Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 17, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Jeb Bush’s Optimism School
Climate Costs ‘May Prove Much Higher’




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
Lineages of the Absolutist State

Lineages of the Absolutist State

By Perry Anderson
$17.91

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Oliver Stone on Occupy Wall Street: ‘Grab the Power’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 28, 2011
Clemens Bilan/dapd

Filmmaker Oliver Stone attends the premiere of “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” in Berlin in October 2010.

By Kasia Anderson

The collaboration between director Oliver Stone and one-man political think tank Tariq Ali began not three years ago, but their mind-meld has already produced three projects spanning multiple continents and eras.

Stone gave a talk at Book Soup in Los Angeles last weekend to introduce their latest joint venture, the book “On History: Tariq Ali and Oliver Stone in Conversation,” a deceptively slim volume that delivers a hefty dose of historical analysis and commentary. “On History” is the print-based byproduct of hours of interviews Stone conducted with Ali—covering everything from the Russian Revolution to World War II, the Soviet Union and post-9/11 America—for two documentaries. The first, “South of the Border,” came out in 2009, and the second, a 13-part series with a title that promises more of the sort of provocative stuff Stone is known for, “The Untold History of the United States,” is slated for a 2012 release on Showtime.

Stone sat down to catch up with Truthdig about the book, working with Ali and the many places his own political and professional instincts have taken him. The full interview will air on next week’s edition of Truthdig Radio (that would be Wednesday at 2 p.m. Pacific time on KPFK). We’ll post that broadcast on our site as a podcast too. But in the meantime, here’s a transcript of what Stone had to say about the Occupy Wall Street movement at that particular moment.

Kasia Anderson: I wonder if you have a reaction or any statement about Occupy Wall Street and the movements going on on both the domestic and international levels, feeding into the conversations you and Tariq Ali had for this book.

Oliver Stone: I made some comments in The New York Times; it’s on DealB%k. We’d screened “Salvador” the night before at the New York Film Festival’s 25th anniversary, so “Salvador” was done in 1986, and there [were], oddly enough, street protests all over that movie. And you see the results: The death squads come in and they kill people, and they basically slaughtered in Central America the entire protest class. They slaughtered teachers, nuns, bishops priests and labor union agitators—everybody who was for reform got killed by these death squads.

And I was thinking about these protests in the film, and the next morning I went to Occupy Wall Street, and it was so peaceful. You don’t get a sense there that you’re going to be set upon by machine-gun-toting thugs who are going to cart you off and kill you, you know, there is a sense of security, and that undercuts the concept of the real protests. Seattle ’99 was rougher. But I certainly admire their desire for reform.

But the bankers have to laugh at this, I mean, they’re gonna shrug and keep walking. Nothing is going to affect them except the Volcker Bill, which is where it all matters. I was reading today in some article that the Volcker bill was originally three pages by [Paul] Volcker. … He wrote a three-page memo that’s now become 250 pages of dense bureaucratic exceptionalism. So, it’s very hard to get anything through in this era of lawyers and specialization, but essentially the Glass-Steagall Act has to be restored. So, you know, the bankers—everyone knows what they did wrong. They had a feast, and they partied on other people’s money, basically, and they continue to party, although I think there are some changes.

So, I wish them well, but I don’t know if the culture can change, because Wall Street is not just Wall Street it’s also Washington, and that’s a big. … I would occupy Washington. I think Washington is the one that needs to be changed the most, but you know, they tried. The Iraq War demonstrations were the biggest ever. More people objected to that war, and yet that was played down and basically trivialized by the media. So it’s a tough time.

Grab the power. Grab the power. ... Get these people out of office. Democrat, Republican—it makes no difference.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 11, 2011 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, November 11 at 11:54 am:

‘Two major problems. First, who gets to decide which things make it to your list over which the disconnect occurs between the ruling class and the general public?

Second, who decides whether a person,(as an individual or part of a faction), is part of the ruling class, or part of the public? ...’

Question 1:  Me.  I’m just guessing, based on what I’ve heard people talking about personally, and what I’ve read in stories or seen on interview videos.  Basically, a large section of the public, maybe a majority, seems to believe in and desire liberalism, the Welfare State, what I used to call ‘social democracy’ before ardee corrected me.  In what I would think would be a normal representative democracy, they would be represented by at least one party and a number of prominent politicians, and be represented in the media.  But in the contemporary U.S., this is no longer the case—the party which represented those ideas and the people who like them appears to have been bought out or neutralized, to have joined the other side.  I think the breaking point was either the cave-in during the debt limit pseudo-crisis, or the desanctification of Social Security and Medicare.

These events, along with high levels of unemployment and other economic malfunctions, have created the social force which changed a typical, easily-ignored demonstration by a few hundred anarchists into national movement by providing a large infusion of liberals, progressives, and others who would not normally hang out with anarchists much.  (I’ve said this all before; it seems incontrovertible.)

Question 2.  As I said, I don’t know of a good overall description of the U.S. ruling class, so I just make it up for myself as I go along.  It’s obvious, though, that certain people are making important decisions in defiance of public opinion, and making them stick (so far), so clearly there is a class or group of people who can do that, and clearly they are disconnected from the general desires and interests of the public.  I take it the members of this class mostly get along with each other, or we would see much more serious struggles for power between them than we now observe.

You can also look at the continuity of major policy themes in U.S. government history, especially since World War 2, regardless of changes in party and personnel.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 11, 2011 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie said:

disconnect between the general public and the ruling class about such things as Social Security, medical insurance, wars, bailouts for the rich, and other items already mentioned.

Two major problems. First, who gets to decide which things make it to your list over which the disconnect occurs between the ruling class and the general public?

Second, who decides whether a person,(as an individual or part of a faction), is part of the ruling class, or part of the public?

Actually we know the answer on both questions. The 200 Liberal Elite Occupy Wall Street Kiddies decide what the issues are. And they also have the authority to decide who is the general public and who is part of the elite ruling class.

Why is that important? Because the ‘general public’ gets special dispensation to speak and act, while the ‘ruling class’ does not need full Constitutional rights since they have money and power.

Who is in the ruling class?  According to Anarcissie, if you dont agree with the OWS method and goals, that automatically places you outside the ‘general public’ and places you inside the ‘ruling class’.

So a person could be dirt poor, but if they disagree with the Liberal Elite 200 of Occupy Wall Street, that dirt poor person does not get to exercise ‘full Constitutional rights’ since they are catagorized as part of the ruling class.

Such is the cruelty of the radical Left against dissenters.

Such is the method of the radical Left, which is the same old Communist approach that eventually leads to dictatorships and gulags.

Against that i must protest, but since i am not a part of OWS I dont have full Constitution rights to do so.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 11, 2011 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

I find the present elite control of the media and the institutions of representative democracy rather curious myself.

So do I. Occupy wall Street got much more coverage, and much more positive coverage than the Tea Party. That is really hard to explain if the 1% controls everything.

The press gave much more assurances that OWS is peaceful, while providing much more condemnation that the Tea Party is dangerous, in spite of the fact that hard data suggest the contrary. I have already provided the proof on that. i think you know the data but wont admit it.

I am especially confounded by soi-disants progressives, people who are supposed to be politically conscious, reading The New York Times and quoting it as if it were accurate or veracious.

I too am especially confounded by people who are supposed to be politically conscious, quoting Truthdig as if it were accurate or veracious. Especially knowing that Truthdig admits that it strives to eliminate any objectivity from its reportage.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 11, 2011 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic—I find the present elite control of the media and the institutions of representative democracy rather curious myself.  The people are not compelled to watch mainstream television, read the mainstream press, or vote for mainstream candidates, but they do, by and large.  I am especially confounded by soi-disants progressives, people who are supposed to be politically conscious, reading The New York Times and quoting it as if it were accurate or veracious. 

One could say that the present configuration of these things is what the people desire and choose, but in recent years peculiar things have happened, such as the disconnect between the general public and the ruling class about such things as Social Security, medical insurance, wars, bailouts for the rich, and other items already mentioned. 

Along with this situation there has been the growth of widely shared fear, anger and resentment which includes a sense that the ruling class has no interest in the desires, welfare or security of everyone else; or that it is perhaps incompetent. 

All this suggests that the ruling class and its hired technicians have solved the problems of preserving their authority and status in a nominally egalitarian democracy, given the existing social order and culture, so as to greatly narrow the scope of political discourse to their immediate advantage, at the price of freezing the ability of the political system to process social forces arising within it.

The Internet should be providing a large set of alternative channels to the mainstream media, but it seems that even after fifteen years or so of presence it has not taken hold in the public consciousness.  It was not until the pepper-spraying incident—if it bleeds, it leads—got on television that more than a small minority of the public knew anything about the Occupations.

I’m just scratching the surface here.  We need at least a book-length treatment of how all this works, but I don’t know of one.

Ozark Michael—I am convinced that, given a little effort, you can perceive the differences between the situations of the Tea Party (-ies) and the Occupations without my further assistance.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 11, 2011 at 6:14 am Link to this comment

The argument is that those who are outside the ruling class no longer have any significant input to the media (except the Internet) or the political process.  Nor do they deserve ‘special speech rights’, only what the Constitution guarantees.

The Tea Party is ‘outside the ruling class’, and also we are well outside the “elite OWS class” as well.

We deserve the same rights to chose a target and Occupy them, establishing a physical proximity that creates an ‘effectively offensive’ level of ‘nuisance’ so that our Constitutional free speech right is upheld.

Agree? Will you defend our Constitutional rights? Or are you like this Occupier in the video below who wont allow us to do a little Occupying of our own…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKpbD1kQaAc

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 10, 2011 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

——The argument is that those who are outside the ruling class no longer have
any significant input to the media (except the Internet) or the political process.—-
-


don’t recite them all again, but explain what no significant imput to the media
means and how this might be something new in an era when there’s more media
than anyone would have dreamed possible 75 years ago.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 10, 2011 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, November 10 at 6:10 pm:

’  (me:) “Uh, no, it wasn’t.  I said that they didn’t have the same resources, connections, and control of territory and media as the ruling class—the ‘1%’.”

ah. of course. Lets follow this step by step.

You are saying that the wealthy Occupiers(top 10%)... arent as rich as the top 1%, so the wealthy Occupiers deserve special speech rights. ...’

No, that’s not the argument.  The argument is that those who are outside the ruling class no longer have any significant input to the media (except the Internet) or the political process.  Nor do they deserve ‘special speech rights’, only what the Constitution guarantees.

I said all this before.  My messages were replete with examples, evidence, and logic.  I find it hard to believe that you want me to recite them all over again.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment

Uh, no, it wasn’t.  I said that they didn’t have the same resources, connections, and control of territory and media as the ruling class—the ‘1%’.

ah. of course. Lets follow this step by step.

You are saying that the wealthy Occupiers(top 10%)... arent as rich as the top 1%, so the wealthy Occupiers deserve special speech rights.

The rest of us poorer folk, probably 90% of the country, get no special speech rights UNLESS we agree with the Occupation elite. Not only that, but the 1% folks can gain special speech rights IF they support you. So it has nothing to do with class or money… your special speech rights are given purely on the basis of beliefs.

How perfectly Bolshivik of you, with your elite minority, that you allow others equal speech ONLY if we agree with you. You dont even have power yet and you already give or withhold inalienable rights purely on the basis of ideology.

Anarcissie, never pretend that you want equality for everyone. You only want it for folks that support your cause. Apparently everyone else can go to hell. You will brand everyone else as recieving support from the 1%(even though they arent) and that justifies limiting their speech. I think you will do it. Ah what am i saying… you have done it already!

If this is how you start when you are powerless, what will happen if you gain power? Power corrupts, you know. It makes every ideology worse, not better, even the supposedly incorruptable radical Left.

Should Occupy Wall Street succeed, we can only expect such inequality of speech rights to be codified. It has been done before.

This is hell that you are pushing us towards.

Brilliant, Anarcissie. Lenin would be proud.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 10, 2011 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, November 10 at 1:37 pm:

‘“(me:) If I may interrupt your badminton match with ardee for a moment—I imagine that most people involved in OWS are middle-class.  ($300,000 will get you a one-bedroom condo in Queens or Brooklyn.  You would do slightly better in the suburbs.)”

It is still much more than the national average. You painted the OWS kiddies as deserving special speech rights on the basis of poverty and lack of connections. That was a lie. ...’

Uh, no, it wasn’t.  I said that they didn’t have the same resources, connections, and control of territory and media as the ruling class—the ‘1%’.  Surely you understand that that is the truth, not a lie.  That is so regardless of whether they are poor, working-class, or even upper-middle-class.  The well-off can get a nice condo in Manhattan, but they don’t own newspapers and they can’t get parks named after them.

And that is the key to the effect of OWS, if you care.  Otherwise, it would have been just one more demonstration out of hundreds and thousands that have come and gone without anyone but the demonstrators noticing.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 10, 2011 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

If I may interrupt your badminton match with ardee for a moment—I imagine that most people involved in OWS are middle-class.  ($300,000 will get you a one-bedroom condo in Queens or Brooklyn.  You would do slightly better in the suburbs.)

 

It is still much more than the national average. You painted the OWS kiddies as deserving special speech rights on the basis of poverty and lack of connections. That was a lie.

You are still painting them as deserving special speech rights because of opposition from the government. That too is a lie as we shall see momentarily. Meanwhile, why not be honest? Why not admit that you think OWS deserves special speech rights simply because they agree with your opinion?

Anarcissie, in many discussions you have been very intelligent and honest. Why not just admit that you think Leftists are a superior class of people who are entitled to better treatment than the rest of us? Leftists are the good guys so they must acquire power to change the system. Everyone else must be made to sit on their hands. That is what your argument boils down to. Why not just come out and say it?

This Obama Administration opposed the Tea Party far more than he opposed OWS. Joe Biden likened the Tea party to Terrorists.

Nancy Pelosi accused the Tea Party of being ‘Nazis’ and ‘astroturf’.

Are you saying that such opposition from the government entitles the Tea Party to special speech rights?  No, i know you never suggested that. Again, this betrays your bias, which creates a political upper class of Leftists who deserve special privilege and consideration. The rest of us are merely bad guys who must be marginalized. Its that simple.

You say that government opposes the Occupiers? Really?

Here is Nancy Pelosi speaking about Occupy Wall Street:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=nancy+pelosi+tea+party+Occupy&mid=7CAE60AF026F427758BA7CAE60AF026F427758BA&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1

Everyone from from Governors to street vendors have made efforts to be nice to Occupiers but the Occupy rudeness and mayhem is wearing thin. Their sense of entitlement is becoming a turn-off.

We all know that with each riot and each menace of more riots, the Occupiers are becoming less popular.  Its no one’s fault but their own.

Report this

By ardee, November 10, 2011 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment

If I may interrupt your badminton match with ardee for a moment—

Firstly , it was Squash. Secondly OM graciously conceded , albeit after he was exposed .....

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 8, 2011 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

Ozark Michael— If I may interrupt your badminton match with ardee for a moment—I imagine that most people involved in OWS are middle-class.  ($300,000 will get you a one-bedroom condo in Queens or Brooklyn.  You would do slightly better in the suburbs.)  Their opposition includes such as Obama, the Democratic Party national leadership, the Republican Party national leadership, Bloomberg, Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, and so on, all of whom command many, many billions of dollars.  In terms of wealth, they’re on another planet.  That’s one of the chief points of the Occupation.

You don’t seem to know what’s going on here.  Oh, well, then, back to your game….

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 7, 2011 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

Oz,

of course, ardee IS acting like a nasty little shit with that comment @ 7:22 so
perhaps demonizing might be understandable if not wise.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 7, 2011 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

Oz—if you wanna go with “the devil made me do it” in
regard to ardee, I again must chide you for wildly
inflating.

ardee is full of gas but you’re crediting ardee with
blimpish import.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/investigations/hin
denburg/hindenburg02.jpg

Report this

By ardee, November 7, 2011 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

Poor Ozark, descending even further into the basement, one filled with overflow of his septic tank no doubt. The clown rearranges the facts, restates in distortion his original premise, which was in case anyone is really interested in what this septic jackwagon posts:

Police arrest records show that the average value of the home residences of Occupiers(at least those arrested) is over $300,000. The national average is I think $150,000.

Here in my county, a very poor area, I would be surprised if the average home value is $75,000.(I can provide the data sources if you like)

So, then , donning his orange wig, big red nose and large floppy shoes ( with all due respect to the memory of Emmett Kelly, a dignified and professional clown) he promises to post the “facts” as soon as he gets home.

As I stated earlier, home costs are not a part of arrest reports, I believe most are aware of that. Secondly housing prices vary , Oakland’s are rather high, but not as high as San Francisco’s, excepting the Piedmont area of course.

Bumphuck nowhere , with its high incidence of inbreeding , where OM calls home, may be comprised of trailers and shacks, not actually relevant to any political discussion regarding this particular topic.

Still awaiting how this crap spewing moron ( sorry OM I know its the cousins marrying thingie and not really your fault) knows who owns what home and what value is set on it.

But then its pretty obvious he doesnt know or really care, just another day in the life of a liar and disruptor..

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 7, 2011 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

it’s not at all a fact and you didn’t read the Daily Caller correctly (not that I blame you for scanting that e-rag).

I correct you about that. I read that e-rag as carefully as i read this Truthdig e-rag.

Besides, it isnt me that decided the issue, it was our resident genius ardee. Without his guidance i wouldnt have made such a statement. Read a few posts back and you can see that i was trying to assign the posh homes to older Leftists who shopwed up later and got arrested. ardee mocked that idea, shot it down with his razor wit. ardee wins!

So thanks to ardee its an established fun fact:  93 of the 200 OWS campers have homes valued over $500,000.

One more fun fact:  Over $500,000” does not mean “multi-million dollar property”.

On second thought maybe heterochromic is right. Probably many of them do. i mean if 93 of the Occupy Campers own homes over $500,000, chances are pretty good that some of them do own “multi-million dollar property”.

A new question arises. I wonder how many of the 99% are actually living the 1% high life?

Isnt that a confusing thought?

Its time for some transparency. These poor disenfranchised Leftist radicals who Anarcissie claims need special speech rights are actually pampered Liberal Elite snobs.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 7, 2011 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

Oz——Here is a fun fact:  93 of the 200 OWS campers
have homes valued over $500,000.——

it’s not at all a fact and you didn’t read the Daily
Caller correctly (not that I blame you for scanting
that e-rag).

the DC article is a “quick and dirty” check on the
property values of addresses that the detainees gave
to the police, not anything more.

There’s nothing there about any of them owning any of
the properties and there sure as hell is no reason to
think that living in an apartment building worth
millions means that they own a multi-million dollar
property.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 7, 2011 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Dear ardee

Since you did such a good job of mocking my explanation that rich older people must have moved into the Occupy movement and gotten arrested, lets stick to the known fact that it is just the OWS campers who got arrested. Splendid.  Oh ardee you were so smart to notice that i was only guessing. Shame on me and kudos to you.

So i wrote a poem which I dedicate it to your bluster and bad attitude, your insults and innuendo, which allow me to pin the police data soley to the campers of Occupy Wall Street. I call it Thank You, ardee


Oh aint it hard
to be an underpriveleged
OWS Camper.

Oh aint it hard
getting arrested as a poor
OWS Camper.

Then you gotta provide ID,
you disadvantaged
and despairing
OWS Camper.

From your ID we see your address
you poor Leftist waif,
Raging against capitalism
OWS Camper.

Your home address turns out to be a mansion,
manicured lawn, yes a heated pool,
worth much more than 500 k!
OWS Camper.

