While still cutting revenue...Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Printable View
While still cutting revenue...Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
That's fine, it is our money after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
There is no way to balance the budget and get rid of the debt that we have while continuing to cut taxes on the rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
I didn't say not to cut taxes on the rich. I personally would enjoy paying less taxes though. Cutting spending would do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Mistyped there?Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Cutting spending wouldn't do that. Cutting spending would allow taxes to be cut, yes...but not yet...if we actually want to dig out of the hole we're in. And Ron Paul's plans include cutting spending, sure, but also completely getting rid of all income tax and capital gains taxes AND slashing the corporate tax rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Oh yeah, I understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Citizens United v. FEC aside, Paul may or may not have a shot. It's not even in his control. Ron Paul can put all the legislation forward he wants, he can propose corporate limitations (deemed unconstitutional), he can try to impose PACs to name their donors, he can do all he wants but trying to change the status quo is the hardest thing to do in politics and rarely ever works.
The reason I jumped on you is because bringing Paul into this is a fanboy move. RP fanboys will find any and all issues to bring up the Paulvolution and how incredibly awesome it would be for America blah blah blah.
This isn't something that by electing Ron Paul we have a chance to fix. This is an institutional failure of the American Political system and you can bring up how he speaks out against corporation in government. Well, so did Obama. So did McCain (in fact McCain has his name on legislation attempting to curb it) but a politician is a politician is a politician. The Occupy movement is bringing attention to this issue but it's not something people can fix, it's something that the United States Government must come out and say "We are behind this, we have allowed this to happen, and this entire systemic failure is on us." Ron Paul may have an idea on how to stop this, but I have an idea too. And I think we both have the same shot at passing it through congress.
But bringing back to your mention of Citizens United v. FEC. That case obviously opened the door for unlimited corporate funds to flow into the political machine and to support candidates financially and with political ads. But overturning that decision (unlikely as how could someone bring that case back to SCOTUS?) wouldn't prevent corporate political donations. It may halt anonymous donations upwards of millions of dollars. The fact is, that decision was in 2008, our congress was bought years before that.
So I bring up something of Paul and that's an auto fanboy move? I brought up Hermain Cains plan as well, does that make me fanboy of his? I also posted a poll of different tax system, am I fanboy of all these different tax systems?Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
I brought up different things of discussion so lets stop with this fanboy nonsense. If other candidates and Obama release some sort of plan that makes sense I will post that as well to bring up for discussion.
Pretty much all of the policies that I don't agree with Ron Paul about are ones that he has no chance of implementing, but the ones that I do agree with are ones that he could have a reasonable shot at changing (the main one being the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan and his overall foreign policy).
Yeah sure except that's totally different then the way you brought up Paul. But whatever, this is a silly debate I'm not going to be HGM to your dickay on this issue right nowQuote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
only because you don't have hidden mod abilities to alter prior posts. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
Well I didn't insult you, you insulted me, so I would probably say you're doing the dickay part. But leik u sez, watevurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
OK ladies, break up the catfight.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
actually, to be totally honest, the insults and name calling are the property of HGM and on frequent loan to Kobie. that can't be denied.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Yes, that's totally honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
:rolleyes:
Sigh. I guess I shat the bed on this one.
bed has been shatQuote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
I knew there was going to be dispute on who was dickay and who has HGM. Much like you debate with TNP on who's doing the catching.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
final zing.:)
Debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
Iraq war vet critically injured in Oakland.
I tell you, I think the longer this lasts, it's going to end up getting really ugly and we are all going to be losers in this affair (if not already).
Unless you are the 1%, everyone should absolutely be supportive of OWS. Not because of their message but, because imagine if something happened to YOU and you want to protest about it, and get treated in this manner...You wouldn't want that would you?
From what I've heard there have been a decent amount of police clashes similar to Oakland in Occupy Rome. Which is a bit disconcerting if you were hoping these protests would stay peaceful.
Isn't the complaint that they have no message?Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
;)
I hear the message as something like:
1) Wall street ****ed the economy.
2) Both political parties enabled it.
3) That's not very good. Let's not do that again.
I'm guessing 90% of America agrees with that message. I'd be hard pressed to find someone I know who doesn't.
