jump to last post 1-50 of 61 discussions (426 posts)

six amazing things OWS Has Accomplished already.

  1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    1. NOW YOU KNOW YOU ARE NOT ALONE – Although the movement against big banks and government corruption has been steadily growing for a number of years, many people who have found themselves in this struggle still felt incredibly isolated from the rest of society.  Now, with hundreds and thousands of like-minded people getting together in various cities across the world, activists are beginning to realize that they are not alone.  There are now events in thousands of different cities, where you can go to meet other people who are concerned about the future and want to change the status quo.  The Internet has exploded with activist information and those of us who were once looked upon as a “fringe community” are now becoming a strong force in the political landscape.

    2. THE ACTIVIST COMMUNITY IS RE-ENERGIZED – Since there are so many different issues that are being championed by this movement, a lot of activists are still on the fence when it comes to Occupy Wall Street. However, even those who may not entirely agree with some of the ideas coming out of the Occupy camps are still stepping up their own efforts and getting more serious with their activism.  This is similar to the situation that one witnesses when they show up to a nightclub too early.  They will typically find an empty dance floor, with a bunch of nervous wallflowers waiting for someone to make the first move.  Once someone is brave enough to make that first move, the dance floor erupts within minutes because everyone then becomes less self-conscious.  This is exactly the kind of energy that activists worldwide are starting to experience -- now that the first move has been made its time for the wallflowers to dance!

    3. IT'S COOL TO PROTEST AGAIN – For some reason there has been a huge social stigma attached to civil disobedience for a number of decades.  Since the late '60s and early '70s the visible activist presence had diminished considerably . . . until now.  Polls nationwide are showing that more and more people are showing support for Occupy Wall Street and are sympathetic to the anger that the protesters are experiencing.  This is actually a huge victory, considering the fact that most of the protests that have taken place in the past few decades were vilified by the media and public alike.  Now we are starting to see a fracture between the media and the American public, which is illuminating just how out of touch the mainstream media is.

    4. MAINSTREAM MEDIA CORRUPTION HAS BEEN EXPOSED LIKE NEVER BEFORE – The coverage (or lack of coverage early on) that the mainstream media has been giving to the OWS movement has majorly backfired and has exposed the dying institution for the fraud that it is.  Many of your average hard-working Americans who spend most of their lives just trying to make ends meet have long relied on the evening news to let them know what’s going on around the world.  When thousands of people were camped outside of Wall Street for months and half of the country still didn’t know about it, it raised some new concerns in the hearts of those who still trusted the word of the mainstream media.  The fact that the pundits on the news only say what their paid to say, and what they are allowed to say, has been proven on a daily basis since these protests started.

    5. THE NEW AMERICAN POLICE STATE IS EXPOSED – For the most part, these protests have been entirely peaceful.  The majority of the violence that we have seen has actually been unprovoked police assaults on innocent protesters.  Thanks to advanced technology, images of peaceful protesters being maced and roughed up by police went viral on the Internet and showed the world how police brutality works in America.  As the independent media began to investigate the details, it was uncovered that J.P Morgan chase alone “donated” 4.6 million dollars to the NYPD.  When we follow the money it is plain to see that the police officers aren’t here to protect us, but here to protect the highest bidder.  This has been going on for some time, but luckily we now have cold hard proof and documented evidence of the corruption that exists between the financial sector and law enforcement.

    6. WE ARE FINALLY STARTING TO LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN - After watching Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama systematically destroy our economy and take away our freedoms over the course of various Democratic and Republican presidential terms it has become apparent to the American people that they really have no say in their political system.  Americans now realize that going to the polls at election time is going to do absolutely nothing to change the foreign or domestic policies in this country.  These policies are dictated entirely by big banks, multinational corporations and international think tanks that operate through Wall Street and the financial district in London known as “the city”. The worst of these organizations -- the Federal Reserve, committee of 300, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the world’s dominant banks -- are not being specifically called out enough yet, but you can rest assured that they are starting to get extremely nervous.  If we can keep up the pressure and continue to educate those around us about the intricacies of this struggle, then we have the potential to create an unprecedented change for the better.


    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1323/405/NL/

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The "wallflowers" danced in the Tea Parties.  They just didn't trash the streets and urinate on public ground and rape women.
      Where were the Occupy Wallstreeters then?  Hiding in the woodwork waiting to actually take over America instead of engaging in legal protest to retrieve America's values, looks like.
      The men behind the curtain ARE the liberals.  Pay no attention to them and maybe they'll go back to their knotholes.

      1. kirstenblog profile image79
        kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Where have you heard stories of protesters raping women?!?!
        I don't think people would be complaining of a lack of media coverage if the media had that to cover (sadly).
        If you can provide a link with more authority then Glen Beck, I will be shocked I gotta say yikes
        It would also mean your doing the media's job, you might want to apply for a job with them wink lol

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Will the Huffington Post be a good enough link for you?




          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 … 72367.html



          Yeah, for sure, I should ask the Huffington Post anyway for a job.   They won't hire me I bet!  LOL.   I would be much too tolerant(ehh...conservative) for them!  It would rock their world too much.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this
          1. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wow, thanks for the 'rap sheet', I hadn't seen a list like that...

            The movie about the people playing tug of war with a dog using a U.S. Flag... yeah, they really get it don't they?

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, please provide a link about these OWS  protesters raping women - if you don't have some, then I suggest you stop making things up.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Link is in post above.   At least I assume it's from the Huffington Post, since it says so.   Who knows what's what anymore, what with all the non-hard-copy that the unstable internet provides?!

          Or are you still bent on accusing me personally of "making things up"?
          roll

          1. stclairjack profile image80
            stclairjackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            read the story via the link you posted,.... sounds like one bad apple took advatage of a situation to fullfill his own desires,... and if thats the ONLY incedent documented throughout this two month oddesy,.... i jut gota say,... BFD,.... hears a tip for all young girls who decide to joine a campout protes against the man,... "dont sleep in strange mens tents,... DUH!"

            the story over all seems to sujest that fellow protesters no longer wished his serices as cook, or his presance at all,.... his arrest may have saved his skin.

            sounds like normal people making normal reposnses to abnormal behavior in thier midst,..... to hear some pundits talk,. this has become a sex crazed shit on the flag love-in.

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I think it was her tent....
              but whatever.
              So, apparently there was nonsensical stuff going on on both sides of the issue.  That still doesn't make it okay to rape someone!  DUH.  And the protestors should have enough sense to recognize that they should be business-like instead of letting people camp out like vagabonds for extended periods of time on public property.

              Why did you say "BFD"?

              1. DNCalkins profile image61
                DNCalkinsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Your presentation of these isolated, but terrible incidents as being systematic is as disingenuous  and dishonest as the political media noise machines that you're parroting. 

                It is a simple matter of scale.  Get enough people together for a long enough time, you will eventually have a few problems.  The Tea Party is not comparable because no Tea Party protest had as wide a range or number of people involved for so long a time as the #Occupy movement.

        2. rachellrobinson profile image85
          rachellrobinsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this
      3. DonDWest profile image90
        DonDWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The only people I see raping women are the police. . .

      4. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda, the big banks and the central private bank, the Fed, are determined to exact revenge on the US middle class until it is very weak. They do this by easy money lending, then tight credit right afterward. They cause the booms and the busts. When the Fed loaned out 7.7 trillion dollars to American and Eurozone banks, these banks speculated, so that your gas and food went up massively.

        The biggest banks are bigger than they have ever been. They are the winners, along with their handlers.

        You saw how Germany tried to fight the banks, only to see their bond auction go bad. They could not sell all their bonds even though Germany was supposed to be a safe haven. That is how powerful the banksters are Brenda.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Wes,

      A strange thing happened today. Sky news actually covered in depth the protest in New York, today. That footage also included Police Officers punching a protester in the head, numerous times. The protester was sitting on the floor (not in anyone's wildest imagination could this be described as a violent act or the behavior of rioter) As distressing as it was to see a protester assaulted in this way, it also felt like a corner was being in turned in that the main stream media were actually exposing police brutality. OWS and OWSLSX are not going away anytime soon.wink

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Mainstream media has HUGE credibility loss to attempt to make up for due to OWS - it's easily my favorite thing in the world lately that the MSM has been exposed as a total fraud to so many people who'd never once known that it was one.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree, I love that the truth of our enslavement is finally coming out in the light of day. (a peek behind the curtain)

    3. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nice.

    4. Xenonlit profile image60
      Xenonlitposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I know why the tea party keeps pushing lies about rapes and other misdeeds, but they have lied so much that they can't stop. This is dog whistle nonsense that resonates only with the minority who are tea partiers.

      As for the OWS, Cheers! There is much more to come!

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, all the news reports and police reports are lies. The pictures of people defecating in the streets are photo-shopped too.

    5. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      #s 2-5 were already discovered and acknowledged through the Ron Paul R3VOLution.

      ho hum.

  2. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    CNN has a continuous coverage, nothing else, of occupy in New York all morning so far.

  3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    Sky news coverage here has been so utterly bias. A couple of weeks ago Kay Burley (such an annoying woman) referred to peaceful protesters as "rioters" someone needs to give that woman a dictionary, she doesn't know the difference. I was genuinely shocked that they broadcast police brutality, though. Genuinely.

  4. Greek One profile image81
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    Couldn't they all just have found a couple of shoes and made their point that way???

    http://i942.photobucket.com/albums/ad269/NewBeginnings2/Funny/SoClose-11.gif

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lordy, I miss Bush!
      He had it goin' on.  And I mean he had agility on so many (good) levels.  Statesmanship material.  Unlike what's exhibited in Office now, both in Congressional seats and the Oval Office.  And he didn't even cry racist abuse, nor even foul (even though it was evidently most likely both).  Unlike, again, what we have now.

      1. Greek One profile image81
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://th207.photobucket.com/albums/bb244/icansk8920/th_george.gif

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That one's been doctored.

          I like the shoe-throwin' video better.

          Obama can't hold a candle to it.

          He only catches helpless flies, not flying shoes!  LOL

          1. Greek One profile image81
            Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            prove that it has been doctored!

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Obama is just Bush with a bigger budget.

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm making a mental note that you prefer the worst president in the history of the nation - this will help me to categorize all future text that I read from you.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, no, really: you need to read MORE. I assure you that great amusement will be found.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            hehehehehe!!!!

            Some are sicker than others!  Some are paid political poster/propaganda machines on this site too!

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I think I have to agree... and not just on behalf of the United States, some are here to promote the propoganda of other nations and even the propoganda of the Criminal Invasion of the United States.   hmm

        2. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I have no problem with that.  You've already categorized yourself too.  Just so ya know.  LOL.

        3. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No,no you didn't understand, she said she DIDN'T like Obama.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As bad as I think Obama is - I'm certain that Bush was worse.

            1. Captain Redbeard profile image60
              Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              With all due respect sir, that's crap and you know it! Bush never once implimented a law which states if a government FORCED commercial product isn't purchased than the AMERICAN people will be fined or even face jail time. The man in office now is anything but American. Bush did a lot but he never oppressed the people with laws that force us to purchase products.