So the next time a friendly newsman
explains how poor and embittered you are,
try not to cry,
as you drive
your Lexus by,
OWS Camper.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 7, 2011 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

Dear ardee

You constant insults and inuendo aside, i assume you actually want to know the truth about the ‘poor underprivileged’ folks at OWS. Probably my mistake and you wont read it but here we go:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in-luxury/

Tell you what, ardee since you insulted my helpful and ameliorating(that means it makes the OWS campers look less wealthy) idea that rich older folks must have joined in, now i absolutely insist that we discard my helpful idea and stick to your oh-so-rightious alternative, that these are all arrests of the original young OWS kiddies. Thats how you want to play, ardee. Thats how we play.

Here is a fun fact:  93 of the 200 OWS campers have homes valued over $500,000.

Such poor underprivileged waifs! Oh yes and because of their socioeconomic backround they have no connections to power! They have heated swimming pools and butlers, but life is so hard these days because everything is so unfair.

Make sure you keep supporting exclusive and special speech privileges to the OWS campers, because life is hard when you cant find a parking spot for your BMW at Tiffany’s!

Report this

By ardee, November 7, 2011 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

Dear OM

I await, with breathless anticipation tempered, as it must be due to your rather shoddy history of making claims and then running far away from them, for your proofs.

I saw many signs in the several demonstrations across our nation. Not a one of them referred to the protestors status as homeowner or the price he/she paid for said home. If you choose to state that arrest records show said status, well, not my own such records, nor, I would state firmly, would you have access to them.

Of course a bail bondsman would need such financial information if the protestors had to post bond. I am unaware of any who did have to do such, though perhaps those few who engaged in acts of vandalism might , or , more accurately, their parents might. But then, as is true for the previous comment, you would not have that information either.

Now you add the “fact” that , from some mysterious place, “rich” leftists appear among the youths. Again your powers of observation are mystifying….actually you really do puncture your own balloons all by yourself.

Lastly, I would wonder at your stating so many times that your feelings were hurt at the opinions about your Tea Party posted here, yet, in a case of pot meeting kettle, you do exactly what you profess to abhor when discussing the OWS movement. Hypocrisy much?

Thanks for the many laughs you provide here. However I must state that, unlike your buddies, you do demonstrate a rather intelligent mind, a shame you waste it so frivolously.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 7, 2011 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

I would certainly welcome the proof of OWS ownership of such homes as well as inserting the fact that Oakland, California is not Oakland, Iowa. Both the apparent youth of most of the protestors as seen on video and the local real estate values make OM’s latest rather deserving of some thoughtful skepticism, unless, of course, otherwise verified.

If verified, will you find a way to ignore it since it doesnt fit your template? I will do the work, but will you be thoughtful? Be aware that rich Leftists have children and send them to college. So they have a very nice home address.

I am at work now and cant search the ‘net too easily until i get home.

And those college kids they have been joined by older very rich Leftists. Its a nice mix that got arrested on the bridge that day.

Report this

By ardee, November 7, 2011 at 6:35 am Link to this comment

Once upon a time there was a poster who felt that his duty to his political persuasion allowed him to make almost fantastical presumptions that those who read the posts here ( well from most folks) have no antenna for the absurd.

I would certainly welcome the proof of OWS ownership of such homes as well as inserting the fact that Oakland, California is not Oakland, Iowa. Both the apparent youth of most of the protestors as seen on video and the local real estate values make OM’s latest rather deserving of some thoughtful skepticism, unless, of course, otherwise verified.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 6, 2011 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

Evidently the blanket repression of those who don’t have power, money, or connections has not worked out very well.

and

the case of rightist groups is somewhat different because they do tend to have rich supporters and friends in high places (as for example the Tea Party).  A rightist group which did not have such supporters and friends would be likely to run into the same difficulties with the laws as OWS, or the Civil Rights movement.


                          -Anarcissie

Lets get to the truth about money, since it matters so much to you that you feel justified to assign extra speech rights to the Left.

Police arrest records show that the average value of the home residences of Occupiers(at least those arrested) is over $300,000. The national average is I think $150,000.

Here in my county, a very poor area, I would be surprised if the average home value is $75,000.(I can provide the data sources if you like)

Furthermore, the Tea Party out here never got a dime from anybody except from local members. Not one penny. So please. Stop lying.

According to your logic the underclass needs more speech rights… well, the Occupiers have NO right to assume extra privilege speech rights over us. The Occupiers are wealthy Leftists. The poor farmers out here deserve to be treated better than your cruel hypocrisy and double standard. You relegate us to second class citizenship with less free speech rights than yourself. Like all Leftists, you romance ‘the poor’ as a class, but you treat them like shit. When push comes to shove, for the sake of your ideology, you are a very cruel person.

Your theory that people on the Right have “power, money, and connections” is atrocious, insulting, and false. Your justification of less speech rights is malicious and dangerous.

You are so wrapped up in your holy crusade that you are willing to lie for it, a special type of lying which the Left sanctifies with a cool name: “agitprop”.  You lie to us for what you consider to be our own sake. That is a very Elite thing to do, and not at all transparent.

The Liberal Elites of the media are careful to say that “The Occupiers are all good, its just a random bad guy who caused the trouble”.  The media was never so careful with conservatives! There is an article comparing the tremendously positive press for you guys and terribly negative reports against the Tea Party.(data available if you doubt it) This proves that the Left is quite “connected” to the media in ways that conservatives arent.

As far as government “connections”, the White House compared the Tea Party to terrorists… while the White House supports the Occupiers.  The reason the police were cool with the Tea party is because we paid for permits, we were totally peaceful, we didnt do any direct actions or confrontations. It wasnt because we were “connected”. Please stop lying.

You should admit when it comes to money… Occupiers are rich. When it comes to government… Occupiers have support. When it comes to media… Occupiers get great press. When it comes to method… Occupiers have special speech rights.

You knowingly deny us equal rights on the basis of our beliefs. It has nothing to do with money, connections, or media. We have none of those things here while your OWS has them all. Your ideology of superior rights for yourself suppresses dissenting views.  I know you mean well, but how you justify double standard now… foreshadows far worse in future. Its happened to the Left before, and I see nothing different now. That nightmare might not be what you want, but you already justify it. 

Anarcissie, you said “I cant help it that I prefer my own ideology”, but you do more than ‘prefer’, you assign privileged rights to yourself. That sort of preference is not fair. If it succeeds, it will lead to worse.

I applaud that you stand tall for OWS, that you try to answer questions, but lately you scare me.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 5, 2011 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic—As I’ve noted elsewhere, the question of free speech versus private property has already arisen in the courts in various places, for example rural towns where the only public space is a privately-owned mall.  In general it looks to me as if different treatment of public space might solve the problem in places like New York City, where theoretically public space already exists and there is already rather variegated political discourse. 

Ozark Michael—the rights of expression and the desire of those with power, sometimes including majorities, to suppress some of the rights of expression are obviously an ongoing issue with no simple resolution.  Evidently the blanket repression of those who don’t have power, money, or connections has not worked out very well.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 4, 2011 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

“The purpose of the right of free expression is to protect offensive expression.”

Ah, but for you it must not only be offensive speech, it has to be effectively offensive to whomever you wish to speak against. The appropriate nuisance level is something only you determine, and the rest of us have to accept your decision and put up with the nuisance, which includes cost(we pay taxes for cleanup and police overtime), threat(your side mentions Bastile pretty often), and blame (placed upon us if your OWS followers do something wrong).

Since OWS is not petitioning the government, but instead wants to be a nuisance to a faction(Wall Street), I wonder if millions of people like me have the right to protest effectively by being physically present as a nuisance to the faction known as OWS?

Do we get to determine exactly where and for how long our offensive speech attains the nuisance level that we desire, by methods of ourchoice? And then will you defend our presence, our effective nuisance as the purpose of freedom of expression?

No? Why not?

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 4, 2011 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Ana——What I pointed out was the fact that the configuration of property in
the United States is approaching a point where freedom of expression,
association and assembly will cease to exist.  These liberal rights require
space.——

Interesting.  How would you substantiate that rather sweeping charge?


It seems that it might not hold for NYC————-


——“About NYC Parks & Recreation

Parks & Recreation is the steward of approximately 29,000 acres of land — 14
percent of New York City — including more than 5,000 individual properties ...”

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/about_parks.html

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 4, 2011 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic—I haven’t said (in this discussion) that people should not own property.  What I pointed out was the fact that the configuration of property in the United States is approaching a point where freedom of expression, association and assembly will cease to exist.  These liberal rights require space. 

The situation of OWS illustrates this.  They did, in fact, attempt to assemble on Broad Street in front of the NY Stock Exchange, a large public street, and were immediately driven away by the police.

‘Public property’, that is, government property, is not actually public; it is owned and controlled by the government, which in an effectively nondemocratic society like ours does not represent the public.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 4, 2011 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment

absolutely correct that the expression is to be, and must be,  protected,

the location ...... not so much.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 4, 2011 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, November 4 at 12:26 pm:

’  “So a group wishing to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances in an effectively offensive manner….”

What makes for an “effectively offensive manner”? Please answer that question. ...’


Sufficiently annoying to be noticeable. 

As a negative example, consider the cynically named ‘free speech zones’ associated with some recent public events, such as the major national party conventions, which were out of sight and sound of the people attending the convention who were its presumptive objects.  Clearly, in such cases free speech has been neutralized, politically speaking, so it isn’t really free speech any more.  Just so, Occupy Wall Street could have been invited to congregate in a park in the Bronx.

The purpose of the right of free expression is to protect offensive expression.  If the expression were not offensive it would not need to be protected.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie,

I have attempted to juxtapose your 7:40am comments with your 11:59 am comments. I’ll admit I am left baffled.

But then each attempt I’ve made to get you to answer a direct question has, so far, been met with contextual distractions and smokey verbiage.

