".. there seems to be some confusion about the message"

[Nbadan]

But there is no leadership to the group and there seems to be some confusion about their message."

What the fuck MSM?!? ...the message is pretty fucken clear...


http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0fmU3jS1mS2W3/610x.jpg

Occupy San Antonio!

[Trainwreck2100]

What the fuck MSM?!?
Occupy San Antonio!

no

[Nbadan]

Seriously, what's it gonna take?

http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/34/2011/10/03/98810_600.jpg

[Nbadan]

Exposing the corrupt M$M

RCiAG7LF7Q4

[Nbadan]

Seriously? This isn't a joke...

tuZmsjAY12Y

[SnakeBoy]

Seriously, what's it gonna take?


More than a bunch of spoiled stoned kids from the suburbs.

[ElNono]

The only question I have about all these 'Occupy xxxxxx' is, does none of these people work?

[Wild Cobra]

The only question I have about all these 'Occupy xxxxxx' is, does none of these people work?
I think they are too stupid to maintain a job.

[SnakeBoy]

".. there seems to be some confusion about the message"

My confusion about the message is that when wallstreet was being bailed out the left was all for it. Now 3 years later they are bitching about the very thing they supported.

[ElNono]

".. there seems to be some confusion about the message"

My confusion about the message is that when wallstreet was being bailed out the left was all for it. Now 3 years later they are bitching about the very thing they supported.

Not so sure about that. Frankly, I recall everyone, left and right, bitching at TBTF.

[ElNono]

I think they are too stupid to maintain a job.

I have a difficult time believing thats the case. I would adventure some of them are actually employed.

[Wild Cobra]

I have a difficult time believing thats the case. I would adventure some of them are actually employed.
OK, This is true. Still, some of them were definitely from the bottom of the barrel.

[SnakeBoy]

Not so sure about that. Frankly, I recall everyone, left and right, bitching at TBTF.

Well everyone bitched but was the left that passed the bill. Dems voted 243 to 3 for for it while the GOP voted 145 to 47 against it. I recall liberals on this site criticizing the idea of letting them fail.

So why the sudden uprising 3 years later? Something smells fishy.

[Wild Cobra]

Well everyone bitched but was the left that passed the bill. Dems voted 243 to 3 for for it while the GOP voted 145 to 47 against it. I recall liberals on this site criticizing the idea of letting them fail.

So why the sudden uprising 3 years later? Something smells fishy.
Their handlers now tell them to be against it then, so true to form, they revise history.

[ElNono]

Well everyone bitched but was the left that passed the bill. Dems voted 243 to 3 for for it while the GOP voted 145 to 47 against it. I recall liberals on this site criticizing the idea of letting them fail.

So why the sudden uprising 3 years later? Something smells fishy.

I think your memory is a little fuzzy. Here are the roll calls:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

Not to mention that the legislation came straight from the executive at the time, and both presidential candidates supported it.

[greyforest]

My confusion about the message is that when wallstreet was being bailed out the left was all for it. Now 3 years later they are bitching about the very thing they supported.

You have incorrectly assumed that the protesters are something called "left".

"Left" and "right" are ambiguous. Probably as ambiguous as you can get. The amount of people who pigeonhole every single person, group, or topic in to a "left" or "right" camp is fascinating. It is truly indicative of how completely idiotic most US citizens are.

[ElNono]

Their handlers now tell them to be against it then, so true to form, they revise history.

Maybe he just got the votes wrong...

Both parties were right into that scam

[SnakeBoy]

I think your memory is a little fuzzy. Here are the roll calls:


I just used the vote tally's from here
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-101

Even your links show dems voted overwhelmingly for it. Remember the first vote failed because republicans voted against it.

Still the question remains why is the left suddenly opposed to bailing out wall street 3 years after the fact?

[ElNono]

TARP doesn't pass without GOP votes. And I mean a good amount of votes, not just 1 or 2.

Talk about rewriting history...

[SnakeBoy]

"Left" and "right" are ambiguous. Probably as ambiguous as you can get. The amount of people who pigeonhole every single person, group, or topic in to a "left" or "right" camp is fascinating. It is truly indicative of how completely idiotic most US citizens are.

