At 12:30 yesterday I walked through Zuccotti Park, the former location of Occupy Wall Street, and snapped a few photos of what has become an almost empty site save for a few people sitting around eating their lunches and about four people with placards that may or may not have related to Occupy Wall Street.
It's unfortunate to see what had been a very visible symbol of the movement in NYC now devoid of the many protesters, drum circles, speakers, kitchen, library, and the rest of the beehive of activity found in the park last fall.
Where did everyone go?
Below are shots of the park I took exactly one year ago, long before Occupy Wall Street, and the photos are almost interchangeable with yesterday's photos.
Photos and text are © 2012 by B+Co., Inc.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
jmac1949
Robert Steibel
Texas Means Friends
Rita Bourland
Kim Gamble
Jennifer Prestholdt
Salon.com
Comments
but then again, it's difficult to sustain a poltical movement if you keep telling the press you have no spokespersons, no agenda, and no demands other than you don't want to pay back your student loans.
HUGGGGGGGGGG
Perhaps when the message is more clearly focused, in a fashion that will permit it to be effective among those they must convince, the movement will revive.
It needed leaders...and instead of leaders coming forth, the supposed movement denied that it needed leaders.
It needed a coherent agenda...and instead of proposing a coherent agenda, it actually suggested it didn't need an agenda of any kind.
Good that it is gone. We are set for a major upheaval. I only hope the next one gets the leadership such a movement NEEDS and DESERVES.
rated
Boy...you sure gave them a piece of your mind!
Wall Street and all its excesses aren't going away. Poverty and homelessness aren't going away. Climate change isn't going away. Our corrupt political system isn't going away. If the human race can't rise to these challenges, then bye human race.
Looking at the situation positively, a movement started last September. It is entering a new phase. It wasn't just at Zuccotti Park. UC Davis students and alumni filed a lawsuit against the university for the pepper spraying incident last fall (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0223-uc-davis-20120223,0,7874460.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Flocal+(L.A.+Times+-+California+%7C+Local+News)) . Plans of all kinds are being cooked up for the upcoming season.
And, we are going to have an election. Fasten thine seatbelt.
The bodies may not be in Zuccotti park, but the energy and conversation they generated is still very much alive.
It does need more shape, though, IMHO. It's got to more than amorphous.
I was one of the many people who risked arrest several times at Zuccotti Park. "The Death of OWS"??????? Are your kidding me? The OWS movement is not DEAD and for your editor to put that as a paraphrasing of designanator's title for his photos OUTRAGES me!!! I hope to see it changed quickly!!!! What are you people thinking? What are you people propagandazing with such a cavalier dismissal of something that meant something and still does to some of us who post here regularly!!!!!
libbyliberalnyc
Paul Haider, Chicago
Yeah, Libby.
You know, doctors back in the early 1900’s use to treat tuberculosis with strenuous exercise. It was years and years before they discovered that exercise harmed rather than helped tuberculosis sufferers. It was rest that was helped best…and drugs, of course.
You folks apparently mean well…especially you with you constant excoriation of Barack Obama. But I respectfully suggest you are doing more harm than good…and that even people sitting and doing nothing are contributing better.
But another mistake you folk make is to suppose that because some are not doing what you are doing (and constantly patting themselves on the back for doing it)….that means they are doing nothing.
Some of us actually do something; keep quiet about it…and actually contribute to either making things better—or, to be honest, just not making things worse.
You could do worse than join us.
"It needed a coherent agenda . . . "
"The Occupy movement is an international protest movement which is primarily directed against economic and social inequality"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street
Is it the big words you don't understand or, more likely, the concepts behind the big words?
The Occupy Wall Street protests have inspired a wide international response. There have been hundreds of Occupy movement protests worldwide over time . . . including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway,
Republic of Ireland, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, and the
United Kingdom amongst eighty two countries participating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Occupy_movement_protest_locations
Would someone please inform this moron that there is a program called Google. It allows one to look up FACTS for this most fact-averse entity, who relies solely on "his opinion and meal mouthed slogans.
"Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin' around
You should be made
To wear earphones *****)
Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you," mister apisa?
Then in the typical sociopathic passive-aggressive personality disorder that marks most of his "thoughts," he concludes: "I only hope the next one gets the leadership such a movement NEEDS and DESERVES."
Yeah, sure you do, apisa. Perhaps when you finish your rounds of golf and writing your letters concerning the leashing of cats, if there's leadership you approve of you'll be there.
People don't hold your breath.
fRANK, you needn't say more to convince us that you're a prototypical "good German."
Duluth man!! GET YOUR CAMERA HERE!! WE'RE CHANGING THINGS HERE IN DULUTH!! :D
Just kidding, they had to go home, supper time!! ~nod~
Rated!!!!
Occupy is catching on that this could go on for a year or for a decade. It can go on nowhere and it can go on everywhere. Other countries have caught on. We are just beginning to do so.
1- we were violently suppressed with the same kind of overwhelming and brutal force our nation pretends to condemn elsewhere. So don't ask me "where did everyone go" as if we just faded away!
2- despite all the repression, we're still extremely active! The media just chooses not to tell the truth. Use your google skills, look us up, get fighting right now before it's too late, and stop pretending we just disappeared! You have no excuses- if you believe in what Occupy stands for get involved, don't support the BS the mainstream media puts out by posting defeatist stories like this one.
3- We are not hard to find- www.nycga.net, www.takethesquare,com, www.occupyheadlines.com, www.ows.org. Don't repeat the lies, and don't buy into them!
Some fools still believe in the illusion of political power, that the tail can wag the dog and that greedy poeple will allow responsible leaders. That's a fool's errand that has no possible chance. Wall Street is our Bolshevik party as we let them pull us down the path of ruin.
Anyone who asks why didn't OWS fix the country is someone who lives off the good efforts of others after giving up on themselves. That's how Wall Street wins.
As a staunch conservative, I’m hoping the same thing. The Republicans could use a few more sound bites from Owe-bama and other ultra left liberals praising the movement.
OWS was spectacle…and little else. It had no substance…and it did present liberalism and progressivism in about as poor a light as could be imagined.
Fever is correct in what he just said…and I can only hope that OWS, unless it has improved substantially both in leadership and agenda, stays the hell out of the picture.
But I imagine as the weather gets better the OWSers will come out in droves and pretend they are doing something to better our country and the condition of the less fortunate. If they act the way they did last year, however, all they will be doing, is presenting an grossly ugly picture of the opposition to unfairness and inequality…and by so doing, they will be aiding the Republicans to win offices.
YES…something has to be done about the unfairness…about the inequalities that are rotting our country from the inside. But not senseless, mindless, leaderless, agendaless nonsense masquerading as “doing something important.”
I’m not sure if I’ll ever understand why the left feels something has to be done about “unfairness” and “inequalities”. On the contrary, the desire to be fair is what is rotting the country from the inside because economic growth depends on inequality. Assume for a moment we tax everyone at 100% for every dollar one makes above $250,000. How hard would anyone work for $250,001 if you knew you would have to give that next dollar to the Government? If you answered “not very hard”, you’d be right.
To be sure, the Democrats aren’t proposing confiscating 100% of the successful’s income but why would the logic work any differently if the amount was some other percentage? Fairness is nothing more than a byproduct of socialism and we all know how that has worked out.
Huh? Nothing like a straw man to make a point. You need to be a little more inventive than the above, my friend.
rated with love
Srawman - A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
If I have misrepresented the position of Obama, Frank and Democrats, please let me know what their position is on “fairness/taxation”?
I’m not sure if I’ll ever understand why the left feels something has to be done about “unfairness” and “inequalities”. On the contrary, the desire to be fair is what is rotting the country from the inside because economic growth depends on inequality.
Not sure what brings you to that thinking, Fever, but I disagree. The inequality in our country is now getting to dangerous proportions. If you cannot see that…I doubt any arguments will ever enlighten you.
Assume for a moment we tax everyone at 100% for every dollar one makes above $250,000. How hard would anyone work for $250,001 if you knew you would have to give that next dollar to the Government? If you answered “not very hard”, you’d be right.
As someone else said, this is pure strawman. Nobody is suggesting anything even near to that…and I am sure I can create scenarios that make a greater tax on higher earnings seem reasonable…and where people would work hard.
I we tax everyone at an extra 10% for earnings above $250,000 how hard would someone work to earn $1,000,000? Damn hard, I would say.
To be sure, the Democrats aren’t proposing confiscating 100% of the successful’s income but why would the logic work any differently if the amount was some other percentage?
I think I just showed that…and I might remind you that if progressive taxes went up to the levels they were during the Reagan administration—how bad could it be? It worked back then.
Fairness is nothing more than a byproduct of socialism and we all know how that has worked out.
Hummm…China has been a socialistic country for lots of years, and it is now the second most robust economy on the planet. Maybe a healthy dose of socialistic infusion into the capitalistic system might be a good thing.
some make things happen, some watch things happen, some ask "WTF happened?" and then there are those who stomp all over those trying to make things happen. this group resurrects archie bunkerism bunk. instead of mentoring the young, appreciating the spirit and energy and moral vision as well as the sacrifice made by them (so many really don't get it, how awesomely and alarmingly inappropriate and violent the police and local governance were to the demonstrators), nit pick away at these messengers and grotesquely minimize the profound dysfunction of our country that inspired a grassroots movement. paradigm shift to humanism not as neat as fascistic corrupt money party organizations for sure, whether Dem or Repub. pissing on the grassroots not at all helpful. Libby
You continue to endanger your arm by trying to pat yourself on the back.
By the way, doing what you are doing (working in a way that may well help to get a conservative Republican into the Oval Office) is pissing on the grassroots of the progressive agenda much, much more than any of the people with whom you seem so disgusted.
In all my years, in all my travels, I've never met a bigger as*hole than you.
I know you'll wear my words with pride, because you absolutely delight in being an as*hole. It's your joie de vivre.
We agree. Now let’s push the tax up to 20%, would that person have a higher, lower or the same incentive to work? The answer is obviously lower. Now let’s push the tax up to 30%, you guessed it, lower again. Are you starting to understand the growth killing effects of taxation?
Reagan reduced the tax rates and cut out the loopholes through tax reform. Sadly, there are those that want to increase the rates and cut out the loopholes for only rich. My bad, I used a Strawman when I should have just said, “Obama, Frank and the Democrats want to increase the rates and cut out the loopholes for only the rich”.
Oh and by the way, China abandoned socialism about 20 years ago. Just think of how advanced they would be today if they had done it earlier.
…Ronald Reagan accelerated the move to insanity in politics in this country. I voted for him in 1980….to my eternal shame, I voted for him. I wanted to teach Jimmy Carter a lesson. So did many others…and we found out the “lesson” was on us.
The worst thing that has ever happened to America was the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Reagan tripled our national debt during his eight years as president…and he managed to get gullible Americans thinking that government is the enemy. His legacy has been a cancer festering and growing in the body politic of America…and is a huge part of why we are where we are right now.
We agree. Now let’s push the tax up to 20%, would that person have a higher, lower or the same incentive to work? The answer is obviously lower. Now let’s push the tax up to 30%, you guessed it, lower again. Are you starting to understand the growth killing effects of taxation?
Fever, in the 1950’s the top tax rate was 91%!!! At that time a single “breadwinner” made enough money to raise a family…food, clothing, shelter, education, medical costs, vacations, and (!) savings. Do you honestly think that things are better now?
C’mon. Put the ideology behind you.
Oh and by the way, China abandoned socialism about 20 years ago. Just think of how advanced they would be today if they had done it earlier.
They didn’t abandon it…it is still a socialistic state. What they did do was to see there are benefits to incorporating elements of capitalism into their system. Too bad we cannot see that incorporating elements of socialism into our system might be a good thing also.
apisa actually says to fever: "Put the ideology behind you . . .," yet he spews his idiotology; obama as his lord and savior all over the place.
Or the woman next door.
Did that not cross your mind before posting?
I stepped right into that, nice work. By “that” I mean I was having a clean conversation about fairness and you lay down some unrelated bull shit about Reagan and China and I took the bait. I didn't comment on this blog to discuss Reagan, China or why MarkinJapan hates you so much. The left is obsessed with fairness and I have yet to hear a logical argument why fairness is the holy grail of a sound economy. Let me leave you with a quote from one of my favorite writers on the subject (by subject I don’t mean Reagan or Japan):
“Today’s “progressives” want to expand political control of incomes even more. They call it “social justice” but you could call it Rumpelstiltskin and it would still mean politicians deciding how much money each of us can be allowed to have.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219581/dangerous-obsession/thomas-sowell
Anyone thinking that if a 100% tax won't work, a 20% one wouldn't either has no frame of reference for the concept of logic.
Your linear factoring is insanely illogical. Not even close to logic. Several astronomic units from logic. Perhaps in some plane of existence yet undiscovered, if we accelerated your example to the speed of light, it would red-shift into logic. Perhaps it is logical on the other side of a wormhole.
Basically, though, in the shared reality of solid material existence, your "logic" does not exist in this universe.
February 28 Day of Mass Action!
In NYC and wherever you are, STOP the suppression!
In NYC:
Tues Feb 28 Union Square
No Rubber Bullets - No Beatings
No Tear Gas - No Mass Arrests
Drop All the Charges Against Occupiers
Don't Suppress OWS! Stand with Occupy!
4:00 pm Gather 5:00 pm Rally 6:00 pm March
I’m aware that causation and correlation are often times unrelated. I can make a number of excellent points and any of them will punch a gigantic hole to your trip down memory lane but I’m not stepping in more bull shit (btw, the top rate on income tax was 94% in 1944 and it affected only those making $2.5 million in today’s dollars). I patiently await a logical explanation why fairness is good or why taxation doesn’t inhibit work/growth?
Frank - we have incorporated elements of socialism into our system. And guess what? All of them are fucked up.
Did that not cross your mind before posting?
Actually, the fact that we have incorporated elements of socialism into our system did cross my mind. It made me wish I had said “incorporate MORE elements of socialism into our system”, because some of the ones we already have work so well.
I never for a second thought the ones that have been incorporated (like the VA, social security, and welfare for the needy are in any way “fucked up.” They are by no means perfect, Joseph, but there are elements of unfettered capitalism that are fucked up a great deal more.
You wrote: The left is obsessed with fairness and I have yet to hear a logical argument why fairness is the holy grail of a sound economy. Let me leave you with a quote from one of my favorite writers on the subject (by subject I don’t mean Reagan or Japan):
“Today’s “progressives” want to expand political control of incomes even more. They call it “social justice” but you could call it Rumpelstiltskin and it would still mean politicians deciding how much money each of us can be allowed to have.”
Well, I normally try to use the term “fairer” rather than “fair”…meaning I want to see some of the UNNECESSARY disparity eased. I think it is entirely possible for our society to be economically FAIRER…and still allow everyone to earn and keep as much as they want. If everyone had SUFFICIENT in our country…there would still be much more than enough left over for the people who want much more than SUFFICIENT to fight over. The people who are able to accumulate enough money can buy works of art from museums and hide them in vaults so that the lesser people cannot see them, for instance. The price of concerts and sp0rting events could go up to $1,000,000 per ticket so that only the rich could go and the lesser would have to watch those things on television.
BUT EVERYONE should have enough food, shelter, clothing, medical attention, educational opportunities, and such…NO MATTER WHAT.
That is why I think “a more fair economy " SHOULD BE A PRIORITY for everyone…not just liberals.
FWIW:
February 28 Day of Mass Action!
In NYC and wherever you are, STOP the suppression!
In NYC:
Tues Feb 28 Union Square
No Rubber Bullets - No Beatings
No Tear Gas - No Mass Arrests
Drop All the Charges Against Occupiers
Don't Suppress OWS! Stand with Occupy!
4:00 pm Gather 5:00 pm Rally 6:00 pm March
Stay within the law...follow instructions from the police...and there should be no trouble.
If you decide to do things that are illegal--like refuse to follow lawful instructions from the police, there will be steps taken that you will not like. And that is as it should be.
This was lacking in NYC over the long term, with worker committment in the streets being intermittent, the only long term support being vocal and nothing more, perhaps a tad financial as well.
On the West Coast, we also see more hierarchical leadership, discipline and organization.
Yuppie Bourgeois liberals in the northeast have an aversion toward military style discipline, organization and coordination, as well as hierarchy. Yet West Coast working class folks, tempered by a still active labor movement, understand that this is needed to fight.
I think the East Coast has lost this, because they have lost much of their industry and their union strength, aside from co-opted city worker unions in the big cities.
On the West Coast, you still have big mining, agricultural, longshoreman and other types of labor-intensive jobs. This gives their working classes, and the student activists alongside them, a more realistic understanding of street fighting and street protesting strategies and organization.
OWS in Manhattan had a good critical mass and they made headlines in the national press, which was 100% crucial. But once they seized the high ground, it seemed as if they had no idea what to do. I don't think they thought they would have been that successful and as such, had no contingency plan for said success.
Their method of decision making, with all that collective nonsense, lacked decisiveness and caused them to degenerate into anarchy and allowed the police and Mayor to swiftly seize the initiative.
This is why Lenin created a Politburo in the Bolshevik movement: you need an elite officer corps of decision makers to be decisive during crucial moments in a protest. This is also why he created the concept of "Democratic Centralism." There is a time for debate and a time for action and carrying out orders.
OWS was all about debate and fuzzy collective decision making. As such, they were defeated.
There is a time for debate. But sometimes, debates must come to an end.
You couldn't punch a hole in anything but Frank's funny statement that you argue fairly and reasonably. Anyone that can't tell the difference between reason and what you display is making an admission, not an observation.
The idea that marginal tax rates correlate with investment or profit-taking incentives on some laughably elementary idea of an X-Y axis sliding scale is stupid. I could use a series of words to soften the blow, but the end result is it's stupid.
To your specific stupid example, the person who gets taxed at 20% for income over 250,000 will not be less motivated or prevented from acting to make a profit if that tax is 40%. To have another bite at the hilarious apple, the idea that it works like a sliding scale and 30% means 10% less likely to TAKE A PROFIT is an asinine thought within an asinine thought.
There are relevant and realistic truths about taxes, investment, employment and the economic situation we're in, but you don't understand economics or reality well enough to engage in a realistic discussion.
You have found the one person who will accept your Tinker Toy arguments and observations. You should hook up in a long, intense exchange of ideas while America harnesses the intellectual energy for the benefit of all. I'm thinkin' the resulting vacuum could pull a train through a tube from NYC to LA.
…some laughably elementary idea…
… is stupid. I could use a series of words to soften the blow, but the end result is it's stupid…
…To your specific stupid example…
…To have another bite at the hilarious apple…
… is an asinine thought within an asinine thought…
…but you don't understand economics or reality well enough to engage in a realistic discussion…
…You have found the one person who will accept your Tinker Toy arguments and observations. You should hook up in a long, intense exchange of ideas while America harnesses the intellectual energy for the benefit of all. I'm thinkin' the resulting vacuum could pull a train through a tube from NYC to LA….
My, my, my. All these slurs, insults, and childish barbs in just one post, Paul???
Oh well, I guess thanks are in order. I’m sure you’ve managed to get lots of people wondering:
Just how lacking in self-assurance, self-esteem, and self-respect does one have to be in order to heap that much unnecessary scorn on others?
It. is. a. stupid. argument.
It's also a dumb argument. It could be said to be a weak argument, but that wouldn't capture how truly idiotic an argument. One way to avoid having a stupid argument classified as such is to avoid stupid arguments.
Your response ignores the stupidity of Fever's claim and seeks to defend the stupid argument based on an emotional response, but offers no logical rebuttal of the substance of my corrections.
So, explain why Fever's claims are not stupid, and I'll retract my comment and declare you to be the most accomplished convoluted rhetorician since Cochran got OJ off.
How obtuse, dense, inattentive and divorced from common sense does one have to be to accept Fever's bloviation as fair and reasonable?
My question is also rhetorical.
Paul’s slurs, insults and childish barbs are so much fun; please don’t encourage him to stop. Furthermore, it’s not wise to lob any pleasantries my way, if I were to provide my inner thoughts about Democrats it would be a slur-filled rant as well. Ever since Paul deleted a comment of mine we’ve had an understanding that debate was not going to occur between us as his mind was not open to change. But there is still hope for you!
Let’s not split hairs as it relates to the fairness debate. I concede the fact that liberals want things to be “fairer” and that “fair” is not the best choice of words to describe your position. Do you concede that Republicans want people to “have enough food, shelter, clothing, medical attention, educational opportunities, and such”?
The difference between our ways of thinking is that you feel we will accomplish these priorities by confiscating the income of the successful and redistributing it to those that aren’t. Whereas I feel a tax code not driven by envy, will result in a better economy, and with a better economy, we get more of the things you mentioned.
Two points as it relates to priceless works of art and $1,000,000 sporting events. 1) Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes on households with incomes above $250,000. People at that income level can’t afford those luxuries. 2) If taxes were lower, the rich would have more of an incentive to grow their wealth, versus spend it on frivolous items.
The best one could hope for would be for the two to be aboard that rocket.
Lighten up, Frankie.
Lighten up yourself, Paul. Just about every post you offer contains insults and scorn. Try to get over it.
There isn't an insult or slur in there.
Well, since you were responding you my comment, “All these slurs, insults, and childish barbs”…you obviously realized that there were “childish barbs” in there or you would have denied them also.
Actually, there were insults and slurs in there also. Just as there were in this last post of yours. You seem addicted.
The difference between our ways of thinking is that you feel we will accomplish these priorities by confiscating the income of the successful and redistributing it to those that aren’t.
I do NOT think that at all…and I have attempted to explain that to you both in threads and in personal communication. But you are so set in thinking that is where I am coming from…the communication keeps getting short-circuited.
Whereas I feel a tax code not driven by envy, will result in a better economy, and with a better economy, we get more of the things you mentioned.
If there were a “tax code” that could get that done…that tax code would already be in place and working. By now, everyone should understand that a “fairer” nation is never going to be built on a particular tax code that works in that direction…not the one proposed by you conservatives…or the ones proposed by the die-hard liberals.
Systemic change is needed.
Or at least, that is my opinion….and it is an opinion that I set out in great depth in my “outside the box” essays on the subject.
Fever always opens with an insult, acting as if he's educating the "liberals." Then he follows with his laughable analysis of whatever. That you choose to link your thinking to his says plenty.
I know you think your thoughts are important and relevant and worthy of constant bold type, but you're politically clueless. As many of the clueless do, you reduce politics to generalizations and argue themes, some common, some the product of your own unfounded beliefs. Where you perfectly mesh with Fever is in thinking inadequate analysis can be salvaged by emotional carping. You continue to carp, which is the better option, for you, than to explain why those laughably simplistic assertions Fever deals in are worthy of your "fair and reasonable" label.
I did deal in ample sarcasm on my last post, combined with a very truthful analysis of GOP politics. As a watered-down wannabe who lacks knowledge and deals in pretense, you can't see the substance so you frame it as insult. Your pretense is that you represent the "center" so are "above the fray" and, unlike the "unreasonable," you will "respect and acknowledge opinions from both sides." In other words, the home base of the political rookie, where the need for substantial argument is replaced by a geographic position on the spectrum. The lack of substance becomes "reason" based on nothing more than granting logical absurdities undeserved credibility. And that nothing more than a vehicle for your next enamored-with-your "logic" bold faced comment.
You argue politics on your level, with others who inhabit that space. I don't have a problem with that, but you can't transcend that level by merely crying about perceived wounds, which is all you have done here.
That's all I have to say and do feel some guilt, though not the kind your emotional rebuttal was meant to evoke. I just don't want to keep those NYC to LA passengers waiting.
Delete the single word "that," and you've got an entirely true statement that sums up three years of apisa's comments and blogs.
Fever always opens with an insult, acting as if he's educating the "liberals." Then he follows with his laughable analysis of whatever. That you choose to link your thinking to his says plenty.
I know you think your thoughts are important and relevant and worthy of constant bold type, but you're politically clueless. As many of the clueless do, you reduce politics to generalizations and argue themes, some common, some the product of your own unfounded beliefs. Where you perfectly mesh with Fever is in thinking inadequate analysis can be salvaged by emotional carping. You continue to carp, which is the better option, for you, than to explain why those laughably simplistic assertions Fever deals in are worthy of your "fair and reasonable" label.
I did deal in ample sarcasm on my last post, combined with a very truthful analysis of GOP politics. As a watered-down wannabe who lacks knowledge and deals in pretense, you can't see the substance so you frame it as insult. Your pretense is that you represent the "center" so are "above the fray" and, unlike the "unreasonable," you will "respect and acknowledge opinions from both sides." In other words, the home base of the political rookie, where the need for substantial argument is replaced by a geographic position on the spectrum. The lack of substance becomes "reason" based on nothing more than granting logical absurdities undeserved credibility. And that nothing more than a vehicle for your next enamored-with-your "logic" bold faced comment.
You argue politics on your level, with others who inhabit that space. I don't have a problem with that, but you can't transcend that level by merely crying about perceived wounds, which is all you have done here.
That's all I have to say and do feel some guilt, though not the kind your emotional rebuttal was meant to evoke. I just don't want to keep those NYC to LA passengers waiting.
Well, Paul, I do not think your comments are worth bold print, so I will Italicize them instead.
You seem unable to post any comments without indicating the scorn, contempt, and disdain you have for anyone else’s thoughts, so I think this last post is typical of what you think is reasonable discussion.
I know…you’ve mentioned that your father brought important people into your home to speak and discuss issues of importance…so, as you put it, you were immersed in this kind of thing since childhood.
Too bad your father didn’t invite some people to teach you civility. He should also have invited people who could have taught you to deal with the emotional conflicts which require you to denigrate so many others and their opinions so that you can feel comfortable with yourself.
He did you a big disservice in stressing the former and neglecting the latter.
Don't get me wrong, I am not putting all the blame for the way you act on him. I am sure your obvious lack of self-esteem comes from many sources.
John, I went by Occupy KC recently and the protesters are still there in the park across from the Federal Reserve building. They toughed it out all winter long because, unlike in NYC and some other places, the police here weren't ordered to evict them. And they say New York's fulla librulz... ;-)
I assume that, after the sobbing subsides, you'll address my original point and explain the "reason" involved with Fever.
I'm running out of hankies.
Or...is that what you think you have done, and it's my problem that I can't extract that from the conniption?
The above was purely rhetorical. You may continue Cryfest 2012 without me.
He continues to both shrink and lose weight. His story hits the headlines and he becomes a national curiosity. He also has to give up his job and stop driving. To make ends meet, he sells his story to the national press.
By this point he feels humiliated and expresses his shame and impotence by lashing out at Louise. She is reduced to tears of despair at his fate.
Then, it seems, an antidote is found for Scott's affliction: it briefly arrests his shrinking when he is 36½ inches (93 cm) tall and weighs 52 pounds (24 kg). Despite halting his diminution, he is told that he will never return to his former size, unless a cure is found, and that the antidote will only arrest the shrinking. Still, he seems relatively content to remain at three feet tall, and begins to accept his fate.
At a circus, he briefly becomes friends with a female dwarf, who initially is identical in height; she is appearing in a side-show and persuades him that life isn't all negative being their size. Although their relationship is platonic in the film, it becomes romantic in the novel. During one of Scott's conversations with his new small friend, he suddenly notices he has become even shorter than her, meaning the antidote is not working. Exasperated, he runs away. He continues shrinking, and eventually is reduced to living in a dollhouse. After nearly being killed by his own cat, he winds up trapped in a basement and has to battle a voracious spider, his own hunger, and the fear that he may eventually shrink down to nothing. After defeating the spider, he accepts his fate and (now so small he can escape the basement by walking through a space in a window screen) is resigned to the adventure of seeing what awaits him in even smaller realms.The film's ending monologue implies he will eventually shrink to atomic size; but, no matter how small he does so, he concludes he will still matter in the universe and this thought gives him comfort and ends his fears of the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Shrinking_Man
Incredibly enough, the fool is unaware that with each passing comment, more and more people realize that apisa does, indeed, inhabit a circus: the incredible shrinking"mind."
Good grief. Thank you, Paul. I needed a good belly laugh!
I routinely participate in discussions with people who present honest arguments and informed opinions. Of course, you wouldn't know that because you're never one of them, and for good reason.
Oh, we talk all the time. Actually, you’ve participated in a discussion with me right here in this thread. (Sorry about this, Designanator)
I assume that, after the sobbing subsides, you'll address my original point and explain the "reason" involved with Fever.
I'm running out of hankies.
No sobbing going on here, Paul. Haven’t used a single hankie. If you are running out of hankies, the sobbing must be going on over at your house.
Or...is that what you think you have done, and it's my problem that I can't extract that from the conniption?
No conniption on my part either. I’ve explained myself clearly…and if you don’t get it, ask someone to explain it to you.
I guess it was too much for you to wrap your mind around the context of your use of "anyone's." Your use *was* and mine *is* in the context of *everyone's* opinion. What followed would have been enough for most mammals following the exchange to realize my affirmation of your contextual use. Now you decide you meant *some* people's opinions and launch a counterattack based on the sudden discovery of your own confusion.
Now I'm confused. Did you merely suffer a bout of amnesia, or am I supposed suffer sympathy pains at the sight of your immolation?
For the record, I am prone to ridicule really poor thinking, but only if it comes from somebody that delivers it as if they are educating me or the masses. This is why Fever is such a ripe target, or his twin dawg of an ideologue, Chris. Both showed up here announcing their intent to whup some eddykayshen on the "liberals," and both are really poor thinkers regurgitating unsupportable dogma.
I have only ridiculed, and on your invitation, your constant carping about how anyone critical of Obama is going to sway the masses of voters away from the polls, ensuring the election of a Republican. I ridicule it because it is oblivious to the fact those critics have zero influence, which is how much you and I have over the outcome of any election.
In that laughable belief of yours, I don't see you as really thinking their opinion is that important, just that yours is. It's also an easy line of attack for somebody who doesn't know enough to get involved in a factual discussion, yet wants to pretend they are actually involved in one by glomming on.
The other funny thing about you, like the Fever and Chris, is you're out to eddykate the "liberals," yet you guys don't know what the word means.
Now you can get back to your game of political tee ball.
For the record, I am prone to ridicule really poor thinking, but only if it comes from somebody that delivers it as if they are educating me or the masses.
For the record, Paul, you are prone to ridicule people in damn near every post you make. You get off on it…you seem to relish telling people that they are not as smart as you—not as knowledgeable. As you know—even if it were true (and often I think it is not), it is the kind of thing only an insecure person would do.
By the way, you certainly did plenty of it in this latest post. It really is addictive, isn’t it?
The other funny thing about you, like the Fever and Chris, is you're out to eddykate the "liberals," yet you guys don't know what the word means.
You also tend toward hyperbole to bolster your anger-driven scorn. I know what the word “educate” means…and I am sure the others do also. Try to stay away from hyperbole, Paul…it really is not an effective debate device.
This is a good example of how PJOR's muddy thinking finds itself reflected in his writing. In the above quote, is "the word" meant to refer to "eddycate" or to "liberals?" My guess is the latter, whereas FA seems to think the former. The important point is that neither knows for sure because PJOR doesn't know how to write. In the end it really doesn't matter for PJOR has his own secret definitions of all words, with the possible exception of articles.
I think maybe libby's points would be more persuasive if she were to lard on more exclamation points and question marks. Five seems a bit scant.
Soldier on, Mr. Fever. You've got right on your side.
You spend a great deal of wasted time trying to prove your knowledge is superior to the "liberals." If you had superior, or even adequate knowledge, you'd prove it by displaying it, not by hypocritical whining. You're like the kid that starts a rock fight, and then whines because the "bully" has the better aim.
Stay in your league.
Gordon,
I would love to engage in political battle with you. Please contact me once you learn something about politics, including what the words mean.
You spend a great deal of wasted time trying to prove your knowledge is superior to the "liberals." If you had superior, or even adequate knowledge, you'd prove it by displaying it, not by hypocritical whining. You're like the kid that starts a rock fight, and then whines because the "bully" has the better aim.
Stay in your league.
Nice try, Paul…but it fell flat. In the conversation between the two of us, there is only one person trying to prove himself “superior”…and I am not that person.
You were the one sobbing…so asking me to stop whining is absurd.
I am just fine in this league…and that “stay in your league” or “you are out of your league” nonsense is very definitely minor league.
Glad once again that you are sticking around after promising to go, Paul.
I have to admit it is fun watching you squirm.
I like knowing you can't resist piling more on.
And more on
And more on.
Face it, you're a more on.
I disagree with Fever on damn near everything he writes, but I consider him an intelligent, reasonable debater.
I do not consider you reasonable by any stretch of the imagination, Paul. You argue like a kid in a school playground.
I like knowing you can't resist piling more on.
And more on
And more on.
Face it, you're a more on.
Egad…I realize now that I just insulted kids arguing in playgrounds.
With that confirmation of my original statement, you rest my case.
You guys can start a more on support group.
I'm easy to find, Frank. I have a blog. Anytime you want to use that powerful mind to deconstruct my musings, feel free to have at it. Nobody is following this, so you get the thrill of trying without the experience of frying...which is why you haven't commented on my blog in a very long time. Ya ain't foolin' anybody.
With that confirmation of my original statement, you rest my case.
You guys can start a more on support group.
I'm easy to find, Frank. I have a blog. Anytime you want to use that powerful mind to deconstruct my musings, feel free to have at it. Nobody is following this, so you get the thrill of trying without the experience of frying...which is why you haven't commented on my blog in a very long time. Ya ain't foolin' anybody.
Yup...I definitely insulted kids arguing in a playground by comparing them with you.