Police turn violent in wall street protests

RakuraiTenjin said:
It's not a 'chosen fall guy.' The person criminally responsible is the person who executed the criminal action. If my company tells me to drive the company car and run over 10 people on the sidewalk, and I do it, then I am criminally responsible for doing so. It's not 'being a fall guy.'
Click to expand...

So you think Tony Hayward is the one responsible for the BP oil spill, and not just a fallguy?
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
It's not a 'chosen fall guy.' The person criminally responsible is the person who executed the criminal action. If my company tells me to drive the company car and run over 10 people on the sidewalk, and I do it, then I am criminally responsible for doing so. It's not 'being a fall guy.'

Criminal issues are far different from civil. In a civil matter, solely the company is liable for damages.
Click to expand...

In this example, everyone up the ladder from the guy in question is criminally responsible. They provide instructions, the car, and pressure to get a subordinate to do this, that would be a conspiracy

But aside from that pretty stupid example, BP as an organization is responsible. It is a lot more like the mafia, it doesnt matter whos in charge or whether they are genuinely psychotic or a stand up guy, if they do not play the game they wont be the boss for very long. This makes their effect on society disastrous regardless. 86ing whoever-the-**** wont do a damn bit of good as there will always be someone to take their place
 
Krynn72 said:
So you think Tony Hayward is the one responsible for the BP oil spill, and not just a fallguy?
Click to expand...

I was just going to bring up the oil spill as an example of a fall guy.
 
Krynn72 said:
So you think Tony Hayward is the one responsible for the BP oil spill, and not just a fallguy?
Click to expand...
This was an example of failure of the criminal justice system. Authorities have a responsibility to investigate and hold those guilty accountable. Those who were responsible on site for negligent repair. Allegations of smoking meth with government auditors and ignoring problems- those gvt. overseers and the BP reps who were with them are liable. Anyone who had a hand in using their position to cover something up is responsible. I dont see how this is so hard to understand- thsoe who had a hand in it are criminally responsible. If theyre not prosecuted, the problem lies with the criminal justice system for failing to do so.

And GreatEmporer- you're right. Those who ordered it would also be responsible. The guy who ordered it/provided the means to do so, and the guy who actually DID it.


No Limit - "You say there is no problem with corporations being designed only to make a profit no matter how much harm they do to everyone around them."

I'm sorry but I do not recall saying this, nor do I see ANYWHERE where I posted this. I said there's nothing wrong with them existing to make a profit for shareholders. If they infringe upon another person's rights then they are criminally responsible. For example- If I have a painting business and dump all my unused paint onto my neighbors driveway, then I am responsible for it- I have infringed upon his property rights and possibly harmed his health.
 
How ironic. So you think the problem with what happened with BP is that the government, run by politicians, didn't go after them. Yet at the same time you blieve that any corporation, such as BP, can spend as much money as they want influancing those very politicians. You really don't see anything wrong with your line of thinking here?

I'm sorry but I do not recall saying this, nor do I see ANYWHERE where I posted this. I said there's nothing wrong with them existing to make a profit for shareholders. If they infringe upon another person's rights then they are criminally responsible. For example- If I have a painting business and dump all my unused paint onto my neighbors driveway, then I am responsible for it- I have infringed upon his property rights and possibly harmed his health.
Click to expand...

But if they decide they want to pay people $1 /hr, hire children, force people to work 70 hour work weeks, polute the air, don't follow proper safety when dealing with our food and drugs, and things of that nature you wouldn't see any problem with that? Or am I mistaken?
 
Look at these unemployed hippies:

6189448489_807e583563_b.jpg


http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/220...inental-merger-pilots-wall-street-protest.htm
 
No Limit said:
How ironic. So you think the problem with what happened with BP is that the government, run by politicians, didn't go after them. Yet at the same time you blieve that any corporation, such as BP, can spend as much money as they want influancing those very politicians. You really don't see anything wrong with your line of thinking here?
Click to expand...
They can influence them on energy policy and such all they want, it's just lobbying. The criminal justice system and laws regarding negligence, OSHA, etc are all currently in place and those aren't changed often. OSHA and police agencies failing to prosecute for negligence is a problem with them. It doesn't mean companies' and groups' rights to free speech should be ripped away.


No Limit said:
But if they decide they want to pay people $1 /hr, hire children, force people to work 70 hour work weeks, polute the air, don't follow proper safety when dealing with our food and drugs, and things of that nature you wouldn't see any problem with that? Or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...
Wow man, you really destroyed that straw man! Nice one! Child labor laws and safety laws prevent this, and I've never said anything against those. I do feel that government agencies like the FDA need downsizing, reform, and restructure, but never have I said that we should have complete anarchy. You're arguing against things that nobody is advocating.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
They can influence them on energy policy and such all they want, it's just lobbying. The criminal justice system and laws regarding negligence, OSHA, etc are all currently in place and those aren't changed often. OSHA and police agencies failing to prosecute for negligence is a problem with them. It doesn't mean companies' and groups' rights to free speech should be ripped away.
Click to expand...
Again, you said everyone has an equal voice in a democracy. How many individuals do you know that spending millions of dollars a year on lobbyists?

Wow man, you really destroyed that straw man! Nice one! Child labor laws and safety laws prevent this, and I've never said anything against those. I do feel that government agencies like the FDA need downsizing, reform, and restructure, but never have I said that we should have complete anarchy. You're arguing against things that nobody is advocating.
Click to expand...

Why do you think those regulations are good and don't violate corporation's constitutional rights while limits on campaign contributions and influance in elections do?
 
No Limit said:
Again, you said everyone has an equal voice in a democracy. How many individuals do you know that spending millions of dollars a year on lobbyists?
Click to expand...
If they built up that much wealth they could decide to spend it that way if they chose to do so. Are you saying people or companies should be restricted from using their money how they see fit?



No Limit said:
Why do you think those regulations are good and don't violate corporation's constitutional rights while limits on campaign contributions and influance in elections do?
Click to expand...
I think the FDA itself is arguably unconstitutional in many of the things it does today. It's only constitutional if they solely regulate interstate food trade (food / drugs exported from one state to another) via the commerce clause. Anything solely within a state is the state's responsibility to legislate (or not legislate)
 
If they built up that much wealth they could decide to spend it that way if they chose to do so. Are you saying people or companies should be restricted from using their money how they see fit?
Click to expand...
When it comes to buying politicians that's exactly what I'm saying.

How much influence do you think that money ends up buying them? And do you think the top 1% should have more influence in our democracy than the bottom 99%?

I think the FDA itself is arguably unconstitutional in many of the things it does today. It's only constitutional if they solely regulate interstate food trade (food / drugs exported from one state to another) via the commerce clause. Anything solely within a state is the state's responsibility to legislate (or not legislate)
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. You said you are okay with regulations that protect our food, protect from child labor, protect worker rights, etc. All these in some way you could argue violate freedoms. At the same time the argument you made for corporate influance over elections is that to restrict it would be to violate their freedoms.

Why are you for taking away freedoms in one area while not okay with taking them away in another area?
 
No Limit said:
When it comes to buying politicians that's exactly what I'm saying.

How much influence do you think that money ends up buying them? And do you think the top 1% should have more influence in our democracy than the bottom 99%?
Click to expand...
Everyone should have the opportunity to exert equal influence/have equal money / have equal this and that. Land of equal opportunity, not land of making everything equal. Everybody has the right to do the same with their voice, vote, and money.



No Limit said:
You didn't answer my question. You said you are okay with regulations that protect our food, protect from child labor, protect worker rights, etc. All these in some way you could argue violate freedoms. At the same time the argument you made for corporate influance over elections is that to restrict it would be to violate their freedoms.

Why are you for taking away freedoms in one area while not okay with taking them away in another area?
Click to expand...
Like I said it boils down (for me) to what is constitutional and what is not. The constitution does not authorize monetary restrictions on these companies, unless somehow it is relating to interstate trade via the commerce clause (and that itself has been abused by the federal government, stretching that clause to the ultimate max)
 
Everyone should have the opportunity to exert equal influence/have equal money / have equal this and that. Land of equal opportunity, not land of making everything equal. Everybody has the right to do the same with their voice, vote, and money.
Click to expand...
Even if that means the top 1% end up controlling 99% of the population?

Like I said it boils down (for me) to what is constitutional and what is not. The constitution does not authorize monetary restrictions on these companies, unless somehow it is relating to interstate trade via the commerce clause (and that itself has been abused by the federal government, stretching that clause to the ultimate max)
Click to expand...

Where does the constitution say your food must be protected, that children can't work, that you have a right to a certain wage, overtime, and you don't have the right to burn any nasty chemical on your property that you wish?
 
No Limit said:
Even if that means the top 1% end up controlling 99% of the population?
Click to expand...
Nobody can 'control' anybody else, unless constitional law is being broken. If you mean "1% can have more stuff than 99% of others" - yes that can happen. It can change at any moment, as well.



No Limit said:
Where does the constitution say your food must be protected, that children can't work, that you have a right to a certain wage, overtime, and you don't have the right to burn any nasty chemical on your property that you wish?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, which is why I was addressing the constitutionality of agencies such as the FDA. They only really are (constitutionally) supposed to regulate interstate commerce. It's the state governments' responsibilities to regulate the issues when they are confined just to their state.
 
unozero said:
So you think there is nothing between looking a homeless person with dirty hair and noserings and people dressed in suit and tie?
whatevs.
Click to expand...

Unozero is right though guys. if a person has dirty hair and noserings then he is a bum.

Just as how Unozero posts idiotic things and says stupid stuff, that means he is stupid.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Nobody can 'control' anybody else, unless constitional law is being broken.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Plus do you seriously not see the inherent flaw in "Everyone should have the opportunity to exert equal influence/have equal money / have equal this and that" while still allowing corporations (IE: the owners) to pool massive amounts of money in order to influence politicians and voters into doing what those corporations (owners) want?
 
Krynn72 said:
Bullshit. Plus do you seriously not see the inherent flaw in "Everyone should have the opportunity to exert equal influence/have equal money / have equal this and that" while still allowing corporations (IE: the owners) to pool massive amounts of money in order to influence politicians and voters into doing what those corporations (owners) want?
Click to expand...
That's all well and fine, so long as what they're voting for does not violate the Constitution.
 
Based on your line of reasoning, you must believe that the Constitution is absolutely perfect in every conceivable way, and that is something that has never been and will never be true.
 
Shyam said:
Unozero is right though guys. if a person has dirty hair and noserings then he is a bum.

Just as how Unozero posts idiotic things and says stupid stuff, that means he is stupid.
Click to expand...

**** off kiwi
 
Krynn72 said:
How about circumventing the intentions of the Constitution?
Click to expand...
The Constitution is clear and fairly precise. If they want to 'circumvent' it they'd need to pass an amendment (difficult) or just blatantly violate it (which has happened lately in the past decades from both right and left administrations/legislatures, court backed unfortunately)
 
Implying the only possible circumventions of the Constitution are blatant. You do realise conspiracies are a real thing that actually exist, right?
 
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen.
 
argos87 said:
Lurked for a long time until the offtopic was made unavailable. :/ Finally got tired of the other sections and made an account to post in OT.


Besides that, I don't think it takes more than a day to see how dumb someone like Unozero is.
Click to expand...

I like this guy. He has balls.
I like balls.
 
unozero isnt necessarily dumb (although he tries real hard) he's just very immature and views life through a rigid conservative albeit unrealistic filter. probably because he's young and hasnt had to fend for himself in any meaningful way
 
Stigmata said:
Implying the only possible circumventions of the Constitution are blatant. You do realise conspiracies are a real thing that actually exist, right?
Click to expand...
And? For them to actually do anything they have to pass legislation or take administrative action. That's when the violation becomes blatant. A conspiracy is only just that until some actual action is taken.
 
is like the same ocupations in spain,where they made some exagerated demands,but have to make them more realistically later
 
Good point, I'll have to think that one over and get back to you.
 
What does Wall Street have to do with healthcare, pension or salaries anyway?

And unzero, please read something about hippies.
 
unozero said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN662sMXY5M&feature=channel_video_title


99% my ass.
**** everyone of those parasites one on that shitty tumblr page.

"I'm 21 and pregant and no job"
buhuhu lol
Click to expand...

ya especially the veteran. what a useless piece of shit. what's he complaining about with $11 an hour he can easily afford a house(boat) on the beach and dine on whiskas every night (instead of that dry cat food)

you've never worked a day in your life have you unozero? mommy and daddy pay for it all?
 
**** you stern I make $1200 and $700 of that is rent.
 
Wow, after food and expenses that only leaves you a pittance for high class suits. Harsh. :(
 
this guy is not going to give a good image of the protesters



anyway has someone found red flags whit image of che or chavez yet? or signpost praising gadaffi?
 
Bad^Hat said:
Wow, after food and expenses that only leaves you a pittance for high class suits. Harsh. :(
Click to expand...

He probably wears Polo Ralph Lauren suits, the homeless hippie. If you don't get your daily suits from William Fioravanti you don't even deserve the right to vote.
 
Sorry it took me a while to respond.

RakuraiTenjin said:
Nobody can 'control' anybody else, unless constitional law is being broken. If you mean "1% can have more stuff than 99% of others" - yes that can happen. It can change at any moment, as well.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with having more stuff as in personal belongings. It has to do with legally being able to buy politicians. The top 1% has the type of control over our political system that the bottom 99% does not and cannot. The reason is that politicians get elected based on how much money they can generate. Therefore when the top 1% controls most of the money in our economy they are the ones that will have their needs heard, nobody else.

Are you okay with that?

It doesn't, which is why I was addressing the constitutionality of agencies such as the FDA. They only really are (constitutionally) supposed to regulate interstate commerce. It's the state governments' responsibilities to regulate the issues when they are confined just to their state.
Click to expand...

So where does the constitution say that you can spend your money as you wish? Where does the constitution say that corporations are individuals? Where does the constitution say that money is speech?

If you have such a hardon for the constitution the constitution does say that the federal government has the right to tax individuals and corporations in anyway that it wishes to. So would you be okay with a 99% income tax on any individual or corporation that gives more than $100 to a political candidate or political organization?

unozero said:
**** you stern I make $1200 and $700 of that is rent.
Click to expand...

You make $1,200 a month? That means one of two things. You don't work full time (aka you're lazy according to your logic) or you work a low wage job (aka you work at McDonald's according to your logic). Which is it?

Also, don't you live with your parents?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top