|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taken from a speech in support of Egypt's protestors:
Obama on Egypt's protests: "I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere. I also call upon the Egyptian government to reverse the actions that they’ve taken to interfere with access to the Internet, to cell phone service and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the twenty-first century…. This moment of volatility has to be turned into a moment of promise…"
Obama on OWS: "The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded. And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded."
That's a nice sentiment, but...
Where's the big speech telling the Mayors across America to stand down? Why is violence against Egyptian protestors frowned upon and speech worthy, but violence against our protestors seemingly not worth decrying and, well, since the guy is the leader of the nation, not worth disallowing?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. And, basically, I'm just saying this is another way the guy let us down. We still have the Patriot Act (and it's being used), we still don't have gay marriage (even though they could have easily passed it in the "lame duck" session after the '08 elections), his Justice Department has decided states have no rights when it comes to medicinal marijuana (see: California), and a host of other issues I'm VERY disappointed that a "liberal" isn't liberal on (oh, he talks a good game, but rhetoric isn't going to let people marry who they want nation-wide or prevent wire taps, etc.).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only people who thought Obama was a liberal going into the 2008 election were Republicans or people who weren't paying very much attention.
If you go back and read my posts from around the election, you'd see me warning everyone about that. I admit I'm more conservative on most fiscal issues, but I'm insanely liberal on social issues. And, frankly, I hate being right about this guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hate having to hide this thread HD, since you are right on, but I see nothing good coming of this
*blink*
I think this could be a great thread to discuss how protest should happen in this country.
In the 1950-60's marches, sit-in's, and similar protests were fairly effective, but things are far more sophisticated these days. Essentially the police have declared war on protest, and if you show up to a war with 50 year old equipment and tactics, you get your ass handed to you.
I've been going to protests in NYC since the beginning of 2002. For years I have been seeing things that I would never have thought would happen in modern times. Frankly it has been shocking, and I'm a pretty cynical person.
I see several common ideas for protest, but they are not as simple as they seem. For example, DC is a great symbolic target, but is a hostile environment for protest in several ways. DC has numerous law-enforcement organizations, and in addition to city PD, you have everything from National Parks Police to Secret service. Many things that could be minor offenses in other cities could be federal offenses in DC. Also, as a government town, things in many areas clear out by 6pm and on weekends, and government workers (especially law-enforcement types) are not always sympathetic to protesters. These are problems in most capitols.
Another meme that I have heard is that protesters getting assaulted by police is good for the Cause. I would say that is often not the case, and that scenes of violence can just polarize both side. Also, getting beaten by the police is a very poor experience.
So how do people protest in our modern age?
Taken from a speech in support of Egypt's protestors:
Obama on Egypt's protests: "I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere. I also call upon the Egyptian government to reverse the actions that they’ve taken to interfere with access to the Internet, to cell phone service and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the twenty-first century…. This moment of volatility has to be turned into a moment of promise…"
Obama on OWS: "The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded. And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded."
That's a nice sentiment, but...
Where's the big speech telling the Mayors across America to stand down? Why is violence against Egyptian protestors frowned upon and speech worthy, but violence against our protestors seemingly not worth decrying and, well, since the guy is the leader of the nation, not worth disallowing?
As usual HD, you want lean towards wanting Obama to do something akin to putting on a crown, drawing a sword and proclaiming himself some type of psuedo-deity. It ain't gonna happen.
Also, Obama was and still is a lot more liberal than any of the people running against him were, save maybe Ron Paul, who I will not discuss here.
I make a post criticizing HD's political views.
Not even a half hour later, the neighbor's dog takes a whizz on me.
I think there's a connection. How are you doing this, HD?!?!?!??!?!?!!!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is the big problem with American politics, all the things I like about the Republicans —small government, free market economics, fiscal responsibility — they make a lot of noise about but are terrible about. All of the things I like the Democrats for — Environmentalism, respect for personal liberty — they are make token gestures or in the case of environmentalism 'not in my backyard' solutions. So while I should like at least part of what one party or the other does I am just frustrated all around.
|
|
Yep. And, basically, I'm just saying this is another way the guy let us down. We still have the Patriot Act (and it's being used), we still don't have gay marriage (even though they could have easily passed it in the "lame duck" session after the '08 elections), his Justice Department has decided states have no rights when it comes to medicinal marijuana (see: California), and a host of other issues I'm VERY disappointed that a "liberal" isn't liberal on (oh, he talks a good game, but rhetoric isn't going to let people marry who they want nation-wide or prevent wire taps, etc.).
