I have removed multiple videos in this thread with profanity. One person posting the same one after it was removed, and another person acknowledging the profanity in his post.
From this point forward anyone doing this will be suspended.
But you seem to imply (especially in the next post) that he is equating the goals (or cultural significance) of the two - he clearly never does that.
Here's what he said: "After all, back then they told protesters marching in the streets that what they were doing is illegal, and that they needed to disperse. By your rationale, the police back then were in the right to do that sort of thing, right"
He did not say the "goals" were the same, but he absolutely equated the civil rights protests with these protests. And in the least, he insinuated that I thought they were the same. He implied that I would've been against the civil rights protests. And that is asinine and stupid.
Like I posted - that was a cheap shot at me. Twisting words is what phil does - and he tried to do it here. He failed, and I'm sticking up for myself as any conscientious person would do. Take what I say and twist it? I'll call you on it.
Fair point. - that was certainly an incorrect (and personal) generalization.
Though similarly:
Quote:
Seriously - civil rights for blacks is on the same level as people complaining about not having guaranteed health care paid for by someone else? Civil rights is on the same level as complaining about animals being raised for food?
Is an unfair generalization of his point (which made no comparison of the groups aims)
"by this logic, you would have thought that law enforcement during the Civil Rights Movement was right to release dogs and spray fire hoses, and use violence on those marching in the streets, correct?
After all, back then they told protesters marching in the streets that what they were doing is illegal, and that they needed to disperse. By your rationale, the police back then were in the right to do that sort of thing, right? "
So, yes, I feel okay about what I said. HE is the one that equated my statement to the civil rights movement.
Quote: So, you're attempting to equate this OWS thing with the civil rights protests?
No, I am not.
I am merely pointing out your statement that those protesting in the streets deserve what is coming to them if the police tell them to disperse.
That is what you said, correct?
Or are you making distinctions on perceived validity - i.e. if I like what they say, then they shouldn't be hassled; if I don't like what they say, then they have what's coming to them?
I will ask you again -- would you say to Civil Rights marchers 'the police told you to leave, you didn't, you deserved what you got'?
If your answer is no, what, in your opinion, removing your political or ideological feelings, is the difference in scenarios?
Quote:
Seriously - civil rights for blacks is on the same level as people complaining about not having guaranteed health care paid for by someone else? Civil rights is on the same level as complaining about animals being raised for food?
We're not talking about what the protests are about - we're talking about the protests themselves. They could be protesting the NBA lockout, it doesn't matter.
You said 'the police said leave, they didn't, the police were right to use aggressive force'.
By those standards, in your opinion Civil Rights marchers got what they deserve.
Or, are you insinuating that if you like the movement, then the police are wrong, but if you don't then they get what they deserve?
Try to squirm all you want ... it's one of the two.
I say these people should listen to the cops. No one told them they couldn't protest, they just couldn't do it there.
YOU bring up the civil rights protests and try to equate the two, and in the process you try to undermine me by saying I would've been against the civil rights movement.
You're a trip. Your insinuation that the ows protests and the civil rights protests are the same is stupid.
The civil rights protests were about citizens getting equal rights.
This ows thing...........they themselves don't know what it's about, other than "we hate the rich".
Come on man - back off. You know exactly what I'm saying. And, I'm not squirming. You are stupidly trying to equate 2 things that are not equatable, just so you can diss me.
In fact - in light of your statements, if I were a word twister, I could say that you think the civil rights protests were stupid because you have stated that the ows protests will get no where.
Can't have it both ways phil. YOU put the civil rights protests in this discussion. YOU have equated the c.r. and the ows protests - trying to jab me. But, since YOU equated the 2, and YOU said the ows was going no where, in YOUR logic, that would mean the civil rights protests should've gone no where.
See how twisting words is stupid?
Read what I wrote in previous posts and quit being stupid.
I say these people should listen to the cops. No one told them they couldn't protest, they just couldn't do it there.
YOU bring up the civil rights protests and try to equate the two, and in the process you try to undermine me by saying I would've been against the civil rights movement.
