OCCUPY WALLSTREET!

[Diggles]

I liked edgy Hasbinbad more.

[Samoht]

capsaicin up your urethra = hours of fun

[vaylorie]

Please pity me and my movement because we broke the law and suffered the lawful consequences of our actions.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please pity me and my movement because we broke the law and suffered the lawful consequences of our actions.

Just because something is law does not make it just.

It was once (not so long ago) law that black men had 3/5ths the voting rights of white men, and women were not allowed to vote at all.

So what you're saying is:

"Please pity blacks and women because they aren't really people and by voting they are breaking the law, and when they get lynched for it, they are only suffering the lawful consequences for their actions."

Right?

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just because something is law does not make it just.

It was once (not so long ago) law that black men had 3/5ths the voting rights of white men, and women were not allowed to vote at all.

So what you're saying is:

"Please pity blacks and women because they aren't really people and by voting they are breaking the law, and when they get lynched for it, they are only suffering the lawful consequences for their actions."

Right?

It's seriously not worth it. He's made it quite clear that he is in support of the current system. If he supports the current system he's got to believe that what the politicians and elite are doing is "lawful" and "just fine". He'll receive his wake-up call when the realization dawns on him that TPTB will not stop at screwing over his neighbor who is "breaking the law". They will soon take to screwing him as well in their endless crusade of greed shielded by our government.

" First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

I suspect that will ring true for him at some point in the future, it will just take him somewhat longer, he's clinging to the comfort of a broken system rather than engaging in protest to change things for the greater good.

Also he is a hypocrit, he said this about 10 pages back :

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

unlawful protest and violence is the only way. There are no peaceable ways to achieve change.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

... you said stuff ...

STFU. Thanks.

p.s. re: your quote of mine - http://bit.ly/rw0dSD

[Hasbinbad]

You do know that there are laws against usury? Why do the banks not suffer consequences for breaking the law?

[vaylorie]

Hasbinbad,
Don't be foolish. Nowhere have I said that all laws that were ever written are to be considered valid. What I will say is that no society can be viable in the long term without the creation and enforcement of laws. This is a universal truth.

I agree that not all laws are just which is why there are mechanisms in place to change and adapt laws as thoughts, cultures and morality experiences changes over time.

Where I part ways from the OWS folks is in the methodology that you implement to effect change in the existing laws. Should everyone be free to follow only the laws that they personally view are just? If I find it morally acceptable to stab you, should the law no longer be enforced? Or, if I find it morally acceptable to drive 100mph in a school zone is it an outrage when I get ticketed?

Is the correct method to enact change to just not abide by laws? I'm a fairly deep rooted conservative and I personally agree with many of the issues that OWS raises (apart from the obvious liberal / redistribution ones) and I believe that OWS could receive mainstream support across Republican and Democrats alike if the approach utilized was inside of the existing processes and a concise message was able to be delivered.

If you actually represent the '99%' (read: mainstream America) and want the movement to be able to actually enact change, then you would change tactics. (slightly) You have had marginal success so far but more and more people can no longer relate based on the methods used. Organize, deliver a clear message, form a 99% party even if that's what it takes, but violence & shanty towns & constant police presence & different viewpoints from each protester is killing your cause.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Obviously advertising is powerful, but the consumer does have the ability to 'choose' which product most appealed to them through advertising.

This is completely untrue. As long as companies are allowed to lie on their advertising, as long as companies can legally price-fix, there is no real choice in consumption. There has to be regulation.

It's this stance that likens Libertarians to Republicans. They're all for personal rights until you try to limit rights of corporations, and then they go ape shit.

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is the correct method to enact change to just not abide by laws?

How exactly do you propose we start the process to limit the amount of laws that our congressmen are allowed to break? Did you know that they're immune to insider trading laws? Should I contact my congressman and tell him that I know and that I think he should change his ways? No, it's legal, and the only way to fix peacefully this is going to be through mass demonstrations. When that fails, violence will ensue. Congress has their chance to step down and stop being piggypiggypiggypiggypiggy greedy. Presently, they're passing on the opportunity, and the sheep such as yourself are just feeding into it deeper.

When the coup comes, the people on the fence will fall on the side of those rising up. Those like you will die like the 1%.

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How exactly do you propose we start the process to limit the amount of laws that our congressmen are allowed to break? Did you know that they're immune to insider trading laws? Should I contact my congressman and tell him that I know and that I think he should change his ways? No, it's legal, and the only way to fix peacefully this is going to be through mass demonstrations. When that fails, violence will ensue. Congress has their chance to step down and stop being piggypiggypiggypiggypiggy greedy. Presently, they're passing on the opportunity, and the sheep such as yourself are just feeding into it deeper.

When the coup comes, the people on the fence will fall on the side of those rising up. Those like you will die like the 1%.

That insider trading legality for congressmen made a bit sick. Don't forget the laws that are broken daily by a lack of enforced regulation in our financial markets. The SEC and our government has created some pretty stringent rules, just nothing gets regulated or enforced.

So to sum up Vaylore, when OWS breaks the law it's bad. When banksters and career politicians do, it's okay. Like I said earlier, that guy is not worth anyone's time. He is still talking in terms of Republican/Democrat as if those political parties even matter. I wouldn't want the support of a Republican or Democrat for my cause of changing the way our country works, so why would OWS alter their methods to gain the support of corrupt and inept political parties?