| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2011 08:28:13 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Greatest quote from this thread..
Originally posted by Spork99:
Just because it's a law, it doesn't require enforcement... |
LOVE IT!! The laws are there for a reason, and all should be enforced, no matter the circumstances. If they seem wrong...change em.
|
To say that all of the laws on the books must be enforced is ridiculous and shows an ignorance of the volume of laws out there and the fact that they often conflict with each other. All you have to do is look at one of those lists of "crazy laws" lists and you'll see there are plenty. Even the laws that are current and valid aren't always enforced. Take the traffic laws, if the cops enforced every violation they saw, they'd never get more than a mile from the station for writing tickets. Many laws still on the books are unconstitutional, since a ruling that shows a law to be unconstitutional doesn't remove the law from the books, that requires a separate act of the legislature responsible for creating it. Should those be enforced even though doing so is illegal?
Which brings up changing or removing laws from the books, which is easier said than done. The process is designed to create new laws, not remove laws from the books. Another reason why silly laws from the 1800's are still in effect.
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 20:38:07. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 08:30:10 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Regarding Lobbyists, I'm not sure how to eliminate them without an amendment to the constitution, but certainly there could/should be constraints on them. |
A good rifle and a box or two of ammo would be a start
;-) |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 08:30:52 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Regarding Lobbyists, I'm not sure how to eliminate them without an amendment to the constitution, but certainly there could/should be constraints on them. |
A good rifle and a box or two of ammo would be a start
;-) |
that works too! |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 08:45:03 PM · #129 |
Lobbists. Oddly enough, there really are people in Washington who represent the interests of specialized groups who are actually on 'our' side.
They are also called 'lobbists'. We hear about the denizens of "K" Street who seem to be the manipulators,
but how about those specialists who advise our legislators on science, technology, social issues and more. They actually do some good for our
country. It's unfortunate that the description of 'lobbists' has come to mean only those who wish to influence our government with specifics
that are not in the best interest of the country, but only in the interest of their profit margins. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 02:11:37 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Regarding Lobbyists, I'm not sure how to eliminate them without an amendment to the constitution, but certainly there could/should be constraints on them. But they are just tools of corporations - only one means by which they exert their influence on our government. We need to find and fix all of them, but we also need to be very concerned about unintended consequences. Any time we make laws or regs to handle things, someone always finds a way to use those new rules to gain an unfair advantage. |
Part of the problem is that you will find that, in many cases, the lobbyists actually write the statutes or regulations they are promoting, which are then submitted to the Congress by whatever Member over whom they have the most influence; they are not developed and written by the legislators or their staffs themselves. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 03:14:12 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Regarding Lobbyists, I'm not sure how to eliminate them without an amendment to the constitution, but certainly there could/should be constraints on them. But they are just tools of corporations - only one means by which they exert their influence on our government. We need to find and fix all of them, but we also need to be very concerned about unintended consequences. Any time we make laws or regs to handle things, someone always finds a way to use those new rules to gain an unfair advantage. |
Part of the problem is that you will find that, in many cases, the lobbyists actually write the statutes or regulations they are promoting, which are then submitted to the Congress by whatever Member over whom they have the most influence; they are not developed and written by the legislators or their staffs themselves. |
Excellent point! That is bullshit. Here's what would seem like a simple question: Who authored the healthcare bill? with no definitive, but many interesting answers from across the political spectrum.
Originally posted by o2bskating:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Regarding Lobbyists, I'm not sure how to eliminate them without an amendment to the constitution, but certainly there could/should be constraints on them. |
A good rifle and a box or two of ammo would be a start
;-) |
that works too! |
Whoa! - I've heard a lot about you violent Tea Party activists, but didn't realize you had infiltrated DPC. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 03:31:25 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Lobbists. Oddly enough, there really are people in Washington who represent the interests of specialized groups who are actually on 'our' side. They are also called 'lobbists'. We hear about the denizens of "K" Street who seem to be the manipulators, but how about those specialists who advise our legislators on science, technology, social issues and more. They actually do some good for our country. It's unfortunate that the description of 'lobbists' has come to mean only those who wish to influence our government with specifics that are not in the best interest of the country, but only in the interest of their profit margins. |
Good points, Alice. I agree that Lobbyists are unduly demonized as a whole. Here's an interesting Q&A on FactCheck.org regarding the Right to Lobby. Although I'd disagree with the way the question was presented: "In a one person = one vote = one voice, structured democracy such as ours, how does one justify the political lobbyists?" - The U.S. is not a "one person = one vote = one voice, structured democracy" - we are a Democratic Republic by design, and there are significant differences. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 09:40:53 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by o2bskating:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Regarding Lobbyists, I'm not sure how to eliminate them without an amendment to the constitution, but certainly there could/should be constraints on them. |
A good rifle and a box or two of ammo would be a start
;-) |
that works too! |
Whoa! - I've heard a lot about you violent Tea Party activists, but didn't realize you had infiltrated DPC. |
I'm joking, of course, but if I'm a Tea Partier, I'm definitely a 1773 style Tea Partier. You know, the guys who pitched all the tea into Boston harbor to protest a government tax-break for a corporation. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 01:28:43 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Yeah, those sleeping protesters were behaving so badly... in their sleep... really called for a good beating.