I never said you were against the Civil Rights movement.
I said you would have thought that the marchers had what was coming to them.
You said the police told people to leave, they didn't, and therefore the police were right to use violence.
Quote:
The civil rights protests were about citizens getting equal rights.
This ows thing...........they themselves don't know what it's about, other than "we hate the rich".
Again, we're not talking about what the movements are about.
We're talking about protesters marching in the streets, and police response to it.
Quote: Come on man - back off. You know exactly what I'm saying. And, I'm not squirming. You are stupidly trying to equate 2 things that are not equatable, just so you can diss me.
No, I'm not.
You yourself said -- the police told marchers to leave, they did not, therefore the police are right to use violence.
Forget the movement - it could about Civil Rights, OWS, Tea Party, NAMBLA, PETA, KKK... the movement isn't the issue. The issue is that you think the police are right to use violence on marchers after asking them to disperse.
By that logic, you would believe that the police were right to use force against Civil Rights marchers.
Quote:
Can't have it both ways phil. YOU put the civil rights protests in this discussion. YOU have equated the c.r. and the ows protests - trying to jab me. But, since YOU equated the 2, and YOU said the ows was going no where, in YOUR logic, that would mean the civil rights protests should've gone no where.
Actually, YOU were the one who said that the police were right to use violence to stop a protest march.
YOU said that.
And now YOU want to squirm when I point out that said logic isn't so pretty when applied elsewhere.
There are reports that protesters threw bricks at police. Was this before or after that time.
The protesters destroyed an irrigation system in LA trying to get water from it for their people. They are urinating all over the place because there are not enough public facilities for them to use.
Members of these protests were also quoted as having said that things would become violent if police moved to remove the protesters.
Many of these protests are not just protests .... they are destructive and violent disruptions of life and business for many, many people. These protesters block small businesses, keeping people from making a living, and making it difficult for other people to get to their jobs. This is not a good thing in today's difficult employment environment. They are going to wind up turning people off to whatever their cause is today with their tactics.
I also find it ironic that many will see this as a "protest against Republicans" type thing ..... but Oakland is ruled by Democrats. Same as LA. Chicago Mayor Raum Emmanual may be the next high profile Democrat forced to confront these protests.
Too bad it is so violent and disruptive, and that so many laws are being broken or it would be more interesting to examine the political dynamic.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
YOU sir, are the one that equated the civil rights protests to the ows protests. YOU have also stated the ows protests are going nowhere.
Using YOUR logic - that means you were against the civil rights protests, right?
After all, you can't have it both ways.
No kidding, no hyperbole, that literally made me cry with laughter.
I'm glad it did. It shows how inane and stupid your argument was. At least we can both agree on that.
What exactly is stupid and inane about it?
You said that if police tell marching protesters to leave, and they don't, then the police are right to use violence.
When I pointed out that this sort of logic would mean that you would've been in favor of the police using violence to disperse protests in the South in the early-mid 1960's, you flew off the handles and insinuated that I was equating the Civil Rights movement with the OWS movement, which I was not - I was measuring your opinion against other examples of police violence used to disperse marching protesters.
At which point you squirmed in your argument until coming to the laughable conclusion that since I think the OWS movement is an ineffectual movement, I must think the Civil Rights movement was ineffectual as well.
I'm having trouble grasping what part of 'if police tell marching protesters to leave, and they don't, then the police are right to use violence' wouldn't equate to you having the same feelings in the early to mid 1960's.
What is the difference in the scenarios - political ideology aside? Both scenarios had marching protesters. In both scenarios, police told marchers and protesters to leave. In both scenarios, the police then used violent action.
What separates the two, in your opinion, political ideology aside? And if the difference is ideology, how are you not essentially saying 'I want the government to use force to disperse protests that I disagree with'?
You have yet to answer any of these questions, and instead bob and weave around the notion that I'm equating the two movements, when I'm merely focusing on your opinion that police are right to use force in order to disperse marching protesters.
Here's the local news coverage. Police warned the protesters then used tear gas, flash bang devices and rubber bullets on them. The injured person above was a 2 tour Vet. Call it what you want, I'm disgusted.
This is about the Vet:
Occupy Oakland: Iraq war veteran in critical condition after police clashes Scott Olsen, 24, in hospital with fractured skull and brain swelling after allegedly being hit by a police projectile in Oakland
Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 26 October 2011 15.42 EDT
Occupy Oakland: Scott Olsen suffered the head injury during protests on Tuesday evening. Photograph: screengrab via YouTube
An Iraq war veteran has a fractured skull and brain swelling after allegedly being hit by a police projectile.
Scott Olsen is in a "critical condition" in Highland hospital in Oakland, a hospital spokesman confirmed.
Olsen, 24, suffered the head injury during protests in Oakland on Tuesday evening. More than 15 people were arrested after a crowd gathered to demonstrate against the police operation to clear two Occupy Oakland camps in the early hours of Tuesday morning.
Jay Finneburgh, a photographer who was covering the protest, published pictures of Olsen lying on the ground.
"This poor guy was right behind me when he was hit in the head with a police projectile. He went down hard and did not get up," Finneburgh wrote.
Olsen was taken to Highland by fellow protesters.
The Guardian spoke to people with Olsen at the hospital. Adele Carpenter, who knows Olsen through his involvement with anti-war groups, said she arrived at the hospital at 11pm on Tuesday night.
Carpenter said she was told by a doctor at the hospital that Olsen had a skull fracture and was in a "serious but stable" condition. She said he had been sedated and was unconscious.
"I'm just absolutely devastated that someone who did two tours of Iraq and came home safely is now lying in a US hospital because of the domestic police force," Carpenter said.
Olsen had only moved to Oakland in July, Carpenter said. He is a member of Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War, and met Carpenter through her work with the civilian soldier alliance.
Keith Shannon, who served with Olsen in Iraq, arrived at the hospital after protesters contacted him through Facebook. He confirmed Olsen had a fractured skull, and said he had been told by a doctor Olsen also had brain swelling.
A neurosurgeon was due to assess Olsen to determine if he needed surgery, Shannon said.
"It's really hard," Shannon said. "I really wish I had gone out with him instead of staying home last night."
Shannon, who is also 24, said he had seen the video footage showing Olsen lying on the floor as a police officer throws an explosive device near him.
"It's terrible to go over to Iraq twice and come back injured, and then get injured by the police that are supposed to be protecting us," he said.
He said Olsen had served two tours of Iraq, in 2006 and 2007. Olsen was in 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines with Shannon before leaving the military in 2010.
He moved to the San Francisco area in July and works for Opswat, a software company, living with Shannon in Daly City, just south of San Francisco.
Shannon said Olsen was hit in the head by a tear gas canister or smoke canister shot by a police officer. He said Olsen had a curved scar on his forehead consistent with a canister.
Protesters who had accompanied Olsen to Highland hospital got in touch with Shannon through Facebook, after Olsen said he lived with someone called "Keith". Shannon said he was told Olsen was unable to say his surname.
Olsen is originally from Wisconsin and some of his family were planning to fly out to California to be with him, Shannon said.
Video footage published to YouTube shows Olsen lying prone in front of a line of police. Around 10 people gather around him in an apparent attempt to provide aid, before a police officer throws an explosive device into their midst, scattering the group.
Footage captured after the explosion, which appears to be from a flash bang grenade, shows Olsen being carried away by a group of people.
Oakland police confirmed at a press conference that they used tear gas and baton rounds, but said they did not use flash bang grenades. Police could not be immediately reached for comment.
I was at the Ozzfest Riot in Columbus at the Polaris Amphitheater in the late 90's (96?). Things got crazy. Property being destroyed, chairs set on fire, chunks of turf flying through the air so thick it was like rain... Very violent. Police were everywhere, I left in a hurry and never went back. Yet I don't remember tear gas, rubber bullets or anything like that.
