Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Its funny watching these protest. You have like 20 people protesting and another 100 trying to take picture or video of the cops doing something wrong or just news people trying to get a few shots. You then have the protester stuckin the middle. While the cops are trying to push them back you thave photographers leaning over them trying to take the pictures.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Okay seriously WTF is this thread and why does it keep getting bumped?

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[IMG]http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/302418_10150385051233371_513593370_8614262_1207357191_n.jpg[/IMG]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[IMG]http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297728_10150381533859563_532284562_8388437_1088790206_n.jpg[/IMG]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[url=http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/18/372361/rep-deutch-introduces-occupied-constitutional-amendment-to-ban-corporate-money-in-politics/]Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment To Ban Corporate Money In Politics | ThinkProgress[/url]




[quote]In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.

[/quote]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;860683][IMG]http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297728_10150381533859563_532284562_8388437_1088790206_n.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

The old woman getting maced almost brought me to tears. What an effing disgrace.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;860683][IMG]http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297728_10150381533859563_532284562_8388437_1088790206_n.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

Yes it does. :doh:

The Occupiers were not denied the right to protest - they may gather peacefully and within the local regulations. Lawfully ordered to leave, they refused to comply with those regulations and had to be forcibly removed.

Nothing in the local governments actions were in contravention of the OWS's right to freely assemble. In [I]Hague v. CIO[/I], 307 U.S. 496 (1939), the Supreme Court addressed the impermissible use of regulations and ordinances by governments as a way to prohibit or abridge the right of free assembly. In that case, the ordinance in question forbade “the leasing of any hall, without a permit from the Chief of Police, for a public meeting at which a speaker shall advocate obstruction of the Government of the United States or a state, or a change of government by other than lawful means”. The city invoked this ordinance to deny the CIO “the right to hold lawful meetings in Jersey City on the ground that they are Communists or Communist organizations”. The City then, “pursuant to an unlawful plan[,] … caused the eviction from the municipality of persons they considered undesirable because of their labor organization activities, and have announced that they will continue so to do.” [I]Hague[/I], 307 U.S. at 501 (1939)

As to the that ordinance, the Court said it did [B]"not make comfort or convenience in the use of streets or parks the standard of official action.[/B]" Rather, it "enable[d] the Director of Safety to refuse a permit on his mere opinion that such refusal will prevent 'riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage.' It can thus, as the record discloses, be made the instrument of arbitrary suppression of free expression of views on national affairs for the prohibition of all speaking will undoubtedly 'prevent' such eventualities. But uncontrolled official suppression of the privilege cannot be made a substitute for the duty to maintain order in connection with the exercise of the right.” [I]Hague[/I], 307 U.S. at 516.

In reaching this conclusion, however, Justice Owen Roberts, speaking for the Court, made it very clear that the right to free assembly was, in fact, subject to reasonable regulations and not absolute:

“The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions [B] may be regulated in the interest of all; [I]it is not absolute, but relative,[/I] and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order;[/B] but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied." [I]Hague[/I], 307 U.S. at 515-516 (1939).

[url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=496]FindLaw | Cases and Codes[/url]

Unlike the CIO in [I]Hague[/I], the OWS is not being denied its right to assemble. Rather the right is being regulated in conjuction with the "interests of all". The protestors are free to return, [I]sans tents[/I], and continue their protest. According to the NYC Judge, however, the owners of Zuccotti Park and those living and working in the area also have a few rights:

"To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places, enforcement of the owners rules [prohibiting those things in their park] appears reasonable to permit the owner to maintain its space in a hygienic, safe, and lawful condition, and to prevent it from being liable by the City or others for violations of the law, or in tort. It also permits public access by those who live and work in the area who are the intended beneficiaries of this zoning bonus."

"The [OWS Movement] have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations [B]to the exclusion of the owner’s reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely.[/B]"

[url]http://www.courts.state.ny.us/press/OWS111511.pdf[/url]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;860711]The old woman getting maced almost brought me to tears. What an effing disgrace.[/quote]

Have you ever worked crowd control or disbursement? Can you say that she hadn't just spit on or otherwise forced the police to take more radical steps? If she had been ordered to move and defiantly linked arms with others, would you rather the police use brute strength to enforce the law and possibly cause her serious, lasting physical injury? NC_Skins consistently blasts others for taking snapshots of protesters out of context to demean them but has absolutely no compunction against doing the same if it casts the police in a bad light. Sorry, in this thread, NC_Skins' posts are as agenda driven as anyone - and more so than most.

