Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 21, 2014

An Occupy Wall Street protester who became a cause celebre for activists after she was charged with assaulting a police officer was sentenced Monday to 90 days in jail, with a judge saying a protest is no excuse for an attack. Cindy McMillan's case became a rallying point for Occupiers, and members of the once-jailed Russian punk group Pussy Riot have visited her behind bars. Director Spike Jonze, Sonic Youth bassist Kim Gordon, some City Council members and even several of the jurors who convicted her wrote to the court asking for leniency. More than 171,000 people have signed an online petition. McMillan's supporters overflowed the courtroom Monday, singing "We Shall Not Be Moved," a folk song recorded by Pete Seeger and long a protest staple, as they filed out afterward. More than 30 court officers lined the courtroom as well, an unusual show of crowd control that came after some spectators shouted "Shame!" when she was convicted.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

justanoversight

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

an unusual show of crowd control that came after some spectators shouted "Shame!" when she was convicted.

I don't know why, but whenever I hear protestors yelling that it automatically makes me not care about what they're protesting.

There's just something lame, cliche....I can't quite put my finger on it but it bugs the hell out of me.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-20 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Come to the dark side, JPW....

#4 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-21 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

She's being supported because people believe that the cop was groping her when she hit him.

Why would anyone bother pretending that isn't the issue? Basically going out of your way to look like an idiot....

#5 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-21 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Why? Because it doesn't fit their meme.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-21 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

^Total load of crap. She was convicted of assaulting a police officer and the libs still support her. That is the real shame.

#7 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-05-21 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Troll headline removed.

She got support because of overzealous, excessive prosecution and a cop who couldn't even testify accurately about which of his eyes got hit with her elbow.

A cop getting a minor boo-boo in the chaos of corralling protesters should not be a major felony prosecution. I'm glad she got just 90 days.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-21 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

And the fact that people still identify themselves with the bankster criminals and their paid whores in the u.s. justice system; as opposed to the people protesting their misdeeds, is the reason that no real change can occur.

That is why people hate the occupy movement. It exposes the corruption of the sheeple.

#9 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-21 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Bundy's Army pointed loaded weapons at law enforcement officers but no charges filed? One major news network tried to turn them into heros.
We all watched as law enforcment officers used massive amounts of pepper spray on OWS protesters.
We read of police brutality up to and including murder virtually every day.

Why am I not outraged at this lady for protecting herself?

My experience, the cops did what she claims they did.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-21 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

^Total load of crap. She was convicted of assaulting a police officer and the libs still support her. That is the real shame.

#7 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-05-21 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

How is it a total load of crap? You don't get to assign motives to other people. Alot of her supporters believe her claim that she was assaulted. That remains true regardless of your delusional position that it is untrue because you say so.

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-21 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"My experience, the cops did what she claims they did."

Have you been molested by cops?

Is that why the call them "cops?" Because they're all trying to cop a feel?

I'm not a cop, but I don't think groping a chick during the process of arresting her would be high on my "to-do" list.

OWS protesters already had a tainted reputation, particularly with any organzation that threatened their freedom of movement. Like cops. Even if she was groped, trying to convince a jury of that would have been difficult.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

The good news is that she is something of a celebrity now. She can do the speaking tour and make lots of money. Join the 1% while still maintaining her radical leftist street cred.

Mission accomplished!

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

OWS protesters already had a tainted reputation, particularly with any organzation that threatened their freedom of movement. Like cops. Even if she was groped, trying to convince a jury of that would have been difficult.

---------

Garbage. The truth was that they were a real legitimate protest. The first one in decades. That was why they were brutally crushed by the pigs. The fact that people don't want to look at it that way is because then they would have to admit that they themselves sold out. People can't stand their own hypocrisy. One way or another real dissent will be demonized because the sheeple don't want to admit that their stand was legitimate, and that the sheeple are the frauds.

#14 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-21 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"The truth was that they were a real legitimate protest."

They may have been a legitimate protest, but how they chose to execute that protest is what trahsed their reputation. In fact what they did was reinforced a stereotype that millions of Americans already had-that the protesters were little more than a buch of self-centered, partying slackers who really didn't care about anyone other than themselves.

There were lots of people who were critical of the TARP bailout and giving taxpayer ddollars to prop up failing financial organizations. But they didn't choose to express that displeasure by -------- on cop cars, or doing drugs in public places, or burning ----, or otherwise being disruptive. Particularly to those who really don't give a ---- about the OWS message. And it's their right not to give a ----. The protesters have the right to speak, but everyone else has the right to ignore them.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

"...because the sheeple don't want to admit that their stand was legitimate, and that the sheeple are the frauds."

Who are the "sheeple" again?

Are they the ones who weren't -------- on cars or drum circling in Zucotti Park?

What about the trust fund kid who was protesting trust fund kids? Where does he fall? My guess would be right in line with the rest of the protesters, the vast majority of whom were drawn from upper class, White America.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

We read of police brutality up to and including murder virtually every day.

Why am I not outraged at this lady for protecting herself?

My experience, the cops did what she claims they did.

#10 | Posted by Danni

So we should just assault cops whenever we please? Typical lefty moral relativism. Sad and disturbing.

#17 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-05-21 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

I saw a video that supposedly showed her being "groped" and it wasn' high quality but, it appeared she was being removed from the area where she was protesting. If you are being removed from a area you aren't supposed to be and you're flailing around the cop is probably going to touch your ----- ladies.

#18 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-21 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The right to protest often depends on your point of view, if it is shared by the police you'll be fine, if not, not so much.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-21 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Keeping defending the assault of a police officer, Danni. Sounds really good for your position.

