressing) 'n Vegas
Post by bratt
Post by VegasJerry
Post by popinjay999
You are without a doubt one of the most fucked up in the
head RGPers to ever post on this newsgroup. You are a total disgrace
to the badge.
______________________________________________________________________ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racism only comes in one color, and that color is white.
B-BillB
------ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
bratt
2011-11-03 21:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
These marches are theater. They're for getting in the press. I’ve been an
activist (and 'communit orginizer?) for decades. I’ve had a byline in a
newspaper, been invited to public debates; been invited to talk at public
libraries; ran for public office; held Vice Chairman on an appointed
commission, and ran a Proposition Campaign where I was in debates on TV.
This is all about press and theater. The Vietnam marches, and Oakland
riots and Civil Rights marches had to stay in the press. I’m surprised
about the Vegas OWS guys sitting on their butts. I didn’t join them
because they're not doing stuff like the Oakland bunch. They aren’t
getting press. But when I was sent an email for Saturdays march, I sent in
my reply that I volunteered to be arrested. It’s all about press, sue.
LOL

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racism only comes in one color, and that color is white.
B-BillB

________________________________________________________________________ 
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 22:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
These marches are theater. They're for getting in the press. I’ve been an
activist (and 'communit orginizer?) for decades. I’ve had a byline in a
newspaper, been invited to public debates; been invited to talk at public
libraries; ran for public office; held Vice Chairman on an appointed
commission, and ran a Proposition Campaign where I was in debates on TV.
This is all about press and theater. The Vietnam marches, and Oakland
riots and Civil Rights marches had to stay in the press. I’m surprised
about the Vegas OWS guys sitting on their butts. I didn’t join them
because they're not doing stuff like the Oakland bunch. They aren’t
getting press. But when I was sent an email for Saturdays march, I sent in
my reply that I volunteered to be arrested. It’s all about press, sue.
LOL
That's about as minimal an understating dodge as possible.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
bratt
2011-11-03 18:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
Hell yes. I'll be joining in it this Saturday. Why aren't you?
Jerry 'n Vegas
One more question Jerry - why are you waiting till Saturday? To believe
as fervently as you believe in the cause I would think you would be out
there 24/7.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racism only comes in one color, and that color is white.
B-BillB

________________________________________________________________________ 
Alim Nassor
2011-11-03 18:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
Hell yes. I'll be joining in it this Saturday. Why aren't you?
Jerry 'n Vegas
One more question Jerry - why are you waiting till Saturday?  To believe
as fervently as you believe in the cause I would think you would be out
there 24/7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racism only comes in one color, and that color is white.
B-BillB
________________________________________________________________________
He's already booked his tee times for today and tomorrow.
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 21:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alim Nassor
Post by VegasJerry
Hell yes. I'll be joining in it this Saturday. Why aren't you?
Jerry 'n Vegas
One more question Jerry - why are you waiting till Saturday?  To believe
as fervently as you believe in the cause I would think you would be out
there 24/7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racism only comes in one color, and that color is white.
B-BillB
________________________________________________________________________
He's already booked his tee times for today and tomorrow.
You already made up your quota of positons for me for today and tomorrow.


J..

____________________________________________________________________ 
VegasJerry
2011-11-03 21:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by bratt
Post by VegasJerry
Hell yes. I'll be joining in it this Saturday. Why aren't you?
Jerry 'n Vegas
One more question Jerry - why are you waiting till Saturday?
That's the date of the march, here in Vegas.
Post by bratt
To believe as fervently as you believe in the cause I
would think you would be out there 24/7.
Why aren't you? Did you support Wall Street when the rated your mortgage
AAA and cause your property value to drop - while they made millions?


Jerry 'n Vegas
Post by bratt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racism only comes in one color, and that color is white.
B-BillB
________________________________________________________________________ 
_______________________________________________________________________ 
Travel A
2011-11-05 10:32:57 UTC
Permalink
All this phony "protest" is about is Obama running on "class warfare"
because he obviously can't run on his disastrous, socialist record.

The "protests" are organized and most are paid to be there, just like
all the other phony left wing "protests" that the left wing media pumps
up like it's all legit or something.

The whole thing is intended to deflect away from "Obama blame" and onto
"Republican blame" by defining a vote for a Republican as a vote for the
"evil 1%."

End of story, that's all there is to it.

If you don't want Euro-socialism and beyond, don't vote for Obama.
That's easy enough.
O-PGManager
2011-11-03 23:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
Why are you
supporting the very people that want to fuck you?
.. says the barack obama superfan.

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

---- 
VegasJerry
2011-11-04 23:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
Why are you
supporting the very people that want to fuck you?
... says the barack obama superfan.
Says the guy that couldn't answer the simple, direct, question.....

(Embarrased much?)
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
---- 
______________________________________________________________________ 
bub
2011-11-05 10:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
They want to keep their thousands
of special deductions that allow them to keep more of their millions
the 1% start at about $300,000 /year income

but you knew that right?
VegasJerry
2011-11-05 16:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bub
Post by VegasJerry
They want to keep their thousands
of special deductions that allow them to keep more of their millions
the 1% start at about $300,000 /year income
but you knew that right?
Yea. What's that to do with what I said? (And you dodged).

---- 
Frostbite
2011-11-03 17:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
And has anyone seen the video of fat ass Michael Moore calling for an
end to capitalism?
Are you talking about that CNN interview he did from the protests the
other day? I saw that. I don't think he was saying "end capitalism."
That would not be consistent with all the other things I've heard him
say. I think he was saying the *US version* of capitalism had to be
changed in some very fundamental ways, and it's hard to imagine any
thinking person disagreeing with that. At some point, any reasonable
person is going to say the ever-rising proportional concentration of
wealth at the very top has gone too far. Reasonable people will
certainly disagree where that point lies, and some will say we aren't
nearly there yet, but it's getting to the point where a critical mass of
people think we are, and want the situation stabilized, if not reversed.

You talk about "capitalism" as if it is one concrete thing, but it
isn't. Capitalism in its purest form can and will not work or exist in
the US, ever. You may as well get over that child-like fantasy right
now. It would require a dictator to enforce, and even then it would fail
miserably. People don't want it. Throughout the US's most wildly
prosperous decades, the US has been a mixed economy, not one governed by
pure capitalistic principles. So all anyone is really quibbling about is
the amount, type and form of wealth redistribution that should take
place. I get the impression the OWS crowd would be satisfied with free
and equal health care and education, both of which could be implemented
in such a way to save *everyone* money in the long run.
mo_ntresor
2011-11-03 17:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frostbite
Post by popinjay999
And has anyone seen the video of fat ass Michael Moore calling for an
end to capitalism?
Are you talking about that CNN interview he did from the protests the
other day? I saw that. I don't think he was saying "end capitalism."
That would not be consistent with all the other things I've heard him
say. I think he was saying the *US version* of capitalism had to be
changed in some very fundamental ways, and it's hard to imagine any
thinking person disagreeing with that. At some point, any reasonable
person is going to say the ever-rising proportional concentration of
wealth at the very top has gone too far. Reasonable people will
certainly disagree where that point lies, and some will say we aren't
nearly there yet, but it's getting to the point where a critical mass of
people think we are, and want the situation stabilized, if not reversed.
You talk about "capitalism" as if it is one concrete thing, but it
isn't. Capitalism in its purest form can and will not work or exist in
the US, ever. You may as well get over that child-like fantasy right
now. It would require a dictator to enforce, and even then it would fail
miserably. People don't want it. Throughout the US's most wildly
prosperous decades, the US has been a mixed economy, not one governed by
pure capitalistic principles. So all anyone is really quibbling about is
the amount, type and form of wealth redistribution that should take
place. I get the impression the OWS crowd would be satisfied with free
and equal health care and education, both of which could be implemented
in such a way to save *everyone* money in the long run.
i wonder where all those wildly "expensive" private schools came from!

