Wednesday, October 19, 2011

A Good Question To Ask "Occupiers"

This is what journalists should be asking occupiers: "Did you vote in the last election?"

I would be interested in knowing the answer.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good question! I am still waiting for one of th "Journalists to ask Briget DePape that question.
Cheers Bubba

Alain said...

I wager that the number of those who voted is close to zero if not zero. The less than 1% is not interested in democracy nor freedom except for their own. Frankly they do not warrant the amount of news coverage they are getting in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that these White kids and anti-Corporate Welfare crisaders are not marching over to the CBC head Office at John & Wellington to denouce the smug/wealthy/liberal/elite/whites that get $1'100'000'000.00 tax dollars a year and gives out $10'000'000.00 a year in Bonuses to overpaid managers that know they can't be fired.
They should have also went to Oshawa's GM plant to denouce Obama's threat to canada to bail-out the CAW workers with a huge Corporate Welfare check from tax payers or GM would shut-down our Plants.

The irony for the Public Unions supporting these Occupy movements is that the Union Pensions hold shares in almost every non-unionized for-profit Corporation
they claim to have disdain and contemp for.
Plus, the kids calling McDonald's the oppressers of the poor are the same ones that eat there and don't mind that the oppressed worker is Brown and an Immigrant.

Anonymous said...

Actually I heard on CFRA Radio in Ottawa someone who asked this question and of course almost no one had voted in the recent Ontario election.

Anonymous said...

someone should also ask those empty headed twits who makes their cell phones, clothes etc., couldn't be those evil corporations they hate could it?

Anonymous said...

someone should also ask those empty headed twits who makes their cell phones, clothes etc., couldn't be those evil corporations they hate could it?

Anon1152 said...

"I wager that the number of those who voted is close to zero if not zero."

I very much doubt that. But when it comes to wagers, I like to remember words attributed to Mark Twain. There are two times in a man's life when he shouldn't speculate: when he cant afford it, and when he can.

This is an interesting question. An empirical question with an empirical answer. This is something that someone should look into. Perhaps someone already has.

Oh! Since you're here (or... since I'm here?) and since you are (I assume) a conservative... Can I ask you who Victoria Jackson is? I know she was on Saturday Night Live. And I have heard that she has supported right wing causes recently... but... Is that really true? Or is it more like... Stephen Colbert?

She posted a video of herself going to Occupy Wall Street. And the people she talked to seemed... well... reasonable...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA1py9erpVk&feature=player_embedded

Well. The guy she spends most of her time talking to seems reasonable/informed/engaged. There is a guy in blue glasses at the end who might sound less reasonable.

Anyway... if you could tell me whether or not this Victoria Jackson is a real conservative, that would be much appreciated. It is something I have been meaning to look into.

RkBall said...

Victoria Jackson has not yet entered my reality screen (meaning, I've never heard of her).

Anon1152 said...

"Victoria Jackson has not yet entered my reality screen (meaning, I've never heard of her)."

I first heard of her very recently. I guess I'll have to wait to learn the truth.

Anon1152 said...

"1152: Good point, except feminists invariably start off by saying "women want this, women say this..." indicating that they feel their view is universal."

Well. Yes. But that's an (almost?) unavoidable aspect of political life--which invariably involves speaking for oneself AND for others... and there is always the possibility of being rebuked.

The leaders of all political parties speak for "Canadians" or "Ontarians" or "Americans" or whatever. And they always seem to know what "the people" as a whole want. Even though they know that less than 50% (or less than 40%, or less than 30%) actually agree with them.

*

Take REAL Women as an example (since you brought them up). The acronym wasn't a happy coincidence. It's more like a backronym. And it was chosen, I assume, to suggest or imply that the women of REAL Women are the only ones who should count as women. They know what real women (as opposed to ersatz women?) want. And REAL women (or was it real women?) don't like unions, are against "harm reduction" drug policies, are "pro-life"(or "anti-choice"), are against same-sex marriage... and so on.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"