the 100% directionless thread

[JPINFV]

Like I said before, apples and oranges. The monks who immolated themselves had a clear message that war was not an option. The Occupy movement simply has a bunch of lazy bums who want the world handed to them. This is a product more of the societal norm of sheltering kids, teaching them that everyone wins, etc. The limp-wristed way the generation immediately following my own was raised (and the later section of my own generation) is finally coming back to bite us firmly on the butt.

"Teach a man to start a fire and he will be warm for the night; light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." :lol:

So it's the government's job to determine which messages have enough merit to be sanctioned at a government approved protest?

 

[Shishkabob]

So it's the government's job to determine which messages have enough merit to be sanctioned at a government approved protest?

I think it's the individual citizens job to elect those people in said government that they agree with and will help them further THEIR desires.

 

[Handsome Robb]

I'm no where near Davis.

Hah


OWS is a stupid movement, as stated they have no formal leadership, no collective goal and aren't making any progress in a positive direction. Unless you count multiple arrests, injuries and thousands of dollars of damage to public property positive as well as all the extra money police departments around the nation are having to spend to deal with them.

 

[usalsfyre]

I think it's the individual citizens job to elect those people in said government that they agree with and will help them further THEIR desires.

Which is why I think the "special interest group" hate in the media is so bizarre. Who the eff do they think makes up "special interest groups"?

 

[STXmedic]

Disagrees.

Maybe what they need?


did that not work?.....

 

[JPINFV]

I think it's the individual citizens job to elect those people in said government that they agree with and will help them further THEIR desires.

So, if this was the 1700s you would be a Tory?

My issue is that I'm looking at this past just OWS. If OWS is told, "Well, you're just too amorphous and aren't really working towards your goals, so no. We won't allow you to protest," then what's the next group to be told that? Further down the slippery slope, at what point would what we consider legitimate protests today to be banned, and what techniques do we allow our government to use to suppress those protests?

 

[usafmedic45]

So it's the government's job to determine which messages have enough merit to be sanctioned at a government approved protest?

No, I did not say that. I said that I don't support them due to the lack of a clear cut message or goal. It is the government's job to make sure one group doesn't infringe on the rights and privileges of another group. That's why these idiots were pepper sprayed (which is pretty mild to be honest on the scale of things...I'd take being sprayed over being kicked in the nuts any day) not because of their beliefs. Obstructing access to a public building is illegal. One must keep whether they agree with the message (whatever it is) and concern themselves with how that message is being attempted to be spread. That's my point. I could care less if these losers want to have their little protest drum circle jerk on the lawn, but blocking access to a public building and smarting off to a cop when they inform you that you're breaking the law is not kosher on any level.

Personally I don't care if it's the Occupy douches, the Klan, the anti-war crowd, those :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored:s from the Westboro cult or the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. You have a right to protest. You don't have a right to hijack public or private property to get your message across. Doing so simply gets you in trouble and erodes whatever base of support you might have from outside your little fringe element.

You're letting your agreement with these protesters cloud your ability to think coldly and analytically.

 

[Shishkabob]

So, if this was the 1700s you would be a Tory?

I HATE that argument.

"Well if you were in their shoes, you'd think differently". No crap. If they were in MY shoes, they'd think differently too.

My mom has said if I was born in Iraq, I would most likely be a part of the insurgany. h34r:

My issue is that I'm looking at this past just OWS. If OWS is told, "Well, you're just too amorphous and aren't really working towards your goals, so no. We won't allow you to protest," then what's the next group to be told that? Further down the slippery slope, at what point would what we consider legitimate protests today to be banned, and what techniques do we allow our government to use to suppress those protests?

They can protest all they want, but they need to quit calling themselves the 99%, because they aren't. They're the 1% complaining about the other 1%. Infact, 46% of Americans do not support the protests, while even less support.


40% is no where near 99%. I should sue them for false advertising.

 

[usafmedic45]

So, if this was the 1700s you would be a Tory?

My issue is that I'm looking at this past just OWS. If OWS is told, "Well, you're just too amorphous and aren't really working towards your goals, so no. We won't allow you to protest," then what's the next group to be told that? Further down the slippery slope, at what point would what we consider legitimate protests today to be banned, and what techniques do we allow our government to use to suppress those protests?

Yeah, but you're missing what the rest of us are trying to say. I can't tell whether you've truly lost your ability to reason or if you are simply trying to have a spirited debate.

 

[JPINFV]

Hah


OWS is a stupid movement, as stated they have no formal leadership, no collective goal and aren't making any progress in a positive direction.

