This is called "kettling". It may be against the written policies of the Philadelphia PD, but it's a widespread police tactic. It was widely publicized during the Occupy Wall Street protests.

I honestly don't understand how these people are called alt-right. What is "right wing" about their beliefs or agenda? Racism is certainly not a right wing ideal, and certainly not limited to the supposed "right".

These people are about as "right wing" as the black panthers, the violent factions of BLM, or even the occupy wall street gang.

james o'keefe and project veritas are reknowned in their deceptions and their so-called 'gotcha" shenanigans.

and when i say "shenanigans",i mean clever editing to create a false premise that suits a political agenda.in this case:republicans.

o'keefe is not the first to kneel at the altar of political money,and suck the cock of his masters,simply to buy his way into the powered elites outhouse,located on the very edge of the property.(oooh i am being sassy today).

we can look back at the tea party and literally watch dick army,former congressman turned lobbyist (shocker right there),single handedly change the direction of an entire movement to serve the needs and desires of HIS masters,by the creation of "americans for prosperity".

i am not kidding.
go check it out.
when the original tea party started their message was very similar to the occupy wall street movement in 2011,but dick army and his merry band of fuckheads,manipulated the leadership from outrage against:big banks,wall street and the horrendous malfeasance of rumsfelds department of defense (still looking for that 1 trillion dollars of tax payer money)..

to...

big government and the democrats.

it was quite impressive in its simplicity and brilliance.
reprehensible and grotesque,but impressive.

we can even look at the private organization of the DNC,and how they openly attempted to undermine bernie sanders campaign.a man who was running on THEIR ticket for fuck sakes!

i seem to be on a kick today in regards to people who sell their integrity for cash.for access.for influence.

it appears john carpenters "they live" was not just a simple,cheesy,sci-fi movie but rather a documentary.

"i have come here to kick ass,and chew bubble gum.and i am all out of bubble gum".
rowdy randy piper (rip)

Boston Tea Party.
The Berkeley Protests.
Tommie Smith and John Carlos.
Occupy Wall Street.
Standing Rock.

Americans seem to have no trouble "shitting in their beds" when all other responses are impossible or will have only token effect.

Voters for Trump don't want positive change in the current system, they want to fight back, burn it down and start over.

@newtboy
i agree with you but consider a few things:
1.for the first time bob is actually engaging and revealing where his perspective originates.(which came as no shock,to anyone).now we can disagree on his position but understanding how he got to that position gives an opportunity to disseminate the particulars.

this is a good thing.

2.while bob's breakdown of the political spectrum is extremely,overly simplified and his understanding of socialism vs corporatism is staggeringly..wrong..it begs the question ..why does bob have it so wrong?

which he answers by where he gets the majority of his information.i dont necessarily blame bob for this but rather the institutions and media outlets he gives authority.

bob is not the exception but rather the rule.people tend to congregate and gravitate towards those who speak in the language they,themselves,can relate to.this is why FOX is so successful and why every other 24 hr news channel has tried to copy their success.

FOX appeals to the emotional rather than the rational.they pound a message for entire news cycles with little or no actual analysis of very complicated issues.there IS actual news hidden in there but it gets drowned out by the screaming apologists who just seek to perpetuate their own agenda and/or popularity.the hyper-partisanship alone is reason enough to never watch FOX.

most americans do not have the time to do a research paper every night,and the majority never made it past 9th grade civics.so they tune in to 5 minute soundbites that appeal to their own emotionally triggered prejudices.presented by vapid pretty people who are the exact opposite of a journalist.

they ALL do it.every 24hr news channel does it,FOX just does it better.

3.the fact that bob frequents a predominantly secular-left site should be an indicator that he is not as partisan as he appears in many of his comments.he comes here to see what the "lefties" find important and their take on current events.

the problem always arises when people assume that if given all the information,everybody will all come to same conclusion.

which is untrue.

but to come to a rational and reasonable conclusion we must have the information ...all of it...we may still disagree in the end but at least the discussion is founded on even ground and not polluted by propaganda and politics.

the hyper partisanship has got to stop.it only serves those who wish to divide and conquer.

4.the tea party in the beginning was pretty amazing and,ironically,had a very similar message that occupy wall street had.remember what was going on when the tea partiers first exploded on the scene?

the wall street bailout.

now they were eventually co-opted by the very power structure that they originally protested against..ironical..but if you look at the history of mass movements the powered elite were using an old playbook in that regard.

ugh..you got me writing a damn lecture newt!

let me just conclude that i am glad bob is engaging on much more personal level and i hope he continues.
will bob and i still disagree? most likely

ok, so you have a peaceful revolt...




...then what?

saying you're pissed is easy. Saying there is a problem is easy.

But where is your solution to address these ills. How do you plan to stop it from happening again?

I find it interesting that you seem to imply that violence is a tool of a state. That's rather disingenuous, don't you think? As if the state is more predisposed to use violence than other groups? the state, like every organization, is made up of people. so if the state is violent, it's because people are violent and we really haven't solved that problem yet, have we. Violence is still part of the human condition and not an inherent part of the state...or playing video games, etc.

I would argue that many of the conflicts we are currently in are because of monied interests and their influence on gov't. remove that influence as I suggested and I'd wager that we've have a less violent gov't.

and I'm sorry, I must have missed something, but are you implying that Obama personally shut down Occupy Wall Street? gonna need you to provide a citation for that. Speaking for my city. The local occupy group was evicted from it's spot by our governor, a republican, but not that it matters because the whole Occupy movement was poorly thought out to begin with. very few people want to camp out 24/7 on with college hipsters and homeless people. It was just a badly implemented idea....period. It was one of the few times I genuinely agreed with our governor. While I might have agreed with Occupy's intentions, they were absolutely ineffective at conveying any meaningful message and an absolute nuisance to the area.

Bottom line, is that as that Japanese general alluded to, America is a sleeping giant. For all the rhetoric and for all these ills you have mentioned, the average American citizen is still largely insulated from it. American life has not fundamentally changed during the administration of Bush and/or Obama despite what the pundits on either side try to cry wolf about. Because we have an all-volunteer military, even the average american citizen is largely insulated from our wars as well.

When those things change, then maybe you'll see something happen.

And yes, I know my view is optimistic. But optimism works. Wasn't that long ago that many things we take for granted today was viewed as optimistic but niave or unrealistic.

A similar thing happened right after the Tet Offensive. They were sending a surge of soldiers to Vietnam to take back control and strangle the country. The Generals however said that they needed the troops back here for civil disorder control because they thought there was going to be a full blown uprising. So they got scared a kept a lot of troops here just in case it all kicked off.

Now this is interesting because it's further proof (which everyone denies) of how much of an effect Occupy Wall Street has had. People like to say that it didn't do anything but they're wrong, it tapped into something that's been just under the surface for decades. There's a lot of protest going on and a lot of people just sitting in wait basically. And with the FBI's huge coordinate crack down of Occupy all over the united states, it's no wonder they're gearing up for another showdown.

Now Chingalera is absolutely wrong, we won't win this war by going toe to toe with them with weaponry. We've already won, it's just a matter of everyone standing up and saying we're not gonna take it anymore. They have no power, the people are the power. So yeah there actually might be some serious violence in places but any real protest won't end up like it would in Turkey or even Spain. We'll be fine, they just want to scare some people. And if a bunch of psychopathic jerks decide to arm themselves, they'll be crushed and they'll make it easier for the state to claim the Defense bullshit. That is very hard to claim when you're stomping hippies, much easier when Black Panthers are carrying AK-47s in the streets.

Bill Maher is a moron. And "republican secret rules" also fits for "democrat secret rules"

both parties are the exact same, they are just 2 sides of the same coin.

and media makes damn sure that other parties never get mentioned, as to keep watchers brain washed into thinking there is a difference between the 2 parties.

for example I'm a tea partier but I'm also one of the most vocal in my groups 'occupy wall street' movement. The media would have you think tea party = republican and occupy = democrat

it's not neither are, they are both for getting back to constitution, reaffirming 10th amendment, and stop bailing out banks who refuse to lend money to civilians making bailouts worthless, setting our economy up to fail like Greece.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sounds more like Tea Party than say, Occupy Wall Street. I'm a little surprised and can't believe this is a uniform or even majority Anonymous POV.

