Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You haven't even specified if bigger means more government power or more government spending. Maybe both. What are you trying to define?
And how is a GOVERNMENT BAILOUT not big government? Isn't that, along with the corruption that preceded, what the protest was about?
Spending and power are the same thing when it comes to government.
I never said a bailout wasn't big government. The OWS crowd was wanting more regulation of corporations and the rich. That means bigger government which leads to government abuse, like police beating people up.
The OWS crowd are morons. They don't want a bailout but they want more government control of capitalism. More government control means another collapse which means more bailouts. They are wanting more of what they protest against.
They are economic retards.
If they really wanted bailouts to stop they should call for less revenue to the government. They can't bailout people if they have no money.
Spending and power are the same thing when it comes to government.
I never said a bailout wasn't big government. The OWS crowd was wanting more regulation of corporations and the rich. That means bigger government which leads to government abuse, like police beating people up.
The OWS crowd are morons. They don't want a bailout but they want more government control of capitalism. More government control means another collapse which means more bailouts. They are wanting more of what they protest against.
They are economic retards.
If they really wanted bailouts to stop they should call for less revenue to the government. They can't bailout people if they have no money.
I don't know what your basing your assumption off of but I believe your knowledge of the Economic situation in this country is faulty.
And FWIW, x+y does not always = z. There are many ways to solve our countries problems. Economic theories are just that. They're much more complex when actually implemented.
You can reduce spending and increase the efficiency of the government. For example, we could drastically cut military spending and drug enforcement and still have an effecient government.
I think your trying to fit oversimplify a complex situation.
I don't know what your basing your assumption off of but I believe your knowledge of the Economic situation in this country is faulty.
And FWIW, x+y does not always = z. There are many ways to solve our countries problems. Economic theories are just that. They're much more complex when actually implemented.
You can reduce spending and increase the efficiency of the government. For example, we could drastically cut military spending and drug enforcement and still have an effecient government.
I think your trying to fit oversimplify a complex situation.
To tell the truth OWS started out a fair way to show a groups displeasure with what was/is going on. With that being said it was soon co-opted by the worst possible people if they wanted anyone to listen and then spiraled into just another anarchist rabble that damaged public and private property,expected free stuff and really ticked off any business that was around their gathering. They then didn't have any clear consistent message like they had at the start.
That's why you're seeing the attitudes about OWS today, rightly or wrongly they're seen as lazy thugs,anarchists and yes communists in some cases, outright liars in others.
If you're expecting sympathy or trying to gin up outrage unfortunately I think you're wasting your time at this point. Any good will that OWS had was pretty much destroyed in the last month or two of the protests.
Could it recover? I doubt it. The general public is not going to put up with what happened before for very long if at all and I fully believe the powers that be are no longer afraid of any public backlash if they come down on y'all this time.
To tell the truth OWS started out a fair way to show a groups displeasure with what was/is going on. With that being said it was soon co-opted by the worst possible people if they wanted anyone to listen and then spiraled into just another anarchist rabble that damaged public and private property,expected free stuff and really ticked off any business that was around their gathering. They then didn't have any clear consistent message like they had at the start.
That's why you're seeing the attitudes about OWS today, rightly or wrongly they're seen as lazy thugs,anarchists and yes communists in some cases, outright liars in others.
If you're expecting sympathy or trying to gin up outrage unfortunately I think you're wasting your time at this point. Any good will that OWS had was pretty much destroyed in the last month or two of the protests.
Could it recover? I doubt it. The general public is not going to put up with what happened before for very long if at all and I fully believe the powers that be are no longer afraid of any public backlash if they come down on y'all this time.
I definitely agree with the bold.
Let me clarify that I was not part of the Occupy Movement. I was loosely connected because of what I had started before but I've heard 1st hand and researched quite a bit about the movement.
What some people don't understand though is that the brutality and intimidation began before the Movement shifted to the undesirables. There were reasons why people no longer protested and began to shy away from the movement.
What I'm trying to do is walk the public back through the course of events.
If you look at things in the order of the way they happened it'll make sense.
Who can afford to miss work because they're being detained indefinitely? Who can afford to have a felony resisting arrest charge on their record? Who wants to get beaten or have tear gas thrown at them?
Did the police effectively kill the movement through intimidation and brutality?
Let me clarify that I was not part of the Occupy Movement. I was loosely connected because of what I had started before but I've heard 1st hand and researched quite a bit about the movement.
What some people don't understand though is that the brutality and intimidation began before the Movement shifted to the undesirables. There were reasons why people no longer protested and began to shy away from the movement.
What I'm trying to do is walk the public back through the course of events.