Well, that's blatantly obvious, but then you get into the "who's MOAR at fault" scenarios, which is when the partisan divide happens. And yes, I know I'm part of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clay Dreslough
support for their motive is one thing, blind support for their actions is another. i'm sure most if not all the police agree with their motives....and are not looking for altercations. when they become purposely disruptive or violent....then thats when my support for their actions end. i'm not going to sit here and blindly blame police, politicians, media, whomever for violent altercations that take place. it's very likely that the protestors took it too far which led to that altercation.
And I've seen video of police pepper spraying people who were doing nothing outside of just being there.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
In Occupy Denver the police rallied up in Riot Gear fearing that these people were getting too large and they were going to have to break them up just for that, but the fear of pepper spray lowered the crowd enough the cops didn't show.
Most of these people are not violent social movement type people. Occupy Oakland they marched down streets and were starting to become a disruptive force, thus the Government Action. But that being said, they did shoot pepper balls into crowds of people, some of them weren't doing anything.
Outside of police clashes in Occupy Rome, this hasn't exactly been a violent protest. You got arrests, you got pepper spray, cool. They aren't rising up and burning the banks down...yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Or how about up here during the G-20 last summer when people out walking their dogs in their own neighbourhood on a Sunday night, were among those who got caught up in a lovely little police crowd control technique known as kettling? Everybody that got snared in the trap was held for an hour and a half to two hours without charges in an absolute deluge of rain. It was despicable. They were eventually let go, but that's not really the point is it? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A billion freaking dollars was spent on this mess. I understand the need for security during these events, but following that weekend I was left to wonder who had run more rampant over my city: the protestors or the police who were supposed to maintain order. Cops have an extremely difficult job to do. I get that. I don't get their need to separate themselves from the swine they disdainfully label as "civilians". What the f*** happened to "To Serve and Protect". More like: "To Detain and Humiliate".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobie
damn and I saw a mob shutting down the #5 US harbor in oakland yesterday... thus shutting down shipments to hard working store owners who just cant wait to pay more taxes to the freeloaders on unemployment. I saw another store front vandalized with spray paint and windows kicked out ... I heard they stopped when the owner pull out his shot gun.
someone is gonna get killed ... just like at canton ... then will the protesters be happy????
Tea Party is nothing like this messed up bunch of wackos.
oi
its a double edge sword. whenever a large group of "protesters" gather, the police have a responsibility to show a strong presence (which can be a deterrent to violence) and be prepared in the event that violence takes place. This is not only for bystanders, they have a responsibility to all those in that crowd protesting as well. They are there for their safety. It only takes one or two idiots to turn things south quickly (and police can be idiots too). Police aren't going to, and shouldn't put themselves into unnecessary risks by permitting things to get out of hand. When you put a bunch of angry protestors next to a bunch of anxious and cautious armed police officers....its a dangerous situation. If the cops don't make a presence and things get violent, people get hurt or killed...these same people complaining about too much police presence and their actions will be arguing that the police are paid to maintain control and keep riots from occurring and should've been there with more force.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
If you're involved in a large group of protestors and you notice some are getting unruly...you need to leave. The police have a responsibility to themselves and their families first and foremost...and while their job requires them to try and control the situation they should most definitely use tactics that put themselves in the least amount of risk. Pepper spray and other riot control devices obviously will effect many protestors who were not causing havoc...but those protestors were in a group setting with some that were.
I know Fox News wouldn't tell you, but what has happened has been condemned by Oakland protesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
Funny thing, I was listening to conservative radio, a local host here was taking calls on what people thought and one person called and said the violence has actually been condemned by Occupy Oakland protesters, and guess what? The host hung up on him.
Lets not pick and choose here. Occupy has made ground on the merits of "we don't need a message, we're protesting the system".....and in that same article you linked that lack of a consistent message appears again. On one hand, yes....one quote condemns it. On another you get this:Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
So it appears some want it to turn violent. Heck, the main quote condemning protests is this:Quote:
Some protesters said violence can bring attention to the cause. "This thing has to escalate so people see the violence and who is protecting the interests of the corporations," said Denver protester Dwayne Hudson, standing next to a grill with logs burning over charcoal to stay warm after a snowstorm.