Then run for President at the next Election and garner the Support of the Occupy movement. No excuses. Just crawl into the Gas chamber like a good little minority if you dont.
|
|
Yep. And, basically, I'm just saying this is another way the guy let us down. We still have the Patriot Act (and it's being used), we still don't have gay marriage (even though they could have easily passed it in the "lame duck" session after the '08 elections), his Justice Department has decided states have no rights when it comes to medicinal marijuana (see: California), and a host of other issues I'm VERY disappointed that a "liberal" isn't liberal on (oh, he talks a good game, but rhetoric isn't going to let people marry who they want nation-wide or prevent wire taps, etc.).Then run for President at the next Election and garner the Support of the Occupy movement. No excuses. Just crawl into the Gas chamber like a good little minority if you dont.
I'll have to see if being a convicted felon prohibits me from running for president.
;-)
|
|
Yep. And, basically, I'm just saying this is another way the guy let us down. We still have the Patriot Act (and it's being used), we still don't have gay marriage (even though they could have easily passed it in the "lame duck" session after the '08 elections), his Justice Department has decided states have no rights when it comes to medicinal marijuana (see: California), and a host of other issues I'm VERY disappointed that a "liberal" isn't liberal on (oh, he talks a good game, but rhetoric isn't going to let people marry who they want nation-wide or prevent wire taps, etc.).Then run for President at the next Election and garner the Support of the Occupy movement. No excuses. Just crawl into the Gas chamber like a good little minority if you dont.I'll have to see if being a convicted felon prohibits me from running for president.
;-)
Sounds to me like you'd be right at home in DC brother. :D
|
|
Sounds to me like you'd be right at home in DC brother. :DYep. And, basically, I'm just saying this is another way the guy let us down. We still have the Patriot Act (and it's being used), we still don't have gay marriage (even though they could have easily passed it in the "lame duck" session after the '08 elections), his Justice Department has decided states have no rights when it comes to medicinal marijuana (see: California), and a host of other issues I'm VERY disappointed that a "liberal" isn't liberal on (oh, he talks a good game, but rhetoric isn't going to let people marry who they want nation-wide or prevent wire taps, etc.).Then run for President at the next Election and garner the Support of the Occupy movement. No excuses. Just crawl into the Gas chamber like a good little minority if you dont.I'll have to see if being a convicted felon prohibits me from running for president.
;-)
It would get ugly. My first executive order would be to outlaw all of the lobbyists on K Street.
My second executive order would be to rename the White House the Green House and legalize certain green leafy herbs...
|
|
Where's the big speech telling the Mayors across America to stand down?
The Obama administration actually told the cities to crack down.
Homeland Security and the FBI coordinated the crackdown on the Occupy movement.
This is exactly the reason I started this thread. I might not agree with a lot of protestors on a lot of issues, but if they're exercising their right to peaceful assembly peacefully, the government should bend over backward to protect their rights.
Especially after telling the world openly that we'll support protestors with legitimate causes anywhere, any time.
|
|
Taken from a speech in support of Egypt's protestors:
Obama on Egypt's protests: "I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere. I also call upon the Egyptian government to reverse the actions that they’ve taken to interfere with access to the Internet, to cell phone service and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the twenty-first century…. This moment of volatility has to be turned into a moment of promise…"
Obama on OWS: "The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded. And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded."
That's a nice sentiment, but...
Where's the big speech telling the Mayors across America to stand down? Why is violence against Egyptian protestors frowned upon and speech worthy, but violence against our protestors seemingly not worth decrying and, well, since the guy is the leader of the nation, not worth disallowing?
As usual HD, you want lean towards wanting Obama to do something akin to putting on a crown, drawing a sword and proclaiming himself some type of psuedo-deity. It ain't gonna happen.
Also, Obama was and still is a lot more liberal than any of the people running against him were, save maybe Ron Paul, who I will not discuss here.