Well these protestors would certainly qualify as "left" from the interviews I've seen. But ok let's leave left and right out of it. Why are these people protesting something that happened 3 years ago?

[ElNono]

I just used the vote tally's from here
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-101

Even your links show dems voted overwhelmingly for it. Remember the first vote failed because republicans voted against it.

Still the question remains why is the left suddenly opposed to bailing out wall street 3 years after the fact?

You got the wrong vote. From your link:

This was the March 2008 House vote to pass the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, also called the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. The bill was never approved by the Senate in this form. It was later co-opted by the Senate as the "vehicle" for the quick passage of the economic stimulus bill, by replacing the entire text of the measure with the stimulus bill.

The TARP was voted in Oct 2008.

[ElNono]

125 Republicans voted for the TARP, 123 rejected it.
212 Dems voted for it, 71 rejected it.

[ElNono]

Why are these people protesting something that happened 3 years ago?

Why not? Is there some kind of expiration date to vent frustration?

[SnakeBoy]

You got the wrong vote.

My bad. Still the dems overwhelmingly supported bailing out Wall Street.

[Yonivore]

More than a bunch of spoiled stoned kids from the suburbs.
:tu

[Yonivore]

OK, This is true. Still, some of them were definitely from the bottom of the barrel.

Like this guy?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/08/article-2046586-0E481DB700000578-865_634x366.jpg

[Yonivore]

You have incorrectly assumed that the protesters are something called "left".

"Left" and "right" are ambiguous. Probably as ambiguous as you can get. The amount of people who pigeonhole every single person, group, or topic in to a "left" or "right" camp is fascinating. It is truly indicative of how completely idiotic most US citizens are.
There is no one from the right involved.

Now the unions, communist groups, and progressives are trying to pump up the numbers.

[ElNono]

There is no one from the right involved.

Now the unions, communist groups, and progressives are trying to pump up the numbers.

Which in turn will probably be the end of the protests.

[SnakeBoy]

Which in turn will probably be the end of the protests.

Winter will end the protests.

[Yonivore]

Winter will end the protests.
I suspect disinterest and boredom step in sooner than that.

[ElNono]

Winter will end the protests.

It's like any hijack... eventually the original people get tuned out by the tangents.

[DarrinS]

The protesters are just bad at math. They are the .99%ers.

[ElNono]

The protesters are just bad at math. They are the .99%ers.

Basically. Much like the Tea Party.

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes

This is no tea party....this is a revolution....

V00EFQxU7eg

[Nbadan]

Cloverfield....

bSmyj-ko5ls

[Nbadan]

Power to the people...

Wos-dDxpJlQ

[Nbadan]

VLbWnJGlyMU

[Nbadan]

yhrwmJcsfT0

[Yonivore]

VLbWnJGlyMU
You do, of course, realize the grasshoppers in "A Bug's Life," represent the same do-nothing, socialists/anarchists/liberals that are now infesting the "Occupy" movement who think they're entitled to the fruits of other peoples' labor.

Right?


Aesop

The Ant and the Grasshopper

In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.

"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"

"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; "We have got plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil.

When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger - while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew: It is best to prepare for days of need.
Except, in the Pixar and "Occupy" versions, the grasshopper feels compelled to take, by force, that which doesn't belong to them.

[Nbadan]

getting louder....

Iu63e7QD_5k

[Nbadan]

OCCUPY!

zjfhOPCPJnE

[hater]

The only question I have about all these 'Occupy xxxxxx' is, does none of these people work?

duh they jobless. you know, like in Argentina

[ElNono]

duh they jobless. you know, like in Argentina

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/argentina/unemployment-rate

Yeah, I know :lol

[Nbadan]

Now is your time....will you stand?

BI-O1yepcbA

[Wild Cobra]

Well now. I won't stand on the street and block traffic. What do they expect anyway? That they have the right to block the free movement of others?

[ElNono]

Well now. I won't stand on the street and block traffic. What do they expect anyway? That they have the right to block the free movement of others?