When it comes to the police and the protesters, neither side has been perfect. The police are outnumbered and trying to execute lawful, just orders from the local govt. to disburse a gathering that had become a public nuisance, a hazard to public health and that was occupying private property against the will of its owners; in order to execute their lawful orders, the police had to force people to leave a place they did not wish to leave. On the other hand, the protestors forcing the issue (not all protesters mind you - many disbursed peacefully) genuinely believe they are either in the right or are happy to force the issue. In light of these conflicting goals, it seems inevitable that occassions of excessive force would occur. I have, however, seen nothing to suggest that such excesses were rampant or in any way the norm.

Would the various Occupy groups have politely and peacefully disbursed if given 24 hour notice [I]or[/I] would they have entrenched and made the confrontation more difficult and violent? I think the latter given the ideological nature of the protesters. As I posted many pages ago, it seems to me that the police have, generally, acted with constraint while faced with a difficult and stressful task. Had the protesters disbursed the tent cities when ordered, no violence would have been necessary.

I am sure that, to many - perhaps even the elderly woman, it is some sort of badge of honor to be the victim of "police violence". Sorry, if you invite forced removal by insisting on the primacy of your rights over the rights of others and refuse to obey lawful instructions from the police, then you get what you get.

Bottom line, the Occupiers exceeded their rights and infringed on the rights of others. Ultimately, there are many, many alternative methods for them to lawfully protest and have their voices heard. In fact, they are free to return to the various parks, etc.; they are just not free to set up squatters camps.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;860714]Have you ever worked crowd control or disbursement? Can you say that she hadn't just spit on or otherwise forced the police to take more radical steps? If she had been ordered to move and defiantly linked arms with others, would you rather the police use brute strength to enforce the law and possibly cause her serious, lasting physical injury? NC_Skins consistently blasts others for taking snapshots of protesters out of context to demean them but has absolutely no compunction against doing the same if it casts the police in a bad light. Sorry, in this thread, NC_Skins' posts are as agenda driven as anyone - and more so than most.

When it comes to the police and the protesters, neither side has been perfect. The police are outnumbered and trying to execute lawful, just orders from the local govt. to disburse a gathering that had become a public nuisance, a hazard to public health and that was occupying private property against the will of its owners; in order to execute their lawful orders, the police had to force people to leave a place they did not wish to leave. On the other hand, the protestors forcing the issue (not all protesters mind you - many disbursed peacefully) genuinely believe they are either in the right or are happy to force the issue. In light of these conflicting goals, it seems inevitable that occassions of excessive force would occur. I have, however, seen nothing to suggest that such excesses were rampant or in any way the norm.

Would the various Occupy groups have politely and peacefully disbursed if given 24 hour notice [I]or[/I] would they have entrenched and made the confrontation more difficult and violent? I think the latter given the ideological nature of the protesters. As I posted many pages ago, it seems to me that the police have, generally, acted with constraint while faced with a difficult and stressful task. Had the protesters disbursed the tent cities when ordered, no violence would have been necessary.

I am sure that, to many - perhaps even the elderly woman, it is some sort of badge of honor to be the victim of "police violence". Sorry, if you invite forced removal by insisting on the primacy of your rights over the rights of others and refuse to obey lawful instructions from the police, then you get what you get.

Bottom line, the Occupiers exceeded their rights and infringed on the rights of others. Ultimately, there are many, many alternative methods for them to lawfully protest and have their voices heard. In fact, they are free to return to the various parks, etc.; they are just not free to set up squatters camps.[/quote]

I'd rather the police just move her, physically. Even arresting her would've been better. She was 84 and just went to the protests out of curiosity. I mean, really. If she had threatened them or had otherwise proved a danger? Cool. Do what you gotta do. But cops are so quick to abuse power and then hide behind a badge and say they're just doing their jobs.

