Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

DemocraticSocialistHun
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: NE Ohio, United Snakes of Neoconservatism

23 Jul 2014, 2:11 pm

The U.S. instigated a coup in the Ukraine. I wonder, could the U.S. be next.

The U.S. has been reducing social programs for decades, even as long-term unemployment rises. According to John Williams of shadowstats.com unemployment is really 23.1%. People who protest against globalization or are part of the Occupy movement get beaten, yet the tea baggers and militiamen get to protest toting guns like they are some Islamic jihadists and the police are forced to behave themselves. Note that if the feds didn't behave themselves during the Bundy Ranch Incident there would have been bloodshed.

I have to conclude that the Tea Party and militias are a controlled opposition. Seriously people who hide in their basements fearing not only the government but 30 or 40% of the population as well can't be a serious threat. If they helped that 30-40% get off government assistance and got the bottom 98.5% behind them, they'd be invincible.

What a Tea Party revolt would do is give the government the excuse to do things that they've been trying to do for decades, like eliminate social programs -- after the controlled opposition takes over, of course.


_________________
40 acres, a mule, and 40,000 years worth of interest
http://matthewlisraelisaterrorist.blogspot.com/
http://mixedstateecodepression73.wordpress.com/


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,632
Location: US

23 Jul 2014, 7:03 pm

what. o.O the occupy wall street people camped out without a permit, ran amuck, pooped on cop cars, did drugs, raped women in the camp etc.

the tea party people wait and get a permit. often being refused.

the protesters at the ranch didn't do any thing aggressive. the police had no need to defend themselves. and often use the needed to defend themselves as a defense of murder.

also protestors carrying guns on their back while holding signs is not the same as Islamic jihadists running around in uncontrolled crowds firing off guns. yes they would have open fired on non violent citizens without provation. the citizens outnumbering and probably out trained would have most likely beaten the police. this is why the BLM made a hasty retreat.

the police and feds are becoming too militarized. the Homeland security are training thier agents to shoot kids and old women in wheel chairs. they are arming the postal service and education department with m16's. they give tanks and military gear to police departments in exchange for loyalty. they DHS is buying "urban pacification vehicles" that they say is for the border but then deploy in the heartland.

I am getting scared of our government. I don't much like the tea party. I rather doubt they will ever start a uprising. they just like to talk tough. that said if the government started going super bad there are many many ex military ready and armed to fight back.

they don't see us welfare people as a threat. they hate us for stealing their money.



DemocraticSocialistHun
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: NE Ohio, United Snakes of Neoconservatism

23 Jul 2014, 7:52 pm

sly279 wrote:
what. o.O the occupy wall street people camped out without a permit, ran amuck, pooped on cop cars, did drugs, raped women in the camp etc. .


Pooped on cars? Really. Surely if it happened I'm sure it was the exception, not the rule. And that the cops acted at least as bad as some protestors.

sly279 wrote:
the tea party people wait and get a permit. often being refused.


That's their problem. Where does it say you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the Constitution? Obvious infringement.

sly279 wrote:
the police and feds are becoming too militarized. the Homeland security are training thier agents to shoot kids and old women in wheel chairs. they are arming the postal service and education department with m16's. they give tanks and military gear to police departments in exchange for loyalty. they DHS is buying "urban pacification vehicles" that they say is for the border but then deploy in the heartland.


Nice we have common ground somewhere.

sly279 wrote:
they don't see us welfare people as a threat. they hate us for stealing their money.


The old social programs as theft argument. I'd like to here more outrage at the military-financial complex for "stealing" the money of the public. Like LIBOR and gold price rigging. Banksters and rating agencies committing fraud selling junk as AAA securities. The Pentagon being unable to account for trillions of dollars it has spent. The outrage is very selective.

And it is the top 1.5% that is responsible for outsourcing the jobs to China that should pay the cost of those social programs.


_________________
40 acres, a mule, and 40,000 years worth of interest
http://matthewlisraelisaterrorist.blogspot.com/
http://mixedstateecodepression73.wordpress.com/


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

24 Jul 2014, 8:37 am

sly279 wrote:
the protesters at the ranch didn't do any thing aggressive. the police had no need to defend themselves. and often use the needed to defend themselves as a defense of murder.


Um, how were the police defending themselves against the unarmed occupy protesters? And holding firearms, making threats of violence, and promising to put women in the front to die for the sake of publicity is not aggressive in any way?

Either everyone has the right to protest, or no one does. Anything in between is a sham.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

24 Jul 2014, 1:11 pm

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:
Where does it say you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the Constitution?

I does not, explicitly, as far as I know, but property rights grants you the privilege to deny the Tea Party or any other group to peacefully assemble on your property if you don't like it. The nature and regulation of public spaces is a bit different. All in compliance with the Constitution, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space



DemocraticSocialistHun
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: NE Ohio, United Snakes of Neoconservatism

25 Jul 2014, 10:38 am

Humanaut wrote:
DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:
Where does it say you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the Constitution?

I does not, explicitly, as far as I know, but property rights grants you the privilege to deny the Tea Party or any other group to peacefully assemble on your property if you don't like it. The nature and regulation of public spaces is a bit different. All in compliance with the Constitution, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space


Good luck trying to get a permit in most cities these days.


_________________
40 acres, a mule, and 40,000 years worth of interest
http://matthewlisraelisaterrorist.blogspot.com/
http://mixedstateecodepression73.wordpress.com/


TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

25 Jul 2014, 12:01 pm

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:
Where does it say you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the Constitution?

