r/reddit.com • u/yellowcakewalk • Oct 18 '11

Courts Rule US Government Above the Law. Judge declined to hold the CIA in contempt for destroying videos that it had been ordered by the courts to preserve.

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/10/courts-rule-us-government-above-law
3.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

76

u/rdeluca Oct 19 '11

Yeah, well we're smart enough not to destroy our own property while being upset.

1

u/couldthisbeart Oct 19 '11

So how's being smart working out for your country?

56

u/rdeluca Oct 19 '11

For me? Just fine.

How's violently rioting it working out in Italy? Oh they burnt their own cars and destroyed and looted small business owner's stores?

Wow that's sure fuckin smart.

3

u/SirFoxx Oct 19 '11

Exactly. Italians are the last people who should criticize anyone considering they've put up with their current corrupt leadership for so long.

1

u/spirited1 Oct 23 '11

We could, y'know, burn down something important, like Capitol Hill or something.....

I'm gonna be tracked by the government now aren't I?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

Their government is afraid of them. The government of the US makes it's own people their bitch

1

u/rdeluca Oct 19 '11

Yeah I'm sure that the government is afraid of people they can just jail, gas, and beat legally.

-4

u/sperm_grenade Oct 19 '11

you're also smart enough to stand idle as your rights are stripped from you

18

u/rdeluca Oct 19 '11

What exactly do you suggest?

Rioting and destroying stuff that the government couldn't give two fucks about?

Great, I'd love to get arrested, billed, and lose my job.

7

u/ansible47 Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11

Yeah, not all riots are sports riots: flipping cars and breaking windows and shit. I'm pretty sure there's something in between sleeping in the street and flipping cars.

I think they used the term riot to mean "passionate protesting." It's an expression, and more of a statement of "My country would be outraged in your circumstance" rather than "You should destroy your own shit!"

But we'll do nothing instead. That's great, I love my tax dollars being used for war, not being able to find a job, and giving money to corporations without reasonable regulations.

2

u/Astrogat Oct 19 '11

The problem being that the US have more or less banned protesting, at least vigorously.

0

u/ansible47 Oct 19 '11

idk, if Free Speech zones aren't an infringement of free speech, then anti-gun laws aren't an infringement of the second amendment.

Weird that I'm for the latter and against the former.

1

u/rdeluca Oct 19 '11

You're right, we're doing nothing #OWS

3

u/ansible47 Oct 19 '11

Yeah, letting other people protest for your is a great example of doing something.

Also, 2 months of OWS hardly makes up for the 20-30(+?) years of complacency. Shit don't get this bad over night.

3

u/Exodus2011 Oct 19 '11

No govt is without corruption or greed so I suggest you clean up your own backyard first then you can worry about ours.

2

u/ansible47 Oct 19 '11

As a natural-born American who lives in Boston right now, I have no idea what this means.

2

u/WhoDoIThinkIAm Oct 19 '11

Who are you to judge our involvement? Like you can look at a handle and automatically determine if they are protesters? I went hundreds of miles out of my way to participate in OccupyDC.

As for the time frame, you've got to start somewhere.

1

u/ansible47 Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11

Who are you to judge our involvement? Like you can look at a handle and automatically determine if they are protesters?

I can tell he isn't in the protest because he explained the reasons why he wouldn't go. His retort to "You did nothing" was "What do you want me to do, destroy shit?" If he actually is participating, he probably would have mentioned it after my comment. I'd be happy to retract any sarcasm thrown his way, and praise him for his service to the community. Maybe I shouldn't assume the same reasons he wont go to a riot also apply to this protest. We haven't solidly defined riot here, so the confusion would be understandable. There are also a few different levels of "we" running around, from "we as americans" and "we as protestors" to "we as the 99%".

I'm more angry at taking any sort of credit for OWS if you aren't actually doing something. You can't say "We as Americans are doing something about this!" if the main block of protesters are unemployed college kids. Those kids can say that, certainly, but it would be disrespectful for me to assume I'm part of a movement from behind my desk chair. "We" are not doing anything, "those protestors" are doing their part.

I went hundreds of miles out of my way to participate in OccupyDC.

I sincerely thank you for representing my interests, and the interests of the majority. I promise that I'm not being sarcastic, even though saying you aren't sarcastic is a good way to seem sarcastic.

As for the time frame, you've got to start somewhere.

Of course you do.

I still find this statement to be true, however:

you're also smart enough to stand idle as your rights are stripped from you

Just because some people are doing something now doesn't mean we didn't lie down and let it get this bad. I was just defending his comment.

1

u/WhoDoIThinkIAm Oct 19 '11

I'm glad I misread your intentions, but the way I originally read the response:

"What do you want me to do, destroy shit?"

That still implies that someone attended. The most damage that happened while I was in DC was a security guard who flipped our group off as we marched on the sidewalk. We didn't do damage because

a)federal agents are everywhere. Anything causing damage would be immediately the dumbest thing we could do.

b)our movement would catch the flak. As we have no leader, everyone is heard equally, including the negative side. All it takes is one belligerent idiot to make everyone around them look bad.

1

u/ansible47 Oct 19 '11

I'm glad I misread your intentions, but the way I originally read the response:

My fault; it's difficult to walk the line between criticizing the movement and expressing how much I love that it's happening.

I suppose the key misunderstanding that would have cleared this up is what we mean by riot. I was interpreting the original assertion that we should be rioting as "Doing a lot more than a small group of dedicated people holding signs"

Less "We should be destroying shit to effect change" and more "We, as Americans, should be so much more angry about what's going on here."

2

u/maizekernel Oct 19 '11

Rioting and destroying stuff that the government couldn't give two fucks about?

Solution: Destroy only government property. It's generally pretty well marked so it shouldn't be hard to find.

7

u/hoodatninja Oct 19 '11

The you still get billed, arrested, and lose your job. Solves nothing, condemns you in the public eye. You lose all sympathy and traction

2

u/rdeluca Oct 19 '11

Ah, sensible well directed anger. That's how riots work.

-1

u/walden42 Oct 19 '11

Rioting doesn't necessarily involve destroying peoples' property, though it can.

2

u/rdeluca Oct 19 '11

The only difference between protests and riots is property damage.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

Then don't call it a riot

0

u/rdeluca Oct 19 '11

I wasn't the one who called it a riot in the first place. I, in fact, am the one arguing it isn't a riot and that we shouldn't. So why the fuck are you responding to me?