I mean these protesters are so unruly and unpredictable. Better hold onto your shirts, it's another '68 riot in the making! Oh lawdy, lawdy. :doh:

It's only a matter of time before some protester gets killed anyway. If not by police then by the hands of some protester. So. Everyone who's against this can take comfort in how wrong these protests are and how they led to someone's death *Shrugs*

I personally think there are much more progressive ways to go about change than clogging up streets and marching around. But if these guys wanna go at it, I've got no problem with it. They aren't bothering me or infringing on my rights so. Whatever. I'm a bit apathetic about the whole thing. So sue me.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;860715]I'd rather the police just move her, physically. Even arresting her would've been better. She was 84 and just went to the protests out of curiosity. I mean, really. If she had threatened them or had otherwise proved a danger? Cool. Do what you gotta do. But cops are so quick to abuse power and then hide behind a badge and say they're just doing their jobs..[/quote]

Sorry sick of this characterization - Sure some police are but the [I]vast[/I] majority that I have dealt with (and I have dealt with many) are conscientious men and women who would take a bullet to protect me or mine.

As to the woman, I simply was not aware of her circumstances. If you know the context, fine. I am pretty sure, however, I don't want police trying to use brute strength to force an elderly woman to do what she doesn't want to - the next headline is "Police assault elderly woman break her arms".

[quote=DynamiteRave;860715]I mean these protesters are so unruly and unpredictable. Better hold onto your shirts, it's another '68 riot in the making! Oh lawdy, lawdy. :doh:[/quote]

Or a 2011, London - also a protest that started out peaceably. So tell me, how would you "just move" the Occupiers without force when they refused to move? - - Lawdy Lawdy back at you.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;860718]Sorry sick of this characterization - Sure some police are but the [I]vast[/I] majority that I have dealt with (and I have dealt with many) are conscientious men and women who would take a bullet to protect me or mine.

As to the woman, I simply was not aware of her circumstances. If you know the context, fine. I am pretty sure, however, I don't want police trying to use brute strength to force an elderly woman to do what she doesn't want to - the next headline is "Police assault elderly woman break her arms".



Or a 2011, London - also a protest that started out peaceably. So tell me, how would you "just move" the Occupiers without force when they refused to move? - - Lawdy Lawdy back at you.[/quote]

The London riots got out of hand thanks to blackberry messaging and a few bad eggs bringing their bad egg comrades. I could easily see this turning into a London Riot type situation if the police end up killing someone.

I'd think the ultimate message of the Occupiers is to remain peaceful and to weed out the bad eggs as soon as possible because if this get violent, they've let the government win and politicians will start waving their finger saying, "I told you so" and God knows, they can't let THAT happen.

This isn't anything like the Civil Rights Movement in terms of scale or importance (to me personally) but they did peacefully do a lot of civil disobedience and though it took forever. They made progress. I'm gonna wager a guess that the Occupiers feel like this will do the same thing.

Will it? Probably not.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;860720]The London riots got out of hand thanks to blackberry messaging and a few bad eggs bringing their bad egg comrades. I could easily see this turning into a London Riot type situation if the police end up killing someone.

[B]I'd think the ultimate message of the Occupiers is to remain peaceful and to weed out the bad eggs as soon as possible because if this get violent, they've let the government win and politicians will start waving their finger saying, "I told you so" and God knows, they can't let THAT happen. [/B]

This isn't anything like the Civil Rights Movement in terms of scale or importance (to me personally) but they did peacefully do a lot of civil disobedience and though it took forever. They made progress. I'm gonna wager a guess that the Occupiers feel like this will do the same thing.

Will it? Probably not.[/quote]

Generally, I agree. I think you discount the fact that the police would be just as disappointed if someone gets killed. The police have a tough, tough job and the vast majority are conscientious professionals who take their duty to "protect and serve" seriously. When crowds and confrontations are involved, a few bad eggs - on either side - can make an otherwise tense but peaceful situation into a bad/dangerous situation quickly.

I hope the Occupiers get busy with the real work of acheiving change through the political process - I don't agree with all of their agenda, but neither do I disagree with it entirely.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

I agree with NC Skins. Also, it does not matter if someone has an agenda or not, it is their right to have an agenda. I had a friend of mine say it is not the time for OCCUPY we are at war. Funny we were at war when the tea party was calling our president a socialist and comparing him to Hitler. Imagine what Limbaugh would have said if the Tea Party protesters got maced? Blind ideological allegiance is dangerous to the ideologues more than anyone. Ask yourself how many RHINOS exist. Who is really with you in this ideology game or who is just saying they are with you?