Yeah, Ron Paul (my first vote ever cast for a Presidential candidate, back in '88, btw) is a topic for another thread, if even then.
My beef is mostly the rhetoric he used to support protestors in Egypt apparently doesn't apply to our own citizens. You know I never liked the guy, but this goes beyond crazy. At least show the same respect/concern for our own citizens (many of whom probably voted for the guy) as you do for people half a world away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where's the big speech telling the Mayors across America to stand down?
The Obama administration actually told the cities to crack down.
Homeland Security and the FBI coordinated the crackdown on the Occupy movement.
This is exactly the reason I started this thread. I might not agree with a lot of protestors on a lot of issues, but if they're exercising their right to peaceful assembly peacefully, the government should bend over backward to protect their rights.
Especially after telling the world openly that we'll support protestors with legitimate causes anywhere, any time.
Sorry, that site strays a little too far into tinfoil hat territory for me. Also, NYC cops have no problem getting jackbooty on their own, as I know from personal experience. Still also, the cops here have been waiting to do this since day one, they did it with critical mass stuff and have more or less said they would do it again at the drop of a hat. Not saying that the FBI couldn't have been behind it all, but we all have cell phones, intarwebs and computers- why would we need the FBI to coordinate this when the police could have done it all on their own?
Yeah, Ron Paul (my...Taken from a speech in support of Egypt's protestors:
Obama on Egypt's protests: "I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere. I also call upon the Egyptian government to reverse the actions that they’ve taken to interfere with access to the Internet, to cell phone service and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the twenty-first century…. This moment of volatility has to be turned into a moment of promise…"
Obama on OWS: "The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded. And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded."
That's a nice sentiment, but...
Where's the big speech telling the Mayors across America to stand down? Why is violence against Egyptian protestors frowned upon and speech worthy, but violence against our protestors seemingly not worth decrying and, well, since the guy is the leader of the nation, not worth disallowing?
As usual HD, you want lean towards wanting Obama to do something akin to putting on a crown, drawing a sword and proclaiming himself some type of psuedo-deity. It ain't gonna happen.
Also, Obama was and still is a lot more liberal than any of the people running against him were, save maybe Ron Paul, who I will not discuss here.
As I recall, Obama got plenty of heat for saying he supported OWS' right to assemble freely. I'm gonna have to look online for the various "He's an evil commie muslim for using OWS to declare war against his own country!!" articles.
|
|
Sorry, that site strays a little too far into tinfoil hat territory for me. Also, NYC cops have no problem getting jackbooty on their own, as I know from personal experience. Still also, the cops here have been waiting to do this since day one, they did it with critical mass stuff and have more or less said they would do it again at the drop of a hat. Not saying that the FBI couldn't have been behind it all, but we all have cell phones, intarwebs and computers- why would we need the FBI to coordinate this when the police could have done it all on their own?Where's the big speech telling the Mayors across America to stand down?
The Obama administration actually told the cities to crack down.
Homeland Security and the FBI coordinated the crackdown on the Occupy movement.
This is exactly the reason I started this thread. I might not agree with a lot of protestors on a lot of issues, but if they're exercising their right to peaceful assembly peacefully, the government should bend over backward to protect their rights.
Especially after telling the world openly that we'll support protestors with legitimate causes anywhere, any time.
I dunno, Wonkette is usually pretty reliable when she comes out with a story. And she's far from a right winger. I'd say if she ran with it, it probably has some meat behind it.
|
|
As I recall, Obama got plenty of heat for saying he supported OWS' right to assemble freely. I'm gonna have to look online for the various "He's an evil commie muslim for using OWS to declare war against his own country!!" articles.
Saying he does something is one thing, actually telling law enforcement to back off (like he told Egyptian law enforcement, is something all together different.
As I recall, Obama got plenty of heat for saying he supported OWS' right to assemble freely. I'm gonna have to look online for the various "He's an evil commie muslim for using OWS to declare war against his own country!!" articles.Saying he does something is one thing, actually telling law enforcement to back off (like he told Egyptian law enforcement, is something all together different.