All criticisms that I've levied against them myself.

Unless you count multiple arrests, injuries and thousands of dollars of damage to public property positive as well as all the extra money police departments around the nation are having to spend to deal with them.

The circumstances around individual arrests vary drastically, and condeming all of any group for the actions of a few (and given the size of OWS, it's not that much) would be like blaming all Lakers fans for every time a small segment riots because the Lakers win a championship. It's like blaming all Dodger fans for the Bryan Stow beating.

Damage to public property is largely wrong, especially since a lot of it is out and out vandalism (e.g. pouring paint into the fountain at Occupy Los Angeles). Some of it isn't vandalism, and I've also heard reports that some OWS groups are saving funds to help reimburse for damages done such as dead grass.

The cost to police is irrelevant. That's the cost of living in a free country where the citizens have a right to assemble peacefully, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[fast65]

That thought crossed my mind as well but I didn't want to say it.

Quite honestly, I never thought I'd see the day where usaf said that

 

[Shishkabob]

The cost to police is irrelevant. That's the cost of living in a free country where the citizens have a right to assemble peacefully, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Except for the fact that they're taking police off the streets to babysit a bunch of grown babies.


Risking MY safety for their whining. Nice.

 

[JPINFV]

I HATE that argument.

"Well if you were in their shoes, you'd think differently". No crap. If they were in MY shoes, they'd think differently too.

Well, the founders ended up taking extralegal action to change their governance instead of simply electing new members of parliament. What action do you take if you feel that the current political process is not meeting your ideals in regards to governance? Sometimes voting in new people isn't the answer.

They can protest all they want, but they need to quit calling themselves the 99%, because they aren't. They're the 1% complaining about the other 1%. Infact, 46% of Americans do not support the protests, while even less support.


40% is no where near 99%. I should sue them for false advertising.

Hardly the first group to commit false advertising.

 

[JPINFV]

Risking MY safety for their whining. Nice.

You have no individual right to police protection per numerous SCOTUS cases. See Warren v District of Columbia or Gonazles v Castle Rock.

 

[silver]

So this discussion I think raises a bigger question. Do you (open question) agree there is a need to change the economic system in the USA? If so, what are you doing that is more/less affective than what OWS is doing?

 

[Shishkabob]

Well, the founders ended up taking extralegal action to change their governance instead of simply electing new members of parliament. What action do you take if you feel that the current political process is not meeting your ideals in regards to governance? Sometimes voting in new people isn't the answer.

Yeah, there was this saying back then, it went something like "No taxation without representation". That means they couldn't elect new members.


That's not the case here in the US with US citizens. There's a federal election ATLEAST every 2 years.

You have no individual right to police protection per numerous SCOTUS cases. See Warren v District of Columbia or Gonazles v Castle Rock.

Oh funny, and they have no individual right to jobs or wealth.

 

[JPINFV]

You're letting your agreement with these protesters cloud your ability to think coldly and analytically.

Where have I said that I'm in agreement with the specifics of the OWS movement?

 

[Handsome Robb]

The cost to police is irrelevant. That's the cost of living in a free country where the citizens have a right to assemble peacefully, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How is it irrelevant? Our tax dollars fund the police department. The money they are using to deal with these people could very well be used somewhere else for a better reason, but it can't be because it's tied up "babysitting grown babies" as Linuss said.

Peacefully is the key word in your statement above when talking about our right to assembly. True, most are peaceful but it is creating an environment conducive to violence. That's why the police are stepping up their response and use of force. Preventative vs. Reactive.

I don't see your argument here, sorry.

 

[usalsfyre]

So this discussion I think raises a bigger question. Do you (open question) agree there is a need to change the economic system in the USA? If so, what are you doing that is more/less affective than what OWS is doing?

No, with a provisio. The basic economic system works, mostly. The issue is the current focus on short term gain over long-term stability. Very, VERY selective regulation might be needed to refocus that.

I throw the question back to you. What have you got that's better?

 

[Handsome Robb]

So this discussion I think raises a bigger question. Do you (open question) agree there is a need to change the economic system in the USA? If so, what are you doing that is more/less affective than what OWS is doing?

Something needs to happen, I don't know what it is.

I'm a working, productive, contributing member to society who pays my taxes when they are due. I'm also in school working to further my education and my career to become even more of an asset to our country rather than sitting on my *** pouting about the government. That's my contribution, I'll let you be the judge of whether it's effective or not.