Sheesh |
//latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-oakland-tear-gas-arrests.html
are they behaving badly yet? |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 01:55:36 PM · #135 |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 02:03:38 PM · #136 |
Hmmm ...  |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 02:22:00 PM · #137 |
from the referenced article [b]"Wednesday's action drew more than 7,000 people, including teachers, youths, seniors, union members and other citizens who said they were concerned about economic inequality. At an evening briefing, interim Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan said officials believed that only about 60 or 70 of them -- black-garbed with kerchiefs covering their faces -- were believed to be committing acts of vandalism. Throughout Wednesday, members of the crowd had attempted to redirect and dissuade those self-described anarchists. When they broke windows and defaced several banks with graffiti, some Occupy Oakland protesters returned to scrub the walls of a Wells Fargo bank branch. Another placed a sign on the shattered window of a Chase bank branch that read, "We are better than this."[/b]
Some self proclaimed "anarchists" tried to trash a Whole Foods and they were wrestled to the grounds and had their spray paint taken from them, by the real protesters, not the cops. Garbage containers were rolled out into the street and tipped over by the agitators, then were picked up and put back by those in the movement.
If less than 1% of a crowd are violent idiots, does that make the crowd a riot that has to be attacked? or are those more like the numbers of an average football game?
|
|
|
|
11/03/2011 03:54:32 PM · #138 |
| A few bad eggs can certainly ruin a party, but the party will still likely have to end. I couldn't imagine being an officer now charged with sifting out the "good" protesters from the "bad" ones. Frankly it sounds like a mess down there with the mayor waffling back and forth between what they are going to allow and not. You can't just break into an empty building and declare it a community center. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 04:05:37 PM · #139 |
As The Supreme Ruler, I would fix the situation.
I would build arenas where gladiators battle to the death for the people's entertainment, and my profit.
Festivals with lots of booze and barfatoriums.
We need to take the people's minds off the haves and have-nots. Festivals are the answer!
|
|
|
|
11/03/2011 04:09:39 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
,,,. You can't just break into an empty building and declare it a community center. |
maybe some of us should brush up on our history. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 04:09:57 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A few bad eggs can certainly ruin a party, but the party will still likely have to end. I couldn't imagine being an officer now charged with sifting out the "good" protesters from the "bad" ones. Frankly it sounds like a mess down there with the mayor waffling back and forth between what they are going to allow and not. You can't just break into an empty building and declare it a community center. |
How about sorting the good priests from the bad or should we just toss them all out as perverted child molesters?
|
|
|
|
11/03/2011 04:17:53 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A few bad eggs can certainly ruin a party, but the party will still likely have to end. I couldn't imagine being an officer now charged with sifting out the "good" protesters from the "bad" ones. Frankly it sounds like a mess down there with the mayor waffling back and forth between what they are going to allow and not. You can't just break into an empty building and declare it a community center. |
How about sorting the good priests from the bad or should we just toss them all out as perverted child molesters? |
(eye roll). Whatever dude. Can you appreciate the difference that the police potentially have their lives on the line and are making split decisions? Again, all I said was "I can't imagine" being tasked with that and can understand the idea of clearing the whole scene in the name of safety to life and property once it gets out of hand like this. The majority of protesters will be law abiding, but that's probably true of all protests and even all "riots". I think back to the WTO demonstrations in Seattle. I'm sure there were plenty of peaceful protesters, but a few anarchists force the cops' hand. And mistakes are bound to happen (as they did back in 1999, but the decision to restore order was still likely the right one.
Message edited by author 2011-11-03 16:23:42. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 04:18:48 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
,,,. You can't just break into an empty building and declare it a community center. |
maybe some of us should brush up on our history. |
Brush me up, me being a fellow Canadian and all. What precedent says this is an acceptable action? |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 04:20:48 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If less than 1% of a crowd are violent idiots, does that make the crowd a riot that has to be attacked? or are those more like the numbers of an average football game? |
you're kidding right? so at point are the police allowed to actually enforce the law?
|
|
|
|
11/03/2011 04:45:02 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I couldn't imagine being an officer now charged with sifting out the "good" protesters from the "bad" ones. |
I think it is fairly easy to tell the difference between people who are peaceably assembling (though they are walking in the street without a permit, and sleeping in a public space in violation of statue) and people who are destroying things, smashing windows, ATMs and spraying graffiti.