          2. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            haha Repairguy47!  You got it right!
              Very witty and firm-minded!  Just like Bush.
            You've got it goin' on too!  smile

    2. Greek One profile image81
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      the leader beside him reacts like he kinda new it was coming

    3. mom101 profile image60
      mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fan or no fan, that was funny.

      Although I can't help to mention, he missed a great chance on the founder of a new dance move.

  5. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    That moment was hilarious.

  6. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

  7. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    Yes I know. He was the majority share holder (I think) but he wanted total control of Sky news. The phone hacking etc. coincided with his wanting to make the bid. He couldn't ha. He wanted it all but can't have it. lol It's still pretty right wing, though.

  8. MikeNV profile image75
    MikeNVposted 5 years ago

    Nothing has been accomplished.

    These people are angry, but they don't even know how the system works.  They have no idea where to vent their anger.  Many of the protests across the country are just temporary housing for the homeless.

    Nothing has changed at all.

    That's how it is, not how you want it to be.

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You mean that you REALLY don't appreciate that the media has been exposed so well for NOT covering what is going on, and that the police state has been exposed for what it is either???????

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have to disagree. I believe the curtain has been pulled aside and the truth will continue to flow from that breach, becoming a bigger and bigger breach, until the dam bursts.


      Occupiers...Keep it up!!! and Get it on video!!!

  9. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    And the invasion of the criminalization of ideas.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      hmm ??

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Mikel, this is the stifling of free speech in the worst kind of way. I believe that is what KYS is referring to.

  10. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Bilderberg agenda exposed in EU parliament!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCgjSwaPu0Y


    People are waking up worldwide!!!


    The Bilderbergers exposed at the EU!!!!

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nice video!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. Jed Fisher profile image89
    Jed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    OWS is getting some things accomplished. Awareness, for the most part. The news can lie all they want but the poeple who are there at OWS, and there are a lot of them, know the news is a pack of lies. What makes me laugh at the news today is the obvious lie that Newt Gingrich is leading the Republican polls right now. He has proven time and again that he is the anti-thesis of Republican ideas, that he is the poster child of what OWS wants to get rid of, has more transgressions against women and little boys than Herman Cain and Penn State combined, and the news actually thinks I'm stupid enough to believe Newt is the front-runner for the Republican primaries.

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      AWESOME COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  12. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    Wall Street, getting worried and prepared to fight dirty.

    http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ … all-street

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They won't pay even a few thousand in extra taxes, but they'll spend almost a million on a disinformation campaign.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Unbelievable isn't it. Classic how they want to use the media to dig up dirt and then slur protesters.

  13. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” - Thomas Jefferson

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      First thought:  congress and their insider trading.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you agree with this sort of statement, and you hate bailouts, and you hate all the crony capitalism, then Ron Paul is your man.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If you like company stores, rigged local elections, freedom to discriminate, pollute and adulterate without risk of being bothered by a pesky Federal government, then yes indeed, Ron Paul is your man!

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Company stores? ...stores ARE companies... BRILLIANT!

            Here's a mind experiment, Pcunix - one that SHOULD make you think... but...

            If we need a STATE government to check on LOCAL elections, and we need a FEDERAL government to check on STATE elections, then what the **** checks on the federal elections?

            What's that? Your entire argument is just a pointless ad inifinitum that proves there was no thought put into it? OK!

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If you are too ignorant of history to know what a "company store" or "truck system" is, that's not my problem.  It might explain some of your less sensible politics, however.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I thought you commies were all for that commune crap.

                If you're dumb enough to accept the job for fake money, then go right ahead.

                (PS - we are all working for money substitutes. Any money that can be created at the push of a button isn't real money)

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not a communist.  Period.

            2. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              As a nation, we have competing needs, beliefs and ideologies.  We check the excesses of each other.  There may not be enough homosexuals in your town to make a stand against discrimination, but there ARE enough nationally.

              THAT'S why local government is dangerous.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And I'll add this:  the logical end is world government.

                No, I'm not naive enough to think we are capable of that today.  But someday, when people tire of senseless wars and local atrocities, we will come to that.

                Unfortunately, we are likely hundreds or even thousands of years away.  The average person is simply not smart enough to see that yet.  It WILL come, though.

                And people like our resident Libertarians will fight it tooth and nail, of course.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Intolerance starts with an individual, and no amount of government can cure this fact.

                  People get thrown out of their families for being gay NOT because of a lack of government. It's because people are people. Humans are programmed in a way to generate intolerant beliefs.

                  It's called discrimination, and it is a learned behavior. However, it's not "learned" in the sense that the individual learns it from their parents (although, intolerant parents do indeed help foster such beliefs), it's learned in the sense that humans learn in a way that generates discrimination.

                  Piaget and Vygotsky argued that humans go around and play with their surroundings, and eventually equilibrate odd things into their understanding of the world.

                  For example - things with fangs are generally to be avoided. Children learn this when they play with animals that have fangs and they get bitten. Using this "discrimination", the individual knows that the best action when confronted with a tiger in their bed is to run away.

                  Do you like McDonald's? Wendy's? Applebee's? Max & Erma's? If you say "I like one more than the other", then you have displayed the simple fact that you have learned to discriminate. Do you really want a government that forces you to eat at one instead of the other?

                  It's very naive of you to think that a one world government couldn't be corrupted as easily as any local government. Discrimination can't end through government because discrimination is part of being human.

                  And it's even more naive to think that a single world government would end wars. The absolute worst thing you could ever do with someone who is a discriminating jerk is to force him to be around the things he hates.

                  Are you straight? Well too bad, you have to marry someone of the same gender/sex. The only non-discriminatory sexual being is the bi-sexual who doesn't care what their partner looks like, smells like, sounds like, or any other factor.

                  Discrimination is inherent in humanity -- hell, it's inherent to all animals-- and to think that "bigger government" can eradicate it is not only naive, but dangerous on numerous fronts. 1) you'll make people angry, 2) you'll have given up your freedoms, 3) you'll have made life very miserable, 4) if you actually succeeded in eradicating all forms of discrimination, then everything would feel and seem the same.

                  Don't forget: when you aggregate the electorate, you indeed give the 1 in 10 that are homosexuals / transgendered / bisexual a bigger voice. But you also give the 1 in 10 who are bigoted jerks a bigger voice as well.

                  The only real difference between bigger and smaller government is the number of people that will be pissed off through a bad decision: 500 or 7 billion?

                  1. Pcunix profile image91
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?  How many of our 50 States are at war with one or more of the others?

                  2. Pcunix profile image91
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not talking about dumb families.  I'm talking about businesses, landlords, restaurants..  Like the discrimination we had in the South before Federal "interference".  That is what your Libertarian foolishness would return us to.

            3. yellowstone8750 profile image60
              yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              To Rodgers: You sure like to call others stupid and ignorant. Like Clapton says, "before you accuse me, take a look at yourself!"

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There's a great book, a bit of a heavy read, called Virginia's American Revolution, by Kevin R. C. Gutzman, which illustrates the ideas swirling around in Virginia at the time they wrote the world's first written Constitution until their feelings of betrayal at the government they helped create.

      1. LookingForWalden profile image60
        LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As Churchill said "History is written by the victors"

  14. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    And now, protesters sitting on the floor is apparently such an illegal act it is justified for a police officer to pepper spray anyone who "sits on the floor"

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I suppose depends on where you are sitting, who owns the building or how defiant or compliant one chooses to be.  When the unions staged a protest in the Wisconsin Statehouse they fouled it with garbage, graffiti, blocking access to law makers and emergency exits.  A little pepper spray for being a jerk is a small price to pay considering I would have loved to see the truncheons come out.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Violent much?  Are you a cop?

        ....or are you just a Fox "news" disinformation junkie?

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Fox News is pedantic, not all that different from all other television news.  I wonder how many people actually think about the "news" channels they consume.  I find it entertaining that so many liberals are incapable of separating gold from dross when consuming news.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not a "liberal."  I'm a person wondering how a sane person could support the assault of peaceful protesters.

            1. emrldphx profile image59
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              When people step out of line and infringe on the rights of others, then law enforcement takes over. You can't murder someone because that impedes on that person's right to life. You can't just sit in a group and block public passage ways and call that 'peaceful'. It's outside of your rights. If they don't comply with law enforcement asking them to move, then that is their choice. Anyone acting outside of their rights shouldn't complain about the consequences.

            2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I suppose that depends on your definition of peaceful.

              http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/ … lence.html

              Sounds like someone should be choosing more news sources than just the ones sympathetic to "the cause."

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ditto. I think sitting on the floor is pretty peaceful, I don't think punching someone in the head, hitting them with a trunction or inflicting chemical damage to one's skin is in any way peaceful. Maybe you should also think about choosing your sources more carefully and not just accepting them because they are opposed to the cause.

  15. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "truncheons" So why are you such a violent guy.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Violence is often a conservative answer to any problem.  Pepper spray, kicking, truncheons, bombs.. kill 'em all and let Sky Daddy sort it out..

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.

        Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

        Mao Tse-tung - socialist revolutionary, atheist, hero to the American liberal and Obama administration officials. 

        Considering the murders, rapes, brick throwing of the occupy numbskulls I violence is common place.  Perhaps the bodies of the 100 million people slaughtered by their atheist masters in China, The Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and all over Africa.

        I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating... because it causes war, hypocrisy and competition.

        Bloody handed dictator Fidel Castro or American liberal - you make the call.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Neither atheists nor Liberals are communists.  Neither atheists nor Liberals have policies that advocate violence.

          Quite the contrary, in fact, but you wouldn't know that because your innate hatred blinds you most effectively.

          1. yellowstone8750 profile image60
            yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Look at my reply to Rogers above, seems to apply here also.

  16. 0
    oldandwiseposted 5 years ago

    You can blame a lot of the violence on our media, or should I say media opinions. Folks need to watch all the news channels and come to their own conclusions. We need to think, and stop puppeting what we're hearing from our favorite news media. If we're doing well during these trying economic times, we need to imagine how we would feel if we lost our jobs, homes, dignity, etc., out of no fault of our own. Years ago, you took a job and had that job until you retired. Does that happen today? Where have all our manufacturer jobs gone? And who is to blame? My opinion, mistakes made by both Republicans and Democrats as well as, the wanting of more profit by our large corporations who have outsourced our jobs.

  17. emrldphx profile image59
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    The one thing that people don't seem to understand about their rights, is that they don't extend to the violation of other people's rights. Blocking off sidewalks, roads, and buildings is not a right.

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah great.  Did we have the "rights" to come here?  Did we have the "rights" to kill the Native Americans?  Did we have the "rights" to slaughter buffalo out of hatred?  Did we have the "rights" to use remote control drone planes to murder civilians in Pakistan?

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't say anything about Native Americans, buffalo, or civilians suspected of terrorism who are in other countries.

        I was talking about the supposed 'rights' of the OWS protesters. If you want to talk about any of those other topics, start a thread and we can talk about it.

  18. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Blocking off sidewalks, roads, and buildings is not a right." Isn't that called private property.

