Jump to content

Live stream of VA rally - language may not be safe for work


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

Washington Examiner

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wondered why there were "almost no police officers" at a Second Amendment rally in Virginia that saw a heavy police presence.

...

While speaking the same day at Blackout for Human Rights: MLK Now 2020 in Harlem's Riverside Church, the New York Democrat criticized the rally.

 

"There's this gun rights protest happening down in Richmond," she began as the event's host said, "On MLK day!"

...

"But here's the image that has struck with me the most about that. When we go out and march for the dignity and the recognition of the lives of people like Freddie Gray and Eric Garner, the whole place is surrounded by police in riot gear without a gun in sight. And here are all of these people flying Confederate flags, with semi-automatic weapons, and there's almost no police officers at that protest," she said.

 

She added, "Who or what are our institutions protecting from whom? That image conveys it all."

...

In an effort to avoid a repeat of the violence at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, officers from the Virginia State Police, the Virginia Capitol police, and the Richmond police deployed on rooftops and patrolled on bicycles and in cars during the Richmond demonstration. The FBI additionally worked with local law enforcement to weed out "threats of violence" ahead of time.

 

Authorities reported one arrest at the rally, which was attended by over 20,000 people. The Washington Examiner reached out to local police about the number of officers present but did not receive an immediate response.

... so the police were in on it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^

 

AOC should be notified that the only person arrested in relation to the rally was someone accompanying someone that was complaining about “Nazis and terrorists” at the rally LOL:

 

https://www.virginiamercury.com/blog-va/police-arrest-21-year-old-richmond-woman-for-wearing-bandanna-near-pro-gun-rally/?fbclid=IwAR1u_VmWCRbjEM4oXToyCinxk2pE_qes4HpodqNWq1uPK6UkDZ4WQJSVr90

 

A roughly six-minute video uploaded to Instagram by an account matching Beschler’s name appears to show some of her interaction with police. In that video, Richmond police officers tell Beschler to remove her bandanna, noting she’d already been asked once.

 

Beschler told the officers she was trying to keep her face warm.

 

A man with her then appears to mock the police for focusing on Beschler’s bandanna in light of the rally happening nearby.

 

“Way to keep our city safe guys while there’s ******’ Nazis and terrorists around here,” the man says. “Way to ******’ keep our city safe. We’re from Richmond.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citizens United. Democrats complained that it was a bad decision that would allow people to buy elections, then to prove it they've bought elections.

Has literally nothing at all to do with Citizens United. As an individual Bloomberg was unaffected by the electioneering law struck down in that case.

 

Thanks to the Citizens United decision non-billionaires can pool their money together (AKA "form a corporation") to compete with the super-rich. But keep bashing the decision if you think that the only people allowed to influence elections are billionaires and political parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here's the image that has struck with me the most about that. When we go out and march for the dignity and the recognition of the lives of people like Freddie Gray and Eric Garner, the whole place is surrounded by police in riot gear without a gun in sight. And here are all of these people flying Confederate flags, with semi-automatic weapons, and there's almost no police officers at that protest," she said.

 

 

 

Somebody ought to point out to her that the police go where they believe they are needed the most, in these cases where they believe the possibility of a rally descending into violence is greatest.

It’s pretty obvious which of the groups in HER example the cops think is the most law abiding and which is most prone to unrest.

 

Talk about not being able to see the Forrest for the trees......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I believe there should be limits on any organization or person to contribute. Maybe we would see less BILLIONAIRES running for office.

There should be less billionaires, period. If theres no billionaires we dont have this problem. A billionaire should not exist in a free market system free of government graft and coercion. There shouldnt be one majority shareholder of almost every company that makes decisions like dismantling gun companies in their portfolio despite the profit losses.

 

I dont think anyone can honestly say the free market exists anymore and free choice is running out fast. Gun control is just another step in the march towards rule by an oligarchy of pseudo philanthropic billionaires.

 

Its not Citizens United thats the issue, its the people that have stolen our wealth and are using it against our will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Citizens United. Democrats complained that it was a bad decision that would allow people to buy elections, then to prove it they've bought elections.

Has literally nothing at all to do with Citizens United. As an individual Bloomberg was unaffected by the electioneering law struck down in that case.Thanks to the Citizens United decision non-billionaires can pool their money together (AKA "form a corporation") to compete with the super-rich. But keep bashing the decision if you think that the only people allowed to influence elections are billionaires and political parties.

