Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

READER'S POST #7 - Stunning Hypocrisy at Occupy DC

By: 32slim32

I couldn’t help but laugh when I read this story (it’s only 4 sentences; click and read it):
(http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2012/01/occupy-dc-protesters-make-citizens-arrest-fox-news-van/2151181).

Now, click here http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/29/us/dc-occupy/index.html and look at the photo. Notice the sign. It says no camping and no alcohol. Look at the Corona box at the base of the red covered tent, right by the sign.

I find it gut bustingly funny that the occutards would make a citizens arrest period, but over a parking violation is just priceless. I guess they just kind of pick and choose what laws are just or something?

Why is it they feel a need to obey “No Parking” signs but are totally fine with ignoring “No Camping” and “No Alcohol” signs?

Would they make a citizens arrest on a CNN van? How about an MSNBC van?

Do the occutards have a double standard?


Disclaimer from The Elephant in the Room: The article posted above is the work of a blog reader, not an owner of the blog. In promoting an open forum blog, and believing that the passing of information is the reason we exist, we happily post most readers' work with little editing. While the article does appear on our blog, the owners of The Elephant in the Room did not write this article, and posting this article on our blog does not imply endorsement of the ideas and opinions expressed in the article. If you would like us to post your work, please submit it to loudmouthelephant@gmail.com

24 comments:

  1. Oh boy, here comes an OWS citizens arrest. Ok people, can we please stop playing dress-up now.

    Get a job. Stop crying about things you know absolutely nothing about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment focuses on an implied hypocrisy between the enforcement of various laws in the park with 3 different case studies (no illegal parking, no drinking, no camping).

    The first - Fact is, the national FOX van was the only news outlet (out of easily 100+) to illegally park. Occupiers weren't trying to tar and feather the van, they just wanted them to move forward 3 feet so the fire hydrant would be available. When the van did, protesters moved on. If this is the best "Occupiers are biased" evidence out there, you are wasting your time.

    No drinking - the photo has a cardboard Corona box tamped down as part of a walkway. Honestly, it was probably fished out of a dumpster after the last rainstorm. People tend to be less choosy about the walkway signage when they are slogging through mud.

    No camping - This is a huge deal for Occupiers because an anti-camping enforcement bans occupiers from sleeping/living at the park. This disproportionately affects homeless protesters who have nowhere else to go. This is a First Amendment issue - the whole point of occupying is the in-your-face distinction between the 99% and the economic, political, and social elite. If members of the protest are arrested for being part of the protest, that's a huge Bill-of-Rights problem. (The enforcement was only announced after the richest member of Congress, Darryl Issa called a subcommittee hearing on the subject, which calls into question political motivations about the ban).

    Overall, the ban is symbolic of the things that we are protesting. Instead of banning all protesters equally, the Park Service's policy disproportionately affects poorer members of our society. The policy, either explicitly or implicitly, shows a blatant disregard for the needs of regular people.

    And that is why we protest it.

    (Footnote: Some protesters are actually trying to follow the no camping ban while actively protesting at the park. They are going on 70+ hours, with major health problems.
    http://dcist.com/2012/02/sleep_doctor_says_occupiers_sleep_s.php)



    It

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. t3h egotist - Welcome and thank you for your opinion. It was well-thought and well written.

      The purpose of our blog is to share information. Yes, we are a conservative blog (we believe all people have a basic platform from which they stand) but we think we stand apart from other mainstream media news sites and blogs because we are open and respectful of others' views. We promise to maintain civility from our blog staff, and we promote civility to and from each reader and commenter. We think this is the best way to share information, and, though we might disagree in the end, we hopefully can learn something about where we are all coming from and where we stand.

      With that, sometimes I agree with 32slim32's positions (well, many times) and sometimes I don't. To me, it's not about being necessarily right or wrong; it's about sharing information. Why do I bring this up? Well, frankly, though 32slim32's position might come off as a little more "sharp around the edges" I think he has good points. I also think you have good points, too. From knowing what 32slim32 writes, he seems to have a certain disdain with the mainstream media, and I fully understand that. I think that was his main point.

