Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Committed Carbon Emissions Are Rising Fast






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

You Can Arrest an Idea

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

Posted on Dec 1, 2011
AP / Dan Steinberg

A Los Angeles Police Department officer stands guard on the eve of the city’s eviction of the Occupy L.A. protest.

By Robert Scheer

The bankers slept well. Their homes in Beverly Hills were not spotlighted by a noisy swarm of police helicopters, searchlights burning through the sanctity of the night, harassing the forlorn City Hall encampment of those who dared protest the banks’ seizure of our government. I live within sight of the iconic Los Angeles City Hall, and at first I thought it was being used once again as a movie location, given the massive police presence, as if an alien invasion was being thwarted.

Not eager to test the resilience of my new heart valve, I hesitated until the first crack of dawn to visit the place where former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and I had spoken weeks before at a teach-in on the origins of the economic crisis. I described the scene back then as a Jeffersonian moment, exactly the kind of peaceful assembly to redress grievances that the Founders of our nation enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But at 5 a.m. Wednesday there was only a graveyard of democratic hope. The protesters were gone, 200 arrested for exercising their constitutional rights, and only the television crews stayed to pick over the carcass of tents, books and posters, including one I pulled from the debris that read “99% you can’t arrest an idea.” Actually, you can, and the bankers have, as a result, been able to reoccupy Los Angeles’ City Hall and every other contested outpost of power throughout the nation.

The liberal Democratic mayor, a past president of the Southern California ACLU, was pleased with the efficiency of the “community policing” approach of his police department. “I said that here in L.A. we’d chart a different path, and we did,” Antonio Villaraigosa boasted. However, the result was the same as elsewhere; the bankers were protected from the scorn they so richly deserve and there will no longer be a visible monument to the pain that they have caused. To ensure a pristine, amoral town square, huge concrete-anchored fences were quickly installed to prevent further access to the public space surrounding City Hall.

Of course the traditional cardboard encampments of the homeless three blocks away, a sprawling and constant feature of life in downtown Los Angeles, remained undisturbed. Sanitation and safety issues are of no concern as long as such manifestations of deep societal inequality are so far from the corridors of power as to be, in effect, invisible.

Such profound contradictions in the application of state power seemed not at all to bother the first wave of government workers arriving at the various local, state and federal office buildings. I lined up with some of the early birds at the employee entrance to City Hall—the closed public entrance had a forbidding police presence—and told the guard that I was there with a literary offering for the mayor, whom I have long known.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
My gesture was quite pathetic. I brought him a copy of my book “The Great American Stickup,” which he had once claimed to have read and admired, to remind him that he should be arresting the real criminals rather than the victims of their financial swindles. For a confirmation of that point, I also intended to present the mayor with the transcript of U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s ruling this week rejecting the sweetheart deal between the SEC and Citigroup. The settlement, one of dozens like it offered to the banks, would have let Citigroup off the hook for a pittance in fines in return for closing cases involving immense corruption on the part of the bankers, who would not have to admit guilt for their crimes.

And crimes they clearly are, far beyond the scope of pitching a tent in a public park. As Judge Rakoff stated, the Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Citigroup with “a substantial securities fraud” in the sale of a billion dollars’ worth of toxic securities that were designed to fail and which the bank had bet against. Rakoff, who has handled a number of these cases, complained that Citigroup, like the other major banks, is a recidivist. Citigroup had already paid fines for four similar scams. The judge observed that “although this would appear tantamount to an allegation of knowing and fraudulent intent, the SEC, for reasons of its own, chose to charge Citigroup only with negligence” despite the far more serious charges called for in securities law.

The failure of the SEC or any other government agency to hold the banks accountable provides the essential justification for citizen action of the sort the Occupy movement has offered. In his concluding summary, Rakoff stated: “Finally, in any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth. In much of the world, propaganda reigns, and truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers. Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found.”

Count the liberal mayor of Los Angeles, a man I have respected and voted for, as one of those apologists for suppressing truth in the name of civic order. As I meekly allowed myself to be ordered about by the police clearing the area so that the concrete barriers could be installed, I wondered whether I had not been reduced to the status of a fearful whisperer.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Giving Politicians a Good Name

Next item: Weapon of Choice



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.

By heterochromatic, December 12, 2011 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

either that or the real point is that bullshit and hyperbole isn’t any help in deciding
how to change things, whether it’s making up bullshit about torture or saying that
someone who tells that you’re bullshitting is a “corporate shill”.


things are usually bad enough and we don’t need to pretend that they’re worse
just as you don’t need to pretend that you’re more informed than you are.

Report this

By ardee, December 12, 2011 at 5:11 am Link to this comment

The real point, aside from the one under your far too loyal democratic hat, is that we have a corporate controlled government regardless of which duopoly stooge gets elected. We will continue to be run by BP and Halliburton, Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil as long as we the people believe corporate stooges like you and refuse to vote outside the box.

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2011 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

Babble much?

I’M the one one writes Jill Stein for President everywhere?
writes   “vote in a tent or else you’re bent”

WTF?

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 9, 2011 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

ardee~~~~ I"M trying to make it about Stein?????

I’M the one one writes Jill Stein for President everywhere?
writes   “vote in a tent or else you’re bent”


spare me the talk about my family’s shoddy methods and your bullshit about
corporate shillings.

silly robot.

Report this

By ardee, December 9, 2011 at 4:19 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, December 8 at 7:49 am

Try as you will to make this a referendum on Stein, it is not anything of the sort. Shoddy tactics run in your family I guess.

The real point, aside from the one under your far too loyal democratic hat, is that we have a corporate controlled government regardless of which duopoly stooge gets elected. We will continue to be run by BP and Halliburton, Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil as long as we the people believe corporate stooges like you and refuse to vote outside the box.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 8, 2011 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

ardee ~~~~~”...Stein’s showings at the polls have more to do with the repressive
nature of the Two Party system….”~~~~


go and look up the data on the 2010 MassGov election….....


nearly 10% of the voters went for candidates OTHER than the big 2——-and STLL
Stein went from more than 3% in 2002 down to 1% ——-

she finished a very disappointing 4th, ardee.

you statement about the repressive two party system doesn’t really cover this.

Report this

By ardee, December 8, 2011 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, December 7 at 4:46 pm

That Stein’s showings at the polls have more to do with the repressive nature of the Two Party system is obvious to all with no axe to grind. Keep grinding jackwagon, keep grinding as you make a case for third party politics with each subsequent distortion.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 7, 2011 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment

and Stein’s not done a good job in getting even the
locals to take her seriously.

She run for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and
drew more than 3% of the vote.

and ran for Gov in 2010 ...and drew 1%....

running her for Pres doesn’t seem like a great wy to
win recognition…

but I’ll certainly concede that running her won’t
discredit the Greens the way that running McKinney
did.

Report this

By ardee, December 7, 2011 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

What I do think is that Jill Stein, others like her and those supporting her are
better served by building up local power before running a campaign for the presidency.
Get to Congress, or get known nationally in some other way, before deciding to
play for the White House.

What the Green Party thinks is that running a candidate for President is a necessity in order to build name recognition for that Party. The main thrust of the Party is exactly as you think it should be, to build successful political campaigns at the local and state level.

It has been a painstaking task, overcoming the monopoly of the duopoly and gaining ballot access. The Greens have had to fight tooth and nail to break the stranglehold of the Repubocrats (Demicans?) on ballot access. They are doing rather nicely in fact, as each election cycle finds Greens more represented than in the previous cycle.

Now we have both repeated ourselves.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 7, 2011 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

ardee= and a deaf ear and blind eye are appropriate for
dealing with your opinions.

Report this

By ardee, December 7, 2011 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, December 6 at 7:57 am

Your deaf ear is a perfect match for your blind eye.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 6, 2011 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

ardee- there are times and places when I agree that the either/or candidate and
parti isn’t open to influence from the left….. occasionally they are.

I’ve seen it happen that a Democratic Party committed to segregation was
swung leftward and moved into destroying segregation.


What I do think is that Jill Stein, others like her and those supporting her are
better served by building up local power before running a campaign for the
presidency.
Get to Congress, or get known nationally in some other way, before deciding to
play for the White House.


Of course, others may not be looking to try to change things using our political
system.and just urge us to vote for Stein as a show of contempt….

That’s up to them if they want to turn their hand to that.

Report this

By ardee, December 6, 2011 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

While the multicolored poster claims voting for any but the Duopoly candidate equivocates to spilling ones seed I would offer that voting for the status quo
is as much a waste of a vote as coitus interruptus is a waste of sperm.

