What is with these people?
What is with these people?
You don't get alot of western ideals, do you Scrat? :wah:
What is with these people?
I've seen more people get hurt in an NFL game...:wah:
What is with these people?
I'm not going to sit here and justify the notion of the "lesser of two evils", but to be honest, I seen less violence in that film than that of pre-world war II American football. I'm wondering which of the two is the aggressor in such instances as i'm sure you can understand how i'm failing to see the probability of a government feeling obligated to walk around its streets carelessly beating the pig snot out of civilians minding their own business. Quite frankly, all I see is governmental control over an unjustified civilian population.
What is with these people?
Scrat wrote:
Do you mean the government is trying to control troublemakers? You could be right.
Absolutely...If such wasn't the case, I don't know a single seol who would condone such a thing. Everyone has a home,...I think we can all agree on the fact that those many people evident in the streets within that film weren't homeless, so again I find it hard to believe that such a situation was unavoidable. People need to take responsibility for their actions, and shouldn't have exceptions to the amount of actions one takes. Now if the primary motives of those obviously creating a disturbance have happened to be fueled by oppression, I myself think the peoples in question could have taken a more subtle approach, perhaps maybe have learned from the example of African-Americans pre-1960's, establishing a movement based entirely from the accomplishments that we all know is as credible as any oppression witnessed.
Do you mean the government is trying to control troublemakers? You could be right.
Absolutely...If such wasn't the case, I don't know a single seol who would condone such a thing. Everyone has a home,...I think we can all agree on the fact that those many people evident in the streets within that film weren't homeless, so again I find it hard to believe that such a situation was unavoidable. People need to take responsibility for their actions, and shouldn't have exceptions to the amount of actions one takes. Now if the primary motives of those obviously creating a disturbance have happened to be fueled by oppression, I myself think the peoples in question could have taken a more subtle approach, perhaps maybe have learned from the example of African-Americans pre-1960's, establishing a movement based entirely from the accomplishments that we all know is as credible as any oppression witnessed.
What is with these people?
K.Snyder wrote: Now if the primary motives of those obviously creating a disturbance have happened to be fueled by oppression, I myself think the peoples in question could have taken a more subtle approach, perhaps maybe have learned from the example of African-Americans pre-1960's, establishing a movement based entirely from the accomplishments that we all know is as credible as any oppression witnessed.
BTW --
If such were the case, then that government should be forced into reform, if not by a complete regime change, and I for one would support that 100%. Friend or no friend.
BTW --
If such were the case, then that government should be forced into reform, if not by a complete regime change, and I for one would support that 100%. Friend or no friend.
What is with these people?
Scrat wrote: I played football for 3 years in highschool until I ruined my knee in my senior year.
I saw that QB bust his leg too, was it Theisman?
Try about half the quarterbacks in the NFL.
I saw that QB bust his leg too, was it Theisman?
Try about half the quarterbacks in the NFL.
What is with these people?
Depends on how you choose to look at it. You can twist anything round if you want to.
In the UK we have unarmed police because way back at the beginning it was considered vutal that they not be seen as an arm of a repressive government but rather citizens in uniform with extra powers to uphold the law.
If there is a riot we don't use armed police. although nowadays they are probably on standby. You are also unlikely to see troops on the street dealing with civil unrest.-except in Northern Ireland for rather special reasons.
On the other hand on the US all the police are armed as a matter of course. Does that mean US citizens are oppressed by the forces of law and order? You seem to be quite ready on occasion to send armed troops on to your streets to put down riots and restore order does that make you a police state?
The thing that also needs to be recognized is that while the ROK is a representative democracy, they're coming hot off the heels of a dictatorial government that spanned almost 4 decades. The government still maintains pretty strong authoritarian overtones and deals with some protestors rather harshly because there has been a history of violence connected with protests in Korea. And like someone said, when you come to a protest sporting bats, axes, and molotov cocktails you can expect to be put down rather brutally.
It wasn't that long ago you didn't allow black people to vote and rioted when they tried to integrate the schools. I remember seeing the Kent State shootings and watching with disbelief that any so called democracy could use armed troops against unarmed demonstrators in a country where the right to protest is suposedly written in to the constitution. You have also allowed your govt to imprison people without trial and are considering given them arbitrary powers to monitor it's citizens-is the US becoming a police state?
Who knows there might be riots in North Korea but I suspect you won't see it posted on a web site.
In the UK we have unarmed police because way back at the beginning it was considered vutal that they not be seen as an arm of a repressive government but rather citizens in uniform with extra powers to uphold the law.
If there is a riot we don't use armed police. although nowadays they are probably on standby. You are also unlikely to see troops on the street dealing with civil unrest.-except in Northern Ireland for rather special reasons.
On the other hand on the US all the police are armed as a matter of course. Does that mean US citizens are oppressed by the forces of law and order? You seem to be quite ready on occasion to send armed troops on to your streets to put down riots and restore order does that make you a police state?
The thing that also needs to be recognized is that while the ROK is a representative democracy, they're coming hot off the heels of a dictatorial government that spanned almost 4 decades. The government still maintains pretty strong authoritarian overtones and deals with some protestors rather harshly because there has been a history of violence connected with protests in Korea. And like someone said, when you come to a protest sporting bats, axes, and molotov cocktails you can expect to be put down rather brutally.
It wasn't that long ago you didn't allow black people to vote and rioted when they tried to integrate the schools. I remember seeing the Kent State shootings and watching with disbelief that any so called democracy could use armed troops against unarmed demonstrators in a country where the right to protest is suposedly written in to the constitution. You have also allowed your govt to imprison people without trial and are considering given them arbitrary powers to monitor it's citizens-is the US becoming a police state?
Who knows there might be riots in North Korea but I suspect you won't see it posted on a web site.
-
Crème brûlée
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:52 am
What is with these people?
It say's it is a strike by the working class people.
I guess it isn't so rosy. They are "fighting for their liberation". (so one post states) Could it happen here?
hmmm.
I guess it isn't so rosy. They are "fighting for their liberation". (so one post states) Could it happen here?
hmmm.