>> ^bmacs27:

You call those riot police? I don't even think they're strapped!


Thats probably why nothing crazy happened. Plus those people had raging bulls on the street a month ago so how they going to compete with that?

A people united can never be defeated!!!

Sing it in the streets!
>> ^messenger:

El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!!

>> ^nomino:

fear. Put yourself in the cops' shoes. Holy shit batman. Adrenaline overload.


I think adrenaline was probably only one of the bodily substances involved in this exchange. Would have loved to see a closeup of the first cop's face when his behind touched the line of cars. Relief probably doesn't cut it.

A BIG, "Yes, but..." for the Austin PD

considering that they provided the idea and the materials for an act that has resulted in protestors facing felony charges.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Undercover-Austin-police-officers-aided-Houston-3841846.php

They might be nice and cheerful when it comes to encouraging gay kids to stay strong, but that doesn't make up for violating other people's rights.

Meh, I dunno. A ton of people and travelers in town: protestors, lots of media types, whatever (the Republicans themselves, naturally). This is a little immature and sensationalist even by TYT standards. Granted, it could be interesting to compare the usage changes against similar sized conventions in Tampa or other places at different times, but this is pretty juvenile as I doubt there is any real statistical significance to this given how small the numbers are.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Jerykk:
If a protest involves hordes of people marching in the street, blocking traffic and generally being loud and annoying, I don't really consider that "peaceful." It may not be violent but it's entirely disruptive and hinders people's ability to get where they need to go and do what they need to do.
You can try and justify the disruption by saying that it's the only way to get attention but really, you would only say that if you agreed with the protestors. If a bunch of people marched on the streets because the MSRP of Twinkies was raised by 5 cents, would that protest still be "justified"? A disruption is a disruption, regardless of motivation. If the protestors in the video had permits and conducted their activity in a genuinely peaceful manner, I seriously doubt there would have been any police intervention.

You only see what you want to see. The only people being disruptive and blocking traffic in this video are the cops and their fucking horses.
And who said you have a right to life without "disruption" anyway? You gonna call the police when that asshole won't stop talking in the movie theater? You going to just keep your mouth shut and walk away peacefully when that cashier overcharges you for your Twinkies? Maybe your idea of protest is standing quietly on some street corner, permit in pocket, holding a sign. It's not my idea of protest (not any more), and if disruptions bother you, stay home and veg on VS all day. Just remember to be quiet and keep your opinions to yourself, because I feel they are disruptive, and they bother me.


Flawed analogies. If you're telling someone to quiet down in a theater, you are directly addressing the person you take issue with. If you tell a cashier that he overcharged you, same deal. Nobody aside from the people directly responsible for your grievances are affected. Conversely, when you block traffic so you can protest against police brutality, who are you actually affecting? The cops will show up and do what they get paid to do. Bystanders, on the other hand, get screwed.

If you want to protest police brutality, do it where only police are affected. Like a police station. Don't do it in the middle of a business area where you're just impeding people's ability to live their lives. If you're so self-centered that you're willing to promote your agenda at the expense of everyone else, don't surprised when people get irritated. And when these people have body armor, guns, tazers, tear gas, pepper spray, riot shields, etc, things probably won't end well for you.

>> ^Jerykk:

If a protest involves hordes of people marching in the street, blocking traffic and generally being loud and annoying, I don't really consider that "peaceful." It may not be violent but it's entirely disruptive and hinders people's ability to get where they need to go and do what they need to do.
You can try and justify the disruption by saying that it's the only way to get attention but really, you would only say that if you agreed with the protestors. If a bunch of people marched on the streets because the MSRP of Twinkies was raised by 5 cents, would that protest still be "justified"? A disruption is a disruption, regardless of motivation. If the protestors in the video had permits and conducted their activity in a genuinely peaceful manner, I seriously doubt there would have been any police intervention.


You only see what you want to see. The only people being disruptive and blocking traffic in this video are the cops and their fucking horses.