      To your point, you provided well-thought rebuttals. I might not stand with you with regards to OWS in general, but I do appreciate your respectful and civil sharing of ideas, and I appreciate you taking your time to share them here. I do respectfully disagree, however with the last main part about camping.

      I don't agree that it is a First Amendment issue. Parks have rules and prohibitions about sleeping, lodging, etc. To me, wrapping this up in a First Amendment issue sets a dangerous precedent. I don't agree with the notion because, for instance, if I felt I wanted to just go camp and sleep for a week in a city park I, under regular, non-protest standards, wouldn't be permitted to do so. According to your argument, if I simply imply that I am protesting something, and protesting and expressing my First Amendment right, am I allowed to just break the law? Does that dissolve all city/state laws for camping? I also don't believe it has to do with rich members of congress.

      Again, I truly appreciate you taking your time to come here, and I hope you do stop by and express yourself more. Our open forums are about sharing ideas, and while we might disagree on policy, we promote not making it personal. Thank you again, and I hope you come back.

      Delete
    2. t3h Egotist.....Thanks for the great laugh, "Occupiers weren't trying to tar and feather the van, they just wanted them to move forward 3 feet so the fire hydrant would be available." Yeah, I forgot that the whole movement is all about public safety and all, that's why you throw stuff at the police, like in Oakland. Right?

      I guess it was a little presumptive of me to just assume that the Corona beer was actually consumed there at the park, since you guys do have such high regard and esteem for the laws and those in charge of enforcing them. My deepest apologies. I guess when you guys are calling the police "f@#$ing pigs" you mean it in an affectionate way.

      If the no camping ban disproportionately affects the homeless, how come you guys didn't care about the homeless being disproportionately affected, say, this time last year or the year before that? With all due respect, you didn't really give a crap about it until YOU couldn't camp there.

      I don't see where your inability to camp wherever you please constitutes a violation of your First Amendment rights. To be rather frank and honest about it, I see your movement as nothing more than a child that holds their breath until they pass out to get their way. Furthermore, to be even more frank about it, I could care less if that angers you. I just call it like I see it.

      It is my opinion that your occupation of the park disproportionately affects the people that actually fund the maintaining of the park, you know, the 53%. That would be the 53% of Americans that ACTUALLY pay income taxes. They can't bring their family down there and have a picnic with all of your festivities going on.

      If you are expecting sympathy from me for your self inflicted health problems from a lack of sleep, all I can say is; expect in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first.

      My question to you, t3h Egotist is, are you one of the original Occupiers or are you one of the Anarchists that seems to have joined up the Occupiers?

      If I come off as having more than a little disdain for your movement, you're darn well right I do. I have seen you petulant little Occupiers defecating on the American flag, flying it upside down and burning it. You want respect for your incoherent movement? Here's a little tip for you; RESPECT is earned not given.

      I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps and that flag has a lot of meaning to me. If I were to see one of you little Occutards defecating on the flag, I would knock their a$$ out and shove their face in their own feces, the same way you would a dog (well I wouldn't knock a dog out though). We could just call it MY freedom of expression.

      That flag is symbolic of the men that gave their life and shed their blood so you guys can have your little hippie commune in the park.

      I guess it is possible that I may be misinformed about your movement. If that is the case, please, by all means, educate me on your positions and beliefs with specific statements not just broad generalizations.

      I look forward to your response or any other Occupiers response.

      Delete
    3. As part of the OWS I can tell you that it is my mission to poop on cars and I am ashamed that this wasn't done in this circumstance.
      Other than poop and being misinformed of the points I THINK I am making, I'm not sure what I really stand for other than the fact that corporations want to to tax my tent and say I'm not paying rent. OK ...so if I'm not paying rent : how can you legally evict me ? I just blew your mind huh ?