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/u-banks-undermine-occupy-protestors-memo-213618820.html]U.S. banks should "undermine" Occupy protesters: memo - Yahoo! News[/url]


[QUOTE]The Occupy Wall Street movement is a big enough problem for U.S. banks that they should pay for opposition research into the political motives of protesters, said a firm that lobbies for the industry.

Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford, a Washington-based firm, proposed the idea in a memo to the American Banking Association, an industry group which said on Saturday that it did not act on the idea.

The four-page memo outlined how the firm could analyze the source of protesters' money, as well as their rhetoric and the backgrounds of protest leaders.

"If we can show they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent, it will undermine their credibility in a profound way," said the memo, according to a copy of it on the website of TV news channel MSNBC, which first reported on it. [/QUOTE]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063706/UC-Davis-pepper-spray-video-Chancellor-Linda-Katehi-refuses-quit-police-attack.html]UC Davis pepper spray video: Chancellor Linda Katehi refuses to quit after police attack | Mail Online[/url]


[IMG]http://p.twimg.com/AepbXd_CMAEMGFy.jpg[/IMG]


LOL@ their motto. "A community that embraces civility".

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;860770]LOL@ their motto. "A community that embraces civility".[/quote]

Ms Spicuzza told the Sacramento Bee that [B]police used the pepper spray after they were surrounded. Protesters were warned repeatedly beforehand that force would be used if they didn't move, she said.[/B]

'There was no way out of that circle,' Ms Spicuzza said. 'They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation.'

The tents went up on Thursday, and protesters were apparently warned on Friday morning that they had until 3 pm to take them down or they would be removed.

[B]On Friday, Katehi released a statement saying the police had no option.
'Following our requests, several of the group chose to dismantle their tents this afternoon and we are grateful for their actions. However a number of protesters refused our warning, offering us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal.[/B]

'We are saddened to report that during this activity, 10 protestors were arrested and pepper spray was used. We will be reviewing the details of the incident,' she told the New York Daily News.

The university lacked the resources to keep the protest site from becoming a public health hazard. she said


Read more: [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063706/UC-Davis-pepper-spray-video-Chancellor-Linda-Katehi-refuses-quit-police-attack.html#ixzz1eHCqbfoX]UC Davis pepper spray video: Chancellor Linda Katehi refuses to quit after police attack | Mail Online[/url]

They were asked, they were warned and some complied others left the authorities no choice but to use force. Not like they surprised them with the pepper spray. It's a no win for the police. If they don't use the spray then they risk a melee trying to break up an illegal protest. Sorry, don't demonize the police when ample warnings were given and ample opportunity to disburse peacefully.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;860770][url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063706/UC-Davis-pepper-spray-video-Chancellor-Linda-Katehi-refuses-quit-police-attack.html]UC Davis pepper spray video: Chancellor Linda Katehi refuses to quit after police attack | Mail Online[/url]


[IMG]http://p.twimg.com/AepbXd_CMAEMGFy.jpg[/IMG]


LOL@ their motto. "A community that embraces civility".[/quote]

You're quoting the Mail On Line?
You really expect any credibility after that?

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

For those against "Occupy" I would like to know:

Is it fair that 90% of elections at all levels are won by the person who spends more money (or gets more money from private interests)?

Do you support the right of corporations to spend millions of dollars lobbying congress, undermining the relationship between politicians and their constituents?

Does it seem moral that politicians can use insider information based on policy decisions to trade stocks and line their own pockets?

Is it okay that politicians who help corporations often end up getting high-paying jobs from those same corporations when they leave office?

Does it seem logical that in our capitalist system, a massive financial institution could become "too big to fail," forcing taxpayers to pickup a multi-trillion dollar bill brought about by destructive and reckless decision making by those institutions' leadership?

Do you see a problem with the fact that 20 years ago, you could raise a family on a single income, while today 2-income families sometimes barely scrape by - and that trend looks to continue?

Maybe you do not agree with the delivery of the unorganized movement. But how can you not support the message?