#20 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-05-21 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with OWS was they were taking up in a park that they had no right to occupy. You can't take a dump on a police car. You also have no right to rape women. I don't disagree with their cause in that Obama should have prosecuted some bankers just the way the went about it protesting the fact that he didn't. They should have gone to the WH where there is a public common area for just such a thing.

#21 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-21 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

There was no assault on a police officer, just the police officer assaulting the female protester, with pictures to prove it. To address this problem the Judge refused to permit the defense let the jury see those pictures. A common practice when orders come form on high to make sure thee is a conviction. After all what is more important than stopping peaceful OWS protests.

#22 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-05-21 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

So we should just assault cops whenever we please? Typical lefty moral relativism. Sad and disturbing.

#17 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-05-21 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Keeping defending the assault of a police officer, Danni. Sounds really good for your position.

#20 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-05-21 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

These aren't even good strawmen. You're making a total fool of yourself.

#23 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-21 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"just the police officer assaulting the female protester, with pictures to prove it. To address this problem the Judge refused to permit the defense let the jury see those pictures."

The pictures that were not allowed were irrelevant. They did not have any of the people involved in them.

IT does not appear that she was treated unfairly, but instead the judge was for more lenient then he could have been. She could have been charged with a lot more and she could have gone to jail for a lot longer.

This is the problem, there are so many that just assume that if police are involved then they must be the bad guy. The jury had video of the incidents, it exonerated the actions of the police. But it seems that regardless of the evidence the police can never be right to some people, they need to be victims. The idiotic OWS crowd are those people.

#24 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-21 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Keeping defending the assault of a police officer, Danni. Sounds really good for your position.

#20 | POSTED BY JUSTANOVERSIGHT AT 2014-05-21 12:12 PM | FLAG:

Keep defending the assault of a citizen by a police officer. Sound like a really good fascist position.

She can do the speaking tour and make lots of money. Join the 1% while still maintaining her radical leftist street cred.

You have no idea just how much money it takes to become a 1%er all the while defending the environment that allows them to keep you out of coming within a million miles of being a 1%er.

#25 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-21 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Garbage. The truth was that they were a real legitimate protest. The first one in decades. That was why they were brutally crushed by the pigs. The fact that people don't want to look at it that way is because then they would have to admit that they themselves sold out. People can't stand their own hypocrisy. One way or another real dissent will be demonized because the sheeple don't want to admit that their stand was legitimate, and that the sheeple are the frauds.

#14 | Posted by Shawn

Oh my god shawn I completely agree with this post.

(Democrats are still not as bad as republicans though.)

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The idiotic OWS crowd are those people.

#24 | Posted by salamandagator

Who's idiotic? The people who realize the damage that wall street has done to the average american, or the people who take wall street's side?

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The problem with OWS was they were taking up in a park that they had no right to occupy. You can't take a dump on a police car. You also have no right to rape women. I don't disagree with their cause in that Obama should have prosecuted some bankers just the way the went about it protesting the fact that he didn't. They should have gone to the WH where there is a public common area for just such a thing.

#21 | Posted by Dalton

People protest at the WH all the time and nothing happens. Protesting on wall street was a new tactic brought on by a new level of reckless destruction that wall street had just created.

OWS didnt rape anyone. Crazy homeless people did. Then the banks and their media whores told suckers like you that OWS was raping people and you bought it like a good little lapdog.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

People protest at the WH all the time and nothing happens. Protesting on wall street was a new tactic brought on by a new level of reckless destruction that wall street had just created.

OWS didnt rape anyone. Crazy homeless people did. Then the banks and their media whores told suckers like you that OWS was raping people and you bought it like a good little lapdog.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Uh huh. As I said. OWS was stupid to think they could clog up streets and parks that other people use w/out the cops getting involved. Wall Street knew they screwed the country over. Do you think harassing them would make them care? Like I said they should have been in front of the WH demanding someone be prosecuted. Punishing the criminal activity on Wall Street is how you prevent people from repeating it. Or the same people repeating it anyway.

#29 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-21 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fact is women were raped at the OWS and you have no idea if they were homeless or not.

#30 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-21 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The people who realize the damage that wall street has done to the average american, or the people who take wall street's side?"

The people who have no connection to reality. Who believe that fighting a boogyman will make them feel better about their own failures. Yes, the OWS crowd are some of the most devoid of thought puppets ever to organize.

#31 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-21 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh my god shawn I completely agree with this post.

----------

[...] The truth was the the police did everything to try and get the protestors to become violent from infiltration, agitation, to outright threats. In the end the cops had to go in with clubs precisely because the protestors were non violent.

This was obama. Not your hated republicans.

Hope and change.

#32 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-21 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | POSTED BY JUSTANOVERSIGHT

But these folks are true patriots, right?

m.youtube.com

#33 | Posted by memyselfini at 2014-05-21 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You have no idea just how much money it takes to become a 1%er"

I do, actually. In fact I posted an article on it not too long ago.

Here it is again, for your own edification.

www.forbes.com

"An entry ticket to the 1% starts with an annual income of about $394,000 (says Berkeley's Emmanuel Saez) or about $1.5 million in liquid assets (my zestimate). Post-tax and retirement savings, that's about $220,000 a year while they are working. These are national norms. If they happen to live on the coasts or near a major urban center, as is more than likely, they might need twice as much money to crash into the 1% by local standards."

$394k per year, before taxes, is what many professional, two income households could expect to earn.

I'm also in the business of occasionally soliciting guest speakers. The dude who landed the plan in the Hudson charges $75k per year. If he does six speaking engagements per year, he's going to qualify as a 1%-er. Most speakers charge in the $15k-$20k range. Not sure what Brandeis would pay her to speak at next year's commencement ceremony.

"all the while defending the environment that allows them to keep you out of coming within a million miles of being a 1%er."

