Police: Hundreds Of Wall Street Protesters Arrested At Brooklyn Bridge

Kill them all, they have nothing to offer humanity. (who i'm talking about is up to you - this whole thing has gone off topic)

Lilith_SatansWhore wrote:

<quoted text>na i love america but hate christardos.... now go pray to your imaginary friend

Who are you trying to kid?

What a joke you are.

Wartime V wrote:

<quoted text>
Who are you trying to kid?
What a joke you are.

awwwhh you have an imaginary friend too lol

Wartime V wrote:

<quoted text>
Who are you trying to kid?
What a joke you are.

indeed so true, That Fake poster is just another ,Brown-nosing, prejudiced oppressors who relys on affirmative action to solve their issues

Vance1 wrote:

<quoted text>
indeed so true, That Fake poster is just another ,Brown-nosing, prejudiced oppressors who relys on affirmative action to solve their issues

oh wait i just saw the holy ghoast.......... na it was just casper.... false alarm

Roger II wrote:

<quoted text>
"I WANT" "I WANT"
You whine more than the protesters.
Want some cheese to go with that?

nO, YOU WANT A FAT LIP, DIP?

No such thing as too Big to Fail.
Taxes are theft.
http://i.eho.st/pjq03gxe.jpg
It was recently brought to my attention that though I frequently refer to taxes being “stolen money” and being collected “at the point of a gun” I’ve never really explained that reality. My assumption was that this was as self-evident to others as it has always been to myself, but apparently it’s not so self-evident after all. So here you go…

If I approach you on the street and demand money from you would you give it to me? What if I threatened you with a gun? Would it be right for me to insist you give me the money from your wallet? What if I only wanted one third of the money in your wallet? What if I promised you protection and other services in return for the money? Would you consider this theft? I imagine you would. Mugging, robbery, extortion. And you would be right in that assessment.

What if I stopped you on the street and had 10 people agreeing that you should give me the money? Would it still be theft? Of course it would. How about 100 people? 1,000? 10,000? 1,000,000? At what point does it no longer qualify as theft, robbery or extortion? If your answer is “never” then you’re not only a rational human being, but you also agree that taxes are theft, though you may not have realized it.

Because that’s exactly what the govrenment has done. They’ve gathered a large group of people together to assert that they have the right to take one-third (or more) of your money and that you have no choice in the matter. Should you resist, they will shoot you. Don’t believe me? Then it’s time for another example.

If you stop paying property taxes what do you think is going to happen? The government will send you letter after letter demanding “their” money. They may even make a few phone calls or send some bureaucrat by your house to try and collect. If you continue to refuse to hand over your hard earned money they’ll eventually send a police officer, sheriff or other law enforcement officer to your house to evict you.

Notice that gun on the law enforcement officer’s hip? It’s there for a reason. Because if you refuse to leave the property that you paid for with money that you worked for, and still refuse to hand over a share of that hard earned money to the state, then the law enforcement officer is going to try to handcuff you and drag you off of your property. if you continue to resist he’s going to pull that gun and point it at you. If you still refuse to pay their extortion (aka taxes) and still refuse to abandon your little part of the American dream, then the police officers will shoot you. That’s what the gun is there for.

The only difference between a mugger in a dark alley and a law enforcement officer is the amount of money they demand from you (the government wants far more then the mugger) and the number of people backing them up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The Tiny Dot

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
If you were King

Lilith_SatansWhore wrote:

<quoted text>
What is a professional atheist

You and your ilk, hate mongerers, intolerant bigots. If you had any honesty you'd be on here criticizing the one religion whose adherants want to kill you or at a minimum treat you like second class citizens with no rights.

Lilith_SatansWhore wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry got arrested for and charged with Federal disruption of a religous service in 2009..... FBI involved and everything.. oh well

Well at least you turned your life around and became a prostitute.

Lilith_SatansWhore wrote:

<quoted text>
I hope a athiest burns your brothers christardo church down,,,, not fond of them

What else is there to say, ur a professional atheist, a hatemonger, a bigot, non tolerant, calling for violence against those you disagree with and don't like. Ur scum, a POS.

Neurotoxik wrote:

<quoted text>
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
That is the "separation of church and state" reference.

Perhaps but when written it applied to the federal government only. It was written to prevent the federal government from infringing on state establishment powers. Look at it more as a "protection of the church in the state."

dont snow me wrote:

<quoted text> nO, YOU WANT A FAT LIP, DIP?

Yes please.
Just remember, the last time you tried to give someone a fat lip you had to replace your keyboard and monitor.

dont snow me wrote:

<quoted text>
What else is there to say, ur a professional atheist, a hatemonger, a bigot, non tolerant, calling for violence against those you disagree with and don't like. Ur scum, a POS.

sweet....... szo does this mean we are not friends

Neurotoxik wrote:

<quoted text>
As usual... blame the democrats. Total bullshit. As far as partisanship goes... both sides contributed to the mess one way or the other. However, the FED is the biggest player in the downfall of our economy, and has been time and time again. We need to rid our nation of the FED and it's influence on our economy once and for all. We need to amend the US Constitution to explicitly forbid the establishment of ANY federal bank in the future. Though the FED itself was established only 90 years ago; the US has gone through several FED-like cycles throughout the course of our 235 year history. Every single time WITHOUT EXCEPTION (I believe there have been six separate periods of time in which the US has had an established "National Bank"); the bankers that made up the "national bank" (aka: the FED) manipulated the markets to their extreme economic advantage and left the American people holding the bag. Actions by the federal preceded the Great Depression and EVERY recession in America's history. They pull large amounts of currency out of circulation and it sparks an economic downturn. This results in lower real estate markets etc, which these bankers then take advantage of to enrich their personal fortune. The worst thing about it is that because they are not a government agency (but a private entity), they are NOT subject to congressional oversight. Therefore, no matter which political party happens to be in control it doesn't matter.
That's the real story. It's NOT the democrats. It's NOT the republicans. It is a collective of very powerful bankers (unaccountable to congress) that is mostly responsible for manipulating our economy for their own personal benefit.
http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal...

Being a liberal democrat I'm not surprised you don't want to hear the truth, government interference in the marketplace, authored by democrats. I'm the last guy to stand up for powerful bankers and BO should be the last guy to criticize them.

I'm no expert on the Fed, but as a sovereign country we do need a bank, it's my understanding it's the Fed or our bank is under the control of the politicians. What's the alternative?

I notice other than a brief denial you don't dispute the dems part in the subprime mortgage disaster. Carter, Clinton, Frank, Dodd, Johnson, Raines, Bernanke, etc.

The bottom line is if the subprime would have never been forced on the banks there would not have been a crisis.

Government interference in the market.

Tony wrote:

<quoted text>
The republicans want to keep our big bad war machine and be the world police force and that needs to end. We went into Iraq and had no business doing it and it is costing tax payers trillions of dollars.
Many churches support the less fortunate all over the world. How did atheist get in this conversation?

OK, the repubs want a strong defense force, but I haven't seen any proof they want to be the world's police force, do you have any?

LIBERAL FLEA BAGGERS wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a typical LIBERAL FLEA BAGGER response when they can't think of anything to say to dispute or disprove something that someone posts.
It's basically them saying "you're right, I'm just too stupid to figure out anything to say in response".
But what do you expect from an admitted hooker.
Last time I checked there are no rules against copying and pasting news articles for discussion.

The rest of the time dolts like her are asking for "proof".

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Well at least you turned your life around and became a prostitute.

Prostitution should be legal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
as well as ...
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/vict...

dont snow me wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, the repubs want a strong defense force, but I haven't seen any proof they want to be the world's police force, do you have any?

I tend to get a little skepticle when the leader of the free world feels it necessary to assemble a civilisn national security force that answers to only Obama should be as well equipped and financed as the US military.
The only logical explanation could be deploying this private miliatary on a domestic

Neurotoxik wrote:

<quoted text>First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That is the "separation of church and state" reference.

Sounds to me like it's saying that there shall be no church of England-like established church and no laws prohibiting the free exercise....that's not separation, that's guaranteeing religious freedom.

Interested11342 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds to me like it's saying that there shall be no church of England-like established church and no laws prohibiting the free exercise....that's not separation, that's guaranteeing religious freedom.

http://verydemotivational.memebase.com/2011/1...