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If it's not your private property, then it's not a right. I assumed you would understand I wasn't talking about people blocking off their own property.

  19. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    ""And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
       Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
       He chortled in his joy."

  20. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    No I started THIS thread to talk about it, but thank you for your "consideration."  The point is that government laws aren't  always moral, and that they are largely irrelevant when it comes to social change.

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You started this thread to talk about OWS. Buffalo have nothing to do with OWS.

      The 'governmental laws' you are talking about are the constitutional rights that our nation is founded upon. If you don't like the Constitution, I would suggest you move to a different country.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you aren't intelligent enough to grasp analogy and historical tales for context that validate a point, then I suggest that you find a forum for people with your low level of comprehension, or that you learn to debate on the level of the people above you.

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are trying to compare constitutional rights to the rights of buffalo. I'm sorry, but it's completely irrelevant. Being able to make ridiculous analogies doesn't make you intelligent.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And neither does your concept of Constitutional rights make you the least bit intelligent!

            Ever heard of slavery?  It's TRUE!!!!  See, a long time ago here in the USA - you could own people, whole families even, and treat them like dogs, or cats or...buffalo.

            Got it?

            I'm not making this shit up - I even read about this slavery thing online, so I know it's true!

            1. emrldphx profile image59
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Really? I'll have to research that...

              So you are saying the police pepper spraying people who are breaking the law is just a failing of our laws, like slavery was a failing of interpretation of human rights?

              1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
                Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "people breaking the law" - do you realize how utterly worthless that is as a description of various groups of persons?

                The Manson family were a group of people like that.  Every morning and evening on roads across America there are people breaking the speed limit - which is also a law.

                Should the Manson family have been pepper sprayed as a primary response from police?  Should speeders be pepper sprayed before asked for License and Insurance?

  21. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "When people step out of line and infringe on the rights of others, then law enforcement takes over." You mean like all the fraud that about brought the system down. I believe it was Thoreau who first articulated principles of non-violent protest.

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you think the best way to fight criminal activity is through criminal activity?

      1. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Our founding fathers thought so..

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well if you want to take arms against your government, go ahead. Until you decide that your government is that bad, you don't fight it with criminal activity.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Through peaceful protests.

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          'Peaceful protests' can still be criminal, and they are a nice cover for people to do horrible things under as well.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, peaceful protests are often perceived as civil disobedience, which in many cases is correct. That doesn't necessarily equate to criminality. An individual who engaged in peaceful protest, in the true sense of the word, would not be engaging in horrible acts, those that perpetuate horrible acts would be engaging in criminality, not peaceful protest.. Please do not confuse the two.

            If those who are engaging in horrible acts purport to be  peaceful protesters, then I'm sure the media will expose them at every opportunity. Peaceful protest, horrible acts and criminality are three separate entites, although I agree that the latter can be defined in a similar way.

            1. emrldphx profile image59
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The topic I've been referring to is the 'brutality' of police against people who are 'peacefully protesting' by sitting. The problem is where they are choosing to sit. People don't have a right to sit down and block roads, for example. If they don't comply with the police, the police are validated in using things such as pepper spray to clear the street. It is a criminal act, not a 'horrible' act, but it is still criminal.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I agree, the general public need to be fiercely protected, even if this means physical violence and brutality should be employed, from those nasty violent thugs that sit down and block roads. Off with their heads!

                1. emrldphx profile image59
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Can you try to discuss something without attempting to skew my words?

                  It doesn't matter if people are 'peacefully' blocking roads. It's illegal. If they choose to continue in their illegal activity, then they have chosen that. The police have a job to do, and maintaining peace and order is one of those jobs.

                  Please try to maintain maturity in the discussion. I never said 'nasty violent thugs', 'off with their heads', or anything about brutality.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The criminal activity is on the part of the police and the leaders who are telling them what to do.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5790925_f248.jpg

            Mike McGinn Photo

            1. emrldphx profile image59
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Do you believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Why would you ask? What does my criticism of the campus police at UC Davis have to do with my belief in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? As I recall, the right of peaceful protest is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution.

                Do you think the pepper spraying of students sitting on the ground was proper?

                From this morning's NY Times:

                "The University of California, Davis, said Sunday that two police officers had been placed on administrative leave after using pepper spray on seated protesters at the campus on Friday during a demonstration aligned with Occupy Wall Street.
                   
                "Videos of the encounter, widely distributed over the Internet, showed two police officers in riot gear dousing the protesters with pepper spray as they sat on a sidewalk with their arms entwined.

                "Reflecting widespread anger over the police behavior, the university chancellor, Linda P. B. Katehi, said on Sunday that she would insist that an investigation of the matter be completed within 30 days. On Saturday, she said it would take 90 days."  More here:

                http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/us/po … tml?ref=us
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5793489_f248.jpg

                1. emrldphx profile image59
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, people can assemble. No, they can't break laws in doing so. Example of breaking laws are blocking entrances and exits to buildings, blocking public sidewalks, blocking roads, and blocking private property.

                  People need to understand that they don't have the right to break laws just because they are doing so 'peacefully'. I don't have a problem with it. Those students were refusing to comply with police. It's no different than somebody resisting arrest if they decide to stand in the middle of a road and block traffic.

                  Your quoting the article has nothing to do with legality. You conveniently left out the last bit:



                  Peaceful protest is illegal if it is done illegally. It's ridiculous to blame the police for trying to maintain order. Would you rather have anarchy?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The chief of campus police and two police officers at UC Davis have been suspended over the outrageous pepper spraying incident.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Wrong, emrldphx

                    People can break the laws when they assemble.

                    It is the righteous duty of all freedom loving individuals to overthrow any law that is unjust, no matter who passed it.

                    I know Ralph Deeds doesn't quite take this strong of a stance, but I'm with him on this dispute. If the President executively orders a law that is unjust, it is our duty as citizens to overthrow the presidency. The same goes for any other branch of government.

                    It is completely impossible to argue that "we should follow the bill of rights" and that "people should obey laws" -- the two are inconsistent (unless you consider 'the law' to be that of natural law. You, however, are not making this case).

                    I highly recommend re-reading the Declaration of Independence (hahaha, yeah right. I know no one on HubPages has ever actually sat down and read it before). The DOI is literally a grocery list of King George's unjust laws and actions that went against Natural Law, and an explanation that it is the rightful duty of the people to overthrow that government.

                    Here are some of the best parts of the DoI (I still get goosebumps reading it):

                    "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

                    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

                    "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"


                    Great stuff

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Just wanted to point out that Ron Paul has said something remarkably similar in a recent debate:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es-hpxj01uQ

              "[Taking away freedoms for security] is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, cameras in every house, because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating.

              "You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you MIGHT prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms and we will throw out so much of what our Revolution was fought for.

              "So don't do it so carelessly."

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I listened to that debate, and I'm 100% with Ron Paul on that one.

  22. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Your bank just robbed you. What ya going to do.

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My bank didn't rob me, sorry.

  23. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "My bank didn't rob me, sorry." Well they did a lot of others. So the robbed should behave by the rules as laid down by the unrobbed.

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you even know who you are talking about? Arguments against 'the banks' and 'the 1 percent' are pretty handy, except it shows you don't understand what's going on.

      There are a lot of reasons why we are in the mess we are. If you have a problem it should be with the politicians who represent you. Citizens have shown they can make their voices heard to pass or deny legislation to make a difference. OWS doesn't understand what it's trying to do, who it's upset at, or how to go about making a change.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm afraid Emrldphx, whether you like it or not, they are making a change- the change is awareness. You assume that just because someone does not share your viewpoint they do not understand what is going on. You have a choice here, you can support OWS or otherwise. Presumably you don't. In which case, I really do not understand why you are getting so hot under the collar about a movement you do not support and believe has not, or will not, change anything. Why don't you just ignore it if this is how you feel, after all, if you are correct the movement will have disappeared shortly.

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Awareness of what? They take up the call of '99% vs 1%' when that doesn't reflect reality in any way. I have several siblings who are in the 1%, but they have nothing to do with fraud, regulations, or politics.

          It's exactly the point. OWS is so upset about... well, they don't really know, but it sounds good to say 99 vs 1 so they do.

          The only real awareness is the awareness that they don't understand the issues, or how to fix them.

          I'm here talking about this because I enjoy discussion. What's wrong with that? I'm not all 'hot under the collar', I just enjoy debate and discussion.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If your siblings have not engaged in fraud or other criminality they have nothing to worry about. It's interesting that you raise the issue of fraud, regulations and politics, yet you state that OWS protesters do not know why they are upset.

            It's difficult to debate with someone who perpetually states they are the only ones that understand an issue. It becomes less of a discussion and more of a lecture without meaning.

            1. emrldphx profile image59
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Have I ever said I'm the only one who understands an issue? I didn't think so.

              I said fraud, regulation, and politics, because that is what I hear most. The problem is these protesters don't seem to understand who it is that caused the problems. So, they just label them as the 1%. They're mad at 'wall-street', although most investors are just intelligent people who try to make money by lending their money to other people, just like banks.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                problem is these protesters don't seem to understand who it is that caused the problems

                The problem is your doing it again, and don't even realize that you're doing it.

                hey're mad at 'wall-street', although most investors are just intelligent people who try to make money by lending their money to other people, just like banks.

                You are free to believe as you chose, however, I feel this comment is at best naive.

                1. emrldphx profile image59
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I'm not saying I'm the only one who understands. What I'm saying is the majority of the OWS protesters whose arguments I have heard only demonstrate that they don't know who they are angry at. It's always the 1%, or the government, or banks, or the Fed... they don't present any concise definition of the problem, who caused the problem, or how to fix it. The only thing they clearly express is that they don't like the current situation.


                  Far from naive... I'm an investor, I work with other investors, I communicate with other investors. The majority(numerically) of investors are just people making a living. The money they invest is used by the companies they invest in. The companies hopefully turn a profit and the investor makes money. It's just another type of loan. But thanks for telling me that it's naive without actually providing any substance to your statement.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You've provided it for me. You're an investor, considering the current situation I believe that makes you extremely naive. You still appear hot under the collar and talk about the "majority" of OWS protesters, the "majority" of investors as if you know them all personally, yet you have not provided any substance either. Did it ever occur to you that you might be talking to a protester? And yet you go on to talk about how protesters don't understand the issues, yet you do. I'm going to bed now, this is tedious.

  24. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "If they don't comply with the police, the police are validated in using things such as pepper spray to clear the street." Yep that is how it is.
    "Do you even know who you are talking about?" So why is the Fed privately owned?

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say knol. 'Yep that is how it is.'? What are you trying to say?

      Is it just the Fed that you are mad at, or is it all banks? Is it CEO's, or just banks in general? Who are your upset at?

  25. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    I'm not upset at anyone. I been through all this before in the sixties and seventies. You might say I have known them all. "I just enjoy debate and discussion.", as well as certain side-interests.

  26. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    The logic must follow the authority.

