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

haha, a shame most of the protestors were aiming to be peaceful- but groups of guys in black with gasmasks (anarchists probably) started the whole shitfest I think. the reason why the police went all hardcore on them was because apparently quote: [quote]Two separate sources now say the crackdown on demonstrators was pushed hardest by the US Justice Department based on the concerns of undercover units in the streets—among them, members of the secretive US Army Delta Force seeking to prevent terrorist chemical attacks in Seattle. The Delta contingent, known for its clandestine global assaults and rescue operations, has quietly been assigned some domestic security roles—[/quote] damn you delta force!

[QUOTE=Kingeh;17508105]haha, a shame most of the protestors were aiming to be peaceful- but groups of guys in black with gasmasks (anarchists probably) started the whole shitfest I think. the reason why the police went all hardcore on them was because apparently quote: damn you delta force![/QUOTE] That's awesome.

That doesn't give them to right to shoot students unprovoked though, or anyone as a matter a fact, now does it?

[QUOTE=ifaux;17508284]That doesn't give them to right to shoot students unprovoked though, or anyone as a matter a fact, now does it?[/QUOTE] It's rare that they shoot unprovoked. The protestors did an illegal action. And it's not like this is one sided. Imagine the shit the riot police have to go through, a protester may get tear gassed but an officer may have a Molotov thrown at him.

[QUOTE=markg06;17493287]Those sonic things don't seem too efficient given that they sound like a loud car alarm.[/QUOTE] They're called LRADS and they are really effective. It sends a loud frequency noise that affects that distraught the human's hearing and thoughts. Not only is it fucking loud but it'll cause headaches and dizziness and is a really effective way of controlling crowds.

Riot control is always cool, those officers would scare me shitless. Also, the girl in the first picture doesn't have a bra...