Nicholson blamed the violence on a small group of young people just there for violence — "Some kids looking to blow off some steam."
That doesn't sound like he's condemning it. What it sounds like is, "Oh, its ok...there are going to be some mistakes...nothing to see here, move along." Or even better...."Lets shut down a port costing the local economy likely hundreds of thousands if not millions, putting people out of work, lets terrorize the hell out of them (ie. agitate) and not expect things to turn violent on their side or ours." Yeah right.Quote:
Bob Norkus at the Occupy Boston camp said the riots didn't represent the broader movement and likely wouldn't have a lasting affect on it, either. The movement is still evolving and mistakes are inevitable, he said.
Occupy movement grows
It "has to be nonviolent, or else it will just end. We won't get the support," he said. "It doesn't mean you can't agitate people. But you can't also be breaking windows and burning."
These are not typical protests. These people are camping out long term purposely trying to agitate and and be disruptive to get noticed. Like wearing a KKK costume through the streets of queens....of course it's going to turn violent. But lets blame the police....
^This sounds like not supporting it to me bro. You even quoted this line too, so I am a bit confused.Quote:
It "has to be nonviolent, or else it will just end. We won't get the support," he said. "It doesn't mean you can't agitate people. But you can't also be breaking windows and burning."
Since when does "agitate" mean "terrorize the hell out of"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The term "agitate" can be viewed differently by different people.Quote:
ragecage
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
It "has to be nonviolent, or else it will just end. We won't get the support," he said. "It doesn't mean you can't agitate people. But you can't also be breaking windows and burning."
^This sounds like not supporting it to me bro. You even quoted this line too, so I am a bit confused.
Agitate: Make (someone) troubled or nervous.
Terrorize: Create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror:
Those two definitions are different, but each persons view of what "making troubled or nervous" is and what "filling with terror" is can be different. It's easy to take it too far and any organizer saying it's OK to "agitate" is reckless. If the LAD's gave a press release saying that they don't condone their fans being violent towards opposing fans but it's ok to "agitate"....I think its fair to say we'd all see how that would be reckless and how it could lead to violence. It's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.
You guys sound like fan boys. Look, I support Occupy. I support public uprising against the machine right now. I do so however knowing that violence is an extreme possibility and am not going to point solely at the police if and when it arises. There's a reason why bar owners can't hide behind the statement "I don't condone drunk driving". They have a responsibility to cut someone off if they feel they have had too much. I'm not saying those that organize occupy should be legally responsible for violence that takes place, but surely when you get a bunch of protestors together....for long duration....shut down a port which obviously effects the lives of many....and send a message that you want to "agitate", than YES you have blood on your hands if violence takes place.
What Occupy organizers should be saying is:
"We don't condone violence. We want peaceful protests, but we realize that with the tensions of these groups that violence is always a possibility. Protestors should make attempts not to disrupt the daily lives of citizens in the locations they protest but should be loud and make their message heard in a peaceful manner. We also realize the importance and need for a police presence. They are there not only for the protection of non-protestors but also for that of us protesting. Be respectful of the police officers there doing their duty and we ask that the police respect our rights to protest. We want to warn our protestors that any actions of violence can and likely will lead to police involvement, and it's unfair to expect the police to risk their safety by entering a possibly hostile crowd. Therefore its reasonable to expect that riot control tactics such as tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, etc. may be utilized should these events turn violent. It is unfair to those that are there for peaceful demonstrations that a few malcontents could lead toward these tactics being used on them, but we understand that the police have to do their jobs and maintain safety while not jeopardizing their own first and foremost. To prevent this, be smart, be respectful, and be peaceful."
In all honesty......i don't find it unreasonable to think that organizers of these events should be responsible for funding some of the police presence necessary. At least an argument can be made for it and it's worthy of discussion.
The tea party agitates me all the time.
A bit of chaos currently
http://www.ustream.tv/theother99
http://news.yahoo.com/u-banks-underm...213618820.html
I think the media has been doing a decent job undermining the Occupy movement, maybe not good enough though as lobbyists want to get in on that.