• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Occupy Wall Street protest

Sounds to me like that "Doctor" needs to be Fined heavily and jailed for his abuse of the insurance system... I believe that there could be an insurance fraud case against him, if anyone were to take it up... I also think that his employees would testify against him if it were the case.
 
RobbiesCornField said:
So this is what happens when you protest in LA.

This article was written by Patrick Meighan, a writer for Family Guy.
Click to expand...
I think the problem remains the same. Not one place in that article did it say occupy the Whitehouse or occupy Capitol Hill. Mr. Prince didn't go to jail because those in DC deliberately put in place regulations that not only allowed him to do what he did but outright encouraged it. I am still dumbfounded that there is no outrage for those that set the rules that were followed. Even more so most trust those DC folk, that set these rules took contributions from Wall street and listened to the Wall street lobbyists, to now fix the very mess they chose to create. Worse yet I fear most of the people will run right out and vote their incumbent back to office to continue these ways! This won't be corrected with the Nancy Pelosi's, John Boehner’s, Harry Reid's, Barrack Obama's remaining in DC. IMHO we need total regime change as much as those middle east dictatorial govs did.
:headbang:
 
tsst said:
I think the problem remains the same. Not one place in that article did it say occupy the Whitehouse or occupy Capitol Hill. Mr. Prince didn't go to jail because those in DC deliberately put in place regulations that not only allowed him to do what he did but outright encouraged it. I am still dumbfounded that there is no outrage for those that set the rules that were followed. Even more so most trust those DC folk, that set these rules took contributions from Wall street and listened to the Wall street lobbyists, to now fix the very mess they chose to create. Worse yet I fear most of the people will run right out and vote their incumbent back to office to continue these ways! This won't be corrected with the Nancy Pelosi's, John Boehner’s, Harry Reid's, Barrack Obama's remaining in DC. IMHO we need total regime change as much as those middle east dictatorial govs did.
:headbang:
Click to expand...


I think what the LAPD did to those protestors was wrong wrong wrong. But I agree that the protestors, and most of the American people, are blaming the wrong group of people.
The country is in the shape it is in, because the lawmakers allowed it.
 
starsevol said:
I think what the LAPD did to those protestors was wrong wrong wrong. ....
Click to expand...
As do I Bethany. Seemingly an extension of the tyranny upon the people. I wrote what I did because of the authors own comments. He was not angry about being arrested, not angry at the mayor nor the LAPD ... he is only angry at the Mr. Princes. The misdirection continues.

As a side note I have NO sympathy for those that strove to the heights of moral injustice that drove the economic collapse. They are indeed culpable.

The main problem for me is the lack of discord given our representatives and administration by "occupiers". To me it's akin to stuffing your slipper with bacon, coating the outside with peanut butter and yelling here you go Fido tossing it to your dog before you leave the house. Upon your return you get angry at the dog for chewing up your slipper. Sure the dog shouldn't have chewed your slipper but you making it so irresistible and telling him it's ok was the problem that needs correcting.
:shrugs:
 
tsst said:
As do I Bethany. Seemingly an extension of the tyranny upon the people. I wrote what I did because of the authors own comments. He was not angry about being arrested, not angry at the mayor nor the LAPD ... he is only angry at the Mr. Princes. The misdirection continues.

As a side note I have NO sympathy for those that strove to the heights of moral injustice that drove the economic collapse. They are indeed culpable.

The main problem for me is the lack of discord given our representatives and administration by "occupiers". To me it's akin to stuffing your slipper with bacon, coating the outside with peanut butter and yelling here you go Fido tossing it to your dog before you leave the house. Upon your return you get angry at the dog for chewing up your slipper. Sure the dog shouldn't have chewed your slipper but you making it so irresistible and telling him it's ok was the problem that needs correcting.
:shrugs:
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness what a fabulous analogy!!!
He SHOULD have been angry at the LAPD, and he SHOULD have been angry at the mayor. Mr Prince deserves contempt and more, but technically he did nothing illegal. What he did SHOULD have been illegal, but our so-called lawmakers allowed it. So, who is at fault?
 
tsst said:
As do I Bethany. Seemingly an extension of the tyranny upon the people. I wrote what I did because of the authors own comments. He was not angry about being arrested, not angry at the mayor nor the LAPD ... he is only angry at the Mr. Princes. The misdirection continues.
Click to expand...

He said he was mad that Mr. Prince wasn't in jail. I think that says that he is mad at something else other then Mr. Prince. What it is isn't very clear...the system? the people who make laws? the people who enforce laws? I don't know.

This won't be corrected with the Nancy Pelosi's, John Boehner’s, Harry Reid's, Barrack Obama's remaining in DC. IMHO we need total regime change as much as those middle east dictatorial govs did.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this? I would be surprised if you really wanted a revolution and a brand new government constitution and all seeing as you seem to like the constitution. If you just mean voting in different people into office who would you recommend? For simplicity sake lets just say for President.
 
willderphil said:
He said he was mad that Mr. Prince wasn't in jail. I think that says that he is mad at something else other then Mr. Prince. What it is isn't very clear...the system? the people who make laws? the people who enforce laws? I don't know.

Yes, he is mad that Mr Prince wasn't in jail. But, what Mr. Prince did was not illegal, so there is no reason he should be in jail. What Mr. Prince did was wrong, reprehensible, morally bankrupt and beneath contempt, but not illegal. So, why is the author not "Occupying" the White House, or the Senate?

What do you mean by this? I would be surprised if you really wanted a revolution and a brand new government constitution and all seeing as you seem to like the constitution. If you just mean voting in different people into office who would you recommend? For simplicity sake lets just say for President.
Click to expand...

I don't speak for tsst, but I don't want a revolution. I think, unfortunately that it might be unavoidable, but I don't want one. I don't want a new government, or a new constitution. I want legislators that actually adhere to the government that was mapped out for us by the forefathers. I want legislators who obey the same laws they write for the rest of us. If you think what is happening in the Middle East can't happen here, I think you are misguided.
 
willderphil said:
He said he was mad that Mr. Prince wasn't in jail. I think that says that he is mad at something else other then Mr. Prince. What it is isn't very clear...the system? the people who make laws? the people who enforce laws? I don't know.
Click to expand...
Note the plural form of Prince. I used it as a wider representation of what I believe the author intended. I think he chose Mr. Prince as a representative character(ie poster child) of the people he blames. I also think he was quite clear when he stated he was NOT angry at the mayor(system representative) and NOT angry at the LAPD(law enforcement). Again I think his anger was misdirected at the follower of the bad law rather than at the creator/enabler/encourager of the bad law.

willderphil said:
What do you mean by this? I would be surprised if you really wanted a revolution and a brand new government constitution and all seeing as you seem to like the constitution. If you just mean voting in different people into office who would you recommend? For simplicity sake lets just say for President.
Click to expand...
No I don't want a new governmental form or constitution. I want those in DC to adhere to the government our forefathers died giving us. Regime change as in career politicians out. A government of the people for the people by the people I believe was meant to be just that. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, business owners, parents, etc serving short terms representing the people. NOT lifelong politicians serving themselves and those that contribute the most. And definitely NOT those that would seek to create a huge tyrannical gov to rule over the people. Nor those that seek to twist the constitution to allow them to do so.

As far as whom I would like for president .... the name matters not. An American that comprehends what this nation is and can follow the oath taken to uphold the constitution of the USofA without the radical distortion that we see in DC today.

starsevol said:
I don't speak for tsst, but I don't want a revolution. I think, unfortunately that it might be unavoidable, but I don't want one. I don't want a new government, or a new constitution. I want legislators that actually adhere to the government that was mapped out for us by the forefathers. I want legislators who obey the same laws they write for the rest of us. If you think what is happening in the Middle East can't happen here, I think you are misguided.
Click to expand...
Bethany if we lived closer we would definitely be hanging out together. :cheers:
 
tsst said:
Note the plural form of Prince. I used it as a wider representation of what I believe the author intended. I think he chose Mr. Prince as a representative character(ie poster child) of the people he blames. I also think he was quite clear when he stated he was NOT angry at the mayor(system representative) and NOT angry at the LAPD(law enforcement). Again I think his anger was misdirected at the follower of the bad law rather than at the creator/enabler/encourager of the bad law.
Click to expand...


I think when he says he isn't mad at the mayor or the LAPD he is talking about his own situation and not Mr. Prince's so he is saying he isn't mad at them for arresting him for a misdemeanor even though I think he should be. And I don't think the use of the plural makes much difference. To me I see it as him being both mad at Mr. Prince or the Mr. Princes and whatever reason they are not in jail but maybe i read to much into it and it is a stupid thing to argue about.

