gut;983435 wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, the whole class warfare thing is a sham. Tell everyone we'll confiscate 100% of the annual income from the 1% and also balance the budget and no one is going to be happy when the govt hands them a BALANCE DUE on the remainder.

Then they'll just claim its the 5% who are the problem. "We are the 95%!"

My comments were in regards to this particular incident. Davis is a smaller, quiet community. From what I've read the citizens are outraged, as they should be.

Maybe we Americans needs some perspective?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b89_1321895524

I Wear Pants;983402 wrote:Maybe so, but the real problem here is, again, lobbying. We're literally allowing who pays the most to talk about shit decide our policy instead of, in this case nutritionists and facts. It's absurd.

Letting nutritionists make the decision wouldn't help that much. You're still letting a few make the choice for many, and nutritionists are not any more impervious to corruption and being bought off. Nobody is, really. It might shift who the food manufacturer is lobbying, but it wouldn't likely solve anything.

Now, if you just let people or schools make the choice, then you don't quite have the same problem.

I Wear Pants;983406 wrote:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68868.html

+1 Ron Paul, that is how you deal with that.

I have become convinced that Paul simply makes too much sense for most people to like him as a complete politician, because the two main parties' views are so often inconsistent, and so many seem like they'd rather remain loyal to the logical inconsistency of "their" party.

majorspark;983415 wrote:The real problem is political power and the concentration of it on one place. You can't outlaw people and organizations of people from being able to lobby and redress their grievances to their representatives. The problem you have here is an increasing Federal monopoly of political power. As with any monopoly you break it up and the resulting division of interests competing against each other and competitive markets for their product solves the problem.

In no way shape or form should the central government in Washington have any say what kids are fed at their local school district. I am struggling to find this one in the constitution. When you create an unconstitutional department of the federal government like the department of education this is the kind of shit you end up with. Your solution is more federal government controls and regualtions to correct the results of an out of control federal government operating in this case outside the constitution. Creating an even bigger more powerful monopoly of power.

I'd certainly agree that this would lessen the reach of damage caused by the corruption there. Problem is, I think the machine is already too big to be easily put check in the way you mention.

I Wear Pants;983417 wrote:Disagree, at least we can the current way.

It literally works like this:

Have money:Get bill.

That's not right.

On some level, this will always happen. Whether the money goes to political institutions, lobbying campaigns (Issue 2 was a good example of that), or even regulatory agencies, money will always try to leverage itself to increase itself, whether by hook or by crook.

I Wear Pants;983428 wrote:I don't think "dividing and conquering" will work anymore. Shit's too big for them to let that work.

Reminds me of Jurassic Park. Men created dinosaurs that became unrestrained and killed the men. By that point, nobody could do anything about it.

sleeper;983537 wrote:Then they'll just claim its the 5% who are the problem. "We are the 95%!"

lol'd

sleeper;983374 wrote:These protests are simply becoming, be annoying as possible and get the cops to overreact so we can put it on YouTube and play the victim.

they've grown up impressionable liberals/democrats and all they've been told is they're a victim and need the govt's help.

I Wear Pants;983357 wrote: The escalation from "asking nicely" goes to arresting people, not assaulting them.

They're resisting arrest so escalation is use of force, a blliy club, or pepper spray - all of which are going to look pretty ugly on youtube and none of which you are going to approve because you think the police should just walk away from these people breaking the law and do nothing.

Again, simply get your lazy worthless ass up off the sidewalk and you don't get pepper sprayed. Comparing these people to Martin Luther King or the original Boston Tea Party as some sort of admiral civil disobedience (which this isn't in the first place - what law are the protesting) is comical and, quite honestly, shameful.

Lol, sitting still on the ground is resisting arrest now? GTFO.

This has turned into a battle with police instead of a protest about the evildoer bankers. Next step Vacate everywhere.

The police and media turned it into that battle, not the protesters.

Why aren't they protesting on Capitol Hill, or the Whitehouse? What is occupying the streets really gaining?

I Wear Pants;983859 wrote:The police and media turned it into that battle, not the protesters.

Bullshit. The protesters are just as guilty, if not more.

WebFire;983860 wrote:Why are they protesting on Capitol Hill, or the Whitehouse? What is occupying the streets really gaining?

Um, they are protesting in DC so I don't see your point.

WebFire;983862 wrote:Bullshit. The protesters are just as guilty, if not more.

Bullshit, one dude shits on a car and suddenly everyone who has a problem with banks and lobbying and corruption is a filthy asshole. Arrest the people that do shit like that and stop assaulting the rest of the protesters. It's really not complicated.

I Wear Pants;983870 wrote:Bull****, one dude ****s on a car and suddenly everyone who has a problem with banks and lobbying and corruption is a filthy ****. Arrest the people that do **** like that and stop assaulting the rest of the protesters. It's really not complicated.

The protesters that do things such as locking arms to take away others rights to go to a busines, park, sideway, etc. are taking an agressive action. If these people did a passive protest and followed the rules, no one would care about them.