If I go to med school and graduate, I already a 2%-er right there. marry another doctor, we're a 1%-er household. Same thing if I go to law school. Or become an accountant. Or start a business. teh bottom line is that the 1% baseline isn't tough to crack by any stretch.

"The people who realize the damage that wall street has done to the average american, or the people who take wall street's side?"

Wanna know who took Wall Street's side? Obama. Your man. I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or just plain clueless, but you're not going to find a glut of conservatives who support the government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to someone else. Wall Street is full of welfare recipients. No different than the welfare recipients anywhere else.

And that's the big difference. Progressives dislike the government taking money and giving it to Wall Street occupants who didn't earn it, but fully support the government taking it and giving it to low productivity americans who didn't earn it. From my conservative perspective, there is little difference.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

The truth was the the police did everything to try and get the protestors to become violent from infiltration, agitation, to outright threats. In the end the cops had to go in with clubs precisely because the protestors were non violent.

This was obama. Not your hated republicans.

#32 | Posted by Shawn

Yes but republicans would have done the same to OWS, PLUS loosened regulations on coal power plants, started a new war, and made it more difficult for women to get birth control. Still different.

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yes but republicans would have done the same to OWS, PLUS loosened regulations on coal power plants, started a new war, and made it more difficult for women to get birth control. Still different."

And whales. Be sure to include whaling in there as well. And free markets. And don'r forget to include a critique of capitalism.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

And don'r forget to include a critique of capitalism.

#37 | Posted by madbomber

I think the collateral damage of capitalism is pretty self evident by this point for most intelligent people. But I'd be happy to explain it for YOU...

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The people who realize the damage that wall street has done to the average american, or the people who take wall street's side?"
The people who have no connection to reality. Who believe that fighting a boogyman will make them feel better about their own failures. Yes, the OWS crowd are some of the most devoid of thought puppets ever to organize.
#31 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-21 01:56 PM

Like the ratings industry is beholden to "the little people"! You are a crock!

City Bank closed it's doors and arrested all of the people there to close accounts. The police came and escorted the line waiting outside inside and processed them for arrest. I don't believe you wrote anything nice about the protest then either. Or those students who were peacefully sitting and "broke a police barrier" as they were pepper-sprayed in the most casually-abusive manner - you again expressed loathing of the protestors. You are the definition of "thought puppet".

#39 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-21 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"And don'r forget to include a critique of capitalism."

Easy enough to do when global capitalism is going down in flames everywhere.

#40 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-21 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The real thugs are the cops who constantly harassed and intimidated OWS with massive shows of force by militarized police.

#41 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-21 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"I think the collateral damage of capitalism is pretty self evident by this point for most intelligent people. But I'd be happy to explain it for YOU..."

Could you explain it to me by pointing out the differences between capitalism and another, any other system?

Thanks.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Easy enough to do when global capitalism is going down in flames everywhere."

Gotta be -------- me. If anything, global capitalism is on the upswing. And people are benefitting because of it.

For the first time in the history of earth there are more middle class people than not. There is no other system, other than one allowing a free market, where this could have occurred.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"The real thugs are the cops who constantly harassed and intimidated OWS with massive shows of force by militarized police."

What about the OWS slackers who occupied public property, filled it full of trash and deprvied others of it's use?

What about the protesters who block public roads and thoroughfares. What say ye about them folks?

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

In fact what they did was reinforced a stereotype that millions of Americans already had-that the protesters were little more than a buch of self-centered, partying slackers who really didn't care about anyone other than themselves.

That stereotype was a product of the right-wing media more than the actions of the protesters. I wrote a few times about a Florida woman who joined the protesters. The New York Post ran multiple stories filled with vicious, libelous, false claims about this woman. It was shameless.

If you had been around OWS protesters and engaged them, you'd find something far different than what the Fox News crowd wanted people to think.

#45 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-21 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"What about the protesters who block public roads and thoroughfares. What say ye about them folks?"

They didn't do anything worse than the Boston tea partiers did. You probably would have been a loyalist in 1776.

#46 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-21 05:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

You probably would have been a loyalist in 1776.

I think the word you're looking for is "Georgebots."

#47 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-21 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

If you had been around OWS protesters and engaged them, you'd find something far different than what the Fox News crowd wanted people to think.
#45 | POSTED BY RCADE

If you had been around conservatives who gathered in Washington DC. and engaged them, you'd find something far different than what the MSNBC, ABC or CBS News crowd wanted people to think.

#48 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-05-21 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The judge should have thrown this case out. The "cop" in question couldn't even remember which one of his eyes was supposedly destroyed by this beefcake of a woman.

#49 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2014-05-21 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"That stereotype was a product of the right-wing media more than the actions of the protesters."

That sterotype pre-dates OWS by at least a couple of decades, so you have a tough road ahead trying to make the argument that any steroetype was the result of "right wing" media.

The OWSers aren't so different from the SDS protesters in Chicago in 1969 during the "Days of Rage." They're not that different from the Greenpeace or plowshares protesters of the 1980s. They're really close to the Seattle WTO protesters from 1999. And they are probably the same people who engaged in the anti-war protests between 2001 and, whenever.

And what is areally undeniable about OWS was that it was primarily rich white people protesting rich white people. Presumably other rich white people. Not they themselves.

Progressive or Conservative, I think most people agree that it is justifiable for taxpayers to get upset about their money going to bail out companies that, through their own bad behavior, were on a path to failure. But what happened in Zucotti park is the fleabaggers co-opted this message, and used it instead as a platform to promote authoritarian principles that would have been at least as damaging, if not more so, for the taxpayer.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The judge should have thrown this case out."

I think the video shows the woman hitting the cop. Given this fact, why should the judge have thrown it out? And do all protesters get that Bogey from now on?

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#48 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

You're probably right. Now what about RCADE's point about the average OWS protester?

