Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Legal definition of battery > Aestu's definition of battery.


This isn't a point of debate, this is a fact.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Thus proving my point regarding sensationalism. While the protesters who did not force their way in (all of them except the fuckwit mentioned) were not at fault, my point stands regarding both sensationalism in the media as well as force being justified.

I was wrong in my initial assessment about the protesters however.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

You know, what that guy did was wrong, but if all it took to push things too far was one guy pulling the right switches, would it have made any difference if the one guy was this asshole or someone who was actually part of the protest(s)?

I think someone should find a way to press charges against the little fucker for inciting a riot, but that doesn't let the protesters off the hook. Self-control is (or should be) a big part of any social movement.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Protesters did not enter the building. The instigator bro did. As far as I can tell by that blog post, he was the only one to enter, in his own self-described words.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

So shoving the security guard took place outside the museum?

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

A story on it from the Daily Kos provided this screen capture to the allegedly original article (in print version). In Howley's article (which has since been removed), it says...




The problem I have with the FDL article is it makes Howley out to be the lead instigator by quoting Howley asi saying, "...they lack the nerve to confront authority." It also said, "In light of his detailed description of his activities today the fact that they clearly document the commission of the crime of trespassing on federal property, if not the intent to incite a riot there, these admissions should not be taken lightly or ignored." What the FDL article didn't mention is something Howley wrote about, "...following a planned assembly held the night before in Freedom Plaza. At that assembly, the 'Action Committee' for the protest movement organized by October2011.com suggested storming the museum in order to state their opposition to American militarism, which they perceive as a root cause of the federal defect." Another thing that irks me is how FDL said, "approximately one hundred protesters split into two factions with the smaller of the two 'rushing the doors,' the majority 'staying behind.'" Howley said they charged up the steps... that there were two groups... and that a select few made it inside. By Howley's account, it's possible that 80% of the protesters charged the building but only the "select few" made it inside... but FDL added those extra details that a 'majority' stayed behind -- we don't know either way.

Was Howley the lead instigator? Not sure... Howley said people from October2011 (who is organized partially by this guy) are the ones who suggested they rush the museum. Was Howley the only one rushing the building? Doesn't sound like it. Even from the image it shows other people being in the doorways and in the vestibule. I think FDL did a pretty good job reporting only enough information to make Howley look like the biggest asshole of the bunch when that's clearly not the case.

With all that said, I think Howley should be charged with trespassing and some other crime... but I'm not sure he's the one to be charged with 'inciting a riot' like FDL suggests.

Have the protestors figured out what their demands are yet?

The guy is complete bastard if he pulled this number, but does anyone remember where the idea originated and gained traction?

There's another reason the ends don't necessarily justify the means. Your underhandedness comes back to haunt you when your opponents adopt it.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Azelma: "I got mine".

Corporations are the only game in town. You might as well argue that complaints against any other ruling class, from feudal vassals to the Communist Party, were equally irrational.

Protestors are bad when they don't want to work, protestors are bad when they do.
Derp derp derp.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

True, I do have a job and do have part ownership of a company...but that doesn't mean I completely disagree with the protestors. I just think they have no direction and a lot of them are being naive.

Yes, corporate greed is a problem that should be addressed.
Yes, tax codes need revision to avoid the exploitation of loop holes (and huge companies like GE simply not paying taxes).
Yes, the government bailouts were retarded and greedy executives were able to stay rich because of taxpayer dollars.

However, I don't feel for some of the protestors who are simply art history majors angry that their lone career option after graduation is Chilis or Applebees. Sorry buddy, you should have known that studying impressionism for 4 years won't mean shit in the real world, and won't translate into a real job opportunity.

Corporations don't OWE people jobs. However, they do have a social responsibility that many are not meeting. Also I agree, executive pay rates are absurd.

Basically if the protestors had more direction and weren't simply like "HERR DERR YOU EXECUTIVES ARE ASSHOLES" i'd take them more seriously...they'd probably be more effective in the long run as well.

Also I think they are directing too much anger at the private sector and not enough at the public sector. It was the government who bailed people out. It was the government that removed regulations in the first place. It is the government that allows loop-holes to remain.

I'd like to point out that any executive in a large company with high revenues could slash their yearly salary, even if only by $500k or so, and make substantial hiring increases. If this were widespread enough, unemployment would go down.