^^^ This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be less billionaires, period. If theres no billionaires we dont have this problem. A billionaire should not exist in a free market system free of government graft and coercion. There shouldnt be one majority shareholder of almost every company that makes decisions like dismantling gun companies in their portfolio despite the profit losses.

So you think you can have a government powerful enough to take your property without compensation, but not powerful enough to take your guns?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There should be less billionaires, period. If theres no billionaires we dont have this problem. A billionaire should not exist in a free market system free of government graft and coercion. There shouldnt be one majority shareholder of almost every company that makes decisions like dismantling gun companies in their portfolio despite the profit losses.

So you think you can have a government powerful enough to take your property without compensation, but not powerful enough to take your guns?
I think you misunderstand. Billionaires only exist because we are under a government thats powerful enough to redistribute our wealth to certain people making them billionaires.

 

Please tell me, what kind of free market lets Obamas administration hand the taxpayer funded bailout to Larry Fink at Blackrock. Whereby his company gets to be the majority shareholder of almost every publicly traded gun company. Whereby instead of running them for profit he makes his intentions to dismantle and divest them even if it loses profit.

 

What kind of free market lets government pensions invest in the market and dictate changes in line with government control at the expense of profitability?

 

Im not advocating for a government that keeps your property. Im advocating taking your property (ie your wealth generated through your work) back from a government that redistributes it to those with your worst interests in mind.

 

Name one philanthropy that exists without some taxpayer contribution. If a philanthropic purpose is to give all your money back to the good of society why does every philanthropist get richer every year?

 

Name one billionaire that made their money through hard work and production that contributed to the GDP, vs skimming the GDP (rent seeking) and tax loopholes.

 

Citizens United isnt whats wrong as others have said, its theft of our hard work and wealth that takes away our rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you misunderstand. Billionaires only exist because we are under a government thats powerful enough to redistribute our wealth to certain people making them billionaires.

Explain in detail how the US government redistributed $1 billion to Kylie Jenner.
First you have to accept her wealth and the Kardashians growth of their wealth (beyond what Robert generated) would not exist without E! cable TV network. E! (a subsidiary of Comcast) would not exist without the government granting Comcast, a private company, eminent domain rights to run cable lines across both public and private property. The government wouldnt give a cable company eminent domain rights to run infrastructure without political contributions.

 

Doubt this? Than why is Comcast corporation one of the largest political donors across local, state, and federal government elections?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

 

Both Comcast and AT&T are in a unique position in that they hedge DNC and GOP donations to make sure they benefit no matter who wins. Also their control of media means that they either directly or indirectly structure pricing on any PACs cable TV adds. Comcast also owns the over the air network NBC, so if there that profitable the FTC should be charging them more and returning that to the taxpayers either in tax breaks or services.

 

So if Kylie Jenner is a billionaire because of Comcasts infrastructure running through your property or town why cant you or your local government demand better pricing or demand rent from Comcast under threat of blocking expansion? Why dont you also have the power to run a competing product on the poles Comcast was granted via eminent domain or rents from the town via a poll tax they pass onto you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think you misunderstand. Billionaires only exist because we are under a government thats powerful enough to redistribute our wealth to certain people making them billionaires.

Explain in detail how the US government redistributed $1 billion to Kylie Jenner.
First you have to accept her wealth and the Kardashians growth of their wealth (beyond what Robert generated) would not exist without Bravo cable TV network. Bravo (a subsidiary of Comcast) would not exist without the government granting Comcast, private company, eminent domain rights to run cable lines across both public and private property. The government wouldn’t give a cable company eminent domain rights to run infrastructure without political contributions.

Keeping Up with the Kardashians premiered on E! (not Bravo) in 2007. Comcast didn't acquire NBC (and thus E! and Bravo) until 2011.

 

Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E!