Though it violates the law to arrest them before they can launch their mayhem, if you see someone dressed like a ninja with his face covered, you can be pretty sure they are planning on doing something they don't want to be identified doing. 99% of the 99%ers are proud of what they are doing, doing it politely and openly, behaving within the boundaries of their highest ideals, not behaving as if this civil protest is their chance to live out their "Grand Theft Auto" fantasies in real life.
If you can't tell the difference between someone trying to build a better society and someone trying to destroy the property of others, you should not wear a badge.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2011 04:58:23 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If you can't tell the difference between someone trying to build a better society and someone trying to destroy the property of others, you should not wear a badge. |
well 99% of the time the police do only get those out of hand but 1% of the time when the situation is so chaotic this happens.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2011 05:02:51 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I couldn't imagine being an officer now charged with sifting out the "good" protesters from the "bad" ones. |
I think it is fairly easy to tell the difference between people who are peaceably assembling (though they are walking in the street without a permit, and sleeping in a public space in violation of statue) and people who are destroying things, smashing windows, ATMs and spraying graffiti.
Though it violates the law to arrest them before they can launch their mayhem, if you see someone dressed like a ninja with his face covered, you can be pretty sure they are planning on doing something they don't want to be identified doing. 99% of the 99%ers are proud of what they are doing, doing it politely and openly, behaving within the boundaries of their highest ideals, not behaving as if this civil protest is their chance to live out their "Grand Theft Auto" fantasies in real life.
If you can't tell the difference between someone trying to build a better society and someone trying to destroy the property of others, you should not wear a badge. |
I thought many times the better society comes through destroying the property of others. ;) I'm sure tnun will brush up on your history...
I'm sure it's usually the case that the hoodlums are mixed in with the peaceful people. You are the cop. A beer bottle comes out of nowhere and smashes into your shield. You look in the general direction from where it came and don't spot the obvious culprit. Now more and more are coming. What do you do? Now someone broke a shop window. What do you do? Heaven forbid I actually back the cops up on this one. There's a point where the situation is out of hand and everybody has to go. I'm certainly not recommending wading in and cracking skulls, but I do know they have a job to do. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 05:16:22 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A few bad eggs can certainly ruin a party, but the party will still likely have to end. I couldn't imagine being an officer now charged with sifting out the "good" protesters from the "bad" ones. Frankly it sounds like a mess down there with the mayor waffling back and forth between what they are going to allow and not. You can't just break into an empty building and declare it a community center. |
How about sorting the good priests from the bad or should we just toss them all out as perverted child molesters? |
(eye roll). Whatever dude. Can you appreciate the difference that the police potentially have their lives on the line and are making split decisions? Again, all I said was "I can't imagine" being tasked with that and can understand the idea of clearing the whole scene in the name of safety to life and property once it gets out of hand like this. The majority of protesters will be law abiding, but that's probably true of all protests and even all "riots". I think back to the WTO demonstrations in Seattle. I'm sure there were plenty of peaceful protesters, but a few anarchists force the cops' hand. And mistakes are bound to happen (as they did back in 1999, but the decision to restore order was still likely the right one. |
I appreciate that condemning a whole group based on the actions of a few isn't the right one.
Don't the police also have a duty to protect those 99% of the protesters who aren't destroying property? Maybe the police were "protecting" the non-violent protesters by gassing and beating them. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 05:19:27 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
... Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan said officials believed that only about 60 or 70 of them -- black-garbed with kerchiefs covering their faces -- were believed to be committing acts of vandalism. Throughout Wednesday, members of the crowd had attempted to redirect and dissuade those self-described anarchists. |
Given Oakland's phistory with CoIntelPro, I want to rate it a near toss-up whether these disguised "self-described anarchists" are truly misguided political fanatics or agents provocateur in the employ of some government agency/contractor or another ... interesting they can bust kids sleeping in the park but none of these folks have been unmasked AFAIK.
Also, just because they may describe themselves as "anarchists" they are not -- at least not within the true political meaning of the term. Anarchists are not in favor of wonton destruction of civilization, but rather in rule by mutual consent of the governed, with the responsibility for maintaining civil order and prosperity shared among all. |
|
|
|
11/03/2011 05:27:37 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are the cop. A beer bottle comes out of nowhere and smashes into your shield. You look in the general direction from where it came and don't spot the obvious culprit. Now more and more are coming. What do you do? |
First of all, in the situations we are considering it is highly unlikely that there would be "more and more coming" as a first-strike attack on the police.
Secondly, in this case, you ask the surrounding people to finger the culprit and arrest that person, just like when some idiot throws a bottle at the left fielder; you don't launch teargas cannisters into the crowd and and then order them to disperse, after first surrounding them so there's no viable exit route -- a common police tactic I've seen used more than once. |
|
