Jump to content

#occupywallstreet Or Bourbonstreet Or Sesamestreet


Recommended Posts

Guess these guys were getting along too well.

A neighboring hotel's staff alleged voiced concerns about having to recently escort hotel employees to and from bus stops late at night due to inappropriate behavior, such as public masturbation, from street protesters.
So checky, how was Madison?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 386
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guess this occupier wanted to help others 'get along'

MANCHESTER - A city woman is accused of pimping a 16-year-old girl she met in Victory Park during the Occupy NH demonstrations.Justina Jensen, 23, of 341 Hanover St., is charged with felony prostitution. Police allege Jensen met a teen at the local protest, which is an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, and used the Internet to arrange a first liaison for the girl with a man who turned out to be an undercover police officer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder the Tea Party was hated by the left.There were no circle jerks, pimping of minors or fights breaking out.They just demanded accountability from politicians and got about 600 people elected with a mandate to stop the spending.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The occupy Portland people invalidate their political message by forming their expression as a vagabond encampment. If you can "occupy," meaning reside in a tent city for weeks at a time - with no permanent place of residence, and/or no occupation of business demanding your attention elsewhere, you are making a public statement that you are indigent! You are not strong enough to govern your own affairs; The voice of your weak ideas can only weaken our society. Would you ask someone who is wearing a belt missing a few belt loops for fashion advice? Neither is your voice in how governance should be conducted wanted; you live in a tent and have no place of business demanding your attentions."-My friend, "crazy" Aaron.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The occupy Portland people invalidate their political message by forming their expression as a vagabond encampment. If you can "occupy," meaning reside in a tent city for weeks at a time - with no permanent place of residence, and/or no occupation of business demanding your attention elsewhere, you are making a public statement that you are indigent! You are not strong enough to govern your own affairs; The voice of your weak ideas can only weaken our society. Would you ask someone who is wearing a belt missing a few belt loops for fashion advice? Neither is your voice in how governance should be conducted wanted; you live in a tent and have no place of business demanding your attentions."-My friend, "crazy" Aaron.
Or, a more succinct way to put it; nobody wants to listen to a bunch of fucking bums.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No wonder the Tea Party was hated by the left.There were no circle jerks, pimping of minors or fights breaking out.They just demanded accountability from politicians and got about 600 people elected with a mandate to stop the spending.
I wonder if the MSM feels any sense of shame now that the poor quality of their reporting is on such vivid display. Between OWS and the coverage of Cain, even the most closed-minded reporters have to be having a twinge of conscience and remorse for what they are doing to this country.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if the MSM feels any sense of shame now that the poor quality of their reporting is on such vivid display. Between OWS and the coverage of Cain, even the most closed-minded reporters have to be having a twinge of conscience and remorse for what they are doing to this country.
What the **** are you talking about.Your ramblings about the so called main stream media are pretty out there at times but I really can't understand your point with this message.What about the coverage of Cain has been a problem and if anything the media has ignored the OWS movement far more than you would expect.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What the **** are you talking about.Your ramblings about the so called main stream media are pretty out there at times but I really can't understand your point with this message.What about the coverage of Cain has been a problem and if anything the media has ignored the OWS movement far more than you would expect.
The comparison of the coverage of Cain now vs Obama during his primary run is night and day. It's blatantly obvious the double standard. Anyone who said *anything* even remotely critical of Obama then was branded a vicious racist. All of Obama's gaffes and stupidity were basically ignored except by bloggers. Obama's inability to complete a sentence if he went off script, totally ignored. Now, the MSM is going way, way out of their way to find every flaw with Cain, including digging up videos from decades ago of him singing. And not a peep about how racist the left is for opposing him, even though a significant portion of the criticism has to do with Cain's race (and how he is selling it out).And when the tea party started, the MSM went and filmed every sign, looking for one that could be interpreted as racist. When they found one, out of the thousands, that could be twisted into racist sentiment, they branded the whole movement as racist -- look, here's one sign that proves it! The media actually INVENTED a story -- made up out of complete falsehoods -- about people chanting racist things on the eve of the Obamacare vote. It was totally made up, and never retracted. In fact, it was repeated as true even after clearly shown to be false. Many claims were made about how violent tea partiers were -- and yet there was basically no violence at these events.Now compare that to the OWS covereage: multiple instances of people spouting anti-Semitic rants ON CAMERA! Violent behavior, theft, rapes all across the country. Where is the coverage of the violence and racism of the OWS movement? Instead, the coverage is on how terrible the cops are for trying to prevent lawbreakers from hurting others and how innocent these kids are.You have to see the double standard, I know you are a smart guy.Surely *someone* working for these networks has to at least be a little bit ashamed of themselves.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I liked that commercial for Cain with the guy smoking the cigarette.That was very smart on a lot of levels.