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;17492408]Bulking up the military has been a focus of the U.S. Republican party since it's inception, and he didn't even outspend other Republican presidents on non-military affairs. Plus, part of his non-military spending was on the 100k + "independent contractors" integrated with the U.S. forces in Iraq. So it's a bit of a lie to say his spending was egregious and not in line with party ideals- his spending shitloads on the military while trying to support military supply-side and civilian trickle-down economics like a mad fool was wholly Republican. It sounds to me like you're the one confused here. No it isn't. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that there needs to be a certain "safety net" available, the difference is in how it's paid for, who it covers, etc. Employer based vs. single-payer, that sort of thing. By the by, Obama isn't proposing making healthcare "socialized" or "universal" or solely government run or any of that other bullshit you're being scared into believing. The U.S. has always been a [i]regulated[/i] capitalist state. Not truly "hands-off." Ever. Period. Both major parties desire certain levels of regulation to keep things afloat, more so in times of crisis. Don't do that, and people will abuse other people. Bad things will happen to the state as a whole. Hell, part of the U.S.'s founding fathers were virtuous republicans who thought serving the commonwealth was just as important as serving yourself, or more so, and that your individual rights were protected so you could go make money, and then pour it back into your community and the state. Others thought you had a right to go and make money, and do as you saw fit with it, because commerce would inspire everyone involved to greatness. We run on a compromise. Always have, always will. As for letting the economy be the ultimate judge of what businesses live or die...besides the fact that we as a nation regulate the economy to protect both your individual rights and the success of the commonwealth, you're proposing that everyone burned in the recession deserves to go under, which isn't true. Part of the recession was caused by lying, fraud, etc.- abuse of the system. You're essentially saying that people who are ripped off or defrauded deserve to go under because...they weren't smart enough to see it coming, or what? And the real fucking kicker- why this shit is so hilarious to me- is that the bailouts aren't "free." It's surprising how many people don't know this, but the money doesn't come without strings attached. In some instances it's expected to be paid back like a regular loan. And while their are certainly instances of money being given to the wrong people for the wrong reasons (GM, for example, deserves to die), we're certainly nowhere near the much-over hyped worst case scenario of being trillions upon trillions in debt because we're spending the maximum limit allotted by the bailout legislation. It's money shifting hands and coming back, not being given away freely by a bunch of monkeys with the intent of having poor Joe Taxpayer foot the bill. A good member of the U.S. Republican party is concerned because of the way these bailouts are being handled, with the fear that they could be abused, or simply used poorly thanks to standard political incompetence. A DURR HURR OBAMA'S A COMMIE MOOZLIM "Republican" is concerned because it has a small, mostly vestigial frontal lobe and startles easily. Particularly after he gets done explaining his views on alternative methods of taxation, and explains why he thinks "spreading the wealth" [highlight]would be profitable for the guy he was taking it from?[/highlight] Did you miss the entire "high taxes compensated for by more customers able to afford your services" pitch? Hell, think about it for more than one second. Lowering taxes for certain groups and raising them for others isn't "spreading" literally, it's a figurative way of saying "I want to make people on the bottom able to afford more stuff, they buy more stuff, you make more money, everyone is happy." You're demonizing the statement to mean "GRRAAAAH IMMA TAKE YO MONIEZ AND GIVE 'EM TO POOR PEOPLE! FUCK YOU, HARDWORKING AMERICANS!" Instead of, you know, the potentially disagreeable but still wholly rational "GRAAAAAAH, IMMA MAKE YOU PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE TAXES AND LET THESE PEOPLE PAY A BIT LESS, SO THAT THEY CAN END UP PUTTING MORE MONEY AND PERSONAL EFFORT INTO THE ECONOMY THUS BEING PROFITABLE FOR EVERYONE!"[/QUOTE] Believe it or not, I did read this post. To be honest, I can't remember all of it and don't feel like reading again so forgive me if I quote you wrongly. Anyway, I'm not actually talking about how both parties act today when it comes to the definition of democrat/republican and how they run the economy per-say, just how a capitalist economy was intended to be run and what the actual meaning of such things is. There was also something about spreading the wealth right? I simply believe that taxing our employers (the wealthy ones) more, can result in the elimination of job positions due to cutting back (due to them having to fork over more money), or cut-backs in the quality of their product. It really is a simple concept. When someone is forced to pay more taxes, they feel inclined to cut back costs in other areas to balance the loss to taxes. As I said before, these areas could include our employment. All that being said, even if he does give lower taxes to less wealthy people, they're going to get taxed out the ass for health care if it passes, there's money to pay back for the stimulus, etc. I hardly see any room in there for money that somehow gets back to us. I don't even see what everyone has against wealthy people. Maybe you don't dislike them, but just because they have more money does [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b] mean they owe it to us. Society will always have wealthier people, and middle classes. In fact, the U.S. has one of the closest divides between the wealth class and the middle class in the world, so there's not even that much difference. I don't know, I think I'm rambling now. Feel free to point out flaws in my argument and I'll fix them tomorrow. I'm waaaaay too tired and shouldn't really be awake right now lol.

thread music: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK2T2aPooy4&feature=related[/media]

Getting a permit to protest kinda defeats the point of it don't you think?

[QUOTE=Kingeh;17508105]haha, a shame most of the protestors were aiming to be peaceful- but groups of guys in black with gasmasks (anarchists probably) started the whole shitfest I think. [/QUOTE] it's always like that

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;17487564]Much cooler than those European Riot cops.[/QUOTE] The American police are going for the fear factor here. By looking completely badass they can expect less trouble.

[QUOTE=nevaeh;17487572]Video: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ruFS8dVL0[/media] * 3 Dozen police in riot gear marching by*[/QUOTE] Anybody notice the school-bus just driving past the police?

They look like fucking space marines.

I love the police when they do stuff like this, it shows people that they actually do stuff. Also this is the thread music: [url]http://filebox.me/files/eb2kq1dkf_03the_dust_brotherswhat_is_fight_clubeos.mp3[/url]

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;1750884]I'm not actually talking about how both parties act today when it comes to the definition of democrat/republican and how they run the economy per-say, just how a capitalist economy was intended to be run and what the actual meaning of such things is.[/QUOTE] Bullshit. You started off by asserting Bush was a Democrat pretending to be a Republican. Don't try and pan that off as you trying to use an older meaning of the term as part of an explanation on what capitalism is. And "intended to be run?" Capitalism first occurred in mixed economies, and pure, unbridled capitalism was never successful anywhere politically or economically stable in the long term. Does "Keynes" ring any bells with you? How about "1930?" Fuck, "Marx?" The idea of a purely capitalist economy is has been challenged successfully time and time again. Neither the original "intent" of capitalism nor the successful modern mixed economy implementation is anything like what you describe. [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;1750884]There was also something about spreading the wealth right? I simply believe that taxing our employers (the wealthy ones) more, can result in the elimination of job positions due to cutting back (due to them having to fork over more money), or cut-backs in the quality of their product. It really is a simple concept. When someone is forced to pay more taxes, they feel inclined to cut back costs in other areas to balance the loss to taxes. As I said before, these areas could include our employment.[/QUOTE] And you completely missed the counterpoint by Obama that the increase in business should more than compensate for the increase in taxes. It really is a simple concept. There is a balancing point whereupon costs can go up alongside sales and the net effect on a business is virtually null. In most markets, assuming your costs will always be low is incredibly naive. You're telling me a business owner who has a wee tax increase is going to suffer as a result? Had his overhead gone up the same amount due to an entirely economic issue, you'd be arguing he deserved it. [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;1750884]I don't even see what everyone has against wealthy people.[/QUOTE] I don't have any beef with myself and my homies. [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;1750884]just because they have more money does [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b] mean they owe it to us.[/QUOTE] I completely agree! Or, rather, just because [i]I[/i] have money does not mean I owe it to [i]you.[/i] But I'm not going to have a fit just because Uncle Sam raised the minuscule amount of my money he wastes on programs I don't think benefit me when the rest of my taxes fund services that do and I'm capable of voting people into office who will eventually nix the shit I don't like. And I'm certainly not going to go on a forum, make shit up about political parties I clearly don't understand, pretend that someone who is an advocate of regulated capitalism is somehow a socialist, make plain that I have no actual education on the subject of capitalist economies, claim that anyone who disagrees with my terrible understanding of capitalism endorses the socialism, and then parrot a Fox News scare phrase out of context as if to prove that I'm a mindless twat!

So Xenocidebot, what kind of business do you run?

Requiring a permit to hold a protest pretty much takes away the point. The government can just refuse permits to people saying things they dont like and arrest anyone who shows up. Dumb americans.

[QUOTE=Deadollie;17517356]Requiring a permit to hold a protest pretty much takes away the point. The government can just refuse permits to people saying things they dont like and arrest anyone who shows up. Dumb americans.[/QUOTE] If people are allowed to protest without a permit, I should be allowed to drive over them if they're blocking the road.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;17508047]They should have put the megaphones back to back to see how loud it would be[/QUOTE] testing testing testing TESTING TESTING TESTING TESTING

[QUOTE=Canesfan;17487405] [media]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/09/25/0925PROTEST/30439954.JPG[/media] [/QUOTE] They look like they came from the show Red Dwarf :v:

You guys should know a Guy Fawkes mask does not always mean /b/

[QUOTE=Deadollie;17517356]Requiring a permit to hold a protest pretty much takes away the point. The government can just refuse permits to people saying things they dont like and arrest anyone who shows up. Dumb americans.[/QUOTE] The purpose of the permit is so the state knows it's happening and it isn't going to disrupt the routines of anyone else's lives. They can deny you a permit to protest on the freeway, but if you set up a protest in the park or the plaza, or anywhere else that won't cause disruption, that's okay. They will also have cops to protect you and make sure you don't get out of hand. Follow those rules and even the KKK can get a permit to protest.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;17516981]Bullshit. You started off by asserting Bush was a Democrat pretending to be a Republican. Don't try and pan that off as you trying to use an older meaning of the term as part of an explanation on what capitalism is. And "intended to be run?" Capitalism first occurred in mixed economies, and pure, unbridled capitalism was never successful anywhere politically or economically stable in the long term. Does "Keynes" ring any bells with you? How about "1930?" Fuck, "Marx?" The idea of a purely capitalist economy is has been challenged successfully time and time again. Neither the original "intent" of capitalism nor the successful modern mixed economy implementation is anything like what you describe. And you completely missed the counterpoint by Obama that the increase in business should more than compensate for the increase in taxes. It really is a simple concept. There is a balancing point whereupon costs can go up alongside sales and the net effect on a business is virtually null. In most markets, assuming your costs will always be low is incredibly naive. You're telling me a business owner who has a wee tax increase is going to suffer as a result? Had his overhead gone up the same amount due to an entirely economic issue, you'd be arguing he deserved it. I don't have any beef with myself and my homies. I completely agree! Or, rather, just because [i]I[/i] have money does not mean I owe it to [i]you.[/i] But I'm not going to have a fit just because Uncle Sam raised the minuscule amount of my money he wastes on programs I don't think benefit me when the rest of my taxes fund services that do and I'm capable of voting people into office who will eventually nix the shit I don't like. And I'm certainly not going to go on a forum, make shit up about political parties I clearly don't understand, pretend that someone who is an advocate of regulated capitalism is somehow a socialist, make plain that I have no actual education on the subject of capitalist economies, claim that anyone who disagrees with my terrible understanding of capitalism endorses the socialism, and then parrot a Fox News scare phrase out of context as if to prove that I'm a mindless twat![/QUOTE] *sigh* Just further proving how people can't really have a meaningful discussion without name calling, insulting, or thinking that they are by far the most learned on the subject. If you actually left your emotions out of all this, you'd see that I'm simply bringing up points that people should think about before making decisions such as "O yea free healthcare sounds great!" or "Yay we get free money from the government!" or "Yea make the rich people pay more, they have more to spend." Not to mention, you're putting words in my mouth to an extreme extent. For example, I'll quote you. [QUOTE]In most markets, assuming your costs will always be low is incredibly naive.[/QUOTE] Now really, I'd like for you to point out in any of my posts when I honestly said this about costs. [u]I didn't[/u], as well as much of what you accuse me of thinking or saying. Another example: [quote]Bullshit. You started off by asserting Bush was a Democrat pretending to be a Republican. [/quote] I never "asserted" that bush was a democrat pretending to be anything. I said he had some liberal tendencies. I do applaud you for at least keeping this mature....

[QUOTE=L0LIMB0RED;17487726]They had no permit to protest.[/QUOTE] And since when have we needed a permit?

[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] He got tear gassed because he stood in a cloud of tear gas. Gas is indiscriminate.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17518136]I'm simply bringing up points that people should think about before making decisions such as "O yea free healthcare sounds great!" or "Yay we get free money from the government!" or "Yea make the rich people pay more, they have more to spend."[/QUOTE] Yes, I'm sure you're using Fox News arguments as "points" for people to consider when thinking about "strawman" or "strawman" or "strawman." I can't honestly tell if you're backpedaling or what, but it doesn't fly, homie. None of the three things you just quoted represented anything thought by anyone involved here, and it's embarassing. [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17518136]Now really, I'd like for you to point out in any of my posts when I honestly said this about costs.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17518136]I simply believe that taxing our employers (the wealthy ones) more, can result in the elimination of job positions due to cutting back (due to them having to fork over more money), or cut-backs in the quality of their product. It really is a simple concept. When someone is forced to pay more taxes, they feel inclined to cut back costs in other areas to balance the loss to taxes. As I said before, these areas could include our employment.[/QUOTE] This entire bit is an assertion that if costs go up a wee bit for a business (because that is what a minor tax hike under Obama would be), the business in question will suffer. I am telling you that this doesn't fly, bro, because flux in the overhead is something all good businesses consider. [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17518136]I never "asserted" that bush was a democrat pretending to be anything. I said he had some liberal tendencies.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;17518136]Bush was by many definitions, a democrat, even though he called himself a republican.[/QUOTE] Saying a dude can be defined as a member of party X is pretty much calling them a member of party X. It'd be like me saying you fit the definition of a moron, you'd still consider me to be calling you a moron.

[QUOTE=mgear;17510404]Anybody notice the school-bus just driving past the police?[/QUOTE] Prisoner transport.

[QUOTE=Kronos Zul;17493306]That's because its part of the Executive branch of the Government's Job, or so says the Constitution.[/QUOTE] Police != Government-controlled To my knowledge, they're run by the county or state in the US.

Why do you need a permit to protest? Doesn't it defeat the whole purpose? You're trying to stand up to authority but you need permission from authority first. And yes I realise the irony of my name + avatar in this thread.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;17508047]They should have put the megaphones back to back to see how loud it would be[/QUOTE] simpsons did it