Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2011 - 10:09pm PT
|
So SkipyDippy why wont you post credible links to the outrageous claims you spew as gospel.
Is it because there are none?
There you go Skip Karl Rove says Herman Cain eats babies
.Karl Rove to Herman Cain: True or false? - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com
Oct 31, 2011 ... Karl Rove said Monday that Herman Cain has failed to properly .... all sort of accusations made about Cain from eating babies to stepping on ...
See I can misconstrue reality too.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2011 - 10:35pm PT
|
To all the families of those who've been impacted economically by the OWS anarchists;
To all the customers prevented access to the business of their choice due to OWS mobs blocking the doors;
To the university students who could not make it to classes because OWS prevented them entrance to school buildings;
To all the public servants prevented from commuting to their offices because of OWS illegally closing streets;
and to the people of America:
I have posted here tonight as an American who, like all Americans,
hope and pray with you that these OWS tards will either go home or chose
to become instant organ donors to further the cause of freedom.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving!
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2011 - 10:42pm PT
|
I don't understand the mindset of people who have to stoop to name calling, like some illiterate 2nd grader. Regardless, I thought this was well written, and that both sides would agree with it.
Support Your Local Police State
by William Norman Grigg
“Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not a mile away?” –
~ Attributed to Boston physician Mather Byles, 1770.
“Do you see this soldier in this checkpoint?” Iraqi Wael al-Khafaji asked a Reuters reporter, pointing to a spot just a few feet from his Baghdad barbershop. “He can do whatever he wants to me right now and I can’t say a word. Is this democracy?”
Before the U.S. invasion, this businessman – like millions of other Iraqis – was ruled by a distant dictator who had little direct influence on his life. Today, everything he does takes place under the shadow cast by armed men who have given themselves permission to brutalize or kill anybody who refuses to obey them.
For Mr. al-Khafaji, it makes no material difference whether the checkpoint is manned by U.S. soldiers, State Department-employed mercenaries, members of Saddam’s Republican Guard, or elements of a local sectarian militia. The problem is the presence of people who claim the right to use aggressive violence to force him to submit to their will. The problem is not one of geography or affiliation; it is a matter of institutionalized immorality.
Americans who supported the Iraq war would be scandalized by Mr. al-Khajafi’s ingratitude. They would be wise to ponder his insight while examining the extent to which our own country is becoming a garrison state. They would also do well to emulate his habit of looking with acute suspicion – and no small measure of resentment – on the oddly dressed armed men who presume to exercise authority over us.
Democracy is the art of inducing victims of government power to focus on the question of who controls the government, rather than what it does. The same can be said of the perspective encapsulated in the slogan “Support Your Local Police” (SYLP).
As sociologist David Bayley pointed out, “The police are to the government as the edge is to the knife.” The police are an implement of coercion wielded by the political class, whether they are operationally under the control of Washington, D.C. or City Hall.
From the SYLP perspective, the police and the “criminal justice” system they serve exist to protect life and property against criminal violence and fraud. If this were true, it would follow that most of those arrested and punished would be found guilty of crimes against person and property.
According to the most recent available statistics regarding incarceration, however, people convicted of actual crimes compose a very small minority of America’s vast and growing federal prison population. As of 2009, crimes of violence accounted for roughly eight percent of that total, and property crimes contributed a bit less than six percent. More than half of all inmates were convicted of non-violent drug offenses, and thirty-five percent were caged for what are called “public order” offenses.
Libertarian activist Michael Suede points out that eighty-six percent of all federal inmates were punished for what are called “victimless crimes” – that is to say, offenses not properly described as crimes at all. It is reasonable to assume that similar trends exist at the state and local level as well.
There are instances in which police act in defense of persons and property. Those are genuinely exceptional, because rendering that service is not part of their formal job description: The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police have no enforceable duty to protect individual rights. This helps explain why, as economist Robert Higgs pointed out roughly a decade ago, “there are three times as many private policemen as there are public ones.”
In choosing to pay for private security assistance, Americans freely spend more than twice the amount stolen from us each year to pay for the government’s armed enforcement caste. This is because the government that takes our money fails to provide the promised social good – protection of life and property.
