Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I literally have no idea how you interpreted what I wrote there as "I got mine." Please see my example as to how the protestors could have avoided all of it simply by doing the government's monkey dance beforehand.



Nope, not even close.

I believe that change in the system should be driven by those smart enough to not require any incentive to change it other than their own moral code and the observation of the injustices within the system.


I'll put it to you this way:

If there's a tyrannical dictator...who will have the best opportunity to stop him? The poor citizens banding together to face the dictator and his armies? Or, someone from the dictator's inner circle of confidants who is close to him and knows his weaknesses?


This is just a difference of opinion. You think anyone within the system or "benefitting" from it, is not capable of seeing it as a broken system or desiring to see it changed.

I think someone who wants to enter the system for the sole purpose of changing it can be significantly more effective.

You're just a pessimist.

Because the argument that following the system is an effective means of changing it is predicated on the assumption that the system is sufficiently fair and effective to be accountable and vertically mobile.

This assumption could only be held by a very complacent individual who's "got his" because, for billions of people past and present, not only in our own culture but in countless other societies that have struggled with the same issues, that just isn't true, and the only reason to so claim is as a rationalization for one's "got mine" status in the here and now.



Fall of Qadafi. French revolution. Russian revolution. Chinese revolution. Secession of the plebs. Fall of the Wall. Arab Spring.

Point is ignorant and invalid.



It's a fact that such people are on average massively less inclined to do so.


So you're arguing that others wants and needs is a stronger compulsion than self-interest. That directly contradicts the fundamental argument behind the free market: the superior power of the profit motive.

The faulty assumption is the same that is the basis of Communism.



The current situation justifies pessimism.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

How do you ever plan on being the supreme ruler of a country (capable of appointing dukes and earls) without a love for the police which are going to be needed to squash any and all opposition? LOL, you're an idiot.


I'm sure these laws have been challenged in the higher courts before (especially on things about freedom of speech), therefore, they're most likely ruled 'legal' and not 'illegal' since the practice of pulling a permit still exists in most cities. Since you're taking issue with that, you're claiming that the act of pulling a permit is a violation of your rights, which would be both 'illegal and immoral'; however, that is the status quo so you need to accept it or change it.


Neither you or these Occupy retards are Gandhi.


The intersection of Broadway and 14th street is a place for vehicles, too... but it's ok to protest and march down Broadway or 14th street (possibly without a permit) but it's not ok to march down a highway? With this same thought, parks are places for recreation... not campsites and foodlines.

PS: All your points from hereon out are stupid and invalid. Take your ball and go home.

Justice is the ultimate guardian of order. People are content with governments that ensure their safety and well-being. Governments that can't ensure the safety and well-being of their people may endure for a time through oppression but they are doomed in the end.

Also see: Bismarck



...and that's why people are in the streets.



Oh? Did Gandhi single-handedly throw off the British or was it the shirtless hordes of angry East Indians inspired by his ideas?


Those are public places because they're urban and pedestrian. People reasonably expect to be able to walk and associate along the streets of a major city, not on a highway.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Never understood why cops get to break the law in order to enforce it. Killing people who have not been proven guilty, beating them up. And they get a slap on the wrist? Shameful, remove the cops send them to jail see how "tough" they are then.

Because as it stands, cops are the ones who get to decide when an assembly is "peaceful." As such, the first amendment is totally powerless. I really don't like being the doomsayer, but in this case, the people really are helpless.

The worst part is, none of this would stand up to scrutiny in a courtroom. The cops (or at least someone in the office giving orders) knows that, but it doesn't matter if the matter would fail a courtroom; their mission is to disperse free assembly and they can do that just fine months before any judge gets wind of it. Eturnal and USD are justifying a police state, and it's disgusting.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

That's my biggest problem with police. A huge amount of "discretion" is used for anything whether it be an arrest or tear gassing a bunch of unarmed civilians. The job attracts people of below average intelligence who crave power. So now these people who were thugs and bullies in high school are now supposed to use their below average intelligence to make a decision over whether someone should be arrested or not. I realize in a lot of cases none of what these cops do would ever hold up in court. But they can at the minimum cause a lot of time wasted, and problems. What do the people get out of it? Can you sue the cops (legitimate question I don't know), a lot of cops get off with slaps on the wrist or have to take some unpaid leave. Abusing your power as a cop should be a felony that is harshly punished. Why are those who are supposed to protect the law-abiding citizens from criminals some of the worst criminals of them all.

In other words, the law will do whatever it can to make sure its control is always unquestionable, and that it will never be the one "receiving the short end of the stick" or getting "juked", because of the fear of how catastrophic that could potentially be in the right case.

Or in other words, civilians can be assholes, too.

Skribble: 85 Paladin.

I'm lost... what law was broken when the cops were enforcing the law?

The problem with suing law enforcement is that the local department almost always joins the city in the suit, which essentially results in one unhappy citizen suing the city. Even if said citizen wins (which, granted, is easier in civil court because the standard of proof is lower, though police departments will never be cooperative when it comes to discovery so good luck even with that), his damages end up being paid for by municipal taxpayers because the city covers the costs of the police department.

The only way to get actual "justice" beyond money damages is to get the police department in criminal court. The problem at that point becomes the fact that the plaintiff in any criminal trial is always the state, rather than the aggrieved citizen. All the citizen does it bring the matter to light, and the bureaucracy handles the prosecution.




Don't see where I said a law was broken. What I said was that the status quo is despicable and that you're a shitbag for liking it.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh