>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Martin Luther King managed to create protests and a movement that DIDN'T get in people's faces or disrupting the business of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with what you're protesting. He did it with a positive, uplifting, inspirational message that people of good sense could not help but agree with. These yahoos are doing the exact opposite. They couldn't be driving people AWAY from their cause any better if they were trying.


wrong wrong WRONG!
martin luther king jr knew full well the only way a peaceful protest would be effective was by interfering with business.
any protest that was even moderately successful interfered with business and the everyday machinery of government.
now we have "free speech zones"(see:RNC 2008 st paul MN) which are many times far distances from the very thing being protested.....how convenient.
this is where the protesters can be marginalized and ignored but get in the way of everyday business and NOW you will get noticed.
and the government will send its goons in to strong arm and intimidate because the business class scream bloody murder.
there will be arrests.
there will be macings.
there will be violence and yes,even sometimes murders.
all of which can now be clandestinely videotaped from a phone exposing the strong arm tactics of the government all in the name of "keeping the peace".

this aint rocket science.it is effective and it works.
your obedient slave solution just leaves the protester flaccid and ineffective.
you have the RIGHT of redress.
you have the RIGHT to assemble.
and the police are within their powers to cite or detain you for civil disobedience.
they are NOT within their powers to:maim,torture,brutalize and disregard the laws in which they were sworn to uphold.
this is about challenging power and authority and the only way to do that properly is to disrupt the machinations of power and authority.

Hmph...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/occupy-wall-street_n_987439.html
http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/09/wall-st-protest-day-three-a-call-for-the-deprivatization-of-everything/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/occupy-wall-street_n_987439.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/09/labor_unions_and_leftist_group.html

The more I see about these yahoos, the less sympathy I feel. The protestors were clogging up the streets and sidewalks and bringing the area to a standstill. People couldn't drive or get to work. They were creating a disturbance, disrupting citizens, and otherwise being a bunch of jerks. That sort of mess can be dangerous in a big city. It stops ambulances. It stops fire trucks. It stops emergency services. It causes accidents.

So the police got called in to clear a way so normal traffic could keep going. The protestors refused to disperse or cooperate. Therefore in order to accomplish their jobs, the police had to start hauling people away and using crowd control. That means they break out the pepper spray, nightsticks, nets, plastic cuffs, and start arresting people. Duh.

So when that happens the protestors start whining they are 'peaceful'? And the police are 'violent'? Nope. Doesn't wash. If you'd wanted a peaceful solution then you'd have dispersed when the police asked - or better yet you wouldn't have created a problem to start with. But that didn't happen, so the cops had to force it.

You don't get to cry foul when that happens. When you illegally block traffic and create a danger to others then the cops have every right to force you to clear out - and they have every right to use force if you are not cooperative. MLK and Ghandi accomplished their goals with peaceful protests against real oppression. These Wall Street yahoos are just a bunch of leftist cretins who are trying to stir up trouble. I think this opinion about sums it up...

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/26/life-on-occupied-wall-street/

"It’s become impossible to tell where a deluded leftism stops and a respectable liberalism starts. For all the liberal complaining about conservative extremism becoming the norm, today’s liberal media culture earns its daily bread by flattering (or employing) everyone from Al Sharpton to Michael Moore to 9/11 Truthers like rapper Mos Def. And so liberalism continues its steady transformation into a self-righteous, incoherent, solution-free blur. Take a long, hard look at the fur-capped, begoggled, and topless misfits on Wall Street. They’re funhouse mirror images of our more respected liberal elites."

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
A peaceful protest is one where you confine your demonstration to a place where you are not interfering with innocent citizens.


In other words, the only kind of protest you're OK with is a protest that achieves nothing. Status quo for life?

I've seen the vids. The protests is a knut of very old radicals reliving their 'nam glory days, and a bunch of kids just there to feel like they've got a purpose. You've got Cornel, Fonda, Saranden, and other bozos getting people to chant anti-American revolution dogma. You've got these yahoos blocking traffic and sidewalks. It's called "Day of Rage".

A peaceful protest is one where you confine your demonstration to a place where you are not interfering with innocent citizens. The Wall Street yahoos are blocking both foot and road traffic, causing a disturbance, and being a public nuisance. When that happens - boom - the cops show up. When the cops show up in that situation, stuff like this happens. Duh. Protesting is fine - but don't be stupid about it.

