[quote]Adam Bomb wrote:
The lady from Occupy DC was trying to leave out the front door of an event.
http://dailycaller.com/...05/chaos-video/
[/quote]
They where also on the previous page sloth put them up a day or so ago
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth, what happened exactly? Protesters were locked arm in arm and the woman was pushed or fell? Why were they locked arm in arm? Why were people pushing against them? And how did an old lady get in the middle of that? I’m really confused. I tried a quick google news search, but only saw something about an accident on Friday night.
Did she a “balloon person dropped her arm there was a space and I went flying through it”?
[/quote]
Basically, occupy-thugs decided to trap people in a building. Hence the arm in arm chain. I posted one video of them not letting a lady in a wheelchair out. Security and others were trying to push these folks back so upstanding citizens, like this woman, were freed and protected from an angry mob of agitators. It’s time to clean them out. Vandalism, stopping cars (with children in them) in the middle of the street, blocking free movement of other citizens, fights, drugs, sexual assaults and rapes, human waste and litter–this is the extremist movement folks TRIED to make the tea-party seem like.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Most are asking for the capacity to work “middle class” jobs that allow them to support their families. [/quote]
Are they? And are they doing so without making an appeal that the “richest 1%” should subsidize that lifestyle trhough transfer of wealth? Ok, show me. [/quote]
I already did. You didn’t like the link because it also talked about the social safety net
being expanded.
Ok, then what do you think caused the problems?[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your question. Did you mis-understand my point here?
Sure, all criminal laws are. But you haven’t said - which of these societal priorities are askew and therefore are improperly contributing to this group of people being unfairly incarcerated? Unfortunately, generalities won’t do, because the opportunity cost is less public safety in the name of whatever you (and Zakaria) think needs to be decriminalized.
So, what do you propose, if this is a problem?
Ok, the explain why, and explain which category of criminals should not be part of the prison population.[/quote]
Well, this would make for a good second thread, so I won’t go into too much detail here. However imprisoning non-violent offenders (especially drug related) needs to be re-examined, IMO. I think sloth (or someone) posted a link awhile back where a judge was mandating “a year of church” along with public service. These type of local solutions should be allowed and “made bigger” when they work.
I’m actually surprised that you don’t see the ballooning prison population as a problem.
Regardless, what he is pointing out is a societal preference for imprisonment. IMO societies, and people, “vote with their wallet” as it were.
It hasn’t. You’re welcome to explain otherwise, but in light of the explosion in funding for education at the same time of the decline in education, the burden is on you to explain why more spending would course-correct this problem. [/quote]
Well, again, this is probably best for another thread and we seem stuck on a small point. As far as “explaining otherwise” you seem to have “cut” that part from my post. But to type a few more words… I would argue that unfunded mandates along with increased expectations and having “everyone” in the classroom all influence funding and quality. “More spending” alone will have no chance at success. A number of reforms need to occur.
Also, while I haven’t had a chance to research this, I do wonder if the increased capacity to “track” students/children that came with No Child Left Behind hasn’t allowed us to better see the problems that always existed in the system.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth, what happened exactly? Protesters were locked arm in arm and the woman was pushed or fell? Why were they locked arm in arm? Why were people pushing against them? And how did an old lady get in the middle of that? I’m really confused. I tried a quick google news search, but only saw something about an accident on Friday night.
Did she a “balloon person dropped her arm there was a space and I went flying through it”?
[/quote]
Basically, occupy-thugs decided to trap people in a building. Hence the arm in arm chain. I posted one video of them not letting a lady in a wheelchair out. Security and others were trying to push these folks back so upstanding citizens, like this woman, were freed and protected from an angry mob of agitators. It’s time to clean them out. Vandalism, stopping cars (with children in them) in the middle of the street, blocking free movement of other citizens, fights, drugs, sexual assaults and rapes, human waste and litter–this is the extremist movement folks TRIED to make the tea-party seem like. [/quote]
If half of that is true, then there should be arrests. That is not peaceable assembly.
Thanks
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Well, this would make for a good second thread, so I won’t go into too much detail here. However imprisoning non-violent offenders (especially drug related) needs to be re-examined, IMO. I think sloth (or someone) posted a link awhile back where a judge was mandating “a year of church” along with public service. These type of local solutions should be allowed and “made bigger” when they work.
I’m actually surprised that you don’t see the ballooning prison population as a problem.
Regardless, what he is pointing out is a societal preference for imprisonment. IMO societies, and people, “vote with their wallet” as it were. [/quote]
Apparently, I’m having lots of issues with posting pics these days. Let’s try again.
I’m trying to show the graph of violent crime rates in the US to compare with the one about incarceration rates above.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I already did. You didn’t like the link because it also talked about the social safety net
being expanded. [/quote]
Right. But you didn’t show me - an “expansion of the safety net” as has been described by the OWS supporters is precisely a “subsidization of the lifestyle” - the way they want to “expand the social safety net” by having the “richest 1%” transfer some of their wealth. So you showed me the opposite.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I already did. You didn’t like the link because it also talked about the social safety net
being expanded. [/quote]
Right. But you didn’t show me - an “expansion of the safety net” as has been described by the OWS supporters is precisely a “subsidization of the lifestyle” - the way they want to “expand the social safety net” by having the “richest 1%” transfer some of their wealth. So you showed me the opposite.[/quote]
If there was ever a time where you thought that this wasn’t PRIMARILY about jobs and SECONDARILY about the safety net, or if I had ever implied that, there was a mistake.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I already did. You didn’t like the link because it also talked about the social safety net
being expanded. [/quote]
Right. But you didn’t show me - an “expansion of the safety net” as has been described by the OWS supporters is precisely a “subsidization of the lifestyle” - the way they want to “expand the social safety net” by having the “richest 1%” transfer some of their wealth. So you showed me the opposite.[/quote]
If there was ever a time where you thought that this wasn’t PRIMARILY about jobs and SECONDARILY about the safety net, or if I had ever implied that, there was a mistake.