Egyptian law enforcement has a bad habit of killing semi-indiscriminately. Despite our own terrible history with how we deal with protests, this hasn't happened here nearly to the extent that it has happened there.
|
|
Egyptian law enforcement has a bad habit of killing semi-indiscriminately. Despite our own terrible history with how we deal with protests, this hasn't happened here nearly to the extent that it has happened there.As I recall, Obama got plenty of heat for saying he supported OWS' right to assemble freely. I'm gonna have to look online for the various "He's an evil commie muslim for using OWS to declare war against his own country!!" articles.Saying he does something is one thing, actually telling law enforcement to back off (like he told Egyptian law enforcement, is something all together different.
No offense, but that's a very relativist statement. We crack skulls, that's bad enough. And he should be telling law enforcement to back off. I'm not aware, outside of some corner cases, of wanton lawlessness or criminality associated with our protestors, so, as a guy who swore to uphold the Constitution, he should be protecting the protestors, period.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obama: It's not fascism when we do it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Democracy is good when is good for politicians, if people decide something that is not according to the establishment then they are misfits.
And that is not new, I really do no know how is the democracy inside U.S but the US goverment only support democracies in the rest of the conutries when that democracy is good for bussiness or is important for geopolitical considerations.
Yes, gadaffi was a tyrant but he was a tyrant for 30 years and in the last 15 years he was a good friend of occident.
Yes, Hussein was a Tyrant, but US make him president.
Yes, Talibans are terrorist, but when they were figthing the sovietic union they were heroes.
Yes, the 11-S was areally bad thing, but do not forget that, also in a 11-s Pinochet begins a reing of terror in chile (support by the us president )
Yes, in saudi arabia womans are battered, religions freedoms are banned, they have a monarchy not a democracy, they practice the Sharia, But they sold cheap gasoline so never mind.
Two things, you left out Iran: we toppled a perfectly functioning secular democracy to install the Shah over oil.
Second thing: the Taliban =/= The Mujahideen. Some Mujahideen joined the Taliban when it took power, but the movement itself formed in Pakistan amongst fundamentalist islamic students ("Taliban" means "student" in Arabic), most of whom never fought against the Soviets.
Small quibble, but just wanted to keep the historical accuracy.
I like the list of crap we've pulled.
How do we stop it? Do we become isolationist? Pull out of the UN?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the list of crap we've pulled.
How do we stop it? Do we become isolationist? Pull out of the UN?
Pull out of the U.N. for sure, just another corrupt and ineffective money sink. I don't know about becoming isolationist, per se, but we really should stop being interventionist. And we should stop supporting the World Bank and the IMF. Both just retard the ability of nations to grow organically, and force them to accept Western style "open" markets at a time most aren't developed enough to not be completely exploited by us.
There was little enough excuse for being interventionist douches during the cold War, but now that it's over, there is ZERO rational reason for us to interfere with how nations want to handle their domestic economic or political situations.
"If it is determined that the media will not see or hear [the protesters] and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrators effect."
From the presidential advance manual - 2002. Page 33-35
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/presidential_advance_manual.pdf
I found out about this the hard way in the days leading up to the RNC in 2004. I'm sure the manual has not changed much over the years. I'm sure the protesters at the next RNC/DNC will be treated just as bad as the last couple.
But really it is our national policy, and not dependent on president (it is also used in many other nations). Clinton was pres for Seattle WTO protests of 1999, Bush for many, and now Obama. I will say that since 9/11, a lot of anti-terrorism dollars go into police crowd control and surveillance.
The anti-terror/anti-protest connection is pretty frightening.
Egyptian law enforcement has a bad habit of killing semi-indiscriminately. Despite our own terrible history with how we deal with protests, this hasn't happened here nearly to the extent that it has happened there.As I recall, Obama got plenty of heat for saying he supported OWS' right to assemble freely. I'm gonna have to look online for the various "He's an evil commie muslim for using OWS to declare war against his own country!!" articles.Saying he does something is one thing, actually telling law enforcement to back off (like he told Egyptian law enforcement, is something all together different.No offense, but that's a very relativist statement. We crack skulls, that's bad enough. And he should be telling law enforcement to back off. I'm not aware, outside of some corner cases, of wanton lawlessness or criminality associated with our protestors, so, as a guy who swore to uphold the Constitution, he should be protecting the protestors, period.
No offense taken. I knew we weren't going to agree on this one going in! :-D
I like the list of crap we've pulled.
How do we stop it? Do we become isolationist? Pull out of the UN?The bad news is we can't stop it. We couldn't stop TARP, we can't stop any of these wars(are we at 7 or 8 now?), and we can't stop the bailouts and government protection of the fraud these banks have pulled and continue to pull.
The good news though is it will stop, eventually. It will stop when Washington's checks stop buying anything. When the US government runs out of money to borrow, and can't squeeze the taxpayers for anything more, and the interest payments become too burdensome, the whole system will grind to a halt.
The bureaucrats, the cops, the soldiers, they won't work if they don't get paid.
If you really want to have an effect, start getting involved with your local government now. Almost everyone focuses on national politics, which is useless, the system won't be changed by you.
But if you become influential in local politics, then, when those Washington checks start bouncing, you will have a say in what your community will decide to do. I don't know when this will happen, but my guess is probably in the next 20 years the USA will be very different politically. The balance of power will be at the county, city and state level, and Washington DC will be ignored.
Hmm. Interesting.
And, frankly, I hate being right about this guy.
When it happens to you as often as it happens to me you'll get used to it :k
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, the President does not have direct control over what these mayors do. They really don't have to listen to him. You know, we are in the Bay Area where I can think of at least four protests going on off the top of my head. In fact, I just thought of two more, so at least six. And the living conditions are terrible at these things.
What you might not being seeing on the news, but what we look at all day on the local news here, is how the protests are attracting people who are there just to take advantage of the situation without contributing anything. There have been deplorable sanitary conditions, shootings, even deaths, small businesses have suffered, and residents are being harassed.
Don't get me wrong, I am grateful to the protestors for saying what I would like to say, and keeping at it for me.
But I think what you have to consider is that these things look great on paper, they sound awesome in theory, and we root for people when we see it happening in other places. But nobody is prepared for what this actually looks like on the ground, and what it does to everything around it.
Like a lot of things in life, this is a tricky, complicated, difficult thing to sort out. It's not black and white, and I don't care to blame anybody, even the President for it. Watching this stuff day in and day out, seeing it going on down the street, you come to realize that even the people you think of as villains are just trying to do the best they can, and like people do, sometimes they fail.
It's easy to blame mayors, blame the President, blame the protestors, blame the state, whatever. When we do, we forget that it never should have come to this. The greed of a few made this happen, and the people who should take the blame are the people who hoarded wealth earned for them by the sweat of the very people they have kept poor.
Thing is, the President does not have direct control over what these mayors do. They really don't have to listen to him. You know, we are in the Bay Area where I can think of at least four protests going on off the top of my head. In fact, I just thought of two more, so at least six. And the living conditions are terrible at these things.
What you might not being seeing on the news, but what we look at all day on the local news here, is how the protests are attracting people who are there just to take advantage of the situation without contributing anything. There have been deplorable sanitary conditions, shootings, even deaths, small businesses have suffered, and residents are being harassed.
Don't get me wrong, I am grateful to the protestors for saying what I would like to say, and keeping at it for me.
But I think what you have to consider is that these things look great on paper, they sound awesome in theory, and we root for people when we see it happening in other places. But nobody is prepared for what this actually looks like on the ground, and what it does to everything around it.
Like a lot of things in life, this is a tricky, complicated, difficult thing to sort out. It's not black and white, and I don't care to blame anybody, even the President for it. Watching this stuff day in and day out, seeing it going on down the street, you come to realize that even the people you think of as villains are just trying to do the best they can, and like people do, sometimes they fail.
It's easy to blame mayors, blame the President, blame the protestors, blame the state, whatever. When we do, we forget that it never should have come to this. The greed of a few made this happen, and the people who should take the blame are the people who hoarded wealth earned for them by the sweat of the very people they have kept poor.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Your counter, HD?
|
|
Politicians made the greed possible. Wall Street cannot do what it has done without tacit approval from the politicians they own lock, stock and barrrel. Both major parties are corrupt, neither care about us. The Tea Party basically ripped the Repubs a new one last year, but they quickly lost momentum. Working within the two party system framework is a losing proposition.
It doesn't matter that "it never should have come to this". It is this, and it needs to change. Dwelling on the past isn't going to solve anything. And using that as an excuse not to assign blame is not going to solve anything.
