By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Protest footage in NY, SHOCKING!

blkfish92 on 30 September 2011
Kasz216 said:
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:

I'd say the greatest flaw though, just lies in the inconsistent message.

It seems like they're demanding government action to try and limit the effect corporations have to sway rules there way and to create jobs....

When government is exactly WHY corporations have such abilities.

To propose more government action is how you get Stimulus bills that get spent on nothing to help and just run up the costs for the average consumer, and how you get laws like Dodd Frank, which are essentially designed to kill small businesses to the advantage of bigger ones. (In this case, banks.)   Chris Dodd being like, the biggest bank schill in either party.  (Lost in the whole anti-bank movement is that historically democrats get more donations from banks then republicans.)

Oh, and also greatly hinder job creation since now, it's going to be hard as hell to get loans.

The only long term jobs government can create are government jobs... and as Greece has shown, you don't want to have an economy that relies on government jobs, because it's just a case of diminishing returns.

It's all a very silly approach.

You need a concentrated approach that if anything forces polticians to take powers away from themselves.

Otherwise they'll just right loophole after loophole into their own bills so everything looks better but isn't.

I mean shit, anyone who's been paying attention would of noticed this already what with the constant campaign finance laws that were added with giant loopholes.  Like the good old "Toothpick rule."


The only real options are

A)Getting private money out elections all together

B) Get rid of governments ability to play favorites in the market place.

 

And Option A actually isn't an option since it's a violation of the first ammendment.


It's indeed silly, but at least it is an approach.

i dunno, I mean, throwing gasoline on a burning fire is also a silly approach, and that seems to be the issue here.

There "solutions" are in reality going to make the problems worse.

Jt's like people backing the President's job bill.

All it's going to do is boost employment in the short term by a very small number while delaying the recovery, yet again.


You may be right for all we know, but I'm sure you know just as well as I do that something needs to be done.



           

Around the Network
d21lewis on 30 September 2011

That whole thing just stressed me out. So much stuff could have gone wrong. You have no idea how scary it is to have to control a crowd that hates you and everything you represent. I don't know the details but rest assured that those officers were told by somebody higher up than them to disperse that crowd.

Maybe they didn't get the permit to gather. Maybe they were blocking traffic. Maybe they were on private property. Either way, those cops had to go in there and maintain some sort of order in a hostile situation. They did a good job, too. I bet if those same people went to city hall and got a permit to protest at the appropriate date and time, those exact same cops would be protecting them while they protested. They would have directed traffic, got rid of any disorderly element, or did anything else they could do to assist. It's not an easy job.

You have the right to carry a gun but you have to get a permit. You have the right to free assembly but you have to do it without putting somebody else at risk. And in the end, what was accomplished?



thranx on 01 October 2011
d21lewis said:
That whole thing just stressed me out. So much stuff could have gone wrong. You have no idea how scary it is to have to control a crowd that hates you and everything you represent. I don't know the details but rest assured that those officers were told by somebody higher up than them to disperse that crowd.

Maybe they didn't get the permit to gather. Maybe they were blocking traffic. Maybe they were on private property. Either way, those cops had to go in there and maintain some sort of order in a hostile situation. They did a good job, too. I bet if those same people went to city hall and got a permit to protest at the appropriate date and time, those exact same cops would be protecting them while they protested. They would have directed traffic, got rid of any disorderly element, or did anything else they could do to assist. It's not an easy job.

You have the right to carry a gun but you have to get a permit. You have the right to free assembly but you have to do it without putting somebody else at risk. And in the end, what was accomplished?


i kind of had your thoughts at first, but after seeing more videos of how they pepper sprayed people under control and how they have no response of their own for their actions or are willing to show their own videos it makes me doubt their need for force. They also already have atleast one officer under investigation.

 

On the need for a permit i posted an article earlier about if there was a need or how to get one from a lwayers perspective who ahs dealt with these issues in new york specificaly and he sheds a different light on it.



fordy on 01 October 2011
thranx said:
wow this video here is pretty harsh. These girls are on the side walk and not being aggressive when they get pepper sprayed any way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moD2JnGTToA&feature=player_embedded


If you look at this incident closely, you'll notice the one who pepper sprayed (he's in a white shirt) sprayed the protesters, and then RUNS OFF. Can somebody find a good justification for that? That's hardly a strategy for upholding the law, that's outright assault. Granted, if it was used as an attempt to restrain and arrest, but he left those girls writhing on the ground in pain.



hunter_alien on 01 October 2011

What did they do wrong there? There where plenty of idiots out there that could have been arrested for good reason, yet they barely use any force. Grow a pair, this is not police brutality, this IS them doing their job



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

Around the Network
blkfish92 on 01 October 2011

Yep, it seems everyone has different views here.