What has been clear over the past week was first your unbending denials that any destruction and violence has taken place, only to you follow those denials with excuses and rationalizations as to why and how violence and destruction is, can I say, effective and righteous?

Quite sincerely: I’m not yet sure that you actually stand for anything. I reserve judgment until I see more of your opinions. If you could try answering a direction from time to time? That would help.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 4, 2011 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

So a group wishing to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances in an effectively offensive manner

What makes for an “effectively offensive manner”? Please answer that question.

And what gives you the right to be be “effectively offensive”, a right which we both know does not extend to me?

i want you to explain why i should accept second class status. Why can you protest using whatever you feel is necessary to be ‘effectively offensive’ while i must pay for permits and stay within the lines?

How does the Left end up being the arbitor of when rules apply and when they dont?

Come out and say it because so far you have avoided the question.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 4, 2011 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

iMax—You don’t seem to have observed that the Democratic Party leadership and Obama in particular have been identified as the ‘1%’ along with the Republican leadership and others.  How did you manage not to notice that?

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 4, 2011 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

Ana——-the rich don’t own everything although they own plenty.  and OWS in
NYC hasn’t assembled to petition the government as far as they can tell. 

They rather deliberately assembled on private property and they’ve assembled
to hector the banks not to petition the city.

They’re not in City Hall Park, outside of City Hall, public property and open to
the public 19 hrs of every day.


and while I understand that you have the idea that it’s not fair that people own
property, I think that it’s hard to conceive of a decent society in which property
rights don’t exist.
Perhaps we can concentrate on a more even distribution of property rather than
denying the right to have and control it

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 4, 2011 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

“the case of rightist groups is somewhat different because they do tend to have rich supporters and friends in high places (as for example the Tea Party)”

-

This is a long-lasting myth that very often hurts the causes of my left. It hurts by way of implementing strategy and by way of coherency.

-Fourteen of the twenty wealthiest individuals in the United States are self-proclaimed democrats.

-The twenty wealthiest congressional districts in the United States have been democratic strongholds for the last 30+ years.

-President Obama accepted more money from Wall Street, brokerage house, and lawyers than all republican candidates combined. More than any candidate in American history.

-A lack of money, or friends is high places, is not our problem.

The differences between, for example, OWS and the Tea movement are many. Not the least of which is the fact that 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative while only 20% identify themselves as liberal.

I believe we cannot expect to win in the arena of politics and social agenda by misidentifying contemporary American society.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 4, 2011 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, November 3 at 2:01 pm:

‘... I don’t recall saying that property rights trump rights of assembly. I do recall saying that property rights prevail when people assemble on your private property without your consent.’

The conflict arises when the rich own or control all the territory, physical and social, as they do, for instance, in lower Manhattan, and apparently in most or all other population centers.  This control includes nominally public spaces, for the supposedly democratic government is clearly a plutocracy.  So a group wishing to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances in an effectively offensive manner must either obtain the permission of the rich, (which means they do not have a right, but a privilege granted by authority) or violate the laws, that is, the property rights of the rich or ruling class (which in a plutocracy include the streets, parks, public buildings, and open spaces).

Ozark Michael—the case of rightist groups is somewhat different because they do tend to have rich supporters and friends in high places (as for example the Tea Party).  A rightist group which did not have such supporters and friends would be likely to run into the same difficulties with the laws as OWS, or the Civil Rights movement.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 4, 2011 at 3:45 am Link to this comment

hetero,

Seeing the same problems in nearly every city OWS occupies it’s difficult to accept your explanation and description of how OWS-NY is different.

Reasonable people will accept that in nearly every case, in nearly every place, the violence so clearly on display has been caused by the minority. But when we see these incidents taking place at nearly every ‘Occupy’ event we cannot ignore that these particular events, using largely the same language and signage, are attracting large numbers of people bent on employing violence. Occupy New York has proven the rule.  Not an exception.

I will repeat myself: It is the minority of Occupy protesters causing so many problems for peaceful, lawful, Occupy protesters.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 10:29 pm Link to this comment

OZ, the spectacle attracts thrill-seekers and hormonal kids . the free food and free
tents and sleeping bags attracted a lot of nYCs feral street people…..it’s not the
protest movement or the cause that attracts these folks….

so I’m going to ask you to consider that it ISN"T really OWS that attracts them….

and OWS in NYC is learning that it’s necessary to deal with the troublemakers
directly…rather than by thinking that good fellowship and reason is going to
suffice in all cases.

letting the cops come and take away the sex predator was an indicator that they
might adapt to life in the big bad city.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 3, 2011 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic said: “OWS is not violent in and of itself and has been infiltrated by people we do not respect non-violence”

OWS “has been infiltrated”... That makes it sound like secret conservative agents are causing the violence, which is the accusation that Anarcissie repeats over and over.

Try describing it this way: OWS attracts people who do not respect non-violence. OWS rhetoric inflames people who do not respect non-violence. Yes, thats much better.

Because it wasnt that long ago when the nation was closely examining the rhetoric of Christian pastors for what it might cause people to do. The MSM and the Left especially demanded that we hold preachers accountable for the unintended effects of their words. Same with the Tea Party! Last year a Congresswoman was shot and several Truthdiggers have informed me that they never will forgive the Tea Party because they felt our rhetoric caused the shooting. More recently the shooting in Norway got tied to both conservative speech and fundamentalist Christian speech.(read Chris Hedges ‘Fundamentalism Kills’ and read all the stern comments there) 

Now that its OWS speaking, we apparently dont need to examine rhetoric or hold the speakers accountable for the effect that their words have on others. So we have applied leniency upon them in the same place where there is sterness towards me. That is yet another double standard, which creates a socio-political underclass with less freedom than even the supposedly disenfranchised OWS.

heterochromatic, your friendly advice is welcome. When you advise ‘Left hook’ and ‘light on your feet’, I think i understand the benefit. Be aware that in the past I employed concession and compromise, circled to the Left, played by their rules. But at this juncture if i continue to play it that way, i am accepting defacto the double standards not only for myself but others like me. I see the double standard expanding as the years go by, so my acquiescence to it now will bind my children to worse in the future. 

I hope you understand that I must refuse to tie my right hand behind my back. Besides, an occasional right cross has a most salutory effect on those who dismiss it’s relevence to the discussion.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

the tea party movement was attractive to older people and to people who carried
around firearms IMax as well as lawn chairs anw walkers.. and the movement is a
spent force.
all its now accomplishing is making sure that the Republican Party ties itself up in
knots trying not to nominate a moderate Republican named Romney

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 3, 2011 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic,

I believe we need to admit that OWS - its disjointed platform, it’s “revolutionary” zeal, it’s in-your-face tactics, its undisciplined message, and its desire to “make news” has invited and attracted elements of anarchists, trouble-makers, revolutionaries of many flavors and predators.

While sensible people, I think, must agree that most protesters, Occupy or Tea people, have very little violence in them, I can’t agree that OWS is the hapless and helpless victims you portray. For most people it’s called taking responsibility. Your portrayal, I’m sorry to see and say, makes OWS supporters appear too weak and stupid to accomplish much.

Contrast

The Tea Movement protested in much greater numbers (500,000), displayed none of the violence or need for arrests, then returned home and got busy and stayed busy. These people involved themselves in elections and issues across the country. Even today, three years later, this minority group effects legislation in every Statehouse and in Washington.

I still say we need to take a page from that playbook and do something real and lasting.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

OZ, despite anything that you insist upon or anything that ardee over-defends,
OWS is not violent in and of itself and has been infiltrted by people we do not
respect non-violence.

ardee and I agree that the violence is not inherent in the people who started
OWS and is almost entirely absent from the OWS protesters in NYC.

unfortunately, OWS NYC is too naive and too disorganized and too reluctant to
admit that it requires help dealing with the predators that they’ve (semi)invited
to join them in the park.

I claim that the violence represents OWS, not because they really desire
violence, but because they won’t/can’t effectively disavow it or effectively deal
with it themselves.


not for purpose of condemnation but to illustrate the problem…...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/tonye-iketubosin-
arrested_n_1072367.html

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment

Many people believe in personal self-defense even when they are otherwise pacifistic.  Hence, if the authorities introduce the use of direct force, they change the political context by legitimating overt force (‘violence’) as a proper element of political discourse.

                        -Anarcissie

Please clarify who can employ counterforce besides the one person effected directly by the police. Please clarify how far that counterforce can go, for example can it be violent force? and then clarify how long are they justified to use counterforce after the initial police use of force.

Since we are judged by different rules(I would never get away with what you are doing!), I want to know… when does your counterforce become a justification to do something that you actually planned and hoped to do anyway? In which case the police were not the real cause for the ‘counterforce’, but is only an excuse for you escalate. The counterforce doesnt have to be violent, it might be a sharper Occupation, such as “Occupy the Stock Exchange” or “Occupy Citibank”.

If OWS is looking for an excuse to use ‘counterforce’, then it becomes clear why OWS created confrontations, where policemen are pushed by situations(that OWS creates) to make a mistake. Confrontations create the opportunity, generate a chance that one policmen will use force, which then allows OWS to express its political opinion in a much more assertive way.

That action of the authorities is not really the direct cause of your escalation, but a pretext for your escalation.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 3, 2011 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic said: “unfortunately, the vandals do represent the group in Oakland.”

ardee responds:

Why? Because you say so. The spokespeople for both OWS and OO have admonished those who commit acts of vandalism, have repeatedly called for no violence while in the midst of demonstrations and, immediately after such violence was committed , have decried it loudly.

Such admonishments didnt deflect the accusation of racism made against the Tea Party. We can decry racism as loudly as we ca,n but no matter what we say or do the MSM and Truthdig will be calling us racists.

No bad event associated with OWS followers seems to tarnish it,  even when the perpetrators identify themselves as Occupiers, and are committed to the same cause, and whose anger is stoked by OWS rhetoric.