And I'm not a Republican. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian constitutional constructionist. Or - as I like to call it - a FiSCCaL. These protestors are angry at the wrong target. The Wall Street problems (and they are a problem) are merely a symptom of the greater issue. The problem is government which creates an environment of corruption and cronyism. Wall Street couldn't have done squat if government hadn't served up a bunch of exemptions, loopholes, and other shenanigans. Did companies WANT those things? Sure - but they can't HAVE them without a corrupt government. The solution is not to whine about Wall Street. The solution is to slap down government hard, reduce their power, and have simple tax reform like Cain's 9/9/9 plan (moving to a Fair Tax), and eliminate all the pork projects and government 'subsidies' of industry. Limit government and root out federal corruption and you create a system where Wall Street abuses can no longer exist because there is no 'system' for them to abuse.

Submissive to authority? - check
Aggressive on behalf of authority? - check
Possessing moderate to little education? - check (an assumption)
Trusting of untrustworthy authorities? - check
Narrow-minded? - check
Intolerant? - check
Dogmatic? - check
Uncritical toward chosen authority? - check
Inconsistent and contradictory? - check
Highly self-righteous? - check
Politically and economically conservative/Republican? - check

At least you're not a fan of violence. Well... unless it's necessary, which means you should be condemning these cops, as this was definitely a peaceful protest. But I doubt you will, because it's acceptable to assault "dumb kids", right? Especially if they don't think the way you do. If the cops assaulted them, it must be the fault of the protesters, right? Marxist radicals? Really? Really? Do you even read the dross on your screen before you hit the submit button? Your comment seems to be nothing but stream-of-consciousness prattle infected with Foxisms, ditto-head mantra, and the voices in your Cheerios.

EDIT: Why no pretty quote box?


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:< br />I'm no fan of unnecessary violence. For shame.
But these dummies at the protests need to dial it back, and stop doing things in such a way as to make a police presence necessary. If they would conduct a peaceful prostest that didn't interfere with business and daily traffic then cops wouldn't be needed. If cops weren't needed, then no one would get pepper-sprayed. Takes two to tango, and if protestors don't want cops giving them a hard time then maybe protestors should not be doing crap that gets police called to the scene. Use common sense. Just because you're protesting doesn't mean you need to be a dingus that requires cops around to keep you in line.
And these NYC bozos are tools. Cornel West, and a bunch of other marxist radicals are there and they aren't there to peacefully protest Wall Street excess. They are there to stir people up. These dumb kids going there need to wake up and realize they are being used as someone else's 'useful idiot'. I'm sure this chick didn't go there thinking she was going to end up in a scene where pepper spray got used.

I'm no fan of unnecessary violence. For shame.

But these dummies at the protests need to dial it back, and stop doing things in such a way as to make a police presence necessary. If they would conduct a peaceful prostest that didn't interfere with business and daily traffic then cops wouldn't be needed. If cops weren't needed, then no one would get pepper-sprayed. Takes two to tango, and if protestors don't want cops giving them a hard time then maybe protestors should not be doing crap that gets police called to the scene. Use common sense. Just because you're protesting doesn't mean you need to be a dingus that requires cops around to keep you in line.

And these NYC bozos are tools. Cornel West, and a bunch of other marxist radicals are there and they aren't there to peacefully protest Wall Street excess. They are there to stir people up. These dumb kids going there need to wake up and realize they are being used as someone else's 'useful idiot'. I'm sure this chick didn't go there thinking she was going to end up in a scene where pepper spray got used.

In a strange way the pepper spraying incident has turned out to be the fuel that this movement may have needed. There are now plans to hold similar peaceful protests in Chicago, L.A., Vancouver, Seattle and Toronto.

Let's not forget that comparing this situation to countries like Syria and Egypt excludes that fact that here, cops aren't killing the peaceful protesters. While there are similarities, don't trick yourself into thinking that many of these people would've still shown up on Wall Street if they thought they might lose their lives for it.

That said, it's always interesting that we complain about the police or the protesters first. Time and time again, the wealthy and privileged watch from the balcony while the lower classes expend their energy fighting each other.

lol!

In reply to this comment by mxxcon:
"posted by marinara 16 seconds ago"!!! arg! \
Your title and description don't do this video justice.

This happened during the continued peaceful #OccupyWallStreet protests in New York City. Police used cattle herding techniques to surround peaceful protesters with nets and then maced them.
This is blatant police brutality.
*money *law *fear

"posted by marinara 16 seconds ago"!!! arg!
Your title and description don't do this video justice.

This happened during the continued peaceful #OccupyWallStreet protests in New York City. Police used cattle herding techniques to surround peaceful protesters with nets and then maced them.
This is blatant police brutality.
*money *law *fear

I just want to second everything hpqp has been saying.

The rioters and looters are nothing better than opportunistic brats, and at worst, thugs and criminals.

There are plentiful reasons to be upset and angry with the government, establishment and big business. That does NOT make rioting and looting a justified response. Look to the Arab uprisings, where they are facing down a lot more than high taxes and corporate greed. They stared down dictators that routinely executed or disappeared everyone that dared confront them, and they did it through peaceful protest for as long as that was possible. You didn't see widespread rioting and looting, you saw peaceful protests up until the point the dictator started killing enough of them they had to fight or flee. How many of London's rioters and looters have died for the cause before resorting to violence and theft?

The rioters and looters are crying about their first world problems. Comparing that to peaceful protests against brutal dictatorship is demeaning to those struggling for REAL freedoms at a bitter price.

@marbles

Thanks for sharing your sources with us, I have not followed details of Syria's events, but I can respond to the articles about Iran.

Re: US trains activists to evade security forces
Offering tools that circumvent government censorship firewalls, is not instigation. Iran's government has strict rules for ISPs to share information with the government, much like the warrantless wiretapping in US. If HTTPS circumvents the wiretapping, then is IETF instigating revolution in US?

Re: 'US trains Jundullah members'
Jundullah is a terrorist group, has nothing to do with peaceful protests and civil movements in Iran.

Re: 'has intelligence agents working in Iran'
Duh, of course and Iran has intelligence working in US. Is the Wisconsin labour movement instigated by Iran? http://www.presstv.com/detail/168937.html

Re: Kissinger threatens regime change in Iran if coup fails
Kissinger said that if the government is NOT democratic, then US would work for regime change. US is doing that right now with the global sanctions on Iran. You can't take his words and say that the millions that protested after the election were all tricked by US propaganda and spies!

Re: Proof: Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter #IranElection
Online activities such as twitter and facebook are reports of what's going on, not the actual events. People went to the streets and protested, they were shot, killed and prisoned. You need to look at the number of people that risked their lives to measure their force and influence, not twittes!

Re: Iranian Unrest: Evidence Of Western Intelligence Meddling
"CIA/Mossad flooding Iranians with contradicting SMS messages"
I never hear of any broadcast SMS messages in support of the protestors. Government did send threatening SMS messages to discourage people from going to protests. People SMSed each other, but that way you know the person that SMSed you. If I get a SMS from a number I don't recognize, I would just ignore it, but if my friend tells me something, then I would listen!

This is exactly how it happen (eye witness report), after they announced that Ahmadinejad won the election, it was late in the evening, people were in disbelieve, they walked out of their houses and talked with neighbors, once they saw that all around them were Mousavi supporters and no one that was cheering Ahmadinejad's victory. If Ahmadinejad has majority support in their riding, as the polling stations had reported, then where are those supporters? After that evening people knew that they has cheated, from talking to neighbors face to face, and NOT from a twitter fed for god's sake. The west learned about it from twitter, not people inside Iran!

Re: Iran busts another CIA network
Iran's government labels any dissenters as US backed agents or drug dealers. Are the people working to free Bradley Manning agents of foreign governments? Now the hard liners in Iran are accusing Ahmadinejad of initiating negotiations with US and are calling for his impeachment. US is the boogyman used to justify any action that the regime wants to take. Like the "terrorist" threat in america, used to take away people's freedoms, its not REAL!

Re: Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran
This article is a rehash of the previous ones, no new points here.

Just because governments are spreading propaganda against each other, it doesn't mean that the civil movements inside those countries are made up of manipulated and instigated people!
US caught off-guard by Iran sanctions
Iran to sue US over human rights abuse

I'd take him out for a beer and just talk things out, man to man. We'd discuss Ghandi and Martin Luther King and the importance of peaceful protest. He is surprisingly receptive. At the other end of the bar, we notice a couple of ladies checking us out. I tell them I'm married, but urge Osama to go for it. He is a bit shy and nervous, but after a couple more drinks, his inhibitions melt away. The next few hours are kind of a blur, but the following morning Bin Laden knocks on my hotel room door. I let him in and he tells me all about his wild evening with the two women. He tells me he's done with religion and violence and that he plans to apologize for all the pain and suffering he's caused. But at that moment, Barack Obama emerges from behind a fern in full ninja regalia and slices Osama bin Laden's head off in one clean stroke.

I drop to my knees and scream towards the heavens. "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Then Obama and I burst into laughter and do some fist bumps and a chest bump. At the same time, we say "Mission Accomplished." "Jinx!", I say, which means Obama has to pick up the check at dinner.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.

Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:
-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.
If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?
What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?

The evidence that the US has never acted in a humanitarian manner when bombing someone.
Look I'm not going to contest any points you make, I'm simply going to advise caution. This story hasn't come out enough yet...there might be more.


But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission. That much we can say with certainty. Even Al Jazeera's article here leaves little doubt where things were going hours before the UN resolution was passed.

The article includes this quote from an interview with Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN:

In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly.

Advising caution is great. Advising inaction in the face of a pending genocide is cowardice.