If the protester is breaking any law, arrest him. What's with the pushing and shoving?

[Nbadan]

NYPD's finest..

vxZ8_JdKm0Q

[Wild Cobra]

If the protester is breaking any law, arrest him. What's with the pushing and shoving?
They were already warned. Should the police go strait to arrest mode?

[Nbadan]

Step up...or get out of the way

cCRnkamitVk

[ElNono]

They were already warned. Should the police go strait to arrest mode?

They certainly shouldn't go 'strait' to push and shove mode.

[Wild Cobra]

They certainly shouldn't go 'strait' to push and shove mode.

OK, what should they have done? Use pepper spray?

[ElNono]

OK, what should they have done? Use pepper spray?

Arrest him. If the protester broke the law, then that's all that's needed.

There's no place for a police officer to be shoving and pushing people unless he's making an arrest.

[Wild Cobra]

Arrest him. If the protester broke the law, then that's all that's needed.

There's no place for a police officer to be shoving and pushing people unless he's making an arrest.
So... the pushing is OK when there is an arrest? Why not then allow for the less severe avenue of not having an arrest o0n someone's record?

[ElNono]

So... the pushing is OK when there is an arrest? Why not then allow for the less severe avenue of not having an arrest o0n someone's record?

The pushing is ok when it's part of an arrest. If somebody is being unruly, or trying to escape, it's obvious that police officers are allowed to use force as part of conducting their duties.

If a cop pushes and shoves somebody for no reason, that's called police brutality. Police officers are held to a higher standard due to the fact that they are stewards of the public trust.

[Wild Cobra]

The pushing is ok when it's part of an arrest. If somebody is being unruly, or trying to escape, it's obvious that police officers are allowed to use force as part of conducting their duties.

If a cop pushes and shoves somebody for no reason, that's called police brutality. Police officers are held to a higher standard due to the fact that they are stewards of the public trust.
I see. So forcible moving someone who is in violation of the law, is wrong, unless they back it up with the paperwork of the arrest.

OK. Gotcha. I see there is no going easy with you. It's all or nothing.

[ElNono]

I see. So forcible moving someone who is in violation of the law, is wrong, unless they back it up with the paperwork of the arrest.

This makes no logical sense. If somebody is in violation of the law, then A) warn him, or B) arrest him. There's no C) use arbitrary violence on them.
The reason there's no C is that the cop would then be breaking the law himself.

I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you.

[Wild Cobra]

This makes no logical sense. If somebody is in violation of the law, then A) warn him, or B) arrest him. There's no C) use arbitrary violence on them.
The reason there's no C is that the cop would then be breaking the law himself.

I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you.
Ok, I see people heading strait towards the cops, and they push back. Who is initiation what? Are the police suppose to step back? At about 2:40, they do arrest a guy, and he is resisting. At 3:04, it cuts into a guy being pushed. He keeps charging the police off the sidewalk and they keep pushing. If you ask me, the police are rather well restrained for the aggressive nature of the crowd. Nothing peaceful about them when they are placing themselves into the police officers faces. Now in the video Dan posts in #47, yes, the police hit the guy. That's after the guy hit the officer first.

[ElNono]

Ok, I see people heading strait towards the cops, and they push back. Who is initiation what? Are the police suppose to step back?

First of all, it's 'straight', not 'strait'. Second, it's 'initiating', not 'initiation'.

Onto the topic, the police is supposed to warn them or arrest them.
There is no pushing and shoving for a cop, then backing down. When he crossed that line, the arrest has to follow.

Law enforcement is granted the power to apply force and remove constitutional privileges when lawfully justified.

While police has the latitude to determine whether an arrest must happen or not, they don't have the latitude to decide to use violence unlawfully.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see. So forcible moving someone who is in violation of the law, is wrong, unless they back it up with the paperwork of the arrest.

OK. Gotcha. I see there is no going easy with you. It's all or nothing.

When it comes to the 4th Amendment its either being followed or not.