  27. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5798745_f248.jpg

  28. Jeff Berndt profile image92
    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago

    Probably the best thing OWS has accomplished is getting people to talk about policies instead of personalities.

  29. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Campus police chief and the officers involved in the incident are on administrative leave.
    UC Davis chancellor is falling all over herself trying to do damage control.
    Public sentiment is with the students on this one.

    Have you seen the videos?
    There was no riot.
    There was no threat of violence.
    There was absolutely no call for use of pepper spray. None.

    This is classic police brutality.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They don't care.  They see this as a "liberal" movement, therefore it has to be wrong and  it follows that any reaction by police is to be lauded.

      Automatice, knee jerk reactions. It never, ever changes.

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Haha, not a knee-jerk reaction, just a sensible approach.

        Let me ask you this. If you walk up to a police station, and start swearing at cops, making threats, etc, and they tell you to leave or get arrested, are you going to blame them if you keep it up?

        Yes, this was 'peaceful', but it was still illegal.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are merely trying to defend the indefensible. And it shows.

          1. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He ((she?) has no choice.

            Conservatives often get themselves painted into ridiculous corners because they start off with "These (liberals) must be wrong!" and just can't back away no matter how obvious the reality is.

            Perils of being a conservative.  Inflexible. Unable to change course even when the big iceberg is in plain sight.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              They're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. smile

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Let me ask you this. If you walk up to a police station, and start swearing at cops, making threats, etc, and they tell you to leave or get arrested, are you going to blame them if you keep it up?"

          I'm not going to blame them if they arrested me: I'd deserve to be arrested. I would blame them if they beat me up. Why the difference? One is a legal response, and the other is not.

          "Yes, this was 'peaceful', but it was still illegal."
          I'm not sure 'making threats' counts as 'peaceful,' but I see your point. Unfortunately, your point is entirely wrong if you mean that if I walk into a police station and start making a scene that I deserve to have a cop-furnished beat-down. That's not how the rule of law works.

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ah!  The two party paradigm!!!!  That's the perfect and most enduring example of how powerful mass media is in turning otherwise functional humans into retarded or totally deluded zombies.

        I like to think of it as WWF wrestling for adults who'll never grow up and realize that it's fake.

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, right... next thing you'll tell me that the easter bunny isn't real. I saw him on that movie!

    2. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not all public sentiment. The problem is, nobody calls the mayor and says 'I support what the police did, those students were out of line'. Only people who are mad make the effort.

      The students were breaking the law, intentionally, and knew what was likely to happen. You keep apologizing for them like they are poor defenseless young people being brutalized by police.

      They're not. They could have moved 3 feet and everything would have been fine.

      3 feet.

      But no, they wanted to make a point.

      What do you want the police to do? Ignore it?

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps the police should act like peace officers instead of corporate whores?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely!  Let the police enforce only those laws that they wish to and ignore people breaking the laws the police don't like anyway.  After all, isn't that their job?  To decide what is right and wrong?  We don't need courts, judges and all that stuff - just let the police make the call.

          Personally, when that happens it's time to find another place to live.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wilderness, despite the fact that I've got a ton of respect for your brain - I feel as though you willfully missed my point.

            But as to a police officer's discretion - absolutely!  I'm absolutely aware of this, and absolutely endorse it.  I'm aware of things that go on regularly under police observation that are allowed to go on....for a reason.

            I can sometimes trust that high level, highly educated police officers have the intelligence and wherewithal to realize who people are, what their characteristics are, and what they are up to.  Not everyone who's purchasing a pound of pot on the black market needs to be arrested - such things happen, are seen, recorded even - and allowed to "walk" without being disturbed.

            I've never in my life, however, known of any good reason or justifiable instance of police assaulting persons who were....sitting on the ground doing nothing.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I think I have to back down on this one - somewhere I apparently got lost between a large group destroying parkland and a small group of students apparently doing no harm and inconveniencing no one.  Haven't followed the thread very well, I fear.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That's why people like and respect you Wilderness. Because you are honest and reasonable.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "The students were breaking the law, intentionally, and knew what was likely to happen."
        There is some disagreement on that score. But if in fact they were breaking the law, there are legal consequences for that, including arrest, and not including unnecessary chemical attacks.


        "You keep apologizing for them like they are poor defenseless young people being brutalized by police.

        They're not."
        Not defenseless? Maybe, but they deliberately didn't defend themselves.
        But they were totally being brutalized by the police. 

        "They could have moved 3 feet and everything would have been fine."
        No, everything would not have been "fine." You don't get it, do you?

        "But no, they wanted to make a point."
        Oh, maybe you do.


        "What do you want the police to do? Ignore it?"
        No, I want the police to follow the d@|\/||\| law!

  30. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    These were CAMPUS POLICE.
    The University is backing down (bending over backwards) on their actions.
    Charges against protesting students to be dropped.
    University to pay for the HOSPITALIZATION of students who were pepper sprayed.

    Don't forget, this is Davis. Next to Berkeley, the most liberal city in America.
    Even the right wing local TV station is not backing up the cops on this one.

    If you saw the video you would know this was not peacekeeping.
    Here's a good analogy right here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwMAb_qe … re=related

  31. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    All you need to know about pepper spray:

    "To the American Civil Liberties Union, its use as a crowd-control device, particularly when those crowds are nonthreatening, is an excessive and unconstitutional use of force and violates the right to peaceably assemble.

    "Some of the Davis students are threatening civil suits against the university on these grounds. The chancellor has called the use of pepper spray “unacceptable” and has put the officers on administrative leave.

    “The courts have made it very clear that these type of devices can’t be used indiscriminately and should be used only when the target poses a physical threat to someone,” said Michael Risher, staff attorney for the A.C.L.U. of Northern California....

    "To Kamran Loghman, who helped develop pepper spray into a weapons-grade material with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1980s, the incident at Davis violated his original intent.

    “I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents,” Mr. Loghman said in an interview.

    "Mr. Loghman, who also helped develop guidelines for police departments using the spray, said that use-of-force manuals generally advise that pepper spray is appropriate only if a person is physically threatening a police officer or another person.

    "In New York, for example, a police commander who sprayed several women in an Occupy demonstration last month faced disciplinary proceedings. The New York Police Department says pepper spray should be used chiefly for self-defense or to control suspects who are resisting arrest."....More--


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/scien … ?ref=world

    Dorli Rainey, 84, was hit by pepper spray during Seattle OWS demonstration, Seattle Pi/AP/NYTimes

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5803223_f248.jpg

  32. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Here's Harvard's approach to dealing with OWS protests (NO PEPPER SPRAY):

    z'Faust said the administration decided to bar anyone who does not hold a Harvard ID from entering the Yard based on the behavior of demonstrators on November 9, when the protest began (“Some attempted to enter the Yard by force, and assaulted at least one Harvard police officer, grabbing his gun belt and stealing his radio”), and on Web postings inciting protesters to “confrontation and disruption.” She said the group “included individuals who, according to external law enforcement agencies, have engaged in violent behavior elsewhere with the explicit goal of causing disruption and with little connection to any particular cause.”

    “Incidents of violence—including shootings and sexual assaults—have occurred at other Occupy sites,” she noted." Read more:

    http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/11/faus … dium=email

  33. LookingForWalden profile image60
    LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago

    I often wonder if conservatives have read Civil Disobedience, or Nonviolent Resistance.

    Has anyone watched the Bachman video of her being shouted down? It was hilarious.

  34. yellowstone8750 profile image60
    yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago

    Now we need a leader.

  35. emrldphx profile image59
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    Maybe you should watch a little more than just what is 'popular' to watch.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12XdQXvrdCo&NR=1

    According to this, police warned that anyone who didn't comply would be subject to arrest. There was resistance before the circle even formed. You can see it was more than the '10 or 20' students that people claim. The students did encircle the police.

    Again, this isn't a case of some innocent students just sitting peacefully when cops show up and spray them.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image61
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They sure looked threatening against those cops in riot gear.

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, because large crowds have never turned violent before...

        How hard is it to realize that these students were breaking the law? All they had to do was move and they would have been fine. They knew they were breaking the law, and they knew what was coming.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If we arrested and jailed everybody who "broke the law" there would be few people on the outside.

          The police deserve to be "thrown under the bus." So does the chancellor.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We do tend to arrest those who look a police officer in the eyes and then proceeds with breaking the law.  We do arrest those who refuse to stop breaking the law when confronted by a police officer.  We do arrest people who break the law in full and plain sight of a police officer. 

            We do arrest people who break the law, with regularity.  Surreptitiously breaking the law usually doesn't result in an arrest because it is done quietly and in secret.

          2. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's why police don't always arrest and prosecute everybody. But they still have a duty to maintain the peace. Just because we can't arrest every protester who breaks the law, should police give up and allow protesters to do whatever they want?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Arresting is one thing. Pepper spraying is something else.\

              A little common sense on both sides would be helpful. Thusfar, thanks restraint by the mayor, the police chief and the occupiers we have had no confrontations in Detroit. The permit to camp in Grand Circus Park was recently extended for two weeks in order to allow more time to find another place.

              1. emrldphx profile image59
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Either you think the cops should have just left them there, or you think they should have done their jobs. They tried physical force, and with the students linking arms like that someone would be likely to end up seriously injured.

                The common sense says, if you're breaking the law and the police give you 30 minutes to move, you move. I don't think anybody should blame the police one bit for this. It's not as damaging as a broken bone or dislocated shoulder.

                The entire feeling toward this is consistently 'those poor children' vs 'those evil police'.

                They're adults.

                1. DNCalkins profile image61
                  DNCalkinsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

                  On top of that obvious point, the police do not have carte blanche to use any degree of force they like when dealing with people who are not putting themselves or others in danger.  Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.

                  1. emrldphx profile image59
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, the Federal Government isn't to pass laws prohibiting speech or assembly. But, just as every other right, it isn't limited. You can't protest on private property without permission, your rights don't extend that far.

                    You can't block off public areas. Do you know why? Because then you are impeding on the rights of others to have access to those areas. Your rights never extend that far.

                    The police are absolutely authorized to use force when people resist arrest, or resist police orders to clear an area. Pepper spray isn't 'any degree of force'. You act like they were killing people.

                    I'll say it again. Those students were in violation of law. They are adults. They were physically resisting the police's attempts to clear the sidewalk. The whole thing lasted an hour. They didn't just walk up to protesters and start spraying.

                    This whole 'cops are evil, unlimited free speech rights' thing is what is ridiculous.

                    Nobody has answered me so far. What do you want police to do when people are illegally resisting and locking arms?

                    Leave them be?
                    Remove by force(it wasn't working)?
                    Truncheons?
                    Pepper Spray?

                  2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    There are legitimate rules regarding how that assemble conducts itself.  It cannot block access or egress.  Blocking the sidewalk denies its equally legitimate use by those not protesting, those whose right to pass without harassment and to use the public sidewalk are as precious as the protestor's rights.  If the protestors were asked to clear the sidewalk and refused to move I would have preferred that they all be arrested for blocking that sidewalk.