      Delete
    4. LME - the precedent has been set. As we speak (write?) there is a woman who has been camping outside of the White House for the past 30 years trying to call attention to the dangers of nukes. A few decades age, there was a bunch of farmers who rode into DC on tractors and camped out on the National Mall. In both cases, their camping was considered an integral part of the protest, as with the Occupy movement. The origination of the occupy movement was to create a living contrast that is hard to ignore. Without the "living" portion, it's hard to have the same sort of impact.

      And believe me, after one night of camping, you will want to be done - I used to stay up as part of the De-escalation team, to make sure drunks didn't harass the camp at 3 a.m. Believe me, no one who didn't really, really believe in their cause or could afford to go somewhere else would.

      As far as legalities go, every camp is different in terms of what they can and cannot do. For example, one of the DC camps has a permit for an extended protest. Mine does not. The DC NPS chief has granted us some wiggle-room by defining the movement as a "24 hour vigil", and not campers because he believes that DC is a special city with a strong tradition of protests.

      I think that the distinction between protester and camper is very grey in some cases. The vast majority of Occupiers are here because they have serious problems with the power infrastructure of the nation. It wasn't a bid for free rent - most Occupiers still have apartments/homes. Yes, it's entirely possible that that sort of scheme will come up - but this movement wouldn't be the sole precedent of that eventual decision.

      32slim32 and the Anon - My dad and my granddad were both in the service. I have huge respect for this country, the flag and all it is supposed to represent. I have never screamed an obscenity at a cop - I usually end up hanging out with them (MPD officers are pretty cool). I am not and will never be an anarchist. You don't know who I am or where I was a year ago so don't assume what my beliefs or actions have been.

      I am willing to debate philosophies and educate people about the movement, but I refuse to deal with Internet trollers.

      I work two jobs, go to a university full-time, Occupy and try to sleep occasionally - I don't have the time or inclination run around the Internet exchanging insults with people.

      Delete
    5. t3h egotist - Thank you for writing.

      I'm familiar with the anti-nuclear weapons protester. I live near and work in D.C. I'm not trying to be facetious, but, I'm just trying to understand that if I wanted to camp in a park that closes at say 8:00pm I can't, but if I claim I'm protesting, I can? It's true, I'm sure there are many grey areas, but, I don't think the law should bend depending on cause.

      Them main reason I'm writing back is about this comment: "I am willing to debate philosophies and educate people about the movement, but I refuse to deal with Internet trollers."

      Are you an OWS protester, supporter, etc? I ask because, hopefully, you have seen that this is a blog that is respectful of all views (we will never be disrespectful to any poster, and we will do out best to promote respect on our blog though we cannot force anyone to speak in a certain way).

      With that, you might have seen some of our posts where we have respectfully extended a hand to OWS. We might disagree with the OWS movement, but we are not nasty towards it. We can have our opinions, but we are still respectful.

      Take a look at some of our previous posts:

      - An Open Forum to OWS - http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2011/12/ows-we-are-looking-for-proof-and.html

      - (Yes, we start out with a little joke, trying to keep it light, but, see our letter... we did send this email and numerous other attempts to OWS) - http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/01/nothing-personal-against-ows-or.html

      If you would like to express your views we would to post them. Yes, we would love to learn about OWS and we feel that debating philosophies will helps us share info, learn something, and hopefully, even if we all disagree, help us understand why people feel how they do. Have you seen our Reader's Posts (this post is one)? Here is the link, please let us know if you would like to write: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2011/12/readers-posts-our-open-forum-blog.html

      Thanks again, and I hope to hear from you soon. If you would not like to write and you know someone who would, please forward this link to them. We believe the more opportunities to share and learn, the better.

      Delete
    6. t3h egotist...... Thanks for the reply and thank you to your father and grandfather for their service and I hope that you still have both of them around.

      Another thing, I'll have to admit, I am impressed; two jobs and a student. Good for you.

      In all fairness, I did say, "I guess it is possible that I may be misinformed about your movement. If that is the case, please, by all means, educate me on your positions and beliefs with specific statements not just broad generalizations."