[Wild Cobra]

Law enforcement is granted the power to apply force and remove constitutional privileges when lawfully justified.

While police has the latitude to determine whether an arrest must happen or not, they don't have the latitude to decide to use violence unlawfully.
Ok, so what is lawfully justifies under New York law?

I didn't read the whole thing yet, but this looks like it is well researched:

Understanding the Legal Ramifications of Using Physical Force (http://www.fmkkarateschool.com/fmk/articles/legal_ramifications.htm)

You might look up the "prevent or terminate" argument.

[ElNono]

Ok, so what is lawfully justifies under New York law?

I didn't read the whole thing yet, but this looks like it is well researched:

Understanding the Legal Ramifications of Using Physical Force (http://www.fmkkarateschool.com/fmk/articles/legal_ramifications.htm)

You might look up the "prevent or terminate" argument.

What you linked doesn't include police officers. /facepalm

Here's the entire Article 35:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/nyart35.htm

Let me highlight for you, so you don't get lost:

Section 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape

1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force;

2. The fact that a police officer or a peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force under circumstances prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision one does not constitute justification for reckless conduct by such police officer or peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

lol using martial arts links
lol thinking civilians and cops on duty are held to the same standard

[Wild Cobra]

What you linked doesn't include police officers. /facepalm

Here's the entire Article 35:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/nyart35.htm

Let me highlight for you, so you don't get lost:

Section 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape

1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force;

2. The fact that a police officer or a peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force under circumstances prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision one does not constitute justification for reckless conduct by such police officer or peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

lol using martial arts links
lol thinking civilians and cops on duty are held to the same standard
The law only covers a few specific examples and does not make it illegal for police to use nonviolent physical force. By nonviolent, I mean the pushing. It is not the same as striking.

[PublicOption]

http://www.slu.edu/Images/sluma/solidarity-logo.jpg

[ElNono]

Physical Abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse)

Go push a cop and find out if you're not charged with assault.

lol nonviolent physical force

dumbass

[Nbadan]

17 Citibank customers arrested for trying to close their accounts

TH3kiaJ1-c8

[Nbadan]

Bank of America closed their doors when people went in to close their accounts..

tK0O30aFT7g

[Nbadan]

More video from the citibank arrests..

hTFDmyUet_Y

[Nbadan]

Raise your voice!

VthTqvV0WrI

Power to the people!

[Wild Cobra]

17 Citibank customers arrested for trying to close their accounts

TH3kiaJ1-c8
LOL...

That first video, they locked the doors so no one else can come in because they are protesting inside the bank, and not leaving. They stopped more protesters from coming in. They are not trying to close their accounts. They are unlawfully trespassing.

The woman removed was told she could not go inside, and she refused to move on. Who knows why they restrained her, not necessarily caught on tape.

Here's what was going on inside:

l2vtXJ0k7AA

I suspect the other videos you posted will be similar disregard for the law.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Dan, watched the start of the second. Of courses they are going to get arrested for interrupting a business inside the premises.

[Nbadan]

LOL...

That first video, they locked the doors so no one else can come in because they are protesting inside the bank, and not leaving. They stopped more protesters from coming in. They are not trying to close their accounts. They are unlawfully trespassing.

:rolleyes

Looks like they left the building to me, besides even if these were protestors they were also Citibank customers....what gives Citibank the right to arrest customers just because they were also protestors? Don't banks work for customers? Isn't that the way its supposed to work?....now in light of the protest that targeted this specific citibank, I can understand security ushering these girls out and asking them to return someday without signs if they wanted to close their accounts..but arrested?

(besides, your authoritarian side is giving you away with every stupid argument you make - your no libertarian)

[Nbadan]

30 versus 1

WmEHcOc0Sys

[Big P]

http://youtu.be/XOkMizZjhBI

[Big P]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

:rolleyes

Looks like they left the building to me, besides even if these were protestors they were also Citibank customers....what gives Citibank the right to arrest customers just because they were also protestors? Don't banks work for customers? Isn't that the way its supposed to work?....now in light of the protest that targeted this specific citibank, I can understand security ushering these girls out and asking them to return someday without signs if they wanted to close their accounts..but arrested?