No I don't want a new governmental form or constitution. I want those in DC to adhere to the government our forefathers died giving us. Regime change as in career politicians out. A government of the people for the people by the people I believe was meant to be just that. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, business owners, parents, etc serving short terms representing the people. NOT lifelong politicians serving themselves and those that contribute the most. And definitely NOT those that would seek to create a huge tyrannical gov to rule over the people. Nor those that seek to twist the constitution to allow them to do so.
Click to expand...

I think I would largely agree with you here.

As far as whom I would like for president .... the name matters not. An American that comprehends what this nation is and can follow the oath taken to uphold the constitution of the USofA without the radical distortion that we see in DC today.
Click to expand...

But a name does matter and I truly want to know who is most deserving of your vote no matter how big or small they are. Maybe that's not fair because in a perfect world I have not found someone to vote for either.

Personally I would want someone who would try and end most and maybe all subsidies, Fix loopholes in the tax code (maybe tax reform), put an end to lobbying, and pass a balanced budget amendment. Of course, as someone who likes social programs I would like to keep them largely intact but I'm not against some things to make them more financially sound (raising the retirement age a few years) or to keep people from abusing the system (drug tests for every adult and maybe teenagers in a household for social welfare programs.) Also on some social issues that I feel strongly about that are controversial and would like a candidate to feel the same as me.

Abortion- pro-life
Animal rights- A balanced approach (Strong fines for people who break animal cruelty laws but not restricted as to making it difficult or illegal to own pets.)
Censorship- against
Drugs- total decriminalization of all drugs (Portugal, Mexican drug cartels)
Environment protection- Support
Gay Marriage- Support
Gun Control- Balanced Approach
Prayer in School- Support for students, opposed for teachers
 
Decriminalization of ALL drugs?! Sorry, but that's outright insanity. Marijuana I can understand, and would support the legalization of. There are less pot related deaths each year than there are alcohol. I DO think they should set an age limit for it (probably 21, like alcohol). But... cocaine? Heroine? Methamphetamines? No. Those SHOULD be illegal. Those have very legitimate reasons for being illegal.

Censorship - please define what type of censorship you're against. The FCC regulating swear words and nudity during prime times when children are watching? Or the FULL censorship of the government controlling what we can and can't watch?

Prayer in school - So... it's okay for students to do it, but any teacher that does the same can be reprimanded? That doesn't make sense. I can understand to an extent, but it doesn't make sense to me. If students want to have a small prayer group, I know at my high school, they were allowed to do that. Faculty members were welcome to join. Do I believe that every class session outside of private Christian schools should begin with prayer? Hell no (pardon the pun).
 
willderphil said:
I think when he says he isn't mad at the mayor or the LAPD he is talking about his own situation and not Mr. Prince's so he is saying he isn't mad at them for arresting him for a misdemeanor even though I think he should be. And I don't think the use of the plural makes much difference. To me I see it as him being both mad at Mr. Prince or the Mr. Princes and whatever reason they are not in jail but maybe i read to much into it and it is a stupid thing to argue about.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's me that is reading into it. I see his statements as symbolism. Just like the other "occupiers" his anger is misdirected at Wall St instead of Pennsylvania Ave and Capitol Hill. In my opinion the use of the plural does matter. I doubt that his sighting of Mr. Prince was because he believes only that one specific individual should have been arrested but rather what he represents(i.e. Wall St, bankers, etc).

His anger toward Mr. Prince(s) is misdirected unless you are simply referring to being angry at Mr. Prince’s lack moral ethics. You are very correct in that he should be very angry at why Mr. Prince was not arrested. That is because DC wrote laws that enabled the Mr. Princes to do the things they did and then encouraged them to use those laws to their full advantage. This IMHO is where the anger and outrage should be directed.

willderphil said:
But a name does matter and I truly want to know who is most deserving of your vote no matter how big or small they are. Maybe that's not fair because in a perfect world I have not found someone to vote for either.
Click to expand...
Not one single person running is deserving of my vote. Once again I will be relinquished to vote against someone rather than for someone.

willderphil said:
Personally I would want someone who would try and end most and maybe all subsidies, Fix loopholes in the tax code (maybe tax reform), put an end to lobbying, and pass a balanced budget amendment.
Click to expand...
These are things we agree on.

willderphil said:
Of course, as someone who likes social programs I would like to keep them largely intact but I'm not against some things to make them more financially sound (raising the retirement age a few years) or to keep people from abusing the system (drug tests for every adult and maybe teenagers in a household for social welfare programs.) Also on some social issues that I feel strongly about that are controversial and would like a candidate to feel the same as me.
Click to expand...
I don't want to eliminate all social programs but IMHO they should be so vastly reduced from what they are now that most would not be recognizable.

willderphil said:
Abortion- pro-life
Animal rights- A balanced approach (Strong fines for people who break animal cruelty laws but not restricted as to making it difficult or illegal to own pets.)
Censorship- against
Drugs- total decriminalization of all drugs (Portugal, Mexican drug cartels)
Environment protection- Support
Gay Marriage- Support
Gun Control- Balanced Approach
Prayer in School- Support for students, opposed for teachers
Click to expand...
I can agree with most of this but with these alterations.