I used the 2012 budget (~$3.8T, look it up wherever), the most recent figures for total income and total taxes paid of the top 1% (which are from 2010) from the Tax Foundation, which are $1.52T and $350B, respectively, so I did a little rounding. So you can adjust my $1.2T to $1.15T, if you want.

The top 1% in wealth owned 34% of the US's total wealth, in 2007, according to Wikipedia citing a Forbes article citing this article which cites this paper by Edward Wolff of NYU. The 2010 numbers cited are 35%, but I rounded down to 30% to be safe. Then I just looked up the total US household wealth--which is harder to do than you might expect.

Wikipedia reports ~$54T for the total US household *and non-profit* wealth in 2009 (Graph), which gets its data from the Federal Reserve. If you go to p. 104 of the 2011 document, you can see that this went up to $60T. I don't know how much of that is non-profits and how much is households, so I looked at the Census data.

Unfortunately the most recent is from 2007, which is pre-crash but which gives the mean household wealth as $556k. There were about 110M households in 2007, so that gives us about $61T total--but this was pre-crash. So we can kinda compare with the Wikipedia chart and see that in 2007 the total household+nonprofit wealth was $66T. So let's just assume ~$5T is nonprofits, so households had around $50T in 2009 and maybe closer to $55T in 2011, give or take. 30% of $50T is $15T. I had made slightly higher estimates before to get my $16T (didn't see the 'nonprofit' thing there).

So all told, the data's from the census and the Fed, and I'm kinda rounding down everywhere I can. I did some extrapolating here and there because I can't find a consistent data set from any year after 2007, and it wouldn't be fair to your side of the argument to use 2007's numbers. If you can find better data or if there's something egregiously wrong, please correct me.

>> ^ReverendTed:

dead (The 1% killed it, I'm sure!)


Well, Al Gore is a part of the 1%.

Stephen Colbert said it best in a video bit that I'll leave it to you to find, if you care, but I'll paraphrase.

The difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party is that the Tea Party has representation. OWS is a collection of individuals with no representation; individuals acting of their own accord.

Now as far as you saying the Tea Party not being offensive, well... I can look at the last minute of this video and see the list of things that I absolutely can show linked to the Tea Party and I find that extremely offensive and racist and even condoning violence -- close enough without actually pulling the trigger.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The simple fact is that neolibs want a bad guy to demonize. Neolibs and leftists in general are simple, shallow, and vapid - very much like Sorkin and his on-air wet dream that he calls a 'show'. To these narrow-minded creatures, it is unacceptable to see honest, well-intentioned, reasonable everyday citizens opposing their radical agenda items. The Tea Party as a whole has been inoffensive and has as simple, basic message: cut spending. They aren't racists, or violent. They aren't anything close to the Taliban. But truth and reality don't matter to blinkered neolibs who NEED... who desperately CRAVE a man in a cloak with a twirling moustache to hate