mo_ntresor

_______________________________________________________________________ 
ChrisRobin
2011-11-03 17:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
I still can't believe the assholes on this newsgroup who support the
Occutards. Is this what you want? To see American cities burning?
Especially James Mossingen, what is your fucking problem?
http://youtu.be/QngE6kKk8Lg
And has anyone seen the video of fat ass Michael Moore calling for an
end to capitalism? I mean, if there ever was any doubt that that
mutherfucker is a communist, there shouldn't be now.
It's time for the police to start using real bullets. Overdue!
So our choices appear to be crony capitalism, communism, or Popinjay's
brand of armchair fascism. Anyone have any alternatives in mind? Because
our options pretty much suck.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
David Monaghan
2011-11-03 22:14:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:57:59 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
It's time for the police to start using real bullets. Overdue!
As I understand your views on the constitution, Paul, the founding fathers
predicted someone withy your views might attain power and so gave the people
the right to bear arms so they could fire back. Is that what you want, Paul?
Dead policeman? Do you? Do you? Are you turning into VegasJerry?

DaveM
David Monaghan
2011-11-03 23:16:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:14:37 +0000, David Monaghan
Post by Bill Vanek
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:57:59 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
It's time for the police to start using real bullets. Overdue!
As I understand your views on the constitution, Paul, the founding fathers
predicted someone withy your views might attain power and so gave the people
the right to bear arms so they could fire back. Is that what you want, Paul?
Dead policeman? Do you? Do you? Are you turning into VegasJerry?
Sorry - not VegasJerry, he's the police apologist, isn't he? I meant the
anti-police lunatic, Pawloski.

DaveM
O-PGManager
2011-11-03 22:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay999
I still can't believe the assholes on this newsgroup who support the
Occutards. Is this what you want? To see American cities burning?
Especially James Mossingen, what is your fucking problem?
http://youtu.be/QngE6kKk8Lg
And has anyone seen the video of fat ass Michael Moore calling for an
end to capitalism? I mean, if there ever was any doubt that that
mutherfucker is a communist, there shouldn't be now.
It's time for the police to start using real bullets. Overdue!
Damn those rioters with their tear gas and their grenades.

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

________________________________________________________________________ 
Pepe Papon
2011-11-03 23:12:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:57:59 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
Post by popinjay999
I still can't believe the assholes on this newsgroup who support the
Occutards. Is this what you want? To see American cities burning?
Especially James Mossingen, what is your fucking problem?
http://youtu.be/QngE6kKk8Lg
Those protesters should have done as the nice police officers told
them.
TruthSeeker
2011-11-06 19:02:13 UTC
Permalink
The Constitution protects our "...right of the people PEACEABLY to
assemble..."

That does not confer a right to trespass, hinder the rights of others in
the community, or destroy property.
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
2011-11-06 22:53:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:02:13 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
The Constitution protects our "...right of the people PEACEABLY to
assemble..."
That does not confer a right to trespass, hinder the rights of others in
the community, or destroy property.
It also doesn't confer the right to have the police fire grenades at
you.
TruthSeeker
2011-11-07 02:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:02:13 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
The Constitution protects our "...right of the people PEACEABLY to
assemble..."
That does not confer a right to trespass, hinder the rights of others in
the community, or destroy property.
It also doesn't confer the right to have the police fire grenades at
you.
Where have police in the U.S. fired grenades at people who were
peacefully assembling, without doing the other things that I mentioned?