I am against censorship in general but as Robbie pointed out there are some things we need to do to protect kids. Adults should be able to censor on their own.

Drugs again as Robbie pointed out there are some drugs that are awful in every sense. I may not criminalize them as far as use but definitely would not want a highly addictive and damaging substance manufactured in an uncontrolled way and dispersed by anyone wanting to cook meth in their garage.

Environmental protection, is a tough one. I think it is absolutely ludicrous for the EPA to set such strict guidelines here in the US that it serves only to drive business out. Do we really think cleaning the air here by pushing a business across the border into Mexico because they don't control air pollution is a world fix on pollution? In my opinion EPA guidelines should be set upon the product. In other words if Wal-Mart wants to buy TVs from Mexico or India etc the plant that produces that TV no matter where it is located has to meet our EPA guidelines just as a factory here does or it cannot be imported back to the US. While we’re at it all US standards should apply to that product (safety, labor, etc).

Gun control there should be NONE(shall not be infringed) for a law abiding sane citizen period.

Prayer should be not be controlled. The separation of church and state is fine but that is in regards to a state sanctioned or mandated religion akin to Islam in middle eastern countries. A gov institution should not say everyone here must be Christian and we must pray at noon everyday etc. But again agreeing with Robbie I see no problem with a teacher praying with a student, a coach praying with a football team, a cross on a grave at Arlington, in god we trust on our money, or even a statue in the desert on gov land as long as the gov is not mandating the people to worship in a specific manner or to a specific religion.

RobbiesCornField said:
Decriminalization of ALL drugs?! Sorry, but that's outright insanity. Marijuana I can understand, and would support the legalization of. There are less pot related deaths each year than there are alcohol. I DO think they should set an age limit for it (probably 21, like alcohol). But... cocaine? Heroine? Methamphetamines? No. Those SHOULD be illegal. Those have very legitimate reasons for being illegal.

Censorship - please define what type of censorship you're against. The FCC regulating swear words and nudity during prime times when children are watching? Or the FULL censorship of the government controlling what we can and can't watch?

Prayer in school - So... it's okay for students to do it, but any teacher that does the same can be reprimanded? That doesn't make sense. I can understand to an extent, but it doesn't make sense to me. If students want to have a small prayer group, I know at my high school, they were allowed to do that. Faculty members were welcome to join. Do I believe that every class session outside of private Christian schools should begin with prayer? Hell no (pardon the pun).
Click to expand...
Well said Robbie.
 
tsst said:


I am against censorship in general but as Robbie pointed out there are some things we need to do to protect kids. Adults should be able to censor on their own.
Click to expand...


Well really the FCC only currently regulates local station programming so like abc, cbs, cw etc. and I'm ok with that. All cable stations are self censoring because they don't want to offend their viewers and have the cable companies drop their channel. Also I am not against there being rules saying you can't yell bomb in an airport and cause unneeded panic or how to make an atomic weapon, but the censoring of books, information, speech including hate speech should be protected not because I agree with it but because I feel that sheltering people from it does more harm then good.

Drugs again as Robbie pointed out there are some drugs that are awful in every sense. I may not criminalize them as far as use but definitely would not want a highly addictive and damaging substance manufactured in an uncontrolled way and dispersed by anyone wanting to cook meth in their garage.
Click to expand...

I should be more specific in I think drugs should be decriminalized for amounts on people for personal use.
In Portugal they legalized all drugs and nothing really changed. People who want to do drugs will find a way to get them whether they are illegal or not, those who don't do drugs will continue not doing them. It allows for those who want help to feel more comfortable getting help cause they don't fear going to jail. It free ups space in jails for more serious criminals and allows the cops have more time to focus on drug traffickers or other more serious crimes.

Environmental protection, is a tough one. I think it is absolutely ludicrous for the EPA to set such strict guidelines here in the US that it serves only to drive business out. Do we really think cleaning the air here by pushing a business across the border into Mexico because they don't control air pollution is a world fix on pollution? In my opinion EPA guidelines should be set upon the product. In other words if Wal-Mart wants to buy TVs from Mexico or India etc the plant that produces that TV no matter where it is located has to meet our EPA guidelines just as a factory here does or it cannot be imported back to the US. While we’re at it all US standards should apply to that product (safety, labor, etc).
Click to expand...

