The "Occupy" Rallies

#876
#876
therealUT said:
They should have moved in in bodily force. If, at that point, they then needed to escalate the force then they do so. You do not start out firing, though.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Conversely, when you see the police coming in riot gear, you should distance yourself from the mob.
 
#877
#877
bamawriter said:
If I'm standing with most of a mob at my back, you won't see the mob on my video.



"Dude" aimed at a member of an angry mob, and "dude's" job was to make that mob disperse. Whether or not the cameraman was doing anything threatening, himself, he was a part of the crowd, and thus put himself in harm's way. If he'd decided to film the action from across the street, it's likely that he never runs afoul of an armed policeman.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We shouldn't expect the cops to use discretion or aim at the dangerous members of the crowd, or the ones who are posing a danger to others. They should just point and shoot at random and its just your tough luck if you had the nerve to show up at a rally that turned ugly.

If people would just shut their yaps, stay home, and do as they are told we would never have this type of situation.

Don't they understand, the govt is protecting our freedoms!
 
#878
#878
Oh, look... the LEO will never been held accountable for his actions. Part of me hopes this becomes a real revolution.
 
#880
#880
volinbham said:
what outcome do you seek?

are the unintended consequences worth it?
Click to expand...

No specific outcome. Cannot answer the second question without knowing what the consequences will be. Hopefully the mighty will fall, though. The power should shift back to the people, not to the corporations. I guess that would be the outcome I'd like to see.

I'm slightly demented. A non-violent revolution would be best, but less effective.
 
#881
#881
VOLatile said:
No specific outcome. Cannot answer the second question without knowing what the consequences will be. Hopefully the mighty will fall, though. The power should shift back to the people, not to the corporations. I guess that would be the outcome I'd like to see.

I'm slightly demented. A non-violent revolution would be best, but less effective.
Click to expand...

I think the the notion that in the good old days the people had the power as opposed to the corporations/few rich is a fantasy.

The people probably have it better in the last 25 years than at any point in US history (relative to corporations/the rich).
 
#882
#882
VOLatile said:
No specific outcome. Cannot answer the second question without knowing what the consequences will be. Hopefully the mighty will fall, though. The power should shift back to the people, not to the corporations. I guess that would be the outcome I'd like to see.

I'm slightly demented. A non-violent revolution would be best, but less effective.
Click to expand...

What is this hatred of corporations? It's just people. Stockholders, employees, management. People. Corporations don't have brains, greed, hate, indifference or anything else. They are inanimate. It's the people who drive it, control it, get the money, etc. To hate corporations is just silly. Be honest and say you hate people. You just hate the people who do things you don't like. The power does belong to people. You just don't of approve of which people or how they use the power.
 
#883
#883
RespectTradition said:
What is this hatred of corporations? It's just people. Stockholders, employees, management. People. Corporations don't have brains, greed, hate, indifference or anything else. They are inanimate. It's the people who drive it, control it, get the money, etc. To hate corporations is just silly. Be honest and say you hate people. You just hate the people who do things you don't like. The power does belong to people. You just don't of approve of which people or how they use the power.
Click to expand...

I hate people. I especially hate greedy people. Greedy people run corporations, there's no arguing that. Corporations are not people. We can start by overturning Citizens United. That'll begin to make me happy. Votes should never be bought.
 
#884
#884
VOLatile said:
I hate people. I especially hate greedy people. Greedy people run corporations, there's no arguing that. Corporations are not people. We can start by overturning Citizens United. That'll begin to make me happy. Votes should never be bought.
Click to expand...

A group of people want a result. That group of people support a candidate. That group of people spend money to help that candidate get elected. That candidate, now elected official, now acts in a way that makes the group of people happy.

Is the group of people a corporation? the Democratic party? a union? unconnected individuals? Does it matter? Why?
 
#885
#885
RespectTradition said:
A group of people want a result. That group of people support a candidate. That group of people spend money to help that candidate get elected. That candidate, now elected official, now acts in a way that makes the group of people happy.