"The police" are not the problem, and "the protesters" are not the problem. Individuals from within each group are the problem, but neither group is a problem across the board.

I Wear Pants;983859 wrote:The police and media turned it into that battle, not the protesters.

Bullshit.

I Wear Pants;983865 wrote:Um, they are protesting in DC so I don't see your point.

Where at in DC?

And what does protesting in all the other cities really accomplishing? The people that need to hear/see it are in Washington.

Al Bundy;983879 wrote: If these people did a passive protest and followed the rules, no one would care about them.

Frankly, most of us don't care about them whatsoever. A miniscule group of lazy anarchists looking for evermore handouts is hardly worth much of a fuss; they are simply of note because the liberal media wants them to be. They are mere pimples on the arse of progress. Either ignore them completely or disperse them completely with firehoses .... it makes no matter.

I Wear Pants;983848 wrote:Lol, sitting still on the ground is resisting arrest now? GTFO.

Locking arms and refusing orders to disperse or put your hands out to be cuffed is indeed resisting arrest. I'd bet money if they simply dispersed or had willing submitted to being arrested they would not have been pepper sprayed. As has been mentioned several times, such a passive-aggressive action requires a physical response from the police - take your pick what that physical response should be you're clearly going to find fault with whatever course of action they chose.

[h=2]Definition of Resisting Officer Without Violence[/h] The crime of Resisting Officer Without Violence has four elements:

1. Knowing and willful resisting, obstruction, or opposition of an officer, and at the time:
2. The officer was engaged in either the:
   • Execution of legal process, or
   • Lawful execution of a legal duty.
3. The officer was either a:
   • Law Enforcement Officer,
   • Correctional Officer,
   • Probation Officer, or
   • Person legally authorized to execute process.
4. The officer's status as an officer was known.

QuakerOats;984039 wrote:They are mere pimples on the arse of progress. Either ignore them completely or disperse them completely with firehoses .... it makes no matter.

Fire hoses....Haven't seen that one yet. I look forward to the pending youtube clip.

WebFire;984026 wrote:Where at in DC?

And what does protesting in all the other cities really accomplishing? The people that need to hear/see it are in Washington.

So every protest must happen in DC?

That limits protesting to people who live or can travel to DC.

gut;984045 wrote:Locking arms and refusing orders to disperse or put your hands out to be cuffed is indeed resisting arrest. I'd bet money if they simply dispersed or had willing submitted to being arrested they would not have been pepper sprayed. As has been mentioned several times, such a passive-aggressive action requires a physical response from the police - take your pick what that physical response should be you're clearly going to find fault with whatever course of action they chose.

Definition of Resisting Officer Without Violence

The crime of Resisting Officer Without Violence has four elements:

1. Knowing and willful resisting, obstruction, or opposition of an officer, and at the time:
2. The officer was engaged in either the:
   • Execution of legal process, or
   • Lawful execution of a legal duty.
3. The officer was either a:
   • Law Enforcement Officer,
   • Correctional Officer,
   • Probation Officer, or
   • Person legally authorized to execute process.
4. The officer's status as an officer was known.

How can you willingly submit to being arrested if the police make no attempt to arrest you?

I Wear Pants;983848 wrote:Lol, sitting still on the ground is resisting arrest now? GTFO.

it is when the cops order you to move and you refuse, then when they got to physically arrest you, you lock arms with everyone around you.

I Wear Pants;983859 wrote:The police and media turned it into that battle, not the protesters.

I Wear Pants;983870 wrote:Bullshit, one dude shits on a car and suddenly everyone who has a problem with banks and lobbying and corruption is a filthy asshole. Arrest the people that do shit like that and stop assaulting the rest of the protesters. It's really not complicated.

no, hundreds of people have been shitting and pissing in the streets, hundreds and thousands of people have been disrupting private businesses, and blocking public areas from the rest of public creating a general nuisance.

I Wear Pants;984124 wrote:How can you willingly submit to being arrested if the police make no attempt to arrest you?

when the cops say, "you will be under arrest if you do not move from the sidewalk....you are being placed under arrest, stand up and place your hands behind your back....." and then you get up and place your hands behind your back complying with police orders. that is how you willingly submit to an arrest.

I Wear Pants;984124 wrote:How can you willingly submit to being arrested if the police make no attempt to arrest you?

Officer: "You're under arrest. Please stand and put your hands behind your back".
OWS dirtbag: No movement

OWSD has resisted arrest and a reasonable amount of force may be used to obtain compliance with a lawful order.

Glory Days;984139 wrote: when the cops say, "you will be under arrest if you do not move from the sidewalk....you are being placed under arrest, stand up and place your hands behind your back....." and then you get up and place your hands behind your back complying with police orders. that is how you willingly submit to an arrest.

Obviously sitting on the sidewalk arms interlocked is proof the officer made no attempt to arrest them. That's a perfectly normal, natural position to sit in. I mean, derp....