Occupy Wall Street

[White Eagle]

Because the gravity of the day to day living situations of the people are not meshing up with the advertised message of what can be done in America.

The biggest percentage of the 99% have become so marginalized and disenfranchised the American dream never existed for them. The people you see out protesting now are either the people who had their dreams stolen (house foreclosures, and lay offs) or people who bought into the dream only to find it was nothing more than an elaborate consumerist scheme ( college grads saddled with astronomical debt).

When it's really going to get interesting is when the social programs do end, either from defunding/cutting budgets or from lack of reform to see the programs through.

Once everyone truly is up against the wall, the fight really will start.



Some would argue that simply showing up in riot gear was going to far.

Imagine for a second if the tables had been turned, and it was an unprotected police man that was hit in the head with a rock and ended up in the hospital with a fractured skull and brain swelling.

Defining the protestors as rioters before any riot actually happened paved the way for riotous behavior. By all means the police should protect themselves from harm, but it really was a case of bringing a gun to a knife fight. IF you want the people to color inside the lines, don't draw the picture of violence.



No, it still is art no matter how much you or I disagree with it. But the question is whether or not it is successful art? Does it provoke thought or produce an emotional reaction? Typical measures of gauging the success of art.

So Miss Marie says let them eat cake, it seems Above is saying let them have their rope. Either way the downfall is of their own creation. Participants in parasitic capitalism make the decision to engage in their business despite obvious moral consciousness.

Personally I believe humans have a responsibility to each other that transcends property.



Better to rip the band-aid off fast and deal with the sting.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8878

Here''s an article you may be interested in.It's a blog but there are videos of Oakland showing the protesters did not throw rocks and bottles as OPD alleged.

A video showing pretty close to Scott's injury.
There is info that OPD may have violated laws that were made on a similar protest back in 03.

That federal consent decree was the product of litigation initiated after a brutal assault on a 2003 anti-war protest at the Port of Oakland, during which, according to civil rights attorney James B. Chanin, OPD not only deployed so-called "less than lethal firearms," but ran over demonstrators with motorcycles, and shot and arrested longshoreman who were not even a part of the demonstration.

There is audio of the police chief saying it is easy to infiltrate protests and cause a scene which will benefit the police.
There is one girl that said rocks and bottles were thrown at police but since it was via satellite she may have misunderstood the question.

Anyway, it doesn't look good for Oakland Police Dept.

 

[Kulindahr]

tea party protests were peaceful - u may not agree with their ideology but they were peaceful and they had a real message

Yeah -- attacking Obama supporters who come by isn't violent. You're talking about a bunch of whom 13% thinks violence against the government is legitimate.
Though there's the question of which message. From their signs, racism and religious bigotry were favorite messages, as were hate for the U.N. and a variety of other things.

and the sniping at Jayhawk here is bullshit

You can't see his lies, either? Oh, well -- I've pointed them out.

I googled and did not find.

Be specific.

Oh, rubbish -- the phrase brings up millions of results.

 

[BostonPirate]

It doesn't care what people think of the demonstrators. Historically, the Gov't has been slow to respond because they thought they would go away in time, not realizing that by the time you have mobs in the street in america, the situation is now beyond restraint.

This is a real event that is happening in our nation. A generation is on strike, and they are intentionally interfering in commerce, because they feel that they are taxed without representation. They are not going to go away until they are appeased or abused and disabused of their rights.

At their core, all amorphous complaints considered, taxation without representation, is the one civil liberty that they feel has been violated.

Corporations buy candidates an office, and the person in the office gives the corporation a contract.

Never are the actual needs of the people addressed, and never has it been so painfully clear. Wall street has gotten all its money back in investments, the market is stubbornly slow and uptrending, even though the nation is shutting down, firing educators, and policemen... these are the first line of a first world nation. These are societal expectations of americans.

A minority cannot hold the nation hostage politically for the corporations to continue to get the handouts.

The sooner you all address that issue and stop whining about how them hippies look and smell, the sooner they can go home and be productive citizens who will pay taxes and help this nation heal.

But they are simply NOT going to pay anymore or lose anymore until the corporations are weakened and they have a future that does not include having a college degree and working part time at mcdonalds.

 

[Kulindahr]

Once everyone truly is up against the wall, the fight really will start.


Some would argue that simply showing up in riot gear was going to far.

Imagine for a second if the tables had been turned, and it was an unprotected police man that was hit in the head with a rock and ended up in the hospital with a fractured skull and brain swelling.

Defining the protestors as rioters before any riot actually happened paved the way for riotous behavior. By all means the police should protect themselves from harm, but it really was a case of bringing a gun to a knife fight. IF you want the people to color inside the lines, don't draw the picture of violence.

Crowd psychology... yay. To some the riot gear would be a provocation, to others it would be a bit subduing. A good portion would of course take their cue from whoever responded most significantly and soonest.
So the call by the police lies with a question: try not to provoke, or be ready in case someone blows?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8878

Here''s an article you may be interested in.It's a blog but there are videos of Oakland showing the protesters did not throw rocks and bottles as OPD alleged.

A video showing pretty close to Scott's injury.
There is info that OPD may have violated laws that were made on a similar protest back in 03.



There is audio of the police chief saying it is easy to infiltrate protests and cause a scene which will benefit the police.
There is one girl that said rocks and bottles were thrown at police but since it was via satellite she may have misunderstood the question.

Anyway, it doesn't look good for Oakland Police Dept.

You're right -- it doesn't.

 

[Kulindahr]

It doesn't care what people think of the demonstrators. Historically, the Gov't has been slow to respond because they thought they would go away in time, not realizing that by the time you have mobs in the street in america, the situation is now beyond restraint.

This is a real event that is happening in our nation. A generation is on strike, and they are intentionally interfering in commerce, because they feel that they are taxed without representation. They are not going to go away until they are appeased or abused and disabused of their rights.

At their core, all amorphous complaints considered, taxation without representation, is the one civil liberty that they feel has been violated.

Corporations buy candidates an office, and the person in the office gives the corporation a contract.

Never are the actual needs of the people addressed, and never has it been so painfully clear. Wall street has gotten all its money back in investments, the market is stubbornly slow and uptrending, even though the nation is shutting down, firing educators, and policemen... these are the first line of a first world nation. These are societal expectations of americans.

A minority cannot hold the nation hostage politically for the corporations to continue to get the handouts.

The sooner you all address that issue and stop whining about how them hippies look and smell, the sooner they can go home and be productive citizens who will pay taxes and help this nation heal.

But they are simply NOT going to pay anymore or lose anymore until the corporations are weakened and they have a future that does not include having a college degree and working part time at mcdonalds.

Absolutely.

The real notable thing about them is the degree of organization achieved merely by people seeing needs and addressing them. No top-down organization decreed the plethora of committees or teams which address needs, they just formed. And the modes of organization born in one place propagate across the internet to be used elsewhere.

 

[jackoroe]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8878

Here''s an article you may be interested in.It's a blog but there are videos of Oakland showing the protesters did not throw rocks and bottles as OPD alleged.

A video showing pretty close to Scott's injury.
There is info that OPD may have violated laws that were made on a similar protest back in 03.



There is audio of the police chief saying it is easy to infiltrate protests and cause a scene which will benefit the police.
There is one girl that said rocks and bottles were thrown at police but since it was via satellite she may have misunderstood the question.




Anyway, it doesn't look good for Oakland Police Dept.

Plead stupidity when the facts show otherwise. She was there and she clearly understood all of the questions asked. She admitted they threw rocks and bottles prior to the officers having done anything.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=31747


Oh, I know, she was a lying plant, right?

 

[White Eagle]

Well, you heard the police chief admit there were infiltrators. She was asked a question through a satellite hookup and she was the only one admitting that. All the other witnesses said they did not throw anything.
Believe what you will, my post explains it pretty good. The police broke the law, lets see what the outcome of the investigation says.
This is not over.

 

[Kulindahr]

Plead stupidity when the facts show otherwise. She was there and she clearly understood all of the questions asked. She admitted they threw rocks and bottles prior to the officers having done anything.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=31747


Oh, I know, she was a lying plant, right?