                    The "Right to Assemble" does not mean the right to block the free movement of other citizens, rights to move about.  The "Right to Assemble" was included in the Bill of Rights because it is easy to block the exists to a church or meeting hall or pub and round up those holding meetings inside - as the British had done.  It may protect the right to meet with each other but it does not create a supremacy of assembly over travel.

                    I can anticipate the argument that travel, movement, passage, access/egress are not in the Constitution and therefore are not legitimate rights.  The Constitution is a limitation on the power of government.  Everything not in the Constitution is the province of individual rights.  The rights of individuals are presumed to be limited only by the laws the people institute to govern themselves.  The power of government is presumed to be those specifically granted it by the people and only those powers not some penumbra or shadow some demented Supreme Court Justice believes, with out real constitutional evidence, exist in the Constitution.

                    This we have abandoned and it will be to our ruination as a people.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A police man has one over riding responsibility that transcends all others - to go home at the end of his shift whole and well.  If a student or anyone else doesn't comply with a lawful order but instead chooses to threaten a police officer in the lawful performance of his duty than that officer is entitled by nature to protect himself.

        Riot gear is to protect the police officer.  If someone is so stupid as to choose to battle it out on the street with the police it is incumbent on that police officer to protect his own health and life. It is not incumbent upon him to take a thrown rock in the head. 

        If an assembly is truly peaceful and lawful and the authorities are in the wrong then get the ACLU involved, they love those cases.

        http://people.howstuffworks.com/aclu3.htm

    2. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Katehi didn't throw her cops under the bus 4 days later to save her own butt.
      They were put on administrative leave immediately following the incident pending investigation.
      The campus already withdrew arrests of the students and is paying for their medical bills.
      If the police action was right and proper, do you imagine UC Davis would do that?
      I seriously doubt it.

      There were a ton of cops standing right there.
      Each cop could have arrested one student.
      But no.
      Instead, John Pike went on a rampage.

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The police were put on paid leave when people started calling for Katehi's resignation. It's fairly standard for police involved in incidents to be placed on paid leave during investigations.

        The campus is doing everything it can due to pressure, because of bad press. Not because of what is right and wrong. Katehi is completely throwing the police under the bus. If she had explicitly said 'no arrests, no violence' she would have said that in the beginning. Not 4 days later when she risks losing her job.

        Again, it's not about right and wrong, it's about pressure on the campus.

        Did you watch the longer video showing everything? You say each officer could have arrested one student, but that's not a smart way to approach the situation. Officers work in teams to avoid becoming overwhelmed and allowing a situation to escalate.

        Again, what do you want them to do? Do you want them to leave the students there? Do you want them to try pain compliance holds on people who are resisting and have locked arms? What do you want them to do?

        1. Moderndayslave profile image61
          Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The fact that you feel it is ok for protesters assembled peacefully be arrested period and with the use of strong arm tactics no less is sad and says it all.
          http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl … p-20111122
          Kent State was OK too right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

          1. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is absolutely OK for police to do their job, and if people 'peacefully' are breaking the law and resisting the police, there are only 2 options.

            A - Allow them to continue breaking the law
            B - Do something about it.

            What would you have the police do? If it's A, then you don't respect the law, and you don't understand the reason for it. As a crowd grows, mob mentality grows as well. The larger crowds get, the more danger and damage become inherent.

            If you choose B, then the police are justified. These students were RESISTING police. Pepper spray isn't comparable to Kent State, and if you think it is, then you have some issues with logic.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "What would you have the police do?"
              Follow the law and arrest the protestors who refuse to comply.

              "If you choose B, then the police are justified."
              No they aren't. If the police had done what was "justified," they'd have arrested the students, not brutalized them.

              "Do something about it" doesn't only mean "beat the protestors to a pulp and spray chemicals in their faces," and if you think it does, then you have some issues with logic.

              1. emrldphx profile image59
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Beat the protesters to a pulp? Really? I didn't see any of that, interestingly enough.

                Do you understand how irrelevant your response is? I'll lay it out for you.

                Q - How should police arrest people who are resisting as a group?
                A - They should arrest them.

                You haven't actually addressed the question, so don't talk to me about logic.

                If the police want to arrest a group that is physically resisting, they have a few options.

                Truncheons
                Pepper Spray
                Pain Compliance/Physically overpowering
                Fire Hose
                Taser

                How do you want police to handle the situation? Are you going to defend the protesters and say it's ok to actively, physically resist the police, and the police shouldn't be able to do squat about it?

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "Beat the protesters to a pulp? Really? I didn't see any of that, interestingly enough."
                  Fair enough. But you sure saw them hosing people down with pepper spray.

                  "Q - How should police arrest people who are resisting as a group?
                  A - They should arrest them."

                  You've changed the question to make the answer seem silly. The original question was this:

                  "How should the police respond to protestors who are 'resisting' their orders?"

                  If people are breaking the law (if, remember) the cops can order them to stop breaking the law. If the people continue to 'break the law' (remember, it's only an alleged crime so far) then the cops can arrest them (and start the due process of law). If the people resist arrest (which is different from refusing to obey an order to stop, or disperse, or whatever) then the police are justified in using enough force to take that person into custody.

                  "If the police want to arrest a group that is physically resisting, they have a few options."
                  You forgot "Grab a guy and put him in handcuffs; repeat until you run out of guys. (Or handcuffs, I guess.)" But that's not terribly surprising, because that's the right thing to do. hmm

                  "Are you going to defend the protesters and say it's ok to actively, physically resist the police, and the police shouldn't be able to do squat about it?"
                  I never said any such thing. To say that I did would be rude, wouldn't it? I mean, if it's rude for me to say that you said "resisting arrest" when you merely said "resisting..." smile

                  1. emrldphx profile image59
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That's not the post you responded to. You responded to a post I made where I was talking about the physically resisting. I had posted a video showing the police tying the hands of the individuals, so 'arrest' was presumed.

                    EXACTLY. That's what happened. Don't equate sufficient force(pepper spray) to 'beating them into a pulp'.

                    When people physically resist and link arms, that kind of force will almost inevitably lead to dislocated shoulders or broken bones. It also puts the police in a more vulnerable position.

                    I started talking about resisting arrest after I posted the video that showed the police were already taking people into custody. If that was misunderstood, then it's no big deal. That's what the police were doing, and that's what the protesters were doing.

                    So, what should the police have done to the protesters who were resisting arrest?

  36. davidwarn123 profile image60
    davidwarn123posted 5 years ago

    logic is very best to authority......

  37. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Matt Taibbi on OWS:

    The protesters, chirped Supreme Reichskank Ann Coulter, needed three things: "showers, jobs and a point." Her colleague Charles Krauthammer went so far as to label the protesters hypocrites for having iPhones. OWS, he said, is "Starbucks-sipping, Levi's-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters [denouncing] corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over." Apparently, because Goldman and Citibank are corporations, no protester can ever consume a corporate product – not jeans, not cellphones and definitely not coffee – if he also wants to complain about tax money going to pay off some billionaire banker's bets against his own crappy mortgages.

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … z1ecwCHjMK


    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … s-20111110

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you mean the crappy mortgages of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?

      Do you mean the crappy mortgages banks had to make to keep the Justice Departments civil rights division off their back? 

      Do you mean the crappy mortgages banks made to placate local agitators who threatened lawsuits and trouble if the banks weren't loose enough with their lending policies? 

      Do you mean the crappy mortgages that federal lending guidelines permit? 

      Do you mean the crappy mortgages that Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged by providing a wildly inappropriate set of lending rules for the secondary market? 

      Do you mean the crappy mortgages that greedy borrowers took on just to get that giant house, you know the one, the one they could never afford if not for the mortgages encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

      Surely you don't mean the mortgages whose risk, imposed by external forces, they attempted to mitigate by creating large bundles of low risk and high risk mortgages for investment.  It is a tactic that failed.  It failed because it could not succeed.  It did not fail because every bank is corrupt and evil. 

      The federal government failed in one of its fundamental duties, to the money supply.  It permitted the creation of a financial instrument with out appropriate examination of the risk to the nations financial health. 

      There is more than enough blame to go around.  A constituent part belongs to a government too involved in the ordinary operation of a business and not involved enough in protecting the integrity of the economy.

      1. Moderndayslave profile image61
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is why de-regulation was/is so important,correct? So banks and trading firms can do the right thing?  OK 
        FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair disputes that the CRA was a problem "Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple."[23]

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly.  But these people hate government because it interferes with their "freedom".  You know, the freedom to be prejudiced, the freedom to pollute, the freedom to teach your kids that evolution is evil.. the IMPORTANT stuff.

          So, they are going to take well intentioned regulations ("If you are going to seek deposits in poor neighborhoods, you had better be willing to loan in those some neighborhoods") and pretend that it was the root cause of the crash.

          You can't reason with them.  They know what they know and that's where it ends.  I'm sick to death of their blindness.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So when the American financial system collapses, again, who will be left to blame?  The new system of regulations is driving smaller banks into the arms of even larger more inefficient banks.  Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are continuing the exact same practices that caused their multitude of problems, unabated.  But that is ok, as long as banks avoid the Justice Department hammering them and continue to generate no-doc, no margin, no income loans for greedy borrowers who want a house they can never afford.

        3. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If you read you will find that I do not recommend total deregulation of the banking industry.  In fact, the government is charged with responsibility over the money supply.  Fiduciary instruments are part of that money supply because they create economic value.  The daily practices regarding lending are not part of that responsibility unless it endangers the value of money or force and fraud exist.

          The responsibility of the government does not extend, however, to the requirements to secure a loan such as income to debt ratios, down payments, income stability, credit history, documentation, etc....  It is precisely those areas where Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac consistently loosened lending requirements creating loans to be predicated on fraud.  No Doc, No Income verification, interest only loans encouraged borrowers to buy more house than their actual income could justify - these loans were created precisely because Fanny and Freddy had created a viable secondary market for their re-sale.

          When lending was made part of Civil Rights policy it stopped being responsible.

          Did banks lend against their own best interests, yes.  Did they do it with only greed in mind, no.  Many banks offered these loans with severely loosened requirements because it was the only way to lend to some who the government was "protecting."  Were the banks being racist, no.  Lending by a strict set of guidelines would have never resulted in the latest government generated disaster.

          The government insisted that those guidelines were discriminatory rejecting that it is a good thing to discriminate between those who can re-pay and those who cannot.  Lending guidelines are color blind, sex blind, education blind.  Those institutions that practiced the old-fashioned lending style and did not invest in credit default swaps - THIS IS WERE THE GOVERNMENT FAILED - remained solvent.

          When government, in its stupid, clumsy, gargantuan, inefficient, ego-maniacal, mindless bumbling fails to discharge its responsibility it is all of us that pay.  The economy suffers because the government is stupid.  The imposition of new regulations on all things external to government.  The grinding on of economic problems that would be over if not for that governments idiocy.  Government ignored Bernie Madoff's outrageous business practices for decades.  They ignored, facilitated or created the problems in the financial industry.

          1. DNCalkins profile image61
            DNCalkinsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So...it's a race problem?

