Oh stop with your don't generalize me' posts all over the place.

It's not about you.

one. i do care what happens

two. you have your revolution

First time I used it:

"all men"

Second time I used it:

"Americans"

I am an American Male.

>.>

That is me.

..and where is this revolution?

Let's admit it: Picking up a picket sign and spending hours marching out in the 105-degree heat or the -15 degree frost, screaming your lungs out, does not seem like a particularly natural thing to do. In fact, when people do this sort of thing outside of the context of a protest event, it's usually a cry for help. So why do we protest?

1. Protest events increase the visibility of the cause.
Policy debates can be abstract, and even seem irrelevant to the people who are not most directly affected by them. Protest events put warm bodies and heavy feet out there representing an issue, taking up real space and real time, attaching the cause to real faces and real voices who care enough about the cause to go out there, if only for a short time, and be ambassadors for it.

So the media notices when a protest event happens. Bystanders notice when a protest event happens. Politicians notice when a protest event happens. And if the protest is staged well, it will invariably make somebody look at the cause with new eyes. Protest events are not persuasive in and of themselves, but they invite persuasion. They invite change.


2. Protest events demonstrate power.
The date was May 1st, 2006. The U.S. House of Representatives had just passed H.R. 4437, a bill that essentially called for the deportation of 12 million undocumented immigrants and the imprisonment of anyone who might help them. A massive group of activists, predominantly but not exclusively Latino, planned a series of rallies in response.

More than 500,000 people marched in Los Angeles, 300,000 in Chicago, and millions more throughout the country--even several hundred here in my home town of Jackson, Mississippi.

The death of H.R. 4437 in committee was pretty much a given at that point. When large numbers of people take to the streets in protest, politicians and other key decision-makers notice. They don't always act, but they notice.

3. Protest events promote a sense of solidarity.
You may or may not feel like part of the movement even if you happen to agree with it. It is one thing to support same-sex marriage in the comfort of your own home and another thing entirely to pick up a picket sign and support it in public, to let the issue define you for the duration of the protest, to stand together with others to represent a movement. Protests make the cause feel more real to participants.

4. Protest events build activist relationships.
Solo activism isn't usually very effective. It also gets dull really quick. Protest events give activists a chance to meet, network, swap ideas, and build community. Most activist organizations, in fact, got their start with protest events that united and networked their like-minded founders.

5. Protest events energize participants.
Ask almost anyone who attended the March on Washington in August 1963, and to this day they'll be able to tell you exactly what it felt like. Good protest events have an almost religious effect on people, charging their batteries and inspiring them to get up and fight again another day. That is of course very, very helpful to the protesters--and by creating new committed activists, and giving veteran activists a second wind, it's just as helpful to the cause.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/tp/Why-Protest.htm

Brilliant post, Wux.

1) For the most part, Rush Limbaugh is right about these protesters. We all know that, even if some of us won't admit it.

2) All the ranting against Rush sounds like jealousy to me. He has the largest radio show in the country, when he goes on a news program, it has it's highest ratings for the year and he's rich as king Midas.

3) For the most part, the protesters are idiots. They are angry about the wall-street bail out, so they march on wall-street. The problem is the Government that did the bailouts, not the people who accepted them. In some cases, they were forced to accept the bailouts, so that the Government could claim that the business sector approved of the bailouts. Every one of you knows that if you were looking at homelessness, joblessness, upheaval of your family and a complete disruption of your life, you are going to take a handout, especially when the President is on TV talking about how much you deserve it.

4) I am always weary of these sorts of claims. How do we know this guy was a WWII vet? Even if he was, he deserves respect for his sacrifices, but that doesn't mean he knows anything more about public policy than the morons he's surrounded by.

Apparently your not up to speed on the movement.

Much more is going on then just occupying wallstreet.

The Occupy movements interest me about as much as my last bowel movement does.

I favor free market solutions to our problems. I favor smaller government and lower taxes. I favor more freedom over less freedom. If the "Occupy" movements want the support of freedom minded individuals like myself, they will first get rid of the "Occupy" moniker. Then they could work on policing themselves to get rid of the riff-raff and start obeying local laws.

For now, all I see is a bunch of criminals and miscreants with an untold number of agendas, violating the law and making a nuisance of themselves. Intermixed into this group are some innocents and dupes that have been suckered into joining.