I does not, explicitly, as far as I know, but property rights grants you the privilege to deny the Tea Party or any other group to peacefully assemble on your property if you don't like it. The nature and regulation of public spaces is a bit different. All in compliance with the Constitution, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space


Good luck trying to get a permit in most cities these days.


It helps if your "protest movement" is actually just a lobbying effort for billionaires.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,240
Location: Minnesota, United States

25 Jul 2014, 1:04 pm

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:
I have to conclude that the Tea Party and militias are a controlled opposition.

You are lumping all millita under the same group and ideology.



DemocraticSocialistHun
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: NE Ohio, United Snakes of Neoconservatism

26 Jul 2014, 9:17 am

sly279 wrote:
what. o.O the occupy wall street people camped out without a permit, ran amuck, pooped on cop cars, did drugs, raped women in the camp etc.


Thousands of Occupy Protesters Were Arrested. But Were They Guilty of Crimes? by Shaya Tayefe Mohajer
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/09 ... -any-crime


_________________
40 acres, a mule, and 40,000 years worth of interest
http://matthewlisraelisaterrorist.blogspot.com/
http://mixedstateecodepression73.wordpress.com/


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,632
Location: US

26 Jul 2014, 2:53 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
sly279 wrote:
the protesters at the ranch didn't do any thing aggressive. the police had no need to defend themselves. and often use the needed to defend themselves as a defense of murder.


Um, how were the police defending themselves against the unarmed occupy protesters? And holding firearms, making threats of violence, and promising to put women in the front to die for the sake of publicity is not aggressive in any way?

Either everyone has the right to protest, or no one does. Anything in between is a sham.


geuss it depends on which side you view it from.

so women can't possible join a movement without just being a pawn. seen alot of pictures from open carry groups and the ranch with women having guns and being out there helping but the people like look they using women as shields. like some how women have no free choice and are more important then men.

from what others who where there said the police made threats too while most the groups there didn't. those who did were sent away. unless you consider "if you come in here shooting we'll fire back" a threat



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,882
Location: USA

26 Jul 2014, 6:30 pm

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:
The U.S. instigated a coup in the Ukraine. I wonder, could the U.S. be next.

The U.S. has been reducing social programs for decades, even as long-term unemployment rises. According to John Williams of shadowstats.com unemployment is really 23.1%. People who protest against globalization or are part of the Occupy movement get beaten, yet the tea baggers and militiamen get to protest toting guns like they are some Islamic jihadists and the police are forced to behave themselves. Note that if the feds didn't behave themselves during the Bundy Ranch Incident there would have been bloodshed.


You username is "DemocraticSocialist".

I would think you appreciate globalization; it is a means to fight global wealth inequality. Fighting wealth inequality is what the Occupy movement was about.

According to CNN, adjusted for cost of living per country, it only takes $34,000 a year income, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world.

I am a 1%er, are you ? As a Socialist, don't you want to fight wealth inequality?

source,
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/ec ... d_richest/


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

28 Jul 2014, 8:12 am

sly279 wrote:
so women can't possible join a movement without just being a pawn. seen alot of pictures from open carry groups and the ranch with women having guns and being out there helping but the people like look they using women as shields. like some how women have no free choice and are more important then men.


The prtoesters were the ones treating women as if they were different than men, as they were the ones stating that they would be in the front.

sly279 wrote:
from what others who where there said the police made threats too while most the groups there didn't. those who did were sent away. unless you consider "if you come in here shooting we'll fire back" a threat


There were plenty of protesters who publicly made threats. On camera, no less. And saying that they would open fire was not limited to returning fire, either.

Where is even one credible shred of evidence that the police made threats? Considering many on the local police force supported Bundy, I find it difficult to believe. As for federal law enforcement, I have found no evidence of any threats other than incarceration for violation of the law other than statements by those preotesters who were almost giddy at the thought of a gun battle.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


DemocraticSocialistHun
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: NE Ohio, United Snakes of Neoconservatism

28 Jul 2014, 2:45 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
I would think you appreciate globalization


During the last few decades of globalization, wealth inequality has increased. It doesn't look like globalization helps, at least in its current form.


_________________
40 acres, a mule, and 40,000 years worth of interest
http://matthewlisraelisaterrorist.blogspot.com/
http://mixedstateecodepression73.wordpress.com/


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,632
Location: US

28 Jul 2014, 6:05 pm

well plenty of with reputation people say they and many others didn't do those things.

don't shame the majority for the few.


as for the BLM
saying if you don't give us what we want we'll come in there and take it with force. that seems like a threat to me.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,882
Location: USA

28 Jul 2014, 6:29 pm

DemocraticSocialistHun wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
I would think you appreciate globalization


During the last few decades of globalization, wealth inequality has increased. It doesn't look like globalization helps, at least in its current form.


What are you basing this on ? As far as I can tell, the world is "equalizing", and wealth is transferring to Asia. Americans are getting poorer, and Asian people getting wealthier, while ~750 million Chinese people have been lifted out of extreme poverty in the last 20 years.

Tyler Cowen is professor of economics at George Mason University: Inquality is not rising, but lowering globally
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/upsho ... ias%3As%2C{%221%22%3A%22RI%3A9%22&#125

Globalization reduces poverty
Image

source, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/litt ... ed-poverty

Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in the last 20 years (China is responsible for three-quarters of the achievement).
Image

source, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... should-aim


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.