            Riiiiiighhhhtttt stupid equal rights!  How dare they stand in the way of a bank's right to discriminate based on race, creed and gender!  Banks are people too!

            You sir, are awesome.  Never change, you crazy moonbeam.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Do banks discriminate based on sex, creed or race?  In my experience as a mortgage loan officer I can tell you the quickest way to get fired is to deny a loan to a low risk borrower.  However, I would allow any business to deny service to anyone they want to deny including race, creed and sex because I want to open a shop right next door and welcome those denied.  Any business stupid enough to not take a customer's money because the hand that is holding it belongs to a Black man, a woman, a homosexual, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Seikh, etc... deserves someone like me as their competition.

              I would love to have the custom of anyone able to afford my service, that is not, however, what the government does.  It compels custom with those not able to afford a service for no other reason than to avoid government law suits.  I

              f my bank is not in a neighborhood with a credit worthy population to whom can I lend without taking an undue risk.  My bank provides services like a secure place to keep small savings accounts or pay bills or cash checks or provides counseling on debt/credit.  If that bank is in a minority community and cannot find someone credit worthy based on good practices it runs the risk of being accused of racism when the opposite is the case.

              Every loan officer is an evil servant of an evil master.  The banks don't want your money if you are a woman or Black or a Muslim.

                                                or

              There are some communities in which it is hard to find someone credit worthy enough qualify for a loan based on objective measures of debt, income, credit history, loan to value, etc....  Money is color blind.

              Which of the two is the cynical one that reduces people?  Thanks for the name calling, that is the awesome part of all of this.

              1. DNCalkins profile image61
                DNCalkinsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Retracted.  I misread your post, and I apologize. 

                A spectacular (and stupid) kneejerk on my part if ever I've committed one (I have).

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No worries.  Who hasn't done the same.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Do you mean the crappy mortgages of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?

        Do you mean the crappy mortgages banks had to make to keep the Justice Departments civil rights division off their back?  "

        You keep repeating the "It's all the fault of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the government" mantra--I guess the old maxim is true: if you repeat a big enough lie long enough and loudly enough, people will begin to believe it.

        Check it: from Forbes.

        Fannie and Freddie were bit players in this catastrophe. Private lenders relaxed standards far more than "required" to by the fair housing act, probably to ensure a steady flow of mortgages to securitize and dump on the unsuspecting investor.

        It's de-regulation (at the urging of private--not public or semi-public--lenders), malfeasance, and securities fraud that caused the housing collapse, not over-regulation.

        I don't blame you for believing that regulation and government is the cause, though. Lots of people have been spending a lot of money to convince everyone that this is the case, and it's not surprising that many people believe it.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You mistake part of my meaning.  It is the failure of the government to discharge one of its fundamental responsibilities that facilitated the creation of credit default swaps.  The government, through the SEC, had all the tools it needed to do the job right without adding to its regulatory power but for some reason - probably just the ineptitude and inertia inherent to bureaucracies - especially vast government bureaucracies it did nothing to question the creation of trillions of dollars in fiduciary instruments.  It is the same casual disregard for one of the governments fundamental responsibilities that let Bernie Madoff bilk investors out of billions.

          You see nefarious purposes.  I see strange distortions in the mortgage market and encouragement to expand those distortions from a government rewarding bad practices on one hand and ignoring the adaptations lenders made to protect their investments - at any cost - on the other.  Yes it was stupid and reckless.  But it was stupid and reckless on the part of all participants.  Lenders, insurers, investors, regulators, borrowers all participated in a twisted and distorted market.

          ------In 1999, a friend of mine and the real estate inspector I was using when I did mortgage loans decried the distortions in market value that he, as an ethical inspector, saw creeping into the mortgage business.  All I know first hand is that the secondary market, of which FM/FM were the driving force was reducing requirements and asking for less and less proof of credit worthiness.  The companies for which I worked during an abbreviated career have subsequently disappeared.  They were scrupulous in their practices, though I was quite aware of those who were not.-----

          Government is miserable at its fundamental responsibilities.  Expanding the reach of that inept body doesn't make much sense.  Allowing the failures to fail rather than rescuing them from their just desserts reinforces the idea that government is not only inept but where it insinuates itself it sows the seeds of further and future disaster.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image92
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's really interesting, UCV.
            Unfortunately, the "only the good die young" (survival of the baddest/fattest and all that).
            I think that as the distortions became the norm, the scrupulous ones got smacked out of the way while the marginally scrupulous ones got swept up in the current. That goes for all stakeholders you've mentioned, don't you think?
            There were no rewards for playing by the old rules once the rules relaxed into chaos.
            In the end, the ones at the top of the heap were deemed "too big to fail."
            We will never know now if they really were. Will we?

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              GM and Chrysler were among the too big to fail.  We will know what the insulation of those who should have failed from their failure will produce.  We can see it in Europe today.  Greece was living far beyond its means, as was Spain and Italy.  The collapse of the economy is inevitable.  It is, in many ways, the repetition of the Great Depression.  Government insinuated itself into the market place and stretched what should have been an 18 - 24 month down turn into 20 years of recession, depression, stagnation and distortion.  It took until 1949 for the stock market to regain the value it had at the beginning of 1929.

              1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
                Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'll only buy FORD now.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I own 3 Fords.  I can't afford to buy anything.  Can barely afford the gasoline to get to work each day.  Thanks to stupid policies that have destroyed our energy industry and our economy in general.

                  1. Moderndayslave profile image61
                    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sure speculation has nothing to do with the price of fuel  either.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "stupid policies that have destroyed our energy industry"

                    The energy industry is alive and well, especially the international oil companies, coal companies and electric power companies. They are inundating us with TV ads promoting fracking, the pipeline from Canada, drilling in parks, etc.

              2. Mighty Mom profile image92
                Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Night guys.
                Escapism beckons like a Busby Berklee musical smile.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  A Busby Berkeley reference - color me impressed.  All I will be dreaming of is boom shots of kaleidoscopic dance arrangements.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image92
                    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Was going to reference going out to find me a nice dust bowl.
                    Somehow, it just didn't ring authentic here in CA.

  38. emrldphx profile image59
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    Honestly, it worries me the attitude people have. The assumptions of what rights we do and don't have, and the unbelievable expectation that people should be able to resist the police and not have anything done to them...

    Why don't we just get rid of the police?

    1. Moderndayslave profile image61
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "The assumptions of what rights we do and don't have"

      First Amendment to the United States Constitution
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


      The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

      Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.
      Civil Disobedience
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ … sobedience
      Keep giving up your rights,,,soon you won't have any.

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What rights am I giving up? If I want to protest, I can do so. That doesn't mean I can walk into a congressman's house and refuse to leave. All of our rights have limits.

        1. Moderndayslave profile image61
          Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What do you thin the right to peacefully assemble means? Where ? Rent the Garden? Staples Center?  A campus which is rightfully their residence by paying tuition.
          No damage or threat was apparent or occurring.

          1. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Do you think freedom of assembly means you can camp out on public property? Private property?

            Do you know anything about the historical context of the Bill of Rights? The first Continental Congress said this about assembly:

            "That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king"

            The founding fathers had no representation, and weren't allowed to petition the king, or even to assemble to discuss their grievances with each other.

            It doesn't mean you can assemble anywhere you want for any reason.

            "For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private house to forbid it in his house. When no proprietary rights interfere, the Legislature may end the right of the public to enter upon the public place by putting an end to the dedication to public uses. So it may take the lesser step of limiting the public use to certain purposes.” Commonwealth v Davis"

            Public land, as meaning land owned by the government and designated for public use, is under the responsibility of the government. Essentially, it is the government's 'private property'.

    2. DNCalkins profile image61
      DNCalkinsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A police force for whom violence is the default response has no purpose in a free society except to destroy it.  The purpose of the police force is to protect citizens.  The question that you ideologues keep skirting is who was Pike protecting?  The sidewalk? 

      Show your work.  Any answer that suggests that the students have fewer rights than X (which covers the entire mess you spewed on this thread)  because they were breaking a nebulous law by exercising inalienable rights granted to them in the constitution in excess of what YOU deem proper will not receive credit.

      In addition, you will be mercilessly taunted if you suggest that that line of kids was 'blocking the sidewalk' which the photograph clearly shows to be untrue.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        +++

      2. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Violence wasn't the default response. They were there for an hour. The students refused to comply, some were illegally camping, and they blocked the sidewalk.

        Listen, large groups are dangerous. If people want to protest they should show that they aren't dangerous by doing so legally. The police have not only the right, but the duty to disperse unruly crowds. "But they were peaceful!"

        Being peaceful doesn't allow you to break the law.

        They sat and linked arms in a circle around the police, including across the sidewalk. Before that, they refused to comply with police who were dispersing people who were camping illegally.

        Our rights aren't unlimited. I understand you think they are, but they simply aren't. Maybe you should come picket my house to teach me better.

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        +

    3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If the police were anything other than corporate bodyguards for exceedingly wealthy individuals...perhaps we'd respect them more?

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I sure hope nothing bad happens to you when you need the corporate bodyguards to help you out. That kind of generalization is ridiculous. Their job is to maintain peace and order.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Are you a policeman by any chance? If not, maybe you've missed your calling. You'd fit right in.

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, I"m not. But I'm glad we have police. Their job isn't easy, and when people like these protesters act the way they do, they only disrespect the police, who by and large are great people who help make our society a place that is one we can all live in.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You will have to forgive Ralph he is from Detroit.  They aren't used to having an effective police force there.

    5. LookingForWalden profile image60
      LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Without Civil Disobedience segregation would still exist.
      The acrid taste left from that era isn't forgotten by many Americans.
      It would do you a great justice to read Civil Disobedience and Kings Non violent resistance and Letters from Birmingham.
      Every photo of a bloody protester, every video of pepper spray, the movement grows. As does its support.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Since para military tactics and mindset have been brought into the domestic police force, apparently some citizens don't mind non-violent protesters being sprayed in the face, brutally beat upon, etc. Honestly I think many forget exactly what it is we're trying to defend and should defend.   

        http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl … p-20111122

        another decent read from Matt Taibbi, the video is chilling to say the least..

        a quick link to Thoreau's Civil Disobedience http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html

      2. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        These guys were upset at tuition increase. Yes, let's break the law because tuition went up.

        If you don't like how much your school costs, go somewhere else for your education. Or, work within the law to try and make changes.

        Don't compare tuition to segregation, it's disrespectful

        1. Moderndayslave profile image61
          Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What law was this? College Campuses now write laws? The college administration should be even more aware of the students right to assemble. This was a gem of yours btw. "Listen, large groups are dangerous." Sporting events should be immediately  banned. Also dangerous are kitchen knives,sunlight, crossing the street and so on. It's blatantly clear that you have little understanding of what went on. Again, keep giving up your rights,  soon you wont have any.

          1. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Large groups who are in violation of law. Happy? I figured it was clear from the context.

            The laws they broke were illegal camping, blocking public thoroughfare, resisting police, and I"m sure many others, but I'm not a lawyer.

            Again, you have the right to protest, but only within limits.

            Please, answer my question. Do you think you have the right to protest in my house?

