Do You Support The "Occupy"Protests?

Do you support the global "Occupy" protests?

  • Total voters
    234
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
researchkitty said:
We already somewhat do, think of the United Nations having global law power and each individual "country" retaining something like a states power so their local issues could be resolved. But, why would someone have a LAW for a local issue? It should either be illegal, or not. Not in certain areas or circumstances (like California for pot versus Florida for pot).

If it was a one world community, there wouldnt exactly be taxes, or wages, either. One world means everyone works for the good of the world.

You know, Star Trek? Same thing. Captain Kirk didnt get paid, it was his community contribution.

In a form like this, the 99% become the 100%.
Click to expand...
Where to start????

Ok, this form of government has been tried numerous times throughout history and failed, usually miserably and violently. Part of the problem is with human nature itself. While 99% (or whatever percentage you want to use) may work toward the greater good, there will always be a select few who will want to reap all the benefits without putting forth their fair share. As others see this sort of thing happening, it creates resentment, and people will ask "Why is that person able to get away with it and I am not?" Before long the system collapses because it doesn't reward productivity and innovation. People will do the bare minumum to get by and others will try to do absolutely nothing. We see this already with welfare fraud and abuse.

As for the U.N.? They are a joke. Nothing they do is binding and THANK FUCK IT ISN'T! A central government that is too powerful would simply pave the way for a sociopath like Hitler to waltz right in and sieze power. The reason why we have layers of government is to spread that power around a little so no one branch of government becomes too powerful. It also gives people a choice, ie; if you don't like the laws in one particular locale, you could move to one that was more suited to your liking. We are all different and have different wants and needs. The local governments are needed since they are closer to what is actually going on in a given area and can act in the best interest of THEIR communities. I'm being a bit simplistic for the sake of brevity, but you get the picture.

Don't get me wrong, I think communism/socialism sounds great on paper, and what a wonderful world it would be if EVERYONE actually did their share and acted in the best interest of the species or the planet. It's simply not possible, IMO, to change the world in this manner. Change has to begin with the individual and the individual, for the most part, has to see an immediate benefit in order for him/her to get on board. We still have a long way to go though.:peace:
 
T

tomcatjones

Active Member
mccumcumber said:
What's going on in other countries is no where near the scale as what's going on here. It will get there eventually, but there is still time. Hence the word eventual.
Click to expand...
actually i think more people show up for politicial reasons EVERYWHERE ELSE but here... this is why the problem has been going on for long.

and yeah, it was in 600 cities globally as of the first week. 1500 by the first global day of action.
 
dukeanthony

dukeanthony

New Member
doc111 said:
Evidently they didn't like how that one turned out so they are having a "do over".:-P
Click to expand...
Yeah the Muslim Brotherhood wants to install their idea of a Utopia

Unfortunatly for the Christains that Live there (for now) that doesnt work out so well
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
If they stopped issuing permits, eventually they will have no choice but to stay there permit less. OR go somewhere else.

I don't think you understand that when they break up a camp, some of those people leave together, to make plans. While some have no where else to go at all.
Click to expand...
and they had somewhere to go to begin with? :?
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Get a load of this shit;

[youtube]zE2Nxjv6gwM&sns=em[/youtube]

Skip to 3:12
Click to expand...
lol @ "Food Product"!!!! :clap:

It definitely looks bad, and I agree it was probably over the line, but I don't really see O'Reilly or Megyn Kelly saying "It's no big deal". What I thought I heard them doing was debating whether it was a lawful use of force or police brutality, and while I'm not a fan of the police, they brought up some valid points. If the students were given a lawful order to disperse and did not do so, the police have the authority to use "reasonable force" to make them comply. The question which has yet to be answered is "Was it a reasonable use of force?" We also have to consider context. What happened before the video started rolling, what did it not catch, and what may have happened after? I'm not defending what the police did, it's reprehensible, but I think it only fair to properly characterize the story and not misrepresent what was being said.bongsmilie

BTW, have a Happy Thanksgiving! ;-)
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
How do you think Kelly and O'Reilly's tone would have been had the exact same thing happened at a tea party rally?
Click to expand...
I have no clue, nor do I give 2 shits. We are all, as human beings, likely to be more sympathetic to groups that share our own values or beliefs. It's just how we're wired bro. It doesn't make it right, it just is what it is.:-|
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top