You're simple, vapid, and shallow. Are we having a dialog yet?>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Here's a quick quiz... Two activist groups are accused of being "astroturf". One is the Tea Party - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the right. The other is Occupy Wall Street - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the left.
Occupy Wall Street is guilty of documented cases of arson, assault, drug use, drug dealing, fraud, murder, public disturbance, rape, sexual assault, sedition, suicide, theft, vandalism, property destruction, bigotry, police harassment, and various other felonies and misdemeanors. The Tea Party is guilty of ZERO documented cases of any crime. Sounds like OWS is far more similar to the Taliban than the Tea Party.
The simple fact is that neolibs want a bad guy to demonize. Neolibs and leftists in general are simple, shallow, and vapid - very much like Sorkin and his on-air wet dream that he calls a 'show'. To these narrow-minded creatures, it is unacceptable to see honest, well-intentioned, reasonable everyday citizens opposing their radical agenda items. The Tea Party as a whole has been inoffensive and has as simple, basic message: cut spending. They aren't racists, or violent. They aren't anything close to the Taliban. But truth and reality don't matter to blinkered neolibs who NEED... who desperately CRAVE a man in a cloak with a twirling moustache to hate...
Can't these 20 million disenfranchised voters just pay 10 bucks or so to go get a photo ID that would allow them to vote?
That's not the point. A large portion of the so-called 'disenfranchised' are illegal aliens who should not be allowed to vote. Voter ID laws prevent illegal aliens from voting. Such a simple, common-sense law cannot be allowed by the liberal left as they'd lose out on literally millions of illegal alien votes. Protesting voter ID laws has nothing to do with "disenfranchisement". It has everything to do with preventing illegal voting activity - which all civilized nations do rigorously. I have to have a voter ID card to vote, and display an ID. It in no way disenfranchises ANYONE except those who shouldn't be voting in the first place. Everyone who should legally be allowed to vote already has all the ID that any ID law requires.

Here's a quick quiz... Two activist groups are accused of being "astroturf". One is the Tea Party - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the right. The other is Occupy Wall Street - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the left.

Occupy Wall Street is guilty of documented cases of arson, assault, drug use, drug dealing, fraud, murder, public disturbance, rape, sexual assault, sedition, suicide, theft, vandalism, property destruction, bigotry, police harassment, and various other felonies and misdemeanors. The Tea Party is guilty of ZERO documented cases of any crime. Sounds like OWS is far more similar to the Taliban than the Tea Party.

The simple fact is that neolibs want a bad guy to demonize. Neolibs and leftists in general are simple, shallow, and vapid - very much like Sorkin and his on-air wet dream that he calls a 'show'. To these narrow-minded creatures, it is unacceptable to see honest, well-intentioned, reasonable everyday citizens opposing their radical agenda items. The Tea Party as a whole has been inoffensive and has as simple, basic message: cut spending. They aren't racists, or violent. They aren't anything close to the Taliban. But truth and reality don't matter to blinkered neolibs who NEED... who desperately CRAVE a man in a cloak with a twirling moustache to hate...

Can't these 20 million disenfranchised voters just pay 10 bucks or so to go get a photo ID that would allow them to vote?

That's not the point. A large portion of the so-called 'disenfranchised' are illegal aliens who should not be allowed to vote. Voter ID laws prevent illegal aliens from voting. Such a simple, common-sense law cannot be allowed by the liberal left as they'd lose out on literally millions of illegal alien votes. Protesting voter ID laws has nothing to do with "disenfranchisement". It has everything to do with preventing illegal voting activity - which all civilized nations do rigorously. I have to have a voter ID card to vote, and display an ID. It in no way disenfranchises ANYONE except those who shouldn't be voting in the first place. Everyone who should legally be allowed to vote already has all the ID that any ID law requires.

No, that was my own assessment of the movement, and it seems to have borne out. What is the OWS movement doing today beyond vandalism and petty thuggery?





Yes, there were some good points made, and a whole lot of bad ones as well. They spoke as one cacophony and it is that lack of coherency or cohesive strategy (as well as a terrible image problem) that ultimately led to their downfall. Even the founders of the movement agree:

"But even Adbusters, the 'culture-jamming' magazine that help spawn the original Wall Street occupation, says that things have changed dramatically for the movement. "Our movement is living through a painful rebirth..." began its frontpage essay this week, and then quoted a Zuccoti park regular who declared, "We are facing a nauseating poverty of ideas.”"

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/06/07

From crowds of 15k to 75 people, it seems to be all over but the shouting

Occupy Wall Street: Dead in 213 Days

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/10552

>> ^messenger:

>> ^shinyblurry:
...this is a movement without any cohesive message or objective..."
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp
-content/uploads/2011/10/no-message-occupy-wall-street.png
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.
com/files/2011/11/ows-message-murdoch-e1322660861906.jpg
I know you're not a lib, but have you really swallowed that Fox media message?