           

Kasz216 on 01 October 2011
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:

I'd say the greatest flaw though, just lies in the inconsistent message.

It seems like they're demanding government action to try and limit the effect corporations have to sway rules there way and to create jobs....

When government is exactly WHY corporations have such abilities.

To propose more government action is how you get Stimulus bills that get spent on nothing to help and just run up the costs for the average consumer, and how you get laws like Dodd Frank, which are essentially designed to kill small businesses to the advantage of bigger ones. (In this case, banks.)   Chris Dodd being like, the biggest bank schill in either party.  (Lost in the whole anti-bank movement is that historically democrats get more donations from banks then republicans.)

Oh, and also greatly hinder job creation since now, it's going to be hard as hell to get loans.

The only long term jobs government can create are government jobs... and as Greece has shown, you don't want to have an economy that relies on government jobs, because it's just a case of diminishing returns.

It's all a very silly approach.

You need a concentrated approach that if anything forces polticians to take powers away from themselves.

Otherwise they'll just right loophole after loophole into their own bills so everything looks better but isn't.

I mean shit, anyone who's been paying attention would of noticed this already what with the constant campaign finance laws that were added with giant loopholes.  Like the good old "Toothpick rule."


The only real options are

A)Getting private money out elections all together

B) Get rid of governments ability to play favorites in the market place.

 

And Option A actually isn't an option since it's a violation of the first ammendment.


It's indeed silly, but at least it is an approach.

i dunno, I mean, throwing gasoline on a burning fire is also a silly approach, and that seems to be the issue here.

There "solutions" are in reality going to make the problems worse.

Jt's like people backing the President's job bill.

All it's going to do is boost employment in the short term by a very small number while delaying the recovery, yet again.

You may be right for all we know, but I'm sure you know just as well as I do that something needs to be done.

Does something need to be done?  Sure the political system is sick.

However, if you were a sick person in a hospital would you want "anything" to be done, because SOMETHING has to be done.

Acting just for the sake of action more often then not only creates more problems.



blkfish92 on 01 October 2011
Kasz216 said:
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:

I'd say the greatest flaw though, just lies in the inconsistent message.

It seems like they're demanding government action to try and limit the effect corporations have to sway rules there way and to create jobs....

When government is exactly WHY corporations have such abilities.

To propose more government action is how you get Stimulus bills that get spent on nothing to help and just run up the costs for the average consumer, and how you get laws like Dodd Frank, which are essentially designed to kill small businesses to the advantage of bigger ones. (In this case, banks.)   Chris Dodd being like, the biggest bank schill in either party.  (Lost in the whole anti-bank movement is that historically democrats get more donations from banks then republicans.)

Oh, and also greatly hinder job creation since now, it's going to be hard as hell to get loans.

The only long term jobs government can create are government jobs... and as Greece has shown, you don't want to have an economy that relies on government jobs, because it's just a case of diminishing returns.

It's all a very silly approach.

You need a concentrated approach that if anything forces polticians to take powers away from themselves.

Otherwise they'll just right loophole after loophole into their own bills so everything looks better but isn't.

I mean shit, anyone who's been paying attention would of noticed this already what with the constant campaign finance laws that were added with giant loopholes.  Like the good old "Toothpick rule."


The only real options are

A)Getting private money out elections all together

B) Get rid of governments ability to play favorites in the market place.

 

And Option A actually isn't an option since it's a violation of the first ammendment.


It's indeed silly, but at least it is an approach.

i dunno, I mean, throwing gasoline on a burning fire is also a silly approach, and that seems to be the issue here.

There "solutions" are in reality going to make the problems worse.

Jt's like people backing the President's job bill.

All it's going to do is boost employment in the short term by a very small number while delaying the recovery, yet again.

You may be right for all we know, but I'm sure you know just as well as I do that something needs to be done.

Does something need to be done?  Sure the political system is sick.

However, if you were a sick person in a hospital would you want "anything" to be done, because SOMETHING has to be done.

Acting just for the sake of action more often then not only creates more problems.


Anything is better than doing nothing in my opinion, but if you see otherwise then I suppose I understand a bit.



           

Kasz216 on 01 October 2011
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:

I'd say the greatest flaw though, just lies in the inconsistent message.

It seems like they're demanding government action to try and limit the effect corporations have to sway rules there way and to create jobs....

