There are processes for changing the law. Deciding to break it is not one of those processes.No?
Dude, really?
I KNOW you know enough about rhetoric to understand that not only that argument, but the majority of what you've put forth this morning has been false analogy.
I'll grant you I've made some pretty big statements - but I've tried to quantify them as being specific to the situation I'm refering to. I've tried to make it clear that I was arguing LEGALITY and not MORALITY several times but that's been ignored.
From here forth, consider this a blanket statement from me, on the behalf of legitimate discourse - Nothing is absolute. There is ALWAYS a corner case that can disprove any statement. I admit and embrace that. That doesn't, however, necessarily disprove a statement.
I'm pretty sure doodlebug is not, in any way, comparable to Rosa Parks.
I'm also pretty sure that illegal drug use is in no way comparable to racial discrimination.
That's a pretty damned offensive statement.
If anyone would like to prove me wrong on that point, have at it.
I'll also add, Citizen Blackmer, that I am sorry to hear about your bad experiences.
Y'see, it's only because your stoned that you're capable of empathy.
Derek and I are sober (I presume, it's before noon in Texas) and we're cold-hearted argumentative jerks more interested in picking apart the fascist subtext of Nathan's comments than the substance of his personal experience.
Sorry Nathan.
There are processes for changing the law. Deciding to break it is not one of those processes.No?Oh, but that's different. That was a bad law that she had every right to break.
[/sarcasm]
In your personal experience, does breaking a law change it?
|
There are processes for changing the law. Deciding to break it is not one of those processes.No?Dude, really?
I KNOW you know enough about rhetoric to understand that not only that argument, but the majority of what you've put forth this morning has been false analogy.
I'll grant you I've made some pretty big statements - but I've tried to quantify them as being specific to the situation I'm refering to. I've tried to make it clear that I was arguing LEGALITY and not MORALITY several times but that's been ignored.
From here forth, consider this a blanket statement from me, on the behalf of legitimate discourse - Nothing is absolute. There is ALWAYS a corner case that can disprove any statement. I admit and embrace that. That doesn't, however, necessarily disprove a statement.
I'm pretty sure doodlebug is not, in any way, comparable to Rosa Parks.
I'm also pretty sure that illegal drug use is in no way comparable to racial discrimination.
That's a pretty damned offensive statement.
If anyone would like to prove me wrong on that point, have at it.
It's only a false analogy in your mind. I don't expect you to know much about Federal criminal law, but between RICO and conspiracy laws, they make the PATRIOT Act seem downright enlightened. RICO and conspiracy laws pretty much invalidate Amendments 4 to 7 if you're suspected of a drug crime.
I KNOW you know enough about rhetoric to understand that not only that argument, but the majority of what you've put forth this morning has been false analogy.
I'll grant you I've made some pretty big statements - but I've tried to quantify them as being specific to the situation I'm refering to. I've tried to make it clear that I was arguing LEGALITY and not MORALITY several times but that's been ignored.
Well first, I need to take a time-out from snark. I admit, I was just trolling you. I am sorry.
I have a deep anti-authoritarian streak, and your basic argument was starting to sound fascist, so I hacked away at it. Given the thread topic, it seemed as good a place as any.
You're right, though, the rhetoric is shamefully weak on both sides. Probably because it all centers around Anklebiter as somehow relevant.
|
|
I'll also add, Citizen Blackmer, that I am sorry to hear about your bad experiences.Y'see, it's only because your stoned that you're capable of empathy.
Derek and I are sober (I presume, it's before noon in Texas) and we're cold-hearted argumentative jerks more interested in picking apart the fascist subtext of Nathan's comments than the substance of his personal experience.
Sorry Nathan.
Indeed. Well said.
And, yeah, Nathan, this is just debate, don't take it too personally.
HoustonDerek, I challenge you to a race to the moral high ground!
|
|
In your personal experience, does breaking a law change it?There are processes for changing the law. Deciding to break it is not one of those processes.No?Oh, but that's different. That was a bad law that she had every right to break.
[/sarcasm]
In my personal experience, no. But, that doesn't mean I'm going to bow down to the pigs that decided that adults have no right to their own bodies unless they're pregnant women, and some pols don't even believe women have a right there.