#52 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-21 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They didn't do anything worse than the Boston tea partiers did. You probably would have been a loyalist in 1776."

OK, well let me put it this way. You have the right to speak, but I have the right to ignore you. If you are blocking a public thoroughfare with the intent of forcing me to be affected by your message, you are depriving me of my right to ignore you. And I hope they haull your ass to jail for violating my rights because of it.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

the fleabaggers co-opted this message, and used it instead as a platform to promote authoritarian principles...

Would you mind giving an example?

#54 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-21 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"OWS Protester Gets 90 Days for Cop Assault"

90 days for assaulting a peace officer? Offender must have been white.

#55 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-21 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I take it all you guys siding with the verdict think OJ didn't do it.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

And I hope they haull your ass to jail for violating my rights because of it.
#53 | Posted by madbomber

One would hope you're not so thin-skinned as to attempt to characterize the ensuing scuffle as felony assault.
But then again, you're not a cop.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

The OWSers aren't so different from the SDS protesters in Chicago in 1969 during the "Days of Rage." They're not that different from the Greenpeace or plowshares protesters of the 1980s. They're really close to the Seattle WTO protesters from 1999. And they are probably the same people who engaged in the anti-war protests between 2001 and, whenever.

Is there any messenger you won't shoot?

Hey, check this out: The cops in all those situations weren't so different either.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Would you mind giving an example?"

Of what? Turning a protest against one form of corporatist policy into an argument in favor of a different form of corporatist policy? What exactly are you looking for?

"One would hope you're not so thin-skinned as to attempt to characterize the ensuing scuffle as felony assault."

Why would the perpetrator have a problem with a cop violating his civil rights when he was arrested for violating mine?

"Hey, check this out: The cops in all those situations weren't so different either."

Cops don't arrest non-intrusive protesters. The plowshares crowd is free to stand outside the missile silos day and night if they choose. It's only when they break in and take hammers to the equipment that they get in trouble.

And here's the thing. In all the cases I mentioned, the protesters were intrusive. And if they can't accept being non-intrusive, they can expect to get punked. Because one of their civil rights isn't the right to violate mine.

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cops don't arrest non-intrusive protesters

Then perhaps you can explain why the City of Seattle paid $1M to WTO protestors wrongfully arrested? seattletimes.com

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"One would hope you're not so thin-skinned as to attempt to characterize the ensuing scuffle as felony assault."

Why would the perpetrator have a problem with a cop violating his civil rights when he was arrested for violating mine?

The lawsuit and conviction here point to the cop as victim. The person he was arresting is the one found guilty of felony assault. Or were you trying to be clever and use the ol' switcheroo?

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because one of their civil rights isn't the right to violate mine.
#59 | Posted by madbomber

But when it comes to ATVs your argument is that if you weren't using those trails, you shouldn't have any say in how they get used.

Were you in Chicago, Seattle, OWS? No. So none of your rights were violated.

Beware the shifting ideological sands of the pseudo-intellectual right.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Then perhaps you can explain why the City of Seattle paid $1M to WTO protestors wrongfully arrested?"

You'd have to ask the City of Seattle, but I would hazard a guess that it was because paying out $1M was cheaper than what it would have cost to prosecute the 175 protesters who filed the complaint. I was watching a thing on the former president of the Bandito's MC, who was arrested and put in jail for 18 months before being offered a plea bargain, where he would be released for time served if he pleased guilty.

It's kind of like that.

"The lawsuit and conviction here point to the cop as victim. The person he was arresting is the one found guilty of felony assault. Or were you trying to be clever and use the ol' switcheroo?"

I think you've unintentionally drifted outside the context of the original argument. If a protester, in the course of protesting, interfered with my life, that would be a violation of my civil rights. So even under a worst case scenario where the cops were in the wrong, they (the cop) would only be violating the rights of an individual who was in trouble for violating my rights to not have my life put on hold due to a protest.

"But when it comes to ATVs your argument is that if you weren't using those trails, you shouldn't have any say in how they get used."

Yes.

"Were you in Chicago, Seattle, OWS? No. So none of your rights were violated."

None of my rights were violated.

What I am referring to specifically is a situation about 20 years ago where protesters in Portland blocked up Broadway, a major city street, on a weekday afternoon. The intent was to disrupt traffic in order to draw attention to whatever cause they were supporting. In doing so, they were violating the rights of each and every driver who was trying to use that road, as well as those who were affected by being on the periphery. The sheer level of arrogance it takes for one to think it within their rights to do that to such a large number of people makes me want to see cops with billy clubs busting skulls.

But that's just me being pissed.

All that aside, if you just let it happen, they will continue to do it. And after a while, it just becomes accepted. No different than a kid who is allowed to continually misbehave.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

So what do you think Snoof? Should she have simply been let off?

if so, why? And if she had been a member of the KKK or the Phelps church, would it change your position?

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cops don't arrest non-intrusive protesters. The plowshares crowd is free to stand outside the missile silos day and night if they choose. It's only when they break in and take hammers to the equipment that they get in trouble.

#59 | Posted by madbomber

So in order to stop the protests, all a banker has to do is join the protest crowd, smash something with a hammer, and then the cops will do the rest for him right?

Cops don't arrest pro-corporate protesters like the tea party. They will use any excuse to arrest and harass anti-corporate ones.

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"So in order to stop the protests, all a banker has to do is join the protest crowd, smash something with a hammer, and then the cops will do the rest for him right?"

Yes.

Are you suggesting that all progressive protesters respect the right to be non-intrusive?

"Cops don't arrest pro-corporate protesters like the tea party."

Sooooooooo....they only arrest pro-corporate protesters like those at OWS?

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If a protester, in the course of protesting, interfered with my life, that would be a violation of my civil rights.