This was SOOOOOOOOOOO peaceful compared to the riot I was in and look what the police did.
I know they warned the protesters. I know they have a job to do. Maybe a law was even being broken (that's up for debate). But somehow it just does not set right with me.
You're disgusted, and I can understand that, to a point.
However, at what point do the protesters assume responsibility for whatever happens to them due to their refusal to obey the law? When does it shift from being the fault of others, to their own fault if they get hurt?
It just seems to me like many of the videos you present have a viewpoint of "the protesters are completely innocent, and are only standing up for their beliefs ... and should be allowed to do whatever they want, even if it is illegal .... as long as they "have a point", and believe in their cause".
We are still a nation of laws. How long should protesters be allowed to flaunt the law, and get away with violating the law without repercussions? I cannot go kill a man I believe got away with murder, because of that belief. The law prohibits such behavior, and I am subject to that law if I violate it. There is no difference with regard to the protests.
As far as responsibility for any injuries sustained as the result of the actions of the police ........ it's a lot like the guy who keep reaching onto the lion's cage, punching the lion in the nose each time. At what point does it become his responsibility when the lion gets fed up and chews his arm off? The police tell them to disperse or face tear gas and physical dispersement tactics, and the protesters disregard their warnings. They got their arms chewed off, and the lion is not to blame. In fact, in this case the lion gave more than fair warning. Disregarding a warning does not remove responsibility for what follows from the heads of those who have been duly warned.
Further, as far as the protests go ..... when do the rights of people living and working in the areas being protested come into consideration? If they are camped out in a park, when do the rights of families wanting to use the park (that their taxes likely support) override the rights of protesters?
How about private property owners? When do their rights as far as protecting their property, and having the expectation that polie will do the same come into play? Do they have less rights simple because they own the property, and because they may not be part of a larger protest?
If police are called in, what are their rights when confronted with a mob? What are reasonable expectations for police officers to be allowed to defend themselves? What about if members of a mob throw bricks and such?
I know where I come down on most of these issues. I fully support the right of people to protest and express their freedom of expression ...... as long as they are not stepping on the rights of others to do so. The question becomes, at what point does this happen? It seems to me that when others are prevented from doing the things they would otherwise do as part of their normal life for an extended period of time, that action should be take to restore the rights of the ordinary citizens. Once physical damage is caused, and/or laws are broken, then the protest should be considered over. Sorry, but once that line is crossed, a protest ceases to be a protest, and becomes a criminal action. Criminal actions should be prosecuted, and police should use appropriate action to bring about an end to the situation.
Many of these protesters seem to think that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, simply because they have what they consider to be a legitimate beef with authority, business, or their fellow citizens. They have a right to protest, but also a responsibility to do so in a law abiding manner, with as much respect for their fellow citizens and their property as they would expect for their own persons and property. I often do not see this. Instead it seem s like a lot of rationalization going on, and that destructive behavior can be rationalized as long as "there is a good cause". This is like the union strikes in Portland. (IIRC) where the union held security guards hostage while they destroyed property belonging to others ... because they were unhappy that a different union was going to get jobs from that particular facility. Thuggery rarely works, and eventually it turns public opinion against a cause. In many cases, these OWS protests are little more than base thuggery, and destruction in the name of outrage. I believe, however, that protest carries with it the responsibility to act responsibly, and to obey laws.
The finest protests are the ones that do not see their message lost behind the waves of destruction, and broken laws, and vile acts. This is where the OWS protests have failed most miserably IMHO. I do not, at this point, see a way for them to regain the moral high ground when they blatantly stomp on the rights of others, violate their property and disregard laws governing the most basic of common decencies in an attempt to make their point.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: The finest protests are the ones that do not see their message lost behind the waves of destruction, and broken laws, and vile acts. This is where the OWS protests have failed most miserably IMHO. I do not, at this point, see a way for them to regain the moral high ground when they blatantly stomp on the rights of others, violate their property and disregard laws governing the most basic of common decencies in an attempt to make their point.