            1. rebekahELLE profile image91
              rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Become more knowledgeable of what you defend, soon your rights will become more 'limited' as we have slowly seen post 9-11.

              1. emrldphx profile image59
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I defend the Constitution. If I have problems with a law, I take it up with my representation. It is actually possible to make a difference with your vote, and to do so legally.

            2. Moderndayslave profile image61
              Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              In your house is trespassing. Students paying tuition and  "Reside" on campus are what? Residents? Open space would be theirs to use wouldn't it. The ones on the sidewalk were doing what? They weren't camping ,they had no tents. Did we see the same video?That coward just casually walked up on the protesters and unloaded the canister and to their credit,The kids didn't flinch.  Your logic is flawed and it's not looking like you can sell it here.
              Some background  http://www.rense.com/general95/whois.htm

              1. emrldphx profile image59
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Tuition doesn't cover the right to camp on the quad. Do you really think it does? My logic isn't flawed, you think paying tuition means students own the school. As for your background, I stopped at the picture of warthog-cops. Yes, you obviously picked an unbiased source.

                Go watch a video that shows the whole thing. The police showed up, and announced the protesters needed to disband as they were breaking the law. They said they could be arrested. They didn't just walk up to some protesters and start spraying.

                They were trying to remove tents and campers, and people started resisting. A crowd encircled the police(not smart), then a bunch of kids sat in a circle around the cops linking arms(not smart).

                1. Moderndayslave profile image61
                  Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I have been referencing your Youtube clip.

                  "The University of California at Davis' chancellor, Linda Katehi, is now claiming that in using pepper spray on peaceful protesters the police were defying her orders.

                  Katehi's statement was issued as public indignation over the brutal incident continues and the Davis Faculty Association called for her resignation on the 19th.
                  She claims that she has ordered police to standby if an emergency arises while staying out of sight, saying, "They are on call, but they are not visible."" (1)
                  Annette Spicuzza is the Campus Police Chief, .

                  "Spicuzza proved to be a liar Saturday as she tried to justify the pepper spray incident by telling journalists the officers were in fear for their safety. This is what she told the Sacramento Bee:

                  "There was no way out of that circle," she told the newspaper. "They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation."

                  This is what she told the Times:" The students had encircled the officers," she said. "They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out." 
                  Did it look like they were trying to get out to you? This was my biased source, two California newspapers. Police are overstepping their boundaries,removal of the tents,fine. Spraying some young adults protesting on a sidewalk,.This whole movement has been almost 100% peaceful,until the police in riot gear show up. Some use better judgement
                  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/24/n … rotesters/

                  1. emrldphx profile image59
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It took Katehi 4 days of being threatened with her job to come up with that story. If it were true she would have said it earlier.

                    Do you realize that there is such a thing as PR damage control? People make up stories to try and appease the public. It usually doesn't matter what the truth is if the public is mad, people will just try to appease the public.

    6. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "the unbelievable expectation that people should be able to resist the police and not have anything done to them."
      Nobody expects that people shouldn't face consequences for disobeying the police.
      What good citizens expect is that the consequences for doing so will be legal ones: legal arrest without excessive force.

      You seem to think that if a cop says disperse, and the crowd doesn't disperse, then it's okay to beat the hell out of the crowd, and the cops who do the beating shouldn't face any consequences for their actions.

      There are many possible police responses to disobedience.

      1) repeat the order (perhaps a good first response)
      2) attempt to physically shove the protestors out of the way (a good second response)
      3) Start pepper-spraying and beating people (not justified unless the people are assaulting the cops, or perhaps preventing the cops from reaching someone in need of help)
      4) start arresting the protestors who refuse to comply (the legal response, and perfectly acceptable and justified)
      5) give up and go home (not a good idea for many reasons)


      See, there are plenty of choices besides "do nothing" and "open a can of whoop-@$$."

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What is excessive force when a group is physically resisting?

        Nobody was 'beating the hell out of the crowd'. It's such a ridiculous thing to say.
        The police spent a good 30 minutes trying to talk these people into compliance.
        Police started the day off by removing individuals from the group. The group escalated by surrounding the police, linking arms, and refusing to move.
        Ok, so the police are trying to physically remove people(we don't know which were being arrested, but they were tying hands so we can assume that was what was happening). When people start resisting that force, you can't just say 'police should arrest them'. The question is, how should the police go about arresting a group that is physically resisting?

        Right, but what do they do when people resist?

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You keep trying to make it okay for cops to brutalize people who are nonviolent. It isn't. It never. will. be. You are defending the indefensible.

          "When people start resisting that force, you can't just say 'police should arrest them'."
          Yes, you can. In fact, that is exactly what ought to happen. As you ponted out earlier, the cops have a few options:
          1) doing nothing (not a good idea)
          2) arresting the people who do not comply (the correct choice)
          3) bypassing due process and meting out punishment on their own (both immoral and illegal)

          Anyone who resists arrest (different from merely disobeying the cops' orders) should expect to be forced into custody. But that still doesn't mean pepper spray is the first tool you pull out, and once the arrest begins, there's a process that must be followed. You may have heard the phrase 'due process of law?' Yeah, it's that. Pepper-spraying nonviolent protestors bypasses due process.

          The position that the cops were justified in hosing down the protestors with pepper spray is morally bankrupt.

          1. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Jeff. Try to answer my question.

            My question is, when protesters are PHYSICALLY RESISTING, how should the police arrest? You can't just cuff somebody who is resisting and guide them to a cruiser. Your answer to the question is 'arrest them'.

            Please, try and answer the question. How are they supposed to go about that? You have to pick one of the following or provide your own answer. Keep in mind that the protesters are resisting and locking arms, so danger for broken bones and dislocation is present.

            A - Physically overpower individuals on a 2 to 1, 3 to 1, or higher ratio.
            B - Use clubbing
            C - Truncheons
            D - Fire Hose
            E - Pepper Spray
            F - Taser
            G - Tear Gas
            H - Flash Bangs
            I - Bullets

            Pick one or come up with your own. I'm tired of people like you saying 'they should just arrest them', ignoring the fact that the protesters were resisting.

            Pepper-spraying people who are physically resisting arrest? What is your option?

            Then provide an alternative. Dodge the question again and I just won't respond to you.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "My question is, when protesters are PHYSICALLY RESISTING, how should the police arrest?"

              By initiating the arrest procedure, which starts with the cop saying the words "You're under arrest."

              Once the cop says "You're under arrest," and the protestor refuses to comply, the protestor is now not merely disobeying a police order (or 'resisting' as you would have it) but resisting arrest, at which time force becomes justified.

              Let me remind you of something: Earlier you made a huge deal about the distinction between "resisting" and "resisting arrest." The distinction is important.

              You seem to really want folks to say that the cops never get to use force ever no matter what, but NOBODY has said that.

              You also seem to believe that people think "arrest them" means waving a magic wand and *poof!* the suspects will be miraculously moved into the back of the squad car. NOBODY thinks that.

              Once the cop says the words "You're under arrest," then the person becomes a suspect in a crime, and the cop gets to take them into custody. If the suspect refuses to comply, he is now resisting arrest, and force would be justified. But nobody was doing that, were they? You made sure to make that exact point above....

              Now, would you like to keep playing make believe, or would you like to explain why it's okay to use violence on someone who is not harming another person, not threatening to harm another person, not preventing medical aid from reaching someone in need of it, and not resisting arrest?

              We have to ask ourselves why a cop might choose not to arrest these protestors. Can anyone think of some reasons? I'll leave creating that list as an exercise for the student.

              1. emrldphx profile image59
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                First, early on I made the distinction because I had no evidence of the police arresting anybody. When I found the longer report I had that evidence, showing the police arresting.

                Secondly, I would love to see where the law says a cop has to say 'you are under arrest'. As far as I'm aware that's not an actual requirement. If a police officer comes up to you and grabs your arm to handcuff you, that constitutes an arrest. Unless you can show me differently.

                The protesters were in the wrong. Get over it. They were only let go because the university is trying to save face from angry people who don't understand what happened.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "The protesters were in the wrong. Get over it"

                  Oh, then charges were filed, they were prosecuted, and they were all found guilty?

                  "They were only let go because the university is trying to save face from angry people who don't understand what happened."

                  Oh, so they weren't in the wrong, but you're going to keep pretending that they were.

                  1. emrldphx profile image59
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    They were arrested. That was your question. Charges were dropped later, but anyone can tell that was trying to be compassionate and to save face.

                    They were in the wrong. The police were sent in to remove the tents. They had a deadline to remove the tents. The police told them to remove the tents or face arrest. When the police advanced on the tents, protesters linked arms blocking the way.

                    Do you really want to keep saying they were in the right?

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So, emrldphx said:

                  "Secondly, I would love to see where the law says a cop has to say 'you are under arrest'. As far as I'm aware that's not an actual requirement. If a police officer comes up to you and grabs your arm to handcuff you, that constitutes an arrest. Unless you can show me differently."

                  This was bugging me, so I looked it up. Turns out, the cops don't always need to say "You're under arrest" for there to be an arrest taking place. So I was wrong about that. My bad. An arrest is made when a reasonable person would, under the circumstances, believe he was under arrest/being detained/not free to go.

                  But it's also true that the subjective intent of the police is irrelevant, unless the police make their intent known.

                  So, it's not required for the cops to say "You're under arrest" for an arrest to be taking place. But the cop saying "You're under arrest" clears up any ambiguity with regard to the officer's intent or whether a person would reasonably believe himself to be under arrest.

                  I'd hate for people to go on thinking the wrong thing because of me.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Are you saying that all police orders are lawful, per se, and that resisting any police order is unlawful? Are we obligated to do what any police officer tells us to do? Even an order to an African American to stop using a whites only bathroom or drinking fountain or not take a vacant seat in the front of a bus? That sounds like a police state to me.

          I blame the people who are telling the police what to do as much or even more than the police officers although they should know better than using pepper spray on passive protesters.

          1. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If a cop tries to arrest me for something that's not right, do you know what I'll do? Go along with it and get a lawyer. It's happened to me several times. I would never think 'You're wrong about this so I"ll resist'.

            Comparing illegally camping to racism is quite a stretch as well Ralph. Try to come up with some relevant examples.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I mentioned one in another thread about my experience when a cop told me to stop taking pictures of a very bad two car accident near my house. When I arrived on the scent there were a couple of police cars, two EMS units and a fire truck as I recall. I had my camera with a long lens and started taking pictures from across the street at least 50 feet away when a policeman came up to me and said "Put the camera away. Stop taking pictures." I replied "Why?" The cop said "Because I said so." To which I replied "That's not good enough. What law am I violating." Finally the policeman gave up and went back to the accident scene where the EMS people and firemen were trying to extricate a victim from one of the cars. Fortunately, nothing further happened. My point is policemen can be very overbearing, and they aren't always right. On another occasion I complained about being ticketed and the officer threatened to hit me with a two foot long flashlight. I jumped back and he wrote two more tickets, makeing three for a minor violation which the policeman could easily have said OK, just don't do that again. (I had turned left at an unfamiliar intersection  at a red light without seeing a NO LEFT TURN sign. It was late at night, and there was zero traffic.)

