Talk On Cell Phone? = GO TO JAIL AND GET FACE BEAT IN

reply to post by wcitizen


Yes, I agree with that.

Hence, why privatization or nationalization just leads to the same injustice... It is a problem inherent to capitalism.

reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher

Yes, and if you think about the meaning of the word 'terrorism' - it signifies actions that have as their goal to instill terror in a person or people.

So, now, where is most terrorism occurring and who is doing it? It's not abroad, it's in the local neighbourhoods and streets by insurgent agents who are attacking the people.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum

I would go further and say it's a problem of totalitarianism. If there was 'real' democracy, capitalist or otherwise, the people would be able to control over the government. That isn't the case with totalitarianism, which invariably degenerates into thugism, and it isn't the case in US any more.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Yes, I agree with that.

Hence, why privatization or nationalization just leads to the same injustice... It is a problem inherent to capitalism.

Saying that capitalism leads to injustice is no different than saying allowing people to peacefully trade their property with each other leads to injustice.

I find it is a common misconception that people think we have free markets in this country.

Of course, we don't.

Thus the assumption that free markets lead to our current state of affairs is a fallacy.

It is impossible to have free markets when you have a federal reserve system, fiat currency laws, and a government that is responsible for 40% of all spending done annually.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by wcitizen


But people do have control of this government. Corporations are "people".

Something for the socialists to consider:

If the government has become more and more responsible for the amount of spending in this country over the years - yet the disparity of wealth between the upper and lower class has grown more and more over the years, how is it logical to conclude that more government will equalize this disparity?

Consider that government is responsible for 40% of all spending in this nation.

Since the top 1% of all wealth is held by a handful of individuals, it stands to reason that government must be handing all that money they are spending to that top 1%.

Thus we can say government is responsible for the wealth disparity - not the markets.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Yes, I agree with that.

Hence, why privatization or nationalization just leads to the same injustice... It is a problem inherent to capitalism.

Saying that capitalism leads to injustice is no different than saying allowing people to peacefully trade their property with each other leads to injustice.

I find it is a common misconception that people think we have free markets in this country.

Of course, we don't.

Thus the assumption that free markets lead to our current state of affairs is a fallacy.

It is impossible to have free markets when you have a federal reserve system, fiat currency laws, and a government that is responsible for 40% of all spending done annually.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Who would assume that free markets lead to this? That is crazy!

Nice strawman, btw.

No, the issues we have today stems from the very fact that economies propped up by the abuse and enslavement of indigenous peoples via colonialism created the need for "constant growth" otherwise markets stagnate and voila, we have what we see today.

This recession is about redistribution of wealth and we have deregulation to thank for it.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Something for the socialists to consider:

If the government has become more and more responsible for the amount of spending in this country over the years - yet the disparity of wealth between the upper and lower class has grown more and more over the years, how is it logical to conclude that more government will equalize this disparity?

I don't make that argument either since I am an Anarchist.

Originally posted by Slippery Jim
The point is that you do not know what the citizen was saying.

Are you people out of your FLIPPING MINDS? Please point me to the LAW that says it is illegal to TALK TO A POLICE OFFICER.

Did you forget your inalienable right to freedom of speech outlined in the first amendment of the Constitution?

He was talking to his father, a sheriff.
I bet they wouldn't have assaulted him if they knew that.

If something like that had happened in my community, my people(Mohawk) would be storming the police station the next day demanding answers. Many years ago we had a violent police force. The traditional people got together one day, went to the police station and took their guns away from them. The New York State Police stood by and watched. Later, many of the people that participated in dis-arming the police were charged with federal conspiracy charges. Today, our police department knows better.

As offended as I am by the criminal activity in the video, I am more offended by individuals that believe speech can justify physical harm. Especially when such an act happens in a Country that touts itself as having "free speech".

I have news for some of you, "All are equal under the law". This includes "law enforcement". In no form is it lawful to inflict bodily harm on an individual because you don't like the words coming out of their mouth.

Shame on some of you for serving as apologist for blatantly heinous criminal activity.

Not only are you clearly opposed to free speech but you are also opposed to due process and clearly support cruel and unusual punishment. Are their any human rights that you do value?

[edit on 19-8-2010 by harvib]

I don't see the problem mnemeth, they beat him, and he sued. Isn't that the way you want all laws to work? Someone does something to harm you and so you sue them. That's all that should happen in your world right? You kill someone, so the victims families only has the option of suing you.

So in your anarchist world this is perfectly acceptable behavior. It's the world you want to live in mnemeth, why aren't you supporting this? I would think you would be happy, it's your ideal societal construct at work.

[edit on 8/19/2010 by whatukno]

Ya thats Bull, that cop should be fired -

The guy was probably on the phone discussing the arrest of the other fellow...

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Something for the socialists to consider:

If the government has become more and more responsible for the amount of spending in this country over the years - yet the disparity of wealth between the upper and lower class has grown more and more over the years, how is it logical to conclude that more government will equalize this disparity?

Consider that government is responsible for 40% of all spending in this nation.

Since the top 1% of all wealth is held by a handful of individuals, it stands to reason that government must be handing all that money they are spending to that top 1%.

Thus we can say government is responsible for the wealth disparity - not the markets.

Well, this disparity has also followed the era of tickle down theory being interjected into
government. Mixing some small portions of free market ideology, for example; the tax rates - which use to be 90% (upper 1%) during Eisenhower's time. This trend, which is in line with your thinking more than mine has increased more and more over time, the upper 1% keeps getting wealthier. The idea that this money will be invested in new jobs
is NOT taking hold here as theory prescribes.

I wanted to see how this looks

politics.gather.com...

You might notice the tax rates appear to be lowest when we are in deep crap as a nation... One might say the effect is opposite, which I may be too stupid to comprehend , fair enough. However this drive to put taxes on the floor keeps getting ramped up
and things are not improving. The Wealthy have a lighter burden then before, therefore they accumulate more money and that makes sense to me, however you state that the
obvious cause and effect is not related, that does not make sense.

1923
President Warren Harding dies in office. Calvin Coolidge, becomes president. Coolidge is no less committed to laissez-faire and a non-interventionist government.
Supreme Court nullifies minimum wage for women in District of Columbia.
1924
The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation to the rest of the economy.
1925
The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in the eight decades since World War I.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by purplemonkeydishwasher
People are more concerned about 'terrorism' abroad than police brutality, which is on their front door step. Talk about denial.

Well. Uhh. Gee! let's see here.... that would be DOMESTIC TERRORISM!? *scratches head*

Nah, don't believe it! Besides this is not what watching '24' learned me!

Maybe its just 'collateral damage' for keeping us free and safe from..... ourselves?

I hope I haven't broken a law by saying such a thing. Did I need a permit for that?

[edit on 20-8-2010 by AntiShyster]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher

 

Didnt you know that police brutality at home helps fight terrorism abroad?

That's funny stuff m'man... that should be added to the Orwellian newspeak mantra: 'War is Peace', 'Ignorance is Strength', 'Beatings are Fun"

What is proper Cop Locker Room deportment towards the winner of the 'Beatdown of the Month' contest?

[edit on 20-8-2010 by AntiShyster]

not sure if it was said already, but the "PHONE THUG" is the son of a 22 yr pueblo sheriffs deputy. he was talking to his dad on the phone when it happened.

bad business......ouch!



guess i'll hang the phone up when in the presence of the law....


parody above...

reply to post by Slippery Jim


Don't be ridiculous man!

EVEN if the victim was saying outrageous things on the phone, then he should have been charged with abusive language, threatening behaviour, threats to kill, conspiracy to commit crime or whatever else would fit.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT HAPPENED.

No legal excuse at any rate, the copper should not only be fired, but should also be brought up on charges of grievous bodily harm, or even attempted murder.

If the DA won't go for it, if i were the victim, i'd go for a private prosecution.

There is NEVER an excuse to treat people this way, in these circumstances, regardless of whatever he said or didn't say on the phone.

Blimey, where did you get your knowledge of the law? History books on the policing methods of the third Reich?!

What the cop did was and is illegal, despite the kind of society you may personally desire.

Originally posted by Xiamara
I'm going to say there is no audio so for all we know the man on the phone could be verbally assaulting the cop.

Alright, first after watching the video my jaw is on the floor. I thought the video was about the guy on the ground and when he grabs the head of the person on the phone on the sidewalk and slams him to the pavement I'm just thinking "What??? Seriously???".

Look up verbal assault -- there has to be an overt action - words are not enough. Despite that - I thought there were supposed to be rules for how to do this - the police officer is supposed to give verbal orders and explain the reason for the arrest as he clearly didn't give reason to suspect a violent reaction. Can you imagine what it would be like to have an unpaid parking ticket warrant and the police officer come to your door knock and when you answer he immediately choke holds you to the ground for "resisting arrest". I see no difference here.