IGX

Shafpocalypse Now wrote: The OWS basically want instant welfare by gathering and protesting. They want local places to feed them, house them, and clean up after them. If they would police themselves, this wouldn't have been an issue, but there seems to be a big sense of entitlement at the street level.

That's where I have a problem with the whole movement. It's not that I don't agree with a good bit of what they're all pissed about. Corporations and the banking industry have run roughshod over our government chasing profits for 60 years. The result is a monetary system on the verge of collapse, environmental damage on a massive scale, almost complete loss of manufacturing jobs in the US, a food industry that gets the government to subsidize cheap crap and keep us addicted to worthless bullshit while running farmers out of business, and any number of other erosions in our quality of life for corporate benefit.

But expecting government to change any of this, when government and corporation/bank are no longer distinguishable is laughable. The way to change the system in from the bottom down. Don't want to give money to the banks? Don't spend more than you earn and save enough to pay cash instead of financing every damned purchase. Don't like the quality of food you can buy at the grocery store? Buy as much as you can at the local farmer's market and support those independent farmers growing actual decent food (and grow some of your own when you can). Pay more for made in the USA quality when at all possible and shop at big boxes as little as possible. Live in a way that reduces pollution (which includes not buying crap made in China and shipped 8k miles).

It all sounds childish and simple, but 10 million people voting with their wallets as above means more than 10 thousand protesters.

Those OWS motherfuckers need to chill out until Festivus and air their grievances then.

Fat Cat wrote:LOL at this bullshit, you seriously demean your self to try this line. How many homeless are currently in the city of Seattle, living, eating, sleeping and shitting in the city streets. But they don't warrant police crackdowns like this do they? Or what about a commensurate and proportionate application of the law? Macing grandma? Bashing little asian women in the stomach with batons? Get fucking real.

Meanwhile corporate thieves skate.

No. The homeless are managed, as long as they don't cause trouble, they get left alone by the police. If there's an issue, they get their head cracked. They are not allowed to congregate in large groups. This happens in every city where there are large homeless populations, and both cops and the homeless understand the rules. Homeless sleep in the parks in Seattle-- they don't leave their tents up during the day unless they are relatively well hidden either.

The OWS protestors could get some good things done if they were serious and specific about the changes they want. They're not. So they get the typical response-- made fun of by most; and taken advantage of by politicians that see an opportunity.

Ahh, so as long as you don't "cause trouble" you don't get your head cracked. Got it. Interesting vision you have for our nation.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:There are a significant number of criminals within the OWS movement. These folks are there to cage free food, get high, and steal whatever they can get away with.

And within the general population. I guess I'll have to wait for you to make a point.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The big issue is that OWS has nothing to police their own movement. Some psychopath with a knife wants to rape and steal, what the fuck are they going to do about it? It's a wolf in sheep's clothing amongst the flock.

Sure they do. It's called "the police". These are all American citizens...remember?

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The cases of police brutality and overreaction are getting a fuckton of press. The cases where things move along peacefully, aren't.

LOL

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The OWS basically want instant welfare by gathering and protesting. They want local places to feed them, house them, and clean up after them. If they would police themselves, this wouldn't have been an issue, but there seems to be a big sense of entitlement at the street level.

It's nice when you can just ascribe a set of desires to people instead of actually having to go through the laborious process of listening.

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote: The OWS basically want instant welfare by gathering and protesting. They want local places to feed them, house them, and clean up after them. If they would police themselves, this wouldn't have been an issue, but there seems to be a big sense of entitlement at the street level.

That's where I have a problem with the whole movement. It's not that I don't agree with a good bit of what they're all pissed about. Corporations and the banking industry have run roughshod over our government chasing profits for 60 years. The result is a monetary system on the verge of collapse, environmental damage on a massive scale, almost complete loss of manufacturing jobs in the US, a food industry that gets the government to subsidize cheap crap and keep us addicted to worthless bullshit while running farmers out of business, and any number of other erosions in our quality of life for corporate benefit.

But expecting government to change any of this, when government and corporation/bank are no longer distinguishable is laughable. The way to change the system in from the bottom down. Don't want to give money to the banks? Don't spend more than you earn and save enough to pay cash instead of financing every damned purchase. Don't like the quality of food you can buy at the grocery store? Buy as much as you can at the local farmer's market and support those independent farmers growing actual decent food (and grow some of your own when you can). Pay more for made in the USA quality when at all possible and shop at big boxes as little as possible. Live in a way that reduces pollution (which includes not buying crap made in China and shipped 8k miles).

It all sounds childish and simple, but 10 million people voting with their wallets as above means more than 10 thousand protesters.

Those two things: protesting and responsible living, are hardly mutually exclusive.