There is no accusation, no matter how well documented, that can stick to OWS. I would like to know what special protective teflon coating OWS is wearing so we can get some of that.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 3, 2011 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

LOL…you’re an idiot.

My last three posts directed toward you were your own words from past posts toward others who, apparently, don’t care for you very much…LOL…I used your own whining crocodile tears….LMAO

Post away, idiot. I have no use for you.

Report this

By ardee, November 3, 2011 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

IMax, November 3 at 11:26 am

You get what you deserve. From the first you have shown no respect for truth, have distorted events to your own ends and are really fooling no one here I am certain.

That I choose to show you the contempt I feel for you is dependent upon the permissions of the administration here. Should they feel I am over the top they will delete the post in question and warn or banish me.

Cry your crocodile tears all you wish. They do nothing to hide the fact that you are an apologist for fascism and worthy of even more invective than I have so far shown you.

When you man up and post with truth and honor then perhaps you will be treated with such in return. As long as you distort and tell outright lies,as I and others have shown plainly that you do, you get the lack of respect you have earned.

Now to a more interesting discussion

heterochromatic, November 3 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

unfortunately, the vandals do represent the group in Oakland.

Why? Because you say so.

The spokespeople for both OWS and OO have admonished those who commit acts of vandalism, have repeatedly called for no violence while in the midst of demonstrations and, immediately after such violence was committed , have decried it loudly.

If , by stating that the anarchists ( supposed) do represent the movement you mean that in the eyes of the public they do, then you have the germ of the truth. But that fact alone lends more than a bit of validity to the possibility that said violence is from agitators with that very goal in mind.

Yet again, yesterday and today, police fired rubber bullets at folks simply standing within 25 yards of the police lines. Those hit included the man whose filmed reporting of the events we have here at TD. His report, on the news this morning, was that he was continuing to film and was hit in the leg by a rubber bullet. I guess filming now counts as a violent act? Further he noted that others nearby were also hit though no violence was taking place, in fact nothing was happening at all. I guess some policemen just got bored.

No comment? Or do you continue to insist that the police violence, despite the mounting eye witness accounts the plainly state otherwise, is in response to mythic movement violence?

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

Ana, self-defense really is an inalienable right, but there’s nothing about self-
defense involved with fighting with the cops when they toss you off from in front
of City Hall when you’re violating ordinances by being there.


I don’t recall saying that property rights trump rights of assembly. I do recall
saying that property rights prevail when people assemble on your private property
without your consent.

that’s because they have NO right do do that and there’s not a conflict of rights.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic—Many people believe in personal self-defense even when they are otherwise pacifistic.  Hence, if the authorities introduce the use of direct force, they change the political context by legitimating overt force (‘violence’) as a proper element of political discourse.

Some days ago we were discussing the rights of property versus the other rights, and you seemed to be giving primacy to property rights.  I did not get you to clarify or justify this opinion.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment

Ana, I thought that I had answered your question.  Oakland protest is not
separable from vandalism and police in Oakland employing violence doesn’t bear
on it.


which other, earlier question of yours did I neglect?

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 3, 2011 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie

Can you point out the answers to my request. My scan of this thread was found wanting.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 3, 2011 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic—Incidentally, you didn’t answer my question.  You also dropped out of our discussion about property.  Perhaps we’re just talking about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic, but if we’re on the Titanic and locked in the hold, what else is there to do?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment

I’ve already given my reasoning about the use of force by the authorities in various places.  There does not seem to be any point to yet another repetition.  If you didn’t bother to read it the first time, the prospects of the repetitions are dim, are they not?

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

Ana, there was violence by some of the protesters prior to Olsen getting struck
down.


what’s represented is an end to any claim that the Oakland protest is entirely
“peaceable”

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 3, 2011 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie,

I would appreciate any evidence you can show us which points out the violence that began with “authorities” against Occupy protesters.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 3, 2011 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—The Selma march and the
Greensboro sit-ins were physical occupations of
space in contravention of the laws and of the
rights of property.  If OWS is wrong, they were
wrong.  If someone says they were wrong, then it
is reasonable to ask what alternative action
would have been more appropriate.

However, OWS raises a more fundamental issue than
Selma and Greensboro.  The latter were protests
against the plain insanity of racial
discrimination and asked for no more than
recognition of the ordinary liberal rights for
the protesters and their kind.  OWS points to
the disenfranchisement of people not because of
their race, but because they are not rich.  The
rich own or control almost all the space,
physical in the sense of real estate and
municipal property, communicative in the sense of
owning or controlling the mass media and the
academic system.  They have bought up and
destroyed the agora.  As a result, the political
system no longer functions; it is frozen.
There is a fundamental issue here: the rights
of property versus of the rights of all the
people of the community to have a voice in
its governance and culture.

In order to draw attention to this problem, it
was necessary to recreate the agora, to set aside
some of the laws of property for the sake of a
higher law, the freedom of the people to express
themselves, communicate with one another,
associate and assemble, not hidden from the
public eye, but in the midst of the community. 
Since Americans believe they have these rights,
continued violence, explicit and implied, by
the authorities to refuse them is likely to
lead to unpredictably destructive consequences,
just as it did in the Civil Rights era.

Again, I invite those who say the Occupations
are wrong to suggest an alternative method of
securing their rights and pursuing their interests
for the protesters and those
of the people they represent—quite possibly a
majority of the population.  You have a broken
political system.  Continuing to abuse and
attack those who are pointing out the problem
is unlikely to fix it.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 3, 2011 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, November 3 at 10:34 am:

‘unfortunately, the vandals do represent the group in Oakland.’

There was some vandalism by some protesters—or quote-protesters-endquote—which was restrained by other protesters.  This was in a context in which violence has already be initiated by the authorities and lied about by the media.  So who represents what?

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 3, 2011 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

ardee-full-of-hate,

I remind you, and all who might read this, that you have not once tried to speak to said loyalty with rationale and acumen. No, instead you sidestep the facts I presented with off topic rants and now ravings. I hope your spittle covered monitor and keyboard survive your madness. It would be a damn shame to lose such a comedic performance as you offer with each and every sad little effort.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 3, 2011 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

ardee-full-of-hate,

“You have, from my first entry into this forum, consistently insulted those with whom you find ideological differences. Unlike a jerk like you, I do understand my sarcastic nature. You, on the other hand post like a “little” child. Perhaps what you find so objectionable in my style is a reflection of what you find intolerable in yourself but cannot face it….”

“So sad for you…..”

ardee - April 5, 2010 at 3:21 am

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 3, 2011 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

ardee-full-of-hate,

Lesson 1. Where there is smoke there must be fire.

“While I applaud your call to wait for the facts prior to leaping to possible false conclusions I cannot help but recall those (Occupy) rallies showing all those (explosive) armed and angry folks…...Smoke meet fire”. - January 9 at 7:07 am - ardee

Lesson 2. Free speech for all - who think like I do. - ardee

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 3, 2011 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

unfortunately, the vandals do represent the group in Oakland.

Report this

By ardee, November 3, 2011 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

Irony lives.

Another bullshit citing by the usual cretin, IMax.

The irony sets in when one discovers that the very first picture in his first link is a woman pasting up a request for nonviolence.

Those who are committing violence do not represent the OWS movement. I am certain that, despite the presence of the crepuscular propagandist, IMax, the vast majority here and elsewhere understand the motivations that cause it to crawl out from under its rock and taint these proceedings.

That there were, and still are several thousand demonstrators both downtown and at the port, and the acts of violence are few and far between is a fact that no amount of crap from the usual source can alter.

Does anyone wonder why we see no criticisms from the cretin regarding police violence. Of course not, the guy is a waste of space.

Hey, IMax, your parents should have practiced birth control.

Report this

By ardee, November 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

Why thank you,IMax , for granting me the last word. I will use the privilege to reiterate what I have already noted:

That I have absolutely no respect for a lying sack like yourself should have been obvious quite a few posts ago.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 2, 2011 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie said: “These were both contests over the space necessary to engage in expression, association and assembly.  They were, in effect, occupations in contravention of the laws.

Selma white people could have marched on the highway for some other cause if they wanted to… but blacks were not welcomed to do so, and were attacked. The immediate issue was not over space to protest, but over equal access to protest, and equal rights.

Meanwhile, OWS is about a prolonged ‘occupy’ privilege claimed by Leftists or people who support them.

It is a privilege which, if i were to try to employ the same method, would bring accusations of force and authoritarianism from the Left, accompanied by calls for the police to remove us.

This creates two political classes. Those of us who follow the rules, and those of you who employ exclusive methods. OWS is not about equality. Not at all. The Occupy method is exclusive to the Left, and would never be justified if the Right used such tactics.


The claim that OWS ‘owns’ the park is chock full of exclusivity. The irony of your earlier claims that OWS doesnt have equal treatment from the state or the media ring quite hollow. OWS recieves preferential treatments that other groups would not expect and will never recieve even if they did expect them.

I think it is a shame that you compare OWS to Selma, where people did not claim special rights, but sought to have merely equal rights.

One goal for Selma was gaining equal access to voting rights. For you to claim that OWS has anything to do with Selma is hilarious. OWS is not about voting, instead its about the dismissal and denigration of voting, and in that context OWS employs special privilege.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 2, 2011 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, Nick Lento:

“We are the majority, yet we don’t have the power.  Its time to get pragmatic and smart and to stop condemning ALL Ds as if they were ALL blue dog establishmentarians.”
_______________

All (D)s are not Bluedog (D)s, but all (D) voters have corporate obediently served to make America’s fascism be sustainable.

Yes, the corporate-state can rely upon its (We Aren’t Republicans) mindless millions of lobotomized Obama maniacs to fearfully flock to the polls in 2012, MovingOn to provide another popular vote mandate (again) for Goldman Sachs to control economic policy; for Exelon to control the energy policy; for ComCast to control the internet access policy; for Monsanto to control farm & food policy; for BigPharma & SickCare profiteers to control “healthcare” policy; for GE to control the “jobs” policy… for Lockheed Martin & Blackwater to be the preferred instruments of foreign policy.