Noone who votes for Stein, or any nonmainstream candidate, does so with the expectation of victory. That vote is both a recognition that voting GOP or Democrat brings about the same outcome and a visible sign of protest. The key being a follow up to that national vote with votes for the Green candidates in local and state elections.

The longest journey begins with but a single step.

Report this

By ardee, December 6, 2011 at 4:32 am Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, December 5 at 1:58 pm

You continue to drone on about being a martyr. You are not.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 5, 2011 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

Jill Stein has as much chance of being elected president as Louis Abolafia did.


Remember David…Voter Onanism lays waste our powers.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

’ We can only imagine what that danger will be”

Bonifaz on Citizens United——-(pre-decision) he argues against CU ...but hopes
that SCOTUS will rule narrowly

http://youtu.be/i15nKP7DkBk


he makes a good case.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 5, 2011 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

If there’s human habitable time left to get the Money out of elections in the Corporate States of America (a non-soverign wholly owned subsidiary of the global market state), that won’t be accomplished by signing petitions expecting the corporate person owned corporate party’s Republicans and Democrats to enact people’s democracy enabling amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

If voters actually don’t want Money to determine who is elected they need only stop voting for the corporate (R) & (D) party’s candidates who are owned by Money… and start voting for the candidates who refuse to be owned by Money.

The “progressives” are liberals who keep voting for the corporate party’s Democrats so they can keep protesting against what they keep voting for.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

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

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 5, 2011 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

The Wolf.pac might stir some interest.  Their website heading is
We’re the Wolf PAC and we’re coming.  “Money buys our
politicians.  Most of the money comes from multinational
corporations.  In the end, our politicians do not serve us; they
serve the people who pay them.  It’s time to change that.  It’s
time to end the corporate takeover of our government,” here.

They also seem to have their heads on straight, meaning seeing
that a unified effort is more promising.  Divided they don’t get
very far, united they will make the earth shake.

Action is happening.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic asks important questions,  There are some answers. 
Coyness, imprecision or vague indeterminate aims are misplaced in a
massive people’s movement.  Also the fringies who will always attach
themselves to what is a weighty body non-politic tend to bring looks of
suspicion from potential patrons on a movement’s intentions.  How solid
are the grievances is a qualified but reasonable question.  The movement
needs respectability.  By that I mean an energy that shows authentic
legitimacy.  It is not simply a rag-tag loose cadre of unorganized gripers. 
Without a Congressional vote, the 99%ers and OWSers, who are focused
both on the criminal indiscretions of the financial industrial complex and
with a fly’s hundred eyes to see and be able to display all the
imprudences Congress and the Presidency have freighted real economic
worries onto the broken backs of the devastated public, the “shock of the
now” movement will eventually fade and drip down a drain of history as
all anarchic movements eventually whirl away if some substance is not
crafted.

If actual 99%er people’s testimonials are demanded, visit the “We are the
99%” link provided in an earlier post.  Signing the Get the Money Out
petition is a first appropriate step but only the first in a series of
necessary actions.  The piece of paper with 255,543 signatures will
capture some attention but not so much as sympathetic and
compassionate Congressmen/women who will work to actually make the
changes solicited.  Ed Rendell, former Pennsylvania Governor, is a good
and visible voice but he is not in any position to effect legislation.  He
can appeal to his friends in Congress to join in or link up with those who
are supporters, like Dennis Kuchinich, Bernie Sanders, etc., and start
making the noise, no….the racket that will cause a tsunami in
Washington to Get the Money Out!

It is unconscionable of elected representatives of the people to betray
them, take their money, outrageously and criminally use it to enrich
themselves beyond staggering proportions, and then leave them shy of
dignity.

Some liberal Democrats in Congress are stepping up to the bar
here
Rep. Ted Deutch, (D)Fla., a member of the House Judiciary Committee,
introduced the first piece of legislation inspired by the Occupy Wall
Street movement last week, proposing the addition of a new
constitutional amendment that would ban corporate money in politics
and end legal protection for corporate personhood.

The Occupy Movement is over two months old now and protesters are
still dauntlessly active.  That is truly encouraging and teaching us all a
lesson that when people collect themselves together in unified causes,
they can instigate significant changes. Regarding heterochromatic’s fair
inquiry about scholars, John Bonifaz is the director and co-founder of
Free Speech for People, an organization dedicated to overturning the
Citizens United decision, and celebrated Constitutional scholar   
here
Bonifaz wrote the first draft of the proposed amendment to the
Constitution that would rebuff Citizens United and eliminate corporate
money from our political system.  See the entire amendment at the Get
the Money Out website at Leefeller’s post.

Then there is the other kind of vote, the direct vote of the people in local
elections to make sure politician are elected who will give their bond that
they will work on behalf of the welfare of the people.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 5, 2011 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

Hetro, well at least then, it would be local!

It can be a concern, but the local folks would be more inclined to be aware of this compared tow who the money is in super packs right now and 403 Cs pumping money from who knows where…..(China?)

I guess West VA. is a good example of local money controlling their own state, (The coal mine owners) if outside money was out of politics, then it probably would be local like West VA?

We could solve this by have the Queen of Hearts as our leader and she could yell “off with his heads”!

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

Lee~~~~ do you have any concern that if this stuff were law, then congressional
districts would become fiefdoms for a single rich person living within it’s borders?


If the mine owner in Harlan County wants to hold the Congressional seat and the
miner’s union can’t work for the opposition candidate…..and “outside agitators”
can’t come into the campaign…...where’s the counterweight to the rich guy?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, December 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

Many forms of life are being uselessly destroyed - by drones, roadside bombs, guns and other weapons at the disposal of our military. Yet, you do not protest such loss of life Michael.

I used to protest quite a lot, possibly more than you. Be that as it may, I do not have access to the same free speech rights unless i protest for life the way YOU want me to. if i protest for life at an abortion clinic, you expect me accept consequences. If i protest with OWS, i dont have to accept consequences.

Inequality is not going to pass as the new freedom!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 5, 2011 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

Heto,

“One of the little-known and most startling facts of American politics is that, on average, 80% of congressional campaign contributions come from outside the district, and largely from outside the state. Citizens should only be allowed to give money to candidates who would represent them in Congress. Giving money to one who would not should be considered bribery.”  Ralph Lopez on Truthout

http://www.truth-out.org/demand-get-money-out-politics-one-demand-occupy-wall-street/1320088085

Ratigan started the “Get Money Out” project with Jimmy Williams, maybe not a constitutional scholar, but an expressionless lobbyist (unlike Newt Gingrich who is an unprocessed lobbyist), Jimmy Williams who was disgusted with the money driving our government helped spear head the project. 

Here is ratigans link; http://www.getmoneyout.com/

There is some concern if this passed, only rich people could run for office? I find this amusing, because most of the people in office now are already rich, well rich compared to me and the guy keeps his house in a shopping cart!

Om even though I support unions, getting the money out includes unions, religion, and the mother of an other brother Koch Brothers, money out means just that!

I find the Lopez Article should provide even some food for the thoughtless!

Report this

By elisalouisa, December 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

Michael: Here is my new motto:

“Then it came burning hot into my mind, whatever she said, and however she flattered, when she got me home to her house she would sell me for a slave.”

I doubt it. Rather, she would tame you into submission until you fetched a high price.

Many forms of life are being uselessly destroyed - by drones, roadside bombs, guns and other weapons at the disposal of our military. Yet, you do not protest such loss of life Michael. War is big business. If you are so concerned about the destruction of life why not protest at the Pentagon.
Round up the tea baggers and head for the Pentagon rather than the abortion clinic.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, December 5, 2011 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment

My last post might be accusing some innocent people. I notice that ratigan included labor unions in the ‘bad money’ catagory.

My bad.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 5, 2011 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

I just don’t understand how if a political candidate campaigns on the promise to
destroy a union such as SIEU because the union is completely controlled by
communist/foreigners/ hates white people/ is a bunch of violent thugs ..

.why it is desirable that SIEU should not be allowed to rebut and counter
politicians talking that bullsh1t

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, December 5, 2011 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

Big money dwarfs and overshadows and overcomes individual citizen influence. That much is true.

Those Leftists who want big money influences taken out of politics never seem to get around to the big money that they like, such as big Labor, in which case the Union big money which dwarfs individual citizens becomes a good and holy thing.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 5, 2011 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

Lee~~~~~ you have a list of Constitutional scholars who support Ratigan’s
proposed amendment?