Again:

johno wrote: Any person or group can occupy a public area, any time, for any duration? Under any sanitation conditions? Effectively excluding others from using those public areas?

johno wrote:Again:

johno wrote: Any person or group can occupy a public area, any time, for any duration? Under any sanitation conditions? Effectively excluding others from using those public areas?

It's illegal to do so, but that's the point. Nonviolent civil disobedience is often illegal.

And meanwhile, Wall Street violates law on a grand scale but johno cares not.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:Again:

johno wrote: Any person or group can occupy a public area, any time, for any duration? Under any sanitation conditions? Effectively excluding others from using those public areas?

It's illegal to do so, but that's the point. Nonviolent civil disobedience is often illegal.

So don't cry when the police enforce the law. And when people refuse to comply, sometimes the pepperspray comes out. That's what happened to Dorli.

Fat Cat wrote:And meanwhile, Wall Street violates law on a grand scale but johno cares not.

IF a law was broken, Pres. Obama's Justice Department has failed to prosecute the criminals.

johno wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:Again:

johno wrote: Any person or group can occupy a public area, any time, for any duration? Under any sanitation conditions? Effectively excluding others from using those public areas?

It's illegal to do so, but that's the point. Nonviolent civil disobedience is often illegal.

So don't cry when the police enforce the law. And when people refuse to comply, sometimes the pepperspray comes out. That's what happened to Dorli.

I don't think they're crying. They probably correctly believe that they gain ground every time time the police crack down on them. Normal people empathize more with an old lady who gets pepper sprayed by police than some guy with an AR-15 and a "Don't Tread on Me" sign.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:They probably correctly believe that they gain ground every time time the police crack down on them.

We'll see. From what I've read about opinion polls, Occupy has lost ground.

johno wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:And meanwhile, Wall Street violates law on a grand scale but johno cares not.

IF a law was broken, Pres. Obama's Justice Department has failed to prosecute the criminals.

There is no "if" but your inability to think outside of partisan bullshit is both predictable and depressing.

johno wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:Again:

johno wrote: Any person or group can occupy a public area, any time, for any duration? Under any sanitation conditions? Effectively excluding others from using those public areas?

It's illegal to do so, but that's the point. Nonviolent civil disobedience is often illegal.

So don't cry when the police enforce the law. And when people refuse to comply, sometimes the pepperspray comes out. That's what happened to Dorli.

The police are selectively enforcing the law, which is equivalent to not enforcing the law.

LOL

Welcome to reality.

The command staff and city managers are taking the decisions out of the hands of the cops on the streets. It's either do as you're told or find another job.

You're kind of freaking me out lately fatty. You've gone all earth mother and religious proponent.

Have I? Or is it all part of some larger scheme...?

Fat Cat wrote:

johno wrote:
IF a law was broken, Pres. Obama's Justice Department has failed to prosecute the criminals.

There is no "if" but your inability to think outside of partisan bullshit is both predictable and depressing.

OK, name the law or provide a cite.

Fat Cat wrote:

johno wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:Again:

johno wrote: Any person or group can occupy a public area, any time, for any duration? Under any sanitation conditions? Effectively excluding others from using those public areas?

It's illegal to do so, but that's the point. Nonviolent civil disobedience is often illegal.

So don't cry when the police enforce the law. And when people refuse to comply, sometimes the pepperspray comes out. That's what happened to Dorli.

The police are selectively enforcing the law, which is equivalent to not enforcing the law.

So basically the police have never enforced the law? That's nonsensical. Judgment is a part of police work-- always has been.

johno wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:

johno wrote:
IF a law was broken, Pres. Obama's Justice Department has failed to prosecute the criminals.

There is no "if" but your inability to think outside of partisan bullshit is both predictable and depressing.

OK, name the law or provide a cite.

for what? an example of wall street traders breaking laws? are you serious? credit card companies? banks? you name it.

Fat Cat wrote:

johno wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:And meanwhile, Wall Street violates law on a grand scale but johno cares not.

IF a law was broken, Pres. Obama's Justice Department has failed to prosecute the criminals.

There is no "if" but your inability to think outside of partisan bullshit is both predictable and depressing.

Not really. That is a Justice Department function-- the Justice Department is part of the executive branch. Either they are refusing to prosecute for political reasons or they don't have a solid case. Neither backs up your argument.

Police assaulting reporters now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... ?ref=media

Fat Cat wrote:Police assaulting reporters now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... ?ref=media

Cops hate reporters more than protesters. Nothing new there.

Reporters. Hmm. Can't decide if I hate them worse than lawyers or dog shit.

It's okay if a bank does it and blatant examples of corporate deviance aren't against the letter of the law. Just don't dare protest and make things inconvenient; that will get you punished with a boot to the face.

Modern-day feudalism is the American dream and we support it with one-sided legalistic apologism you see.