Seattle "Superhero" Arrested For Pepper Spray Assault

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
draythefingerless said:
maninahat said:
draythefingerless said:
to the people talking about the pepper spray and the taking weapons looking for fights....

1. so a woman who carries a pepper spray in her bag is a criminal offense?
2. cops stroll the night looking for trouble too. thats their job. to ensure they are safeguarding everyone. thats what this guy was doing. going thru the night, hoping he might stop any ongoing crime. looking to start a fight and looking for a fight to stop it are two different things.
2. he even avoided touching people in that fight. all he did was separate them(like normal thoughtful good hearted people do when they see a fight) and he used the pepper spray in his own defense.
1. No, because the woman wasn't carrying it with the express intention of looking for people to use it on. If someone attacked her and she had to use it, she would be using it in self defence. If she purposely went looking for people to use it on, she would be committing assault. The key is in people taking "reasonable action". The pepper spray is reasonable self defence if you are attacked and can't get away or rely on the police to get there in time. Looking for and running into fights to use the pepper spray isn't.
2. Cops perform that duty in an official capacity, which makes them accountable (don't laugh), impartial and trained for the task. Trying to do their job is as advisable as attempting to perform surgery in the place of doctors. I'm surprised no one got seriously hurt, with all the blinded people wandering around on the roads.
3. As far as I can tell, he had the pepper spray out almost immediately, and it is hard to tell what he did to seperate the fight in the first place. It seems that the ladies were angry at him for using the pepper spray in the first place.
maybe i didnt express the exact point of what i was trying to say. this man is trying to do good. now wether or not you think he should do this is irrelevant. its more than honorable for someone to try and help and defend people from undeserved crimes against them.
I'm glad that the man has the intention of doing good, and that is a great place to start. But it really isn't advisable for him to try doing it the way he is doing. His actions could have gotten people seriously injured; good intentions or not, he may be doing far more harm than good.

yes he is looking for crimes, but he clearly does not go in spraying everyone mindlessly. he was asking for 911, he was telling them to get away from the people they were beating, etc etc.
It isn't that clear to me at all, as I said before. The only thing that is clear is that he tried to break up a "fight", someone nearly got ran over, the hero got hit with shoes and rocks, and lots of people ended up with pepper spray in the face. A lot of that is a direct consequence of him getting involved.

FINALLY, do not compare the work of cops to the work of surgeons. surgeons do a job you need years of skill and learning to perform. cops dont. to quote sth someone else said, a bystander saved a ton of people from a robbey by shooting the robbers with a concealed weapon he carried. he just did the cops job. and so do many people day by day. its not surgery.
They are comparable in the sense that they are both roles in which there is a great deal of responsibility, and where human lives are at great risk. The average idiot might not be able to use a scalpel with great skill yet still have the capacity to shoot down a crook, but that is a lot of responsibility to entrust upon the idiot. I'd rather entrust that upon a trained professional - and if one isn't around, I don't think "anyone will do" when it comes to life or death situations. What would have happened if the hero hadn't ran in to save the day? No idea, because our only frame of reference is shakey cam footage which doesn't capture who was fighting, how it was started, and how it may have ended.

That is the issue I take with this super hero - I think he is a jerk, not because of his good intentions, but because of the recklessness of his actions. He apparently never thought to himself "I might get someone hurt, perhaps I should reconsider running into fights without context or strategy."
 

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,525
0
0
he's not the brightest guy on the planet, but to be honest, he shouldn't have been arrested. i hope the other people in that fight also got arrested. he's a decent person, and he's trying to help others out. i can understand why the police might be getting a little pissy with how he's been, but that doesn't mean they should be arresting him.
 

aashell13

New member
Jan 31, 2011
547
0
0
I'm pretty sure there are laws against being a vigilante, which is essentially what this guy is.
It's one thing to break up a fight in the course of happenstance. Going out looking for trouble is entirely another.
 

Venats

New member
Aug 22, 2011
94
0
0
HalfTangible said:
Does shitting on a cop car*, calling for the downfall of your entire economic system and generally making an ass of yourself count as 'innocence' now?
You heard it second hand becomes its nonsense, and one person shitting on a car does not give cops the right to spray multiple people. You subdue said person and remove them from the scene, not assault a group of corralled women.

As for the rest? What messed up country/fantasy land has your understanding of the systems of law come from? They're innocent, its called freedom of expression, opinion, and speech. Whether they be idiotic or otherwise they are free to say what they want. The oppression of ideas is what leads to totalitarian states.