When government is exactly WHY corporations have such abilities.

To propose more government action is how you get Stimulus bills that get spent on nothing to help and just run up the costs for the average consumer, and how you get laws like Dodd Frank, which are essentially designed to kill small businesses to the advantage of bigger ones. (In this case, banks.)   Chris Dodd being like, the biggest bank schill in either party.  (Lost in the whole anti-bank movement is that historically democrats get more donations from banks then republicans.)

Oh, and also greatly hinder job creation since now, it's going to be hard as hell to get loans.

The only long term jobs government can create are government jobs... and as Greece has shown, you don't want to have an economy that relies on government jobs, because it's just a case of diminishing returns.

It's all a very silly approach.

You need a concentrated approach that if anything forces polticians to take powers away from themselves.

Otherwise they'll just right loophole after loophole into their own bills so everything looks better but isn't.

I mean shit, anyone who's been paying attention would of noticed this already what with the constant campaign finance laws that were added with giant loopholes.  Like the good old "Toothpick rule."


The only real options are

A)Getting private money out elections all together

B) Get rid of governments ability to play favorites in the market place.

 

And Option A actually isn't an option since it's a violation of the first ammendment.


It's indeed silly, but at least it is an approach.

i dunno, I mean, throwing gasoline on a burning fire is also a silly approach, and that seems to be the issue here.

There "solutions" are in reality going to make the problems worse.

Jt's like people backing the President's job bill.

All it's going to do is boost employment in the short term by a very small number while delaying the recovery, yet again.

You may be right for all we know, but I'm sure you know just as well as I do that something needs to be done.

Does something need to be done?  Sure the political system is sick.

However, if you were a sick person in a hospital would you want "anything" to be done, because SOMETHING has to be done.

Acting just for the sake of action more often then not only creates more problems.


Anything is better than doing nothing in my opinion, but if you see otherwise then I suppose I understand a bit.

So in otherwords, if you go into a hospital feeling ill, you would be fine with them giving you random medications with random effects most of which would probably be negative just because they were "doing something."



blkfish92 on 01 October 2011
Kasz216 said:
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:
blkfish92 said:
Kasz216 said:

I'd say the greatest flaw though, just lies in the inconsistent message.

It seems like they're demanding government action to try and limit the effect corporations have to sway rules there way and to create jobs....

When government is exactly WHY corporations have such abilities.

To propose more government action is how you get Stimulus bills that get spent on nothing to help and just run up the costs for the average consumer, and how you get laws like Dodd Frank, which are essentially designed to kill small businesses to the advantage of bigger ones. (In this case, banks.)   Chris Dodd being like, the biggest bank schill in either party.  (Lost in the whole anti-bank movement is that historically democrats get more donations from banks then republicans.)

Oh, and also greatly hinder job creation since now, it's going to be hard as hell to get loans.

The only long term jobs government can create are government jobs... and as Greece has shown, you don't want to have an economy that relies on government jobs, because it's just a case of diminishing returns.

It's all a very silly approach.

You need a concentrated approach that if anything forces polticians to take powers away from themselves.

Otherwise they'll just right loophole after loophole into their own bills so everything looks better but isn't.

I mean shit, anyone who's been paying attention would of noticed this already what with the constant campaign finance laws that were added with giant loopholes.  Like the good old "Toothpick rule."


The only real options are

A)Getting private money out elections all together

B) Get rid of governments ability to play favorites in the market place.

 

And Option A actually isn't an option since it's a violation of the first ammendment.


It's indeed silly, but at least it is an approach.

i dunno, I mean, throwing gasoline on a burning fire is also a silly approach, and that seems to be the issue here.

There "solutions" are in reality going to make the problems worse.

Jt's like people backing the President's job bill.

All it's going to do is boost employment in the short term by a very small number while delaying the recovery, yet again.

You may be right for all we know, but I'm sure you know just as well as I do that something needs to be done.

Does something need to be done?  Sure the political system is sick.

However, if you were a sick person in a hospital would you want "anything" to be done, because SOMETHING has to be done.

Acting just for the sake of action more often then not only creates more problems.


Anything is better than doing nothing in my opinion, but if you see otherwise then I suppose I understand a bit.

So in otherwords, if you go into a hospital feeling ill, you would be fine with them giving you random medications with random effects most of which would probably be negative just because they were "doing something."


Wow are you kidding? That's plain stupid and not what I meant, I mean it's better to do something rather than sit back and letting things unroll randomly, of course that doesn't affect things like what you said which is different.