If you look at things in the order of the way they happened it'll make sense.
Who can afford to miss work because they're being detained indefinitely? Who can afford to have a felony resisting arrest charge on their record? Who wants to get beaten or have tear gas thrown at them?
Did the police effectively kill the movement through intimidation and brutality?
You do realize that what you describe is not really anything new for protests right? I submit that if anything the treatment you describe above is a usual escalation of force when people refuse to disperse. I would also submit that the response to OWS was highly restrained compared to protests in the '60's and '70's.
Did everyone who got smacked by a baton actually deserve it? Probably not BUT it is a risk that one should understand and act accordingly. BTW, I've been right in the middle of something like this when I was younger and the riot cops showed up. I came within inches and I mean face to face,nose to nose with a riot cop who was just about to smack me with his baton. I won't go into the rather long story, I was just a bystander, doing my job and standing on private property watching the action and had every right to be there and yet almost got caught up in it. Did I know or think that was a possible outcome? Not really but it almost happened anyway.
You do realize that what you describe is not really anything new for protests right? I submit that if anything the treatment you describe above is a usual escalation of force when people refuse to disperse. I would also submit that the response to OWS was highly restrained compared to protests in the '60's and '70's.
Did everyone who got smacked by a baton actually deserve it? Probably not BUT it is a risk that one should understand and act accordingly. BTW, I've been right in the middle of something like this when I was younger and the riot cops showed up. I came within inches and I mean face to face,nose to nose with a riot cop who was just about to smack me with his baton. I won't go into the rather long story, I was just a bystander, doing my job and standing on private property watching the action and had every right to be there and yet almost got caught up in it. Did I know or think that was a possible outcome? Not really but it almost happened anyway.
I understand completely.
I have never defended all of the protesters. I've spoken to protesters who didn't support other protesters. Nearly all protesters condemned violence and vandalism. What people are trying to do though is lump every protester in together though and they're making huge generalizations.
Just because you support the principles of the Movement does not mean you support all of the actions involved in it. Just as Democrats are not held responsible for all actions of other Democrats. Or Tea Party sympathizers for the actions of some in its Movement.
What I'm arguing for is the prosecution of the officers who crossed the line. There are some officers who instigated AND initiated violence and those officers should be disciplined accordingly.
All I'm asking for is equal justice. Not a double standard.
I have never defended all of the protesters. I've spoken to protesters who didn't support other protesters. Nearly all protesters condemned violence and vandalism. What people are trying to do though is lump every protester in together though and they're making huge generalizations.
Just because you support the principles of the Movement does not mean you support all of the actions involved in it. Just as Democrats are not held responsible for all actions of other Democrats. Or Tea Party sympathizers for the actions of some in its Movement.
What I'm arguing for is the prosecution of the officers who crossed the line. There are some officers who instigated AND initiated violence and those officers should be disciplined accordingly.
All I'm asking for is equal justice. Not a double standard.
I can't argue against that, as I had said in my prior post I've been there and seen it and that particular incident was not by far the only one I'd ever seen growing up. The Kent State debacle comes to mind. The thing is, and you're right it sucks big time is that the odds of anything happening more than a possible minor lawsuit payout are small to none.
Those people you're talking about are called "collateral damage" and the justification (right or wrong) that will be given is "you knew you were in a dangerous place and should have left".
I can't argue against that, as I had said in my prior post I've been there and seen it and that particular incident was not by far the only one I'd ever seen growing up. The Kent State debacle comes to mind. The thing is, and you're right it sucks big time is that the odds of anything happening more than a possible minor lawsuit payout are small to none.
Those people you're talking about are called "collateral damage" and the justification (right or wrong) that will be given is "you knew you were in a dangerous place and should have left".
I feel that through our discussion a lot of things have been cleared up. I'm not siding with all of the protesters, just the peaceful ones. I'm not against all of the officers. Just the ones who are criminal.
So far in this thread there's only been 1 other poster other than yourself who has taken up for innocent protesters.
I don't advocate violence against any of the groups and ultimately what I want is a peaceful Democracy. I don't want it to become acceptable that Americans trying to voice their opinions can be suppressed with violence.
I feel that through our discussion a lot of things have been cleared up. I'm not siding with all of the protesters, just the peaceful ones. I'm not against all of the officers. Just the ones who are criminal.
So far in this thread there's only been 1 other poster other than yourself who has taken up for innocent protesters.
I don't advocate violence against any of the groups and ultimately what I want is a peaceful Democracy. I don't want it to become acceptable that Americans trying to voice their opinions can be suppressed with violence.
I agree. Right now however, only the rich get a voice.
I'm independent FWIW.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