Writing nearly a century ago, when our contemporary police state was in its infancy, the immortal H.L. Mencken protested that the government supposedly protecting him was actually the most rapacious and tenacious enemy of liberty and personal security. While it is possible for the typical American to repel the aggression of private criminals, “he can no more escape the tax-gatherer and the policemen, in all their protean and multitudinous guises, than he can escape the ultimate mortician. They beset him constantly, day in and day out…. They invade his liberty, affront his dignity, and greatly incommode his search for happiness, and every year they demand and wrest from him a larger and larger share of his worldly goods.”
The one refinement we can make to this otherwise flawless polemical gem is to note that the terms “tax-gatherer” and “policeman” are functional synonyms. Both offices exist to extract wealth from the productive at gunpoint on behalf of the political class. The only substantive difference between them is that the latter are granted slightly wider latitude in inflicting aggressive violence, and equipped to do so.
As Carl Watner pointed out in “Call the COPS – But Not the Police,” a seminal 2004 essay published by The Voluntaryist, gathering taxes has been a core police function since the institution was first imposed on the Anglo-Saxons following the Norman Conquest. The feudal order implemented by William the Conqueror was built upon the “frankpledge,” which was the institutional foundation for a a police system designed to collect revenue for the monarch.
The Anglo-Saxon tribes had provided security through kinship-based groups called “tithes” and “hundreds,” who defended cattle herds and other property and acted as posses to apprehend thieves. Anglo-Saxon courts emphasized restitution, with any punitive damages being used to compensate volunteers who had tracked down the offenders. Under the frankpledge, however, the “justice” system diverted all revenues into the king’s treasury.
Royal courts worked tirelessly to expand the king’s jurisdiction, which was enforced by royal appointees called shire-reeves (from which the term “sheriff” is derived). Eventually, royal enactments criminalized efforts by victims to seek private restitution; since such arrangements deprived the treasury of revenue, they were seen as a form of theft. This concept of the “King’s Peace” could be considered the distant but recognizable ancestor of the modern notion that the disembodied abstraction called “society” is a victim of criminal offenses – even those in which no individual has been injured.
A heavy residue of Anglo-Saxon tradition endured into the 18th Century. A French visitor to London in the mid-1700s was astounded when none of the local residents could direct him to the police – or even recognize the term. “Good Lord! How can one expect order among these people, who have no such a word as police in their language?” he exclaimed.
In fact, the term was familiar to educated 18th Century Britons, who – as historian Leon Radzinowicz points out – considered it to be “suggestive of terror and oppression.” A 1785 Police Bill proposed by William Pitt the Younger shattered against an iron wall of opposition to what was regarded as a “dangerous innovation.” Until the second decade of the 19th century, the British government’s ambition to create a standing police force was confined to its Irish colony, where its heavily armed Royal Constabulary field-tested methods that would later be imported to the homeland.
During the same period, Napoleon Bonaparte, the armed evangelist of the Jacobin revolution, created the first modern police force. Bonaparte’s ascent to power began with a brutal police action: The massacre of 13 Vendemiaire (October 5, 1795), during which the young Corsican general used artillery to slaughter Royalist protesters on the streets of Paris.
By 1812, writes David A. Bell in his book The First Total War, large areas of Europe under Bonaparte’s rule were afflicted with “pervasive bureaucracy, particularly new agencies for tax collection and conscription…. To implement the new order, there came new police forces, often staffed largely by Frenchmen.”
Presiding over this apparatus of regimentation, extraction, and coercion was secret police Chief Joseph Fouche, the Jacobin fanatic who prefigured Felix Dzherzhinsky.
Bonaparte’s star was in eclipse by 1814. However, as British historian Paul Johnson observed in his book The Birth of the Modern, “the golden age of the political police” had just begun. The Congress of Vienna gave birth to what one contemporary critic called “All sorts of wild schemes of establishing a general police all over Europe.”
At the same time, Robert Peel, the military governor of Ireland, introduced the so-called Peace Preservation Police, a centrally controlled paramilitary auxiliary to the 20,000-man military force garrisoned on the island. Peel explained that the force “was not meant to meet any temporary emergency” but rather intended to become a permanent institution. In 1829, Peel was England’s Home Secretary. With Parliament’s resistance at low ebb, Peel proposed the creation of the Metropolitan Police.