As for the downfall of this country's economic system... someone needs to look into Keynesian economics and see why the modern era is a case study of its failure as a good economic model (the entire fiat system is crap on a stick used to swindle people out of their property with fake, worthless toilet paper... as Helicopter Ben has gone to great lengths to prove). Same with capitalism, communism, fascism, and any other -ism you can think of. No system is perfect, all systems stagnate and fall to corruption the longer they stand, and its often time beneficial to start fresh.
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
He looks like a damned moron. Has he had even basic fighting training? It was like a clip from Kick Ass, only without the "It's a sitcom" excuse for why the hero looks so incompetent.
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
Earnest Cavalli said:
Self-defense, maybe. Going out in public looking like a total nutbar, absolutely. But no actual assault.
If Seattle is a "stand your ground" city, then he can't be held accountable since that woman hit him first. If the city demands "attempt to retreat before one has the legal right to defend one self," then he satisfied that as well, since he move away from the woman attacking him before, and she went after him with her purse.

Still the whole, "how will the public react to guy in rubber suit in court" will play out for the jury.
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
WhiteTigerShiro said:
He looks like a damned moron. Has he had even basic fighting training? It was like a clip from Kick Ass, only without the "It's a sitcom" excuse for why the hero looks so incompetent.
He's not incompetent, he did stop the fight. Also he's 11-0 MMA fighter so ya he's got fighting skills.

aashell13 said:
I'm pretty sure there are laws against being a vigilante, which is essentially what this guy is.
It's one thing to break up a fight in the course of happenstance. Going out looking for trouble is entirely another.
Actually there aren't laws against it. You can break the laws while trying to prevent or stop crime but there are no laws against doing so. You just have to be careful with what you do and how you do it.

Not G. Ivingname said:
Still the whole, "how will the public react to guy in rubber suit in court" will play out for the jury.
It won't the prosecutors are not filing charges it seems. Either the media furor around the case is to much right now and they don't want to give it any more media attention or they have no case because of the video, perhaps both.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
I do respect his intentions and the fact he actually DOES somthing...misguided as it may be

its interesting to see that mabye the Idea of a viglante simply doesnt work in the real world :/
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
Venats said:
HalfTangible said:
Does shitting on a cop car*, calling for the downfall of your entire economic system and generally making an ass of yourself count as 'innocence' now?
You heard it second hand becomes its nonsense, and one person shitting on a car does not give cops the right to spray multiple people. You subdue said person and remove them from the scene, not assault a group of corralled women.

As for the rest? What messed up country/fantasy land has your understanding of the systems of law come from? They're innocent, its called freedom of expression, opinion, and speech. Whether they be idiotic or otherwise they are free to say what they want. The oppression of ideas is what leads to totalitarian states.

As for the downfall of this country's economic system... someone needs to look into Keynesian economics and see why the modern era is a case study of its failure as a good economic model (the entire fiat system is crap on a stick used to swindle people out of their property with fake, worthless toilet paper... as Helicopter Ben has gone to great lengths to prove). Same with capitalism, communism, fascism, and any other -ism you can think of. No system is perfect, all systems stagnate and fall to corruption the longer they stand, and its often time beneficial to start fresh.
So instead of calling for a smaller government and fewer restrictions on people, freedoms and businesses, we should scrap the entire system for a system that has never worked? Listen to them: They're protesting capitalism, not keynesian economics (which I agree is an utter failure of a system)

Your wild insults are almost entirely irrelevant, as I was not referring to law (also they're insults, but that's less important)

In America, you're allowed to protest but you need to do it in a responsible manner. What, precisely, are they protesting? What are they picketing? A street. Wall Street, sure, but it's still a street. This is not a protest, this is a bunch of morons sitting themselves down and pretending to protest an entire economic system somewhere where it can't be changed. If they really gave a damn about changing the economic system they'd picket congress.

Further, while the police have corralled and taken away SOME of these people, the protests are still going. So this isn't suppression of ideas.
 

Venats

New member
Aug 22, 2011
94
0
0
HalfTangible said:
So instead of calling for a smaller government and fewer restrictions on people, freedoms and businesses, we should scrap the entire system for a system that has never worked? Listen to them: They're protesting capitalism, not keynesian economics (which I agree is an utter failure of a system)
For a system that has never worked? You mean, like every system ever employed in history for the first time? Like capitalism? Like the US system of government? Like any concept ever? I'm not sure what you are aiming to say as I never recommended a system but more that the current system is broken, and if you are saying that replacing a system with a system that has never worked (because it has never been tried) is a 'bad idea'... then we may as well close the chapter on human history.