Not too far off

In 1997, Comcast, one of the minority partners, teamed up with Disney/ABC Cable Networks to buy the channel after Time-Warner had exercised their put agreement.[5] Comcast increased the ownership stakes in the network through mergers with forerunners of TCI and Continental under various circumstances. In November 2006, Comcast acquired Disney's 39.5% share of E! for $1.23 billion to gain full ownership of the network as part of a broader programming carriage agreement between Disney/ABC and Comcast.[6]

So Comcast owned in E! when the Kardashians premiered. I updated my previous post with correct info, but the original framework still stands, how about a well thought rebuttal instead of nitpicking the details.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bringing this full circle. If government granted media monopolies can make billionaires out of talentless (albeit business savvy in the current system) Kardashians they also have the power to shape public policy on gun rights. Do you think the policy makers minds were changed by sitting back and watching the protests on government granted monopoly news networks? Or do you think this reinforced their decision to ram these bills down the throats of Virginians?

 

If media was truly regulated by laws of the free market, or benevolently run by a small powerless government where the people were truly in control would gun control be the predominant voice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First you have to accept her wealth and the Kardashians growth of their wealth (beyond what Robert generated) would not exist without E! cable TV network. E! (a subsidiary of Comcast) would not exist without the government granting Comcast, a private company, eminent domain rights to run cable lines across both public and private property. The government wouldnt give a cable company eminent domain rights to run infrastructure without political contributions.

 

Doubt this? Than why is Comcast corporation one of the largest political donors across local, state, and federal government elections?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

 

Both Comcast and AT&T are in a unique position in that they hedge DNC and GOP donations to make sure they benefit no matter who wins. Also their control of media means that they either directly or indirectly structure pricing on any PACs cable TV adds. Comcast also owns the over the air network NBC, so if there that profitable the FTC should be charging them more and returning that to the taxpayers either in tax breaks or services.

 

So if Kylie Jenner is a billionaire because of Comcasts infrastructure running through your property or town why cant you or your local government demand better pricing or demand rent from Comcast under threat of blocking expansion? Why dont you also have the power to run a competing product on the poles Comcast was granted via eminent domain or rents from the town via a poll tax they pass onto you?

Are you arguing that all wealth belongs to the government because government provides for infrastructure necessary to produce it?

 

At any rate, you dodged the question. You claimed that billionaires acquired their wealth through government redistribution. Whose wealth was redistributed to Kylie Jenner by the government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be less billionaires, period. If theres no billionaires we dont have this problem. A billionaire should not exist in a free market system free of government graft and coercion.

 

 

So you are anti-capitalism and anti-free market? Because you can't claim there should be no 'wealthy' people (or pulll some random net worth cap out of thin air) while claiming to support capitalism and a free market, the minute you deny sucessful people the ability to become 'wealthy' from their business ventures is the minute you deny a free capitalist market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First you have to accept her wealth and the Kardashians growth of their wealth (beyond what Robert generated) would not exist without E! cable TV network. E! (a subsidiary of Comcast) would not exist without the government granting Comcast, a private company, eminent domain rights to run cable lines across both public and private property. The government wouldnt give a cable company eminent domain rights to run infrastructure without political contributions.Doubt this? Than why is Comcast corporation one of the largest political donors across local, state, and federal government elections?https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.phpBoth Comcast and AT&T are in a unique position in that they hedge DNC and GOP donations to make sure they benefit no matter who wins. Also their control of media means that they either directly or indirectly structure pricing on any PACs cable TV adds. Comcast also owns the over the air network NBC, so if there that profitable the FTC should be charging them more and returning that to the taxpayers either in tax breaks or services.So if Kylie Jenner is a billionaire because of Comcasts infrastructure running through your property or town why cant you or your local government demand better pricing or demand rent from Comcast under threat of blocking expansion? Why dont you also have the power to run a competing product on the poles Comcast was granted via eminent domain or rents from the town via a poll tax they pass onto you?

Are you arguing that all wealth belongs to the government because government provides for infrastructure necessary to produce it?At any rate, you dodged the question. You claimed that billionaires acquired their wealth through government redistribution. Whose wealth was redistributed to Kylie Jenner by the government?

The bankers acquired their wealth through government redistribution in 1913 with the creation of the private federal reserve and in 1913 also the income tax was enacted to guarantee the interest to the banking cartel. How isn't that wealth redistribution by the government?

 

They print trillions of dollars out of thin air and the government cannot even audit them. They control the media and wall street and virtually control this country and are taking away our rights.