You have an overactive sense of entitlement when it comes to what your civil rights are. Interfering with your life doesn't suddenly become a violation of your civil rights when the interference is part of a protest.

Of course it seems a bit disingenuous that you reach for civil rights in the first place. Do you actually favor civil rights as we've enacted them, for example that businesses can't deny service based on race? Isn't that a government intrusion into your life?

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

So what do you think Snoof? Should she have simply been let off?

if so, why? And if she had been a member of the KKK or the Phelps church, would it change your position?
#64 | Posted by madbomber

I don't think she should have been charged with felony assault for the typical scuffling that takes place during a violent arrest.

My position would not change based on who she is or what she's protesting. The police have gotten out of hand.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

You'd have to ask the City of Seattle, but I would hazard a guess that it was because paying out $1M was cheaper than what it would have cost to prosecute the 175 protesters who filed the complaint. I was watching a thing on the former president of the Bandito's MC, who was arrested and put in jail for 18 months before being offered a plea bargain, where he would be released for time served if he pleased guilty.

Your answer just reeks of desperation. In addition to being wrong.

Seattle paid because they'd already lost in court for... I hope you're sitting down... violating the protestors civil rights by unlawful arrest.

On 16 January 2004, the city of Seattle settled with 157 individuals arrested outside of the no-protest zone during the WTO events, agreeing to pay them a total of $250,000.[35] On 30 January 2007, a federal jury found that the city had violated protesters' Fourth Amendment constitutional rights by arresting them without probable cause or hard evidence" en.wikipedia.org

Literally everything in your hazard of a guess was completely off the mark.
You should feel bad.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Anyway, now that we've cleard that up, shall we revisit "Cops don't arrest non-intrusive protesters?"

Faced with hard evidence of exactly that happening, do you to change your beliefs, or endeavor to find more bizarre justifications for them?|

My money's on the latter.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You have an overactive sense of entitlement when it comes to what your civil rights are."

Fair enough.

So, in your opinion, if you want to protest capitalism, do you have the right to shutdown Broadway in downtown Portland, OR, in order to ensure that your message is not ignored by the masses?

"Interfering with your life doesn't suddenly become a violation of your civil rights when the interference is part of a protest."

So it's an acceptable protest practice to you?

If the KKK wants to march down Crenshaw, no harm-no foul?

"I don't think she should have been charged with felony assault for the typical scuffling that takes place during a violent arrest."

Then what should she have been charged with? What about Bundy and his troop of clowns? Is it an acceptable practice to point guns at federal employees? Should their behavior ne ignored?

I don't have the answer. I don't know that there is one. Just trying to figure out if you have a cogent position on this whole thing.

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have the BLM gotten "out of hand."

Many would say so.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have the BLM arrested anybody, then charged them with felony assault?

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't think she should have been charged with felony assault for the typical scuffling that takes place during a violent arrest."

Then what should she have been charged with?

Whatever she was being arrested for.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 10:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, in your opinion, if you want to protest capitalism, do you have the right to shutdown Broadway in downtown Portland, OR, in order to ensure that your message is not ignored by the masses?

No. Nor should you be charged with felony assault when you struggle with the arresting officer.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

When somebody grabs you and you don't know who it is, does the legality of your retaliation depend on who's doing the grabbing?

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"When somebody grabs you and you don't know who it is, does the legality of your retaliation depend on who's doing the grabbing?"

You should ask George Zimmerman.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, I see that she was arrested for elbowing the cop in the first place. That makes some of my commentary nonsensical.

Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to throw an elbow when someone grabs you. It may be assault, but I don't see how it reaches the threshold of felony assault. I recall she was facing up to seven years for this, which is completely asinine. Ninety days seems like a victory, but in my opinion this was a politically motivated prosecution.

She's going to jail for engaging in a degree of violence the police routinely use -- even on suspects against whom all charges are later dropped. If the police also went to jail in those instances, I perhaps would see more justice in her sentence.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sooooooooo....they only arrest pro-corporate protesters like those at OWS?

#66 | Posted by madbomber

If you think OWS had a pro-corporate agenda, you don't pay enough attention to current events to participate in a political debate.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

You should ask George Zimmerman.
#77 | Posted by madbomber
?

George Zimmerman knew who he was stalking. He knew him well enough to identify him as one of the ones that always gets away. Swing and a miss.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to throw an elbow when someone grabs you."

I've been exposed to a certain level of training as a function of my job. I don't think it unreasonable to snap the spine (or attempt to) of someone who grabs me. But guns are more effective if you truly feel you are being held at risk.

"If you think OWS had a pro-corporate agenda, you don't pay enough attention to current events to participate in a political debate."

Are you familiar with the corporatist philosophy?

I'm guessing not.

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 10:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are you familiar with the corporatist philosophy?

Are you familiar with OWS?

"The main issues raised by Occupy Wall Street were social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations on government -- particularly from the financial services sector." en.wikipedia.org

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 11:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to throw an elbow when someone grabs you."

I've been exposed to a certain level of training as a function of my job. I don't think it unreasonable to snap the spine (or attempt to) of someone who grabs me. But guns are more effective if you truly feel you are being held at risk.

I'm wondering why you brought up guns. I'm guessing the Reaganomics has kicked in and you're drifting off into some sort of Second Amendment Happy Place Land?

I think if she'd fired blindly at someone who she thinks groped her, and that person was injured, a sentence more along the lines of the 7 year maximum is within reason. Because it's one thing to throw an elbow, it's another thing to discharge a firearm.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 11:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The main issues raised by Occupy Wall Street were social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations on government -- particularly from the financial services sector."

Actually, what the fleabaggers were protesting was the social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations that arose as a function of the free market. The outcome of free people having the ability to allocate resources in the manner that was most rewarding. That sort of behavior does lead to social and economic inequality. Always will. Ceteris Paribas, a Ford Escort will never come close in being equal to the value of a Lamborghini Veneno Roadster.