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/t1onp.jpg[/IMG]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;860770][URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063706/UC-Davis-pepper-spray-video-Chancellor-Linda-Katehi-refuses-quit-police-attack.html"]UC Davis pepper spray video: Chancellor Linda Katehi refuses to quit after police attack | Mail Online[/URL]


[IMG]http://p.twimg.com/AepbXd_CMAEMGFy.jpg[/IMG]


LOL@ their motto. "A community that embraces civility".[/quote]


I think they want to get pepper sprayed. Look at all the cameras there to capture this even though the cops warned them over and over again. Now they can scream about the cops. They are trying to take the blame off themself and get it directed toward the cops. Its also funny how they seem to always leave out the cops warning them in these clips posted.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=drew54;861823]For those against "Occupy" I would like to know:

[B]Is it fair that 90% of elections at all levels are won by the person who spends more money (or gets more money from private interests)?[/B]

Do you support the right of corporations to spend millions of dollars lobbying congress, undermining the relationship between politicians and their constituents?

Does it seem moral that politicians can use insider information based on policy decisions to trade stocks and line their own pockets?

Is it okay that politicians who help corporations often end up getting high-paying jobs from those same corporations when they leave office?

Does it seem logical that in our capitalist system, a massive financial institution could become "too big to fail," forcing taxpayers to pickup a multi-trillion dollar bill brought about by destructive and reckless decision making by those institutions' leadership?

Do you see a problem with the fact that 20 years ago, you could raise a family on a single income, while today 2-income families sometimes barely scrape by - and that trend looks to continue?

Maybe you do not agree with the delivery of the unorganized movement. But how can you not support the message?

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/t1onp.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

Have you ever thought that the reason they have more money to spend is because they have more support and with that support come donations? I think the two go hand in hand. I'm not saying that I support it just making the point.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=firstdown;861964]Have you ever thought that the reason they have more money to spend is because they have more support and with that support come donations? I think the two go hand in hand. I'm not saying that I support it just making the point.[/quote]


I would agree with that if large groups like Unions and SuperPac groups could not donate unlimited funds. We need campaign finance reform in the worst way. I would like to see more light shined on the average donation size of some of these people.

I do not believe this is a left right movement. It should be a unifying movement but the media picks sides and keeps us divided.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

Is that photo of the cop spraying people while they are lined up and sitting in a fetile position real and undoctored?

that photo must be a fake. no way someone could actually defend that action by the cop.

nice try occupy people but you aint fooling me.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=over the mountain;862010]Is that photo of the cop spraying people while they are lined up and sitting in a fetile position real and undoctored?

that photo must be a fake. no way someone could actually defend that action by the cop.

nice try occupy people but you aint fooling me.[/quote]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Uj1cV97XQ[/ame]

Supplied without comment. Please watch the whole thing. 15 minutes

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

OTM,

[url=http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/video/us/2011/11/20/nr-ucdavis-protest-incident.cnn]Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com[/url]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

anyone that would defend the police pepper spraying these people needs their head examined... the right to organize, and protest, is a constitutional right...we actually need that many ARMED police at a protest? isn't this premise what our great country is founded on? what the hell have we become?

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=dmek25;862061]anyone that would defend the police pepper spraying these people needs their head examined... [B]the right to organize, and protest, is a constitutional right..[/B].we actually need that many ARMED police at a protest? isn't this premise what our great country is founded on? what the hell have we become?[/quote]

Yes you have the right but you don't have the right to organize and protest any where and any time you want. Does anyone even know what the protest was for and who even called the cops? If this was on campus I'm sure the cops did not just show up without some from the school calling. Seems a little rough but I only know half of the story.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

LOL....total idiots.
Because of training I took I have had this stuff in my face before and trust me, its fecking bad!
Pretty stupid how these lemmings had plenty of advanced notice and they knew it was coming and just sat there and took it.
If a cop tells you to stop blocking the side walk....[I]you stop blocking the sidewalk.[/I]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

couldnt the cops have just plastic tied their arms behind their backs then carried them off one at a time?

yeah know, like they pretty much did right after giving them a pepper spray shower?

idk, seems things like carrying them away would be an option well before "shake can, point, spray in face from close range".

anyways, sad the occupy movement is starting to be defined and covered as a occupy v. police situation instead of a occupy v. big biz corruption platform.

lets face it, im pretty pissed i got to work for 30 years and pay my bank 750k for a 200k loan. it shouldnt be this hard to just make ends meet and squeek through life.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=over the mountain;862108]couldnt the cops have just plastic tied their arms behind their backs then carried them off one at a time?