 

How is it fair and capitalism for the 1% "chosen people" with limitless money supply to buy politicians and anyone and control the money supply and rule us and impose their tyranny on us? According to the Constitution the government supposed to print the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So you are anti-capitalism and anti-free market? Because you can't claim there should be no 'wealthy' people (or pulll some random net worth cap out of thin air) while claiming to support capitalism and a free market, the minute you deny sucessful people the ability to become 'wealthy' from their business ventures is the minute you deny a free capitalist market.

I think you may be pigeonholing me into a cure when all Im doing is arguing for the acceptance of a diagnosis. To stay somewhat on topic here this is the same diagnosis that I argue creates the extreme media bias that allows media forced policy to overrule the will of the people.

 

 

Are you arguing that all wealth belongs to the government because government provides for infrastructure necessary to produce it?At any rate, you dodged the question. You claimed that billionaires acquired their wealth through government redistribution. Whose wealth was redistributed to Kylie Jenner by the government?
Im not advocating for an economic cap, Im arguing for an economy that abides by the laws of free markets. Kylie Jenner would not have the marketshare or the seed money to become a billionaire without a crony capitalist company behind her.

 

Comcast would not be a monopoly if competing companies were allowed their same rights to build out their infrastructure. Rather than paying property owners a fair market rate they pay a smaller amount to government regulators to force property owners at little or no compensation to give up part of their property for infrastructure.

 

If there was more competing infrastructure there would be more reality shows with families similar to the Kardashians except maybe black or brown or conservative or whatever. Their young famous daughters would have a shared media influence subtracting from Kylie Jenners share of the market, she would be a millionaire (which I never said I was against), not a billionaire. This is free markets 101.

 

Both economically literate conservatives and socialists both agree this is behind the current power dynamics of the Bloombergs and Soross. They differ in their prescriptions which Im not going to attempt to argue here because it ventures more into the theoretical.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

 

 

Crony Capitalism

Crony capitalism refers to a capitalist society that is based on the close relationships between business people and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the government in the form of tax breaks, government grants, and other incentives.

 

In practice, this is the dominant form of capitalism worldwide due to the powerful incentives both faced by governments to extract resources by taxing, regulating, and fostering rent-seeking activity, and those faced by capitalist businesses to increase profits by obtaining subsidies, limiting competition, and erecting barriers to entry. In effect, these forces represent a kind of supply and demand for government intervention in the economy, which arises from the economic system itself.

 

Crony capitalism is widely blamed for a range of social and economic woes. Both socialists and capitalists blame each other for the rise of crony capitalism. Socialists believe that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of pure capitalism. On the other hand, capitalists believe that crony capitalism arises from the need of socialist governments to control the economy.

 

 

 

The bankers acquired their wealth through government redistribution in 1913 with the creation of the private federal reserve and in 1913 also the income tax was enacted to guarantee the interest to the banking cartel. How isn't that wealth redistribution by the government?

They print trillions of dollars out of thin air and the government cannot even audit them. They control the media and wall street and virtually control this country and are taking away our rights.

How is it fair and capitalism for the 1% "chosen people" with limitless money supply to buy politicians and anyone and control the money supply and rule us and impose their tyranny on us? According to the Constitution the government supposed to print the money.

In 1913 the Federal reserve was created, in 1916 Rockefeller became the first billionaire. This is no coincidence.

 

While Im strongly opinionated on the subject of central banking Ill remain impartial on recommending a cure or alternative. But I can say that historically in America central banking, with financial interests from specific people chose winners and losers decoupled from standard economic and credit metrics. This is definitely anti free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say you're right about Kylie Jenner, but what government monopoly was behind Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Larry Page, or Mark Zuckerberg? (keep in mind most of them became billionaires long before their companies came anywhere near the political clout they have today, heck one of the biggest criticisms of Page and Zuckerberg is that they built their near-monopolies without government involvement)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, I’ll start with the low hanging fruit, Elon Musk. Tesla would not exist without the government’s huge rebate program on electric cars. They would not exist without the Obama era investment in green energy. They got a huge initial boost in urban markets because business parking lot owners were not allowed to tow them while plugged into chargers (whether soliciting the business or not). Imagine being able to leave your car parked at a gas pump in Chicago and not have to pay for a parking spot that rivals the price of a rural house.

 

If we still gave a darn about the space race and defense of our fragile satellite infrastructure (exostructure?) we wouldn’t of privatized the space industry where the government gives money to Musk.