“The new police institution had many supporters in government, but opposition was to be found in the wider society,” wrote Watner in The Voluntaryist. “The fundamental principles behind the force were seen as … anathema to Whig political principles, which emphasized `liberty over authority, the rights of the people against the prerogatives of the Crown, local accountability in place of centralization, and governance by the “natural” rulers of society instead of salaried, government-appointed bureaucrats.’”
Populist parliamentarian William Cobbett, an outspoken foe of “tax-eaters,” was among the fiercest critics of the Metropolitan Police, which he saw as the vanguard of a country-wide army of occupation.
“Tyranny always comes by slow degrees,” Cobbett declared in an 1833 speech in Parliament, “and nothing could tend to illustrate that fact [better] than the history of police in this country.” Less than a generation ago, Cobbett pointed out, the very term “police” was “completely new among us.” Now, owing to Peel’s innovations, London was now overrun with “Blue Locusts” – “a police with numbered collars and embroidered cuffs, a body of men as regular as the King’s service, as fit for domestic war as the redcoats were for foreign war.”
In 1783, the last of King George’s occupation troops were evicted from New York. In 1844, New York City’s municipal government became the first in America to embrace Robert Peel’s system of paramilitary police. This amounted to exchanging Redcoats for “Blue Locusts.” Other major cities – New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1852, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago in 1855 – soon followed. State police agencies began to appear in the last decade of the 19th century, and first decades of the 20th.
While those police agencies were locally controlled, they were not servants of the public; they were instruments of the political class that created them. On the western frontier, where political power was either radically decentralized or entirely theoretical, security for person and property was “protected by private policemen who were paid by – and, so, responsible to – the community where they served,” notes libertarian writer Wendy McElroy.
Unlike the European gendarmes and royal British “shire-reeves,” McElroy points out, “Western sheriffs did protect people and property; they did rescue schoolmarms and punish cattle rustlers. Their mission was to keep the peace by preventing violence.”
Most importantly, in the Old West, sheriffs and marshals didn’t claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Thus when corrupt sheriffs like Montana’s Henry Plummer or Idaho’s David Updike used their office as cover to operate as “road agents” (horse thieves and highwaymen), they were arrested, tried, and punished by private “committees of vigilance.”
The only legitimate role for a peace officer is to interpose himself on behalf of individuals threatened by aggressive violence. That is a role that can (and should) be carried out by any law-abiding individual – including instances when the purveyor of aggressive violence is a police officer or other state official.
In the recent nationally coordinated police crack-downs on “Occupy” protesters we have seen the following scenario play out numerous times: Peaceful demonstrators confront riot police; individual riot policeman commits physical aggression against protester, then immediately escalates the conflict by using potentially lethal force; when the crowd reacts, the other police officers – rather than coming to the aid of the victim – form a protective barricade (I call it a “thugscrum”) around the assailant.
It is all but impossible to find an example of a police officer who interposed himself on behalf of the victim of criminal violence inflicted by a fellow officer. This isn’t surprising: A policeman can refuse to render aid to a crime victim without legal liability, and abuse innocent people without alienating his professional peers – but “going rogue” by intervening to prevent a criminal assault by another member of the punitive priesthood is a career-killer. Former Austin Police Officer Ramon Perez can supply the details.
Anytime a police officer commits an act of aggressive violence he is engaged in a criminal assault. If his fellow officers won’t intervene to stop him, law-abiding citizens have the moral authority to do so. But this simply won’t do, tut-tuts the program manual for the national Support Your Local Police campaign:
“The local police are not your enemy. Your committee is not here to attack them, blame them for violating the Constitution or your civil liberties because they are enforcing a measure of the Patriot Act or conducting a joint Federal and State anti-terror drill. Those are federal issues, which the local police in some cases may have already have little to no say if they are to continue receiving their additional Homeland Security funds, new equipment and weaponry…. We urge all responsible citizens in this community to work with us to …[s]upport our local police in the performance of their duties [and] oppose all harassment or interference with law enforcement personnel as they carry out their assigned tasks.... [We must accept] our responsibilities to our local police, to defend them against unjust attacks, make them proud and secure in their vital profession, and to offer them our support in word and deed wherever possible.” (Emphasis added.)