The current capitalist model is some strange child of Keynesian and Crony Capitalism Economics, you'd more or less have to scrap the whole economic model, at the very least. I'm not saying scrap the government model but it too is pretty much corrupted to its core. What action people take will write history.

HalfTangible said:
Your wild insults are almost entirely irrelevant, as I was not referring to law (also they're insults, but that's less important)

In America, you're allowed to protest but you need to do it in a responsible manner. What, precisely, are they protesting? What are they picketing? A street. Wall Street, sure, but it's still a street. This is not a protest, this is a bunch of morons sitting themselves down and pretending to protest an entire economic system somewhere where it can't be changed. If they really gave a damn about changing the economic system they'd picket congress.

Further, while the police have corralled and taken away SOME of these people, the protests are still going. So this isn't suppression of ideas.
You have a strange definition of an insult as by what you've said, I could spin it back and say that you insulted the protesters by generalizing and largely demonizing a group (that in many ways respects and in others supports the Libertarian views you espoused before) by the actions of the few.

To say that they are not protesting anything is only a sign of a lack of understanding, just by glancing at images you can see what they are protesting: the war(s), the identity that is Wall and K street, lobbying, on some ends oppressive government and on others oppressive rich (at this point, aren't they more or less the same?), and on and on the list goes; heck they have a website with a whole chart of what they are against. And to say that they should be picketing congress (which off-shoots of said Occupy Everywhere group are doing) is to miss the fact that many of the people still work, still have obligations to maintain their lives, and cannot travel four hours a day or more to do both. It is only common sense that they start somewhere that symbolizes said corruption and problems and is nearby, and when it grows it will naturally reach places like congress et all.

No suppression? Like: trying to scare people off with shows of violence (whether it be against a few or many), trying to evict them from their camps? These are all tactics of suppression. Just following the news, I'd wonder if America hadn't completely devolved into a police state by what I see.
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
Venats said:
HalfTangible said:
So instead of calling for a smaller government and fewer restrictions on people, freedoms and businesses, we should scrap the entire system for a system that has never worked? Listen to them: They're protesting capitalism, not keynesian economics (which I agree is an utter failure of a system)
For a system that has never worked? You mean, like every system ever employed in history for the first time? Like capitalism? Like the US system of government? Like any concept ever? I'm not sure what you are aiming to say as I never recommended a system but more that the current system is broken, and if you are saying that replacing a system with a system that has never worked (because it has never been tried) is a 'bad idea'... then we may as well close the chapter on human history.

The current capitalist model is some strange child of Keynesian and Crony Capitalism Economics, you'd more or less have to scrap the whole economic model, at the very least. I'm not saying scrap the government model but it too is pretty much corrupted to its core. What action people take will write history.

HalfTangible said:
Your wild insults are almost entirely irrelevant, as I was not referring to law (also they're insults, but that's less important)

In America, you're allowed to protest but you need to do it in a responsible manner. What, precisely, are they protesting? What are they picketing? A street. Wall Street, sure, but it's still a street. This is not a protest, this is a bunch of morons sitting themselves down and pretending to protest an entire economic system somewhere where it can't be changed. If they really gave a damn about changing the economic system they'd picket congress.

Further, while the police have corralled and taken away SOME of these people, the protests are still going. So this isn't suppression of ideas.
You have a strange definition of an insult as by what you've said, I could spin it back and say that you insulted the protesters by generalizing and largely demonizing a group (that in many ways respects and in others supports the Libertarian views you espoused before) by the actions of the few.
To say that they are not protesting anything is only a sign of a lack of understanding, just by glancing at images you can see what they are protesting: the war(s), the identity that is Wall and K street, lobbying, on some ends oppressive government and on others oppressive rich (at this point, aren't they more or less the same?), and on and on the list goes; heck they have a website with a whole chart of what they are against. And to say that they should be picketing congress (which off-shoots of said Occupy Everywhere group are doing) is to miss the fact that many of the people still work, still have obligations to maintain their lives, and cannot travel four hours a day or more to do both. It is only common sense that they start somewhere that symbolizes said corruption and problems and is nearby, and when it grows it will naturally reach places like congress et all.
They are protesting, basically, that rich people have more power than poor people? Is that what you're saying? Because that's what it sounds like.

Do you honestly believe wall street corruption is the cause for all the current economic mess we're in? This originally started with a crisis in the housing market (actually it started in the clinton years, but explaining that would take too long) caused by the government essentially forcing banks to give out loans to people that couldn't pay them back. When these loans began to fail, naturally, the housing market failed, and the banks failed, and... well, dominoes.

Then the government started spending even larger amounts of money than Bush, printing more money even though the GDP hadn't risen to pay for it.

Call me crazy, but when the government forces the market to do something, and that something fails, then fails to fix it by spending trillions... it's the GOVERNMENT'S fault. So yeah, they should still be picketing congress.

Ok, so if they're four hours from Congress (which I doubt is true for all of these protestors, if there are offshots around the country) then why not picket the center of government there in New York? They're doing it in manhattan.

No suppression? Like: trying to scare people off with shows of violence (whether it be against a few or many), trying to evict them from their camps? These are all tactics of suppression. Just following the news, I'd wonder if America hadn't completely devolved into a police state by what I see.
Like i said, the protests continue and only certain groups are being taken away from the sight of the protests. So nothing is being suppressed. The fact we've heard about down here in Texas is further evidence to me.

... I find it strange that I'm defending government action =/ I thought i was a libertarian conservative... and you called me a libertarian... and i distinctly remember making the argument texas should secede at least twice (not in this thread, obviously. But some people really are that stupid... no offense.) ... huh.

EDIT: Oh, and communism is NOT a 'new system'. Relatively, yes, but you make it sound like it's never been tried before, when it HAS, by several countries.
 

Preacher zer0

New member
Jun 13, 2010
123
0
0
The primary goal of superheroes is to save lives.
The primary goal of Mr. Jones is fame and a facade of being "badass".

Anyway his secret identity has been exposed, game over.
 

Venats

New member
Aug 22, 2011
94
0
0
HalfTangible said:
They are protesting, basically, that rich people have more power than poor people? Is that what you're saying? Because that's what it sounds like.

Do you honestly believe wall street corruption is the cause for all the current economic mess we're in? This originally started with a crisis in the housing market (actually it started in the clinton years, but explaining that would take too long) caused by the government essentially forcing banks to give out loans to people that couldn't pay them back. When these loans began to fail, naturally, the housing market failed, and the banks failed, and... well, dominoes.
Some are protesting against the rich, and its understandable because by the very nature of Capitalism it sows its own destruction at the hands of the rich. Its an ideal of constantly accruing capital, usually idealized with the contest between companies competing for a profit, but in reality it breaks as the rich begin to monopolize. This is, of course, made even quicker by government 'sanctions' or 'regulations' which are used simply to exploit and cut out competition by the people with power/money.

I am, personally, of the opinion that capitalism and powerful government run hand in hand to their own doom and, at the same time, that the former will almost always bring about the latter no matter its initiation. Be it free market or guided by the invisible hand, its doomed either way... like every institution given enough time. :p

As for Wall Street and the crisis, much of the mess ties back to Greenspan and his blatant corruption and hand waving economics. They knew the housing crisis would bubble up, they did nothing about it. Most of todays woes are caused by the Fed but the hands in the Fed's pockets go through much of the top of Wall Street, most high offices, and easily into every cabinet and presidential member.

HalfTangible said:
Then the government started spending even larger amounts of money than Bush, printing more money even though the GDP hadn't risen to pay for it.

Call me crazy, but when the government forces the market to do something, and that something fails, then fails to fix it by spending trillions... it's the GOVERNMENT'S fault. So yeah, they should still be picketing congress.
The banks sowed their own failure by betting against debt with debt on debt, trading debt, and just playing with money that didn't exist... but that's another matter entirely. They should have been left to fail because by any 'normal' capitalistic view "Too Big to Fail" means "Too Big to Exist".

HalfTangible said:
Ok, so if they're four hours from Congress (which I doubt is true for all of these protestors, if there are offshots around the country) then why not picket the center of government there in New York? They're doing it in manhattan.
They are picketing DC, they are picketing Bloomberg. Its not localized to WS, the media is localizing it to WS with disinformation and a ignore-till-it-goes-away campaign.

HalfTangible said:
Like i said, the protests continue and only certain groups are being taken away from the sight of the protests. So nothing is being suppressed. The fact we've heard about down here in Texas is further evidence to me.

... I find it strange that I'm defending government action =/ I thought i was a libertarian conservative... and you called me a libertarian... and i distinctly remember making the argument texas should secede at least twice (not in this thread, obviously. But some people really are that stupid... no offense.) ... huh.
The idea was that they are trying to stop all protests, the fact that remains is a sign that people aren't going to take a broken government/system/economy laying down anymore... what their ultimate ideas are, well that's up in the air.

HalfTangible said:
EDIT: Oh, and communism is NOT a 'new system'. Relatively, yes, but you make it sound like it's never been tried before, when it HAS, by several countries.
Wait, communism? When did I even mention that as an idea to build on? I mentioned it as another system that failed... I'm confused.

Edit: As for the protesters, I can't say I can't agree with at least some of what they say: Stop the wars? Yes please.
 

JoesshittyOs

New member
Aug 10, 2011
1,965
0
0
Signa said:
Seattle cops are a fucking joke around here, and this one just had a vendetta against Jones. There is no excuse for this kind of abuse of legal power. He was the only one arrested in that fray by they way. Just watch 30 seconds of that video and you can see all the women on an assault rampage, yet they don't get any punishment.
I don't... I really doubt that he had a "vendetta" against Jones. That would have to make him some sort of Super Villain.

And if that's the case, I'm about to quit life because I wouldn't be able to take it seriously anymore.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
JoesshittyOs said:
Signa said:
Seattle cops are a fucking joke around here, and this one just had a vendetta against Jones. There is no excuse for this kind of abuse of legal power. He was the only one arrested in that fray by they way. Just watch 30 seconds of that video and you can see all the women on an assault rampage, yet they don't get any punishment.
I don't... I really doubt that he had a "vendetta" against Jones. That would have to make him some sort of Super Villain.

And if that's the case, I'm about to quit life because I wouldn't be able to take it seriously anymore.
1) Women attack everyone on sight with their shoes
2) Some one hits another person with their car
3) Man charges Phoenix Jones with fists flailing (Gets pepper sprayed by Jones)
4) SUVs charge at Jones 'n' crew
5) Cops arrest Jones.

I want to quit life too after seeing the full video. Basically, the police abused their power to unmask Jones, because they were sick of him calling them all the time and making them look like idiots because he was actually doing things to help the city.

It's just like what someone else said: If the cops were actually doing their job, then Jones wouldn't find anything to keep him busy.
 

JoesshittyOs

New member
Aug 10, 2011
1,965
0
0
Signa said:
JoesshittyOs said:
Signa said:
Seattle cops are a fucking joke around here, and this one just had a vendetta against Jones. There is no excuse for this kind of abuse of legal power. He was the only one arrested in that fray by they way. Just watch 30 seconds of that video and you can see all the women on an assault rampage, yet they don't get any punishment.
I don't... I really doubt that he had a "vendetta" against Jones. That would have to make him some sort of Super Villain.

And if that's the case, I'm about to quit life because I wouldn't be able to take it seriously anymore.
1) Women attack everyone on sight with their shoes
2) Some one hits another person with their car
3) Man charges Phoenix Jones with fists flailing (Gets pepper sprayed by Jones)
4) SUVs charge at Jones 'n' crew
5) Cops arrest Jones.

I want to quit life too after seeing the full video. Basically, the police abused their power to unmask Jones, because they were sick of him calling them all the time and making them look like idiots because he was actually doing things to help the city.

It's just like what someone else said: If the cops were actually doing their job, then Jones wouldn't find anything to keep him busy.
You're assuming that they've actually had the case and found him guilty. That somehow this police officer was his Judge, Jury, and his executioner (though I'm sensing a sweet Super villain name in there somewhere). This case hasn't even began yet.

Where does it say these people weren't convicted? He went into a fight he was not part of and maced about 5 different people. If I'm a police officer, I'm arresting the guy who actually has a weapon and is dressed up in Body armor and wearing a mask.

The police officer didn't see the video. The person filming was told to go stand far away.

People like you need to calm the fuck down before you start screaming "POLICE BRUTALITY! LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE HE COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY SEEN!"

It's fucking ridiculous how you assume that these police officers need to act like superman all by themselves and just know who's at fault.
 

Impluse_101

New member
Jun 25, 2009
1,415
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
He's the hero Seattle deserves, not the one it needs right now. He's a loud guardian, a watchful moron, a dark idiot.
Reason why they took him in:

They never asked for a hero.
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
Venats said:
HalfTangible said:
They are protesting, basically, that rich people have more power than poor people? Is that what you're saying? Because that's what it sounds like.