So how do feel about the Boston Tea Party of 1773?
Going by your opinion above, you would be against it and view it as a failure, correct?
The Tea Party of 1773 was a completely different thing.
It was the culmination of longstanding resentment over an ever expanding mass of taxes imposed by the British crown, most of which were not also imposed upon British citizens in England. Britain and the Crown did so without any representation from the colonies at all. Most Governors in the colonies were political cronies or people the King owed a favor to.The people had no rights as far as redress of their complaints, or even a real system to complain at all. (except through Governors who were often just power trippers rather than administrators or rulers)
That is not the case today. You, personally, may find it a useless act, but people can run for Congress, or organize themselves to petition their representatives to make changes. There was no comparable system in 1773.
If we were ruled from afar, with land given to favorites of the Crown, even sometimes taken from those already here ..... and immense taxes were piled on from this (by now) almost foreign government ... and laws and rules were arbitrarily set forth with no right or ability of the people to protest the same in any legal manner ..... well, then the situation would be far different, and different actions would be called for.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
It was the culmination of longstanding resentment over an ever expanding mass of taxes imposed by the British crown, most of which were not also imposed upon British citizens in England. Britain and the Crown did so without any representation from the colonies at all. Most Governors in the colonies were political cronies or people the King owed a favor to.The people had no rights as far as redress of their complaints, or even a real system to complain at all. (except through Governors who were often just power trippers rather than administrators or rulers)
That is not the case today. You, personally, may find it a useless act, but people can run for Congress, or organize themselves to petition their representatives to make changes. There was no comparable system in 1773.
If I am an American who is against the collusion of government and large private corporations and banks, I really don't have any recourse outside of, say, voting for Ron Paul.
Our government gives the illusion of choice, but there really isn't one - a candidate who does not align themselves with corporate interests has almost no chance. The best they could do would be to wind up a Kucinich or a Paul - token House members who have very little control or power.
I don't see how your first paragraph differs all that much from what we have now, outside of the illusion of choice.
Conservatives have no real voice in government -- the GOP is not even remotely conservative.
Liberals have no real voice, either - the Democratic party isn't remotely liberal.
The Tea Party of today tried to instill change through the voting booth, and they failed. They ended up with what they always had - puppets pulled by the strings of the interests that got them elected.
I think there's a great deal of tyranny going on that can't really be altered by the voting booths.
The institution pretty much weeds out anyone who would be a threat to it.
Those against slavery probably saw a system that would never allow it to end. They were right ..... until it ended.
Those wanting equal civil rights probably never thought that they would attain their goal .... until they did.
Every single thing imaginable by man is impossible, until it is accomplished. I would rather go through life with that mindset than to wallow in misery as some do, safe in their knowledge that nothing can change .... so why even bother trying ... and that the system is broken .... so why even bother to participate?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: Those against slavery probably saw a system that would never allow it to end. They were right ..... until it ended.
Those wanting equal civil rights probably never thought that they would attain their goal .... until they did.
Every single thing imaginable by man is impossible, until it is accomplished. I would rather go through life with that mindset than to wallow in misery as some do, safe in their knowledge that nothing can change .... so why even bother trying ... and that the system is broken .... so why even bother to participate?
I don't disagree with you.
We can change things. But it's not going to happen through the means that we go about.
I can guarantee you that voting for a Democrat or a Republican will never change anything in a meaningful way (or any politician given power within our institution).
That's not pessimism, that's the cold hard truth.
And that's pretty much the effort and participation of 99.9% of the public. It has been for a long time, and it most likely will continue to be.
Quote: So, in essence, they don't like anything about this country. They don't like that those that earn get, and those that don't earn don't get. Sorry folks - I know this society is moving away from it - but it's a dog eat dog world. Just because some other dog is eating more than me doesn't mean I can jump in and eat his food. Or have a right to.
This isn't an envy issue. If financial executives make good business decisions, loan to credit worthy customers and turn a nice profit, then more power to them. That is not only their job, but it also makes the economy go, and makes things possible that aren't otherwise (like regular people being able to start their own business).
This is fury at how these particular earnings were obtained. Just like if someone walked into your house and cleaned you out, financial executives got away with murder. Look into it a little bit. Google William Black, the Valukas report, a Fitch's report on the big banks, and a Standard and Poor's report. The FHFA recently filed lawsuits over accounting fraud.
What you will find is the largest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public. You will find that in subprime loan origination, well over 50% of the loans were found to be fraudulent in some manner. You will find that employees at these banks raised the red flag and were promptly fired for rocking the boat. You will find that many banks committed accounting fraud, labeling their loans as prime when they were clearly subprime, thus misleading investors into believing their holdings were better than they were. You will find that the exact course of action of many of these banks was exactly what an executive would do if he or she wanted to maximize their compensation, regardless of whether it was good for the firm (this is called control fraud, and it has been at the heart of financial crises such as the S&L scandal of the late 80's).
Then, when these crappy loans go bust (fraudulent loans are guaranteed to at a much higher rate), banks are improperly foreclosing. They aren't following the laws; look up "robo-signing." It means that people who shouldn't be getting foreclosed on are. People who should be getting foreclosed on aren't. People are being told by banks to "just pay this amount, and we will work it out," only to receive a notice of foreclosure. In many cases, banks were in such a rush to securitize mortgages that no one has the underlying note. So, banks are starting foreclosure proceedings without any record of even owning the mortgage (this is why they had to stop foreclosures last year).
Banks were basically insolvent during the peak of the crisis. The government and the Fed swooped in and cleared their books of many toxic assets (mortgage-backed securities), and extended lines of credit to them at reduced rates. This is essentially debt forgiveness and restructuring. Then they turn around and aren't willing to do that for their own customers. Why the different set of rules?
If you have seen your retirement, home, or wages lose value due to this crisis (and most of America has), and you have no anger towards the big banks irresponsibility, I just can't understand how you can defend those actions. Just b/c someone earns money doesn't mean they are above reproach.
There really isn't any choice for the everyday worker to get representation in the goverment today. The goverment is too large to listen to or understand the average citizen, or citizens' groups.
Quote: There really isn't any choice for the everyday worker to get representation in the goverment today. The goverment is too large to listen to or understand the average citizen, or citizens' groups.
For real change to take place, folks are more likely than not going to have to get their skulls cracked and perhaps crack some skulls.
Which is pretty much what I'm saying to Arch and YTown - forget about OWS for a minute - whenever a real agent of change does arrive, it's not going to be civil and laws are going to be defied. Police will not be heeded. Violence will break out.
It's all well and good to play house and pretend like voting for Obama or backing a Tea Party candidate is making a difference, but it's not and it won't.
Meaningful revolt and change don't happen by following the laws and staying inside the lines. It never really has and it never really will.
Here's the problem I have with your positions though ....
Take for example, the Tea party.
Their candidates were not 100% successful, and did not all 100% of the way stick to the Tea Party's stated ideals.
Thus, in your eyes, the movement is a failure.
Very few things in this world, and especially when discussing a system as enormous as our political system are successful right off the bat ..... and especially when big changes are discussed.
We need major, huge changes in our government, and they cannot be accomplished in one session of Congress, one Senate term, or maybe even within the terms of one President.That doesn't mean that they cannot be accomplished, and it doesn't mean that a slip here or there is failure forever.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
We can change things. But it's not going to happen through the means that we go about.
I can guarantee you that voting for a Democrat or a Republican will never change anything in a meaningful way (or any politician given power within our institution).
That's not pessimism, that's the cold hard truth.
And that's pretty much the effort and participation of 99.9% of the public. It has been for a long time, and it most likely will continue to be.
From that angle, no, nothing will change.
This is probably true. I have seen an interesting idea floating around though, mainly from Dylan Ratigan. There is a way to bring a constitutional convention to amend the constitution independent of Congress by having state legislatures call for a constitutional convention.
Since a lot of politics is local, it is easier to put pressure on at that level. If enough state legislatures were convinced to call for some kind of amendment that radically changed campaign finance, then maybe we could have the system be more responsive to the needs of the country and less responsive to just purely money. It would require a lot of pressure at the local level though. This is what the OWS and Tea Party folks should be focusing their energy on, something that actually has a chance to succeed and something that fundamentally changes the system.
You are right Phil that Tea Party folks might have gone into it with high-minded ideals, but the minute they signed up for their election and started soliciting campaign finance, they became beholden to those monied interests. The same will happen if OWS coalesces and starts nominating candidates.
Quote: Here's the problem I have with your positions though ....
Take for example, the Tea party.
Their candidates were not 100% successful, and did not all 100% of the way stick to the Tea Party's stated ideals.
Thus, in your eyes, the movement is a failure.
Very few things in this world, and especially when discussing a system as enormous as our political system are successful right off the bat ..... and especially when big changes are discussed.
We need major, huge changes in our government, and they cannot be accomplished in one session of Congress, one Senate term, or maybe even within the terms of one President.That doesn't mean that they cannot be accomplished, and it doesn't mean that a slip here or there is failure forever.
They were neutered as a voting bloc of the GOP about as fast as they formed. Michele Bachmann is the head of their Congressional caucus.
Their keynote speakers have included Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
They were pretty much a joke from the get go ... they lost whatever legitimacy they had very early on.
When they got elected, and you were all doe-eyed with ideas of hope and change, I told you I'd be around to point out when they failed to do what they said they would. That wasn't going to happen, you said, and if it did, you would be the first one crying out for their ouster.
First chance they get, the rack up over a billion in earmarks, they advocate and vote for expansions of government power ... and where are you? Are you at the front of the pack, crying for their ouster?
No, you're saying give it more time.
How long do you plan to sing the 'Rome wasn't built in a day' defense?
Quote: You are right Phil that Tea Party folks might have gone into it with high-minded ideals, but the minute they signed up for their election and started soliciting campaign finance, they became beholden to those monied interests. The same will happen if OWS coalesces and starts nominating candidates.
A large part of our problem is that we believe that someone can enter the system and change it from within. We're constantly thinking that the next one in line will be different, will shake things up, etc.
I think we all know the quote about dancing with the devil, right?
someone leaflet bombed the protestors in Chicago with the following note...(kinda funny in some ways)
“We are Wall Street. It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of fake paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable. I didn’t hear America complaining when the market was roaring to 14,000 and everyone’s 401k doubled every 3 years. Just like gambling, its not a problem until you lose. I’ve never heard of anyone going to Gamblers Anonymous because they won too much in Vegas.
Well now the market crapped out, & even though it has come back somewhat, the government and the average Joes are still looking for a scapegoat. God knows there has to be one for everything. Well, here we are.
Go ahead and continue to take us down, but you’re only going to hurt yourselves. What’s going to happen when we can’t find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: We’re going to take yours. We get up at 5am & work till 10pm or later. We’re used to not getting up to pee when we have a position. We don’t take an hour or more for a lunch break. We don’t demand a union. We don’t retire at 50 with a pension. We eat what we kill, and when the only thing left to eat is on your dinner plates, we’ll eat that.
For years teachers and other unionized labor have had us fooled. We were too busy working to notice. Do you really think that we are incapable of teaching 3rd graders and doing landscaping? We’re going to take your cushy jobs with tenure and 4 months off a year and whine just like you that we are so-o-o-o underpaid for building the youth of America. Say goodbye to your overtime and double time and a half. I’ll be hitting grounders to the high school baseball team for $5k extra a summer, thank you very much.
So now that we’re going to be making $85k a year without upside, Joe Mainstreet is going to have his revenge, right? Wrong! Guess what: we’re going to stop buying the new 80k car, we aren’t going to leave the 35 percent tip at our business dinners anymore. No more free rides on our backs. We’re going to landscape our own back yards, wash our cars with a garden hose in our driveways. Our money was your money. You spent it. When our money dries up, so does yours.
The difference is, you lived off of it, we rejoiced in it. The Obama administration and the Democratic National Committee might get their way and knock us off the top of the pyramid, but it’s really going to hurt like hell for them when our fat asses land directly on the middle class of America and knock them to the bottom.
We aren’t dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive. The question is, now that Obama & his administration are making Joe Mainstreet our food supply…will he? and will they?”
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Quote: By this logic, you would have thought that law enforcement during the Civil Rights Movement was right to release dogs and spray fire hoses, and use violence on those marching in the streets, correct?
After all, back then they told protesters marching in the streets that what they were doing is illegal, and that they needed to disperse. By your rationale, the police back then were in the right to do that sort of thing, right?
If not, how are the two instances different?
So are you saying that law enforcement should get to pick and choose which laws and ordinances they enforce based on the perceived nobility of the cause?
Excessive force is excessive force but the primary job of the police in these situations is to maintain order and we have seen, all too often, these types of things turn into violent riots with property destruction, looting, death, etc... It happened in the 60s and it wouldn't take much for it to happen at one of these protests. The law enforcement is certainly not always right but I do understand why they are on edge and can sometimes over react.... if one of these turned ugly and a riot ensued with looting, burning of entire city blocks, death... you know a large contingent of people would blame it on the police for not doing enough... I do not envy the position law enforcement is put in with these types of things, being out numbered 50-1, facing an angry mob, knowing everything you do is being videotaped by 1000 people, being seen as an agent of the oppressive authority when all you really want to do is maintain order so you can get home to your family without incident...... yep, don't envy that at all.
Now, bringing up the Civil Rights protests as a comparison is an attempt to anoint OWS with a similar sacred cow status, and this is just crap, and the person who posted it knows that.
I do not recall that these earlier protests consisted of two weeks of trespassing and disorderly conduct previous to police action. I do recall that many earlier protests had obtained permits, and were attempting to perform a single action with relatively minimal disruption of other citizen's business, I do not recall major property damage and public health problems being caused prior to police action. I do not recall that multiple requests to disperse over several days were given.
But then, that would be the same person who tried to label the TEA party crowd as similar law-breakers because of an action that happened, please read this carefully, TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO. In that action, those people understood that they could get shot and killed for what they were doing, and they were prepared to risk those consequences.
Same dude who has seen multiple Congressional deadlocks, and ultimate victories, caused by a large voting block inspired by the idea that too many Americans are Taxed Enough Already, who absolutely will not tolerate any tax increases, and calls that movement a failure.
Education is not a basic human right. Freedom is. Freedom from debt you have incurred is not. Whining that someone else should pay your bills is not the action of a responsible adult. Becoming angry that other people are taking your hard-earned cash and spending it stupidly, and on top of that running up tremendous debts that you are ultimately on the hook for, IS the action of a responsible adult.
When will they know it is over and how shall it be known? I feel they have some directions worth looking at, as well of buckets of blame for all in office. odd growing movement. Is this how the French Revolution got started?
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
Pete I like that somebody from "Wall Street" finally and unapologetically stated their case for being rich.
I am of the opinion that if you gave 300+ million people in this country a do over. If you took all of the assets and divided them equally among all of the people, gave everybody access to the same level of education, etc... that over time (and probably a relatively short period of time) most of those currently at the top would work their way back up and those currently at the bottom would work their way back down. We would end up with a bell curve very much like we have now with most people in roughly the same place.
There would be some exceptions, there are certainly some at the top who were born into it and have just been lucky enough to not screw it up and some at the bottom who have really been victimized by bad luck, but in general, we are who we are...
First off, this isn't a reply to you by any means. It's more so a reply to whoever made this leaflet.
Quote: For years teachers and other unionized labor have had us fooled. We were too busy working to notice. Do you really think that we are incapable of teaching 3rd graders and doing landscaping?
Yes, because teaching is the easiest job in the world and any average joe can do it.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