The “progressive” Democrats keep voting for corporate party Democrats so they can keep protesting against what they voted for. That may be cowardly “pragmatic” but it isn’t smart for natural persons to subserviently vote for the corporate persons’ “electable” candidates.

I’ll be POTUS voting for Jill Stein, whether she’s “electable” or not.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 2, 2011 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

ardee,

Essentially you’re saying I was right about you. Freedom of speech for all - who agree with you.

You get the last word.

Report this

By Nick_Lento, November 2, 2011 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

>>>>“By traynorjf, October 28 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment
@Nick_Lento

There is a difference; the Democrats give you a shot of procaine before they
screw
you. That’s why Obama is getting his money from the fat cats and damn little
from
the rest of us. Wake up. The Republicans are not the problem. They are the
enemy,
and we know what we can expect from them. Our problem is the mainstream
Democratic Party, fat cats all, who continually betray us; the progressives are a
minority in the Party.”<<<

You make my point for me.  I ***AM*** for supporting and expanding the
progressive caucus within the D party!

There IS NO SUCH CAUCUS in the R party.  THAT is a significant difference!!!

The P caucus, imho, represents the vast majority of rank and file Democrats and
of many many MILLLIONS of others who are not registered and not voting.

We are the majority, yet we don’t have the power.  Its time to get pragmatic
and smart and to stop condemning ALL Ds as if they were ALL blue dog
establishmentarians.  THAT supposes the vote and gives the power to the Rs
by default.

Report this

By ardee, November 2, 2011 at 6:51 am Link to this comment

IMax, November 2 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

ardee,

What prevents you from making your point in a “rational and dispassionate” manner?

Are you simply too emotional?  Are you too quickly moved to anger and hatred when others disagree with you?

What gives?

That I have absolutely no respect for a lying sack like yourself should have been obvious quite a few posts ago.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 2, 2011 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

ardee,

What prevents you from making your point in a “rational and dispassionate” manner? 

Are you simply too emotional?  Are you too quickly moved to anger and hatred when others disagree with you?

What gives?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 1, 2011 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment

<blockquote>
heterochromatic, November 1 at 5:35 pm:

‘Ana,t “how you’re going to support the rights of expression, association and
assembly.  These all require space, as I’ve tediously pointed out several times
now.”


  and equally tediously I continue to reply that the rights of expression
association and assembly how been supported just fine for centuries and damn
well DON"T require “occupation”.’

See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches
and
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

These were both contests over the space necessary to engage in expression, association and assembly.  They were, in effect, occupations in contravention of the laws.

You might want to say how you would have dealt with the problems motivating the activists, since you think that occupations are unnecessary.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 1, 2011 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

Ana,t “how you’re going to support the rights of expression, association and
assembly.  These all require space, as I’ve tediously pointed out several times
now.”


  and equally tediously I continue to reply that the rights of expression
association and assembly how been supported just fine for centuries and damn
well DON"T require “occupation”.

“Stick and move” is often a better way to win than is squatting.


Occupation has the obvious drawback of denying space for the right of
expression, association and assembly.to any one else.

what do you do when Ozark and IMax and two hundred of their associates
amble into Zuccotti Park, pitch tents right in the center, and begin to Occupy
OWS?

Even worse, what happens when someone such as myself (not that I would) 
joins them, bringing his drum kit and proceeds to ferociously flam, paradiddle
and press-roll loudly enough to funk-up mic-check?

Report this

By ardee, November 1, 2011 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

IMax, November 1 at 2:12 pm

Posting garbage twice just makes for a higher mound of garbage. Not a single arrest is noted in this supposed “outbreak of violence among protestors”. The article smells, as does your usual tripe.

I have been to many, many demonstrations in my time, I have read reports of those same demonstrations that portrayed nothing of the realities I experienced. We both know that you are a lying sack of crap and that propaganda to undo the sympathies that a majority of this nations people are showing for the protestors and their cause ( our cause but don’t worry shite for brains we’ll do it without your help) is the normal state of such events.

Keep trying despite the obviously limited ability you have shown thus far.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 1, 2011 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic, November 1 at 1:20 pm:

the space of public discussion—-is not a private park,

and public discussion is not a space that one group can take over and “occupy”
at will and at length.

Then you have a problem, to wit, how you’re going to support the rights of expression, association and assembly.  These all require space, as I’ve tediously pointed out several times now.

One might say in the case of radicals that there were so few of them they didn’t deserve any space.  However, in the last several years, not only have radicals been denied space and therefore attention, but a substantial portion, maybe a majority, of American citizens.  I’ve already mentioned several public questions on which the desires and interests of the majority (according to polls, anyway) were simply put off the table by the leadership of both parties.  That is why there was such a tremendous response to what was seemingly a minor event, yet one more radical attempt to make some trouble, one more out of thousands which have had no consequences or response since the 1960s.  People who want a Welfarist system—I’m not allowed to say social democratic any more, or ardee will start to froth—are not allowed to have it.  In fact, it can’t even be discussed in the media or the legislature—only in the street.

Do I have to write this all over again?  It seems like an awfully simple idea.  Why don’t you at least take a shot at refuting it?

Report this

By gerard, November 1, 2011 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

redteddy: Regarding housing for Occupiers, let’s get one thing straight: Government agencies that can’t manage to house the sick and homeless aren’t likely to respond to opportunities like Occupyers. However, individual people are free to (and sometimes do) respond. Individual people have connections with institutions, private and public.  Once those individual people take their responsibility, good things happen. There are thousands of such people in New York City. Occupiers are offering them a great opportunity, and the worse the weather gets, the greater the opportunity becomes. (It might even lead to improvement of concern for the sick and homeless ignored up to now (by everybody except the police).
  Which reminds me to add that by far the most of this string of comments has been taken over by a
handful of people attempting to prove how rotten the Occupiers are.
  Why? Obviously because they don’t want the Occupy movement to “win hearts and minds.”  Which it is doing, in spite of all efforts to co-opt, to vilify, to minimize, to scorn, to misunderstand and to spray, intimidate, knock down, drag out and throw under the bus.Up to and including skull fractures. 
  Why?  What’s so awful about young people protesting that they have no job and little hope for a liveable future?  What’s so dreadful about demanding some semblance of economic justice and an end to stupid wars and a government that won’t acknowledge your existence except to listen to your phone calls or trace you on Facebook?
  You would suggest what?

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 1, 2011 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie - ardee,

I realize you each care nothing for the health and safety of others near these protests. You may still be interested in the issues and concerns of those effected by your hero’s ‘expressions’.


Report: Fights erupt among Occupy Wall Street protesters

Fights are erupting among Occupy Wall Street protesters, so much so that one corner of Zuccotti Park has emerged where protesters say they won’t go for fear of their safety, the New York Daily News is reporting.

Police officers also have been warned of “dangerous instruments” being concealed in cardboard tubing, the News says it has been told by unidentified police sources.

“There is a lot of infighting in the park,” a police source told the news organization. “There is one part of the park where they won’t even go at night.”

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/10/report-fights-erupt-between-occupy-wall-street-protesters/1

Occupy Wall St. Sanctioned for Public Masturbation

The Occupiers aren’t a political movement, they are a crime wave! It started with sexual assault, drug dealing, rioting and attacks on police officers. Now Occupy Madison has been denied a permit because of a history of public masturbation:

  City officials temporarily denied Occupy Madison a new street use permit Wednesday after protesters violated public health and safety conditions and failed to follow the correct processes to renew or amend a permit. …

  A neighboring hotel’s staff alleged voiced concerns about having to recently escort hotel employees to and from bus stops late at night due to inappropriate behavior, such as public masturbation, from street protesters.
  In addition, officials agreed further occupation should not be allowed to continue without restrooms on site to avoid further public health violations.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/occupy-wall-st-sanctioned-for-public-masturbation.php

-

A look back at each of your previous posts one will find you both expressing your revulsion and concerns over past Tea protests. All at a time when the nation saw none of the shenanigans of so many Occupy attendees.

You two (and others) appear to be greatly concerned with free speech for all - who agree with you.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 1, 2011 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie - ardee,

I realize you care nothing for the health and safety of others near these protests. You may still be interested in the issues and concerns of those effected by your hero’s ‘expressions’.


Report: Fights erupt among Occupy Wall Street protesters

Fights are erupting among Occupy Wall Street protesters, so much so that one corner of Zuccotti Park has emerged where protesters say they won’t go for fear of their safety, the New York Daily News is reporting.

Police officers also have been warned of “dangerous instruments” being concealed in cardboard tubing, the News says it has been told by unidentified police sources.

“There is a lot of infighting in the park,” a police source told the news organization. “There is one part of the park where they won’t even go at night.”

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/10/report-fights-erupt-between-occupy-wall-street-protesters/1

Occupy Wall St. Sanctioned for Public Masturbation

The Occupiers aren’t a political movement, they are a crime wave! It started with sexual assault, drug dealing, rioting and attacks on police officers. Now Occupy Madison has been denied a permit because of a history of public masturbation:

  City officials temporarily denied Occupy Madison a new street use permit Wednesday after protesters violated public health and safety conditions and failed to follow the correct processes to renew or amend a permit. …

  A neighboring hotel’s staff alleged voiced concerns about having to recently escort hotel employees to and from bus stops late at night due to inappropriate behavior, such as public masturbation, from street protesters.
  In addition, officials agreed further occupation should not be allowed to continue without restrooms on site to avoid further public health violations.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/occupy-wall-st-sanctioned-for-public-masturbation.php

-

A look back at each of your previous posts one will find you both expressing your revulsion and concerns over past Tea protests. All at a time when the nation saw none of the shenanigans of so many Occupy attendees.

You two (and others) appear to be greatly concerned with free speech for all - who agree with you.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 1, 2011 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie,

I “connect the exercise of First-Amendment rights with random violence and crime of all sorts”? You too have unique way of listening to others. A way of listening I am unfamiliar with.

Does a peaceable a shop owner have a right to expect to open his or her business without a group of people (exercising their First Amendment right) urinating and defecating on their efforts? Does a person have a First Amendment right to throw explosives at a group of police officers (Oakland) and fully expect those same officers to silently observe his or her First Amendment rights?

I too want Occupy to be heard. Only not at the expense of all other around them.

If I read you correctly all other’s rights are to be suspended if they get in the way of, or criticize, your expressions. - Do I have this right?

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 1, 2011 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

the space of public discussion—-is not a private park,

and public discussion is not a space that one group can take over and “occupy” 
at will and at length.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 1, 2011 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

ardee,

I’m retarded?

I’m retarded because I posted evidence of violence three times before you claimed I had not?

I’m retarded because you claim I was only writing about violence toward police when, in fact, I never confined my comments to violence against police officers?

I’m retarded because you make numerous mistakes in your reading of my posts?

You may wish to try reading my posts again. Try tamping down your emotions a tad bit. You’re making far too many mistakes.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, November 1, 2011 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

Ozark Michael—If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that the reason freedom of expression, association, assembly and so on are intrinsically connected to violence is that they require space in which to exist—the agora, the space of public discussion.

If the community’s rulers chose to obliterate that space, as they pretty much have in the United States, then to exert the aforesaid rights, people would have to create it, as by occupying (by ‘force’) space which had been denied to them.

We assume here, of course, that when the government or other organs of the state occupy space, it is not force, but when other do, it is force.

Or, we might say, that when the state uses force it is not ‘violence’, in the sense of illegitimate force, but when others, even if attempting to exercise their supposed rights, do, it is illegitimate and therefore correctly termed violence and treated accordingly (as by forceful repression, e.g. Oakland, Denver, Boston, etc.)

I have mentioned this reasoning before, but not many people seem to get it.

However, this still doesn’t connect the exercise of the First-Amendment rights with random violence and crime of all sorts, as iMax was suggesting.  Or does it?

Report this

By ardee, November 1, 2011 at 9:42 am Link to this comment

IMax, November 1 at 5:30 am

I’m sorry, IMAX, I just now realized that you are retarded. Please forgive me for the accusations leveled at one unable to note that you posted your “proof” after I posted my request.

Further, the “article” in question mentions not one specific instance of violence by protestors against police thus proves only my contention in the previous paragraph that you are really, truly useless to debate.

You still stand accused of posting nothing in the way of proof of your continued accusations of OWS violence against police or anyone. I would add that there are many photos and videos of police violence against protestors however.

You ARE Rico, Suave are you not!! There cannot be two such mouth breathers like he was and you are.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 1, 2011 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie writes:

I don’t think it can be proved that freedom of expression, association and assembly, or criticism of the government or the ruling class, necessarily lead to violence unless the government and the ruling class choose to respond to that expression, association, assembly and criticism with violence.  If you think otherwise, I’d like to see your reasoning.

I suspect you might not like to see it. But here it is anyway.

An “Occupation” is a bit different from “assembly”. “Occupation” by definition involves a low level of force. Lets test this type of so called “freedom of expression”, shall we?

If the Occupation feels more support and needs to step up the Occupation to accomplish something, they will need to Occupy something closer and more effective to their cause. What aspect of Anarcissie’s reasoning prevents them from doing so? Why, nothing. its freedom of speech.

And if the Occupy movement occupies the front lawn of government, what in Anarcissie’s philosophy should stop them? Nothing.

If Occupy decides to move into a government building and Occupy that, Anarcissie would have to insist its protected speech, its “freedom of expression, association and assembly, and criticism of the government or the ruling class”, and she would portray the forced removal of the Occupiers by any authority as robbing Occupy of its rights.

The only problem with Occupation is that everyone else(outside of the Occupy movement) is having their right to influence government diminished by such tactics. In other words, ordinary means of effecting change are diminished by the extra-ordinary means of “Occupy”. This means that non-Occupy people who rely on voting and other such means to effect change are being robbed of their rights.

Now this robbery does not matter to the Left, since the Left is in hot pursuit of a ‘holy cause’. Nevertheless, it is the fly in the ointment that has turned past ‘holy causes’ into nightmares. As Anarcissie is fond of saying… “It has happened before”.

I find it ironic that under an article where Oliver Stone suggests that Occupy Wall Street needs to occupy Washington and “Grab power”, Anarcissie speaks as if such things are provided for by the Constition.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 1, 2011 at 5:30 am Link to this comment

Also, ardee, is it possible that you skipped right my this post in order to claim I refuse to share sources which support what I’ve been writing? 

It’s not personal. Try not to make it such

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/oliver_stone_on_occupy_wall_street_grab_the_power_20111028/#435705

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 1, 2011 at 5:27 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, Oliver Stone:

“Grab the power. Grab the power. ... Get these people out of office. Democrat, Republican—it makes no difference.”
_________________

A supermajority of people participating in the provision of America’s popular vote mandates have been held tightly within the grip of the corporate party. Those prisoners of Power have only been interested in using elections to merely choose which faction of the corporate party would get more done of what corporate persons had already decided — before any votes were ever cast — would be done.

There is a definite difference between the corporate party’s Republican and Democrat factions; and the voters in the participating half of the electorate (the half of those who could vote who do vote) have been near unanimously content to electorally determine nothing more than only which faction would get more credit for committing the crimes of the corporate-state than the other — conservatives preferring the crimes to be committed crudely and hot-bloodedly, while “progressive” liberals have insisted that the continuum of crimes must be committed much more deliberately, gradually, incrementally and competently cold-bloodedly.

Now we have anonymous avatar agents appearing, advertising disproportionate displays of horror in reactionary response to corporate media reports of a few incidents of individual misbehavior dubiously attributed to the entire Occupy Movement. Others are shocked by the premeditated organized acts of violence, when police have assaulted peaceful protesters. What have all these advocates of absolute “nonviolence” been doing during elections? American voters have regularly, routinely provided massive popular vote mandates eagerly and energetically supporting the corporate (R) & (D) party’s criminal structural systemic violence in its domestic policies, and the ultra-violence of the gangster state’s foreign policies. The ballot box is where most “nonviolent” Americans have corporate compliantly chosen to calmly complicitly commit all manner of violence.

In 2012, those who want something other than a continuum of violence from government will have another opportunity, again — and this time will likely be their last chance — to begin to use elections for some good purpose.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 1, 2011 at 5:23 am Link to this comment

ardee,

Is it possible that you choose to close your eyes to what most people are seeing? Is it just possible?

From New York to Montana to Arizona to New Hampshire to Massachusetts to California. It’s everywhere.
-

Drunk 11-Year-Old At Occupy Missoula, Adult Arrested
MISSOULA COUNTY
http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/29545387/detail.html


Flier at Occupy Phoenix asks, “When should you shoot a cop?”
Copies of an “informational” letter were left on a table for protestors pick up [sic] and read during the “Occupy Phoenix” event at Cesar Chavez Park.  The presence of the letter was reported to the ACTIC by a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputy who had responded to an unrelated call and was alerted to it by another deputy working the event.
http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/3359/10/3359_1319803351.pdf

OWS Protesters’ Restroom Issues, Constant Noise Driving Residents Crazy
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/21/ows-protesters-restroom-issues-constant-noise-driving-residents-crazy/

Occupy Wall Street Protester Threatens Fox 5 News Reporter
Updated: Friday, 28 Oct 2011, 6:26 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 28 Oct 2011, 8:08 AM EDT
MYFOXNY.COM - A protester, angered by the presence of a news crew inside Zuccotti Park Friday morning, threatened to stab Fox 5 News reporter John Huddy. Police arrested the protester.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wall-street-protests/2011/10/29/fox-5-news-threatened-ows


Home » News » Crime
Woman charged with pimping teen recruited at Occupy NH rally
By PAT GROSSMITH
By PAT GROSSMITH
New Hampshire Union Leader
Published Oct 28, 2011 at 10:15 am (Updated Oct 28, 2011
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111028/NEWS03/710289961

Oakland Police Department #OccupyOakland Press Release Oct 25, 2011
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/100688407/Oakland-Police-Department—OccupyOakland-Press-Release-Oct-25-2011

S.F.Chronicle

  The owner of Sankofa African Arts and Jewelry said that on the two mornings since protesters returned, her front doorway has reeked of urine.
  She said her business has declined by 80 percent since Occupy Oakland began.
  “I really, really want them to leave,” said the owner, who gave only her first name, Ellen. She has owned her business for 17 years. “What they are doing is making business worse.”
  A camp supporter overheard her lament and shouted: “You would have lost your business anyway with the way the economy is going.”
  Ellen burst into tears.
  Moji Ghafouri said business has gone down 25 percent at her Caffe Teatro. Protesters also smashed one of her windows.
  “I’m a small business,” she said. “If you’re against corporations or big business, I’m not them.”
  Ghafouri said part of the problem is City Hall’s doublespeak – like banning people from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. and then letting people camp overnight anyway.

  “If they’re not going to enforce it, don’t say it,” she said.

Report this

By ardee, November 1, 2011 at 4:35 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, October 31 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think it can be proved that freedom of expression, association and assembly, or criticism of the government or the ruling class, necessarily lead to violence unless the government and the ruling class choose to respond to that expression, association, assembly and criticism with violence.  If you think otherwise, I’d like to see your reasoning.

As I have been rather critical of both the style and content of recent posts by you I would comment on this latest effort.

A fine and pertinent post, dear lady, and one that warms my heart to see the best of Anarcissie back at last.

This effort should be mandatory reading for the various trolls who smear OWS and refuse to show any proof of their accusations despite repeated requests for such. Does anyone wonder why?