Is the group of people a corporation? the Democratic party? a union? unconnected individuals? Does it matter? Why?
Click to expand...

I personally would love to remove all money from campaigns or, at the very least, cap the amount of money that can be spent on a campaign. It would make it fair for everyone and bring in more viable candidates.
 
#886
#886
VOLatile said:
I personally would love to remove all money from campaigns or, at the very least, cap the amount of money that can be spent on a campaign. It would make it fair for everyone and bring in more viable candidates.
Click to expand...

It would be more fair, especially since we have the technology to do this, to just let everyone vote on every issue.

We would be in much worse shape, but it would be more fair.

I personally think it benefits us that the people who are the most productive and pay the largest part of the tax burden are the ones who get to personally spend the most on campaigns. Kinda like the whole thing the founders did about only landed men could vote. It's just very watered down and indirect now.
 
#887
#887
The people with the most money are the most productive? Even as they sit on their wealth? We must have different opinions on how production is defined. I'd rather give the power to the people as a whole, than the few greedy people with the most money.
 
#889
#889
volinbham said:
To each his own but America has never been this vision you are presenting. I'm not sure what country is or has been.
Click to expand...

Is there anything wrong with new visions? Obviously, things aren't working very well as they are. It is of my opinion that the government is meant to keep its citizens as a whole in its best interest, and clearly the people running the show don't share that same opinion.
 
#890
#890
VOLatile said:
Is there anything wrong with new visions? Obviously, things aren't working very well as they are. It is of my opinion that the government is meant to keep its citizens as a whole in its best interest, and clearly the people running the show don't share that same opinion.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily anything wrong with new visions but the litmus test is how they jibe with the Constitution.
 
#891
#891
volinbham said:
Not necessarily anything wrong with new visions but the litmus test is how they jibe with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Give me an example of something that wouldn't jive with the Constitution? We already don't have enough representatives...
 
#892
#892
VOLatile said:
Give me an example of something that wouldn't jive with the Constitution? We already don't have enough representatives...
Click to expand...

For one, I think the Citizens United case is Constitutionally correct.

On the larger scale, any number of the wealth redistribution; government equalizing outcomes measures advocated by OWS to me are patently unconstitutional.

The Constitution is a document that directly and severely limits Federal involvement in our lives.
 
#893
#893
volinbham said:
For one, I think the Citizens United case is Constitutionally correct.

On the larger scale, any number of the wealth redistribution; government equalizing outcomes measures advocated by OWS to me are patently unconstitutional.

The Constitution is a document that directly and severely limits Federal involvement in our lives.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating for wealth redistribution, I'm advocating for the removal of wealth as a voice. Whether rich or poor, each voice should be equal. Do you classify that as wealth redistribution or just equalization?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...

Seems as though we've strayed from our original vision to begin with.
 
#896
#896
VOLatile said:
I'm not advocating for wealth redistribution, I'm advocating for the removal of wealth as a voice. Whether rich or poor, each voice should be equal. Do you classify that as wealth redistribution or just equalization?
Click to expand...

Everyone's voice is equal. 1 person, 1 vote.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#898
#898
dreVol said:
Everyone's voice is equal. 1 person, 1 vote.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Unless of course your voice is broadcasted to millions over the TV everyday, see the doof Oreily. And unless of course the voting system has been proven to be untrustworthy and malleable.
 
#899
#899
Volunteer_Kirby said:
Unless of course your voice is broadcasted to millions over the TV everyday, see the doof Oreily. And unless of course the voting system has been proven to be untrustworthy and malleable.
Click to expand...

That people may be too dumb to form their own opinions and instead vote based on the opinions of talking heads does not create inequality.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#900
#900
dreVol said:
Everyone's voice is equal. 1 person, 1 vote.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You get more equality when you vote with your dollars. Inner city folk can get relatively nice cars, clothes, or whatever they want to prioritize in their lives, but no matter what they can't seem to get good law enforcement or good schools. What's the difference? In one case you are voting with your dollars and in the other you are voting with the "equal" ballot. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top