It apparently didn’t occur to the author of that passage that claiming citizens have “responsibilities to our local police” is to assume that the people exist to serve the government, rather than the reverse. Furthermore, it’s pretty clear that from this perspective, the police have no reciprocal “responsibilities” to the citizenry.
Does that “responsibility” to defend the police and “make them proud” extend to supporting local police when they carry out lethal paramilitary raids, like the one that resulted in the murder of Jose Guerena? Would it include support for firearms confiscation of the sort carried out by local police (as well as National Guard personnel) in post-Katrina New Orleans?
At the very least it would mean refusing to interfere when an armored bully carries out his “assigned task” of brutally assaulting a helpless, unarmed citizen, rather than carrying out the moral duty to do whatever is feasible to prevent the crime or end the attack.
“When law and morality are in contradiction to each other,” observed Frederic Bastiat, “the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing respect for the law – two evils of equal magnitude….” The “Support Your Local Police” perspective undermines morality by enshrining unconditional support for the police – who are, as SYLP admits, simply local affiliates of a nationalized Homeland Security system – as a supposed civic duty.
No individual or institution has the moral right to use aggressive force. That principle applies not only to the Federal Leviathan, but to the loathsome little replicas of that vile beast found in every city, county, and state. Rather than helping to consolidate the existing police state, supporters of the rule of law should work to end their local government’s monopoly on the police power – with the ultimate objective of abolishing it outright.
Reprinted with permission from Pro Libertate.
From here: http://www.theburningplatform.com/
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2011 - 10:42pm PT
|
I have posted here tonight as an American who, like all Americans,
hope and pray with you that these OWS tards will either go home or chose
to become instant organ donors to further the cause of freedom.
Quite delusional to imagine YOU speak for ALL AMERICANS.
Clearly You are not paying attention. You are in the minority.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 02:20am PT
|
However slavery, which happens OUTSIDE of those two institutions
Slavery also occurs within those two institutions.
Gasoline, please substantiate this statement. I am unaware of any slavery in the US Military or any US police dept.
Remember that I am talking in all of my discussions about the US, unless I specify otherwise.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 02:29am PT
|
The thing you posted about OWS on the LA Times is absolute rubbish. I can understand why it was removed from the OCCUPY blog. Why not just advise them all to join the Republican Party? Or put them to work canvassing for Obama?
Your mind is preOCCUPIED with an old paradigm, which of the vertical hierarchy of the mainstream Left. OWS is not the mainstream left.
OWS is a horizontal model, with structural affinities more in line with the Arab Spring, for example.
All the trappings that you fault OWS for are in fact its greatest strengths. There's no leader. There's no head or headquarters to cut off of co-opt. Maybe they should move the OCCUPY movement into the LA office space. Does it come pre-outfitted with state of the art surveillance equipment?
OWS is an open source model. Furthermore, it had just begun. It's barely a couple months old. It's endlessly ductile. Just when you declare it is defeated you will realize OWS has evolved in its form.
But you just don't get it, do you?
OWS: "We are our demands"
Prepare to be OCCUPIED.
Clear enough. You are appointing yourself as the new fascist fuhrer of the US. You are attempting to attack the middle class of the US. You will fail, because if you do not approach this by winning votes.....you are LOSING votes.....you will have to do it through armed revolution.
You will find that you are now on the side of the guy who just tried to assassinate the President, tried to assasinate Gabby Giffords, Tim Mcveigh, and the 911 terrorists. Your goal is the violent overthrow of the US. You expose that to do that, you are very willing to suppress even speech that questions your tactics.
As I said, you are not the ones with the guns. You are attacking other members of the 99%, and they don't like it. Continue on this path of violence, and you will have a sad ending.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 02:34am PT
|
Gasoline, (he is too cowardly to post under his name), your assertion is that the military and police are nasty things, because they impose strength upon something less strong.
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but in your various rants, that claim that OWS is just getting stronger, are you not threatening that OWS will win in the end, by imposing it's strength upon weaker institutions?
It seems like you aspire to become the exact thing that you hate.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 02:42am PT
|
Actually, there is no evidence that supports your theory of a war of plunder. I don't think it was done for that reason, but for ideology, and "spreading democracy".
No. You are peddling revisionism.
At least I know with whom I am conversing.
There are scores of undemocratic nations that we have not invaded nor will we invade. The reason for the invasion of Iraq was made clear. The reason for war was to protect the USA and it's allies, and by extension to protect western civilization against the prospect of immanent attack of 'weapons of mass destruction'. Furthermore, the USA government had been in the business of supporting the undemocratic tyrant Saddam Hussein militarily by supplying him with weapons. The excuse of 'Spreading Democracy' was a later add-on to satisfy fools such as yourself. We went to seize their oil. The plan was a delusional right wing wet dream compounded by their endemic incompetence. Nonetheless, they made their money. And the 99% paid for it.
Uhhhhh......where's the oil? I mean, oil is pretty hard to hide, particularly in large quantities.
You have a theory, sure, but where is your EVIDENCE. let's see your citations.
You don't identify yourself, so you have no personal credibility.
You say you are the son of a slave, I find that hard to believe. Surely you know that is a rather remarkable claim. However, that does NOT make you an expert on that topic, anymore than a son of a doctor is an expert in surgery.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 02:43am PT
|
And I think it was wrong. But it was a decision by the ELECTED GOVT, NOT by the military.
The best democracy money can buy.
OCCUPY WALL STREET!
If you don't rise to power via election, you are a fascist dictator. You know what happens to them.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 02:51am PT
|
Let me see if I follow your logic:
A) I disapprove of abusive cops pepper spraying peaceful protesters in the face,
B) I disagree with going to war based on lies,
C) I have difficulty with the institutionalized practice of torture by the USA,
D) I do not subscribe to your revisionist views of history,
...so therefore. I am an anarchist A@@HOLE?
Furthermore you assert that:
A) I "want to tear down churches, rescue missions, food banks, hospitals, EVERYTHING"
B) I "want to be Pot Pol"
C) I "want blood to run in the streets"
D) I "HUNGER for the violence" and
E) I'm a 'Black Shirt'
Piss on me?
Ken M, you are delusional.
You are paranoid delusional.
Please be so kind and intellectually honest, as to quote back to me specifically where I have written anything in support of the libelous claims you have just made about me.
So much for trying to hold a reasonable dialogue with you. Your have affinities with Lt. Pike, but you wield libel where he wielded pepper spray.
Reasonable? With a Black Shirt? Name of Gasoline? That name give a pretty good idea of what you want to do. Who is too cowardly to post under his name?
You either achieve your goals through the vote, through democracy, which will require the support of the majority of the citizens of this country.....or through violence.
There is no other way. You are rejecting democracy, so you have chosen the only other path. You intend to Occupy the US. That is what an armed invader does. I don't think Americans like that.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 03:36am PT
|
OWS sure has skipt spending vast amounts mental energy.
Working as intended.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 03:40am PT
|
skipt wrote:
I am saying, I will bet none of the bull sh#t protestors who were pepper sprayed have ever worked a day in their life in a field.
And I bet none of the people they are protesting against - notably those working in the Wall Street Banks and the politicians in their pockets - have ever worked a day in their life in a field. What's your point?
UCD is an ag school. While a student there I met plenty of people from rural areas who worked on a farm as kids, so maybe UCD isn't the best example to use in your self-congratulatory post.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 03:45am PT
|
OWS is just a start skipt. It must and will evolve and perfect itself. It is a part of the inevitable expression of a deep justice that cannot be denied.
Once that justice expressed itself in the Hamarabi's Code, then the Magna Carta, Later The Declaration of Independence, then South Africa, WWII, India, The Civil Rights Movement, South Africa Again, The Arab Spring.. and dawning in America.
There are always folks like you on the wrong side of history desperately picking and clinging to the imperfections of such great movements towards freedom. I am not sure why. What deep dark psychosis moves a human to fight to the bitter end that which serves his good?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 03:50am PT
|
I repeat
There are always folks like you on the wrong side of history desperately picking and clinging to the imperfections of such great movements towards freedom. I am not sure why. What deep dark psychosis moves a human to fight to the bitter end that which serves his good?
Not a big fan of the french revolution. Too imperfect even for me.
What is the reign of terror?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 04:04am PT
|
I see quite a few possible futures. The world very well may be embroiled soon in a vast war that makes WWII look like a piker. World depressions have historically led to such terrible uphevals.