      Those anarchists do make your movement look bad. Why don't you guys run them off?

      I wish you would expound on the dissatisfaction with the "power infrastructure of the nation". What exactly is it that troubles you? Is that theme pretty common through out the movement? Do you feel that One Representative and TWO Senators is not enough representation? You just threw out a broad generalization there. Please be more specific. How can we who do not support your movement better understand it if you won't speak in specifics?

      Will the Occupy movement be endorsing any candidates in the upcoming elections? If so, which ones and why?

      Oh yeah, and by the way egotist, I replied to a post by Whatsamattausa, that I thought was you. I must have been suffering with cranial rectitus (had my head up my butt) and totally missed his screen name in BLUE and saw your name in black.

      Delete
  3. t3h egotist -

    You must know that Slim could care less about fact (See Reader's Post 6 which he/she thinks is 'fact checking’ yet offers one fact, a spreadsheet, and then goes on to ignore that other than the ways he/she wants to interpret them). Slim prefers the name calling route to the debate/discussion route. He/She assumes and calls that fact (or in some cases, fact can be something that he/she - believes that there was intent to imply - that is fact to Slim though the reasonable world would see that as pure conjecture). Corona box on the ground, throw whoever is closest to it in jail for drinking in public. No proof, ALLLLL assumptions. He/She cannot see beyond his/her own disdain for certain things to consider anything other than what rattles around in his/her brain. He/She fought for this country yet chooses to ignore the freedom of the constitution (or interprets it in the way he/she sees fit.. I wonder, Slim, what’s your take on the Westboro Baptist Church? Covered by the 1st Amendment or not?). He/She will ignore the FACT that the revolutionaries in this country were occupiers. They camped out to make a point too but they did it with war. Is it ok if the occupiers started shooting? I would imagine not since Slim seems to hate the fact, as do I, that bottles and other debris have been thrown at the police. I think that in large part it is unnecessary and defeats the purpose of the movement (whatever it is today). Slim, though he distinguishes between the occupiers and anarchists, lumps everyone into the anarchist grouping though most are not. If one occupier calls a cop a f*&%ing pig, ALL occupiers have. Once one person puts a sign on a car, all have. Slim will not recognize a FACT that one of his own, a Marine named Scott Olsen, was shot in the head, by police, with a tear gas canister for doing nothing but standing up for his First Amendment rights. Slim probably thinks that it serves him right for defending his freedom. There are many more examples of police violence but Slim won't talk about that. Authority is just, no matter what. Say, didn't we invade Iraq, in part, because Saddam believed in that too? Slim is a completely irrational person who sees things one way, his, and has disdain for anyone or anything to the contrary.

    I, personally, believe that Occupy has the right to protest. The First Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [Mind you, these are not ALL of the words but it is the complete idea of the First Amendment as it relates to protest such as the Occupy movement]. Seems pretty clear to me. Does that mean the can do it anywhere? Not in my opinion but ALL public places (except those which could jeopardize national security and perhaps some other occasions I can’t think off of hand) are fair game. People have to remember, the constitution gives us the right to say and do things that won't make some happy. THAT IS FREEDOM. There is no better test for this than the Westboro Baptist Church who won in the Supreme Court on First Amendment rights. Do I support them in any way? ABSOLUTLEY NOT!!! Do I believe in the Supreme Court decision??? 100% YES. Now, getting back to Occupy, that doesn’t mean that I support Occupy on everything they do, I don’t. In fact, I think some of the things they’re doing are against my beliefs. But, there are also parts of what they’re doing that I do believe in. I believe in ZERO things the anarchists are doing. I believe in freedom. Not the type of freedom that pacifies just me, but the type of freedom that is good for all!

    I just call it like I see it!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good afternoon t3h egotist and thank you for your reply.

    How many government statistics on Food Stamps would be an appropriate amount of stats to use to disprove one statement?

    Could you provide a source for your "FACT that the revolutionaries in this country were occupiers". For the record, my ONE source was not enough for you yet you have ZERO sources. Last I checked ONE is MORE than ZERO.