I fail to find in the video any indication she didn't understand, unless you're counting the pause before she talks. I took that as one of those pauses that arising from not really knowing the answer, which I thought was weird. On second view I found myself wondering if she was trying to decide whether to evade.

My hypothesis is there wasn't any rock or bottle throwing where she was, but she knew there was in another spot.

 

[JayHawk]

I will wait for the official investigation. The video showed here can not be the only proof in existence. The video does appear to demonstrate that the police simply opened up BUT it is a big square and she was video painting only a small portion.

Can any of you imagine the outcry and backlash if it had been a Tea Party rally and at the police things like "Fuck you, Fuck You , Fuck You Fuck you" or "SHUT...THE ...FUCK...UP" was chanted.

Every last voice on this board would be all over about how it was racist and they are all gun toting killers intent on destroying the earth..... I find the absolute agreement in defending OWS pretty disturbing.

It could well be that the police acted with complete disregard for liberty and without provocation. BUT a few days later when the Police did nothing and bonfires were lit in the streets is fairly indicative of how hateful members of such a high spirited group allows the group to devolve over time.

Does that mean 2900 of the 3000 who showed up to democratically exercise their right of assembly to redress a wrong were violent? Or that their point is not valid? By no means does it indicate that BUT in a barely controlled group violence can occur rapidly and without real cause. Look at the folks leaving sports championships who have nothing but pent up anger and energy who then proceed to run wild and destroy parts of cities. Groups become inspired to violence rather rapidly as those that would normally not are inspired to action by the mass of people.

I will still wait for the investigation to conclude what it does. I wont jump to conclusions but I will point out the opposite point of view IF the only point of view represented shades one or another group as infallible.

 

[TX-Beau]

Oh please.

Just so much more noise.

WHY JAYHAWK? WHY ARE THERE PEOPLE IN THE STREETS?

 

[JB3]

Oh please.

Just so much more noise.

WHY JAYHAWK? WHY ARE THERE PEOPLE IN THE STREETS?

Stop yelling.

 

[TX-Beau]

Stop yelling.

If it's the only way to be heard.....

 

[JayHawk]

Oh please.

Just so much more noise.

WHY JAYHAWK? WHY ARE THERE PEOPLE IN THE STREETS?

I dunno. To be quite honest with you. They seem to be in the street much more so in areas that historically have much more liberal policy and ideas. Like NYC and Oakland yet there are sympathetic movements all over the country. Here in KC the most I have seen is on weekends with about 300 or so on a march on Halloween.

In Lawrence about a block from my office they are about nine strong and sleep at the dorm at night. Kinda odd for a very liberal college but to each their own protest I suppose.

Why were there people in the streets in the sixties? What did they accomplish? What will these folks accomplish?

Like I said hopefully they raise the pathetic american voter turnout.

That would be an interesting. How many of these folks are out there protesting and have ever bothered to participate in the democracy? Did they do so with an overwhelming vigor or did they simply expect things to go however and didn't vote?

I know. I know. I have a different opinion and I am not marching in the streets (in my mind as the rest of your are doing it) so i am not entitled to an opinion.

However the absurd idea that this minority group represents 99% of america is not true no matter how often they make up signs or say it.

 

[TX-Beau]

What did protest in the sixties accomplish?

You're kidding right?

I'm sorry but in regard to the rest of that - it came out of your own head, and if you want to talk yourself into a martyrdom in your own mind - go right ahead, but I'm not going to bother with it.

If you actually want to know what the point is, you might try listening instead of knee jerk demonizing and pointless attempts to destroy the messenger, and ignore the message.

Your attempt to make this a "liberal," thing (and therefore what?) is kind of sad.

Go find out what they're saying.

But you won't do that will you?

 

[Jack Springer]

Oh, rubbish -- the phrase brings up millions of results.

Nope, it doesn't. Fleabagger dream.

 

[andysayshi]

While I think the overall meaning of the OWS movement is clear to anyone listening, I also think the movement should clarify and focus their demands, if nothing else than to silence the conservative brigades who dismiss them for "no clear goal".