I’m thinking that it would be a very, very short list and that you wouldn’t have
difficulty typing it.


that “directly or indirectly” is a killer.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 5, 2011 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

Hetro, what is good or bad is defined by individual subjectivity,  when money speaks louder then people, when money supersedes we the people, me the person, all the living breathing potentially bleeding people who die in special interest wars, people who can go to jails, loose their jobs from money gone wild and possiblty other and the same people loosing homes because of contorted manipulations by people never held accountable,  people placing their bodies on the street protesting disenfranchisement at Occupy Wall Street,  many people living under crumbling bridges and even the people who are executed in the name of laws bought and purchased by the higher bidder of their defined law and order! When money is said to be speech and corporations are now by law to be considered as people, what does this say to people who live and die without ever obtaining copious amounts of money or the power of corporate person-hood,... Tough Luck! It says something else to me!

When money feels entitled to more tax breaks, in order to obtain more money by creating manipulated illusions saying they will create jobs,  we know it never (an absolutism?)  happens, so tell the ‘American Airlines’ employes who the real people are, the Corporation, and see what they think of the trickle down theory.

What should be done if one believes in the concept of getting the money out as I do? A good place to start may be to become acquainted with the link below, which was started by Dylan Ratigan and others, sign the petition if you find it worthy!

  Get Money Out
  http://www.getmoneyout.com/
  Over 250000 people have joined the fight to Get Money Out of politics. Add your voice to demand reform.
  Dylan Ratigan: Get Money Out: Making Waves

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 5, 2011 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

Lee~~~~~ entirely sincere….I understand the problem, it’s an ancient one, but
want to know the details of the remedy.

AFAIK, some of the money in politics is used to corruption ...and some is not.

Some is wrong ....and some is good and necessary to spur change.

” get the money out of politics” is a great phrase….but how ? and what are the
details, you little devil?

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 5, 2011 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

ardee````heterochromatic, December 4 at 4:24 pm

WTF?`````


when you say that corporations should not have free speech rights,  I wonder if we
know what we’re talking about, and I gave you an example of corporate political
speech…....

is my example unclear?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 5, 2011 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

“Lee~~~~ ” getting the money out of politics ” sounds great…..what does it means
in practice?

Well after the the last election where Red State Governors are beholding to Special interests, the 1 percent, the Koch Brothers, ALEC, Norquest whomever has the money, ....  you asking me what does it mean?  Are you serious?

Disenfranchisement is not a gleam in me eye nor is the concept of the 99 percent, money is not speech except after the fornication of bought and sold laws to the highest bidder.  Inequality is not a hypnotists made up out of thin air like the lying ramblings of a Republican Presidential candidate.

Even some in Congress are addressing the issue of getting the money out,...  crocodile tears are extra!

Hetro, Is your question sincere?

Report this

By ardee, December 5, 2011 at 4:09 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, December 4 at 4:24 pm

WTF?

Report this

By ardee, December 5, 2011 at 4:07 am Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, December 4 at 10:42 pm

Do you even know what it is we are discussing? It seems unlikely to me. To you this nation is a bastion of communism I gather, and all you right wing berserkers are simply poor misunderstood martyrs.

All have the same rights and the same restrictions. You simply haven’t a grasp of your subject matter and you are too dumb to see how each effort of yours digs your hole a bit deeper.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, December 4, 2011 at 11:42 pm Link to this comment

I said the following “For example, should the Occupy Wall Street supporters accept the consequences of the next OWS act of civil disobedience? Or should they continue to demand that the Occupation, since it is for a good cause, be exempt from any consequences?” 

ardee responds:

For example, making up ,out of whole cloth,some sort of demand for an exemption that does not exist seems pretty typical of OM’s descent into madness.

Oh, Michael, you mean that a constitutional guarantee of free speech and right of assembly is a “demand”?

ardee is claiming that Occupation is a form of free speech and also an exercize in the right of assembly. The police must not interfere or remove the Occupiers or they are taking away a fundamental constitutional right.

Ok. I have my own political cause, just as dear to me as your cause is to you. Do I have have equality with you? Do I have the same constitutional right to Occupy?

I would like to shut down an abortion mill for one day. My friends and i will peaceably enter and peaceably Occupy an abortion clinic. Direct action is our 1st amendment right. We will not be violent nor break anything. We will gather to sing peaceful protest songs inside the abortion clinic, which is an exercise of our right to assembly, and for free speech we will have a teach-in showing how abortion destroys human life.

Furthermore, just as OWS might shut down all west coast ports for a day, Americans all over the country might do the same to their local abortion mills, if they wish to.

If we shut down an abortion clinic for a day, would you say “that is how democracy is supposed to work”? In other words, do we have the same free speech and assembly rights as you Leftists?

Do you demand that the police leave my friends alone as we shut down all abortion clinics for a day?

Do you extend the same fundamental constitutional rights to me that you have yourself?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, December 4, 2011 at 11:04 pm Link to this comment

elisalouisa said:

In saying that one must accept the consequences of any civil disobedience I was speaking in a personal manner, not in judgment of others. I do not speak for OWS or can I say what the police should or should not do.

You seemed pretty sure as a personal matter that I should be arrested by police if I Occupy an abortion mill. But when the OWS takes over a port, you arent sure what the police should do?

Ah. Things become murky.  And now you dont seem to be so sure that OWS should accept the consequences for its Occupation, but Pro-life Occupation needs to accept consequences.

You are creating two different levels of freedom for people. The sunlit upstairs level is abundant freedom for folks who agree with you. The downstairs level is for folks who disagree with you, and for those downstairs folks it is like wearing chains in a dimly lit basement.

elisalouisa, you wave large sums of money at me as if lots of money should make me forget the inequality you want me to accept in order to get the money back. I wonder if you were the one fighting inequality, would lots of money make you resign yourself to the inequality?

And if you realize that accepting second class status for yourself will also accept lower freedom status for everyone who believes as you do, and also future generations(in other words it enshrines the second class status as the new status quo)... you know you shouldnt accept it even if they gave you a million dollars.

There is no amount of money that would make me sell my own freedom, let alone the freedom of millions of other people. 

First things first, and money is not first. 

Anyone who sells their own freedom away, even if its a little bit at a time, and each bit sold for a great amount of money, that person does not deserve the freedom they sold. The slave master who encouraged such a sale is no friend of freedom, but a lover of money.


Here is my new motto:

“Then it came burning hot into my mind, whatever she said, and however she flattered, when she got me home to her house she would sell me for a slave.”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 4, 2011 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

DonSchneider I was not mentioning your name in vain, but now I will! But you already knew that!

Your longer then necessary windy screed without paragraphs, which was said to be, later by you to be tongue stuck someplace where your head happens to be connected with cheeks! All seriousness aside, from what I could scrape from you wordy dissertation the content seemed a request for posters to keep on topic at hand and discuss issues like civilized,.... now I can only assume DonSchneider’s.  My attempt to ask you what your opinions on Sheers article was met with vain by none other than testy vainy insult, so then M DonSchneider, who happens to write in a familiar style which I may place, from what I can tell you have not answered my question, except to insult.

After I cried in me Tequila for about two minutes because it spilled,... Mr Vain your taunting tis a challenge which I relish with my Mona Lisa smile. Well, at least I received a response which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so one DonSchneider appears a vain hypochondriac tis sounding like to me!

Geezbeebiz on a quacker,.... ‘A Poster of threads past?’,  I suspect I know who you really are,... your sadly designed insults may have given you away!

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 4, 2011 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

It’s a laudable suggestion, but how does it get accomplished in a free society?

One way is how the Occupy movement is dealing with it.


—-Occupy hasn’t accomplished any change in campaign financing rules and
doesn’t seem to be on the way to accomplishing any.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 4, 2011 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

ardee~~~ too broad.

my band incorporates for tax purposes and produces campaign music for the bass
player’s wife run for the local city council seat and therefore the band has no free
speech rights and are prohibited from donating the songs?

Report this

By ardee, December 4, 2011 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

I wasn’t feigning ignorance, i was questioning how it could be corrected w/o
intruding on free speech..

Not feigning, obviously. Cloudy questions make answers difficult. Intruding on free speech as a result of attempts to correct injustices? I am lost, as are you apparently.

The corporation has no status insofar as free speech issues are concerned, or should have none. The person hood proffered upon businesses is an absurdity and a road to the fascism we see growing all around us. Owning politicians as corporations do they can make any laws they wish and ignore those they choose to

It’s a laudable suggestion, but how does it get accomplished in a free society?

One way is how the Occupy movement is dealing with it.

Report this

By ardee, December 4, 2011 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

For example, should the Occupy Wall Street supporters accept the consequences of the next OWS act of civil disobedience? Or should they continue to demand that the Occupation, since it is for a good cause, be exempt from any consequences? 

For example, making up ,out of whole cloth,some sort of demand for an exemption that does not exist seems pretty typical of OM’s descent into madness.

Oh, Michael, you mean that a constitutional guarantee of free speech and right of assembly is a “demand”?

Report this

By elisalouisa, December 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

Two things Michael. First off, to me Civil Disobedience is personal. In saying that one must accept the consequences of any civil disobedience I was speaking in a personal manner, not in judgment of others. I do not speak for OWS or can I say what the police should or should not do. That is why these are my first comments as to Civil Disobedience. I do not compare as who is arrested or for what reason, for each situation is unique and has a spirit of its own.
You say that equality matters more than money. I say there cannot be equality without equitable monetary distribution. Wall Street stole your money and paid big time in campaign finances and other ways to put puppets in our government.
Result, our government is no longer for the people. They have even more power now and are using taxpayer dollars to finance further shenanigans. The obscenity of it all escapes you Michael.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 4, 2011 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

She—-Census Bureau

——How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty

Following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Statistical Policy
Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that
vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s
total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every
individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not
vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price
Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes
and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing,
Medicaid, and food stamps).


Income Used to Compute Poverty Status (Money Income)

Includes earnings, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, Social
Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, veterans’ payments,
survivor benefits, pension or retirement income, interest, dividends, rents,
royalties, income from estates, trusts, educational assistance, alimony, child
support, assistance from outside the household, and other miscellaneous
sources.
********Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) do not
count.

Before taxes
Excludes capital gains or losses.
If a person lives with a family, add up the income of all family members. (Non-
relatives, such as housemates, do not count.)

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, December 4, 2011 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment

elisaluoisa said:

You do have a right. There, I have said it. But along with that right goes the concept that you must accept the consequences of any civil disobedience.

I can live with that. Thank you elisalouisa. If it applies to everyone, then it works beautifully. Civil disobedience comes with a price, and whoever engages in it should expect the fair and legal consequence. If everyone accepts that, we are really getting somewhere.

Lets make sure we have a deal. For example, should the Occupy Wall Street supporters accept the consequences of the next OWS act of civil disobedience? Or should they continue to demand that the Occupation, since it is for a good cause, be exempt from any consequences? 

I would like the OWS supporters here to please step up and give your opinion: the Occupiers plan to take over the entire port of a major city. Do you agree that its proper and good for the police to arrest them if the Occupiers dont get up when asked to leave? Should the Occupiers pay the fair price for their civil disobedience?

This is not advocating violence by the police, who must use the least amount of force to clear the port and arrest the protesters.

Dear reader, whoever you are, it is withion your power to demolish the obstacle, the obstacle of inequality between us. Although yes i am the one who pointed out the inequality, and did so repeatedly, i am not the one who placed it there. Nor am I the one who can remove it. That is completely up to you. You can keep the inequality there or you can remove it.

Do we all support the lawful arrest of peaceful Occupiers?  Whether they occupy a clinic or a seaport is irrelevent, since as elisalouisa says, civil disobedience comes with a fair price, it is a concept for the Occupier to acknowledge and accept. That means getting arrested.

No one gets special allowances, niether you nor me. No cause gets preferential treatment, neither yours nor mine.

Does anyone else agree?

I await your verdict. Hopefully everyone can agree, so my “obstacle” will be removed and we can talk about the issues so important to us all. For example:

Michael,can’t you see that Wall Street criminals have taken away from you big time?

Yes. Also we can blame the government. But you must understand, equality matters more to me than money.  I am not interested in establishing a new tyranny in order to fix the existing one. Thats why I did not comment on the money problem until now.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 4, 2011 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

Recherche de la Vérité!
Search for Truth!

heterochromatic where are you getting your facts about the poor? 
Seems like it might be true but I’d like to read more.  But are you
saying the poor are not poor because they get food stamps and
tax credits (on what kind of income pray tell), Medicaid, and kids
free school meals?  Isn’t that called reverse logic?  I am a learner
at the sociology of all this political/economic concerns.  My post
was mainly about the wealth of politicians and why the facts about
that without a doubt influences the blase attitude they have about
the real plight of the poor, and inequality that permeates this society. 
How to get the money out of politics seems to be the primary challenge
towards a cleaner political universe.

Seems like the Occupiers are after a little different animal than are the
poor.  Occupiers seem to be saying the financial industrial complex’s
exploitation of the American people regardless of where on the 99%
spectrum they may exist is anti-humanistic, who think and act as though
greed is good and poverty is the fault of the poor (the Ron Paul and New
GIngrich mindset) not that because of opportunities criminally fabricated
by the financial industry corpratocrats and wealthy to further their assets
and really to hell with the rest.  But it is better said at these websites:
http://www.thedailyactivist.com/
http://www.thedailyactivist.com/occupy-wall-street/
http://wearethe99percent.com/main/page_facts_income_inequality.html
Between 1979 and 2009, the richest 5 percent of American families
saw their real incomes increase 73 percent while the poorest
Americans saw their real incomes decrease by 7 percent.

And part of the manifesto of the 99%
We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are
forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality
medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are
working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we’re working at all. We
are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We
are the 99 percent.

Testimonials at: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

http://www.usdayofrage.org/

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 4, 2011 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

She, FWIW that 46 million people in poverty counts only earned income and does
not include the benefits provided to poor people via laws that have been passed
and are aiding people…..incomes tax credits, food stamps, free meals in schools
andMedicaid DO help.


There used to be more ...and there should again be more.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 4, 2011 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

Just some facts that might shed light on why it is so f’n hard to
pass legislation on behalf of the American people!  With 46.2
million Americans living in poverty, reported in 2010 which was
up 9% from 2009 at 43.6 million.  Simple math???  It is an increase!
...which ain’t good. 

A visit to the USA Today website at http://tinyurl.com/6t3v4g7
shows an amazing set of data:  the estimated net worth of all 530
members of Congress.  The article does give some analysis but a
random walk through the entire list can be useful for seeing what
their net worth might mean for a Congressman/woman to champion
particular pieces of legislation. 

The article tells us as of an analysis of 2010 data, about 11% of
Congress has a net worth of more than $9 million, or about 57
members of the 530.  It lists who has what.  They are part of the
society where a concentration of wealth resides.  But so are a few
other congress members:  there are 250 millionaires.  And the median
net worth is almost $900,000, or as reported nine times the average
household. But well-knowns like House of Rep. Democrat, Dennis
Kuchinich has a net worth of $33,503.00, four have zero new worth
(no explanation given) and 22 have a negative net worth.  Someone
will need to explain to me what that means as the article does not
make it known. 

These inhabitants of Congress has plenty to sustain themselves in the
time of a stretched bad economy. 

The demographics is that 23 House Republicans and 10 Democrats are in
the 1% where in the Senate, two more Democrats (13) belong to the 1%
than the 11 Republicans.  The Brookings Institute analyst reports that
Congress more or less reflects the middle class.  Generally Americans do
not disdain wealth, they wish they were wealthy, and are attracted more
to people who made their own wealth.  An Occupier DC said they, were
protesting people who make the laws are too comfortable, the
implication is that they cannot be objective about the public they
allegedly serve.  They are angry at members of Congress who live high
off the hog whilst the rest, the 99% suffer. 

But the reality is that there are currently 112,611,029 American
households based on the Federal Reserve Board.  While there are more
Americans than that who would be in the 99%, not everyone is suffering
but have an adequate income.  A very telling report: 
http://tinyurl.com/6g4mf3t  The median of all households is about
$100,000, range from zero to in the millions.  An almost negligible
different report is from Roll Call, dated Dec. 1, 2011, at
http://tinyurl.com/3pfsh6v  except Rep. Michael McCaul R-Texas is
listed most wealthy. 

Obama’s pesonal wealth is calculated at $7.3 million, Hillary Clinton’s
is $31 million.  Cabinet members are in the million dollar range with
different amounts of millions of dollars.  Obama uses JPMorgan Chase. 
For more interest check out http://tinyurl.com/cwwvlqm 
Well yeah, get the money out of politics!

Question is, how much net worth did each of these politicians start out
with in their elected office?  Gingrich’s wealth accumulation record is
grossly opprobrious (outrageously disgraceful and shameful).

FYI:  Money in politics.  iWatch reports 12/2/11 that in “his two Senate
races, Brown’s top five contributors included four financial giants:
Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance Co., and Liberty Mutual Insurance, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics.”  The headline reads K STREET, WALL STREET LINE UP
BEHIND SEN. SCOTT BROWN IN HIS RACE AGAINST ELIZABETH WARREN. 
So money is trying to usurp the vote instead of rational voters listening
to the candidates, making up their minds based on the political
promises, and able to figure it out for themselves.  Take the money out
of politics is right!  Would you see a completely different government?

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 4, 2011 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

I wasn’t feigning ignorance, i was questioning how it could be corrected w/o
intruding on free speech..

It’s a laudable suggestion, but how does it get accomplished in a free society?

Report this

By ardee, December 4, 2011 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

It seems, at least to me, an impossible absurdity that a poster would profess to know nothing of the massive inequities and irregularities of our current political situation vis-a-vis the money poured into it in order to affect an outcome favorable to the large contributor.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 4, 2011 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Lee~~~~ ” getting the money out of politics ” sounds great…..what does it means
in practice?


pols shouldn’t take bribes and there probably are laws against offering and
accepting them, but people certainly do have a right to use their money in attempt
to influence policies.

it’s damned hard to strip out all money without stripping rights.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 4, 2011 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

When I say the country is crumbling from within, I may be just emulating me older mental disorder, like in the past people thought Elvis Presley was the crumbling of our country?

She, the bumper sticker; “Question Authority” is something liberals do through very different eyes then a conservative does with blinders one!

She when you say; “exposed as virtuous!” I take it to mean politicians exposed as caring for the people who they are supposed to represent, opposed to the politician not representing the people who voted for instead representing the few or the ones who paid for them to win the election?

There may be some virtuous Repulcians, (hidden in a great black hole)  Any virtuous politicians should be announced to the world like the second coming of gebeebiz! On the other hand people need should be aware of politicians who are the bought and sold by the self entitled few, like Norquest, Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, ALEC, the Chamber of Commerce, and less importantly Ozark Michael!

Occupy does not seem mostly anarchist because if they were I would not be one of the 99 percent nor would Occupy be a part of 99 percent, and even more to the point, Occupy does not seem to be Libertarian either? I may be mixing my Libertarians with my anarchists, but they both seem more simpler then not?

As for the Democrats, they are not exclusive in virtue, but they appear more compassionate, and more likely to have integrity and seem to have something clearly lacking in Repulcians called scruples. Democrats appear as a whole to be inclined to support the populous then the Repulcians who clearly represent the 1 percent.

We need to get the money out of Politics!

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 4, 2011 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

In the early 1960s few people who wanted an end to segregation would have
expected that the Democratic Party could be the vehicle that would drive it out.

Doubtful that it would be easier to effect economic reform via a third party at
present.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 4, 2011 at 10:16 am Link to this comment

Leefeller – Dec. 4, 6:36am If the country is “crumbling from within”
then that is important enough to take a very close look to see exactly
what is crumbling, what exactly is not.  It is a little too easy to assess
an abstract situation as if it precisely illustrated a real situation. 
People tend to glom onto abstract ideas and run amuck with raging
emotions about them.  A country’s crumbling must by its very volatile
nature, be the most important crucial issue it could face!  For if its
crumbling is inexorably complete, there will be no country, only
shambles left, like Haiti after the earthquake hit.  Anarchists are
very much into that!  But the OWSers who have called themselves
anarchists do not represent the entire OWS movement as I’ve also
heard other OWSers say they want a change in government, not a
destruction of the entire government.  They want a government that
actually protects the people from these corruptions you speak of, and
actually administers social programs that are more efficiently done by
an organized structure with a particular focus on the inequality and
corruption of the financial industry that has left it horribly lopsided with
an obscene amount of the nations wealth gained by illegal and immoral
means at the expense of the public’s good and welfare programs. 

While my gut feeling is to agree with you, it also wants to know why
Democrats can be the only alternative to changing the Republican grip
on the government?  There are many who are extolling the virtues of
creating another third party, even though there is historical evidence
that third parties rarely if ever succeed at a national level in changing
regimes.  And it would be a ‘regime’ change, since politicians regardless
of ideological genes are subject to creating a dynastic system, cronyism
is not limited only to Republicans!  But, there must be some politicians
who have not fallen into the abysmal political well, who need to be
exposed as virtuous!  I think they must be few in number and Bernie
Sanders comes to mind first, who is not a Democrat, is actually an
Independent, but always votes for Democratic issues. 

Recherche de la Vérité!?
Search for Truth!
So what other idea shall be arrested today?  Put in jail?  A term that really
needs to be given consideration is authoritarianism.  Then sort out who
are the authoritarians so that our sites are directed in their removal and
replaced with a doctrinal change from a population’s obedience to a
controlling system to a democratic one where the people are more in
direct control of their own lives within the boundaries of a society,
collectively as well as individually.  This literally is the liberal idea and
antithetical to conservatism in its early 21st century incarnation.

So we need definitions to be clear what is authoritarianism, who are the
authoritarians in our society, and what it means to be a liberal…and
conservative, today, for the political positions have changed over the
past hundred years.

Report this

By elisalouisa, December 4, 2011 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

Kindly quote to me Michael where I have ever written that you do not have a right to “Occupy.” In fact, I have deliberately refrained from such comments. You do have a right. There, I have said it. But along with that right goes the concept that
you must accept the consequences of any civil disobedience. People can “occupy.”  Government will be heavy handed about it while promoting the concept of fairness. As to cost of government response? We all pay. The difference between you and me is that I don’t mind paying. Just think of how many of my tax dollars go for weapons that kill and maim? At least OWS protests do push government back somewhat. There will always be inequality. Those who have the upper hand call the shots, fair or not. The issue here is government handing over Wall Street taxpayer money without accountability. Wall Street in turn giving themselves fat bonuses and covering their criminals acts with the help of government. You refuse to address this issue that is destroying our country while placing the inequality of treatment by the police as to OWS and Tea baggers as your primary issue. Yes, that does concern me.

Report this

By ardee, December 4, 2011 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

As for the rest of you, my what a double standard you have! You demand speech rights for yourselves which you deny to me.

In your own mind you are an aggrieved minority, in my mind you are completely insane. Time and again you have been assured that the rights of free speech are not dependent upon political leanings but are the law of the land. Time and again you have been reminded of the times when your own Tea Party has assembled carrying loaded weaponry, including so-called assault rifles, yet have not been arrested or even hassled.

Time and again you prove yourself a very disturbed person.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 4, 2011 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

“Leefeller calls it ‘placing obstacles’ and ‘off topic’. Ah, but the problem of inequality remains, May inequality always be an obstacle to those who foist it upon others!”

OM, you do realize most of your tripe appears as full throttled tripe? I suspcet you do know this!

I have not seen one positive contribution from you OM, nothing indicating an inkling of discussion regarding the topic at hand, except to play the self righteous victim and one of sad repute at that, always with the deluded self serving distractions as some sort of deviation from any real discussion, it is always about OM!

Senseless dribble becomes you OM, it is your M.O.!
My dribble is superior to your dribble!

Now I suspect why you have never addressed inequality, because you either do not believe in it or have no comprehension to what it means.

Hunky Geebibiz on a cracker OM,... a real stretch would be anyone possibly expecting you OM wanting or capable of comprehending the concept of disenfranchisement, unfairness, and injustice and even a turkey neck stretch expecting OM to accept Occupy s message of 99 percent compared to the one percent!

Of course OM, as always you are so Tea Bagger right!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 4, 2011 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

DonSchneider, Well thanks for making your point of view clear it shrivels your sense of humor!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, December 4, 2011 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Outraged asks:

Honestly OM, what are you talking about?

Concerning the use of nunchakus and the broken arm which on the one hand you are claiming to remember from news coverage but on the other hand you are saying you didnt see, please be so kind as to check again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCIyacAk0xE

At 3:13, 3:28, 3:38, and 6:13 you will look closely and see two magic black sticks that form a ‘V’ on the protester’s arm or wrist. I call them “magic sticks” because somehow they remain together but Leftist mainstream media cannot see how they are joined.

Except they are not “magic sticks”. They have a chain that holds them together. The policeman wraps the chain tightly against/around an arm or wrist. But with his bare hands he cannot tighten them enough to hurt very much. However, employing the magic sticks, the policeman can tighten that chain by using the sticks as a double lever, and the protester’s own limb as a fulcrum. It is like getting your arm trapped in a car door.

The police admitted to using the nunchakus by the way, as you heard the excuse given by police which the narrator quotes, “the protesters had an unusual capacity to withstand pain” which meant police had to use more pain to force us to get up and walk becasue we are crazy fanatics. That was the police rationale for using nunchakus on peaceful protesters.

I dont think the Leftist government will use them on you guys. They dont actually hate you that much.

As for the broken arm. There were two in the video, unless you want to call them magic arms for their ability to bend in the middle of the bone. The one at 3:40 is rather obvious. Do you need the xrays to prove it?

The nunchakus deliver an incredible amount of force and the policeman only needs a little effort to use them. You can hardly notice nunchakus and in fact you didnt see them at first glance. Compare that to the 1:12 mark where the police(without nunchakus) are trying to force the Pro Life Occupier to comply and get up and walk. They have to work and work with their bare hands, continually and obviously twisting and torturing to gain compliance but it still didnt work. Not only that, it makes the police look bad.

The nunchakus are the weapon of choice by the LAPD on Pro Life Occupiers. No one noticed then, and no one notices now.

Report this
DonSchneider's avatar

By DonSchneider, December 4, 2011 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

Before questioning it would be good to read posts other than your own !

Report this

By elisalouisa, December 4, 2011 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

The fact must be faced that although many sympathize with OWS, most do not agree with the tactic of setting up camp there. There will be no rebellion, especially as long as there are Food Stamps. The “people” shall meekly go to their graves refusing to realize the criminal takeover of their finances and freedom.
Democratic Capitalism has been squelched by the power/elite.  Those in high places, some in the John Birch Society, influenced the Republican Party and groomed Ronnie for the puppet role he was to play. That has been the pattern ever since as to our Presidents. There are no loyalties, either in government or Wall Street, to the people of America. Global control of finances is more important to the oligarchy. The Bailout used taxpayer money to help accomplish this.  No wonder the unemployed and homeless are ignored.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, December 4, 2011 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

First, Outraged, thank you for discussing this issue, and you are the closest I have ever gotten to being treated as an equal. No one else here has ever done that and I am shocked. Let me make sure this is real: Are you are saying that I have the same right to Occupy an abortion clinic that you have to Occupy a bank or a port?

As an aside, there is another person who is being very fair about this. heterochromaticc is saying that any Occupation protest which attempts to commandeer or to shut down any public or private property needs to be treated the same way. he isnt for brutality, but he is for equal treatment. Left or Right, it matters not to heretochomatic. I respect that very much. I see how much he is hated for being fair.

As for the rest of you, my what a double standard you have! You demand speech rights for yourselves which you deny to me.

My utmost concern, my primary point… at this time is not abortion… it is equality. In response to my post elisalouisa said:

Michael,can’t you see that Wall Street criminals have taken away from you big time? That is but one reason for these protests.  Do not fall for the rhetoric of how much such protests cost when the taxpayers are protesting the billions taken from them by Wall Street criminals.


Please do not keep telling me how important your cause is. Instead, make it clear why you should have a right to Occupy and I should not. What sort of free speech right is Occupation, if only some people can use it for only certain causes?  This is a huge problem, one i have posed to you over and over. Leefeller calls it ‘placing obstacles’ and ‘off topic’. Ah, but the problem of inequality remains, May inequality always be an obstacle to those who foist it upon others!

No one ever explains that inequality problem. My own guess as to why you do that? You think your ideology is evidence that you have evolved beyond me, and thus you deserve special rights, such as the right to Occupy, which the rest of us cannot be relied on to use correctly. So you reserve it for yourself and your cause. This creates for you great freedom, and by comparison it forges chains for me.

But i assure you, we are all human beings equally. And we will have the same rights, one way or the other.

One more point. What should I make of you elisalouisa, when you speak to me in a friendly way, addressing me by name as if you have freindly concern for me, while as the basis of our friendship you place chains upon me?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 4, 2011 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

DonSchneider, now that was a short and sweet comment,  you mentioned in some earlier posts something about wanting to discuss issues, I may have missed the issues comments?  I have no idea what side of the fence you may be sitting on, there are so many who post here who do their patronizing from one side of their mouths then dissing from the other suggesting crumpets of shrilldom, trolldom and hard windy pontifications suggesting nothing but hot air!

Our country seems to be enveloped in corruption while it is crumbling from within.  We have a representative government, representing only the few, the symbolic 1 percent.  A congress and apparently a Supreme court sold to the highest bidder; right now mostly Republican while their may be a sprinkling of Democrats.  Congress seems the more with egg on their face ones to blame than Obama, though he has had his share of egg! A do nothing congress where personal interests and partisan politics guide them all while ignoring the real people, the 99 percent can be damned seems apparent from their actions.  The Republican Red States appear even more tainted then at the federal level, for the wealthy manipulators have been focusing on the state levels with laser precision. Wisconsin and Ohio for example.

I feel Democrats are the only alternative, and I believe it is for everyone in our nation to educate themselves as it is necessary to be well aware of who sponsors which politicians, who they are beholding too!  Otherwise we will end up like Egypt where people are flailing at the wind.

As far as arresting an idea, the Repulcians are experts at it for they are experts arresting anything which does not serve them well and the populous, the 99 percent do not serve them well!

Report this
DonSchneider's avatar

By DonSchneider, December 4, 2011 at 6:41 am Link to this comment

IDIOTS ! leave them to their own devices !

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 11:40 pm Link to this comment

Re: hetero

I feel the matter is sufficiently clear to any who wish to rationally consider the situation. There simply is no point in beating a dead horse.

Best of luck hetero, you’ll need it.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 3, 2011 at 11:17 pm Link to this comment

I was indeed referring to Bologna who sprayed the women .....


whatever happened to those women?

were any of them injured?

did any swear out a complaint against the cop?

The suspension and transfer was only the first step, Outraged.


next up is the Civilian Complaint Review Board…...and they can refer to the DA

and I would imagine any woman who was sprayed will also have a successful
civil case.

and she/they will be collecting Bologna’s pension.

————


~~~Cops are not to “protect the public” irrespective of the CONSTITUTION,
which is… as far as I can ascertain your position.~~~~


I can’t quite make out what you’re saying here…could you rephrase?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 3, 2011 at 11:16 pm Link to this comment

Nice post She, it helps keep the focus on the few taking advantage of the many!

“In authoritarian governments, which we see has nearly
taken over our democratic government, special interest groups, such as
lobby groups backed by corporate dollars, as well as corporations and
wealthy individuals, takes a pig’s appetite interest in politics.”

“It is exactly these influences that currently are being referred to as the
1%, and there is no democracy when the other 99% are not represented.”

The pig’s appetite has been brought to the nations attention by Occupy and helped people to focus, all one needs to do is follow Congress and the Republican Presidential Debates to see how out of touch these people are,(possibly on purpose, waiting to become unlobbiests like Newt)  this is crystal clear disenfranchisement in the beltway pig pen where from where we constantly hear the squealing and fighting over the trough, I raised hogs and from my observations hogs are less greedy than those selfish pig’s!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment

Re: hetero

Your comment:“but a snippet of video, edited usually not to show events before or after a single
action and not allowing any defense the the cop ...is conclusive proof of
guilt….if it’s the cop.”

OBVIOUSLY hetero, you will defend ILLEGALITY, no matter what (“edited video” my ass, PROVE IT), if it is a cop.

Additionally hetero, OBVIOUSLY the cops WERE engaging in police brutality regarding OWS. Your position that this is OKAY is in DIRECT opposition to mine.

I also feel that you disregard serious abuses simply because the individuals involved are police officers. I disagree.

If you can show, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that a profession exists in which illegalities never happen, come talk to me. For the interim, those who break the law, should be punished by the law and have their day in court. NO, I will never “look the other way” simply because joe blow happens to carry a badge or serve on the Supreme court.

You EXCUSE illegality, it’s that simple, as evidenced by your many posts to the contrary. I will say this hetero, YOU believe that some people are “more equal than others”, but I disagree.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 10:35 pm Link to this comment

Re: hetero

Your comment: “either the cops get the same presumption of innocence as anyone else….or
you’ve got a serious problem….”

Again. You deflect. Certainly cops are, or should be afforded the SAME presumption of innocence.  Cops are not to “protect the public” irrespective of the CONSTITUTION, which is… as far as I can ascertain your position.

In addition to your absurd position, AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN you ignore documented evidence to the contrary of your position of supposed innocence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJmmnMkuEM&list=PL6DA65CE1691FEFE8&index=34&feature=plpp_video

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 10:09 pm Link to this comment

Re: hetero

Your comment: “what I can tell you is that there was exactly one instance where an officer of the
NYPD was clearly violative and violent….and he was punished.”

Just to be clear. This Officer(of course, I am assuming you mean the chemical spraying incident of the caged woman in NYC) was NOT indicted for the ILLEGAL activity with which he was… in no uncertain terms…. by DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, guilty.

The bastard barely got “slapped on the wrists” in all reality. Is this the incidence to which you are referring? Please, enlighten me.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 3, 2011 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

Out~~~~ you wrote “t needs to be remembered that when/if you are arrested
YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY GUILTY, this is for the court to decide “”


but a snippet of video, edited usually not to show events before or after a single
action and not allowing any defense the the cop ...is conclusive proof of
guilt….if it’s the cop.

but people arrested by cops….when simply being in the park where they were
arrested at the time that they were arrested constituted the offense…..they have
to by tried before they’re guilty according to you,

 

I saw three video clips from NYC early on, one was Officer bologna spraying
people, the next was somebody on the ground screaming hysterically as it
appears that a cop is driving a scooter over his leg, and the third was a cop
hitting a guy in the head.

the first was true and got Bologna suspended and transferred to Soberia….

the second was just a fucking staged hoax.


and the third was edited so that it didn’t show that the guy threw an elbow at
the cop after repeatedly ignoring his instructions.


either the cops get the same presumption of innocence as anyone else….or
you’ve got a serious problem….


I don’t think that you really do….but you need to think some more.

 

(BTW it’s not documented evidence until a judge rules that it is…till then it’s a
document)

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

Re: hetero

Your comment: “it seems that you think that you’re the judge and jury and are deciding
to call things police brutality and illegal based on testimony from interested
parties without any other evidence.


you see no problem in saying that those arrested aren’t guilty without trial and
jury verdict and still want to say that the law officers doing the arresting are
guilty of criminality?”

No. Police brutality IS ILLEGAL. Are you claiming the documented evidence of police brutality is suspect?

The police brutality is documented, why do you attempt to ignore this. I can pull up video after video if that is what you require. I feel it shouldn’t be needed, but if you want to rehash that I can certainly entertain you.

Your stance that I have “no problem in saying that those arrested aren’t guilty without trial and
jury verdict”
is correct. I have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

The actions of those who have engaged in police brutality is BRUTALLY EVIDENT. Why do you continue to ignore or deny it? It was not ALL officers who engaged in these types of actions, and absolutely I do not condemn those that refused to do so.

Make no mistake, I will stand behind those who refused to engage in these activities 100%. But those officers who flagrantly denied the rights of Americans, I do NOT. This is regardless of differences of opinion regarding one issue or another.

I KNOW that we can work together to solve any disagreements we may have WITHOUT the need to arrest, deflect, bludgeon, or otherwise DENY EACH OTHER OUR RIGHTS.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment

Re: Shenon

Your comment:“Democratic Capitalism isn’t tied historically to the ideologies of one
party, it played a significant role in the ideals of both the democrats and
the republicans during the first 75 years of the 20th century.  Democratic
Capitalism is precisely what made America a great nation. Democratic
capitalism is the foundation of the American dream.”

Great post, I agree. But most especially with the above quote.

So often the situation devolves into a Me v You type of argument. Yet in reality this is NOT the true nature of our differences. It is only a manufactured difference. We need to come together, ALL have experienced “the whip”, and this is wrong.

It is not WRONG to have difference of opinion, truthfully it is EXACTLY CORRECT. What is wrong is how our differences have been used and/or abused to separate our common interests for corrupt political gain.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 3, 2011 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

Out~~~~ it seems that you think that you’re the judge and jury and are deciding
to call things police brutality and illegal based on testimony from interested
parties without any other evidence.


you see no problem in saying that those arrested aren’t guilty without trial and
jury verdict and still want to say that the law officers doing the arresting are
guilty of criminality?

you find these stance to be reasonable?

——-


what I can tell you is that there was exactly one instance where an officer of the
NYPD was clearly violative and violent….and he was punished.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 3, 2011 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment

Recherche de la Vérité!
Search for Truth!

We always learn something from every movement.  In LA, we learn
that the expediency of displacing scorn for the banker class trumps
humanity.

On a daily basis now and for the years since Ronald Reagan’s
presidency, the Republican Party has worked to erode every vestige
of liberal federal programs that were developed to protect Americans,
while simultaneously and strenuously authoring and passing federal laws
to enlarge, extend, increase, and further improve the profits, assets, and
prosperity of those other Americans who have accumulated substantial
wealth that far exceeds that relative to others in their society.  This is
what Occupy arose against.  Inequitable Disproportion.

A friendly reminder…
Democratic Capitalism is a political, economic, and social system and a
polito/economic ideology that is based on a three-part organization of a
market-based economy that rests predominantly on a democratic
society, economic incentives through free markets, fiscal responsibility
and a liberal moral-cultural system that encourages pluralism.

Democratic Capitalism isn’t tied historically to the ideologies of one
party, it played a significant role in the ideals of both the democrats and
the republicans during the first 75 years of the 20th century.  Democratic
Capitalism is precisely what made America a great nation. Democratic
capitalism is the foundation of the American dream. The OWS protesters
want a return to democratic capitalism.  The key term in the Democratic
Capitalistic system is “pluralism,” which is the acknowledgment of
diversity.  In politics it is related to the realization of a ‘common good,’
that is, the creation of policies which are considered to be in the public’s
interest.  Democratic Capitalism was never a right wing ideology, nor was
it ever a left wing ideology.  It was simply the accepted nature of the
society in which people on both sides of the political spectrum existed
and operated.

A Democratic Capitalist state, a true one, would take steps to prevent
corporate lobbyists from having any significant influence in decision
making;  policies and actions are made in the wider public interest, for
the public good.  In authoritarian governments, which we see has nearly
taken over our democratic government, special interest groups, such as
lobby groups backed by corporate dollars, as well as corporations and
wealthy individuals, takes a pig’s appetite interest in politics.

It is exactly these influences that currently are being referred to as the
1%, and there is no democracy when the other 99% are not represented.
The fact is that the US was once considered the perfect example of a
Capitalist Democracy - and that literally was up to but not including
Ronald Reagan only 30-40 years ago.

So it has taken this long for the effects of the Reagan/Republican
Conservative political strategy to permeate the society to the intense
degree that the public palpably came to feel it, in its whole being as a
society and as individuals.  The Occupy Movement is the natural
outcome, the reaped harvest of the underlying monstrous cannibalism
that has been the appetite of the Republican Conservative Party crony
capitalism.  The people had enough of being eaten alive by those who
absorbed, grasped, retained, and possessed the wealth of the nation as
concentrated in a very small group of political and economic
establishment.  And as things naturally go, the people have exploded
into a rebellion.

EmileZ – your personal image is the greatest!

Villaraigosa was once a man of the people, he became a politician.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

Re: hetero

Again you attempt to water down the situation. It is NOT “police overreaction”. It is police brutality, AND IS ILLEGAL. And while I’m confident you’ve read me “say” this before, NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT, by the authorities. In fact, many of us believe that these tactics are being endorsed by those who we have put our trust in to DEFEND our Constitutional Rights.

And again you say “LOOKING to castigate the cops just for doing their jobs”. This is not the issue. It is NOT the cops job to be “judge and jury”, nor is it “the cops job” to mete our retribution. But this is what we are seeing, unlawful arrests, denial of bathroom facilities…etc and other acts which seek to humiliate and/or deny citizens their Constitution Rights.

It needs to be remembered that when/if you are arrested YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY GUILTY, this is for the court to decide (admittedly there are issues with this also, but that’s a different argument).

Yet, we have a mantra out there (and it comes from the right wing) that it is OKAY to treat the accused as if they are guilty. But this (which again gets into the argument of our jails and prison conditions) is that even if you are guilty, should WE, as a society endorse inhumane conditions of the incarcerated. I don’t think we should.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 3, 2011 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

Out``` I was going to reply to your comment to OZ…. i liked it and agree
wholeheartedly. We all should be on the same side concerning police overreaction.


Maybe if we learn to agree that tactics that violate the law and are sufficient cause
for police action and arrests, and not follow our hearts and rooting interests so
that we’re LOOKING to castigate the cops just for doing their jobs, we’ll take the
next step toward agreement.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

Re: hetero

Your comment:“he woulda had cynical old me won over.”

Well….quit being so damn cynical and look at what’s going on. Whether you agree or not with the stance of the protesters, what’s going on is wrong.

WE have First Amendment Rights and they are being trampled upon. On this we should be able to agree, and just for the record, I have seen groups of the anti-abortion protesters acting non-violently, and being arrested. However, many of the same attempt to excuse or ignore the extreme violence we’ve seen, this is wrong.

I’m positive, at least as far as OM and myself, that we would be on opposite sides of the abortion issue. That is fine, we can debate that. However, we should not be on opposing sides regarding police brutality.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

Re: OM

“When the police broke the guys arm you just yawn? If it was an OWS protester it would have made national headlines.”

Honestly OM, what are you talking about? Also OM, you continue to make this an US v THEM situation. That is not the issue OM.

UNWARRANTED POLICE BRUTALITY NO MATTER WHO IS WRONG AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.

Unwarranted is unwarranted, in other words they(the police) better have a damn good reason for it, and at times this can be the case, that is understood. But we are not seeing this are we.

OM, stop believing it was just your group, it isn’t.

It is ALL of us. “Houston, WE have a problem”. In fact a long running one and this is what needs to be addressed.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 3, 2011 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

Out~~~~  the first article was just a tear-jerker…the second one was much deeper
and much, much more effective and pretty well argued.

someone not used to reading legal bs is gonna be impressed beyond the merit….


if the guy didn’t have to update and admit that most of the arrested got released
w/o having to post and that everyone was processed within the required 72 hrs.,
he woulda had cynical old me won over.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

Re: heterochromatic

I don’t consider it agitprop to read the account of someone who was there and witnessed these things (this is just one account, and the author does state that he is still shaken after the ordeal). Your article has many instances of these same accounts.

Good link btw, more indepth. Thanks.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, December 3, 2011 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment

When the police broke the guys arm you just yawn? If it was an OWS protester it would have made national headlines.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 3, 2011 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

Outraged, the alternet story is terrible agitprop.

much better one on BradBlog by an attorney named
Canning….

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8967

still mostly crap, though.

the cops were holding them within the 72 hrs and
mostly wanted to get them to agree not to return and
start another round of occupation and arrests.

mostly everyone was released without having to post a
bond.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

More reports of police brutality in a story at Alternet regarding the crackdown in LA:

“The 100 protesters in my detainee group were kept handcuffed with their hands behind their backs for 7 hours, denied food and water and forced to sit/sleep on a concrete floor. Some were so tired they passed out face down on the cold and dirty concrete, hands tied behind their back. As a result of the tight cuffs, I wound up losing sensation in my left palm/thumb and still haven’t recovered it now, a day and a half after they finally took them off.

* One seriously injured protester, who had been shot with a shotgun beanbag round and had an oozing bloody welt the size of a grapefruit just above his elbow, was denied medical attention for five hours. Another young guy, who complained that he thought his arm had been broken, was not given medical attention for at least as long. Instead, he spent the entire pre-booking procedure handcuffed to a wall, completely spaced out and staring blankly into space like he was in shock.”
http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153303/people_locked_in_tiny_cages,_crying_in_pain:_what_i_saw_and_heard_when_the_lapd_threw_me_in_jail_for_exercising_my_right_to_protest_the_oligarchy/?page=entire

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 3, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

The populous having to call for equality should not even be necessary, but when looking at a Republican Congress has sold their being to a god named money, what else can one expect?

To ask for justice and a fair shake in our life should not be an impossible task, but from some of the posters here and the people in charge and the few as the 1 percent who feel entitlement should only be for them, we have as a people only several options, to vote collectively for change, which may also be an impossibility from the lies and manipulations, so the other option is to place our physical person-hood on the street and demand fairness from Mussolini, Hitler and Gaddafi and their divisive power structures, one only needs to listen to the likes of Gingrich to see how he and they prosper on divisiveness, confrontation and insult as we the 99 percent suffer from their deluded greedy self promotions, it seems we all live in Syria now!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2011 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

Re: OM

I watched your video, I did not see pepper spray,
anyone being clubbed, no blood, no riot gear, no
fences or gating off of anyone.

I heard accusation after accusation in a very
propagandized video. Accusations of numb-chucks but
no footage of it, it looked like a billy club to me.
Even in this, they were not used to bludgeon anyone,
so your comparison to the brutality experienced by
OWS is miniscule, FACTUALLY.

However, I do agree with you that some of the things
I saw were uncalled for. Sure, I see no reason that
ANY elderly person’s hands should be cuffed behind
their backs, because they’re elderly and this IS
TORTUROUS to someone who’s body is so frail, left or
right leaning.

The video as far as severe brutality or even moderate
brutality (especially with regard to the clips we’ve seen of OWS) is
lacking. But the question remains OM, if you think
that your video is an example of undue force (which
is what you are claiming) how is it you are not
inherently outraged by the brutality experienced by
the peaceful OWS protesters?

Realistically, you should be doubly outraged, yet you
are not. You (along with your buds) continue to deny
and excuse documented unwarranted brutality
inflicted upon the peaceful OWS protesters. In many
instances you outright support it, a very sad commentary of your mindset indeed.

Your claims regarding the “blackout” of your protests
are false, as I saw these constantly back in the day
even on my LOCAL news. Your claim that the MSM is
left wing is laughable, do you watch TV. I watch it
all day and I’ve not seen this locally nor
nationally. What you are claiming is complete and
utter nonsense.

BTW, again you use RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY SOURCES to
“prove” your point. Ridiculous.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 3, 2011 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

I have only had minimal dialogue with folks who actually had something interesting to say… whether we agreed or disagreed, the dialogue was always productive and either I learned something or the others have.

Yet it truly is a waste of time when stultorum infinitus est numerus

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 3, 2011 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment

stultorum non carborundum, EZ

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 3, 2011 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

Why do I upset you so much, Emile?

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, December 3, 2011 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

AAArgh!!!

Napoleon has DoneHisPart again!!!

blah blah blah

bullshit bullshit

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, December 3, 2011 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

I am so infuriated I think I might explode!!!

Damn it all!!!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 3, 2011 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

Emile, cheers.

I knew I could route out an agent….

Lovely response there.

Report this

By Noodles, December 3, 2011 at 11:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The eviction was anything but non-violent.  Think about it.  There were 292
arrests.  Ustream coverage inside the camp showed 100 or so people in a circle,
arms clasped together, awaiting arrest.  These were people who had decided to
be arrested - The Arrestables.

So, how did the count reach 292?  Protesters who had vacated the camp were
outside the park in support of those inside.  LAPD separated those people into
small groups, then arrested for illegal assembly.  Protesters were shackled and
put on buses that drove around the city for up to 8 hours.  One group reported
that they were arrested at 2 AM and not booked until 5 PM. 

They were not given food or water.  They were forced to urinate in the bus
seats.

This was an LAPD warning to protesters:  “DON’T DO THIS AGAIN”.

So much for Free Speech and Assembly.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, December 3, 2011 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

@ nAPOLEAN dONE hIS pART

What a waste of time your bullshit contributions are.

May your god of wealth and success and riches and such bury you in a hole deep enough that we may never hear from your sorry ass again.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 3, 2011 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

The a waste of time this is.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, December 3, 2011 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

@ truedigger 3

yawn…

You are not helping my condition.

Better luck next time.

Report this

By truedigger3, December 3, 2011 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

To all Idiots and Tunnel Visioned people,

This thread is NOT about abortion!

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, December 3, 2011 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Free the Weed!!!

We are all interconnected and such.

Of course it is not just about this one fucking awesome issue.

Report this

By elisalouisa, December 3, 2011 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

“The Occupy message is a social message which affects the 99 percent and has absolutely nothing to do with abortion protests, gay marriage, legalizing pot, illegal workers, religion, except people will always use these to keep focus away from the real issues of corruption, cronyism, and injustices sponsored by the few!”

Worth repeating.

Michael,can’t you see that Wall Street criminals have taken away from you big time? That is but one reason for these protests.  Do not fall for the rhetoric of how much such protests cost when the taxpayers are protesting the billions taken from them by Wall Street criminals.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 3, 2011 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

Of course Occupy must go away, because the message of disenfranchisement is so damn real, it makes more people think! (though of course not some others) The few who control the many because money is speech and corporations are people too is so damn ludicrous it is insane, and they are protected by laws sponsored for and by them as part of their inequality programs!

Occupy has made some people very uncomfortably under the lime light, people who usually prefer to hide in the dark and pull the strings. Occupy has changed much of the silly conversation away from Republican Rhetoric (which is hard as hell during their many ringed circus presidential race going on right now and Kabuki drama going on in Congress)

This discomfort shows the Occupy prodding has some conservative posters here working to deviate the conversation away from the Occupy message.

Blatant unfairness and injustice by the 1 percent against the 99 percent! Disenfranchisement through long time inequalities sponsored by the few against the many!

Occupy don’t need no stinking tents, nor does Occupy compare to Abortion clinic protests, which are one of the few’s many divisive tools using emotions to keep the focus away from real messages and now the Occupy message.

The Occupy message is a social message which affects the 99 percent and has absolutely nothing to do with abortion protests, gay marriage, legalizing pot, illegal workers, religion, except people will always use these to keep focus away from the real issues of corruption, cronyism, and injustices sponsored by the few!

Wake up people, you are the 99 percent and if your are not, many people in the 1 percent also see the disenfranchisement and inequalities for what they are doing to the nation!

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, December 3, 2011 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

@ Ozark Michael

“Since that time, we cannot even get near an abortion clinic without being arrested immediately, since the Supreme Court decided we have no right to Occupy the sidewalk, or even the park across the street from an abortion mill. Basically, we are ‘allowed’ to protest in places where people going to the clinic cant see us.”

What decision would that be??? The 8 feet away decision???

Peep.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

 
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.

Like Truthdig on Facebook