1 Marine vs. 30 cops (Marine Wins) - Occupy Times Square retardation

[Milford Cubicle II]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys&feature=player_embedded

The title of this video is interesting. They must have a funny definition of "win." Secondly, I know that the Marines are a large group of people from all kinds of different backgrounds, but this guy certainly doesn't strike me as legit. But then again, maybe they've let their standards drop. I laughed at the line to a bunch of NYPD officers "Nobody's trying to hurt you!", "Nobody has guns!", and "There are no bullets flying out here!" Ok, we'll just go get our weapons after people start attacking us. Cause that makes sense right? Shouldn't a "soldier" get the concept?

Many have commented on the video, calling this guy a hero. Are people really that stupid? I mean really, is this what this country's come to? Where the vast majority of protestors don't even know what they're protesting for? Other than the fact that they want more than what they can afford and are unwilling to either make do or work harder to get what they want, and would rather find a scapegoat to blame rather than take some personal responsibility? I know this is probably a grossly over-beat hasta topic, I just thought that this video was particularly disturbing. I hope this "occupy" horsesh*t dies out soon and we can get a new president and new leadership who won't continue wrecking our economy. Well, any further than it already is, that is.

9, 9, 9!

 

[Boatwrench]

As a moderator I moved this thread to political discussion zone.

This video is a result of the OWS movement currently occurring globally & will elicit political opinions as well as opinions in support of or in disagreement with the content of the video.

An OWS thread exists in Political Discussion Zone and I am not technically saavy enough to incorporate this one post thread as a sub-section of that thread.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

Lol no prob. I shoulda put this in PDZ to begin with. I thought about posting it in the OWS thread but it's not that related :dunno:

 

[ocean_jet]

I hope this "occupy" horsesh*t dies out soon and we can get a new president and new leadership who won't continue wrecking our economy. Well, any further than it already is, that is.

9, 9, 9!

Herman Cain's Economic Guiding Principals

1 (of 3) Production drives the economy, not spending. Production is the engine, consumption is the caboose.

http://www.hermancain.com/999plan



Cain of all people should know that that is completely wrong.

DEMAND is the engine that drives any economy. You can invest and produce and invest and produce all day long, but without demand there is no economic activity.


Further, Cain wants to continue to pit wage earners against capital investors... and claim we need more investment to spur the economy. We don't. As of last March, we had 1.9 TRILLION dollars sitting idle on corporate balance sheets. We need DEMAND. We have plenty of cash ready to meet that demand if it ever materializes.

Cain has it backward in my opinion.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

I think he's referring to the government's role in the economy. In which case he's right, the government needs to facilitate production. The demand will always be there (in many industries, that is).

I doubt someone who created a chain as successful as Godfather's doesn't understand that you can't just produce produce produce in spite of there being no demand :cheers:

 

[ocean_jet]

The demand will always be there (in many industries, that is).

It's not there now. That's why companies sales are falling and they are laying off people.

Right now the government doesn't need to facilitate production, there is a ton of cash ready to be employed. There's 2.5 trillion in cash ready to be put to work right now between private equity investors and American public companies.

http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20110627logistics_acquisition_cash_sitting_idle/

When the demand shows up, that capital is ready to work. If the government has to get involved, it should be trying to facilitate demand, not production (IMO).

I doubt someone who created a chain as successful as Godfather's doesn't understand that you can't just produce produce produce in spite of there being no demand :cheers:

You'd think?

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

It's not there now. That's why companies sales are falling and they are laying off people.

Yea in a small number of commodity industries. Not necessities. They may downsize, but as long as there's a US, they'll always be there.

 

[Darky]

I think he's referring to the government's role in the economy. In which case he's right, the government needs to facilitate production. The demand will always be there (in many industries, that is).

I doubt someone who created a chain as successful as Godfather's doesn't understand that you can't just produce produce produce in spite of there being no demand :cheers:

He actually was placed in charge of it by Pillsbury after he successfully turned Burger King around. After he turned Godfather pizza around, he got some investor's together and bought the chain form Pillsbury. But close enough...

I don't think you can really separate the factors out. If there's no demand, the company won't produce. But, if the company isn't producing, they're not employing people, and those people then have no money to turn around and spend to create demand. I think that companies should be looking to raise wages for their workers. Looking through the slide show posted by bigalpha in the other OWS thread, they have money. Profits have doubled since the 80's or so, CEO pay has gone from about 50x worker pay in the 60's to 350x today, yet worker pay has only increased by 4%, adjusting for inflation. Cut the CEO's pay (right, what CEO would do that?), and use some of the profits to raise worker pay. The people would then have money to spend on your products, other company's products, etc. The gov't would make more taxes off the increased salaries.

Henry Ford had the right idea: when he opened his factories, he checked the going rate and paid his workers double what anyone else was. Happy workers are productive, loyal, and dedicated.

 

[Darky]

If the guy did serve, he seems like he's got PTSD. What did the cops do to make him think they were hurting anyone? Was it simply because they were wearing protective gear?