    I saw a lot more that ONE person calling the police names. Watch the UC-Davis pepper spray video and the DC Occupier getting tazed video. It is more than ONE.

    I NEVER said you guys didn't have a right to protest. I don't think you have a right to pitch tents wherever you want for as long as you want.

    I believe that you may be the one a little on the irrational side.

    I notice you conveniently failed to mention anything about the flag burning and defecating on the flag. Did our "Occupying Revolutionaries" do that too?

    Also, I am more interested in what it is YOU are protesting. Maybe you can come back and enlighten us on that as opposed to criticizing a post I made over a week ago.

    I will be here for a while later this evening. Have a super day.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1) I am not t3H egotist.
    2) 1 is fine. It would just be nice if you paid attention to that one fact in total rather than arranging things to support your theories.
    3) Read any history book. The Revolutionary War began in protest.
    4) UC Davis - Oh, you mean when all those peaceful, unarmed college kids were sitting on the sidewalk while an officer in riot gear strolled by pepper spraying them from no more than 5 ft.? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIccco4PRRk&feature=fvst) You're right, those people had no right to call the cops names. However, that still doesn't make it ALL people as you imply with your repeat of 'they' which is an all inclusive term unless qualified otherwise.
    5) Who cares what ignorant folks do? Does that in any way affect your life? NO! If I saw someone doing something like that to the flag, I'd keep walking. They have the right to express themselves. Funny how your article doesn't mention that example but gets added later. I guess you just want to keep the targets moving so you can berate people when they don't hit them. Did our revolutionaries do that? Probably not as they created the country that our flag represents. It would not surprise me though to find out that they had done so to the British flag which, back in those days, would have been the same thing.
    6) You see Slim, this is part of your problem... You assume too much. I am not a part of Occupy. I have been to a couple of rally's (3 I think) and I do support some of what they stand for. I do not support all of what the stand for and, some times, I'm not even sure what they stand for. I mention the post you made last week so that the t3h egotist understands what you're all about.
    7) I see that you continue to ignore any question asked of you yet expect others to answer your questions, which I have respectfully done.

    Stay classy Slim!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatsamattausa.......

      1. My apologies, I don't know if I didn't scroll up far enough or if it is a combination of this wicked crud I am suffering from with the help of some REALLY good cough medicine.

      2. If one link is fine, why are you busting my balls about ONLY one link? This cough medicine isn't strong enough to make me think that 0bama's addition of 16.5 million in 3 years is better than Bush's 11 million over 8 years though. In other words, there are no hallucinogenics in it.

      3. But you said the Revolutionaries were OCCUPIERS. Did they claim to be the 99%, crap on the flag, and chant Occupy Wall Street all day all week, rape folks at their rallies, smoke pot while chanting "Hey Hey ho ho the Brits have got to go go"? Which History book, specifically, will spell out all of the similarities between them and the Occupy crowd? You are kidding yourself if you think that crap those Occupier people are doing is anything like war, let alone war like they did back in those days.

      4. I have seen the video of the pepper spray incident-- even the part where the one protestor asked the cop something along the lines of, "So let me get this straight, you're gonna spray us for sitting here?" then he turned around all excited. Would the pepper spray burn their eyes any less from further than 5 feet away, what does 5 feet have to do with anything? Actually, I see the word THEY referring to more than one person, not necessarily the entire movement. Honestly, did you hear MORE than one person calling the police names? I did. My apologies for offending you with such a racist, homophobic, hate mongering word like THEY when referring to more than one person.

      5. Take a crap on the American flag around me and see how it affects YOU.

      6. Yeah, I guess assuming that a bunch of twenty something year old hippies hanging out in a park drinking beer there was a little over the top. Again, my apologies for my imagination running too wild. Sorry.