I realize corporations don't owe people jobs. But if people are employed, it means less unemployment benefits paid out, more spending power by consumers, better company performance by having the means to accommodate customers (such as retail and support centers) resulting in increased customer satisfaction and repeat business. I think that would go a lot farther than buying a third yacht.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Yes, but companies will still be paying IN the same amount in unemployment taxes...so the point is moot.



Pardon me while I lol. You have a very romantic view of the average American worker. They want to get paid for as little work as possible. There's a thing called "bloat" in business. All large companies have it. Hiring more people wouldn't necessarily result in a universal improvement in customer service. In fact, it could make things even more complicated by adding levels of bureaucracy...making the organization even less efficient.



You may have something there. But by that logic, doesn't the rich asshole create jobs buy purchasing the yacht that needed to be built by people? Designed? Needs to be serviced by maids and chefs? Doesn't keeping the yacht in a marina give the marina manager and dock hands a job?

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here. The issue is clearly not black and white...but I agree in principal that too much money is centered at the top, as you say. How to redistribute it is tricky. I'd like to say tax the rich more...but that falls short because then we're counting on the government to redistribute the taxes properly...which they most certainly will not.

I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if I knew it was all going to help the poor. But let's be honest with ourselves...it will most likely end up going to fund an Israeli scud missile to destroy some Palestinians.

So what, you think everyone in this country can or should be a high-paid white collar professional?

There were once an abundance of working-class jobs in this country. Corporations made the choice to change that.



One and the same. The system exists to serve man.



I think that qualified as corporate asshole behavior. It was corporations that asked them to do that. They are the driving force.



That's human nature. Applies to the leadership too.



This is pure propaganda.



Marie Antoinette.



EBT and similar systems exist because corporations are actively opposed to an effective role for government.

Corporations are terrified that government should try to force them to change, to become more competitive, or to even gain some sort of legitimacy by constructively dealing with people's problems.

This is why they try so hard to demonize the USPS. Because nothing is more offensive to them than government working.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Certainly I don't. Which is why those art history majors need to quit bitching and accept their lot in life. Someone has to work at Applebees, and if they don't, then some Mexican will and will probably do it for less.

I just think those people shouldn't complain about not having white collar, highly paid jobs, when they didn't bother to go after them by getting a law degree, or learning how to code, or by trying their hand at being entrepreneurial, or going to business school, or becoming an engineer, or any of the other thousands of things they could have done to avoid being a waiter.



I think a global economy changed that actually. If someone will do the same job for less and not demand every benefit they can possibly get, can you fault the corporations (whose main goal is to increase profits for shareholders) for hiring them?

Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, the times change...we became a service based economy. We can't go back. You either adapt or you don't. If you don't adapt, or won't adapt, then I can't say I feel sorry for you.



Wrong. For-Profit organizations exist solely serve to increase their value for shareholders. That's it. I personally feel that with that, however, shareholders and executives should have a social conscience. The fault was with individuals, not corporations themselves...they exist because the government allows them to...and they act within the confines that they are allowed to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

The fault lies with the asshole executives and the enabling government.



Who has more culpability, the person who asks or the person who gives? The government didn't have to authorize the bailout...they could have let them fail, which they should have done. I fail to see how it is the corporations fault for doing anything they could to survive. Did you expect all the executives and shareholders to simply say "oh, well, we're fucked.....ce'st la vie!"? No. It was the government's responsibility to be the parent and let them fail. The government didn't though...so here we stand.

Yes, the corporations created the mess. Yes corporate greed was the impetus. It was up to the government to let them implode...but they got cold feet "too big to fail."



No...it's called "what happens in growing organizations." Adding employees doesn't = added value 100% of the time...and in fact it can take away value. Ask any businessman ever. Hey test it out if you want. Start your own business (taking all the risk of course), and just start hiring people because it's "the right thing to do" or whatever and let me know how that works out for you.



You are mixing corporations and people (Understandable given the problem that is corporate personhood). That said, the government is terrible at enforcing change or competitiveness in corporations.

Think of how the government allows Clear Channel Communications to exist. Again, you are blaming the problems of corporate America on everyone but the government. Really, the government is equally culpable. They made the rules of the game and have the nerve to blame corporations for exploiting them.

Here's a WoW example for you. Blizzard rages when people use exploits to defeat boss encounters or get achievements (even going so far as to ban people). Is it the player's fault that Blizzard's mistakes led to exploitable flaws in the system that they didn't anticipate? Nope. It's Blizzard's fault for not finding and eliminating those flaws in the first place. Sure, it's pretty cheap for a player to exploit...but it wouldn't be an issue if the exploit didn't exist - can't blame human nature.