And who said you have a right to life without "disruption" anyway? You gonna call the police when that asshole won't stop talking in the movie theater? You going to just keep your mouth shut and walk away peacefully when that cashier overcharges you for your Twinkies? Maybe your idea of protest is standing quietly on some street corner, permit in pocket, holding a sign. It's not my idea of protest (not any more), and if disruptions bother you, stay home and veg on VS all day. Just remember to be quiet and keep your opinions to yourself, because I feel they are disruptive, and they bother me.

If a protest involves hordes of people marching in the street, blocking traffic and generally being loud and annoying, I don't really consider that "peaceful." It may not be violent but it's entirely disruptive and hinders people's ability to get where they need to go and do what they need to do.

You can try and justify the disruption by saying that it's the only way to get attention but really, you would only say that if you agreed with the protestors. If a bunch of people marched on the streets because the MSRP of Twinkies was raised by 5 cents, would that protest still be "justified"? A disruption is a disruption, regardless of motivation. If the protestors in the video had permits and conducted their activity in a genuinely peaceful manner, I seriously doubt there would have been any police intervention.

>> ^legacy0100:

I remember having this conversation with my brother few months ago. I compared the Occupy movement with the Stop SOPA/PIPA movement, and how the Stop SOPA movement was so successful in such short period of time, when Occupy movement has been going on for a longer period of time but couldn't materialize any 'real change'.
For one thing, the occupy movement started out demanding accountability in the bank/finance industry. Then the agenda blew up to having social equality of laborers, minority rights, states rights, environmental rights etc etc. It tried taking in EVERY social reform agenda that was out there, taking the focus away from the original efforts demanding real reform in the financial industry.
Last year I remember Occupy protesters coordinating a march on Martin Luther King Jr day. Now I'm sure this is all a good message, but what does this have to do with Wall Street? This only goes to show that this mass movement is lacking focus, and in desperate need of core representatives, like we did during SOPA/PIPA movement when Reddit.com first lead the march, and other giants such as Wikipedia had moved in.


I think the major success of the SOPA/PIPA protests was that there were several very large corporations like google and facebook supporting and participating in the protests. It made it very hard for the media to ignore and detractors to dismiss the protestors as jobless smelly hippies.

And I think you're right about them losing focus. If they start to include every liberal cause under the sun they're going to alienate a lot of people who support financial reform, but may not support gay marriage, or increased environmental regulations.

While more successful over all, the tea party also lost a lot of support when they started subverting the economic reform message with social conservative agendas.

>> ^lantern53:

Any 'Occupy' event is protected by free speech as long as you are assembled in a lawful manner. When you 'occupy' an area in violation of the law, you risk arrest.
But meeting at the local church is out because these people don't like Christianity, and they won't meet any other legal place because it would not elicit the press coverage they desire.


you have no idea what you are talking about.
many of the rights you enjoy were hard fought by practices implemented by the OWS movement but they are in no way a "new" practice.
this is about clogging the cogs of the machinery of government and business and little to do with press coverage.
why?
because those in power will ALWAYS attempt to marginalize the voices of those who challenge said power.
as we speak the senate is voting on NEW restrictions which makes certain protest areas a felony and no longer a misdemeanor.
think that is a coincidence?
that the bill being passed just happens to coincide with the OWS protestor population rising?

and lets not forget st paul and the RNC convention in 2008 and the authoritarian practices implemented by the st paul police and the so-called "free-speech" zones set miles away from the actual events.

you can go all the way back to the early 1900's and find how protestors got their message across.the labor movement comes to mind.
or the civil rights.
vietnam protests.
there were deaths at the hand of police and hired security firms.
beatings and maimings.
intimidations and bullying.
but those protestors used the very same tactics being used by OWS...
hell,they perfected those tactics.
and they are extremely effective.

i could go on...
but you are obviously an authoritarian and the magnificent history of peoples movements in america are lost on you.
and the comment about the OWS movement disliking chritianity just seems fabricated,or at its best painted with an extremely broad brush.
it still smacks of you not knowing what you are talking about.

by accident, @marinara?

