Sorry, but Ching is right. There is no need to talk about this in terms of civil war, especially since that isn't even close to what this was showing.

A crowd, in particular because of its size, has its own weaknesses. It is naive to assume that large numbers mean that the police can not control or influence a protest. In fact, that is exactly what riot police train for: leveraging their small numbers and sophisticated weaponry against unprepared and untrained masses in order to achieve their objective. A successful protest and/or revolutionary group must know how to counteract the intimidation and violence of security services and their weaponry.

This is not 1920s India or 1960s USA. Pure nonviolent resistance does not spark moral outrage or wider, sustained support among the public nor does it create shame within the police and army that attack these movements. This is the 21st century, the neoliberal project is much more entrenched and will fight harder to hold on to that power. As I've learned from experience, it is ineffective and irresponsible to participate in peaceful protests and movements without considering the reaction of the state and preparing for it through training and equipment.

Perhaps you've gone out on a march once or sat in a park hearing some people talking about big ideas, but until you spend days, weeks and months actively resisting the powers that be, you don't really understand what happens in the streets.

>> ^direpickle:

It was a terrible thing to happen, but you have to realize that some people are just crazy. These things happen occasionally even in the most nonviolent cultures. The finger-pointing isn't helping.


He wasn't pointing fingers, he's just saying it'd be nice if the tools of destruction this particular crazy person used had been harder to obtain.

Make it like health care is right now, where you can be denied for pre-existing conditions. Make it take a long time to set up, make it require boatloads of paperwork to get the bullets you need. Then, when it's all said and done, make it cost $5,000 for the cheapest possible gun, with bullets being hundreds of dollars each.

On the flipside, make it so anyone can walk into a hospital and get treatment. No background checks, no waiting periods, and if it costs anything at all, make it so cheap that a couple hundred bucks is enough to buy the lives of more than 10 people.

A better world is possible.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I wish mental health care were as easy to get as, say, a gun.

Mental health care is available to anyone with money.
Guns are available to anyone with money.


I wanted to clarify this. Lack of proper mental health care is a big problem in this country, but it was not this guy's problem. He had the money for a small arsenal, then he had the money for therapy and drugs. It's impossible to find actual verified information on this, but the lawsuit from the one guy targets doctors. So at least someone believes that he was receiving care and had access to medicine.

It was a terrible thing to happen, but you have to realize that some people are just crazy. These things happen occasionally even in the most nonviolent cultures. The finger-pointing isn't helping.

I love Craig Ferguson. Seems like a very good man.

The Colorado thing was terrible. Dude opened fire on a large number of people in an enclosed theater, suffocated them with tear gas, and killed as many as he could. That is very terrible thing.

I wish we could actually discuss the issues, instead of instantly condemning them. The immediate reaction by any media representative is "I can't understand why this happened". I don't feel like you can say that while living in a country that continues multiple wars on many innocents around it, or lets extremely, albeit nonviolent, dangerous criminals walk off scot-free with half the countries money, or has nearly-daily events like this occur in the same week.

It's just stupid to think people have no reason to go insane while living here. It's wrong to take out that insanity on innocent people, but you can't say you don't understand why it exists while wearing your horse-blinders during so many other atrocities.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^MrFisk:
>> ^direpickle:
>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

I... I assume you posted that to back up what I said?
"The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment."
"The DOJ [part of the Executive Branch] is comprised of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
Per Wikipedia, w.r.t. FBI:
"FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They... serve a term of office of five years... unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends."
Democrats.org lists the president as one of the leaders of the party.
In summation, the president is nominally one of the heads of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. Why is he seen as being powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?


Technically, the FBI's main concern is terrorism. It's the DEA that has been licking their chops to bust stoners, grow-ops, etc. Them, and state's attorney generals looking for a feather in their cap.
I don't think the President can tell them to ignore laws on the books. However, he does work with Congress to write a budget that funds them: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/the-national-drug-control-budget-fy-2013-funding-highlights
And as you can see, the Obama administration continues the same failed policies of his predecessors. So, I'm not say he's powerless; I'm saying he's complicit.