[/quote]
More safety net, less jobs.
Bummer.
[quote]orion wrote:
More safety net, less jobs.
Bummer. [/quote]
lol
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
If there was ever a time where you thought that this wasn’t PRIMARILY about jobs and SECONDARILY about the safety net, or if I had ever implied that, there was a mistake.
[/quote]
Well, no, I don’t think so - if this was primarily about jobs, they wouldn’t be protesting Wall Street. Wall Street is not going to (and cannot really) do anything about unemployment. Making Wall Street the target of the heavy protests is a good indicator that their primary concern is about wealth transfer, not jobs.
Based on their actions, the OWS crowd is either (1) primarily interested in wealth transfer/redistribution, or (2) is criminally dumb in picking targets to protest. I don’t think these guys are dumb, personally.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Based on their actions, the OWS crowd is either (1) primarily interested in wealth transfer/redistribution, or (2) is criminally dumb in picking targets to protest. I don’t think these guys are dumb, personally.
[/quote]
Alright, you must have an interesting threshold before you consider someone to be dumb.
Like, not being able to tie their shoes stupid.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
If there was ever a time where you thought that this wasn’t PRIMARILY about jobs and SECONDARILY about the safety net, or if I had ever implied that, there was a mistake.
[/quote]
Well, no, I don’t think so - if this was primarily about jobs, they wouldn’t be protesting Wall Street. Wall Street is not going to (and cannot really) do anything about unemployment. Making Wall Street the target of the heavy protests is a good indicator that their primary concern is about wealth transfer, not jobs.
Based on their actions, the OWS crowd is either (1) primarily interested in wealth transfer/redistribution, or (2) is criminally dumb in picking targets to protest. I don’t think these guys are dumb, personally.[/quote]
Perhaps you’re right. Personally, I see it about jobs and “feeling screwed.” But this might just be because of what I have seen. Actually, the wife and I bumped into some protest this last weekend. They were chanting, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.” So, maybe it’s just the ones I’ve seen.
I think this thread has well covered why they are protesting on Wall Street. You’ve also well documented that you believe they should be at the White House.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:<<< bumped into some protest this last weekend. They were chanting, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.” So, maybe it’s just the ones I’ve seen. >>>[/quote]Maybe they’re smart enough to chant “jobs jobs jobs” so as to be reported as simple desperate plebes hurting for employment.
Self entitled assholes “well did you yell code red” fuck this “movement”
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
Self entitled assholes “well did you yell code red” fuck this “movement”[/quote]
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
Self entitled assholes “well did you yell code red” fuck this “movement”[/quote]
Ni surprise Flea Partiers have the gimme gimme mentality and if you don’t give they either take or destroy. Over in Occupy Boston after they’ve destroyed the grass I helped pay for these pukes want donations so they can fix their mess, there is also a convience store that has been in the area 20yrs never had a break-in the owner has had 6 since the occupods have occupied; oh I know they just want food and the like nope they stole cigarettes and scratch tickets.
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
Self entitled assholes “well did you yell code red” fuck this “movement”[/quote]
Ni surprise Flea Partiers have the gimme gimme mentality and if you don’t give they either take or destroy. Over in Occupy Boston after they’ve destroyed the grass I helped pay for these pukes want donations so they can fix their mess, there is also a convience store that has been in the area 20yrs never had a break-in the owner has had 6 since the occupods have occupied; oh I know they just want food and the like nope they stole cigarettes and scratch tickets. [/quote]
The sad thing is, I know the majority of the occupiers are not doing this. They are all breaking laws, yes; but most of them aren’t violent. HOWEVER, that doesn’t matter. These crimes wouldn’t be taking place if these occupiers weren’t there. They are just as responsible as those that commit the crimes. It’s time for all this to end.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
Self entitled assholes “well did you yell code red” fuck this “movement”[/quote]
Ni surprise Flea Partiers have the gimme gimme mentality and if you don’t give they either take or destroy. Over in Occupy Boston after they’ve destroyed the grass I helped pay for these pukes want donations so they can fix their mess, there is also a convience store that has been in the area 20yrs never had a break-in the owner has had 6 since the occupods have occupied; oh I know they just want food and the like nope they stole cigarettes and scratch tickets. [/quote]
The sad thing is, I know the majority of the occupiers are not doing this. They are all breaking laws, yes; but most of them aren’t violent. HOWEVER, that doesn’t matter. These crimes wouldn’t be taking place if these occupiers weren’t there. They are just as responsible as those that commit the crimes. It’s time for all this to end.[/quote]
I can’t say that look at Oakland, even when the house is painted in blood the flea partiers try to kill the first born these clowns need a good ole fashioned ass whoopin and a delousing
“The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves - that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive - are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren’t responsible… Is your boss possessed of judgement, vision and management skills superior to those of anyone else in the firm, or did he or she get there through bluff, bullshit and bullying? … They are no more deserving of the share of wealth they’ve captured than oil sheikhs.”