      7. Uh oh, I am gonna have to make another assumption here (I've been told I do that too much), but I assume you want an answer about the fellow Jarhead that got hit in the head. You said, "Slim will not recognize a FACT that one of his own, a Marine named Scott Olsen, was shot in the head, by police, with a tear gas canister for doing nothing but standing up for his First Amendment rights. Slim probably thinks that it serves him right for defending his freedom."

      You see Whatsamattausa, this is part of your problem... You assume too much. I would have said exactly what Happy Gilmore said after hitting the guy in the head accidentally with a golf ball, "He shouldn't have been standing THERE". DO you think the police said, "Hey shoot that Devil Dog over there in the head", get real whatsamatta. Another thing those young Occupiers need to learn (and a lot have learned the hard way), when you mess with the bull you sometimes get the horns.

      There, I acknowledged it. I also acknowledge he is one dumbass Marine. The law ALWAYS wins and he should know that, well he may now. What he did is dumber than taking a knife to a gun fight.

      8. You said in the post earlier (where I thought you were t3h egotist, and that was my bad all the way) "Slim, though he distinguishes between the occupiers and anarchists, lumps everyone into the anarchist grouping though most are not. If one occupier calls a cop a f*&%ing pig, ALL occupiers have." No sir/mam (I am a guy by the way and I don't want to ASSUME that you are one or the other, I've been told I assume too much), you made that ASSUMPTION all on your own. You seem to do a lot of ASSUMING yourself whatsamattausa, but since you are not a conservative I guess that somehow gives you the right to do that. Right? One set of standards for the conservatives and another set for the liberals.

      Have a wonderful weekend and God bless you Whatsamattausa.

      Delete
    2. You speak in one liners and hick saying. lol

      I agree with a bit of it here and THERE ( seriously, what's THAT about?) but the way you go about it is almost worse than a politition who speaks in sports analogies.

      Delete
  6. It appears that even the liberal icon Bill Maher is changing his tune on the Occupiers. Here is a couple of quotes from Maher. (For the record, I do not care too much for him)

    BILL MAHER: Let me ask you about another occupation, because this is - and you would be good on this too, panel -, the occupation, the Occupy Wall Street, because similar to Afghanistan, when you occupy anything for too long people do get pissed off. And as I watch them on the news now I find myself almost agreeing with Newt Gingrich. Like, you know what - get a job. Only because, you know, the people who originally started, I think they went home and now it's just these anarchist stragglers. And this is the problem when you, you know, when your movement involves sleeping over in the park. You wind up attracting the people who were sleeping over in the park anyway.

    [Laughter and applause]

    MAHER: And I think that's where we are now with the Occupy movement. They did a great job bringing the issue of income and equality to the fore, but now it's just a bunch of douchebags who think throwing a chair through the Starbucks window is going to bring on the revolution.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/04/maher-tells-occupy-movement-get-job-bunch-douchebags#ixzz1lSB3hQtr

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was wandering, whats wrong with giving money to the poor through taxes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wandering? Around the range? The hills?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous - Thank you for stopping by.

      My answer, why should we? Everyone has the equal opportunity to make the choice to earn their own income. Giving the poor money, while yes, helping them in the short term, ultimately kills their incentive to earn for themselves in the long term. If the poor are given free money, why would they work hard for themselves?

      Also, to be less "pc" about it... it's stealing. I is legal for me to go next door to my rich neighbor's house to just take money? No! So why is it okay for the government to do it for me?

      Thank you, and I hope to hear back.

      Delete
  8. Occutards? What name do you have for corrupt politicians? I can play with words too, but choose to play fairly (except in satire, which is fun). The present situation is clearly a big, dangerous mess caused by greed and abuse of the system. It threatens our survival.

    I came here because you claimed to be polite and interested in discussing ideas. Prove it. My Bullshit Intolerance Disorder is one reason I Occupy.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What do you think of my suggestion for a new Constitutional Amendment: Political corruption shall be prosecuted as high treason to the United States of America. Political corruption is defined as follows.......

    What do you think of this? The Emperor is naked, the sky is falling down and we must all work, work, work to get out of the mess greed and abuse have made.