That clear goal should be obvious: get the money out of politics. Their one, over-riding principle should be the demand for publicly funded elections with donations and lobbying banned. Whatever the OWS side-issue, this one goal will address it in some way. Corporate greed and power, environment, tax loopholes, tax fairness, income equality, health care - all of these issues are corrupted by governments who answer to money before constituents.

Get the money out of politics and you'll get a government who answers to the majority, rather than the wealthy.

 

[JayHawk]

What did protest in the sixties accomplish?

You're kidding right?

I'm sorry but in regard to the rest of that - it came out of your own head, and if you want to talk yourself into a martyrdom in your own mind - go right ahead, but I'm not going to bother with it.

If you actually want to know what the point is, you might try listening instead of knee jerk demonizing and pointless attempts to destroy the messenger, and ignore the message.

Your attempt to make this a "liberal," thing (and therefore what?) is kind of sad.

Go find out what they're saying.

But you won't do that will you?

Pray tell me what you post on here that doesn't come from your own point of view?

I am listening and hearing loud and clear. We have been saying on these boards many of those SAME points loud and clear.

Some on here think that OWS caused BoA to drop the five dollar fee. When in fact a protest has nothing to do with it. the people realizing they do not want to pay a fee left. When BoA saw their business declining they realized it was a stupid move.

Did OWS cause Netflix to reverse its increase in pricing and change to services or did the mass exodus of customers?

I think way too much is attributed to these OWS folks.

Some here will claim once the so called "Super-committee" agrees to remove tax loopholes to increase revenue that it was done because of OWS pressure. Whereas I said it would happen when they were doing the news drama about the deficit ceiling. The republicans will simply hold out until they can be the ones introducing the legislation. They will also call it tax code reform and not call it a raising of taxes.

But that has nothing to do with OWS. That was the direction our achingly slow congress was moving in already.

The idea posted earlier that K Street is going away and Politicians will cut their own pensions or paychecks is absurd. It will never happen. The idea that we will devolve into some socialistic state where all is shared is equally absurd. At least half of America would not allow it to happen.

So NO I do not see OWS as this awe inspiring changing force.

But it does appear to be what the libs around here were waiting for to rally behind. I hope that works out for ya.

 

[JayHawk]

While I think the overall meaning of the OWS movement is clear to anyone listening, I also think the movement should clarify and focus their demands, if nothing else than to silence the conservative brigades who dismiss them for "no clear goal".

That clear goal should be obvious: get the money out of politics. Their one, over-riding principle should be the demand for publicly funded elections with donations and lobbying banned. Whatever the OWS side-issue, this one goal will address it in some way. Corporate greed and power, environment, tax loopholes, tax fairness, income equality, health care - all of these issues are corrupted by governments who answer to money before constituents.

Get the money out of politics and you'll get a government who answers to the majority, rather than the wealthy.

I couldn't agree more with both of your points. Publicly funded elections and OWS stating a specific goal that can be addressed. That said I still dont think the money is going anywhere away from politics.

 

[TX-Beau]

But it does appear to be what the libs around here were waiting for to rally behind. I hope that works out for ya.

And we finally get to the truth.

You dislike "liberals," and think this is some kind of "liberal," thing.

But it isn't.

Anything that could bring Kuli and I into complete agreement can't be described by the tired old liberal/conservative crap the two party system has sold you - and you apparently don't even bother to question.

 

[JayHawk]

What exactly have they sold me? Seriously. All I see is a bunch of people upset with their current situation. I do not see that 99% of america supports them. I do see the same dividing lines in polling numbers supporting their ideas as the difference between typical republican and democratic voting groups... in the forty percent range.

So what do we do with the other 60% of america that doesnt agree?

Your way or the highway? Riot and protest till ya get your way?

Like I said enjoy that. Although I find it odd that a group of folks so obviously devoted to OWS isn't out there living it day to day. I have the courage of my convictions. I go do what I believe in instead of chit chatting about it.

Oh and by the way between your two post you simply seek to discuss me. You seek to define me instead of defining the issues you hold dear. You ought to get to that issue definition because the american people arent gonna change because they dont like Jhawk. Nothing in my post says I hate liberals. Just that it appears everyone who normally espouses liberal ideas in this forum is rabidly behind this movement. Well rabidly typing for the movement.