(besides, your authoritarian side is giving you away with every stupid argument you make - your no libertarian)
You didn't watch the video I posted, did you? It was the same incident as your first video. They were protesting inside. That's why the doors were locked and they were arrested. The woman outside, we didn't see everything that happened, but she was protesting, and said she was trying to get inside.

Grow a brain Dan.

[Wild Cobra]

30 versus 1

WmEHcOc0Sys
I'll bet he was a fake marine.

Jarheads can be stupid, but not that stupid, and not that disrespectful of authority.

I wonder what his name is, and if he was court martialed or something. If he pulled that shit in front of a Marine commander...

[Nbadan]

Occupy message meets pop-culture

0gf45vXByCg

[Nbadan]

This will not end in your terms...

The Rude Pundit: This Is Not Your Fucking Movement; This Is Our Fucking Movement


Let's be honest here: the march this morning to shut down Wall Street was useless if its goal was to, well, shut down Wall Street. The New York Stock Exchange is, more or less, a show. Multi-million dollar financial transactions are not done by crazy, sweaty guys on a loud, chaotic floor. They're done digitally. So whether or not the secretaries and junior fuckbag executives and janitors got into work didn't stop a single transfer of funds from one rich asshole to another. It pissed off some people and got the cops more overtime.

But, as ever, as ever, since it's started, everyone, from The Daily Show to Diane Rehm, right, left, and middle, have insisted that Occupy Wall Street conform to some readily defined paradigm of what a protest movement needs to be. Essentially, they are echoing something that Karl Rove drooled out the other day when he asked protesters at a speech he giving at Johns Hopkins University, "Who gave you the right to occupy America?" The real question is "Who took that right away?"

We are just two months into this. Two fucking months after sucking up the shit given to us from the right for years. Two fucking months after being part of the movement that propelled Obama into the presidency, only to see that movement dissolved and dissipated. Two fucking months after watching two years of Tea Party bullshit being flaunted in our faces as if it represented anything but the height of corporate and conservative cynicism and manipulation.

We are two months into this and everyone in the media is clamoring for closure. It took years for the civil rights movement to get laws changed. It took years for the anti-Vietnam War movement to get through the thick skulls of the majority of Americans. This is just starting. Welcome to the real occupation.

Right now, the whole Occupy Wall Street narrative arc is following a well-worn script: defiance of authority followed by a crackdown by the agents of the authority. The corrupt, illegal power of the police and the governments of New York, Oakland, and elsewhere have been on display, with the raid on Zuccotti Park and on encampments around the country, as well as attacks on media members from the right, left, and middle.

The march this morning wasn't going to do anything, despite the hopeful rumors that the stock market opening bell had been delayed (it wasn't). No, the point was, like the rallies for Obama before them, that there is power in numbers. And that power needs to be exhibited and enacted.

When the Supreme Court, in the Citizens United decision, said that corporations are people with First Amendment rights and affirmed that money is the equivalent of speech, it essentially was saying that some people have more speech than others. The wealthy and the corporations can never be matched in terms of the speech effect of their dollars. But they can be matched and overcome by the sheer volume of people. That's why we say we are the 99%

rude pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/)

[boutons_deux]

critical difference:

the astroturfing tea baggers had the Kock Bros, etc $10Ms and Repug operatives running their show to get 1%-friendly candidates to run, and got some elected. And those tea bagger Congressmen almost shutdown govt with a fake debt/budget crisis.

the 99%/OWS probably won't even have (sufficient) candidates, never mind getting them elected.

iow, the 99% are fully disenfranchised by the 1%

"But they can be matched and overcome by the sheer volume of people. That's why we say we are the 99%"

G M A F B

[CosmicCowboy]

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/381424_10150366972951700_115017781699_8799544_3701 14103_n.jpg

[Nbadan]

Coming in 2012...

The revolution is Love - Occupy Love

BRtc-k6dhgs

[Nbadan]

Arrested for dancing in a public area...

zhDQkSqii-E