If people are breaking the law at the protests, remove those individuals. Otherwise, we have a Constitutional right to peacefully assemble, and it is explicitly the Executive Branch's responsibility to protect those rights. The government is quick to protect the rights of the haves, after all. However, I believe the current occupant of 1600 Penn. has a "where else are they going to go in November 2012, the Republicans? Bwahahahaha" attitude. So he has no incentive to live up to the rhetoric he used during the "Arab Spring".
You know, part of the problem with the living conditions and other issues is the media. And the government. If they'd both stop painting the protests as just a bunch of malcontents, we may get a dialogue going. People would be less dismissive of the people out there trying to do something, and maybe would lend a bit of support. Oh, and if the cops were doing their jobs (you know, looking for the troublemakers) instead of acting like cops do whenever someone protests ("I can't wait until we get to crack some hippie heads with these batons!"), a lot of that would go away as well.
Now, OWS and the others do have some blame to accept. All of the Cumbaya and forming hand signals isn't going to get around the core issue. They don't seem to understand how things work. Barking at some Wall Street fat cats that have no reason to pay attention to them isn't going to solve anything. All it does is distract from the real problem: our elected officials do not work for the electorate, they work for the lobbyists. Until they figure out that influence peddling and bribery through campaign donations are the problem, nothing is going to happen.
But all I see in Bruunwald's post is "we can't blame the cops for being violent assmunches, and we can't blame the president for being a hypocrite. It isn't their fault the big bad corps are evil."
And all I can say is: b$&@+~#+.
It is the system's fault we got this way. And it is the cop's fault a lot of stuff got out of hand. And it is the president's fault for not following up on his rhetoric.
|
|
It's not just Obama, it's the entire US government.
We fully support democracy and human rights; except when we are the ones inconvenienced.
The man has the power to live up to his rhetoric. All he has to do is instruct the Justice Department to start indicting people on civil rights charges. Simple as pie.
Right now, he's the one with the executive power to order such things, he doesn't need Congress for any of that. Congress proposes laws, the Executive branch enforces laws. And, due to this little thing called the Bill of Rights, the right to peacefully assemble is law. And violations against the right to do so are 100% the responsibility of the Executive Branch to investigate and punish, in accordance with the law.
But all I see in Bruunwald's post is "we can't blame the cops for being violent assmunches, and we can't blame the president for being a hypocrite. It isn't their fault the big bad corps are evil."
I didn't say that at all. I said that I don't care to blame anybody because I can see first-hand that this is more complicated than that. There are protestors literally down the street from me. This is all more complicated than it looks, and every side is making it so.
Every day there are protestors on TV saying things that reveal their own ignorance about how peaceful assembly is supposed to work. At the same time, the Mayor of Oakland is trying to look tough on the whole issue to score political points because she is being threatened with a recall. Her hapless chief of police, new to the job, seems sympathetic to the protestors, but he is stuck with the unenviable job of having to uphold laws he has sworn to enforce. Laws that every single protestor up to this time, at least in that city, has been breaking.
I get that you're angry. I'm angry too. But turning me into an enemy won't fix anything. People have to be willing to look at these things from other angles to understand them and improve on anything.
Taking a hard stance and sticking to it despite the realities and complexities of the whole thing isn't going to solve anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Laws that every single protestor up to this time, at least in that city, has been breaking.
I'm a little curious as to how laws that EVERY protestor is violating could possibly be constitutional. Its not the right to assemble IF the government says you can, where the government says you can, and for how long the government says you can.
How the hell is a "park closes at sundown" rule supposed to trump the constitution?
I like the list of crap we've pulled.
How do we stop it? Do we become isolationist? Pull out of the UN?Pull out of the U.N. for sure, just another corrupt and ineffective money sink. I don't know about becoming isolationist, per se, but we really should stop being interventionist. And we should stop supporting the World Bank and the IMF. Both just retard the ability of nations to grow organically, and force them to accept Western style "open" markets at a time most aren't developed enough to not be completely exploited by us.
There was little enough excuse for being interventionist douches during the cold War, but now that it's over, there is ZERO rational reason for us to interfere with how nations want to handle their domestic economic or political situations.
^ My hero.