I've been trying to analyze how they let that ad get out, and you may be right. Crazy like a fox? I can't tell yet, but it might be. They could be playing the media the way Sarah Palin plays the media. That smoking thing -- they had to have thought about what message that sends, how people would react, and what it would do for their candidate. For a few days, people stopped talking about how bad the 9-9-9 plan was, and instead are talking about what a bad campaign they are running and how corrupt the campaign manager is.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but Cain is an obvious joke, right? Are you actually upset at how the media is portraying him??I'm actually pretty upset about how the media is portraying him as well, but I'm upset because they're treating him like a real candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but Cain is an obvious joke, right? Are you actually upset at how the media is portraying him??I'm actually pretty upset about how the media is portraying him as well, but I'm upset because they're treating him like a real candidate.
He's got better real world experience than Obama did back then, and he makes approximately the same number of gaffes. His campaign is unconventional, but that's the point.But no, I don't think I could vote for him, too many of his ideas are wacky. The real issue is not that the media is discovering Cain's flaws; it's how they ignored equally blatant and crazy flaws in Obama, and called anyone who questioned Obama a racist. They dropped the ball back then when it was the Chosen One; but now the R's put up an equally qualified black person and the guy is massacred. And I've even seen stories claiming that the R's support of Cain shows how racist Republicans are (don't ask). So no, the standard of coverage is not even on the same planet.As to your last line, you didn't seem too upset when the media portrayed Obama as a real candidate despite more skeletons and bigger gaffes (conveniently ignored, of course).
Link to post
Share on other sites
He's got better real world experience than Obama did back then, and he makes approximately the same number of gaffes. His campaign is unconventional, but that's the point.But no, I don't think I could vote for him, too many of his ideas are wacky. The real issue is not that the media is discovering Cain's flaws; it's how they ignored equally blatant and crazy flaws in Obama, and called anyone who questioned Obama a racist. They dropped the ball back then when it was the Chosen One; but now the R's put up an equally qualified black person and the guy is massacred. And I've even seen stories claiming that the R's support of Cain shows how racist Republicans are (don't ask). So no, the standard of coverage is not even on the same planet.As to your last line, you didn't seem too upset when the media portrayed Obama as a real candidate despite more skeletons and bigger gaffes (conveniently ignored, of course).
Okay, it's like I thought. It all relates to your hatred for Obama and how that blinds you to things.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, it's like I thought. It all relates to your hatred for Obama and how that blinds you to things.
Nonsense. I was mildly optimistic when Obama took office. I was worried about his checkered past and lack of experience, but still hoped something good could come out of it.There is no way you can believe that the coverage of Obama and Cain are at all similar. If Cain said he visited 57 states, how often would that be played on the national media? How many times did Obama's gaffe show up on CNN and MSNBC? We are seeing detailed stories about Cain's **campaign manager's** dirty past. Where was CNN on the coverage of Obama's shady associations?This really isn't even a close call. Obama was given a free pass on things WAY worse than anything that has turned up on Cain; Obama's gaffes and miscues have been worse; Obama's experience was less significant. Yet look at the tone of the coverage from back then vs the coverage of Cain now.I'm not sure why you guys feel a need to pretend that the media coverage is even slightly fair between Cain vs Obama or tea party vs OWS. I know why they do it, what I don't get is why you guys act like it isn't happening.
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and are in a conflict in Libya.When asked about Middle East policy, Cain claimed that he didn't know nor care who the presiden of "president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan" was.That's just unacceptable and disqualifies you as a candidate. The world's problems are more complicated than repeating 999 over and over. He's essentially on a book tour, and everyone knows that (except for the silly Republicans who support him in polls).The reason that the coverage of Cain and Obama are different is that they're very different candidates. I'm not really sure why you think they should be identical (other than the fact that they're both black...? You're the one who keeps up bringing race).

