G20 protestors in Pennsylvania met by resistance from riot police. - Polidicks

[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/09/25/0925PROTEST/30439825.JPG[/img] Is Anonymous involved or is this some wannabe dumbshit?

[QUOTE=thisispain;17489066]he's a half communist he believes in getting rid of the capitalist system but not a 100%[/QUOTE] I agree with getting rid of the capitalist system, but I'm not really into Communism.

[QUOTE=DPennington;17489281]Agreed, but all the rednecks don't know the difference. And it's annoying as hell when people state that he is when he's obviously not.[/QUOTE] I sort of noticed this gradual change in the public perception of what socialism is. Like, the right wing machine started out calling him a socialist, and then gradually changed the meaning of "socialist" to mean "communist" never mind the fact that Obama is sort of to the right of Bill Clinton economically, but there wasn't anywhere near this backlash against Clinton as there is against Obama right now

Alright lets get some things straight. Bush was by many definitions, a democrat, even though he called himself a republican. This assumption is made due to the fact that republicans like to [i]shrink[/i] (ie. cut back government programs/reduce spending) government, and democrats like to [i]grow[/i] (ie. spend lots of money) government. Bush grew the government and spent shitloads, which is why some people are confused. Obama is a "democrat" but leaning towards socialist. Making things like healthcare government run is the idea of "ism" (socialism/communism). He is by very few means, a capitalist. The whole "bailout" thing was not what he should have done. That is [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b] a capitalist thing to do. A true capitalistic ideal is that when a business fucks up, it fails, therefore creating an area for a new business to replace it. No free giveaways, no bailouts. If you fuck up your business, you shouldn't get a free ride. Even if it isn't your fault, the idea remains the same. Sorry, but [b][i]that[/i][/b] is capitalism. If you believe that the bailouts were justified, then you lean towards socialist. and yea, "spreading the wealth." There are so many things wrong with that, I don't even wanna get into it. EDIT: I'd also like to know why everyone thinks that republicans are nazi's, because that honestly makes no sense at all.... Just give me a few good reasons.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489566]Alright lets get some things straight. Bush was by many definitions, a democrat, even though he called himself a republican. This assumption is made due to the fact that republicans like to [i]shrink[/i] (ie. cut back government programs/reduce spending) government, and democrats like to [i]grow[/i] (ie. spend lots of money) government. Bush grew the government and spent shitloads, which is why some people are confused. Obama is a "democrat" but leaning towards socialist. Making things like healthcare government run is the idea of "ism" (socialism/communism). He is by very few means, a capitalist. The whole "bailout" thing was not what he should have done. That is [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b] a capitalist thing to do. A true capitalistic ideal is that when a business fucks up, it fails, therefore creating an area for a new business to replace it. No free giveaways, no bailouts. If you fuck up your business, you shouldn't get a free ride. Even if it isn't your fault, the idea remains the same. Sorry, but [b][i]that[/i][/b] is capitalism. If you believe that the bailouts were justified, then you lean towards socialist. and yea, "spreading the wealth." There are so many things wrong with that, I don't even wanna get into it.[/QUOTE] yo if you're just going to start pulling stuff out of your ass, at least wash it before you post it, because otherwise it's going to stink up the thread