yeah know, like they pretty much did right after giving them a pepper spray shower?

idk, seems things like carrying them away would be an option well before "shake can, point, spray in face from close range".

anyways, sad the occupy movement is starting to be defined and covered as a occupy v. police situation instead of a occupy v. big biz corruption platform.

lets face it, im pretty pissed i got to work for 30 years and pay my bank 750k for a 200k loan. it shouldnt be this hard to just make ends meet and squeek through life.[/quote]

What the hell kind of mortgage do you have? Not sure what I would do if I was not working. Probably become a drunk lazy ass.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=over the mountain;862108]couldnt the cops have just plastic tied their arms behind their backs then carried them off one at a time?

yeah know, like they pretty much did right after giving them a pepper spray shower?

idk, seems things like carrying them away would be an option well before "shake can, point, spray in face from close range".

anyways, sad the occupy movement is starting to be defined and covered as a occupy v. police situation instead of a occupy v. big biz corruption platform.

lets face it, im pretty pissed i got to work for 30 years and pay my bank 750k for a 200k loan. it shouldnt be this hard to just make ends meet and squeek through life.[/quote]
Their training, for their own protection, teaches them to "disable and disband/disperse". Not "try to disband, get attacked, get hurt or have to kill someone, chaos ensues,...

The protesters were asked and warned...I am no police apologist but in most of these cases they acted appropriately. There are many ways for the protesters to do their protesting just as effectively and comply with the appropriate local laws...in some cases they are choosing not to and suffering the consequences.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=over the mountain;862108]couldnt the cops have just plastic tied their arms behind their backs then carried them off one at a time?

yeah know, like they pretty much did right after giving them a pepper spray shower?

idk, seems things like carrying them away would be an option well before "shake can, point, spray in face from close range".

anyways, sad the occupy movement is starting to be defined and covered as a occupy v. police situation instead of a occupy v. big biz corruption platform.

lets face it, im pretty pissed i got to work for 30 years and pay my bank 750k for a 200k loan. it shouldnt be this hard to just make ends meet and squeek through life.[/quote]

That's how a loan works. Your other option is to save money for a long time and pay cash. Not sure what you think the bank should be doing differently as it applies to providing you a home loan.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[url=http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/20/ten-things-you-should-know-about-fridays-uc-davis-police-violence/]Ten Things You Should Know About Friday’s UC Davis Police Violence « Student Activism[/url]

In my opinion, on this one, both sides should have some regrets.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=FRPLG;862115]That's how a loan works. Your other option is to save money for a long time and pay cash. Not sure what you think the bank should be doing differently as it applies to providing you a home loan.[/quote]

But should it be that way? Should we just accept the status quo that big business lays out for us?

the state of maryland created this auto insurance entity called MAIF (md auto ins fund) that has to provide auto ins to md licensed drivers who have been denied by 2 or more auto ins companies. this is b/c auto ins is required in md and the state had to provide some protection for md drivers who couldnt otherwise get approved for insurance.

last year, MAIF decided they were going to cut their rates b/c they were operating a 146 million dollar surplus. the other insurance companies complained that it would hurt their competitive market if MAIF dropped their rates below the industry average and that it would cause MAIF to possibly become default.

MAIF said how is cutting our rates by 6 million going to make us default? all it will do is mean we wil be running a 140 mil instead of a 146 mil surplus.

These big business industries are bleeding us dry.

corporate greed is rampant. i get it, its a capitalist market, yada yada yada.

but i shouldnt have to work this hard just to eek by in life. health insurance and banks push as far as they can.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=over the mountain;862141]But should it be that way? Should we just accept the status quo that big business lays out for us?

the state of maryland created this auto insurance entity called MAIF (md auto ins fund) that has to provide auto ins to md licensed drivers who have been denied by 2 or more auto ins companies. this is b/c auto ins is required in md and the state had to provide some protection for md drivers who couldnt otherwise get approved for insurance.

last year, MAIF decided they were going to cut their rates b/c they were operating a 146 million dollar surplus. the other insurance companies complained that it would hurt their competitive market if MAIF dropped their rates below the industry average and that it would cause MAIF to possibly become default. The ins. companies want that surplus there to protect them from having to bail out the MAIF.