 

[johnbizzle02]

this guy isn't a Marine, For those not in the know It's against Marine Corp Regulations to wear any utility uniform in public (camouflage), plus his ribbons are out of order dead give away

 

[Darky]

It's also against regulation to have a beard, unless maybe he had a no-shave chit. He was referred to as a vet, so if he was in, he's not active anymore. Wearing the cammies in public isn't an issue for someone who is no longer serving. Not to mention he was wearing the blouse open, another dead giveaway that he's not concerned about regulation because he either is no longer in or was never in. I know I've worn my cammie blouse or trousers (never together though) since getting out. But then I've only worn my older "analog" stuff, not the current digi.

I didn't get a good look at his ribbons, so I can't say anything there.

 

[YELLAHEEP]

this guy isn't a Marine, For those not in the know It's against Marine Corp Regulations to wear any utility uniform in public (camouflage), plus his ribbons are out of order dead give away

This...... and the fact that the shirt is way too small for him. Dunno what the military regs are for rank emblems/markings, but he identified himself as holding the rank of Sgt. Nothing on his shirt shows this either.

 

[johnbizzle02]

This...... and the fact that the shirt is way too small for him. Dunno what the military regs are for rank emblems/markings, but he identified himself as holding the rank of Sgt. Nothing on his shirt shows this either.

he has 1 chevron on right above his ribbons, but thats not where Marines wear them, there is supposed to be one on each collar

 

[kcjeep6]

This man is an ex-Marine sgt. that was Honorable discharged and a true American!

 

[kcjeep6]

Here is his side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yEm87vZ82E

 

[Boatwrench]

he has 1 chevron on right above his ribbons, but thats not where Marines wear them, there is supposed to be one on each collar

Every November 11th I go down to main street in my little town and watch a parade. The parade and the spectators have a collection of Americans in ill fitting, incomplete and sometimes moth-eaten tatterered uniforms. Some just wear ballcaps with ribbons or medals attached. Are they any less of a veteran?

Let's pick apart the video because of the way the man is dressed and miss the message. That solves a lot of arguements.

I heard through frustration:
He fought and protected the Constitution of the US. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution is suppose to guarantee the right of the people peaceably to assemble. In the OWS reports (except Italy & Oakland, CA) the only violence has been brought by the police trying to end the demonstrations under the guise of public camping? The police and the officers giving them their orders are hypocrites. The police do not put that much energy in preventing the homeless from sleeping, urinating and shooting up in my businessses doorway, but Americans pursuing their 1st Admendment rights are routinely broken up.

Alexander Hamilton, a founding father, who is buried not far away from Wall St told the officers of the Revenue Cutter Service that “They will always keep in mind that their countrymen are freemen, and, as such, are impatient of everything that bears the least mark of a domineering spirit." The Chief of Police needs to be reminded of that.

So OWS and the Tea Party actually have a lot in common. The Founding Fathers were correct and were looking out for their best interest. The US Constitution is important and being ignored.

 

[johnbizzle02]

yes everyone has there right to free speech, but for those of use that have served and earned the right to wear the uniform. you will never understand the hatred you feel when you see somebody disrespect the uniform. so to me his argument doesn't hold any weight. when he is wearing the uniform solely to to give his tantrum validation,

 

[karstic]

I guess Boatwrench never wore the uniform.

 

[Darky]

This man is an ex-Marine sgt. that was Honorable discharged and a true American!

Where's the source to back this up other than his claims?

yes everyone has there right to free speech, but for those of use that have served and earned the right to wear the uniform. you will never understand the hatred you feel when you see somebody disrespect the uniform. so to me his argument doesn't hold any weight. when he is wearing the uniform solely to to give his tantrum validation,

Boatwrench served. He served through til retirement. He understands probably better than we do.

What I gathered from the guy's rant was that the presence of the police wearing protective gear was distressing to him. To him it meant they were hurting people. Unless some thing happened right before the camera turned on, the police were just there. Anytime there's a protest, the police are there to ensure no one interferes with them and that they don't do anything they shouldn't either.

 

[Boatwrench]

yes everyone has there right to free speech, but for those of use that have served and earned the right to wear the uniform. you will never understand the hatred you feel when you see somebody disrespect the uniform. so to me his argument doesn't hold any weight. when he is wearing the uniform solely to to give his tantrum validation,

"when he is wearing the uniform solely to to give his tantrum validation" This may be true but I will reiterate my message. There is no reason for the police force to be busting up people that are peacefully assembled. Last night at 0100 the SFPD busted up the OWS camp at 0100 which enabled speed, surprise and violence of action the triad of winning. Why? The protestors are not being violent nor unreasonable and they are US citizens exercizing a freedom. The SFPD does not come down to the local homeless squatters camp at 0100.

There used to be a website called "Wall of Shame" to expose US Navy SEAL imposters. It no longer exists. Does the USMC have (had) something similiar? It would then be easy to validate this man's claims of being a Marine.

Now for the Devil Dogs out there, clear up something I may be miss understanding. The only former marines are those dishonorably discharged. Once a marine always a marine?

Unfortunately, The Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the US Supreme Court a few years ago. Anyone can legally claim to have served in any capacity. The case involved a man impersonating a USMC officer and was either flirting at a social funct with a USN Commander. She felt something didn't add up with one of his personal awards. He was arrested, tried and convicted under the Stolen Valor Act. The conviction was eventually overthrown circa 2009 or 2010. My chief and I discussed this case in naseum during boring slow periods.

My understanding is not any better than the next guys, just different and I only miss my friends and the $4.25 lunches at the galley.