Do you honestly believe wall street corruption is the cause for all the current economic mess we're in? This originally started with a crisis in the housing market (actually it started in the clinton years, but explaining that would take too long) caused by the government essentially forcing banks to give out loans to people that couldn't pay them back. When these loans began to fail, naturally, the housing market failed, and the banks failed, and... well, dominoes.
Some are protesting against the rich, and its understandable because by the very nature of Capitalism it sows its own destruction at the hands of the rich. Its an ideal of constantly accruing capital, usually idealized with the contest between companies competing for a profit, but in reality it breaks as the rich begin to monopolize. This is, of course, made even quicker by government 'sanctions' or 'regulations' which are used simply to exploit and cut out competition by the people with power/money.

I am, personally, of the opinion that capitalism and powerful government run hand in hand to their own doom and, at the same time, that the former will almost always bring about the latter no matter its initiation. Be it free market or guided by the invisible hand, its doomed either way... like every institution given enough time. :p

As for Wall Street and the crisis, much of the mess ties back to Greenspan and his blatant corruption and hand waving economics. They knew the housing crisis would bubble up, they did nothing about it. Most of todays woes are caused by the Fed but the hands in the Fed's pockets go through much of the top of Wall Street, most high offices, and easily into every cabinet and presidential member.

HalfTangible said:
Then the government started spending even larger amounts of money than Bush, printing more money even though the GDP hadn't risen to pay for it.

Call me crazy, but when the government forces the market to do something, and that something fails, then fails to fix it by spending trillions... it's the GOVERNMENT'S fault. So yeah, they should still be picketing congress.
The banks sowed their own failure by betting against debt with debt on debt, trading debt, and just playing with money that didn't exist... but that's another matter entirely. They should have been left to fail because by any 'normal' capitalistic view "Too Big to Fail" means "Too Big to Exist".

HalfTangible said:
Ok, so if they're four hours from Congress (which I doubt is true for all of these protestors, if there are offshots around the country) then why not picket the center of government there in New York? They're doing it in manhattan.
They are picketing DC, they are picketing Bloomberg. Its not localized to WS, the media is localizing it to WS with disinformation and a ignore-till-it-goes-away campaign.

HalfTangible said:
Like i said, the protests continue and only certain groups are being taken away from the sight of the protests. So nothing is being suppressed. The fact we've heard about down here in Texas is further evidence to me.

... I find it strange that I'm defending government action =/ I thought i was a libertarian conservative... and you called me a libertarian... and i distinctly remember making the argument texas should secede at least twice (not in this thread, obviously. But some people really are that stupid... no offense.) ... huh.
The idea was that they are trying to stop all protests, the fact that remains is a sign that people aren't going to take a broken government/system/economy laying down anymore... what their ultimate ideas are, well that's up in the air.

HalfTangible said:
EDIT: Oh, and communism is NOT a 'new system'. Relatively, yes, but you make it sound like it's never been tried before, when it HAS, by several countries.
Wait, communism? When did I even mention that as an idea to build on? I mentioned it as another system that failed... I'm confused.

Edit: As for the protesters, I can't say I can't agree with at least some of what they say: Stop the wars? Yes please.
I am of the opinion that capitalism is fine, and the government should stay out of it unless unnatural monopolies form (natural monopolies being things that would just be infeasible/pointless to make competition for, such as power lines). And the more they do interfere, the worse off we get.

I didn't actually want to get in to the government bailouts, but yeah, Government shouldn't have done bailouts, because those who needed it to succeed would soon fail anyway. But the government still forced the bank to take on those debts in the first place.

Ok, fine. Got me there.

No, they're not. They're simply pulling out disruptive members of the protest. That's been done for as long as there have been protests. Further, the protests themselves strike me as extremely whiney and spoiled (no offense to those who agree with it) It's not like it's impossible to succeed in America. It's not always jolly and lolli, but it's possible, especially if you play it smart. Save your money, avoid debt whenever possible, get educated...

You didn't say communism directly. But there's only two ways to distribute power in the market: put it in government's hands, or the citizen's. The former is communism, the latter is capitalism. I'm oversimplifying it, but you get the basic idea, right? Gotta be one or the other, simply by definition of the two. (socialism is capitalism with lots of welfare)

Or we could go for total anarchy - no power in anyone's hands. But that's a terrible idea for obvious reasons.

Too late for that. America's got it's hands too deep everywhere to pull out now, we have to wait until at least all our current conflicts are played out.