[B]MAIF said how is cutting our rates by 6 million going to make us default? all it will do is mean we wil be running a 140 mil instead of a 146 mil surplus. [/B]

These big business industries are bleeding us dry.

corporate greed is rampant. i get it, its a capitalist market, yada yada yada.

but i shouldnt have to work this hard just to eek by in life. health insurance and banks push as far as they can.[/quote]

Thats an assumption that could prove to be wrong. Do you know who has to bail out the MAIF if it fails? The insurance companies that write auto ins. in MD so there is more to the story. The ins. companies want that suplus to keep them from having to bail out the MAIF.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=firstdown;862296]Thats an assumption that could prove to be wrong. Do you know who has to bail out the MAIF if it fails? The insurance companies that write auto ins. in MD so there is more to the story. The ins. companies want that suplus to keep them from having to bail out the MAIF.[/quote]

yeah in fact I think ins companies have to pay alil something into a "just in case" fund which Im sure is repaid every year when the fund didnt need to be tapped.

But my point is there is unnecessary corporate greed.

just look at my Bank of America thing. B of A is posting their highest profits in 4 years or so at teh same time they have been intentionally and strategically overdrating me to charge me $35 a pop for the past 7 years or so . . they had been doing this to me when I was at my lowest and most vulnerable financial moments.

that BofA thing justs shows, banks at least BofA is blood thirsty.

they dont give a dang about anybody except increasing their bottom line, even if they have to lie cheat and steal your money from you.

Does anyone want to defend BofA in their overdraft class action lawsuit?

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-heckled-in-new-hampshire-by-occupy-wall-street-supporters-2011-11#ixzz1eSRYky2O]OBAMA HECKLED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BY OCCUPY WALL STREET SUPPORTERS[/url]


How people even support this guy still is amazing.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=NC_Skins;862335][URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-heckled-in-new-hampshire-by-occupy-wall-street-supporters-2011-11#ixzz1eSRYky2O"]OBAMA HECKLED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BY OCCUPY WALL STREET SUPPORTERS[/URL]


How people even support this guy still is amazing.[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Well Jimmy Carter, a lot of the media and others have pointed out opposition towards Obama is mainly because of racism. Here i was thinking OWS protesters were just anti-semitic....[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

i think a noticeable portion of Obama hatte is b/c of racism.

Have you read the comments on fox news or the blaze? 9/10 of are just comparing michelle obama to a monkey.

I think its easy to think overt racism doesnt exist when you live in or around DC which is such a mettling pot of diversity. When me and my lady go outside of the urban areas we get looks and stares. I could only imagine what it would be like if we went to a rural area of middle america or down south.

racism from blacks and whites is alive and well imo and experience.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

I'm not ignoring your lame stance on the police abuse either JR. I really don't even think it deserves a response, and the fact you are taking up for the police is sickening as is. So you think that it's not ok if other countries put their people in line when they peacefully protest, but it's ok for our country to use it's police to do so against its citizens?...lol Hypocritical to say the least. I suggest you reread what Obama's quote in that picture again, and then tell me if he meant America as well. Apparently he didn't which is exactly why he's allowing that crap to continue on instead of putting his foot up some of those local mayors asses.


Freedom of speech isn't free if you put a time limit on it or require a "permit" for it. It's a ****ing joke and to defend it angers me so don't even bother doing it. There is no justification unless you simply support a police state.

Guys, you can have free speech from the hours of 8am to 11pm, but only on Monday through Friday. Oh, you have to get a permit and have it approved by our council. Thanks in advance. FUUUCK that. Maybe that's just the anarchist in me.

I will go on record and say I support any and all violence against authority in situations where police abuse their authority. Being a cop doesn't give you a right to abuse your position of power to break the laws yourself. People have a right to defend themselves, even if it's against the tyranny of it's own government.



My friend had a great quote.

"Obedient citizens never fixed anything."

This in regards to you harping about them breaking the laws, and condoning the police brutality acts.

Re: 'Occupy' types
 

[quote=hooskins;862029]OTM,

[url=http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/video/us/2011/11/20/nr-ucdavis-protest-incident.cnn]Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com[/url][/quote]


That lame and bullshit lie that the cops were surrounded and needed a way out. It's clear the cop stepped over the line, JUST so he could spray them. Those people weren't blocking them in any way. People like this should be pulled out of their home and beat merciless.