  39. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Academic Senate at Cal Berkeley to Vote on no confidence in Chancellor proposal because of his position on police violence against OWSers

    "Berkeley is not only a school with an honored history of campus protest; it’s also our greatest public university, and its faculty include some of the country’s most brilliant and accomplished people. So when those faculty members meet to debate police violence against the “Occupy” movement on their campus, it’s big news.

    "On Monday, the Berkeley Academic Senate will vote on a resolution expressing “no confidence” in their chancellor, Robert Birgeneau, because of police violence against Occupy Cal campus activists there on November 9. The chancellor’s defense of police conduct was particularly outrageous: “It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms,” he declared the day after the police confrontation. “This is not non-violent civil disobedience.”

    "Linking arms is “not non-violent”? Former poet laureate Robert Hass, who teaches at Berkeley, was one of the demonstrators; he described what happened in an op-ed for the New York Times: Alameda County sheriffs in full riot gear, “using their clubs as battering rams, began to hammer at the bodies of the line of students” who had linked arms. The sheriffs “swung hard into their chests and bellies.… If the students turned away, they pounded their ribs. If they turned further away to escape, they hit them on their spines.” Afterwards fellow poet Geoffrey O’Brien had a broken rib. “Another colleague, Celeste Langan, a Wordsworth scholar, got dragged across the grass by her hair.”

    "A million people have seen the YouTube video of peaceful demonstrators with linked arms being jabbed by cops with batons. Many more saw the video on TV—Stephen Colbert featured it on his show, commenting “Look at these vicious students attacking these billy clubs with their soft, jab-able bellies!”

    "In response to the chancellor’s statement that linking arms “is not non-violent,” students covered the campus with pictures of Martin Luther King linking arms with other civil rights leaders at the 1963 March on Washington. And some faculty members responded by proposing a vote of “no confidence” in the chancellor.

    "But what exactly does “no confidence” mean? Some say they will vote against the resolution because they don’t want to get rid of the chancellor, who, they say, has been good at other tasks. But Wendy Brown, professor of political science, one of the authors of the resolution, says “we’re not calling for his resignation. We’re trying to effect a dramatic change in policy.”


    http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkfra … kid=141878

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's truly disgusting how the right will characterize the most harmless actions as "violent".

      I am really starting to hate everyone who can't see this.

      The reason is that they simply can't be this stupid.  It HAS to be malevolent.  This is purposeful.  I can no longer give our resident nay-sayers the benefit of the doubt.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A rather simple minded (I'm afraid) question.  If the cops never show up, what happens?  Seems to me either everyone goes home quietly or the thing grows until there is violence or enough disruption of other's lives that the cops are forced to intervene.

        Until the cops show up, hopefully with forcible removal or other "atrocities" there will be no news crews to speak of.  It certainly won't hit the networks in any big way.  The demonstrators will never see the reaction they want.

        Given that, and that these students aren't stupid people, are they not wanting violence from the cops?  Isn't that why they are there - to provoke an objectionable and thus newsworthy response from authority?

        The only time I ever hear of a truly peaceful (from all sides) demonstration it is from a few dozen people or less, and is a half dozen lines on page six.  That is most definitely NOT what demonstrators want to see - they require violence of some kind (theirs or the police, against people or property, but violence) to make it big in the news.  It's like the demonstration is a failure without it.

        Oh, you might get a large "parade" of demonstrators that makes the news by means of a legal, sanctioned march down the street, but it's over in an hour or so.  Even then, it doesn't get much news coverage, though - nothing like some good down to earth police atrocities. 

        Am I wrong?  Do protestors not actually want and welcome police violence as a means to get on TV?  Do they not simply wait, growing in size or destruction until it happens?  These students - had they notified the college they would sit outside for 12 hours and go home would anything have happened?  No - they have to make enough nuisance to require police intervention to see news crews.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I have stood with others to demonstrate/protest. Our purpose was only to call attention to our cause and our beliefs. Our signs and chants were to educate others as to our positions, not to hope for violence.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I dunno, PC.  If you've stood there you've done more than I ever have and probably understand it better.  I can understand buttonholing passersby with your viewpoint, but that never seems to be the point to demonstrations like this.  It is far more about getting the eye of the news media than to spread information person by person.

            These kids, sitting on the ground, weren't interested in talking to others. They might have had signs, but I didn't see any.  They want to "call attention to their cause" just as you say, but to do that they need the media to pay attention.  And that won't happen much at all until violence or disruption of other activities is going on.

            That's what I'm asking; can protestors realistically hope to draw the attention of the media without violence of some kind?  It doesn't seem so to me, and yet they want the media involved as heavily as possible.  That means they want violence - hopefully from the police in "unwarranted" attacks such as the pepper spray.  If they can't get that, though, they all know that if they work at it long enough they will draw in the rabble that will bring violence with them.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are wrong. Nobody on that side wants violence.  They want people to wake up.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Do they then really believe that they can cause destruction of both private and public property with impunity just to wake people up?  Without intervention by police?  Because that is what always happens if the police allow it to become large enough...

                I know quite well that the claim is always, always, "we are peaceful".  The OWS kept saying that as they destroyed a private park, saw rape and death.  It's almost as if a protest will reach a certain size and the violence becomes automatic.  Of course, some of that is natural - you can't cram but so many people into a certain area without causing damage to it - that they had to use bulldozers to clean up OWS reflects that.

                Even beyond that, though, is that a certain mass of people becomes a mob, not a protest.  It always degenerates into property violence (and very often personal violence) no matter what the original protestors want (or at least say they want).  And protestors know this.  They know it very well.  So why don't they stop and go home before that happens?  Because that is what draws the media in?

                I have to wonder, too - the protests you were in.  Were you happy to chant and hold signs and go home without ever seeing the media?  Or did you insist that it be front page news?  It does make a difference, you know.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You'll never understand.  No point in trying.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I think you're right.  I'm just too cynical, too suspicious, too questioning.  When I look at these big protests and all the hoorah that happens when the police finally take action it just makes me gag.

                    These people, at least the leaders, know exactly what they are doing - intentionally disrupting the lives and pocketbooks of totally innocent people in the name of their cause.  People that have done nothing wrong and have absolutely no connection to the protestors.  They will do it in increasing amounts until the cops show and bring the media with them.

                    Their cause is just though, and the ends justify the means.  If innocent people have to pay to rebuild stores, cars or streets, or a few end up in the hospital then that's OK.  It's just the price that must be paid to get the media attention that is necessary to promote their cause.  Those leaders know going in that violence will happen; if it doesn't then they have failed.

                    That's what I see, PC, and your refusal to even address the thought would seem to indicate that you see it too.  Maybe you find it OK to intentionally start something you know will end up harming innocent people in the name of a cause, I don't know.  I just know that I don't.  I don't agree with that concept, and you're entirely correct - I don't understand the thinking that makes it OK.

  40. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    I posted this last night on my FB wall. I think it's time for a reread (a first read for some) of Thoreau, written in 1849, an excerpt from Civil Disobedience:

    Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

    1. LookingForWalden profile image60
      LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      + infinity for quoting Thoreau!
      I hope you read the whole book. big_smile

  41. LookingForWalden profile image60
    LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago

    Civil Disobedience by Thoreau is what led King and Ghandi to victory.

  42. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 5 years ago

    You know the OWS people are basically the Sixties Lite. They couldn't have handled the real Sixties because they are too soft. You basically have a marvelous example of the Useful Idiots concept. Once they have served their purpose the Leftist Elite will treat them the same way those they think they are protesting will treat them.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Leftist Elite (if there even is such a thing) is mostly ignoring OWS already.   

      You are on the wrong side of history here. So are they.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Useful idiots are known to lay down and die. You can literally hear them shout " Repossess my home, take away my job, render me worthless. When I protest, spray me with chemicals and declare it is because I am violent, a communist, a rapist, lazy and a degenerate. I will never challenge this, because without consciousness, I will never be aware that it is "I" that is, has been, and always will be, the useful idiot!

  43. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 5 years ago

    Basically what I am saying is that it is an exercise in futility. You don't believe the is a Leftist elite. Please.......

  44. prettydarkhorse profile image62
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    they call it max tol - the police officers should exercise maximum tolerance  after all what the protesters are mouthing are all valid points.  JFK said this - “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” Not that I am for violent protests or revolution.

    Looking at the protesters demographically, they are not just idle people doing nothing - they are disgruntled people, mostly young adults. I can see this protests will last longer, maybe it will lie low this winter.

    "According to a survey of Zuccotti Park protesters by the Baruch College School of Public Affairs published on October 19, of 1,619 web respondents, 1/3 were older than 35, half were employed full-time, 13% were unemployed and 13% earned over $75,000. 27.3% of the respondents called themselves Democrats, 2.4% called themselves Republicans, while the rest, 70%, called themselves independents.

  45. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 5 years ago

    Look folks you still represent only about 20% of the ideology politically of this nation. They are more than happy for you to be involved in this "protest" because it has stopped the whining about the president from within his own party.  You need an actual leader. Primary Barack Obama. Make him justify your support.

  46. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Who will rule the New Europe?  Obviously, the private European banks and Goldman Sachs. ...
    The new president of the European Central Bank is Mario Draghi. This person was Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International and a member of Goldman Sachs’ Management Committee. ... Italy’s new prime minister, who was appointed not elected, was a member of Goldman Sachs Board of International Advisers. ...
    Greece’s new appointed prime minister, Lucas Papademos, was Governor of the Bank of Greece. From 2002-2010. He was Vice President of the European Central Bank. He, also, is a member of America’s Trilateral Commission."

  47. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    And so it begins, grand larceny, becomes mass rape.

  48. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world."

  49. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    Yep, it was already frightening. Enter true terror.

  50. claptona profile image83
    claptonaposted 5 years ago

    Sorry, OWS accomplished or is accomplishing what?
    Banks are more leveraged than ever, meaning the financial crisis is worse than it was before.
    OWS has cost taxpayer millions in clean up costs.
      Unless you're totally blind, which I think about 75% of the American people are, the expose of the "police state". "corruption" and mismanagement of government funds has been talked about, blogged about and discussed for many years. If you're congratulating the people in OWS for finally waking up, I agree.
    The OWS is a mismash of kids with a very idealistic agenda that has at it's base the idiotic ideas of the 60's free food, free energy, etc. without any idea of how to pay for the programs they suggest. OWS might as well be run by our idiotic people in D. C.
      Name one solid thing that has changed since OWS has stated occupying anything.
      Corruption, bailouts, bank risk,?
      What has changed since they came into existence?
      Show me that and I might buy into your scenario that OWS is something to pay attention to.
      Until that time, it's wasted energy on an unfocused cause of discontent.
      Cheers

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Bank of America or one of the NY banksters rescinded their announced debit card fee.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/opini … aster.html

    2. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      OWS is not asking for free food or free energy.  Don't make up nonsense.  This is NOT a communist movement.

 
working