1. If you speak of these Occupiers then I agree with this statement. However, if you speak of protesters in general, then no I don't.

2. Let me make this clear, perfectly crystal clear. I am not, will not, nor will ever be jealous of that waste of space. He is the largest, both rhetorical and not, hypocrite I have ever seen. I don't listen to him, don't care anymore wtf he has to say. He could drop dead tomorrow and I'd laugh; because he'd deserve no tears. So don't mistake spite for jealousy, cause that's such a typical response. If you knew me, I am not materialistic; therefore, being rich as Midas is only another reason to hate him, not revere him. Cause the people who have the power to help and change things, are usually the rich, and usually the ones to do absolutely nothing. So eff him.

3. It was the context of his comments that incited me because of the source. Over all, I 'can't' agree with him because of who he is; he's a POS hypocrite.

4. It doesn't matter whether he truly is or not; fact is, it's labeled with the picture directly focused on him. Further more, as I stated, who the eff is he to say such things without taking a gooood long look in the mirror? It's him talking about himself. The only difference is, we don't have 'daddy' getting us involved with a radio station at such a young age. As I said.. he's the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.

Rush was talking about the Occupy movement, but I would say that it does apply to most protesters.



A reason to hate him? He generates resources. His show helps radio stations make profits, which keeps them on the air and keeps people employed. As for him doing nothing, Rush Limbaugh gives millions to charity every year, primarily to a childhood Leukemia foundation. He started a charity to save sea turtles. Overall, Rush Limbaugh is good for the economy and good for the country.



That's the genetic fallacy. If something is true, it doesn't matter who the source is. You have already agreed with him on the occupiers, so this point is confusing.



Rush Limbaugh's father had nothing to do with him getting the job at a radio station. His father was a lawyer in Missouri, the first radio station Rush worked at was in Pennslyvania after he dropped out of college. Honestly, this sounds like sour grapes to me.

Of course it would to you.

1. So, everyone who protests is, basically, a loser? So you encourage us all to stfu and just take it up the rear? Nice.

2. He entertains by spreading disinformation. Volcanoes are more deadly then human produced chemicals to the ozone? Please. And that's just an example. He lies and people are consumed by lies, and thus in turn become gullible enough to believe not only what the media portrays but what he portrays. So, overall, he best donate something, because just spitting into a microphone each and every day isn't worth no 400 million contract.

And before you chew that up, I will admit that not everything he says is a lie; but most of the garbage he spits out... meh.

3. You and that stupid fallacy word. It is not. If the source is a hypocrite and thus why I immediately refuse to 'take his word for it' it doesn't mean that occasionally he can't get something right. Heck, I seen you and Bushido agree on one thing and not the entire opinion of a subject or topic. So me agreeing on part doesn't qualify the whole thing to be true; especially when it comes from an unreliable source IMO. I thought you believed in proving something to be true not just accepting it as truth? I can prove the actions of those Occupiers is ridiculous; of course, at the same time, so was the whole flipping article.

4. And yes, his father does have something to do with it when you call others 'trust-fund' babies. Nearly his entire family was into some form of politics or government related occupations, thus ultimately, he is preaching about what he, himself, is.

No, it sounds like you are just dense. As if his father can't, or is incapable of, picking up the phone and putting a good word for him in at another state? Please. His father had pull, that's what I'm saying.

I was wondering about that hurling thing too. The article mentioned bricks and bibles. The SF PD spokesman Manfredi did not mention bricks. I don't know how bricks got into the article. Maybe the journalist put it there out of sheer enthusiasm.

It's possible there were bricks, but then the spokesperson would have mentioned that, wouldn't he. Spokespersons don't leave out details like that. Journalists whose report we read would invent details like that.

There is no factual reporting that I care too look up. I don't know if there were bricks hurled or not. I can't say either way. But the way the article reads, nobody can say, either way. Both ways are possible (bibles with bricks, bibles without bricks.) I took the one that is possible, just as probable as the other, as fact. My main clues were the journalist's obvious bias, and the lack of mention of bricks by the police spokesperson.

The journalist did invent a few things, like meaning of words. (See the part about "peeing on".) I feel confident in believing (but not stating it as a sure fact) that the journalist invented the bricks.