I don't remember the police ever firing grenades at a Tea Party rally.
--
TruthSeeker
Tim Norfolk
2011-11-07 02:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by TruthSeeker
Post by Pepe Papon
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:02:13 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
The Constitution protects our "...right of the people PEACEABLY to
assemble..."
That does not confer a right to trespass, hinder the rights of others in
the community, or destroy property.
It also doesn't confer the right to have the police fire grenades at
you.
Where have police in the U.S. fired grenades at people who were
peacefully assembling, without doing the other things that I mentioned?
I don't remember the police ever firing grenades at a Tea Party rally.
--
TruthSeeker
The latter would have shot back.
Pepe Papon
2011-11-07 06:33:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:13:25 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
Post by Pepe Papon
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:02:13 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
The Constitution protects our "...right of the people PEACEABLY to
assemble..."
That does not confer a right to trespass, hinder the rights of others in
the community, or destroy property.
It also doesn't confer the right to have the police fire grenades at
you.
Where have police in the U.S. fired grenades at people who were
peacefully assembling, without doing the other things that I mentioned?
The police fired grenades in Oakland. I don't know why they did. Do
you?
Truthseeker
2011-11-07 16:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:13:25 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
Post by Pepe Papon
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:02:13 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
The Constitution protects our "...right of the people PEACEABLY to
assemble..."
That does not confer a right to trespass, hinder the rights of others in
the community, or destroy property.
It also doesn't confer the right to have the police fire grenades at
you.
Where have police in the U.S. fired grenades at people who were
peacefully assembling, without doing the other things that I mentioned?
The police fired grenades in Oakland.
Yes, I saw the video.
Post by Pepe Papon
I don't know why they did. Do you?
No, but I asked for an example of a case where the police fired grenades
at people who were peaceably assembling, without trespassing,
interfering with the rights of others, and destroying property. You
still have not provided such an example.
--
Truthseeker
Pepe Papon
2011-11-08 20:41:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:53:16 -0700, Truthseeker
Post by Truthseeker
Post by Pepe Papon
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:13:25 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
Post by Pepe Papon
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:02:13 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
The Constitution protects our "...right of the people PEACEABLY to
assemble..."
That does not confer a right to trespass, hinder the rights of others in
the community, or destroy property.
It also doesn't confer the right to have the police fire grenades at
you.
Where have police in the U.S. fired grenades at people who were
peacefully assembling, without doing the other things that I mentioned?
The police fired grenades in Oakland.
Yes, I saw the video.
Post by Pepe Papon
I don't know why they did. Do you?
No, but I asked for an example of a case where the police fired grenades
at people who were peaceably assembling, without trespassing,
interfering with the rights of others, and destroying property. You
still have not provided such an example.
Oakland, as far as I know.
Truthseeker
2011-11-08 21:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:53:16 -0700, Truthseeker
Post by Truthseeker
Post by Pepe Papon
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:13:25 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
Post by Pepe Papon
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:02:13 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
The Constitution protects our "...right of the people PEACEABLY to
assemble..."
That does not confer a right to trespass, hinder the rights of others in
the community, or destroy property.
It also doesn't confer the right to have the police fire grenades at
you.
Where have police in the U.S. fired grenades at people who were
peacefully assembling, without doing the other things that I mentioned?
The police fired grenades in Oakland.
Yes, I saw the video.
Post by Pepe Papon
I don't know why they did. Do you?
No, but I asked for an example of a case where the police fired grenades
at people who were peaceably assembling, without trespassing,
interfering with the rights of others, and destroying property. You
still have not provided such an example.
Oakland, as far as I know.
Fail. They were not peaceably assembling in Oakland when the
confrontation with the police started. See my paragraph immediately
above -- they were doing all of those non-peaceful things.