That is a good solution but I think it might be hard to implement, but access to the U.S. market is greatly desirable and might be enough of a motivation. |That being said the EPA has definetly had a positive effect on the U.S. air. maye other places are being polluted and polluting other things so its not a long term solution but at least it's not on our doorstep.

Gun control there should be NONE(shall not be infringed) for a law abiding sane citizen period.
Click to expand...

So it sounds you agree with a background check at least when purchasing a gun and even a psychiatric evaluation. I would agree with that and maybe it would be easier in just have a gun license that way you don't have to run it every single time. also a way to track possession of guns to make sure that they aren't getting to people who are going to use them for crimes and holding those who are giving access to criminals accountable. I don't think there is a good reason for a person to own fully automatic weapons besides killing large amounts of people and wouldn't feel comfortable with just anyone being able to buy a machine gun.

Prayer should be not be controlled. The separation of church and state is fine but that is in regards to a state sanctioned or mandated religion akin to Islam in middle eastern countries. A gov institution should not say everyone here must be Christian and we must pray at noon everyday etc. But again agreeing with Robbie I see no problem with a teacher praying with a student, a coach praying with a football team, a cross on a grave at Arlington, in god we trust on our money, or even a statue in the desert on gov land as long as the gov is not mandating the people to worship in a specific manner or to a specific religion.

Well said Robbie.
Click to expand...

I got to go to work I'll respond to this part later.
 
tsst said:

Prayer should be not be controlled. The separation of church and state is fine but that is in regards to a state sanctioned or mandated religion akin to Islam in middle eastern countries. A gov institution should not say everyone here must be Christian and we must pray at noon everyday etc. But again agreeing with Robbie I see no problem with a teacher praying with a student, a coach praying with a football team, a cross on a grave at Arlington, in god we trust on our money, or even a statue in the desert on gov land as long as the gov is not mandating the people to worship in a specific manner or to a specific religion.
Click to expand...


I think that religion is too much of a touchy subject. Parents don't want their kids indoctrinated with other peoples religions. What if a coach is Wiccan, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, ? Is everyone going to be ok with a coach praying a Wiccan prayer before a game? I don't think so. It is better if it is just taken out all together I think.
 
willderphil said:
I think that religion is too much of a touchy subject. Parents don't want their kids indoctrinated with other peoples religions. What if a coach is Wiccan, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, ? Is everyone going to be ok with a coach praying a Wiccan prayer before a game? I don't think so. It is better if it is just taken out all together I think.
Click to expand...

Well here's the thing, the students have a CHOICE of whether or not they pray with the coach. They're not FORCED to. My marching band director my junior and senior year liked to pray with the group. Guess what? We weren't FORCED to do it. But we did have the CHOICE to do that. Why remove ALL rights for a few who choose to remain offended, no matter what? That's about the same logic I've heard for the ban on gay marriage. It makes a few people (namely Republicans) uncomfortable, so ban it outright. Do I think that religion has any place in government decisions? No. Do I think that students and faculty should be allowed to pray should they choose to do so when not during instructional time? Yes.
 
RobbiesCornField said:
Well here's the thing, the students have a CHOICE of whether or not they pray with the coach. They're not FORCED to. My marching band director my junior and senior year liked to pray with the group. Guess what? We weren't FORCED to do it. But we did have the CHOICE to do that. Why remove ALL rights for a few who choose to remain offended, no matter what? That's about the same logic I've heard for the ban on gay marriage. It makes a few people (namely Republicans) uncomfortable, so ban it outright. Do I think that religion has any place in government decisions? No. Do I think that students and faculty should be allowed to pray should they choose to do so when not during instructional time? Yes.
Click to expand...

Robs, you are wise beyond your years....
 
tsst said:
Regime change as in career politicians out. A government of the people for the people by the people I believe was meant to be just that. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, business owners, parents, etc serving short terms representing the people. NOT lifelong politicians serving themselves and those that contribute the most.
Click to expand...
I had seen Neil deGrasse Tyson say something similar in an interview, about how strange it was that so many people in congress listed "law" as their profession (believe it was over 50%). And how important it is for us to have a lot more teachers, doctors, farmers, environmentalists, scientists, etc... also in congress. I really liked what he had to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top