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, November 1, 2011 at 12:34 am Link to this comment

iMax has shown his true colors by throwing out the “N” letter in regards to who is involved with OWS. Does the presence of an ‘N’ make you nervous? You know what, iMax, you’re just the conservative I talked about earlier. Maybe you’re my uncle, come back to haunt me? You don’t have a clue what’s going on here. I noticed none of you rebutted my comment about the violence in TBagland. Is carrying a loaded gun to a demonstration OK in your little distorted world? Just citizens doing their civic duty? And threatening others with bodily harm because they disagree with you ... that’s OK too?

It’s called civil disobedience, iMax. It’s called ‘in your face’ confrontation with the shock troops of the true occupiers of our country. And threatening a cop with ... oh my God ... paint and urine in plastic bottles and maybe a few swear words justifies having your head cracked open with a night stick? Or having your face ground into the pavement with a jackboot on your neck?

You forgot one little thing in you list of transgressions the OWS has supposedly done. Most of them are accusations ... not proven. In America (at least the one I grew up in but regressives like you have seen that this no longer applies) a person is assumed innocent until proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty. The same must apply to a movement. Accusation is not proof of guilt.

And let’s talk about the homeless in OWS. Some are homeless because they are sick and have been thrown on the street because, thanks to regressives like yourself, all the state mental hospitals have been closed down so there’s nowhere else for them to go but onto the street. But many homeless have, thanks to the greedy bankers and others like yourself, lost their homes and jobs and have nowhere else to live but on the street. The OWS encampments are protection for them against the cops and thugs who roam the streets looking for someone to abuse. They can get a meal and a place to sleep without having to endure all the hatred coming their way from ... you guessed it ... regressives like you.

One final thought ... kind of hurts, doesn’t it iMax when the tables are turned and someone dumps crap on you for stupid statements. Some of us got our fill of ‘your’ comment streams where we were mercilessly attacked for offering counter arguments. Welcome to TruthDig, iMax. Right wing crap doesn’t go down too well here ... especially when it’s offered with smug certainty. Truth requires more than accusation ... it requires proof and you’ve offered none. Quoting MSM newspapers that have shown themselves to be openly hostile to the movement does not constitute proof. And distorting facts isn’t proof either. You need to do a whole lot better if you want to be accepted into this group.

Report this

By heterochromatic, October 31, 2011 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment

y bob zimway,
Re IMax as goon:

People who commit psychological violence with immoral lies about good people
are as culpable as physical beaters

——

bob—-it doesn’t stretch as far as you’re trying to take it….... this is a blog with
a nice little group of people exchanging ideas and comments.

IMax is saying bad things about the violence in OWS and he indeed is saying
things that do not hold up to examination and is being a bit too insistent that
people accept as true things that are not.

this however is entirely damned fudging far from beating and sexually
molesting people.

I ask you to defend your point, and you certainly have one, without joining
IMax by also discarding reasonable perspective.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 31, 2011 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think it can be proved that freedom of expression, association and assembly, or criticism of the government or the ruling class, necessarily lead to violence unless the government and the ruling class choose to respond to that expression, association, assembly and criticism with violence.  If you think otherwise, I’d like to see your reasoning.

Report this

By bob zimway, October 31, 2011 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment

Re IMax as goon:

People who commit psychological violence with immoral lies about good people
are as culpable as physical beaters. But goon wasn’t the right word. Fascist
plant sounds good. Stay at home provocateur with a drinking problem say,
maybe with a right wing flak background.

A skilled Rovian who accuses you of what he himself is glaringly guilty of,
breaking the impact of your own attack, and reducing it to a quarrel that the
United States media would cast as two rational parties having a tiff. Except in
print he just lays it out and you spot what a dull turd it is.

I’m having fun here, but I’m not going to pursue this or establish a pattern of
blog drama. I just wanted to call him out.

Report this

By heterochromatic, October 31, 2011 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment

bob zimway, October 31 at 12:49 pm Link to this
comment
OWS is a non-violent movement being infiltrated by
goons.This IMax character is
one of them

——-
that’s a generally dumb comment. there are actual
people actually infiltrating OWS who are committing
actual violence.

IMax is being insistent and exaggerative and
occasionally assertive of things as factual when they
are not.

these are problems within a discussion…

this is not “goonish”

goons physically harm people.

Report this

By heterochromatic, October 31, 2011 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

Ana, the violence is connected to the “...character
of the movement (or whatever it is). “

clearly.

OWS refuses to define itself as intolerant of
violence in its midst…in a realistic manner.

verbal disapproval is not effective to people
indifferent to it.

and “preferring” not to report violent felonious
assault committed by people in the park upon other
people in the park requires measures that are quite
dubious…..but preferably to sitting there and
allowing the shit to continue.

the policy of inviting NYCs street people into the
camp is naive and requires greater thought and -gasp-
rules.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, October 31, 2011 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

Correction

It’s not possible to NOT be fully aware by now that Oakland protesters bated authorities with insults, paint, bottles, urine and M80 explosives.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 31, 2011 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic—There is no point in mentioning incidents of violence (or any other phenomena) unless one can connect them with the principles or character of the movement (or whatever it is).  On many occasions, as with the Civil Rights movement, the labor movement, the anti-war movements, and others, the exercise of First Amendment rights has ‘led to’ violence, but this was not due to the principles or character of the movement but rather the conviction on the part of others that the movements should not be allowed to exist.  There is also the problem that a number of incidents have been rather redolent of the use of agents-provocateurs.  For instance, during one of my visits to OWS, a young man appeared from the street and waved a Palestinian flag for ten minutes or so, while another person photographed him.  Then they both appeared to leave.  (It was pretty crowded, so I’m not sure what they did.)  No one else paid any attention to them, but then the next day the right-wing propaganda machine was on about anti-Semitism; one can’t help thinking that the flag business was part of a set-up.  It’s hard to tell because any sort of protest gathering tends to gather a lot of different protests, and there are people who genuinely feel that the Palestinians have not been dealt with justly.  In general OWS seems to have shied away from parallel, tangential and peripheral issues.  (I’m working out my geometry today.)

In perhaps related news, a story appeared today to the effect that the NYPD is advising the homeless, winos, permanently disturbed persons, and the like to go to Liberty Plaza.  I don’t know if this comes from a sense of cop humor or is another one of Bloomie’s devious plots.  In any case it seems like a great way to further radicalize those reformist liberals now in the clutches of the anarchists, have a good larf, and get iMax’s crime statistics up, without having to use expensive provocateurs.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, October 31, 2011 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

I’m new here. I’m in the dark as to how a few of you operate. Do some of you do what you do in order to pump each other up?  Is that the point here? Is there some unspoken agreement to lie to each other while being fully aware that you’re lying to each other?

It’s not possible to not know of the hundreds of incidents of vandalism, violence, obstruction of the free movements of those living and working near many of the protests. It’s not possible for all of you to ignore the rats, the rapes, the rampant thefts within these camps. It’s not possible to be fully aware by now that Oakland protesters bating authorities with insults. paint, bottles, urine and M80 explosives.

Bottom line. It’s not possible that so many of you have no idea how to use Yahoo, Google, Nexus, etc..

-

Harold Ford and Van Jones have a good deal in common. They are both dark skinned and they are both self-hating black men. Sorry, guys, you can’t rub your blackness off no matter how hard you try.

Marrying a white woman (in Ford’s case) doesn’t change anything. You’re still an “N” to the mostly white ‘Occupy’ crowed.

Report this

By heterochromatic, October 31, 2011 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment

we don’t have to argue about “hundreds” of reports of
violence. there have been a sufficient number of
reports to preclude ignoring them completely.

any one refusing to credit that the is a problem within
the camps better open up a eye.

Report this

By ardee, October 31, 2011 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

Please, keep it to the facts and try not to make it personal.

Oh dear, IMax, of course it’s personal. You are the next to last one here to speak to “facts” having posted none. Your other persona here, OM is just slightly ahead of you on that list..

But never fear, you are catching up rapidly. Just the same old crap with a new name atop it.

Report this

By ardee, October 31, 2011 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

IMax, October 31 at 11:46 am

If ,as you prattle, there have been “hundreds” of such instances of violence then proof should be easy to find. Where is yours?

NewsMax and The Washington Times most likely, or some supermarket tabloid, “naked OWS supporters riot in downtown areas”....

I do not hint that you should leave, oh no far from it. You and your alter ego OM are the best support the left could have.

Report this

By bob zimway, October 31, 2011 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

OWS is a non-violent movement being infiltrated by goons.This IMax character is
one of them. Harmless, but should be ID’d frequently.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, October 31, 2011 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie,

To answer your question: Yes, I am certain.

I did a search of local on-line newspapers in those cities that have seen some of the larger protests. These are local news reports of local events.

There have been, literally, hundreds of assaults on individuals and businesses across the country stemming from OWS protests.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 31, 2011 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

C.Curtis.Dillon, October 31 at 8:34 am:

‘... IMax: hundreds of reports? Sure you’re not reading the same news story over and over? ...’

It’s the right-wing echo chamber.

For example, if you Google ‘occupy wall street constitutional convention’ looking for Cenk Uygur’s ‘Wolf Pac’ speech you’ll find dozens or maybe hundreds of hits, all with pretty much the same text, bemoaning how the dirty hippie communists are going to take our freedom away by limiting the ability of money to buy elections and the elected.  Sometimes they’re just copied, sometimes there seems to have been a rewrite.  I’m wondering if there are just a lot of unimaginative right-wing web site owners out there, or if it is a thing similar to what Scientology used to do—set up sites referencing one another to drown out opinions they don’t like or at least push them down out of sight on search engine results.  Anyway, it would not be hard for someone who was already unsympathetic to leftist ideas and predisposed to think evil of those who cultivate them to imagine that there were ‘hundreds of reports’ of some crime or other, when they all derived from the same (perhaps imagined) event.  Although I do think iMax is a troll.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.