Now, I do personally believe that the police used excessive force. But
that does not alter the fact that these people did not have their First
Amendment rights to peaceably assemble infringed by the police.
--
Truthseeker
Pepe Papon
2011-11-09 08:09:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:20:20 -0700, Truthseeker
Post by Truthseeker
Post by Pepe Papon
Post by Truthseeker
No, but I asked for an example of a case where the police fired grenades
at people who were peaceably assembling, without trespassing,
interfering with the rights of others, and destroying property. You
still have not provided such an example.
Oakland, as far as I know.
Fail. They were not peaceably assembling in Oakland when the
confrontation with the police started. See my paragraph immediately
above -- they were doing all of those non-peaceful things.
Bullshit. Some people were throwing stuff. Not that I condone
throwing stuff, but there's no indication that they were doing all the
things you listed at the time of the confrontation.
Post by Truthseeker
Now, I do personally believe that the police used excessive force. But
that does not alter the fact that these people did not have their First
Amendment rights to peaceably assemble infringed by the police.
That's debatable. They were peacefully assembling before the police
forced them from the park.
TruthSeeker
2011-11-09 16:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:20:20 -0700, Truthseeker
Post by Truthseeker
Post by Pepe Papon
Oakland, as far as I know.
Fail. They were not peaceably assembling in Oakland when the
confrontation with the police started. See my paragraph immediately
above -- they were doing all of those non-peaceful things.
Bullshit. Some people were throwing stuff. Not that I condone
throwing stuff, but there's no indication that they were doing all the
things you listed at the time of the confrontation.
Post by Truthseeker
Now, I do personally believe that the police used excessive force. But
that does not alter the fact that these people did not have their First
Amendment rights to peaceably assemble infringed by the police.
That's debatable. They were peacefully assembling before the police
forced them from the park.
Well, that's the point of contention, isn't it? How often we see what
we want to see. You saw a peaceful assembly, I saw trespassing,
interfering with the rights of others, and destroying property.

I know of no case to date where any of the "occupy" movements met with
force from police where they were not doing one or more of those things.

Even if their motives are good, that does not give protesters the right
to take over a public park, camp out in squalor, damage it and deny the
use of the park to other citizens (as has been happening in many
places). The authorities have the duty to remove them when they do that.
--
TruthSeeker
FL Turbo
2011-11-10 02:38:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:43:44 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
Post by Pepe Papon
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:20:20 -0700, Truthseeker
Post by Truthseeker
Post by Pepe Papon
Oakland, as far as I know.
Fail. They were not peaceably assembling in Oakland when the
confrontation with the police started. See my paragraph immediately
above -- they were doing all of those non-peaceful things.
Bullshit. Some people were throwing stuff. Not that I condone
throwing stuff, but there's no indication that they were doing all the
things you listed at the time of the confrontation.
Post by Truthseeker
Now, I do personally believe that the police used excessive force. But
that does not alter the fact that these people did not have their First
Amendment rights to peaceably assemble infringed by the police.
That's debatable. They were peacefully assembling before the police
forced them from the park.
Well, that's the point of contention, isn't it? How often we see what
we want to see. You saw a peaceful assembly, I saw trespassing,
interfering with the rights of others, and destroying property.
I know of no case to date where any of the "occupy" movements met with
force from police where they were not doing one or more of those things.
Even if their motives are good, that does not give protesters the right
to take over a public park, camp out in squalor, damage it and deny the
use of the park to other citizens (as has been happening in many
places). The authorities have the duty to remove them when they do that.
You have only to see a few enclaves of Fleabaggers in operation to
understand how any attempts to equate them to the Tea Party members
are completely ludicrous.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
2011-11-10 08:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
You have only to see a few enclaves of Fleabaggers in operation to
understand how any attempts to equate them to the Tea Party members
are completely ludicrous.
If you are going to call one group "fleabaggers", then you should call
the other group "teabaggers".

If you are going to call one group "tea party members", then you
should call the other group "OWS protesters".

Try to maintain at least a pretense of objectivity.


William Coleman (ramashiva)
Pepe Papon
2011-11-10 08:25:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:43:44 -0700, TruthSeeker
Post by TruthSeeker
Even if their motives are good, that does not give protesters the right
to take over a public park, camp out in squalor, damage it and deny the
use of the park to other citizens (as has been happening in many
places). The authorities have the duty to remove them when they do that.
Assuming your account of what they were doing is accurate, you're
right. Given your track record, you'll have to pardon me for being
somewhat skeptical about that assumption.
Loading...