Last time I checked, the American government was never initially meant to include a welfare system. It was set up to defend the lives and livelihood of the people, not control the economy in any fashion. But hey, who cares about that old piece of paper that says what the government can and can't do anyways? I mean, why don't we all just ignore it and treat certain people with their own rules? Once we start to make special cases of everything, I imagine all will be much clearer and no longer will we have unhappy people, reich?

That old scrap of paper never accounted for a world population of 7 billion, the internet, mechanization, and well, you get the point.

Healthcare was never much of an issue, each small town would usually have a doctor who was hired by the town. And it wasn't really like they did too much. You had cancer and WELL YOU'RE FUCKED. Scarlet fever? AHH EVIL DEMONS. Yeah, medical understanding and technology wasn't exactly... developed. Few things were treatable, and a lot of people died because of it.

It all started protesting against "Corporate Greed" and "Money in Politics". The rest came after.

Quote from payne

Quote from Jack

No, I mean the OWS movement has never had a defined mission statement or purpose, they just started protesting. Maybe someone in the US has a better idea of exactly why they started.

It all started protesting against "Corporate Greed" and "Money in Politics". The rest came after.

So it became accepted to become public greed, and money in the unlucky?

I don't see what's wrong with "money in the unlucky".

It's my personal opinion that people who aren't skilled enough, or are unwilling, to work and gain money shouldn't be given the money that I worked hard for. I'm not against welfare in any way for those that deserve it, but there's a large portion of people that get it that are simply unwilling to work.

Sorry, I'm selfish like that.

Yes, because most people on welfare are people unwilling to work. Statistics, please.

Please tell me where I said most.

Well, unless you've decided you wouldn't contribute to welfare because only very few individuals are abusing it, I think you pretty much intended it to sound like it was a rather large %.

We should instead be like the French ...
Their movement at least got somewhere, even if it took a few tries.

Why is that funny?

It's true, you didn't say most. But "large portion" implies more than average. Being that there is no average to compare to, I assumed, incorrectly, that large meant more than 50%.

Relevant.


Too long; didn't watch: It's a video demonstrating what happened at that UC-Davis pepper spray incident. Police warn protesters multiple times that they are going to tear down the tents that are illegally placed on UC-Davis's quad and that they will arrest anyone who tries to stop them. They do this and arrest several people, but most people just stand around and watch them, chanting stuff. Then the peaceful protesters surround the cops and demand that they release their friends in exchange for the police being unblocked. This act itself is illegal. The police go down the line of sitting protesters and warn them each individually the consequences of doing this. Several times. Then they are pepper sprayed. This is the part everyone saw. The part where the cop candidly walks up pepper sprays everyone. Then the protesters finally disperse and announce that they will give the cops a "moment of peace" if they never come back. The protesters then celebrate as the cops leave, as if they won a battle or something.

Tl;dr: Cops warn people several times they are breaking the law and will be pepper sprayed; then do it. Outrage ensues.

Yes, when things are taken out of context they can give an entirely different impression than what really happened. I don't think this is news to anyone.

TL;DR: cops warn reasonable people that they are breaking the law and will respond violently if they don't comply. People refuse.

SURPRISE! Aggressive response did not work. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY.

Apparently it is, because I received this as a response:
1) The protesters weren't reasonable.
2) Responding "violently" did work.

My point would be there should be no violent response unless provoked violently, that is... in case of self-defence.

So the cops were just supposed to sit inside the neo-hippie barricade until the hippies felt like letting them go? If I show up outside your house and barricade you in, is there nothing you can do about it until I start pushing people? Do I just have to start shouting "don't shoot students!" to get a break-the-law free card?

We should just mow them all down with some M-16s. As long as we warn them of the consequences, it's their fault. Damn hippies.