Wanna "correct" for that? Pull up your jack boots and pull out your billy clubs. Because if you want to have people pay Veneno prices for an Escort, you're going to need to beat ------------- up.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, what the fleabaggers were protesting was the social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations that arose as a function of the free market.

Their complaint doesn't hinge on how the greed, corruption, and undue influence of corporations came to be.

You love to pretend that the reason it came to be is the free market, because for you that justifies the outcome, but that's not the point.

They're not protesting the free market. They're protesting things like Too Big To Fail, which are certainly not free market constructs.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 11:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, what the fleabaggers were protesting was the social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations that arose as a function of the free market. The outcome of free people having the ability to allocate resources in the manner that was most rewarding.

#84 | Posted by madbomber

You think corporate undue influence is only "perceived"? As in- not actually an issue?

Those billionaires have brainwashed you so bad you're doing their groundwork for them while they laugh at your gullible ass.

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-21 11:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have you figured out if cops do or don't arrest non-intrusive protesters? You've had plenty of time to mull it over.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-21 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

The function of the police is to protect the rich from the peons. Has been this way since Aristotle.

#88 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-22 12:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You think corporate undue influence is only "perceived"? As in- not actually an issue?"

There are two ways a corporation can gain power. The first is through government favoritism. Think Bell Telephones or the airlines prior to deregulation. The government took an active role in ensuring that these firms had a position that could not be chellenged. This sort of setup, which is an example of true corporatism, can be problematic. Because government is favoring one element of society

The other way a company can accumulate power is through it's consumer appeal. Think Wal Mart. Any power that Wal Mart has is a direct result of it's popularity. It's the people who gave them that power. So you're argument is not so much with the company itself, but with the members of society who gave them that power. And if the people were concerned about that power, they could simply stop shopping at Wal Mart.

What pisses you and your ilk off is that society really doesn't give a ----, as a whole, about these issues that you are so passionate about. Therefore, society should be forcibly overruled. Because you know what's best for those people.

"Those billionaires have brainwashed you so bad you're doing their groundwork for them while they laugh at your gullible ass."

I'll thrown in my lot with them over progressives any day of the week. It's in my best interest to do so.

"Have you figured out if cops do or don't arrest non-intrusive protesters? You've had plenty of time to mull it over."

No. They don't. Not as a function of policy anyway.

I'm curious where you stand on the Cliven Bundy issue. Do you beleive he had the right to allow his cows to occupy public lands? If not why?

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-22 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

No. They don't. Not as a function of policy anyway.

---------

I could list the cases were you are dead wrong, but what is the point.

There is one way that a corporation can gain power; bribes.

There are no progressives; they are fascists.

I could add comment, but it would get me into trouble again, so I will just ignore you as it is obvious who you are stumping for.

#90 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-22 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Fascism is a progressive philosophy. Born out of the Italian Socialist Party. Being a progressive doesn't mean being a fascist, but being fascist does mean being progressive. And most of Europe has adopted the corporatist model, first made popular by Benito Mussolini.

#91 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-22 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

So what do you think Snoof? Should she have simply been let off?
if so, why? And if she had been a member of the KKK or the Phelps church, would it change your position?
#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-21 08:40 PM

HOW is she similar in ANY way to Westborough Baptists? They utilize the facade of free speech to provoke law suits against municipalities. That's how they survive. The cop is bringing the suit, btw.

Watch the video of Cicely McMillan's arrest - Imo, it does appear that she jumped attempting to escape that particular police officer. I don't see her elbow connect with his head whatsoever, but I do see she tried immediately sprinting through the crowd peppered with police. I can't see his arm or hand grabbing her breast. Notice that she stops two steps before he does - you can see his surprised expression at her attempted elbowing to his face. She doesn't appear to be close enough to this particular officer for him to be the perp.

#92 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-22 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also, his head would have moved backward as her elbow impacts, that didn't happen - he is probably lying about being elbowed, and she might also be lying about being groped by him.

#93 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-22 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you beleive he had the right to allow his cows to occupy public lands? If not why?
#89 | Posted by madbomber

Provided he pays, yes.
Sort of like my car has a right to occupy the public parking spot... provided I feed the meter.

There are two ways a corporation can gain power. The first is through government favoritism... The other way a company can accumulate power is through it's consumer appeal.

You make it sound like both of those aren't in play at the same time.
What would you call the airline bailout after 9/11? Why, it's government favoritism... even in a post-deregulation sector of the economy! Reality is more complex than your two-dimensional arguments.

So you're argument is not so much with the company itself, but with the members of society who gave them that power.

That's like saying your argument is not so much with Bush, but with the members of the Supreme Court who appointed him. Or the problem isn't Obama, but the majority who elected him. You are deliberately conflating the process with the outcome.

You consistently do this because, in your mind, the end is always justified by the means when the means can be chalked up to "consumer sentiment" or "free will."

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-22 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

You'll notice any conversation with MadB in it, we can't talk about the issues.

It always becomes "You're a fascist if you want to change the status quo."

Every. Single. Time.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-22 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Provided he pays, yes."

He does not feel he has the responsibility to pay. Access to those lands is a right. part of what you might refer to as the "social contract?

"You make it sound like both of those aren't in play at the same time."

They are, depending on the company. There are defense contractors I deal with who owe their very existence to the government. There are some, like Boeing, for whom the results are mixed. But, to the best of my knowledge, the government is not doing anything to favor Wal mart over their competition. Am I wrong?

"You consistently do this because, in your mind, the end is always justified by the means when the means can be chalked up to "consumer sentiment" or "free will."