    How about this? Restoring checks and balances, step 1. Identify and remove by voting or recall all politicians susceptible to blackmail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hank Pfeffer - Thank you for your input.

      This is a polite, respectful blog. We promise civility and respect coming from the writers of this blog. As far as all commenters in general, we promote courtesy and respect but we cannot make people talk in a certain way. People are free to express themselves as they please. The only time we would restrict someone's opinions were if they contained hate speech, personal/private information, or threats.

      This post is what's called Reader's Post. The blog is an open-forum blog managed by three regular people and we open up our blog to any and all writers. We believe in sharing information and ideas and feel this is the best way to do it. People can write about any subject they like. If you are interested in expressing your views, check it out: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2011/12/readers-posts-our-open-forum-blog.html

      Addressing what you wrote, what do you mean restoring checks and balances? What is an example where they are not employed?

      Thanks again, and I hope to hear back from you.

      Delete
    2. Hank - By virtue of them being politicians makes ALL of the susceptible to blackmail/corruption... Are you suggesting anarchy?

      I do like your idea of making the penalty for government corruption so strict that nobody dare commit the crime (though I don't think treason is the answer).

      Delete
  9. Hank Pfeffer, thanks for your input but again, you kind of prove my point. You Occupiers seem to have your talking points memorized but seem to be incapable of coherently elucidating them other than just very broad generalizations. You guys also seem to have some sort of disconnect with reality. For instance, we can not "recall" our Representatives and Senators. We get a chance to vote them out every 2 years and 6 years respectively.

    Another thing that may help you out is to realize that media is not exactly objective.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hank Pfeffer, PbW(R)February 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM

    Thank you 32slim32. I take it you not disagree with the points I make, because you don't refute them. You can't refute them. Instead, you focus on the trivial.

    Disconnect with reality? Greed and abuse has nearly destroyed our economy, and things are getting worse, not better. Have you seen homeless encampments? Do you recognize the real desperation of many Americans? Do you know what desperation can lead to?

    Did the idea of having to work, work, work to deal with this gigantic mess frighten you?
    It might not be enough - the eco-system that supports human life is threatened. Politicians can't do it, just like laws cannot prevent child abuse.

    Anyone who doesn't recognize that we are in big trouble lacks reality testing skills.

    Our SURVIVAL is threatened by "Business As Usual" and it's apologists, who use debating tricks to try to justify their pathological denial. Spin doctors will spin us to death.
    It will take objectivity and good reality testing skills to get past this.

    The real problems are psychological, social, political, economic, ecological and technical. We have mutually reinforcing negative feedback loops that are coming to a head soon.

    The sky is falling down. That is why I'm here, and being reasonably polite.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hank Pfeffer, PbW(R)February 19, 2012 at 12:15 PM

    I've reread the stuff posted here. I'm not an ideologue and I suffer from Bullshit Intolerance Disorder. This is silly and trivial and a waste of my time.

    Anyone serious about trying to find ways to create major non-violent change for the sake of survival, email me. knackman @yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GOP Tired and BoredFebruary 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM

      Have you ever thought that maybe people don't want to create "major non-violent change..." because they don't see things the way you do? This is OWS' biggest problem. They think they speak for everyone. We can all have our views, but we need to respect the fact that not everyone agrees with us. OWS seems to see things one way, and they won't look at it from any other point of view. They protest and prevent people from getting to their jobs, they claim they represent the 99%, and that's just not how reality is. I don't agree with a single thing OWS stands for, and when asking them to give me evidence of what they say, they can't. Typically they say something like " if you can't see it, you're hopeless."

      Stop thinking that OWS is the only way things work. When they can actually make the case behind what they say, maybe people will agree with them. But damaging buildings, preventing free movement, etc. is democracy at all. Democracy is listening to the other side and working with them. OWS doesn't do this at all. I'm sorry, Hank, you're not the god of truth here. You think you are wasting your time and you make all these claims. Could you actually back one of them? I doubt it.

      Delete