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 196 countries in the world. Do you think Obama knows the name of every leader? Do you think he should?
Do you think the negative aspect of his comment was that he literally didn't know the name of a particular president, or that he grouped the entire Middle East under the label of whatever-whatever-stan which demonstrates his lack of interest, knowledge, and deep thoughts about that all important area?(I mean, was that not obvious, or did you actually think the problem was not knowing a particular leader's name...?)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think the negative aspect of his comment was that he literally didn't know the name of a particular president, or that he grouped the entire Middle East under the label of whatever-whatever-stan which demonstrates his lack of interest, knowledge, and deep thoughts about that all important area?(I mean, was that not obvious, or did you actually think the problem was not knowing a particular leader's name...?)
I understand what you are saying, but please answer my question.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you are saying, but please answer my question.
There are 196 countries in the world. Do you think Obama knows the name of every leader? Do you think he should?
(No, No)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think the negative aspect of his comment was that he literally didn't know the name of a particular president, or that he grouped the entire Middle East under the label of whatever-whatever-stan which demonstrates his lack of interest, knowledge, and deep thoughts about that all important area?(I mean, was that not obvious, or did you actually think the problem was not knowing a particular leader's name...?)
Your right of course, he is a joke, what he should do is make the central theme of his campaign to get us out of the unlawful war in Iraq. Then after he is elected adopt all of the policies that he spent his whole campaign chastising. Now that is how you run a credible campaign.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"The occupy Portland people invalidate their political message by forming their expression as a vagabond encampment. If you can "occupy," meaning reside in a tent city for weeks at a time - with no permanent place of residence, and/or no occupation of business demanding your attention elsewhere, you are making a public statement that you are indigent! You are not strong enough to govern your own affairs; The voice of your weak ideas can only weaken our society. Would you ask someone who is wearing a belt missing a few belt loops for fashion advice? Neither is your voice in how governance should be conducted wanted; you live in a tent and have no place of business demanding your attentions."-My friend, "crazy" Aaron.
Aaron is wrong. I work a normal job and have normal responsibilities. I get 3 weeks of vacation a year, plus personal time and sick time. I have enough time with my employer that if I wanted to take a short-term unpaid leave, they would absolutely grant it. If I felt strongly about a cause, I could take the time and effort to live in a tent city for a few months. Then again, I'd have to have personal morals that I actually felt strong enough about that I'd be willing to be inconvenienced to defend them, which Aaron implicitly does not.Again, I think the OWS'ers are a bunch of smelly, unemployed whiners. But to suggest that a non-violent protest invalidates their message is just stupid. Now, you could argue that the complete lack of clear message or leadership suggests they do not need to be listened to would be fine, but Aaron only vaguely indicates that, while finding a much bigger problem with what he assumes is a lack of outside responsibilities.
Now compare that to the OWS covereage: multiple instances of people spouting anti-Semitic rants ON CAMERA! Violent behavior, theft, rapes all across the country. Where is the coverage of the violence and racism of the OWS movement? Instead, the coverage is on how terrible the cops are for trying to prevent lawbreakers from hurting others and how innocent these kids are.
I had a teacher that told me the most important thing about news is that it must be about something newsworthy. Sounds obvious right? Well, the OWS acting poorly just isn't news because it isn't newsworthy. A bunch of losers and dregs acting poorly is not news. Cops acting poorly is news, unfortunately, even if the "poor" acts were probably warranted.I read some pretty liberal stuff, and have easily read more articles about issues with the protestors than lawmakers, etc. Are you really suggesting the MSM is being biased in favour of the OWS? That is...doubtful.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I read some pretty liberal stuff, and have easily read more articles about issues with the protestors than lawmakers, etc. Are you really suggesting the MSM is being biased in favour of the OWS? That is...doubtful.
I'm saying that if there was a rape at a tea party rally, it would've been lead story for a month straight. If there were people on film making racist remarks, it would be lead story for months.Is it OK to ignore the bad behavior because we expect selfish kids to misbehave? Hmm, I don't think so, not if in the next breath they are going to treat them as if they have a point for existing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying that if there was a rape at a tea party rally, it would've been lead story for a month straight. If there were people on film making racist remarks, it would be lead story for months.Is it OK to ignore the bad behavior because we expect selfish kids to misbehave? Hmm, I don't think so, not if in the next breath they are going to treat them as if they have a point for existing.
Your second point is another strawman. Most of those articles don't return to positive.As for the first one, how do you know those things don't exist? Because you've never seen them? Maybe there is a rape a minute at tea party rallies. I'm also absolutely certain that there are racist remarks on camera from tea party rallies - the difference is people there either wouldn't see anything wrong with that or would be too loyal to let it get public.I'd say you're grasping at straws here, but that'd imply there are actually some straws available.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your second point is another strawman. Most of those articles don't return to positive.As for the first one, how do you know those things don't exist? Because you've never seen them? Maybe there is a rape a minute at tea party rallies. I'm also absolutely certain that there are racist remarks on camera from tea party rallies - the difference is people there either wouldn't see anything wrong with that or would be too loyal to let it get public.I'd say you're grasping at straws here, but that'd imply there are actually some straws available.
I don't think you are watching the coverage of the events very closely. EVERY questionable thing at tea parties was amplified thousands of times -- even if it was someone coming in and intentionally picking a fight with a tea party member. The tea party events were incredibly peaceful and restrained for their size, yet they were portrayed as violent rednecks. The OWSers regularly get into clashes with police, but are portrayed as the good guys.I've seen a couple racist remarks collected from a year of footage of tea parties; I've seen more racist remarks from OWSers in a month. The tea party remarks were lead stories on CNN and MSNBC; the OWS remarks were only covered on obscure blogs. Why? Why is it not "racist OWSers continue violence toward police"? For the clearest example, look at the coverage leading up to the signing of Obamacare. In that case, a completely made up story got more coverage than dozens of actual verified stories from OWS.Why are you pretending there is no coverage gap here? I'm assuming you are just not paying attention enough to notice it, but if that is the case, why defend the terrible slanted coverage?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...