 

Going a step back Musk made his money on the payment card industry which is first cousin to banking, you have to buy all sorts of favors and bribe your way through all sorts of regulatory hurdles to participate in.

 

Right now Tesla has the market cap of Volkswagen. In what sane fee market economy does expectation outpace output by that much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not advocating for an economic cap, Im arguing for an economy that abides by the laws of free markets. Kylie Jenner would not have the marketshare or the seed money to become a billionaire without a crony capitalist company behind her.

 

Comcast would not be a monopoly if competing companies were allowed their same rights to build out their infrastructure. Rather than paying property owners a fair market rate they pay a smaller amount to government regulators to force property owners at little or no compensation to give up part of their property for infrastructure.

This still makes no sense. You're claiming that anyone who appeared on a TV show on a network that was carried by Comcast, or sold goods or services over the internet, owes all of their money to the government? Or that somehow she wouldn't be a billionaire if there were more cable company options?

 

And you live in Chicago? Look out your back window, the cable wires are on the utility poles in the alley - public property. And do you really want dozens or hundreds of companies stringing wires on those poles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now Kylie Jenner is banker and that's how she got her money? I'm confused https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/;5/#version:static_country:United%20StatesFirst banker I see is #158

I didn't mention Kylie and she has been propped up by the same 1% who also own Hollywood and allowed her to be famous. She doesn't have any power, chicagoresident gave the wrong example.

 

The bankers have the power and control the money supply and rule. They control the internet and censor people so the truth about them doesn't come out and control Presidents and start wars.

 

“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.”

 

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This still makes no sense. You're claiming that anyone who appeared on a TV show on a network that was carried by Comcast, or sold goods or services over the internet, owes all of their money to the government? Or that somehow she wouldn't be a billionaire if there were more cable company options?And you live in Chicago? Look out your back window, the cable wires are on the utility poles in the alley - public property. And do you really want dozens or hundreds of companies stringing wires on those poles?

Lololol, so youre now saying we should regulate free markets because you think the aesthetics would be offensive?

 

Yes, private cable infrastructure traverses both public and private properties. Im just saying private property owners should be compensated the true market value instead of having their hand forced by the government via eminent domain because a cable company gave money to an election. Im also saying public property, if you believe that public property should exist (again, being impartial to argue the diagnosis) should also be adequately compensated via better negotiations yielding better costs. Instead Comcast gets a deal better than what a free market should yield by paying the government to regulate a better rent or forcing a property owners hand via eminent domain.

 

Either outcome, there would either be better competition or lower profits. Either way Kylie Jenner would have lower seed money or lower market share. Either outcome Kylie Jenner would not be a billionaire (as shes barely scraping the threshold).

 

 

Again, to get back on track the outcome of this protest should of been voiced by an equally powerful counter media dialog that if Virginia passed these unconstitutional measures there would be trouble for the billionaires proxies.

 

I didn't mention Kylie and she has been propped up by the same 1% who also own Hollywood and allowed her to be famous. She doesn't have any power, chicagoresident gave the wrong example.

The bankers have the power and control the money supply and rule.

Just keeping it relevant, this doesnt even begin to get into how the fed redistributes money to banks via fractional reserve banking and the bank gatekeepers that establish Kylie Jenners makeup line as a better investment than a more useful GDP contributor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I’ll add in to this is someone obviously has no clue how cable attachment agreements work, how such agreements are arrived at, nor about who such attachment agreements apply to.

Comcast doesn’t attach to power poles for free, nor do they have any monopoly on attaching to said poles.

 

Someone also seems to have a few other things backwards.

Musk isn’t a billionaire because of Tesla, Tesla exists because Musk is a billionaire.

 

Carry on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Ill add in to this is someone obviously has no clue how cable attachment agreements work, how such agreements are arrived at, nor about who such attachment agreements apply to.

Comcast doesnt attach to power poles for free, nor do they have any monopoly on attaching to said poles.

 

Carry on....

As a subject matter expert please elaborate as my narrative is very simplistic (leaving out a lot of the cutrate .com bust consolidation of infrastructure, the Bell monopolies and breakups, etc obviously Comcast nbc didnt come out of nowhere), I already stated Musk made his money in the banking and payment industry (PayPal and prior subsidiaries).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...