Who would have bricks at the top of a church? Bibles, yes, you grab a few on the way up. You can't pull bricks out of the wall, at least I couldn't. But perhaps there was masonry being done, some repair to the walls, and there were bricks lying around. Or the protesters took bricks up -- this is not likely, unless someone supplied the protesters with them, or there was a pile of bricks nearby that the protesters grabbed before heading to the roof.

If someone supplied the bricks, then he or she would be charged, which the journalist would have reported for sure, which he did not.

It's hard to trace facts from such a distorted reporting. I won't do it, and I concede that bricks could have been thrown, but I reserve that it is not a fact, it can only be inferred from police injuries, not from the report as worded, as the report, or the article, sort of contradicts itself.

To wit, I quote the paragraphs in question:
Protesters in San Francisco occupied an abandoned hotel and began attacking police – hurling bricks and Bibles at officers.

“Once they gained access [to the hotel], some of them made it to the top of the roof and they began to throw Bibles down at the officers,” San Francisco Police Dept. spokesman Carlos Manfredi told ABC News.

Several officers were injured in the attack.

The officers' injuries could have happened when they arrested some demostrators and they resisted arrest. The injuries are not necessarily brick-related, but then again, I concede, they are not necessarily bible-related, either.

Straw man fallacy. I never said people shouldn't protest, just that most protesters are losers.



Factually true.



An independent accounting firm determined that he is right about 97% of the time on statements of fact.



Yes, you definitely committed the genetic fallacy.



Maybe his father could have done that. His father opposed him going into radio, but I suppose his father could have done that. Are we now going to assume anything that is even remotely possible is actually true?

1. ...stupidest thing I've heard,but I won't resort to using your own words.

2. True my a**.

3. Accounting firm?? lmao!

4. If you say so..

5. That's what you do, why can't I?

They shouldn't discriminate.
They should equal the book throwing by tossin' a few Korans.

My prediction;
The more the unemployed numbers grow, we will see more disgruntled Citizens becoming domestic terrorists.

Open the gates to those FEMA camps.

Whatever.



http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-01-06/news/1991006003_1_ozone-chlorofluorocarbons-volcano



I do.



Projection.

1. Exactly.

2. If you want to quote newspaper articles, I can find 20 that contradict the retarded Cox Media Group; however, I'm one to create my own beliefs. Not rely on the media; therefore, I will not bother.

3. Hmm, odd, it disappeared...

4. Even so, doesn't make it truth, nor in any way, relevant. So, say what you want.

5. Diversion.

No, we don't all know that. In fact, nobody "knows" that. It's an opinion. Whenever the words right and wrong turn up, we're talking about opinions. And opinions vary.


It would only be jealousy if said "ranter" actually wanted to be like Limbaugh in any way.


The reason for going to Wall Street rather than the White House is symbolism. As I understand it, the Occupy protestors are angry not just about the bailout, but about the continued actions of the big banks AFTER receiving government money, which imply that they haven't changed their ways at all. Also, it was not "people" who got the bailouts, it was big banks. That's part of what the protestors are angry about.


Certainly, but the protestors are objecting to BIG BANKS, not individuals who were in danger of losing their homes. In fact, one of their complaints is that people who lost their homes didn't get more help.


I agree with your main point here, but you weaken it by the generalized insult.

The trouble I have with your posts is that you seem unwilling or unable to believe that other people disagree with you, or that if they do, they are equally as honorable and deserving of respect as you are.

"I favor more freedom over less freedom. If the "Occupy" movements want the support of freedom minded individuals like myself, they will first get rid of the "Occupy" moniker."

But isn't our most basic freedom freedom of speech? Everyone supports freedom of speech until it comes to speech they don't approve of. Then there always turn out to be problems. A few of the protestors become nuisances and the whole group is branded as "criminal."

And what the heck is wrong with the name Occupy?

I'm not saying I approve of throwing things, even at the police. A Bible thrown from the top of a building can be as dangerous as any other heavy object. Heck, a can of tomato soup from that height could knock somebody unconscious or take out an eye.

I'm beginning to feel like Rodney King. Can't we all just get along? (I know we can't, but some people don't even seem to try.)