I'll also add, Citizen Blackmer, that I am sorry to hear about your bad experiences.Y'see, it's only because your stoned that you're capable of empathy.
Derek and I are sober (I presume, it's before noon in Texas) and we're cold-hearted argumentative jerks more interested in picking apart the fascist subtext of Nathan's comments than the substance of his personal experience.
Sorry Nathan.
I guess I just don't understand where abiding by the law and fascism are inter-related. It's cool though, I've said what I had to say about it.
|
|
I guess I just don't understand where abiding by the law and fascism are inter-related. It's cool though, I've said what I had to say about it.I'll also add, Citizen Blackmer, that I am sorry to hear about your bad experiences.Y'see, it's only because your stoned that you're capable of empathy.
Derek and I are sober (I presume, it's before noon in Texas) and we're cold-hearted argumentative jerks more interested in picking apart the fascist subtext of Nathan's comments than the substance of his personal experience.
Sorry Nathan.
It isn't that being law abiding is fascist. It's assuming that we MUST OBEY that leans in that direction.
I'll also add, Citizen Blackmer, that I am sorry to hear about your bad experiences.Y'see, it's only because your stoned that you're capable of empathy.
Hee hee!
I'm not even.
See my last, non-deleted post in the Anonymous Goes to War thread!
Anyway, I'd rather you guys stop discussing me and my drug problem (I can't find any!). The larger issues? Sure, have at.
Also, Citizen Blackmer is right. I am nothing like Rosa Parks. There's a scene from Sports Night that is pretty apropos...I'll see if I can find it on youtube, but probably not.
It's only a false analogy in your mind. I don't expect you to know much about Federal criminal law, but between RICO and conspiracy laws, they make the PATRIOT Act seem downright enlightened. RICO and conspiracy laws pretty much invalidate Amendments 4 to 7 if you're suspected of a drug crime.
Man, I hate it when they use RICO against the Teamsters!
I try to follow the rule of law, which is the responsibility of all Americans.
There's nothing sacred about laws. They're ideas agree on by other people who are no more intelligent or discerning than anyone else. The entire process makes it ridiculously easy to sway with emotions rather than facts, and the entire system and design by comitee leaves laws a confusing, nonsensical, contradictory morass even on the rare occasion that someone is even trying to do the right thing rather than line their own pocket.
For example, i can walk into wallmart and walk out with an m 16 knockoff and a baseball bat. Guess which one is technically illegal in New York?
1) He possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun
gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal
knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon , metal knuckles.....
Should I try to follow this law and not own any sticks?
If I don't like something I try to change it, if I feel strongly about it I try to do it legally, and responsibly. If I choose to break a law, I accept that what I'm doing is wrong and I deserve whatever punishment I get for braking it.
So have you ever changed a law?
|
|
Man, I hate it when they use RICO against the Teamsters!It's only a false analogy in your mind. I don't expect you to know much about Federal criminal law, but between RICO and conspiracy laws, they make the PATRIOT Act seem downright enlightened. RICO and conspiracy laws pretty much invalidate Amendments 4 to 7 if you're suspected of a drug crime.
RICO was passed specifically to go after organized crime, but now they use it for two guys cooking up a half ounce of meth in their woodshed for personal use. Amongst other things.
What if you only break laws you think are unconstitutional?
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
|
|
What if you only break laws you think are unconstitutional?Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
Fascist. :P
RICO was passed specifically to go after organized crime, but now they use it for two guys cooking up a half ounce of meth in their woodshed for personal use. Amongst other things.Man, I hate it when they use RICO against the Teamsters!It's only a false analogy in your mind. I don't expect you to know much about Federal criminal law, but between RICO and conspiracy laws, they make the PATRIOT Act seem downright enlightened. RICO and conspiracy laws pretty much invalidate Amendments 4 to 7 if you're suspected of a drug crime.
I know what RICO is, was for, and how it's used today. I was just trying to yank your union-hating chain. :)
Also, I couldn't find the applicable Sports Night scene, which, IIRC, has a young white pro-pot legalization man comparing himself to Rosa Parks and getting a verbal smackdown from Robert Guillaime (sp?-- Benson) but I did find myself!
At 4:11-4:17, I am the in the topmost right corner. I am chatting up a hot, dreadlocked Ron Paul supporter, but whether I am trying to convince her of the necessity of socialist revolution or the desirability of bedding down with a goblin, I can't remember.
|
Also, I couldn't find the applicable Sports Night scene, which, IIRC, has a young white pro-pot legalization man comparing himself to Rosa Parks and getting a verbal smackdown from Robert Guillaime (sp?-- Benson) but I did find myself!
At 4:11-4:17, I am the in the topmost right corner. I am chatting up a hot, dreadlocked Ron Paul supporter, but whether I am trying to convince her of the necessity of socialist revolution or the desirability of bedding down with a goblin, I can't remember.
You're the epic beard man in the corner?
I did find myself!
Totally off-topic:
What if you only break laws you think are unconstitutional?Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
For the sake of promoting the awesomeness of my hometown, it's where The Onion was started.
You're the epic beard man in the corner?
Leaning against the fence. Is that who you're referring to? If so...
"Epic"?!? That ain't shiznit!
I guess Citizen Kryzbyn was right. I am kind of a hippie.
I'm pretty sure doodlebug is not, in any way, comparable to Rosa Parks.HERESY!
ALL HAIL GOBLIN KING!
Free trade and other 'feel good' constructs are all scams.
The kids everyone got hyper about with Kathy Giffords' 'sweat shops' were making enough to survive, not so after the factories closed. All the hoity toity types that hounded her had no care for those kids AFTERWARDS!
Fair Trade coffee growers get about the same 'pay' as those exploited by the 'Evil corporations', but the Free Trade organizations charge as much as twice to salve the guilty souls of us pasty skinned exploiters of the third world peasant. Want to really help? Buy the cheap coffee and call up one of the multitude of charities that actually HELP! Send them the difference (I donate to Heifer International). Full disclosure: its deducted from my paycheck, I'm not enough a saint that I could be counted on to write a regular check.
I'm pretty sure doodlebug is not, in any way, comparable to Rosa Parks.HERESY!ALL HAIL GOBLIN KING!
I am not and have never been a king. I am, however, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L) and a shop steward in the Amalgamated Coxswains, Riverboat Sailors and Stevedores Local 25.
I'm pretty sure doodlebug is not, in any way, comparable to Rosa Parks.HERESY!ALL HAIL GOBLIN KING!
Wot?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, really, until this whole thing coalesces into "Occupy Washington", all of these varied groups take over the Mall and start getting in the faces of the criminals there that ALLOW the criminals on Wall Street to continue to destroy our economy for their own enrichment (and the enrichment of their lackeys in DC), this is all a waste of time.
No different than treating symptoms of, and ignoring the cause of, a disease.
No different than treating symptoms of, and ignoring the cause of, a disease.
Whats the symptom, whats the cause?
Look at it this way. Is there anything that the government is doing that stops wallstreet from turning itself from Vegas slash Ponzi scheme back into what it was meant to be: a way to connect people with capital with people who have big ambitions to use it to make a company and make a profit? Not that i know of.
Is wallstreet doing anything that prevents washington from being a democracy by the people and for the people? Yes. It lobby's and uses campaign contributions to bribe politicians into writing the laws the way wallstreet wants them written.
The politicians aren't throwing buckets of money at wallstreet for no reason, they're doing it because wallstreet bribed the politicians into giving wallstreet our money. Stop the bribery, end the insanity.
Even finding someone immune to outright bribery is useless. They'll just bribe his opponent into office with billions in campaign adds. \
The protestors are in the right spot.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, no. Wall Street is 100% powerless if Washington stops taking its money and does its job.
No one in Washington has to take Wall Street's money. They want to. Both parties are so drunk on it they couldn't stop if they wanted to, unless we make them.
As long as Wall Street owns the politicians, the politicians are going to to whatever Wall Street wants. A bunch of goofballs chanting in a park aren't going to make Big Investment Banker say "wow, I see the error of my ways, I'll stop gambling with grandma's retirement money."
No, he's going to say "what can a bunch of dirty hippies do? Nothing. Screw them."
Nope, the only thing that's going to do that is if the politicians feeding off of Wall Street's teat decide to start putting Big Investment Banker in prison for gambling with other people's money on crazy ass schemes, rather than bailing them out so they can give themselves big bonuses and still gamble with other people's money.
The only way that is going to happen is if people stop voting for the a*###&~s who let Wall Street get away with that crap, or make them understand they work for US not THEM.
Do something actually helpful and vote Green, get everyone you know to do the same, etc. Or Libertarian, or whatever isn't Democrat or Republican.
Washington is the problem. Wall Street is the symptom.
I'm also pretty sure that illegal drug use is in no way comparable to racial discrimination.
But some aspects of the War on Drugs have had racial undertones. For example, federal guidelines just changed recently to treat powder and crack cocaine more similarly than before. The majority of people convicted for crack cocaine were black, while the majority of powder cocaine convictions were white people, but the difference in sentencing lengths was 100:1. The recent change brings it to 18:1.
Um, no. Wall Street is 100% powerless if Washington stops taking its money and does its job.
Candidate A tells wallstreet to perform an act illegal in texas and starts running the government for the people.
The primary comes around. Candidate A is a shoo in to their parties nomination. Wallstreet finds a candidates B C D and E in party B, finds B is pretty ok with bribery and funds their primary. They then fund the election for candite B against candidate A.
It doesn't matter if candidate A is honest, intelligent, hardworking and uncorruptable. With enough cash he'll look like hitlers evil twin and candidate B will seem like an uncoruptable saint who's never taken a dime of corporate money ... on the tv adds that corporate money buys.
No one in Washington has to take Wall Street's money. They want to. Both parties are so drunk on it they couldn't stop if they wanted to, unless we make them.
Its less like tequila and more like the gun in a mexican standoff. First person to put it down is probably going to get shot.
|
|
But some aspects of the War on Drugs have had racial undertones. For example, federal guidelines just changed recently to treat powder and crack cocaine more similarly than before. The majority of people convicted for crack cocaine were black, while the majority of powder cocaine convictions were white people, but the difference in sentencing lengths was 100:1. The recent change brings it to 18:1.
I'm also pretty sure that illegal drug use is in no way comparable to racial discrimination.
About 3,000 Federal inmates are looking at immediate release when that comes on line in November. It's retroactive.
I feel for them though. After spending as much time as they did not getting any practical job training or anything, it'll be tough getting out right now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, no. Wall Street is 100% powerless if Washington stops taking its money and does its job.Candidate A tells wallstreet to perform an act illegal in texas and starts running the government for the people.
The primary comes around. Candidate A is a shoo in to their parties nomination. Wallstreet finds a candidates B C D and E in party B, finds B is pretty ok with bribery and funds their primary. They then fund the election for candite B against candidate A.
It doesn't matter if candidate A is honest, intelligent, hardworking and uncorruptable. With enough cash he'll look like hitlers evil twin and candidate B will seem like an uncoruptable saint who's never taken a dime of corporate money ... on the tv adds that corporate money buys.
No one in Washington has to take Wall Street's money. They want to. Both parties are so drunk on it they couldn't stop if they wanted to, unless we make them.Its less like tequila and more like the gun in a mexican standoff. First person to put it down is probably going to get shot.
Again, that's where we come in. Unless government gets the message that we aren't going to stand for the status quo, they have zero incentive to change the system. Wall Street isn't going to change because some people are chanting up the street. They don't have to. Washington has their back.
OWS is just pissing in the wind. And if they follow through on their threat to stop the subway system, they're hurting regular people, not Wall Street. Dude on Wall Street doesn't care if the Six or the Two isn't running, he'll call a cab or drive. But regular people who have it tough enough need those trains.
Seriously. Wrong place, wrong tactics.
Again, that's where we come in. Unless government gets the message that we aren't going to stand for the status quo, they have zero incentive to change the system.
And what precisely are you going to do to change the system? Keep in mind that the system exists to perpetuate itself. It will not die easily, it will not die quietly, and it will not simply hold still while you kill it. It will change, adapt, blend in, respond to threats. It can be overt or subtle. It can react with anything from government crack downs to simply changing its appearance altogether to resemble the thing fighting it.
Its not that i like the system.. far, far FAR from it. Its just that i have to question the feasibility of grabbing it by its proboscis and tugging U TURN! U TURN! and getting it vs just steering it slowly towards where we need to be.
Wall Street isn't going to change because some people are chanting up the street. They don't have to. Washington has their back.
That would be the point, as much as OWS can have a point. They're trying to show the politicians that if they leave wall streets money, the politicians can have them. They will not have to go it alone, there will be help from informed, aware, Americans who are willing to vote.
OWS is just pissing in the wind. And if they follow through on their threat to stop the subway system, they're hurting regular people, not Wall Street.
Change hurts.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Change hurts.This attitude tends to be what kills any sympathy protests like this could possibly generate. Hurting people who are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck really shows those fat cats!
Hey as long as it's hurting some other sucker it's all good right?
I tend to agree with HD here, so far the OWS folks have made a lot of noise, which is good, but they have also screwed a lot more normal people over than Wall Street bankers.
Well, lets look at the number of american revolutionary dead. Or civil war dead or.. heck.. pick your war, revolt, revolution, or change. It always hurts the poor more. If the worst that happens is people are late for dinner it will be worth it.
This attitude tends to be what kills any sympathy protests like this could possibly generate. Hurting people who are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck really shows those fat cats!
So do you have another solution or are you going to be mad at me for being a realist/pessimist/ correct ?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This attitude tends to be what kills any sympathy protests like this could possibly generate. Hurting people who are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck really shows those fat cats!So do you have another solution or are you going to be mad at me for being a realist/pessimist/ correct ?
March on Washington. Go to the source. Government workers get paid regardless, so less collateral damage. And it's where the problem needs to be solved.
March on Washington. Go to the source. Government workers get paid regardless, so less collateral damage. And it's where the problem needs to be solved.This attitude tends to be what kills any sympathy protests like this could possibly generate. Hurting people who are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck really shows those fat cats!So do you have another solution or are you going to be mad at me for being a realist/pessimist/ correct ?
If the idea is show politicians that they could have the OWS vote by not accepting Lobbyist bribery, then SHOW them. The politicians arent at Wall Street, theyre in Washington.
|
|
If the idea is show politicians that they could have the OWS vote by not accepting Lobbyist bribery, then SHOW them. The politicians arent at Wall Street, theyre in Washington.March on Washington. Go to the source. Government workers get paid regardless, so less collateral damage. And it's where the problem needs to be solved.This attitude tends to be what kills any sympathy protests like this could possibly generate. Hurting people who are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck really shows those fat cats!So do you have another solution or are you going to be mad at me for being a realist/pessimist/ correct ?
Pretty much. Annoying stock brokers and bankers on Wall Street accomplishes little. Annoying politicians and lobbyists on J Street might actually do something. Doubtful it will do anything, but it beats the mental masturbation going on in NYC (and elsewhere).
I guess I don't buy this line of thinking. By this argument you could NEVER protest anywhere except a government building. Mad about pollution? Protest in Washington! Mad about a murderer being set free? Washington. The buck always stops there, ultimately, but the actual ANGER is just as much at Wall Street...hence the occupation there. --->You don't have to have a strategy to affect change in order to express frustration.<--- I see OWS as just an expression of frustration, out of which legitimate strategies will arise, but being angry or dismissive of the OWS people because they aren't doing it right? They're not DOING anything, they're just screaming at the sky. Now that people are beginning to hear, we can discuss what the source of the frustration is and rectify it.
I guess I don't buy this line of thinking. By this argument you could NEVER protest anywhere except a government building.
Good point. Perhaps someone could establish a group of professional protesters who people could pay to put their cause on the placards for a few days at a time, with the option of chanting, marching or property damage.
(This is not a serious suggestion)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Find out where these people live and protest in front of their houses. Make them unconfortable, not the people who are trying to squeeze out a living. Imagine 10,000 people showing up in some of the richest neighborhoods in NY and blocking the limousines and taxis from getting out.