For my Libertarian friends

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Read the law well HP. It implies that people have to stop any stopped bus that is unloading children. Pat had to go after the bus that was already stopped, and stop it. Interpretations abound as to what he would have had to do; I would favor the two major thought currents in the scholar world: a) he had to stop the bus from unloading children, ergo he had to forcefully close the door of the bus by parking his car right next to it; or, b) after the children step out of the bus, Pat would have had to park in fron of the bus thus stopping it from further movement.  Anyway Pat failed. He's in debt to society. For that, he should pay a 70% tax on his income till the day he dies or wear a Che Guevara t-shirt till every hour of every day till he's 50.  Little do you know I actually respect Che. i would have guessed a little of that. He was an idealist and dies defending what he believed in. But I'm sure you don't particularly love 1) his ideas about society and the way it should be run; 2) what he has come to represent after his death No I don't like what his symbol has come to mean. However, he was a freedom fighter who sought to overthrow an oppressive government. I respect that. So do I.

 

manofmystery wrote: Finnforest wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: I figured this could lead to an interesting discussion in this thread. I'll only say that most of these kids doing the smashing are probably well-to-do darlings with access to warm meals and bed at Mommy and Daddys, and beers this weekend over talk of how cool they were to smash up the city.  This is apparently what qualifies as idealism for some of our youth. For them to be trashing their city and urinating in the streets because they don't like paying for their education only shows me how pathetic they are, as people.  There isn't even much true protest in what these kids are doing, I think it's pretty obvious that many are just using this as an opportunity to misbehave.....and I'd wager that many of them are really having fun doing this.  So, not only do I have less sympathy for their cause because of their "protest",  but I hope those who can be identified do some time in jail, and pay restitution.  More likely, the police will be sued for abuse, such is the backward world we live in.  I have no problem with peaceful protest or a simple walk-out of class.   But people who do this, wherever they are, make me sick.     Angry spoiled kids with too much time on their hands, no real talent, and nothing worthwhile to say lead to punk.  I can't imagine what kind of musical abominations could come out of this.

Gents, you honestly have no idea of what you're talking about or of the larger picture about the student protests here. And also, you're trusting the Daily Mail, a homophobic, xenophobic, sensationalistic and deceitful rag with a consistently displayed hard right-wing and pro-authoritarian agenda - you may as well just make up your own story.

There was a very limited amount of basically illegal behaviour in one or two student protests, which was then generalised to apply to the whole 150,000 people who attended the London ones. There have also been some building occupations here in Oxford and elsewhere - but the university authorities have additionally closed down unrelated buildings with the intent, one suspects, of trying to sour public and student opinion against protesters.

The police have manhandled people and started violent scuffles for no reason, been unnecessarily violent, have kettled people in what is essentially an inflammatory curtailment of the right to peaceful protest and have been using some very disturbing language in their public statements. You might suspect that their determination to play an increased role and escalate these protests is in some way an attempt to claw back some ofthe upcoming cut in police resources.

Kindly cross-reference this inflammatory Mail drivel with some more reliable news source. What the Mail are doing, as usual, is to take a tiny snapshot of the day's whole events and paint the entire issue as being equivalent to that.

Finn, seriously, you have no idea beyond your own guess as to the social demographic of the people who are out there. The Lib Dem leadership in particular and Michael Gove have been going along with this insane guesswork as to how the protesters are largely middle-class, since one of the major sources of discontent with the cuts/fee-tripling combo is that our social mobility and working-class access to university education will be buggered by this bill. Which it will.

Anyway, I'll probably leave it there because otherwise I'll get much too angry about the whole thing, but I can say that the people who've been protesting (not me) have largely been remarkably peaceful and polite and that I'm very concerned about the roughness and the escalating language of the police response - my university has certainly been trying to both drive public opinion against the protesters and to punish people for protesting against the cuts peacefully and in a legitimate manner.


Edited by TGM: Orb - December 01 2010 at 12:50

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Read the law well HP. It implies that people have to stop any stopped bus that is unloading children. Pat had to go after the bus that was already stopped, and stop it. Interpretations abound as to what he would have had to do; I would favor the two major thought currents in the scholar world: a) he had to stop the bus from unloading children, ergo he had to forcefully close the door of the bus by parking his car right next to it; or, b) after the children step out of the bus, Pat would have had to park in fron of the bus thus stopping it from further movement.  Anyway Pat failed. He's in debt to society. For that, he should pay a 70% tax on his income till the day he dies or wear a Che Guevara t-shirt till every hour of every day till he's 50.  Little do you know I actually respect Che. i would have guessed a little of that. He was an idealist and dies defending what he believed in. But I'm sure you don't particularly love 1) his ideas about society and the way it should be run; 2) what he has come to represent after his death

No I don't like what his symbol has come to mean.

However, he was a freedom fighter who sought to overthrow an oppressive government. I respect that.

The T wrote: Read the law well HP. It implies that people have to stop any stopped bus that is unloading children. Pat had to go after the bus that was already stopped, and stop it. Interpretations abound as to what he would have had to do; I would favor the two major thought currents in the scholar world: a) he had to stop the bus from unloading children, ergo he had to forcefully close the door of the bus by parking his car right next to it; or, b) after the children step out of the bus, Pat would have had to park in fron of the bus thus stopping it from further movement.  Anyway Pat failed. He's in debt to society. For that, he should pay a 70% tax on his income till the day he dies or wear a Che Guevara t-shirt till every hour of every day till he's 50.

Little do you know I actually respect Che.

Read the law well HP. It implies that people have to stop any stopped bus that is unloading children. Pat had to go after the bus that was already stopped, and stop it. Interpretations abound as to what he would have had to do; I would favor the two major thought currents in the scholar world: a) he had to stop the bus from unloading children, ergo he had to forcefully close the door of the bus by parking his car right next to it; or, b) after the children step out of the bus, Pat would have had to park in fron of the bus thus stopping it from further movement. 

Henry Plainview wrote: Pat, have you tried double-checking the law on schoolbus stops? :P That's also a ridiculously poorly written article, but oh well journalism.

Free market! :P

Epignosis wrote: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/money/family-mourns-man-who-was-denied-transplant-11-29-2010

Am I misreading something?

It seems to me that private charity was more effective than government programs, and the journalist's conclusion is more government programs?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Social ostracizing is much more effective than legal punishment.  Probably not for that white trash scumbag.* *It's ok, I'm white. In prison you get fed. If nobody sells you food, you don't.

They could make her do community service.

I somehow doubt that enough businesses would forgo her patronage to legitimately make her life hell like that. But maybe they surprise.


Edited by stonebeard - November 30 2010 at 12:07