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489566]Alright lets get some things straight. Bush was by many definitions, a democrat, even though he called himself a republican. This assumption is made due to the fact that republicans like to [i]shrink[/i] (ie. cut back government programs/reduce spending) government, and democrats like to [i]grow[/i] (ie. spend lots of money) government. Bush grew the government and spent shitloads, which is why some people are confused. Obama is a "democrat" but leaning towards socialist. Making things like healthcare government run is the idea of "ism" (socialism/communism). He is by very few means, a capitalist. The whole "bailout" thing was not what he should have done. That is [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b] a capitalist thing to do. A true capitalistic ideal is that when a business fucks up, it fails, therefore creating an area for a new business to replace it. No free giveaways, no bailouts. If you fuck up your business, you shouldn't get a free ride. Even if it isn't your fault, the idea remains the same. Sorry, but [b][i]that[/i][/b] is capitalism. If you believe that the bailouts were justified, then you lean towards socialist. and yea, "spreading the wealth." There are so many things wrong with that, I don't even wanna get into it. EDIT: I'd also like to know why everyone thinks that republicans are nazi's, because that honestly makes no sense at all.... Just give me a few good reasons.[/QUOTE] I would say protecting business interests, which the bailout does, is the capitalistic thing to do. This reveals the big flaw in minarchist argument that big government is socialist. Though, then again, it wasn't really an argument so much that it was a strawman.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17489599]yo if you're just going to start pulling stuff out of your ass, at least wash it before you post it, because otherwise it's going to stink up the thread[/QUOTE] If you're going to accuse someone of pulling shit out of their ass, have reasons to back up your arguments.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489566]Alright lets get some things straight. Bush was by many definitions, a democrat, even though he called himself a republican. This assumption is made due to the fact that republicans like to [i]shrink[/i] (ie. cut back government programs/reduce spending) government, and democrats like to [i]grow[/i] (ie. spend lots of money) government. Bush grew the government and spent shitloads, which is why some people are confused. Obama is a "democrat" but leaning towards socialist. Making things like healthcare government run is the idea of "ism" (socialism/communism). He is by very few means, a capitalist. The whole "bailout" thing was not what he should have done. That is [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b] a capitalist thing to do. A true capitalistic ideal is that when a business fucks up, it fails, therefore creating an area for a new business to replace it. No free giveaways, no bailouts. If you fuck up your business, you shouldn't get a free ride. Even if it isn't your fault, the idea remains the same. Sorry, but [b][i]that[/i][/b] is capitalism. If you believe that the bailouts were justified, then you lean towards socialist. and yea, "spreading the wealth." There are so many things wrong with that, I don't even wanna get into it. EDIT: I'd also like to know why everyone thinks that republicans are nazi's, because that honestly makes no sense at all.... Just give me a few good reasons.[/QUOTE] This.

We should have had National Healthcare in the first place. I mean, we have government controlled Police, nobody complains about that. We have government controlled Fire Departments, nobody complains about that. But when government controlled healthcare comes up everyone goes apeshit. Besides, if we were truely 100% capitalist, well then we'd have to rely on private security companies for protection. And I doubt that would be a good thing.

If any protesters deserve to be roughed up by the police, it's the G20 ones. [QUOTE=Kyle902;17489298] Is Anonymous involved or is this some wannabe dumbshit?[/QUOTE] Some may argue the redundancy of this question.

[QUOTE=Conscript;17489639]I would say protecting business interests, which the bailout does, is the capitalistic thing to do. This reveals the big flaw in minarchist argument that big government is socialist. Though, then again, it wasn't really an argument so much that it was a strawman.[/QUOTE] It's not that big government is socialist, that isn't true at all. It's government controlling things normally kept capitalist.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17489599]yo if you're just going to start pulling stuff out of your ass, at least wash it before you post it, because otherwise it's going to stink up the thread[/QUOTE] Him: *Coherent argument* You: "Lol ur dumb :downs:"

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;17489656]We should have had National Healthcare in the first place. I mean, we have government controlled Police, nobody complains about that. We have government controlled Fire Departments, nobody complains about that. But when government controlled healthcare comes up everyone goes apeshit. Besides, if we were truely 100% capitalist, well then we'd have to rely on private security companies for protection. And I doubt that would be a good thing.[/QUOTE] I saw some guy who thought roads should be privatized.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489566]Alright lets get some things straight. Bush was by many definitions, a democrat, even though he called himself a republican. This assumption is made due to the fact that republicans like to [i]shrink[/i] (ie. cut back government programs/reduce spending) government, and democrats like to [i]grow[/i] (ie. spend lots of money) government. Bush grew the government and spent shitloads, which is why some people are confused. Obama is a "democrat" but leaning towards socialist. Making things like healthcare government run is the idea of "ism" (socialism/communism). He is by very few means, a capitalist. The whole "bailout" thing was not what he should have done. That is [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b] a capitalist thing to do. A true capitalistic ideal is that when a business fucks up, it fails, therefore creating an area for a new business to replace it. No free giveaways, no bailouts. If you fuck up your business, you shouldn't get a free ride. Even if it isn't your fault, the idea remains the same. Sorry, but [b][i]that[/i][/b] is capitalism. If you believe that the bailouts were justified, then you lean towards socialist. and yea, "spreading the wealth." There are so many things wrong with that, I don't even wanna get into it. EDIT: I'd also like to know why everyone thinks that republicans are nazi's, because that honestly makes no sense at all.... Just give me a few good reasons.[/QUOTE] I didn't say I agreed with any of it. I'm saying that none of that makes him communist, and one or two acts of socialism does not make him a socialist. As far as your definitions of republican and democrat, there's more to it than government size and spending. Conservatism, Liberalism, market freedom, foreign relations, world identity, position on religion, civil rights, and a whole lot of other stuff. Bush was a Republican- yeah, he may have increased government size and spending but he had good reason. We were attacked, our security was threatened, we were in war and we needed a stable, sturdy government with enough power to make everyone feel safe.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;17489656]We should have had National Healthcare in the first place. I mean, we have government controlled Police, nobody complains about that. We have government controlled Fire Departments, nobody complains about that. But when government controlled healthcare comes up everyone goes apeshit. Besides, if we were truely 100% capitalist, well then we'd have to rely on private security companies for protection. And I doubt that would be a good thing.[/QUOTE] Socialism is when government has a lot of say in how our economy works, not how they protect us. Government run economic programs hardly turn out well. [editline]01:57AM[/editline] [QUOTE=DPennington;17489691]I didn't say I agreed with any of it. I'm saying that none of that makes him communist, and one or two acts of socialism does not make him a socialist. As far as your definitions of republican and democrat, there's more to it than government size and spending. Conservatism, Liberalism, market freedom, foreign relations, world identity, position on religion, civil rights, and a whole lot of other stuff. Bush was a Republican- yeah, he may have increased government size and spending but he had good reason. We were attacked, our security was threatened, we were in war and we needed a stable, sturdy government with enough power to make everyone feel safe.[/QUOTE] While that is a valid point, that doesn't mean that he didn't raise debt - normally something a liberal does. [editline]01:58AM[/editline] Also still wondering why people think republicans are nazi's....

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489665]It's not that big government is socialist, that isn't true at all. It's government controlling things normally kept capitalist.[/QUOTE] Same difference. Either way, with the bailout, the government was, once again, acting in the interest of business. [quote=Milkyway M16;34342343]Socialism is when government has a lot of say in how our economy works, not how they protect us. Government run economic programs hardly turn out well.[/quote] This is just flat out wrong.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489643]If you're going to accuse someone of pulling shit out of their ass, have reasons to back up your arguments.[/QUOTE] well first off, you think that the main definition of republicans and democrats is that democrats grow the government while republicans shrink the government, which just simplifies the situation to a retarded level second, you think Bush was doing all this spending, when he pretty much slashed government spending on everything except for the military

[QUOTE=lmaoboat;17489664]If any protesters deserve to be roughed up by the police, it's the G20 ones. Some may argue the redundancy of this question.[/QUOTE] The G20 protesters worldwide always seem to be the ones who start riots and to be honest, I cannot possibly comprehend what they're protesting in the first place. Seriously, when they had the G20 meeting in Australia, I was ashamed to see police standing by, doing nothing as "protestors" attacked police and public property. If somebody is attacking a cop, the cop should respond with force. A soft police department does nothing but ask for trouble, as evidenced by the shit police force we've had here in Melbourne over the past decade or so, just because our chief Commissioners decided to take a soft and friendly approach to policing.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489699] Also still wondering why people think republicans are nazi's....[/QUOTE] That was sarcasm and pointing out how Republicans are as much nazis as Democrats are socialists/communists. I didn't mean any of it literally, if that was directed to me. [editline]02:00AM[/editline] How did this become a Republican/Democrat/Socialist/Communist debate?

[QUOTE=trainman1337;17488061]:siren: [b]Holeeeee SHIT![/b] :siren: Even the media gets in trouble/gassed. And this is happening 60-ish miles south of where I live. :ohdear::derp:[/QUOTE] It's not like they're deliberately mowing down reporters who are covering it, you'd think not standing so close to the angry mob that the police are trying to disperse would kinda be common sense.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17489753]well first off, you think that the main definition of republicans and democrats is that democrats grow the government while republicans shrink the government, which just simplifies the situation to a retarded level second, you think Bush was doing all this spending, when he pretty much slashed government spending on everything except for the military[/QUOTE] At no point in my argument did I once say that those were the definitions of republicans and democrats. I simply implied that those are [i][b]tendencies[/b][/i] of both parties. You have a good point about Bush, but it wasn't all military. Some people like to think that it was, but there were government programs put in place to help "protect" us, when they had nothing to do with military action/development/research.

Why was a bro there?

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489811]At no point in my argument did I once say that those were the definitions of republicans and democrats. I simply implied that those are [i][b]tendencies[/b][/i] of both parties.[/QUOTE] But those aren't the tendencies of both parties either. Don't just look at it in a spectrum of Big Government vs. Little Government

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489699]Socialism is when government has a lot of say in how our economy works, not how they protect us. Government run economic programs hardly turn out well.[/QUOTE] I wasn't talking about economics, I was talking about Healthcare.

[QUOTE=DPennington;17489761]That was sarcasm and pointing out how Republicans are as much nazis as Democrats are socialists/communists. I didn't mean any of it literally, if that was directed to me. [editline]02:00AM[/editline] How did this become a Republican/Democrat/Socialist/Communist debate?[/QUOTE] I saw some people say Republicans were nazi's, it wasn't directed at you, but I hear that too much and I really am just wondering why people think that. This became a Republican/Democrat/Socialist/Communist debate when people got confused about the definitions of each. [editline]02:05AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;17489846]I wasn't talking about economics, I was talking about Healthcare.[/QUOTE] Guess what health care is a part of...... The Economy...... [editline]02:08AM[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17489844]But those aren't the tendencies of both parties either. Don't just look at it in a spectrum of Big Government vs. Little Government[/QUOTE] That is the tendency of both parties. How is it not? I'm not talking about big gov. vs. little gov, I'm talking about spending. When a government spends money, it's usually spending on new gov. programs, which just so happens to grow government. When a government cuts those programs back, it reduces spending, and shrinks the government. So no, it isn't big gov. vs. little gov.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489857] Guess what health care is a part of...... The Economy......[/QUOTE] no, not necessarily Education could potentially be part of the economy, but I don't see people decrying public schools as "socialized education." Nor has public education totally removed the private sector from the equation as private schooling is still widely available. [editline]08:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17489857] I'm not talking about big gov. vs. little gov, I'm talking about spending. When a government spends money, it's usually spending on new gov. programs, which just so happens to grow government.[/QUOTE] No, that's not usually the case. What, do social programs not exist?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17489934]no, not necessarily Education could potentially be part of the economy, but I don't see people decrying public schools as "socialized education." Nor has public education totally removed the private sector from the equation as private schooling is still widely available.[/QUOTE] The way that it's going, you might be right and health care might not be part of the economy, but as of right now, it is all private health care, meaning it [i][b]is[/b][/i] part of the economy. Unfortunately, that's another thing bush, the so called "republican" helped to change. The school systems. It is partly socialized thanks to bush which is him acting outside of his political party again. And yes, there are private schools, and public schools, which is how some people want health care to be. That might be what health care turns out to be with the way it looks right now. [QUOTE]No, that's not usually the case. What, do social programs not exist?[/QUOTE] That is the case. Once again, provide evidence and you might sway my opinions. Without it, you're making empty charges. What are you talking about? When did I say they didn't exist? [editline]02:56AM[/editline] Lol well that discussion died quickly....

Fuck yeah my home town makes the news! ...wait, that's not a good reason

[QUOTE=Kyle902;17489298]Is Anonymous involved or is this some wannabe dumbshit?[/QUOTE] You say that as if one precludes the other.

[QUOTE=Xelatomis;17487427]Wonder if Canada will show up to discuss this.... ...for once[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.esphigmenou.com/images/Riot_Police_at_Esphigmenou.jpg[/img] I hope were not too late eh?