I do have hope. There seems a path to avoid this. The USA plays the key role if we are to succeed as a race in avoiding such a fate.
Our power economically and in all other ways far outstrips any other nation. However it no longer serves it's citizens first.
The priorites must be seized by the people. If the government actually served the peoples interests the path to a great war or other severe meltdown would be much more difficult to travel.
-----------------
Ok what you call the reign of terror I was aware of and simply considered a part of the convoluted French Revolution. You might as well include Napoleon.
------------
Ok I begin to see your fear I think.
You seem to think that OWS is a step towards real socialism. Wheras I see it as a step away from RObber barons.
Both those being perversions of the law in order to gain unjust aquisition of an individuals natural right to their property.
------
However OWS is following the Highest law of this land. There are some much lower city ordinances that are in violation of the Constitution.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 04:33am PT
|
It's getting late but I want to write this while it's on my mind.
Free Market. No such thing.
There are simply markets. They range from nearly unregulated to severely regulated.
They are highly competitive to government owned monopolies. The extremes in both directions are best avoided if one wants to see the best products provided to the most customers at the best rates while ensuring a thriving customer base.
They are efficient or inefficent. (efficient being better for the customer)
a VAST amount of regulation in the USA is designed and has been acquired via lobbying by individual business for the express purpose of destroying their competition.
Lack of regulation is a dangerous as over regulation. Again no such thing exists as a Free Market.
Or nations economic laws are severly out of balance. Balance being approaching policies that best serve the public by ensuring the best products at the best prices and providing a large customer base.
---------
Basically the foundation of our government (for the people) has been hijacked by the highest bidder in various ways. The most severe way is the campaign system by which wealthy interests pick the candidates first and then the people get to vote for them.
If we don't fix that then everything else is perverted for special interests that only coincidentally and occassionally coincide with the public interest.
OWS has some chance of changing this.. Nothing else i have seen in 40+ years has had any chance of correcting this fundamental flaw in America.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 04:41am PT
|
Gnight man. Look forward to real (non-trolling) discussions :)
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 05:50am PT
|
skipt wrote:
Maybe since you went there and know everybody you could just name the
names of the protestors who actually worked in a field.
[crickets]
You can't. They didn't. You are a poser.
First, what's with the ad hominem attacks? Is that all you got?
Second, you're the one who made the accusation, how about you name the names of those who have never worked in the fields?
As you put it [crickets]
I graduated from UCD a dozen or more years ago, so the people I knew who attended UCD that grew up on farms in the Central Valley have long since graduated.
Anyway, as I stated, UCD is an ag school, so a lot more likely to have students who have worked in the fields as kid.
That's neither here nor there and has nothing to do with the police brutality so clearly visible in the videos.
skipt wrote:
These clowns were wiling to be pepper sprayed in order to have their
student loans forgiven and there is no amount of sugar coating that can
cover that up.
This isn't the Vietnam war. There will be no troops coming home if you
finally win.
All you will get is a bunch of whiny babies getting their student loans
forgiven when everybody else doesn't get that. And, worse are having to
pay for it on top of everything.
Again, the reasons for protesting and the police brutality exhibited are two different issues, why don't you get that?
In any case, student loan default for public universities has risen slightly since 2008, just as default on housing loans has (as well as other loans). What's your point? That you don't agree with the protestors?
skipt wrote:
I'm sorry. It isn't going to happen. You all are chasing windmills.
Skip
You're the one who seems to be going after arguments that no one is making, isn't that the definition of chasing windmills?
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 05:55am PT
|
skipt wrote (in response to climb2ski):
Thank you for letting me have my say and not telling me that I eat dead
baby fetus'.
I can assure you I am not a harsh guy all the time.
I've let you have your say, have never insulted you, even asked questions politely and out of genuine curiosity for an explanation of your point of view, and yet have received only insults and ad hominem attacks.
Why do you note reciprocate and only show disgust and disregard for my point of view all the while complaining about the very same thing from others?
I explained to you that I had family killed in the Holocaust and by Stalin's programs and you responded with a f*#king insult!
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2011 - 07:46am PT
|
Degainne, welcome to Skippity Dippity's world.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!