>> ^MrFisk:

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch


I... I assume you posted that to back up what I said?

"The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment."

"The DOJ [part of the Executive Branch] is comprised of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."

Per Wikipedia, w.r.t. FBI:

"FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They... serve a term of office of five years... unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends."

Democrats.org lists the president as one of the leaders of the party.

In summation, the president is nominally one of the heads of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.

Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. Why is he seen as being powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

>> ^MrFisk:

The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.


And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.

Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

"Symblematic"?

A comedian should be punched repeatedly in the face for a nonviolent prank?

How is this guy relevant to anything?

>> ^budzos:


If the government thought they could get away with it, they'd institute random house searches.


Thank you for being a voice for liberty. some of these sifters are nauseating, and if it were up to them the precogs would be hunting us all down as i speak.

bottom line, reckless drivers should be dealt with, and the troopers need to get their gun touting asses out of everyone else's face. if you've ever been handcuffed/arrested for nonviolent crimes, you know the coppers aren't protecting you, they're watching you. i wont even get into the for-profit policing we have in my city.

It's so ironic that most of those republicans booing him claim to be Christian. The most central teachings of Jesus were nonviolence, pacifism, charity, anti-hypocrisy, humility, and the golden rule (which sort of implies the first four). In short, the exact opposite of what these republicans want from a politician. Read the sermon on the plain and the sermon on the mount. Those are the actual teachings of Jesus. The rest of the new testament is trivialities and supernatural horseshit.

>> ^CreamK:

These people need to to stay on course. Nonviolent protests against a violent oppression works, it just is going to be very tough on individuals. Think Gandhi, he libreated a whole country and shed no blood. But protesters need to obey the law, even when it is going to hurt.
The police once again was powerless, giving contradictive orders and finally started to create chaos. That way they can manipulate the crowds to breaking the law and then arrest you. The only thing keeping deaths out of this is the use of cameras, otherwise they would've beaten them from the start. But all it takes is one martyr and this will blow over very quickly. Then comes national guard, the army and martial laws.


I was with you until the two sentences at the end.
I would agree with this change.

"But all it takes is one martyr and this will blow up very quickly. Then comes national guard, the army and martial laws and the Occupy Movement will expand exponentially."

These people need to to stay on course. Nonviolent protests against a violent oppression works, it just is going to be very tough on individuals. Think Gandhi, he libreated a whole country and shed no blood. But protesters need to obey the law, even when it is going to hurt.

The police once again was powerless, giving contradictive orders and finally started to create chaos. That way they can manipulate the crowds to breaking the law and then arrest you. The only thing keeping deaths out of this is the use of cameras, otherwise they would've beaten them from the start. But all it takes is one martyr and this will blow over very quickly. Then comes national guard, the army and martial laws.

Peaceful, nonviolent resistance.

Keep the moral high ground.
Let them show the abuses they will use to support the moneyed power structure.

>> ^TheFreak:

So after the first punch, the cop is standing over that guy on the ground, holding his head and getting ready to punch him again when Suit-Dude steps in and puts himself in between the cop and the guy on the ground.
Thumbs up to the guy in the suit.
I'm thinking more of the crowd should have surrounded the guy in the green shirt to protect him. In fact, that seems like a very reasonable tactic when violence breaks out from the police...if as many people as possible non-violently surround the person being attacked with their backs to the police. They'd have to arrest a hundred people for obstructing justice and then justify in court how preventing violence constitutes breaking the law.


Very good...they probably have some classes at their park for dealing with police but I doubt everyone takes them or it's completely uniform. It's probably more about passive resistance rather than active nonviolence.

That could be an interesting class...Active Nonviolence 101.

EDIT: As taught by former WWE Wrestlers!