Yes. Because the outcome SHOULD be a function of free will. The only other alternative is a top-down system where government makes those decisions. Commonly referred to as fascism. And I don't know why you don't favor this outcome. It literally is the will of the people. Furthermore, it's harmless. It's like smoking pot. Even if you don't like it if I smoke pot, you would prefer I didn't, it's still a tough sale to claim that I am harming you or anyone else by smoking pot.

#96 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-22 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

the outcome SHOULD be a function of free will. The only other alternative is a top-down system where government makes those decisions.
Why does everything have to be so black and white with you? It's so childish. Take a look at how the world works for once.

Heck, even government intervention doesn't have to be top-down. When a municipality gives WAL*MART a tax break, that's not coming from the top down, but the bottom up. When Texas lures businesses with a lower tax rate, that's not top-down, more in the middle.

Are those things not fascism because they didn't occur at the Federal level? From the wikipedia entry on corporatism en.wikipedia.org "Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism, socialism, and syndicalism.[10]"

Golly.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-22 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here is how the real world works:
www.walmartsubsidywatch.org
Is it unfair to focus on WMT?
That's not the point.
This is illustrative of how the real world works.
Nobody says only WMT gets these kinds of benefits.
But as the nation's largest private employer, they do get a lot.

Hey, even Zatoichi's gun-toting murder-free paradise Bastrop, TX is getting in on the action. www.walmartsubsidywatch.org
"The city provided a property tax abatement worth $125,000."

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-22 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why does everything have to be so black and white with you? It's so childish. Take a look at how the world works for once."

Policy-wise, there is only black and white. Either people have individual control of their wealth or they don't.

Consider this. A country passes a law claiming that they gave legal claim to all earned income. But in practice, they allow workers to keep 90% of what they earned. On paper, they would be doing better than US workers. But in the end the are still not economically independent. It's just that the government is currently pushing a policy where the outcome resembles one where there was economic freedom.

Same thing with free speech. Either you have it or you don't. And if the government has the legal ability to regulate what you say, you don't have freedom of speech. In the same vein, Australia doesn't allow the right to keep and bear arms. That doesn't mean that Australians don't own guns. Some do. But all it takes is for a government official to change his or her mind, and those people have no choice but to turn over their guns.

And my problem is this sort of paradigm is not much different than what we saw in Europe during the middle ages. Who is in charge may be different, but that's it. The presence of nearly absolute power has not.

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-22 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Policy-wise, there is only black and white. Either people have individual control of their wealth or they don't.

#99 | Posted by madbomber

Then you need to define "their wealth"

If someone used society's resources - schooling, roads, utilities, law enforcement, protection from poisons, etc - to get "their wealth", then that wealth belongs in part to the society that supported them.

Find me anyone who got wealthy without their society making a huge investment in them. Only ungratefu,l self-centered ------ are blind enough to think they got "their wealth" on their own and aren't obligated to return the investment.

#100 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-22 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Consider this. A country passes a law claiming that they gave legal claim to all earned income.

Blah blah blah.

Consider talking about reality instead of making economic decrees based on trumped-up hypotheticals.

Same thing with free speech. Either you have it or you don't.

If my speech is Kiddie Porn I'm going to jail. Do I have free speech or not?

Like I said, too simplistic. And not reality based.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-22 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Consider this. A country passes a law claiming that they gave legal claim to all earned income.

Blah blah blah.

Consider talking about reality instead of making economic decrees based on trumped-up hypotheticals.

#101 | Posted by snoofy

That sounds like Europe during the middle ages when the king would own all of the property and all of the crops that the peasants farmed and gave out what he thought everyone deserved to me.

#102 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-05-23 06:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sort of like share cropping or tenant farming during the Reconstruction era after the Civil War which went on up to the mid 20th century.

#103 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-05-23 07:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If someone used society's resources - schooling, roads, utilities, law enforcement, protection from poisons, etc - to get "their wealth", then that wealth belongs in part to the society that supported them."

Then let's take it one step further. Should a person who doesn't pay federal income taxes have the same claim to access to these resources as someone who doesn't? Can they really claim that these are their resources as well, when the contribute nothing to their creation? We know the wealthy person is going to pay taxes, and the more wealthy you become, the more you pay. So I don't really get your argument.

"Find me anyone who got wealthy without their society making a huge investment in them."

Find me someone who did. Whatever contribution and individual makes that contributes to another getting wealthy is done freely and for the benefit of the individual himself. The guy who sold Bill Gates his first computer was probably a significant contributor to Gate's success. But he was rewarded for the sale of that computer. You seem to be saying that, because Gates became a billionaire, that salesman should have been entitled to a much larger payout. Is that the case?

"Consider talking about reality instead of making economic decrees based on trumped-up hypotheticals."

The reality is that you either have the right to own and retain the income you earn through the sale of labor or you don't. Period. We don't. And probably never will. So the next fight is to try and limit the extent to which the federal government dips into our pockets to take the money we earned. And it get's tougher and tougher with each passing day, because politicians have recognized that redistribution is a very effective means to control the rich, by taking their money, and the poor, by giving them money.

"If my speech is Kiddie Porn I'm going to jail."

I don't think a material item can be considered speech. Neither can crystal meth. That's not speech either. It should be legal, but it's not speech. rape is not speech either. Nor is murder. Do I need to keep going here.

"Sort of like share cropping or tenant farming during the Reconstruction era after the Civil War which went on up to the mid 20th century."

Yeah. I think that the progressive end state looks a lot like this. Only this time it would be the government to whom society was subordinate. I think Romania under Nicolai Ceausescu was very much like this. Romania was officially a Socialist Republic, but like other socialist countries, it was only the top officials who benefitted from socialism. Nic actually imported Brown Bears into the Carpathian mountains for hunting. But only he was allowed to hunt them. Anyone else caught poaching his bears would be executed posthaste.

