jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (55 posts)

Is this the country you want? IS IT?

  1. Pcunix profile image89
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    A country where you can be arrested for WALKING PEACEFULLY ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … all-street

    Is this the America I learned about in school?  Does our Constitution mean nothing?


    I also saw this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGRXCgMd … e=youtu.be - a short film which rather pointedly demonstrates the hypocrisy surrounding thes Occupy movements.


    IS THIS WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN?  This makes me spitting angry.

    1. yellowstone8750 profile image60
      yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No. It is not wht I want. It's called consenual apathy, and we all have a terminal case.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      QUICK!!! GIVE GOVERNMENT MORE POWER!!!

      GOVERNMENT CAN SAVE US FROM GOVERNMENT!!

      IT MAKES SENSE!!

      I'M A LIBERAL WHO THINKS LIBERTARIANS ARE IDIOTS!!

      LET'S MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR COPS TO ARREST PEOPLE WHO WALK ON STREETS!!!

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, no, stick to your guns Evan, give corporations more power.

      2. Pcunix profile image89
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sigh.

        When you rant, I know what you think "government" is - a bunch of damn liberals interfering with your life, right?

        I see government as what our Constitution marked out - We, the people.

        "We" make the laws.  Unfortunately, life is never perfect and right now certain people have too much input, too much power, too many invisible votes.   The #occupy people want to change that.

        Eliminating government implies that we are all fools and you should be free to do whatever you want.  I'm sorry, but we aren't going to let you do some things.  We aren't going to let you pollute, for example.  We won't let you discriminate on the basis of religion or skin color or sexual preference.  We're just not going to "stay out of your life" that much.

        It is true that sometimes well meaning people go too far.  We had an idiot liberal legislator in our State who wanted a law to force restaurants to have Sweet and Low on hand for customers.  Seriously - she proposed that.  More reasonable people voted her down, but sometimes reasonable people get carried away.

        I accept that because I believe that WE are Government.  I believe that, if anything, we need MORE national laws, not less - we have far too much duplication of effort at the State level that is both inefficient and confusing for businesses operating across State lines.

        I really don't care that YOU think you have a right to strut around your local fiefdom and make up your own rules.  You cannot, because we outnumber you and we say that there are rules you have to live by.

        Those rules will change over time.  Sometimes they'll change because we realize we made mistakes and sometimes they'll change because the world around us changes, but they WILL change.

        I know it hurts to be dragged kicking and screaming out of 1850, but we simply are not going to let you live there.

      3. yellowstone8750 profile image60
        yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What we need is like the old "benevolent dictator." More power CAN work with the right leadership. The short-lived Paris Commune?

  2. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    I'm glad us peasants are finally starting to see the reality of our situation... Our Governments hypocrisy, the powerlessness of the people, the evil tyranny of those who truly are above the law, and the lies those evil tyrants can no longer hide.

    "Spitting mad"

    My biggest fear is historically when societies have arrived at this type of event horizon, terrible, terrible things happen. I sincerely hope we can make this redistribution, this new balance through an evolution and not a revolution.

    Only time will tell.

    1. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I share your fear.

      I'll be 64 soon.  Although my retirement is going to be a bit less rosy than we planned, we are still doing far better than many and, with only a little luck, will continue to do so.

      I do NOT want bloody revolution and upset.  I do not want a civil war, riots in the streets and economic collapse.

      I WISH that those in power would wake up to reality and start making real changes so that it doesn't have to come to that.

      I just watched a video where some stock trader was predicting the collapse of the stock market ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-nEkpLnsEU ).  I don't want to think about what is likely to follow that, but he doesn't seem to care one bit.  He probably thinks that he'll escape it because he lives so high on the hog.  He would not.

      If our politicians do not act soon, real trouble could follow and none of us should want that.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The problem is the people 'in power' aren't the people we commonly think are. The Politicians are just puppets. Politicians have no real control or ability to effect change at all. If they try, they will be replaced. The true 'Kings' of the United States are the ultra-rich. They don't care if the nation falls. Thier wealth, therefore thier power is international, so it and they will survive unscathed. In fact they would become more powerful.

        Thier bodyguards and security forces would become armies and the peasants that find themselves without a country would flock to join that army and the safety they would see existing there. Sadly in the end I believe they would simply find slavery.

        If we can't identify the enemy we can't fight the enemy. People know that and know where the enemy works, that's why Wall Street is where they are. But the actual 'King' may be living and controlling our lives from anywhere in the world.

        *** In fact as your video link suggests, sitting around waiting for "the Government" to fix it is the biggest mistake 'We the People' could make. Historically if 99% of the population unifies for a common goal they are successful. The only way we (the 99%) can win is if we do it ourselves. Unfortunately the laws are all set up to protect the King (whoever that is) and law breaking is illegal and punishable under the law (with the exception of 'Illegal Immigration' of course). So that puts the 99%'ers in between the proverbial Rock and a Hard place.

        1. Pcunix profile image89
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's not entirely true.  Politicians are funded by the wealthy and many are wealthy themselves, but (at least in this country), they do have the power to effect change.

          While Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers might turn purple with rage, changes CAN be made.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We would need a Hero, because the force the 'Kings' would unleash would destroy that political leader, and not just thier career. The 'King' is playing by a different set of rules, fair-play is an oxymoron.

        2. Pcunix profile image89
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Further, your apparent attitude of futility might actually represent reality, but even if so,  I don't intend to just shut my mouth and accept it quietly.

          I believe change is possible and that it is more than a campaign slogan.  I think these Occupy movements are a positive force and I refuse to take the negative stance that nothing will change.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Don't misunderstand me. I know change has to happen. We have arrived at that point where one of two things must happen.

            1) The 'King' must be defeated.
            -or-
            2) The 'King' must accept reality and 'abdicate'.

            The only other option is a world of financial slavery. Where the 'Kings' get to do whatever they want and we hope and pray for a few scraps from thier table.

            I hope it can be done peacefully, but the Government can't/won't do it. It is up to the people, worldwide.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, the only way the "people" can do it is by blood.

              That's why I want to see politicians wake up and shake of their golden chains before it is too late.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am hopeful that 'buying power' might be used. If 99% of the people take thier money away, it might wake the 'King' up. Then again that may be what the 'king' is hoping will cause a market crash.

                With Veto power(by majority vote) the people could change the laws back to what they are suppose to be, protection for the people not protection of the 'Kings' and the 'Kings' tyranny.

                That may be our only peaceful option... if not:

                "DEAR SIR, -- I am now to acknoledge the receipt of your favors of October the 4th, 8th, & 26th. In the last you apologise for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to show civilities to all the Americans who come here, & will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, & how far I may go in my attentions to them. Can you send me Woodmason's bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la Fayette, & the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article. -- I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: & very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: & what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. -- You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers. -- The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform."

                Thomas Jefferson.

                1. Pcunix profile image89
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't want to see any blood.

                  Tyrants aren't really the problem, anyway.  We don't have groups of wealthy "Mr. Burns" characters meeting in secret to plot how they can extract the last of our blood.

                  What we have is predators who have been allowed to grow unchecked.  They aren't in collusion; they'd just as soon eat each other instead of one of us.

                  In fact, although individually they would swat you or I aside like an annoying fly, collectively they need us.  They need us to work (at least until robotics and AI can replace us) and they need us to buy their products.

                  Actually, if they WERE organized, they'd realize that they are in trouble because our ability to buy is leaking away.  But because they are just rapacious predators, they will just keep on trying to grow and never stop to think about the larger problems.

                  Politicians, however, do organize and do plot.  They CAN change things.  The problem for the GOP is that they are stuck behind their own rhetoric - even those who can see the problem would have a hard time doing anything useful because the things that need doing run contrary to the GOP sound bites.

                  I see that one Republican has broken ranks a bit - http://www.lsureveille.com/news/la-pres … qBap5wu7Ih

                  I hope there will be more, because it is the GOP that needs to provide the impetus.

                  1. Moderndayslave profile image59
                    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Either party can take this and run but they wont because they wont bite the hand that feeds them.

                  2. yellowstone8750 profile image60
                    yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Marx and Che thought a bloodless revolution was a myth.

  3. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    I hope you're right. I hope the people that were always suppose to be handling this stuff for us finally does. It is and always has been thier responsibilty.

    I am not very hopeful however. In your reply you instantly found a reason why they can't and won't be our heros.

    These "representatives" aren't heros, they are con artists, actors, pretenders. Saying what ever they must to get what they want. Power and wealth.

    Tyrants are the problem.

    You can't believe in God, I can't believe in them.

  4. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    I've written too many hubs on America that state the many different problems. At the present point in time, there's just too much ridiculous sh!t happening. I mean it's beyond the point of absurd. hmm

  5. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    It is not a question any longer if but when will the rest of the world drop the dollar as the Reserve currency?


    When that does happen.....................beware!

  6. Pcunix profile image89
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us7wliSHjVo

    Apparently, Naomi was not "arrested". She was just yanked off the sidewalk, hauled away to another precinct and THREATENED with arrest.  Somehow that isn't "arrest".  I think Thomas Jefferson might have disagreed, but there it is.

    The cops agreed that she was not breaking any law but "not-arrested" her for "safety" reasons.

    Yes, a woman in an evening gown not breaking any law is a threat to public safety.

    Further, they prevented lawyers and protesters from reaching the precinct she was taken to by saying that Homeland Security blocked the access. Whether or not they actually did, we don't know and I don't know which is worse - lying about that or actually involving them!

    This is why I support #occupy

    Do you?

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There are many things about the 99% group which I like.  It depends which person the media decides to show at the moment.  I am going to an occupy rally tomorrow to see for myself.

    2. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      By the way: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest

      "The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known. Thus, a defendant's presence at a police station by consent does not become an arrest solely by virtue of an officer's subjective view that the defendant is not free to leave, absent an act indicating an intention to take the defendant into custody."

      I'm sure that somehow a conservative can tell me why being dragged off the sidewalk against your will isn't really an "arrest".

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is unlawful detainment if it is not an arrest.  You can always ask an Officer "Am I under Arrest" if the answer is no then you are Constitutionally free to leave.

        Anything else is a Crime by the Officer.  But what is new?  They break the Laws constantly.  Anyone here that has not seen an Officer violate speed/traffic Laws or other crimes and misdemeanors?


        When I was a youth the local detectives used to rob the drug dealers not arrest them just relieve them of their product and cash.

        1. Pcunix profile image89
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Amazing that we actually agree, isn't it?  :-)

          But I'd bet dollars to donuts (well, that's about the same thing today, but you know what I mean) that there is some "gotcha" where she won't be able to sue and the officers can't be punished.

          Which means that if any random cop doesn't like me speaking my mind, he can call it a "safety issue", haul me off and then not charge me..

          1. Reality Bytes profile image93
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think the biggest threat to the safety of the American people is the Government.  Now that murder is decided by one entity acting as Judge, Juror, and Executioner all that needs to be done is have the finger pointed at you and it be said  "There is a terrorist".


            Then after you are DEAD they will say the evidence was so overwhelming there was no need for a trial!

            Tyranny, oppression the American dream?

            Terrorizing other nations, dropping bombs on civilians?  The American dream?

            It's done "we are mad as hell and we ain't gonna take it anymore"   Love that movie smile

          2. Reality Bytes profile image93
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Actually it does not surprise me in the least.  Once we separate the divisions placed upon us by Government, we will see that most of us want the same things in life.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, though we get bitter when we start talking specific actions.

              Nor will our unity last long.  For example, "Get the influence of money out of politics" is something both the Tea Party and I can agree on.

              But we all know that the reason we want to do that is so that our votes are not drowned out by money.  If we are successful in eliminating or reducing that issue, we intend to move forward on other issues, and there is where we will butt heads once again.

              But even before that, we'll likely squabble over the "how" and that may mean that nothing happens at all..  I fear that, because pressure is building and it WILL find a way out.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The founders disagreed but was still able to compromise and produce the greatest document since the magna carta.

                1. Pcunix profile image89
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, but can we?

                  Seriously - pick anything that you and I have bickered over - do you see any compromise possible? 

                  I would like to think that there are sensible people in the middle who WILL find some magic needle to balance upon, but I'm really afraid that we are just too polarized.

                  1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Health Care

                    Massachusetts has a plan in which the residents seem to be content with.

                    Would it not make sense to allow the residents of the States to decide how they can/will handle the health care problem.

                    The Federal Government can mandate that the States have to come up with a plan of their own or fall under a Central Health Care Plan.

                    At least give the States a chance.

                    School vouchers- Taxpayer money should go with the child and allow parents to choose the school.  Allowing competition in the education system can only improve it.  Right now the education system of the country is the ONLY entity that has no accountability to anyone.  If a teacher does nothing to teach a child there can be no repercussions. Even though the funding of education has risen dramatically, test scores have stayed the same for decades?  I like charter schools.

                    maybe?

        2. mikelong profile image82
          mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not much has changed..  The same things are still happening. However, skin color and assumed socio-economic background (of course) play a huge role in who the cops deem a "criminal".

    3. Moderndayslave profile image59
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      100%

  7. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Just want to post this unbelievable abuse of power:

    http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/298526_1576405266129_1715539560_860149_1488580266_n.jpg

    Look close how casually this officer sprays mace at a little girl!

    1. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Where was this?

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am not sure, i saw it on my FB feed.

    2. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I tried Google image search and strangely it seems to be mostly sex sites that have this..

      I did find http://mephitic.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/207/ which is tagged "Brazil"..

    3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's disgusting. He should be arrested and prosecuted for abusing a child.

  8. Stacie L profile image86
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    The feel of the marches are starting to look like the 60's civil rights movement..not a lot of violence yet....hopefully not

    1. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't want to see violence.

      I want to see our legislators effect significant change to put out this fire before it burns us all down.

    2. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. 
      — John F. Kennedy

  9. recommend1 profile image71
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    I applaud the protests and the peaceful way in which they are being carried out.  However, apart from some few financial and political 'donuts' I don't wee that anything significant will come from them.  And it is a shame, as the man said "change is always violent", and it has been for the last hundred years or so on every occasion, the only notable exception being the Portugese revolution as far as I am aware.

    It would behove as many people as possible to join this peaceful protest and then get behind any politician who promises to actually do something and spell out what that might be.

    I fear for you guys, the dollar is sliding, the economy is stalled and as a corporate mass you are getting poorer every hour and that 1% is still stealing you blind having robbed your pension and insurance funds, screwed you on your mortgages and now siphoned off your taxes.

    The end game is closer than it appears and all the foreign bombings and murders are now being seen for what they are.  Phone video of a bunch of thugs beating people to death, berating and beating people as they hang them just deepens the moral crisis that accompanies all this stuff, and it is not so far away that all this could be happening at home.

  10. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Christopher Hedges thinks the ptb are trying to provoke violence. Which of course they are.

    That is how the 60's got messed up. Cointelpro and co-opting.

    Watch it, that's all. Anyone inciting violence or hate speech should be vetted tuut sweet!

    1. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But the sixties did cause change.   The "dirty hippies" influenced policy and did so without having anything close to the support people have for #occupy.

      I have hope.  No doubt we'll get less than we want, but any progress is progress.

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they hate you and then they pretend it was their idea all along.

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Haha..so true!

        Yes, I have hope too....drugs won't be involved this time. The Only hope the Wall Street Brigade has is violence.

        Which, of course, is why their mouthpieces are inciting it.

 
working