How do you accidentally open fire on protestors?


This is an excellent article on the events:
New Kent State Video Evidence Points Towards FBI Provocateuring


The word “Guard!” can be heard around 11 seconds. “All right, prepare to fire” begins at around 20.5 seconds. “Get down!” is spoken at 23 seconds. The final “Guard!” is at about 25 seconds, and the gunshots begin at 27.5 seconds.


The order to fire directly contradicts claims from guard commanders who testified that there was no order to fire and that troops unloaded their weapons only after receiving incoming sniper fire.

The tape was given to Yale in 1979 for its Kent State archives by an attorney who represented students in a lawsuit filed against the state over the shooting. It was originally recorded by a student named Terry Strubbe who put a microphone at the window of his dorm, which overlooked the rally.

Subsequent analysis of the tape also uncovered an altercation and four pistol shots a little over one minute prior to the Guard gunfire. It is believed that the shots came from Terry Norman, who was at the time believed to have been an FBI informant.

Despite attempts by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to pave the way for a new federal investigation, the evidence has remained largely ignored.

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peaceful protest by way of civil disobedience will EVER get any traction is by clogging the machine ie:blocking business,traffic and everyday functioning of not only government but everyday business.
this is not my opinion but historical fact.
see:
martin luther king.
vietnam protests of UC.
civil rights protests.
the triangle shirtwaist factory and the consequent protests for labor and the fight for unionized labor.
and these are just a few examples off the top of my head.the list is massive and does not only pertain to america but in america we have the RIGHT to assemble and the RIGHT of redress.
these protestors want to be arrested.
they want the state (in the form of police) to overstep,brutalize and abuse their authority in order to get the message out by way of conflict made violent by the people sworn to protect and serve.
every time the police (be they individual or enmasse) perpetrate violence on peaceful protestors that protest swells in numbers in a matter of days.
this was evident in the 1920's and it is evident today.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.
that policemen is ordering me to give up my right of redress and that is a right i will not give up.the authority of that policemen has been bestowed "by the people".the very government in which hands down orders to that policemen has been elected "by the people",and they were elected to create laws and govern "for the people" and when that machine no longer "serves the people" it must be resisted in the only way that has been known to work:
shut down the machine,
because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

@MaxWilder: It would eliminate the cash for favors system that corrupts all levels of elected officials!

How so? Corporations control mainstream media and news content. If they control the information, campaign dollars don't really matter. Public campaign financing (ie tax payer financing) just saves them the expense.

Public campaign financing just gives Wall Street puppets campaign camouflage. Not that it matters if people know who sponsors their candidates anyway. Plenty of OWS protestors will be voting for Wall Street politicians in the coming elections.

Condorcet voting is certainly better than first past the post, but it's just as corruptible. Especially when you can manipulate voters with polls and biased news coverage.

As for the rest of your post you spend a paragraph trying to contort something I said in one sentence. I said roll back to it's original limitations, ie follow the Constitution. Yes, the same document that also protects our right to peacefully assemble and protest. But we want to pick and choose what parts we want to follow and THAT has everything to do with the "stranglehold that mega-corporations have over the political spectrum".
Furthermore, with more focus on local and state elections, people might actually have a part in "democracy" instead of feigning it on a national level.

>> ^quantumushroom:

All too easy, Slapnuts.

Now deny it cause the stats don't come from SocialistWorker.org

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Drug use, rapes, murders and random deaths are in every camp, all the attendant chaos one would expect when socialists, anarchists, code pink commies and feed-the-flames libmedia descend anywhere. These protestors are not even 1% of the 99%.

Citation needed, motherfucker.



Idiots put all their links in an image, so you can't click on them and read the reports for yourself... hmm, I wonder why?? Oh, it's because there were no reported murders in the links! And no reported rapes in the links! Lesser events? Yes, a few. Completely unrelated events? Why, yes, several!

Here, for your reading pleasure, are all the links the right-wing crypto-fascist zombie airheads can come up with to marginalize the "dirty hippies" on the lawn:

Links originally from Pundit Press:

From Oregon Live: Primarily about a man who showed up at Occupy Portland, dismissed it as "an eyesore" and criticized its "lack of cohesion", and was arrested within days for starting fires. Also includes a few other accounts of minor drug posession, disorderly conduct, a weapons charge, and arrests of people for charges unrelated to the Occupy camp. Occupy Portland had a problem from near the beginning with homeless people joining the camp, and there were no services from the city or state to help them.

From Denver Post: A man who made an impassioned speech in favor of the Occupy Fort Collins camp was arrested as a suspect in an ENTIRELY UNRELATED arson charge.

From Gawker: A military veteran died of a self-inflicted gunshot, and the city used it as an excuse to halt all camping.

From Fox News: A "rash" of reports that consists of 1 accusation of sexual abuse and 1 accusation of sexual assault in Zuccotti park, 1 accusation of sex with a minor in Dallas, and 1 alleged sexual assault in Cleveland. Fox inflates this to "nearly a half-dozen" reports. The article also includes a number of unsubstantiated rumors of destructive behavior by Occupy protestors in various locations around the country.

From Komo News: A man accused of indecent exposure (completely unrelated to the Occupy movement) is arrested when spotted taking part in an Occupy Seattle protest.

From Redstate: Blantaly right-wing opinion piece which includes a number of links purportedly supporting the premise that the Occupy movement is full of criminals. The very first link is about the police entrapment on the Brooklyn Bridge. One of the links is the above piece from Komo News about an unrelated exposure charge. And another is about how Iran supports the Occupy movement (fear the boogeyman!).

From Reuters: This article is about the man shot by Berkeley police in a computer lab at UC Berkeley. No ties to the Occupy movement at all. But the Occupy protest was nearby, so it must be related, right???

From ABC News: A man is arrested for firing an assault rifle at the White House. He "may have spent time with Occupy D.C. protesters."

From The Daily Cardinal: Link broken; defaults to University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal homepage.

From New York Post: Article is about theives preying on the lack of security at the Occupy camp. Apparently all that police overtime is really helping...

So! All these articles, and they amount to... a few isolated issues that don't nearly account for all the numbers posted, and a couple of them are for unrelated charges where the person might have been caught in or near an Occupy event.

My overall analysis: Aside from QM being full of shit as usual, it's time to let the camps go. They made a splash, but now they are just being used as fodder for the right wing lie-machines. There are just too many unrelated crazies that come to the camps and interfere with the message. It's time to Occupy the polls, and put the energy into publicly supported legislation.

Man, I gotta tell you quantum, life must be hard with you spending your days rolled up in a ball of seething hatred.

I totally agree that the OWS movement was dealing with an undesirable element within their ranks but I don't think that we should be tainting the intent of the entire thing because of it. Just as I feel that it is wrong to persecute everyone who wears an expensive suit as being a heartless corporate swindler. If you remember the Tea Party had their own undesirables showing off swastikas and spouting racial and religious hatreds.

One thing that I would like to point out about the comparison between the Tea Party rallys and the OWS protests is that on one side they were organized and supported financially by corporate and political interests to the extent of even being bussed in to the locations and the other is a barely held together movement with no obvious leaders or focal point with little support or backing from anyone but a few wealthy sympathizers.

I dislike all protests and civil unrest in general but I can see how some people might feel it necessary. Sadly, in the end it always seems to come down to a bunch of people just like quantumushroom on both sides of the argument hating each other, neither side willing to walk a mile in the other man's shoes.



>> ^quantumushroom:

All too easy, Slapnuts.

Now deny it cause the stats don't come from SocialistWorker.org

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Drug use, rapes, murders and random deaths are in every camp, all the attendant chaos one would expect when socialists, anarchists, code pink commies and feed-the-flames libmedia descend anywhere. These protestors are not even 1% of the 99%.

Citation needed, motherfucker.