#104 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-23 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Should a person who doesn't pay federal income taxes have the same claim to access to these resources as someone who doesn't?

What's magical about Federal income taxes, in your world? Why should Federal income tax be the determinant of coverage under the social contract.

Unless we start issuing people armbands, or national identity cards, it's probably going to be hard to determine who has paid Federal income taxes and who has not. I mean, maybe it gets withheld from my check but refunded at the end of the year. I loaned Uncle Sam some money, do I get some intermediate level of entitlement?

Non-citizens who paid Federal income tax, is their benefit to be defined by payment of Federal income tax, or do we take immigration status into account as well?

You are playing make-believe. Can you stop doing that? It seems not.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Should a person who doesn't pay federal income taxes have the same claim to access to these resources as someone who doesn't?

I don't understand what purpose you're even driving at with this question.

If the resources provide a public good, why are you trying to find reasons to deny people access to that public good?

It's like you built a library but don't want the public to use it.

In reality, I'm pretty sure what you want to tear the library down. But since you can't do that, you just make it harder and harder to use. Like Republicans are doing with abortion in the South. They can't outlaw it completely, they can just make it harder and harder to get one.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If my speech is Kiddie Porn I'm going to jail."

I don't think a material item can be considered speech.

A book isn't free speech? Okay, it's freedom of the press then. This is all wrapped up under the First Amendment.
Your simplistic argument fails to even recognize what is considered protected speech.
But fine, let's do it your way.
www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (includes libel, slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes


Hey, look at all of the non-material speeches (plus child pornography) which are not protected by the First Amendment.

So, I'll ask again: Do I have free speech or not? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Consider talking about reality instead of making economic decrees based on trumped-up hypotheticals."

The reality is that you either have the right to own and retain the income you earn through the sale of labor or you don't

Seeing as practically no system of taxation will survive this threshold, seeing as we've had income tax in America for a century now, I have to wonder: What in the world do you think your point is?

It's funny that you also want to use this same threshold -- did someone pay Federal tax on the income derived from their labor? -- as the litmus test for accessing Federal resources.

Your thoughts are very jumbled. More heat than light. Very little light whatsoever, actually.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the next fight is to try and limit the extent to which the federal government dips into our pockets to take the money we earned.

I don't normally call people liars, but seeing as every bit of money you "earned" is redistributed to you after Uncle Sam rips it from other people's pockets, I suppose I will have to call you a pacifist.

Your heart is certainly not in this fight.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't understand what purpose you're even driving at with this question."

It goes back to #100, alluding to the "you didn't build that" argument that progressive tend to employ. And if your argument is that everyone deserves a share of the wealth that someone else has made, because they contributed to it in some way, then you sort of have to establish a connection between those who claim to deserve a share, and what exactly they did to deserve it.

Are you caught up now?

"A book isn't free speech?"

No. A book is a material object. It may contain free speech, but it is not free speech itself. As for kiddie porn, you can talk about it all day long; how much you love it, how you want to make it, how you're going Thailand to buy some; you're free to do that. All day long. It's only when you start molesting little kids that you get yourself in trouble.

Are you caught up now?

"What in the world do you think your point is?"

At the end of the day? It's pretty simple. The only way to ensure that you and I, both of us, remain free, is to ensure that the government has minimal economic influence over society. taxes are necessary, but they should be the absolute minimum required to maintain society. At the federal level. It's a little difference with the states, but we can talk about that later.

I don't think you're nearly as progressive as you tend to come off. I think that more often than not you're playing the devil's advocate, and you do a good job of it. That's good. But consider this. If the government ahs the right to collect taxes in order to provide a benefit that is directed towards a specific group, how are you going to feel when you disagree with the group that's benefitting? What if the government decided to fund the clergy? Do you think progressives would be as supportive of that as they are the living wage? What if the government decided to take money from the poor and give it to the rich? Policy-wise, is that any different from taking from the rich and giving it to the poor? You're still taking money from a person who earned it and giving it to one who didn't.

I don't even see this as a truly progressive/conservative argument. I see it as an argument against authoritarianism. And so should you. There's no reason why you couldn't be a progressive and share my viewpoint, unless you were ultimately an authoritarian, and understood that without the use of coercion and deception, you're policies would never work here.

#110 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-23 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

then you sort of have to establish a connection between those who claim to deserve a share, and what exactly they did to deserve it.

Typically the organizing principle for that -- the connection you seek -- is nationality.

It's only when you start molesting little kids that you get yourself in trouble.

Kiddie porn is not the same as molestation. It is pornography, including the written word, which depicts sexual acts involving children. Feel free to address the question I asked, not the one you find easier to answer.

The only way to ensure that you and I, both of us, remain free, is to ensure that the government has minimal economic influence over society.

You have yet to explain how that anything to do with how "free" I am. I guess it gets back to "if I pay (Federal income) taxes I'm not free." By this argument a homeless person is more free than you. If you truly think this, explain why you don't join his ranks.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

But consider this. If the government ahs the right to collect taxes in order to provide a benefit that is directed towards a specific group, how are you going to feel when you disagree with the group that's benefitting?

I suggest that you seek therapy to deal with the bad feelings you're having when groups you don't agree with get benefits.

I don't have a problem when people get benefits. Benefits are good. That's why they're called benefits. If they were detriments then I might feel different about it. I think it's good when people get things that are good. For some reason you don't.

I wasn't kidding about therapy. You have some sort of psychosis where you're constantly finding sensible-to-you reasons to separate people, typically those in greatest need, from any sort of publicly provided help. You remind me of the guy John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" who is constantly seeing things which reinforce his certain way of thinking. Only problem is, the things you're seeing are imaginary constructs of your own need to believe.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort