The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Occupy Wall Street

I found the info about adbusters more interesting than the Soros possible connection
 
Kulindahr said:
So the article indicates that Soros MIGHT have a secondhand or even thirdhand connection.

And that the idea came from an article in a publication which says he's never donated to them.


Yay. Sooooo substantial.
Click to expand...

Maybe not directly, but some of his money certainly made its way to them.

But that's irrelevant. The more interesting part of that article is about adbusters itself.
 
jackoroe said:
It's pretty clear than hiring protestors isn't really a grassroots activity is it?
Here's the ad for those of you needing a job.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/gov/2618821815.html

Soros has has filthy fingers in this mess, too. Grassroots my ass!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street
Click to expand...

Well, the first one doesn't show any connection to OWS.

And the second one is full of crap -- like this lie:

The protesters are even recycling administration talking points such as the old “the rich should be forced to pay their 'fair share'" — despite the fact that the “Buffett rule” tax proposal being advanced would almost exclusively soak what remains of the middle class.
Click to expand...

Not very darned many "middle class" people make over a million a year, which is the Buffet proposal. So that's a flat, deliberate lie -- kinda smashes your source's credibility.

Besides which, the article doesn't say a thing about Soros funding the protests.
 
jackoroe said:
It's pretty clear than hiring protestors isn't really a grassroots activity is it?
Here's the ad for those of you needing a job.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/gov/2618821815.html

Soros has has filthy fingers in this mess, too. Grassroots my ass!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street
Click to expand...

Jack, from your own first link:

"We're organizing in communities around New York State -- but we don't hire people to Occupy Wall Street."
Click to expand...


As far as your contention that an anti-capitalist billionaire is secretly funding OWS with money he gave to a charitable foundation some years ago, I can only give you right-wingers kudos for creativity.

There can be no doubt that Soros planned for San Francisco Tides (which gets money from lots of people) to give a tiny amount of his money (secretly ear-marked for the purpose) to Adbusters in Vancouver, which would then run an unrelated spoof ad years later in a Vancouver magazine, which would then trigger the OWS movement across the continent in New York City!

Isaac Asimov once said (of Immanuel Velikovsky) that he could construct a more reasonable connection between sunspots and the pattern of burping of cows along the Nile.

Reality has too much of a left-wing bias to be acceptable to you guys. So, you just invent your own.
 
JB3 said:
The more interesting part of that article is about adbusters itself.
Click to expand...

Definitely. I once read an article that claimed to trace the initial spark of the Tea Party; I think it was an e-mail someone sent to friends. But there's always one source -- and frequently just an off-hand idea.
 
CFoTsD said:
From Wiki: The foundation (Adbusters) describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age.
Click to expand...

Ultimately though, it appears they are interested in promoting a balance between economic and ecological concerns. They want people to be aware of “corporate disinformation, injustices in the global economy, and any industry that pollutes our physical or mental commons.”

 
Kulindahr said:
They'll have to pick another park, I guess.
Click to expand...

The owners of the park have even told them they'll be allowed back once they finish cleaning it. But, some are going to use this as an excuse to get violent. They've been given plenty of warning to vacate the park for cleaning, so any choice they make is theirs and theirs alone.
 
PS. on behalf of Canada, I apologise that Vancouver's own Adbusters is inflicting this anti-market nonsense (as opposed to market discipline) on all of us. It used to be a good consumer affairs mag.
 
Clarification: I didn't realize when I posted earlier in this thread that this is a PRIVATE park. That means there are zero constitutional issues here. The protestors are there at the pleasure of the owners, not because of a right they have.
 
hotatlboi said:
Clarification: I didn't realize when I posted earlier in this thread that this is a PRIVATE park. That means there are zero constitutional issues here. The protestors are there at the pleasure of the owners, not because of a right they have.
Click to expand...

Good point.

But if they aren't going to be allowed to camp there, they'll have to find another park.
 
This is more than likely why they postponed the cleanup.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15269..._it_all_down?akid=7708.102503.xFNbJh&rd=1&t=2

A group of New York civil liberties lawyers warned the CEO of Brookfield that forcing protestors from the park violates their first amendment rights, stating, "Under the guise of cleaning the Park you are threatening fundamental constitutional rights. There is no basis in the law for your request for police intervention, nor have you cited any. Such police action without a prior court order would be unconstitutional."
Click to expand...

So I guess this will take JB3 and others out of saying it is not unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top